Academic Asylum Seekers in the Communist Czechoslovakia

CONF E RE NCEPROCE E DI NGS E di t edbyMa r c oS t el l a , S oňaŠ t r bá ňov á &Ant oní nKos t l á n Pr a gue2011 SCHOLARS IN EXILE AND DICTATORSHIPS OF THE 20th CENTURY MAY 24-26, 2011, PRAGUE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS Edited by Marco Stella, Soňa Štrbáňová & Antonín Kostlán Published by the Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities of the Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Prague 2011 Scholars in Exile and Dictatorships of the 20th Century. Conference Proceedings Edited by Marco Stella, Soňa Štrbáňová & Antonín Kostlán Published by the Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities of the Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Prague 2011 Cover Design by Magdalena Buriánková & Antonín Kostlán The Conference and the Proceedings were supported by the grant of the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic No. IAAX00630801. Copyright © Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, v. v. i. 2011 ISBN 978-80-7285-146-1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 SCHOLARS IN EXILE AND DICTATORSHIPS OF THE 20TH CENTURY ...............................2 ORGANIZERS & PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ............................................................2 TOPIC OF THE CONFERENCE ........................................................................................4 PROGRAMME OF THE CONFERENCE............................................................................7 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................404 CENTRE FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE ASCR .................................................................412 INTRODUCTION It was our great pleasure to welcome in Prague in May 2011 around fifty scholars involved in the problem matter of forced migration of intellectuals, namely scholars who had to leave for exile under the pressure of dictator regimes in the 20th century. Among the participants of the conference were not only historians and philosophers who have been researching the phenomenon of exile from various standpoints, but also scholars who were forced to learn about exile from their own life experience. The fascinating talks of all these people enabled to compile an unusually multifaceted set of papers ranging from highly qualified theoretical analyses, on the one side, and intimate personal statements on the other. Such variegated collection, however, represents a serious problem to the editors, namely because of the uneven length of the submitted papers, different approaches to the topic, various styles, unequal levels of language knowledge, different routines of writing notes and references, etc. Eventually we arrived to the conclusion to publish all contributions in the electronic form without any significant change just with some indispensable arrangement, also because thorough editing and language revision would have required enormous amount of time and financial expenses. The main reason of our decision was, however, the fact that the set of papers we received for publication represents a very rich and extremely valuable source of ideas, particulars and narratives not only on the exile phenomenon itself, but also on its historical roots and political and social background, and in addition contains unique information about individual fates of exiles. Each paper in this collection comprises the original abstract and the text submitted by the author; sometimes also the power point presentation, if available. In cases, we did not receive from the participant the text of his/her contribution we only published the abstract. The collection also contains three articles submitted by registered or invited authors who could not come to the conference. We much hope that these proceeding will become a useful and resourceful reading not only to the historians of science but also to the lay audience, and contribute to the general understanding of perils and devastating consequences of dictatorships for the humanity. The Editors 1 SCHOLARS IN EXILE AND DICTATORSHIPS OF THE 20TH CENTURY International Conference, Prague, May 24 – 26, 2011 ORGANIZERS & PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ASCR) – principal organizer National Technical Museum in Prague Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Academy of the ASCR Czech Society for History of Sciences and Technology INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME COMMITTEE Mitchell Ash, Institut für Geschichte, Universität Wien, Austria Dieter Hoffmann, Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Berlin, Germany Antonín Kostlán, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague, Czech Republic Ivan Lefkovits, Vesalianum, Basel, Switzerland Gábor Palló, Institute of Philosophy, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Karel Raška, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, USA Blanka Říhová, Institute of Microbiology of the ASCR, Prague, Czech Republic Jan Šebestík, Paris, France Soňa Štrbáňová, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague, Czech Republic Paul Weindling, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom 2 NATIONAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Tomáš Hermann, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague Milena Josefovičová, Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR, Prague Antonín Kostlán, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague Ivana Lorencová, National Technical Museum, Prague Zuzana Nytrová, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague Doubravka Olšáková, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague Marco Stella, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague Petr Svobodný, Institute of the History of Charles University and Archive of Charles University, Prague Michal Šimůnek, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague Soňa Štrbáňová, Institute of Contemporary History of the ASCR, Prague 3 TOPIC OF THE CONFERENCE The issue of scientists in exile has been of interest primarily due to the large wave of emigration which ensued in Europe in the face of the Nazi regime. This wave has already been well documented by numerous encyclopaedic projects, treated in synthetic works, and also analyzed from the methodological point of view. However, other waves of emigration and exile in 20th century Europe, such as those evoked by European and non-European authoritarian regimes and dictatorships or other malignant political developments, have so far escaped more detailed attention. The effect of the Communist regimes that came into power first in the Soviet Union and later in several European countries on the escapes of scholars (both the average and top ones) beyond their spheres of influence has been insufficiently explored. In all these countries this process ran its own unique course and retained its own significant specific features, depending on the acuteness of local political pressure. The problems concerning intellectuals and scholars expelled from their home countries by several other authoritarian regimes, some of which have been active up to the present day, is also worthy of attention. This Conference approached these questions from two angles: partly from the all- European perspective and partly from the perspective of Czech developments. From the all-European perspective, the Conference dealt specifically with three large and partially overlapping migration waves: a) Escapes of scholars from the German Nazi rule and its allies in Italy, Spain and other countries (1933 – 1945) b) Escapes of scholars from Communist rule (1917 – 1989) c) Immigration of scholars seeking to escape from authoritarian regimes in their home countries to European countries after World War II (1945 until today). 4 The analysis of these migration waves enabled us to focus on the following questions: • Firstly, the correlation of the developments in the individual European countries, comparison of the temporal distribution of emigration, its internal dynamics and national specific features was of fundamental importance. • The connection between the emigration of scholars and the malevolent ideologies associated with the dictatorships (the influence of racial theories and approaches, the role of the so called “stratum of intelligentsia” in the periods of escalated class hatred, and others) • Ways that supranational or international émigré scholar-supporting networks (aid organized by the League of Nations or later UNO, organizations like the British Society for the Protection of Science and Learning or Council for Assisting Refugee Academics) were formed • Various concepts in the approaches of individual countries towards scholars leaving for exile, analogies and dissimilarities (for instance, is there something like a “European concept” that would differentiate the approach of European countries from the policies of the USA or other non-European states towards the exile scholars?) • How these politically motivated exile waves can be distinguished from the so-called “brain drain,” stimulated primarily by existential and economic aspects with the view to a professional career? • Were there alternatives other than emigration for open-minded scholars with a free way of thinking (conformity with the regime, the so-called “internal emigration”, gulags and similar establishments, and others)? 5 From the standpoint of the Czech developments, the Conference dealt with the following migration waves: • Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian emigration in the years 1918 – 1948 and its survival during the Communist regime • Emigration waves from Germany and Austria in the years 1933 – 1939 and the position of intellectuals within the country • Emigration of scholars from the former Czechoslovakia in the years 1939 – 1945, its patterns and forms • Difficulties in the developments in the years 1945 – 1948 (inconsistencies in dealings with returning scholars, Czech and Slovak opposition living abroad) • The first major emigration wave from Communist Czechoslovakia after the Communist coup in February 1948 and the position of scholars inside the country • Emigration of scholars from Communist Czechoslovakia in the period after the Warsaw Pact armies invasion in August 1968 • The inconsistent relationship of the Czechoslovak public to exile scholars returning home after 1989 • Long-term departures of Czech scholars for abroad after 1989; its comparison with emigration from the Communist Czechoslovakia Antonín Kostlán and Soňa Štrbáňová 6 PROGRAMME OF THE CONFERENCE (Clicking on the title will open the paper and/or the abstract) 7 May 24, 2011 14:30-15.30 Opening Session Welcome Speeches General Problems of Scientific Exile Chair: Soňa Štrbáňová 15.30-16.00 Kettler, David: A Paradigm for the Study of Political Exile: The Case of Intellectuals 16.00-16.30 Palló, Gábor: Migration of Scientists in Changing Context (with powerpoint presentation) 16.30-17.00 Weindling, Paul: Medical Refugees from Czechoslovakia in the UK. A Total Population Approach to Assistance Organisations and Careers, 1938-1945 17.00-17.30 Ash, Mitchell: Forced Migration and Scientific Change in the “Age of Extremes”; Questions from the Nazi Era 17.30-18.00 Discussion Sugiyama, Anna: Exile as an Act of Relativization; Comparison between Kundera and Patočka through Poetry 8 May 25, 2011 Scientific Exile – International Comparisons Chair: Dieter Hoffmann 9.00-9.20 Kostlán, Antonín: Czech Scholars in Exile, 1948 –1989 (with powerpoint presentation) 9.20-9.35 Martínez-Vidal, Àlvar – Zarzoso, Alfons: Spanish Exile. Medical Excellence and American Philathropy in the South of France: the Hospital Varsovia – Walter B. Cannon Memorial, Toulouse, 1944-1950. 9.35-9.50 Izquierdo, Isabel: The Immigration of Soviet Scientists to Mexico during the nineties 9.50-10.30 Discussion Hladký, Jan: Particle Physicists‘ Emigration after August 1968 (powerpoint presentation) Hirsch, Yaël: Bringing Scholars and Artists from Occupied Europe to America: The Action of Varian Fry at the Emergency Rescue Committee (1940-1942) 11.00-11.15 Ulyankina, Tatiana: Nemeses of "First Wave "of Russian scientific emigration in Europe after the Second World War 11.15-11.30 Popa, Catrinel: Dictatorship. Exile and Realms of Memory: A Romanian Case Study (Matei Călinescu) 11.30-11.45 Hirsch, Yaël: Milosz’ choice: The Right Distance in Exile 11.45-12.00 Schulte-Umberg, Thomas: Creating Another Europe in Exile: The Review of Politics during War and Postwar 12.00-12.45 Discussion 9 Interwar Emigration Chair: Mitchell Ash 14.00-14.20 Hoffmann, Dieter: The Emigration of German Scientists to Prague after 1933 14.20-14.35 Frank,Tibor: In the Shadow of Germany: Interwar Migration of Hungarian Scientists 14.35-14.50 Krivosheina, Galina: Scientists and Physicians in the 1922 Exile Lists: Why Some of Them Were Forced to Emigrate and Some Were Permitted to Stay 14:50-15.20 Discussion 15.45 – 16.00 Gilley, Christopher: Ukrainian Scholars and the Soviet Regime in the 1920s: The Movement of Reconciliation and Return 16.00 -16.15 Gasimov, Zaur: With Ukraine on Mind: Roman Smal-Stockyj Between Prague and Warsaw 16.15 -16.30 Morávková, Alena: The Friend of Czechoslovakia, scholar Dmytro Čyževskyj 16.30 -17.15 Discussion 18:00-19.30 Evening Session Scientific Exile Seen Through the Prism of Personal Experience Chair: Ivan Lefkovits Lefkovits, Ivan: Adaptation and Selection Processes in Emigration Stark, Jaroslav: Catching up Trust Novotný, Miloš V.: Unto a Good Land. Out of Necessity Hudlická, Olga: Why I left Czechoslovakia after 20 Years Membership in the Communist Party 10 May 26, 2011 Exile of Scholars Before and During World War II Chair: Paul Weindling 9.00-9.20 Šimůnek, Michal – Hermann Tomáš: ‘Professors to Go’: Emigration of the Academic Staff of the Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague Before and After the Nazi Occupation, 1938–39 9.20-9.35 Bošnjakovič, Branko: Science in Croatia in the First Half of the 20th Century: Between Autonomy, Authoritative State and Migration 9.35-9.50 Karlsson, Blanka: Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche and their Writings in Sweden During World War II (and After) in Previous Top Secret Documents in Swedish Archives 9.50-10.05 Elina, Olga: Between Rock and a Hard Place. Soviet Plant Breeders During and After WWII 10.05-10.45 Discussion Rechcígl, Miloslav: Czech Intellectual Immigrants from Nazism in the US (paper presented in absence) Hořejš, Miloš: Jindřich Kolben – an Engineer in Exile Emigration of Scholars during the Communist Regime 1945-1968 Chair: Vilém Prečan 11.15-11.30 Durnová, Helena - Olšáková, Doubravka: Academic Asylum Seekers in Czechoslovakia (1948-1968) 11.30-11.45 Hampl, Petr: Emigration of Vladimír J. A. Novák or Back to the Origins 11 11.45 -12:00 Discussion Kázecký, Stanislav: Alexander Cejnar, Linguist and Editor of Exile Journals in Brazil 14.00-14.15 Josefovičová, Milena – Jan Hálek: Emigration of Scholars in Documents 14.15-14.30 Lorencová, Ivana: The Twisted Life Course of the Chemist Jan Roček (powerpoint presentation) 14.30-14.45 Závěta, Karel: Czech Scientists in Exile: Science vs. Music 14.45-15.00 Marlinová, Olga: Psychological Problems of Emigration and Exile 15.00-15.30 Discussion Łukasiewicz, Sławomir: Criticism of Marxism in Publications of Polish Emigré Scholars After the Second World War Emigration of Scholars after 1968 Chair: Josef Michl 16.00-16.15 Prečan, Vilém: Czech Historians who Emigrated in the 1970s and 1980s and their Cooperation with Independent Historians in Czechoslovakia 16.15-16.30 Gorniok, Lukasz: Humanitarian Generosity and the Demands of the Labor Market: The Selection of Czechoslovakian and Polish-Jewish Refugees to Sweden, 1968-72 16.30-16.45 Štrbáňová, Soňa: Women Scholars in Exile 17.00 -18.00 Discussion and Final Discussion Janata, Jiří: Dictators, Personal Anecdotes and Science Přenosil, Jiří: Professional and Private Conflict Issues Related to Emigration. An Attempt to Generalise a Personal Experience 12 Englová, Jana: The Significance of the Contacts of Some Czech Emigré Historians with the Historians in Czechoslovakia Kotůlek, Jan: Inner Migration within Vysoká škola báňská (Mining University) in Ostrava after 1968 (powerpoint presentation) 18.00 Conclusion of the Conference Papers submitted but not presented at the conference: Strobl, Philipp: Thinking Cosmopolitan or How Joseph became Joe Buttinger Šimsová, Sylva: Problems of intellectuals in the refugee camps in Germany 1948-50 13 PAPERS, POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS AND ABSTRACTS Each paper is introduced by the abstract taken from the conference materials. The papers were printed as received from the authors without thorough English language editing. For the addresses of the authors please consult the List of Participants. Clicking the blue links will open the powerpoint presentations or full papers in pdf. 14 Forced Migration and Scientific Change in the “Age of Extremes”: Questions from the Nazi Era Mitchell Ash The forced migration and exile of scientists and scholars during the 1930s and 1940s has been a topic of research for decades. The present conference is a welcome attempt to widen the scope of inquiry to include earlier and later periods, in particular the migrations during the long period of Communist dictatorship in Central and EastCentral Europe. Without trying to anticipate future research results, it seems appropriate to consider two questions in this context: (1) Do the forced migrations and scientific changes of the Nazi era represent a paradigmatic case, with issues and results that could be applied or transferred to other cases, or rather a unique situation - the study of which is surely important in itself, but which is not comparable in any way to other situations? (2) On the basis of what we have learned from numerous studies of Nazi-era migration and exile of scientists and scholars, what questions could now be asked that might lead to fruitful inquiry in other cases of forced migration and exile of scientists and scholars? This paper addresses both of these questions, focusing primarily on the second. Drawing on examples from various fields of science and scholarship, three dimensions of inquiry will be addressed: the politics of ejection and exile, asylum and retention; the social history of scientists and scholars, especially the impacts of interrupted and changing careers; the epistemic dimension, meaning the complex relations of forced migration and changing scientific and scholarly research programs. Common to all three dimensions is a perspective that views scientific change as a re-organisation of resource ensembles; this includes personal, institutional, methodological and conceptual as well as financial resources. In this perspective, both forced migration and scientific change under political duress are in principle open-ended and context-dependent. At the same time, available resources in given circumstances place inherent limits on the process. Introduction: Migration, Emigration, Exile1 The so-called “Law for the Reconstitution of the Professional Civil Service” of April 7, 1933 was one of the first measures promulgated by the National Socialist regime in Germany. It authorized the release or premature retirement from government service of persons who were not of “Aryan” descent or who were associated with groups considered 1 The following text has been reconstructed from memory on the basis of a power-point presentation given as a keynote lecture at the conference. The text draws from and expands upon an earlier publication by the author: Mitchell G. Ash, “Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Steps Toward a New Approach,” in: Roberto Scazzieri and Raffaella Simili (eds.), The Migration of Ideas (Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, 2008), pp. 161-178. 15 politically undesirable in the new German state – mainly Social Democrats or other leftists, but including politically active Catholics as well. This was not a “science policy measure,” as one recent account incorrectly states,2 but a political purge of the bureaucracy that affected civil servants of any kind, whether they were scientists or not. Nonetheless, numerous scientists and scholars in Germany were civil servants or state employees, because they worked at higher education institutions or government research offices. As a result, the civil service law initiated a massive out-migration of scientists and scholars that continued with and was reinforced by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, the strict application of the Civil Service and Nuremberg laws immediately following the invasion of Austria in March 1938, the pogroms in Germany and Austria in November 1938, and finally the Nazi conquests in the rest of Europe. In the process the forced migration of scientists and scholars from Nazi Germany became a mass phenomenon unprecedented in the modern history of academic life. Over the past thirty years, researchers from Germany and Austria, along with American, British, and Israeli scholars, have focused increasing attention on this forced migration, going beyond an earlier focus on literary and political exiles and more prominent scientists and scholars to consider the careers and achievements of émigré academics and professionals in more detail. 3 One result is that a more differentiated picture has emerged. The fascination with the brilliant achievements of more prominent émigrés, such as Erwin Schrödinger, Lise Meitner, Paul Lazarsfeld, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, or Hannah Arendt, continues, with good reason. However, interesting though these prestigious innovators may be as personalities, and important as their work has been, it seems inappropriate to make them symbols for the émigré or exile experience as such. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that the forced migration of the Nazi era was part of a much wider process of forced and seemingly voluntary migration of scholars, scientists and political intellectuals in the twentieth century. Uniquely significant as the Nazi era was, wider perspectives are clearly needed here. 2 Michael Grüttner and Sven Kinas, Die Vertreibung von Wissenschaftlern aus den deutschen Universitäten 1933-1945. Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 2007, 55:123-186, here: p. 151. 3 On émigré professionals, see the literature cited in Ash, “Forced Migration,” note 4, and Paul J. Weindling, “Medical Refugees in Britain and the Wider World,” Social History of Medicine, 2009, 22,3:451-459. See also Paul Weindling’s contribution to these proceedings. 16 In keeping with this broader awareness of cultural breakage and reconstruction, there has been a turn in recent years from assessing the products or contributions of the émigrés to the processes which produced them. As a result, a new view has emerged that has gone beyond a discourse of cultural loss and gain, and towards a closer examination of the dynamics of scientific, social and cultural change--a view, indeed, that regards scientific change rather than continuity as the expected norm. The literature on the Nazi-era migrations that could be regarded as contributing to this new perspective is enormous. 4 I will not attempt to summarize its results in detail here, but will try instead to formulate four questions from this recent research that might also be applicable to the study of the migration of scientists and scholars from other twentieth-century dictatorships. Before raising these questions, it seems appropriate to make some basic distinctions among the key terms generally used in this work: migration, emigration, and exile. The term migration refers to any movement of people from one place to another which results in long-term relocation. Clearly, such migration can be voluntary or forced. Discussions of the topic often mention so-called push or pull factors that are thought to influence, if not cause, such migrations. Seen in this light, radical regime changes – in particular the installation of dictatorships – in the twentieth century can be described as very powerful push factors. And yet, surprising as this may seem in retrospect, even in extreme circumstances some scholars and scientists decided not to leave their home countries, even after they had been deprived of their livelihoods by the regime. The term emigration – or out-migration – stands for this dimension of voluntary choice. While some émigrés adapted quickly to their new surroundings, or attempted to do so, others continued to mourn the loss of their cultural roots and organized their activities with a view to returning to their homelands as soon as possible. For such people the term (cultural or political) exile was, and remains appropriate, because that is how they saw themselves. Such descriptions are complicated by the fact that many émigrés went through a change of attitude, beginning as exiles and becoming 4 For Germany and Austria, see the literature cited in Ash, “Forced Migration,” and (for Austria) in Johannes Feichtinger, Wissenschaft zwischen den Kulturen. Österreichische Hochschullehrer in der Emigration 1933-1945 (Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag, 2001) as well as Friedrich Stadler and xx Weibel (eds.), (English volume!). For Czechoslovakia and Hungary, see the relevant chapters in: Antonín Kostlán and Alice Velková (eds.), Wissenschaft im Exil. Die Tschechoslowakai als Kreuzweg 1918-1989 (Praha: Výzkumné centrum pro dejiny vedy, 2004), and the chapters on scientists and scholars in: Tibor Frank, Double exile. Migrations of JewishHungarian professionals through Germany to the United States. (Oxford and Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 2009). 17 emigrants (or immigrants); there was and is no clearly fixed point for such changes in viewpoint toward oneself. Question 1: Who must leave and why? In speaking of the “push factors” leading to forced migration of scientists/scholars in the Nazi era, it is appropriate to distinguish two kinds of “political” dismissal. Socialists and leftist intellectuals who were dismissed from civil service positions and/or chose to flee Nazi persecution understood why they were being persecuted. These were political dismissals of the classical kind. In contrast, scholars, scientists or professionals who lost their livelihoods because they were defined as Jews by the Nazis often did not understand why this had happened to them. Put in social science language, they were victimized by extrinsic identity ascription; this resulted for many in traumatic shock to their own identities. A large number of these so-called “Jews,” after all, had either converted to Christianity, been baptized by their parents or were the children of parents who had themselves already converted. These people, and also the vast majority of those who remained Jews by confession, were thoroughly assimilated into secular German-speaking culture. Many of the men had served proudly in the German military. We need to remember that when we refer to all of these dismissed scholars and scientists as “Jews,” we adopt the Nazis’ identity ascriptions. Moreover, calling the dismissals of such people “political” means adopting the Nazis’ radical transformation of the idea of politics to include “race.” Rather than lumping together these with the classical political dismissals mentioned above, I propose to speak in the latter case of politically caused dismissals, thus distinguishing them from classical political purges. Were such politically caused dismissals comparable with Communist-era dismissals or political dissidents? It seems clear at first that they were not. And yet in the Stalin era, at least, it could also be said that many thousands of academics, and millions of others, were purged, and even killed, for political reasons that they did not necessarily understand. The forced transfer of entire ethnic groups from one part of the Soviet Union to another under Stalin might also be seen in this light, since such peoples could hardly have imagined themselves tout court as enemies of the state until they were declared to be such. 18 For dismissed scholars and scientists of the Nazi era, it must be emphasized that the decision to leave or not to leave remained in principle voluntary, even after the people in question had been deprived of their livelihoods and in many cases their cultural identities as well. Of course, the word “voluntary” cannot be understood in such cases as being equivalent to the kind of decisions people make when they move from one country to another in free societies; but the decision to leave German-speaking Europe in the 1930s was nonetheless a decision made by the émigrés, and not by the regime. Once we compare such decisions, along with the resulting efforts to obtain the appropriate travel documents, with analogous situations under Communism, another important distinction becomes clear. Under Nazism, it was possible at least to imagine and actually to carry out emigrations; freedom of travel within certain limits, for example the need for persons defined as “Jews” to pay the exorbitant Reichsfluchtsteuer. Persecuted dissidents, minorities or others under Communism who may have desired to leave their countries could do so at all only if the regime permitted it. Question 2: Did a „loss“ or „gain“ of PEOPLE mean the same for SCIENCE? The forced migration of Jewish and socialist scientists and scholars from 1933 onward was not an end in itself, but rather a well understood by-product of broader Nazi policies, in particular the persecution of Jews and Socialists. Its effects on the personnel structure of German-speaking universities and scientific disciplines therefore varied according to the respective numbers of scholars and scientists in these institutions who were defined by the Nazis as “Jews.” If we look first at institutions, a single statistic should suffice to make clear what is meant by this statement. In the autumn of 1934, officials of the newly-created Reich Ministry for Education and Science prepared a list of persons dismissed or forced to retire from higher education institutions in Germany as a result of the Nazi civil service law. The list includes 614 university teachers; of these, 190 were full or tenured associate professors, and 424 non-tenured associate professors and Privatdozenten. Already at this early stage, the uneven distribution pattern of dismissals is obvious. Only three universities, Berlin, Frankfurt, and Breslau, account for fully forty per cent of the total (136, 69, and 43, respectively), while the universities of Rostock and Tübingen have as few as two each, and 19 Erlangen only one. 5 A newly published study by Michael Grüttner and Sven Kinas presenting complete figures for 15 German universities and including all teaching staff except assistants who had not yet earned the right to teach, confirms the uneven distribution of dismissals across universities already established by earlier research. Berlin has by far the highest number of dismissals (278), but the second highest dismissal rate (34.9 per cent). Berlin is followed in total numbers, as in earlier counts, by Frankfurt with 128, but the new study gives that university the highest dismissal rate (36.5 per cent). At the low end of the scale is, as before, Tübingen with only eight dismissals (four per cent). 6 The impact on particular disciplines varied widely as well. Non-medical biology appears to be on the low end among the natural sciences, with circa 13 per cent (45 of 337 persons surveyed) dismissed on racist or more narrowly political grounds and 10 per cent (34) émigrés. 7 Losses in academic chemistry were far higher; of a total of 535 chemists in the rank of Privatdozent or above working at university or Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, Austria and the German University in Prague, at least 128 (23.9 per cent) were dismissed between 1933 and 1938, of whom at least 108 (20.1 per cent) emigrated. 8 The figures for physics lie between those for chemistry and biology; of a total of 325 physicists in Germany who had earned the right to teach at a university, 50, or 15.4 per cent, emigrated after 1933. 9 Perhaps more interesting however, is the fact that the fifty émigré physicists came from only fifteen institutions, at which 212, or 65 per cent of university physicists taught; the 5 Liste der auf Grund des Gesetzes zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums verabschiedeten Professoren und Privatdozenten (für das Auswärtige Amt), 11. Dezember 1934. Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Bonn. Cf. Sybille Gerstengarbe, Die erste Entlassungswelle von Hochschullehrern deutscher Hochschulen aufgrund des Gesetzes zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums vom 7.7.1933, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 1994, 17:17-40. 6 Grüttner and Kinas, “Die Vertreibung von Wissenschaftlern,“ Table 3, p. 140. Not included in this study are figures for eight universities: Munich, Freiburg, Jena, Breslau, Erlangen, Rostock, Königsberg, and Würzburg. Of these, one (Breslau) ranked among the highest in numbers of dismissals according to earlier studies, and two (Rostock and Erlangen) ranked among the lowest. 7 Ute Deichmann, Biologists under Hitler, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 25 ff. 8 Ute Deichmann, “The Expulsion of Jewish Chemists and Biochemists from Academic in Nazi Germany,” in: Perspectives on Science, 1999, 7:1-86, here: p. 28. See also Ute Deichmann, Flüchten, Mitmachen, Vergessen. Chemiker und Biochemiker in der NS-Zeit (Weinheim: Wiley – VCH, 2001). 9 Klaus Fischer, “Die Emigration deutschsprachiger Physiker nach 1933: Strukturen und Wirkungen,“ in: Herbart A- Strauss, Klaus Fischer, Christhard Hoffmann and Alfons Söllner (eds.), Die Emigration der Wissenschaften nach 1933. Disziplingeschichtliche Studien (Munich: K.G. Saur, 1991), pp. 25-72, here: pp. 22-23. 20 other twenty-one, generally smaller, institutions had no émigré physicists at all. 10 The larger, generally more innovative, institutes were thus also the hardest hit. If we look beyond the natural sciences, the variation becomes still broader. In fields such as population science or German philology, dismissal rates are far lower than in the sciences just named. On the other end of the spectrum: we all know about the widespread propagandistic denunciation of psychoanalyis as a “Jewish science,” and the high numbers of Jews in that field did indeed result in a very high emigration rate; and yet psychoanalysis per se was not forbidden under Nazism! 11 In general, the variability just outlined is an indicator only of the relative openness of the discipline or profession in question to people of Jewish background before 1933, and certainly not of the “ethnic content” of that discipline! I turn now more explicitly to the question posed above: did a “loss” or “gain” of people mean the same for science? Of course this question cannot be addressed in detail here, but it should at least be noted that some chairs or directorships in given disciplines remained vacant, while others were filled quickly. In addition, some scientific and scholarly approaches, for example Gestalt psychology, were continued by representatives who had not been dismissed, 12 while others were interrupted. There appears to be no necessary connection between “loss” of people and “loss” of scientific or scholarly “content.” 13 In any case, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that the later achievements by émigrés in their new places of residence were just precisely what was “lost” to “German” or German-speaking science and scholarship. Such an assumption lies behind the frequent tendency to list the names of émigré Nobel Prize winners and also future Nobel Prize 10 Klaus Fischer, “Die Emigration der Physiker nach 1933: Zeitgeschichtliche Folgen, disziplinäre Wirkungen und persönliche Schicksale,“ in: Dirk Reitz (ed.), Exodus der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Dokumentation einer Ringvorlesung des Evenari-Forums. Wintersemester 2003/04 (Darmstadt: Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2004), pp. 85-110, here: p. 88. 11 Geoffrey Cocks, Psychotherapy in the Third Reich: The Göring-Institute, 2nd ed. (New York: Transaction Publishers, 1997); Michael Schröter, “Wenn man dem Teufel den kleinen Finger reicht … Die DPG und IPV unter dem Druck des Nazi-Regimes (1933-1938)“, in: Psyche. Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse und ihre Anwendungen, 64:1134-1155 (2010). 12 Mitchell G. Ash, Gestalt Psychology in German Culture 1890-1967: Holism and the Quest for Objectivity (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), Chap. 20. 13 This point remains controversial in some cases, in particular that of psychoanalysis. For discussion see Geoffrey Cocks, “’Rechts um die Ecke rum’: Wichmannstrasse, Berggasse, Keithstrasse, 1933-1945,” in: Mitchell G. Ash (ed.), Psychoanalyse in totalitären und autoritären Regimen (Frankfurt am Main: Brandes & Apsel, 2010), pp. 35-57. 21 winners, as though these outstanding scientists would have produced their prize-winning achievements if the Nazis had not driven them out. 14 Such simple calculations of loss and gain presuppose a static view of science and of culture, as though the émigrés brought with them finished bits of knowledge, which they then inserted like building-stones into already established cultural constructs elsewhere. When we turn to more careful examination of processes of scientific change in connection with forced migration, we encounter a multitude of contingencies and opportunities. Decades of research has shown that forced migration made possible careers that could not have happened in the then-smaller, more restrictive university and science systems of Central Europe, and the possibility that the pressure to respond to new circumstances may have led to innovations that might not have occurred in the same way otherwise. The last two statements surely apply as well to migrations of scientists and scholars from Communist countries in the twentieth century. 15 Question 3: Who may work in new places, and why? From the viewpoint of social history, the emigration of scientists and scholars after 1933 can be understood as a spectacular case of forced international elite circulation. But that circulation did not happen automatically. Before we can consider scientific change proper as a cultural process, we must therefore ask who got the opportunity to continue scientific work, and thus at least potentially to participate in scientific change, and why. Significant in this context is the presence or absence of institutional, economic and social support available for science and scholarship in the countries to which the émigrés went.16 For those émigrés who received positions or stipends in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Britain, it is important to emphasise and clarify the mediating roles of the 14 For a recent example, see Jean Medawar and David Pyke, Hitler’s Gift: Scientists who Fled Nazi Germany (London: Piatkus, 2001), Appendix 1, pp. 241-242. 15 Oral accounts by scientists Ivan Lefkovits, Jaroslav Stark, Miloš Novotný, and Olga Hudlická in the session “Scientific Exile seen through the prism of personal experience” at this conference provide ample support for this claim. 16 Some of the receiving countries, such as Turkey, Palestine and the Latin American nations, were severely lacking in such support. In Turkey, émigrés were consciously recruited in an effort to build up the missing infrastructure. See, e.g., Regine Erichsen, “Die Emigration deutschsprachiger Naturwissenschaftler von 1933 bis 1945 in die Türkei in ihrem sozial- und wissenschaftshistorischen Wirkungszusammenhang,“ in: Strauss, Fishcer and Söllner (eds.), Die Emigration der Wissenschaften, pp. 73-104. 22 many aid organisations, disciplinary and multidisciplinary as well as humanitarian in character. political orgs. + Quakers Traditional accounts of this subject, for example of the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning or the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, understandably stress the humanitarian impulse to rescue persons in distress.17 Such humanitarian motives, along with the desire to help colleagues, were undoubtedly present. As recent research indicates, however, political and economic considerations were equally prominent. Important in this respect were two seemingly opposed but ultimately reconcilable impulses. The effects of the Depression and widespread fears of unemployment and competition for scarce resources among scientists and professionals in the host countries clearly worked against wholesale importation of academics or professionals, and encouraged careful selection among them. On the other hand, the desire of some influential academics as well as foundation and university administrators to grasp the opportunity of enriching their own disciplines or institutions by acquiring the émigré scholars judged to be best by their colleagues reinforced the impulse toward selectivity.18 A closely related pattern appears in the work of the many aid committees organized within individual disciplines, for example in mathematics, psychology and psychoanalysis. Such patterns point to selective, even pre-selective, effects not only of influential individuals, but also of local scientific and cultural milieus, which could have decisive impacts on émigrés' futures. Social-historical studies have made a start toward more careful examination of such impacts by employing acculturation as an organizing concept rather than assimilation. 19 The issues that can be considered under this heading are many. Factors 17 Norman Bentwich, The Rescue and Achievements of Refugee Scholars: The Story of Displaced Scholars and Scientists 1933-1952 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1953); Laura Fermi, Illustrious Immigrants: the Intellectual Migration from Europe, 1930/41, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971). 18 Karen J. Greenberg, The Mentor Within: The German Refugee Scholars of the Nazi Period and Their American Context (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1987); Gerhard Hirschfeld, “'A High Tradition of Eagerness ...' British Non-Jewish Organizations in Support of Refugees,” in: Werner E. Mosse (ed.), Second Chance: Two Centuries of German-Speaking Jews in the United Kingdom (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), pp. 599-610. On the predominant role of American foundations in the support of German and Austrian émigré social scientists, see Christian Fleck, Transatlantische Bereicherungen. Zur Erfindung der empirischen Sozialwissenschaften (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007). For the work of another aid organization with a less elitist orientation, see, for example: Jennifer Taylor, “The Missing chapter: How the British Quakers helped to save the Jews of Germany and Austria from Nazi Persecution,” http://remember.org/unite/quakers.htm (consulted 31 August 2011). 19 See Herbert A. Strauss, “Jewish Emigration in the Nazi Period: Some Aspects of Acculturation,” in: Mosse (ed.), Second Chance, pp. 81-95. 23 such as age and gender obviously play important roles, but so do the quite different levels of willingness among the émigrés to adapt to the language and behavioural rules of the receiving countries. At least as important as these global factors, however, are issues of disciplinary acculturation, in particular the relative degree of internationalisation of the styles of thought and practice in the different fields of science and scholarship involved. Internationality is not automatic even in the natural sciences, but is a product of historical circumstances. Well established international networks existed in many humanities and social sciences, for example in classics, modern languages and literatures, or psychology, before 1933. And national and even local differences in styles of thinking and working continue to exist even in the most internationalised fields. It is therefore not justified to assume in advance that there exist some sort of linguistic of cultural essences that make knowledge and practices more easily transferred in one kind of discipline than in others. In spite of these complications, one positive but also ironic general statement about the social historical dimension of scientific change seems justified. We can, I think, speak of a “trick of reason” (List der Vernunft) in Hegel's sense, or, perhaps more precisely, a “trick of unreason” (List der Unvernunft); for it was just this political and human catastrophe that created for many scientists and scholars unanticipated career opportunities and chances to work in new settings. Especially the large, decentralised university and research system of the USA offered émigrés, despite the existence of Anti-Semitism and the obstacle course of pre-selection, better chances in the long run than they would ever have had in the smaller, more hierarchically structured systems of Germany or Austria. This was especially true for younger émigrés, whose adaptability may have been greater in any case and whose styles of thought and practice tended to be more flexible; and it also appears to be especially true for those disciplines with international networks that were already in place before 1933. Unfortunately this generalisation does not apply to everyone. Many did not succeed in emigrating at all; for women entry was possible in only a few disciplines and professions, many accepted under- or even unqualified work in order to feed their families. 20 And many 20 Sybille Quack and Daniel S. Mattern (eds.), Between Sorrow and Strength: Women Refugees of the Nazi Period (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 24 émigrés learned to their discomfiture that disciplinary and other networks were not always aid agencies, but worked often enough as negative selectors. We still know far too little about those affected by adverse decisions. 21 All of this appears to be true, or at least plausible, also for Communist-era migrations, even though the organizational basis, the political contexts and especially the timing of these migrations was often quite different from those of the Nazi era. Question 4: Science/scholarship in new places: Transfer or transformation? The changes in styles of scientific thought and practise resulting from the forced migration of scientists are too varied to be reduced to a single formula. The best common denominator appears to be resource exchange, leading in the most spectacular cases to a synthesis of scientific cultures. Ute Deichmann cites the work of embryologists Viktor Hamburger and Walter Holftreter as examples in which émigrés managed to continue their earlier work and were rewarded for doing so. 22 The geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who continued to work on environmentally rather than strictly genetically determined changes in phenotype and insisted on the enzymatic character of the genetic material, is perhaps the best example of continuity that was not rewarded. 23 At the other end of the spectrum is the work of James Franck, whose change of field from theoretical physics to the biophysics of photosynthesis coincided with his emigration to the United States and was generously funded in America by the Rockefeller Foundation. This example shows that scientific change need not necessarily 21 For one such case, that of the biologist Victor Jollos, see Deichmann, Biologists under Hitler, pp. 19 f.; Michael R. Dittrich, “On the Mobility of Genes and Geneticists: The ‘Americanization’ of Richard Goldschmidt and Victor Jollos,” Perspectives on Science, 1996, 4:321-346, esp. p. 329. 22 Deichmann describes such cases more fully in Biologists under Hitler, esp. pp. 30 ff. 23 Deichmann, Biologen unter Hitler, p. 49. Dittrich, “On the Mobility of Genes and Geneticists,” argues that the negative reception of Goldschmidt‘s work resulted in part from his generalist orientation, which contrasted sharply with the atheoretical, data oriented approach of most American biologists. For a full account of the development of genetics at the University of California at Berkeley in this period, see Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, “The ‘Plant Drosophila’: E.B. Babcock, the Genus Crepis, and the Evolution of a Genetics Research Program at Berkeley, 1915-1947,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 2009, 39,3:300-355. 25 lead to innovation; Franck developed ever more complex models but ultimately failed to do justice to the complexity of this biological process with the conceptual tools at his disposal. 24 I would like here to emphasize two types of scientific change. The first type involves a synthesis of cultures of scientific practice, that is of research styles and styles of thought, which might be called scientific change through de-localization. The designation “delocalization” is intended to turn attention away from the disputed concept of “national styles” in science and towards a level at which behavior plays a central role in scientific change, that of the scientific workplace--the laboratory, seminar, or university department. Central here, especially though not only in laboratory science, is what émigré chemist and philosopher of science Michael Polanyi called “tacit knowledge”--the exchange not only of ideas but of skills and modes of working that are more easily learned by personal interaction than from the literature. 25 The second type of scientific change, closely related to the first, might be called inter, multi-, or transcultural syntheses achieved by combining resources from German- and English-speaking settings. Spectacular syntheses of scientific cultures, or cultures of scientific practice, in which émigrés were prominently involved, going far beyond the level of the laboratory or seminar, are the atomic bomb project, the creation of computer science and technology, and the radar project. 26 In these cases one can speak of a technologization of basic research under wartime conditions. Here this term refers not to an increasing dependence of basic research on highly sophisticated apparatus, but rather to a complex interaction of basic research, applied science and industrial research, in which basic research necessarily acquired a practical orientation, because new fundamental knowledge was 24 Alan D. Beyerchen, “Emigration from Country and Discipline: The Journey of a German Physicist into American Photosynthesis Research,” in: Mitchell G. Ash and Alfons Söllner (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: German-Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 71-85. 25 Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950). Cf. Paul K. Hoch, “Migration and the Generation of Scientific Ideas,” Minerva, 1987, 25:209-237; idem., “Institutional versus Intellectual Migrations in the Nucleation of New Scientific Specialties,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 1987, 18:481-500. 26 There is no need to cite the enormous literature on the Manhattan Project here. On the role of émigrés in computer science, see Steve J. Heims, John von Neumann and Norbert Weiner: From Mathematics to the Technologies of Life and Death (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981). On the radar projekt see Michael Eckert, “Theoretical Physicists at War: Sommerfeld Students in Germany and as Emigrants,” in: Paul Forman and J.-M. Sanchez-Ron (eds.), National Military Establishments and the Advance of Science and Technology (Dordrecht: Riedel, 1996), pp. 69-86. 26 needed in order to develop the desired weapons, ballistics and communications systems. Such innovations were not merely eclectic combinations of components, but mobilizations and reconfigurations of intellectual as well as personal resources with different cultural roots for new purposes. Because émigrés were involved in all aspects of this process, it is doubtful whether the long-held view that the émigrés brought primarily theoretical knowledge to the table, while the Americans and British contributed mainly apparatus and experimental skills to the mix, can be sustained. Further analyses of such innovations will help to improve our understanding of intercultural science and technology transfer. In the social sciences, the best known synthesis of culturally formed scientific research styles is The Authoritarian Personality study (1950), which was not merely an extension of the research agenda of the Frankfurt School. Rather, social theorist Theodor Adorno, the academically and psychoanalytically trained Vienna psychologist Else FrenkelBrunswik and the test oriented and statistically trained American psychologists R. Nevitt Sanford and Daniel Levinson collaborated intensively on the project, producing a synthesis that none of them could have predicted in advance. 27 This example also points to a type of scientific change that I have called scientific change through reflexivity, or: learning from one’s own biography. 28 The formulation refers to changes in both scientific topic choice and styles of scientific or professional practice resulting from conscious or subconscious reflection on the émigrés’ own experiences. Here there is little doubt that there was a causal connection between scientific change and the events that began in 1933. Many of these scientists and scholars did not begin to identify themselves as Jews or to study topics such as Anti-Semitism until they were literally forced to confront them by world history. Whether comparable processes of scientific change among Communist-era exiles can be established remains to be seen. What is known so far suggests that in such 27 Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, R. Nevitt Sanford, and Daniel Levinson, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Bros., 1950); Mitchell G. Ash, “Learning from Persecution: Émigré Jewish Social Scientists’ Studies of Authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism after 1933,” in: Beate Meyer and Marion Kaplan (eds.), Jüdische Welten. Juden in Deutschland vom 18. Jahrhundert bis in die Gegenwart (Festschrift für Monika Richarz) (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005), pp. 271-294. 28 Ash, “Learning from Persecution”; idem., “Scientific Changes in Germany 1933, 1945 and 1990: Towards a Comparison,“ Minerva, 1999, 37:329-354. 27 cases also the de-localization of research cultures and the creative combination of scientific practices from home and host institutions was often at work. Conclusion: More questions than answers The title of these remarks already indicates that their purpose is less to present finished results than to encourage new lines of inquiry. In this spirit I end this presentation with a series of further questions, along with some suggested answers. Was the process of expulsion in the Nazi era comparable with that under Communism? Yes, but only in part! (see above). Was the reception of Nazi-era émigrés in other countries after their migration comparable with that of the Communist era? Again, the answer appears to be yes, but only in part. Humanitarian motives appear to have gone hand in hand with the desire to acquire “human capital” in all cases, but a common denominator appears to have been the remarkable willingness of individual scientists in influential positions to give colleagues personally unknown to them a chance to prove themselves. Is it still appropriate to speak here of “knowledge transfer,” or is it better to speak instead of transformations of science and scholarship? The term “transfer” appears to have acquired multiple meanings in recent years. However the term may be defined, transfer in cases like these plainly was not entirely linear, that is, it did not involve only a movement of fixed “contents” of knowledge from one place to another. 29 Clearly there was more involved here than selective reception of scholars, scientists or their knowledge in host countries or institutions. Further, as stated above, it is not necessarily correct to claim that particular types of scientific or scholarly knowledge are in themselves more easily “transferable” than others. Even the role of language appears to be ambiguous in this regard; not only national, but also disciplinary “languages” appear to have been at work. 29 For a critique of linear transfer concepts, see Mitchell G. Ash, “Wissens- und Wissenschaftstransfer – einführende Bemerkungen,” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2006, 29:181-189. 28 Is there a causal relationship between forced migration and scientific or scholarly change? The answer to this question is quite clearly no. The revolutionary scientific transformations of the twentieth century, such as relativity, nuclear physics, or molecular biology, may have closely linked with, but were evidently not directly caused by forced migration or by the political upheavals that led to such migrations. If we ask not whether or not scientific changes occur as a result of radical political changes, but rather whether and how the timing and the specific characteristics of the scientific developments that did take place - the resource constellations mobilized in specific cases - were affected by political events, it seems clear that there were indeed both contingent and causal linkages. Perhaps this level of explanation will suffice at least for historians. A causal explanation of the strictness that philosophers might demand is not generally possible in historical scholarship in any case. Perhaps the most important point, one that is surely also applicable to migrations of scholars and scientists from Communist regimes as well, is the following: scientific changes following radical regime change in the Nazi era produced results that none of the actors involved could have predicted at the outset. As we continue to explore this important topic, we would do well to keep in mind this basic point about the openness and contingency of human affairs. 29 Science and Higher Education in Croatia in the First Half of the 20th Century: Between Academic Freedom, Authoritarian State and Migration Branko Bošnjakovič Based on existing literature, a broad picture is given of the political and economic frameworks and indicators within which science and technology in Croatia have been developing during the first half of the 20th century. The characteristics of subsequent political regimes (Austro-Hungarian monarchy until 1918; “Yugoslavia” from 1918 to 1941; “Independent” State of Croatia during the 1941-1945 war period; and Titoist Yugoslavia from 1945 onward) are briefly described with regard to their impacts on scientific institutions and individuals. The discontinuities implied by above periodisation, including its sub-divisions, are set against the institutional and individual continuities surviving the political upheavals as illustrated by examples. The position of the main institutions (Zagreb University, Academy of Sciences and Arts, some other institutes and professional associations), are highlighted, with special emphasis on how these institutions were trying to maintain their academic autonomy and scientific integrity in view of political interference. The role of enterprises, of special importance for technology development and education, is only briefly addressed. The scientific and technological developments, and the obstacles on the way to achievements during the above-mentioned periods, will be briefly discussed. Whereas the importance of the mobility of scientists has been recognised as being an inherent feature of exact sciences and technology during centuries, the pressures exercised by dictatorial regimes, within and outside Croatia, have led to additional migrations during the 20th century. In this respect three developments and their consequences for science and technology receive special attention: inflow of refugee scientists after the Russian revolution; political extremism (totalitarian ideologies, ultranationalism, antisemitism) as a European phenomenon; and people leaving countries under Communist regimes established after the Second World War. The implications of these developments for science and technology in Croatia are discussed as core part of this contribution. 30 INTRODUCTION By progressing to the modern age, the university autonomy underwent a change of its meaning over the course of history, from academic freedom to freedom of science and scholarship. In the course of development of science and scholarship as a social system with its own rules and governance mechanisms, and the ultimate change to universities as state institutions, the old corporative freedoms were gradually taken up in a universal claim to scientific freedom 1. The present paper aims to review the relationship between science 2 and state in Croatia during the first half of the 20th century. The emphasis is on how the universal claim to scientific freedom took shape under the science policies of subsequent political régimes. The paper focuses on three main elements: a description of the relevant political and economic characteristics of the political systems, and in particular their authoritarian tendencies; the functioning and responses of the scientific community and its evolving institutions under various pressures; and the role of migrations in its broad sense, including both immigrant, emigrant and remigrant scientists. In a more or less chronological approach, the present paper addresses the four main political régimes: Austro-Hungarian monarchy until 1918; “Yugoslavia” from 1918 to 1941; the “Independent” State of Croatia during the 1941-1945 war period; and Titoist Yugoslavia from 1945 onward until around 1950. The discontinuities implied by above periodisation, including its sub-divisions, are set against, and illustrated by, the institutional and individual continuities surviving the political upheavals. The position of the main institutions (Zagreb University, Academy of Sciences and Arts, some other institutes and professional associations), are highlighted, with special emphasis on how these institutions were trying to maintain their academic autonomy and scientific integrity in view of political interference. The scientific and technological developments, and the obstacles on the way to achievements during the above-mentioned periods, are also briefly discussed. Whereas the mobility of scientists has been an inherent feature in the area of exact sciences and technology during centuries, the pressures 1 Marian Füssel: Von der akademischen Freiheit zu Freiheit der Wissenschaft (Zur vormodernen Genealogie eines Leitbegriffs). Georgia Augusta, Wissenschaftsmagazin der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Ausgabe 7, Dezember 2010, p. 24-28. 2 Under consideration in the present paper are mainly. natural/exact sciences including medicine and technology. 31 exercised by dictatorial régimes, within and outside Croatia, have led to additional migrations during the 20th century. In this respect three developments and their consequences for science and technology receive special attention: inflow of refugees after the Russian revolution; ultra-nationalism, anti-Semitism and racism as European phenomena; and pressures exercised by the post-war Communist régime. The paper also contains information that the author acquired through oral communication with various persons. Finally, a preliminary comparison is undertaken of science policy performance during the four considered political periods. THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN PERIOD Political and economic position of Croatia within the monarchy The „Ausgleich“ (Compromise) between Austria and Hungary in 1867 was followed in 1868 inside Hungary by a ”small” compromise (in Croatian: Nagodba) between core Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia (in this section abbreviated as Croatia). On the basis of Nagodba, Croatia possessed within the Hungarian part (Transleithania) autonomy with regard to internal administration, justice, education and cultural affairs 3. The constitutional status of Croatia was thus similar to that of Galicia within Cisleithania: Croats in Hungary and Poles in Austria were, with the exception of the ruling majorities (Magyars and Germans), the most favoured nationalities in the Double Monarchy 4. However, important parts of the Croat population lived in Cisleithania as well (Istria and Dalmatia), whereas Bosnia-Herzegovina 5 with its considerable Croat population remained under joint Austro-Hungarian administration. The political fragmentation of the parts populated by Croats could not hold back the increasingly shared identity of their inhabitants. Zagreb as the seat of the Sabor (Diet) and the place of the Croatian national renascence and language standardisation from 3 Meyer’s Grosses Konversations-Lexikon,Leipzig-Wien 1905, Vol. 11, p. 722. Robert A. Kann: Das Nationalitätenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie, Vol. 1. Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. /Graz.Köln 1964, p. 239. 5 Bosnia-Herzegovina was occupied in 1878 suite to the Berlin Congress and in 1908 incorporated through annexation. 4 32 1830 onward, played in this respect an uncontested role 6. Cultural and linguistic debates and conflicts, which from 1880 on adopted the character of a “Kulturkampf” (cultural struggle), took place not so much vis-à-vis the Germans as in opposition to the Magyars and their adherents who pursued increasingly a politics of Magyarisation. The undeniable economic progression of the Monarchy (according to some estimates the Austrian the per capita income rose from 107K in 1850 to 520K in 1913), as well as the growing productivity even in the less developed parts, eliminated step-by-step earlier cultural and income gaps 7. The Monarchy as a whole poised until its end in the status of an industrial developing country, although some agglomerations experienced an entrepreneurial concentration and could catch up with the large industry development in Western Europe. In particular most parts inhabited by Croats (Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia) were in 1910 less developed than the Alpine and North-Western provinces 8. A salient feature was the under-development of Dalmatia, which can be explained, on the one hand, by its geographic and topographic characteristics (wedged as it is between BosniaHerzegovina and the Adriatic), but on the other by the Magyar nationalism, which saw in Dalmatian harbours a serious competition to its port of Fiume (Rijeka) and therefore attempted to obstruct the linkage of Dalmatia to the European railroad system 9. Foundation of the university in Zagreb According to A. J. P. Taylor, “Croatia, artificially severed from Austria by the harsh Hungarian frontier and denied control even of its own port of Rijeka, remained a backward agrarian country until the twentieth century. Still, a professional middle class developed in Zagreb, a class with a modern outlook and a modern education. A university, though not of the standing of Prague, was founded at Zagreb in 1874; and the intellectuals at last provided a national policy less barren than the “historic rights” demanded by the gentry and retired 6 Zagreb’s inhabitants grew in an impressive way: 17.000 in 1857; 33.000 in 1886; 67.000 in 1904; 79.000 in 1910; 133.000 in 1924; 267.000 in 1945. Source: Enciklopedija Jugoslavije. Jugoslavenski Leksikografski Zavod, Zagreb 1971. 7 Herbert Matis: Oesterreichs Wirtschaft 1848-1913. Duncker&Humblot/Berlin 1971, p. 390 8 Matis: Oesterreichs Wirtschaft, p. 389 - 394 9 Josip Horvat : Politička povijest Hrvatske. Zagreb 1936. Vol 1 and 2. Reprinted: August Cesarec, Zagreb 1989. 33 army officers who had hitherto composed the “Croat” nation. The leader of this new movement was Strossmayer, bishop of Djakovo, the son of a peasant who rose high in the Church and even at court before the development of his national loyalty… Strossmayer was the real creator of the South Slav idea... When the Croats under his lead founded an academy – that potent weapon in the national struggle – they named it the South Slav Academy... Therefore the Zagreb intellectuals became South Slavs pure and simple 10.“ The process leading to the foundation of the modern university was in reality much more complicated and cumbersome than suggested by A. J. P. Taylor in his sketchy way. After the collapse of Bach’s absolutism, the Croatian Sabor (Parliament) – by the initiative and financial support of the liberal J. J. Strossmayer – created in 1861 the first legal basis for a modern University. This basis was succeeded by a number of addresses to Vienna (in 1861, 1866 and 1869), which were overshadowed by the political struggle for more autonomy of Croatia. Although the Nagodba (Agreement) of 1868 gave Croatia full autonomy in legislative, administration, justice and educational matters, the financial affairs were shared with Budapest. This made it for the Croatian government difficult to take any decisions that had budgetary consequences. It was exactly for that reason that the voluntary contributions and commitments by private persons played a crucial role in assuring the material basis of the university 11. The legal article establishing the basis for a university was approved by the King in 1869, but more time elapsed before the Emperor and King gave his final signature on January 6, 1874. The opening of the University took place on 19 October 1874. Based on the final legal article of 1874, the University was supposed to consist – unsurprisingly - of four faculties: law, theology, philosophy and medicine. The first two were already fully organised and could start right away. The faculty of philosophy focused on the development of fundamental disciplines of the department of natural sciences, such as: a pharmacy course (1882), resulting much later in a pharmaceutical faculty (1942); an associated forestry academy 10 A.J.P. Taylor: The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918. Penguin Books in association with Hamish Hamilton 1948, reprinted 1990, p. 203-205 11 The recordings of the Parliamentary address of 29 December 1866 include a long list of all sponsors, the contributions of which ranged from several hundred to several thousand of florins. By 1874, the university foundation stock amounted to 400.000 florins (quoted from Jaroslav Šidak: Sveučilište do kraja prvoga svjetskog rata. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 94 34 (1897), including a course in geodesy (1908). The faculty of medicine was eventually founded but started functioning only in 1917 after Budapest terminated its obstructionist attitude 12. This delay has been caused by the resistance of the Hungarian Government, which most likely did not wish a strengthening of professional intelligence in Croatia, fearing this would lead to increased demands for political independence. The same argument might be used to explain a long delay in the establishment of a university-level Institute of Technology, which was eventually founded only in 1919, immediately after the formation of the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Significantly, it was again private initiative (this time by the Croatian-Slavonian Association of Industrialists, under the presidency of S. D. Alexander (1862 – 1943), which made this possible through a donation of 1 million K 13. Based on the University law of 1874, it was determined that whenever not explicitly ruled otherwise, the university should follow Austrian higher education regulations. The reason for that was to be found in the desire to eliminate barriers preventing students of Croatian descent from Cisleithanian territories (in particular Dalmatia and Istria) wishing to join the University of Zagreb. Still, a full reciprocity between the Zagreb University and the Cisleithanian universities was not achieved until the end of the Double Monarchy 14. A striking feature is that the legal status of the University in Zagreb barely changed between 1874 and 1926 15. It did change its name several times, thus reflecting the change of the political circumstances and the corresponding rulers. One change of the University law (of 6 October 1894) redefined the way how professors were nominated and appointed 16; the other (of 12 September 1918, only a few months before the end of the Double Monarchy) added the right for women to inscribe Law and Medicine Faculty. 17 The foundation of 12 Jaroslav Šidak: Sveučilište do kraja prvoga svjetskog rata. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 122. 13 Untitled document from the University of Zagreb Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture: http://www.fsb.unizg.hr/80godina/pkralj.htm 14 Šidak: Sveučilište, p. 106 15 Hodimir Sirotković: Sveučilište između dva rata (1918-1941). In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 126 16 The change was not insignificant: it weakened the exclusive role of the Senate in proposing nominations of professors for appointments by the King, by allowing the government to propose an appointment on its own. Šidak: Sveučilište, p. 105 17 Admission of women to the Philosophical Faculty had been established earlier by an decree of 9 September 1901. 35 additional Faculties in the period 1919-1926 was based not on a change of the legal status, but formally on Royal Decrees promulgated in Belgrade. Research in exact sciences until 1918 After the founding of a modern university in Zagreb in 1874, scientific research was moving fast towards European standards. An important role in the development of exact sciences was played by a number of Czech professors, in the first place the physicist Dvořak 18 and the chemist Janeček 19. At the turn from the 19th to the 20th century, two epoch-making discoveries were made in the field of natural sciences 20. Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger (1856-1936) recognised the significance of prehistoric human bones found in Krapina and published several communications in Vienna between 1899 and 1905 21, which resulted in a comprehensive monography in 1906 22. In this and several subsequent publications, Gorjanović established the role of the Neanderthal man in the geneaology of humans. The Krapina bones are still a subject of most advanced experimental and theoretical research 23. At nearly the same time, Andrija Mohorovičić (1857-1936) made a discovery of international significance: on the basis of experimental and theoretical investigations of the Pokuplje earthquake of October 8, 1901, he concluded the existence of a surface of 18 Vinko (Vincenc, Čen ĕk) Dvořak (1848 -1922) was professor of physics in Zagreb from 1874 to 1911. See:Branko Hanžek, Vinko Dvořak – život i djelo. Doctoral dissertation, Zagreb 2005. See also: Žarko Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti u Hrvatskoj u ozračju politike i ideologije (Exact sciences in Croatia in the climate of politics and ideology) (1900 – 1960), Vol. II. Izvori, Zagreb 2010, p. 298 - 310 19 Gustav Janeček (1848-1929), professor of chemistry in Zagreb from 1879 to 1921. See: N. Trinajstić and S. Paušek-Baždar, Hrvatska kemija u XX. stoljeću. I. Razdoblje od početka stoljeća do 8. svibnja 1945. (Croatian chemistry in the 20th century. I. The period from the beginning of the century until 8 May 1945). Kem. Ind. 56 (7-8) 403-416 (2007). 20 Žarko Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti u Hrvatskoj u ozračju politike i ideologije (Exact sciences in Croatia in the climate of politics and ideology) (1900 – 1960), Vol. II. Izvori, Zagreb 2010, p. 33 - 34 21 Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger, Der paläolithische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 1899, 1901-02, 1904-05. 22 Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger, Der Diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien, Wiesbaden 1906. 23 See e.g.: David W. Frayer: The Krapina Neanderthals. A Comprehensive, Centennial, Illustrated Bibliography. Hrvatski Prirodoslvni muzej (Croatian Natural History Museum), Zagreb 2006. 36 discontinuity in Earth’s crust, now known under the name of Mohorovičić discontinuity 24. This important discovery forms together with Wegener’s theory of continental drift a crucial experimental basis for modern earth science. Apart from research done at the University numerous other scientifically oriented activities and institutions have been developing. The National Museum was founded in 1846, one department of which developed into the Natural History Museum in 1886. The Meteorological Observatory, established in 1861, was extended and renamed Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in 1911. In the field of oceanography, several expeditions undertaken between 1893 and 1914, served as precursors of the Oceanographic Institute, that was established in Split during the period 1919 – 1930 25. The Croatian Society for Natural History, founded in 1885, started its scientific journal Glasnik (Periodicum Biologorum) in 1886, and its popularisation journal Priroda in 1911. Immediately after the outbreak of the World War 1 (WW1), its activities like those of all associations in Croatia and Slavonia were prohibited. However, the publication of its journals was allowed to resume in early 1917 26. Migration of scientists The inflow of Czech professors to the young university has already been mentioned. Their likely motivation was not political, but the linguistic similarities of Croat and Czech, as well as pan-Slavic sentiments might have played a role. The existence of a university in Zagreb did not prevent some students and young scientists to attend foreign universities. For medicine and technology out of necessity, but also for disciplines represented at the university, foreign universities exercised a professional attraction. Most of them were going to destinations within the Monarchy (Vienna, Prague, Graz), but it seems that German universities were also top runners, e.g. Göttingen for mathematics. Some young scientists chose even to go to less obvious destinations like universities in France, the Netherlands and 24 nd See e.g.: Arthur N. Strahler:The Earth Sciences, Harper & Row, New York – Evanston – London, 2 Edition 1971, p. 401, 402, 432 25 Mirko Orlić: Zagrebački prirodoslovci, a napose Josip Goldberg, i istraživanje Jadrana. Geofizika, Vol. 14, 1997, p. 101-103 26 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti , Vol II, p. 86 - 89 37 Sweden. It would be interesting to take stock in a more systematic way of the mobility and movements of scientists during that period. ROYALIST “YUGOSLAVIA” 1918 -1941 State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes In the final days of WW1, a National Council was founded as the political body representing Slovenes, Croats and Serbs living within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Croatian Sabor (Parliament) decided on 29 October 1918 to discontinue all statehood links with Austro-Hungarian monarchy and declared Croatia to be independent. At the same time it decided to accede to a future joint state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs 27, attributing the supreme state authority to the above mentioned National Council. Subsequently, National Council appointed regional governments for Slovenia, Croatia and Slavonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia. Serbian regent and crown prince Aleksandar Karadjordjevic proclaimed on December 1, 1918 the establishment of the new state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Its first government consisted of 13 Serbs, 4 Croats, 2 Slovenes and 1 Muslim 28. The election for a Constituant Assembly took place only two years later (November 28, 1920), whereby, on top of an inequitable electoral geometry, numerous electoral irregularities were perpetrated by government parties 29. The new centralistic constitution ensured the domination of the new kingdom by the Serb elites. It divided the whole country in 33 départements in an arbitrary way, with Croatia and Dalmatia covered by 6 of them. However, the introduction of the new administrative bodies was accomplished only by early 1924. Until that time, the still existing regional government for Croatia and Slavonia – in spite of strong pressures from Belgrade – succeeded to take a number of significant decisions concerning the founding of a number of new university level faculties and schools. These decisions were confirmed by the regent Aleksandar 30. 27 Its total population of 12 million people had the following ethnic composition in 1918: 38.8% Serbs, 23.8% Croats, 8.5% Slovenes, 6.1%Bosnian Muslims, 4.9% Macedonians or Bulgars, plus various minorities. Ivo Banac: The national question in Yugoslavia. Cornell University Press, Ithaca – London 1984, p. 58 28 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti Vol. II, p. 99 29 Banac: The national question in Yugoslavia, p. 389 - 390 30 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti Vol II, p. 100 - 101 38 The way in which the unification took place, was seen by the vast majority of the Croat population as occupation 31. Political detentions 32, appointments of military and civil officials 33, agrarian expropriations 34, assimilation of currency and tax systems35, state investment policy (including massive tax transfers from formerly Austro-Hungarian parts to formerly Serb parts), developed into explosive focal areas of conflict since the Serb elites pursued right from the beginning a hegemonisation of the South Slav state36. Between 1925 and 1934, state investments in infrastructure (roads, public buildings, electrification, hydrotechnical projects) amounted to 2.8 billion Dinar, of which 9% went to Croatia-Slavonia and 63% to Serbia 37. Quite opposite was the situation with regard to tax raising: between 1919 and 1928 a total amount of direct taxes levied in the whole state amounted to 10 billion Dinar, of which only 1.8 billion Dinar (=18%) came from pre-war Serbia (including Montenegro), whereas 83% stemmed from the former Austro-Hungarian parts. This enormous disparity was not only the result of different development levels in north-western and south-eastern regions, but primarily due to the continuation of unequal tax systems from the time before the unification: if the Serbian system had been applied everywhere in the same way, the formerly Austro-Hungarian parts would have contributed only 3.2 billion Dinar 38. With the end of the Monarchy, the political environment in Ljubljana and Zagreb changed completely. Whereas the former political antagonists (Germans for the Slovenes, Magyars for the Croats as images of “enemies”) played no role any more after 1918, new tensions arose in the new state, in which victorious Serb élites played undoubtedly a dominant role. Based on population prevalence and greater political experience in an earlier existing independent state39, the Serb political parties were in a much better position, both internally and in foreign affairs, to expand this dominance and to exploit it in a ruthless 31 Tvrtko P. Sojčić: Die “Lösung“ der kroatischen Frage zwischen 1939 und 1945. Kalküle und Illusionen. Franz Steiner Verlag 2008, p. 11 32 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 11 33 Rudolf Bićanić: Ekonomska podloga hrvatskog pitanja, 2nd edition, Zagreb 1938, p. 70 and the following 34 N. L. Gaćeša, Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Bačkoj 1918-1941, Novi Sad 1968, p. 278 35 Holm Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte Kroatiens im nationalsozialistischen Grossraum 1941-1945. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt 1983, p. 62 36 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 11; see also Sundhaussen, Wirtschaftsgeschichte p 61-62 37 Bićanić: Ekonomska podloga, p. 102 38 Bićanić: Ekonomska podloga, p. 52. As Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte points out (p. 63), the tax tariffs were unified only 10 years after the state foundation! 39 Serbia had emerged as an independent country after the Berlin Congress in 1878. 39 way. This is not the place to discuss in detail the extremely complicated history of the new “State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” (SHS), as was its official name 40. For simplicity, a few corner points may be mentioned. The Constitution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 28 June 1921 and with a strongly centralistic character, did not reflect the political will of Croats, and even less so that of Macedonians, Montenegrins, Albanians and Moslems. The dominant political personality in Croatia was Stjepan Radić 41, whose Croatian Peasants Party (HSS, Hrvatska Seljačka Stranka 42) represented an ideological melting-pot of pacifism, socialdemocracy, republican and populist elements. The rising political tensions had some consequences for university life as well. As shall be seen later, main conflicts, both in Zagreb and Ljubljana, concerned the conservation of university autonomy as well as the distribution of faculties, tenured positions and financial means between the universities in Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana. They were fuelled by national – Serb, Croat and Slovene - interests, and later enhanced by the emerging world economic crisis, which did not spare Yugoslavia either. Role of Russian émigrés in the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes The Russian Revolution of 1917 triggered off large migrations of people fleeing the terror and civil war along many different ways. The greatest batches of military and civilian refugees from Russia came after the defeat at Perekop of the Voluntary (White) Army 11/12 November 1920 43. They arrived first in Constantinople, through which according to some estimates about 130.000 persons passed. A part of them proceeded to the Dalmatian ports of Meljine and Dubrovnik, and about 6000 of those eventually disembarked in the port of Bakar 44. Most of these people found some income as artisans or salesmen; many if not the 40 For details, see Banac : The national question in Yugoslavia, the already mentioned standard treatise on the history of the Yugoslav state in the early years of its existence. 41 “Radić’s deeply rooted commitment to Christian ethics and democratic principles meant that his nationalism never degenerated into chauvinism”. Mark Biondich: Stjepan Radić, the Croat Peasant Party, and the Politics of Mass Mobilization, 1904-1928. University of Toronto Press 2000, p. 247. “Committed to a pacifist platform, Radić never earnestly countenanced the use of violence. He was a committed parliamentarian”, Biondich, p. 249 42 Radić’s party changed its name several times, the ultimate name HSS remained until its destruction by the Communists after their takeover in 1945. 43 Tatjana Puškadija-Ribkin: Emigranti iz Rusije u znanstvenom i kulturnom životu Zagreba (The émigré’s from Russia in the scientific and cultural life of Zagreb). Prosvjeta, Zagreb 2006, p. 22 44 Puškadija-Ribkin: Emigranti p. 23 40 majority proceeded to other countries in Europe and overseas. The legal status of the refugees was not easy, especially for those who aspired employment as this required to possess citizenship of the new state 45. It seems that most refugees from Russia with intellectual, scientific or artistic background came to Zagreb via other paths, and not with the fleeing military. PuškadijaRibkin lists nearly 140 of these people who contributed during a shorter or longer period of time to the intellectual, scientific or artistic life in Zagreb 46. If categorised, there were approximately 65 scientists (including in the engineering and medical professions), 51 artists (in music, decorative art, theatre, film), 15 intellectuals with background in humanities (including writers, publicists) and 7 with administrative or military background. Scientists active in Zagreb included some prominent names such as: N. P. Abakumov (1881-1965, professor of geodesy, astronomy, cartography and photogrammetry, from 1927 to 1950 at the Technical Faculty) V. Z. Andrejev (1904 - 1988, professor of geodesy and civil engineering, 1953-1974 at the Technical Faculty) B. A. Apsen (1894 -1980, taught mathematics, 1942-1945 at the Technical Faculty) N. I. Baranov (1887 -1981, enthomologist, 1928-1944 at the School of Public Health) E. T. Cerkovnikov (1904 – 1985, organic chemist, assistant of Prelog, professor 1948-1975 in Zagreb and later Rijeka) K. Čališev (1888 – 1970, civil engineer, professor of technical mechanics 1922-1959 at Technical Faculty) N .Černozubov (1890 - 1967, epidemiologist, head of epidemiology 1931-1943 in the School of Public Health Zagreb, after WW2 in Belgrade) 45 46 Puškadija-Ribkin: Emigranti, p. 29 - 37 Puškadija-Ribkin: Emigranti p. 123 - 175 41 I. S. Plotnikov (1878 - 1955, physical chemist, professor of physics and physical chemistry 1926 -1943 at the Technical Faculty) N. A. Pušin (1875 -1947, chemist, professor of physical chemistry, Faculty of Philosophy 1921 -1928, later in Belgrade) D. P. Ruszky (1869 - 1937, mechanical engineer, professor of hydraulics, 1924-1937 at the Technical Faculty) S. N. Saltykov (1874 -1964, physician, professor of pathologic anatomy 1922-1952 at the Faculty of Medicine) A. A. Šahnazarov (1891 -1973, mechanical engineer, professor of mechanical technology 1927-1961 at the Technical Faculty) S. P. Timošenko (1878 -1972, professor of engineering mechanics 1920-1922 at Technical Faculty, later in the USA). The biographies of some of these émigrés are most exciting, and deserve more profound research. Here only two names will be selected for a few extra remarks: both were born in the same year, and both had acquired international reputation even before coming to Zagreb. Plotnikov was a world-renowned photo-chemist from the school of Nobel prizewinner Wilhelm Ostwald, and professor at the Moscow State University until 1917. He stayed even after his retirement until his death in Zagreb. The world-famous Timoshenko had come from the Kiev Polytechnic and spent only two years in Zagreb before leaving for a long and brilliant international career in the US; he left an important mark on structural engineering in Croatia. His memoirs 47 are still worth reading. 47 Stephen P. Timoshenko : As I remember. D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, Toronto, London, Melbourne 1968 42 Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929): absolutist rule The failure of Belgrade parliamentary rule initiated a fatal course of events 48. The rising social and political unrest in the Croatian parts of the country, found its culmination in the bloodbath perpetrated in the Belgrade parliament by a Serb parliamentarian, who wounded or killed several Croatian parliament members, including Stjepan Radić, the leader of the Croat Peasant Party (HSS). The cold-blooded murder, which had been announced 49 in the government-oriented journal Jedinstvo (Unity), led to a total rejection of “Yugoslavism” among the Croat population. A few months after the death of Radić, King Aleksandar abolished the constitution, dissolved the parliament and introduced an absolutist dictatorship (January 6, 1929). The dictatorship – far from solving any political and social problems – led to even more unrest and resistance, not only in Croatia, but also in other Non-Serb parts of Yugoslavia, which became the new name for the country. The politically motivated and régime-sponsored murder of the Croatian scholar Dr. Milan Šufflay caused even Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann to urge a protest against this brutality 50. The “Ustasha” (“insurgents”), a radical splinter group of extreme nationalists founded by Ante Pavelić, decided to seek state independence by violent means. During a state visit to France in 1934, King Alexander was killed by an ultranationalist. The newly appointed Prince Regent Paul, a different personality, was confronted with the urgent need to somehow solve the “Croatian question”. The Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), under the new leadership of Vladko Maček, responded to persecutions with a consistent nationalistic policy of non-violence, thus increasing immensely the support among the Croat population at large. On the other side, the rise of the Nazi ideology in Germany and fascism in Italy was changing the political map of Europe, leading to the weakening of France, the protector of Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, and the eventual disappearance of the Little Entente (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania). After the pro-German government Stojadinović failed, and under the influence of foreign policy developments 51, the new government together with Prince Regent Pavle launched for the first time serious negotiations to reach an arrangement with the politicians in Zagreb. 48 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 19 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p 19, p. 407-408 50 « Einstein Accuses Yugoslavian Rulers in Savant’s Murder », New York Times, May 6, 1931. 51 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 23-24 49 43 Agreement (Sporazum) of 1939 The new Government Cvetković-Maček reached an agreement (Sporazum) between the Serb and Croat leaders, by establishing the autonomous Banovina 52 of Croatia on August 26 1939. After 20 years of failed integration due to Serbian hegemonistic politics and violent internal conflicts, the Croatian-Serb Agreement represented only a minimal compromise 53. It provided for the establishment of an autonomous Banovina of Croatia, but not the federalisation of Yugoslavia as a whole, which decision was supposed to be taken later by a constitutional assembly. Still, it was a promising step for the resolution of the “Croatian question” and the consolidation of Yugoslav state, based as it was on cooperation of moderate forces in both camps 54. The Banovina received more sovereign rights than under the 1868 agreement between Croatia and Hungary, which now included internal administration, justice, education, health and social affairs, agriculture and forestry, industry and trade, with a Banovina government responsible solely to the Croatian parliament (Sabor) 55. However, the agreement was not welcomed by the extremist actors: the Croat and Serb ultra-nationalists, and the Communists 56. The future of Yugoslavia as a whole was now anyway more than ever dependent on the course of events abroad. In contrast to Mussolini’s territorial aspirations, Hitler had mainly economic interests in Yugoslavia and tended to conserve its status quo 57. However, after Italy’s failed invasion of Greece, a hesitating Yugoslavia was bullied into joining the Tripartite (Axis) Pact on 25 March 1941. On March 27, the government was overthrown by a military coup d’état with British support. In quick response, Germany unleashed on April 6 the invasion of Yugoslavia 58. 52 Derived from « Ban », the traditional Croatian name for vice-roy. Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 64 54 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 25 55 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p 54 56 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 55 57 Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 56-57 58 Hitler did not order military intervention in the South-East with the intention to increase the economic exploitation of this space, but in primarily to secure the flank for the Operation Barbarossa, and to impede Yugoslavia from joining the Allied camp (Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte, S. 60). 53 44 University of Zagreb between 1918 and 1941 The functioning of the University of Zagreb between 1918 and 1941 was subject to four different legal régimes 59: 1. As mentioned earlier, the legal régime established in 1874 remained practically in force until 1926, even after the collapse of the Double Monarchy. In the period 1919-1926, four new faculties were incorporated, by special decree of the King of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs: agriculture-forestry (1919), orthodox theology (1920), veterinary (1924), with technical faculty (1926) forming a special case. 2. From 1926 on, the Universities of Zagreb and Ljubljana had conformed with the legal provisions valid for the University of Belgrade, which was based on Serbia’s University Law of 1905. One immediate consequence was the incorporation of the Institute of Technology into the university as the new Technical Faculty. In spite of the generally centralistic policies of Belgrade, the new legal régime was more liberal, guaranteeing, at least in theory, more autonomy and freedom of research and teaching. 3. The first joint University Law for Yugoslavia was introduced in 1930, more than one year after the coup d’etat of January 6, 1929, which gave dictatorial powers to the King. The law had been preceded by 10 years of unsuccessful negotiations between the Belgrade Ministry of education and the existing universities. Thus the introduction of the law was made possible due to the application of dictatorial powers not hindered by parliamentary debates. In a sense, however, this law, by specifying and listing all existing Faculties was a minor concession to the universities in Ljubljana and Zagreb, which constantly feared the possibility of unilateral abolition of certain Faculties. Moreover, the law confirmed the autonomy of the universities, the freedom of teaching and research, as well as the perpetuity of professorial appointments. 4. After the Sporazum, and the establishment of the Banovina, the legal decree of June 22, 1940, introduced considerable simplifications in the University administration, but at the same time giving the Faculties the status of legal persons. 59 The discussion of the legal régimes is based on Sirotković: Sveučilište , p. 126 – 132 45 Impact of social problems on scientific research and institutions Some basic scientific research in Croatia in the end-phase of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was of such quality that it entered the European scientific league. But its economic and social impact was minimal. For the relatively backward rural population – about three quarters of the total – the immediate needs were in the fields of basic education, improved agricultural techniques and management, and preventive medicine. The lack of engineers was an impediment for the rise of a home-grown industry. The political developments in post-WW1 Europe, including under the impact of the Russian revolution, increased the urgency to develop and establish faculties and scientific institutions capable of educating medical staff, particularly in social medicine, veterinarians and agronomists, as well as engineers and economists. Medicine 60. After the opening of the Faculty of Medicine in 1917, appointments of professors and staff were taking place continuously in the next years, such that the most important chairs were filled by 1923. The university extended with clinics of dermatology, paediatrics, otolaryngology, orthopaedics and stomatology. It is interesting that the recruitment included not only leading physicians and scientists working locally in Croatia, but also a considerable number of professors from several European universities (Vienna, Graz, Innsbruck, Prague, Constantinople, Kiev, Yekaterinburg ) and even from the USA. Of particular interest is the case of Dr. Edward Miloslavich (1884-1952) who was Professor and Director of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Criminology in Zagreb from 1932 to 194461. However, the physical infrastructure of the faculty remained long time physically scattered and insufficient. School of Public Health 62. Public pressure led to the founding in 1927 of the School of Public Health, separate from the Faculty of Medicine. The driving force behind that was Dr. Andrija Štampar (1888-1958). After a doctorate in Vienna in 1911, and various public health 60 L. Glesinger: Medicinski fakultet u Zagrebu. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 143-156 61 Miloslavich was born of Croatian emigrants in Oakland, studied in Vienna, and held appointments as Professor of Pathology at the University of Vienna and the Marquette University in Milwaukee See: Edward L. Miloslavich: Uncommon criminal methods of infanticide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 42, No. 3 (Sep. – Oct. 1951), p. 414 – 416. His role during the war is discussed in a later section. 62 See the information on the website of the Zagreb School of Public Health, based on “Serving the Cause of Public Health: Selected Papers of Andrija Štampar”. Edited by M. D. Grmek. University of Zagreb, 1966. 46 appointments, he was appointed Health Advisor to the Commission for Social Welfare in Croatia by the National Assembly in Zagreb on 15 November 1918. In 1919, he attended the Congress of Inter-Allied Countries for Social Hygiene in Paris. He succeeded in receiving financing by the Rockefeller Foundation for his projects63. After various appointments (in 1922 as associate professor at the Medical Faculty, in 1927 as head of the School of Public Health, in 1930 as Inspector General for Hygiene at the Ministry in Belgrade), he retired in 1931 because of a conflict with King Alexander; in the 1930s he worked for the League of Nations in China. After the rapprochement between Croats and Serbs 1939, he was full professor in Zagreb, and during WW2 he was interned by Germans in Graz. After WW2 Andrija Štampar became a world leader of public health, which culminated in his role as a founding father and first President of the WHO in 1948 in Geneva. Agriculture and Forestry 64. Agriculture and forestry have always been a priority for Croatia because of the great economic importance of its forests for the export. The education of own forestry engineers and economists took initially place within the Higher Agricultural and Forestry School in Križevci (founded in 1860) and since 1897 in the then founded Forestry Academy, attached loosely to the Faculty of Philosophy. After the First World War, as a result of the fusion of these two institutions, the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry was founded by the decree of 31 August 1919. Veterinary science 65. For a country strongly dependent on farming, lack of higher education in veterinary sciences was of a particular grievance in Croatia during the AustroHungarian rule. The Croatian-Slavonian Veterinary Society proposed the foundation of a High Veterinary School again in November 1918, which resulted in its establishment by law in 1919. The High Veterinary School, initially a separate institution, was incorporated into the University of Zagreb as the newly founded Veterinary Faculty in 1924. It was the only 63 See also Paul Weindling, Public Health and Political Stabilisation: The Rockefeller Foundation in Central and Eastern Europe between the Two World Wars. Minerva, Vol 31, No 3, 253-267, 1993. It is indicative that the Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Jugoslavenski Leksikografski Zavod, Zagreb 1955-1971, conceals the essential role of the Rockefeller Foundation in promoting public health in interwar Yugoslavia. 64 N. Rapajić, J. Kovačević: Poljoprivredni fakultet u Zagrebu; D. Sremac: Šumarski fakultet u Zagrebu. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 167-191 65 E. Topolnik: Veterinarski fakultet u Zagrebu. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 157-165 47 veterinary faculty in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia until 1936, when a Veterinary Faculty was established in Belgrade, followed by a Veterinary Faculty in Ljubljana. Technical sciences 66. First serious discussions about higher technical education started within the Association of engineers and architects in Zagreb in 1891. In 1906, the new department head (Minister) for Education, Dr. Milan Rojc (1855-1946), included in the government programme the founding of a new university Faculty of mechanical and civil engineering, but this again was not implemented for the lack of financial resources. This led to a public appeal and action to collect money for higher technical education, resulting in considerable gifts by private benefactors, in particular by the prebendary dr Juraj Žerjavić in 1909. In the very last period before the collapse of the Monarchy, in 1917, Dr. Rojc became again responsible for education, keeping that responsibility throughout the early days of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. In view of the very modest financial means, a new action was started to which the domestic industry responded in a positive way already in late 1918, in particular the Croatian-Slavonian Association of Industrialists. Dr. Rojc established the decree for the foundation of the Institute of Technology (Tehnička Visoka Škola) on 10 December 1918, which came into force on 15 February 1919. The contributions were used to equip various premises in existing buildings, so far used for other purposes. By the summer of 1919, the Institute of Technology had 8 professors ordinary, for the departments of architecture, civil, hydro-technical and mechanical engineering, naval architecture, shipping mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and geodesy. Regular work started by October 1, 1919, with 255 students inscribed for the academic year 1919/1920. The Technical High School was incorporated as Technical Faculty into the University on 31 August 1926. This transformation was not accompanied by a better and more secure material basis. 66 For the details see: Anon: Tehnički fakulteti u Zagrebu: organizacioni razvoj do godine 1956. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 193-199. See also: Stjepan Szavits-Nossan: Historijat osnutka Tehničke visoke škole u Zagrebu (p. 19-32); Zvonimir Vrkljan: Tehnička visoka škola 1919-1926 (p. 33-52); Zvonimir Vrkljan: Tehnički fakultet sveučilišta u Zagrebu 1926-1956 (p. 53-56); H. Požar: Razvoj studija tehnike u Hrvatskoj 19191969 (p. 57-69; In: Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje Zagreb – Spomenica 1919-1969 (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture Zagreb – Memorial 1919-1969). Zagreb 1970. 48 Economics. 67 As a side-line: there was no Faculty of Economics as a part of the University of Zagreb until 1947. However, it was preceded in the interwar period by two educational institutions of higher learning in Zagreb. The High School for Commerce and Trade was founded on 17 June 1920, and had a curriculum of 6 semesters. As the only one of this type in the Balkans, it was superseded by the Economic-commercial High School, founded on 23 December 1925. It obtained the status and level of a university, with a scientific focus and the right to grant doctorates, and with a basic curriculum of 8 semesters. This institution became Faculty of Economics and part of the University in 1947. Founding of new faculties and institutions of higher learning in Zagreb succeeded after the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, but only as long as there existed the regional government (Zemaljska vlada) 68. The person responsible for making full use of this very short but extremely important “window of opportunity” was the commissioner for education Dr Milan Rojc who represented the administrative continuity (until the autumn of 1919) since he held a similar position during the Austro-Hungarian time. The Regent crown prince Alexander had to confirm these decisions as there were in the Croatian parts no other legal authorities. However things were going to change: already the successor of Milan Rojc, Professor Fran Tućan, pursued a pro-unitaristic policy 69. Almost all faculties and institutions of higher learning became quickly places of confrontation between two groups of professors: those who pursued unitaristic tendencies representing the centralistic political orientation of the new régime in Belgrade, and those who tried to prevent the weakening or even abolition of institutions of higher learning in Zagreb, and their transfer to other universities, i.e. Belgrade. The Belgrade government used the legal prerogative of appointing some professors against the majority vote of professors, or pensioning others who were disagreeable to the régime, with the aim of achieving “penetration”, thus establishing voting majorities in the university senate that were following unitaristic tendencies 70. The 67 I. Vrančić: Ekonomski fakultet u Zagrebu. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 311-317. 68 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 112 69 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 102 70 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 135 49 controversies concerning appointments were not limited to ideology-prone disciplines like history and philosophy, but extended also to exact sciences like mathematics and physics 71. Dadić concludes 72: “The Kingdom of SHS, and respectively the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, did not bring any progress in the area of higher learning in Zagreb. Whatever was achieved had been already initiated in the dawn of Austro-Hungarian monarchy, or during the preconstitutional period until 1921. Later, the government in Belgrade was constantly putting obstacles to the development of the university in Zagreb and was attempting to abolish what had been achieved.” This opinion seems rather harsh, but is essentially true. After the introduction of the absolutist rule in 1929, the King could change laws without any parliamentary considerations. In 1930 (28 June), a new University Bill was proclaimed that strengthened the role of the King in the appointment of professors. But at the same time it enumerated explicitly the faculties for each university in Yugoslavia, which meant that the attempts to abolish or transfer existing faculties came to an end. However, the new bill did not eliminate the grave budgetary imbalances in financing the universities, whereby dotations for Belgrade University exceeded those for Zagreb by a factor of 10 at least 73. All the newly established faculties in Zagreb were forced to work under extremely difficult material circumstances. Poor financing had consequence for the development of the faculties, both in terms of infrastructure, appointments of staff, and of the financing of travels abroad. Only in the very late 1930’s, when an agreement between Serb and Croat politicians became inevitable, some improvements in financing became possible. The budget law 1937/38 allowed the University to take up a credit of 25 million Din for the construction of Technical, Veterinary and Agricultural-Forestry Faculties in Zagreb. 71 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 135 - 167 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol II, p. 120 73 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 122 quotes in this respect professor Hondl who at that time was a professor of physics in Zagreb. It would be of great interest to confirm this information by independent and detailed archive research. 72 50 The university and cultural institutions in Zagreb during the Banovina period74 The Cvetković-Maček agreement (Sporazum) resulted in the establishment of the Banovina (autonomous region) of Croatia on August 26, 1939. The transfer of the authority on educational matters to the Banovina was regulated through an ordinance. In 1940 (22 June), the 1930 University Bill was modified and simplified, introducing full faculty autonomy with respect to the organisation of instruction, and the election and nomination of professors. But the final approval of the election remained the prerogative of the Banovina government. Moreover, some articles of the new ordinance restricted the university autonomy, such with respect to the appointment of the rector, as well as in case of the (not specified) “need of reorganisation or major reform of a faculty” 75, in which cases the Ban (Governor of the Banovina) receives exceptional powers. In addition, some regulations were introduced laying a legal foundation for the pensioning of some professors, thus opening a possibility to get rid of professors with undesirable political orientation, i.e. tending to Yugoslav unitarism 76. With other words, the government’s ability to interfere with university matters did not disappear, but was transferred from the central government in Belgrade to the regional government in Zagreb. However, the new Banovina government took higher education very seriously in terms of financing the university faculties, approving credits larger than anything before: the credit for 1939/40 amounted to 41 million Din, and to 54 million Din for 1940/41 77. This resulted in the construction of a completely new building of the Technical Faculty, which was occupied on October 1, 1940, only 6 months before dissolution of Yugoslavia – too little, too late! Mobility of scientists during the inter-war period The migrations of Croatian scientists during the inter-war period deserve to be more fully and systematically researched. The geopolitical reshuffling of Europe opened new avenues of attending universities in France and Great Britain, but German science, with its deservedly 74 Mainly based on Hodimir Sirotković: Sveučilište između dva rata (1918-1941). In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 125 – 171 75 Sirotković: Sveučilište, p. 130-131 76 Dadić: Egzaktne znanost, Vol. II, p. 296 - 298 77 Sirotković: Sveučilište , p. 163 51 high reputation remained their main magnet. Linguistic barriers might have played a role as well since most Croatian students had only limited knowledge of French and essentially none of English. These migrations were initially not politically motivated, but the radicalisation of the political landscape and the emerging economic crisis in Europe were likely to change the situation. Here just two examples may be given of two outstanding scientists who after initial study in Zagreb 78 left for Germany: Vilim “Willy” Feller (1906-1970) and Fran Bošnjaković (1902-1993). Feller left in 1925 for Göttingen, then the world mecca of mathematics, where his thesis advisor was Richard Courant. He left Göttingen in 1928 and took up the position as Privatdozent at the University of Kiel. Feller left in 1933 after refusing to sign a Nazi oath. After wanderings via Denmark and Sweden, he moved in 1939 to the US and spent, after 1948, the rest of his brilliant career at Princeton University 79. Bošnjaković went to Dresden, where the Institute of Technology attracted engineers for advanced studies from all over the world, including the USA, China and Japan; his thesis advisor there was Richard Mollier. There he became Privatdozent in technical thermodynamics in 1931, but had to leave in 1934 because further career was made conditional by the Nazi authorities on changing both his nationality and his name. After professorships at the universities in Belgrade and Zagreb, and persecutions after the war by, and conflicts with the Communist régime, he became professor at the Technical Universities of Brunswick (1953) and Stuttgart (1961), and served in the 1960s and 1970s as guest professor at several leading universities in the US 80. Anti-Semitism in the inter-war period? The Jews received full civil rights in 1873. The second and third generations of immigrants were entering academic professions, most of them as physicians and barristers. Although they accounted for less than 1% of the Croatian population in 1910, they represented 17% of barristers and up to 25-26% of physicians 81. The whole history of 78 By coincidence, both Bošnjaković and Feller grew up in the same Jurjevska street in Zagreb. William Feller 1906-1970. A Biographical Memoir by Murray Rosenblatt. National Academy of Sciences 2007. 80 th Fran Bošnjaković. Spomenica posvećena 100. obljetnici rođenja (Memoir on the occasion on the 100 anniversary of his birth). Mladen Andrassy, Editor. Bibliotheca universitatis Zagrabiensis, Zagreb, 2001 81 Ivo Goldstein: Holokaust u Zagrebu, Novi Liber –Židovska općina, Zagreb 2001, p. 25 – 26 79 52 Croatian Jewry was getting concentrated in Zagreb. During the 1930’s, there was no broadly organised movement, and no allowed political party, with a distinct anti-Semitic programme. Vladko Maček, the president of the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), the strongest and most influential Croatian political party, discarded anti-Semitism as “strange and ridiculous phenomenon...there is no Jewish danger, it is only a hallucination of certain circles” 82. Former rector and philosopher Albert Bazala held in March 1939 a lecture on the issue of races in which he stated “it is difficult to determine what races are and to delimit them.” 83 Ilija Jakovljević (1898-1948), the liberal editor-in-chief (until 1938) of the HSS organ Hrvatski Dnevnik, was responsible for unmasking and fighting anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi ideas in the public. He was arrested and kept in the camp of Stara Gradiška (1941-1942) during the Ustasha regime, and arrested again in 1948 by the Communist secret services, allegedly committing suicide in prison 84. Under increasing German pressure, the Yugoslav Government promulgated, in September and October 1940, two legal decrees on the limitation of Jews’ rights 85. The “Decree on the inscription of persons with Jewish heritage as students in Universities, higher learning institutions at university level, higher, middle schools, teachers’ colleges and other professional schools” introduced a numerus clausus, implying that the number of Jewish students had to be reduced to a percentage corresponding to the percentage of Jews in the general population. Although the Jewish population amounted to 0.46% in the overall population in Yugoslavia, their part in commercial schools was 4%, in grammar schools 2.6%, and in the middle technical schools 1.5%. A special case was the University of Zagreb, where the percentage of Jewish students amounted to nearly 16% in the Medical and Law Faculties 86. Yugoslavia thus, only a few months before its dissolution, transgressed the threshold to state-sponsored anti-Semitism 87. 82 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 44 – 45 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 48 84 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 75 - 76 85 Yugoslavia’s decrees had been preceded by, or coincided with antisemitic laws in other countries occupied by, or allied with Germany: Hungary (May, December 1938), Italy (November 1938), Romania (August, October 1940), the Netherlands (August 1940), Luxemburg (September 1940), Slovakia (September 1940), Vichy-France (October 1940), Belgium (October 1940) und Bulgaria (December 1940). See Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 259 86 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 73 - 75 87 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 255 - 256 83 53 “INDEPENDENT” STATE OF CROATIA 1941-1945 The genesis of the “Independent State of Croatia” (ISC) After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the whole of Balkans experienced the emergence of collaborating currents that could be classified as nationalistic. Their support of the occupying powers was “an important factor and fundamental instrument of administering the occupied territories” 88. In contrast to their military operations, the political restructuring by the Axis powers was amorphous 89. Hitler tried to exploit the existing tension in Southeast Europe for his purposes by entering into the equation Serbian-Croatian, Hungarian-Serbian, Serbian-Bulgarian, Albanian-Serbian, Italian-Greek and Italian-Croatian antagonisms 90. He had not anticipated that in the long term, the exploitation of national conflicts would endanger his goals in Southeast Europe and undermine the economic performance of this space which he needed so much for his war effort. What initially looked as comfortable and effortless solution, developed soon into the most vulnerable weak point of the Nazi Southeast Europe policy with disastrous economic consequences 91. The Independent State of Croatia (ISC), proclaimed on 10 April 1941, was a satellite state, divided into a German and an Italian sphere of influence 92. Serbia was subordinated in its 1912 borders under German military administration, which in August 1941 established a puppet government under General Nedić. In June 1941, the Kingdom of Montenegro was proclaimed and came under the influence of Italy. In this way, the ISC, Serbia and Montenegro became satellite states of the Axis powers 93. The “resurrection” of the Croatian state had nothing to do with a Croatian revolution or mass movement. It was a by-product of the decision to destroy Yugoslavia, that was taken by Hitler astir and spontaneously on 27 March 1941, after he took note of the pro-British coup-d’état in Belgrade 94. On April 3, Berlin still wanted to establish a Croatian government led by Maček 95. It was only after the refusal 88 Colja, Katja: Militär und Propaganda der Domobranzen im Adriatischen Küstenland 1943-1945; in: Zeitgeschichte (Klagenfurt); 3-4/23/1996, p. 71 and 75, as quoted by Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 161 89 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 95 90 Holm Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat: Anatomie eines Herrschaftssystems. Oesterreichische Osthefte, Jahrgang 37/1995 – Heft 2, p. 501 91 Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte p. 61 92 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“,, p. 98 93 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 102 - 103 94 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 497 95 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 127 54 by Maček to assume the leadership of a Croatian state under the protectorate of the Axis that extremist Ustasha, so far neutralised in exile and outlawed internationally, were catapulted into power only two weeks after the Belgrade coup-d’état 96. The future head of state Ante Pavelić, recommended by Mussolini, reassured on his part that he did “not have the intention to lead any foreign policy” 97. The newly established ISC was not only politically dependent on Germany and Italy, it was also de facto occupied 98. Characteristics of the ISC regime The dependence vis-à-vis the arbitrariness of the Axis powers came to expression also in the adaptation of the Ustasha to the ideological goals of the occupiers. The “Führer” cult was completely concentrated on Poglavnik (“Führer”) Pavelić. The totalitarian structure of the Ustasha system was characterised by one-party system, enforced political conformity (“Gleichschaltung”) of societal institutions and control of the economy, education and the media. In particular, Croatian economy was heavily burdened by the requirements of the German war economy 99. The contemporary Croatian constitutional lawyer Eugen Sladović defined the ISC as a “Führer state” without separation of powers 100. Since the Ustasha movement did not dispose of any numerically sufficient membership basis, and barely had educated experts, there was not a slightest chance to exchange civil servants, apart from top political positions. The middle and lower echelons of civil servants thus remained politically heterogeneous and “unreliable” vis-à-vis the régime 101. The ISC, which contained 40% of the former Yugoslav territory, had a mixed population with only 50% Croats, and even among them, Pavelić did not possess a consolidated mass basis. The regime did not succeed to gain unconditional cooperation of the Muslims, (12% of the population). The Serbs (31% of the population), right from the beginning considered as second-class citizens, were exposed to persecution. Without permanent presence of German and Italian troops, the régime would not have had a chance 96 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 117 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 498 98 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 150 99 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 162-163 100 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 516 101 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 519 97 55 to maintain itself. The occupation was so to say the price for the acquired sham sovereignty. Apart from the built-in instability, the ISC was burdened by strong imbalances in regional development: it had the appearance of a relatively backward agrarian country with economic disparities 102. Large portions of the Croatian population (particularly in towns) received the state foundation with enthusiasm or at least with benevolence. The Yugoslav state had lost – or never acquired - the loyalty of its Croatian citizens. Maček’s appeal to be loyal to the state leadership received resonance among the civil servants103. Although the “predominant majority of Croats” welcomed the ISC, this attitude did not apply to the Ustasha system, which soon compromised itself by abuse of power and excessive use of violence 104. Fear of arbitrary detentions was already in the early days of the ISC an essential element of the Ustasha rule 105. The euphoria about the own state was rapidly followed by large disillusionment. Social agents of political support The Ustasha movement – originally a secret society – was neither a political party nor a movement in strict sense since it missed a solid mass basis. The number of sworn members was until the foundation of the ISC never higher than 3000 to 4000 persons. The large majority of Ustasha members were recruited from the easily indoctrinated groups of marginalised rural and industrial workingmen 106. They became the main pillar of Pavelić’s conceived political and genocidal terror against Serb rural population. 107 Excesses of irregular (“wild”) Ustashe committed under the leadership of some local operatives in the summer of 1941, became a nuisance for the civil authorities and the regular force, which led to the first crisis within the Ustasha system of power 108. This increasingly uncontrollable 102 Sundhaussen : Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 340 - 341 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 504 104 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 203 105 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 208 106 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat 502 - 503 107 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 592-593 108 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 505 103 56 development prompted Pavelić to undertake a purge in his own ranks 109. The energetic line of action undertaken by the Croatian regular army forces (domobrani) commanded by General Laxa against the „wild Ustashe“ provoked Pavelić’s outrage and indignation, and triggered among many Ustasha leaders feelings of hate against the regular army. Tensions torn open in this way could not be bridged until the end of the war 110. The reaction of the rural population (more than ¾ of the total) towards the ISC founding remained reserved and even gloomy. Glaise von Horstenau, German Plenipotentiary General in Croatia, wrote in November 1941: „The narrow basis that we provided for the Pavelić government in the moment of state foundation proves more and more to have been a mistake“. Glaise von Horstenau in January 1942: „All parts of the people, with negligible exceptions only, are in agreement in their decided rejection of the Ustasha movement as representing the interests of state“. Glaise von Horstenau in February 1943: „Indeed the weakly founded Ustasha movement with its crazy extermination policy and its massacres has become the symbol of the failed state“ 111. The large part of the population was turning away more and more from the Pavelić régime. Forms of ethnic cleansing The ISC propaganda and phraseology intertwined increasingly Serbs, Jews, Bolsheviks, democrats, capitalists and Freemasons as enemy stereotypes112. The image of ISC is deeply clouded by deadly concentration camps 113 .Racial laws were promulgated end of April 1941 against Serbs, Jews and „Gypsies“114. Severe measures included the prohibition of Serbian associations, and closure and destruction of numerous orthodox churches and 109 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 201 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 506 111 Quotations of Glaise von Horstenau in Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 508-509 112 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 193 113 Ekkehard Völkl: Abrechnungsfuror in Kroatien. In: Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Hans Woller (Eds.): Politische Säuberungen in Europa. Die Abrechnung mit dem Faschismus und Kollaboration nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. München 1991, p. 361, as quoted by Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 211-212 114 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 200 110 57 monasteries 115. The reckoning of Ustasha with the Serbs, who did not recognise the new state, was merciless and had characteristics of genocide or crimes against humanity 116. But several cases are known of officials, at various levels, who distanced themselves from the régime and resigned 117. Others, such as Professor Kamilo Brössler, Advisor in the Ministry of Social Care, showed considerable personal courage and dedication when engaging to save the lives of Serb orphan children 118. Nobody knows the exact number of Serb victims in the Croatian state 119. A coming to term with the past has not yet taken place in full objectivity on either side. Next to the Serb population, it was the Jews who were targeted by the regime, in particular under German pressure 120. On 30 April 1941, three racial laws (ordinances) were promulgated: (a) on state citizenship (b) on racial affiliation (c) on the protection of Aryan blood and the honour of Croat nation. These were evidently based on the German „Nuremberg Laws“. Poglavnik could make exceptions to the application of ordinances (a) and (b) for persons who “rendered outstanding services to the Croatian People” 121. Subsequent regulations required the dismissal of Jews and Serbs from public office inasmuch as qualified replacement could be found 122. In the application of regulations concerning Aryans’ rights there was much “flexibility”: persons in mixed marriages were treated in diverse ways. In principle, guarantees were given to protect persons in mixed marriages. Although during preparations for deportation it was determined that “honorary Aryans, mixed and half-Jews” would not be deported, this agreement was not consistently respected 123. 115 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 529 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 235 117 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 594. Goldstein gives one example, assistant minister of the Interior, Stjepan Vukovac in June 1941; the author knows of more examples, such as Pero Blašković, a former Austro-Hungarian officer who resigned from his military assignment after witnessing massacres of Serb population. 118 See: Diana Budisavljević, Dnevnik Diane Budisavljević: 1941 – 1945. Hrvatski Državni Arhiv, Zagreb 2003. The same story was told to the author by his aunt, Dr. Olga Bošnjaković-Gössl, who during the war served as paediatric specialist in the children’s protectory Josipovac and participated in the actions to save Serb orphans. 119 Sundhaussen: Der Ustascha-Staat, p. 531 - 532 120 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 203 121 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 259-260 122 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 264 123 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 378 116 58 The establishment of compounds for political adversaries corresponded to the totalitarian conception of the Ustasha. Until August 1942, Germany has left the solution of the “Jewish question” on the territory of ISC over to the Ustasha authorities. In the summer of 1942, the ISC was included in the operations in the context of the “Endlösung” (final solution) managed by Eichmann. The Croatian government gave in this regard the Germans “free hand” for deportations, although it succeeded to save those Jews for whom it took a stand 124. Many in the Ustasha regime were making concessions to individual Jews: ISC was a clientelistic state where personal contacts and money could play a decisive role when approaching highly placed personalities 125. The balance of destruction policy was devastating: before the war, on the territory of ISC lived about 38.000-39.000 Jews, including the baptised ones who were subject to the race laws, of which about 9.000 survived the war 126. Survivors were mainly those who lived in the areas controlled by Italy, or because they joined the resistance movement. A detailed listing of Jews stemming from Croatia, with place and date of death, was prepared by Švob 127. Warring parties on the territory of ISC The developments in the ISC space initiated a bloody civil war based on ethnic, religious and ideological positions 128. The total lack of a common conceptual approach to the political restructuring of Southeast Europe by the Axis powers multiplied the existing conflict potential. Thus the Axis powers laid the seed for a disastrous explosion of “interethnic conflict in the region” 129. 124 István Deák: Civil Wars and Retribution in Europe 1939-1948. In: Zeitgeschichte (Klagenfurt); 7-8/25/1998, p. 247 125 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 136 mentions several examples of persons who enjoyed such protection, including the barrister Aleksandar Licht and the conductor Milan Sachs. 126 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 636; Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 272 estimates this number as 8.000, which would imply a surviving percentage of about 21%. For comparison: the destruction process of Jews in occupied Serbia, nearly finished by May 1942, killed 11.000 out of a total of about 12.500 (Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 270), thus implying a survival rate of 12%. 127 Melita Švob: Židovi u Hrvatskoj. Židovske zajednice – Jews in Croatia. Jewish Communities. 2 Volumes; Židovska općina Zagreb, 2nd extended edition, Zagreb 2004 128 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 192 129 Sojčić: Die “Lösung“, p. 220 59 There were several warring parties on the territory of the ISC whose importance and war luck were changing throughout the war 130. They included the German and Italian occupying forces; regular Croatian territorial army (domobrani); Ustasha forces; Chetniks (Serb nationalistic guerrilla forces loyal to the Yugoslav King in exile); and Tito’s partisans under political control of Communist party cadres, steeled in the long years of illegality, and during the Spanish Civil War. The tightly organised partisan movement was gaining ground due to several factors: it avoided to take nationalistic positions, thus attracting support by the population in ethnically mixed areas; it dissimulated its intentions to grab power and establish eventually a rigid Communist régime by calling itself the People’s Liberation Movement, PLM (NOP = Narodnooslobodilački pokret); and, starting in 1943, it received exclusive military support by Western Allies 131. The political situation in Croatia was extremely complicated due to disturbed relations between nationalities; the very different political circumstances in different parts of Croatia; and the existence of HSS, the most powerful pre-war party that still had at its disposal a grassroots organisation and influence. One part of the HSS leadership decided to follow a policy of waiting; another part was gradually and in different ways transferring into the PLM; and another part was collaborating with the ISC régime 132. The part that pursued the policy of waiting, intended to rely upon the West, in the first place Great Britain, hoping for a landing of the Allies on the Adriatic coast; this part of HSS considered the regular army of the ISC (domobrani) as their army. This policy was potentially dangerous for the PLM, which feared the cooperation of HSS with Western Allies. Therefore, the leadership of PLM condemned the politics of that part of HSS, and in particular its leader Vladko Maček, and attempted to destroy that part of HSS by provoking strife in its leadership and thus disintegration of HSS 133. A late attempt (in August 1944) of a coup led by the Minister of War Ante Vokić and Minister Home Affairs Mladen Lorković, intended to detach the ISC from 130 Marie-Janine Calic: Geschichte Jugoslawiens im 20. Jahrhundert. C. H. Beck, München 2010, p. 137-170 A British military mission transmitted a „highly formidable“ picture of the fighting ability of the partisans, as well as proofs that the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis troops. See: Calic: Geschichte, p. 151-152. 132 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 87 133 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 87 131 60 German influence, was unrealistic and failed. 134 The majority of the participants in the coup were savagely executed, one (general Pero Blašković) died of typhoid in prison 135. Culture and science in the ISC The nationalistic political course of the Independent State of Croatia (ISC) found its counterpart in the fields of culture and science. A thorough “Croatisation” – both structural and linguistic - was taking place of many existing institutions (e.g. Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences became Croatian Academy, undergoing also a thorough reshuffling of its membership). Wireless and printed media were put under the censorship of Glavno ravnateljstvo za promičbu (Main directorate for propaganda). Thus, Serb authors and Marxist literature came under proscription, but, quite unexpectedly, works of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin were not included 136. In general, deviating points of view in cultural matters were tolerated as long as they did not advocate positions contrary to those advocated by the régime 137. At the same time, scientific cooperation with Germany was encouraged: an example is the visit of the Nobel Prize winner Max Planck to Zagreb in September 1942 who delivered a lecture entitled “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaften” 138. Young Croatian scientists could apply for the Alexander-von-Humboldt scholarships 139. An important cultural undertaking of high quality that had been started already before the war - the Croatian Encyclopaedia- was continued (the first volume was published in February 1941). Although only 5 volumes of Croatian Encyclopaedia were published, it can be judged how the authors of specific articles were positioned with regard to certain ideologically controversial issues 140. About Einstein’s theory of relativity, Stanko Hondl wrote that doubts about it are no more expressed, so he considered the principle of relativity to be 134 Nada Kisić Kolanović, Mladen Lorković, ministar urotnik, Zagreb: Golding Marketing, 1998. Jozo Ivičević: Puč Vokić-Lorković i politika ratne HSS. Vjesnik (Zagreb), 21 April – 30 May 1995. 136 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 310 137 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 312 138 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 353-362 139 The late Professor Vladimir Muljević (1913-2007) from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering in Zagreb told the author in 2003 that he made use of that scholarship as young man to obtain in 1944 his doctorate at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna. Another example (Dadić, p. 427-428) is that of the microbiologist Artur Starc who had a scholarship to specialise from 1941 to 1942 at the University of Göttingen. 140 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 373-381 135 61 an “empirical fact”. About general theory of relativity, he wrote that “it became a basis for new considerations about the world, its form, size and development”. “Einstein’s huge merit was to have opened new paths of progress in this most significant field of science” 141. About Darwin’s theory, Krunoslav Babić wrote that it is a generally accepted scientific achievement, and states that Darwin is considered to be the “father of zoology”, by some considered as “Copernicus of contemporary biology”, and by others “Newton of biology” 142. Boris Zarnik wrote on the Theory of races within the article on Development of science on human races. He stated that racist positions are unfounded and concluded that “we are far from being able to link specific psychic characteristics and abilities to somatic race properties” 143. Dadić concluded that Croatian Encyclopaedia was open to contributors of different dispositions 144. After having read and compared many articles both in the Croatian Encyclopaedia (1941-1945) and in its successor under the Communist régime, the Yugoslav Encyclopaedia (1955-1971), the present author comes to the conclusion that the latter was much more permeated by the official propaganda than the former. The university status was regulated by a new legal ordinance (23 September 1941), which abolished the Yugoslav law of 1930 and the ordinance of 1940. Effectively, the university was now put under the tutelage of the Minister of Education, whereas the appointments of professors, not only of the Rector and the faculty deans, were put under direct authority of the Head of State (Poglavnik). In the same vein, a number of professors considered to have acted previously against Croatian interests (i.e. having shown proYugoslav tendencies) were pensioned or fired 145. In the school year 1940-1941, 283 Jews were studying at the University of Zagreb. The Ustasha régime prohibited inscription of Jews, but an exception was made for those who had been given “honorary Aryan right”. Thus in the fall of 1941 32 Jews were still inscribed as university students; for the year 1942-1943, no data are available 146. 141 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, p. 375-376 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, p. 376 143 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, p. 378-378 144 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, p. 379 145 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 325, gives the names of 8 professors who were pensioned, and one dismissed from state service. 146 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 402 142 62 From 17 May 1941 on, dismissals from state service started based on the ordinance of the Ministry of National Economy. The University was apparently an exception, as there “consideration had to be taken of the needs of instruction, which would be jeopardised by departure of an instructor without replacement. 147” This regulation pertained in the first place to Serbs, as the percentage of Jewish professors was lower than that among students148. By the way, only few Jewish professors worked still (in September 1941) at the University of Zagreb. Even those were affected by mass retirements only in January 1943 – this happened e.g. with professors in the Law Faculty, Frank and Eisner. Both were reactivated after the war 149. With regard to the ethnic or racial aspects, it is interesting to quote Šidak: “Although several legal ordinances were published from May 1 to June 4, 1941, concerning “racial affiliation” and “protection of the national and Aryan culture of the Croatian nation”, university staff of Jewish origin, with rare exceptions, were not removed at that time from the University, but were, even that only partially, affected by mass pensioning as late as 1943. Conversely, the treatment of the staff of Serb origin was very non-uniform. Apart from earlier mentioned individuals who were removed in different ways from the university, the majority have stayed in their places until the end of the war.”150 Another group targeted by the ISC régime were freemasons who included quite a number of professors. The freemasons were arrested in the night of 11 to 12 November 1941, and interned under the suspicion of spying for foreign powers, but subsequently freed and brought back to their university places. Similarly, professors and staff of leftist orientation were initially not bothered and remained in their positions 151. However active members of the Communist party, illegal since 1921, ran high risk to get killed, as it happened in 1941 to the physicist Zvonimir Richtmann (1901-1941) 152 and the biologist Pavao Wertheim (1911-1941) 153. All changes of Jewish names that had taken place after December 1, 1918, were declared to be 147 Novi List , 14 September 1941, as quoted by Goldstein : Holokaust, p. 146 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 146 149 Pravni fakultet u Zagrebu III. Nastavnici fakulteta, Vol. 3. Zagreb 1998. 150 Jaroslav Šidak: Sveučilište za vrijeme rata i okupacije od 1941 – 1945. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 176 151 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 326 152 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 88 153 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 517-518 148 63 invalid. However, also this rule was not enforced in a consistent way. In 1943, the geophysicist Dr. Josip Goldberg was receiving mail under the new name Letnik, but in the 1945 list of Jewish survivors, as well as in all post-war activities, he appears again under the original name Goldberg 154. A wave of imposed retirements started after the ordinance of 27 July 1942 which specified that all civil servants above age of 60 had to submit a request for retirement. Not all requests were approved, but the move allowed to fill many new vacancies with appointees that were considered to comply with the Croatian statehood orientation 155. The dean of the Technical Faculty, Professor Bošnjaković, who had been elected in 1940, was replaced 156 by the appointed new dean Stjepan Horvat. At the same time, up to 9 professors at the same faculty were pensioned or dismissed 157. Dadić is of the opinion that the question why the ISC government was changing officials at the University still needs to be thoroughly investigated158. An interesting case is that of Professor Vladimir Prelog (Nobel prize for chemistry 1975), who was appointed as professor extraordinary for organic chemistry at the Technical Faculty in February 1941, still during the Banovina period. On leave of absence, he left in December 1941 to do research at the ETH Zürich; in June 1942 he was appointed Privatdozent at the ETH, but continuing his leave of absence as director of the Institute for Organic Chemistry in Zagreb. It is not known when his formal affiliation with the Zagreb University was discontinued, if at all before 1945 159. In contrast to the interference of authorities with the personnel affairs of the university, there are no signs of meddling with research matters. Dadić counted 5 doctorates 154 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 227 – 229. Goldberg was for many years observator in the Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics. According to Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti,Vol. II, p. 439, he was sent into retirement in 1942, but was protected by the Institute director Stjepan Škreb. In 1946, succeeded Škreb as director. 155 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti,Vol. II, p. 329 156 Much later, author’s father pointed out as an explanation that he became a nuisance to the régime because of his unwillingness to cooperate. As an example, he mentioned to have been asked to become active in the Croatian-German Association. He refused under the pretext that his German was not good enough – an audacity in view of the fact that he had been Privatdozent in Germany from 1931 to 1933. 157 Zvonimir Vrkljan: Tehnički fakultet sveučilišta u Zagrebu 1926-1956. In: Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje Zagreb – Spomenica 1919-1969 (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture Zagreb – Memorial 1919-1969). Zagreb 1970, p. 55; See also: Zvonimir Vrkljan, Sjećanja (Memoirs), Zagreb 1995. 158 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 336 159 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti,Vol. II, p. 335 64 alone in the field of mathematics and physics acquired during the war period 160. It would be of interest to elicit how the scientific production in various faculties compared with the prewar period. The striving of the authorities to improve the higher educational system came to expression in a number of newly established institutions. The first, most logical step was to resume an existing idea of a new Pharmaceutical Faculty, which was realised in 1942 161. Immediately after the proclamation of ISC, thinking started about the possibility to establish additional faculties in other places 162. The most concrete proposal of a Medical Faculty in Sarajevo was put forward in 1941 163, leading to the legal ordinance of 27 March 1944 of establishing such faculties within the framework of Zagreb University, one in Sarajevo (starting in autumn of 1944) and another one in Split (at a later date). A commission under the chairmanship of Professor Ante Šercer was given the task to implement the ordinance. The Medical Faculty in Sarajevo was opened on November 20, 1944 164. Because of a large number of syphilis patients in Bosnia, the government founded in June 1941 the Institute for suppressing endemic syphilis in Banja Luka 165. This action was at the same time an opportunity for the régime to generate sympathies among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina 166. As Croatian physicians apparently did not respond, although they were promised that work would count doubly plus an “exemplary pay”, the German and Croatian authorities (with the knowledge of Pavelić) spared up to 81 Jewish physicians from deportation and sent them in the fall of 1941 to most backward parts of Bosnia to fight this disease 167. In later memories, dr. Samuel Deutsch, one of the participating physicians, claimed that the action was conceived by the dermato-venerologist and hygienist dr. Ante Vuletić in agreement with his friend dr. Miroslav Schlesinger with the aim to save the lives of the physicians and their families. Most of these physicians were general practitioners. Their 160 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 339-344 B. Akačić, M. Malnar: Farmaceutsko-biokemijski fakultet u Zagrebu, In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, p. 279-287 162 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 338 163 Eduard Miloslavić, Osnivanje Medicinskog fakulteta u Sarajevu, Alma mater croatica, 1941, No.5, p. 89-91 164 Vladimir Dugački, Prvi medicinski fakultet u Sarajevu (1944-1945). Liječnički vjesnik, 121, 1999, 216-218 165 Zakoni, zakonske odredbe, naredbe NDH II, Zagreb 1941, p. 300-304; quoted by Goldstein, p. 215) 166 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 220 167 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 216 161 65 families were in principle protected and could even stay in their houses 168. The majority of Jewish medical doctors, sent 1941 to Bosnia to treat syphilis, joined the partisan movement when it became there stronger. 169. In general, physicians were tended to be treated as a separate group, even if they belonged to the persecuted groups of Serbs and Jews. As reason for preferred treatment, the lack of medical staff used to be quoted. In general, there was no full agreement within the authorities whether Jews in possession of specialised skills should be spared or liquidated – this regarded mainly physicians, but also engineers with certain specialties 170. This reveals a general characteristic of the ISC régime that often exercised its power along two parallel tracks: the legalistic one, respecting the laws, and another one, where clientelistic contacts, particular interests or vindictive feelings prevailed. A comparison of the position of scientists in war-time Croatia and France The cultural and science policy of the ISC was full of ambiguities, especially when compared with its general dictatorial and racist legislation and practices. At this point, it would seem interesting to make a digression and compare Croatia with France under German occupation. War-time France was divided in three parts: territories annexed by German Reich (Alsace, Lorraine); territories occupied by German army; and l’État Français (Vichy France), headed by Maréchal Pétain, with limited sovereignty only. Re-launch of the administration machinery in Vichy France was accompanied by a purging of the state apparatus, the officials of which were to take oath on Pétain, and to serve the “Révolution nationale”, the official ideology that was amalgamated from anti-parliamentarism; reconciliation of a national community; apology of traditions and rural life; a policy aiming to increase natality and centering women upon their role as mother; promotion of sports and physical culture, everything accompanied by a criticism of intellectualism 171. 168 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 215 - 216 169 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 520 170 Goldstein: Holokaust, p. 220 - 221 171 Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants sous l’Occupation. Editions du Seuil 2004/Collection tempus, Edition Perrin 2008, p. 23-24 66 With regard to scientific life in France under occupation, Chevassus-au-Louis identified the following distinctive structural features of scientific life 172: 1. Disorganisation and dispersion of researchers during the defeat against Germans in the spring of 1940, followed by resumption of real scientific activity; 2. Difficulties to cope with daily existence; 3. Attempts by the occupants to make themselves master of what was of interest in French science 4. Difficulties encountered by scientists to publish due to censorship and restricted communication; 5. Scientific modernisation policy of the Vichy government that laid, in 1941, the foundations for a contemporary organisation of pharmaceutical research; 6. Divergent political options within the scientific community, ranging between collaboration and resistance; 7. Inescapable anti-Semitism of the State that pursued Jewish scientists without eliminating them, in some cases, from scientific life. Certain similarities may be found between the ISC and l’État Français with regard to the points 1,2, 5, 6 and 7. This will be briefly discussed under the following headings. Freedom to leave the country 173. Of all residents of Vichy France, scientists were among the rare cases with the possibility to emigrate. They had at disposal a network of colleagues abroad, in particular the US, a country with which Vichy maintained diplomatic relations until late 1941. Overall, about 60 researchers left France between 1940 and 1941 174. But the very large majority of scientists stayed in France: either because only scientists with world reputation were part of the international scientific community; or because they chose to stay, as many did, to prepare the future or to work on the re-erection of the country 175. 172 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 21 173 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 22-27 174 Diane Dosso, Louis Rapkine et la mobilisation scientifique de la France libre. Thesis, Université Paris-VII, 1998. Quoted by Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 25 175 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants 25 67 In war-time Croatia, two already mentioned cases of emigrating scientists were Vladimir Prelog (to Switzerland in 1941) and Edward Miloslavich (to US in 1944). The economist Rudolf Bićanić spent the war years with the Yugoslav Government in London exile. Apparent normality 176. Scientists who stayed in France remained participants in scientific life. Académie des sciences interrupted its fortnightly sessions only twice. Faculté des sciences experienced a growth of its students. Only university research somewhat stagnated, not in quality but in quantity, with the number of doctorates being roughly half of that before the war (the future Nobel prize winner Jacques Monod defended his thesis in the academic year 1941-1942) 177. The real re-launch of research activities took place in 1941. CNRS 178, originally founded in 1939 by a leftist government, now convocated its commissions, and started distributing first scholarships and subsidies. Facilities for astronomy and cosmic rays research were constructed, and 5 new laboratories opened. The production of some scientists who worked in France during the war impresses by its volume: physicist Louis Néel; biologists André Lwoff, Francois Jacob, Jacque Monod, and Antoine Lacassagne. The main collaborator of the latter, Raymond Latarjet, stated later: “Despite restrictions of war and occupation, one worked with ardour. The war favoured the work, by suppressing all distractions, and gave those who were not fighting the notion that work became for them a double duty” 179. The moral duty to maintain a normal scientific work is a recurrent theme. In contrast, ISC did not establish a national organisation for scientific research, but examples have been given earlier of newly established institutions (such as the Pharmaceutical Faculty) that were seen as priorities under the much less developed circumstances in Croatia. A moral duty to maintain normal scientific work and fulfil educational duties was a motivation among many Croatian scientific staff as well. Statistics 176 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 27-32 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants 27 178 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research) 179 Quoted in Vincent Duclert, Les revues scientifiques: une histoire de la science et des savants français sous l’Occupation, La revue des revues, no. 24, 1997, p. 161-195 177 68 collected by Steinman 180 shows that the number of inscribed students was decreasing slowly during the war in most faculties, and dropping more sharply only after 1943/44. Difficult exchanges 181. Restriction on exchanges, including impossibility to receive foreign scientific journals, meant that research took place in effective isolation during 5 years. But even in a France cut into two zones, the scientific community still formed one entity. Still in 1943, the mathematician Georges Valiron went from Paris to Clermont-Ferrand to act as rapporteur for the thesis of the young and promising (Jewish) Laurent Schwartz 182. A comparable case in Croatia is not known to the author, but impossibility to receive scientific journals from outside Axis-controlled Europe was certainly a fact. Dismissals 183. The Jews did not have any more the right to instruct. The prohibition to exercise professions in numerous economic domains, e.g. medicine with a quota of 2%, did not apply to the scientific sector, or to chemical and pharmaceutical industries. CNRS scholarships continued to be given, on a case-to-case basis, to Jewish researchers during the academic year 1941-1942 184 Although publications by Jewish scientists were not explicitly forbidden, the respected journal Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences was applying self-censorship after mid-1941. But contribution by Jewish scientists during Occupation did not mean that they could avoid persecution: quite a number of those who were dismissed from universities, and even former directors at CNRS (Eugène Bloch, Henri Abraham), were deported and perished in Auschwitz 185. As mentioned earlier, in Croatia there was no agreement within the authorities whether Jews in possession of specialised skills should be spared or liquidated – exceptions regarded mainly physicians, but also engineers with certain specialties. As there were few Jews in Croatia active in research proper, dismissals or forced retirements among the scientific staff concerned mainly politically “unreliable” persons, as was discussed earlier. 180 Dr Zora Steinman : Bilješke o izvorima podataka i objašnjenja. In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Vol. II, Zagreb 1969, p. 417-567 181 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 33-35 182 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants 33 - 34 183 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 36 - 44 184 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants 40 - 41 mentions the case of Jacques-Raphaël Levy, who submitted his thesis in astronomy in 1943 and defended it carrying all the way the yellow star!. 185 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants 36 - 44 69 French science as seen by the occupier186.As much as French economy, in particular industry and agriculture were mercilessly pillaged by the occupants, the more was science left beyond their greediness. With the exception of the case of the laboratory of nuclear chemistry of Joliot-Curie at the Collège de France 187, at that time one of the world leaders on nuclear chain reactions, there were no significant requisitions made by Germans. What explains the disinterest of Germans in French laboratories? The reason given by Chevassus-au-Louis is that French science in 1940 was lagging behind the German. Between 1919 and 1939, 22 German scientists received a Nobel Prize, compared with only 5 in France 188. Croatia was pillaged economically by Germany (not very successfully, though 189), but scientifically it was even less interesting for the German war machinery than was France. Scientific resistance? 190 The historian Philippe Burrin is of the opinion that the behaviour of the French between 1940 and 1945 could be interpreted as various degrees of accommodation at the presence of the occupier 191. At the end of spring 1942, scientists were no more allowed to leave the country. In the same year, by order of the services of France libre in London, the floating organisation of the Résistance intérieure was undergoing a rationalisation. The participation of scientists in this second phase had three aspects: intelligence activity; utilisation of technical facilities of laboratories for the needs of the Résistance; providing expertise in committees preparing for the post-war period. The movement which gave exceptional place to scientists was the Front national (FN). By creating FN, the communist strategy was to bring together the whole population under the effective control of the PCF. Scientists were directed to the Front national universitaire (FNU). Its section “Higher education” counted among its ranks celebrities like Frédéric Joliot and several others 192. By the end of 1943 and beginning of 1944, the suppression of 186 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 49 - 55 187 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 50 188 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants p. 51 189 Sundhaussen: Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 343-344 190 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 72 -79 191 Philippe Burrin : La France à l’heure allemande, 1940-1944. Le Seuil, 1995. 192 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 74 - 75 70 opposition became grim, resulting in many detentions and summary executions of scientists 193. In Croatia, with a much smaller number of scientists, the participation of university staff in the so-called People’s Liberation Movement (PLM) is difficult to quantify. Šidak 194 reports, quoting Rapić and Maglajlić 195 that in the “red” Veterinarian Faculty 50 to 80% of the faculty staff cooperated with PLM, but admits that such claims are difficult to verify. Liberation, purging and reconstruction196. From late 1944 on, purging committees were being established in universities and research institutes. The militants of FNU played in this respect an influential role: the purging committee of CNRS had 9 members, 5 of which were FNU members or its sympathisers. This professional purging, often followed by judiciary proceedings, had very different dimensions in the faculties and in research institutes. The number of initiated investigations concerned 13.5% of university instructing staff, compared with only 1,5% among the CNRS research staff. According to Chevassus-auLouis, it is not unlikely to think that the purgers of scientific institutes were deliberately more indulgent, or conversely, less inquisitive in their investigations, since the reconstruction of French science looked to them to be an urgent and important task 197. Indeed, it took until the 1950s and 1960s before French science could find back its international place 198. The issue of purging in post-war Croatia, where contrary to post-war France the communists succeeded to grab the power, will be addressed in the following chapter. 193 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants p. 77 Šidak: Sveučilište, p. 181 - 184 195 S. Rapić and E. Maglajlić : Nastavnici Veterinarskog fakulteta u Zagrebu u Narodnoj revoluciji. Vetserumske vijesti IX, 1961, November- December, 33. 196 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 79 - 83 197 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants, p. 82 198 Chevassus-au-Louis: Savants p. 83 194 71 TITOIST YUGOSLAVIA (AFTER 1945) Communists take over the power Jera Vodušek Starič 199 described how Yugoslavia under Communism followed the track of October revolution and the subsequent events. Organs of the régime formed in the final phase of the war were nearly identical to those that were taken as examples: secret police (Cheka => OZNA) with special prerogatives and decisive role in eliminating opposition to the revolution, as well as the revolutionary army (Red Army=>Yugoslav Army). Decisions taken by them were substantially nearly identical to their examples in the Leninist and Stalinist legislation and theory. During the key period 1944-1946 of the emergence of the revolutionary state the Communist Party, after having realised the domination of the complete resistance movement (all others having been, expediently, qualified as collaborationists), acquired control of all other segments of the society. This revolution could be designated as “revolution from above”. Communist Party has been planning and executing the process of “power takeover” either by taking over all state and political institutions, organisations and associations, or by abolishing them and replacing them by more appropriate ones. But that was not enough, since these political interventions implied control of public and private lives of the people: the takeover of power was founded on terrorising the people – the start of revolutionary terror 200. The conquered (in the language of the partisans: “liberated”) territories were immediately “purged” of supporters of the occupying regime and enemy forces whereby the secret police OZNA (euphemistically called Odsjek za zaštitu naroda=Department for the protection of the people) executed summarily whomever they could get. An American liaison officer reported in 1944 from Dubrovnik: “The partisans took the attitude that anybody who during the occupation stayed in the city was automatically a collaborationist. The feared secret police went to work, and every day people were picked up at home... and shot dead.” 201 199 Jera Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast 1944 – 1946. Naklada PIP Pavičić, Zagreb 2006 (Slovene original title: Prevzem oblasti (régime takeover), 1944-1946, Ljubljana 1992), 200 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 8 201 Ann Lane : Britain, the Cold War and Yugoslav unity, 1941-1949, Brighton 1996, as quoted by Calic: Geschichte Jugoslawiens, p. 172 72 In December 1943, ZAVNOH 202 proclaimed rather extensive rules on the work of the civil judiciary. By explaining the new rules, it was emphasised that the basic aim was to discontinue the old, reactionary, formalistic judiciary, which now was serving the enemy; a fundamental goal was to be the protection of the achievements and interests of PLM 203. Characteristics of the new Communist regime Edvard Kardelj was the main creator of ideas on how to build the new state. Already in August 1944 he represented the position that after the breakdown of occupation, the spearhead of political fight should be transferred to the economic sector. In November 1944, he established the economic policy on state-ownership by the confiscation of banks, and enterprises of traitors, war profiteers, Ustasha régime, Jews and deserted property 204. In February 1945, Kardelj explained that the alliance of democratic forces led by the proletariat must conquer economic positions via the state sector. In public statements there was never an open mention that the only goal consisted of the dictatorship of proletariat and full stateownership of property. But Kardelj did say that to the Serb communists during their congress, which was not public. He explained that private enterprises, for the time being, will remain in order to boost production, but that simultaneously, by confiscation, the state sector was to be strengthened 205. On 21 November 1944, the presidency of AVNOJ 206 took the Decision to transfer the property of enemies into state property and thus legalised confiscation. This confiscation was a specific, but limited and temporary form of nationalisation. Also announced was the “confiscation of property not only of the German state and German nationals..., but also of war criminals, their supporters, absent persons, and of all property that changed hands during the war”. Between the promulgation of this Decision and the adoption of the Law on 202 ZAVNOH : Zemaljsko Antifašističko Vijeće Narodnog Oslobođenja Hrvatske (State Antifascist Council of the National Liberation of Croatia) 203 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 47 - 48 204 In private conversation with the author, Mr. Davor Štern, entrepreneur and former Minister of Economy, recounted that his Jewish father, after surviving German camps came back after the war only to be put on trial again on the accusation of collaboration with the occupier, the sole purpose being to confiscate his property. 205 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 199 - 201 206 AVNOJ : Antifašističko Vijeće Narodnog Oslobođenja Jugoslavije (Antifascist Council of the National Liberation of Yugoslavia) 73 nationalisation in the end of 1946, there were no other formal regulations in this domain. However, the measures that accompanied and followed this Decision (price and credit policy, distribution, foreign trade) completely favoured the state economic sector 207. ASNOS 208 decided in 1944 to establish extraordinary temporary courts – courts of national honour. Their “task was to judge the category of collaborationist and sympathisers of the occupier, and the supporters of occupiers who were not in the category of traitors and people’s enemies. They were responsible for the following criminal acts: any political, propagandistic, cultural, artistic, economic, legal or similar collaboration with the occupier or domestic traitor. What was meant was not only the collaboration in political and other enemy organisations, but also any expression that justified occupation, condemnation of the PLM, denouncing and endangering of people, putting enterprises into service of the occupier, holding any office of importance in such an enterprise, representing the occupier in court, work in the police or administrative apparatus of importance for the occupier and maintaining any friendly relationships with the occupier” 209. Such generalised list of acts against national honour allowed the courts to punish people also for so-called passive collaboration. “The courts of national honour could afflict the following sanctions: loss of national honour (implying exclusion from public life and loss of civil rights), light or heavy forced labour, and full or partial confiscation of property in favour of the state... At the Congress of the Communist Party of Serbia in 1945, Petar Stambolić reported that the courts acted mainly against capitalists who collaborated with the occupier, and that their property was taken over by the state”210. Courts of honour in other parts of Yugoslavia were organised along the same lines as in Serbia. On February 3, 1945, AVNOJ Presidency proclaimed all legal rules issued by the occupier to be invalid. At the same time, it established the Supreme Court of Democratic Federative Yugoslavia (the provisional name of the new state) and the Public Prosecution. The discussion regarding the work of the Public Prosecution was held in the presence of Kardelj and a Soviet counsellor. It was explained that the office of Public Prosecutor had to 207 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 204 - 205 ASNOS : Antifašistički Savet Narodnog Oslobođenja Srbije (Antifascist Council of the National Liberation of Serbia) 209 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 211 210 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 212 208 74 be a “battle organ for the protection of the new social order and in particular of the judiciary, which must equally take care of the protection of social order, whereby the primary task of the public prosecutor was to fight against the inner enemy.” 211 Purging and confiscations Let us look now at Slovenia, where the situation was not much different from that in Croatia. “Court trials against persons accused of economic collaboration, were launched soon after the decision of the Slovene Communist Party Politbureau, in the summer 1945, that punishment of ‘economic collaborationists’ had to start. This was, in fact, the first extensive revolutionary grab into private property. It was indeed these trials that not only contributed significantly to the creation of property in the state sector, but formed also the scene of numerous unjust sentences. The huge confiscated property was administered by a commission under the Ministry of Industry of the People’s Government of Slovenia. Those sentenced for economic collaboration lost of course also their civil rights, which meant that the well-to-do layer of the Slovene society was not allowed to participate in the 1945 elections for the Constitutional Assembly. That this was the political intention of Slovene authorities, is witnessed by the words of the Slovene public prosecutor [dr. Jernej Stante], who reported that they were eliminated from public life” 212. Immediately after the end of the war, big enterprises and public institutions were closed. Their management was taken up by government’s representatives with the task to carry out a review of their business activities during and immediately after the war. On the basis of these review reports, the public prosecution was launching proceedings against proprietors, members of management and supervisory boards, shareholders and directors of these enterprises and institutions. That the trials were prepared very fast and that the review reports were flawed, was admitted even in the report of the public prosecutor of Slovenia. He judged that in some cases there was no legal basis for starting a trial, and that the formal legal aspect of these trials was faulty, but he was still convinced that the indictments were founded. In this way, between June and September 1945 the régime 211 212 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 213 - 214 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast p. 306 - 307 75 confiscated the large majority of important enterprises, banks and institutions. Jernej Stante reported that “all large and for our economic life important industrial enterprises were transferred into state property” 213. Vodušek Starič continues to describe meticulously some of the many court trials, ranging from the Ljubljana theatre, to the Credit Institute for Trade and Industry, Ljubljana Credit Bank, Cooperatives’ Association, National Credit Institute, Mutual Credit Institute, all 6 printing companies, and many others. In case of industries, not only the legal persons were sentenced, but also associated physical persons, in which way the confiscation affected also their private property (houses) and shares in other enterprises. In many cases, private persons (e.g. butchers) lost their civil rights, not only for active collaboration (whatever it meant in such cases), but also for passive attitudes. That the trials were indeed political in nature, is demonstrated not only by the preparation and execution of judiciary proceedings, but also by the way in which Lidija Šentjurc, in name of the Slovene Politbureau, reported to the Federal Politbureau: “The campaign work of the courts of national honour is ongoing, with participation of people’s masses in the fight against people’s traitors. The judiciary shall finish its work within the mandated term, and confiscations shall affect 80 to 90 % of industry” 214. All that seems far-fetched with regard to the main theme of this paper: the position of scientists under the new political circumstances. This is however not true. For scientists, in particular engineers, who were involved with the work of enterprises for research reasons, this involvement could be a question of life or death, or of other forms of persecution. Some cases of persecution of engineers due to their contacts to industry have been described by Feuerbach and Andrassy 215. 213 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast p. 307 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast p. 309 - 313 215 Vladimir Feuerbach, Mladen Andrassy: Životopis Frana Bošnjakovića (1902-1993). In: Fran Bošnjaković. Spomenica posvećena 100. obljetnici rođenja (Memoir on the occasion on the 100th anniversary of his birth). Mladen Andrassy, Editor. Bibliotheca universitatis Zagrabiensis, Zagreb, 2001, p. 68 – 76. See also in the same edited volume: Vladimir Feuerbach, Boris Halasz: Proces Franu Bošnjakoviću, p. 189 – 196, and: Aleksandar Šolc: Fran Bošnjaković u teškim danima ugledni čelnik Tehničkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, p. 151-154. 214 76 Consolidation The new Yugoslav constitution – adopted after the sham election for the Constitutional Assembly in November 1945 – did not precisely determine how the new political system should look like, but during 1946, a whole series of systemic laws and measures were promulgated, ending with the Law on nationalisation of December 1946. This formal “nationalisation was only the legal endpoint of the already existing situation – domination of the state sector property, which has been emerging and growing since the end of the war, largely due to judiciary and extra-judiciary proceedings of confiscation...All these interventions seemed to have been motivated by the desire to rehabilitate the weakened and disorganised economy, but a more precise observation of the circumstances shows that they were politically motivated..., as the inefficiency of the state economic sector was becoming apparent” 216. The Communist Party started now “systematic elimination, not only of the residual opposition of pre-war political parties, but also the potential opposition from within the PLM. Those were therefore wrong who asserted that the revolution in Yugoslavia came to an end with the 1945 election for the Constitutional Assembly, since the Communist Party reached its goal. This was the thinking of some domestic politicians like Rudolf Bićanić, and such assertions were strengthened by some (leftist) foreign informers, e.g. the British attaché Basil Davidson, who knew the situation in Yugoslavia already during the war... Davidson quoted Bićanić saying about the Yugoslav communists: ‘These people have had their revolution. That issue is settled, now we can start reconstruction’.” 217 In the winter and spring of 1946, persecution of “speculators” was going on. Vodušek Starič writes: “Observing these developments, the British consul in Ljubljana reported in January that political opponents are still being eliminated by pseudo-legal trials on the basis of various accusations, may they be true or not. Capital punishments were taking place on a daily basis...[British ambassador] Stevenson reported on 22 March 1946 to Foreign Secretary Bevin that trials follow one another, that trials against war profiteers succeed the trials against collaborationists, whereby it is evident that they do not concern collaborationists but people who simply survived war, and that these trials are neither in the spirit of the law, nor 216 217 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 418 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 418 - 419 77 for revenge, but that they serve the actual government economic policy. In short, their goal is to transfer as many businesses and properties into hands of the régime without the duty to pay for them. He pointed to the paradox that the régime declares to recognise private property, but at the same time carries out nationalisation, through corrupted judiciary means and legal regulations” 218. The foundation of the whole system was total control of the state by Communist party. Even if the trials before the election of November 1945 for the Constitutional Assembly may have appeared as reckoning with the collaborationists, the judiciary after the election, under political pressures, became a means of terrorising those who did not submit to the measures of the “people’s” will 219. Purging of culture and science immediately after power takeover The Communist Party’s ideology included derogation of a multy-party system, civil liberties, private property, free market and national traditions. In 1945, under the Commission on War Crimes, an Enquete Commission was established to investigate “crime in culture”, persecuting everybody who acted publicly during the ISC period 220. Two Croatian physicians, Ljudevit Jurak (1881-1945) and Eduard Miloslavić (18841952), who had played a key role in the process of professionalization of pathological and forensic medicine in Croatia, may serve as examples. The field of pathologic anatomy in Croatia actually opened with Ljudevit Jurak’ s appointment as prosector in Public Health Institutions of the city of Zagreb in 1913. Twenty-two years later, in 1935, Eduard Miloslavić founded the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Zagreb University. They got involved in the investigation of communist war crimes in Katyn and Vinnitsa during the World War II. In 1943, Miloslavić was invited as a medico-legal expert in an International Commission to investigate the massacre in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, and Jurak to investigate the mass grave in Vinnitsa near the Ukrainian river Bug. Both medico-legal investigations proved that crimes were committed by Soviets. However, Jurak’s and Miloslavić’s part in those 218 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 475 Vodušek Starič: Kako su komunisti osvojili vlast, p. 476 220 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 402 219 78 investigations had a dramatic impact on their future. Jurak was arrested by the Yugoslav political police in 1945, deprived of human rights, and condemned to death. To this date, his burial place is still unknown and until 1990, his name had rarely been mentioned. Miloslavić managed to leave in time and never came back 221. The first Law on printed media (promulgated 24 August 1945) introduced farreaching prohibitions with regard to publishers and contributors. By 1946, most printing companies were nationalised, or proprietors forced to give them “voluntarily” as a gift to the state222. Not surprisingly, journalists formed a specific target of persecution: according to incomplete data, 38 journalists were shot, about hundred were prohibited to publish, and only 27 had the right to write 223. The publishing of Croatian Encyclopaedia, a scientific undertaking started before WWII, was stopped, already printed volumes were destroyed, but the materials that were saved formed later the basis for a new Yugoslav Encyclopaedia under a newly established Yugoslav Lexicographic Institute (1950) 224. The preliminary government (Presidency of AVNOJ) already on February 3, 1945, declared invalid all appointments, promotions or retirements decided during the time of occupation, which included those at the university. On top of that, the process of cleansing was extended to professorial staff appointed even before the occupation started. A special University Court of Honour, established by a new law September 8, 1945, had to judge those who “during the occupation, or in connection with imminent occupation, offended the interests and honour of Yugoslav nations, the interests of the university, its autonomy and traditions”. Professors had to fill in a questionnaire of 38 questions, some pertaining to activities starting as early as 1936 225. After 6 months of activity, the Court, composed of members agreeable to the new régime, transferred unfinished cases to the regular 221 Stella Fatović-Ferenčić, Vladimir Dugački: Ljudevit Jurak (1881-1945) and Eduard Miloslavić (1884-1952), founders of Croatian pathological and forensic medicine and experts at the investigations of mass graves at Katyn and Vinnitsa during WW2. In: Katyn and Switzerland- Forensic investigators and investigations in humanitarian crises 1920-2007. Debons, Delphine and Antoine Fleury, Eds. Georg Editeur, Editions m+h, Geneva 2009. See also: Zoran Kantolić: Djelovanje Anketne komisije 1945. u Zagrebu. Utvrđivanje zločina kulturnom suradnjom sa neprijateljem, ČSP 33 (2001) Nr. 1, 41-74. 222 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 402 - 403 223 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 404 - 405 224 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 374 and 403. See on the founding of the Yugoslav Lexicographic Institute also Reinhard Lauer: Wer ist Miroslav K.? Wieser Verlag 2010, p. 163 - 166 225 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 429-430. As example, one of the questions read: “Did you participate in the dissemination of calumnies about the massacres in Katyn and Vinnitsa?” See also: Šolc: Fran Bošnjaković, p. 160-163 79 disciplinary university court. All that opened the door to a thorough – and often arbitrary cleansing of the existing staff, and appointments of new, politically reliable staff, a process that was going on during several years, some cases taking place as late as 1952. The process was sometimes taking place not through an ordinary disciplinary procedure but through “spontaneous” protests of students who received political instructions 226. The election and prerogatives of the Rector and Senate was newly regulated by an ordinance of 23 October 1945, whereby the Prime Minister of Croatia had the right to invalidate the election result 227. Formally, this was not so different from the situation during the previous régimes, but the indirect grip on the university was now assuming an indirect, totalitarian character through the reliance on the members of the ubiquitous Communist Party. Dadić enumerates a considerable number of professors in natural sciences who lost their positions, either by being fired, degraded or pensioned 228. For some of them it became a question of existential survival. In the first post-war years, it was impossible to leave the country, so even persons with an international reputation (Ivo Horvat 229, botany; Fran Bošnjaković, thermodynamics) had no other choice but to stay. According to Dadić, many of the staff (probably the younger ones), fled the country 230. Unfortunately he does not give more data to underpin this statement: more detailed research on that topic would be of considerable interest. The Jews were the only group that had the permission, without any limitations, to emigrate, including the males fit for military service and technical professions. In this way Yugoslavia just followed the forcible policy of the Soviet Union and all Eastern bloc countries. The only exceptions were Jewish veterinaries and physicians, higher military staff and engineers, who were obliged to stay in the country 231. Due to the lack of politically reliable specialists, from 1947 on some professors who had lost their jobs were slowly allowed to resume their duties. Still, the hardliners in the Communist Party of Croatia were not content with the situation. As late as 1950 (3 March), 226 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 442 - 446 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 431 228 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 431-442 229 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 440 230 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 440 231 Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, p. 398 227 80 the Party organ Naprijed wrote : “Thus, there are no professors of history, chemistry, mathematics or literature who could work scientifically or as instructor without consciously applying Marxism in his discipline. 232” As the “Resolution on education” by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia (April 1950) was not being implemented in a resolute enough way, it was sharply criticised in Naprijed of 3 November 1950 233. Special criticism addressed the situation in the Technical Faculty, where “bad” instructors were not eliminated; its Party organisation came under attack, as there had been a direct attempt to prevent the election of an assistant whose appointment as professor had been demanded by the Party-controlled student organisation 234. One year after this criticism, a cleansing at several faculties took place. The prelude was opened in the fall of 1951 when organised boycott of Professor Kušević started, which eventually led to a regular disciplinary procedure and forced retirement from the Technical Faculty in June 1952 235. The background of the boycott and subsequent “spontaneous” demonstrations remains non-transparent until now. Then, in January 1952, four professors (Pauković, Podhorsky, Sinković, Žepić) were removed from the Technical Faculty without consultation of the university authorities, one of them (Sinković) committed shortly after that suicide 236. Šolc clearly demonstrated 237 that these removals were undisguised administrative measures, motivated by the victims’ insistence to preserve university autonomy in view of attempts to enforce political appointments of university staff. In addition, two more professors were removed from the Faculty of Forestry-Agriculture, and one from the Faculty of Medicine. The removal of the seven professors took place in spite of protests by Rector Bošnjaković and the University Senate, as it was a clear violation of the university autonomy 238. But it was a demonstration of the political power of the ruling Party, 232 As quoted by Božo Kovačević, Slučaj zagrebačkih revizionista, Zagreb 1989, p. 383 Kovačević, Slučaj, p. 387-388 234 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II p. 443 235 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 444. Kušević, an ethnic Serb, was sent 1953 into retirement as professor, but continued his career as head of the department of statical investigations in the powerful Institute for buildings of Croatia. See: Tvrtko Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, 1945-1955. Profil-Srednja Europa, Zagreb 2003, p. 483 236 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 444 237 Aleksandar Šolc: Uklanjanje pet profesora Tehničkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 1951-1953. Scientia Yugoslavica, Zagreb, no. 3-4, 1987, p. 123-154. 238 A. Milušić, H. Sirotković, Sl. Lang: Sveučilište od oslobođenja do uvođenja društvenog upravljanja (19451954). In: Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. I, Zagreb 1969, p. 213-214 233 81 which sent clearly the message that the university autonomy was dead. It also made clear that another non-Party member at the head of the University would not be tolerated again 239. Political screening in the appointments was continuing during the fifties: one example is Zvonimir Janko, who after finishing his study of mathematics in 1956, could not embark on a university career in Croatia because he was considered as politically not reliable 240. Later he entered a brilliant international career. Renewal of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1946241 The Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which existed from 1941 to 1945, had 29 full members, of which 22 had been member of the pre-war Yugoslav Academy. After the dissolution of the Croatian Academy in 1945, the Ministry of Education decided (25 April 1946) to re-establish the Yugoslav Academy. A temporary committee, consisting of 5 members, had the task to elect new Academy members and distribute them among new classes. The re-organisation of the old-new Yugoslav Academy, and the election of new members took place on February 11, 1947. The “new” Yugoslav Academy had among its members only 12 full and corresponding members that had already been members in the “old” (pre-war) Academy, all others were “elected” on the basis of political reliability. The cleansing in 1945 was thus more thorough than the one in 1941 242. The first President of the Academy after the war became dr. Andrija Štampar, writer Miroslav Krleža became VicePresident, and dr. Branko Gušić Secretary-General. Andrija Štampar and Branko Gušić, both medical doctors, had spent the war as German internees in Graz. Because of that, and due to his widely distributed international contacts, Andrija Štampar was a valuable asset for the new régime. The public role of the renewed Academy was designed following the example of the Soviet Academy in Moscow: its task was initially to organise all scientific work in Croatia. 239 Author’s father, never member of the Communist or any political party, was elected Rector by the extended Senate on 30 June, 1951, by secret balloting and according to then still valid autonomy rules. See Ranka FranzŠtern: Fran Bošnjaković – šezdeset drugi rektor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, p. 197-199. In: Fran Bošnjaković. Spomenica posvećena 100. obljetnici rođenja (Memoir on the occasion on the 100th anniversary of his birth). Mladen Andrassy, Editor. Bibliotheca universitatis Zagrabiensis, Zagreb, 2001 240 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 445 241 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 500-504 242 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti, Vol. II, p. 502 82 Because of this importance, but also in order to keep them politically docile, its members received considerable personal privileges. From 1948 on, several Academy institutes were founded in the fields of language and history, corresponding to the original principal tasks since Academy’s foundation in 1867. Development after Tito’s rupture with Stalin During 1948, the confrontation between Tito and Stalin was gradually gaining momentum. Tito’s speech at the Congress of the Communist Party of Serbia (CPS), January 1949 was reported by US diplomats to be even more direct. “In the final part at the Congress of CPS Tito adopted full-fledged doctrinaire offensive against Cominform 243 and proclaimed himself the legitimate defender of Marxist belief and the leader of correct thinking of communists and progressive.”244 The Congress of CPS was taking place in the moments in which Tito decided to publicly demonstrate that the hopes of reconciliation with the fraternal socialist block were definitively buried 245. Western aid had been ultimately of key importance already during the war. “In the beginning of 1949, US government changed its export and trade policy toward Belgrade. Everything that was to be delivered to Belgrade was to be in such quantities that no country would need to fear for its security. Yugoslavia was not to become richer and stronger, but it was to get enough as not to allow Tito to sink” 246. US diplomats were observing the university scene as well. Jakovina quotes Consul Charles P. McVicker who reported mass demonstrations of 1500 students held on 31 October 1951 as signs of “changing times”. “The fact that such demonstrations took place was “relatively important”, since something like that would have been unthinkable a year 243 Cominform (Communist Information Bureau): common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties, a Soviet-dominated organization founded in September 1947, and initially located in Belgrade. After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. 244 Quoted from the original Records of the US State Department in Tvrtko Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, 1945-1955. Profil-Srednja Europa, Zagreb 2003, p. 259. 245 Tvrtko Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, 1945-1955. Profil-Srednja Europa, Zagreb 2003, p. 259 246 Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, p. 283 83 earlier. In protests participated also Communist students, who were responsible for calm departure of those assembled – only after this was demanded by the Ministry..., and not by the Rector 247... US consulate mentioned also the fact that the police did not enter the university premises, thus respecting its autonomy” 248. Changes were brought into Croatian higher education as well as into society through foreign students. The Centre for foreign students was contacted only in 1952 by 374 students, mainly from Germany (103), France (95), Austria, UK and Italy. From the USA came 19 students 249. Until the mid-1950’s, only two major university faculties were added (in 1946) to the earlier ones: the Faculty for Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and the Faculty of Economics 250. The “novelty” of these faculties is to a certain degree doubtful, as they developed from the existing structures, the first from a department of the Philosophical Faculty, the latter from the existing Economic-commercial High School. Gradual shift of Yugoslav foreign policy away from the Soviet positions did not necessarily imply liberalisation in the interior: increasingly, knowledge of Marxism was a necessary condition to enter university 251. But slowly, piecemeal possibilities were opening even for some nonParty members to attend international scientific meetings. Important was the founding of the Institute of Physics of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1950 (it received the name “Ruđer Bošković” after the 18th century Croatian atomist), the scope of which was extended until 1955 into the areas of chemistry and biology. In 1955 it was separated from the Academy and came under the authority of the freshly founded Yugoslav Federal Commission on Nuclear Energy (until 1968) 252. Subsequently, Croatia’s scientific research experienced a strong concentration of many 247 This assessment of the US diplomat is in contradiction to several witnesses who clearly stated that the protesting students left only after the Rector addressed them and promised to examine the foundation of dissatisfaction, to determine objective truth, and, based on that, to establish a just solution. See: Igor Belamarić, Alma Mater. Književni krug – Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje. Split – Zagreb 2000, p.257 – 258. 248 Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, p. 482-482 249 Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, p. 480 250 Spomenica u povodu proslave 300-godišnjice Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Memorial on the occasion of 300 years of the University in Zagreb). Vol. II, Zagreb 1969. 251 Jakovina: Američki komunistički saveznik, p. 484 252 Dadić: Egzaktne znanosti p. 531 - 538 84 disciplines in this one institution, whereas the number of newly founded universities and faculties started to grow. At the same time, due to steadily increasing political opening of Yugoslavia to the free world, many young scientists from Croatia had a possibility to specialise in Western countries, in particular the US. This development, including the role of a mega-institute in a relatively small country, for better or for worse, falls outside the framework of the present paper. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Croatia underwent in the first half of the 20th century four main political configurations: Austro-Hungarian monarchy until 1918; “Yugoslavia” from 1918 to 1941; the “Independent” State of Croatia during the 1941-1945 war period; and Titoist Yugoslavia from 1945 onward. Science and higher education in each of these phases were subject, in different degrees, to serious limitations and interference by the respective authorities. At the same time, migration of scientists, both incoming and outgoing, left a deep imprint. During the Austro-Hungarian rule, Croatian regions were largely underdeveloped with a 75% share of rural population; Croatia-Slavonia, as part of Transleithania, enjoyed autonomy in educational but not in financial matters. The modern university in Zagreb (established in 1874), thanks to considerable numbers of Croatian professors educated in Vienna and Prague, but also thanks to crucial inflow of Czech professors, developed high achievements in some fundamental sciences. But development of higher educational capacities most needed from a socio-economic point of view, such as medicine, engineering and veterinary science, was blocked for financial and political reasons until the very end of the Monarchy, with the exception of the Medical Faculty (1917). The establishment of the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes opened a narrow but significant “window of opportunity” in 1918-1920, before the legal system was subjected to the hegemonistic and centralistic style of the ruling élites in Belgrade. During that short period, four important institutions were added: Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, as well as that of Veterinary Sciences; the Institute of Technology, and the High School of Commerce and Trade. A salient feature of the new situation was that a relatively large number of professors, particularly in engineering and medicine, were recruited among refugees fleeing 85 persecution and chaos in post-revolutionary Russia. The new Yugoslav state was throughout its existence plagued by conflicts and even politically motivated murders, which were nourished by political persecutions as well as gross regional imbalances in appointments of officials, agrarian expropriations, assimilation of currency and tax systems and massive transfers from formerly Austro-Hungarian parts to Serb regions. One of the grievances in Zagreb was the politically motivated meddling of Belgrade authorities with appointments and dismissals of university staff. Only during the last years of inter-war Yugoslavia, an agreement established by moderate Croat and Serb politicians, gave the Croats vast political autonomy, not only in educational but also in economic and financial matters, which finally led to substantial investments in the university infrastructure. A special achievement, with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, was the establishment of the School of Public Health. The “Independent” State of Croatia was established after the invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 by the Axis powers, whereby a larger part came under German and the coastal part under Italian occupation. The new dictatorial state was full of ambiguities: on the one hand it introduced racist laws and genocidal practices against the Serb and Jewish population, which led to a complicated and bloody civil war involving the extremist Ustasha troops, regular Croatian army (domobrani), occupying Axis armies, ultra-nationalist Serb guerilla (chetniks) and the ultimately victorius People’s Liberation Army under tight control of Communist Party cadres. On the other hand, the Croatian government pursued a relatively independent educational and science policy, which even led to the establishment of several new institutions, the two of which survived in the post-war period (Pharmaceutical Faculty, and the Faculty of Medicine in Sarajevo). The régime dismissed or pensioned scientists known as political opponents, but university professors, especially physicians and engineers, even those of Serb or Jewish origin, were treated in a surprisingly lenient way. Only few examples are known of scientists who succeeded to leave the country during the war. A comparison between wartime Croatia and occupied France reveals interesting similarities. Following its Soviet example, the Communist Party after having realised the domination of the resistance movement, decided to acquire total control of all segments of the society. Political opponents – including some university staff - were summarily executed. Court trials against “economic collaborationists” had the sole purpose to grab into 90% of 86 private property. Extraordinary “courts of national honour” allowed persecution of the socalled passive collaboration. Far-reaching prohibitions came into force regarding printed media. All appointments, promotions or retirements decided during the occupation were declared invalid. A special university court had to judge those who “during the occupation, or in connection with imminent occupation, offended the interest and honour of Yugoslav nations”. The result was a thorough, often arbitrary purging of university staff, leading to dismissal, degradation or early retirement of numerous professors. The number of scientists who fled the country has not been investigated in any detail. Due to the lack of politically reliable specialists, from 1947 on some of the victimised professors were allowed to resume duties. Tito’s rupture with Stalin in 1948-1949 made him dependent on Western aid, but liberalisation of university life was slow. As late as 1952 a new “small” purging wave led to dismissal of a number of professors in the Faculties of Technology, Forestry Agriculture and Medicine. But from that year on, piecemeal international contacts could take place. In conclusion, the four political regimes under consideration until the middle of the 20th century had very different impacts on science and higher education in Croatia, but there were also commonalities. The number of newly founded institutions was the highest in the first two periods. Apart from the area of humanities, substantive ideological control of research and lecturing was negligible during the first three periods, but became dominant, under Marxist terms of reference, during the communist regime even in some natural sciences. Meddling with academic autonomy by the authorities in order to increase political control of the university and other scientific institutions was considerable during the second, third and fourth periods. Politically motivated denial or deprivation of financing to scientific institutions was most pronounced in the first and the second period. Migrations of scientists, be it by “pull” or by “push”, had their greatest impact in the first and the second periods, the fourth needs still to be examined in greater detail. 87 From the point of view of scientific quality, the most important single contributions from Croatia to the world science stem from the first and possibly the second period. If one would wish to score the overall performance of the four political systems with respect to science policy the following table may be helpful. Table: Comparison of science policies Criteria Until 1918 New major 1918 - 1941 1941 - 1945 1945 - 1955 5 5-6 2-3 2-3 + + +/- - + - - - Level of financing - - ? ? Impact of + + - - ++ + - - institutions Freedom of research and instruction Institutional autonomy migrations Scientific quality On the basis of the above table, with admittedly coarse criteria, it may be concluded that the Austro-Hungarian period has the highest score, followed by inter-war Yugoslavia. The ISC, and the early Titoist state rank low. Later developments of science policy in Croatia and Yugoslavia after the mid-1950s show an ascending line, but that period is not the subject of the present paper. On the basis of the present paper, the author suggests that additional research would be useful in the following areas. - Establish a more complete data base on the mobility of scientists during the four political régimes that would allow better insight into their motivations for migration or exile. - Carry out a comparative analysis of the research policies, with emphasis on monetary spending and other economic factors. 88 - Compare systematically the scientific output and quality in the subsequent time periods. - Undertake a comparative study into the relationship between science and state under dictatorships in satellite/occupied countries, both during the Nazi domination, and in the Communist period. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the following persons for proof-reading the manuscript and providing useful comments and suggestions: Dr. Ivo Derado of the Max-Planck-Institute for Physics in Munich; Professor Wolfgang Kluge of the University in Karlsruhe; and last but not least my brother Dipl.-Ing. Srećko Bošnjaković in Stuttgart. 89 Academic Asylum Seekers in the Communist Czechoslovakia Helena Durnová – Doubravka Olšáková Communist Czechoslovakia offered political asylum to over 15,000 people, mainly from Greece, Italy, and Spain, but also to a few Americans, Frenchmen, Iranians, and the like. Some of these refugees were prominent leftist scientists with an outstanding political career and background. One such person was George Wheeler, one of the creators of Roosevelt's New Deal policy and a close colleague of General Lucius D. Clay in post-war Germany, where he participated in the process of de-nazification and economic reconstruction. His career in the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences followed the typical course of a Western Marxist and a social sciences scholar. Wheeler succumbed to the Communist ideology, made an excellent academic career (his books were translated to several East European languages), and after 1968 returned to the USA where he pursued his academic career. Czechoslovakia also provided a temporary home to the electrical engineer Morton Nadler, who sensed that his career in the US would be difficult because of his political opinion. The choice of Prague was motivated by the reputation of the Czechoslovak industry, like in the case of Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant. Introduction In our paper, we would like to consider the somewhat unusual phenomenon of exile on the Communist side of the Iron Curtain. In particular, we shall focus on American academics who sought asylum in Czechoslovakia after the Communist takeover of February 1948. We intend to explain the status of political asylum in the post-war Czechoslovakia and the general situation of the asylum seekers. Then we turn our attention to the example of the group of Americans living in Prague after 1948, and briefly mention the life and work of some of them. Special attention will be paid to two persons: George Wheeler, colonel of US Army and chief of the Manpower Division of the Office of Military Government of the US in Germany, who worked as a researcher in the social sciences, and the electrical engineer Morton Nadler, a communist since 1936, who was denied jobs in the US and decided to go to Prague to help build communism. 90 Status of political asylum in the post-war Czechoslovakia Despite the presence of various communities of Russian, Ukrainian, and later German émigrés in the interwar Czechoslovakia – issue that was the subject of previous days of our conference -- the right to a political asylum was not legislatively defined. Rather, it largely followed international customs and conventions, and this state of affairs continued even after the war. In the Communist Czechoslovakia, émigrés were granted asylum on the basis of a proposal drafted by the international department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (CPCz), which was derived from the relevant article of the 1936 Soviet Constitution (so called Stalin´s Constitution), and was ultimately, in 1960, codified in the new Constitution of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. This article explicitly defined three groups which were, so to speak, particularly welcome: persons persecuted for their activities on behalf of the working class, persons participating in struggles for national liberation, persons participating in research or cultural activities, and persons supporting activities in favour of peace. 1 It is worth noticing that in the case of research, no explicit definition of political pretext was present. How many were they and where did they come from? The composition of the Western émigrés in post-February Czechoslovakia was the following: by far most numerous were the Greek and Macedonian refugees, who sought asylum in countries of the Soviet Bloc after the defeat of Communist forces in the Greek Civil War. About 12,000 of them came to Czechoslovakia in several waves between 1948 and 1951. 2 The next largest group were the Italians, mostly former partisans, 214 of whom came to Czechoslovakia in late 1950. Then there were the Yugoslavs, opponents to the regime of Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980) after his split with Stalin; by the late 1950, there were 152 of them. Among the 58 Spaniards, mostly workers and members of the intelligentsia opposed to the Franco regime, we find two leading functionaries of the Spanish Communist Party, Vicente Uribe (1897–1961) and Juan 1 Doubravka Olšáková, „V krajině za zrcadlem: Poličtí emigranti v poúnorovém Československu a případ Aymonin“, [In the Land beyond the Looking Glass: Émigrés in Czechoslovakia and the Aymonin Case], Soudobé dějiny, 2007, 4: p. 719-743. 2 Cf. Pavel Hradečný, Řecká komunita v Československu: Její vznik a vývoj 1948-1954, Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR 2005; Antula Botu, Řečtí uprchlíci: Kronika řeckého lidu v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku, Praha: Řecká obec Praha 2005; Petros Cironis, Akce „Řecké děti 1948“: Dokumenty, vzpomínky a komentáře na emigraci helénských dětí v roce 1948 do Československa, Rokycany: Státní okresní archiv Rokycany 2001. 91 Modesto (1906–1968). 3 At that time, the exile Spanish Communist Party held two congresses in Prague. Apart from these groups, by the mid-1950s, there were fourteen US émigrés, as well as various individuals from other countries of Western Europe and the Third World who too sought refuge in the Communist Czechoslovakia. Fourteen Americans In comparison with, for example, the Greeks, fourteen Americans is not much. In some cases, and in some ways, however, they were by far the most interesting then the rest. The group included various cases: persons under the direct protection of the CPUSA, persons who became victims of the American anti-communist propaganda, but also people who were deeply committed to the idea of social equality. Political Asylum Seekers First couple were Herbert and Hilda Lass: before his arrival to Czechoslovakia, Herbert Lass worked as a welfare officer at a social desk of New York, in 1934-1937, he worked as a social worker in a black ghetto in New York, and later, until 1941, in the Bowery slums. Also in 1941, he joined the Red Cross and followed the American Army to the Pacific. After the war, he was employed by the CARE (Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe). Herbert 4 then worked as a director of the CARE in Czechoslovakia. In 1950, he was offered a position of CARE chief in Israel, which he declined. Instead, he went on to publish a denouncement of American policy in Europe, and asked the Czechoslovak government for 3 Cf. Petr Zídek, „Kde revolucionáři přicházejí o iluze“, Orientace, Lidové noviny, 2005. During his stay in Czechoslovakia, Herbert Lass published following books and translations: Herbert Lass, Po dobrém nebo po zlém, Praha: Mír, 1953; Translation: Bohumil Erben, Jaromír Mařík, Social security, Prague : Orbis, 1960. 4 92 permission to stay. 5 His wife Hilda Lass 6 – just like many wives of foreigners – worked in Czechoslovakia as a translator and editor of foreign languages in different publishing houses. Another American couple staying in Prague were George L. Standart and his wife Phoebe. They arrived probably in the spring of 1948 and were allowed to stay until June 20, 1949. George Standart was a Communist scientist who saw himself as firstly a scientist, and only secondly a Communist. He arrived to Prague to work with František Šorm, his wife to work with Arnošt Kleinzeller. He claimed that he was a member of the Communist Party of the USA, but as his request for renewal of his permission to stay coincided with the first big trial of American Communist leaders, it was not possible to verify his claim. Therefore, his request was not only rejected, but there were also serious doubts about the desirability of his continued stay at the Institute. To quote the responsible officer of the International department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia: “I think that it is not appropriate to allow an American citizen, about whom we have no information, to work in our research on such an important post. Even if he´s doing a good job, as confirms comrade Neubaeuer, there are no serious reasons.”7 As we have not yet found any archive material concerning the resolution of his request, it is most likely that František Šorm and Arnošt Kleinzeller intervened in the couple’s favour 8 since George L. Standart 9 worked in the Laboratory of Chemical Engineering of the CSAV until the end of 1960s. 10 5 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder 178, a.u. 600, p. 23-26. 6 Hilda Lass publications and translations: Hilda Lass, The fabulous American: a Benjamin Franklin almanac, Berlin: Seven Seas Publishers, 1964; translations: Karel Šourek, Health services – Czechoslovakia, Prague: Orbis, 1966. 7 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder 178, a.u. 603. 8 A commemorative issue of Chemical engineering communications devoted to George L. Starndart was published in 1979, cf. Chemical engineering communications – Issue 3, No. 4–5, Gordon and Breach, 1979. 9 George Standart published in Czechoslovakia in 1950s and 1960s: Jaroslav Marek, Zdeněk Novosad, George Standart, Chemické inženýrství: Základy výpočtů zařízení, Praha: Věd.-techn. nakl, 1951; Milan Rylek, George Starndart, František Kaštánek, Únos kapaliny a jeho vliv na účinnost destilačních kolon, Praha: Academia, 1966; František Kaštánek, George Standart, Účinnost destilačních pater, Praha: Academia, 1966; Ladislav Steiner, George Standart, Tvorba a chování plynných bublin v kapalině, Praha: Academia, 1966; Miloslav Hartman, Jan Čermák, George Standart, Míchání kapaliny na destilačních patrech a jeho vliv na patrovou účinnost, Praha: Academia, 1966. 10 During the konference we met some PhD students of George Standart who provided us with additional information regarding the life and work of G.Standart. 93 In other cases, we know little more than names: Walter and Marta Hübscher, Rose Savaat or Joy Moss Kohoutova – former employee of the Telepress, who in 1952 completed university studies in Prague. Another one, Jimmy Robinson (Smith), probably a Yale graduate, 11 also remains otherwise unknown to us. One of these Americans is still alive: Morton Nadler 12 was born to Jewish parents as Mandel Nadler in New York, Brooklyn, on June 23, 1921. He married Sylvia Leberson (*September 22, 1919) and they had two daughters Ellen Jane, born August 8, 1942, and Maia Patty, born December 3, 1950 in Prague. Nadler entered the Communist Party of the USA in 1936 under the name Morton Nadler, which came to be regarded as his real name. He was a member of CPUSA until 1948. He earned his Bachelor's degree at City College New York, regarded as the hotbed of communism, 13 and a Master of Electrical Engineering from Illinoins Institute of Technology. Because of his former membership in CPUSA, he thought, he had been fired several times before deciding to Eastern Europe to help build socialism there. Excluding the Soviet Union, as they "might make a mistake" about him, he chose Czechoslovakia as the country, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, with the most advanced electronics, with westernmodel democracy, and with prime minister Klement Gottwald promising peaceful and democratic path to socialism. In the autumn of 1947, Morton Nadler applied for his passport. He claimed that he wanted to earn his doctoral degree in Paris (Sorbonne). He indeed enrolled for this study at Sorbonne, but already in March 1948, he arrived to Czechoslovakia to help build communism, more precisely in the area of industrial electronics. In October 1948, Morton Nadler's wife Sylvia and his daughter Ellen Jane joined him in Prague. Morton Nadler started his career in Czechoslovakia in the research department of TESLA. While working at TESLA, Morton Nadler met with a young Romanian engineer, Victor 11 Barrie Penrose, Simon Freeman, Conspiracy of Silence, the secret life of Anthony Blunt, Vintage Books 1988, p. 374. 12 The information on Morton Nadler’s life is based mainly on his memoirs entitled No Regrets, which are accessible online at http://filebox.vt.edu/users/tampsa/pdf.files/ [consulted May 15, 2011]. 13 Steve Usdin, Engineering Communism: how two Americans spied for Stalin and founded the Soviet Silicon Valley.Yale University Press, 2005, p. 19. 94 Toma (*1922), who came to Prague for his internship. In the years to come, Nadler and Toma would spend considerable time together. In the fall of 1949, Morton Nadler was suspected of being the American who had been supplying information on a radar to Czechs, although it was not known where in the USA Nadler had worked on a radar. Probably, Morton Nadler was thought to be one of the two spies in the Rosenberg ring who supplied the information even during WWII and who came to Prague later under the identities of a South-African and a Greek. 14 Nadler's passport was confiscated and he was told that when issued, his new passport would only be valid for immediate return to the US. This was not what Morton Nadler wanted to do, and thus he became stateless, which eventually led him to accepting Czechoslovak citizenship. Around this time, Nadler also met Antonín Svoboda for the first time. He started working at MEOPTA and later at Křižík-Karlín company. Since January 1955, Morton Nadler worked under Antonín Svoboda at the Institute for Mathematical Machines of the Czechoslovak Academy of the Sciences, pursuing a higher degree. 15 After the events in Hungary in October and November 1956, Morton Nadler decided to leave Czechoslovakia. However, as a former member of CPUSA, he was not able to go back to the US. Eventually, he sent his children Ellen and Maia to the USA, where they stayed with Sylvia’s brother, and later also his wife Sylvia followed them. He himself could not go to the USA directly, and therefore decided to go to India first. After a long journey through bureaucratic arrangements, Morton Nadler was finally, in December 1958, granted the right to leave the country on condition that he renounces Czechoslovak citizenship. On February 21, 1959, Morton Nadler left Prague for Calcutta. Already from the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta, he reported on the development of computing technology in the Eastern bloc in a short paper published in the 14 For more details on the two spies, Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant, see Steve Usdin, Engineering Communism: how two Americans spied for Stalin and founded the Soviet Silicon Valley.Yale University Press, 2005. 15 According to catalogues of the Czech National Library, Morton Nadler is the author of following books: Morton Nadler, Elektronkový oscilograf, Praha: SNTL, 1954 (translated into Rumanian and French: Morton Nadler, Oscilograful catodic, Bucureşti: Editura tehnica, 1956; Morton Nadler, L'oscillographe cathodique, Paris: Dunod 1957); Morton Nadler, Oscilografická měření, Praha: SNTL, 1958; Morton Nadler a Vilém Nessel, Elektronkový osciloskop: Určeno prac. v oborech, v nichž se používá osciloskopů jako měřicích přístrojů, žákům odb. škol. a posl. vys. Škol, Praha: SNTL, 1960. He also translated some specialized works from foreign languages as e.g. A. Z. Frandin, Microwave antennas, Transl. from the Russian by M. Nadler ; Transl. ed. by R. C. Glass. -- Oxford : Pergamon Press, 1961. -- xii, 668 s. 95 Communications of the ACM16. He also translated several works into English, among them the 1958 book on programming by Andrei Petrovič Jeršov from Russian. 17 In the strict sense, Morton Nadler would not be considered and he did not consider himself an exile. Yet, to some extent, he can be ranked into this category, because he spent the years in the Prague as a result of not being able to work in his field in his home country. American Communists sent to Europe to protect them from the trials and persecution The next couple were Abraham Čapek (aka Abe Čapek, later, back in the US, also known as Abe Chapman) and his wife Bella Čapek. Abe worked for Telepress, his wife for the China Press Agency. They both asked for political asylum in Czechoslovakia in 1955. The National Board of the Communist Party of the USA recommended Abe’s request to the Czechoslovak Communist Party. Irving Potash wrote in his assessment – I quote – “Comrade Abe Čapek joined the Communist Party USA in 1935 and remained a devoted, loyal and active member until he left the United States. Comrade Abe Čapek had occupied a number of responsible posts in our Party. He was a member of the New York State Committee and of various State and National Commissions. He wrote pamphlets and taught in Party schools, served as editor of a number of Party publications and fulfilled other important tasks in the Party. (…) He has done extensive and valued research work in literature, Far Eastern affairs, and the writings of Marx on the United States. (…) Since his arrival in Czechoslovakia, he has contributed many articles to Czechoslovak papers and publications and to publications in France, Germany and China.” 18 Emphasising Čapek’s knowledge of the social background of American literature, Irving Potash recommended him for a post in the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in the fields of economy, history and/or general literature. In 1956 Abe Čapek joined the Economics Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (CSAS). 16 Morton Nadler, Some notes on computer research in Eastern Europe. Commun. ACM 2, 12 (December 1959), pp. 1-2. 17 A. P. Ershov, Programming Programme for the BESM Computer (translated from the Russian by M. Nadler, edited by J. P. Cleave), New York – London – Oxford – Paris: Pergamon Press, 1959. 18 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder 187, archival unit 596, p. 80. 96 One should add, however, that the Academy was rather hesitant concerning this appointment, and postponed the final decision as many times as possible. This strategy – if one can speak of one – worked for a year, but after a highly critical letter of the National Board of the Communist Party of the USA to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia from May 1956, which reiterated that nothing changed since the first letter, it was clear that no further excuses would be tolerated. The case of Abe Čapek19 highlights the possibilities of use and abuse of academic institutions. Why? Abe Čapek was much more important than one could gather from a cursory look at his career. He was supposed to assist Irving Potash in coordinating American communists and their activities in countries inclining to ‘people´s democracy’. This issue became particularly important after 1949, when the Communist Party of the USA adopted a strategy of protecting their members from political trials by sending them to Europe. Other American émigrés, such as George Lohr-Ohlwerther and his wife, were also under the direct protection of the Communist Party of the USA. CPUSA saw Lohr as a promising new Communist ‘cadre’, promptly ensured him a visa to Europe, arranged for him a job as a teacher of foreign languages in Brno and later an accreditation as a foreign correspondent in Czechoslovakia. In addition to George Lohr and Abe Čapek, we know that the CPUSA also protected John Vafiades (alias John Burns alias Efstratios Variades alias Robert Forest alias John Callas alias Leopold Kovasc), who was jailed in the USA, sent to Hungary, and because of his pro-Soviet views in 1956 immediately moved on to Prague in order to – as the National Board of the CPUSA claimed – save his life. The most prominent, however, was Joseph Cort. He was a prominent scientist 20 who studied medicine at the Harvard University, and worked at Yale and in Cambridge (UK). He left the US in 1952 and refused to come back despite various invitations and requests including a military service. He feared political and academic persecution. 19 In spite of the fact that his daughter Ann Kimmage describes in her book An Un-American Childhood (Ann Kimmage, An Un-American Childhood, University of Georgia Press, 1998) their stay in Czechoslovakia not always as living in a paradise, Abe Čapek made very quickly a distinguished academic career – working not only for the Academy, but also for the Czech Writer´s Union. Morton Nadler No Regrets, accessible online at http://filebox.vt.edu/users/tampsa/pdf.files/ [consulted May 15, 2011]., chapter 23, p.p. 17-18. 20 See e.g. Detailed Joseph Cort, No MacCarthyism here!, in: Daily Worker, 14.6.1954. He published in the Journal of Physiology (1952, 1954) and in Lancet (1954). 97 He asked for asylum in Czechoslovakia already in 1952 but this first request was denied. It was recommended to him that he should try and renew his permission to stay in Britain where he worked at the University in Birmingham. In November 1952 Harry Pollitt, secretary general of the Communist Party of Great Britain, wrote his first letter to Czechoslovakia in which he asked the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia to grant Joseph Cort the right to political asylum. The request was unofficially rejected, officially without a reply. A second letter from Harry Pollitt to Prague followed on April 10, 1954. 21 This time the request was supported by a personal visit of Dr. Gordon, who led a delegation of progressive scientists who visited the Soviet Union in 1953. He was entrusted with negotiations concerning the asylum for Joseph Cort, and the importance of his mission was highlighted by the personal interest Harry Pollitt took in the whole affair. Before leaving for Prague, Dr. Gordon informed Harry Pollitt that the Home Secretary Maxwell Fyff -- who also happened to be a former prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials -informed him that it was not possible to grant Cort a political asylum because – I quote – “he would be the first case” – and any such possibility had to be avoided. Upon Pollitt’s (not Cort’s!) request the Central Committee of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia asked the opinion of Czechoslovak scientists who, as it turned out, were much in favour of accepting Cort’s request. According to them, “Joseph Cort and his presence would be beneficial to the Czechoslovak science as he was specialised in area in which we had only slight knowledge and experience”. 22 Nonetheless, the International Bureau of the Central Committee was still reluctant and its reply was far from enthusiastic. It was probably researcher Bořivoj Keil who convinced them to accept Cort’s request and allow him to work under his, Keil’s, protection. 23 There may have been others, their cases are, however, most difficult to follow in archive documents because they either moved a lot (like John Vafiades) or, and that is also possible, never left the US. This was probably the case of Alexander H. Ruskin, chief physician of the Community Medical Centre in Los Angeles. Born in 1907 in New York, he 21 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder 178, a.u. 603, p. 35. 22 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder, 178, a.u. 603, p. 38. 23 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), International Department - USA, folder 178, a.u. 603, p. 40. 98 joined the CPUSA, worked as a US volunteer in Spain, and then as a physician in the US Marine Corps. He asked for asylum first in autumn 1950 via the Czechoslovak Embassy in Mexico, and then in February 1952, when he showed up in Prague in person and requested asylum again. He was frightened by the political processes in the US: in his case, his fear was probably justified because, as he claimed, he was one of but a few doctors in California who were publicly known to be communists. Economy immigration? Rather different was the case of A.K. Stern who arrived to Czechoslovakia in 1957. He was one of the few economically very beneficial émigrés. In 1957, he had 7 million dollars at 3.5% interest on his account in the State Bank in Prague. His annual earnings were around 800-900,000 Czechoslovak crowns after 50% income tax. He was, of course, very much welcome, and his request for a suitable position in the building industry was recommended. 24 Study group of American Communists Some of the American communists in Prague formed a study group led by Antonín Krčmárek, member of the Central Committee(?) of the Communist Party of the USA. He travelled between Europe and America, and in 1953 was jailed for 5 years for a violation of the Smith Act and McCarran Act (called also the Internal Security Act of 1950 or the antiCommunist law). In the early 1950s, this group under Krčmárek’s leadership discussed, for example, workers’ movement in the US, Negroes in the US, American policy in Germany, I.P. Pavlov and his contribution to biology, Stalin’s works on linguistics, the state of science in the Soviet Union, and crisis of the American Foreign Policy. Krčmárek regularly informed the Central Committee of the KPC, and his reports were discussed with Viliam Široký and others. 24 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KSČ), International Department - USA, folder 178, a.u. 603, p. 55. 99 In 1953, while Krčmárek was visiting the US, Morton Nadler became an unofficial leader of the group. Former Chief of the OMGUS Manpower division is seeking for political asylum George Wheeler was born in 1905 in Vienna, Virginia, near Washington DC. In 1934‒1942, he worked in the Labour Relation Board, then collaborated in Roosevelt’s team on the New Deal Policy, and later became President Roosevelt’s economic advisor. In 1942, already ranked as US Army major, he started working for the War Production Board. In July 1945, he was nominated for the position of chief of the de-Nazification department of the US military authorities in Germany and for the post of chief of the de-Nazification branch of Manpower Division. Around this time, he was promoted to US Army colonel. His problems started soon upon his arrival to Europe. Already in 1946, he was told that his contract could not be extended, and despite his high position, he was given only a series of short, temporary contracts. This was probably a way of putting him under pressure. Despite the fact that he had the support of General Lucius Clay, his leftist leanings – and his criticism of the superficiality of American de-Nacification - were seen as inappropriate and un-American. Finally, in 1947 his contract was not renewed. Because he did not wish to remain in Germany, he decided to move to Prague, a city that was less damaged by war than e.g. Berlin, where he and his family had stayed while his time in Germany. At that time, however, his intention was not to stay in Europe: he wanted to return to the US as a researcher. Therefore, he applied three times for a research grant in Social Sciences – and received three rejections. It was clear that his return to the US would be very difficult. He looked for a job in Prague with a mediocre success: He found a poorly paid temporary post at the university and survived only thanks to his dollar account in Germany. The Wheelers both worked as correspondents – George Wheeler as correspondent for the National Guardian, Eleanor Wheeler as correspondent for the Religious News Service. In January 1950, the CC of the CPCz prepared a special document on the US propaganda and sent it to Moscow. Both Wheelers were mentioned as representatives of the Western Press. 100 In April 1950, George Wheeler made a public statement in which he asked the Czechoslovak government for a political asylum. 25 In contrast to other American émigrés – and despite the Communist propaganda around him and his family - it is very difficult to confirm or deny Wheelers’ Communist affiliation or leanings. It seems he was not a fervent student of Communism, much less a Stalinist. Unlike Joe Cort, he was not offered a position at the Academy of Sciences and there was no intervention on his behalf. Instead, he wrote a simple letter to the Central Committee in which he stated that his position of a librarian at the Library of Social Sciences is only temporary, and that he would like to ask the CC of the CPCz for help in finding him a permanent position. The internal response of the officer in charge of his case went as follows: “Given the fact that Wheeler, whose wife was employed at the American Embassy, made a statement in which he fully supported the people’s democracy, the International bureau of the Central Committee is of the opinion that we are morally obliged to support Mr. Wheeler and find him an appropriate position in Czechoslovakia.” 26 In 1955, he was offered a position at the Economic Institute of the newly (November 1952) established Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. Without being too naïve about the nature of Wheeler’s role, he is the only one of all the above-mentioned Americans whose materials were not kept by the CC of the CPCz, the only one on whom Irving Potash had never offered any opinion, etc. He lived in Prague, wrote books which he – remarkably -- finished usually two days before the deadline, which prompted the Institute’s trade union to organise a special lecture in which Wheeler explained to all his colleagues at the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences his work method. For ten years, his wife corresponded with her relatives in the US, and in her letters, she mostly described the everyday life of an American family in a people’s democracy. 25 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=56910 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KŠC), Political bureau 1951-1954, folder 75, a.u. 196, item 28. 26 101 In the 1950s, Wheeler published a few important books which were translated into foreign languages (Russian, German, Hungarian, Polish), such as Development and problems of agriculture in the United states, 27 Capitalism and Automatisation, 28 and others. 29 In 1963, George Wheeler became a corresponding memmber of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. At the Economic Institute, he met a new generation of economists who later, around 1968, tried to implement substantial reforms. Later, Wheeler edited English translations of Šik’s texts, which were published under the title Plan and Market under Socialism 30. After his return to the US, he published a book called The Human Face of Socialism: The Political Economy of Change in Czechoslovakia. 31 Who was George Wheeler? The fact that this man worked out and introduced the main principles of the Roosevelt´s New Deal Policy in the US, and the fact that he spent more than 20 years in the Communist Czechoslovakia working at the economic institute of the CSAV, where he participated at the economic reforms of the 1960th , all this together show – in my opinion – how fragile is our comprehension of the post-war exile whenever we want to reduce it to the rhetoric of the Cold War. Conclusion Karel Bartošek, one of the co-authors of the famous Black Book of Communism, speaks of Prague as of the "Geneva of the communist movement" in Europe. He owes this idea to the French historian of communism Annie Kriegel. 32 This town of the Eastern bloc 27 George S. Wheeler, Az Amerikai egyesült államok mezögazdasága, A mü angol címe [Development and problems of agriculture in the United states], Budapest: Kossuth könyvkiadó, 1959. 28 George S. Wheeler, Kapitalismus a automatizace, Praha, 1961; George S. Wheeler, Ekonomičeskije problemy avtomatizacii v SŠA, Moskva, 1962; George S. Wheeler, Ökonomische Probleme der Automatisierung in den USA, Berlin, 1961; George S. Wheeler, A kapitalizmus és az automatizálás : A korszerü technológia azdasági problémai az egyesült állakokban, Budapest: Kossuth könyvkiadó, 1961. 29 George S. Wheeler, Kapitalismus a doprava: ekonomické problémy dopravy ve Spojených státech, Praha : Academia, nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1965. 30 Ota Šik, Plan and Market under Socialism, translation Eleanor Wheeler; scientific editor George Shaw Wheeler, Prague: Academia, 1967. 31 George S. Wheeler, The human face of socialism: the political economy of change in Czechoslovakia, New York; Westport : Lawrence Hill, 1973. 32 Karel Bartošek, Zpráva o putování v komunistických archivech, Praha-Paříž (1948-1968), Praha-Litomyšl, Paseka, 2000, s. 103. 102 had and has a strategic position: its location in the western part of the bloc almost predestined it to become the capital of the communist movement of whole Europe. The city, relatively unharmed by the war, was included in the transport infrastructure of eastern Europe, but at the same time remained closely connected to the transportation in western Europe. In the early 1950s, the activities of international "progressive" organizations like World Peace Council, International Students Union, Organisation Internationale de Radiodiffusion and others was concentrated in Prague. Thanks to the analysis of the group of American exile in the postwar Czechoslovakia it becomes apparent that this concept functioned perfectly also for non-European countries. However, it only functioned only until the first open rebellion against communism in Hungary in 1956, and the idea of international co-operation among communists was with fnal validity burried in 1968. At that time, majority of American exiles returned to their country on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Our study contributes to the work of historians of science in the early Cold War years, such as Jessica Wang and Russell Olwell. 103 Between Rock and a Hard Place. Soviet Plant Breeders During and After WWII Olga Elina This paper examines the circumstances of the work of Soviet plant breeders during the National Socialists’ occupation of the USSR, their exiles, escapes and emigration after WWII. By 1940s, Soviet plant scientists, especially Nikolai Vavilov and his VIR institute, had the leading position in the international plant breeding. However, simultaneous efforts of Vavilov’s opponents – Trofim Lysenko in the first place – contributed to the decline of the Soviet genetics. This led to dramatic changes in the research activity of VIR and other institutions, arrests of Vavilov and many of his associates. Sanctioned by Lysenko and his patrons from the Communist leadership, this policy led to the concealed protest of many plant breeders. This could be one of the motivations of cooperation between some breeders and the Nazi occupiers. When retreating, the Germans took with them not only scientific material but also research fellows. Most of the plant breeders who survived the occupation later were arrested for collaboration. The paper also analyses the other possibilities for the plant scientists to escape from the Soviet Union at that period and their activities after WWII. Introduction Clearly the most dramatic waves of emigration began in Russia during decades of the Communist rule, and then - in Europe facing the Nazi regime. 1 I would like to present here one peculiar émigré and exile story of the mid 20th century that affected the USSR, European countries, and also the USA. This is the story of forced or voluntary collaboration of the Soviet breeders with the German authorities during the Nazi occupation, and their following exile and migration. At the same time, this is a story of scholars’ resistance to Lysenko and of their escape from Lysenkoizm. In other words this is a story of survival of scientists between a rock of Nazi occupation and a hard place of Lysenkoizm. Such a theme very rarely, if ever, becomes an object of detailed analysis. 1 For the general context of the Russian scientists’ emigration, see, e.g., Tatiana I. Ulyankina, “The Wild Historical Period”: The Fate of the Russian scientific emigration in the 1940s-1950s in Europe (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010); Urina V. Sabennikova, Russian emigration (1917–1939): comparative-typological study (Tver’: FAS, VNIIDAD, 2002); and Aleksandr A. Pronin, Historiography of Russian emigration (Ekaterinburg: Ekaterinburg Univ. Izd., 2000) 104 I had no specific goal of discussing the problem from a gender perspective. However, the main case-studies of the paper are connected with circumstances of life and work of women scientists from leading plant breeding institutions. Their fates were utterly different in the context of the post-war development; their fates were absolutely identical in the context of Lysenkoim, Nazi occupation, and exiles. 2 This story has another dimension: within its context the term ‘emigration’ takes a new meaning, since not only scientists but also scientific objects migrated during the war. Moreover, in some cases there were objects of the research that influenced the fates of the scholars; exiles and emigration were caused not by political, ideological and other social reasons, but by necessity to preserve valuable scientific collections. Pre-War Situation in the Soviet Plant Breeding Until the beginning of the WWII Soviet plant science held the leading position in the international plant breeding. 3 The key figure in this field was an outstanding breeder and geneticist Nikolay Ivanovich Vavilov, who set up and headed the Institute of Plant Breeding (Institute of Plant Industry, VIR according to Russian abbreviation) in Leningrad. Numerous laboratories and experiment station of the institute studied genetics, evolution, taxonomy, and other disciplines of biology. Vavilov organized expeditions to many foreign countries and collected a wide range of genotypes of the crop plants. More than 180 expeditions, including 40 foreign ones, were conducted from 1917 to 1933. This resulted in creation of a valuable collection of cultivated plants – the world’s first large scale gene bank and the essential basis for breeding. By the mid-1930s VIR had grown to an enterprise with 1,500 staff members, hundreds of breeding stations, and possessed seed collections of more than 250,000 samples.4 Visiting Leningrad in 1930s, famous German geneticist Erwin Baur claimed that the Soviet Union had gained reputation as the most advanced country in plant breeding and 2 Archives consulted: Archive of VIR; Private Collection of Documents of H. Savitsky; Russian State Archive of Economy (RGAE); Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA); State Historical Archive of Ukraine (GIAU). 3 Olga Elina, Planting Seeds for the Revolution: The Rise of Russian Agricultural Science, 1860–1920, Science in Context, 2002, 15 (2): 209–237. 4 Fatikh Kh. Bachteev, Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, 1887–1943 (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988). 105 applied genetics. Many foreign scholars worked in the Soviet Union with Vavilov in VIR and other agricultural and genetic institutions: the Americans Dr. Hermann Muller (future Nobel Prize winner), Dr. Karl Offerman, Dr. Daniel Raffel, Dr. Rosalee Raffel, Bulgarian geneticist Doncho Kostov and others. 5 Stalin’s ‘Great Break’ and collectivization changed the policy of favorable state attitude towards wide-frond development of plant science, theoretical as well, to urgent mobilization of plant breeders to fulfill socialist reconstruction of agriculture. As collectivization caused a crisis in agricultural production and famine in Ukraine, Soviet agriculturalists came under pressure to “increase yields by all means.” Plant breeders were expected “to produce new valuable breeds in shortest periods”. 6 Public attention was focused on T.D. Lysenko, an agronomist of peasant background and little formal education. 7 Lysenko started with his method of ‘vernalizing’ wheat seeds which he propagated as a panacea for increasing grain yield (and at the same time, a new technique of breeding). This method was widely accepted in the Soviet Union. Encouraged by this success, Lysenko began promoting other practices based on his theory of the ‘inheritance of acquired characters’. Lysenko rejected the existence of genes and denied the laws of inheritance. This brought him into direct conflict with Vavilov and other geneticists. Lysenko’s ideas had no experimental basis, but he was able to use philosophy and politics in his appeal to Stalin and other government leaders. He promised bigger, faster, and cheaper crops which were badly needed in the faltering agricultural system of the Soviet Union. Stalin personally gave him strong support at a large public conference in 1935. Soon after, Lysenko became a President of VASKhNIL and thus gained great power in various institutions of agricultural science. Vavilov came into strong intellectual and ideological conflict with Lysenko. Mendelian laws of inheritance were stamped as ‘bourgeois’ and 5 6 Mikulinsky, S. (ed), Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: Ocherki, vospominania, materialy (Moscow, 1987), p. 224. Olga Elina, “Development of Plant Breeding in Russia: from Amusement of Aristocrats to Decrees of Bolsheviks”, in: Kolchinsky, E. – Konashev, M. (eds.), On the Break: Science in Russia at the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2005), p. 139–155, p. 153 (in Russian). 7 For the details about Lysenko and Lysenkoizm, see, e.g., David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1986); and Nils Roll-Hansen, The Lysenko Effect: The Politics of Science (Amherst: Humanity Books, 2005). 106 ‘formal’; all geneticists and plant breeders who supported the gene theory became ‘enemies of the State’ and were subject to arrest. Efforts of Vavilov’s opponents led to dramatic changes in the research activity of VIR and other institutions. First of all, gathering of the world plant resources was labeled as “overtly theoretical” and unflatteringly compared to the practical potential of Lysenko’s science. In the mid 1930s, the seed collections of VIR and all scientists connected with this project were directly attacked. For example, the newspaper Pravda wrote in October 1937 that “VIR’s expeditions absorbed huge amount of people’s money. …we must declare that practical value of the collection did not justify the expenses.” 8 The research staff of VIR was reduced; many plant breeders who did not followed Lysenko’s instructions in breeding were fired. On the eve of WWII Vavilov and his coworkers suffered oppressions; a number of VIR’s leading scientists, close associates of Vavilov Georgy D. Karpechenko, Grogory A. Levitsky, Leonid I. Govorov and others, were sent to prison under the fabricated accusations and executed. Vavilov was arrested in 1940, and during the war his colleagues knew nothing about his fate. War and Occupation: Collaboration, World Collections, and National Interests Nevertheless, by the 1940s, Soviet plant breeding still kept the leading position in the international breeding community. The high standard of the Russian plant science was of particular interest to the German policy makers in the field of science. The Soviets and the Germans had especially close relationships in plant breeding before the war; along with Russian traditional attitude to German science this was a result of personal friendship and scientific contacts between Vavilov and his German partners. War immediately shifted the norms of scientific ethics. German scientists grasped the opportunity to visit the famous institutes and to usurp the collections of their Russian colleagues and other results of their scientific work. For example, the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut (KWI) for Biology (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Biologie, KWIB) Fritz von 8 Quotation is from: Zores A. Medvedev, Vzlet i padenie Lysenko: istorija biologiceskoj diskussii v SSSR b (19291966) (The Rise and the Fall of Lysenko) (Moscow: Kniga, 1993), p. 86. 107 Wettstein emphasized the significance of seizure of the seed collections as the crucial task for the war time development. 9 Special group of experts was organized to outline the plan for the capture of the Soviet breeding institutes. The Germans were going to continue research, reproduction, and preservation of seed collections in Russia, and later to transfer this activity to the institutions on the territory of the Third Rich. 10 After the Nazi troops invaded the Soviet Union, during the autumn of 1941 the Military High Command ordered the seizure of all scientific institutes and plant breeding stations in the occupied regions. Since most of the top Soviet scientists had been evacuated, the Germans were sent to the occupied territories to manage the institutes. 11 The plant collections of VIR and other institutes became a main object of the plunder. Most of the VIR collection was kept in the institute headquarters in besieged Leningrad. This siege lasted for two and a half years, from June 1941 to January 1944. Evacuation was attempted in August 1941. But only ‘strategically important’ seeds – of rubber-bearing plants, medicinal and tanning herbs, etc. – were saved by air at that time to Krasnoufimsk and other locations in the Urals and Siberia. 12 VIR Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding (Central Station of Genetics and Plant Breeding) at Detskoie Selo (or Detskoye Selo, former Tsarskoie Selo – the Tsarist Village – the summer residence of Russian Emperors), twenty-four kilometers south of besieged Leningrad, was among those institutions that faced occupation. Dr. Walter Hertzsch, head of the KWI for Plant Breeding (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Züchtungsforschung, KWIZ) branch in East Prussia, was send to Detskoie Selo to supervise the research. Many other well-known breeding and genetics stations and institutes in Belorussia, Ukraine, Crimea were also 9 Olga Elina, Susanne Heim, Nils Roll-Hansen, “Plant Breeding on the Front: Imperialism, War, and Exploitation”, Osiris, 2005, 20:161–179, p. 167. 10 Susanne Heim, Kalorien, Kautschuk, Karrieren: Pflanzenzüchtung und landwirtschaftliche Forschung in KaiserWilhelm-Instituten, 1933–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003). 11 For the detailed discussion, see: Michael Flitner, Sammler, Räuber und Gelehrte: Die politischen Interessen an pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen, 1895–1995 (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus-Verl., 1995); Ute Deichmann, Biologen unter Hitler: Porträt einer Wissenschaft im NS-Staat (Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1995). Rolf-Dieter Müller (ed.), Die deutsche Wirtschaftspolitik in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten, 1941–1943: Der Abschlußbericht des Wirtschaftsstabes Ost und Aufzeichnungen eines Angehörigen des Wirtschaftskommandos Kiew (Boppard, 1991). 12 Vladimir I. Krivchenko, Sergey M. Alexanyan, “Vavilov Institute Scientists Heroically Preserve World Plant Genetic Resources Collection during World War II Siege of Leningrad,” Diversity, 1991, 7(4):10–3. 108 headed by the Germans at that period. In all these institutions the policy was to persuade the Soviets to continue their scientific research for German interests.13 Some of the Soviet scientists accepted this job under the new regime. Why did they do so? I would suggest several main motivations for such collaboration. According to the scientific ethics of plant breeding, Vavilov and his colleagues regarded their collections as property of the international scientific community (and, hence, of mankind). Scientists, who stayed in the occupied laboratories, felt responsible for preserving the collections. This may be the reason why some of them continued working under the Germans, despite the inevitable accusations of collaboration and betrayal. Second motivation could be connected with the Soviet policy of neglecting classic plant breeding and genetics, sanctioned by Lysenko and his patrons. This policy led to the concealed protest from the geneticists. Lysenko’s rule resulted for them in discharges and subsequent repressions; some of geneticists and plant breeders, including Vavilov, were executed. Meanwhile, the Germans who were charged with the plant breeding stressed their adherence to Mendelian genetics and strongly opposed Lysenko. So, the protest against Lysenkoism and its dramatic consequences could be a possible motivation for cooperation. However, collaboration could have also been motivated by political, financial, and racial reasons, or by concerns for security. 13 Olga Elina, Susanne Heim, Nils Roll-Hansen, “Plant Breeding on the Front: Imperialism, War, and Exploitation”, Osiris, 2005, 20:161–179, p. 168–172. 109 Story of Yevdokiya Nikolaenko: Collaboration and GULAG Among those who agreed to cooperate was VIR wheat breeder Yevdokiya Ivanovna Nikolaenko (Nikolayenko) (1899–1960), who worked at Detskoie Selo station. Born in 1899 in the family of a town council member in Anapa, one of South Russian cities, Nikolaenko graduated from Agricultural Institute in Krasnodar. During summer practice of 1924 she met N.I. Vavilov who inspected wheat collections at the just opened VIR plant breeding station in Krasnodar. This meeting influenced her decision to conduct research with wheat. In 1929 she moved to Leningrad to accept the position of junior research fellow at VIR Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding in Detskoie Selo. Her research was focused on the immunity (fungi decease resistance) and its inheritance in different varieties of wheat from the world collections. In 1936 she successfully completed her thesis on this subject with Vavilov as one of the opponents. 14 To the beginning of the war Nikolaenko became a senior researcher in VIR; she was married and had two daughters, aged 12 and 3. She had her personal reasons to continue the research during the occupation. Nikolaenko’s husband was arrested and she simply had no other opportunity to sustain her family: two little daughters and her sister who was almost blind. When retreating, the Germans took the seed collections and the scientists responsible for the work with them. Nikolaenko agreed to accompany wheat collection of about 800 samples from Detskoie Selo. Could she refuse? Probably, yes. However, on the eve of 1942 Nikolaenko and her family went to Tarty (Estonia) with the retreating German army. There she met physician Klavdiya Nikolaevna Bezhanitskaia (1889–1979) (later known as ‘Estonian Mother Maria’ after her efforts in saving Jews in Tartu). The two women became close friends. Secretly from the Germans Nikolaenko managed to divide the seeds of each of the 800 varieties and handed over duplicates of the samples to Bezhanitskaia, who kept the seeds during the war. Meanwhile, Nikolaenko was send to Latvia, where in 1944 she sowed wheat collection near Riga at the Experiment Farm Big Menitie. When the 14 Mariya A. Yakovleva, Tat’yana K. Lassan, Anna A. Filatenko, “Edovkiya Ivanova Nikolaenko”, in: Dragovtsev V. – Lebedev D. – Vitkovsky V. – Pavlukhin Yu. – Lassan T. – Blinova N. (eds.), Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov’s Associates: Researchers of Plant Gene Pool (St. Petersburg, 1994), p. 392–398. 110 Germans were forced to leave the Baltic region and began evacuation, Nikolaenko fled. We do not know why she made such a desperate step. She had to hide for weeks in the woods with her family asking for food in local villages. After the Soviet troops came to Latvia she returned to her experiments. But soon after Nikolaenko was arrested for collaboration with the Nazi and sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in GULAG. It was K.N. Behzanitskaia who saved her family by adopting her daughters. It should be mentioned that wheat collection never returned to VIR. In 1945–1949 K.N. Behzanitskaia approached VIR many times, trying to return the seeds. But no one answered her letters. In 1949 Behzanitskaia and her relatives (including Nikolaenko’s girls and sister) were exiled to Siberia as ‘family of Estonian nationalist’ (her own daughter was a member of a religious association); the seeds of wheat collection were spilled during the search of Bezhanitskaia’s apartment. 15 As for E.I. Nikolaenko, she survived the GULAG and was released in 1954. But she was not permitted to return to Leningrad and lived in a small Siberian town with no opportunity to continue her scientific career. Other VIR Plant Breeders: Protest and GULAG or ‘internal migration’ Another VIR plant scientist, a specialist in buckwheat, Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Stoletova (1887–1864) worked with Vavilov starting from Saratov period back in 1910s. Vavilov’s close associate, a doctor of science, she left VIR in protest against his arrest and subsequent replacement of departments’ heads by Lysenkoists. Throughout her entire life she worked as provincial agronomist in small town near Yaroslavl. This is one of many examples of ‘internal emigration’ of VIR scientists, sometimes voluntary, sometimes forced. 16 VIR Maikop Plant Breeding Station in North Caucasus, Krasnodar region, was occupied for only half a year from February until August 1942. Vera Akselevna Sansberg, an 15 On Nikolaenko during her Latvia and Estonia period, see: Tamara Miluitina, People in My Life (Tartu: Kripta, 1997). 16 R. M. Averszhanov, “Stoletiva Ekaterina Alexandrovna”, in: Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov’s Associates, p. 325–330. 111 ethnic German, continued her research on potatoes collection. However, Sansberg never regarded her activity as collaboration. She refused to accept salary and even got away with signs “Germans are not allowed!” at the experimental field. All documentation for the collections was successfully evacuated; tags on the field were driven underground. This lack of documentation saved the Maikop station from devastation. As a Soviet patriot, Sansberg never thought about emigration. Nevertheless, after the war NKVD (Soviet secret service) arrested V.A. Sansberg for collaboration with the Nazi and sent her to GULAG.17 Story of Elena Kharechko-Savitskaia: Collaboration and Emigration Plant breeding institutions outside the VIR system also experienced occupation. Among them was the famous All Union Sugar Beet Institute (AUSBI, or SBI) in Kiev. Here began the story of Elena Ivanovna Kharechko-Savitsaya (also Harechko, Haretchko, Chareczko, later –Helen Savitsky) (1901–1986), and her husband Viacheslav Fabianovich Savitsky (also Savicki, Savitski) (1902–1965). The Savitskys were among Soviet scientists who chose to leave their homeland during WWII. Elena was born February 17, 1901 in Poltava. Her father was a prominent physician who managed his own clinic. He also was president of the local medical society and a member of city council. After the revolution, the family was persecuted and lost all their property. Elena graduated from the Agricultural Institute in Kharkov in 1924. While a student, she met Viacheslav Savitsky, and they later got married. At the end of 1920s they were transferred to All Union Sugar Beet Institute and simultaneously entered a PhD course at Leningrad University. They both studied and worked on their dissertations under N.I. Vavilov and G.D. Karpechenko. After the completion of additional high quality research, they were both granted the title of professor. 18 17 On Sansberg, see: Tat’yana K. Lassan, former VIR archivist, interview by Olga Elina, 14 Aug. 2002. Her information is based on unpublished memories of Dmitrii I. Tupitsyn, the head of Maikop station in 1960s. I am also grateful to Tat’yana Lassan for her help in collecting materials from VIR Archive and some other sources. 18 John S. McFarlane, “The Savitsky Story”, Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 1993, (1&2): 1–36, p. 2. See also: Nikita Maksimov, “Seed Ear on the Clay Foot”, Russian Newsweek, 2008, 10 (148): 48–51.On V. Savitsky biography, see Ulyankina, “The Wild Historical Period,” p. 494. 112 Viacheslav was especially interested in the selection of a sugar beet variety with single-germ fruits instead of multi-germ seedballs. Elena’s research activities included studies of the embryology and cytology of the sugar beet, especially self-sterility and self-fertility, polyploidy, and chromosomal behavior. Visiting scientists were impressed by the high quality of her research. Following a visit to her laboratory, American professor G.H. Coons stated: “Her cytogenetic work was exceptional in quality and she stands alone in this particular field of work.” 19 During WWII, the SBI was moved to Siberia, but the Savitskys chose to remain in Kiev. They managed to set up a small secret room in their house, and the authorities who were responsible for evacuation found nobody in their place. When the German troops took the city in 1941, the Savitskys returned to the institute, renamed the Plant Breeding Institute, and continued their research on sugar beet. In 1943 the defeated German army was forced to retreat from Kiev; the Savitskys decided to go with them. To understand their motivations one needs to be aware of the situation in the institute and around the Savitskys. The Savitskys were close friends of Vavilov and their adherence to the ‘formal genetics’ – gene principles of inheritance – was well known. It is worth to be mentioned that Vavilov visited the Savitskys and inspected their experimental plots not long before his arrest; some of their colleagues and friends from the SBI were also arrested. Two of Viacheslavs brothers, both engineers, were arrested and executed, Elena’s brother and sister perished in exile to Siberia. The Savitskys were in contact with many foreign ‘bourgeois’ scientists and had a number of foreign visitors in their laboratories; for instance, during the 1930s visitors from the US included Dr. G.H. Coons, Sugar Plant Investigations, USDA; H.W. Dalhberg, research manager from Great Western Sugar Company; professor H.J. Muller, who at that time worked at the Department of Genetics, University of Indiana. Moreover, prior to the WWII, the Savitskys tried to emigrate legally, but these attempts were unsuccessful. So, the Savitskys knew well that they would be subjects to arrest; they lived in constant fear and expectation of the NKVD visit. 19 John S. McFarlane, “The Savitsky Story”, p. 4, 15. Elen Savitsky’s case-study is also based on the archival documents from her private collection, that were kindly granted to me by N. Maksimov. 113 Given this background, one can better understand their motivation for collaboration and emigration. Leaving with them were Viacheslav’s parents and Elena’s sister. The Germans allowed them to take a portion of their personal effects including a large number of scientific books, a few pieces of laboratory equipment, and samples of their sugar beet collection and genetic seed stocks. Later the Savitskys explained their motivations for emigration in special letter where they also stated their political views and scientific preferences. This letter was written partly to explain their attitude towards Nazism: it was important for the USA authorities to know that the pair did not collaborate with the Germans voluntary. The letter was written in English and I’ve preserve the author’s original style. “We were never members of any political party…, but we are not indifferent to the political matters. We detest the communists and their ideology to the bottom of our hearts. All their doctrines and their actions are repulsively and unendurably for us. We tried to go abroad during all our life, but unsuccessfully. We are free from them at last, but they try to catch us here also. Beside these decent in viewswe suffered from them much. They pursued our families and us during many years. My two brothers were killed by them. The brother of Mrs. Savicki is deported to the concentration camp in Siberia; her sister was perished in exile. Many others our relatives were killed or deported by them. All these people were engineers, physicians etc., did not take part in the political activity and were exterminated by communists in order of mass terror. If it was not succeed us to disappear in time, we should be exterminated also. Nobody of you know doesn’t know what a horrors are done behind the iron-curtain. We can't with communists. We prefer to die, than to live in such a manner. We have lost all we are not afraid to expose ourselves to the danger of of bombardment in Germany to became free from them only. We don't like the fascism also, for it is youngest brother of communism. We favor such a government, which can secure a reasonable liberty of personality, the human rights on a democratic basis, and which doesn’t turn their people into slaves and their country into a huge concentration camp.” January 9, 1947 20 This is a big luck for the historian to read the document explaining the motivation of collaboration between the Soviet scientists and the Nazi occupants. In most cases scholars 20 Quotation from: John S. McFarlane, “The Savitsky Story”, p. 24. 114 who decided to do this went to GULAG and even those who survived preferred to keep silent on the issue. Anyway, the Savitskys finally succeeded in their attempts to emigrate. Their first stop was in Poznan, Poland, where they spent two years and found employment at the University of Poznan. Viacheslav was hired as a plant breeder and geneticist to breed cereals, kok-sagys and root plants. Elena was employed as a cytologist, working with cereals hybridization. The Germans were driven out of Poland in 1945, and the Savitskys went with them to Halle, Germany. For a short time, both Viacheslav and Elena were employed at the University of Halle and also for the sugar beet firm Schreiber in Nordhausen. Following the signing of the Yalta agreement, East Germany was placed under the control of the USSR. The Savitskys fled to Regensburg, West Germany, and were employed at the Ukrainian Agricultural University with the titles of Professor. After the WWII ended, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) set up a displaced persons camp near Oberammegau in Bavaria, West Germany, for refugees from the USSR and eastern European countries under communist control. The Savitskys were placed in the US zone of this camp and immediately started negotiations to immigrate to the United States. This process was extremely difficult; a number of prominent American scientists and organizations helped the Savitskys. Among them were: Dr. Coons from the USDA, professor H. Muller, professor B. Glass; American Genetics Society, the USA Committee for Aid to Geneticists Abroad, the USA Beet Sugar Manufacturers' Association, etc. Dr. Coons, for example, contacted state agricultural experiment stations and major private sugar companies such as the USA Beet Sugar Manufacturers' Association and the Beet Sugar Development Foundation for providing employment or financial aid. These initial efforts were discouraging, however. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Society of Ukrainian Scholars were also contacted without success. The Sugar Plant Investigations office announced the need for geneticists in Costa Rica and Venezuela. Contacts were made but again the replies were negative. 115 In late November 1946, a breakthrough finally occurred which eventually led to the solution of the Savitskys’ immigration problem. John McFarlane, who worked for the Curly Top Resistance Breeding Committee on sugar beet breeding in their department at Salt Lake City, moved to another place. A suggestion was made that his position and salary be used to employ the Savitskys. A major hurdle in getting the Savitskys to America had now been overcome, but visas, affidavits of support, and travel funds still were needed. Professor Muller, who had just been awarded a Nobel Prize, handled the negotiations with the Secretary General of the State Department. The later took a sympathetic attitude toward the scientists but expressed some concern about their possible collaboration with the Germans; the Savitskys had to explain the situation. The correspondence of this period indicated that many people were involved in and assigned to the Savitskys case and their assistance proved most helpful. 21 As a result, the Savitskys family was transferred first to a transit camp in Munich, then to Bremerhaven to await passage to New York. In November 1947 they began their voyage to America. First in Salt Lake City (Utah), then in Michigan, Colorado, and finally in Salinas (California) Elena – now an American geneticist, Helen Savitsky, had made a notable contribution to the development of sigar beet breeding. She received tetraploid plants of sugar beet using precise colchicine treatment. Her husband discovered monogerm plants in his breeding material: plants (probably brought from the USSR) with single flowers, which resulted in single seeds with only one germ. This work led to the development of commercial monogerm cultivars. By the 1960s, almost all sugar beet growing in the USA and many countries of Western Europe were based on monogerm seed. According to Helen’s will she left all the family money for the establishment of the Savitsky Memorial Award. “This award memorializes the contributions of Viacheslav and Helen Savitsky for their discovery and development of the monogerm gene in sugarbeets. This discovery has provided for the near-elimination of hand-labor for thinning sugarbeets throughout most if not all sugarbeet growing countries”. The Savitsky Memorial Award is among the most prestigious in the sugar industry. There are no specific criteria for this 21 John S. McFarlane, “The Savitsky Story”, p. 9–11, Appendix. 116 award and it is given to individuals who have had a significant impact on the national and international beet sugar community. The recipient of the Savitsky Award can be from any nation and does not have to be a member of the American Association of the Sugar Beet Technologies (ASSBT). This is the glorious end of the Savitsy story of working with the world seed collection under the Germans during the war – one of hundreds that did not result in GULAG. *** So, I have tried to present here different models and examine different circumstances of the work of Soviet plant breeders during the Nazi occupation of the USSR – be it collaboration and later imprisonment in Russia (or refusal to collaborate, which still ended in GULAG) or narrow escape and immigration to the USA. I tried to show as well that not only scientists themselves but also seeds and plants changed countries during WWII. Thus the story of collaboration and migration has another dimension: within its context the term ‘migration’ takes a new meaning that enables us to discuss the problem of war migration of scientific objects. 117 The Significance of the Contacts of Some Czech Emigré Historians with the Historians in Czechoslovakia Jana Englová During the Prague Spring in 1968, a number of Czechoslovak scientists got a chance to travel abroad for even long-term research stays. But after the August 1968 occupation a strict command was done to them in December to promptly come back till the 1st of January 1969 regardless of remaining months of their stay. All even repeated applications to finish their stay were rejected. If they did not come back to Czechoslovakia on a given day, state authority enunciated them as emigrants. They lost their home and their property. We can illustrate it on married couple of Prof. Dr. Alice Teichová (historian of between World Wars economy) and Prof. Dr. Mikuláš Teich (historian of natural sciences). They were repudiated in Czechoslovakia during the Normalization period. Despite of it they were during world congresses in unofficial (secret) professional contact with some of Czechoslovak historians. Alice Teichová successfully supported Czechoslovak dilemma in the world historiography. Just after the Velvet Revolution she mediated a connection of research activities between Austrian and Czechoslovak historians of economic history. She participated in establishment of the Institute of Economic and Social History of Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague and in publishing of its foreign-language journal. Together with the Czech historians she partook in a conception of international conferences. In 2010 Alice Teichová was honoured for these her activities by honourable medal of the Charles University at the Czech Embassy in London. During the Prague Spring in 1968 number of Czechoslovak scientists got a chance to go abroad for even long term research stay. But after the August occupation a strict command was done to them in December to promptly come back till the 1st of January 1969 regardless of remaining months of their stay. All even repeated applications to finish their stay were rejected. If they did not come back to Czechoslovakia in given day, state authority enunciated them as emigrants. They lost their home and their property. We can illustrate it on married couple of Prof. Dr. Alice Teichová (historian of between World wars economic history) and Prof. Dr. Mikuláš Teich (historian of natural sciences history). They were repudiated in Czechoslovakia during the Normalization period. 118 Despite of it they were mainly during world congresses in unofficial (secret) professional contact with some of Czechoslovak historians 1. Alice Teichová successfully supported Czechoslovak topic in the world historiography 2. There are really a lot of scientific works in which Alice Teichová concerns to Czechoslovakia topic and she published them in the range of European countries 3. Just after the Velvet Revolution she mediated a connection of research activities between Austrian and Czechoslovak historians of economic history. The workshop was arranged from her initiative and with her mediation in Nicov (the Bohemia Forest) on 11. 12. 10. 1991. Austrian historians from Institut für Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien led by Prof.Dr.Herbert Matis and prof.Dr.Alois Mosser met with Czechoslovakian historians. During this workshop a future mutual scientific cooperation was agreed especially in research area of economic political relationships of Czechoslovakia and Austria during Interwar Era. She participated in establishment of the Institute of Economic and Social History of Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague in 1990 and in issue of its foreign-language journal. The first print of this brand new scientific journal was edited in 1994 with the German title Prager wirtschfts-und sozialgeschichte Mitteilungen and with the English title Prague Economic and Social History Papers. Alice Teichová became a member of 1 E.g. Prof.Arnošt Klíma, Prof.Milan Myška, Prof.Jaroslav Pátek, Prof.Václav Průcha, this discussion contribution author and others. 2 As illustrated in Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte, eds . von Wolfram Fischer, Jan A. van Houtte, Hermann Kellenbenz, Ilja Mieck, Friedrich Vittinghoff, Vol. 6 Europäische Wirtschaft-und Sozialgeschichte vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart 1987. A strong attention was given just to Czechoslovakia due to Alice Teichova´s text in the part Die Tschechoslowakei 1918 - 1980, pp.598 - 639. She gave again uncommon attention in broader view to Czechoslovakia in Cambridge Economic History of Europe, P. Mathias and S. Pollard (eds.), Vol.8 The Industrial Economies. The Development of Economic and Social Policies, Cambridge 1989, as the author of Chapter XIII East-Central and South-East Europe, 1919 - 39, pp.887-983. 3 Detailed listing of these works was published for example in Discourses - Diskurse. Essays for - Beiträge zu Mikuláš Teich and Alice Teichova. Gertrude Enderle-Burcel, Eduard Kubů, Jiří Šouša, Dieter Stiefel (eds). Prague - Vienna 2008, pp. 25-33. I refer especially to these ones: An Economic Background to Munich. International Business and Czechoslovakia 1918 - 1938. Cambridge 1974. The Czechoslovak Economy 1918 - 1980. London - New York 1988. Mezinárodní kapitál a Československo v letech 1918 - l938 (International Capital and Czechoslovakia). Prague 1994 119 this journal Consulting Experts and stayed it to date. Together with Czech historians she partook in a conception of international conferences and in editing of scientific issues 4. In 2010 Alice Teichová was honoured for these her activities by honourable medal of the Charles University at the Czech Embassy in London. 4 Can be illustrated in: Der Markt im Mitteleuropa der Zwischenkriegszeit. Alice Teichova, Alois Mosser, Jaroslav Pátek (eds.).Prague 1997 and in: Economic Change and the National Question in Twentieth-Century Europe. Alice Teichová, Herbert Matis, Jaroslav Pátek (eds.). Cambridge 2000. 120 In the Shadow of Germany: Interwar Migration of Hungarian Scientists Tibor Frank Many Hungarian scholars and scientists were forced to leave Hungary in or after 1919 because they had been politically involved in the Hungarian revolutions of 1918-19 (in most cases the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919). Others became innocent victims of the anti-Semitic campaign and legislation that followed the aborted Bolshevik-type coup in 1919-20, the first of its kind in Europe. These groups typically spoke good German, were educated in the German cultural tradition, and had many earlier contacts with Germany and other German-speaking cultural and scientific centres of Central Europe, including those in Czechoslovakia. It seemed natural for them to seek what turned out to be temporary refuge in the intellectually flourishing and politically tolerant atmosphere of Weimar Germany. Though the Hungarian government realized the potential loss the country would suffer from intellectual exile, most émigrés withstood official endeavours to lure them back to Hungary and chose to stay in Germany until Hitler took over as Chancellor in January 1933. Hungarian scientists, scholars, artists, musicians, filmmakers, authors, and other professionals enjoyed high recognition and prestige in pre-Nazi Germany. This “German” reputation helped them rebuild their subsequent career in England and, particularly the United States, where, after 1933, most of these “German” Hungarians were heading. Their repeated traumas (1919 in Hungary and 1933 in Germany) in interwar Europe led them to become militant anti-Nazis and anti-Communists, who looked upon the United States as a bulwark of freedom and fought against all forms of totalitarianism. Coming from this background, some of the very best and ablest joined the U.S. war effort and contributed to the fall of tyranny in German-dominated Europe and Japan. Theses and Literature Many Hungarian scholars and scientists were forced to leave Hungary in or after 1919 because they had been politically involved in the Hungarian revolutions of 1918–19—in most cases the Bolshevik type Hungarian Republic of Councils of 1919. Others became innocent victims of the anti-Semitic campaign and legislation that followed the aborted revolutions. Members of these groups typically spoke good German, were brought up and educated in the German cultural tradition, and had many earlier contacts with Germany and the German-speaking cultural and scientific centers of Central Europe, including those in Czechoslovakia. It seemed natural for them to seek what turned out to be temporary refuge 121 in the intellectually flourishing and politically tolerant atmosphere of Weimar Germany. As the Quota Laws in the United States, especially the one in 1924, enabled very few Hungarians to enter the United States, most migrants were directed to centers in Europe, and most of all, to Germany. German centers of culture, education, and research represented the pre-eminent opportunity for young Hungarians searching for patterns and norms of modernization. Though the Hungarian government realized the potential loss the country would suffer from intellectual exile, most émigrés withstood endeavors to lure them back to Hungary and chose to stay in Germany until Hitler took over as Chancellor in January 1933. Hungarian scientists, scholars, artists, musicians, filmmakers, authors, and other professionals enjoyed high reputation and prestige in pre-Nazi Germany. This German recognition helped them rebuild their subsequent career in England and, particularly in the United States, where, after 1933, most of these “German” Hungarians were headed. Their repeated traumata (1919 in Hungary and 1933 in Germany) in interwar Europe led them to become militant anti-Nazis and anti-Communists, who looked upon the United States as a bulwark of freedom and democracy, and fought against all forms of totalitarianism. Coming from this background, some of the very best and ablest of them joined the U.S. war effort and contributed to the fall of tyranny in German-dominated Europe and Japan. Research on the history of intellectual migrations from Europe, a broad and complex international field, was based initially on eye-witness accounts which served as primary sources. 1 Laura Fermi’s classic study on Illustrious Immigrants, 2 focusing on the intellectual migration from Europe between 1930 and 1941, also falls into that category. Research proper brought its first results in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Soon after Fermi’s pioneering venture, Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn significantly extended the period of investigation through a series of related articles in their edited volume The Intellectual Migration—Europe and America, 1930–1960. 3 From the beginning, it was German-Jewish 1 Norman Bentwich, The Refugees from Germany, April 1933 to December 1935 (Allen and Unwin, 1936); Norman Bentwich, The Rescue and Achievement of Refugee Scholars: The Story of Displaced Scholars and Scientists 1933–1952 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1953). 2 Laura Fermi, Illustrious Immigrants. The Intellectual Migration from Europe 1930–41 (Chicago—London: University of Chicago Press, 1968). 3 Donald Fleming, Bernard Baylin (eds.), The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America, 1930–1960 (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969). 122 emigration that was best researched, a pattern that was partly reinforced by H. Stuart Hughes’ The Sea Change—The Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965, an excellent survey of the movement of European thinkers and thinking before and after World War II.4 By the end of the 1970s, the first guide to the archival sources relating to German-American emigration during the Third Reich was compiled. 5 The 1980s produced the much-needed biographical encyclopedia, which paved the way for further fact-based, quantitative research. 6 Soon the results of this research became available in a variety of German, English, and French publications focusing on German, German-Jewish, and other Central European emigration in the Nazi era. 7 The primary foci of the research of the 1980s were the émigré scientists and artists fleeing Hitler, with a growing interest in U.S. immigration policies during the Nazi persecution of the Jews of Europe. 8 In contemporary statistics and journalism, most refugees from Germany were hurriedly lumped together as “Germans” or “German-Jews” without their actual birthplace, land of origin, mother tongue or national background being considered as they were forced to leave Germany. This unfortunate tradition has tended to survive in some of the otherwise rich and impressive historical literature on the subject. The great and unsolved problem for further research on refugees from Hitler’s Germany remained how to distinguish the nonGerman, including the Hungarian and the Czechoslovak, elements: people, problems, and cases in this complex area. This is important not only for Hungarian or Czech research but 4 H. Stuart Hughes’ The Sea Change—The Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975). 5 John M. Spalek, Guide to the Archival Materials of the German-speaking Emigration to the United States after 1933 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978), xxv, 1133 p. 6 H. A. Strauss, W. Röder (eds.), International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Emigres 1933–1945 (München-New York-London-Paris: K.G. Saur, 1983), Vols. I–II/1–2+III, xciv, 1316 p. 7 P. Kroner (ed.), Vor fünfzig Jahren. Die Emigration deutschsprachiger Wissenschaftler 1933–1939 (Münster: Gesellschaft fur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 1983); J. C. Jackman, C. M. Borden (eds.), The Muses Flee Hitler. Cultural Transfer and Adaptation 1930– 1945 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian, 1983); R.E. Rider, “Alarm and Opportunity: Emigration of Mathematicians and Physicists to Britain and the United States, 1933–1945,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 15, Part I (1984), 107–176; J.-M. Palmier, Weimar en Exil. Le destin de l’emigration intellectuelle allemande antinazie en Europe et aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Payot, 1987), Tomes 1–2, 533, 486 p. 8 Richard Breitman and Alan M. Kraut, American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987). — In the United States, the Max Kade Center for GermanAmerican Studies at the University of Kansas and the M. E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and Archives at the University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY are probably the best collections on German-American immigration history in the interwar years. 123 may result in a more realistic assessment of what we should, and what we should not, consider “German science” or “German scholarship” in the interwar period. Laura Fermi was probably the first to notice the significant difference between German refugee scientists and Hungarians forced to leave Germany. Her Illustrious Immigrants included a few pages on what she termed the “Hungarian mystery,” referring to the unprecedented number of especially talented Hungarians in the interwar period. 9 The systematic, predominantly biographical treatment of the subject was begun by Lee Congdon in his eminent Exile and Social Thought, which surveyed some of the most brilliant careers of Hungarians in Austria and Germany between 1919 and 1933. 10 A contribution on the achievement of the great Hungarian-born scientists of this century, mostly biographical in nature, came from fellow-physicist George Marx. 11 In a recent book, István Hargittai assessed the achievement of five of the most notable of Hungarian-born scientists who contributed to the U.S. war effort. 12 Hungary after World War I Hungary was particularly hard hit by the consequences of World War I, not only from her association with Germany and thus being irredeemably on the losing side, but the lost war also released long simmering social tensions and energies that facilitated the outbreak of subsequent revolutions. In addition, the country had to accept the humiliating peace treaty of Trianon, the symbol and consequence of the military success of the Entente powers. Tragically, the treaty paved the way for Hungary’s involvement in World War II. Though much of this is textbook history, a review of some of the crucial points of Hungarian 9 Laura Fermi, op. cit., 53–59. Lee Congdon, Exile and Social Thought. Hungarian Intellectuals in Germany and Austria 1919–1933 (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991). 11 George Marx, The Voice of the Martians, 2nd ed. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1997). 12 István Hargittai, The Martians of Science: Five Physicists Who Changed the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). 10 124 history in the years 1918–1920 can serve as a background to the devastating intellectual exodus that followed post-War events.13 World War I was immediately followed by the “Frost Flower (or Aster)” Revolution (October 31, 1918), which preceded the German armistice. Headed by Count Mihály Károlyi, a magnate and one of the few steady opponents of the War from its beginning, the 1918 revolution was geared toward a liberal transformation of Hungary from a largely feudal to a bourgeois-democratic system with well-known radicals and liberals, including scholars and social scientists, in the government. The liberal-democratic, occasionally leftist elite, and the radical elements in early twentieth-century Hungarian politics, academia, literature and the arts, may have felt for a brief period of time that their long fight for the modernization of the country against the repressive regimes of pre-World War I Hungary had finally come to a successful and promising climax. Prime minister-turned-president in the newly proclaimed Republic of Hungary, Count Károlyi promoted a much-overdue land reform and addressed major social problems. He failed, however, to handle the rapidly deteriorating international as well as domestic political and economic situation and half-heartedly handed over power to the Communists and the Social Democrats, whom his government quite stubbornly and effectively oppressed until their takeover on March 21, 1919. The short-lived Hungarian Republic of Councils (in Hungarian: Tanácsköztársaság) was based on, and corresponded to, the Russian idea of the “soviets” and was largely imported from Soviet Russia by former Hungarian prisoners of war, who had spent years in Russian POW camps during World War I where they had been indoctrinated with the ideas and ideals of Communism. It seemed that the “Soviet” Republic of Hungary tried to realize the dreams of the Bolsheviks: its leader, Béla Kun, as well as some of his associates were in constant, sometimes even personal touch with Lenin himself. The leaders of 1919 outdid those of 1918 in terms of radicalism, social engineering and imported visionary utopianism and were often completely detached from the realities of post-World War I Hungary. Theirs was a major social experiment turned into total disaster. Initially popular among certain groups of workers, poor people in general, and some 13 For a brief introduction to the period see Tibor Hajdu and Zsuzsa L. Nagy, “Revolution, Counterrevolution, Consolidation,” in: Peter Sugar, Peter Hanák, and Tibor Frank, eds., A History of Hungary (Bloomington– Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 295–318. 125 intellectuals, the system succeeded in alienating not only the middle class but even the peasantry, and ended up after 133 days with no social backing whatsoever. Its only visible success was a nationally popular effort to retake former Hungarian territories that by 1919 had become dominated by the Czechs and its willingness to fight for Transylvania, occupied by Romania, which had used the political vacuum to move well into the heart of Hungary. By early August 1919, the Soviet experiment was over, and Béla Kun’s regime had to go. 14 Jews and Communists After the takeover of Admiral Miklós Horthy’s White Army in August 1919 and a succession of extremely right-wing governments, “Jew” and “Communist” became almost synonymous. As Hugh Seton-Watson remarked, “[t]he identification of ‘the Jews’ with ‘godless revolution’and ‘atheistic socialism,’ characteristic of the Russian political class from 1881 to 1917, was now also largely accepted by the corresponding class in Hungary.” 15 Bolshevism was considered “a purely Jewish product,” as sociologist Oscar Jászi described it in his reminiscences. Jews were punished for the Commune as a group. 16 Until Adm. Miklós Horthy was proclaimed Regent of Hungary on March 1, 1920, the country lived under the constant threat of extremist, often paramilitary commandos, who tortured and killed almost anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who was said or thought to have been associated in any way with the Béla Kun government. Intellectual leaders lost their jobs as a matter of course. Jewish students were repeatedly beaten. In Prague and Brünn (today Brno), many Hungarians “indeed almost Hungarian colonies, of some 100–200 people” according to New York engineer Marcel Stein’s memory, “left Hungary not as Communists but as Jews.”17 The year 1920 saw the introduction of the Numerus Clausus Act: for anyone who was Jewish, starting 14 On the first year of the (mainly Communist) Hungarian emigration see György Borsányi, “Az emigráció első éve” [The first year of emigration], Valóság, 1977/12, pp. 36–49. 15 Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States. An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism (London: Methuen, 1977), p. 399. 16 Oscar Jászi, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Hungary (New York: Howard Fertig, 1969), pp. 122–124, quote p. 123. 17 Interview with Marcel Stein at Columbia University, New York City, November 29, 1989. 126 a career was becoming nearly impossible. There were few ways to survive politically, economically, and intellectually; the safest solution was, indeed, to flee the country. 18 On top of this turmoil, the devastating peace treaty of Trianon effectively transferred the larger part of the former kingdom of Hungary to newly created or aggrandizing neighboring “nation-states” (in actual fact multi-ethnic, multinational countries) such as Czechoslovakia, Romania, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later, as of 1929, Yugoslavia). The Hungarians of those multiethnic territories immediately began experiencing many difficulties. Once again, Hungarian intellectuals or would-be intellectuals of those regions had very little choice but to leave. The letters Oscar Jászi received from family and friends during his 1919–1920 Vienna exile reveal much of the anguish, distress, and misery of the post-revolutionary period. Father Sándor Giesswein’s letter to him reflected the Budapest mood in the fall of 1919: “With us the atmosphere is like in the middle of July 1914—were we not at the outset of Winter we would again hear the voice subdued in so many bosoms: Long live the war!—This is what the Hungarian needs.” 19 The successful author and playwright Lajos Biró received similar news in Florence from his friends in Hungary: “Letters from home keep telling me that everybody reckons with the opportunity of a new war by next Spring. The war is unimaginable, impossible, madness; but in Hungary, so it seems, it is the unimaginable that always happens.” 20 Jászi’s brother-in-law, Professor József Madzsar added: „[…] the distant future is dark. The air is unbelievably poisoned, it feels as if in a room filled with carbon dioxide, one must get out of here, anywhere, otherwise it gets suffocating. Please write to me whether there is something toward Yugoslavia or whether or not something can be done in Czechoslovakia. There are serious negotiations here with the British and there 18 The first major introduction to Hungarian intellectual emigration after World War I is Lee Congdon’s Exile and Social Thought. Hungarian Intellectuals in Germany and Austria, 1919–1933 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991). 19 Sándor Giesswein to Oscar Jászi, Budapest, November 24, 1919, Columbia University, Butler Library, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Oscar Jászi Papers, Box 5. [Original in Hungarian.] — Sándor Giesswein (1856– 1923) was co-founder of the Christian Socialist movement in Hungary, and a courageous and outspoken Member of Parliament. 20 Lajos Biró to Oscar Jászi, Firenze, December 25, 1919, Oscar Jászi Papers, Box 5. [Original in Hungarian]. 127 is some chance toward Australia, the very best prepare themselves, it will be good company.” 21 Others also placed their hopes on newly-established Czechoslovakia. Lajos Biró, however, had a number of questions: “What do the Czechs say? How do they envisage the future? How does Masaryk envisage it?” 22 On another occasion Biró, with some bitterness and mockery, felt he had a bad choice in front of him when it came to Czechoslovakia: “If news about Horthy turns out to be true and he resorts to conscription and attacks the Czechs, then—then one can only shoot oneself in desperation over the fate of Hungary or else … he can volunteer to join Horthy’s army.” 23 The dangerous and often demoralizing ambience increasingly made people think about leaving the country. As mentioned above, emigration for Hungarians was not a novel idea: some one and a half to two million people had left the country between 1880 and 1914 for the United States. Nevertheless, few of these early emigrants were intellectuals. By 1919 the situation had changed. “How different is the air that [authors in Hungary] breathe since 1918 in contrast to what they had breathed before 1918…,” author and critic Ignotus (Hugo Veigelsberg) noted. “The air, just as wine or sulfur dioxide, influences man’s mind as it considers things, man’s eyes as they look at things, and man’s judgment as it measures things.” 24 “Today it is good for any honest man to have a passport,” as Mrs. Jászi-Madzsar summarized the case in a late 1919 letter to her brother Oscar Jászi in Vienna. 25 Many didn’t wait to get a real passport and forged documents: “There are any number of people now trying to leave the country for various purposes with false passports,” U.S. General Harry Hill Bandholtz of the Inter-Allied Military Commission in Budapest reported in early January 1920 21 József Madzsar to Oscar Jászi, Budapest, November 6, 1919, Oscar Jaszi Papers, Box 5. [Original in Hungarian.]—József Madzsar (1876–1940) was a versatile doctor and social activist, editor and author who moved from a Radical background toward the Communist Party in later life. 22 Lajos Biró to Oscar Jászi, Firenze, December 25, 1919, loc. cit. 23 Lajos Biró to Oscar Jászi, Firenze, December 4, 1919, Oscar Jászi Papers, Box 5. 24 Ignotus, “A Hatvany regényéről” [On Hatvany’s novel], in Ignotus válogatott írásai [Selected Writings by Ignotus] (Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1969), p. 266. 25 Alice Jászi-Madzsar to Oscar Jászi, Budapest, Fall 1919, Oscar Jászi Papers, Box 5. 128 to the American Mission in Vienna. 26 A character in author Gyula Illyés’s novel, Hunok Párisban (Huns in Paris) remarked in a conversation in Paris in the early 1920s: “Soon there will be no one left in Hungary!” 27 A lot of people had little else in mind but emigration. Leading Communists had no other option. Some people had mixed feelings about it, others seemed quite terrified. Even the liberals of Hungary could not emotionally accept what had happened to the country and her borders in the treaty of Trianon (1920). Lajos Biró’s assessment of the political situation of partitioned Hungary was not just a personal one: it was, indeed, a statement for very nearly his entire generation. “I am very biased against the Czechs,” Biró admitted, „particularly because they are the finest of our enemies (and because their expansion is the most absurd). I think if I was in charge of Hungarian politics I would compromise with everybody but them. Here I would want the whole: retaking complete Upper Hungary, from the Morava to the Tisza [Rivers]. I don’t know the situation well enough but I have the feeling that Hungarian irredentism will very soon make life miserable for the Czech state and that the Slovak part will tear away from the Czechs sooner than we thought. Then we can make good friends with the Czechs.”28 Biró’s vision proved to be prophetic in some ways, and as was fairly typical among assimilated Jewish-Hungarian intellectuals at the turn of the century, he proved to be very much a Hungarian nationalist when deliberating the partition of former Hungarian territories and their possible return to Hungary. „To me, I confess, any tool served well that would unite the dissected parts with Hungary. I feel personal anger and pain whenever I think for example of the Czechs receiving the Ruthenland. I really think any tool is good that would explode thisregion out from the Czech state. I believe in general that Hungarian nationalismwill now receive the ethical justification which she so far totally lacked; nationssubjugated and robbed have not only the right but also the duty to be nationalist. We must see whether or not the League of Nations will be an instrument torender justice to the peoples robbed. If yes, it’s good. If not: then all other tools are justified. First 26 Gen. Harry Hill Bandholtz to Albert Halstead of the American Mission, Vienna, Austria, Budapest, January 3, 1920. 27 Gyula Illyés, Hunok Párisban [Huns in Paris] 3rd. ed. (Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1961, Vol.I.) p. 102. 28 Lajos Biró to Oscar Jászi, Firenze, November 24, 1919, Oscar Jászi Papers, Box 5. 129 everything must be taken back from the Czechs that they themselves took away, as this will be the easiest. Then from the Serbs. Finally from the Romanians.” 29 In virtual exile since before the Republic of Councils, which he detested, Jászi did not feel optimistic. In letters to Mihály Károlyi in the early Fall of 1919, he spelled this out clearly. “The situation is undoubtedly dark,” he wrote from Prague. “Vienna is swirling again and rough. The whole of Europe is like a mortally operated man sick with fever, and poor Hungary, as Návay added, received a cadaverous poisoning.” 30 It was certainly not the White Terror that created the “Jewish question” in 1919; it was already there, deeply embedded in early twentieth century Hungarian society. There were, of course, biases of all sorts. The Polányi circle, typically, would deal only with Jews and was often convinced that everybody of importance was, could, or should be Jewish. This often damaged their links with potential non-Jewish political allies. As a friend put it in mid-1921 writing to Michael and his family: “There is a new tenant in your apartment [in Germany], I don’t know whether or not you know him, Sanyi [Sándor] Pap, a boy from Pozsony [today Bratislava in Slovakia], and he is not even Jewish. He has never been. Noneof his relatives have ever been. I don’t believe the whole story; there is no such person in the world.” 31 29 Ibid. Oscar Jászi to Mihály Károlyi, Praha, October 15, 1919, Boston University, Mugar Memorial Library, Special Collections, Károlyi Papers, Box 2, Folder 4/ II/3. 31 Gyuri [?] to Michael Polanyi and family, Wildbad, Germany, June 12, 1921, Michael Polanyi Papers, Box 1, Folder 14, University of Chicago, Joseph Regenstein Library, Special Collections. — The perception of Jewish intellectual ubiquity was not quite a delusion or self-deception. The professional elite in Hungary had very frequently intermarried with Jewish families and the Gentile author Lajos Zilahy provided an unusual and unexpected explanation, in his unpublished autobiography: “Christian intellectuals met with rigid, almost hostile reactions fromtheir families and relatives. This is the explanation of the fact that some seventy percent of them–beginning with Jokai, the greatest novelist in the last century up to the youngest generation in literature, the composers Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly [sic], prominent actors and painters–married Jewish girls, not for money, but for the warmer understanding of the Jewish soul for their professions.” Lajos Zilahy, Autobiography, Boston University, Mugar Memorial Library, Lajos Zilahy Papers, Box 9, Folder 5. [English original.] — Mixed marriages in fact have remained a basic pattern in Hungarian middle-class and uppermiddle-class society and have added to its creativity and intellectual intensity. Cf. John Lukacs, Budapest 1900. A Historical Portrait of a City and Its Culture (New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988), pp. 189–190. 30 130 The Post-War Exodus Whatever their faith, the drive to leave Hungary was preeminent and urgent for thousands. Contemporary observers commented on the “crisis of the university degree,” which was widely discussed in Hungarian public life, in parliament, at social gatherings, as well as at student meetings. Though the Numerus Clausus of 1920 created a particularly severe situation for young Jewish professionals, the crisis had a dramatic impact on most of the young students in Trianon-Hungary. 32 Social critics in the late 1920s pointed to “such an astonishing measure of intellectual degradation that the bells should be tolled in the whole country.” 33 Emigration seemed to be a serious option for every college graduate throughout the 1920s. Jews, of course, found they could not place realistic hopes on having a Hungarian higher education and a Hungarian career. Foreign universities and other institutions promised a good education and perhaps also a job. Good people freshly out of the excellent secondary schools started to gravitate toward German or Czechoslovak universities. Several of the latter also taught in German, and the Hungarian middle class of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Jew and Gentile alike, spoke German well. They brought it from home, learned it at school, occasionally in the army or during holidays in Austria, and it now became their passport to some of the best universities of Europe. The papers of almost every major Hungarian scientist or scholar include requests for letters of recommendation to attend fine German institutions. Already in Germany, Michael Polanyi and Theodore von Kármán were in constant contact with each other and with some of their best colleagues in Hungary and abroad, and paved the way for many young talents who were unable or unwilling to stay in their native Hungary. This is partly how interwar Hungarian émigrés started cohorting or 32 Cp. Judit Molnár, ed., Jogfosztás — 90 éve. Tanulmányok a numerus claususról [Deprivation of rights — 90 years ago. Studies on the numerus clausus act] (Budapest: Nonprofit Társadalomkutató Egyesület, 2011). — Dezső Fügedi Pap, “Belső gyarmatositás vagy kivándorlás,” Uj élet. Nemzetpolitikai Szemle, 1927, Vol. II, Nos. 5– 6. p. 175. — Pap cites pathetic details about the lifestyle of Hungary’s cca. 10,000 students, most of whom were deprived of even the most essential conditions and many were hungry and sick. 33 Dezső Fügedi Pap, op. cit., pp. 175, 180–182. 131 networking, and gradually built up a sizeable, interrelated community in exile. 34 The network of exiles often continued earlier patterns of friendship in Hungary. Curiously enough, Vienna was not particularly inviting. With his mother in Budapest and his brother Michael in Karlsruhe, Germany, Karl Polányi’s discomfort in Vienna was typical. Though he was recognized as an economist of some standing and soon became editor of Der österreichische Volkswirt, he complained bitterly about the ambiance of the city.“The spiritual Vienna is such disappointment, which is deserved to be experienced by those only who imagine the spirit to be bound to a source of income.” 35 Germany: An Obvious Destination Germany seemed much more challenging than Austria. With its sophistication and excellence, it was the dreamland for many who sought a respectable degree or a fine job. Young Leo Szilard was somewhat compromised under the Republic of Councils as a politically active student, and found the Horthy regime, in the words of William Lanouette, “thoroughly distasteful, and dangerous. […] He thought he was in physical danger by staying because of his activities under the Béla Kun government […] [He] was […] afraid to come back. He stayed in Berlin.” 36 At first Szilard wanted “to continue [his] engineering studies in Berlin. The attraction of physics, however, proved to be too great. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Max von Laue, Erwin Schrödinger, Walther Nernst, Fritz Haber, and James Franck were at that time all assembled in Berlin and attended a journal club in physics which was also open to students. I 34 Mihály Freund to Michael Polanyi, [Budapest], May 4, 1920; Imre Bródy to Michael Polanyi, Göttingen, March 24, 1922; both in the Michael Polanyi Papers, Box 17. 35 Karl Polanyi to Michael Polanyi, Vienna, April 24, 1920, Michael Polanyi Papers, Box 17, Folder 2. [Original in German] 36 William Lanouette on His Leo Szilard Biography. Gábor Palló in Conversation with William Lanouette, The New Hungarian Quarterly, XXIX, No. 111 (Autum 1988), pp. 164–165. A missing link: Szilard received a certificate from Professor Lipót Fejer dated December 14, 1919, testifying that he won a second prize in a student competition in 1916, and he presented this document to a notary public in Berlin-Charlottenburg on January 3, 1920. This is how we know, almost exactly, when he left Hungary. Cf. Beglaubigte Abschrift, signed by the Notary Public Pakscher, Charlottenburg, January 3, 1920, Leo Szilard Papers, Mandeville Special Collections Library, University of California, San Diego, Geisel Library, La Jolla, California, MSS 32, Box 1, Folder 12. 132 switched to physics and obtained a Doctor’s degree in physics at the University of Berlin under von Laue in 1922.” 37 Already in Karlsruhe, and on his way toward a career in physical chemistry, Michael Polanyi was searching for a good job. He turned for help to the celebrated Hungarian-born professor of aerodynamics in Aachen, Theodore von Kármán, seeking advice as to his future. Von Kármán himself came from the distinguished, early assimilated Jewish-Hungarian professional family of Mór Kármán. Theodore went to study and work in Germany as early as 1908 and acquired his Habilitation there. By the end of World War I, he already had a high reputation when, after a brief interlude in Hungary and some largely inaccurate accusations that he was a Communist, he quickly returned to Aachen in the fall of 1919. 38 Young Michael Polanyi’s questions to von Kármán about a job in Germany were answered politely but with caution. „The mood at the universities is for the moment most unsuitable for foreigners though this may change in some years, also, an individual case should never be dealt with by the general principles [...] To get an assistantship is in my mind not very difficult and I am happily prepared to eventually intervene on your behalf, as far as my acquaintance with chemists and physical chemists reaches. I ask you therefore to let me know if you hear about any vacancy and I will immediately write in your interest to the gentlemen concerned.” 39 Polanyi’s Budapest University colleague and friend, Georg de Hevesy (1885–1966), chose Copenhagen. The prospective Nobel Laureate (Chemistry, 1943), who also came from a wealthy upper-middle class Jewish family, was subjected to a humiliating experience just after the Republic of Councils came to an end.40 De Hevesy received his “Extraordinary Professorship”) from the Károlyi revolution and his full professorship from the Republic of 37 Leo Szilard, Curriculum Vitae (Including List of Publications), August 1956, updated June 23, 1959, Leo Szilard Papers, MSS 32, Box 1, Folder 2. Albert Einstein, Fritz Haber, Max von Laue, Walther Nernst, and Max Planck were Nobel Laureates, while Erwin Schrödinger and James Franck were prospective Nobel Laureates. 38 For the 1919 incident in Hungary see Theodore von Kármán with Lee Edson, The Wind and Beyond: Theodore von Kármán, Chapter 11: “Revolution in Hungary,” (Boston-Toronto: Little, Brown & Co, 1967), pp. 90–95; Gábor Palló, Egy tudománytörténeti szindrómáról—Kármán Tódor pályafutása alapján” [On a History of Science Syndrome–Based on the Career of Theodore von Kármán Valóság, Vol. XXV, No. 6, 1982, p. 26. 39 Theodore von Kármán to Michael Polanyi, Aachen, March 17, 1920, Michael Polanyi Papers, Box 17. 40 The history of the “trial” of De Hevesy in late October 1919 was reconstructed by Gábor Palló,“Egy boszorkányper története. Miért távozott el Hevesy György Magyarországról?” [The History of a Kangaroo Court: Why George de Hevesy Left Hungary?] Valóság XXVIII (1985), No. 7, pp. 77–89. 133 Councils. He had a special task to perform: with Theodore von Kármán in his short-lived, though influential job in the ministry of education as head of the department of higher education, de Hevesy tried to obtain enough money to equip the Institute of Physics at the University of Budapest with important new technology and materials that would also serve other departments. Allegations were made that he used his friendship with von Kármán to prepare the Institute of Physics for von Kármán and the department of physical chemistry for himself. He was accused of having been a member of the university faculty council during the Republic of Councils and to have received his professorship from its government. He was dismissed and was even denied the right to teach at the University of Budapest. In an important letter written to Niels Bohr in the middle of his “trial,”de Hevesy bitterly complained that “politics entered also the University […] hardly anybody who is a jew [sic] or a radical, or is suspected to be a radical, could retain his post […] The prevalent moral and material decay will I fear for longtime prevent anykind of successfull scientific life in Hungary.” Hevesy left Hungary in March 1920. 41 Others tried their luck in the German universities of Prague or Brünn [Brno] in newly created Czechoslovakia, where good technical and research universities were available in both Prague and Brno, and the language of instruction was German. Many Hungarians had been natives of Pozsony or the Slovak parts of former greater Hungary and spoke German as their mother tongue. Standards were high and the students were still close to home. In an interview given in late 1989 at Columbia University in New York City, former Hungarian engineering student Marcel Stein vividly remembered the heated and dangerous atmosphere of late 1919 and early 1920 in Budapest. Though many moved to BerlinCharlottenburg, or Karlsruhe in Germany or, like the distinguished engineer László Forgó, to Zurich, Switzerland, Marcel Stein remembered that many émigrés returned later to Hungary. 42 Though their actual number is unknown, the returnees were lured back to Hungary chiefly because of their sense of linguistic isolation, their keenly felt separation 41 George Hevesy to Niels Bohr, Budapest, October 25, 1919, Bohr Scientific Correspondence, Archive for History of Quantum Physics, Office of the History of Science and Technology, University of California, Berkeley. [English original.] 42 Marcel Stein in conversation with the present author, November 29, 1989, Columbia University, New York City. In 1990–91 I was granted several very valuable interviews by Andrew A. Recsei (1902–2002), a distinguished chemist in Santa Barbara, CA, another former Hungarian student who also studied once in Brno (Brünn) in exactly the same period of time. 134 from family and friends, and, most of all, the gradually consolidating situation of Hungary in the mid-1920s. Still some of the best scientists, engineers, scholars, artists, musicians, and professionals of all sorts, continued to leave Hungary in large numbers in 1920 and later. 43 For many, there was real danger in staying as they had actively promoted the Republic of Councils in 1919, such as the future Hollywood star Béla Lugosi, remembered primarily for his role in Dracula, who left for the U.S. in 1921, and film director Mihály Kertész, who became the successful and productive Michael Curtiz of Casablanca, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and White Christmas. For those who were actually members of the Communist government at some level, like the philosopher Georg Lukács and the author and future film theorist Béla Balázs and many others, there was simply no choice but to leave. Hungary became more civilized and less dangerous in the latter part of the 1920s under the government of Count István Bethlen (prime minister between 1921 and 1931), and some of the heated issues of 1919–1920 subsided by the end of the decade. The radicalliberal agenda no longer had a wide appeal, losing many of its champions who chose exile, and meeting with a measure of disregard under the regime of Regent Adm. Miklós Horthy. It became apparent to most people how difficult it had become, in the suddenly and drastically changed national and international, political and social conditions of the immediate postWorld War I period, to uphold Western ideas and ideals. Even the liberal agenda, which looked back to almost a century in Hungarian history, and which embraced Jews who immigrated earlier, as well as the ideals of modernization through much of the nineteenth century, was in many ways closed off. Interwar Hungary became a thoroughly conservative, nationalist, and emphatically “Christian” country, as it was defined by the ruling elite. Though uncertain whether to leave their native Hungary, many radicals and liberals, despite their ambivalence, resolved their dilemma by necessity alone: there was no choice left to them but emigration. For those trying to escape Hungary after World War I and the revolutions, the German-speaking countries appeared the most obvious destination. The German influence in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was particularly strong in the education system, in the 43 For the earliest and consequently incomplete list of important people who left Hungary in, or right after, 1919–1920, see Oscar Jászi, op. cit., pp. 173–174; for a more complete list see Tibor Frank, Double Exile: Migrations of Jewish-Hungarian Professionals through Germany to the United States, 1919-1945 (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2009), pp. 439-452. 135 musical tradition, and in the arts and sciences. Members of the Austro-Hungarian middle classes spoke German well, and countries like Austria, Germany, and newly established Czechoslovakia were close to Hungary, not only in geographic, but also in cultural terms. Weimar Germany and parts of German-speaking Czechoslovakia were also liberal and democratic in spirit and politics. In addition, like the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Germany and to some extent, Czechoslovakia, represented a multi-centered world: each of the “gracious capitals of Germany’s lesser princes,” 44 as István Deák put it, could boast of an opera, a symphony, a university, a theater, a museum, a library, an archive, and, most importantly, with an appreciative and inspiring public which invited and welcomed international talent. Young musicians graduating from the Hochschule für Musik in Berlin could be reasonably sure that their diploma concerts would be attended by the music directors and conductors of most of the German operas across the country, poised to offer them a job in one of the many cultural centers of the Reich. 45 Berlin and other cities of Weimar Germany shared many of the cultural values and traditions which young Hungarian scholars, scientists, musicians, visual artists, film makers and authors were accustomed to, providing an attractive setting and an intellectual environment comparable to the one that perished with pre-War Austria-Hungary, or was left behind, particularly in Budapest. The vibrant, yet tolerant spirit of pre-Nazi Germany, and particularly the atmosphere of an increasingly Americanized Berlin, gave them a foretaste of the United States and some of her big cities. Hungary and the German Culture Both as a language and as a culture, German was a natural for Hungarians in the immediate post-World War I era. The lingua franca of the Habsburg Empire and of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, German was used at home, taught at school, spoken on the 44 István Deák, Weimar Germany’s Left-Wing Intellectuals. A Political History of the Weltbühne and Its Circle (Berkeley—Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), p. 13. 45 Information from Budapest Opera conductor János Kerekes, August 1994. Cf. Antal Dorati, Notes of Seven Decades (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979), pp. 90–125. 136 street and needed in the army. 46 This was more than a century-old tradition: the links between Hungary and the Austrian and German cultures went back to the 17th and the 18th centuries. The average “Hungarian” middle class person was typically German or Jewish by origin, and it was German culture and civilization that connected Hungary and the AustroHungarian Monarchy to Europe and the rest of the World. Middle class living rooms in Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, and Croatia typically boasted of the complete work of Goethe and Schiller, the poetry of Heine and Lenau, the plays of Grillparzer and Schnitzler. 47 Not only were German literature and German translations read throughout these areas: German permeated the language of the entire culture. When Baron József Eötvös, a reputable man of letters and Minister of Religion and Education, in both 1848 and after 1867, visited his daughter in a castle in Eastern Hungary, he noted: “What contrasts! I cross Szeged and Makó, then visit my daughter to find Kaulbach on the wall, Goethe on the bookshelf and Beethoven on the piano.” 48 Scores of Das wohltemperierte Klavier by Johann Sebastian Bach, Gigues and Sarabandes by Georg Friedrich Händel, the sonatas of Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven, the Variations serieuses by Felix Mendelssohn, the popular songs of Franz Schubert or Robert Schumann, piano quintets of Johannes Brahms, and the brilliant transcriptions of Franz Liszt—these were the works which adorned the living room, or, in higher places, the music room. Throughout the entire Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and beyond, Hungarians looked to import from Germany its modern theories and novel practices. Two examples from the beginning and the end of the period are characteristic. For generations of Hungarian lawmakers, the German school provided the finest example in Europe. When young Bertalan Szemere, a future prime minister of Hungary, went to study“what was best in each country, [he] tried to consider schools in Germany, the public life in France, and prisons in Britain […].” 49 After almost two years under Professor Tuiskon Ziller at the University of Leipzig, Germany, Mór Kármán returned to Hungary and founded, in 1872, both the Institute for 46 István Deák, Beyond Nationalism: A Social and Political History of the Habsburg Officer Corps, 1848–1918 (New York−Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 83, 89, 99–102. 47 Cf. Gyula Illyés, Magyarok. Naplójegyzetek [Hungarians. Diary Notes], 3rd ed. (Budapest: Nyugat, n.d. [1938]), Vol. II, p. 239. 48 István Sőter, Eötvös József [József Eötvös] 2nd rev. ed. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1967), p. 314. 49 Journal entry from Berlin, October 31, 1836. Cf. Bertalan Szemere, Utazás külföldön [Travelling Abroad] (Budapest: Helikon, 1983), p. 59. 137 Teacher Training at the University of [Buda]Pest as well as the closely related Student Teaching High School or Mintagimnazium for prospective teachers, thus profoundly influencing Hungarian education in a German spirit and tradition. 50 Likewise, in December 1918, Cecilia Polányi, the mother of Michael and Karl Polanyi and future grandmother of Nobel Laureate John C. Polanyi, intended to study the curricula and methods of German institutions in the field of “practical social work” and planned to go to Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Mannheim, Hannover, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Augsburg, Munich, Heidelberg, Königsberg, and a host of other places where the various Soziale Frauenschulen, Frauenakademie, Frauenseminare were the very best in Europe. 51 The effort to study and imitate what was German was, of course, natural. German was then the international language of science and literature: in the first eighteen years of the Nobel prize, between 1901 and 1918, there were seven German Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, six in Physics, four in Medicine (one Austro-Hungarian), and four in Literature. 52 Scholars and scientists read the Beiträge, the Mitteilungen, or the Jahrbücher of their special field of research or practice, published at some respectable German university town such as Giessen, Jena, or Greifswald. The grand tour of a young intellectual, artist, or professional, would unmistakably lead the budding scholar to Göttingen, Heidelberg, and, increasingly, Berlin. Artists typically went to Munich to study with Karl von Piloty. 53 After the political changes of 1918–20, small groups of intellectually gifted Hungarians started to migrate toward a variety of European countries and the United States. After what often proved to be the first step in a chain- or step-migration, most of the Hungarian emigres found they had to leave the German-speaking countries upon the rise of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany and they continued on their way, in most cases to the United States. After the political changes of 1918–20, small groups of intellectually gifted 50 Baron József Eötvös to Mór Kleinmann, Buda, July 20, 1869, #12039, Theodore von Kármán Papers, California Institute of Technology Archives, File 142.10, Pasadena, CA; Untitled memoirs of Theodore von Kármán of his father, File 141.6, pp. 1–2. Cf. István Sőtér, Eötvös József, op. cit., Miklós Mann, Trefort Ágoston élete és működése [The Life and Work of Ágoston Trefort] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982). 51 Cecilia Polanyi to the Minister of Religion and Public Education, Budapest, December 11, 1918 and enclosures. (Hungarian and German) Michael Polanyi Papers, Box 20, Folder 1, Department of Special Collections, University of Chicago Library, Chicago, Ill. 52 The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2011 (New York: World Almanac Books, 2011), pp. 266–269. 53 Károly Lyka, Magyar művészélet Münchenben [Hungarian Artist-Life in Munich] (2nd ed., Budapest: Corvina, 1982); László Balogh, Die ungarische Facette der Münchner Schule (Mainburg: Pinsker-Verlag, 1988). 138 Hungarians started to migrate toward a variety of European countries and the United States. This pattern was certainly not the only one, though it was by far the most typical. Professional migration as a European phenomenon after World War I was certainly not restricted to Hungary alone. The immense social convulsions that followed the war drove astonishing numbers of people in all directions. Russian and Ukrainian refugees fled Bolshevism, Poles were relocated in reemerging Poland, Hungarians escaped from newly established Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. 54 Outward movements from Hungary in the 1920s were part of this emerging general pattern and cannot be clearly defined as emigrations proper. Most people simply went on substantial and extended study tours of varied length, just as others did already before World War I. Contrary to general belief, migrations were not limited to Jews suffering from the political and educational consequences of the White Terror in Hungary. Yet, Jewish migrations were a definitive pattern of the 1920s when the numerus clausus law (1920:XXV) kept many of them out of the universities. The result of these migrations was the vulnerability of statelessness, or at least mental statelessness, the troubled existence of living long years without citizenship in a world built on nationality. 55 Gentile Hungarians also left their country in considerable numbers in this era, for a variety of reasons. In subsequent years many of them returned to Hungary. Their list included the likes of authors Gyula Illyés, Lajos Kassák, and Sándor Márai, visual artists Aurél Bernáth, Sándor Bortnyik, Béni and Noémi Ferenczy, Károly Kernstok, singers Anne Roselle (Anna Gyenge), Rosette (Piroska) Andai, Koloman von Pataky, actors/actresses Vilma Bánky, Ilona Hajmássy, Béla Lugosi, Lya de Putti, organist/composer Dezső Antalffy-Zsiross, composer Béla Bartók, as well as biochemist and Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi. 54 Geoffrey Barraclough, ed., The Times Atlas of World History (Maplewood NJ: Hammond, rev. ed. 1984, repr. 1988), p. 265. 55 Linda K. Kerber, “Toward a History of Statelessness in America,” American Quarterly, Volume 57, Number 3, September 2005, pp. 727–749. 139 Heading Towards the United States Motivated by politics, poverty, curiosity, or longing for an international career, people of dramatically opposed convictions hit the road and tried their luck in Paris, Berlin, or Hollywood. Many Hungarians left the successor states of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire labeled as “Romanians,”“Czechoslovaks,” or “Yugoslavs.” Because of the Quota Laws, however, very few Hungarians could head towards the United States: migrations were directed toward European centers, in the first place to Germany. The Peace Treaty of Trianon eliminated much of the geographic and social mobility in the area or made it very difficult. Escaping interwar Hungary was, in fact, not only a form of geographic relocation, but a vehicle of social mobility. Pre-Hitler Germany was one of the great European centers of modernization, science and culture that attracted migrants from all the peripheries of Europe just as the United States that gradually developed into such a center from a global perspective. Emigration served the transfer of Hungarian middle class values and possibilities into the much larger and more articulate German and American middle-class. This made the integration of newcomers usually quick, effective, and lasting, and led to professional success. Upon landing in the U.S., immigrants from socially backward Hungary arrived into an incomparably larger, more modern, dynamic, and professional middle-class where talent was appreciated and fostered. American middle class values and institutions made integration relatively easy, both socially and mentally. Rescue operations in the pre-World War II period were made extremely difficult by the restrictionist 1924 quota law (in effect until 1965), raging unemployment and growing anti-Semitism in the U.S. As only the top people from even the German group were wanted, the agencies carefully skimmed the very best and refused second-class professionals. The growing need of European professionalism and know-how, especially the later demands of the war effort, made it imperative for the U.S. to allow immigration of the top level specialists. Refugee organizations in the United States were not pursuing charity: they followed their professional motives and interests and served their country and institutions while also saving European lives. Interwar migrations did not stop upon arrival into the U.S. but 140 continued from institution to institution until the newcomer found his/her ”final” place or destination. Step-migration was to become an almost global phenomenon. Networking, cohorting, and bonding were strong among the Hungarian refugees and some, like Leo Szilard and Theodore von Kármán, did their best to help fellow refugees. Their own ”private” or combined private/institutional rescue operations were part of U.S. relief, often shared by outstanding American scholars, themselves mostly of European origin. Jews arriving from Hungary seemed to have been more Hungarian than Jewish, though further research is needed to find out more about the exact nature of their religious affiliation. Assimilation in Hungary certainly left a lasting imprint on their faith. Many of the American citizens initiating or participating in the rescue missions were themselves Jewish and were driven by the special sensitivity of shared background and a more keenly felt danger. Contrary to common belief, not all émigré Hungarians were Jewish in the period between 1919–1945. Though the overwhelming majority of exiles was Jewish, the country was also left behind by a relatively small group of gentile Hungarians, politically liberal, radical, or leftist, and some eventually just hoping for a more rewarding career. Some of these returned to Hungary at a later point. The lack of a sufficient knowledge of English isolated many of the immigrants and curtailed their social integration into the American community. However, their repeated traumata in interwar Europe led them to become militant anti-Nazis and anti-Communists, who looked upon the United States as a bulwark of freedom and fought against all forms of totalitarianism. Coming from this background, some of the very best and ablest joined the U.S. war effort (including the Manhattan Project) and contributed to the fall of tyranny in German-dominated Europe and Japan. The number of notable Hungarian-American refugees in the interwar years is difficult to assess. A list of some 250 eminent Hungarian professionals who immigrated to the U.S. between 1919–1945 was compiled by the present author. 56 Though the list is incomplete, it presents a wide variety of outstanding specialists whose presence in the United States was, 56 Tibor Frank, Double Exile, op. cit., pp. 439-452. 141 and in many cases, continues to be, an important contribution to American science, education and culture. That the bulk of this outstanding group lived a relatively happy and successful life in America is further evidenced by their life span. As documented by our list, a surprisingly large percentage of immigrant Hungarian-Americans became extremely old: approximately 33% lived to 85 years or more, 20% to 90 and 1,5% lived to more than 100 years. In other words, every third member of this group reached an age that was unusual even for Americans as the elderly U.S. population during the period between 1920–2000 represented only 0,2 to 1,5% of the total U.S. population. 57 The group of Jewish-Hungarian refugees may be considered to have had a groupbiography. One can look upon the members of this large and diverse group as living essentially the same life and write their shared, common biography in terms of a prosopography. Yet, this prosopography must not fail to transmit the extent to which Hungary’s loss of some of its most outstanding talent remains in the national awareness a source of pain and pride, fear and anger. Hungary’s fundamental educational contributions to these outstanding minds, in combination with the energizing modernism of Germany and other western European countries, were fertilized again by the nurturing soil of their new homeland in the U.S. This transient generation’s step-migrations, tossed and turned as they were by the traumatizing historical-political events of the era, produced a range of contributions that are rightly owned by many countries, and can be seen as foreshadowing in the 21st century the emergence of a global human identity. 58 57 For the survey of the U.S. Census Bureau see The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2011 (New York: World Almanac Books, 2011), p. 616. 58 This article is based partly upon the results of Tibor Frank, „The Social Construction of Hungarian Genius (1867-1930).” Von Neumann Memorial Lecture, Princeton University, 2007; Tibor Frank, Double Exile, op. cit.; Tibor Frank, „Budapest—Berlin—New York. Stepmigration from Hungary to the United States, 1919-1945.” In: Richard Bodek and Simon Lewis, eds, The Fruits of Exile. Central European Intellectual Immigration to America in the Age of Fascism (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2010), pp. 197-221. 142 With Ukraine on Mind: Roman Smal-Stockyj between Prague and Warsaw Zaur Gasimov Roman Smal-Stockyj (1863-1969) was an Ukrainian philologist, politician and emigrant. Born in Habsburg Empire, he promoted the idea of Ukrainian samotiynost being involved into the political processes in Galicia at the beginning of the 20th century. After the Ukrainian Republic ceased to exist as a result of the Bolshevik expansion in 1920, Smal-Stockyj’s emigrant life began. Educated in Vienna, Munich and Leipzig, he was one of the co-founders of the Ukrainian Free University in Prague and taught linguistics for years at the University of Warsaw. Smal-Stockyj was close to the Promethean movement – a movement of the emigrants from Ukraine, the Caucasus and Crimea, which was financed and supported by the Polish government in the Inter-War Period. Smal-Stockyj headed the Club Prometeusz in Warsaw and cooperated intensively with the Ukrainian government in emigration, particularly with Petlyura and with the emigrants from the former Russian Empire in Paris. As a philologist, Roman Smal-Stockyj was in opposition to the Russian emigrant circles of Eurasianists based in Paris and mostly in Prague (Prince Nikolay Trubetskoy, Roman Yakobson a.o.). Simultaneously, the exiled linguist criticized the policy of russification in the Soviet Ukraine. Together with his Polish colleagues, he organized several international conferences on the language policy in the USSR in 1930s. During World War Two Smal-Stockyj lived in Prague and left to the USA in 1947. There he was appointed Professor of Eastern European Studies at the Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. My aim is to show the emigrant activity of the politician and linguist Roman Smal-Stockyj in the 1920-30s between Prague and Warsaw. I intend to analyze it in the context of his disputes with the Russian emigrants but also with the representatives of structuralism school of Prague and with Masaryk’s and Bidlo’s visions of Russia as well. It is important to depict his perception of the totalitarian idea concepts of the inter-war period. Theoretically, the case-study is based on the approach of the Cambridge School of Intellectual History. 143 Ukrainian Scholars and the Soviet Regime in the 1920s: The Movement of Reconciliation and Return Christopher Gilley The failure of the attempts to create a Ukrainian state during the 1917-21 revolution and civil war created a large Ukrainian émigré community in Central Europe, above all in Prague and Vienna. This included leading Ukrainian scholars and intellectuals, for example the historian Mykhailo Hrushevskyi and the author and playwright Volodymyr Vynnychenko. Despite the fact that they had participated in governments, which had fought the Bolsheviks, many émigrés such as Hrushevskyi and Vynnychenko soon began advocating reconciliation with the Soviet leadership and return to the Ukraine. At the same time, many academics from Eastern Galicia – the predominantly Ukrainian province occupied by Poland – immigrated to the Soviet Ukraine. The paper gives an overview of the reasons for adopting a pro-Soviet stance and charts the development of this émigré movement. It identifies two major arguments. Some Ukrainian Sovietophiles saw the Bolsheviks as the leaders of the world revolution; in doing so, they reinterpreted the heritage of 19th-century populism so as to present the Soviet regime as the successor to that legacy. Others stressed the national achievements made in the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic in the 1920s, particularly in response to the Bolsheviks' introduction of Ukrainianisation in 1923, which created many opportunities for Ukrainian speakers in educational and research institutions in the republic. In this way, the paper examines how the Soviet system could continue to exert an attraction, even over those scholars who had once fled it. 144 Humanitarian Generosity and the Demands of the Labor Market: The Selection of Czechoslovakian and Polish-Jewish Refugees to Sweden, 1968-72 Lukasz Gorniok The paper focuses on the reception of refugees from Czechoslovakia and Poland immigrating to Sweden between 1968 and 1972. According to the materials of the Swedish Labour Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen, AMS), during those years close to 1,500 Czechoslovaks and more than 2,000 Polish Jews came to Sweden. Slightly lower numbers of Czechoslovak asylum seekers granted by Swedish visa were presented by the correspondence from the Swedish Embassy in Vienna. On the contrary, the documents from the Jewish Community in Stockholm refer to more than 2,500 Polish Jews that came to Sweden. Despite those inaccuracies, they were the tiny group of refugees forced to emigrate after the political upheavals of 1968 in both countries. Interestingly, in the debate between the various state authorities, they were often perceived as intellectual refugees with certain difficulties in the processes of their integration. Numerous studies have focused on the composition of emigrants expelled from the communist regimes. But how did the fact that this group consists to significant extent of intellectuals and scholars influence the reception policy? In my paper, I will firstly discuss the correspondence between the Swedish Labour Market Board (AMS) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regarding acceptance of the asylum seekers from Czechoslovakia and Poland to Sweden. Secondly, I will examine how the label “intellectual refugees” influenced Swedish integration policy. My presentation is a part of a larger project that investigates Swedish migration policy towards Polish-Jewish refugees that came to Sweden between 1968 and 1972. The presentation will be a work-in-progressreport. Introduction On August 21, 1968, Gösta Broborg, Senior Administrative Officer of the Swedish Labor Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen, AMS) signed a memorandum regulating the collective transfer of refugees to Sweden. This process comprised several steps and required the involvement of a large amount of Swedish and international personnel, including translators and medical staff 1. After the authorization of the Office of the King-in-Council 1 Establishing the number of refugees originates with the authorization of the Office of the King-in-Council. Negotiations conducted by the Swedish Refugee Office (Flyktingkommisariatet) produces a list of countries of first asylum to which delegations will be sent, after which the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Utrikesdepartamentet) establishes contact with the authorities responsible for refugees in their respective countries. In practice, this was often organized between Swedish embassies and the respective Ministries of 145 and negotiations with the Swedish Refugee Office (Flyktingkommisariatet), the selection and transfer processes were overseen by representatives of three Swedish state authorities – the AMS, the Social Welfare Board (Socialstyrelsen), and the National Aliens Commission (Statens invandrarverk, SIV). The memo issued by Broborg also contained instructions about how to conduct interviews and the logistics of the transfer of the refugees to Sweden. Gösta Broborg would no doubt have been surprised at how soon these new regulations would be put to the test. On the night preceding the memorandum, The Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies decided to invade Czechoslovakia, this “disloyal” member of the Warsaw Pact. Despite the impressive campaign of peaceful resistance, approximately 200,000 people decided to leave Czechoslovakia for good. 2 Only a few months before, just across its northern border, another Communist country underwent its own political upheaval. The so-called “March Events” of the spring of 1968 resulted in a nation-wide antiSemitic campaign initiated by the Polish United Workers’ Party and was specifically aimed at encouraging Polish Jews to emigrate. As a result, some 13,000 Polish Jews migrated to others countries, effectively bringing to an end any notable Jewish presence in Poland. 3 In April 1971, almost three years after the first decision regarding the acceptance of Eastern European exiles was made, Gösta Broborg summarized that of 1,500 Czechoslovaks migrating directly to Sweden since the end of August 1968, 75% can be characterized as an intellectuals or academics. In the case of the 2,000 Polish Jews entering the country during the corresponding period, the percentage was even higher. 4 In fact, the total number of Polish-Jewish and Czechoslovakian refugees came to Sweden, according to Swedish migration policy researchers, reached 6,000. 5 the Interior. The Swedish Public Employment Service Archives (henceforth AMS Archive), E2J: 3, Memorandum 21.08.1968. 2 On peaceful resistance, see Philip Windsor, Adam Roberts, Czechoslovakia, 1968: reform, repression and resistance, London, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1969. For number of exiles, see: See Z. R. Nešpor, Reemigranti a sociálně sdílené hodnoty. Prologomena k sociologickému studiu českých emigračních procesů 20 století se zvláštním zřetelem k západní reemigraci 90 let, (Praha, 2002), p. 49-50. 3 Dariusz Stola, Kraj bez wyjścia? Migracje z Polski 1949–1989, (Warszawa: IPN, ISP PAN, 2010), p. 221. 4 AMS Archive, EIIE: 62, Letter of referral, 14.04.1971. 5 Jonas Widgren, Svensk invandrarpolitik : en faktabok, (Lund: LiberFörlag, 1982), p. 103; Christer Lundh and Rolf Ohlsson, Från arbetskraftsimport till flyktinginvandring (Stockholm: SNS (Studieförb. Näringsliv och samhälle), 1994), p. 93. 146 The present essay attempts an approach to the first stages in the reception of these refugees. Its main goal is to examine the role of the Labor Market Board - the Swedish authority responsible for enforcing migration policy - in the process of accepting Czechoslovakian and Polish-Jewish refugees in the period 1968-72. Correspondence between this authority and international organizations, kept in the AMS archives, will be investigated6. A detailed investigation of the first stages of reception should significantly facilitate understanding for future decisions concerning integration of these and future migrants. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the decision-making process and its consequences sheds new light on the complexity of Swedish immigration policy at crucial turning point in 1960s. Swedish Immigration Policy by the late 1960s By the late 1960s, Sweden, like other Western countries, faced the growing problem of resettlement of refugees. Reports issued by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee for European Migration (ICEM) at the end of the decade refer to an enormous influx of refugees needing Western assistance. The total number of migrants aided by the ICEM in 1968 reached 80,302, of which 50,987 were classified as refugees.7 This dramatic situation required the direct involvement of an extraordinary number of states and institutions called to help alleviate the crisis. Sweden was one of the countries international refugee organizations were most eager to win over. During the post-war era, the country witnessed a massive migratory influx. The rapid growth of industry and call for laborers attracted thousands of migrants. As a result of this enormous influx – migrating both from neighboring countries as 6 It should be noted that correspondence between the Swedish Labor Market Board and the High Commissioner refers mainly to so-called ‘quota refugees’ who were allowed to migrate to Sweden after being granted a residence permit by the Swedish delegation. This policy of collective transfer was not restricted to refugees in the formal sense of the term and can be applied to individuals who have been persecuted and are in danger but have been able to leave their country. In the Swedish case, new guidelines for the use of the quota system have been issued annually by the government since the 1950s. See Immigrant and refugee policy, (Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Labour [Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet], 1992), p. 7. 7 1968 is presented as a time when the largest number of refugees since 1957, following the Hungarian crisis, has been assisted. AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, The refugee operations of ICEM 28.03.1969. See also HCR bulletin, 1968, Vol. 5. 147 well as from Southern Europe (Yugoslavia, Greece and Italy) - the composition of this relatively homogeneous society changed significantly. 8 Shortly after the Second World War, the number of foreign-born citizens had doubled, reaching almost 200,000 by 1950 and growing to 300,000 by 1960. 9 The second half of 1960s, however, brought a significant shift in the principles of migration policies in Western Europe. Social and economic issues led to cuts in recruitment of foreign workers. In Sweden, this shift was additionally accompanied by change in foreign policy. Active political engagement and condemnation of human rights violations, like in the case of U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War or Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, led Sweden to become known for its outspoken critique of international injustice and engagement in several extraordinary refugee efforts on behalf of victims of the Cold War. 10 As a result, the number of exiles interested in migrating to Sweden increased rapidly. Sweden became one of the most active participants in attempting to solve the problem of resettlement and the generous nature of immigration policy is reflected in the number of approved requests from the UNHCR for an increase in the Swedish refugee quota. 11 Swedish efforts to help to solve the problem of Czechoslovakian refugees On the August 30, 1968, Broborg informed his colleague Ove Jonsson of a telephone conversation he had had with Dr. Krizek from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Broborg said that the Austrian Ministry was interested in speeding up the Swedish selection originally planned for October 1968. This request was motivated by the fast-rising tide of refugees without naming any particular nationality. We do know that Broberg´s non-committal reply 8 Tomas Hammar, European immigration policy : a comparative study, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 5. 9 Jan Ekberg, Invandring till Sverige : orsaker och effekter: årsbok från forskningsprofilen AMER, (Växjö: Växjö Univ. Press, 2003), p. 9. 10 Alison Brysk, Global good Samaritans : human rights as foreign policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 43. 11 As an example, after the UNHCR request dated June 27, 1968 regarding the additional visit of the Swedish selection mission to the reception camps in Italy (Capua – close to Napoli and Latina – 60 km south from Rome) and Austria (Traiskirchen – 20 km from Vienna), 1968 ’s refugee quota had been raised by another 500. But as we will see, that was not the last increase in the forthcoming months. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Letter to Mr. Woodward 26.09.1968. 148 did not deter the Austrians and the request - in form of an official letter - was repeated on September 3, 1968. 12 This time the letter explicitly focused on the plight of Czechoslovakian refugees and, as reported in a short summary from the Swedish Embassy, expressed “the Austrian desire for Sweden to draft mainly Czechoslovakian refugees”. 13 Furthermore, the Austrian Ministry made a special note of the fact that the refugees interested in migrating to Sweden included a high percentage of academics and qualified professionals. Several days passed before the letter arrived on the desk of the Swedish Ambassador in Vienna and another week before the representatives of Labor Market Board could be familiarized with request personally in Stockholm. In fact, the same day the letter reached Stockholm, Broborg conducted talks with J.B. Woodward, who confirmed the problem of refugees from Czechoslovakia. In his account, until September 12, 24,000 ‘Czechs’ had already left the country due to the recent events 14. 1,100 had already been granted visas and 300 of them expressed their wish to migrate to Sweden. Aside from Czechoslovaks, there were another 150 refugees from other countries who stated their readiness to move to Sweden. The UNHCR also asked if Sweden were prepared for the collective transfer of refugees and possible acceptance of the Czechoslovakian citizens who had not sought asylum but still expressed willingness to migrate to Sweden. Woodward felt that ‘Czechs’ willing to emigrate on their homeland passports should receive the same benefits as refugees and should be able to keep their Czech citizenship in Sweden. He furthermore informed Broborg that many of expected refugees had the funds to finance their own travel to Sweden and stressed there might be a surge of new candidates when information about the opportunity to come to Sweden spread among the exiles. While this information was of great value to Swedish authorities, preliminary decisions about Czechoslovakian refugees had been taken much earlier. At this stage in the research, we do not know if any other reports depicting this growing problem reached Stockholm in the first days of September 1968. However, the decision taken by King-InCouncil on September 5, 1968, the day an official Austrian letter was stamped “approved” in 12 Broborg replied that he cannot make any promises and any decision regarding this case will take at least 15 days in order to collect all the necessary documentation; AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Broborg to Jonsson 30.08.1968. 13 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Norström to AMS 09.09.1968. 14 ’Czechs’, instead of Czechoslovaks, was often used by representatives of the UNHCR. AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Notes of a telephone conversation with Woodward 12.09.1968. 149 the Swedish Embassy in Vienna and four days before this letter made it from Vienna to Stockholm, indicates the presence of additional sources. This decision was met with an interesting response from two representatives of the Labor Market Board. Ragnar Wahlström, Senior Administrative Officer, and Bertil Rohmberg stated that in many instances, these Czechoslovakian citizens “were likely destitute, and in need of assistance, until they can be found work and accommodation” and suggested that the loan received by each new arrival for starting-up and furnishing an apartment could be structured in accordance with their first wages.15 This incentive allowance was similarly proposed to apply for citizens who came to Sweden before the political upheaval in Czechoslovakia and would now like to stay and work in Sweden. This has been authorized by the Swedish Ministry of the Interior on September 13, 1968. 16 It took two weeks for the AMS to take a stance to the official Austrian request for an early draft of Czechoslovakian migrants. Despite having previously settled on a quota of 500 refugees for 1968, half of which had already arrived in Sweden, the government decided to increase the quota by another 500. 17 The draft was scheduled to take place the forthcoming October mainly in Austrian camps (Traiskirchen, Moedling, Reichenau, Bad Kreugen and Mariazell). 18 This information was forwarded to the High Commissioner in Geneva. In reply, Woodward expressed his great appreciation, assuring the Swedes that there would be no difficulty filling the quota 19. Thomas Jamieson, Director of Operations of the UNHCR, expressed similar gratification in an inter-office memo, calling this mission a “special action towards solving the problem of Czechoslovaks” 20. Meanwhile, the Ministry of the Interior instructed the AMS to “ensure that refugees capable of working are found employment”. 21 This is particularly salient in the light of information received by Stockholm from the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs only days before, reporting statistics on 15 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Statement from AMS regarding Czechoslovakian citizens 11.09.1968. Approx. 400 immigrants came from Czechoslovakia on the eve of or weeks before the invasion of the Eastern Bloc army. AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Memorandum 01.11.1968 17 The previous King-In-Council’s decision originates from March 22, 1968, when the quota for was set for 500. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Broborg to Swedish Embassy in Vienna 24.09.1968 18 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Memorandum 27.09.1968. 19 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57 Woodward to Broborg 03.10.1968. 20 Interestingly, it was Jamieson and other representatives of the UNHCR who stressed the purpose of the Swedish selection mission while correspondence addressed from Stockholm to Geneva or Vienna was much more reticent. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Interoffice Memorandum 30.08.1968. 21 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Transfer of refugees 20.09.1968. 16 150 Czechoslovaks seeking political asylum in the West. The group, he pointed out, “may well include many of the intellectuals who have taken a leading part in the Czechoslovakian reform program”. 22 Thus the decisions undertaken in September 1968 paved the way for two routes of entry into Sweden for Czechoslovakian citizens. The first via the quota to be filled by Swedish diplomats during their mission to European refugee camps, while the second allowed unlimited, direct migration to Sweden. With Gösta Broborg at its head and four representatives of the Labor Market Board, the National Office for Aliens and the Board of Social Welfare in tow, the delegation embarked on its mission on October 6, 1968. 23 Thanks to the detailed report sent by the Head of Delegation after the first few days in Austria, we know that the initial hours after arrival were filled with meetings with representatives of the Austrian Ministry of Home Affairs, the UNHCR and the ICEM. The Swedes were informed that of approximately 9,000 refugees, who had escaped from Communist Czechoslovakia in September, some 4,000 were being housed in Austrian camps and 1,900 had already sought asylum.24 Another 2,000 were migrating daily between these two countries in both directions. 25 The group granted asylum was perceived as a ‘mandate refugees’ and received board, lodging and clothing. Czechoslovaks who did not seek asylum were labeled as a ‘tourists’ and did not qualify to receive official state support. Instead they received aid from organizations including the Red Cross, Save the Children, Caritas, the American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees or two Jewish organizations, the Hebrew International Aid Society (HIAS) and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (Joint). 26 Broberg noted that many of them were physicians 22 Interestingly, this letter is dated August 31, 1968, which confirms that the status of these refugees was well known to Canadian authorities at a very early stage. The Secretary further confirmed that Canada had been ready to welcome Czechoslovak refugees on the first day after the invasion. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Statement made by Secretary of State 31.08.1968 23 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Broborg to Woodward 26.09.1968. From other reports, we learn that the members of the missions changed quite often. See AMS Archive, EVIIbb: 9, Broborg to Jonsson 25.10.1969. 24 AMS Archive, EVIIBC: 15, Report from draft of refugees 11.10.1968. 25 The general number of border crossings was presented in a telegram from the Swedish Embassy in Vienna dated October 24, 1968. Since August 21, this correspondence states, approximately 96,000 ‘Czechs’ came to Austria directly while another 60,000 arrived from Yugoslavia. Close to 130,000 of them travelled back to their homeland, while 8,000 went to Switzerland, 1,400 to Australia, 2,800 to Canada and 100 to the United States. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Telegram to Swedish Cabinet 24.10.1968. 26 According to Broborg, of the 1,000 Czechoslovakian Jews who applied to these two organizations by the beginning of October, 300 received help and embarked for another country. 151 and dentists. This report indicates that the delegation was not only interested in the status of the refugees but also its composition and identification of other parties involved in refugee aid. The same situation can be noticed in the report sent four days later, on October 15. This time the letter had the character of a private summary addressed to Ragnar Wahlström after the first days of selection in Traiskirchen. Broborg reported that the exact number of Czechoslovakian refugees willing to migrate to Sweden was very difficult to estimate. “Most of them want to put an ocean between themselves and their homeland,” and were eager to travel to Australia or Canada, 27 countries often mentioned in ICEM reports issued between September and October 1968. The arrival of the Swedish selection mission has been announced in Bulletin #5 issued on October 10, 1968. 28 At that time, of approximately 30,000 Czechoslovakian exiles, the main areas of residence were Austria (15,000), Switzerland (8,000), Germany (6,000) and Italy (2,000). The number of Czechoslovaks who applied for asylum reached 5,300. 29 Meanwhile, Thomas Jamieson´s letter had reached Bertil Olssen, Director General of the Swedish Labor Market Board, expressing his appreciation for the Swedish reaction to the events in Czechoslovakia. But despite the smooth commencement of operations in Austria where the “largest number of Czechoslovak asylum seekers is concentrated” – Director of Operations of the UNHCR drew attention to the situation in Italy (140 individuals registered for transport to Sweden), Turkey (90 persons) and Yugoslavia. These refugees, as he added, “have been waiting with great expectations to the arrival of your mission, in the hope of being given an opportunity to have the great pleasure of settling in Sweden”. 30 The Board replied that after completing its work in Austria, the Swedish delegation has been instructed to continue on to Italy and Turkey. Accordingly, the government consented to transfer of another 200 refugees in addition to the 1,000 previously approved. 31 Interestingly, two weeks before the events in Czechoslovakia, the AMS and the Ministry of the Interior 27 Broborg also stated that Sweden had no history in Czechoslovakia as a country of migration. Six bulletins following requests for information about Czechoslovakian refugees were released. Sweden and Switzerland were the only two countries mentioned in the ‘Intra-European movement’ of Czechoslovaks at that time. AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Czechoslovak situation report 10.10.1968. 29 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Czechoslovak situation report 24.10.1968. 30 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Jamieson to Olssen 11.10.1968. 31 The ICEM stated that the amount of refugees admitted to Sweden in 1968 was even higher. The Committee calculated that 1,082 refugees had migrated from Austria and 392 from Italy. AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, The Refugee Operations of ICEM 28.03.1969. 28 152 discussed a potential increase of 100-150 individuals. 32 Thus the decisions to increase the quota should be understood as an extraordinary Swedish effort to help to solve the problem of Czechoslovakian refugees. However, selection results deserve separate attention. Of 950 refugees selected in Austria, Italy and Turkey, Czechoslovaks constituted little more than 21% and being outdistanced by Hungarians and Yugoslavians. 33 This was especially true in case of Italy, where two last groups constituted two-thirds of all accepted migrants. Figure 1 presents changes in the proportion of nationalities accepted during selections undertaken between 1968 and 1972. 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% Bulgarians Czechoslovaks 40,0% Hungarians Poles 30,0% Romanians Yugoslovians 20,0% Others 10,0% 0,0% Autumn 1968 Spring 1969 Autumn 1969 Autumn 1970 Spring 1972 Figure 1 Changes in the proportion of nationalities accepted during selections made between 1968 and 1972 Source: AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Reports from drafts. 32 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Memorandum 05.08.1968. Of 950 refugees 645 refugees came from Austrian camps, 250 from Italian camps and 55 from Turkish camps. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Report from the draft of refugees in Austria, Italy and Turkey 04.03.1969 33 153 The first group of 103 Czechoslovaks left Austria for Sweden by air on October 22. 34 A similar number was scheduled to depart in the first week of November. 35 Additionally, 24 people who applied individually through the ICEM and the Swedish Embassy in Vienna had already moved to Sweden. 36 But by the time the Swedish delegation arrived in southern Europe, a new King-In- Council decision regarding the previously unlimited number of Czechoslovaks has been issued. Since November 8, 1968, the amount of migrants, without being officially recognized as ‘refugees’, became restricted to 2,000 places. 37 By that time, the UNHCR refers to roughly 300 Czechoslovaks who had moved to Sweden ‘on their own’. Compared to other countries of destination such as Canada (which took 8,594 refugees), Australia (2,002), USA (614), South Africa (351) and Israel (240), this number seems relatively small. 38 The year 1969 saw a further influx of Czechoslovakian refugees. Moreover, the High Commissioner pointed out the increase in other Eastern European nationalities applying for asylum in Austria. Therefore, he ‘suggested’ that the next Swedish selection mission should be scheduled for March or April, a request that caused a certain perplexity at the Labor Market Board. 39 Broborg almost immediately informed his colleague Ove Jonsson of the situation in the resettlement centers. He stated that as of mid-February, “we have approx. 850 refugees accommodated in the centers. Their placement hasn’t gone as we had hoped. 34 Transfer to Sweden (mainly by air) was arranged by the Labor Market Board. The agreement stated that the ICEM should send all invoices to the Swedish authority regarding the cost of transport from the camp to the airport. Transport from the Latina or Capua camps to Rome was organized by the Italian Ministry of Labor. In Rome, refugees were taken to the airport by the ICEM. In Austria, the ICEM was responsible for organizing all arrangements and, as in Italy, all expenses were covered by the AMS. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Transportation costs 07.01.1971. The trip to Sweden was undertaken by chartered flights organized by a private company under the auspices of the Labor Market Board. Many of them landed in Malmö Bulltofta airport. Passengers were allowed 23 kg of luggage. See AMS Archive, EVIIba: 15, AMS to Resebyrå Travel Agent 10.06.1969. 35 It is important to mention that not everyone registered for Sweden and accepted by the delegation arrived in Sweden. Refugees often applied to several countries and migrated to whomever offered them a visa first. 36 AMS Archive, E2J: 3 Czechoslovak Situation Report 24.10.1968. Refugees who were authorized to travel to Sweden by car who lacked the necessary funds to cover the costs received the help from the ICEM, which was later reimbursed by the Swedish Board. In other cases, the Swedish Consulate covered the necessary rail tickets or charter flights. AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Christensen to Broborg 15.04.1969. 37 AMS Archive E2J: 4, Socialdepartamentet to Socialstyrelsen 13.12.1968. See also AMS Archive E2J: 4, Draft of refugees 08.11.1968. 38 HCR bulletin. 39 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Woodward to Broborg 06.02.1969. 154 It is difficult to predict the situation in the future… [W]e will have to take this into account when planning the annual draft”. 40 Meanwhile, another letter, this time from Vienna, arrived in Stockholm, including a list of 300 refugees interested in migrating to Sweden. Aside from Czechoslovaks, representative of Austrian Ministry of the Interior listed refugees from Hungary, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, the majority of whom, Krizek noted, “have mainly technical and metalworking experience”. 41 This was the second time the Austrians dedicated particular attention to the occupational skills of Czechoslovakians interested in coming to Sweden. The pros and cons of accepting additional refugees expressed in long drawn-out negotiations between various state authorities were strictly dependent on the demand for foreign labor and financial markets. While the budget of Labor Market Board for 1968 had been significantly exceeded, due to the redoubled amount refugees accepted in 1968, market forecasts predicted continued economic growth and concurrent demand for labor. 42 Thus the decision to draft 500 additional refugees was announced on April 25, 1969. 43 Broborg´s report one month later cited 1,200 Czechoslovaks housed at the Traiskirchen transit camp, close to half of all refugees registered in the camp. 44 He remarked that the selection would entail 300 of 450 refugees scheduled for Austria. In Italy, the total number scheduled for interview was 281. In the end, these visits resulted in 515 refugees transferred to Sweden in successive weeks. Interestingly, as Broborg concluded, due to several cuts in the granting of visas by the United States and Canada, Sweden was now the only country currently conducting such large-scale selections. 45 The withdrawal of these countries caused the situation in Austria, and particularly in the Traiskirchen camp, to change dramatically 46. As a result, the Commissioner repeated his call for Sweden to increase its quota by another 500 visas.47 Once again, his request was met with hesitation. Ragnar Wahlström remarked that Sweden could not increase its quota until 40 AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Broborg to Jonsson 18.02.1969. AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Austrian Ministry of the Interior to Swedish Embassy in Vienna 14.04.1969. 42 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, AMS to Swedish Ministry of the Interior 31.03.1968. 43 AMS Archive EVIIBA: 20, Swedish Ministry of the Interior to AMS 05.09.1969 44 The other groups were Yugoslavians (30%), Hungarians (10%), Romanians (10%), Poles (2%) and Bulgarians (1%). AMS Archive, EVIIBA15, Broborg to Jonsson 21.05.1969. 45 American authorities reported that cuts in granting visas resulted from fear of growing unemployment due to the war in Vietnam. 46 The number of residents admitted to Traiskirchen in the first months of 1969 reached 2,356 asylum seekers (the majority of them Czechoslovaks). This was four times more than during the same period the previous year. 47 AMS Archive EIIE: 59, Jamieson to AMS 12.05.1969. 41 155 “we know how the resettlement of those we have received in May and June goes”. 48 Undaunted by the lack of a Swedish reply, Woodward sent another request listing 720 asylum seekers registered to meet the next Swedish delegation. He also included - most likely at the request of Swedish authorities - information about the situation of refugees in other parts of the world. 49 This plea for additional help, together with the significant number of refugees registered for Sweden, led the AMS to propose an increase of 1,000 refugees.50 Soon, the mission was authorized by the Swedish government to embark for Austria in midOctober. Swedish efforts to help to solve the problem of Polish-Jewish refugees There is far less correspondences on Polish Jews in the AMS archive compared with the amount of documents concerning negotiations and acceptance of Czechoslovakian migration. In fact, the majority of documents are kept in the archives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Jewish community of Sweden. This situation originated from a number of reports sent by the Swedish Embassy in Warsaw and the engagement of the Jewish community of Sweden, which took the lead in contacting Swedish authorities to petition for special permits for Polish-Jewish refugees. As a result, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs approved a quota for those willing to migrate directly to Sweden. The first travel documents were issued in April 1969 51. Aside from the ‘quota refugees’ permitted to migrate directly from Poland to Sweden, a number of refugees ended up in this country after being selected by the Swedish delegation after its mission to Austria and Italy. In fact, the arrival of first Polish-Jewish refugees had been discussed in Sweden simultaneously to arrival 48 AMS Archive EIIE: 57, Wahlström to Broborg 17.07.1969. The report includes the status of several refugee groups in regions including Lebanon (Assyrians and Armenians), the United Arab Republic (Armenians and refugees from the Ottoman Empire), Morocco (Spanish refugees), Algeria, Tunisia and the Far East. AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Woodward to Wahlström, 13.08.1969. 50 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, AMS to Swedish Ministry of the Interior 25.08.1969. 51 Izabela A. Dahl, Mottagning av polska judar 1968-72 i samarbetet mellan Stockholms Judisk Församling och svensk ambassad i Warszawa (forthcoming), p. 5. For travel documents see New to Sweden : handbook for public authorities and private individuals on the rights and duties of aliens (Stockholm, 1969), p. 25. This document was issued by the National Aliens Commission (SIV) for a period of two years and gave right of entry to Sweden without further visa. Holders of this document could also enter other countries without a visa in accordance with the 1959 convention on the abolition of obligatory visas for refugees. In 1968, this applied to Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany (F.R.). 49 156 of first groups of Czechoslovaks. The uncertain legal status of 15 Polish-Jewish refugees deprived of their citizenship and selected by the Swedish mission in a late 1968 draft was mentioned in the minutes taken by Gösta Broborg during a debriefing. 52 The debate concerned their possible return to Austria. The Austrians expressed their willingness to grant alien passports but refused to grant return visas. In fact, the majority of the 13,000 Jews, regardless of their final destination, had to pass through Vienna. 53 Due to binding international treaties, as well as the engagement of third parties (the State of Israel) and actors (HIAS, Joint), the Austrian government perceived this situation as problematic. The position of the Broborg was much more flexible. He stated that he hardly imagined Swedish relations with Eastern Europe would suffer from taking in a “handful of Polish-Jewish emigrants”.54 Successive notes regarding the situation of the Polish Jews appeared in the ‘confidential’ ICEM’s Refugee Programme Report issued at the end of March 1969. This document confirmed the problem of those refugees who wish to resettle in countries other than Israel. 55 Moreover, the summary of the UNHCR´s activities in Italy for 1969 refers to a “particularly heavy influx” of Jewish refugees from Poland. The current number of 2,363 was contrasted with the decreasing influx of Czechoslovaks.56 On November 7, 1969, in a letter addressed to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, John F. Thomas, the director of the ICEM, emphasized the dramatic situation facing Jews in Poland. 57 The 70 Polish-Jewish refugees selected in the spring of 1969 constituted the largest group hitherto accepted from Italy and, together with 164 Czechoslovakian refugees from 52 After the events of March 1968, Polish Jews were generally forced to renounce their Polish citizenship and immigrate to Israel. The problem for refugees possessing Polish travel documents - which clearly state that “the holder of this document is not a Polish citizen” – involved the lack of legal possibility to return to the country of first asylum i.e. Austria or Italy. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Report 27.12.1968. 53 Less than 30% of emigrants went to Israel. The others sought asylum in Western Europe and North America. Stola, “Kraj bez wyjścia? Migracje z Polski 1949–1989”, p. 221. 54 In fact, only a few Polish-Jewish refugees received shorten returned visas with the possibility of prolonging the document at the Israeli Embassy in Sweden. Others decide to migrate to Germany and France. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Broborg to Jonsson, 09.01.1969. 55 AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Aide Memoire 28.03.1969. 56 AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Pinegar to Olsson 16.04.1970. 57 Ten days later, Thomas proposed that a financial contribution to the ICEM refugee budget for 1970 might be directly earmarked for a particular group, such as the Jewish refugees from Poland. Thomas also made a digression regarding the events in Czechoslovakia. He stated that political developments in that country as presented in the world press overlooked the tragic situation of people forced to leave their homeland. AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Thomas to Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs 07.11.1969. 157 Austria, constituted 45% of all refugees selected at that time. 58 Six months later, the percentage of Czechoslovakian and Polish refugees rose to 58%. 59 Interestingly, details of the draft were reported in Swedish media. On November 14, 1969, Dagens Nyheter, one of the largest daily newspapers, published an article on Swedish efforts on behalf of Czechoslovakian refugees in Austria passing over the presence of Polish exiles. Interviewed by the newspaper, Gösta Broborg denied accusations that the delegation was only looking after Swedish interests by choosing certain types of skilled workers while rejecting others, characterizing its mission as a “purely humanitarian act”. 60 Dagens Nyheter claimed that there were 12-14,000 Czechoslovakian refugees in Austria, of which more than 9,000 applied for asylum. Half of them were singles and another quarter young families with small children. Czechoslovaks continued to constitute the majority in Austria, while Poles dominated in Italy. There are also a number of records depicting arrival of Polish-Jewish quota refugees. Three months after the first travel documents were issued, the first Polish-Jewish refugees migrating directly arrived in Sweden. 61 As portrayed in Figure 2, illustrating arrival frequency according to AMS registration documents, the influx of migrants in the first months was high 62. One document from the Royal Consulate General of Sweden in New York referred to 1,600 Polish-Jewish refugees entering Sweden by the end of 1969. 63 On March 3, 1970, the AMS informed the Swedish Consulate in Turkey that of the 1,400 refugees living in 18 resettlement centers, 1,100 were of Polish-Jewish origin. 64 58 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Draft of refugees - spring 1969 29.06.1969. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Draft of refugees - autumn 1969 11.12.1969. 60 AMS Archive, EVIIBB: 9, Dagens Nyheter 14.11.1969. 61 AMS Archive, DIHA: 1, Registration documents. 62 Over time the numbers declined. One of the reasons for such an intense wave of migration was the announcement on June 2, 1969, by the Ministry of the Interior that after September 1, 1969, migration to Israel would no longer be possible, which hastened emigration from Communist Poland. Stola, “Kraj bez wyjścia? Migracje z Polski 1949–1989”, p. 229. 63 AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, Swedish Cabinet in New York to Broborg 31.12.1969. 64 AMS Archive, EIIE: 59, AMS to Swedish Consulate in Turkey 03.03.1970. 59 158 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Figure 2 Number of Polish-Jewish quota refugees migrating to Sweden between July 18, 1969 and July 20, 1973. Sources: AMS Archive, DIHA: 1, Registration documents. Challenges The internal report on the selection undertaken by the end of 1969 refers to the complexity of the process of selection. In Italy, Broborg reports, disagreements regarding the method of interviewing arose between members of the delegation. Inga Gottfarb, from the SIV, criticized the practice of conducting four separate interviews, one by each of the authorities represented. She protested that a single, combined examination would surely suffice in the case of well-educated candidates 65. This proposal was not met with a favorable response from the Head of Delegation and a decision was put off for the time being. This was only one of the many personal dilemmas faced by members of the delegation and refugees alike. 66 Other reasons emerged in the case of Polish refugees. There were a number 65 The period between selection and transfer to Sweden should be used for preliminary Swedish language training. AMS Archive, EVIIBB: 9, Broborg to Jonsson 18.11.1969. 66 Broborg provides the example of a Czechoslovakian family which - already accepted by the Swedish delegation - had to separate due to threat made by the secret police to one of the family members. Other example refers to a former politician closely associated with the Czechoslovakian opposition who lived in 159 of individuals leaving Poland under the pretext of being Jewish who were in fact not of Jewish origin, which was noted by Broborg as early as December 1968. 67 Moreover, there were few examples of refugees who after being selected by the Swedish delegation decide to migrate to other countries. 68 The new decade brought new challenges for the Labor Market Board. On March 17, 1970, for example, Broborg reported that many of Polish migrants - the majority of 1,200 refugees accommodated at the time in Swedish reception camps – were “elderly and difficult to place”. 69 Moreover, mounting problems and forthcoming budget cuts caused that the quota of 500 refugees for the coming year was only announced after a long delay. Still, the Deputy High Commissioner greeted the decision with the sincerest gratitude, praising Sweden´s leading role in the task of international assistance to refugees.70 Interestingly, one of the documents kept in the AMS archives refers to guiding principles issued on the eve of this latest selection process. Delegates were instructed to prioritize refugees with relatives in Sweden. But the second directive is even more telling. Selection should be limited to individuals with vocational training who “could be placed relatively quickly in the Swedish labor market”. 71 No doubt these clear and concise directives resulted from the social and economic transformation Sweden was currently undergoing. The new decade brought the need for a redefinition of certain concepts in domestic policy. Issues including the country´s generous refugee policy and foreign labor force had to be rethought and revised. Gösta Broborg personally regretted that the number of acceptable individuals was “lower than usual owing to the restriction of the quota”, adding that “under normal circumstances almost everybody presented to the Delegation would have been accepted”. 72 The results of the selection show that the delegation clearly understood what was expected of it. 50% were described as refugees with sound vocational training, the majority of whom were mechanics, turners and welders, and another 30% were described as “intellectuals and Austria during the military coup. He has been offered place in Sweden but in fact – as Broborg indicated – this subject was very sensitive and awkward for both sides. AMS Archive, EVIIBB: 9, Broborg to Jonsson 18.11.1969. 67 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Draft of refugees – autumn 1968 27.12.1968. 68 Broborg noted that 33 previously selected Czechoslovaks decided to migrate to the United States, Canada or Germany. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Draft of refugees – autumn 1969, 11.12.1969. 69 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, AMS to Swedish Embassy in Vienna 16.03.1970. 70 AMS Archive, EIIE: 57, Mace to Olsson 02.11.1970. 71 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Draft of refugees – autumn 1970. 72 AMS Archive, EVIIbb: 11, Notice from Broborg 24.11.1970. 160 others of working age and good health” and classified as ‘unqualified labor force’. 73 Figure 3 presents the changes in proportion of occupations of the selections conducted between 1969 and 1972. Firstly, the proportion of newcomers without any occupational training shrunk by one-third. Moreover, the proportion of ‘professionals’ - according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) - which included chemists and physicists, medical staff, teachers, librarians and artists, declined to half its previous level. 74 The number of academics and intellectuals is particularly revealing. On the other hand, a broadly defined group of ‘technicians and associate professionals’ - including groups of engineers, construction workers and fiscal and office technicians – increased. 75 Separate analysis of the subcategory “engineers and construction workers” shows that this proportion rose from 22.7% to 28.7%. 40,0% Professionals (chemical and psychical, medical, pedagogical, library, artists) 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% Technicians and associate professionals (technicians, health care, fiscal and office technicians, engineers and construction workers) 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% Service and sales workers (commercial, house work) 0,0% Spring 1969 Autumn 1969 Autumn 1970 Spring 1972 Figure 3 Changes in proportion of occupations in selections conducted between 1969 and 1972. Sources: AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Reports from drafts. 73 AMS Archive, E2J: 3, Draft of refugees – autumn 1970. The International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) is a prime international tool for classifying and organizing information about labor and jobs. It divides occupations into ten major categories. To read more about the ISCO see International Labour Organization, http://www.ilo.org accessed 2011-08-11. 75 This example requires further explanation. It was impossible to divide the category presented by the AMS as “Engineers and construction workers” into the two sub-categories required by ISCO classification. Due to the fact that the AMS included another category, “Building and construction workers”, I decided to incorporate “Engineers and construction workers” into “Technicians and associate professionals” and “Building and construction workers” into “Craft and related trade workers”. This was done according to Major Group 7, which includes occupations like “building and related trades workers”. See more: International Labour Organization, http://www.ilo.org accessed 2011-08-11. 74 161 1971 saw similar delays in answering UNHCR requests for the coming year´s quota. Nine months passed before Warren A. Pinegar, Director of the Bureau for the Americas and Europe Division, finally received a reply to his first query, sent in January 1971. In fact, at the beginning of September, an impatient Pinegar repeated his requests in a new letter 76. What he did not know, however, was that Swedish authorities had started discussing the issue two months before. The debate concerned the situation in Swedish reception camps after the latest draft. At the end of June 1971, of 503 refugees 184 were still being housed in the camps 77. Meanwhile, more than 750 “new” refugees were already registered for Sweden in Austrian and Italian camps. Another 300 were waiting their turn in Turkey. The AMS proposed a figure of 1,000 refugees. 78 However, despite the amount of refugees waiting to meet Swedish delegation, neither UNHCR requests nor the AMS proposal made any impression on the Swedish government. By the end of September 1971, the AMS informed the UNHCR that they had not yet received an answer from the Ministry of Labor and Housing to its petition regarding the quota. With a sense of helplessness, the AMS referred to the unemployment issue that “probably” had had an effect on the Ministry. The Board also explained that Sweden was still working with two groups of immigrants who arrived earlier that year, consisting of gypsies and Poles79. In the eyes of the AMS, the displacement of Polish migrants seemed complicated and hard to solve 80. Another letter clarified that the term “Polish immigrants” referred to some 100 Polish-Jewish quota refugees staying at the Alvesta reception centre in southern Sweden. 81 The facts, however, speak for themselves. 100 Polish Jews and 35 gypsies from Italy served as an excuse for declining to assume responsibility for more refugees. By that time, moreover, the discussion regarding the methodology of interviews has been revived. Recalling her concerns, Inga Gottfarb singled out incompetent translators, often without any respect for confidentiality requirements and sometimes even pursuing 76 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Pinegar to Olsson 08.09.1971. Displacement of these migrants was considered finished by the end of August. 78 This mission was scheduled to start in August and to divide the selection into several drafts conducted at varying intervals, in order to take optimal advantage of the opportunities offered by the camps. 79 At that time, Sweden conducted some “experimental work” on integrating group of gypsies into Swedish society. 80 Broborg estimated that a hundred of them were still in the camps at the time of writing. AMS Archive, E2J: 4, AMS to UNHCR 27.09.1971. 81 This was less than a half of the 214 Polish Jews who had arrived in Sweden since the beginning of the year. 77 162 their own interests in being registered for interviews, as the main source of misunderstanding and uncertainty on both sides. The Swedish delegation had its shortcomings as well. The lack of clearly formulated goals and criteria for selection hindered their work. “Work pressure” also influenced the Swedish delegation, leading to conclusions based on superficial impressions and guesstimates. Gottfarb proposed that job qualifications and psychological, emotional, medical and humanitarian issues should to be weighed against each other. She suggested furthermore dividing applicants into three groups, according to their ‘usefulness’ and demands of the market, applying different criteria to each. 82 Gottfarb’s account provides remarkable insight into the criteria governing the processes of selections at the turn of 1960s. Unfortunately, due to the incomplete nature of the correspondence, we are missing any other accounts or comments concerning the selections conducted in these years.83 On November 11, 1971, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced the King-In-Council’s decision to conduct the draft of 500 refugees before the end of March 1972. 84 As previously, the AMS was instructed to ensure that qualified and capable refugees were put to work. The results confirmed the declining proportion of occupations, the presence of newcomers without any occupational training. On the other hand, the proportion of three other groups ‘craft and related trade workers’, ‘plant and machine operators’ and ‘service and sale workers’ - increased. The results confirmed also the diminishing presence of Czechoslovakian citizens (6% of 447 migrants selected in the draft) and a small decrease of Polish migrants (9%). Hungarians maintained the dominant position (53%), outdistancing Yugoslavians and Romanians. 82 These three groups should be divided as follows: “young, healthy professionals”, chosen according to labor market demands; “hardcore” examples, selected from humanitarian and adaptation standpoints with the reference to the possibilities offered by Sweden for rehabilitation; “others” accepted with reference to their connections to Sweden, possibilities for work, study or re-schooling, difficulties of emigration to other countries, political persecution or other factors. The first group should constitute 70-80% of all selected refugees. 83 The only interview directives in our possession are guidelines from autumn 1970, in which particular emphasis was placed on quick job placement that, together with the changing demand for foreign labor, certainly influenced some of the decisions made by the delegation. Similarly, at this stage in the research, we cannot really assess the consequences of Gottfarb’s remarks. In 1969, Gösta Broborg ignored Gottfarb’s concerns and postponed the discussion for the future. It seems that this time, however, a memorandum issued by a representative of the SIV could not be so easily ignored. We do know, however, that this affected future refugee drafts. 84 AMS Archive, E2J: 4, Draft of refugees – spring 1972 05.11.1971. 163 Final Remarks The refugees from both groups migrated to Sweden in two different ways. The vast majority of Czechoslovaks took advantage of King-In-Council’s decisions allowing first an unlimited amount and later no more than 2,000 people to migrate directly to Sweden. It is important to note that the ‘direct’ option had its genesis in a consultation with the Swedish Embassy in Vienna. Interestingly, the decision regarding the acceptance of Czechoslovaks was made surprisingly fast, long before official requests arrived in Stockholm. In Polish case, the majority of migrants also made the most of the decision to allow a specific number of quota refugees to come to Sweden, decisions made under the impact of reports submitted by the Swedish Embassy in Warsaw and cooperation between the Jewish community in Sweden and international Jewish aid organizations. The migrants who chose to seek asylum in Austrian or Italian refugee camps took a slightly different route. After checking into their temporary accommodations, they registered for their chosen countries and awaited the arrival of the selection missions. Meanwhile, representatives of international refugee organizations (the UNHCR and ICEM) and, as happened in Austria, officials from the Ministry of the Interior, sounded out countries about the possibilities of helping solve the problem of resettlement. In Sweden, decisions regarding accepting or increasing the number of quota refugees were preceded by long talks held between the Labor Market Board and the UNHCR. The AMS, in turn, required confirmation from the Swedish Ministry of the Interior. In practice, all decisions were strongly influenced by the demand for foreign labor and, to a lesser extent, the annual budget. This was especially visible in the first quarter of 1969 when, despite the increased expense of taking in new refugees, the AMS proposed yet another draft, based on encouraging financial forecasts and a healthy labor market. Polish and Czechoslovakian migration peaked in the second half of 1969. Half the Czechoslovaks and nearly half the Polish Jews who migrated via UNHCR camps came during this time. However, their overall proportion between 1968 and 1972 is surprisingly small. Together, they constitute a little more than one-third of all exiles accepted during the five drafts. This raises doubt regarding the actual willingness to solve the problem of Czechoslovakian and Polish-Jewish refugees, despite all the proud public announcements. 164 While broadcasting its intent to conduct subsequent missions to Austria or Italy, beginning in 1970, the government´s main interest focused on Hungarians and Yugoslavians. But over the course of time, the Swedish economy underwent a downturn. Prospective immigrants were refused entry by Swedish authorities and the AMS noted that the placement of certain groups of refugees had come to a standstill. At the same time, international institutions continued to exert pressure on Sweden. As a way to get through this uncomfortable situation unscathed, directives were issued calling for a selection of the most suitable candidates. People with vocational training in specific trades who could be placed in the Swedish labor market in relatively short order were to be prioritized. Happily, the results of selections conducted at the beginning of the decade fulfilled government expectations. Swedish migration policy researcher Jonas Widgren estimates that approximately 2,100 Czechoslovakian and 2,300 Polish-Jewish refugees came to Sweden between 1968 and 1972 85. Christer Lundh and Rolf Ohlsson, two other scholars studying Swedish foreign labor and refugee policies, put the numbers at some 3,100 Czechoslovakian and 2,700 PolishJewish exiles 86. Izabela A. Dahl confirms the latter number, as 2,384 quota refugees and 450 from UNHCR refugee camps 87. In fact, the last number, due to the reports issued by the AMS, is smaller and amounts to 362 Polish refugees who migrated to Sweden this way. The outcome surprised everyone. The summary of 1969’s refugee situation, issued by the Swedish Refugee Board, referred to “unusually large numbers” of qualified and prominent refugees migrating mainly from Poland and Czechoslovakia. 88 One year later, Gösta Broborg characterized 75% of the Czechoslovaks and 95% of the Polish Jews as academics and intellectuals. 89 Leaving aside the question of vague methodology in framing such conclusions, the presence of highly educated refugees is exceptional. The 1970s brought a number of changes to Swedish migration and integration policies. The two groups of refugees covered in this article arrived during one of the most 85 Widgren, "Svensk invandrarpolitik: en faktabok", p. 103. Lundh and Ohlsson, ”Från arbetskraftsimport till flyktinginvandring”, p.93. 87 Dahl, ”Mottagning av polska judar 1968-72 i samarbetet mellan Stockholms Judisk Församling och svensk ambassad i Warszawa”, p. 13. 88 AMS Archive, EVIIBA: 21, The Swedish Refugee Board’s Report 27.11.1970. 89 AMS Archive, EIIE: 62, AMS Report, 14.04.1971. 86 165 interesting periods in Swedish immigration history, reflected not only in the flexible attitudes toward selection and composition but also the reception of newcomers upon arrival in Sweden. Aside from the precise numbers and the status of refugees, the decision-making process and its consequences were of the greatest importance to this study. The present essay depicted the first stages in the reception of these refugees. The motives for decisions undertaken by the Labor Market Board by the end of 1960s were slightly different than guidelines imposed at the beginning of the new decade. The humanitarian generosity was often accompanied by the demands of the labour market policy. The directives calling for a selection of the most suitable supplanted these “purely humanitarian acts” proudly stressed by Broborg. Thus the process of accepting Czechoslovakian and Polish-Jewish refugees coincided with one of the most interesting periods in the history of Swedish migration policy. 166 Emigration of Vladimír J. A. Novák or Back To The Origins1 Petr Hampl Illegal emigration and exile of scholars is mostly combined with escape from ideological oppression or with hope for better economic/social conditions. Emigrants thus leave their home country to get rid of dangers or obstructions. The paper deals with particular case of illegal escape from Czechoslovakia after the second world war. Emigration of czech biologist Vladimír J.A. Novák was part of the very first wave of escapes after the Communist coupe in 1948. Compared to his colleagues, Novák – entomologist, dedicated evolutionist and promising talent in insect endocrinology – did not escape because of dissent from official ideology or because of absence of scientific opportunities. His illegal exile in 1951 headed to Soviet Union in a desire for elaborating so called “red biology” topics together with soviet scientific corypheuses. The paper presents history of this story, Novák's personal motivations in evolutionary biology and lysenkoistic entomology as well as institutional consequences of this illegal escape. The article presents particular case of emigration from Czechoslovakia after the second world war. After war development of science and politics forced many scientist to leave their home country. Czechoslovakian science lost many of talented workers and emigration thus corresponded with weaking of science's competitive strength. Emigration from Czechoslovakia headed mostly to the western part of the world, where emigrants could find more free or better technologically developed workplaces. Very rare number of emigrants planned to escape to the eastern part or directly to the Soviet Union. Vladimír Jan Amos Novák was one who tried this way. Vladimír Novák, born in 1919 to a scientifically well established family – his father was professor of geography at the Faculty of Science at the Charles university in Prague, other members of the family worked for instance in physics or history – Novák started his scientific interests already at highschool where he explored taxonomy of ants. Later, his interest led him naturally to study biology at the Faculty of science where he got his doctorate in 1946 also for explores in myrmecology and taxonomy. After his graduation stays at the University as an assistent and works in systematic biology. At this point he first meets his lifelong field of interest – endocrinology, this scientific discipline was quite a fresh new field promising great discoveries in biology and medicine and Novák follows this trend 1 This paper has been supported by the Grant Agency of Charles University (GAUK č. 283111/2011) 167 very devoutly so he resigns on other taxonomic studies and becomes an endocrinologist specialized in entomology. He turned out to be very talented in this field and succeded in getting a scholarship for a ten-months stay in England, Cambridge in the laboratory of Vincent Wiggelsworth in the year 1949. 2 Here, under the guidance of one of the leading figures and founding fathers of the whole discipline of endocrinology, Novák becomes very succesful in dissecting insects and isolating hormones. After the return to Prague, he is already at the top of the field, publishing in the most prestigious journals all over the world. He also published fundamental monographies. His area of interest was the growth hormone. The problematics of changing phases of insect development only by a change in the hormone levels was for him crucial for the rest of his life. Maybe this was also because of a close similarity with theories in development biology in the communist Soviet Union. Novák, as a person, was very rigid communist and dedicated marxist already before the war and his preference for marxist based biology was thus not an accident. Endocrinology represented theoretics and also practical mechanisms for changing organisms characteristics. The holy grail of the so called Michurin biology and works of the soviet agrarian Trofim Denisovič Lysenko. Appropriate hormone treatment could bring desired characters – like speeding or breaking development or increasing productivity of animals. Therefore, Novák thinks more and more about studying insect from this perspective and dreams for instance about endocrinological researching of Antheraea butterflies – butterflies producing silk. These researches could increase silk production and therefore bring some practical scientific application. Scientific application was for Novák crucial part of science, he never practised science for science. Theory was not enough, science must have some practical implications because it is just a tool for developing human society. He was dedicated to the idea of scientific communism which uses science for its purposes in better technology and increased development of communistic society. Even his later philosophical works and ideas must bring some strong practical aspect. That's why he decided to study this problematics in ist country of origin – the Soviet Union. He submited a request in 1951 to study in Soveit Union but his request was not succesful, he had been rejected. Then, he decided not to respect the official rejection and went on his own. 2 Academy of Sciences Archive, Vladimír J.A. Novák's personal file 168 He left Czechoslovakia in February 1951 heading east – direction Ukraine. Unfortunetaly, we do not know for sure, how did he crosed the borders. The official institutions and police apparatus say nothing about how crossed borders. But there rised a lot of rumours and legends. Some of his contemporaries, collegaues and friends from this time talk about a wagon trail, some talk about using a bicykle (because Novák was very passionate bicyklist). Nobody knows for sure, but what we do know is that he got arrested very soon after his leave in Kyjev. There he was questioned and examined. But interestingly, he decided to be silent and say nothing, started hunger-strike and refued any cooperation with the local institutions. Examinating doctors declared him unable of any investigation. Therefore he stays inprisoned for more then 16 months before the soviet apparatus decided to send him to Prague for further investigation at home. In Prague, he keeps silent and must hospitalized. At the end of this anabasis, after 18 months of his adventure, he is finally sent home for personal home treatment. 3 We do not know what exactly were the motivations and impulses for Novák's escape. His wife, who did not know about his emigration aims, tried desperately to get some information about her husband. She had been sending letters to police and other institutions demanding any news. In these letters are mentioned some of the possible reasons for escape. She mentiones that her husband had psychic difficulties, felt overworked and also attended a treatment at the psychiatry. She also tries convince the police investigators about her husband innocent motivations – he is just a scientist studying biology, niether agent nor spy. He also often mentioned the desire for study in Soviet union, especially the problematics of silk butterflies. 4 This is in accordance with the list of belongings Novák took on his trip. The police wrote down list of all obejcts foudn woth Novák. Except the regular things like passport, ID and so on, he packed a lot of books. All of them (except russian dictionary and poetry), all of them were regarding the so called michurin biology and works of Lysenko – the way how to change characteristics of animals after the fashion of soviet scientists. The list also gives evidence for rather quick leaving. It can be therefore understood as an impulsive action (this 3 4 Security Services Archive, inv. č. 302-206-15 See also Novák, Vladimír, J. A. (1958): Neznámý svět hmyzu. Orbis, Praha 169 is also in accordance with one of the legends-Novák was told to borrow warm socks from his biologist fellow, because it was February and very cold). This all also gives evidence for Novák's personality and scientific worldview. Very dedicated and rigid in his atititude. Marxism was part of his life, personal religion he would never give up. He was entirely convinced of world-saving consequences of marxism-leninism. Applied to society and applied to science it could protect the human race from nuclear dangers, wars, hungers and save us in eternal peace. All what was needed was scientific grounding of building the new world. In this perspective – any official permission to study or danger of being arrested for illegal escape was just a detail that could never stop Novák in his fight fir better world. He never doubted the soviet regime, on the contrary, he allways praised it as a new beginningof seomething bigger. He stayed very dedicated even after the experience of the soviet arrest and 18 months of detention. For him, the escape was an integral part of his peculiar life full filled with pro-soviet opinions. He kept the pro-soviet opinions even after the velvet revolution in 1989 when he retired but continued with defending former regime. 5 The consequences of his exile were of course negative. His academic career was suppressed, he was expelled from te communist party and also served as target for various tales and jokes. But he got never arrested any more or forced to leave the country and he could work on biology topics in which he was very valuable. Despite this negative afterpiece he stayed on the pro-soviet side and continously worked up in the former Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences to a person with his own department and finally to a person with an independent Institute – the Laboratory of evolutionary biology that originated in 1985 from the previous Department for evolutionary biology at the Institute of Microbiology of Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. These both departments were dedicated to a theoretical kind of work without any need of experimental research. The evolutionary theory, together with marxism, needed no experiments to confirm and Novák worked only as a theoretist without any previous experimental work. He also cut off most of his experimental work in insect endocrionology in which he managed to be one of the leading persons. The result of his theoretical work is the „principle of sociogenesis“ - a peculiar theory describing 5 See Novák, Vladimír J.A. a kol. (2000): Věda proti válkám. Orego, Říčany 170 evolutionary process as a way to communism. Except this theory, the scientific result of both the departments was also organizing of international meetings in evolutionary theory. these meetings became very popular between scientists not only from eastern but also from western part of the world. There were organized alltogether 7 conferences and 4 workshops. The conferences hosted tens and even hundreds of gustests from various fields of biology including such persons as Francesco Ayalla, Sidney W. Fox, A. I. Oparin, D. Belyaev and members of the Osaka group for the study of dynamic systems. Interestingly, Novák developed at both of his departments very free millieu and his colleagues claim that he did not demand only ideologically approved topics. The researches at Novák's departments had free choice of topic and also access to unavailable literature from western countries. 6 Conclusion Fortunately for Novák, the regime treated him quite well – he got his own department and later even the institute just to work on the theoretical biology topics. He was not politically active at all, but the regime gave him the opportunity to keep working. The reason seems to be Novák's rigid marxist view and his theories in which he scientifically supports the formal ideology. The case of Novák's exile represents a rather peculiar story without any political oppression nor dissent against the regime. Novák's emigration to the Soviet union can be grasped as an attempt to get into the core of the so called „red biology“ milieu, to work with the classics of lysenkist and michurin biology and to enhance and support the politial doctrine with scientific results. This case shows the other way of emigration and the other reason for leaving the home country and also the complicated personality of Vladimír J.A. Novák whose peculiar beliefs and devotion to the communist worldview are the main reasons for his exile. 6 Personal communication Luboš Bělka, Vladimír Novotný (30.11. 2008) 171 Milosz’ Choice: The Right Distance in Exile Yaël Hirsch Born in Lithuania in 1911, Czeslaw Milosz grew up in a family that spoke Polish since the 16th century. As he points out in his Lecture of Reception of the Nobel Prize in 1980, he always thought of himself as a Polish (and not a Lithuanian) Poet. A patriot and also a convicted socialist - Milosz nevertheless chose to leave Poland in 1951. He lived in exile in the United States for more than 40 years. Ultimately, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, he went back to his country where he died in 2004. He is now buried in Cracow. In exile, although he taught at the University of California in Berkley young Americans, Milosz kept writing in Polish. His poems circulated as Samizdat in Poland during the Cold War, where they were very influential. Then, why did Czeslaw Milosz chose to emigrate? Couldn’t he find an alternative to pursue his work in Poland? The purpose of this presentation is to explain the necessity of this exile for Milosz. Departing from his infamous essay, The Captive Mind (1953), where he explains his refusal of Stalinism, and analyzing the rich and complex body of works left by Milosz (poems, but also autobiographical works such as The Issa Valley, conferences and essay such as The Witness of Poetry), I would like to show that this exile was necessary for Milosz to find what he calls “the right distance” to the reality of the 20th century. In fact, Milosz was always inhabited by the idea that the poet – and the scholar- has a role to play by giving a fair account of the reality of the world. And Milosz was hit very early by the dark reality of WWII at the gate of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943. Later, while facing Stalinism, only in exile could he find the resources to witness his world. Furthermore, he decided to act upon this reality by reminding the West of the situation of Central Europe, which he called “The Other Europe”. 172 Bringing Scholars and Artists from Occupied Europe to America : The Action of Varian Fry at the Emergency Rescue Committee (1940-1942) Yaël Hirsch Arrived in Marseille in August 1940, just after the occupation of Northern France, American journalist Varian Fry brought a list of 200 Jewish intellectuals and artists he had the mission to save. Helped by the artist Miriam Davenport and the economist Albert O. Hirschman, Varian Fry raised money to get visas and transportation via Spain and Portugal for these intellectuals. In two years, he saved about 2 200 Jews. Among them : founder of the surrealist movement André Breton, philosopher Hannah Arendt, film theoretician Siegfried Kracauer, German historian of literature Wilhelm Herzog, first biographer of Hitler, Konrad Heiden, the writers Franz Werfel, Heinrich and Golo Mann and artists Marc Chagall, Max Ernst and Victor Brauner. The purpose of this “discussion” is to briefly describe the action of this rescue network. 173 Particle Physicist's Emigration after August 1968 Jan Hladký The paper describes scholars in exile after August 1968 in one special case. It deals about the scholars from the Department of High Energy Physics of the Institute of Physics of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in Prague. The Department had in the Institute a very special position. The group of its physicists was included since the mid of 50’s into broad international scientific collaboration of many scientific institutions and universities all over the world. At the beginning the collaboration occurred only at a distance. During the early sixties, the collaboration grew. The scholars and technicians could visit western scientific institutions and work there also for a longer time. After the Soviet invasion in 1968 to Czechoslovakia most of these people decided to emigrate and so the number of workers in the Department in Prague decreased to one half. The scientific prospects and positions of the emigrated scholars are described. Hladký, Jan: Particle Physicists‘ Emigration after August 1968 (powerpoint presentation) 174 The Emigration of German Scientists to Prague after 1933 Dieter Hoffmann In contrast to the emigration of German politicians and artists, which has been well analyzed since the 1980s, we know very little about the emigration of German scientists and engineers to Czechoslovakia after 1933. I will provide an overview of this emigration, its socio-political setting, and the living and working conditions of the émigrés at the German University in Prague, in particular. I also will discuss in more detail the cases of the astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich, the physicist Fritz Reiche, the chemist Johann Böhm, and the philosopher Walter Dubislav. 175 Jindřich Kolben – an Engineer in Exile Miloš Hořejš Kolben’s name is indelibly written into the history of the Czech machine engineering. Because of its Jewish origin, the Kolben family was deported to Theresienstadt and later to Auschwitz during the Protectorate period. Jindřich Kolben was the only one of the family to survive: he made his escape from the concentration camp and spent the end of the war as a soldier in the Czechoslovak Army of General Svoboda. Despite all difficulties, which Jindřich Kolben encountered, due to his before-the-war German nationality, he completed his studies and became one of the best Czechoslovak aircraft engineers. After August 1968, Jindřich Kolben was not willing to face more problems and that is why he chose exile. Thanks to his professional repute, he asserted himself in aircraft industry in the former West Germany. 176 Why I left Czechoslovakia after 20 Years Membership in the Communist Party Olga Hudlická I worked in the Institute of Physiology of the CSAS in Prague from 1950 until 1969. When I started we had hardly any equipment and very little money but reasonable good access to literature and excellent mentors. Therefore, we had to design very carefully experiments that would answer the question we considered important and this taught us to use much more our brains than equipment. Most people in our department were members of the communist party and until early 50’s we did not have many objections to the party’s “ruling role”. Later we tried to protest as much as possible against the rules, which we considered unreasonable. In the 60ties the situation started to improve – not only from the material (it was possible to get or built some equipment and to travel occasionally abroad) but also political point of view. A few colleagues who emigrated then did so mainly for personal rather than political reasons. The situation changed with the Soviet occupation. I was in USA at that time and asked my husband to come and join me with the children. He refused. So I returned to Czechoslovakia by the end on 1968 hoping that at least some of the reforms could be maintained. It became obvious that it was not going to happen. I and my colleagues felt betrayed. When I realized that we would either have to bring up our children in lies or prevent them access to higher education and that nobody would care about our work (with contact with scientists abroad almost impossible and the interest of the party negligible) I thought that emigration was the only way out. We had no idea where to go and left with hardly any money, but we knew that my husband could get a job in Germany as a physician but we did not want to settle there. I approached several scientists in different countries whom I knew. The first reply came from Birmingham and this is where we went. 177 The Immigration of Soviet Scientists to Mexico during the nineties Isabel Izquierdo In the recent history of Mexico there have been three higher skilled people’s immigrations waves: the Spanish exile was the first in 1930; the South America exile, in particular from Argentina and Chile in the 70´s and 80´s, and the 90´s the immigration of Soviet scientists. The three immigrations came to Mexico through different institutional mechanisms and for different reasons. The first two had political reasons. The last wave is considered as an “economic immigration”; this group came to Mexico through an institutional program, and it was operated by the Mexican Science and Technology Council (CONACyT) from 1991 to 2002. This is a work in progress and is part of my PhD Thesis. I am studying the Former Soviet Union scientist’s immigration to Mexico during the 90´sand specifically those who came to Mexico through the institutional program. In this communication, I discuss the following questions: How many immigrant scientists came and remained at the Mexican higher education institutions? What kind of academic characteristics did they have? And how was their migration-immigration process? 178 Dictators, Personal Anecdotes and Science Jiří Janata Wars, revolutions, totalitarian regimes, dictators and despots of all kind played defining role in lives of writers, scientists, and artists. On the personal level they affected individual lives in different and always unique way, creating spectrum of life anecdotes. Ultimately, they defined the course of science itself, reaching far beyond the individual lives. On my personal anecdote, lasting from July 1939 until present, I will show how they affected me and the work that I have done. I will also touch on one general barrier that often separates the work of Czech exiles from their homeland. 179 Emigration of Scholars in Documents Milena Josefovičová – Jan Hálek The contribution deals with the source base to the problems of emigration of Czech scientists at the turn of 1960s and 1970s. It analyses documents related to the decision making processes at the level of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and consequently of the Presidium of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (CSAS), where there are described from the regime’s point of view “undesirable phenomena”, such as illegal departures of scientists abroad or their non-returning, influence of propaganda, overestimation of the “Western” economic motivations, etc. The documents contain proposals of resolving the situation including specification of the particular tasks. Implementation of the accepted steps and its impact is demonstrated by other documents coming from the different CSAS institutes. Introduction This paper deals with the source base for the issue of the emigration of scientists and scholars from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. The Archive of the Academy of Sciences (Masaryk Institute and Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) have taken part in the "Scholars in Exile" grant-aided project, focusing in particular on research into archive sources. The documents illustrate the key processes taking place at the level of the Communist Party Central Committee and subsequently of the CSAS Presidium and an analysis is made in them of activities found undesirable from the standpoint of the regime, i.e. the departure abroad of researchers and their failure to return, the effect of propaganda, the overestimation of the "West", economic motivation and so forth. Of course, party and academic bodies subsequently took corrective measures and proposed solutions including the allocation of specific tasks. Other documents, particularly relating to the activities of individual CSAS institutes, can be used to substantiate the actual performance of the measures adopted and their impact. The selected documents have been included in the publication that we are bringing out this year. We have also dealt with other types of sources on the subject, and the application of oral history methods has proved to be particularly beneficial. Recordings of the memories of 180 scholars who went through with emigration are a source of unique information, which for the most part cannot be obtained in any other way. The people who are willing to publicize their testimonies have a very wise and dispassionate overview, and they are able to identify the key factors that affected their personal and professional lives and to portray the gains and losses involved in emigration. We are compiling a collection of the most interesting interviews, which is due to come out at the end of this year. We have created a database of scientists, scholars and other specialists who left CSAS to emigrate up until 1989, containing 700 names. Additions are being made to it on an ongoing basis and it will be made available on our institute's website. Emigration of scholars in documents Developments in international relations and the increased tasks placed upon the Czechoslovak Republic as an integral part of the Socialist camp require us to focus all foreign relations, trips and visits abroad, particularly involving culture, science and sports, both on the ongoing consolidation of the worldwide socialist system and on increasing the activities of our people's democratic state while implementing a policy of peaceful coexistence with countries from other social levels. The implementation of foreign relations requires us to ensure that every action and choice of personnel provides the maximum guarantee of the greatest possible political effect […] When selecting individual workers for foreign trips, the dispatching Ministers and directors of central offices and bodies are fully responsible for stringent observation of the principles of watchfulness and vigilance. … 1957, 12th June. Government Resolution No. 629 regulating foreign relations and trips and visits abroad. Masaryk Institute and Archive, Government Resolutions Fonds (collection), 1957. […] Despite all these measures, undesirable occurrences take place where workers do not conduct themselves responsibly abroad or in particular, as recently attested cases indicate, they take advantage of these trips by not returning to their homeland. These cases 181 demonstrate that nominations for such trips abroad are not made in a fully responsible manner and that many institutes and their managements do not fully know the workers whom they send abroad, or they leave their character defects unnoticed or criminally cover them up. […] Radslav Kinský (a member of an aristocratic family), also a worker at the Biological Institutes, did not return to his homeland from his holiday in Italy. The class perspective was relaxed for his acceptance into CSAS (and previously university) and too much reliance was given to his positive development, which, as it turned out, he had skillfully simulated… 1958, 30th September, Report on some questions regarding trips abroad made by research staff (material for CSAS Presidium Commission). Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Commission Fonds, Box 19, 36th meeting of the CSAS Presidium Commission, 1st October 1958. [...] Hence institute directors should very carefully consider proposals to send research staff abroad, requiring personnel staff at their institutes to provide the latest personnel vetting material. The Presidium Commission enjoins institute directors to always refer to the standpoints of the Communist Party local organization, the Revolutionary Trades Union Movement local committee and if applicable the workteam in which the staff member to be dispatched is active, before presenting proposals. It is particularly important that these dossiers provide more details of the nominee's characteristics, as well as the orderliness of his family relations, his working morale and the political opinions he expresses. Experience of personnel vetting work indicates that it is precisely people who are without ties, in a broken marriage or unsound in character or ideology, who most frequently betray trust and start to falter. 1958, 21st October. Bulk mailing from CSAS Academic First Secretary and Corresponding Member J. Kožešník. Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Office Staff Vetting and Personnel Division Fonds, staff vetting records, Box 4, special mark 01, 1958. [...] During the period of ongoing consolidation of political and economic conditions, journeys abroad, emigration and immigration have come to be a focus of interest for 182 internal and external enemies (the endeavour to lure away experts, misuse business trips abroad for emigration and so forth). [...] The Commission (Communist Party Central Committee) bases itself on the fact that the inhabitants of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic have no cause to leave the Republic for reasons of subsistence. Hence in principle it does not allow young people and large families with adult children and the like to emigrate. The Commission bases itself on the standpoint that the emigration of young people and children to capitalist states is not to their general benefit... 1959, January 9th, Report by the Communist Party Central Committee Special Commission for Passport and Visa Affairs and Emigration from Czechoslovakia. NA, Communist Party Central Committee Archive, Fonds 02/2, vol. 202, Ref. 276, b 3. [...] The last two years [...] have seen the general appearance of certain inadequacies which damage the good name of our Socialist system abroad and which have unfavourable political repercussions in our economic and cultural life. Apart from inappropriate behaviour of individuals abroad, there has been an increase in the number of Czechoslovak citizens who do not return to their homeland after completing their legal stay outside Czechoslovakia. Even CSAS staff have taken some part in this... 1965, March 17th. Report on inadequacies in the foreign relations section regarding CSAS staff. 183 Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Fonds, 6th meeting of the CSAS Presidium, 17th March 1965. CSAS staff – illegal departures abroad (1957-1965) Year Total no. of of which Research of which Departures Departures during private trips, cases and specialist others during working Čedok and the like trips workers 1957- 4 3 1 1 3 1963 6 6 0 2 4 1964 16 9 7 0 16 1965 (jan- 19 13 6 1 18 45 31 14 4 41 1962 sep) Total 1965, September 27th, Draft letter by Academician F. Šorm to Communust Party Central Committee Secretary V. Koucký. Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Office Staff Vetting and Personnel Division Fonds, Box 40a. The [CSAS] Presidium agrees that institutes whose staff members do not come back from a foreign stay within the stipulated period are to have an appropriate amount deducted from their salary funds as of 1.11.1966. Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Fonds, CSAS Presidium 18th meeting, 22nd December 1966. 184 Summary of positions withdrawn after staff members failed to return from abroad (under a CSAS Presidium resolution of 22.12.1966) Summary of positions withdrawn after staff members failed to return from abroad (under a CSAS Presidium resolution of 22.12.1966) Serial No. Institute Ref. No. Date Name Čs Monthly Effective 1967: 1 Institute of Physics 45 268/13/67 Ing. 1650 1.1.1967 Herszeg 2 Institute of Physics 45 268/13/67 Ing. Smrž 2200 1.1.1967 3 Institute 44 850/13/67 Ing. Piťha 2935 1.2.1967 2435 1.2.1967 259/13/67 Ing. Köhler 1780 1.2.1967 of Chemistry Organic and from Biochemistry 4 Institute of Chemistry 24.2.1967 Organic 44 from and Institute of Piťhová 24.2.1967 Biochemistry 5 850/13/67 Ing. Nuclear 45 Research from 30.3.1967 6 Virology Institute 45 260/13/67 Posgay 4250 1.3.1967 from 4.4.1967 Masaryk Institute and Archive, Secretariat of the First Academic Secretary J. Pluhař Fonds, Box 39, Shelfmark 7. 185 Entry on staff member who did not return from a foreign trip CSAS Institute for Plasma Physics Information on workers who have not returned from abroad 1. First name and surname of Dr. Jiří JANČAŘÍK, CSc 9.10.1941 – Uhříněves worker – date of birth – place of 799 residence in Czechoslovakia 2. Position (activity performed, Researcher research assistant etc) 3. When the worker should have stay extended returned (even after extension), place and Laboratory, country of residence until Abingdon 31.3.1972, Berks and Culham Oxford University, England 4. Private trip, working trip (at working trip whose expense and the organization to which the worker was sent) Culham Laboratory Abingdon Berks, Oxford University 5. Date of termination working arrangement terminated under Section 53 (1) (c) of Act No. 65/1965 Coll., as amended by Act No. 153/1969 Coll. 6. Position and salary referred Referred back: back to Presidium central reserves as of ... Kčs … Position: "research worker" Salary: Kčs 2,500 as of: 1st April 1972 7. Bearer of classified information? No yes – no 8. Other documents relating to None worker's emigration are / are not attached as a separate enclosure 186 Prague 8th April 1972 Ref. No. 16982 / 72 Signature of Director and stamp Stamp: CZECHOSLOVAK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF PLASMA PHYSICS Nademlýnská 609 Prague 9 Masaryk Institute and Archive, CSAS Presidium Office Staff Vetting and Personnel Division Fonds, Box 40a, Report on employees who did not return from a trip abroad, 1972. In 1970 the measures taken by the Czechoslovak government in the travel sector started to have a favourable impact. The number of permitted trips to capitalist states and Yugoslavia was considerably reduced. Permits for working, private and tourist trips, as well as for those not requiring the purchase of currency, were received by 275,176 citizens while 4,984 citizens were refused. This is almost one half the total number of trips permitted in comparison with the same period during 1969. In 1970 there was a fall in the number of cases of illegal departure from the Republic involving the abuse of exit permits. According to preliminary information from the end of 1970, out of 275,176 individuals, 4,082 Czechoslovak citizens remained in emigration with 529 children up to 15 years of age, i.e. a total of 4,611 individuals. 1971, Report on the Czechoslovak emigration situation. NA, Communist Party Central Committee Archive, Fonds 02/1, Volume 153, Ref. 237/4. 187 Summary of trips to capitalist states and Yugoslavia, emigration, returns and the state of investigation of the crime of leaving the Republic 1966-1970 Year Number of trips to capitalist to states Yugoslavia 1966 209,490 1967 Emigration 142,663 352,153 2,131 163 1,998 303,379 146,810 449,189 2,136 188 1,795 1968 449,754 151,211 600,965 57,336 324 782 1969 715,356 284,139 999,495 1,539 169 1970 187,814 98,091 285,905 1,184 19,074 4,611 Returns Investigation launched under Total Section 109/2 1971, Report on the Czechoslovak emigration situation. NA, Communist Party Central Committee Archive, Fonds 02/1, Volume 153, Ref. 237/4. 188 Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche and their Writings in Sweden during World War II (and after) in Previous Top Secret Documents of Swedish Archives Blanka Karlsson Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche - three different examples of emigration and its activity in Sweden from 1920´s until recent times. Josef Paul Hodin (1905-1995) - the art historian - settled in Sweden in 1935. During World War II he was forced to appear before the Court because, in a group with Vladimír Vaněk and others, he secretly sent through neutral Sweden messages for the Exile Czechoslovak Government in London. Hodin, even before the end of the war, then moved to London, where lived until he died. In Sweden, he wrote monographs and biographies of artists, in England he continued writing books about art. In 1954, he received the first prize in the Venice Biennale of art critics. Vladimír Vaněk – diplomat, major of the Czechoslovak Army, was in 1921 military attaché in Stockholm, where he then permanently returned in 1939. He wrote novels under the pseudonym Valdemar van Ek. Emil Schieche (19011985) – historian, was born in Vienna, Austria from German parents who came from Děčín. He graduated from the Prague University with a doctoral thesis on the Czech king Jan Lucemburský. He was then scientific employee of the Czech Bohemian Archives. He came to Sweden secretly with the help of Přemysl Pitter in 1946. He became assistant to Nils Ahnlund, professor of history, and in 1950 became Associate Professor of the University of Stockholm, where he lectured in palaeography. In 1960 he became a member of the management of the historic Royal Academy of Sciences. He is the author of many scientific books from history. Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche – all three of them wrote about Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670) – three different emigrants writing about the same emigrant (Comenius). Their works are preserved in Swedish archives and libraries for the next generations “In Memoriam” to the memory of the Czech historian Tomáš Pasák “In Memoriam” to the memory of the Swedish historian Helmer Larsson Introduction Let us start with a completely different name....Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670), who is familiar to all of us: a man of longing, an eternal voyager of emigration in the neverending journey through many countries. He was the leading personality of Czech emigration of his time, but also emigrants of later generations adored him, looking for answers to their 189 questions, and writing books about him. Hence it was just Comenius, who led my steps to the new names (authors of books about him) such as Vladimír Vaněk and Josef Paul Hodin. Vaněk and Hodin and their books taught me – also a scholar abroad who grew up in communism. All of this comes to one conclusion – emigration looks for strength in the personalities of its nation, because there you find your own identity. 1 The present contribution contains two different parts: the fates of Hodin and Vaněk and the completely different fate of Emil Schieche. 2 All three of them wrote about Comenius. My research about Hodin and Vaněk was conducted in cooperation with the Stockholm historian Helmer Larsson (1925-2003). My research about Emil Schieche took place on the basis of direct encouragement of Czech historian Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tomáš Pasák, Csc (1933-1995) – more about it later. Protocols – originally top secret - from the archive of Stockholm 3 tells us the fate of Hodin and Vaněk. The very rich life story of Vladimír Vaněk reminds me of an adventure film about an incredibly active and patriotic agent in the underground fight against the Nazis. 4 Josef Paul Hodin and Vladimír Vaněk Josef Paul Hodin 5[ (1905-1995) – art historian and art critic. Son of photographer David Hodin and his wife Rosa. In Prague, he studied law, philosophy, art history, and in 1929 he graduated as a doctor of law. In 1931 he practiced in Prague at the army officers ' tests, and then studied history of art at the academies in Dresden, Berlin and took a study trip to Paris. In 1935, he settled in Sweden and married a year later, although the marriage eventually fell 1 Karlsson, Blanka: Komenský a jeho dílo ve Švédsku 1630-2000, Norrköping: Föreningen Gamla Norrköping, 2005; Karlsson, Blanka: Comenius och hans verk i Sverige 1630-2000, Norrköping: Föreningen Gamla Norrköping, 2005; Karlsson, Blanka: Comenius und sein Werk in Schweden 1630-2000, Norrköping: Föreningen Gamla Norrköping 2005 and Second Edition in Norrköping: Blanka Pragensis Förlag, 2008 2 Karlsson, Blanka:”Osudy některých autorů v době druhé světové války, kteří psali o Komenském ve Švédsku”, chapter II/4, pp 187-189 in : Karlsson, Blanka: Komenský a jeho dílo ve Švédsku 1630-2000, Norrköping 2005 3 Stockholms Rådhusrätt 5. avd, Protokoll and Hemliga Mål 1942, del 2 – reports of investigation and judgment in previous top secret documents in the Municipal Archives (Stadsarkivet) in Stockholm 4 more about Vladimír Vaněk: pp. 398-436 in: Pacner, Karel: Československo ve zvláštních službách part II., 1939-1945, Themis, 2001/2002 5 Karlsson, Blanka: “Josef Paul Hodin”, encyclopedic dictionary in: Encyclopaedia Comeniana, in the press in Prague, Unie Comenius 190 apart. In the catalogue of the Royal Library in Stockholm, we find the 15 titles of the works of J. P. Hodin from the years 1939-1972, for example a book about Comenius in Swedish: Jan Amos Comenius och vår tid, Stockholm 1944, a biography Isaac Grünevald, Stockholm 1949, books such as, Kafka und Goethe, London 1969, Emilio Greco, Cheltenham 1971 and other titles. Vladimír Vaněk 6 (1895-1965) - diplomat, major of the Czechoslovak army, writer and artist. Wholesaler 's son Vladimír Vaněk and his wife Sofia. After completion of the real gymnasium and Business Academy he got a job as a trainee teacher in his father's company in Prague. In 1914 he travelled to Kiev, and after the outbreak of the war, he enrolled as a volunteer in the Czech Legion. In 1916 the legions gave him different credentials, and he traveled to London, Paris and Rome, where he became the Commander of the Czechoslovak army. After the war, in 1919, he returned to Prague and left his military career to become a diplomat. From 1921 he was the Czech attaché in Stockholm, in 1923 in Linz, in the years 1924-1929 in Paris, where he graduated from high school in the field of politics and international law. In 1939 he returned to Sweden. In 1940 he was a co-founder of the company Folkfilm AB, and in the years 1940-41, the representative of the company Junex Exportbolag. So far Swedish Protocol. 7 In the catalogue of the Royal Library in Stockholm there are 4 titles of his works, even under the pseudonym Waldemar van Ek such as: Prince Eugene, Prague, 1938, a novel Jorden blöder-Jorden blommar (The earth is bleeding – the earth is flowering), Stockholm 1943 and the Czech book of short stories – Kniha povídek, N. Y. 1965. Hodin lived in Sweden from 1935 and Vaněk from 1939, but he was in Stockholm as diplomat even before 1921 and 1933. Vaněk was convinced that the best way to help the native country was in a neutral state, where he had a lot of friends. Vaněk´s incredibly well informed network in Sweden, as well as his whole life story is described in detail in the book 6 Karlsson, Blanka: “Komenský, Hodin, Vaněk a neznámé dokumenty ve stockholmských archivech”, pp. 45-50 in: Bulletin 12, Unie Comenius, Praha 2000;Karlsson, Blanka: “Po stopách známých i neznámých Čechů ve švédských archivech, čili Osudy jedné skupiny českých emigrantů v původně přísně tajných dokumentech stockholmského archivu Stadsarkivet”, pp. 74 -80 in: ČAS v roce 2002, Ročenka České archivní společnosti, Praha 2003 and pp 15 – 16 in: Hospodář 4/2007, USA, Texas, ed. Jan Vaculík 7 Protocols already referred to in footnote No 3. Their copies as well as copies of all documents from the Swedish archives I have researched are stored in the National Archives in Prague, in: “PhDr. Blanka Karlsson, Ph.D.-personal Fund no 1371" and in the Municipal Archives in Norrköping in: "Blanka Karlssons personarkiv”. 191 of Karel Pacner, already quoted here before. In the book we find however more than in the Swedish protocols, that many of his co-workers and contents of reports were sent regularly to the Czech Exile Government in London, as well as travel agents guided under various ingenious code names. One example – the key letter, 7th July 1941 8 sent - as the others before - under the code name Jonáš. Vaněk clarified the situation in Sweden at the time when it passed through the German Division to Finland. He described the situation of the northern neighbour and discussed the status of the Swedish fleet. The above mentioned company Svenska Folkfilm, was a company founded for the purpose of maintaining contact with Europe in the form of import and export of films. Vaněk´s messages also concerned the situation in the protectorate. The Swedish network of Vaněk was based on longstanding friendship with many important figures such as Amelia Posse-Brázdová, the King's brother Prince Eugen, Sweden's editors and Ministers, also powerful friends abroad with whom Vaněk exchanged letters, such as Sweden's Ambassadors in Spain, Switzerland and other countries. As mentioned above, Vaněk chose Sweden as neutral ground, but this neutral Sweden was under constant pressure from the Germans. Sweden had also two directions fighting each other: for- and against the Nazi movement. The arrest of Vaněk was inevitable, as the pressure from Berlin to neutral Stockholm still increased. Jonáš´s flow of information was intensive, but after warnings from friends Vaněk wisely remained silent after sending two dense pages describing the situation in Germany, in the occupied countries and in Scandinavia. According to Pacner a total of about 500 dispatches were sent to London by Vaněk from August 1941 until March 1942. 9 Vaněk, and Hodin were arrested in Stockholm on 27th March 1942 at 10.00 am, and taken immediately into custody 10 along with another persons – journalist Valter Taub and major Miloslav Doležel. They were charged with resistance against Germany on the soil of neutral Sweden, which as such would be screaming to the role of active players in the war disputes. Hodin in the Protocol stated that he was never a member of the political parties and he did not care about politics. His views on the conflicts in the world were humanistic- 8 Pacner, pp 394 - 416 Pacner, pp. 421 10 See the note. No 6 9 192 democratic. The war was considered to be a terrible tragedy. Vaněk confessed that from August 1941 to March 1942 he sent reports about war and political relations here in the country and abroad, and at the same time secretly sent further telegrams to the Czechoslovak Exile Government in London. Vaněk was guilty of secret resistance activities of a military and political nature. Together with the former major Doležel and with the assistance of Miss Marie Kockum, reports were smuggled to Vaněk in the belt of her dress. He was also involved with and was guilty, although in the Protocol he said that he did not wish to damage the Swedish interests. Taub, in the period from November 1941 to February 1942 also collaborated, as well as Doležel in December 1941, who took over information from Marie Kockum. Marie passed the belt to a person in Prague. She was charged, but later exonerated. The process lasted from 22nd April to 22nd July 1942. Vaněk got two years of forced labour, Hodin five months, Taub two months, Doležel three months. The Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, issued on the day of the 23rd April 1942 the article Tjeckernas advokat begärde offentlighet. Lawyer Hugo Lindberg had applied for the publication of the process, i.e. the publication of the material, which openly showed that the defendants acted as though they were acting as Patriots from each country. They never had the intention that their patriotism could harm Swedish interests. The secret process would cause the perception that Sweden should be ashamed of, thus each makes a judgment himself. Appeal against the judgment led to a further judgment on 25th January 1943: Vaněk got three years and six months of forced labour, Hodin 10 months. A further judgment on 21st April gave no change. The request for pardon led to the decision of the Swedish Government, 21st June 1943: Vaněk´s was rejected, Doležel and Hodin got the penalty conditionally. Pacner wrote about Hodin that he was then attached to the services of the Czechoslovak Government, but at the end of the war he just disappeared. The above mentioned Hodin´s book about Comenius 11, which was published in 1944 in Stockholm, begins with considerations about the struggle between the powerful in the history of mankind. The author cites Masaryk and his concept of democracy, outlines the problems that led to wars and describes Comenius as a courageous and noble man, whose 11 Hodin, J. P.: Jan Amos Comenius och vår tid, Stockholm 1944 193 brilliant spirit to his pansophy´s ideas should improve the world. The book does not present the facts, which the Czech reader would not know. A Czech emigrant Hodin, is looking for the national response for himself and his readers, because he is in the same situation as Comenius: abroad and in the middle of the war. Even before the release of his book Hodin tried to establish the Comenius Institute in Sweden. Archival documents in the Royal Library in Stockholm 12 contain Protocol establishing the Comenius Institute with the date of 27th March 1943. In September 1945 Hodin emigrated to England, where he died in 1995. The Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, published on 21st December 1995 an obituary article on his life and work, but it did not mention the Swedish process. Author Lee Persson characterizes Hodin as an art historian and critic, who played an important role in the modern European art. Hodin´s friend, Kokoschka, about whom Hodin wrote six books, speaks about Hodin´s phenomenal intuition as artistic roentgen. Hodin had special insight for the Scandinavian expressionism. In England, he worked as a press attaché for the Norwegian Exile Government and married an Englishwoman, Pamela Simms. He got a job as a study Director of the Institute of contemporary art in London and organized a first course in the United Kingdom in the field of history and art in relation to literature, music and philosophy. In 1954 he got first prize in the Venice Biennale of art critics. From Hodin´s pen came many other significant works, for example The Dilemma of being modern in 1956. Vladimír Vaněk used the time in prison so usefully, that his arrest and imprisonment can be regarded as an excellent intervention of fate. Vaněk wrote the work that consists woodcuts by the author himself. It was written during his nights in prison - thanks to the help of friends, including the Director of the prison, who had scraped together hundreds of books, manuscripts and documents for Vaněk, so that he had the facts for his work. His storyline placed in the thirty years war (17th century) concerned a Czech exile, Jan Hřebík of Boskovice, who served in the Swedish army and thought that his homeland would gain freedom. (As well as Comenius, who was working for Sweden, in the hope that Sweden would help the Czech homeland from Habsburg domination). The Prison Director read 12 Archives “Per Lagerkvist samling”, sign. L 20:1 in: the Royal Library in Stockholm includes Hodin´s letter to Lagerkvist and many other letters written by scientists and other persons of Stockholm´ science and culture to the defense of Hodin – probably in connection with the process. Memorandum establishing the Comenius Institute of 27th March 1943. 194 Vaněk´s manuscript and returned to his cell time after time, in order to pick up more to read. This he then did at home together with his wife. Vaněk was allowed to have woodcutting tools in his cell. Vaněk´s book, Jorden blöder – jorden blommar, had great success in Sweden and Czechoslovakia, where it was even published in Czech. Vladimír Vaněk left Sweden as Consul to Italy and from January 1945 he was promoted to Czech Ambassador. Another colourful story is described by Pacner in the chapter, "ex-spy in high-ranking positions" 13 After the end of the Mission in Italy in 1946 he returned to Prague, where he joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the Chief of the Department for the coordination of political news. He was one of the closest associates of Jan Masaryk. In 1947 he began to write Masaryk´s biography. Shortly after the communist coup Masaryk died and Vaněk was fired by the Communists. With the help from the Office of the labour employment he worked in the shop Ferromet in Opletalova Street as a clerk. In December 1948 he emigrated with his family to Italy. In Rome he represented various Swedish companies, helped Czech emigrants, wrote articles, short stories, theatre- and radio plays. He died suddenly on 6th October 1965. His book about Jan Masaryk was published in 1994. Let us conclude facts about Vladimír Vaněk by information about his less known offence in Sweden in 1933 and then in 1942. It is one little example of his work for the visibility of the Czech country and its culture in Sweden. On 27th October 1933 Vaněk came to Norrköping 14 as a Czech diplomat at the Embassy of Czechoslovakia in Stockholm (he was at that time), in order to personally participate in the founding of the Sweden-Czechoslovak company (Svensk-tjeckoslovakiska sällskapet) in this town. This was on the basis of initiatives by the Consul in Norrköping Alle Fristedt, who was elected Chairman of the company. The city archives in Norrköping (Norrköpings stadsarkiv) has in its collections preserved protocols of this company from the years 1934-1937. I got this information from the Director of 13 14 Pacner from p. 430 Norrköping, 160 km south of Stockholm in the Swedish region of Östergotland. 195 Archives Rolf Sjögren and it is thanks to him I could study these historical documents. 15 On that day, 27th October 1933 Vaněk opened the company's meeting with his lecture about Czechoslovakia and about economic and cultural ties between Czechoslovakia and Sweden. Vaněk stressed the importance of the development of these relations. The lecture was met with great response. Other protocols related the great interest of Czech culture and relations with Sweden. Elected leadership of the society was the Director of the library, the doctor, editor, and Deputy Director, significant personalities of the city. At various meetings of the company the Swedish professors spoke for example about the Baroque Prague. The company sent a tribute to President Masaryk on his 85th birthday and got his answer with thanks through the Czechoslovak Embassy in Stockholm. Unfortunately, here we don't have time to further describe the activities of this company, where the last protocol is dated 21st October 1937. Another track of this company appears in 1942 at the city library in Norrköping, where nine pages of manuscript in Swedish are stored with the title Broder Amos i Sverige written by Vladimír Vaněk guided to 300th anniversary of Comenius and at the top of the first page the title – Devoted to Swedish-Czechoslovak society in Norrköping, 28th October 1942. Vaněk tells us about the arrival of Comenius to Norrköping in 1642 and it contains information about Comenius´ contacts in Sweden with many important and true facts and names. Vaněk showed remarkable knowledge of the situation in Norrköping during the 17th century. It was indeed a suitable gift to this local Swedish-Czechoslovak society, which is no longer here in Norrköping. In today's Sweden there are four Swedish-CzechSlovak societies – in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Lund. Emil Schieche In 1995,in Prague on 22nd – 23rd June the international scientific conference was held in honor of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Přemysl Pitter, proclaimed in 1993 by the General Conference of UNESCO as world cultural anniversary. This was mainly due to Tomáš Pasák, under whose leadership the Pedagogical Museum of Comenius in Prague had wide 15 The Municipal Archives in Norrköping: arkivnr. 115: Svensk-tjeckoslovakiska sällskapet, protokoll, vol. 1.19341937. Protocols handwritten and with attached copies of the letters of the Czechoslovak Government, through the Czechoslovak Embassy in Stockholm 196 international contacts, and previously in 1991, had taken over his management of the Pitter´s Archives from Zürich. The participants of the Congress of Pitter, among them the wife of President Václav Havel, Mrs. Olga Havlová, received the Medal of Pitter. The Conference was dedicated to the attention of not only the life and work of Pitter, but also of his co-workers. And so I got to research on the activities of Emil Schieche 16, whose name occurs in the Pitter´s correspondence. Schieche was in 1946 in the castles 17 as a teacher for the surviving Jewish and German children in subjects of religion and German. The personality of Emil Schieche so attracted the attention of the Czech public and also the attention of the National Archives in 2001, so the contribution of archivist Emil Schieche 18 appeared at their Conference Archivists in XXth century on 18th – 19th September 2001 in Castle Jindřichův Hradec. Emil Schieche 19 [19] (1901-1985) - historian, born in Vienna, from German parents Josef and Berta Schieche, who came from Děčín. During his early youth he came to Prague, where he studied German real gymnasium. After this he studied history and history of art in Prague and Leipzig. At the University of Prague he completed his doctorate in 1924 on the foreign policy of king Jan Lucemburský (John of Luxembourg). His main fields being – auxiliary science historic, history and art history. He studied in Vienna and in Breslau. In the years 1925-1930 he was the scientific worker of State Archives. He travelled to Czechoslovakia, Austria, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Germany and dealt with e.g. the following topics: Jan Lucemburský, the beginnings of humanism, reports of foreign ambassadors of Rudolf II. in Prague. In 1930, he married Norwegian Esther Horjen. In the years 1930-32 he participated in the leadership Institute for archives, and teaching of history in Berlin, in the years 1931-32 again spent travelling, in the years 1932-45 a Czech instructor at the University of Breslau. In March 1939, under the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 16 Karlsson, Blanka: „Historik Emil Schieche ve Švédsku“, pp. 133-146 in: Přemysl Pitter. A collection of papers and discussion of international scientific conferences held to 100th anniversary of the birth of Přemysl Pitter 22nd – 23rd June 1995 at the Charles University in Prague, the Pedagogical Comenius Museum, Prague 1996 17 Castles in Olešovice, Kamenice, Štiřín and Lojovice, for rescued children of different nationalities from German concentration camps and internment camps. Read more in: Pasák, Tomáš: Přemysl Pitter, Praha 1995 18 Karlsson, Blanka: „Historik Emil Schieche ve Švédsku“, pp. 25-36 in: Archiváři XX. století, Conference held on 18-19 September 2001 in Jindřichův Hradec, printed by Archives in Jindřichův Hradec, 2002 19 Karlsson, Blanka: “Emil Schieche”, encyclopedic dictionary in: Encyclopaedia Comeniana, in the press in Prague, Unie Comenius 197 Schieche was thanks to his knowledge of Czech ratios called as a respected historian to the leadership of the political archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After Heydrich´s arrival Schieche was relieved of his functions in September, on the basis of "political confidence". In 1942 he was called into Wermacht, where he remained until 1945. In May 1945, he met Přemysl Pitter, whom he knew from previous university lectures. During studies in Prague Schieche became a member of the international movement for peace, established by Pitter. For his pacifism Schieche was monitored. With Pitter ´s help the Schieche family (two sons, aged 14 and 13 years, two daughters aged 11 and 10 years) left on 6th June 1945 and came through Pilsen into Sweden. The wife of Emil Schieche had contacts with the Bernadotte Royal family in Sweden. For several years after coming to Sweden Schieche entered into the Swedish scientific world, where he came into contact with the Professor of history Nils Ahnlund, and became his assistant. In 1949 he worked in the Swedish Imperial Archives (Riksarkivet). From 1950 he taught at Stockholm University, where during the years 1955-1968, he served as Associate Professor of history and auxiliary Sciences of history, paleography to name just a few. He collaborated also in the publishing of the Imperial Acts from 17th century and the Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna´s correspondence. During his scientific activities he kept contact not only with colleagues from the German and Austrian universities, but also from Prague. In 1960, he became a member of the Royal Historical Academy of Sciences in Sweden. At the University in Stockholm, he worked until retirement, but scientifically worked until the end of his life. He is buried in Stockholm. Emil Schieche wrote his works in German and Swedish. The Czech-German and SwedenGerman relations are still coming back while processing topics, for example in a study of the Jan Hus´ manuscript in the Royal Library in Stockholm 20[, where Schieche introduces us to the handwriting dated 30th September 1398: 135 paper sheets in parchment-five tracts and vocabulary index by Hus´ own hands – they are the works of the Viklef ´s rewritten by Hus, for the purpose of being reference literature on Charles University in Prague, where Hus gained a Bachelor's degree. In this manuscript of Hus there are notes written by another hands in Czech - Schieche counts them (24) and comments. These notes have a strong 20 Jan Hus´ manuscripts in the Royal Library in Stockholm, sign A 164: 3pages study of Emil Schieche with pp 32-34 from an unknown copy I got from his son Helge Schieche 198 emotional character – haha nyemczy ven ven (haha German out out ). Schieche, an excellent historian, stood between two worlds - Czech and German. The question remains, if this was beneficial or tragic in his life and work ... probably both. In 1968 Schieche published the study Jan Amos Comenius und Schweden21. Schieche´s study of Comenius is based on the concept of the Swedish Professor of theology, Sven Göransson, who brought many new opinions about Comenius. Schieche ´s study about Comenius and other of his works are of a high scientific level. In his study on the culture of the Czech 22 he deals with issues such as the Slavic origin, Czech language, the relationship to the German cultural element, etc.. The work of Emil Schieche, tens and tens of long series of titles, but alas we have no time for further analysis. In conclusion, let us give word to Schieche himself in his own testimony, issued by the press: Testimony of Emil Schieche 23 written and issued in German about his time in Prague at the time of the second world war and about his flight to Sweden. Here are just a few selected snippets: Slavic library established by Edvard Beneš was on the part of the protectorate government suppressed, not prohibited. Schieche, as imperial Commissioner, was to preserve the collection for the study of Slavic languages and literatures, and to get a collective of new employees to do cataloging. It was my first task, writes Schieche, help these poor, badly-paid, but highly qualified people. The surrender of 8th May 1945 I survived as a soldier in Pardubice. I fought in Tábor in the camp against the Americans. Then I escaped to Benešov and looked for my friend Kolman in one village, and there I hid in the cellar. On Kolman´s advice I went to Prague, where it was easier to get lost among the crowd. Přemysl Pitter took there my wife and four children, who were in the children's home nearby Rokycany. Then I had the possibility of staying in Žižkov and expected to end the war there. I stopped a Russian car and thanks to my knowledge of the language I travelled in this car to Prague, walking the last part of the way to the Žižkov. Suddenly I was stopped by one man with the question: Sir, what are you doing here, and where are you going? It was one of 21 Schieche, Emil: „Jan Amos Comenius und Schweden“, pp 165-171 in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, Heft 50, Köln 1968 22 Schieche, Emil: „Die Kultur der Tschechen“, pp. 11-89., in: Die Kulturen der Westslawen und Südslawen, Frankfurt am Main 1970 23 Schieche, Emil: „Erlebte Bewahrung in turbulenten Zeiten“, pp 188-192 in: Erbe und Auftrag der Reformation in den bömischen Ländern, Johannes Mathesius Verlag, 1979 199 my former colleagues from the Slavonic library. Thanks to Pitter I was informed that my wife and children were safe. It was a Wednesday on the Lord's Resurrection and I was summoned for questioning to Bartolomějská. Pitter went there with me. The police had the papers that I was to be treated as a Czech. I got back the key to my apartment. On 6th June 1945 my family with Czech-Swedish personal papers, where my wife was written as a widow, could travel with large transport emigrants from Prague to Plzeň. When saying good bye, we didn't know if we would meet again. First in September I got a message that the family was safely in Sweden. After a long time of questioning and answering I was given a paper confirming, that I was Czech, which meant the possibility of free movement and I did not have to report my comings and goings. Soon after the surrender Pitter managed to get three castles from the Ringhoffer family – there he saved Jewish children from Terezín and more than 100 German children who had lost their parents. German doctors and German women were released from internment camps to the castles to take care of the children and the household duties. When everything started in these castles, I spent my time there as a teacher of religion and German until my departure to Sweden in January 1946. Dr. Emil Schieche - historian, archivist in Czech Archives, lecturer in Czech at the University of Breslau, the high imperial clerk, pre-war member of the Prague International Peace Movement, simple solder of Wermacht, then a military defector, a longtime coworker of Pitter and associate professor at the University of Stockholm - is certainly an important and interesting personality. His life story and work are still the subject of current research. Comenius, Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche, and many personalities of known and unknown foreign Czechs are infinite as well as the research itself. Hodin, Vaněk and Schieche wrote about Comenius, Hodin and Schieche wrote also about Smetana, I myself am writing about Comenius, Smetana, Hodin, Vaněk, Schieche. Everything blends together as a unit with a solid foundation for our identity, which must be stronger when we live abroad. Human destinies and works are preserved in the archives and libraries, and the next and the next generations - always in some kind of opportunities - will these works bring to light, in order to seek answers to their new and additional issues. 200 Alexander Cejnar, Linguist and Editor of Exile Journals in Brazil Stanislav Kázecký Like many people of his war-torn generation, the Czech journalist and linguist Alexander Cejnar was denied the opportunity to complete his formal education. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 as a 15-year old student in his hometown Jablonec nad Nisou and after the war he spent two years in Soviet custody. In 1950, Alexander Cejnar fled from Czechoslovakia to Germany, ending up in the Valka refugee camp. After moving to Sao Paulo in 1952, he began to develop his publishing projects that documented the life of the Czech community in Brazil and provided a platform for his vigorous promotion of anti-communist activities. Between the 1950s and 1990s, Cejnar launched a number of magazines with different titles but similar content. So far, the periodicals identified as his include Čecho-Brazilián, ČechoEvropan, Brazilské listy, Mladá Evropa, Ozvěna, Euroopinion, Základy and Západoslavia. Though lacking formal education, Alexander Cejnar was a natural linguist. Linguistics always had a special place in his publishing activities; starting from the 1970s it became his dominant interest. For many years, he worked on a European constructed language – Europé. In 1967, he published a brief Europé grammar (private edition in Sao Paulo) and continued to promote the language in later years. Cejnar designed Europé as a neutral, international and interethnic auxiliary language to foster communication across the whole Europe. He never intended to create a universal global language along the lines of Esperanto; his Europé was created to help preserve European languages and dialects and facilitate the process of European unification. In Cejnar´s opinion, the prevalence of the existing dominant languages meant the danger of “destruction of all cultures ...the end of fruitful, and therefore desirable, diversity”. This original thinker and tireless man of letters died in 2007 in Sao Paulo. The year after his family decided to donate his correspondence and books to the National Archives of the Czech Republic. Linguist and publisher of magazines for Czechs in exile Alexander Cejnar was born on 11 March 1928 in Jablonec nad Nisou. Like many people of his war-torn generation, he was denied the opportunity to complete his formal education. Arrested by the Gestapo as a 15year old student in his hometown, he was transferred to Soviet custody after the war. Like during his other periods in captivity, he spent the time in the Soviet Union (1948-1949) teaching foreign languages. In 1950, Alexander Cejnar fled from Czechoslovakia to Germany, crossing the border over the Šumava mountain range and ending up in the Valka refugee camp near Nuremberg. It seems that what actually prompted his emigration was a call-up for compulsory military 201 service. A letter from the head of the Valka camp suggests that Cejnar was known to cooperate with US intelligence services; however, he himself never made such claims. During his time in Germany he again taught languages and worked for Radio Free Europe. When Australia refused his immigration application, he boarded the ship “Campana” from Genoa to Rio de Janeiro. After moving to Sao Paulo in 1952 Alexander Cejnar married Irena née Kubínková, who joined him teaching languages and remained a valuable source of support and encouragement for his rich intellectual activities. It was at this time that he began to develop his publishing projects that documented the life of the Czech community in Brazil and provided a platform for his vigorous promotion of anti-communist activities. Between the 1950´s and 1990´s, Cejnar launched a number of magazines with different names but similar content. So far, the periodicals identified as his include Čecho-Brazilián, Čecho-Evropan, Brazilské listy, Mladá Evropa, Ozvěna, Euroopinion, Základy, Západoslavia, and the list is certainly not yet final. In connection with his publishing work he kept up correspondence with exiled Czech and other anti-communists all over the world. Though lacking formal education, Alexander Cejnar was a natural linguist. At the time of his emigration he already spoke ten languages. Linguistics always had a special place in his publishing activities; starting from the 1970´s, it became his dominant interest. For many years he worked on a European constructed language – Europé. In 1967 he published a brief Europé grammar (private edition in Sao Paulo) and continued to promote the language in later years, mainly by compiling vocabularies for the existing languages. Cejnar designed Europé as a neutral, international and interethnic auxiliary language to foster communication across the whole Europe. He never intended to create a universal global language along the lines of Esperanto; his Europé was created to help preserve European languages and dialects and facilitate the process of European unification. In Cejnar´s opinion, the prevalence of the existing dominant languages meant the danger of “destruction of all cultures ...the end of fruitful, and therefore desirable, diversity”. Europé grammar is based on a simplified form of modern English and the vocabulary is mostly derived from Latin. Cejnar took care to keep the grammatical structures simple and the pronunciation as easy as possible. 202 When this original thinker and tireless man of letters died on 5 October 2007 in Sao Paulo, in his well-ordered bookcase yielded, in addition to materials related to Europé, also many valuable records documenting the activities of Czech anti-communists in exile – correspondence, magazines and books. His wife, Mrs. Irena Cejnarová, and his daughter Daina decided to donate them to the National Archives of the Czech Republic. 203 A Paradigm for the Study of Political Exile: The Case of Intellectuals David Kettler The aim of the presentation is to propose a scheme for the comparative study of political exile, with special attention to the distinctive issues confronting the study of intellectuals. Political exile is not a metaphor of estrangement, but a political condition arising from the displacement and exclusion of individuals or groups from their familiar scenes of public action by purposive acts, their actions and circumstances elsewhere in consequence of this condition, and their relationships to the prospects of return. The topics of (1) starting point, (2) locus, (3) project, (4) mission and end of exile provide a framework of questions designed to elicit similarities and differences among cases, as well as to facilitate the construction of typologies. Among the distinctive features of the approach to be presented are the questioning of the traditional emphases on “home” as the point of departure, the multiple and structurally diverse negotiations that mark the political exile of intellectuals, including questions of relations with those who do not emigrate, the attendant problems of “recognition,” as well as the fluidity and liquidation of exile. Although the studies from which the exercise derives almost all refer to the beststudied case of intellectuals in exile from Hitler’s regime, the objective has always been to guard against the risks of provincialism, romanticism, and sentimentalism in “Exilforschung”. It is a daunting privilege to come to Prague to take up a subject that was so importantly influenced by Tomás Masaryk almost one hundred years ago, the study of intellectuals as a social formation, which Masaryk did much to introduce to western social thought through his extraordinary Spirit of Russia. 1 The Russian “intelligentsia” represented a limiting case of a more wide-spread European development, inasmuch as it constituted a distinctively self-conscious collectivity of educated individuals expressly competing over the constitution of a common world-view and political mission, but the concept served as a kind of ideal-type that stimulated the study of intellectuals, a role that had emerged in conjunction with the formation of a public sphere in Europe. For Masaryk, the projection was also in some measure intended as a hopeful self-characterization, as witness his touching observation, speaking in his own voice: “The philosopher of history, the man who has read and understood Kant’s Critique and Goethe’s Faust will know how to discriminate 1 Tomáš G Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia London: Allen & Unwin, 1919. 204 between a needless popular rising and an indispensable revolution.” 2 The next generation of thinkers, represented above all by Karl Mannheim in Germany, were less confident about the unique and benign Bildung of intellectuals, although they never abandoned the links between intellectuals and some mode of dissent from prevailing opinion, as well as a special shared responsibility for translating the learned arts and sciences into a practical language of public cultivation and orientation. 3 In the study of exile, the case of the coerced migration of scholars, writers, artists, and scientists from Hitler’s rule occupies a place somewhat similar to Masaryk’s “intelligentsia.” It is the best-studied case, whose study has conditioned the understanding of exiles involving similar populations in other times and places. 4 Just as the ideal type derived from the Russian intelligentsia can be misleading despite its great value, if the composite of diverse elements is taken as a universal, so the emigrations of the 1930s can turn into a dubious stereotype if the elements are not distinguished and exposed to comparative study. The aim must be a diversified typology, attentive to variations on certain common themes. My talk today represents such an exercise in analysis, based on a decade of collaborative work on the subject. 5 I am offering a “paradigm” for the study of intellectual exile, not a theory, although such a construct inevitably makes certain theoretical assumptions, just as it hopes to aid subsequent theoretical understanding. The emphasis will be on “exile” rather than “intellectuals,” and the design aims also to assist studies whose subject populations are scientists or artists or professionals of all sorts, whose circumstances may differ in a systematic way from those of the intellectuals properly so called. 2 Masaryk, Spirit, II, 5 38. Available at www.archive.org/details/TheSpiritOfRussiaVol2 David Kettler and Volker Meja, Karl Mannheim and the Crisis of Liberalism: "The Secret of these New Times." New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1995. 4 Krohn, Claus-Dieter; Patrick von zur Mühlen; Gerhard Paul; and Lutz Winckler; eds., Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration, 1933–1945. Darmstadt: PrimusVerlag, 1998. 5 David Kettler, ed. Contested Legacies: The German-Speaking Intellectual and Cultural Emigration to the US and UK, 1933-1945. Berlin and Cambridge MA: Galda & Wilch, 2002: David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland, eds., Contested Legacies: Political Theory and the Hitler Regime. Special Issue of the European Journal of Political Theory. June 2004; David Kettler and Gerhard Lauer, eds., Exile, Science, and Bildung: The Contested Legacies of German Emigre Intellectuals. New York and London: Palgrave, David Kettler and Zvi Ben-Dor, eds. The Limits of Exile. Edited. Berlin/Glienecke: Galda & Wilch, 2010; David Kettler, The Liquidation of Exile. Studies in the Intellectual Emigration of the 1930s. London: Anthem Press, 2011; Detlef Garz and David Kettler, eds.. Erste Briefe/ First Letters aus dem Exil 1945-1950: (Wie) endet das Exil? Bd. 2. Munich: Text + Kritik Verlag, 2011. 3 205 With apologies for the somewhat pedantic quality of the short paragraph to follow, I will offer a brief definition of what I mean by “intellectuals,” before presenting the paradigm of exile, since the difference between this social formation and the scientists who are so prominent on the program of this conference may matter for our subsequent discussions: the central point is that intellectuals are especially bound to the political-cultural locales within which they define themselves—and are recognized—as intellectuals. Intellectuals in the modern age comprise a self–constituted but loosely bounded social formation comprehending social actors marked by a level of education deemed superior in a given society, a connoisseurship of the most influential types of knowledge in that society, an engaged orientation to and participation in disputes about the interpretation and articulations of meanings within the public sphere, and an openness to the possibility of a shared ethos with others recognized as intellectuals notwithstanding the prevalence of conflict and a characteristic rejection of comprehensive or fixed organization. Despite cosmopolitan and trans-national trends, the cohorts of intellectuals have been mainly tied to bounded political domains (or, more precisely, their urban centers). After intellectuals have graduated from the student population, which is the primary recruiting ground, intellectuals are commonly employed in a certain range of occupations centered on specific kinds of skills and knowledge, including scholarly or scientific academic work, but such employment does not in itself entail the status of intellectual and may even conflict with it. These tensions often become manifest under conditions of exile. What work does the term exile do in the contemporary language of cultural and political self-reflection, so that interpreters find it worthwhile to quarrel about its scope and application? Well, exiles are always special. They are suspended between two places. In one place, they are denied, either by threat of violence or by some other insupportable condition; in the other place, they are only conditionally accepted: they find asylum, not a home. They are at a distance from both places. Moreover, in almost all uses of the term, even exiles who are literally banished retain the special status only so long as they continue to identify themselves--or to be identified--with this suspension between the two places, the refusal wholly to abandon the one or wholly to accept the other. The focus of their attention is on their unfinished business between them and the first place, not their limited business with the second. Exiles accordingly appear unlike ordinary people whose ordinary needs and 206 ambitions regulate their lives. Exiles are may be a reproach to those who stay behind, even though exiles may also reproach themselves for their departures, whether willing or coerced. To be an exile is to have a project, to be a thoroughly untrivial person, however strange your beliefs and conduct may appear to outsiders. To be an exile is to be interesting, in the way that a refugee or victim or traveler or immigrant cannot be supposed to be. Exile is a status that gives a right to a special kind of hospitality, a right to asylum, and that exempts the beneficiary from the ordinary rules of reciprocity. It is not a surprise, consequently, that the meaning of exile is a bone of contention among both social scientists and cultural commentators. It implies a lot about the person(s) to whom it is applied. The status makes claims and excuses, while it also implies separation from and uncertain loyalty to the place of residence and the company of others who are there. Exile, it might be said, is politics in extremis. It tests the capacities of political life when such life is deprived of most of its institutional supports. The condition of exile takes multiple forms and requires in any case a study that attends to its susceptibility to conflict and change. Like many similar terms, exile is used both to refer to a condition and to persons or groups who are identified with that condition by contemporary observers, commentators, or themselves. There is controversy about both aspects. In the case of the condition, there are disputes not only about its distinction from states characterized by terms like cosmopolitan, wanderer, stranger, emigrant or refugee but also about its relationship to the language of political life, where the concept poses especially hard questions. In the case of the exemplars, the questions are about the applicability of the term over time: when and how does one become an exile, how does one sustain the condition, and when does one stop being an exile in any important sense? In recent years, moreover, the trope of exile has stood high in a special sense, previously known best to religious thought. To judge by some recent writings in literary criticism and cultural studies, following Edward Said, exile appears as a transcendent status, beyond the ambiguous supports of historical circumstance, and beyond even the painful sense of its loss. Exile appears as an enabler of the most profound thought, art, and 207 literature--an empowerment. 6 And yet if we look in the newspapers for exiles, we find stories of pain, criminality, maneuver, burden, and racking contradictions. Exile here looks like something historically overdetermined, constricting, distorting, closely bound to the threat, suffering, and infliction of violence. To the extent that exile is transmuted into a metaphor for a spiritually exalted, synchronic, emancipated, limitless, and creative state of estrangement from quotidian concerns, the concept of exile effectively ceases to pose several of the most persistent and difficult questions confronting exile as encountered in historical studies of actors banished from their native scenes of action. First are precisely the everyday concerns of asylum, livelihood, and isolation that engross all but the most privileged exiles. Second is the practical relation to the play of power and resistance that shaped their past and shapes their prospects. Third is the disrupted and unfinished business with those they are compelled to leave behind, friends or foes, as well as the effort to negotiate new enterprises with their fellows and their hosts. Fourth are the diverse and often alternating emotional stresses of rage, shame, confusion, and defiant missionary aspiration, under conditions of disorientation and uncertain recognition. Fifth, and often encompassing the others, is the consuming question of return, which is often understood as a necessary moment in the concept of exile, with the time of exile being charged with anticipation of return and the moment of return being correspondingly imbued with the remembrance of exile. On that reading, Exile and return are interdependent and even co-present. 7 The political exile of intellectuals as we propose to study it, in short, is not a static condition. One might speak rather of an exile process, while cautioning against the expectation raised by this term of a kind of automatic sequence caused by invariant forces. Perhaps it would be better to speak of the trajectories of exiles in recognition of the historicity and variability of the phenomenon. That is the justification for the case-study approach. 6 Edward Said: “Reflections on Exile,” Pp. 357-368 in Russell Fergusson, Martha Gever et al. (Eds.) Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures, New York, Cambridge/Mass. 1990. 7 For a valuable partially contrasting analysis, see Ulrich Oevermann “Ein sequenzanalytischer Zugriff auf die Pragmatik der „First Letters“ hinsichtliche der Frage der Beendigung oder Fortsetzung des Exils.” in David Kettler and Detlef Garz, eds. Erste Briefe, Bd. 2 208 A preliminary step is to situate the historical parameters of the exiles we may want to study in relation to the wider scope of the concept and to several related types of exile. We might speak of a paradigm for the comparative study of political exile. Methodologically, the aim is to show first the importance of historical, differentiated treatment of any complex exile situation, and to provide, second, some characteristic elements of exiles, which may assist in lending structure to a historically bounded configuration of exile. For these purposes, we begin with constituents of the most familiar definition to circumscribe the domain, while taking care to leave open all the constituent terms we know to be historically variable and analytically problematic. Political exile, then, is about the displacement and exclusion of individuals or groups from their familiar scenes of public action by purposive acts, their actions and circumstances elsewhere in consequence of this condition, and their relationships to the prospects of return. The Starting Point of Exile At the starting point, exile presupposes a power structure capable, as in the Greek polis, Roman republic or modern state, of bounding such a locale, and normally of determining inclusion and exclusion as well. The persons exiled, on this understanding, are supposed to begin by being attached to this bounded locale as to a public scene of action, although it may be that the public character of their spheres are imputed by others, as when poets are read through ideological lenses. This attachment may take the most obvious form of occupying political office or an elite status in a more or less formalized hierarchy, or it may simply be a matter of active citizenship within a polity. In many political formations, however, where a public sphere has emerged and where it is susceptible to some measure of control, recognized participation in a complex of commercial, social and cultural interaction situated within set political boundaries—often called “civil society”—is a sufficient mode of attachment to render the person subject to exile in the present political sense, whether or not they were ever politically active in the conventional sense. Those who have the power to bring about exclusion also have the power to render the activities in this sphere political. 209 It is not decisive whether the individuals and groups involved understand their attachment as a matter of home or simply a matter of their “world” of conversation, cooperation, and competition. The urban intellectuals who have been at the center of my own studies, for example, may speak nostalgically of home while in exile but they had almost uniformly already left their actual “homes”—whether in provincial towns or close-knit families, often Jewish—in order to engage themselves in the transactions that made up the world from which they found themselves banned. The prominence of the trope of home in the rhetoric of exile over-dramatizes the situations of many exiles, can stand as an obstacle to an understanding of the dynamics of the condition, and facilitates the confusion between the political and metaphorical readings of exile. Exile as event Given the most common starting point in active attachment to a political scene, the defining first stage in the dynamics of exile is exclusion from it. We have spoken quite impersonally of that moment since exile comprehends situations in which the decisive step is taken by an exiler in power, where exile appears quite simply as banishment, and those where the person exiled takes it, where it may appear as a choice, albeit often a forced one. It should be clear that the empirical situations are often ambiguous. Only Socrates’ willingness to consider execution an option rendered exile a question of choice in his case. Yet the analytical distinction is important. The range of possibilities under the heading of punitive banishment is considerable. Banishment may be a punishment under due process of law, as was true not only in classical Greece or Rome but also under present-day American law, where some states still apply it to certain offenders, notably in sexual crimes. It should be noted, however, that when such exiles specify an internal or external places of sequestration they differ importantly, by virtue of the isolation they generally entail, from the type of exile characteristic of the modern world of nation states. A special type of banishment in the context of regime change is the modern day expulsion of dictatorial rulers as a result of express or implicit bargains designed to assist 210 democratization and similar kinds of political transition. In these cases, issues of political justice often assume a unique importance, especially in the context of efforts to generate a global human rights regime and political crime jurisprudence, not to speak of domestic issues ranging from terroristic rule to kleptocracy. With this type, we are at the transition from banishment at the discretion of the banisher to the cases of exiles where the person(s) in exile can be said to take the initiative, although the boundaries are uncertain, first, because many individuals who choose to go into exile do so under immediate threat of violence or under conditions where their most valued activities and relations are proscribed, and, second, because the regimes in power normally forbid a return or at best require a total disavowal of who one was before exile. The French revolutionary governments expropriated the émigrés and the Nazi government deprived exiles of their citizenships. This does not, of course, mean that there are no cases of exile ended by undoing the exclusion, although the questions raised by the exchanges entailed in pardons and their acceptances can only be noted here and belong, in any case, to the conditions of exile rather than its onset. While exiles may be said to initiate their banishment where they flee from political justice at the hands of those who have power in order to deny them the legitimacy that would give them the jurisdiction, this is only an instance of a larger class of cases where exile is chosen as a form of political action, symbolic, tactical or strategic in character. The history of the 1930s exile is strongly marked by such considerations—and by the realization that such calculations may also be in serious error. In these cases, the exiles often count on power resources that they expect to become available only if they are in exile, as with the possibility of mobilizing allies and supporters. This political face of exile presupposes a positive conception of the exile not as the disgraced outcast, which is the starting point of most literary classical conceptions, however mitigated by recognitions of tragedy, but as the exemplary resister to injustice. Especially prevalent in eras of revolution and counter-revolution, the positive conception may also give rise to several anomalies, not excluding the claim to exile status of individuals fleeing from ordinary criminal justice. Politically even more interesting and occasionally related to such formations are the interlinked phenomena of constructed exile and claims based on inheritance, where entitlements to return, restitution, or even command are grounded in a banishment that may be generations old or simply legendary. A characteristic step in the 211 construction of such exiles is the attempt to transmute the affected group from victims into agents congruent with the conditions of exile being propounded, as when Zionists disowned the diasporic Jews’ supposed alienation from the soil or Native Americans seek to reinvigorate warrior images. Underlying what I have called constructed exile in Western culture is not only the positive concept derived from modern revolutionary exiles but also—and doubtless at a deeper level—the most important sources of the figurative or metaphysical concept, the theological vision of the human condition as exile from the realms of the divine. Exile in this sense figures as a metaphor of an estrangement that is spiritually empowering and that transcends groundedness. That our study of exile is concerned with political exile and that our approach questions writers like Said who transmute the one mode of exile into the other does not mean that it is not important to be aware of precisely such undertones and trends in the discourse of political exile as well. Locus of Exile If exile is a condition of exclusion from a place of attachment, the question arises where and how the displaced live. While the question obviously answers itself in the marginal case of banishment to a fixed place under the power of the exiling authority, it resolves itself into a question of safe haven or asylum in other classes of exile. Asylum takes the form of diverse regimes, which are shaped, like exile itself, by the conjunction of legal and political elements that we call political justice. Historically, the care of exiles sometimes came under religious regimes of sanctuary, but diverse state, interstate, and international asylum or refugee regimes are more relevant to modern political exiles. Despite repeated efforts to create a uniform (and hospitable) international code, the implementation of all such schemes depends on the inner legal-political actions of states, and their judgments will almost always be conditioned by questions of domestic or international politics. Some of the more stable asylum regimes exist paradoxically among political entities where instability of governments is the norm, as among ancient Greek city-states, Renaissance Italian cities, and Latin American states. In most modern states, however, where not only political but also social and economic personality depend on state legitimation, subject to detailed police 212 regulation, the position of exiles is consequently precarious, subject to political criteria, and often subject to many conditions and restrictions, even where asylum is granted. Formal or informal restrictions on economic, professional, and cultural activities are not rarely a feature of asylum, and these require constant efforts to gain recognition as bargaining partners with those who control such resources, but the most common regulations concern political activities by exiles. This may mean either that the exiles must conform to the political objectives that led the state to grant the asylum or that they may not engage in any political activities at all. The latter qualification, if stringently applied, of course deprives the exile of a critical rationale, if not of its meaning. An integral part of the exile process, accordingly, is a progressive lessening of the distinction between exiles and refugees or immigrants, with significant effects on the orientation to return from exile, which is a paradigmatic component of the status. The elapsing of time, given a secure asylum, may well have such an effect in any case, and this effect is strengthened where, as in the United States, naturalization and the consequent acquisition of the indispensable personal identity papers commonly lost upon exile is widely—if not universally—available to the exiles over time. Under such comparatively advantageous conditions, exile becomes more nearly a project than a condition—and this in turn depends on the possibility of engaging in the political activity required to form and sustain such a project. Before looking more closely at the project of exile, we should note that asylum is by no means always available. This matters least in the exceptional cases of military exiles, where a formation is in a position to impose its presence on an alien territory by force. Much more common is the condition of exiles as illegals and wanderers, moving from one location to another under constant duress or collected in camps cut off from the inhabitants and institutions of the political societies on whose territory these may be located. The last class of cases stands in a distinctive kind of ambiguous relationship to exile. On the one hand, they submerge the political exiles, with their special reciprocal power-and-resistance relationships to the exiling force, in the wider population of the refugees, whom Hannah Arendt apostrophized as superfluous people; but, on the other, the condition may greatly simplify the otherwise uncertain undertaking of giving the exile political form and developing a constituency for it—albeit a powerless one. 213 Project of Exile The project of exile, whether in asylum or not, requires first of all the recognition of the chosen status among possible constituencies and more widely among those who control resources relevant to the exiles’ requirements. Much depends, accordingly, on the “trade goods” that they bring to the table in their negotiations with domestic forces in their place of asylum, as well as their resourcefulness in such interactions. Not only distrust or indifference has to be overcome but also—a more complex matter—the classification as helpless victims. Political exile, as I am presenting it here, may be a function of defeat, but it is also a mode of agency, at least in design. Political roles involve a part in the play of power and resistance, in prospect if not in actuality. The question of victimization is complex because the claim may also play a part in the attempt to gain asylum and then in efforts to overcome disabilities that may accompany asylum even if granted. When exiles let the balance shift towards victimization, they risk loss of credibility as actual or potential actors against those who exiled them. In this connection, it is important to note the difference between exiles as individual and collective entities. To speak of the Cuban exile in the United States, the Tibetan exile in India, or the erstwhile Hungarian exile in Vienna is to claim or to recognize a collective subject of some sort, whether formed in an organization or represented by a representative spokesperson. Alternatively, individuals may also be cast as exiles, although such a claim or recognition requires a measure of prominence and voice. As a practical matter, exile life is frequently marked by conflict among groups and individuals about questions of commonality and representativeness, not to speak of the forms and aims of their opposition to those who exile them, with shifting internal and external alignments and alliances, as in the effective breakup of the 1930s anti-Fascist exile after the widespread discrediting of the Stalinist left. The shared fate of exile by no means guarantees that the exiles do not bring with them fiercely contested legacies. Exiles are subject moreover not only to the international political-legal policies of the political entities that may grant them asylum but also to the conflicts of domestic politics, where they may be variously seen as instruments or symbolic targets. The constant demands 214 on individual and collective energies of these multi-level political endeavors affect the quality and sustainability of exile projects. While it should be noted that the debilities of exile do not preclude the formation and sustenance of exile projects responsible for important achievements for those directly involved and others, the many literary laments about the pains of exile testify to the obstacles in the way of such achievements, the distorting factors that affect them, and their often inordinate costs. As noted earlier in connection with the status of victim, political exiles suffer under the stigma of defeat, which often impedes their efforts to gain support. Second, many suffer also from need and the attendant demands on their time and restrictions on their openness. Third, even exiles that do not have to overcome language barriers often suffer from communications deficits: their political images and topics and priorities are often simply not understood, at least on anything like their own terms, and the attempts to adapt their communications may undermine their own self-understandings and mutual accommodations. If nothing else, when they manage to gain some recognition as bargaining partners in internal politics, they stand out among political groupings by their single-mindedness and by their dispositions to interpret the constellations in their places of asylum in terms of the politics they know best. The Mission and the End of Exile Exile as an ongoing project would seem to depend on the ability to shape and retain a sense of mission, whether as a matter of individual mental set or as institutionalized effective ideology. The balance between this aspect and the qualities required to deal with the obstacles to effectiveness noted above is differently struck by different exile formations. Too exclusive a sense of mission may lead to isolation; too open a mode of exchange with the context of asylum may lead to dissolution. The mission itself may be defined in quite general terms—an ending of the immediate condition that led to exile—or it may embody a specific and detailed program. There are also exiles where the mission is given the interim goal of witnessing to injustice or representing some distinctive cultural or intellectual enterprises thought to have been itself expelled with the exiles. However formulated, however, the mission normally entails an orientation to return. In time, however, and under 215 many conditions, this orientation undergoes vicissitudes that may render it ever more uncertain. A key term in these stories is recognition, with a twofold application. First is whether the returnees recognize their geographical homecoming as a return from their exile, in terms meaningfully related to their understanding of the period of enforced absence, and with the claims and satisfactions that this implies. If political exile entails the disruption of some ongoing, arguably political business by acts of force, the question is whether that unfinished business is still recognizably present or possible. Second, and perhaps more fundamental, is whether they receive recognition as returned. Such acts of recognition--like their withholding--are eminently political actions, and failures of recognition may be thought cumulatively to undermine the political meaning of exile. More broadly, the continued relevance of the question of return is a decisive indicator of the difference between the political and historical concept of exile and its metaphorical extrapolations. A recurrent phenomenon, however, is a gradual transition from one to the other, as the relevance of return declines, whether because of age, acculturation, political reorientation, or the immovability of the conditions that brought about the exile. Then too, the exiles may no longer recognize the place they left as a scene in which they belong. As Peter Fritsche has shown, the memoir literature of returned French émigrés in the early nineteenth century is full of assertions that there had been no homecoming because the places they knew—even the history they knew—no longer existed. If nothing else, there are always fundamental differences in memory, vision, relations, and practices between those who had not been in exile and those who seek to return, even after the principal exiling force is no longer in power. The exile’s hope of vindication and restoration is rarely fulfilled. There is no “happy end.” A profound statement of that circumstance by Gunther Anders may be summarized as the claim that the experience of exile means that the emigrant is forever deprived of an integral, single life but possesses rather multiple lives, or—more precisely—a life of many sharp kinks, like a river that must repeatedly dig itself a new bed that washes away the former course of its flow. And yet that generalization, which was actually the starting point for my researches on intellectual exiles, knows no more striking exception than Tomas Masaryk, with whom I 216 opened this talk. His achievements in exile and his wonderful return represent a deviant case that may be more a matter for celebration than for dry research. 217 Czech scholars in exile, 1948 -1989 Antonín Kostlán Czechoslovakia in the years 1948-1989, represented one of the countries of the Soviet power bloc where the development of research was in many ways supported by the country's government, but at the same time subjected to various restrictions and strong political pressure. The paper focuses on the main characteristic features of the emigration of scientists and intellectuals in the period of the communist regime and presents the results of an analysis of departure of the workers of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences to exile. It tries to estimate the overall extent of this emigration, deliberates about the further careers of exile scholars and introduces an attempt of exile typology. Kostlán, Antonín: Czech Scholars in Exile, 1948 –1989 (powerpoint presentation) (The numbers refer to the images in the presentation.) [1] The topic of this paper is the exile of Czech scientists in the period of 1948 – 1989. [2] First, however, it is necessary to examine another important milestone of Czech history – that is September 1938, when the Munich Pact was signed, or (if you like) March 1939, when the Nazi occupation of the Czech Lands begun. The years 1938–39 were a turning point with regard to the exile movement. The hitherto democratic Czechoslovakia came under direct Nazi rule during the war, while communist control in 1948 meant direct submission to the totalitarian Soviet Union. The country that had hosted Russian and Ukrainian émigrés after 1918 and after 1933 also German and Jewish émigrés, became, over the next fifty years, one which generated refugees. Both dictatorships which much influenced the European history of the twentieth century, hence strongly affected also the swings and splits of the intellectual development of the Czech Lands. [3] Czechoslovak exile during the second world war was strongly heterogeneous, as in addition to individuals fleeing from racial discrimination, it included also the followers of various political trends - from Czech democratic policy headed by President Edvard Beneš through German social democrats to both Czech and German communists. Of approximately 150 top scientists whose emigration was assisted also by the London Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, only about one half reached a secure place to live (for more details please refer to the picture). Still, a relatively high number of scientists remained in the Böhmen und Mähren Protectorate, exposed to persecution. 218 [4] It is not possible to list the names of all of the scientists who left the perishing Czechoslovakia for exile; we have to make do with some significant names. These included, for instance, Einstein’s successor at the Prague German University, the physicist Philipp Frank who landed up at Harvard University. Felix Haurowitz, a native of Prague, became an outstanding expert in biochemistry; he received asylum in Turkey and later in 1948 was appointed professor at the Indiana University in USA. The biochemist Egon Hynek Kodíček from the Prague Czech University was harboured by England during the War and later he became Director of the MRC Dunn Nutritional Laboratory in Cambridge. An example of a scientist, for whom Czechoslovakia was a transit country, is the Director of Einstein-Institute in Potsdam, the astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich. He left Germany for Turkey in 1933, from where he accepted an invitation to Prague German University in 1937. In 1939, however, he was on the run again, this time through the Netherlands to Scotland where he afterwards worked at the University of St. Andrews. [5] February 1948 is traditionally considered to be the chief turning point in the history of Czechoslovakia. This was the very time when the Communist Party seized the complete political power and when this previously independent country became one of the Soviet Union satellites. February 1948 opened the country to Stalinist terror and in the period lasting from 1948 to 1967 drove at least sixty thousand people out of the country. The first ones to go were the forefront democratic political leaders, mostly the same ones as those who, not long before, in 1945, had come back to their homeland from their first exile. Nevertheless, the general proportion of intellectuals in this first wave was not that high as it is often thought to be. The number of representatives of the cultural and scientific life who left within this wave may be estimated at some 600 – 800 people. Many more remained in the country and tried to adapt to the new regime, some even supported it – and this was the major difference compared to the Nazi period when the entire national elite dissociated themselves, where possible, from the new ruler. [6] Let us recall again some of the significant individuals. After his return from the concentration camp, doctor of medicine and physiologist Jan Bělehrádek became the first post-war Rector of Charles University in Prague and, at the same time, an MP for the Social Democratic Party. After his emigration he worked for UNESCO in Paris, but following the protests of the Czech communist government he had to leave for England. Vladimír Krajina, 219 Professor of the Charles University, was an outstanding botanist and during the War he played an important role in the anti-Nazi resistance. After the War, he was an MP and Secretary General for one of the smaller political parties. After his exile to Canada in 1948, he became the deputy chairman of the Council of Free Czechoslovakia, which was the highest body of the Czechoslovak political emigration. In addition, however, he was active as a Professor at the University of British Columbia, focusing upon research of the local forest ecosystem. As we can see, in this exile wave, scientific and political exile was much intertwined. [7] For the second emigration wave of the scientists from the communist Czechoslovakia is avalaible Database of Staff of Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences who emigrated in 1953 – 1989, created in Masaryk’s Institute – Archive of the Czech Academy of Sciences as a part of our project. The Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences was established in 1952. It incorporated some 60 to 80 research institutes covering all fields of science, including social sciences and humanities. The database succeeded in collecting data about approximately 720 people who emigrated from this institution in 1957 – 1989; their total number probably ranged from 760 to 790 individuals. The table provided on the picture shows their break-down by scientific specialisation. It is not surprising that about half of the émigré scholars came from the life and chemical sciences and one-third from the inanimate sciences. The predominance of physicists, chemists, and historians among the exile scholars reflects the high proportion of these fields in the Academy, as well as their job opportunities in the West. [8] The information from the database also helps us to answer the question about the chronological distribution of their departures from the country. The diagram illustrates that the absolute majority of the scientists emigrated in 1968, altogether after August 21 of 1968, or in the two following years, before the communist security regained strict control over the borders of the country. Hence the trigger thereof was the invasion of the Soviet troops into the country and we know that from August 1968 to November 1989, when the communist regime fell, approximately 200 thousand people left the country. The total number of scientists, not only from the Academy of Sciences, but also from universities and other institutions, who left Czechoslovakia as part of this exile wave, can be estimated at approximately two thousand individuals – hence about 1 per cent of the total emigration. 220 [9] More detailed characteristics of this emigration can be achieved by the prosopographic evaluation of the biographical data of excellent scientists whose detailed biographies have been successfully collected in the book One Hundred Czech Scientists in Exile – this is one of the major outcomes of the activities of our workgroup and is currently being launched. With a view to the date of birth we can clearly trace two domineering groups in this sample. Firstly, there is a strong representation of a generation born from 1918 to 1926 which was much affected by the events of World War II; we can find a number of persons from persecuted families as well as from families who chose to emigrate to escape Nazism. The lives of the others were surely significantly affected by the enforced closure of Czech universities in years 1939 – 1945. A much higher proportion, however, is represented by the generation born from 1927 to 1941 who took their degrees only after World War II, i.e. mostly during the communist period. An issue which should not be omitted is of course also the choice of the target country. The research of our sample has shown that in approximately one half of the cases it was a North-American country (the U.S. and Canada); the other half chose any of the free countries in Europe (Germany, including West Berlin; Britain, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Austria, and Scandinavian countries). These countries are likely to have been also the target for other emigrating scientists, who were not included in the excellence group, yet it should be assumed that outstanding scientific personalities were active also in other countries – of which we should mention at least Australia and Israel. [10] An important factor in the investigation of the exile groups is the age of the leaving persons at the time of their emigration, as it is often the age proper which much influences the decision on potential emigration and the chances of pursuing further career beyond the scope of the familiar routine in the old home country. We can principally classify the persons included in the sample into two much distinct groups: the first group includes individuals aged 26 – 40, i.e. of the “suitable” emigration age, as this is the age which is characterised by a certain initial unsettlement and a higher degree of flexibility, and in which a vast majority of persons outside the scientific community emigrates. The second group includes people in their 40s and 50s, i.e. of age for which emigration of the general population was not much typical. In our case, however, this group is also large and suggests a collective intervention in the to-date built life-time careers. 221 [11] Using only a few specific examples, let us recollect how significantly the large emigration wave of 1968-1970 weakened the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences as well as Czech science as such. A former Auschwitz concentration camp prisoner, historian František Graus compared in August 1968 the Soviet invasion to the Nazi occupation and soon after he emigrated to Germany and later to Switzerland. The physiologist Otakar Poupa was one of the authors of the legendary protest Two Thousand Words, dating from June 1968; he left for Scandinavia rather than suffer from the vindictiveness of the regime. The physical chemist Jaroslav Koutecký had previous personal experience with the communist regime from the 1950s, when he was sentenced to two years of forced labour for an illegal attempt to cross the border; this was one of the factors that made him leave for the West Berlin Freie Universität as his next workplace soon after August 1968. In addition to the already renowned scientists, also tens of young talented people were leaving; one of them was also the chemist Josef Michl, one of those who were involved in the establishment of a noncommunist political opposition in 1968. Only in his exile in the U.S. he worked his way up to become a world-known expert and, like the others – who lived to see it – was able to return to his homeland only after twenty years. [12] We can just briefly mention that the sample of excellent scientists who emigrated allows us to well characterise also some types of their life-time careers. One of the common forms seem to be a “settled” career, within the scope of which the concerned scientist got settled in his exile at a single workplace for long years, became organically integrated therewith till the end of his professional career. The sample includes also cases of a “migratory” and “parallel” career, where better research conditions or other incentives make the researcher gradually move from one significant position to another, often in various countries. The very nature of our sample - which includes essentially researchers well known for their high level of expertise – determines that – except for a few cases – we cannot find any examples of “mixed” careers where the scientist has been forced to combine his profession with another employment; nor any example of so called “broken” career; future research is sure to supplement our knowledge in this field as well. 222 Inner Migration within Vysoká škola báňská (Mining University) in Ostrava after 1968 Jan Kotůlek We analyse the situation on Department of Mathematics and Descriptive Geometry after 1968. The head of the department, Professor Oldřich Hajkr, was Rector of the university at the same time. There were mathematicians who were forced to leave the department after 1968, but in many cases (e.g., Arnošt Šarman and Vladimír Šmajstrla) they were moved to other departments within the university, where they were not allowed to teach, but where they were able to proceed with their research. Kotůlek, Jan: Inner Migration within Vysoká škola báňská (Mining University) in Ostrava after 1968 (powerpoint presentation) 223 Scientists and Physicians In the 1922 Exile Lists: Why Some of Them Were Forced to Emigrate and Some Were Permitted to Stay Galina Krivosheina The 1922 expulsion of “anti-Soviet intelligentsia” was a part of a large-scale campaign aimed at suppression of any forms of dissent and elimination of intellectual elite of the country. Though the whole story of deportation of eminent Russian philosophers, litterateurs, scientists, and engineers has been studied well enough by Western students, in the Soviet Union it was one of the forbidden subjects, as well as many other episodes of national history. Only in 1990s, when many documents on 1922 deportation of intellectuals became available, a whole series of books and papers on this matter was published in Russia. Nevertheless, many questions have remained open, e.g. the total number of those who were expelled from the country (not including the members of their families) is still uncertain and varies according to different authors from 50–60 to several hundred and even several thousand. Exile lists (there were four of them – Moscow, Petrograd, Ukrainian and Additional), compiled in July–August, 1922, contained 217 names. Not all of those included in the exile lists were forced to leave Russia. Part of them was forced to stay. It is a paradox, that while the fate of the former is studied well enough, the fate of the latter arouse almost no interest among either Western or Russian researchers, though it is no less illustrative of the attitude of the Soviet state towards the Russian intelligentsia. Introduction Paraphrasing Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, we can say that the whole history of the Soviet state was the history of stamping out dissent. Ban on political parties, except the ruling Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) (RSDLP(b) 1) in coalition with Mensheviks and the left wing of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (the last two were disbanded some years later), closure of the most newspapers, nationalization of all printing shops and paper supplies, censorship, purges against bourgeois classes – these were the first steps of the Soviet government. One of the most dramatic episodes of the first years of the 1 Since 1918 Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). 224 Soviet state was the 1922 expulsion of the so-called anti-Soviet intelligentsia – Philosophy Steamer, as it was nowadays coined by journalists 2. In the Soviet Union the story of expulsion was forbidden ground, as well as stories of any other purges of the period, when Vladimir Lenin was at the head of the Soviet state – reputation of the leader as the most humane man among men was to remain unspotted. Soviet ideologists toiled and troubled to create perfect image of the Leader, and if any paper trail didn’t fit into this image, it was destroyed, falsified or securely concealed 3. Only in the end of 1980th – beginning of 1990th some documents concerned with the 1922 purges became available and a whole series of articles telling the story of Philosophy Steamer appeared 4. The first extensive research on Philosophy Steamer was published by Mikhail Glavatsky5 in 2002. Using impressive source base he meticulously described historical and social background, political and ideological infighting of Bolsheviks and the most active part of Russian intelligentsia, and the story of the expulsion itself. The most comprehensive collections of documents on the 1922 expulsion from various Russian archives, including Archive of the President of Russian Federation, Central Archive of Federal Security Service of Russia and regional FSB archives (the latter are actually inaccessible) are presented in two publications: Deportation Instead of Shooting by Vladimir Makarov and Vasily Khristoforov 6 and Let`s Cleanse Russia for Long: Repression of dissidents by Andrei Artizov and Vasily Khristoforov 7. Though introductory chapters of the both books were justly criticized for some historical discrepancies 8, documents compiled in the books are of great value. They 2 Sergei S. Khoruzhii, “Filosofsky parokhod”, Literaturnaya Gaseta, May 9, 1990. See e.g. Dmitri A. Volkogonov, Lenin: Politicheskyi portret, in 2 vols (Moscow: Novosti, 1994). 4 See e.g. Leonid A. Kogan, “’Vyslat’ za granitsu beszhalostno’ (Novoe ob izgnanii dukhovnoi elity)”, Voprosy filosofii, 1993, 3:61-84; Irina N. Selezneva, “Intellektualam v Sovetskoi Rossii mesta net”, Vestnik RAN, 2001, 71(8):738-741; Andrei N. Artizov, “’Ochistim Rossiyu nadolgo’ (K istorii vysylki intelligentsii v 1922)”, Otechestvennye Arkhivy, 2003, 1:65-96; Eduard I. Kolchinsky, “Sovetizatsiya nauki v gody NEPa (1922–1927)”, in: Kolchinsky E.I. (ed.), Nauka i krizisy (St.Petersburg: Dm.Bulanin, 2003), p.440-549. Of course, outside Russia the story of 1922 purges was discussed even earlier, see e.g. Mikhail Geller, “Pervoe predosterezhenie – udar khlystom”, Vestnik Russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniya, Paris, 1978, 127:187-232; reprinted in Voprosy philosofii, 1990, 9:37–66. 5 Mikhail E. Glavatsky, Filosofsky parokhod: god 1922-i (Ekaterinburg, Izdatelstvo Uralskogo Universiteta, 2002). 6 Vladimir G. Makarov and Vasily S. Khristoforov (eds), Vysylka vmesto rasstrela: Deportatsiya intelligentsii v dokumentakh VChK-GPU: 1921–1923 (Moscow, Russky Put, 2005). 7 Andrei N. Artizov and Vasily S. Khristoforov (eds), “Ochistim Rossiyu Nadolgo…": Repressii protiv Inakomyslaishchikh: Konets 1921–Nachalo 1923 (Moscow, MFD-Materik, 2003). 8 Nina Dmitryeva, “’Oi ty, uchast’ korablya’, ili Snova o Filosofskom parokhode”, Pushkin, 2009, 4:58-63. 3 225 not only present an important source for further investigation into the history of 1922 purges but also give general perspective of intellectual situation in the Soviet Russia in the beginning of the 1920th. The present paper widely relies on these documents. Two more works on the topic should be mentioned. Interesting but emotionally charged Lenin’s Private War by Lesley Chamberlain 9 (though she herself claims that she “tried to take a more dispassionate approach to the lost Russian past”10) discusses ideological background and political manoeuvres of the Soviet government that made the expulsions legally possible, but the main emphasis is made on perception of the situation by expellee-to-be and emotional and psychological problems they faced when they left Russia. More academic is the work by Stuart Finkel 11 in which the story of the 1922 expulsion is discussed within the context of determined efforts of Lenin and Soviet authorities to impose ideological conformity and their endeavours to create a harmonious, unitary proletarian society. Though the story of Philosophy Steamer seems to be rather thoroughly studied many questions and discrepancies still remain. The most obvious concern the exact number of expellee and identification of all the names in the exile lists (the names are often misspelled and descriptions, such as “dangerous and noxious critter” don’t give any keys) as well as more thorough research into biographies of those, who were initially included into exile lists, but were never arrested or their expulsion was called off for some reason. There is no consent among authors upon such important questions as: Who stood behind this action against Russian intelligentsia, Lenin or Stalin? What were the real reasons for the 1922 expulsion? What was its actual influence on cultural life of Russia? These and many others problems connected with the whole story of Philosophy Steamer are still awaiting serious research. 9 Lesley Chamberlain, Lenin’s Private War: The Voyage of the Philosophy Steamer and the Exile of the Intelligentsia (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2006). 10 Ibid., p.7. 11 Stuart Finkel, On the Ideological Front: The Russian Intelligentsia and the Making of the Soviet Public Sphere (Yale University Press, 2007). 226 Lesley Chamberlain states (though not entirely justly 12) that interest of Russian historians in this subject “has so far mostly been limited to what happened to Lenin’s victims in Russia, and not what followed abroad” 13. The present paper is even “more Russian” in this respect, as besides some general problems concerned with the 1922 exile I tried to conceive what happened to those, who were included in exile lists but for some reasons were not allowed to leave the country. As my principal interests lie in the field of history of science and technology, it’s small wonder that more attention will be paid to scientists, engineers, physicians and agronomists in the exile lists, than to Russian religious thinkers, who hitherto have been the main heroes of thePhilosophy Steamer story. Political and social background In 1920, when the Red Army gained the victory over Kolchak in the east and Denikin in the south, the Civil War actually came to an end (military operations continued only in Far East and Central Asia) and Bolsheviks acquired control over most of the territory of Russia. The country lay in ruins, large territories were famine-hit, and the whole situation was becoming increasingly unstable. The course of events was aggravated by the policy of War Communism, adopted by the Soviet authorities during the Civil War and characterized by nationalization of all industry, the so called prodrazverstka – requisition (actually, plunder) of agricultural surpluses from peasants, centralized distribution of food and commodities in urban areas, and cruel punitive actions. In March, 1921 the 10th Congress of RKP(b) proclaimed impressive shift in state policy and the start of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which was designed to get the economy working, to develop large-scale machine production and to effect the transition to socialism. In the frames of this policy prodrazverstka was replaced by progressive tax-in-kind (prodnalog), market relations and various forms of ownership, including concessions, were partially restored, though under strong state accounting and control to restrain pettybourgeois elements so threatening for Lenin. These seemingly liberal movements were 12 See e.g. Tatyana I. Ulyankina, “Epistolyarnoe nasledie M.M. Novikova, byvshego rektora Moskovskogo universiteta”, Transactions of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in USA, 1999–2000, 30:453-476. 13 Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”, p. 9. 227 accompanied by strengthening of ideological pressure and increasing struggle against any forms of dissent in party’s ranks – ideology, like any other sphere of life in the Soviet state, was to be accounted and controlled. As for the nonparty section of population, it was easy to make undereducated or illiterate people believe in ideological slogans. Intelligentsia was a different story: those people were enough educated and too critically-minded to take these slogans for granted. Russian intelligentsia was a particular social phenomenon. According to Nikolai Berdyaev, one of the passengers of Philosophy Steamer, “Western people would make a mistake if they identified the Russian intelligentsia with those who in the West are known as 'intellectuals'. ... The Russian intelligentsia is an entirely different group; and to it may belong people occupied in no intellectual work, and generally speaking not particularly intellectual. ... The intelligentsia reminds one more of a monastic order or sect, with its own very intolerant ethics, its own obligatory outlook on life, with its own manners and customs and even its own particular physical appearance... Our intelligentsia were a group formed out of various social classes and held together by ideas, not by sharing a common profession or economic status.”14 It was intelligentsia, that “fostered the type of man whose sole speciality was revolution.” 15, and it was this social milieu that begot Russian narodniks and marxists, Lenin among them. Though he was closely connected to this milieu, he treated intelligentsia as “a gang of social climbers and hirelings of bourgeoisie.” 16 Using class-based method he asserted that in the state of proletarian dictatorship intelligentsia, even social-democratic, is needed only “to render superfluous special ‘intelligent’ leaders.” 17 Russian intelligentsia, in turn, was rather skeptic concerning his obsession with ideas of take-over and construction of a state of proletarian dictatorship, as well as his rejection of parliamentary forms of political struggle. Many of his works, which later were proclaimed by Soviet ideologists as “Marxist-Leninist classics”, were either rejected by pre-revolutionary periodicals, even of Marxist orientation, 14 Nikolai A. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism (London: G.Bles, 1948), p.19. Ibid., p. 20. 16 Vladimir I. Lenin, “Chto takoe ‘druzya naroda’ i kak oni voyuyut protiv sotsial-demokratov?”, in: Lenin V.I., Polnoye sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., Vol.1 (Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literatury, 1967), p. 305. 17 Ibid., p. 309. 15 228 or (if published) were strongly criticized for incompetence, compilation and oversimplification. Soviet ideologists stated that Russian intelligentsia was enthusiastic concerning revolution, but they did not specify that it was February revolution of 1917, not October 18. Political creed of intelligentsia was basically liberal: Konstitutional Democratic Party (Kadets), preferred by University professors, and Union of October 17 (Octobrists) in part. More radical intellectuals were hinged on Socialist-Revolutionary Party and Mensheviks, while the extremities of political specter, be they right or left (monarchists, bolsheviks, anarchists), hardly attracted them 19. Transition to NEP further enhanced this opposition. The first year and a half of NEP saw considerable revival of economic, political and cultural life of the country. New theaters were opened, many new periodicals were established, new publishing houses became focal points for writers, publicists, philosophers, and Russian learned societies restored their activity, held meetings and congresses. Bolsheviks had little influence on professional associations of intelligentsia, especially on those of agronomists, physicians, geologist et c. They seem not to clearly realize, why they were established and what the need for them was. Thus, the head of Cheka Secret Department Timofei Samsonov reported about “suspicious” All-Russia Society of agronomists: “...only professors, agronomists, and other persons with academic degrees in agriculture may become members of the society... Thus agronomists’ caste completed around themselves the close circle, into which any outside influences are absolutely unable to burst.” 20 “To burst into” physicians’ association (though among physicians Bolsheviks had got one devotee – People’s Commissar of Health Nikolai Semashko) it was recommended “at some pretext” to allot “a responsible communist” “at least as a clerk” 21. 18 In Department of Manuscripts of Russian State Library in Moscow we can find a welcome letter to Provisional government (it was formed in 1917 after February revolution and abdication of Tsar Nicholas II), which was signed by presidents and secretaries of most Moscow scientific societies. 19 According to Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3d ed.), in 1917 intelligentsia accounted for only 5–7% of Bolshevik Party members (BSE, vol. 10, p. 314). 20 “Report of VChK Secret Department to Secret Operative Directory, dated December 18, 1921”, in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.57. 21 “Report of Yakov Agranov to GPU Panel, dated June 5, 1922”, Ibid., p.81. 229 Growth of the activity of intelligentsia was accompanied by heightening of tension inside the country, mass protests of peasants against state policy in agriculture, disturbances, caused by 1922 Decree of All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) on confiscation of church valuables, strikes of professors and students of Moscow and Petrograd. Besides that Soviet authorities anticipated political actions of intelligentsia in connection with the SR trial 22. Al these events made Soviet leaders feel uncertain concerning their ability to retain the power and finally strengthened their intention to cleanse Russian intellectual space from dissentient intelligentsia. Spadework and expulsion According to Makarov and Khristoforov, “the idea of mass action against intelligentsia was finally crystallized by Bolshevik leaders in the beginning of 1922” 23, though some tentative steps had been made earlier. Among these steps were arrests of Pomgol 24 members on August 21, 1921. After several days of interrogations some of them were released on recognizance and some were sent into exile to provincial towns 25. In March, 1922 a newly founded journal Pod znamenem marksisma (Under the Banner of Marxism) published Lenin’s work On the Significance of Militant Materialism, which culminated in criticism of Pitirim Sorokin’s article in the journal Economist and a remark full of implicit threat: “The working class of Russia proved able to win power; but it has not yet learned to utilize it, for otherwise it would have long ago very politely dispatched such teachers and members of learned societies to countries with a bourgeois ‘democracy’ That is the proper place for such feudalists.” 26 Apparently he liked this idea, so on May 19, 1922 he wrote to Felix Dzerzhinsky, director of GPU 27, a letter concerning “expulsion abroad 22 The trial took place in Moscow on June 8–August 7, 1922. Makarov V.G, Khristoforov V.S., “Preface”, in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.15. 24 Pomgol – All-Russian Public Committee to Help the Hungry, established in 1921. 25 For details see Makarov V.G., Khristoforov V.S., “K istorii Vserossiiskogo komiteta pomoshi golodayushim”, Novaya i noveishaya istoria, 2006, 3:198-205. 26 Vladimir I. Lenin, “O znachenii voinstvuyushego materialisma” , in: Lenin V.I., Polnoye sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., Vol.45 (Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literatury, 1970), p.33. Translated by David Skvirsky and George Hanna. 27 GPU (the State Political Directorate) replaced ChK in the beginning of 1922. 23 230 of writers and professors helping counterrevolution” 28, in which he suggested “To compile systematic data on political standing, work, literary activities of professors and writers” 29. His report on some literary publications he concluded as follows: “These are all apparent counterrevolutionaries, Entente helpmates, an institute of its attendants and spies and student youth molesters. We should make arrangements to have these ‘military spies’ caught and catch them constantly and systematically and deport them abroad” 30 “Systematic data” on intelligentsia was already being compiled. GPU Secret Department, headed by Timofei Samsonov, reported about “felonious counterrevolutionary debauch that take place in theatres and book selling” 31 and Ilya Reshetov32, who was in charge of the 4th division of this department, drew up a letter “On intelligentsia’s coteries”, in which he detailed on professors’ meetings at the apartments of Nikolai Avinov 33, on Vladimir Abrikosov’s group 34, on professors of Moscow Archeological Institute 35. But it was a secret letter about the Second All-Russian Congress of Physicians, which was addressed by People’s Commissar of Health Nikolai Semashko to members of Politburo and Lenin 36 that played a role of a trigger of the whole campaign against Russian intelligentsia. It was dated May 21, 1922 and expressed the author’s concerns about “important and dangerous trends in our life... all the more so, as... these trends are widely spreading not only among physicians, but among specialists of other professions (agronomists, engineers, technologists, lawers) and once more so, as many even responsible comrades... don’t realize this danger...”37. According to Semashko, the menace to the “foundations of our Soviet creative labour” included criticism of Soviet health system as compared to that of the pre-revolutionary Russia, demand of at least relative autonomy in 28 Vladimir I. Lenin, “F.E. Dzerzhinskomu”, in: Lenin V.I., Polnoye sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., Vol.54 (Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literatury, 1975), p.265. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., p.266. 31 “Report on theatres and unrestricted book-selling”, in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.67. 32 Later it was he, who performed line management of 1922 deportations. 33 Nikolai Avinov (1881–1937) – political leader, Kadet, Deputy-Minister of the Interior in Provisional Government; in Soviet times worked in Polytechnical Museum in Moscow; in 1937 arrested and shot. 34 Vladimir Abrikosov (1880–1966) – Catholic priest of Byzantine rite, exiled in 1922 on Oberbürgermeister Haken. 35 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.68-72. 36 “Letter of People’s Commissar of Health to V.I. Lenin and members of Politburo dated May 21, 1922”, Ibid., p. 74-75. 37 Ibid., p. 74. 231 solution of professional problems and desire to have their own journal to coordinate their activities. So, these were serious grounds for “taking out” (a euphemism for “exile”) leaders of the congress. Lenin’s reaction was immediate. On the reverse side of Semashko’s delation there is his resolution, dated May 22: “To C[omrade] Stalin. I think that we must strictly confidentially (not copying) show this to c[omrade] Dzerzhinsky and to all members of Politburo and make a decision: Dzerzhinsky (GPU) is in charge to work out with the help of Semashko a plan of action and report to Politburo in (2 weeks?).” 38 By Dzerzhinsky’s order Jakov Agranov compiled two reports. The first, addressed to Politburo, contained general characteristics of “anti-Soviet groupings” within intelligentsia 39, which, according to the author, had chosen “as the main site of a battle against Soviet state... academic institutions, various societies, journalism, various institutional congresses, theatre, cooperation, trusts, trading institutions, and lately religion and other.” 40 Final conclusion was the following: “... in the making of NEP there is going on certain crystallization and rallying of anti-Soviet groups and organizations, which shape political aspirations of newly-emerging bourgeoisie. In the measurable future with the existing pace of development these groupings may form a dangerous force withstanding Soviet system. General situation of the Republic brings forth the necessity of certain decisive actions that may prevent conceivable political woes” 41. The second report 42 was devoted directly to the All-Russian Congress of Physicians, “brainchild of Pirogov congresses43 of medical social workers”, which had educed the ongoing process of consolidation and rallying of the representatives of the so called social medicine, these men’s strive to emancipate from Soviet system and workers’ professional association and to form independent organization opposite to Soviet system”44. To stop 38 Lenin V.I., Polnoye sobranie sochinenii, Vol.54, p.270. “On anti-Soviet groupings among intelligentsia”, in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.75-78. 40 Ibid., p.75. 41 Ibid., p. 78. 42 “On the 2nd All-Russian congress of medical divisions”, in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.78–81. 43 Pirogov Congresses were organized by Society of Russian Physicians In Memoriam of N.Pirogov, established in 1883. It was one of the most respected non-state associations of physicians in pre-revolutionary Russia. Concerning the story of its opposition to Soviet authorities see: Viktor Topolyansky, “Konets Pirogovskogo obshestva”, Index/Dosye na tsenzuru, 2009, No 30 (http://index.org.ru). 44 “On the 2nd All-Russian congress”, p.79. 39 232 these activities it was suggested inter alia to abolish Pirogov Society and close down its journals. As for the most active members of this society (the list was attached), they were to be arrested and exiled “to starving gubernias (preferably to Orenburg, to Kirgizia, Turkestan)” 45. The both reports were discussed at the meeting of Politburo on the 8th of June. Resolution on the first report 46 suggested a number of measures, including “filtration” of students of high school in the coming academic year, considerable admission restrictions for students of non-proletarian origin, screening of their political reliability et c. Besides that, GPU was entrusted to consider closing down of “editions and press bodies, inconsistent with the trend of Soviet policy”, journal of Pirogov Society in the first place; to conduct reregistration of all societies and associations (scientific, religious, academic) and henceforth debar from opening societies and associations without registration them in GPU. The same resolution established commission, consisting of Unshlikht 47, Kursky48 and Kamenev 49 for “final consideration of the listing of the tops of opponent intelligentsia groupings, which are selected to be exiled”. As for the second report, it was resolved 50 to entrust Unshlikht’s commission with decision concerning immediate arrests of a certain number of physicians, but to postpone general actions relative to the Congress of physicians until the end of the Right SR trial. The work on compiling exile lists of intelligentsia as a whole (not only physicians) was started not earlier June 8, when Unshlikht’s commission was established. Very likely that it had to be fully accomplished in the end of June–beginning of July, at least in a cipher message51 to Vassily Mantsev, then People’s Commissar of the Interior of Ukraine, the 30th of June was indicated as the deadline to compile the exile list and to send it to Moscow together with detailed personal records of expellees-to-be and copies of the most important 45 “On the 2nd Al-Russian congress”, p.81. Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.81–82. 47 Iosif Unshlikht (1879–1938) – revolutionary, one of the organizers of state security bodies; in 1921–1923 – Deputy-Director of VChK/GPU, later held various leading positions in administration and army. In 1937 was arrested and in 1938 shot. 48 Dmitry Kursky (1874–1932) was in 1918–1928 People’s Commissar for Justice. 49 Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) (1883–1936) – Soviet politician, Deputy-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, Deputy-Chairman, then Chairman of the Council of Labour and Defense. Arrested in 1934, in 1936 shot. 50 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.83. 51 Ibid., p.85. 46 233 documents. Possibly later, in connection with the SR trial the deadline was postponed and in one of subsequent messages a new date (July 25) was mentioned 52. Nevertheless, in spite of severe orders from Moscow, Ukrainian exile list containing 77 names and approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was received in Moscow only on the 3d of August. On June 16 Lenin sent to Stalin his famous letter 53 concerning “expulsion of Mensheviks, Popular Socialists, Kadets and so on” and “cleansing Russia for long”, with the help of which he tried to make a feasible contribution to exile lists and to hurry up members of the Central Committee: “It should be done at one stroke. By the end of SR trial, not later. To arrest several hundred and with no explanation of reasons – leave, gentlemen! 54” Unshlikht handed exile lists from Moscow and Petrograd over to Stalin on August 2. They included 112 names (61 – from Moscow and 51 – from Petrograd). On the 10th of August they were approved with slight changes by Party leaders (Ukrainian list was approved a day earlier 55). The final version was four names longer – 116 (59 – Moscow and province, 49 – Petrograd, 8 – additional list) 56. By that time many physicians had already been arrested. According to Topolyansky 57, arrests of physicians started on the 28th of June and proceeded with some intervals till mid-August. Totally 46 physicians attracted attention of GPU, 22 of them were exiled “to starving gubernias” for two or three years, and three of the rest (physiologist Boris Babkin, pathologist Dmitry Krylov and psychiatrist Grigory Troshin) later were included into exile lists and deported. In July arrests among the staff of Moscow Archeological Institute began (they were marked under a special entry in the Moscow exile list), then came the turn of opposition parties and the lawyers, who took part in the SR trial. On August 2 Presidium of VTsIK sanctioned Decree “On administrative exile”, the first paragraph of which read: “In the interests of isolating individuals predisposed to counterrevolutionary acts, in relation to whom the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is requested to permit their isolation for more than two months, in those cases where there 52 Ibid., p.89. Lenin V.I.: Neizvestnye dokumenty: 1891–1922. (Moscow, Rosspen, 1999), p.544–545. 54 Ibid., p.545. 55 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.102. 56 Ibid., p.20. 57 Topolyansky, “Konets Pirogovskogo obshestva”. 53 234 is the possibility of not resorting to arrest, to implement expulsion abroad or to defined places within the RSFSR by administrative order” 58. But as there was danger lest the plan of deportation became known thus reducing the whole action of GPU to little or no success, the above mentioned Decree was published on the 18th of August, when considerable part of the arrests had already taken place. They were carried out on the night of the 16th/17th in Moscow, Petrograd and a number of provincial towns and on the night of the 17th/18th in Ukraine. As a result more than 100 intellectuals were arrested, but that was not the end. Arrests of intelligentsia continued through August and September and reports on their progress were regularly sent to the head of the GPU Secret Department Samsonov and Deputy-Director of GPU Unshlikht 59. One more large-scale action, this time against “anti-Soviet students”, was conducted on the night of the August 31st/September 1st in Moscow, though out of the targeted 32 students only 15 were arrested 60. As at September 7th 61 in Moscow out of 100 62 persons (including 33 students) 75 were arrested (16 students included), in Petrograd – 35 out of 51, in Ukraine – 56 out of 77. Technical spadework for the expulsion was carried out in parallel with arrests: the detainee were interrogated, petitions of People’s Commissariats and other institutions were considered and final decisions were made for each case, a budget was drawn up, and negotiations with German Embassy concerning entry visas to Germany were carried out. In the end of September everything was ready and on the 29th of September the first group of deportee shipped away from Petrograd on Oberbürgermeister Haken. The second steamer, Preussen, departed on November 16. They carried on board more than fifty prominent Russian men of culture and science: religious thinkers Nikolai Berdyaev, Semyon Frank, Nikolai Lossky, Lev Karsavin, Ivan Ilyin; writer Mikhail Osorgin; historian, corresponding 58 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.413-414. English translation from: Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”, p.98. 59 Some of them are included into collection of documents, published in: Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.103-–116. 60 Ibid., p.118-119. 61 Ibid., p.121-123. 62 This figure includes those, who were in Moscow (59) and additional (8) lists and students (33), though it’s not clear about one extra student; Petrograd list is also indicated as including 51 names instead of 49 (see above). Unfortunately, published documents on 1922 expulsion contain a lot of discrepancies, both in figures and facts, and these are still to be explained. 235 member of Academy of Sciences and one of the founders of Kadet Party Alexander Kizevetter; literary critic Yily Aikhenvald; the first elected rector of Moscow University, zoologist Mikhail Novikov and others. Part of the expellee preferred to travel abroad by train: sociologist Pitirim Sorokin 63 left for Berlin in the end of September and Fiodor Stepun – in the end of October–beginning of November 64. And those deported according to the Ukrainian list – already mentioned above physiologist Babkin, historian Antonius Florovsky (his name is misspelled in almost all documents available), and biologist Georgy Sekachov) travelled by sea from Odessa to Constantinople. Number of expellee The exact number of expelled abroad according to 1922 exile lists still remains uncertain. Variance of figures in different documents and publications is impressive. To judge by the cost sheet, put in by the head of GPU Secret Department to Unshlikht in the end of August–beginning of September, the whole plan was to exile about 200 persons 65, though it’s not clear if members of families were included into this number. In the List of intelligentsia expelled abroad66, which was compiled by the head of the 4th Division of GPU Secret Department on January 20, 1923, i.e. after mass expulsion, the total number of expellee (Moscow, Petrograd and Ukranian lists) was estimated as 57 persons, but this number may be hardly considered reliable as the cases of expellee were investigated not only by this division of the Secret Department, but by other as well (there were 11 of them in this Department). Different sources give numbers from 67–69 67 to several thousand 68, though the last figure seems somewhat exaggerated to most researchers. Perhaps the most realistic are numbers indicated by Glavatsky69 (from 160 to 200-300, including members of families), but they still don’t answer the question about the number of people, who were principal targets of 1922 deportations. 63 Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”, p.129–130. Fiodor Stepun. Byvshee i nesbyvsheesya, 2nd ed. (St-Petersburg: Aleteya, 2000). 65 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.111-112. 66 Ibid., p. 173-175. 67 Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”; Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, and some other. 68 Soifer V. Vlast’ i nauka (Razgrom kommunistami genetiki v SSSR). 4th ed. (Moscow, CheRo, 2002). 69 Glavatsky, “Filosofsky parokhod”. 64 236 The reason for that lies primarily in incompleteness of documents available to researchers and in a whole series of discrepancies present in the documents themselves as well as in some publications dealing with the story of 1922 exiles. For example, Makarov and Khristoforov in the preface to their first collection of documents 70 largely rely in their discussion on the number of 67 exiled abroad, but if someone takes the trouble and counts people indicated as deported in the biography part of the same book, the number will be different (about 80). Many uncertainties are created by the Ukrainian list. The fact is that Ukrainian leaders were against expulsion of Ukrainian intelligentsia, as they were afraid that this would only strengthen Ukranian nationalists abroad 71. So it was sufficient for them, that undesirable persons left the confines of Ukraine, and if during the period, when Ukranian GPU was compiling exile list, some of them left Ukraine for some reason, they remained in the list but as a rule were not arrested 72. That’s what happened to Samuil Sobol, who later became known as historian of science and founder of one of the world best collections of microscopes (now it is exhibited in Polytechnical Museum in Moscow). In 1918 he graduated from Novorossiisk University in Odessa and worked in the university and then, since 1920, in Odessa Medical Academy. According to his autobiography 73 in 1922 he was excessed and as he could not find any appropriate position in Odessa, he moved in December, 1922 to Moscow, where his mother, two brothers and sister lived at that time. In the documents of his archival fond there is not a smallest hint of any arrest or persecution either in Odessa or in Moscow. Another kind of story happened with epidemiologist and hygienist, professor of Kiev Medical Institute Avxenty Korchak-Chepurkovsky, who in 1921 was elected member of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (VUAN). When action on expulsion of anti-Soviet intelligentsia started in Ukraine, he disappeared from Kiev so suddenly, that everyone was sure, that he had been arrested and deported together with Babkin. Only some five years 70 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”. Ibid., 138-139. 72 Unfortunately often we have no data concerning their further activities and some people were not even identified. 73 Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, fond 670, ser. 2, item 7. 71 237 later, after certain efforts undertaken by VUAN, he returned to Kiev and lived there till the end of his life. Nevertheless, journalist Venedikt Myakotin, deported in September in his interview to Russian emigrant daily paper Rul (‘The Rudder’), edited in Berlin, named among other individuals, who, as he thought, had already been exiled from Soviet Russia, both Sobol and Korchak-Chepurkovsky, as well as some professors from Ukrainian list that were never exiled. As this interview is quoted in most publications, dealing with Philosophy Steamer, it only adds to general confusion. And one more problem. Different authors include into their inventory of the victims of 1922 expulsions people, who actually were not deported but “were driven out of their country by the 1922 purge” 74. These were some passengers of Oberbürgermeister Haken and Preussen, the married couple Ekaterina Kuskova and Sergei Prokopovich (active members of Pomgol, who left in June, before arrests started), poet Vladislav Khodasevich and his partner Nina Berberova 75, and many others. This means, that without clear understanding of the limits of the action and of who is to be included into consideration and who is not, existing variation in numbers will persist. Philosophy Steamer At the time, when first documents concerning the 1922 expulsion of anti-Soviet intelligentsia became available to researchers, Russia was going through a complicated period of revolutionary change of cultural and ideological stereotypes. The search for irrevocably gone uncovered many unknown chapters of history and culture, among them Russian religious philosophy. Such thinkers as Nikolai Berdyaev, Nikolai Lossky, Lev Karsavin and some others, who had left Russia forever on board of Oberbürgermeister Haken and Preussen, became new symbols of the reviving Russian national culture. No wonder, journalists coined the 1922 expulsion of anti-Soviet intelligentsia Philosophy Steamer, but was it really a philosophy one? 74 75 Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”, p.309. Ibid, p.311. 238 This popular name is very impressive, but at the same time misleading. First of all because it leads to a considerable shift of accent in researchers’ attitude and range of problems studied. It makes Russian religious thinkers the main heroes of the story, while intellectuals of other professions are relegated to the background and their fates arise much less interest 76. Among 80 expellee there were only 12 philosophers and religious figures. Somewhat more numerous were writers and journalists (19) and scientists, physicians and agronomists (18); others were represented by lawyers, economists, cooperators, students and so on. Among the expellee we find the first elected rector of Moscow University Mikhail Novikov, rector of Petrograd University, soil scientist and agrochemist Boris Odintsov, engineers Vladimir Vasilyevich Zvorykin 77, Ivan Yushtin,Vsevolod Yasinsky, meteorologist Vladimir Poletika, mathematicians Sergei Polner and Dmitry Selivanov, chemical engineer Sergei Zubashev and many others. So the ship was rather literary or scientific. Exaggerated attention to philosophers and religious figures also added to the idea, that this action was needed to Lenin to drive out of the country religious philosophers and thinkers and thereby free Russia from obscurantism and superstition. According to Chamberlain, “Western historians avoided tackling the subject of the Philosophy Steamer during the Cold War” because they “accepted that he wanted to see reason triumph over superstition and to lay the foundations for a modern, egalitarian, in some sense democratic state”78. But the above-mentioned figures throw some doubt on this kind of interpretation of Lenin’s purposes. Of course, if we take at his own valuation, he was eager to cleanse Russia from “obscurants” and “reactionaries”, but the point is whom he meant under all those characteristics. For him personally any point of view differing from his own didn’t answer the interests of proletariat and was obscurant and reactionary. A clear example of this is his criticism of Pitirim Sorokin’s paper on marriage and divorce statistics; he called the latter “educated feudalists” and “graduated flunkey of clericalism” 79 only because he stated that short-term marriages common for Russia of that time in effect concealed “extra-marital sexual intercourse, enabling lovers of ‘strawberries’ to satisfy their appetites in a ‘legal’ way”. Similar “reactionaries” were university professors who advocated university self- 76 One of rare exceptions is the already cited paper by Topolyansky. He should not be confused with inventor of modern TV Vladimir Kozmich Zvorykin, who voluntary left Russia in 1918. 78 Chamberlain, “Lenin’s Private War”, p.8. 79 Lenin, “O voinstvuyushem materialisme”, p. 32. 77 239 government as they had advocate it in the Tsarist Russia, physicians, who struggled for better development of social medicine et c. So, Philosophy Steamer was rather an attempt to get rid of political and intellectual opponents, be they democrats or reactionaries, than a struggle for democracy against obscurantism. Who missed the Steamer? As it was mentioned above, four exile lists were compiled, namely Moscow (59 individuals), Petrograd (49), additional (8) and Ukrainian (77). Thus, in total 193 individuals, not including members of families, were supposed to be sent to exile. Besides, there were separate lists of 32 Moscow students and 12 physicians basically from Moscow and Petrograd. The latter were exiled to “famine gubernias”, that’s why in the Moscow and Petrograd lists the number of physicians was considerably less as compared with the Ukrainian list, where physicians and professors of medical institutes accounted for about 40%. Even the first glance at the lists shows that they were compiled in an obvious hurry and not too accurately, as names are often misspelled and first names are sometimes wrong or simply omitted. In the part of the Petrograd list 80 entitled List of the members of the Joint Board of Professors of the city of Petrograd only 16 persons out of 27 actually belong to the Joint Board, the rest 11 are cooperators, litterateurs, Mensheviks and even one former Bolshevik – Nikolai Rozhkov, who was put into Petropavlovskaya Fortress in Petrograd as hostage during Kronstadt Rebellion in March, 1921. In some versions of the list one more subtitle appears before the 48th item. Probably those who compiled or typed the list by mistake omitted sub-titles, which were present in the Moscow list. Character and professional references for candidates to deportation are written in bad Russian and contain words and phrases hardly appropriate of official documents. For example, in the Ukrainian list 81, which include predominantly university professors and 80 Mikhail E. Glavatsky (ed.), Khrestomatiya po istorii Rossii: 1917-1940 (Moscow, Aspekt-Press, 1994), p.241242. 81 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 91-102. 240 lectors, almost every reference ends with something like “a very noxious individual” or “a harmful and noxious member”. Here are some of these references. Pathologist Dmitry Krylov, professor of Medical Academy in Odessa: “A placeman of Kasso 82. Belongs to right-wing. Active enemy of all undertakings of Soviet government. A rather cunning individual, as academic worker is of no value, but is noxious enough” 83. Historian Antonius Florovsky (in the Ukranian list his name is spelled as Frolovsky), professor of Odessa Institute of People’s Education: “Kadet, clericalist, active enemy of all undertakings of Soviet Government and High School reform. An active figure, he is also brassily argues against more liberal professors, calling staff of Medical Institute to strike. In his day he paid for this with arrest. Under the Whites arranged parties-balls. Son of a priest, his brother fled with the Whites. As Odessa delegate went to the patriarkh election” 84/ Professors are blamed not only for their political views (“great militant BlackHundreder”, “monarchist by conviction”, “right-wing clericalist”, but even for their influence with colleagues and their activities in Soviet institutions. Here is an extraction from the reference for Ivan Krasusky, professor of technical chemistry and rector of Kharkov Technological Institute (it is only a part, the whole reference is rather long, much longer than any other one in the list). It reads: “Krasusky’s influence goes even beyond Institute, as for instance he a kind of holds in his hands all the policy of Narkompros 85. As for learned committee he has great influence in Gosplan 86, NTO 87 and passes for irreplaceable academic and tycoon in the Ukraninian Council of National Economy. By his militant counterrevolutionary activities Krasusky perniciously works upon all professor staff and students. As a noxious individual he must be put away, as his further stay in the Institute and in Ukraine in general may be big with consequences” 88. Scanning of the exile lists, especially Moscow and Petrograd, conveys the impression that they combine incombinable. On the one hand, they are heavily impersonal, as they 82 Lev Kasso (1865–1914) – a lawyer, in 1910–1914 Minister of People’s Education. In 1911 many professors left Moscow University in protest of his policy. 83 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 94. 84 Ibid., p. 93. 85 People’s Commissariat of Education. 86 State Planning Committee. 87 Science and Technology Division. 88 Vysylka vmesto rasstrela..., p.91. 241 include not people as such but as the representatives of certain noxious anti-Soviet institutions – journal Ekonomist, publishing houses Bereg and Zadruga and so on (remember Lenin’s “all staff of the Ekonomist are most relentless enemies. All of them must be kicked out from Russia” and further: “All the authors of Dom Literatorov, Mysl’ of Petrograd...” 89). On the other hand, they demonstrate obvious and targeted persecution of certain political opponents, such as a lawyer and journalist Alexander Izgoev (Lande), who not once was arrested by VChK “without charge”, or Menshevik Viktor Krokhmal. Besides, people who previously had been targeted at the investigations of Tagantsev’s Affair and Tactical Centre Affair (botanist and agronomist Stanislav Visloukh; lawyer Nikolai Loskutov; cooperator Ivan Matveev) or arrested as Pomgol members (above mentioned Matveev; agronomist and “militant Kadet” Nikolai Romodanovsky; engineer, professor of Moscow Highest Technical School Vsevolod Yasinsky; agronomist, President of Moscow Society of Agriculture Alexander Ugrimov) were also included into the lists. Nevertheless appearance in the exile lists did not automatically mean exile. A number of the listed managed to avoid arrest. In the Moscow list there were two of them; in the Petrograd list –eight, and in the Ukrainian even more (about ten). Some of these people simply disappeared and it’s very difficult to obtain any information about their further lives, the more so as often we have only their last names. Destiny of those who were arrested was decided by commission presided by Dzerzhinsky on the base of references presented by special experts. These included Piotr Bogdanov, Chairman of All-Russian Council of National Economy (VSNKh); Sergei Sereda, who in 1918–1921 was People’s Commissar of Agriculture and since 1922 was holding leading positions in VSNKh, Gosplan and Central Statistical Directorate; Lev Khinchuk, Chairman of Tsentrosoyuz 90; Nikolai Semashko, People’s Commissar of Health; Nikolai Muralov, Commander-in-Chief of Moscow Military District; Yury Steklov 91, Editor-in-Chief of the daily newspaper Izvestia VTsIK; Varvara Yakovleva, Director of the Main Directorate of Professional Education (Glavprofobr) and some others. As a result deportation was either approved or reversed. In the first case expellee were further kept in prison or were released 89 Lenin, “Neizvestnye dokumenty”, p.545. Central Union of Consumer Cooperatives. 91 Not Academician Vladimir Steklov, as some authors indicate. 90 242 to set their things right. In the second consequences could differ significantly: from withdrawal of charge to replacement of deportation by administrative exile to some far-off regions of Russia for two-three years or to new charges of counter-revolutionary activities. Principle grounds for charge withdrawal were first of all favourable recommendations of a number of authoritative experts (this was the case of economists Victor Shtein and Leonid Yurovsky) and a fact that a certain person was considered “the only one in his profession” in Russia, as in the cases of electrochemist Nikolai Izgaryshev, mining engineer Nikolai Parshin, economist Ivan Ozerov. Sometimes, as with rail-road engineer Andrey Sakharov, “GPU secret considerations” came into play 92. Personal appeal of a potential expellee himself to one of Soviet leaders were of considerable help, e.g. the exile of Menshevik Viktor Krokhmal was reversed “On the basis of his personal letter to Com[rade] Dzerzhinsky, in which he pledges his loyalty to Soviet Government...” 93 (if he were a Kadet, the result would probably be different). Generally, professional achievements and reputation appeared less important than political noxiousness, and Kadets or Popular Socialists had fewer chances to stay in Russia, than Mensheviks or SRs. The example is historian Nikolai Rozhkov, once a Bolshevik who later turned to Mensheviks and about whom Lenin wrote in his letter to Stalin that “he is to be expelled; he is stubborn” 94. Though in October 26 Politburo affirmed decision to deport Rozhkov 95, finally he was reprieved and exiled to Pskov, but already in summer 1924 returned to Moscow and taught in Academy of Communist Education, institute of Red Professors, First Moscow University et c., and was appointed Director of Historical Museum in Moscow 96. Physicians present in Moscow and Petrograd lists in a total number of 13 were not deported except for a Dean of Medical Faculty of Kazan University psychiatrist Grigory Troshin. For the most part like their 12 colleagues arrested after the All-Russian Congress of Physicians they were exiled to far-off regions of Russia. Only three were released from prison and retained their former positions: Petrograd bacteriologist Mikhail Soloveichik, Moscow histologist Vasily Fomin and sanitary inspector from Vologda Alexander Falin. 92 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 117–118. Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p.117. 94 Lenin, “Neizvestnye dokumenty”, p.545. 95 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 129. 96 Pamyati Nikolaya Alexandrovicha Rozhkova. Moscow, 1927. 93 243 The same was true for engineers, chemists and professors of higher technical schools. Out of 15 persons, who were included into the two lists, only 5 were expelled abroad, namely engineer Nikolai Kozlov, professors of Moscow Higher Technical School Vsevolod Yasinsky and Vladimir Zvorykin, chemical engineer Sergei Zubashev. Two of the rest 10, Rector of Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers Nikolai Tyapkin and professor of the same Institute Torichan Kravets were exiled to Siberia, though Kravets in 1926 returned back to Leningrad. Others were retrieved. It should be mentioned, that later three of these people were elected corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences, and three other were arrested and shot in the 1930th. As scientists are concerned, a rather curious punishment was chosen for some, who were included into the Ukrainian List – they were exiled to Moscow. Among them was, for example, physicist Nikolai Kasterin, who later worked in the Institute of Biophysics and some other Moscow institutes. As for the arrested students, only two or three of them were exiled abroad. Even Evgenia Doyarenko, daughter of professor of Peter’s Agricultural Academy Alexei Doyarenko and student of the same Academy, with her “brassily-willful hatred to Soviet system”97, as Genrikh Yagoda 98 put it, was made free and her case was closed. Probably the whole idea to make students meet with “decaying emigration” in order to perceive “all the ugliness of petty bourgeois ideology of intelligentsia” and thus “to revolutionize” them 99 appeared too superfluous and extravagant. Punishment or merci? Though the answer to the question whether the 1922 expulsion of anti-Soviet intelligentsia was a punishment or a merci seems evident, actually it’s not all that simple. Even from the point of view of Bolsheviks it combined serious penalty (in a form of separation of the circle of the brave new world constructors) with some kind of compassion, as shooting was the alternative to exile. The entire situation with 1922 exiles gives a strange 97 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 227. At that time he was a member of GPU Board; in 1934–1937 – the head of the Main Directorate of State Security4 in 1937 arrested, in 1938 shot. 99 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 227. 98 244 impression of ambiguity. In the published documents only several indications could be found (may be there are still more among unpublished ones), that certain expellees were deported for life. These are the cases of Torichan Kravetz, Semyon Frank, Pitirim Sorokin and Alexander Ugrimov, and what is more Kravets was finally exiled to Siberia, not abroad, and Ugrimov was permitted to return to the USSR in 1948. Bolsheviks seemed to be sure that in some time the majority of the expellee would want to return back. More over, the deportees were not deforced of a right to citizenship, at least Ivan Ilyin and Sergei Melgunov were decitizinized only in July, 1923 by the secret resolution of VTsIK General Direction “in view of available information on anti-Soviet activities abroad” 100. From the point of view of the expellee themselves the expulsion was a mix of tragedy and relief. According to Sergei Bulgakov, “The events of these three months were so nightmarish in their cruel nonsense and at the same time so grand, that now I cannot yet describe or even thoroughly grasp them. Though this touched up what had happened in the soul and facilitated to the utmost the fatal but – I believe it – beneficial expatriation. It’s terrible to write down this word, especially for me, who as recently as two years ago, during total flight thought expatriation equal to death” 101. If we turn to historical perspective, it was obviously a merci. It saved lives of many Russian men of culture and science, who otherwise would surely be persecuted and shot under Stalin, as were mining engineer Piotr Palchinsky, economists Nikolai Kondratyev and Alexander Rybnikov, professor of Moscow Higher Technical School Pavel Velikhov and many others, whose exile was reversed, and their deaths hardly may be excused by the fact that their persecutors also perished in Stalin’s prisons. 100 101 Makarov, Khristoforov, “Vysylka”, p. 186–187. Sergei Bulgakov. Iz “Dnevnika”. In: Bulgakov S.N. Tikhie dumy. (Moscow, Respublika, 1996), p. 251. 245 Adaptation and Selection Processes in Emigration Ivan Lefkovits After World War II there have been several waves of emigration from the communist countries. Most prominent ones were in the years 1948, 1956 and 1968. The waves of 1948 and 1968 were from Czechoslovakia, while the 1956 was from Hungary. Scientists, research workers, medical and pharmaceutical professionals, engineers settled in various European countries or oversee, and started new lives. Not everyone could continue in his or her career of choice, and an adaptation process started. The success and failure depended on many things: country of choice, the composition of family members, knowledge of language, age, previous status in the home country hierarchy and many others. This contribution intends to compare several destinations (especially Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France, UK, USA and Canada) and it intends to show selection processes during the career development. And finally it intends to hint towards difficulties in attempts to return to their “old” home countries after the fall of the totalitarian system. Exile and emigration For some people “exile” and “emigration” are considered to be two distinctly different matters. The terms might be to some extent indeed non-synonymous, but I believe that it is counter-productive to classify people belonging to this or other category (the dictum is that emigrants left their country because they wanted to leave, while exiles left because the system has driven them to leave the country). The truth is that people left their country for “some” reason (be it for a better life, or for political dissent) but the label “exile, emigration” only confuses the issue. Since they have to be called somehow I have chosen to refer to “emigrants” (and in some context I use the expression “refugee”). Nevertheless the fine-tuning in distinguishing between staying abroad legally (with a permission to return), and staying there illegally (without approval of the officials of the home country) is very useful, since that is what made the distinction of the sub-species. In most instances refugees of the post-WW2 waves of emigration did succeed to reach the country of their choice: whether it was Germany, Switzerland, France, England, USA, Canada and maybe Australia (Italy, Austria, Benelux and Scandinavian countries were less a choice, but that is a different issue). They arrived penniless and had to find a job within a reasonable time. Some people had contacts from earlier occasions (especially research 246 workers in natural sciences), others had to start the search from scratch. A special aspect of the “mobility of refugees” was the fact that at their arrival they had no means of supporting themselves. They could not do it in a civilized way, such as negotiating the conditions of the contract and salary prior to their arrival. They could not inquire about schools, about details of the everyday life. Newly arrived refugees had to take what they were offered. It is true that they fared in most instances well, and were incorporated in the work process rather smoothly. Prototype Switzerland Switzerland is a country with a long tradition of accepting refugees. This practice was undermined during several historical periods. During the WW2 thousands of Jews were prevented from entering the country, and were returned to the deadly grip of Nazis. At several waves the slogan “The boat is full” was used to mobilize the mood of Swiss people against accepting refugees. In spite of this, Switzerland accepted more refugees than any other country, and there is no other country on Earth with such a high portion of foreigners as in Switzerland. Acceptance of foreigners (refugees, guest workers, temporary businessmen) depended on the actual economic prosperity of the country, and on the social conscience during certain events like Hungarian upraise, or Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Contrary to general belief, Switzerland of today does not pick rich and prosperous refugees, but it explicitly chooses groups and families that have no chance of being accepted elsewhere. In Switzerland there are several former Guantanamo inmates, refugees from Tibet, and other awkward places. Hand in hand with this, Swiss authorities deport from Switzerland delinquents and drug traffickers. In 1956 Switzerland accepted tens of thousands of Hungarian refugees, and fared very well with them. Medical doctors, scientists, engineers, teachers, students adjusted very well, and the acceptance of this “wave” prepared the ground for accepting the Czechoslovak refugees twelve years later - after the crackdown of the Prague spring illusion of 1968. Again medical doctors, scientists, engineers, teachers, students arrived and were accepted by Swiss authorities and by Swiss population. 247 Switzerland is not a “laissez-faire” country. One has to accept the code-of-behavior, one has to mimicrize and adapt. Arrogance, presumptuousness, hubris is a counter- indication for adaptation, and with some generalization one can say that neither the Hungarian nor the Czechoslovak wave has induced any social resentment in the Swiss population. Newly-arrived ones had often silly and foolish preconceived ideas (about their home country, about socialism, about their place in history) but all-in-all they adapted to the new environment rather well. People learned not to wash their cars on Sundays, not to take shower after 10 pm, not to ask neighbors how much they earn, you name it. Medical doctors (even established ones) had to pass exams, often had to repeat some subjects of the so called “maturität”, they were not allowed to treat patients independently until they learned the language properly. Teachers became librarians, lawyers had to take up patentattorney jobs, wives were expected to stay at home with children, etc. Some rebelled, some adjusted, but interestingly mostly they accepted the rules, and found their place in the society. After some time – especially in discussion with outsiders they vehemently defended the new codes. Immunology metaphor Before continuing on the actual subject of this treatise, I shall explain the “metaphoric meaning” of the title of this essay: adaptation and selection. It is a parable taken from my scientific discipline – immunology – in which the immune system’s main function is to distinguish “self” from “non-self”. The immunological mechanisms are based on distinguishing and discriminating molecular structures that constitute our own “self”, from structures that belong to the category of “non-self”. The self is supposed to be protected from harm, while the non-self is supposed to be eliminated. Non-reactivity to self and reactivity to non-self forms the basic concept of the immunological paradigm. Elimination of bacteria, viruses, cancer cells, allergens, etc is the visible outcome of a healthy immune system. From a vast number of immunologically relevant cells – each one specialized for making antibody of a certain specificity – those are selected that are adapted to synthesize the best fitting antibody. Other cells, with other specificities remain idle, and 248 stand by. In terms of the parable, those emigrants were selected (and became successful) that possessed skills that the new recipient milieu appreciated and needed. Adaptation Adaptation has in some ears a positive and in some a negative connotation. Does adaptation mean giving up personal identity (trying to dress like others, speak like others, think like others) and national identity (to deny his own past)? This essay does not address this issue. As in any “normal distribution” there are 5% outlier portions of people who never arrive in the new milieu and the other 5% that forget their old culture next day upon arrival. These are facts, and one should not treat them as political correct or incorrect. In this exercise we investigate the adaptation from the point of view of necessity. When newly arrived medical doctors in Switzerland had to pass medical exams, this was a necessity, and part of the adaptation process. Some of the “victims” were upset by the rule, but nobody holds (decades later) a grudge against the country. There were other forms of adaptation, as already mentioned above: teachers became librarians, lawyers became patent-attorney, chemists opened restaurants, etc. Educated people did get reasonably well with Spinoza’s (and Marx’) “freedom as the recognized necessity”. One aspect of the emigrant’s status is the self-perception, such that after a certain time in the new country one might stop considering himself as an emigrant and becomes a citizen, and is accepted by others as a citizen. In some countries this process proceeds fast in another ones slowly, sometimes depending on the attitude of the individuals, sometimes on the acceptance by the milieu. The acid test is not how the person feels about it, but whether his neighborhood notices him as a stranger. (In a multilingual and multicultural country it is easier, since there is nothing that indicates the person’s past - even accent is not an issue). 249 Selection It is true that the main issue was the job, while the well-being of the family (living conditions, schools for their children, job for the spouse) had to wait. The willingness of taking risks has been greater among the refugees than among established local people. The argument is clear: the refugee did not risk too much, if he gave up one position for a presumably better one. A local person with ties, roots and commitments often hesitated, while the newcomer acted without hesitation. The refugee had burned the bridges earlier, now he was free to move. If we examine the fate of the scientific exile in the last 50 years, we see exactly the pattern of accepting the challenges. Success and failure At many conferences and interviews the question comes up: what portion of the refugees has been successful? I believe that this is a “boulevard press” question, and it should not be answered. The success and failure has so many categories that the only answer is by a counter-question: what does it mean “success”? There were scientists who were happy at the laboratory bench, and were deprived this status, because they failed at the eye-sight test, and safety rules did not allow for further work in the laboratory. Such scientists did not consider themselves successful in spite of perfect salary and social status. A person whose research project at the pharmaceutical company was terminated considered “himself” as failure in spite of promotion to good desk job. Should one consider a woman-scientist who gave up her carrier in order to take care of the family a failure? N evertheless one generalized question is allowed: was the emigration – in its entirety – successful? My answer is a strong “yes”. 250 Vita note of Ivan Lefkovits: Fellowship at International Laboratory of Genetics and Biophysics, Naples, Italy (1965 -67) Return to Czechoslovakia (September - October 1967) Refugee since October 27, 1967 Research worker at the Paul-Ehrlich Institute in Frankfurt (November 1967 – April 1969) Founding member of the Basel Institute for Immunology (April 1969 – January 2002) Head of Proteomics research group at the University Hospital Basel (January 2002 – present) 251 The Twisted Life Course of the Chemist Jan Roček Ivana Lorencová Professor Jan Roček (born 1924) is a Czech organic chemist. During WW2, he was deported into Theresienstadt and later to Auschwitz. In 1946, he entered the School of Chemical Technology of the Czech Technical University in Prague. On the recommendation of Professor Otto Wichterle, he joined after his graduation the Department of Organic Synthesis of the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. In 1959, he was on a research stay at the London University College with Professor Christopher Ingold, distinguished organic chemist. In 1960 – under rather dramatic circumstances – Roček escaped from Czechoslovakia, together with his family. Almost 30 years of his professional life, he spent at the University of Illinois (Department of Chemistry) in Chicago. At present, he is living in Chicago. In 2003, he published his memoirs (Jan Rocek: My life 19241966). Lorencová, Ivana: The Twisted Life Course of the Chemist Jan Roček (powerpoint presentation) 252 Criticism of Marxism in Publications of Polish Emigré Scholars after the Second World War Sławomir Łukasiewicz Emigration of Polish scholars started just after the beginning of the Second World War. The threat of Nazi “Neuordnung” was the first reason of their escape to France and after its collapse to Great Britain and the USA. But the end of the war did not mean the end of exile. Emigrants regarded the birth of communist regime as a danger for their life and freedom of speech, similar to the threat embodied by the Nazi regime during the war. Maintaining of free thought in exile became the main purpose for scholars. In my paper, I would like to compare policies towards Polish intellectuals of such countries like Great Britain and the United States, with a little reference to France and Canada. I would like to characterize also special institutions created or inspired by the émigrés themselves with the aim to consolidate the scientific milieu and to enable free scientific research. But the main theme of my paper is criticism of Marxist ideology that meant criticism of fundamentals of the communist system in Poland. This criticism was permanently the reason, which strengthened the emigrants in their decision to stay in the West. But there were also deep philosophical and cultural levels of this criticism, not possible in those times in Poland. I would like to focus on three main examples. Firstly, I will present views of some prominent scholars living in the USA. Secondly, I will characterize the achievements of the Parisian monthly “Kultura” (i.e. Culture), edited by Jerzy Giedroyc. Thirdly, I will mention the research made by famous Polish philosopher and publicist Zbigniew Jordan, later professor at Carleton University in Canada. Considering these examples, I will also try to show the interaction between scientific thought in Poland and in exile. 253 Psychological Problems of Emigration and Exile Olga Marlinová From a psychological perspective, emigration constitutes a stressful process involving traumas and losses. During the era of the Cold War, Czech emigrants and refugees in the Western countries were cut off from their countries and close people; free contacts and dialogue between them and their compatriots was not possible or restricted. This traumatic situation did not allow natural developmental separations and necessary returns to the homeland. In addition, the distorted view of emigrants was supported by Communist propaganda. The author discusses the main characteristics of the immigration process that involves cultural shock and crises of overload and loss. She stresses that healthy adaptation in the new country requires experiencing the mourning process and some changes in a person’s identity. Complications and problems of emigration involve depressive and anxiety states, increased aggressiveness, psychosomatic symptoms, personality disorders and interpersonal difficulties. When immigration is successful, the core identity is reaffirmed and broadened under the influence of the new culture. Introduction My paper is based on my personal experiences in exile, as well as on my experiences with psychotherapy clients who were emigrants. I became a political refugee during the midnineteen-sixties in the Cold War era, when leaving Czechoslovakia was considered a criminal offense. I was unable to return for fifteen years. America became my second home for twenty-seven years as I lived and worked in New York City after having trained as a psychoanalyst there. I returned to my native country in 1994 when I was invited to teach psychoanalysis and clinical psychology at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague. Psychology of Emigration and Exile From a psychological point of view, emigration to a foreign country is a stressful process which can have many traumatic aspects depending on personal, interpersonal and environmental factors. The immigrant must work through many necessary external and internal changes in order for successful adaptation to occur. All this work must be done in a new environment and at a time when survival depends on securing basic needs and acquiring new skills and attitudes. 254 The immigration and adaptation process to a foreign culture is a dynamic, openended process which involves several stages. During this time an individual´s ego-capacities and personality integration are severely tested. For an immigrant, familiar patterns of being and relating to others are dislocated. Significant interpersonal losses are usually involved, because separation from family members, relatives, and friends has to be undertaken, in addition to the loss of one’s culture and familiar milieu. Native language and culture can be looked at developmentally as a holding environment and a transitional space in which a person grows up. A native culture typically provides a feeling of safety and connectedness to others. An immigrant loses this cultural space and usually finds himself or herself in an unknown territory peopled with strangers whose expectations and habits are different from their own. Because of the discrepancy between immigrants’ familiar way of relating to others and the different expectations of the new culture, these immigrants experience anxiety, confusion and a sense of discontinuity which threatens their sense of identity. In this situation regression takes place, which can be of differing depths or durations. Usually this is temporary; however if it becomes prolonged it may lead to various psychological and physical disorders. What kind of regression takes place and how the person works through it depends on his or her personality, previous development (especially their attachment and separation styles including unconscious defenses), as well as their previous and current interpersonal relationships. In addition, it is most important what kind of acceptance the immigrant receives in the new environment, what type of help and support he or she will be given, as well as the newcomer’s previous knowledge of the foreign language and culture. Also, the degree of similarity or difference between a newcomer´s native cultural and social environment and the adopted culture’s plays a significant role in the adaptation process. The initial reaction of a newcomer in a foreign environment has been described as a cultural shock. It is a reactive process stemming from the impact of a new culture upon those who attempt to merge with it. Culture shock profoundly tests overall personality functioning, it is accompanied by mourning for the abandoned culture and relationships, and it threatens the newcomer´s identity. It is a long-term process with several phases with individual differences which involve conscious as well as unconscious reactions. It can be 255 worked through successfully, or it can be blocked if the individual is not able to resolve it. How he or she deals with a cultural shock depends on the immigrant’s personality. However, the most common problems are depressive reactions and increased aggression. Depressive reactions are related to losses from which an immigrant suffers. The multiple losses of love objects are internally experienced as a loss of part of the self, which creates an unconscious source of anxiety. Three types of anxiety are characteristic of the cultural shock: 1) depressive anxiety as a reaction to a loss; 2) persecution anxiety – or paranoid anxiety related to perceived threats in the new environment; 3) disorienting anxiety stemming from the difficulty in orientation in the new environment, and in the differentiation of feelings related to the immigrant’s homeland and towards people left behind on the one hand, and on the other hand to their feelings about the new places and people with whom they try to connect 1. The complex problems that immigrants face can be described also as a multiple crisis - a crisis of overload and a crisis of loss. Usually newcomers have to deal with urgent needs such a finding shelter, work and schools for their children. At the same time they have to learn a new language and often new skills as well. In order for these basic needs to be met, an immigrant initially has to mobilize his or her resources for adaptation to the new country. In this stage any help from social organizations or community groups is most important. When I came to the US in the mid nineteen-sixties as a Cold War era refugee, I got help from the American Fund for Refugees in the Professions, where volunteers helped newcomers to get a job in their profession. Thanks to that organization I got my first job as a clinical psychologist in the state psychiatric hospital. In the United States there were many organizations helping immigrants by providing social services, language training and psychological support. America has historically been a country of immigrants and an acceptance of newcomers is a positive part of that tradition. In America I met many supportive people, colleagues and friends who helped me learn new customs, habits and cultural expectations. In addition, I got a generous post-graduate scholarship for training at a leading psychoanalytic institute in New York, as the first psychologist from Eastern Europe to 1 Grinberg, Leon., Grinberg, Rebeca. Psychoanalytic Perspectives On Migration And Exile (Yale University Press,1989) 256 do so. For me, this was the fulfillment of my dreams and an incredible gift at a time when I was struggling to adapt without any financial resources or family support. The first stage of immigration is usually marked by euphoria related to fulfilling a goal or a dream, in addition to surmounting obstacles. However, similarly to the early phase of a love affair, this stage usually does not last very long. Idealization cannot hold, and reality brings disillusionment while at the same time new conflicts are experienced. It is often in the later stage, once disillusionment has occurred, and all adaptation problems cannot be surmounted, that some immigrants may seek psychotherapy or counseling. I would like to stress that psychologically, a healthy adaptation in the new culture requires a gradual experiencing of the mourning process and a partial identity change. If losses are denied, an immigrant may remain stuck in a defensive stance expressed as a nostalgic recreation of the past which disturbs their adaptation to the new culture. Some immigrant groups stay enclosed in their ethnic communities, surrounded by people and symbols of their past, rejecting the new way of life. I have observed this for example with Russian immigrants in the United States, who created their own community in Brooklyn, N.Y., where one Russian store had this sign printed in Russian – “We also speak English!” Many older and middle-aged residents there stayed attached to their ethnic community, speaking Russian while their children went to American schools, appreciated American culture and no longer identified with their parents’ customs and traditions. This discrepancy between parents’ poor adjustment and better social adaptation of their children created many family conflicts. Czech immigrants usually adapted more easily due to their better language skills and greater knowledge of western culture. Another form of an unsuccessful outcome of the immigration process might be a prolonged depression coupled with strong nostalgia. Nostalgic feelings are often connected to conscious or unconscious hopes and a fantasy of returning to something in the past that has never actually been a reality. E.g., to something we hoped for but never received, such as friendship or love from a significant person or a group. Here, past situations are idealized and a person lives enclosed in his or her beautified dream or fantasy. In these cases immigrants often persistently criticize the new way of life and devalue the new culture, resulting in a poor social adjustment. 257 Another reaction is a form of pseudo-adaptation, a quick and superficial adjustment in which a person imitates external models and symbols of the new culture. In these cases the manifestation of the mourning for the native culture is conspicuously absent and a necessary internal integration does not take place.( Is it as if a newcomer wears the new culture like a new dress). The immigrant faces internal conflicts (conscious or unconscious) which need to be worked through gradually. For adult immigrants these conflicts are not always fully resolved. The central internal conflicts in immigration rests in the following: “How to mourn all that is lost and yet not to lose the connection to one´s past? How to live in a new world and also to sustain one´s longing to return to the native land? What to keep and what to change? This conflict is akin to other developmental conflicts which include separation and growth. However, emigration and exile in adulthood usually brings a more drastic uprooting, and the required change is more profound. If gradual shifting between both cultures is not possible as much as is necessary, the immigrant or refugee has to maintain their connection to their native culture and to people left behind primarily internally or within their ethnic group. However, in order to go forward, we need to go back, to touch a familiar base, to hold on to an important connection. For a political refugee this may not be possible for many years, or for a lifetime. Political refugees in this way undergo traumatic experiences, they are cut off from their native country and from people important to them which is an unnatural and painful situation. The resulting traumatic and ambivalent feelings connected with anxiety can reinforce a defense of denial, repression, or splitting. Reality cannot be checked against one’s fantasy, and the tendency to hold on to just one part of one´s experience results. One outcome may be simply to remain in the present and forget the past, or to perceive the past as only a negative or bad thing. This unconscious internal splitting does not provide a basis for successful adaptation. Past and present experiences, both positive and negative, cannot be integrated in a meaningful way. The enormous tasks of immigration and its adaptation processes bring conflicting needs to mourn the native culture while establishing new connections and relationships in the adoptive country. This process is complicated by a pull toward regression. Because traumatic losses overwhelm the ego, the ego is weakened, and unresolved conflicts and feelings connected to earlier losses are reactivated in the unconscious. Depressive and 258 paranoid reactions are common at the beginning, however, they may also become prolonged and persistent leading to various neurotic or psychotic states. Psychosomatic symptoms often develop as in other post-traumatic disorders when the body expresses that what the mind does not want to recognize. In the third stage of immigration, if the disillusionment and basic conflicts have been worked through, identity transformation and consolidation takes place. Mourning gradually decreases and does not have the same paralyzing effect as it did in the beginning, however a feeling of longing for the native culture and language is so deeply rooted that these ties should not be lost or replaced. Holding these primary attachments in the depth of ones conscious and unconscious self provides personal and spiritual continuity to one’s life 2. In a successful outcome of the adaptation process the previous identity is reaffirmed, broadened and reintegrated under the influence of the new culture. A more realistic and accurate assessment of the native culture can be achieved while selective identifications with the new culture develop. The self can be enriched with the internalizations of those aspects of the new culture that are valuable and growth-promoting. New behavioral patterns are learned and old non-adaptive patterns can be gradually changed. The successful outcome depends on many factors such as: the flexibility and strength of the ego; the whole personality structure; the fit between the old and new identifications; the receptivity of the new environment; and the quality of the immigrant’s interpersonal relationships. The complex process of internal restructuring is enhanced by the capacity for self-reflection and creativity. Motivations for emigration, including accompanying related fantasies should be reevaluated in order to differentiate realistic motives from idealized expectations. In adult immigrants the complicated inner and outer processes of adaptation can be only partially completed. 2 Grinberg, Leon., Grinberg, Rebeca. Psychoanalytic Perspectives On Migration And Exile (Yale University Press,1989) 259 Relevant Literature: Elovitz, Paul.H., Kahn, Charlotte.(eds): Immigrant Experiences. Personal Narrative and Psychological Analysis, (Associated University Presses,1997) Grinberg, Leon., Grinberg, Rebeca. Psychoanalytic Perspectives On Migration And Exile (Yale University Press,1989) Marlin*, Olga “Emigration: psychologie 36,1992,1: p. 41-48 Acta A Psychoanalytic Perspective.” Československá Marlinova*, Olga “Psychological Problems Of Cross-Cultural Adaptation”, in Czech, Universitatis Carolinae-Philosophica et Historica 4, Studia Psychologica IX,Karolinum, Prague 2001: p. 107-115 Marlin*, Olga, “Special Issues In The Analytic Treatment Of Immigrants And Refugees,” Issues in Psychoanalytic Psychology 16, 1994, 1: p.7-16 * A note about Czech names: in the Czech language, the suffix “-ova” on surnames indicates that the bearer is female. In the US, Olga Marlinova published and worked with the shortened surname, “Marlin.” When she returned to the Czech Republic and published there she published under “Marlinova” once again. So, Olga Marlin and Olga Marlinova are the same person. 260 Spanish Exile. Medical Excellence and American Philathropy in the South of France: the Hospital Varsovia – Walter B. Cannon Memorial, Toulouse, 1944-1950 Àlvar Martínez-Vidal - Alfons Zarzoso After the Civil War (1936-1939), more than one thousand Spanish physicians who supported the Republican government fled to France and other European countries. At least a half of them crossed the Atlantic and found shelter in America, mainly in Mexico. However, a number of them were trapped in France and suffered all hardships of the Second World War. Some of them were involved in the Resistance during the war and after the liberation of France in August 1944 they founded a hospital in Toulouse for the Spanish partisans injured in the so called “Operación Reconquista de España“. This hospital was called “Varsovia” or “Varsovie” after the name of the street where it was situated, but in USA it was renamed “Walter B. Cannon Memorial“, to honour this Harvard professor of Physiology (1879-1945). From March 1945, it offered health care to all Spanish refugees, mainly civilians, living in the south of France. Paradoxically, this institution was not at that time just a healthcare centre for treating refugees, but also a modern hospital with medical training activities, research projects and sanitary campaigns, all carried out with excellence. Our hypothesis is that this hospital kept the medical ethos reached in Barcelona during the Civil War, fashioned after the Hospital de Sant Pau and Santa Creu. The main source used in this study are the nine issues of the medical journal, titled Anales del Hospital Varsovia – Walter B. Cannon Memorial, which were published in Spanish in Toulouse between July 1948 and July 1950. The series of reports sent from France to the headquarters of the Unitarian Service Committee (a philanthropic organization for helping refugees during and after the Second World War) have also been used. This paper is included in the frame of the ‘Physicians in Exile’, an educational project promoted and developed since 2006 by the Catalan Museum for the History of Medicine as a means to recover the historical memory of hundreds of Catalan physicians who were forced to go into exile during and, above all, after Spanish Civil War. 261 The Friend of Czechoslovakia, scholar Dmytro Čyževskyj Alena Morávková Dmytro Čyževskyj (1894-1977), a Ukrainian Scholar of world repute, historian of literature and philosopher, was one of the most important exile scholars who worked in Czechoslovakia between the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s. Thanks to the magnanimous offer of the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, T.G. Masaryk, he found in Prague his new home and the place of work. Between 1924-32, he first lectured at the Ukrainian Institute of Education in Prague, and, later, at the Ukrainian University in the same city. During his Prague stay, he co-operated with both the Czech and foreign scholarly institutions, e-g. the Prague Linguistic Circle, the Philosophical and the Dostoyevsky Society, the Institute of Slavonic Studies and others. His extensive scholarly work includes over 9000 items, mostly works on the history of literature. His comparative method is based on the philosophy of literature. He was influenced significantly by the structuralism of the Prague Linguistic Circle. He was engaged in the subject of the Slavonic baroque, in the philosophy of Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel, in the work of Skovoroda, Gogol and Dostoyevsky and in the history of Slavonic literatures. In the twenties of the last century Prague became one of the important centres of the Russian and Ukrainian emigration, in addition to Paris, Berlin,Varsaw and Vienna.Thanks to the magnanimous offer of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, those who had their fight for the free Ukraine found their new home in the Czech capital. They gained so their new opportunity to work and extend their education there. On Masaryk´s direct instigation a new beneficent fund was created at the Czechoslovak Foreign Office, to grant finantial help to the emigrants, both for institutions and individuals. This was a very substantial support which surpassed similar help to refugees in the rich France or Germany. The institutions which benefited from the fund were the Free Ukrainian University (UVU) as well as the Mychajlo Drahomanov Ukrainian School for Education, the Ukrainian School of Art (USPM) and the Ukrainian Grammar School. In spite of the Masaryk´s humanitarian project being later made more difficult by the oncoming general economic crisis, from which our country also suffered,the Czech help to the Ukrainians was considerable.At the most critical time it helped to preserve a significant spiritual heritage of the older generation of Ukrainian refugees,while also offering the possibility to study to the new generation. In the twenties of the last century the Free Ukrinian University moved from Vienna to Prague( it was founded in Vienna in 1921). Also in Prague, the M. Drahomanov School of Education was founded (1923)which initiated the Ukrainian Grammar School, later it moved to the Prague suburb of 262 Řevnice.Finally, since 1923, the Ukrainian School of Fine Arts existed in Prague, since 1922, in Poděbrady, the Ukrainian School of Economy came to being, where two future important membres of the group of poets, called The Prague School, Jevhen Malanjuk and Leonid Mosendz, studied. The Prague branch of the Vienna institute of Sociology was replaced by the Ukrainian School of Sociology (in 1923)which functioned up to 1932. From the early twenties both the creative and scholarly activity of the emigrants was developing against the Czech background.The writer Olexandr Oles removed the activities of the Ukrainian journalists and writers who had previously worked in groups in Vienna.The Ukrainian Society of Friends of the Book was also born on czech ground(1927).This group published the journal Knyholjub.The Ukrainian students were busy to invite writers and scholars to their Ukrainian Academic Community which was founded in 1919, to become, in 1922, the foundation of the Central Union of Ukrainian students. They arranged literary evenings,lectures and celebrated jubilees: the sixtieth birthday of Olexandr Oles received a great response from the academic community.This institution published a journal called The Ukrainian Student, and the almanach Sterni.Both the old and the young students published their papers in Ukrainian journals which used to be published in Prague(Nova Ukrajina, Perebojem,Novyj šljach, etc).The Ukrainian Institute of Fine Arts started their activity by the foundation of the Jurij Tyščenko publishing house, similarly, the Ukrainian School of Education opened the Drahomanov ´s publishing house Sijač, the publishing house of the Ukrainian Institute of Sociology was called Vilna spilka.There were also other possibilities to print in the publishing house Ukrajinska moloďˇ, who published the series Masters of the World´s Art.Additional publishing houses were founded in the thirties: Česko- ukrajinska knyha, Ukrajinskyj plast, Kolos. The collective Česko –Ukrajinskyj hromadskyj vydavnyčyj fond (1923- 1932)had their own printing house. As distinct from the Ukrainian creative writers who lived on isolation (just like the Russian exile) without having any closer contact with the czech literary groups ( the exeption was the poet Jevhen Malanjuk who was in written contact with J.S. Machar and translated his poetry, he kept in touch with F.Halas and J. Seifert), the scholars kept in contact with their czech as well as the foreign colleagues (the same applies to the Russian scholars,for exemple literary historians and theoretitians) and publůished both in the Czech as well as in the foreign specialist press. 263 For a few of them, like Dmytro Čyževskyj(as well as for the Russian slavist Roman Jakobson) Prague made it possible to develop a scholarly career. Dmytro Čyževskyj was born in 1894 in Oleksandrija in the Cherson gubernia, later called the Kirovohrad area. He studied in 1911- 13 at the University of Petrohrad, at the University of Kyjev in 1914-19, then he lectured for a short time at the Kyjev Institute of Noble Women. It was known that he sympathised with the menshevics during the revolution, and after the bolshevics took power he was imprisoned briefly. In 1921 he tried to get a teaching post at the University of Kyjev, but didn´t succeed. At this time he was again in danger of being arrested. Just during those years there was a campaign of „ clearing the society of the rotling bourgeois intelligence“,meaning the historians, philosophers and linguists.Čyževskyj decided to emigrate. During the next two years he studied at the universities of Heidelberg and Freiburg, to extend his education. Subsequently he moved to Prague where he became first lector and later a lecturer in the Mychalo Drahomanov Ukrainian School of Eucation. From 1929 he lectured at the Free Ukrainian University in Prague. In 1927 he was awarded the Professorship for his work Filosofija na Ukrajini. During his stay in Prague he took part in the activities of the Czech as well as foreign learned societies, for instance The Society of Philosophy, The Prague Linguistict Circle, the Institut for Slavonic studies, etc. He lectured as well as published: his activities are recorded in his correspondence deposited in the Prague archives. In 1932 he accepted the offer to chair the Departement of Slavonic Studies at the University of Halle, where he lectured in literature, the history of culture and held seminars of Slavonic poetry.In the same subjects he worked also at the University of Jena (1935- 38).Apart from this he was being invited to give lectures in France, Sweden, Poland, Czechoslovakia – so that he could keep in touch with Prague all the time. After World War II. he moved to Marburg to lecture there at the university. From 1951 -56 he worked in USA, at the Harvard University.In 1956 he decided to move back to Europe- and stayed as a chairman of Slavonic Studies at the university of Heidelberg until his death. He was particularly interested in the Slavonic baroque, the philosophy of Hegel, Nietsche, Kant and the work of the Ukrainian philosopher Hryhir. Skovoroda as well as those of Dostojevsky(his article on his novelette Dvojnik – The Double – belong to the most profound analyses of Dostojevsky´s work ever written. His scholarly work is very extensive – 264 amounting to over 900 pieces in literary history, written in Ukrainian, Russian and German. The core of his comparative method lies in the philosophy of literature. No doubt, he was influenced by structuralism, practised already by the Prague Linguistic Circle. His most important monographs include : Lohyka (Logic, 1924), Narysy z istoriji filosofiji ( An Outline of the \History of Philosophy, 1944), Ukrajinske literarne baroko (Ukrainian Literary Baroque, 1944), Istorija ukrajinskoji literatury vid počatkiv do doby realismu (History of Ukrainian Literature from the Beginning up to the Period of Realism, 1956), Porivnjalna istorija slavjanskych literatur(Comparative History of Slavonic Literatures, 1968), Kulturnoistorični Epochy (Cultural- historical Periods, 1978), Russische Literaturgeschichte des 19 Jahrhundert( History of Russian Literature of 19 century,1967).In this field of work Čyževskyj was an expert of world format – who was silenced by the totalitarian regime. He never forgot his country and his language. His book Istorija ukrajinskoji literatury vid počátkiv do doby realizmu(History of the Ukrainian literature from the Beginning up to the Period of Realism), published in the Ukraine as late as the nineties, continues to be the foundation of teaching literature at universities. Its unique value lies in its conception of the Ukrainian literature as a link between the Ukrainian points of view and the wider European contexts, as well as the stress on the importance of the Ukrainian baroque, not only for the domestic development, but also for the Russian literature as a whole. Čyževskyj was fully aware of the fact how very important his stay in the first Czechoslovak Republic was for his own growth as a specialist: in his work we find many references to the Czecg scholarship and literature. He contributed significantly to the study of Comenius in 1934 having found one of his manuscripts of Všeobecná porada o nápravě věcí lidských, in the archives in Halle. In 2002 a specialist conference was held in Prague, about the importance of Čyževskyj´s works for both the Slavonic and Bohemist studies. It was attended by scholars from the Czech Republic, the Ukraine, Germany and USA – a book of proceedings was published, too. In conclusion I would like to say that Čyževskyj was in touch with Czechoslovakia even after he had left it: he remained connected with Czech scholars, such as Jan Mukařovský, Josef Vašica and others. Two letters of his to the important Romance scholar Václav Černý, dated 1962, can be found in the archives of the National Institute of Czech literature. Čyževskyj shared with him his interest in the baroque. Another letter concerning the 265 baroque, dated 1940, is adressed to another historian, Zdeněk Kalista. This one is written in German, while both of the letters adressed to Václav Černý are written in perfect Czech. All these letters were written in Heidelberg where Čyževskyj was chairman of the Slavonic studies until his death, 1977. Literature Dmytro Čyževskyj ,Istorija ukrajinskoji literatury(Ternopil: Femina, 1994), p.480. Dmytro Čyževskyj- osobnost a dílo ( Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference pořádané Slovanskou knihovnou při Národní knihovně České republiky 13.- 15. června 2002 v Praze, Praha, Národní knihovna České republiky- Slovanská knihovna, 2004) p. 485 Děti stepní Helady,Pražská škola ukrajinských emigrantských básníků( Sestavila, předmluvu,literární medailony a studie napsala Alena Morávková, Praha 2001), p.94 266 Unto a good land. Out of necessity Miloš Novotný The 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia changed the lives of many people in this part of the world. The disgrace combined with uncertain future for my generation of the young upcoming scientists and professionals identified the exile as the necessary step. While leaving one’s homeland forever is never an easy process, our situation was much better than the risks, which the refugees from communism in the previous years had to take. In the late 1960’s, America was a powerful magnet for young foreign scientists: the American society then highly appreciated science due to its successes in space exploration, medical advances and the new early of biology. Ironically, our basic scientific education under communism served us well here, and, in some ways, was even an asset under the new conditions. Most importantly, we were eager to prove our worth in the new dynamic environment and many Czech chemists and medical scientist arriving in the U.S. did remarkably well. While still outside the U.S., I was amazed by the spectacular Moon landing in 1969, but in 1973, I was actually invited to make an experimental contribution to NASA’s Viking 1975 Mission to probe the surface chemistry on Mars! In which other country in the world could this happen? My academic home for 40 years, Indiana University, has made it possible for me to become and internationally recognized scientist. The Czech scientists in America have received benefits of their American Dream while serving the nation which generously accepted them after 1968. I am extremely pleased about the recently renewed friendship and connections with my native county. 267 Migration of Scientists in Changing Context Gabor Palló Scientists have often changed places of work throughout the history of science but 20th century seems to make this process more emphatic. With the extension of scientific research and the growing impact of scientific centres upon local sciences, migration of scientists became a massive sociological phenomenon. Some political and economic conditions significantly intensified the process of scientific migration. Totalitarian regimes, such as German Nazism, Soviet communism, and various political and economic crises caused extensive migration of the general population and some scientists joined these mass movements. In Hungary several waves of migration was formed in the 20th century, including the one that was related to the revolt against the Soviet type socialism in 1956. Through some notable examples, the paper shows how the scientific and political context influenced the movement of Hungarian natural scientists. It argues for the primacy of scientific components over the political ones but emphasizes the significance of the political and ideological factor in the process. Palló, Gábor: Migration of Scientists in Changing Context (powerpoint presentation) Throughout history, including the present day, people flee, sometimes in mass, from their native countries if their existence is in danger. Migration studies examine the complex political, cultural, legal, religious, anthropological, practical and other issues in special journals, academic institutes or political and other institutions. A website, called forced migration online provides a good starting point for the study. Are scholars or scientists common parts of these movements? Or the opposite: is their migration so different from the movement of carpenters, taxi drivers, housewives or butchers that it constitutes a special field of research? Is it worth studying their fate as a special subject or scientists are just part of the unlucky fleeing masses? When I reply in the positive to these questions, I assume without further analysis, but not without awareness of the complexity of the issue, that science played an outstanding social role in the 20th century, to use Ben-David’s expression. Many important publications from Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn’s in 1969 or Mitchell Ash and Alfons Söllner’s 1995 volume to Tibor Frank’s monograph published in 2009 speak about the so-called intellectual migration, the escape of psychologists, philosophers, historians, sociologist or musicians, artists, movie makers, 268 engineers and natural scientists as parts of this group. However, I limit the scope of this paper to natural sciences, joining an approach that had also produced a large literature of various genres. Most of the historical writings give pictures about individual Jewish scientists or their groups escaping from Nazi Germany. Migration of scientists appears to be a forced process, while spontaneous elements, their decisions, their own choices remain in the background. Scientists are considered refugees or displaced persons disregarding the voluntary elements in their move from one country to another. Looking at the Hungarian case, however, the background, the special role of science in the migration process becomes more visible. In fact, it comes to the foreground. *** Surprisingly, the classic examples of forced emigration, or exile, from Hungary can be found in the 19th century, rather than the 20th century. In general, two major emigration waves were formed before 1900: the first one, the so-called Rakoczi-emigration in the early 18th century, and the Kossuth-emigration in 1849. This latter one was a consequence of a major political event, the defeat of Hungarian freedom fight against Austria. Several hundreds of Hungarians were seeking asylum abroad in the fear of retaliation of the neoabsolutist Habsburg rule. The career of Jácint Rónay exemplifies what I would like to say. He is remembered as an early follower of Darwin. Indeed, after some newspaper articles, Ronay published the first Hungarian book on evolution, titled Fajkeletkezés, the formation of species in 1864, five years after the publication of Darwin’s The origin of species. Rónay was a Catholic priest and teacher, doctor of philosophy, who wrote theater plays as well as philosophical and psychological works about issues like the human character or the work of mind and spirit or phrenology. He participated in the war of independence. As a priest he delivered rousing speeches to the soldiers, wrote revolutionary texts to priests of his church, and participated in battles in Komarom and Schwechat. After the defeat of the independence war Rónay had to hide. Then he succeeded in emigrating from Hungary to London. No question that his was a typical forced emigration. The triumphant Habsburgs 269 persecuted the participants of the freedom fight, and the punishment was often very long imprisonment, if not death sentence. In London Rónay kept contact with the Hungarian emigrant organizations, including its leaders, Lajos Kossuth and László Teleki, but he also had to earn his living. He taught in a Hungarian military school set up in London, published articles and undertook edition works in different subjects, like history, linguistics, geography, geology or mathematics. Gradually he also found his way to some British intellectual circles. He became part of the Anthropological Society of London and the Royal Geographical Society. This is how he met the current scientific views, including biological evolution, and he sent reports about them to Hungarian newspapers. He also published in English journals. The accounts on Darwinism were part of this activity. During his stay, however, Rónay never lost contact with his peers living in Hungary. As the Habsburg rule came to a crisis in the late 1850, the Austrians took steps to compromise with the Hungarians. As a result, some exiled Hungarians could return to their home. After a long process, Rónay moved back to Hungary in 1866, finishing his sixteen years stay abroad. He soon became a member, later the secretary of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, a bishop, an educator of the Habsburg house, the tutor of Prince Rudolf and Princess Maria Valeria. He apparently gave up all his anti-Habsburg ideas, moreover, he also turned against Darwinism. Rónay’s story exemplifies the 19th century Hungarian intellectuals in exile. I could mention other cases, including the most prominent one, the case of József Eötvös. Rónay had to escape from political persecution. To use the so-called neoclassic push pull terminology, he was pushed out from Hungary but he was not attracted, not pulled to Britain, his asylum. Therefore, when persecution stopped, he returned home. In addition, he has not been persecuted for his scientific views rather for his political views that did not seem so perilous after the changes in the political context. In this case, the scientist did not differ so much from the other emigrants. He was one of the fleeing persons. It is to be noticed, however, that Rónay was not a professional scientist, as in Hungary professionalization of science just started around this time. 270 *** The case of Eugene Wigner, the winner of the 1963 physics Nobel Prize can illustrate the 20th century pattern of scientific emigration from Hungary. He left Hungary in 1921 to continue his chemical engineering studies in Berlin Charlottenburg. This happened two years after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in the middle of a political chaos, after the First World War, after revolutions, after a short lived communist regime, an extreme right takeover, and one year after the introduction of the numerus clausus law, the first anti Jewish act in Europe. This law limited the enrollment of the Jewish students in the Hungarian universities. The anti-Semitic students even beat Wigner at the Technical University. This, however, was not the reason why he decided to move to Berlin. He was already a university student before the introduction of the numerus clausus law. In addition, he was christened one year earlier, in 1919, and at that time Jews were officially defined as members of a church not as a biological race. He was not forced to emigrate. Wigner described how the idea of leaving Hungary emerged. “My father liked the idea of his son leaving Hungary for a time. He wanted me to explore another country. See the world a little, he said. He knew that I would learn more in Berlin than I could in any Hungarian technical institute. And already he disliked the drift of Hungarian politics. It was trying time for men who hated revolutions.” (63-64.) In this decision politics played some but not very much role. After graduation in 1925, Wigner returned to Budapest to work in his father’s tannery factory. He was not very happy there because during his student years in Berlin he fell in love with modern theoretical physics that he studied with people like Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and others. When in 1926 on the initiative of his friend and professor, physical chemist Michael Polanyi, Wigner was invited to work in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Fiber Chemistry, and he happily accepted it. In Germany he produced classic results in quantum mechanics with his group theoretical approach, his works on symmetry and other issues. His decision to move was clearly the result of a pulling force originating from the Berlin scientific centre and not the push from Hungary where the political conditions 271 improved in the mid 1920s, though they did not become really democratic. He was certainly not expelled from Hungary. Moreover, he was not expelled from Germany either. Although he is sometimes considered to be one of the escaping “deutsch sprachige” scientists, he, in fact, left Germany for the United States before Hitler came to power, already in 1930, without seeing menacing factors in his German environments. He and his friend and schoolmate in Budapest, John von Neumann received a telegram from the Princeton University with an offer of an extremely high salary which no one could refuse, as Wigner said. According to his contract he was allowed to spend some months in Germany every year. This point could not be realized after the Nazi Civil Service Law issued in April, 1933. Without any strong decision, Wigner settled down in Princeton for good. Neither he nor his friends, Leo Szilard, John von Neumann or Edward Teller thought about returning to Hungary even after the political circumstances improved after the Second World War for a couple of years of the war, as Rónay did about a century earlier. In the new American scientific center they all became successful and famous as professional scientists. Wigner engaged in both the theoretical practical side of nuclear physics. He was considered the first nuclear engineer in history, and he established a exceptionally fruitful school in solid state physics. He and his friends played important and very visible political roles in their new home. They not only adapted themselves to the new center but also reshaped it particularly, by their activity in nuclear armament projects, and the exploitation of nuclear energy. The pulling force that moved Wigner and other Hungarian scientists into America was related to the internal matters of science. This is showed by the fact that theirs was a two step emigration. First they left Hungary, the periphery of German world-science for the center. When the center moved to the USA they followed suit. Indeed, as Daniel Kevles wrote in his seminal book in 1978, a new center of physics was built in the United States “in the dozen years after 1920”. (200) On the one hand, American students and post-docs were sent to Europe, mostly to Germany, (Robert Oppenheimer was one of them) to study the new theoretical physics, mainly quantum mechanics and nuclear physics, and the other hand continental physicists were attracted by American universities. According to Kevles, the number of newly pulled physicists, including Wigner, was about fifteen by 1931. (220) This 272 group shaped the work of the new center by the new approaches, scientific knowledge and culture which was carried by the members. This process coincided with the Nazi persecution in Germany. By then, Wigner and his Hungarian friends were considered to be racially Jewish even if they left their church. They would have been expelled from Germany anyway but because of the internal processes of science, they had left somewhat earlier. *** George Oláh, the winner of the chemistry Noble prize in 1994, left Hungary in 1956. In 1956, another absolutism, the Communist rule came to a crisis. About 200.000 people fled from Hungary after the revolution, constituting far the largest emigration wave among the ones mentioned here. In fact, many people left Hungary somewhat earlier, in the years after the Second World War before the communist takeover in 1948. They feared of the coming Soviet command and they were disappointed by the behavior of local politics and culture during and after the Second World War. In contrast, some people returned to Hungary. Among them was the physicist Lajos Jánossy, former collaborator of P. M. S. Blackett in Manchester, then a researcher in Dublin, where he was invited by Erwin Schrödinger. Jánossy left Hungary in his childhood in 1919 with his stepfather, the philosopher George Lukács. As a fervent communist, Jánossy became a leading physicist after his return. His case belongs to the Rónay pattern. Between 1948 and 1956, the iron curtain prevented people to leave Hungary. This was probably one reason among others of the huge number of emigrants in 1956. This mass contained people who had to escape in fear of the communist retaliation because of their political activity during the revolution. Some others fled for fear of the new flare of anti-Semitism. They can be considered forced emigrants. Other people, however, just did not want to live in a communist country, even others were attracted by the Western way of life, and even others had a desire for more freedom, for better opportunities, and so on. Among others, two organizations, the American Rockefeller Foundation or the British Society for Protection of Science and Learning, SPSL, provided aid to migrating people since 1933. Their archival material does not contain information about many scientists. For instance, the SPSL archives offer information about 200 Hungarians altogether. Fifty-three 273 belonged to the 1956-emigrants, six women as wives of the applicants. Fifteen persons had scientific qualification according to the contemporary nomenclature, six had professor ranking, and three of them, Peter Farago, physicist, Jozsef Kovács and George Oláh, organic chemists were natural scientists. This statistics does not give a picture about the sociology of the emigrants, or emigrant scientists only about the activity of one important organization then. For instance, philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos, who later became very famous and infamous, had no records at SPSL. Although, there is no precise statics, in general, in the 1956 Hungarian emigration wave is considered to contain much more young people, students than established scientists. George Oláh was the most prominent emigrating scientist in the wave. He was only 29 years old. Yet, since 1954 he had worked as head of the organic chemistry department at the Budapest Technical University and deputy director of the newly established central research institute of chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He was member of the communist party. Although he was elected member of the revolutionary council in his institute, he was not in serious danger of retaliation after the Soviet tanks returned to Budapest. In his memoirs, Oláh said that he saw the future of Hungary “bleak” and their “spirit was broken”. (62-3)This is why he left with his research group. It was his decision, no one persecuted him. Through London, he went to Canada, then to the USA. By 1965 he became professor at Case Western Reserve University, in 1977 University of Southern California. He began to develop his carbocation chemistry in Canada as a continuation of his research on organic chemistry reaction under superacidic conditions that he started in Budapest. His circumstances in the scientific centre were incomparably better than in Budapest. Similarly to other émigrés, Oláh could visit Hungary after a while. He cooperated and still cooperates with researchers in Hungary and shows up quite often as a highly appreciated external member of the Hungarian scientific community. But he has not returned permanently. Oláh’s case was similar to Wigner’s. He was not pushed out from Hungary; rather he was pulled by the American scientific center. The political conditions, the revolution made his movement possible; it helped him, instead of forcing him to leave. Contrasted with 274 Wigner, Oláh did not follow the movement of the center, because it was already in America. He just moved there. *** In conclusion, firstly, I would like to emphasize the particular features of natural sciences in the migration process. Its peculiar sociological, financial and political contexts were markedly different from other social subsystems, including humanities, arts, artisans, and others in the period under investigation. Professional sciences have centers that pull the most gifted and most ambitious researchers, and the centers screen and qualify them, or as Ash and Söllner says, preselect them according to their potential of contributions. (9) On the other hand, the key to their success was their emigration. Wigner had hardly any chance to become the first nuclear engineer, and von Neumann would have not contributed to the development of computer, if they had stayed in Hungary. Therefore, the migration of scientific elite seems to differ from the rank-and-file researchers who provide statistically the larger part of the migrating scientists. I guess from individual cases that the fate of the rank-and-files was and is not so different from the non-scientists. The most important internal cause of the scientific migration is the uneven division of research opportunities between regions, in other words, the existence of centers and peripheries. The pull of the centers is sometimes very strong, even if there is no push in the horizion. This power is felt strongly even today, although the collaboration between the centers and peripheries changed a lot as a result of globalization and the modern communication systems. Secondly, the local conditions, including politics may contribute to the scientific migration by pushing out some people from their home country. However, when the pushing power ceased to work, in most cases of the 20th century Hungarian scientific migration, people have not returned to Hungary because they found better working opportunities in the scientific centers. Thirdly, natural science distinctly differed from other fields such as humanities and social sciences in the reasons of emigration. I found no case of being persecuted for one’s scientific views. While social scientists such as Lukács or Karl Polányi and many others were persecuted for their scientific convictions that were sometimes incompatible with the ruling ideologies. This was not the case with scientists. To my best knowledge people did not leave 275 Hungary for being offended for their anti-Lysenkoist views or their non-Marxist interpretation of quantum physics. The pushing power came from their extra scientific political, racial or cultural positions. 276 Dictatorship. Exile and Realms of Memory: A Romanian Case Study (Matei Călinescu) Catrinel Popa Starting from the ascertainment that every book Matei Călinescu (1934-2009) has written, regardless of whether academic essays, journals, fictional works and so on, carries the stamp of his struggle to construct and assume a double identity (Romanian and American), this paper intends to analyse the defence mechanisms which the author uses in order harmonize memory and forgetfulness, writing and (re)reading, autobiography and rigorous academic study. Until recently an Emeritus Professor of Indiana University, in Bloomington, Matei Călinescu emigrated from Romania in 1973, in order to escape from the constraints of the sombre reality of the Ceausescu era. The goal of this paper is to reveal some specific characteristics and paradoxes of this interesting case, stressing especially on the author’s quest for preserving the ultimate meaning of some “realms of memory”, as well as on his permanent movement between different spaces, both real and imaginary. Motto: At that time beauty, and above all esthetical beauty was revealed to us through literature, through the overwhelming plasticity of the word and of the literary composition (one can do anything with words, they can testify unfalteringly of human nature). That’s why beauty appeared to us (…) as the supreme form of resistance, owing to which we were able to build not only the house of books of our childhood, but also a fortress (...);of course, a fortress that dared not hope too much, if “too much” was the equivalent of the exagerated claim – given the context – to preserve one’s identity. 1 Matei Călinescu Context In 1973, as Matei Călinescu was leaving Romania for the United States (where he had been invited as a “Fullbright” Associate Professor for Indiana University, Bloomington), the political context in the country had considerably worsened. Two years before, as a result of the Theses from July 1971, Ceauşescu’s regime had turned to the Jdanov pattern of the socialist realism, proving that all the small liberties granted to the intellectuals and to the 1 Matei Călinescu, Ion Vianu, Amintiri în dialog (Recollections in dialog), (Iaşi: Polirom, 2005), p.185 277 artists from the mid-60’s, had been actually nothing else but maneuvers or strategically planned acceptance, skillfully dissimulated with the aim of achieving complete power. Even if this yaw of Ceauşescu’s dictatorship to an epigonic Stalinism, towards the bridge of the hilarious did not have consequences similar to those in the 50’s, the Romanian intellectuals had visibly split into two sides as a consequence of “the suggested measures in order to improve the political-ideological activity” 2 – on one side, the conformistopportunistic intellectuals who followed without hesitation the propaganda directives, on the other side, those who tried to avoid those directives, indirectly pleading, through their work, for the true and universal values of art. Among the latter there was also Matei Călinescu, author of several academic essays and of a novel-parable, entitled The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter, where the main character, a type of prophet-vagrant, actually represents “a projection of an ethical consciousness that undertakes atypical ways of existence.”3 I have chosen to insist on these contextual aspects, also because Matei Călinescu himself repeatedly mentions the Theses of July as being one of the major reasons which determined him to leave the country; other reasons were the pressures to which he was submitted in order to enroll into the Communist Party and the insistence of the Secret Police(“Securitate”) to become their informer. As he confesses in a interview, “I had had the bad inspiration to study English, and from my first years of study at the University (precisely when I was in the second year of study, when they were looking for interpreters for the World Youth Festival of 1953), I was constantly contacted by a representative of the Secret Police, who would give Kafkaesque phone calls and arranged interviews in militia stations, public gardens, apartments situated downtown […] trying to persuade me to become their informer. That always seemed to me as the last thing I would do: I repeatedly and openly refused to do so, but always felt humiliated because I couldn’t say an emphatic no, I could not give voice to my contempt.” 4 2 Nicolae Ceauşescu, “Proposals of Measures to Emprove the Political-Ideological Activity of Marxist-Leninist Education […]”, speech republished in Vatra, 2001, 8: 32-34, p.32. 3 Rodica Ilie, “Matei Călinescu’s The Life and Opinions of Zacharias Lichter or the Silent Path of Liberty”, Caietele Echinox: Communism – Negotiations of Boundaries, 2010, 19: 146-154, p. 146. 4Interview by Gabriela Adameşteanu, 22, 1990, 50: 8-10, p.9. 278 As we can gather from his confession, it would seem that, in a vitiated climate of a totalitarian world “the psychological and moral tensions of duplicity” 5 remained the hardest thing to bear, an aspect on which Matei Călinescu repeatedly insists in the above-quoted volume, Recollections in Dialogue. The danger of schizophrenia to which a continuous process of autosuggestion inevitably led, (similar to the actor’s tendency of identifying himself with a certain role, even if he hates it), was offset (even if partially) by reading. During Ceauşescu’s dictatorship, reading had increasingly become a spiritual exercise, askesis (in the ethymological sense), a literary form of stoicism. It is debatable whether this type of asceticism was relevant or not (from the ethical perspective). But it is beyond doubt – and more evidently than in the case of other intellectuals of the era – that for Matei Călinescu there is an atypical relation, with numerous and often contradictory implications, between reading (as a privileged moment, as a providential encounter with a certain book) and the autobiographical dimension (reading as an attempt to lecture the self, trapped into a devious netting of determinations.) (Re)reading Therefore, when a profoundly sensitive, experimented reader – who is prone, due to structure and profession, to (self)analysis and infinitesimal dissociations – is additionally confronted with limit-experiences (the pressure of the political, the exile, the return), reading automatically becomes the reading of the self, and thus presumes a process of restoring identity. This can be testified by the chapters from the memorial volume Recollections in dialogue, first published in 1994, written together with his friend, Ion Vianu, writer and psychiatrist (another scholar who chooses the path of exile, in the 80’s), as well as by the theoretical study (Re)reading, published in the USA in 1993 and translated into Romanian in 2003. 5 Călinescu, Vianu, Recollections, p.282 279 The difference between reading and (re)reading as proposed by Matei Călinescu appears to be significant in the context of this demonstration, especially to the extent to which it implicitly debates the relation between oblivion and recollection, between the cultural memory of the reader and the deeper sediments of his psychic, between the realms and the books of remembrance. In fact, in the preface to the Romanian edition of his study on (re)reading, the author emphasises the distinction between the simple repetition of reading (which implies the reading of a literary text for the second or third time) and (re)reading (as revelatory experience, denoting a process with a structural, reflexive, self-reflexive ending; a type of attention which presumes a slowing down of the reading process, the pondering of details, a certain professionalism in reading). Realms Such a notion as self-reflexive reminds us of the autobiographical dimension to which we have previously referred, while the simultaneous reading of the memorial pages from Recollections in Dialogue highlights the hidden autobiographical sense of his entire work. Both writings, completing one another and commenting one upon the other, form a type of personal and cultural archeology. This is how he describes the revelation provoked by the first reading of the proustian novel À la recherché du temps perdu, which he discovered during his last years of high school (that is the first half of the somber 50’s): “Meeting Proust subsequently proved to be of crucial importance – a quintessential reading, and I daresay, a reading of the reading itself, a meta-reading and at the same time a reading of the self, an exploration of the self and of the landscapes of the personal memory with the help of those optic devices provided by the proustian text.”6 We become aware of how the exploration of the self appears to be accompanied by the exploration of the landscapes of the personal memory, an interesting process of 6 Călinescu, Vianu, Recollections, p.136 280 anamnesis that reminds us of the topographical dimension of memory, invoked by Proust and equally mentioned by Walter Benjamin in his book about his Berlin Childhood around 1900. For instance, in the chapter called The Otter 7, the philosopher, also admirer and even translator of Proust in German, narrates how a certain corner of the Zoo in Berlin seemed endowed with magical properties, anticipating on things to come. It was, in short, a prophetical corner, where everything that might happen, seemed to already belong to the past. As can be seen, for Matei Călinescu, as well as for Benjamin – since both of them are somehow obsessed with the process of recollecting – Marcel Proust becomes, implicitly, a sort of fixed mark, organising the various facets of a mythical, circular time. Proust, on whose novel our scholar taught a whole course at Indiana in the fall of 1993, is, indeed, the typically (re)readable writer since “reader after reader, Roland Barthes included, have never gone back to the same passages of A la recherche du temps perdu (1913–1927), or to the same passages with the same intellectual fervor, emotional intensity, or motivation.” 8 In other words, with Proust “before” and “after” become relative, while priority and posterity are no longer absolute notions, as it happens in the case of the historical time, unidirectional and irreversible. After these considerations we can state that the definition of what I call realms of memory9 does not differ substantially from that given to this concept by historians, such as Pierre Nora. Besides the questioning of the teleology, these two perspectives have in common the tendency to interconnect historical and immaginary time and space. Of course, in our case, particular priority is granted to the private, subjective dimension of each cronotopos invested by the author with some sort of therapeutical function. 7 I have used the Romanian version of Benjamin’s book: Walter Benjamin, Copilăria berlineză la 1900, (Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2010, trad. Andrei Anastasescu) 8 Christian Moraru, “Reading, Writing, Being: Persians, Parisians, and the Scandal of Identity”, Symploke, 2009, Volume 17, 1-2: 247-253, University of Nebraska Press, p. 250 9 Pierre Nora’s suggestion was used later on by the American historians (among them, especially Robert Gildea emphasized the importance of some “entities” able to blend time and space in a harmonious way). This concept also reminds us of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity (where the cronotopos plays a central part and so it does for Mikhail Bahtin). The latter defines it as a kind of interconnection, through which it is possible to describe, at the same time, a historical and imaginary time and space.) 281 What matters above all in Matei Călinescu’ s case is his faculty of providing these marks with a huge signifying force, strong enough to counterpoise the nightmare of history. These are not only the books he read, but also images of Bucharest (the city he loved), names of streets or other places, like, for instance, his grandparents’ summer residence at Dîrvari, a sort of Arcadian space of his childhood. Needless to say that all these spectral images are similarly projected on the “screen” of the self or rather of the successive selves (representing a fictional world per se). Gradually, all these elements form some sort of maps of mysterious, inner, subjective routes, where reality and fiction, history and biography, past and future, appear to be interlinked, entangling the threads of a complex spiritual development. From this point of view, another writing of fundamental importance for Călinescu’s (re)readable universe of values, may be considered Mateiu Caragiale’s novel, Old-Court Philanderers. Written by one of most sopphisticated Romanian prose-writers between the two world wars, this novel owns, undoubtedly, a bizarre propriety of cross-sectioning the vertical of time and the horizontal of space, but in a way considerably different from Proust’s method. Basically, its force of seduction resides in the fact that it succeeds in turning Bucharest not only into “a character” sui-generis, but also in a centre of a mysterious universe. In one word, in an equivalent of Borges’s El Aleph. This explains why, as an adolescent, Matei Călinescu tried so hard to reconstitute traces of this mythical geography of the other Matthew novel, in the everyday life. In doing so, half as a dreamer, half as an archeologist, he placed himself near Mateiu Caragiale’s perspective, who, in his turn, was somehow aware of the history’s perversity (since he had written his novel after the 1st world war). There are many other significant fragments concerning Călinescu’ s quest for preserving the ultimate meaning of some realms of memory, all of them connected to the attempt of deminishing the tension between successive identitary paradigms. In other words, we can easily identify here the signs of a complex process that finally leads to reconsidering the primary identity from a larger perspective. 282 As Orhan Pamuk also suggested during his Nobel Award Ceremony speech in 2006 (a speech quoted by Matei Călinescu in an essay10) or Tzvetan Todorov in his book, The Desplaced Man, true wisdom occurs when one realises that, in the end, the mythical centre of the world can be anywhere. Of course, provided that this becomes both a central and a starting point for “building a new world (out of words, images, colours, sounds, our own perceptions and suggestions, alive and intense)” 11 In his own way, Matei Călinescu succeeded in discovering this centre. It was not an easy thing to do; he needed to add a plethora of elements to the Borgesian “therapy” of the infinite intertextuality – the sustained effort and the drama, “a complicated relationship with one’s own identity, a painful experience of ambivalence, (…) the feeling of conquered serenity.” 12 10 Matei Călinescu,“Ideas of Modernity and Postmodernity: Yesterday and Today”, Dilemateca, 2009, 39: 14-27, p. 27 Matei Călinescu, “Ideas”, p.27 12 Matei Călinescu, “Ideas”, p.27 11 283 Czech Historians who Emigrated in the 1970s and 1980s and their Cooperation with Independent Historians in the Home Country Vilém Prečan Of all the academics in Bohemia and Moravia it was historians who were hardest hit by the purges of late 1969 and early 1970. Only several historians, however, emigrated immediately after the Soviet-led military intervention of August 1968. Others did not follow till the mid-1970s, after being dismissed and forced to find employment outside their field. Some other historians – signatories of the Charter 77 Declaration of January 1977 – did not leave the country till the early 1980s, after experiencing police persecution and imprisonment. Most of the historians who emigrated stayed in touch with their friends and colleagues at home. The latter tried to continue their scholarly work and came together round the samizdat periodical Historické studie [Historical Studies], which began to come out in 1978. At the international congresses of the historical sciences in Bucharest (1980) and Stuttgart (1985) and at the Third World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies (Washington, D.C., 1985) exiled historians presented works by their independentminded colleagues who had remained behind; they also saw to the dissemination of samizdat publications abroad. For their colleagues from Czechoslovakia, they obtained scholarships, books and periodicals published in exile, and scholarly literature in other languages; they also organized the publishing of those historians’ works abroad. 284 Professional and Private Conflict Issues Related to Emigration. An Attempt to Generalise a Personal Experience Jiří Přenosil Emigration is a social phenomenon, which is an integral part of human activity observed throughout history. Amongst a number of positive aspects of scholar emigration, the instigation of technological and cultural progress must be emphasised. The negative socio-political aspects become apparent only due to a massive migration noticed in the recent time. Two fundamental impacts of emigration can be regarded as of personal and social nature. The personal part may be further divided into professional, social, and family aspects, whereas the social part may be regarded from view of “sending” or receiving countries separately. A due space will be given to the important time related aspects influencing both social and individual issues connected with the exile duration. Finally, a discussion of the actual event and outcome of emigration will be set against the background of personal experience. In conclusion, an attempt will be made to assess a role of emigration in the future. Can we give an advice to future expats . 285 Czech Intellectual Immigrants in the US from Nazism Miroslav Rechcígl It has been said that the wave of intellectuals from Continental Europe arriving in the United states in the thirties and early forties, driven there by intolerance and oppression, was so large and of such high quality that it constituted a phenomenon in the history of immigration. The only previous wave that may be comparable was that of the Forty-Eighters, the refugees of the revolution that swept most of Europe in 1848. The intellectual immigrants of the thirties were, however, different from their predecessors, not only by sheer numbers, but also by their intellectual talent. They also became Americanized more quickly, learning English faster and becoming American citizens as soon as the law permitted. The above generalizations fit the intellectual refugees, who had to escape from Czechoslovakia from Nazism in that period, remarkably well. They too were fully made with their PhDs and other professional diplomas, and, in many ways, being the best brains in the country, which forever, lost them. Their beginnings in the new surroundings were not necessarily easy but they did the outmost to adjust and to get ahead, against all odds, frequently overtaking others, in the same field, which were born in the US. This paper is essentially a survey of scholars and scientists with roots in Czechoslovakia who had to leave their native country, or other place in which they may have lived at that time, and sought refuge in the United States because of Nazi persecution. As one would anticipate, the overwhelming majority were Jewish, although a number on non-Jewish people were also among them. The success these individuals attained in the US has been phenomenal and their contributions to the United States have been judged as unique and immeasurable. Considering the high cost of education (according to 1960 estimates, the cost of top education in the US was as high as $45,000), the financial loss to Czechoslovakia must have been staggering. This does not, of course, take into account the distinctive and priceless contributions these individuals could have made to their native land, had they be permitted to stay there INTRODUCTION It has been said that the wave of intellectuals from Continental Europe arriving in the United States in the thirties and early forties, driven there by intolerance and oppression, was so large and of such high quality that it constituted a phenomenon in the history of immigration. The only previous wave that may be comparable was that of the Forty-Eighters, the refugees of the revolution that swept most of Europe in 1848. The intellectual immigrants of the thirties were, however, different from their predecessors, not only by sheer numbers, but also by their intellectual talent. They also became Americanized more 286 quickly, learning English faster and becoming American citizens as soon as the law permitted. The above generalizations fit the intellectual refugees, who had to escape from Czechoslovakia from Nazism in that period, remarkably well. They too were fully made with their Ph.Ds and other professional diplomas, and, in many ways, being the best brains in the country which, forever, lost them. Their beginnings in the new surroundings were not necessarily easy but they did the outmost to adjust and to get ahead, against all odds, frequently overtaking others in the same field who were born in the US. Because of the lack of time, I have to leave out from my presentation humanist scholars, as well as the men and women of arts and letters, limiting it to natural and social scientists. However, even with this restriction, the group of these scientists has still been quite large which made it necessary to concentrate only on selected representative in each scientific area. I should also point out, at the onset, that I have not applied any litmus test to my study to differentiate individuals on the basis of the language they spoke or their ethnicity, the only criterion I have used was that they were born or had their roots on the territory of the historic Czech Lands. PHYSICAL SCIENCES and MATHEMATICS Chemistry In this category I found at least 8 outstanding American chemists of Czech origin, but because of insufficient time I’ll discuss only two: Felix Haurowitz (1896-1987), b. Prague, Bohemia. He attended German Univ. of Prague, getting Dr. med. degree in 1922 and Dr. rer. nat. in 1923. In 1922-38 he was a member of faculty of dept. of physiology and medical chemistry at Univ. of Prague, from 1930 as assoc. prof. In 1938 he was dismissed and was invited to chair dept. at Univ. of Istanbul. In 1939 he emigrated to Turkey and in 1939-48 he held the position of professor and chairman of dept. of biol. and medical chemistry at Turkish Univ. in Istanbul. In 1947 he emigrated to US. From 1948 he was a member of faculty in the dept. of chemistry, Indiana 287 Univ., Bloomington, as professor and since 1958 as distinguished professor. He was a pioneer in isolation of and description of fetal hemoglobin, allosteric changes on hemoglobin on oxygenation, introduction of chemical aspects into immunology and into the problem of antibody biosynthesis. He was the author of Chemistry and Biology of Proteins (1950), Biochemistry: An Introductory Book (1955), Progress in Biochemistry since 1949 (1959), Immunochemistry and the Biosynthesis of Antibodies (1968). Alfred Bader (1924-), b. Vienna, of Czech ancestry. He fled from Austria to England in 1938 (at age 14) to escape Nazi persecution. However, in England he was suspected of being a Nazi sympathizer, and in 1940 was deported to Canada to be interned at a camp in southern Quebec. He obtained release in 1941 and began working on admission to a university. Denied admission at McGill University because its Jewish quota was full, he was accepted at Queen's University, in Kingston, Ontario, which operated without quotas. He studied engineering chemistry, then continued his education at Harvard University. Bader was employed as a research chemist by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. in 1950, remaining with PPG until 1954. While pursuing this career, he sensed the need for a small reliable company dedicated to providing quality research chemicals (at that time Kodak was their only supplier, and that large company seemed to show insufficient consideration for small and independent researchers), and as a result he co-founded the Aldrich Chemical Company in 1951, with the title of Chief Chemist (the company operated out of a garage). By 1954 he was able to buy out his partner to become sole proprietor and company president, at which time he took his leave from PPG. In 1975 the Aldrich Chemical Company merged with the Sigma Chemical Corporation to become the Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, the 80th largest chemical company in the United States. Bader was president (later chairman) of the combined company. In an unexpected corporation upheaval Bader was ousted from the company in 1991. Bader is also known as an art collector. After the return of democracy to Czechoslovakia, Bader initiated Postgraduate Fellowships in Chemistry that support a study of young Czech students at the Harvard University, Columbia University, Imperial College of London and University of Pennsylvania. He also established the Bader Scholarship for Research of 17th Century Painting which provides unique private support of art history research in the Czech Republic and the sole continuous support given to the youngest generation of art historians. 288 Physics Among natural sciences, physics seems to be the largest category. I found at least 21 physicists of Czech origin who found refuge from Nazism in the US, of whom I have selected four: Wolfgang Pauli (orig. Pascheles) (1900-1958), b. Vienna, Aust., of Bohemian ancestry. Pauli's paternal grandparents were from prominent Jewish families of Prague; his greatgrandfather was the Czech-Jewish publisher Wolf Pascheles. He was educated at the University of Munich, where he obtained his Ph.D. in 1922. After further study in Copenhagen with Niels Bohr and at Göttingen with Max Born, Pauli taught at the University of Hamburg before accepting in 1938 the professorship of theoretical physics at the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. Under his direction the institution became a great centre of research in theoretical physics during the years preceding World War II. In 1940 he was appointed to the chair of theoretical physics at the Inst. for Advanced Study, Princeton and in 1946 he became a US citizen. In 1945 he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Pauli exclusion principle which states that in an atom no two electrons can have the same energy which relates the quantum theory to the observed properties of atoms. He postulated existence of new sub atomic particle named neutrino by Fermi which was detected in 1956. George Placzek (1905-1955), b. Brno, Moravia. Placzek studied physics at Charles Univ. in Prague and Vienna. He worked with Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Rudolf Peierls, Werner Heisenberg, Victor Weisskopf, Enrico Fermi, Niels Bohr, Lev Landau, Edoardo Amaldi, Emilio Segrè, Leon van Hove and many other prominent physicists of his time. After Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria and seizing a large region from Czechoslovakia, Placzek left Copenhagen, where he was working, for the US in1938. Placzek's major domains of scientific work involve a fundamental theory of Raman scattering, molecular spectroscopy in gases and liquids, neutron physics and mathematical physics. Together with Otto Frisch, he suggested a direct experimental proof of nuclear fission. Together with Niels Bohr and others, he was instrumental in clarifying the role of Uranium 235 for the possibility of nuclear chain reaction. Later, Placzek held leading positions in the Manhattan project, where he worked from 1943-1946 as a member of the British Mission; first in Canada as the leader of a theoretical division at the Montreal Laboratory and since May of 1945 in Los Alamos, 289 later replacing his friend Hans Bethe as the leader of the theoretical group. Since 1948, Placzek was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, a permanent member s. 1952. Felix Bloch (1905-1983), b. Zurich, Switz.; his father was born in Bohemia. He studied engineering and then physics at E.T.H., Zurich and subsequently at Univ. of Leipzig, receiving Dr. phil. degree in 1928. He remained in European academia, studying with Wolfgang Pauli in Zürich, Niels Bohr in Copenhagen and Enrico Fermi in Rome before he went back to Leipzig assuming a position as privat dozent. In 1933, immediately after Hitler came to power, he left Germany, emigrating to work at Stanford University in 1934, where he became the first professor for theoretical physics. In 1939, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. During WW II he worked on nuclear power at Los Alamos National Laboratory, before resigning to join the radar project at Harvard University. After the war he concentrated on investigations into nuclear induction and nuclear magnetic resonance, which are the underlying principles of MRI. In 1946 he proposed the Bloch equations which determine the time evolution of nuclear magnetization. He and Edward Mills Purcell were awarded the 1952 Nobel Prize for "their development of new ways and methods for nuclear magnetic precision measurements." In 1954–1955, he served for one year as the first Director-General of CERN. In 1961, he was made Max Stein Professor of Physics at Stanford University. Walter Kohn (1923- ), b. Vienna, Aust.; his father was a native of Hodonin, Moravia. Kohn arrived in England in 1938, as part of the famous Kindertransport rescue operation, immediately after the annexation of Austria by Hitler. Because he was considered a German national, he was sent to Canada by the English in July 1940. In 1945 he obtained B.A. in mathematics and physics and in 1946 M.A. in mathematics at Univ. of Toronto. In the same year he emigrated to US and in 1948 he was awarded Ph.D. in applied physics by Harvard Univ. In 1950-60 he was a member of faculty of Carnegie Inst. of Technology, Pittsburgh, since 1953 as assoc. prof. and since 1957 as full professor. In 1960-79 he held the position of professor of physics at Univ. of California, San Diego; in 1961-63 he was also dept. chair. Since 1979 he was director of Inst. for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, CA. He was recipient of numerous awards and is a member of N.A.S. In 1998 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry. The award recognized his contributions to the understandings of the electronic properties of materials. In particular, Kohn played the leading role in the 290 development of density functional theory, which made it possible to incorporate quantum mechanical effects in the electronic density (rather than through its many-body wave function). This computational simplification led to many insights and became an essential tool for electronic materials, atomic and molecular structure. Astronomy Martin Otto Harwit (orig. Haurowitz)(1931-), b. Prague, Czech.; son of Prof. Felix Haurowitz. In 1939 he emigrated to Turkey with his family and in 1946 to US. He attended Oberlin Coll. (B.A., 1951), Univ. of Michigan (M.A., 1953) and M.I.T. (Ph.D., in physics, 1960). From 1961 he was a member of astronomy dept. of Cornell Univ., since 1964 as assoc. prof. and since 1958 as full professor. In 1987-95 he held the position of director of the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC. He designed the first liquid-helium-cooled rockets for boosting telescopes into the atmosphere, and investigated airborne infrared astronomy and infrared spectroscopy for NASA. He has authored several books, including a widely-used textbook on astrophysics and an overview of the history of astrophysics. Since leaving the Museum, Harwit has conducted research into the source of electromagnetic radiation, and been involved in the design of the European Space Agency’s Far-infrared Submillimeter Telescope (FIRST). Geology Of the three geologists I found, I like to talk about one: Irene Kaminka Fischer (19072009), b. Vienna, Aust.; her mother was born in Žatec, Bohemia. She was a mathematician and geodesist, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, Fellow of the International Geophysical Union and Inductee of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency Hall of Fame. Fischer became one of two internationally known women scientists in the field of geodesy during the golden age of the Mercury and Apollo moon missions. Her Mercury Datum, or Fischer Ellipsoid 1960 and 1968, as well as her work on the lunar parallax, were instrumental in conducting these missions. She obtained her training at the Technical Univ. 291 of Vienna, where studied descriptive and projective geometry, and at the Univ. of Vienna where she studied mathematics. In 1931 she married historian and geographer Eric Fischer who helped introduce American history to Vienna. In 1939, the Fischers fled Nazi Austria, traveling by rail to Italy, by boat to Palestine and in 1941 by boat around East Africa and the Cape of Good Hope to Boston where they first lived with Eric Fischer's relatives. In America, she first worked as a seamstress’ assistant, then she graded blue books at Harvard and the MIT. Mathematics Of the 13 American mathematicians with Czech roots, I have selected four: Emil Schoenbaum (1882-1967), b. Prague, Bohemia. He attended Univ. of Prague, Vienna and Göttingen, getting his Dr. phil. degree from Univ. of Prague in 1906. He became the first director of Czechoslovak Social Insurance Inst., Prague. He originated social insurance in Czechoslovakia. In 1923-39 he was Prof. of insurance mathematics and mathematics statistics, Charles Univ., Prague. In 1939 he emigrated to Latin America and worked on soc. insurance reform n various South American countries. Kurt Gödel (1900-1978), b. Brno, Moravia. He received Dr. phil. in mathematics from Univ. of Vienna in 1930. In 1930-39 he was associated with Univ. Vienna as privatdozent. He emigrated to US and became member of the Inst, for Advanced Study, Princeton (1938-76), since 1953 as full professor of mathematics. He formulated “Godel Theorem,” stating that in any rigidly logical mathematical system there are proportions or questions that cannot be proven or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system. Hence basic axioms of mathematics may give rise to contradictions. He is considered the greatest logician since Aristotle. František Wolf (1904-1989), b. Prostějov, Moravia. A Czech mathematician, known for his contributions to trigonometry and mathematical analysis, specifically the study of the perturbation of linear operators. He studied physics at Charles University in Prague, and then mathematics at Masaryk University in Brno under the supervision of Otakar Borůvka; he was awarded a doctorate in 1928. He then taught mathematics at the high school level until 292 1937, when he obtained a faculty position at Charles University. When the German army invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, Wolf obtained an invitation to visit the Mittag-Leffler Institute in Sweden; he remained in Sweden as part of the underground resistance to the Germans until 1941 before emigrating to the United States. He taught at Macalester College for a year, and then joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley in 1942. At Berkeley, he was one of the co-founders of the Pacific Journal of Mathematics in 1951. He retired in 1972, but then moved to Guatemala where he helped to set up a graduate program in mathematics at the University of Valle. Always among his strongest interests was the well-being of Czechoslovakia. He had found many Czech immigrants in Minnesota, and he was a strong supporter of the Czech community in the Bay Area. During the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, a dispute arose in the Czechoslovak delegation, and Frank was chosen on one occasion to address the gathering on behalf of his country. Olga Taussky-Todd (1906-1995), b. Olomouc, Moravia. She attended Univ. of Zurich and Vienna, receiving her Dr. phil. from Univ. of Vienna in 1930. In 1934-38, 1939-40 she attended Cambridge Univ., which awarded her M.A. in 1937. From 1940-44 she was a lecturer in mathematics, Univ. of London and later was involved in industrial research. In 1947 she emigrated to US. In 1947-57 she served as a mathematics consultant to National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, while being concurrently a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ. From 1957 she was a member of faculty of dept. of mathematics at California Inst. of Technology, since 1971 as full professor. She was recognized by her peers as one of the foremost mathematicians of her generation. Her research in algebra, number theory, and matrix theory has influenced scholars throughout her long and distinguished career. For more than 30 years, she has been the moving force in the development of matrix theory, and her influence on both pure and applied mathematics has been profound. 293 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Anatomy Rudolf Altschul (1901-1963), b. Jindřichův Hradec, Bohemia. He received Dr. med from German Univ. of Prague in 1925. In 1929-39 he was res. fellow at Histology Inst., Ger. Univ. Prague and concurrently had a private practice in neuropsychiatry. In 1939 he emigrated to Canada. In 1939-63 he was a member of faculty of Univ. of Saskatchewan, Canada, since 1941 as assist. prof. of histology and neurology, since 1945 as assoc. prof. and since 1948 as full professor; in 1955-63 he was also was head, dept. of anatomy. His major work was in fields of histology, neurology and cholesterol metabolism. He was the author of Selected Studies on Arteriosclerosis (1950) and Endothelium: Its Development, Morphology, Function and Pathology (1954). Botany Hugo Iltis (1882-1950), b. Brno, Moravia. He received Dr. phil. in botany from Univ. of Prague in 1905. In 1905-38 he was professor at Masaryk Gymnasium, Brno and concurrently was associated with T. H. Brno. In 1921-38 he was founder and director of Masaryk Acad., Brno. In 1939 he emigrated to US. In 1940-52 he was professor of biology at Mary Washington Coll., Univ. of Virginia, Fredericksburg. He did research on life and work of Gregor Mendel He opposed Nazi racist theory and attacked H. F. K Gunther for linking antiSemitism with imperialist and expansionist ideologies. He was the author of Life of Mendel (1966). Hugh Helmut Iltis (1925-), b. Brno, Czech.; son of Hugo Iltis. He emigrated with family to US in 1939. He attended Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville (B.A., in biology, 1948) and Washington Univ., St. Louis (M.A., 1950, and Ph.D., 1952). In 1952-55 he was a member of faculty, Univ. of Arkansas, from 1954 as assist. prof. From 1955 he was a member of faculty in dept. of botany, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, since 1961 as assoc. prof. and since 1967 as full professor and director of Herbarium. His research dealt with origin of corn, and potatoes; morphological analysis of the origin of corn from wild maize; human ecology; 294 conservation; preservation of biotic diversity; biogeography; significance of human evolution to environmental crisis. Biochemistry Of five biochemists, I will mention two: Heinrich Benedict Waelsch (1904-1986), b. Brno, Moravia. He received his Dr. med. in 1929 and Dr. phil. in 1930 from German Univ. of Prague. In 1929-38 he was a member of faculty of School of Medicine, Univ. of Prague. In 1938 he emigrated to US. In 1939-33 he was a member of faculty of Columbia Univ. Coll. of Physicians and Surgeons, since 1944 as assist. prof. of biochemistry, since 1949 as assoc. prof. and since 1954 as full professor of biochemistry. His specialty was intermediary metabolism, esp. of the central nervous system. His hypothesis of compartments of metabolism influenced the study of brain biochemistry. He was the author of Ultrastructure and Cellular Chemistry of Neural Tissues (1957). Gertrude Erika Perlmann (1912-1974), b. Liberec, Czech. She studied chemistry and physics at German Univ. of Prague, receiving D.Sc. in 1936. In 1937 she emigrated to Denmark and in 1939 to US. In 1939-45 she was a member of faculty of Harvard Univ. School of Medicine. In 1945 she was a member of staff of Rockefeller Univ., New York, since 1957 as assist. prof. of biochemistry, since 1958 as assoc. prof. and since 1973 as full professor. She specialized in chemical and physicochemical characterization of proteins and made structural studies on enzymatically modified proteins. She was editor of Proteolytic Enzymes (1970-76). Microbiology Maria Kirber (1917-2010), b. Prague, Czech. She attended German Univ. of Prague Medical Scholl and Charles Univ. Medical School. In 1939 she emigrated to US. In 1941 she obtained M.S. from Univ. of Pennsylvania and in 1942 Ph.D. in bacteriology. In 1941-72 she was a member of dept. of microbiology at Medical Coll. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, since 1945, as assist. prof. since 1949, as assoc. prof., and from 1961 as professor of virology and since 1962 also of microbiology. She conducted research on antigenic structure of hemolytic 295 streptococci and influenza viruses, experimental viral and bacterial eye infections and autoimmune reactions of the eye. Manfred Eliezer Reichmann (1925-), Trenčín, Czech; his mother was a native of Plzeň, Bohemia. In 1940 he emigrated to Palestine. In 1944-51 he attended Hebrew Univ., in 1949 receiving M.A. and in 1951 Ph.D. In 1951 he emigrated to US and in 1953 to Canada. In 195564 he was research officer of Plant Virus Inst., Canadian Dept. of Agriculture, Vancouver and in 1962-64 he was also professor of biochemistry, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver. In 1964 he emigrated to US and became member of faculty in dept. of microbiology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, where he served as prof. of botany since 1964 and professor of microbiology since 1971. He specialized in plant viruses and did physicochemical studies on their shape and sizes, and the chemical makeup of their proteins and nucleic acids in relation to genetic coding. Pharmacology Ernst Peter Pick (1872-1960), b. Jaroměř, Bohemia. He studied medicine and pharmacology at German Univ. of Prague, receiving Dr. med. in 1896. In 1911-38 he was a member of faculty of Univ. of Vienna, since 1917 as full professor and in 1924-38 as director of Pharmacological Inst. and in 1932-33 as dean of medical faculty. In 1938 he was dismissed and in the same year emigrated to US. In 1939-60 he was clinical professor of pharmacology, Columbia Univ. His specialty was serology and breakdown of proteins and poisons. Pathology Hans Popper (1903-1988), b. Vienna, Aust.; his father was native of Kralovice, Bohemia. He received Dr. med, from Univ. of Vienna in 1928. In 1938 he emigrated to US. In 1938-42 he was associated with Cook County Grad. School of Medicine, Chicago. In 1942-57 he was a member of staff, Cook County Hospital and held the position of director of labs. In 1943-57 he was professor of pathology and in 1946-57 head of div. of pathology, Cook County Grad. School of Medicine. Concurrently, in 1946-57, he rose from assist prof. to professor of pathology, Northwestern Univ. School of Medicine, Chicago. In 1957-67 he was 296 professor of pathology, Columbia Univ. and since 1964 also a member of faculty of newly established Mt. Sinai School, School of Medicine of the City of New York, since 1964 as acting dean and since 1965 as dean of academic affairs. In 1966 he was named Irene Heinz Given Foundation professor and chairman of dept. of pathology, in 1972-73, dean and since 1972 president. He was the authority on liver diseases and founding father of hepatology. His publications include: Hepatitis and Hepatic Tests (1956) and Liver: Structure and Function (1957). He also co-edited Progress in Liver Diseases (1961-79). Otakar Jaroslav Pollak (1906-2000), b. Brno, Moravia. He received his Dr. med. degree from Masaryk Univ. in 1930 and Dr. phil. in chemistry in 1934. In 1932-38 he served as asst. prof. of pathology at Masaryk Univ. In 1939 he emigrated via Netherlands to US. In 1939-41 he was prof. of pathology, Middlesex Univ., Waltham, MA. In 1941-44 he was a pathologist and dir. of labs and research, Taunton State Hospital, MA. In 1952-72 he was pathologist and dir. of labs, and research, Kent Gen. Hospital, Dover, DE; concurrently he was asst. prof., Hahnemann Medical Coll. (1952-56). From 1974 he was med. director and professor of laboratory medicine, Delaware Tech. and County Coll., Georgetown, DE. He also held other appointments. He did research on atherosclerosis. Kurt Aterman (1913-2002), b. Bielsko on Moravian-Polish border. He studied at Charles Univ., Prague, receiving Dr. med. degree in 1938.In 1939 he emigrated to UK. He attended Queen’s Univ., Belfast where he received his B. med. and B. chem. degrees. In 1957 he emigrated to Canada. In 1958-61 he was assoc. prof. of pathology, Dalhousie Univ., N.S., Canada; in 1961-63, professor, Women’s Medical Coll. PA; in 1963-67 professor, State Univ. of NY, Buffalo; 1967-79 professor of pathology, Dalhousie Univ. He did research in experimental pathology, especially of the liver. C. Social Sciences Sociology There at least seven sociologists of note, of whom we shall first mention two: Alfred Schutz (1899-1959), b. Vienna, Aust.; his mother Johanna Fialla was of Czech ancestry. He attended Univ. of Vienna, receiving Dr. juris in 1921. He started his career as a 297 pianist and accompanist for singers. In 1926-38 he served as executive officer for legal matters at a private bank, Reitler & Co. In 1938 he was dismissed when the Nazis took over the firm. In 1938 he first emigrated to France and a few months later to US. In 1943-59 he taught sociology and philosophy at the graduate school of the New School for Social Research, New York, since 1952 as a full professor. His major work was The Phenomenology of the Social World (1932) which presented critique of Max Weber’s sociological theory, based on Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological views. He gained international recognition as an original thinker when social science theory moved away from positivism and quantitative methods and sought to identify new theoretical and normative concepts. His Collected Works, edited by Maurice Natanson, were published in 1962-66. One of the greatest sociologists in the US was Paul Felix Lazarsfeld (1901-1976), b. Vienna, Aust.; his mother was a native of Opava, Moravia. He received Dr. phil. degree at the Univ. of Vienna in 1924 and did postdoctoral work in France. In 1925-29 he taught mathematics at gymnasium in Vienna and in 1929-33 he was a member of faculty at Psychological Inst., Univ. of Vienna. In 1933-35 he was given fellowship by Rockefeller Foundation to study psychological research in the US. In 1935 he decided to stay in US. In 1937-40 he became director of the Office of Radio Research, Princeton Univ. and in 1939 transferred to Columbia Univ., starting as assoc. prof. and in 1949 becoming full professor and chairman of grad. dept. of sociology and in 1940-49 director of Bureau of Applied Social Research; in 1963 he was named Quetelet professor of social sciences . Upon retirement, he became professor of sociology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh (1971-76). He specialized in analyzing the impact of all mass media on society and promoted the growth of social research centers to expand the empirical sociological research. These studies led to his publications: Radio Research (1940), The People’s Choice: How the Votes Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign (1944), Communications Research (1949), and Radio Listening in America (1948),). He also promoted the use of mathematics in social sciences. He elaborated his views in Mathematical thinking in the Social Sciences (1954), The Language of Social Research (1955). 298 Anthropology Beate Salz (1913-), b. Heidelberg, Germany; her father was born in Bohemia. She emigrated to UK in 1933 and attended Cambridge Univ. and City of London Coll. In 1936 she emigrated to US, where she attended Ohio State Univ., Columbus (B.A., 1941) and then New School for Social Research, New York (Ph.D. in sociology and economics in 1950). In 1952-53 she was asst. prof. of anthropology at the Univ. of North Carolina, in 1953-54 asst. prof. at Univ. of Chicago and since 1954 a member of faculty in the dept. of sociology and anthropology at Univ. of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, since 1955 as assoc. prof. and since 1963 as full professor; she also served as dept. chairperson. She carried out studies on the effect of industrialization and modernization on the cultures of and societies in Latin America and the Caribbean. She was the author of The Human Element in Industrialization: A Hypothetical Case Study of Ecuadorean Indians (1955). Psychology There were at least ten prominent American psychologists with Czech roots who sought refuge in the US from Nazism, one of the greatest being Max Wertheimer. Max Wertheimer (1880-1941), b. Prague, Bohemia. He studied law at Charles Univ., then psychology and philosophy at Charles Univ. and music at Univ. of Berlin, receiving Dr. phil. at Univ. of Wurzburg in 1904. In 1904-12 he carried out independent psychological research in Prague, Frankfurt, Vienna and Berlin. In 1916-39 he was a member of faculty of University of Berlin, since 1992 as assoc. prof. In 1929 he was appointed full professor at Univ. of Frankfurt. In 1933 he removed to Czechoslovakia and in the same year emigrated to US. In 1933-43 he was professor of philosophy and psychology at New School for Social Research, New York, becoming the first immigrant psychologist there. He was the founder of Gestalt School for Psychology and promoter of application of Gestalt methodology to other social sciences; stressed importance of wholes in learning and problem solving; discovered phi phenomenon concerning illusion of motion in perception. He was the author of Productive Thinking (1945). 299 Another outstanding psychologist was Marie Jahoda (1907-2001), a native of Vienna of Bohemian descent. Being of Jewish ancestry, and like many other psychologists of her time, grew up in Austria where political oppression against socialists was rampant henceforward Dollfuß claimed power. Starting in her adolescent years she became engaged in the socialist party. This was a major influence on her life. In 1928 she earned her teaching diploma from the Pedagogical Academy of Vienna, and in 1933 earned her Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology from the University of Vienna. Together with her husband Paul Lazarsfeld and Hans Zeisel, she wrote a now-classical study of the social impact of unemployment on a small community: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal (1932). In 1937, after a period of imprisonment by the Austro-fascist regime, Jahoda fled Austria, staying in England during World War II. In 1946 she arrived in the United States. During her time there, she worked as a professor of social psychology at the New York University and a researcher for the American Jewish Committee and Columbia University. She contributed significantly to the analysis of the Authoritarian Personality. Between 1958 and 1965, at what is now Brunel University, she was involved in establishing Psychology degree programs, including the unique four-year, "thin-sandwich" degree. Jahoda founded the Research Center of Human Relations, and was recruited by the University of Sussex in 1965, where she became Professor of Social Psychology. Later at Sussex University she became consultant, and then Visiting Professor, at the Science Policy Research Unit. Josef Brožek (1913-2004) was a native of Mělník, Czechoslovakia. Brožek, spent part of his childhood under adverse conditions in Siberia. His father, a non-combatant in World War I, was taken prisoner by the Russian army and he and his young family were forcibly moved to Russia. He received his Ph.D. at Charles University in Prague in 1937. His doctoral dissertation was titled “Memory, Its Measurement and Structure: A Psychotechnological Study,” and was completed at a time when behaviorism dominated American psychology, his Lehigh colleagues noted. Three decades later, memory research became a centerpiece of modern cognitive psychology. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1939, and became a naturalized citizen in 1945. Brožek joined the Lehigh faculty in 1959 after serving 18 years on the faculty of the University of Minnesota, where he was a professor in the laboratory of physiological hygiene in the School of Public Health. Brožek advanced through a succession of posts at the university, ending his time there as a full professor. At this point in his scholarly career, Brožek was perhaps best known for his work with the Minnesota Semistarvation-Nutritional 300 Rehabilitation Study, which was conducted between 1944 and 1946. He came to Lehigh as a full professor and chair of the psychology department and held the position for four years, before being given the title of “research professor”- one of only two professors at Lehigh at that time to have that distinction. That position allowed him to devote considerable time to the study of the history of science and of psychology. On the teaching and training front, Brožek considered his greatest contributions to be two summer institutes on the history of psychology that were funded by the National Science Foundation. Brožek designed and trained college teachers at institutes held at the University of New Hampshire in 1968 and at Lehigh in 1971.He was also the co-author or editor of numerous books, including the Origins of Psychometry (1970) and Psychology in the U.S.S.R: A Historical Perspective. Over the course of his career, he published more than 160 books and articles. His personal library, part of which is located in Linderman Library, contains one of the most extensive collections anywhere of books and journals of psychology and physiology published in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Political Science Frank Munk (1901-1999), b. Kutná Hora, Bohemia. Prague School of Commerce trained political scientist and economist. Because of his political activities and Jewish background he was forced to escape from Czechoslovakia in 1939 and initially taught economics at Reed College, and then at the Univ. of California at Berkley. He left Berkeley to become an international civil servant. During the years 1944-46, he was Director of Training for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In January 1946, he made what he has described as an emotional return to Prague, as Chief Economic Adviser representing UNRRA. Although he planned to stay in Prague permanently, he decided to return to US, when he was offered professorship of political science at Reed Coll., in 1946. He remained there until his retirement in 1965. Subsequently he became prof. of political science at Portland State University. Frank Munk published three books while on the faculty at Reed: The Economics of Force (1940), The Legacy of Nazism (1943), and Atlantic Dilemma (1964). In 1996, the Munk-Darling Lecture Fund in International Relations was inaugurated. 301 Josef Korbel (orig. Körbel) (1909-1977) was a Czechoslovak diplomat and U.S. educator, who is now best known as the father of Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the mentor of George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Though he served as a diplomat in the government of Czechoslovakia, Korbel's Jewish heritage forced him to flee after the Nazi invasion in 1939. Prior to their flight, Körbel and his wife had converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism. He served as an advisor to Edvard Beneš, the exiled Czech president in London, until the Nazis were defeated. Korbel was asked by Beneš to serve as the country's ambassador to Yugoslavia, but was forced to flee again during the Communist coup in 1948. After learning that he had been tried and sentenced to death in absentia, Korbel was granted political asylum in the United States in 1949. He was hired to teach international politics at the University of Denver, and became the founding Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies. One of his students was Condoleezza Rice, the first woman appointed National Security Advisor (2001) and the first African American woman appointed Secretary of State (2005). His daughter, Madeleine Albright, became the first female Secretary of State in January 1997. After his death, the University of Denver established the Josef Korbel Humanitarian Award in 2000. The Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver was named the Josef Korbel School of International Studies on May 28, 2008. Kurt Wolfgang Deutsch (1912-1992), Prague, Bohemia. He received Dr. juris from Charles Univ., Prague in 1938, M.A. from Harvard Univ. in 1941 and Ph.D. also from Harvard in 1951. In 1942-58 he was a member of faculty of M.I.T., since 1952 as a full professor of history and political science. From 1958-67 he held the position of professor of government at Yale Univ. and since 1967 the position of professor of government at Harvard; in 1971 he was appointed Stanfield professor of international peace. He investigated the patterns of communication leading to political conflict and also did research on nationalism and supranational integration, communication and cybernetics, international politics, world modeling and empirical political theory. He wrote numerous books, including: Nationalism and Social Communication (1953), Political Community at International Level… (1953), The Nerves of the Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (1963), Arms Control and the Atlantic Alliance… (1967), The Analysis of International Relations (1968), Nationalism and its Alternatives (1969), Politics and Government: How People Decide their Fate (1970), Mathematical Approaches to Politics (1973). 302 Economics Among American social scientists with Czech roots who escaped from Nazism, the economists were the most numerous. For lack of time, we shall mention only a few: Karl Pribram (1877-1973), b. Prague, Bohemia. He studied at Univ. of Prague, Breslau, Berlin and Vienna, receiving Dr. juris degree from the Univ. of Prague in 1900. He held the position of assoc. prof. at Univ. of Vienna and in 1912-33 prof. of economics at the Univ. of Frankfurt. In 1934 he emigrated to US. Until 1936 he was a member of research staff of Brookings Inst., Washington, DC and n 1942-51 chief economist at US Tariff Commission. Concurrently, in 1939-52, he also held the position of adjunct prof. at American Univ., Washington, DC. His research dealt primarily with economic theory and political economy. Pribram was also prominent as social philosopher and sociologist. He was the author of Cartel Problems (1935) and Conflicting Patterns of Thought (1949). Emil Lederer (1882-l939), b. Plzeň, Bohemia. He studied at the University of Berlin, specializing in law and economics and took his doctorate in jurisprudence at Vienna and in political science at Munich. He became an associate professor at Heidelberg in 1918 and a full professor in 1922. From 1923 to 1925 he was a visiting professor at the University of Tokyo in Japan, where he made a study of the Japanese economy, and in 1931 he became professor of political science in Berlin. Lederer became the chief aide of Alvin Johnson, director of the New School for Social Research, New York, in the organization of the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science of the New School. They had become acquainted while Dr. Johnson was associate editor of The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, when Dr. Lederer contributed many articles to that publication. In the spring of 1933, when the Nazis began, dismissing internationally known scholars from the universities, Dr. Johnson conceived the idea of establishing in New York a "university in exile" which would preserve European methods and contributions in a coherent unit. He invited Dr. Lederer to New York that June and made arrangements with him, and Dr. Lederer returned to Europe and assembled the Émigré Faculty, which became a nucleus of a group of German, Austrian, Italian and Spanish scholars. Dr. Lederer, who was professor of economics, was elected first dean of the Graduate Faculty and served for two years. Dr. Lederer was one of the important contributors to modern economic theory. He was a follower of Max Weber, and was himself 303 the leader of an important school of economic thought combining orthodox theory with the Marxist-revisionist, orientation. He was the author of more than a score of works in German, most of them centering around three themes: the problems of the white collar workers, his synthesis of the Böhm-Baverk and Marxian systems of economic theory, and his study of the Japanese economy. During his years in the United States he published two books, Japan in Transition, with Emy Lederer-Seidlar, his first wife, issued in 1938, and Technical Progress and Unemployment, an extended study issued by the International Labor Office at Geneva. He also contributed many articles to Social Research, scholarly quarterly, of which he was an editor. Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950), b. Třešť, Moravia. He studied law and economics at Univ. of Vienna, receiving Dr. juris degree in 1906. In 1909 he was appointed assoc. prof. of economics at Univ. of Czernowitz, Bukovina and in 1911-21 assoc. prof. at the Univ. of Graz, Aust. In 1913-14, he was exchange prof. at Columbia Univ. which awarded him Ph.D. in 1913. In 1919 he was appointed finance minister of Austria. In 1925-35 he served as assoc. prof. of economics at Univ. of Bonn, Ger. In 1932 he emigrated to US. In 1932-50 he held the position of professor of economics at Harvard Univ. He was a pioneer in the field of econometrics and specialist in history of economic theory and development, business cycles, capitalism and socialism in an economic and sociological perspective. He served as president of Econometric Society (1939-41). He wrote numerous books, including Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process (1939), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians (1946), Imperialism and Social Class (1951), Ten Great Economists. From Marx to Keynes (1951). Antonín Basch (1896-1971), b. Německý Brod, Czech. Charles Univ. trained economist. He became general manager of Corporation for Chemical and Metallurgic Production, one of the biggest concerns in Czechoslovakia. In autumn 1938 he went into exile and emigrated to US. From 1940 he was professor at Chicago University, later at Columbia University. He became chief economist, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1942-57); resident rep. in India (1957-59), head of capital market unit (195961). Since 1961 he was vis. prof. of economics, Univ. of Michigan. Basch became in American environment a reputable expert in economic analyses of themes as "what will be with 304 Europe after the war." The basic aims of Basch's analyses was definition of methods and concrete steps that should provide after-war economic revival and renewal of Europe and that on general condition of liberalization of intra-European trade, joined with the radical economic restructuralization. Franz Pick (1898-1985), b. Česká Lípa, Bohemia. He studied economics at Univ. of Leipzig and Univ. of Hamburg. He later moved to Paris where he worked as an economic consultant and was paymaster for the Czechoslovak underground. He came to US in 1940 and became an international currency analyst and an ardent advocate of gold as world currency. He wrote more than 50 books on currency, and gave seminars on currency theory in this country, South America and Europe. He was a collaborator, Barron’s (1942-45) and founder of Pick’s World Currency Report (1945). He was currency consultant to more than 40 governments. Published The Black Market Yearbook (1952-55), Pick’s Currency Yearbook (1955-62) and was the author of Gold. How and Where to Buy and Hold It (1959), The US Dollar - Deflate vs. Devalue (1959). Law and Jurisprudence Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) was born in Prague to Jewish parents. He was a European legal philosopher and teacher who emigrated to the United States in 1940 after leaving Nazi Germany. Kelsen is most famous for his studies on law and especially for his idea known as the pure theory of the law. He studied at several universities, including Berlin, Heidelberg, and Vienna. He received a doctor of laws degree from Vienna in 1906 and began teaching at the school in 1911. He taught public law and Jurisprudence at Vienna until 1930, when he moved to Germany to teach at the University of Cologne. There he taught International Law and jurisprudence and served as dean for two years. With the rise of the Nazi government, he left Germany and emigrated to Switzerland in 1933. He taught at the Graduate Institute of International Studies of the University of Geneva until 1940. He accepted a position as lecturer at the Harvard University Law School the same year, and relocated to the United States. Later in 1940 he accepted a teaching position at the University of California at Berkeley. He remained at Berkeley until his retirement in 1952. Kelsen's pure theory of the law is fairly abstract. Its objective is knowledge of that which is essential to law; therefore, 305 the theory does not deal with that which is changing and accidental, such as ideals of justice. Kelsen believed that law is a science that deals not with the actual events of the world (what is) but with norms (what ought to be). The legal relation contains the threat of a sanction from an authority in response to a certain act. The legal norm is a relation of condition and consequence: if a certain act is done, a certain consequence ought to follow. Kelsen's main practical legacy is as the inventor of the modern European model of constitutional review first used in the Austrian First Republic, then in the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and later many countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Kelsen is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law, especially in Europe and Latin America. Fred Herzog (1907-2008) was born in 1907 in Prague. He graduated from the University of Graz with a doctor of laws degree and moved to Vienna after graduation. Herzog worked as a prosecutor and an assistant judge before becoming a full judge in 1935. During his judicial career, he worked in the criminal court in a suburb of Vienna and as a traveling circuit court judge. Shortly after Nazi soldiers marched into Austria in 1938, Herzog received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing him that he was suspended from the office of judge because he was a Jew. Herzog left Austria for Sweden in January 1939. Afraid that Hitler might decide to invade Sweden, Herzog left Stockholm for New York in January1940, exactly one year after he arrived. In New York, he applied for a dishwashing job that paid $12 a week, but was deemed unqualified because he had no previous dishwashing experience. Fortunately, he was able to obtain a fellowship and enrolled at the University of Iowa College of Law. After earning his J.D. and graduating with high distinction, Herzog moved to Chicago, where he worked as a legal editor until he was granted citizenship and joined the Illinois bar. He briefly worked in private practice, but decided that he wanted to teach instead. In 1947, Herzog joined the faculty of Chicago-Kent, where he taught labor law, property, legislation, trusts and equity. His students included Illinois Governor Richard B. Ogilvie ’49, Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moran ’50, and Homer J. Livingston Jr. ’66, former president and CEO of the Chicago Stock Exchange. Herzog was appointed dean in 1970, shortly after Chicago-Kent merged with Illinois Institute of Technology. Herzog served as dean during the transition and expanded the writing program and increased the number of seminars that the school offered. Herzog accepted the position of first assistant attorney general of Illinois and resigned from the law school in early 1973. 306 He remained with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office until 1976, when he became dean of the John Marshall Law School. He served as dean there from 1976 to 1983 and as interim dean from 1990 to 1991. Charles (Fried (1935-), b. Prague, Czech. As a 4-year-old boy in 1939, Charles Fried escaped with his family from Czechoslovakia in advance of the Nazi invasion. Fried became a United States citizen in 1948. After studying at the Lawrenceville School and receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University in 1956, he attended Oxford University, where he earned a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in Law in 1958 and 1960, respectively, and was awarded the Ordronnaux Prize in Law (1958). In 1960, Fried received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Columbia Law School, where he was a Stone Scholar. Subsequently he served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II. Fried was admitted to the bars of the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and numerous U.S. courts of appeals. He argued 25 cases in front of the Supreme Court while in the Solicitor General's office. He has served as counsel to a number of major law firms and clients, and in that capacity argued several major cases, perhaps the most important being [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals], both in the Supreme Court and in the Ninth Circuit on remand. Fried's government service includes a year as Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States (1984-85) and a consulting relationship to that office (1983), as well as advisory roles with the Department of Transportation (1981-83) and President Ronald Reagan (1982). In October 1985, President Reagan appointed Fried as Solicitor General of the United States. Fried had previously served as Deputy Solicitor General and Acting Solicitor General. As Solicitor General, he represented the Reagan Administration before the Supreme Court in 25 cases. In 1989, when Reagan left office, Fried returned to Harvard Law School. From September 1995 until June 1999, Fried served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, while teaching constitutional law at Harvard Law School as a Distinguished Lecturer. Prior to joining the court, Fried held the chair of Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School. On July 1, 1999, he returned to Harvard Law School as a fulltime member of the faculty and Beneficial Professor of Law. He has served on the Harvard Law School faculty since 1961, teaching courses on appellate advocacy, commercial law, constitutional law, contracts, criminal law, federal courts, labor law, torts, legal philosophy, and medical ethics. 307 Fried has published extensively. He is the author of seven books and over 30 journal articles, and his work has appeared in over a dozen collections. Unusually for a law professor without a graduate degree in philosophy, he has published significant work in moral and political theory only indirectly related to the law; Right and Wrong, for instance is an impressive general statement of a Kantian position in ethics with affinities with the work of Thomas Nagel, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick. Fried has been Orgain Lecturer at the University of Texas (1982), Tanner Lecturer on Human Values at Stanford University (1981), and Harris Lecturer on Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School (1974-75). He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1971-72. Fried is a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Law Institute. EPILOGUE This survey has dealt essentially with scholars and scientists with roots in Czechoslovakia who had to leave their native country, or other place in which they may have lived at that time, and sought refuge in the United States because of Nazi persecution. As one would anticipate, the overwhelming majority of them were Jewish, although a number on non-Jewish people were also among them. The success these individuals attained in the US has been phenomenal and their contributions to the United States have been judged as unique and immeasurable. Considering the high cost of education (according to 1960 estimates, the cost of top education in the US was as high as $45,000), the financial loss to Czechoslovakia must have been staggering. This does not, of course, take into account the priceless and distinctive contributions these individuals could have made to their native land, had they be permitted to stay there. . 308 Creating Another Europe in Exile: The Review of Politics during War and Postwar Thomas Schulte-Umberg Founded in 1939 by an emigrant from Nazi-Germany, the political scientist Waldemar Gurian, The Review of Politics has published articles by authors as diverse as Hannah Arendt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Jacques Maritain, Yves R. Simon, Talcott Parsons, Clinton Rossiter, Edward Shils, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. The publishing office was located at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana, USA). Nevertheless, it neither was a Catholic journal in scope and content nor was it a typical American social sciences journal which usually concentrated on methodologies and empirical research. Instead, it provided a publication platform for learned essays on the state of humanity and the political order. Many of the essays were written by emigrants from all over Europe. In my conference contribution, I will try to show why and how an analysis of the Reviews contents and contributors provides an excellent opportunity to sketch a transeuropean network of scholars that tried to create a new order for Europe. Their common ground was their opposition to the totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century and their respect for human rights. 309 Catching up Trust Jaroslav Stark It was a great opportunity for me to spend two years training in London (1965-1967) as a postgraduate doctor. However, during this time my family was kept in Prague as potential hostages. After the Russian invasion in 1968, my family and I left Prague. Having completed my training in London and Boston I was appointed consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children, London in 1971. Professor Hucin, Head of Cardiac Surgery at the Kardiocentrum in Prague and I kept in close contact over the years. As a consultant, I was in a position to offer training posts to surgeons, cardiologists, and anaesthetists from Kardiocentrum in my Department in London. These positions were for 6-12 months and were fully paid by our Hospital. Invitations to the Czech Doctors had to come from my English colleagues, not surprisingly, as I myself was sentenced to 1 year in labour camp for leaving the country. Ironically, the Czech Ministry of Health also started to send me Czech and Slovak children to be operated upon by myself, before the Kardiocentrum in Prague was built and established!!! After the fall of Communism in 1989, my wife and I wanted to help the Czechoslovak physicians from other specialities, to update their knowledge and practises which had been denied to them during the years of communist rule. My wife Olga, a pediatrician, and I, founded a charitable organisation called “The Catching Up Trust“ (CUT). Raising money was not easy, but we were helped greatly by the mother of one of my patients, the wife of Sheikh Maktoum al Maktoum from Abu Dhabi. She originally donated £30,000, and 6 months later another £100,000. The scholarships were for three months in many of the best Hospitals in London, Bristol, Birmingham, Edinburgh and elsewhere. At that time, the English hospitals introduced tuition fees, which were around £12,000 per year. Through our personal contacts, our English colleagues waived the fees in all instances. The administrative expenses of the trust were covered by our family. With the help of friends, we also arranged inexpensive accommodation for the visiting physicians. Deans of the Medical Schools, many of whom were my personal friends, selected the candidates. Evaluation of the language abilities of the candidates was done by our friend Mrs. Joyce Parkinson, teacher of English for Medical Foreign Graduates in London. She ran one-week courses over a period of 3 years, finished by an evaluation exam. One of the things, which struck us after our arrival in the UK, was the approach to children and their families during their time in hospital. The parents were spending all their time, including nights, with their children in the hospital, which was considerably different from the practices back home. With the help of Doc Parizkova, head of the University Department of Paediatrics in Hradec Kralove, we started a project “DAR” (“Děti a rodiče v nemocnici“, or Children and Parents in Hospital), persuading hospital Departments in Czechoslovakia to allow parents to spend unlimited time with their children while in hospital. This project was also financed through our Trust. We therefore extended the scholarships to other health professionals: play specialists, physiotherapists and nurses. Over the next 14 years, over 110 physicians and other health specialists participated in these two programmes. 310 This contribution is an attempt to present a personal experience of my emigration to the UK. I will also describe our attempts to help Czechoslovak Physicians and Surgeons during the time of communist isolation and during the period after 1989. In 1965 I was invited to spend a month at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street in London. Shortly after my arrival I had realised, that the purpose of the invitation was to see if I could cope professionally and if my command of English was adequate. After about three days, I was offered an extension for the whole year. My wife tried to obtain an extension of my exit visa, but the application appeared to have been lost. She was told that unless I returned within 3 days, I would be considered an emigrant. Fortunately a neighbour intervened in my favour. He was an old time, idealistic communist. He used to work both at the Ministry of Foreign affairs as well as at the Ministry of Education. He persuaded a clerk in the telegram office to send a cable to the Czech embassy in London, saying that my one-year stay was approved. I got my passport stamped and on this basis, my wife could begin the lengthy application process for my visa extension once again. My post was as a fellow - which in practise was a senior registrar, a post equivalent to a senior assistant in Prague. It was a major change from Prague where I was the most junior member of the Clinic staff. In London I became responsible for running a busy paediatric cardiac department in the largest UK children’s hospital, organizing operating lists etc. At the end of my first year, the other senior registrar left for the US, so I was asked to stay for a second year. During this two year period, my wife and son were kept as « hostages », to make sure that I returned back to Prague. I did return in November 1967 and became responsible for paediatric Cardiac surgery at our Clinic of Paediatric Surgery, Na Karlove. The setting up of infant cardiac surgery was not easy. I recall an incident about 2 weeks after my return to Prague. One Friday afternoon, I was asked to see a small child with severe cyanosis and cyanotic “spells” (blue baby). I told the cardiologists that the baby needed a shunt operation. They asked me, if I could do the operation next Monday. As far as I was concerned – this was an emergency. I told the theatre nurse that we had an emergency. She asked if it was an appendix or incarcerated hernia. No, I said, it was a Blalock Taussig shunt for a very blue baby. She was horrified as she considered it not an emergency, but cardiac surgery!!! After some discussion she agreed 311 and a new era started. One more interesting detail: before the operation I had to drive to IKEM in Krc, to borrow baby vascular clamps, which they had (thanks to the Party support), but we, at the children’s hospital did not have. After the Russian invasion in August 1998 I left Prague with my family for the UK. Before leaving I telephoned the Ministry of Interior, asking if the border with Austria was still opened. They replied: as you know, things are not very much in our hands, but at the moment the border is open. So if you are planning to go that way, you better hurry. After we crossed the border, we told our 8 year old son, that we never lied to him before, but on this occasion, that we were not going to London for a few days to give a lecture, but most probably for a considerable period of time. My son looked at me and said, “ You are a very good liar, dad! I did not realize anything”. When we arrived in London I was offered a research post, as there was no vacancy in a clinical post. (All the clinical jobs in the UK change on the 1st July or 1st January). 10 year later I learned by chance, that this 8 months research post was paid totally by my two consultants (Mr Waterston and Mr Aberdeen) from their own pocket. They paid the hospital, so that I did not realized the source of my salary. Every month I received a normal pay slip from the hospital. I trained as a senior registrar for another year after which I was advised by my consultants to go to the US to do more research. The reason was, that at that time there were only four full time consultants paediatric cardiac surgeons in the UK and therefore the chance for a permanent job was minimal. I went to Boston Children’s Hospital (Harvard) and did research in the department of Cardiology. At about that time, one of my London Consultants (an Australian) decided to immigrate to Philadelphia. His post became vacant and against all odds, I was appointed to this prime position in Paediatric Cardiac Surgery in the UK. (Consultant was equivalent to primar – an independently working surgeon with his own junior staff). During all that time I was in frequent touch with my friends in Prague, particularly with Dr Hucin, the surgical Head of Kardiocentrum in Prague. As Kardiocentrum was still only in the planning phase, I operated on a number of Czech and Slovak children with complex cardiac malformations. Interestingly, the invitation for them to come to London had to come 312 from my English colleagues. My name could not appear on any official documents, as I was sentenced (fortunately in absentia) to a labour camp of 1st degree. As a Consultant in the UK I was able to offer training posts in our Department to the young surgeons, cardiologists, anaesthetist and intensivists from Prague. They came for periods ranging between 6 and 12 months. Their stay was fully paid by our hospital. They received a salary identical to that of their English colleagues. They also had free accommodation, a very valuable commodity in a costly city. Eight members of the Kardiocentrum came and learned our techniques. Eventually, the Kardiocentrum became one of the best Departments of Paediatric Cardiac Surgery in Europe/World. Of the 8 fellows who came to Great Ormond Street, one is the head of the department in Bratislava, one is the Head of cardiology in Kardiocentrum, and another is in charge of paediatric cardiac surgery in Leipzig. After the fall of Communism in 1989, my wife Olga, a Paediatrician and I wondered, how we could help Czech and Slovak physicians and surgeons from various specialities. We decided to found a charitable organization, which we called CATCHING UP TRUST (to catch up with the knowledge and technology which was available in the UK hospitals, but which was denied for years by the communist dictatorship). Baroness Cox of Queensbury, a member of the House of Lords, kindly agreed to be a president of the CUT, Ms Irena Trnka acted as treasurer, my wife Olga as secretary, followed by A. Fossbrook, a biochemist from Great Ormond Street Hospital and M. Lawson. Starting a charity was not easy. One had to prove ones ability to raise some money, before approaching potential big donors. We were greatly helped by Sheika Alia Maktoum, wife of the Dubai ruler Sheikh Maktoum al Maktoum. I had operated on their two children and when we approached her for possible help, she immediately donated £ 30,000. At the end of the year, I sent her an account of our activities and how the money she donated has been spent. Within two weeks she transferred another £100,000 to our account. The fellowships were for 3 months (£3,000). This made the stay of the fellows comfortable and usually they were also able to buy some specialist medical textbooks. Inexpensive accommodation was provided with the help of friends and contacts. 313 Deans of medical schools, many of who were personal friends, selected the candidates from medical and surgical specialities. The selection process was greatly helped by J. Parkinson, a teacher of English for Foreign medical graduates in London. She kindly and free of charge organized weekly courses, teaching some peculiarities of medical English, medical abbreviations etc. At the end of each course she carried out an examination, to make sure that only those with reasonable understanding of English were selected. We then found them placements in some of the best hospitals in Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Newcastle, Manchester, and Southampton. Soon after we came to the UK, we were very much impressed by the attitude towards parents of our small patients. This was very different from the practise in Czech hospitals. In Czechoslovakia, visiting hours were usually twice a week for two hours. In the UK the parents were not only allowed, but very much encouraged to spend unlimited time with their children in the hospital. Camp beds and or additional rooms were provided to ensure as normal an environment for the children as possible. With the help of Peg Belson, who introduced this system in several countries and also with the help of Doc Parizkova, Head of the Department of Paediatrics at the University hospital, Hradec Kralove, we started project DAR (deti a rodice v nemocnici). This project was also financed through the Catching Up Trust. Fellowships were extended to other health professionals, such as nurses, physiotherapeutists and play specialists. At that time the UK hospitals were charging £12,000 tuition fees per year for any foreign visitor or fellow. Fortunately, through our personal contacts, all these fees were waived in ALL INSTANCES. Over 14 years, more then 110 doctors and other health professionals came to the UK through the CUT. Personal comments The success of emigrants in my view was mainly due to the hard work and determination. They had to prove that they were as good or better then the local candidates. During my training I was “on call” every day except Wednesday afternoon and every other weekend. As a consultant, I would have expected less onerous duties. However, 314 as we were only two consultant surgeons in our Department, I was “on call” every other night and every other weekend for 31 years. In the first 10 – 15 years I would be called to the hospital sometimes 2-3 times a night. It was only later with the development of certain drugs, that we could postpone the emergency operation until the next day – rather then operating immediately at night. The attitude of the Colleagues and Administration from the host country was also very important. In the UK about 30 % of all consultants in cardiothoracic surgery were foreign medical graduates – in France only 2 cardiothoracic surgeons, in Germany only 3. In my experience, in the UK they were not only unbiased in appointing doctors, but once appointed, everybody was treated as equal. In conclusion I can say, that my personal and professional experience from coming to London was entirely POSITIVE. 315 Thinking Cosmopolitan or How Joseph became Joe Buttinger Philipp Strobl Like in Germany after the takeover of the Nazi Party, during the time after the “Anschluss” a large wave of emigration hit the Austrian Republic too. Tens of thousands of so‐called “enemies of the government” w ere forced to emigrate. The paper is about one of those who emigrated as a result of ideological reasons. It describes the life of the former Socialist leader, International Rescue Comitee (IRC) founding member, and historian Joseph Buttinger who had to flee his native country to start a new life in an unfamiliar continent like many of Austria’s “unpleasing Persons”. The main intention of this paper is to depict how and why Buttinger integrated in to his new homeland and when he became a “real American”. The description of his difficult and eventful youth when he worked his way up from a poor agricultural servant with little perspectives to a respected leader of one of Austria’s largest parties is also of interest here. On the one hand, it will help us find answers on the paper’s primary purpose. On the other hand, a biography about a person with a strong will such as Buttinger possessed is not possible without a description of his fascinating personal background that characterized the development of his exceptional personality. Strobl, Philipp: Thinking Cosmopolitan or How Joseph became Joe Buttinger (paper recieved in .pdf) 316 Exile as an Act of Relativization; Comparison between Kundera and Patočka through Poetry Anna Sugiyama Politically, exile is known as a physical movement from one place to another, seeking for emancipation, especially for scholars dealing with ideas. It is no wonder that many Czech1 thinkers had to decide, whether they would endure, or leave during the time of Communist rule. Since Czechoslovakia had a history of being significant in the context of intellectual history, the suppression of thought by Socialist ideology must have been unacceptable rather than unbearable. In this discussion, a comparison of two opposite representations of exile is discussed; one is Milan Kundera’s, he regarded this suppression as unbearable and escaped physically from his motherland to a foreign country. Another is shown by Jan Patočka, a philosopher who never accepted a life in untruth, he did not emigrate physically, but tried to release himself by his own philosophical investigations. This distinction between escaping and enduring poses a question to the exile. How can it be possible to see exile as part of endurance, which usually seems to the total opposite of escape? In order to answer, I would take each intellectual’s view on poetry as a clue. Poetry reflects the relationship between subjects and objects, such as the standpoint, which he or she relies on. While Kundera converted from being a poet to being a novelist, which implied being more distant from objects, Patočka remained involved in the struggle, staying in Prague. These explicit and implicit attitudes will give us a perspective on mental exile. The analysis via poetry finally aims at defining exile as an act of relativization, based on a sense of distance from the exile’s nation. Introduction Exile can be defined as being apart from one’s own state and this generally means that a person should be physically away from his home state or country. Yet exile is a spatial action with a concrete purpose- such a purpose is mostly political, seemingly a rational decision. How does such an action reflect reality? This question is also connected to an act of relativization– meaning to remove the absolute character of something by reconsidering it and puttting it into a different context, since the exile’s attitude toward his or her own country reveals how he or she takes another environment into account and captures reality with the help of imagination. 1 In general, Patočka and Kundera are both regarded as Czech authors. I use Czechoslovakia instead of Czech, when it is necessary. 317 According to the existing discussion, we find two different forms of exile, external and internal. The expression “inner emigration” 2 is shared with many German writers under the Nazis regime, and one of them is Frank Thiess, who is said to have been the first person to use the term “inner emigration.” This inner emigration is regarded as an alternative choice: to be visibly against the Regime, rather than to be physically distant. The exile stays and continues to write in the country, seeing such internal resistance as the responsibility of intellectual. 3 However, it eventually caused controversy among German intellectuals, partly because of Thomas Mann’s criticism and because of their failure to influence reality. 4 Mann, who alerted people to the danger of the Nazis, emigrated to Switzerland and criticized those who claimed inner emigration, which seemed almost impossible at that time. For Mann, it looked like opportunism. However, was it really not an option? So to speak, inner emigration is another name for resistance but not in violent means, and it is for those who are well aware of the role of writing in his or her society. Here we see the distinction between those who left the country like Mann and those who stayed like Thiess comparable to the Czechoslovakian example between Milan Kundera and Jan Patočka. This short paper is based on literal and analogical interpretations of the representational perspective on exile of intellectuals by focusing on the word, “poetry”, since poetry is one of the essential aspects in dealing with perceiving reality by writing. Internal and External Exile First of all, when it comes to the representation of exile, it has both physical and psychological perspectives. Combining the idea of inner emigration with facts, there are two types of immigration, not only from German cases but also in Czech ones. One is representated by Milan Kundera; being away from home physically and trying to be also far from his birthplace, Czechoslovakia. It was truly an external exile, remaining completely 2 Jean Michael Palmier, Weimar in Exile:the Antifascist Emigration in Europe and America, (London: Verso, 2006), p.129. 3 Palmier, Weimar in Exile, p.124. 4 Egbert Krispyn, Anti Nazi Writers in Exile, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1978), p.155. 318 outside anything connected to his home. Although Kundera was careful of the fact that he was a “man from the East”,5 he criticized the East (and other Central and Eastern European writers) and became a novelist to broaden the concept of the world of European literature. 6 In this way his vivid persistence is hidden beneath his apparent indifference. This sort of description is similar to what Pichová analyzed in Kundera’s work Letters and Bowler Hats, referring to one of the novel’s character Tamina, who voluntary chose the exile but was torn between her desires for both inner and outer exile. 7 It is also the characteristic of Sabina, one of the heroines from The Unbearable Lightness of Being; she also emigrates to Switzerland but comes back home. 8 They need to decide between placing themselves at home or placing themselves owhere and they cannot. Another position is taken by Jan Patočka. He stayed in his own country, and was even involved in political resistence by being part of a group of writers known as Charter 77. 9 What was atypical about his action is that he was purely a philosopher; he did not even write much materials on real politics, even though we can see some elements of politics in his writing. Patočka primaliry emphasizes the value of philosophical investigations, not so much as to be against the Communist regime or apolitical but, to pose human reality into the light, so that as he suggests; “(w)hat was lived through in the middle of the tempest was the resoluteness in everything on the one hand, the immeasurable insignificance of an individual human life, its extreme ‘lightness’ on the other hand. The individual has moved between these positions which somehow essentially go together: on the one hand a mere insignificant material component, on the other something that cannot be innerly broken, but only externally eliminated.” 10 It seemed that his distance in mind toward the political regime 5 Milan Kundera, The Curtain : An Essay in Seven Parts, Translated by Linda Asher, (New York: HarperPerennial, 2007), p.43. 6 Kundera, “The Consciousness of Continuity”, The Curtain, p.1-28. 7 Hana Pichová, The Art of Memory in Exile: Vladimir Nabokov and Milan Kundera, (Chicago: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001), p.50. 8 Milan Kundera, Nesnesitelná lehkost bytí, (Praha: Atlantis, 2006) The contrast between heaviness and lightness, lead by Parmenides’ argument, is famous to be quoted, though Parmenides’ status cannot be easily defined as “for lightness”, since the fragment mentioning on light and heavy in 55 is a part of quotation to criticize the human doxa. See also Karl Bormann, Parmenides, (Hamburg: Meiner, 1971). 9 Charter 77 was a political movement started in 1977 in Czechoslovakia, by which the Chartist, main members and signatories of this charter, claimed their fundamental human rights according to the Helsnki Declaration at Conference on Security and Cooporation in Europe in 1975. 10 Jan Patočka, “Ideology and Life in the Idea”, Studia Phenomenologica vol. VII, Translated by Eric Manton, (Bucharest: Romanian Society for Phenomenology, 2007), p.89-96., p.95. 319 was sufficient for us to call his status as internal exile, or exile in a mental sense, since he took the decision to fight within the regime. Both perspectives deal with how to form their viewpoints on their circumstances with proper distance toward the mother country, the place where they ought to be. Although their physical distance matters and their attitudes toward exile are different, their aim is to relate themselves to reality in order to evaluate their status properly. This distinction between escaping and enduring shows that exile does not equate merely to escape, since the action itself should have some influences on society, because exile remains within a domain of politics, where our rational decisions and individual judgment are connected to each other. The situation which the exile seeker must escape is simply unbearable- he or she does not have a power over it; it is impossible to stay there, so they allow themselves go. On the other hand, if the scholars are those who, in turn, have the responsibility of not obeying, as a person of reason, their situation under strong ideological control should be unacceptable- they can take power in a certain way. Rationality of Exile Those who are compelled to emigrate might have different feelings toward their nation. They can be either patriotic or apolitical- the latter was the case for Kundera. He decided to move physically, because in the final analysis he could not accept heaviness and it meant the victory of rationality in the sense in which he used it. A question here is how to characterize the phenomenon called exile, but from a different aspect, exile within the state, like Patočka’s instance. Resisting is the way that we show our autonomy against suppression. During the Communist occupation in Central and Eastern European countries, there was a large amount of scholars and writers had to consider, whether they would endure, or leave ideological suppressions, especially after the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia. What concerned them about life under the regime was not only their material insufficiency, but also, their lack of freedom, such as freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. The situation was especially harsh for scholars, because such things 320 are essential conditions for intellectuals, whose works are based mainly on freedom of expression. 11 Tucker explains in relation to Patočka’s engagement as a spokesman for Charter 77, “(f)or these basic human rights- the basis of justice and the preconditions for truthPatočka, Havel, and some of their fellow signatories of Charter were ready to sacrifice themselves. There is no doubt that Patočka could have chosen the path of Plato, the path of internal exile” 12, it seems that he takes the meaning of internal exile as the opposite of inner emigration. Exile does not equate to escaping, because exile depends on spontaneous action. It is a matter of choice. How and why an intellectual makes a decision depends upon not just personal or urgent danger, but their own attitude to showing concern towards society. 13 According to Edward Said, who himself also emigrated from his homeland, Palestine, exile makes the intellectuals marginalized, and this marginalization even gives them the pleasure of retaining their role as those who fight with the pen.14 Said’s explanation about exile is based on purely intellectual analysis and, at the same time, political purpose. However, exile is strongly connected with the memories and senses.15 While Kundera still can be seen as the villain, because of suspicions that he spied for the Communist party, Patočka was regared highly as a heroic figure, for his self-sacrificial death under torture. While Kundera left Czechoslovakia in the 60s, Patočka endured, although exile was a possibility. 16 He chose it according to his mission. It is also what Patočka says; (i)n my opinion here, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we can assert that the spiritual existence of society is inextricably tied to literature, the literary work of art. I believe that true literary work is still the first and fundamental activity that allows us to live in concrete situations in relation to individually 11 The relationship between political ideology and the writes is discussed in many titles for example, Barbara J Falk, The Dilemmas of Dissidence in Eastern-Central Europe, (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2003). 12 Aviezer Tucker, The Philosophy and Politics of Czech Dissidence from Patočka to Havel, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000), p.87. 13 In this case, it is too complex to mention Jewish people’s exile, because their sense of being deprived or being a stranger. (such as Kafka, a German speaking Jewish writer in Prague) 14 Edward W Said, Representations of Intellectuals, (New York: Random House, 1994), p.12. 15 Pichová, The Art of Memory in Exile. 16 The philosopher Eugen Fink suggested that he should emigrate. Tomonobu Imamichi, “Shade over the Memories and Respects; the Path of Socrates [Tsuioku to Keiyou no Mukou no Kage; Sokurates no Michi]”, Shisou no.1004. (Tokyo: Iwanami Press, 2007), p.28-36., p.33. 321 but also in relation to the whole existences, which means to live spiritual.” 17 From this we can see he was well-aware of his role as a writer and at the same time had an influence on reality through his engagement in Charter 77. Poetry – Distance and Emotion In this section, we look at each intellectual’s view on poetry- not just the words of the poem but their attitudes toward poetic issues- as a clue in order to interpret how these Czech authors objectified their lives in absurdity. Exile has on its one hand the emotional aspect that constructs action to understand what definitely exists but has not yet been objectified. The attitude concerning poetry here means how they approach the world with the words they use, such as mentioning the relationship between authors and literary works which we saw in the previous section. It is important to analyze poetry to know how an author describes not just rationally but also emotionally by putting out explanations and going into the field of purely literal expressions. Our view of poetry reflects how we perceive our language, literature –our inevitable conditions for thinkingand so on. This question is asked by many authors, such as Martin Heidegger, a teacher of Patočka; how poieisis, creation in old Greek, can be our motivation for removing absolute definitions and creating new ones instead of using old meanings. Poetry is a method by which we show our emotions towards nations. As in Patočka’s words, “(e)motion apprears not as anxiety but as calmness, dignity, distance, respect, and ‘otherness’, which appear as radical understanding” 18, it is important to see how emotion is related to a new comprehension of the world. The distance, which appears between us and literary works, can make people see things from different viewpoints. In other words, people need distance to observe something, then recognize what it might be. Kundera, in fact, was trying to be as rational as possible rather than taking an emotional approach. Kundera’s objectivity might also have been supported by the fact that he physically moved away from his homeland, but 17 Jan Patočka, “Společenskí funkce literatury”, Češi I; Sebrané spisy 12, (Praha: Oikoymenh, 2006), p.178-87., p.180. Translation from Czech to English by the author. 18 Jan Patočka, “Poezie a filosofie”, Umění a Čas II; Sebrané spisy 5, (Praha: Oikoymenh, 2004), p.237-40., p.240. 322 let us underline one episode; Kundera confessed many times that he had changed himself from a poet into a novelist. 19 He started his career as a poet, and then, according to what he states, he changed his mind because the poet, for him, seems too selfish. Conversely, to be a novelist means to him, if we summarize, being objective like a journalist, who watches and witnesses things to grasp the essence of human existence. 20 “It (the novel) was then that the ‘passion to know,’ which Husserl considered the essence of European spirituality, seize the novel and let it scrutinize man’s concrete life and protect it against ‘the forgetting of being’; to hold ‘the world of life.’” 21 Unlike being a poet, being a novelist means to find the voice of “the soul of things.” 22 For instance he used objective narrative in his works effectively, and focused on the theme in each of his works, not just describing what his characters themselves think or say. He is eager to separate poet and novelist, and he also kept this attitude toward his homeland. Criticizing his homeland equalled being against the regime at that time, and that was his own psychological farewell to the nation, too. As a whole, Kundera regards rationality as more important than emotions and it was impossible for him to relate himself to the world, or his motherland, by being a poet. Poetry, on the other hand, deals with imagination and Patočka did give an emphasis to this perspective; to reinterpret the world in which the author lives. In Patočka’s article, “The writer and his works” (Spisovatel a jeho věc in Czech Orginal), he says: “the writer reveals the creative process in the very fact that in it, which page is not ‘substance’ is undeniable. The writer and his relationship to the world is concerns life experience and philosophers’ reflections on these texts. Therefore, every authentic writer’s poetic performance at the same time induced the world in its essence, and yet full of secrets.”23 In order to capture what he says, it is necessary to briefly understand his teacher, Martin Heidegger’s persistent orientation toward poetry and aesthetics. He said, all art works are, in its essence, poetry, they should be reduced tp poiesis also mentioning that truth and reality only exist within the term hidden-ness, the term frequently used by 19 Milan Kundera, The Art of the Novel, p.117. Kundera’s conversion is here mentioned, too. Milan Kundera, The Curtain : An Essay in Seven Parts, Translated by Linda Asher, (New York: HarperPerennial, 2007), p.60-61. 20 Kundera, The Art of the Novel, p.43. 21 Kundera, The Art of the Novel, p.5. 22 Kundera, The Curtain, p.61. 23 Jan Patočka, “Spisovatel a jeho věc”, Češi I; Sebrané spisy 12, (Praha: Oikoymenh, 2006), p.280-92., p.290. 323 Heidegger. 24 If we take into account the fact that Patočka had been greatly influenced by Heidegger, it supports our argument. How much Patočka’s aesthetical idea affects his thought is not difficult to be found in his scripts of Charter 77, which depends on the power of the words. Patočka truly believed that people are able to defend their life, with philosophical investigation based on rationality, therefore his revelation in mental attitude could happen in practice, even staying within that place. As he wrote, “(t)he fact that what is a sheer loss from an external viewpoint, can be inner fulfilment (regardless of all external purpos es, like the response that death for the Idea and its propaganda significance awakens).”25 At the same time, his inner fulfillment came along with his mental distancing; its distance is not measurable in the sense of place, but in emotional status. In addition, if we look at Patočka’s impression of Kundera’s novel, he pointed out that Kundera’s weakness was only to have pathos, which is political and historical, and his revolutionary passion was too strong. 26 It might mean that we are inclined to fall into siding only with rationality, or emotion. It is also said by Patočka that the distance of Kundera from his work is too great. This evidently shows how much they are different in their standpoints. What is essential for Patočka is to have an understanding, radical understanding–meaning a perception that changes our lives from provisional escape into an internal resistence. Thus, they have differences on poetry not only in understanding reality but also in their ways of being against the political regime. Kundera tried to be apart from subjective issues, it sounds pessimistic. On the contrary, Patočka tried to reveal facts from nonobjective things, including hidden secrets, though it seems optimistic. Kundera’s approach relied only on rational psychological distance, while Patočka’s way to resist at least seemed to originate not only in rationality but also from human emotional reflections. 24 Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Art Work”, Poetry, Language, Thought. (New York: HarperPerennial, 2001), p.15-86. 25 Jan Patočka, “Ideology and Life in the Idea”, Studia Phenomenologica vol. VII, p.95. 26 Jan Patočka, “Vaculík a Kundera”, Umění a Čas II; Sebrané spisy 5, (Praha: Oikoymenh, 2004), p.211-3. 324 Conclusion- Act of Relativisation As Havel says, “(r)eality does not shape theory, but rather the reverse” 27, the cases of Kundera and Patočka, from Czechoslovakia, reveal the possibility of exile as an act of relativization. Firstly we discussed inner emigration, and the intellectual’s exile and rationality, then dealt with both writers’ attitudes towards the term poetry. This analysis of exile, gained via poetry, is still incomplete; the question remains in the investigation of nationalism, since writing and literature are always concerned with the protection of national identity, especially the domain of poetry is one of the most debatable issues. To conclude, here is a quotation from Kundera. He writes: “Let us not be romantic. When oppression is lasting, it may destroy a culture completely. Culture needs a public life, the free exchange of ideas; it needs publications, exhibits, debates and open borders. Yet, for a time, culture can survive in very difficult circumstances.” 28 What they needed was not to be subordinated to the situation, but to act by way of writing. The exile discussed in these chapters is neither simply physical nor rational; it is the act of relativisation, by which these Czech intellectuals represent how to be against what is unacceptable according to both their rationality and emotion. 27 Václav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless”, Vaclav Havel or Living in Truth, Jan Vladislav (eds.), Translated by P. Wilson, (London: Faber and Faber, 1986), p.36-122. 28 Milan Kundera, “A Talk with Milan Kundera”, Voices in the Snow, By Olga Carlisle, (New York: New York Times, 1985), <http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/kundera-talk.html> 325 Problems of intellectuals in the refugee camps in Germany 1948-50 Sylva Šimsová Most refugees from Czechoslovakia following the 1948 coup were in shock, having left their homeland and finding themselves in a different environment. The trauma of the escape Making a decision about the excape, together with the fear of the unknown, the risks of crossing the frontier, the worry about family members escaping or being left behind create stress which the refugees either do not talk about or which they anxiously wish to share. The actual physical demands of the escape, on the other hand, do not leave a longterm effect. „Leaving my father was the hardest decision and greatest pain as we had been so close all our life. The feeling of home has gone for ever,“ said my mother while writing reminiscences for her grandchildren in her old age. 1 On the other hand Petr Zenkl calmly describes a physical effort which would provoke anxiety in most readers: „When we were told that we would be transported in a car boot, we tested our breathing in a closed wardrobe.“ 2 Some intellectuals were lucky because they did not have to cross the frontier, since they were working or studying abroad. However, they were not spared the psychological stress because they, too, had to consider what the consequences of their decision would be for their relatives. 1 Jarka Maiwaldová-Kreysová, Vzpomínky pro vnoučata (Rukopis v soukromém vlastnictví. 1980), chapter 13. 2 Petr Zenkl, Mozaika vzpomínek (Olomouc: Centrum pro exilová studia, 1998), p. 142. 326 Some of them felt compassion with the less lucky refugees who were living in the camps and whom they were unable to help. When we lived in the refugee camp Valka, the former rector of Charles University, Jan Bělěhrádek, came to visit us. His visit was like a little miracle to us – we could talk to a normal person who continued to live in a normal environment. The change of environment In the post-war years Europe was full of homeless people. The newcomers soon became aware of not being welcome. They received only minimal care. Zdeněk Mastník, who observed the situation in London, said later in his reminiscences: „Today it is difficult for us to imagine the conditions in which Czech and Slovak refugees found themselves in England after February 1948. London was damaged by bombing. The emplyment market was strictly controlled: refugees in the German camps could only get jobs in agriculture, hospitals and textile factories...Further, food in England was rationed until 1953.“ 3 The environment the refugees found themselves in, was a temporary, uncomfortable makeshift arrangement likely to last months or even years. Only seldom did they live in a normal environment, perhaps as guests of relatives or friends. The majority had no choice but to live in the refugee camps. A Czechoslovak pilot, Karel Macháček, describes his return to England together with his wife: „...all these obstacles, lack of good will, delays, waiting and disappointment about the visa and the air ticket made me very bitter. In my memory in Prague I saw England as the chosen land. After eight weeks of repeated disappointments, problems and hunger much of 3 Boris Čelovský, „Emigranti“: dopisy politických uprchlíků z prvních let po „Vítězném únoru“ 1948 (Ostrava: Tillia, 1998), p. 339-341. 327 this joyful expectation had gone. Although I was grateful for being accepted by England, I was disappointed by the way it had been done. I began to doubt my welcome.“ 4 Western countries were worried about the influx of refugees. When I asked a British oficial why my parents got a visa while we were having a problem, he told me directly that we were young and likely to multiply. Britain as an island could not afford a growth of population. And so we had to wait in the refugee camps for 14 months. The refugee camps in Germany The refugee camps in Germany fell into three groups: First, there were American holding camps nicknamed “golden cage” where the American intelligence service questioned some of the new arrivals. It picked them from reports it got from the German border police. They were mostly political VIPs, but there was the occasional plain refugee among them. They were well treated and given enough food and comfort, except that they were not allowed to go outside until the interrogation was over. In the Frankfurt „golden cage“ called Alaska House a valuable chronology of the February 1948 coup was produced by a group of prominent Czechoslovaks representing all the political parties. 5 Sometimes, possibly for security reasons, the family was not told that a refugee was being kept in the „golden cage“: „I was alone with my daughter in the refugee camp, my husband was not coming back, we had no information about his whereabouts. Later a young man from our camp, who worked for the Americans, brought a letter in which my husband told us that he was with the Americans...He was held and interogated for about 3 days and 4 Karel A. Macháček, Útěk do Anglie (Praha: Ústav dějin Univerzity Karlovy, 2003), p. 221. 5 Jakub Hodbod, Československá emigrace do Kanady po roce 1948 (Liberec: Gymnázium F. X. Šaldy v Liberci, Stredoškolská odborná činnost 2004/5005 Obor 16 – historie), p. 46-7; A typesrcipt of the chronology is in the papers of Blažej Vilím in the British Library, BL ADD.MS. 74966 f.1-58, a copy is in the Československé dokumentační středisko in Prague. 328 they let him go only when they have found out what they wanted. They did not do anything to help him. Actually he was given a towel which we are keeping as a souvenir.“ 6 Second, there were refugee camps run by the International Refugee Organisation (IRO) which gave screened refugees the chance to emigrate free of charge and leave Germany. For a few months after February 1948, the first wave of Czechoslovak refugees was not accepted by the IRO camps. Later they were placed under the care of IRO, provided they were screened and classified as political refugees. The IRO stopped taking people after October 15th 1949. Refugees who crossed the border after this date same under German administration. Refugees in the care of the IRO had a chance to emigrate free of charge. Accommodation, food and hygiene in the IRO camps was often inadequate but still better than in the German camps. . 7 „The IRO camp in Ludwigsburg was quite different from the German one in Valka. Krabbenloch used to be a large military barracks. The toilets were blocked all the time, but there were more of them which made it more bearable than in Valka. Washing under showers and in washrooms with running water was better than washing in an old tin. Downstairs there was a room for cooking,“ wrote my mother in her reminiscences. 8 The third type of camp was under German administration. It received the refugees who failed the political screening and those who – like ourselves – crossed the border after October 15th 1949. Most people held in the German camps had little prospect of leaving Germany unless they had relations or friends abroad. The accommodation, food and hygiene in the camps under German administration were a grade below those in the IRO camps, especially during the early years after the war. 9 Karel Macháček has described a trasiti camp in 1948: „There were mad people and vagrants, some with familes, of all ages, jobs and nationalities. Some had been there a long 6 Maiwaldová-Kreysová, “Vzpomínky,“ chapter 13. 7 Hodbod, “Československá,“ p. 47-53 8 Maiwaldová-Kreysová, “Vzpomínky,“ chapter 13. 9 Helena Arenbergerová, Tábor Valka u Norimberku (1949-1954): Magisterská diplomová práce (Praha: Universita Karlova. Ústav hospodářských a sociálních dějin, 2006) 329 time and were losing their human face in the humiliation. The camp manager found us some straw mattrasses in a room where there were so many peole that you could not walk through without steping on someone.“ 10 A year later according to my mother the situation was not much better: “There were between 30 and 40 of us in one room. Our hut was all occupied by Hungarians, mostly whole families. The beds – a bed meant a hard narrow bunk with a thin straw mattress plus a blanket – were only divided by a very narrow aisle between them. I couldn’t get used to taking my clothes off in front of so many people, and so I slept half dressed, in a blouse. In the evenings the Hungarians sang long into the night and talked loudly among themselves, but I got used to falling asleep even with all that racket going on around me. 11 Looking for intellectual employment The main problem for all refugees, apart from physical survival, was to find an opportunity to emigrate. Life in Germany was without hope, although later on some refugees did find work, for instance at Radio Free Europe. Mass emigration organized by the IRO offered manual work, hardly ever any professional employment. Refugees under German administration did not even have the chance to emigrate to do manual work. The situation of intellectuals was hard. Not only were they repeatedly refused visas and employment, but their education and professional status were ignored by the camp administration. My father ( a former university professor) had to apply to the administration office for a certificate that he was of normal intelligence. Many depended on personal contacts made during their previous activity back at home. This necessitated writing many letters and waiting patiently should an opportunity arise. Postage and paper were expensive and the refugees were short of money. Letters used to go astray in the camps. It was rumoured that it was due to the activity of StB 10 Macháček, „Útěk,“ p. 219. 11 Maiwaldová-Kreysová, “Vzpomínky,“ chapter 13. 330 (Czechoslovak) secret agents, as German officials were known to be fairly reliable. There were cases of anonymous denunciations to block or slow down the granting of visas. The historian Zbyněk Zeman has described his experience: „The security officer in the camp at Regensburg noticed that I had not registered with the IRO and he accused me of being a communist agent. I was naive and slightly negligent, I did not yet know the hard face of power. It all had a happy ending, I did go to Britain, because my British friends gave me a guarantee.“ 12 One of our friends was not so lucky. He had everything arranged for emigration to the USA, but his visa was cancelled because of an anonymous denunciation sent in by Communist agents. The diplomatic offices of Western countries had so many applications for visas that they did not have time to investigate any denunciations. They simply filled their quotas with other refugee applicants. Another way to find professional jobs was to follow advertisements in professional journals which could be found at the American libraries called Amerika Haus. It was slow and the libraries were only found in large towns. My father was constantly writing letters. Some replies got lost, others were negative. After six months he was helped by Prof. Lewis from Jamaica who had visited Prague. He arranged a two months scholarship at Manchester University for my father, so that he could look for a job in Britain. That finally helped us to emigrate. 13 Possibilities of further university study Among the younger generation of intellectual refugees those who wanted to study had two possibilities: They could accept any employment – forestry work in Canada, shooting of rabbits in Australia – and go to university after the expiry of their contract. The selection of refugees for mass emigration was often quite humiliating: „The scene was reminiscent of a market where horses are traded, except that one cannot request a 12 Zdeněk Pousta, Rozchod 1948 (Praha: Ústav dějin Univerzity Karlovy 2006). p. 31. 13 Maiwaldová-Kreysová, “Vzpomínky,“ chapter 14-15. 331 horse to demonstrate sit-ups, push-ups or other physical tests; the standard checks of eyes, nose, ears, and teeth were identical. A horse, after examination usually receives a friendly slap on its behind, however we were spared similar signs of affection. “ 14 The other possibility was to apply for a scholarhsip. There were few scholarships to be had and it was difficult to get one: „I submitted about 30 well-documented applications and I did not get any reply, not even a negative one,“ wrote Čelovský in the summer of 1950. 15 Even those who received a scholarship had problems. Some scholarships did not cover all expenses. Some countries expected students to promise that they would leave the country at the end of the course. Students did not get a work permit to supplement their income during their study. In Britain it was customary for the Czech Refugee Trust Fund to supplement small scholarships, in order to give the students a reasonable living standard. There were, however, students in straitened circumstances who did not receive any help. Refugee intellectuals had a strong desire to study. Many of them eventually managed to participate in the scientific and cultural world of their new countries. Their path was not easy and often took them a long time. Masaryk University in Ludwigsburg In Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart there was a large IRO camp divided into three parts: Jägerhofkaserne, Krabbenlochkaserne and Arsenalkaserne. Czechoslovak university teachers and students were allocated to Arsenalkaserne. In May 1950 I married my fiancé and joined him in the Ludwigsburg camp. As a single man he was expected to emigrate to Australia to schoot rabbits. As a married man he did not have to do that. We lived in Krabbenlochkaserne. 14 K. Karlsbad, Pages torn from my youth (Memorial Edition, 1997 http://www.citinet.net/ak/karlsbad/index.html) 15 Čelovský, „Emigranti,“ p. 301. 332 The Ludwigsburg camp was a seat of the Central Union of Czechoslovak Students (Ústřední svaz československého studenstva) which was founded in May 1948 and in December 1948 started publishing a periodical called „Doba“. 16 The Union was in touch with students in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands. Switzerland offered a few scholarships and some convalescent placements for ill students. France promised 40-60 scholarships. Luxembourg enabled 150 refugee students to work during the summer months. The students in Ludwigsburg were accommodated in an old school building in the centre of town which became known as the Masaryk University. They had access to lectures and seminars. The rektor of the university was the economist Vladislav Brdlík. The university did not last long because most students wanted to get away from Germany and the number of refugees kept decreasing. While in Ludwigsburg, however, the students were grateful for the intellectual companionship offered by the University. The Masaryk University in Ludwigsburg played an important, if only temporary role in the intellectual life of the exile public as a whole. It is therefore surprising that there exist just brief mentions of it in the various memoirs from that period. It would be good if someone worked on it while veterans of the time are still about. The university also made it possible for students like myself, who had their 7th grade school report with them, to gain the ‘maturity examination’ certificate. There were about eight of us who had travelled to Ludwigsburg from various refugee camps to sit the examination. The exam commission consisted of people who were teaching at the university, plus students from the top years. The proceedings were improvised. For instance: in Latin I was translating about St Peter from a breviary; I was shaky in chemistry, but because my 7th grade mark was not bad the examiner copied it out; Czech and French 16 Vojtěch Jeřábek, Českoslovenští uprchlíci ve studené válce: Dějiny American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees {Brno: Stilus, 2005) p. 37. Vznik exilového svazu studentstva; Doba: Nezávislý časopis – there is a copy in the British Library in London and in the Československé dokumentační středisko in Prague.; Hodbod, “Československá,“ p. 50 Victor Fic about his conflict with Jiří Pelikán at the international student conference in Oslo 1949; Arenbergerová, „Tábor,“ p.16. „At the international student conference in Oslo in July 1949 Czechoslovak students in exile achieved recongnition in spite of the protests of the communist delegation, they were promised help when transferring to other universities and obtaining scholarships. She gives as her source „Archiv P. Pittra, Pedagogické muzeum J.A. Komenského v Praze. Karton 35. časopis Svoboda 5-6II, Sdružení čsl. politických uprchlíků v Německu“; Fond of Victora Fice is in the Open Society Archives, Central European University in Hungary; Čelovský, „Emigranti,“ p. 276-314 various letters and documents about students in Ludwigsburg 333 were relatively easy, though English was an outright farce – I did manage the written part of it, but I had no experience of spoken English since we did French at school before. I entered the room and said “Good evening”. The examiners asked me something which I did not quite understand, and so they asked me in Czech if I knew an English author. I mulled it over and said “William Shakespeare”. I got second grade for English on the certificate and I eventually travelled to England with a ‘Summa cum laude testimonium maturitatis Universitatum Masarykianum Ludwigsburgiense’ Cultural selfhelp Refugees in the camps, including those under German administration, filled their enforced leisure by creating various societies and organizing cultural activities. People with similar interests tried to get accommodation in the same block – for instance in the camp Valka there was an YMCA block, inhabited by young people. Some cultural events, organised by well-wishes from outside, were not successful. On one occasion a lecture by a Czech-American was announced in the camp Valka. Many people were looking forward to it because they wanted to learn about the US. They were disappointed. The speaker, a missionary, did not tell them anything about the US. Instead he made them sing: „I am happy, I am happy, I am h-a-p-p-y!“ Intellectuals sometimes missed books more than food. During our stay in a soul destroying transit camp in Munich we discovered Amerika Haus. Munich looked then like a field of orange brick dust. The houses ruined by wartime bombing had been cleared away. In their basements lived the German inhabitants. The children would go to school, the women cooked for them, there were hardly any men and those that remained were disabled. In the middle of this plain stood one large building which was not damaged by air raids. The American administration turned it into a library. The aim was to enable Germans access to the culture that used to be forbidden by the Nazis. The library had books, periodicals, sound recordings, lectures, concerts, exhibitions. German children used to come to the reading room to do their homework and to learn English. We used to spend the whole day in the 334 library. We were learning about a new world. We were surrounded by books and culture. The building was clean, the people nice, the toilets hygienic. We were back in civilization. One refugeee wrote: „During one year I went through an intensive course which would have normally taken three or four years. Later, my higher education teachers were amazed when I passed one exam after another.“ Similar libraries existed in other larger towns in the Amerizan occupation zone. Social problems One of the camps with a bad reputation about social problems was Valka near Nurnberg. . 17 A relatively small percentage of refugees at Valka were able to emigrate. Those who stayed had little hope of either finding a job in Germany or going abroad. From 1951 on there was a rise in the number of criminal cases and that gave Valka a bad reputation which German papers liked to dwell on. In Czechoslovak official propaganda Valka became the setting for the well-known novel ‘Opustíš-li mne’ (If You Leave Me – a reference to a famous poem by Viktor Dyk) by Zdeněk Pluhař. In autumn 1952 Přemysl Pitter became a social worker at Valka. Přemysl Pitter got a residence visa in Britain after his escape. Such a visa for a refugee was very valuable and that is why, when I met Pitter in London in April 1952, I was surprised to hear he intended to go and work in German refugee camps. He listened with great interest to what I had to tell him about my life and experience in Germany. He was especially interested in the camp of ill-repute, Valka. Pitter’s 1952 Christmas letter to us was already penned at Valka where he had been sent by the World Council of Churches. He said in his letter that Valka held 4000 people, of whom about 800 were Czech and 550 Slovak. Most of them needed psychological support. Valka had a bad reputation because of fights and crime. Since the camp was known as a Czech one, all crimes in the area were ascribed to the Czechs. 17 Arenbergerová, „Tábor,“ p. 82-5. 335 Shortly before his arrival there had been a bloody brawl between Slovaks and Hungarians over a girl, and as I was reading the letter I realised in fact that little had changed at Valka since our departure. I admired his courage in wanting to work there. I do not remember the date when Pitter stopped working in Valka. He used to have a large correspondnce with lonely refugees in prisons and hospitals. Today where Valka once stood there is the modern housing estate Langwasser. At Pitter’s time, the main problem for the inhabitants was to cope with life from one day to the next. They had little hope of emigration and German society did not encourage them to settle down in Germany. It was difficult to find a job or accommodation outside the refugee camp. Intellectuals, who lived there, did not have it easy. 336 Professors to Go’: Emigration of the Academic Staff of the Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague Before and After the Nazi Occupation, 1938–391 Michal Šimůnek – Tomáš Hermann The Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague belonged to the most distinguished academic institutions in the Czech Lands. Many faculty members became targets of the arising Nazi groupings within Czechoslovakia already before the Crisis of 1938, not only because of the high number of academics of Jewish origin, but also because of the deep controversies with the official Nazi doctrine within the medical science. After the Munich agreement and after March 1939 the ‘Gleichschaltung’ of the faculty was given high priority by the new authorities. This particular case serves as a unique example of several parallel ongoing processes that lead or should have lead to emigration of significant part of the country’s medical elite. As to the ways of emigration, there was the planned and ‘successful’ emigration prior to 1938; then there are several cases of using various opportunities (e.g. fellowships, conferences) to emigrate; some ‘successful’ emigrations took place under the changed conditions during the Nazi rule, and last but not least ‘unsuccessful’ emigrations after 1940 that lead in many cases to personal tragedies during the Nazi occupation and especially the Holocaust. It is the aim of this paper to present statistical overviews documenting the above-mentioned processes. Demonstration of some personal histories should help to analyse the scientific emigration during the era of Nazism in its alternative perspectives. Introduction With its venerable history, the Medical Faculty of the German University in Prague was long time one of the leading scientific institutions of Bohemia and Moravia. 2 Even after the division of the Prague Charles-Ferdinand University into a Czech and a German part in 1882, its importance was not limited to the province. 3 It was not only a prominent academic institution but also an important centre of practical medicine, which offered the most 1 This paper originated within the research project GA AV ČR IAAX00630801. Jan Havránek (ed.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy III. [The History of Charles University, Vol. III], Prague: Karolinum, 1997; Petr Svobodný – Ludmila Hlaváčková, Dějiny lékařství v českých zemích [The History of Medicine in the Czech Lands], Prague: Triton, 2004; Burghard Breitner, Geschichte der Medizin in Oesterreich, Vienna: Rohrer,1951. 3 Ludmila Hlaváčková, Německá lékařská fakulta v Praze (1883–1945) [The German Medical Faculty in Prague (1883-1945)], in: Vesmír 73: 684–686; Ludmila Hlaváčková – Petr Svobodný, Dějiny pražských lékařských fakult 1348–1990 [The History of Prague Medical Faculties 1348–1990], Prague: Karolinum, 1993: 78–126. 2 337 advanced healthcare facilities (clinics) at the regional level. 4 The quality of care and research was bolstered by considerable academic fluctuation, especially between Prague and Vienna, but also some German universities, e.g. Heidelberg, Freiburg or Breslau. 5 The disintegration of the Habsburg monarchy, which in 1918 led to a creation of successor states, resulted in a fundamental modification of political aims also in the area of scientific policy. 6 Despite that, in Czechoslovakia, which became a republic, the basis of scientific infrastructure in the area of universities was enlarged.7 Regarding the administration of science and in scientific policies, the new state basically retained the old Austrian model based on a central role of the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment. The system of universities and colleges, especially in the area of medicine and humanities, was in the period of 1919–25 quickly enlarged and completed mainly in those areas where prior political situation stunted the development. This applied both in the so-called historical lands (Bohemia and Moravia) and in Slovakia. After 1918, we therefore witness the foundation of completely new institutions (Brno/Brünn), dissolution and reestablishment of new institutions (Bratislava), but also modification of existing institutions either by unification or change of status. This was the case of, for example, the former German part of the Prague university, which officially became ‘German University’ (Deutsche Universität) in 1920. 8 Scientific societies, too, were organised mostly along the national lines. The only exception was the traditional Royal Bohemian Society of Letters and after 1918 4 Petr Svobodný, Periferie nebo centrum? Místo fakultních nemocnic v rámci zdravotnictví a vysokého školství středoevropské metropole [Periphery or Centre? Position of University Clinics within the Healthcare and University Education of a Central European Capital], in: Documenta Pragensia 2002, Prague: Scriptorium: 425– 447. 5 Ludmila Hlaváčková, Lehrer der Prager deutschen medizinischen Fakultät an der Frankfurter Universität, in: Wilmanns, J. C. (ed.), Medizin in Frankfurt am Main. Ein Symposium zum 65. Geburtstag von Gert Preiser (= Frankfurter Beiträge zur Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Bd. 15), Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 1994: 233–238. 6 Jan Havránek, Co přinesl 28. říjen 1918 československému školství [What October 28, 1918 Contributed to Czechoslovak System of Education], in: Vesmír 67(10): 545–547. 7 Petr Svobodný, Structural Changes of the University System in Czechoslovakia after 1918, paper presented at the Ignaz-Lieben-Society Symposium “Science and Technology in Successor States of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1918-1938: Transformations, Networks, Mobility”, November 11–12, 2011. 8 Milan Beniak – Miloslav Tichý, Dejiny Lekárskej fakulty Univerzity Komenského v Bratislave I. [History of the Faculty of Mediciny of the Comenius University in Bratsilava], Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, 1992; Dějiny university v Brně [History of the University in Brno], Brno: UJEP, 1969. For the development of the German University in the interwar period, see Jan Havránek – Zdeněk Pousta (eds.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy IV. [The History of Charles University, Vol. IV], Prague: Karolinum 1998. 338 newly created National Research Council. The mobility of medical academic staff became, in comparison with the previous period, more diverse. 9 We have at our disposal significant resources regarding both the personnel basis of the German medical sciences and the analysis of changes it had undergone – both by nature and by force -- in the first half of the 20th century. Basic biographical overviews have been published since the 1960s. 10 Since 1990s, the specific personnel policy of the late 1930s was analysed also in context of the institutional history of the German University.11 These studies, however, tended to focus on the development a particular scientific field and/or specific scientific institution within Bohemia and Moravia. Our goal here is to place the stories of German medical academics in a broader context. It is part of an ongoing study whose aim is to describe and analyse the transformation of personnel base of (life) sciences in Bohemia and Moravia during the period of National Socialism and ‘final solution’. 12 Though the medical profession not usually seen as a prominent category within the forced emigration of the 1930s and 1940s, we believe that a better understanding of various parallel processes (emigration, participation in the resistance movement, racial persecution, etc.) that led to a radical transformation of medical academia in Bohemia and Moravia is highly relevant and of interest. 13 Based on currently available sources one can already claim that these processes cumulatively led to the destruction of significant part of the country’s medical elite. Our study is based on the analysis of various archival sources in several 9 Petr Svobodný, The German Medical Faculty in Prague in the International Academic Network (1918–1938), in: Karady V. – Kulczykowski M. (eds.), L’enseignement des Elites en Europe Centrale (19–20e siècle), Krakow: Ksiegania Akademicka, 1999: 175–193. 10 Walther Koerting, Die Deutsche Universität in Prag. Die letzten hundert Jahre ihrer Medizinischen Fakultät (= Schriftenreihe der Bayerischen Landesärztekammer, Bd. 11), München: Richard Pflaum, 1968; Ludmila Hlaváčková – Petr Svobodný, Biographisches Lexikon der Deutschen Medizinischen Fakultät in Prag 1883–1945, Prague: Karolinum, 1998. 11 Alena Míšková, ‘Die Lage der Juden an der Prager Deutschen Universität’, in: Hoensch, J. K. (ed.), Judenemanzipation – Antisemitismus – Verfolgung in Deutschland, Österreich-Ungarn, den böhmischen Ländern und in der Slowakei (= Veröffentlichungen der Deutsch-Tschechischen und Deutsch-Slowakischen Historikerkommission, Vol. 7), Essen: Klartext, 1999: 117–127; Monika Glettler – Alena Míšková, Prager Professoren 1938–1948. Zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik, Essen: Klartext, 2001. 12 For example, the ongoing project Disappeared Science. The Scientists of Jewish Origin from Bohemia and Moravia as Victims of Nazism, 1939–45 supported by the Rothschild Foundation Europe. 13 See Jean Medawar and David Pyke, Hitler’s Gift. Scientists Who Fled Nazi Germany, London: R. Cohen Books, 2000: 69–157. For various reasons, the current analysis is limited to professors of all ranks (except for honoris causa) and associate professors of all ranks (including the so-called Private-Dozents). The assistants (junior lecturers) are as yet beyond the scope of this analysis. 339 European archives. 14 Using one personal biography, we shall describe a case of a tragic double attempt to escape through at first successful, then unsuccessful emigration. 1. In the late 1930s, the Faculty of Medicine was the largest faculty of the entire Prague German University. The number of student significantly increased in the 2nd half of the 1930s to about 2,400 students. 15 On average, there were approximately 22.7 students per teacher. 16 In the winter term 1937/38, for example, the official statistics covered 1.756 students of medicine; 24 of them counted themselves to the Jewish religion. 17 The pre-WWI trend whereby the German academics tended to migrate more often than their Czech colleagues remained significant in the interwar period. 18 Comparing the position of medicine at both Prague universities, at the German University the proportion seems to be the same or even higher in the period 1918–38. 19 As of the summer term 1938, the curriculum offered 19 medical specialisations at the university institutes and clinics. 20 These were: 1. Anatomy and Histology, 2. Physiology, 3. Physiological and Medical Chemistry, 4. Pathological Anatomy, 5. General Anatomy, 6. 14 In the Czech archives, the most relevant collections are kept in the Archives of the Charles University Prague (hereinafter AUK), National Archives Prague (hereinafter NA), Archives of the Security Units Prague (hereinafter ABS), and Archives of the Presidential Office Prague (hereinafter AKPR). Among German archives, of key importance were the collections of the Bundes Archives and Archives of the Foreign Office, which are both in Berlin. In Great Britain, we used information from the Bodleian Library of the Society for Protection of Science and Learning (hereinafter SPSL) in Oxford. It was beyond the scope of this paper to try and carry out archival research in the destination countries or interviews with the relatives. Note: This endeavour should lead to another line of research, namely a study of how various relevant materials survived and came to create a large body of incoherent and sometimes even contradictory information. 15 Jiří Pešek, Alena Míšková, Petr Svobodný, and Jan Janko, Německá univerzita v Praze v letech 1918–1939 [The German University in Prague in 1918–1939], in: Havránek, J. and Pousta, Z. (eds.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy 1918–1990, Vol. IV [The History of the Charles University 1918–90], Prague: Karolinum, 1998: 181232[182]. 16 Václav Podaný, K problematice německé vědecké obce v Československu v letech 1918–1938 [On the German Scientific Community in Czechoslovakia in 1918–38], in: Dějiny věd a techniky (hereinafter DVT) 29(4): 217–227[225]. 17 Archives of the Auswärtiges Amt (hereinafter A AA) Berlin, Deutsche Gesandschaft Prag, b. 70, statistics of the students of the German University in Prague in the winter term 1937/38. 18 Ibid., p. 219, 220. 19 Ibid., p. 220, 224. 20 See Vorlesungsverzeichnis der Medizinischen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prag – Sommer 1938–39, Prague: Deutsche Universität 1938. 340 Pharmacology and Pharmacognosy, 7. Internal Medicine, 8. Roentgenology, 9. Psychiatry and Neurology, 10. Paediatrics, 11. Surgery, 12. Gynaecology, 13. Ophthalmology, 14. Otolaryngology, 15. Dentistry, 16. Dermatology and Syphilis, 17. Forensic Medicine, 18. Industrial Medicine, and 19. History of Medicine and Natural Sciences. 21 In the era of emancipation, which started in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in the second half of the 19th century, the German language, wide professional opportunities, as well as some other factors made the German Faculty of Medicine especially attractive to physicians of Jewish origin. 22 After 1918, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Education even seemed to implement a sort of personnel policy whereby academics of Jewish origin were given preference at the German Faculty of Medicine. This policy became a target of frequent reproaches and criticisms mainly from the German circles. Indeed, one could hardly claim that even as early as in the 1920s and early 1930s, anti-Semitic tendencies in Czechoslovakia were marginal. One should probably rather ask what forms these sentiments took and how latent they were. 23 The rise of Nazism in Germany led at the Prague German University to a clear radicalisation and polarisation, and a pro-Nazi group formed, somewhat surprisingly, mainly around some older professors such as Otto Grosser (1873–1951), Karl Ammersbach (1884– 1952), and Walter Nonnenbruch (1887–1955). There occurred some broadly publicised incidents such as the ‘Kelsen-affair’ in 1933 at the Faculty of Law and some further tensions took place in the traditional ‘Rede- und Lesehalle’, in which some physicians were involved (W. Jaroschy). 24 In summer 1938, for example, the pro-Nazi German students attempted to 21 Ibid. For a general overview, see Helena Krejčová, Juden in den 30er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts, in: Nekula, M. and Koschmal, W. (eds.), Juden zwischen Deutschen und Tschechen. Sprachliche und kulturelle Identität in Böhmen 1800–1945 (= Veröffentlichungen des Collegiums Carolinum, Vol. 104), Munich: Oldenbourg, 2006: 85–103 and Petr Svobodný, Lékaři v českých zemích 1848–1939 [The Physicians in Bohemia and Moravia, 1848–1939], in: Svobodný, P. and Havránek, J., Profesionalizace akademických povolání v českých zemích v 19. a první polovině 20. století [The Professionalization of the Academic Staff in Bohemia and Moravia in the 19th and first half of the 20th Century], Praha: Karolinum, 1996: 126–146[133–144]. 23 Alena Míšková, Die Deutsche (Karls-) Universität vom Münchener Abkommen bis zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Prague: Karolinum, 2007: 42. 24 Ibid., p.38. 22 341 organize separate graduation ceremonies for ‘Aryan’ and ‘Non-Aryan’ students at the Faculty of Law. 25 Open conflict broke out at the faculty immediately before the Munich Crisis of September 1938, when about one half of the entire academic staff of the German University left for Munich and Vienna. This action was planned and coordinated with the Sudeten German party, the most important local pro-Nazi party, and with the ‘Reichdozentenbund’. 26 The Medical Faculty saw the departure of, e.g., Walter Nonnenbruch, Karl Ammersbach, Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870–1952), Rudolf Bezecny (1901–1945), and Anton M. Marx (1886–1939). 27 All in all, 47 of the total of 105 professors from all faculties of the German University left Prague at that time. 28 Only one professor of Jewish origin left the Faculty of Medicine (Hans Rotky); others stayed in Prague and in some cases, e.g., at the paediatric clinics, even took leading positions. 29 A large part of the medical personnel also departed. In whole 11 clinics had to be replaced by Czech staff. 30 At this time, we can observe a clear division along ‘racial’ lines. For example, it was carefully observed and reported by the German Embassy which clinics became Jewish heads.31 Another example might be the comment of the botanist Adolf Pascher (1881–1945), who left Prague for Reich and in October 1938 and wrote: “The reason is quite clear: the Prague government now wants to imitate German universities...but we will not lend ourselves to maintaining a university in Prague for Jews.” 32 At that time, it was also proposed that the universities should be reorganised or – given new political realities – moved to the Sudeten German regions (Reichenberg/Liberec). 25 ‘Der Rassismus an der Prager Deutschen Universität’, in: Sozialdemokrat July 7, 1938. 26 Jiří Pešek, Alena Míšková, Petr Svobodný, and Jan Janko, Německá univerzita v Praze v letech 1918–1939 [The German University in Prague in 1918–39], in: Havránek J. and Pousta Z. (eds.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy 1348–1990, Prague: Karolinum, 1998: 181–211[185–187]; Věra Vomáčková, Německá universita v Praze mezi Mnichovem a 15. březnem 1939 [The German University in Prague Between Munich and March 15, 1939], in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 4(1), 1963: 3–19[7–11]. 27 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 51. 28 Ibid., p. 48. 29 Ibid., p. 51, 52. 30 A AA Berlin, Deutsche Gesandschaft Prag, b. 70, reports concerning the situation at the Prague German medical clinics from October 3 and 21, 1938. See Míšková (2007), op. cit., p 53. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.: “Der Grund ist ja klar, die Regierung in Prag möchte jetzt noch eine deutsche Universität imitieren… Um für die Juden in Prag die Universität aufrecht zu erhalten, geben wir uns auch nicht her…” 342 2. In the period between the Munich Dictate (September 29/30, 1938) and the German occupation of the remainder of Bohemia and Moravia (March 15, 1939), irreversible steps were taken which resulted in a disintegration of the German University and thereby also of the Faculty of Medicine. The enforced changes in the composition of the academic staff were – just like several years earlier in Germany 33-- among the very first symptoms of the rise of Nazi influence in post-Munich Czechoslovakia. After short discussions about a possible transfer of the university to the north of the country, Hitler personally decided on November 14, 1938 that the German University should remain in Prague. Shortly after, the pro-Nazi academics not only returned and their careers prospered but their overall influence was much greater than before. The ‘undesirable’ academics then found themselves in a situation that did not have any reasonable solution. Though the university was officially Czechoslovak institution, the mood in Czech politics was shifting. 34 One of its key features was a policy of concessions in more or less any area where the German side claimed ‘German interests.’ Not surprisingly, this included the scientific policy in general and the Prague German University in particular. Already on October 11, 1938, the Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University in Jena, pathological anatomist and later representative of the Reich Foreign Office in Prague Werner Gerlach (1891–1961) adviced Himmler: “... either will be the press of German Reich on Prague in case of the university [German University] so strong that the Government [German] will be able to influence the academic positions, or the university will be done by the Czech Government to an instrument mostly undesirable to us and definitely everything but not German university”. 35 33 Karl-Dietrich Bracher, Die Gleichschaltung der deutschen Universität, in: Herzfeld, H. et al., Universitätstag 1966. Nationalismus und die deutsche Universität, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1966: 126–142. 34 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 54–55. 35 BA Berlin, NS 19/838, Gerlach to Himmler, October 11, 1938. 343 Another important factor was the rise of anti-Semitic and xenophobic propaganda in Czechoslovakia itself. 36 Already in mid-October 1938, the first campaign against Jewish professors was aired by the Prague radio. 37 Anti-Jewish moods became especially prominent in the medical community of Bohemia and Moravia. The situation was made worse by a dramatic influx of general medical practitioners from Sudetenland who tried to find new positions in what remained of Czechoslovakia and were encountering very limited opportunities to re-establish themselves.38 Although this process had a limited direct impact on academic medicine, the general tendency was to restrict positions opened to Germanspeaking physicians. Under the changed circumstances after the Munich Dictate, the Czechoslovak government had to deal with the political and economic impact of immigration. At the same time, there were adopted the first restrictions on emigration. 39 And for economical reasons, the government started a campaign to lower of the retirement age from 70 to 65 (or 64), which also affected some physicians. 40 Nevertheless, the most important initiative to start personnel purges came from the German University and German Embassy in Prague. Thanks to existing archive materials, we can rather accurately reconstruct the selection and criteria which directed this process. On December 2, 1938, Dr. Max Schäfer-Rümelin from the German Embassy in Prague stated that in academic affairs, one can anticipate a return to status ante quo. This, however, 36 See Fred Hahn, ‘Židé a druhá Česko-slovenská republika’ [Jews and the Second Czecho-Slovak Republic], in: Střední Evropa 10(38–39), 1994: 190–196; Zdeněk Štěpánek, Nastolení „židovské otázky“ v Druhé republice [The so-called Jewish Question in the Second Republic], in: Sborník vojenské akademie Brno Řada C – společenskovědní B [Anthology of the Military Academy in Brno, series C, social sciences B], 1994: 283–294; Zdeněk Štěpánek, Perzekuce židovských lékařů na Moravě (1938−1941) [Persecution of Jewish Physicians in Moravia, 1939–1941], in: Historie a vojenství 43, 1994, No. 2: 70–86; Livia Rothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia. Facing the Holocaust. Lincoln – Jerusalem: University of Nebraska Press, 2005. 37 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 55. 38 ‘Čeští lékaři hájí své spravedlivé zájmy’ [The Czech Physicians Are Defending Their Rightful Interests], in: Polední list October 13, 1938; ‘Odchod nečeských lékařů z Prahy je nutný’ [The Leave of the Non-Czech Physicians from Prague is a Necessity], in: Večer November 25, 1938; ‘Kdo není Čech nemá mezi lékaři místa!’ [There Is No Place for a Non-Czech Among the Physicians!], in: Večer December 16, 1938. For the situation in Moravia, see Zdeněk Štěpánek, Nacifikace a moravští lékaři (1939–1945) [Nazification and the Moravian Physicians, 1939–45] (= Knižnice Matice Moravské, Vol. 14), Brno: Matice Moravská, 2004: 126–153. 39 Jan Rychlík, Cestování do ciziny v habsburské monarchii a v Československu. Pasová, vízová a vystěhovalecká politika 1848–1989 [Travelling Abroad in the Habsburg Monarchy and in Czechoslovakia. Passport, Visa, and Emigration Policy in 1848–1989] (= Česká společnost po roce 1945, Vol. 4). Prague: ÚSD AV ČR 2007: 18–25. 40 Michal Šimůnek, „Mládí vpřed“ a lékařská fakulta v Praze [‘Youth Forward’ and the Prague Medical Faculty], in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Historia Universitatis 62(1–2) 2002: 105–123. 344 was understood only as a starting point, with the eventual aim of ensuring that “no positions important for German cultural policy are abolished and to win time needed for the eventual founding of new and a restructuring of existing universities.” 41 The German Embassy was supposed to mediate demands voiced by the rectors of German universities in the course of bilateral negotiations. In the same report, it is stated with respect to the German University that “the professors ... are partly superannuated, and largely pervaded by Jews and politically unreliable elements.”42 The long-term and short-term goals were defined as follows: “Hand in hand with this, universities should be led towards an inner change so as to become national-socialist institutes of education. But first of all, and as soon as possible, Jews, emigrants, and politically unreliable elements should be removed from the ranks of professors, assistants, doctors, and students.”43 Less than two weeks later, Ernst Otto, Rector of the German University, informed the German Embassy that Jewish professors were notified that they themselves should ask the Ministry to relieve them of their duties for one term, that is, that they should quit lecturing, resign from leading institutes and seminars, and examine only Jewish students. 44 At the same time, it was noted that “the result, which cannot be doubted, will be presented to the Ministry of Education [in Prague] for approval.” 45 Clearly, he did not rely in this matter on Prof. Jan Kapras (1880–1947), the new Minister of Education, who in his view offered “... no progress in personnel policy of the new Czech government”46 but rather on his section chiefs. From the same time we also have the only report on a planned protest of Jewish professors, which was supposed to be coordinated from the Prague German Technical University (Deutsche Technische Hochschule), and consisted of preparing a memorandum against the planned measures. 47 Probably at the same time, the Berlin Reich Ministry of Education (REM) received a detailed review of political views, racial origins, professional expertise, and some other data 41 Archives of the Auswärtiges Amt (hereinafter A AA) Berlin, Deutsche Gesandschaft Prag, b. 70, Dr. SchäferRümelin’s report, December 2, 1938. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., Otto to German Embassy, December 15, 1938. Examinations at the Faculty of Medicine started already on December 9, 1938. See ‘Die Prüfungen an der medizinischen Fakultät’, in: Bohemia, December 12, 1938. 45 A AA Berlin, Deutsche Gesandschaft Prag, b. 70, report of Dr. Schäfer-Rümelin, December 2, 1938. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., manuscript of an anonymous letter sent to the German Embassy, December 19, 1938. 345 related to all academics. 48 This information was in all likelihood supplied by relevant proNazi activist student organisations. Based on such profiles, each faculty member was assigned a ‘degree of reliability’ on a scale of 1 to 5, whereby Jewish origin invariably meant degree 5. 49 Degree 5 meant in effect the end of employment at the faculty as soon as possible. The first step, however, was taken already before this large-scale review was finished. In December 1938, it was decreed by the university that Jewish academics should be allowed to teach only Jewish students. 50 At the same time the priorities of the new Czecho-Slovak became known. In the area of education they tended to maintain ‘national culture’ and ‘Christian spirit’. 51 On December 22 the Government Council decided that professors of Jewish origin should be released: “Dr. Kapras, Czech Minister of Education, today informed the Jewish professors of the German University in Prague and of the German technical high schools of Prague and Brno that they are being given indefinite leave”.52 The Czech press mentioned ‘temporal repose for indeterminate time’ and added that similar measure should concern also the Jewish teachers at the German high schools in Bohemia and Moravia. 53 As one of the press-release pointed out the main reason behind this decision should be seen in the ‘willingness’ of the German government to take over the financing of these institutions in the future: “The German universities are frequented chiefly by SudetenGerman students, and the Reich will finance them if they will adapt themselves to Nazi racial standards”.54 On January 27, 1939 new rules for the state employees were adopted at the governmental level. 55 This was a measure that played a decisive role in the forced changes of the academic staff of the German University. 56 Within a short time of approximately one month (February), nearly all ‘undesirable’ professors and associate professors were forced to leave their positions. In a few cases, academics decided for a demonstrative action. For 48 BA Berlin, R 4901/12880, section concerning the Faculty of Medicine. 49 Ibid. 50 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 62. In 1931–31, for example, there were in total 3,316 students of Jewish origin inscribed at all Czechoslovak universities. See Franz Friedmann, Einige Zahlen über die tschechoslowakischen Juden. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der Judenheit (= Schriften zur Diss. Des Zionismus, Nr. 9), Prag: 1933, p. 17. 51 ‘Program a činy’ [Programe and Acts], in: Národní listy December 22, 1938. 52 ‘Anti-Jewish Decree in Prague – Professors to Go’, in: The Times December 23, 1938. See ‘In Prag die gleichen Sorgen’, in: Breslauer Neuste Nachrichten December 23, 1938. 53 ‘První řada vládních nařízení’ [The First Governmental Decrees], in: Národní listy December 24, 1938. 54 ‘Anti-Jewish Decree in Prague – Professors to Go’, in: The Times December 23, 1938. 55 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 62. 56 Ibid., p. 63. 346 example, Oskar Fischer, professor of psychiatry, renounced his venia legendi in January 1939 on his own accord. 57 Yet, although the academics thus dismissed received official letters of thanks signed by the Minister of Education, their future was highly insecure. This ‘clean-up operation’ (Reinigungsaktion), as it was called by the German decision makers, was the largest intervention in the composition of the academic community in Bohemia and Moravia before the shutting down the Czech universities in November 1939. 58 The official German report completed and distributed in May 1939 by Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942), then Chief of the German Security Service (SD), stated that of all the faculties of the German University, the Faculty of Medicine was most affected. 59 According to this report, some 58 Jewish teachers – or ‘unbearable teaching staff’ (untragbare Lehrkräfte) as they were called – were ‘removed’ (entfernt). The result was that only 6 from 20 professorships were filled, which meant that only 2 of 10 institutes and 6 of 12 clinics still had a head. 60 Under these circumstances, many professors and associate professors decided to leave the country. In general, they were facing the same basic problems their colleagues from Germany and/or Austria had to deal with before 61 but their position was complicated 57 A UK Prague, personal file O. Fischer, letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, January 5, 1939. 58 Petr Svobodný, Důsledky 17. listopadu 1939 pro české lékařské fakulty [Consequences of November 17, 1939 for Czech Medical Faculties], in: Časopis lékařů Českých 133(8) 1994: 245–248. See Tomáš Pasák, 17. listopad 1939 a Univerzita Karlova, Praha: Karolinum, 1997. 59 Míšková (2007), op. cit., p. 72–74. 60 BA Berlin, R43II/1324, Heydrich to Göring, Bormann, Scheel, Schultze, and Mentzel (REM), May 25, 1939, incl. Memorandum on the German University and German Technical University in Prague and Brno [Denkschrift über die Deutschen Universität Prag und die deutschen Technischen Hochschulen in Prag und Brünn], p. 9, 18. 61 Breitman, R. and Kraut, A. M., American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933–1945. Bloomington 1987; L. Londonová, Britská vláda a židovští uprchlíci z Československa [The British Government and Jewish Refugees from Czechoslovakia], in: Terezínské studie a dokumenty [Theresianstand Studies and Documents] 2003, p. 106–134. Cif. Heumos, P., Die Emigration aus der Tschechoslowakei nach Westeuropa und dem nahen Osten 1938–1945. Politisch-soziale Struktur, Organisation und Asylbedingungen, Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989; Weindling, P., Czechoslovak Medical Refugees in Great Britain During and After Second World War, in: A. Kostlán et al., Wissenschaft im Exil. Die Tschechoslowakei als Kreuzweg 1918–1989 (= Práce z dějin vědy, sv. 17), Prague 2004: 52–65; Hirschfeld, G., Zuflucht in Großbritanien. Zur Emigration deutschsprachiger Prager Wissenschaftler nach 1938, in: Becher, P. and Heumos, P., Drehscheibe Prag. Zur deutschen Emigration in der Tschechoslowakei 1933–1939, Munich: Oldenbourg, 1992: 75–86; Štrbáňová, S., Českoslovenští biochemici ve Velké Británii v letech 1939–1945 [Czechoslovak Biochemists in Great Britain in 1939–45], in: A. Kostlán ed., Semináře a studie k dějinám vědy [Seminars and Studies on the History of Science] (= Práce z dějin vědy, sv. 21), Prague 2009: 109–133; Krohn, C.-D., Handbuch der deutschsprachiger Emigration 1933–1945, Darmstadt: Primus-Verlag, 1998; Röder, W. and Strauss, H. A., Biographisches Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration nach 1933 = International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Emigrés 1933–1945 (1.-3.), Munich, K. G. Saur, 1999. Unfortunately this handbook contains only four persons namely T. Gruschka, F. Haurowitz, E. Singer 347 by the fact that they were part of a second large wave of emigration. 62 This markedly limited their chances of being received in another country and establishing a new career. At this stage, the Jewish academics faced a dilemma: Either they could stay and most likely face persecution or they leave and try to establish the new life abroad. Twelve professors of all ranks and fourteen associate professors chose the latter option and left. In each of these two groups there was one person who emigrated by not returning home from a fellowship received before September 1938. 63 In both groups were representatives of the following medical fields: ophthalmology, gynaecology, paediatrics, hygiene and social/labour medicine, medical, physical and pharmaceutical chemistry, dermatology, X-ray diagnostics, haematology, internal medicine, pathological anatomy and physiology, dentistry, and bacteriology. 64 The average age of the professors at the time of emigration was 50; among associate professors, the average age was 48. Vast majority of these academics emigrated in 1939, most probably before September 1939. 65 The information concerning precise dates of emigration is unfortunately incomplete. They settled in Europe (Great Britain 66, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey), North and South America (USA, Argentine), Africa (Egypt), Middle East (Palestine), and Australia. 67 Due to the nature of preserved archival sources, detailed information concerning the conditions of emigration is available only in a few of cases, mainly such where the physician and E. Starkenstein. See also Kostlán, A. and Štrbáňová, S., Czech Scholars in Exile, 1948–1989, in: Proceedings of the British Academy 169 2011: 239–256. 62 Juliane Wetzel, Auswanderung aus Deutschland, in: Benz, W. (ed), Die Juden in Deutschland 1933–1945. Leben unter nationalsozialistischer Herrschaft, München: C. H. Beck, 1989, pp. 413–431, 477–497. 63 See Table 1. 64 Ibid. 65 See Table 1. 66 See Jan Kuklík and Jana Čechurová, Czech Refugee Trust Fund a československá emigrace 1 [Czech Refugee Trust and Czechoslovak Emigration Pt. 1], in: Soudobé dějiny 14(1) 2007, pp. 9–43; Paul Weindling, Czechoslovak Medical Refugees in Great Britain during and after the Second World War, in: Kostlán, A. and Velková, A. (eds.), Wissenschaft im Exil. Die Tschechoslowakei als Kreuzweg 1918–1989 (= Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 17), Praha: VCDV, 2004, pp. 52–64, and Hana Velecká (2001), Britská pomoc uprchlíkům z Československa od okupace do vypuknutí války v roce 1939 [The British Help to Refugees from Czechoslovakia from the Occupation until the Outbreak of the Second World War in 1939], in: Soudobé dějiny 8(4) 2001, pp. 29–57. 67 Ibid. 348 was trying to take with him equipment needed for medical practice. From this, we might assume that only some of the emigrating doctors were hoping for a future career in academia or indeed medicine prior to the emigration. Table 1: Alphabetical Overview of Persons, Their Specialisations, Final Destinations, and Year of Emigration Name and Dates: Specialisation and Position: Final Date of Destination: Emigration (when known): ASCHER Karl Wolfgang (June 13, 1887 Prague – July 17, 1971 ophthalmology, extraordinary USA August 1939 gynaecology, Dozent (1927) USA July 1939 paediatrics, Dozent (1926) USA April 1939 hygiene/social medicine Palestine/ Israel 1939 Turkey 1939 USA 1938 professor (1937) Cincinnati, USA) BENDA Robert (June 24, 1890 Prague – 1947 declared dead) FRANK Max (July 27, 1894 Olomouc/Olmütz – March 8, 1970 San Francisco, USA) GRUSCHKA Theodor (June 27, 1888 Moravský Krumlov/Mährisch Kromau – June, 26, 1967 Jerusalem, Israel) HAUROWITZ Felix (March 1, 1896 Prague – December 2, 1987 Bloomington, USA) HECHT Hugo (July 23, 1883 Prague – February 1, 1970 professor (1939) medical chemismy extraordinary, professor (1939) dermatology, Privatdozent (1919) Cleveland, USA) 349 HERRNHEISER Gustav (6. 8. 1890 Prague – X-ray diagnostics, 13. 5. 1956, London, Great Britain) extraordinary professor (1938) JAROSCHY Wilhelm orthopaedics, extraordinary (16.4.1886 Prague – 1944 Auschwitz, Palestine, Egypt 1939 Norway 1939 The Netherlands 1939 Great Britain 1939 Argentine 1939 Great Britain 1939 USA 1938 dentistry, Dozent (1925) Great Britain ? ophthalmology, extraordinary Great Britain 1939 Great Britain 1939 USA 1939 professor (1937) currently Poland) JOHN Hans (July 27, 1891 Broumov/Braunau – February pharmaceutical chemistry, extraordinary professor (1934) 23, 1942 Deventer, NL) KAZNELSON Paul (April 7, 1892 Warsaw - 1959) KLEIN Otto (August 23, 1891 Plzeň/Pilsen – April 19, 1968 haematology/ internal medicine, Dozent (?) internal medicine, extraordinary professor (1933) Buenos Aires, Argentine) KLEIN Robert (November 10, 1895 psychiatrist/neurologist, Privatdozent (1932) Stráž/Neustadtl am Klinger – June 3, 1939 Birmingham, Great Britain) KRAUS Erik(ch) J. (March 12, 1887 Kolín/Kolin – January 17, pathological anatomy, extraordinary professor (1927) 1955 Peoria, USA) LOOS Anton (January 4, 1890 Žatec/Saaz – ?) LÖWENSTEIN Arnold (June 4, 1882 Karlovy Vary/Carlsbad – professor (1939) October 5, 1952 Glasgow, Great Britain) LÖWY Julius (May 1, 1885 Karlovy Vary/Carlsbad – occupational diseases, extraordinary professor (1928) November 15, 1944 London, Great Britain) RAAB Wilhelm pathological physiology, 350 (January 14, 1895 Vienna – September 21, Dozent (1936) 1970 Burlington, USA) REDISCH Walter internal medicine, Dozent USA 1938) (fellowship) Turkey 1939 Great Britain 1938 Australia 1939 hygiene, Dozent (1912) Great Britain ? STARKENSTEIN Emil (December 18, 1884 pharmacology and Netherlands March 1939 Poběžovice/ pharmacognosy, full professor USA 1938 (September 26, 1898 Prague – January 1, (1938?) 1993 New York, USA) internal medicine, Dozent REIMANN Friedrich (December 11, 1897 Mladkov/Wichstadtl – ?) (1937) REISS Maximilian pathological physiology, (May 1.5 1900 Stanislau, Ukraine – ?) SINGER Ernst (June 27, 1899 Prague – ?) SPÄT Wilhelm Dozent (1931) hygiene, extraordinary professor (1938) (March 14, 1874 Gródek, Poland – ?) Ronsperg – November 6, 1942 Mauthausen, (1929) Austria) WAELSCH Heinrich (January 20, 1905 Brno/Brünn – March 1966 physical chemistry, Dozent (1933) (fellowship) New York, USA) WEISER Egon Leopold internal medicine, Dozent (October 16, 1885 Bucharest, Romania – ?) (1923) WELEMINSKY (Joseph) Friedrich hygiene/bacteriology, Dozent (January 20, 1868 Golčův Jeníkov/Goltsch- ? 1939 Great Britain March 1939 (1900) Jenikau – ?) Based on the analysis of official documents, only two academics who applied for visas in 1939 were rejected. 68 Both of them were associate professors of psychiatry and neurology 68 NA Prague, files Police-Directorate of Prague. 351 and tried to emigrate to the USA. These were Erwin Hirsch (1888–1944) and Franz Münzer (1895–1944). Both were killed in 1944 in Auschwitz. And last but not least, there are two cases of persons who first emigrated successfully but were captured later in the countries they chose. They belonged to the group of ‘double emigrants’, those who were successful at first but less fortunate later. Let us have a closer look at one of these tragic stories: Wilhelm Jaroschy was born in Prague on April 4, 1886 in a family of a general practitioner Dr. Gustav Jaroschy and his wife Stephanie, née Kohn; he had one younger brother, Stephana. In 1940, he married Mariane Koblischek. He was of Jewish faither and viewed himself as belonging to the German nationality. Jaroschy attended a German Gymnasium in Štěpánská Street in Prague, where he graduated on July 13, 1904. Then he went on to study medicine at the Medical Faculty of the Prague German University. He completed his studies on December 2, 1909, and from April 1, 1912 until June 30, 1913 worked as a junior doctor at the General Hospital in Prague. After a six months internship at Professor Fritz Lange’s orthopaedic clinic in Munich, he returned, shortly before the outbreak of WWI, to Prague. During the war, Wilhelm Jaroschy served first at the reserve hospital of the Austrian Red Cross in Prague, at its orthopaedic unit which he helped establish. Since spring 1915, he worked for two years as a chief surgeon of the orthopaedic unit of the Prague garrison hospital No. 11. This unit also provided rehabilitation and produced prosthetic aids. Then Jaroschy shortly served in an orthopaedic hospital in Vienna and in April 1917 was deployed at the war front. In November 1918, he was demobilised with the rank of first lieutenant of the health service and returned to the post of assistant surgeon at Professor Viktor Lieblein’s surgical clinic. He continued working there until his forced resignation in 1939. In the autumn of 1928, Wilhelm Jaroschy applied for venia legendi in the area of orthopaedic surgery, which was granted to him on September 13, 1928. His habilitation work consisted of interconnected studies Ueber Spätschädigungen des Rückenmarkes bei kongenitaler Skoliose und ihre operative Behandlung (Beiträge zur klinischen Chirurgie 129, 123) and Ueber Spätschädigungen des Rückenmarkes (Kompressionsmyelitis) bei Schwerin Skoliosen (Beiträge zur klinischen Chirurgie 142, 1928). He held his habilitation lecture on June 21, 1928 on the subject of ‘Frühdiagnose der Spondylitis und Therapie derselben’. 352 Because he was qualifying for a clinical and surgical field, the assessment also included his practical surgical abilities, which were found to be excellent. His ability as a surgeon was further attested by a marked increase in the numbers of patients he treated at the clinic. As a Privatdozent he lectured mainly on introduction into orthopaedic medicine. By the decision of the President of the Republic of March 6, 1937, he was appointed an unsalaried extraordinary professor of orthopaedic surgery; at the medical faculty, he thus continued working as an assistant without a salary. At the same time, he also taught at the Mining College in Příbram/Przibram. From May 1, 1919, until he was moved out in 1939, Jaroschy also had a private practice in orthopaedic surgery in Salmovská Street 6, in Prague II. He specialised mainly in issues related to damage of the spinal cord in severe cases of congenital and rachitic scoliosis. This interest is testified already by the subject of his habilitation work, which dealt with then still little explored area of operative treatment of spinal cord. Before qualifying as an orthopaedic surgeon, Jaroschy published some nineteen articles and presented, mainly in an association of German surgeons in Prague, approximately thirty original contributions. Most of these were case reports. Among his early work, we find the article Zur Kenntnis des klinischen Bildes der Chondrodystrophia foetal (Beiträge zur klinischen Chirurgie 37, 1913), where he presented not only a description of foetal chondrodystrophy but also investigated possible hereditary influences. After a forced break due to the war and military deployment, Wilhelm Jaroschy focused on a comprehensive study on Fortschritte in der Behandlung der sog. Typischen Radiusfraktor (Medizinische Klinik 17, 1922), where he also suggested various treatment methods. In the 1920s, he also carried out experimental research in collaboration with the Institute of Physiology of the Medical Faculty of the German University (Armin von TschermakSeysenegg). He summarised his results in article called Experimentelle Beiträge zur afferenten Innervation der Gelenke beim Kanninchen (Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie 15, 1925). One year later, he presented an extensive study on Spondylolisthesis lumbosacralis (Beiträge zur klinischen Chirurgie 40, 1926), where he presented important new facts going far beyond the practical experience which obstetricians has with this phenomenon. On chronic ailments of joints he published a practically oriented study Zur Frage der operativen Behandlung der chronischen nicht spezifischen Gelenkserkrankungen (Medizinische Klinik 22, 1927). He was also interested in, for example, in epiphyseal clefts of the tibia and the ulna. After habilitation, he focused, among other things, on a study of 353 symptoms presenting in X-ray images, which helped him in early diagnosis of Bekhterev’s disease (ankylosing spondylitis) and the pathogenesis of trophedema. Since 1920, Jaroschy was the second vice-chairman of Masonic lodge Harmonia in Prague. Even before the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, Wilhelm Jaroschy had to resign on January 25, 1939 (as of February 2). On March 7, 1939, he applied for an emigration visa, and November 7, 1939, he managed leave to Oslo and settle in Thomas Heftyes gate. He was even able to take with him the equipment of his medical practice. After the Norwegian government, which collaborated with Nazi Germany, issued in February 1942 an order to arrest all adult men of Jewish origin, Wilhelm Jaroschy managed to find with the help of Norwegian resistance a hiding place for himself and his wife. From there, he tried to escape in November 1942 to neutral Switzerland. Unfortunately, he failed, was captured by a German patrol, and transported from Norway to Berlin. Wilhelm Jaroschy was deported on March 2, 1943, with the 32nd Jewish transport from Berlin to the extermination camp in Auschwitz, where he was one day later, on March 3, 1943, at the age of not quite 57 years murdered in a gas chamber. Conclusion The Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague belonged to the most distinguished academic institutions in Bohemia and Moravia. Since the last decades of the 19th century, which saw a full civil emancipation of Jews in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and even more so after the establishment of Czechoslovakia, this institution was attractive to Jewish academics and they were represented in high numbers. But already before the Munich Crisis of 1938, this group became target of Nazi propaganda. Within a few months of the Munich Dictate, all academics of Jewish origin, especially those belonging to ‘top academic staff’ were dismissed from their positions. We can observe here a concurrence of several parallel processes that led to the emigration of a significant part of the medical elite of former Czechoslovakia. We can also discern two kinds of emigration: some academics succeeded in leaving in country already 354 prior to 1938, mostly by staying on in a foreign country where they had fellowships; others went in the ‘second wave’ already in changed conditions of rising Nazi influence and later, after German occupation, fleeing direct Nazi rule. A total of 12 professors of all ranks and 14 associate professors of the Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague emigrated. In each of the two groups there was one person who left by not returning home from a fellowship that started prior to September 1938. 69 As far as we know, all of the academics from the Faculty of Medicine emigrated before September 1939. They settled all around Europe (Great Britain, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey), North and South America (USA, Argentine), Africa (Egypt), Middle East (Palestine), and Australia. 69 See Table 1. 355 Appendixes: Figure 1 – This figure refers to situation shortly after September 1938 (Munich Crisis), i.e. winter semester 1938/39. 356 Figure 2 – This figure refers to situation after September 1938 (Munich Dictate), i.e., winter semester 1938/39. 357 Figure 3 – In some cases, the exact date of emigration is unknown. This figure includes two cases of leaving by not returning from a fellowship received before September 1938. 358 Figure 4 – This figure does not include ‘transit’ countries. It does include cases where emigration ‘failed’ because Nazi Germany went on to occupy further parts of Europe (Netherlands, Norway). 359 Figure 5 – The category of ‘Stayed’ includes only the relevant academic staff present in winter term of 1938/39. It does not include academics appointed in summer term 1939 and later. Category ‘Killed’ includes also persons who committed a suicide in consequence of imminent threat of Nazi persecution. By ‘Survived/Returned’ we understand academics who survived the Nazi persecution. In these cases, however, we do not take into account possible further emigration after 1945. 360 Figure 6 – The category of ‘Stayed’ includes only the relevant academic staff present in winter term of 1938/39. It does not include academics appointed in summer term 1939 and later. Category ‘Killed’ includes also persons who committed a suicide in consequence of imminent threat of Nazi persecution. By ‘Survived/Returned’ we understand academics who survived the Nazi persecution. In these cases, however, we do not take into account possible further emigration after 1945. ♦♦♦ 361 Women Scholars in Exile Soňa Štrbáňová The gender aspect of scientific exile has not been investigated in more detail as yet. The database of the Czech university educated workers of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (CSAS) who left for exile before 1989 shows that only about 22% of them were women. The statistics further demonstrate that the highest numbers of émigré women came from the social sciences and life sciences (about 30% each), while only 13% from the technical sciences. In the encyclopaedia “One Hundred Czech Scholars in Exile” (Prague: Academia, 2011), which records biographies of 100 top-notch Czech exile scholars from the CSAS, only nine belong to women; such low number apparently reflects the lower scientific achievements of women academics in exile. Although it is evident that the chances of men and women under such exceptional conditions were not equal, the issue of scientific careers of émigré women scholars is apparently a quite complex one. The paper attempts to analyse it by investigating the biographies in the encyclopaedia, interviews with women scholars, and other sources indicative of personal experience of women academics that left for exile. Motto: “A woman must be twice as good as a man to win the contest.” From the interview with a Czech émigré woman scholar Our deliberations on different aspects of the scientific exile are mostly based on sources and data related primarily to the destinies and experience of men academics. However, the individual biographies of exile scholars reveal that women, mostly their wives and partners, often with high academic qualifications, had accompanied them to exile but we do not know in most cases what were their further destinies and many of them remain anonymous. Especially after WW2, a great number of women who left for exile ere university educated. We have some evidence that before their emigration they had been researchers with publications, but after their departure abroad their names had suddenly disappeared from the awareness of the scientific community. In some cases we know, sometimes we only guess that in the new environment they were not able to build on the previous achievements, or even had to abandon their original professions and fell into oblivion. Although this is true mainly about married women, this also happened to those who left for emigration as singles or divorced. On the other hand, history records women scholars who won the highest recognition after emigration in their new home-countries, like the notorious Nobel Prize Winners Marie Curie or Gerty Cori. 362 Questions asked The randomly recorded examples of successful and unsuccessful émigré or exile women scholars make us to ask what have been those factors causing the difference in the career trajectories of men and women under the specific conditions of exile? Are these differences already hidden in the decision process related to the departure for exile? What are the specific barriers, if there exist any, standing between women and their new careers under the conditions of forced migration? Do men and women have different chances to succeed in these exceptional conditions? Can we speak about any specific favorable conditions that support the further careers of women in exile? These are just part of the numerous related to the gender aspect of scientific exile which are still waiting for their answers mainly because almost no research has been done on this direction and still no reliable statistics, gender related records or other data stemming from systematic research or comparative studies are available. Some data on women émigrés from the research project “Czech Scholars in Exile 1948-1989” To help filling this gap, I have attempted to examine in this paper some data coming from the research project focused especially on a defined group of scholars who emigrated from the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in the years 1953-1989. The database which is still in preparation shows that among the 720 university educated émigrés from the CSAS about 22% were women. Most of them came from the life sciences and humanities, that is approx. 30% each, while from chemistry, inanimate and technical sciences came only about 13-15% each. 363 Tab 1. Exile Women Scholars in the Individual Branches Field No. of women Total No. of Percentage of Women selected exiles women exiles for the Encyclopaedia Life Sciences 51 146 35 5 Chemistry 29 200 14 3 31 199 15 0 Technical Sciences 7 53 13 0 Humanities and Social 38 122 31 1 156 720 22 9 Maths, Physics and Earth Sciences Sciences Total The 22% of women émigrés is slightly less than the share of university educated women at the CSAS which was in 1967 about 24 % 1. Their distribution in various fields most probably reflects the actual representation of women in these branches in CSAS in the 1960s. A slightly different picture of the opportunities and achievements of the Czech women scholars in exile provides the recently published encyclopaedia “One Hundred Czech Scholars in Exile” 2 which records biographies of 100 top-notch Czech exile scholars from the CSAS. This selected group of scholar only lists 9 exceptionally successful women out of the 100 total: 8 from the life and chemical sciences and one in the humanities. More detailed investigation of personal careers randomly selected from this book can offer us a better insight into the achievements and problems of women scholars in exile. The physiologist Professor Olga Hudlická (born 1926), specializing on the physiology of the cardiovascular system, from the Prague Institute of Physiology CSAS emigrated with her husband – a medical doctor, and two children in 1969. She achieved a high position at 1 A. Kostlán, Cesta vědců do exili. In: S. Štrbáňová, A. Kostlán (ed.), Sto českých vědců v exilu. Praha: Academia 2011, p. 19-207; for women exiles see p. 87-88. 2 S. Štrbáňová, A. Kostlán (ed.), Sto českých vědců v exilu. Praha: Academia 2011. 364 the Department of Physiology, University of Birmingham and also became President of the British Microcirculatory Society The microbiologist Professor Helena Kopecká (born 1931) from the Institute of Microbiology CSAS left Czechoslovakia in 1968 as a divorced woman with her two children aged 5 and 12 and anchored in Strasbourg. As an outstanding virologist, she eventually became directeur de recherche at CNRS and head of the molecular virology research group at the Pasteur Institute. The parallel biographies of the botanists Marcel Rejmánek (born 1946) and Eliška Rejmánková (born 1947) reveal that they have been schoolmates, partners and collaborators from their early youth. After a their studies and complicated start of their career due to the political situation they both ended in different institutes of the CSAS: Eliška in the Botanical Institute, Marcel in the Institute of Entomology. Their relation has withstood political oppression and temporary separation, and when they eventually decided for emigration in 1983 with two little sons aged 8 and 3, they also endured the initial difficulties of exile. Both hold today professorships at the University of California in Davis. Marcel studies the risk of invasions by plants, Eliska focuses on the structure and functions of wetlands of California and Central America and malaria vectors in Central America. A more detailed investigation of selected 44 biographies of scholars, mostly men, from life and chemical sciences, whose biographies are in the above mentioned encyclopaedia, has revealed that twenty one men and women, that is almost half of these exceptionally successful scholars had university educated partners with whom they fled from Czechoslovakia. What is even more noteworthy, 18 out of these 21 were not only spouses of the mentioned scholars, but at the same time used to be in Czechoslovakia their colleagues or even direct collaborators. Now we may rightly ask again what happened to these university educated women after their emigration to the West? How many of these women were able to continue successfully their career? The biographies disclose that while almost all husbands of the top-notch women academics (with the exception of one) built in exile on their original profession, the situation of the “wives” was different. Among the women academics who left for exile as “wives” five 365 out of 14, that is approximately one third, could not establish themselves abroad in their profession. And still several of the remaining nine who were lucky enough to continue working in their occupation remained in the shadow of their husbands and never achieved the same positions and awards. How can we interpret these facts? As some of the contemporaries witness, in the demanding time of exile, it was mostly the man who started to build his career abroad often because his previous contacts facilitated his establishment and guaranteed the survival of the family in the new environment. The wife, although well qualified was expected to take care of the family and provide the background service to the man and children. This can explain the reality that just a few women academics achieved in exile accomplishment that qualified them for inclusion among the top 100 in our Encyclopaedia. The other reason was that after emigration the men as a rule did not settle down immediately; the spouses had to change workplaces and it was mostly the woman who followed in the man’s footsteps because it was often impossible to find in the same place qualified positions for both. The biographies of equally successful spouses document that deliberate effort to find adequate jobs for both in the same place or institution had some influence on extraordinary success of both the wife and husband. In exceptional cases, like it happened with the physiologist Hudlická or the chemist Jan Pohl (born 1952), the “scholar” conformed with the “non-scholar” partner’s professional needs and took a position which made it easier for the partner to apply for a qualified job. Interviews with women scholars have disclosed that the high competition in the research institutions in the West was one of the factors that made the careers of women in the new environment particularly demanding due to the necessity of harmonizing the care for children with pursuing scholarly career and carry out competitive work while building the new household from the scratch. In case of single women scholar who fled with children, this competitive atmosphere was particularly momentous factor in influencing the further career. Naturally, such obstacles stood in front of both men and women in the new environments. But as one of the interviewed women scholars told me: “A women must be twice as good as a man to win the contest”. 366 Some couples failed to overcome the barriers jointly and the difficulties led to divorces. In many cases in exile the erudite wives had to give up their ambitions and find jobs outside their fields. This is for instance the case of the spouses astronomers Švestka, both specialists in solar physics who worked many years side by side at the Ondřejov Observatory of the Astronomical Institute near Prague. After emigration to Utrecht in the Netherlands, where Zdeněk Švestka (bor 1925) made a stellar career, his the wife, Ludmila Švestková had to leave her profession and make money by giving piano lessons. The new career proved to be particularly successful as in the case of Radmila Zuman, wife and at home close collaborator of the physical chemist – polarographist Petr Zuman (born 1926). Radmila Zuman after emigration to England developed her own method of making artistic bobbin lace jewellery from silver wire which eventually has made her fame. Can this be considered success in exile? Conclusions Until now, we only have little knowledge of the specific problems of women scholars in emigration. We have at our disposal just a few incomplete numbers instructive in tracking the fates of women scholars and their partner and families in exile. However, besides the numbers, we also must keep in mind the uniqueness of individual personal fates; whose investigations can throw more light on the gender related issues of exile studies. This purpose can serve well structured biographies and personal narratives, followed, however, by well substantiated analyses and generalizations. I have realized how useful these biographies are in deliberations about the specificity of the emplacement of women scholars both in the conditions of the communist regime and the circumstances of exile and realized how leaky still our knowledge about it is. I wish we had more biographies of exile scholar couples and interviews with women scholars. Just now we can generalize reliably only very little. It is obvious that in their careers women still face in exile more barriers than men, but we are not able to outline with sufficient accuracy the specific conditions of women scholars in exile in terms of scientific success or failure. Those few but fascinating interviews we have made already bear witness 367 not only of the barriers but also opportunities and scientific achievements of women in extremely hard conditions. They tell us about the courage of women with extraordinary mental strength and talent who were able to overcome the handicap of the communist regime, adapt to the foreign culture, withstand the fierce competition, and simultaneously assist their families in the most demanding period of their existence, bring up their children (even as single women) and still in some cases cope with divorce, husband’s illness or death, or loss of children. Many of them had to interrupt or slow down their careers, but others could make use of the opportunities of the free world and achieve scientific positions they would not have dreamt about in the communist system. 368 Nemeses of "First Wave "of Russian scientific emigration in Europe after the Second World War Tatiana Ulyankina In May 1945, a mass repatriation of Russian citizens was taking place in Europe. It was carried out by NKVD at the border filtration camps and especially at «DP» (displaced persons) сamps on the German, Austrian, Italian territory (controlled by the USA and Great Britain), numbering hundreds of thousands refugees of the Second World War. Among them there were a lot of scholars and scientists – emigrants of the post – October period – who had left Russia in the 1920-th as Russians (not Soviets) and having either «Nansen's» passports or the passports of the East or Central Europe countries, already occupied by the Soviet troops. Many of them had to wait what the future may bring them in store, for several years constantly feeling fear and being under the sword of Damocles. A number of international organizations took an active part in the destinies of those people, like The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration –UNRRA, the International Refugee Organization - IRO and others. However, the most effective action to rescue the Russians from repatriation in Europe and to assist them to the USA was taken by so called Tolstoy Foundation in New York. It was created in 1939 by Alexandra L. Tolstoy (1884-1979), the youngest daughter of the famous Russian writer and thinker Leo Tolstoy. In the course of work under the project “Russian scientists – emigrants of the ‘first wave’ in Europe 1940s-1950s” most part of the documents from American archives: The Archive of Russian Academic Group in the USA, Kinnelon (New Jersey); The Archive of Tolstoy Foundation, Valley Cottage (New York); Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture, The Columbia University, New York (New York) have been elaborated. After they became the structural part of the monograph “The Wild Historical Period: The Fate of the Russian scientific emigration in the 1940s – 1950s in Europe” (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010). For a long time the history of severe and illegal repressions of Soviet authorities against Russians who landed in Germany and other European countries after the Second World War was among the most important state secrets in USSR 1 Until August 1991 it was strictly forbidden to publish documents on enormous scale of extermination by the Stalinist leadership of its own citizens who were prisoners of war or lived at the occupied territory. 1 Наумов В.П. Судьба военнопленных и депортированных граждан СССР. Материалы Комиссии по реабилитации жертв политических репрессий // Новая и новейшая история. 1996. № 2. С. 91.Naumov, V. P. The fate of prisoners of war and deported citizens of the USSR. Proceedings of the Commission for Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression // Modern and Contemporary History. 1996. № 2. P. 91 369 On January 24 of 1995, Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed a decree "On the restoration of lawful rights of Russian citizens – former Soviet prisoners of war and civilians, who were repatriated during the Great Patriotic War and the postwar period" 2. Thereafter the documents from special storage in Russian archives have been gradually introduced into scientific circulation. In 2010, thanks to a grant of Russian Foundation for Humanities (Moscow), I published a book "Дикая историческая полоса: Судьбы российской научной эмиграции в Европе в 1940-1950"("A Wild Historic Period: The Fate of Russian Scientific Emigration in Europe in 1940-1950-s") 3, for which I used the documents from the so-called "Russian Archives" of the United States of America 4 and Russian Émigré Historical Archives in Prague (REHA) 5 2 Советский фактор в Восточной Европе. 1944-1953. Т. 1. 1944-1948. Документы / Отв. ред. Т.В. Волокитина. М: РОССПЭН. 1999. С. 7. См. также: Восточная Европа в документах российских архивов. 1944-1953 гг. Т. 1-2. М.- Новосибирск, 1997-1998; Мурашко Г.П., Носкова А.Ф. Советский фактор в послевоенной Европе. 1945-1948 // Советская внешняя политика в годы "холодной войны": 1945-1985. Новое прочтение. М.: Международные отношения, 1995; Ионцев В.А., Лебедева Н. М., Назаров М.В., Окороков А.В. Эмиграция и репатриация в России. М.: Попечительство о нуждах российских репатриантов, 2001. The Soviet Factor in Eastern Europe. 1944-1953. T. 1. 1944-1948. Documents / Ed. T.V. Volokitina. M: ROSSPEN. 1999. C. 7. See also: Eastern Europe in the documents of the Russian archives. 1944-1953. T. 1-2. M Novosibirsk, 1997-1998; Murashko G.P., Noskov, A.F. The Soviet factor in postwar Europe. 1945-1948 // Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War: 1945-1985. New reading. M: International Relations, 1995; Iontsev V.A., Lebedeva N.M., Nazarov M.V., Okorokov A.B. Emigration and repatriation in Russia. M.:Fund for Assistance of Russian emigrants, 2001; Vernan J. The Refugee in the Post-War World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. 3 For the title of this book I used a quotation from the letter of the Russian emigrant journalist-E.D. Kuskova, addressed to the former ambassador of the Provisional Government in the U.S.A, B.A. Bakhmeteff (November 18, 1948 )//BAR- Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture. The Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University (New York, NY). B.A. Bakhmeteff’s Collection. Box 5. Correspondence. Kuskova E.D. 4 The Archives of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the USA (AARAS) represent a big collection of documents (from above 5000), manuscripts, reports, letters, bulletins, reports of sessions, collected during Group activity in post-war years: from 1948 until 2007. The Archive is preserved in the private house in Kinnelon (New Jersey). Officially, the AARAS is not opened yet for research work. The Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture of the Rare Book and Manuscript Library in Columbia University, New York (NY) is known among historians as the "Bakhmeteff Archive" (BAR). See: "Russia in the Twentieth Century. The Catalog of the Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture.The Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University”. G. K. Hall & Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 1987. The Archives of the Tolstoy Foundation (ATF; Valley Cottage, NY) contain one of the richest collections of Russian documents of military and Post-war time in the USA. It is located in a separate building on the territory 370 THE ARCHIVAL COLLECTIONS ON RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS-ÉMIGRÉ 1. AARAS – The Archives of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the USA (Кinnelon, NJ) 2. ATF – The Archives of the Tolstoy Foundation (Valley Cottage, NY) 3. BAR – The Bakhmeteff Archives of Russian and East European History and Culture. The Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University. New York, NY) 4. AHIWRP –The Archives of Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace (Palo Alto, Ca.) 5. REHA – Russian Émigré Historical Archives in Prague (GARF, Moscow, Russia). The book " The Wild Historic Period: The fate of Russian scientific emigration in Europe in 1940-1950-s" is dedicated to scientists, university lecturers, engineers, medical doctors and representatives of other creative professions who survived in Europe before, during and after the Second World. Throughout the Second World War the majority of Russian immigrants hoped that the successes of the Soviet Army could dramatically change the policy of the USSR with regard to emigrants and those, finally, can return home. Contrary to common sense and despite the enormous demographic, financials and intellectual losses caused by the last war, the Soviet Union turned a new round of the repressions. The Government of the Soviet Union continued to impose a policy of hatred towards the West and to the Russians, who survived in the exile. It is true that in June of 1946 a "Decree on Amnesty" was issued, that allowed the former citizens of the Russian Empire to accept the Soviet citizenship. But in practice, this document had no effect on the solution the fate of Russian emigrants. The of the Tolstoy Foundation. Now, owing to sharp reduction of financing of the organization, research work with archive documents is almost stopped. 5 In 1945 Russian Émigré Historical Archives in Prague (REHA) had been taken to Moscow in 1945. Later the Archives were administered by the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF, Moscow). 371 attitude toward them was determined by the concept of inevitability of punishment for "uncontrolled stay abroad" 6 . The basic document for the process of mass repatriation, which lasted from May 1945 until March 1953 was the "Plan of transmission through the line of troops of the former prisoners of war and civilians liberated by the Red Army and Allied forces. The exceptions were for the inhabitants of the countries whose territory was annexed by the USSR in 1939-1940. In practice, all of them, who had been a Russian, including the emigrants of the first wave (who left Russia after the October 1917 and the Civil War) were sent to the USSR by the Soviet Repatriation Commission (SRC). Any exceptions were very rare. In April 1945, at the meeting of the NKVD, Lavrentii P. Berija explained that " there isn't difference among the arrested captives or captives left voluntarily, " and that " each of them remained in the hands of the Soviet Union's opponents could do more harm than a thousand of saboteurs inside our country" 7 As the former Soviet prisoners, I. A. Dugas and F. Y. Cheron, wrote: "The members of the SRC were the professional security officers…. They represented the organization named "SMERSH" 8. Resorting to treats, intimidation, false assurances, they have played a leading role in the massive repatriation of Russians in the first five months of the Post -war time" 9. Some Russian scientists-emigrants left Europe using for this purpose the different channels. So, in 1933–1941, thanks to Prof. Alvin S. Johnson (photo 1. Prof. Alvin S. Johnson. On the right is a text of an article in an American newspaper " New York Times". The article informs about allocation of funds for transportation of scientists – refugees from Nazi-occupied countries in Europe), who has opened in 1933 the "University of Exile" at the "New School of 6 Земсков В.Н. Репатриация советских граждан и их дальнейшая судьба (1944–1956 гг.) // Социологические исследования, 1995. № 6. С. 3–13. Zemskov V. N. Repatriation of the Soviet citizens and their future (1944-1956) // The Sociological Studies, 1995. N 6. P. 3-13. 7 Ершов В. Репатриация // Новый журнал (Нью-Йорк), 1953. № 3. С. 204–205. Ershov V. Repatriation // New Journal (New York), 1953. N. 3. P. 204-205. 8 „SMERSH" („Death to Spies!") is a special department of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and the Narcomat of the Defence in the USSR .After 1944 "SMERSH" has conducted the repatriation of Soviet and former Russian citizens who had remained in Europe. See: Наумов В.П. Судьба военнопленных и депортированных граждан СССР. С. 91. Naumov, V.P. The fate of prisoners of war and deported citizens of the USSR. P. 91. 9 Дугас И.А., Черон Ф.Я. Советские военнопленные в немецких лагерях (1941–1945). М.: Авуар Консалтинг, 2003. C. 261. Dugas, I.A., Cheron F.Ya. Soviet POWs in the German camps (1941-1945). M.:Avuar Consulting, 2003. C. 261. 372 Advanced Study" in New York, a group of Russian scientists-emigrants with the offensive of Nazism years could move to the United States of America. The invitations to work in the USA were made out on the basis of the scientific grants financed by Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. One of such list of Russian professors -grantees of 1941 there was found in A. Johnson's correspondence with Alexandra Tolstoy- the president of the Tolstoy Foundation (Valley Cottage, NY) 10. The invitations were received by: Bichermann I. I. – historian of antiquity; Ephrussi В. S. – genetics; Gurvitch G. D. – lawer, sociologist; Jankelevitch V. – philosopher, musician; Kraitchik M. B. – mathematician; Michelson L. M. – artist, art critic; Mirkine-Guetzevitch B. S. – a scientist of law; Unbegaun B. G. – linguist, historian, philologist. Unfortunately, Unbegaun (photo 2) hadn't a time to get Johnson's invitation – he was arrested by the Nazis (1943) and placed in the concentration camp "Buhenwald", as a political prisoner. Only in May of 1945 Unbegaun was released by American troops and after this he taught in Strasbourg, Brussels, Oxford and New York. The following photo 3 is a portrait of other grantee – linguists Roman Osipovitch Yakobson. Many Russian scholars-émigré populated camps for the so-called “displaced persons "(DPs). These camps were opened by the special organization – The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) 11. It was created by participants of Anti-Hitler Coalition during the Second World War (on November 9, 1943 in Washington, DC) for helping people, freed from the German and Japanese occupation. With the end of the Second World War the power of this organization greatly enhanced. Until July 1, 1947 the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration’s competence included such general tasks as : 1) DP's identification and registration; 2) their repatriation (voluntary and forced); 10 A. Johnson - A. L. Tolstoy. May, 23 of 1941// The Archives of the Tolstoy Foundation, Inc. (ATF). Box "Organizations". File "Aids Refugee Scholars". 11 UNRRA – United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration – United Nations Administration on restoration and the help. This international organisation has been created during the Second World War by the states - participants of an Antihitlerite coalition for the purpose of rendering assistance to the population of the countries, the released from fascist and Japanese occupation. The contract on the creation УНРРА has been signed on November, 9th 1943 in Washington . 373 3) their moral and material support. From July 1, 1947, with the growth of the "Cold War", to these problems were added new ones. They laid "on the shoulders" of UNRRA successor, the organization called IRO (The International Organization of Refugees). New tasks included: 4) DP's patronage (legal and political); 5) DP transportation to another country; 6) DP accommodation at the new place. According to Malcolm J. Proudfoot – the author of the book "European Refugees, 1939 – 1952. A Study in Forced Population Movement", on September 30 of 1945 the total number of DP’s in Europe, registered by UNRRA, was 1.888.401 12. On July 1, 1947, when UNRRA was replaced by IRO, there were 712.675 refugees in DP camps13. Two years later (on June 30, 1949) only 2.659 people remained there 14. Although IRO had to cease its activity in 1951, this happened a year later (by mid-1952). It was replaced by Institute (Bureau) of UN High Commissioner for Refugees, established in 1951. The Commissioner acted in accordance with Article number 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to seek and find refuge from persecution in other countries" adopted by the UN on December 10, 1948 15. By July 28, 1951 the Convention on adoption of the Declaration was signed by 28 states. It was not signed by the Soviet Union and other countries of the Warsaw Pact 16. According to M. Proudfoot, there were at least one thousand DP-camps established by UNRRA in postwar Europe. In June, 1947 there were 416 camps in American zone of the occupied Germany. Most of them were in British Zone – 443 (as of December 1946), whereas in French zone – 78, in Austria – 38; in Italy – 19 camps 17. 12 Proudfoot M.J. European Refugees, 1939–1952. A Study in Forced Population Movement. L. : Faber &. Faber. Schechtman, J. B. 1956. P. 99. 13 Proudfoot M.J. European Refugees. P. 257. 14 Ibid. P. 401. 15 Universal Declaration of Rights. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. 16 The American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 1957. Vol. 51. № 2. P. 356–357. 17 Proudfoot M.J. European Refugees. P. 212. 374 Most of Russian professors of European universities passed over the UNRRA and IRO camps, since the status of DP more reliably protected against their forced repatriation by Soviet Repatriation Commissions. Having survived under the protection of UNRRA (from 1947 – IRO) hard and hungry years (1945-1952) in Displaced Persons camps in Germany, Austria, Italy and France, they finally received permission to move to the U.S., South America, Canada, Australia and other countries. In the book "The Wild Historical Period: The Fate of Russian Scientific Emigration in Europe in 1940–1950-s” there were collected about 400 biographies of Russian scientists who had passed through DP-camps in 1940–1950-s in Europe. This list is not complete yet. Below you can see the names of well-known specialists from the group passed through DP-camps:  economist and statistician A. D. Bilimovich,  hydrologist K.G. Belousov (photo 4),  lawyer and historian of state and administrative law A.A. Bogolepov  botanist and pharmacist G. K. Brizhitsky,  chemist P. I. Walden,  theologian S. S. Verkhovsky,  economist V. F. Gefding,  lawyer A. V. Zen’kovskiy  economist S. A. Zen’kovskiy,  astronomer and geophysicist V. S. Zhardetsky,  economist and statistician D. N. Ivantsov,  botanist V. S. Il’yin,  entomologist N. A. Kormilev,  aircraft designer A. A. Lebedev,  philosopher S. A. Levitsky (photo 5), 375  botanist V. V. Lepyoshkin,  lawyer L. F. Magerovsky (photo 6),  theologian V. A. Majewski,  mining engineer A. N. Mitinskij,  zoologist and comparative anatomist M. M. Novikov (photo 7),  soil scientist B. N. Odintsov,  historian S. G. Pushkarev (photo 8),  engineer and metallurgist N.N. Savvin (Savin),  surveyor I. S. Svishtov,  chemist J.A. Sementsov,  lawyer E.V. Spektorsky (photo 9),  philosopher, sociologist and historian F.A. Stepun (photo 10)  historian N. I. Ulyanov,  linguist, historian and philosopher, D. I. Chizhevsky (photo 11),  anatomist K. Z. Yatsuta However, the most effective action to rescue the Russians from repatriation in Europe and to assist them to the USA was taken by so called Tolstoy Foundation in New York. It was created in 1939 by Alexandra L. Tolstoy (1884–1979; photo 12), the youngest daughter of the famous Russian writer and thinker Leo Tolstoy. Nemeses of Russian scientists in Europe in 1945 –1952. 1. received DP-status, and left Europe in 1945–1952; 2. «returnees», who where returned to USSR voluntary; 376 3. «returnees», who where forcibly repatriated to the USSR; 4. stayed in Eastern and Central Europe with deprivation of civil rights; 6. stayed in Western European countries without deprivation of civil rights. The last group in this list are the scientists who stayed in Western European countries (from 1949 – NATO countries – North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries). They were not deprived of civil rights as was often the case in Eastern and Central European states (for example - Czechoslovakia), which were strongly influenced by the Soviet Union. We can agree with prof. E.L. Magerovsky whose entire family fled from Prague on 9 May of 1945, that "human evil is ubiquitous and can up-end all usual guarantees of privacy and security of citizens, especially in the small states.18" One of those who managed to stay in Western Europe was a philosopher, sociologist, and literary critic Fodor Avgustovich Stepun . From 1947 to 1965 he was a professor at the Department of Russian Culture of Munich University which was specially created for him. Another example is a Slavonic Studies scholar and historian of literature and philosophy Dmitry Ivanovich Chizhevsky who received a status of DP in a camp in Germany and moved to the United States in 1949. Until 1956 he was a professor at Harvard University when he returned to Germany and taught at Heidelberg University till 1963. What about those, who returned to the USSR (voluntary or most often – forcibly)? Scientists-emigrants were among the 4.5 million Soviet citizens repatriated to the USSR by early 1950's. Praudfoot estimated that there were 5.218.000 Russian returnees 19. Knowing about the biographies of the many repatriates, we can assume that the repatriation of 1945– 1946 resulted into the death of hundreds of thousands of our compatriots. According to N. A. Troitsky, there were only 250.000 former Soviet citizens who were rescued from forced repatriation by June 1947 20. Besides Russians there were also 18 Магеровский Е. Русские и Чехия // Записки Русской академической группы в США, 2001-2002. Т. XXXI. С. 16. Magerovsky E. Russian and the Czech Lands//Transactions of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the U.S.A. (New York), 2001-2002. Vol. XXXI. P. 16. 19 Proudfoot M.J. European Refugees. P. 212. 20 Троицкий Н.А. Путь "второй волны" и будущее России //В поисках истины. Пути и судьбы второй эмиграции. Ред. А.В. Попов. Москва: РГГУ, 1997. С. 37 377 Ukrainians and Belarusians. 201 000 persons have got to the DP-camps in the American occupation zone in Germany and Austria. By December 1951 there were 45.000 persons who moved to United States, and 114.000 persons who moved to other countries 21. Unfortunately, there is still no accurate statistics on the number of Russian scientists"returnees" (voluntarily or forcibly repatriated to the USSR). In the book "The Wild Historical Period: The Fate of Russian Scientific Emigration in Europe in 1940-1950-s" there are a lot of examples of voluntary return of the scientists-emigrants to the Soviet Union 22. Some examples of the forced return to the USSR there can be found in the Chapter 5 ("Czechoslovakia"). In conclusion I want to say, that Russian scientists "of the first wave” of immigration" three times experienced instability of the real world: first, they fled from Bolsheviks, then, from Nazis, and after the Second World War – from Soviet repatriation. Only a small part of them voluntarily returned home or stayed in Europe, and most were returned to the Soviet Union forcibly. 21 22 Proudfoot M.J. European Refugees. P. 33 –34. There is a special section "Pro-Soviet organizations in France and "the returnees" in the Chapter 3. 378 Medical Refugees from Czechoslovakia in the UK. A Total Population Approach to Assistance Organisations and Careers, 1938-1945 Paul Weindling Despite the short window of time between the Munich agreement of September 1938 and the outbreak of war one year later, nearly 500 Czechoslovaks involved in health care (mainly physicians, but also dental surgeons, psychoanalysts and nurses) managed to come to Britain. This was due to effective refugee assistance organisations. Notable among these was the Society for Protection of Science and Learning, which assisted academics and - as the emergency became acute physicians. Jewish refugee assistance organisations included a professional committee, which supported a concessionary quota for Czech physicians. A key element was the personal engagement on behalf of refugees by administrators like Esther Simpson and Yvonne Kapp. Additionally, there was a remarkable set of associations based on the principle of self-organization. Many initiatives were supported by the Czechoslovak government in exile and the Czech Refugee Trust Fund. As early as April 1939 a Czechoslovak Medical Association was established. British academic institutions were especially supportive in terms of facilitating the qualifying examinations of Czechoslovak medical students and physicians. In January 1941 the British government recognised foreign medical qualifications, including Czechoslovak medical degrees. Most (but not all) Czechoslovak citizens were not interned and were in a favoured position as regards employment. For many Britain was a place of safety before onward emigration to the United States or Canada, or return after the war, although here the UK was for some a place of renewed refuge from communism. But for the majority the UK was to be a place of permanent settlement. Between the Munich catastrophe of 29 September 1938 and the immediate years after the end of the Second World War, 5312 medical refugees came to the UK. The Czechoslovak medical refugees formed the fourth largest grouping in the UK. There were a number of distinctive factors making them a highly dynamic national cohort, as they overcame constraints and obstacles. They faced the short window of time between the Munich agreement and the outbreak of war in September 1939, and an even shorter window of time between Hitler’s takeover of Prague in March 1939 and the start of the war. While some academics thought such a takeover inevitable and prepared for escape, others 379 placed faith in Hitler abiding by the Munich agreement.1 That Prague was itself a place of refuge from Nazi oppression between 1933 and 1938 compounded the refugee emergency in these highly strained months. While the UK was a place of safety, it was less certain whether it was a place that could offer long-term career prospects. Favourable elements for the support of refugee scientists and medical personnel included supportive elements among the British medical researchers and the medical profession as well as among the wider public. After the outbreak of war, the status of most from Czechoslovakia as “friendly aliens” meant that they were a privileged group. Not only was there a government in exile and free Czechoslovak military structures, there were also the resources of the Czechoslovak Trust Fund. Yet, while many (if not most) contemplated return to a post-war democratic Czechoslovakia, this eventually became itself a divisive issue fracturing the cohesion of the Czechoslovak medical and scientific groups in the UK. A number of methodological issues arise from the data on refugee medical personnel from Czechoslovakia as part of the complete spectrum of life histories of medical refugees reaching the United Kingdom. First, there is a need to adopt a “total population” approach as opposed to selective biographies, restricted to high achievers. This involves documenting the academic and professional career of each person in their country of origin, as well as linking the specificities of the departing context – often involving the experience and escape from persecution with the often very different circumstances of the receiving context. The receiving context was where there was organisational support, self organisation of refugee groupings, and the reconstruction of identity. Defining identity was a complex process involving scientific, professional, national, cultural, political, and religious shifts. 1 Professor Lewis Elton to author 19 September 2011. 380 Table 1: Numbers of Medical Refugees coming to the UK 1933-45 Nationality Total German 1127 Polish 1096 CZECHOSLOVAK 682 Austrian 674 Hungarian 62 Total identified to date (other nationalities and persons with 5312 nationality not yet ascertained) I. The classic genre of “exile studies” has dealt with contributions to national politics and culture - primarily in literature and the arts. “Exile studies” presupposed a temporary displacement, and either return or a sort of diasporic permanency, wittily termed by one analyst of Austrian exile politics as “Politik im Wartesaal”.2 It would though be absurd to see academic exiles as engaged in “Wissenschaft im Wartesaal” – literally, science in the waiting room. Taken literally, a medical practitioner might wait until qualifications were approved, but for those from Czechoslovakia this was a short period as during the wartime emergency Britain recognised all foreign qualifications in medicine from late 1940. Displacement 2 Helene Maimann, Politik im Wartesaal: Österreichische Exilpolitik in Grossbritannien 1938-1945 (Vienna: Böhlau, 1975) 381 involved the forming of a new professional and intellectual identity, as well as developing clinical practice. “Exile studies” has taken an elitist focus on high achievers. This means that social categories like the professions are of marginal interest. This can be seen in the handbook of emigration edited by Werner Roeder and Herbert Strauss, where the focus was on scientific and intellectual innovation rather than on professional significance. 3 There is an important corrective to be made to the genre of “exile studies” as represented by the Biographical Dictionary of German-speaking Emigration as interested only in high achievers and those who were German-speaking, rather than disciplines, institutions, and research networks – and the full spectrum of forced academic emigration . The interpretative bias can be seen in studies for the migration to the United States of intellectual high achievers, but not of physicians or dental surgeons as professional groups. The majority of the displaced are overlooked as irrelevant, retrospectively following the selective and highly restrictive immigration policy of the interwar period. Studies of medical migration thus challenge the elitism of the exile researchers in a variety of ways, not least in asserting that there is a professional and cultural politics to medicine every bit as important as the cultural stereotypes of the political artists like the celebrated Thomas Mann and Berthold Brecht. The politics of science and medicine emerged in a number of ways: the mobilisation of science and the professions for the war effort, and the challenging of the Nazi racialising of medicine, as well as concerned with the modernising scientific and organisational structures in Britain. 4 To take one example of the point about the need to move from the narrow stereotypes of exile, one might consider the experience of Josephine Bruegel. If considered only as her position as wife of the socialist in exile Wolfgang Bruegel, then she is at best a marginal commentator on exile politics. She was a perceptive commentator on the standing of groups surrounding President Edvard Beneš, and the doomed identity of a “German national of Czech citizenship”. But if we consider her position as the sole woman among the 3 W. Roeder & H. A. Strauss, International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Émigrés 1933–1945, (Munich: Saur, 1983). 4 Paul Weindling, ‘Medical Refugees and the Modernisation of Twentieth-century British Medicine’, Social History of Medicine, vol 22 no. 3 (2009) 489-511. 382 Oxford Czechoslovak MDs in her year, and her medical career in her own right then she becomes a significant example of how the transition from exile, returnee, refugee, and then committed National Health Service physician achieved a successful professional identity in the UK. 5 Anna Mayr-Harting provides a further telling example: for she was not just the wife of an emigré lawyer Herbert Mayr-Harting, the Czechoslovak representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission, but had a successful academic career in her right, connected coming from the Hygiene Institute of the German University Prague to the University of Leeds, and then as Reader in Bacteriology at Bristol University. One might similarly appreciate the role of Marta Dynski-Klein as a pioneer of neonatology coming to the Middlesex Hospital. These life histories raise not only that of professional identity but also the issue of gender, and particularly the determination of women in exile in attending to both career and family. Here, we see a relatively high proportion of women among the exiles from Czechoslovakia, suggesting a need to appreciate how the Czechoslovak context was relatively favourable to women’s participation in the professions and academia. Managing a career with a small child (as with Anna Mayr-Harting) posed additional complexities which elicited additional help and support on the hosts’ side. 6 The gender proportion overall was 1240 female to 4072 males (out of a total of 5312 medical refugees – including nurses who were predominately female). The Czechoslovak cohort included 114 women (out of a total of 568). That under a fifth of the medical refugees from Czechoslovakia were women was rather below the overall proportion of women among the refugees. Although women were at an advantage in gaining entry to the UK in such categories as domestic service, the imminent war eased restrictions on entry to Britain. 7 5 Joža Bruegel. Memoirs http://www.ibrk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Joza2.pdf accessed 18 September 2011 6 University of Leeds Special Collections, MS 415/164/2 Anna Mayr-Harting letter 28 October 1939. 7 Paul Weindling, “Frauen aus medizinischen Berufen als Flüchtlinge in Großbritannien während der 1930er und 1940er Jahre” in Ulrike Lindner und Merith Niehuss, eds, Ärztinnen – Patientinnen. Frauen im deutschen und britischen Gesundheitswesen des 20. Jahrhunderts (Cologne: Böhlau, 2002), 111-127. 383 Nationality Table 2: Gender of Medical Refugees in the UK Percentage Male Female female Total Polish 912 142 14% 1096 German 856 271 24% 1127 Austrian 500 174 26% 674 Czechslovak 568 114 17% 682 Hungarian 56 6 10% 62 4072 1240 23% 5312 All Nationalities Note: the table covers all medically related occupations: medical, dental, psychoanalysts, nurses II. Biologists and physicians should be seen as contributing to the interwar nation building enterprise, and to the appreciation of the complex Czechoslovak heritage blending science, religion and the values of tolerance and humanity. The concept of politics further needs to include the politics of scientific knowledge. Czechoslovak scientists took a key role in the building of an international coalition against Nazi racial ideology, or as it was sometimes called “pseudo-science”. Hugo Iltis, a botanist, was pioneering as the biographer of Abbot Gregor Mendel, although ironically Iltis was a secular-minded Lamarckian. His political importance lies in his incessant public lecturing and scientific education at the Masaryk Adult Extension College, Brno. From 1930 Iltis saw the political necessity of internationalising the scope of his activities, taking up contacts with anti-Nazi scientists in 384 Vienna and Germany. Iltis gave numerous lectures and published extensively against Nazi race theory. He eventually escaped to the UK as a place of safety with support from British Mendelians, before an American visa and placement came through. 8 The radiologist Ignaz Zollschan, incidentally the oldest of all the Czechoslovak nationals among the medical refugees, devoted his exile years to tirelessly building up an international front against racism during the 1930s, collaborating with French and British anthropologists. His Czechoslovak nationality meant that he was supported in his efforts by the Czechoslovak government in exile, while he worked alongside Austrians in exile at the Austrian Centre, not least the anti-racist campaigner Hertz. The culmination of Zollschan’s efforts came in May 1945 with a Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, who formed an international Science Commission. 9 This attacked the fallacies of Nazi racial theories as false science and false religion. 10 These efforts cleared the way for population and family based concepts of social medicine, which studiously avoided the terms eugenics and race. The life histories of medical refugees thus open up significant areas of political discourse. III. The opposite of the destructive role of Nazi science was the Czechoslovak engagement in the politics of the public provision of medicine. Here we need to add in an important dimension to exile – that of self-organisation in the form of associations and mutual support groups. The Czechoslovak Medical Society, founded in London in 1939, shows an active association of physicians, interested at first in an eventual return, and then in wider questions of human rights and entitlement to health care. A priority was the Inter- 8 Oxford Bodleian Library, SPSL file Hugo Iltis. Author’s meeting with Hugh Iltis, Madison Wisconsin, March 2010. 9 Central Zionist Archives, Zollschan Papers A 122. 4/12 10 Zollschan Papers A 22/11/6. Paul Weindling,“The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945”, Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (eds), Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2006), 116-136. “Central Europe Confronts German Racial Hygiene: Friedrich Hertz, Hugo Iltis and Ignaz Zollschan as Critics of German Racial Hygiene”, in M. Turda and Weindling (eds.), Blood and Homeland: Eugenics in Central Europe 1900-1940 (Budapest: Central University Press, 2006), 263-80. 385 allied Health Charter Movement under sponsorship of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jan Masaryk, and inspired by President Beneš of the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, who in 1940 advocated a World Charter of Human Rights. The Health Charter Movement drew attention to the role of housing, nutrition, education and leisure system in health care in post-war Europe. In January 1942 the Czechoslovak nutritionist Egon Kodiček (in Cambridge from June 1939) addressed the issue of post-war relief as a starting point of world reconstruction, calling for a new central organisation of scientific experts and politicians. The first pamphlet was In Search of a Charter for Health, published in December 1942. Kodiček, and the specialist in occupational health, Julius Löwy called for “an international organisation endowed with the powers to make it effective”. 11 In 1943 the International Health Charter Movement took off at a meeting of British and Czechoslovak figures in public health and social science. This indicates how Czechoslovak exiles were part of a broader movement to modernise health care provision in the UK. IV. Health Care The elite cherry-picking of the Roeder-Strauss approach stands in contrast to studies of the rank and file practitioners – to what some call “die kleinen Leute”. Yet among the rank and file, we also find high achievers: for example in general practice. Dr Frederick Barber offers an outstanding example of a refugee who reached the UK only at the end of the war but who then had an outstanding career under the National Health Service. Dr Barber had worked at the Hospital for Sick Children in Brno from 1930 to dismissal in March 1939, left Brno on 2 September 1940 and then had served with the British army in Palestine. On reaching the UK after the war, Dr Barber had a distinguished career in general practice in North London. Dr Barber thrived in a context of the refugee communities of North London. 11 Bulletin of the Czechoslovak Medical Association in Great Britain, nos 1-2 (1941-1943). Notes of the Czechoslovak Medical Association in Great Britain (London 1944). Year Book of the Inter-Allied Health Charter Movement (1945). 386 His significance is indicated that remarkably his total surgery - a modern purpose built design that reflected his internationalism - has been preserved at the Museum of London. 12 Nursing, a dynamic area of employment in the UK, offers a significant and often overlooked field, that should be included in the “total population” of medical refugees. We see young refugees entering new careers like nursing, and others moving from nursing to medicine as Elisabeth Schuleman. All this speaks for the reconstruction of a “total population”, taking into account issues of migration, gender, and age. Age Structure: TABLE 3: AGE STRUCTURE OF CZECHOSLOVAK MEDICAL REFUGEES Years of Birth Numbers Comment 1877 1 1880-84 4 1885-89 10 1890-94 22 1895-99 32 1900-04 35 1905-09 42 1910-14 48 1915-19 9 1920-25 7 Zollschan Includes Kindertransportees who then studied in UK Table based on 235 individuals out of 473 identified Czechoslovak medical refugees. 12 Museum of London Accession number: 2002.10. Paul Weindling, “Medical Refugees as Practitioners and Patients: Public, Private and Practice Records”, Yearbook of the Research Centre for German and Austrian Exile Studies, vol. 9, Refugee Archives: Theory and Practice, pp. 141-156. (Incidentally I was a patient of Dr Barber. My first GP was Edith Hertz, wife of the political scientist Friedrich Hertz, and herself from Bohemia.) 387 V. The problem of cohort studies is that they do not examine migration over time. Each national cohort had not only a distinctive age, gender and religion, but also over time. Thus equivalent numbers of Germans and Poles came to the UK but the Germans came mainly between 1933 and 1938, whereas the Poles from the outbreak of war, during the war, and post war with General Anders army. The Czechoslovaks had a brief window of time from 1938 to September 1939. They benefitted from an easing of visa restrictions, so that for many the UK was a place of safety before onward migration. The profile tended towards youth with the cohort born in the year 1910-14 containing high numbers. The year of birth, 1913, had the highest numbers overall. The 44 Oxford Czechoslovak MDs were all born between 1912 and 1916. Here one needs to caution regarding official quotas. Official schemes and actuality of migration. Following an agreement to have 50 Austrian physicians and 40 dental surgeons in 1938, a similar agreement was made between the British government and medical representative bodies for 50 physicians Czechoslovakia to re-qualify in the UK. While time allowed only few to take up their quota places, many more came through “unofficial routes”. Similarly, the government always gave a lower number of refugees than in reality. Here one needs to highlight the role of support organisations like the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning. Esther Simpson played a key role in establishing contacts between British scientists and refugees. The analysis by Sona Štrabáňová and Antonin Kostlán shows that medical scientists predominated among the Czechoslovak academics who were assisted. 13 Similarly Yvonne Kapp at the Jewish Refugee Assistance at Woburn House, ~London played a considerable role in securing permits for physicians. Her unique list of refugee doctors, compiled by Yvonne Kapp in September 1939, gives details of 1626 doctors and 13 Antonin Kostlán and Sona Štrabáňová,‘Czech Scholars in Exile 1948-1969’, Shula Marks, Paul Weindling and Laura Wintour, eds, In Defence of Free Learning: Academic Refugees and the 75th Anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2011, 239-56, here 243-44. 388 dental surgeons, registered with the organisation. 14 The list – indicating that a high proportion of the pre-War influx of Czechoslovak refugees were Jewish - contains the names of 36 Czechoslovak doctors re-qualifying at British medical schools, as well as 250 other Czechoslovak doctors studying in Britain. Regrettably, there was no analogous scheme for Czechoslovak dental surgeons to the concession of allowing 40 Austrian dental surgeons to re-qualify. 15 They had the opportunity to cross back to general medicine, which a few did, as Arnošt Kraus (MD German University Prague 1937). The department of education of the Czechoslovak government in London supported students at universities, while universities like Leicester offered free places. 16 The Czechoslovak Degree Days in Oxford in 1942, 1943 and 1944 when refugee students received the degrees of Doctor of Medicine indicated the unique position that the Czechoslovaks held because of the circumstances of the Nazi takeover.17 The dedicated biochemist Kleinzeller experienced some difficulties in terms of access to the laboratories when he was a research student at Sheffield. He was convinced that “the best service I can do for my country is to go on with my work.” Rather than volunteering for the army or taking a hospital appointment, he continued to focus on research. 18 14 Yvonne Kapp and Margaret Mynatt, British Policy and the Refugees 1933-1941, with a Foreword by Charmian Brinson (London: Cass, 1997). Yvonne Kapp, Time Will Tell. Memoirs (London: Verso 2003). Vera Lees, ‘Medicine in Exile. The Czechoslovaks in Great Britain during the Second World War’, Diploma in history of medicine, Society of Apothecaries 2005. 15 Cf John Zamet, ‘The Anschluss and the Problem of Refugee Stomatologists’, Social History of Medicine (2009) 22(3): 471-488 16 University of Leicester Special Collections AD R8/1/1-51 Correspondence with refugee students and the Czech Education Department. Eg AD R8/1/9 V. Patzak to Attenborough 13 January 1942 concerning four free places at Leicester. For the Welsh situation see: Paul Weindling, “Medical Refugees in Wales 1930s-50s”, Pamela Michael and Charles Webster (eds), Health and Society in Twentieth Century Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), 183-200. 17 University of Oxford Archives WP8/9/11 Czechoslovak Degree Day July 24 1943.Order of Proceedings 27 February 1943. 18 Cambridge University Library Needham Papers file M 37 Kleinzeller to Needham 27 May 1941. 389 TABLE 4: Degrees of UK Medical Refugees from Czechoslovak Universities Other UNIVERSITY MD Czechoslovaks Nationalities Prague [German 175 165 10 48 46 2 89 81 7 Brno 30 29 1 Bratislava 28 28 Telice (= Schulman) 1 1 Medical Faculty] Prague [Charles University] Prague [not known which University] 390 TABLE 5: Czechoslovak Physicians with Foreign Degrees University Numbers Years Munich 1 1906 Vienna 14 1909-37 Budapest 7 1911-19 Graz 1 1915 Frankfurt 3 1922-33 Berlin 2 1925, 32 Moscow 1 1927 Edinburgh/ Glasgow 7 1938-55 Antwerp 1 1939 Nancy 1 1940 London 34 1941-54 Oxford Czechoslovak 44 1943-44 Beirut 1 1943 Bristol 2 1942, Degrees 1950 (PhD) Sheffield 1 1943 Manchester 2 1948, 1953 Leeds 1 1949 Liverpool 1 1952 Dublin 1 1971 (E. Schulman) 391 TABLE 6: MULTIPLE DEGREES OF MEDICAL REFUGEES (All Nationalities) NUMBER OF DEGREES HELD TOTAL OF PERSONS HOLDING THESE 1 3977 2 438 3 112 4 23 5 6 6 3 7 1 392 TABLE 7: Statistics on Temporary Register ca 194219 Nationality Employed Unemployed Czechoslovaks 226 24 Poles 300 50 Germans/Austrians Ca 90 (ie a sixth) Ca 500 Others 77 VI. A Dynamic Approach The refugee situation in the UK was fluid, and rapidly changing. Internment represented a low point in the fluctuating fortunes of the refugees – when also Germanspeaking Czechoslovaks from the Sudeten areas might be interned. Then the UK recognition of foreign medical degrees from the close of 1940 meant a steady improvement in the refugees’ position. Czechoslovaks had great advantage in securing employment as so-called “friendly aliens”. Britain recognised foreign medical degrees, when Defence Order 1941 (32B) permitted registration. It meant that those medical refugees who had been unable to re-qualify could at last take medical jobs while assisting the war effort. Czechoslovak medical degrees were now recognised. Czechoslovak citizens were also in a favoured position as regards employment. 20 In September 1941 Polish and Czechoslovak doctors held a joint Congress in Edinburgh. Karel Macháček spoke on the task of health services in the struggle abroad. 21 Yvonne Kapp then worked for the Czechoslovak Refugee Trust Fund but was dismissed by British government pressure for political reasons. There was in fact a density of 19 BMA Archives, Aliens Committee. ‘Temporary Registration and Employment of Foreign and Other Overseas Medical Practitioners’, British Medical Journal (January 25th 1941), vol. I, p. 9. 21 Karel Macháček, Escape to England, (Lewes: Book Guild 1988). 20 393 organisations, among these were the Czechoslovak Research Institute; the Czechoslovak Refugee Trust Fund; and the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia. 22 These organised support for students, young researchers and medical and dental provision. 23 The Society for the Protection of Science and Learning lobbied strongly for positions in British laboratories and medical schools. A. V. Hill, the physiologist campaigned as Member of Parliament to release refugees from internment, and to recognise all degrees. 24 Of the Czechoslovaks, Sona Štrabáňová and Antonin Kostlán find that physicians are the largest group. It meant that among the substantial numbers of physiologists and biochemists offered refuge in the UK were also a large number of Czechoslovaks eg Egon Kodiček and Vladislav Krůta. The geneticist Hans Kalmus found support from J. B. S. Haldane at University College London. 25 The budding scientists as the neurophysiologist (and later medical historian) Francis Schiller was impatient with the restrictions on aliens in wartime UK, and after a few years as a physiologist in Oxford moved to California. 26 In January 1941 the government recognised all foreign medical qualifications on an annual temporary basis. It meant that all Czechoslovak medical degrees were now recognised. Czechoslovak citizens were also in a favoured position as regards employment. 27 The Czech Refugee Trust Fund oversaw a comprehensive system of medical care with its own hospital wards as at Warwick Hospital and the Emergency Ward at Stratford-on-Avon. Josef Skládal chaired the Czechoslovak Health Council in London, and there was a large Czechoslovak Red Cross with Oscar Klinger overseeing welfare support. Benno Silbiger, was one of the 50 “official” Czechs in charge of medical research at the Czechoslovak Research Institute, also at the St Bartholomew’s Hospital Ear, Nose and Throat department. The 22 Susan Cohen, Rescue the Perishing: Eleanor Rathbone and the Refugees (Edgware: Vallentine Mitchell 2010). Charmian Brinson, Marian Malet, eds, Exile in and from Czechoslovakia during the 1930s and 1940s, (Amsterdam: Rodopi 2009). 23 For example, Czechoslovak patients were sent my father Dr Emerich Weindling for dental treatment . 24 Paul Weindling, “A.V. Hill, The Royal Society and Refugee Scientists”, Shula Marks, Weindling and Laura Wintour, eds, In Defence of Free Learning (Oxford, Oxford University Press for The British Academy, 2011), 25 Hans Kalmus, 50 Years of Exiles Working at University College London, (London, 1984). 26 Paul Weindling, "The Impact of German Medical Scientists on British Medicine: a Case-study of Oxford", M. Ash, W. Mattern and A. Söllner (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Emigré German-speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 87-114. 27 ‘Temporary Registration and Employment of Foreign and Other Overseas Medical Practitioners’, British Medical Journal (January 25th 1941), vol. I, p. 9. 394 Czechoslovaks had military physicians for the Czech Brigade, as at Penrhos Camp, Pwllheli in Wales. British dental surgeons favoured the more specialised German training over the Austrian, Czechoslovak and Polish system of dentistry as a postgraduate medical specialism. There were markedly lower numbers of Czechoslovak dental surgeons, than the Austrians. Britain had lacked a concessionary scheme for the Czechoslovak dental surgeons. Seven out of twelve refugee Czechoslovak dental surgeons opted for a medical career. Herbert Deutsch, made an exceptional impact on British dental education, which was decidedly resistant to the foreign influx. 28 Nursing was another crossover occupation, which was a demand area in the UK. Visa restrictions meant that the first wave had gained admittance as domestic servants, and that a move to nursing was seen as advantageous by students who had difficulties in finding a place to re-qualify. Elizabeth Steiner (later Arkle, born 1913) first worked as a midwife. Edith Schulman worked as a nurse in Britain during the war, returned to Czechoslovakia, and came as a refugee after 1968 when she qualified in medicine at Dublin. Determining the post-war careers is complex. While the German Jews were expected to stay, the Austrians, Czechoslovaks and Poles were not expected to do so. It appears that a higher proportion of the Czechoslovaks returned than the Poles, Germans or Austrians. Among those who returned were Otto Gregor, Vladislav Krůta, Bruno Schober (born 1911), the neurosurgeon Paul Žalud (born 1912), and the medically qualified biochemist Ernst/ Arnošt Kleinzeller but a full list and how they fared under communism, are desiderata. He remigrated to the USA in 1966. 29 For some a return was too painful because the Nazis having murdered whole families. 30 Some – as Ladislav Fisch - went to Czechoslovakia on a “Special Mission to Liberated Parts of Czechoslovakia” from September 1944 to November 1945. Other remained for a period of months (as Fisch who returned to Britain in 1948), or for a few 28 Walter Stein and Paul Steiner, Marie Weisl reverted to general medicine. Cf Colin Holmes, ‘British Government Policy Towards Wartime Refugees’, in: Martin Conway and José Gotovitch, eds, Europe in Exile, 1940-1945 (New York, N.Y., Oxford: Berghahn 2001), 24-25 on Kleinzeller. 30 Oxford Brookes University, Department of History, Philosophy and Religion, Medical Refugees collection Isidor Dub questionnaire. 29 395 years. Dr Josephine Brueghel re-emigrated to the UK in November 1946, Macháček also returned and re-migrated to the UK after the communist takeover in 1948, and Arthur Eiser, a tuberculosis specialist, returned in 1949. Many, however, returned permanently to Czechoslovakia. By 1947, at least 84 Czechoslovaks were naturalised British subjects. British medicine was in the throes of modernisation, culminating in the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. Certain specialisms were in demand as psychiatry. Table 7 shows that sixteen Czechoslovaks entered this burgeoning field. Others specialisms were more difficult to enter as dermatology and child health. Most former refugees became as GPs. A noted example is the group practice at Canvey in Essex involving the physicians Lintner, and the two Oxford MD graduates of 1943 Macháček, and Přemsyl Sonnek. The basis of this was the subsidiary of the modern Bata shoe factory and estate at East Tilbury with their emphasis on efficiency and welfare, as expressed by the modernist architecture of the factory. 31 Large numbers of settled Czechoslovak former refugees also worked in hospitals as surgeons. Alfred Beck was surgeon at St David’s Hospital in Cardiff from 1952-76. 32 Ladislav Fisch had a distinguished career in audiological medicine. 31 32 http://www.canveyisland.org.uk/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=338 accessed 27 Sept 2011. Paul Weindling, Alfred Beck record in the Medical Refugees Collection. 396 Table 8: Czechoslovak Psychiatrists NAME BIRTH DEGREE LOCATED POPPER, Erwin 1890 Prague GU 1915 Tavistock GELLNER, Liese SPECIALISM Frankfurt 1922 KLEIN, Robert 1895 Prague GU 1921 WERNER, Theodor 1898 Prague GU 1923 BARABAS, Ervin 1896 Prague GU 1924 Psychiatric therapy. Group therapy 1898 POLLAK, 1923 Francis/ František FRANK, Jan/ Johann 1902 Prague GU 1927 KRAEUPL-TAYLOR, Fritz 1905 Prague GU 1929 ZELMANOWITS, Joseph 1906 Prague GU 1933 HELLER, Gustave 1910 Prague GU 1938 STEINER/ARKLEElizabet 1913 Bratislava 1937 1913 Oxford To USA – wrote on phobia GP/ LSE Neuro-psychiatry Child psychiatry h HONIG/ HOENIG, John/ Julius ALSCHULOVA, MD CZ MD CZ 1943 Herta 1914 Julie DIAMOND/ BOBASCH, Eva Marianne Oxford 1944 1926 Edinburgh 1949 Psychotherapist STEIN, Julius GP, Plymouth +Exeter? EHRENWALD, Hans Jan Prague GU 1925 Starcross, Devon 397 The children who came from Czechoslovakia, some on the Kindertransport, merit recognition. Thomas Arie (born 1933), the distinguished gerontologist, came with his parents from Prague to Britain aged six, and trained in psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital. Conclusions The collection of data on all refugees as a total population points to a series of methodological problems. The population approach needs to be developed dynamically to take account of the fact that a population is never static. One works cumulatively, but in fact there is a geographical, academic and international distribution itself in constant flux. The population approach gives significance to individual life histories. No life history is ever the same, although cohort characteristics do emerge. The population approach can be applied in a number of ways. First, for the period 1933-45 we need to link migration studies of the contexts of departure and reception. Second, the approach can be applied to other waves of migrations as to the Hungarians post 1956, and Czechoslovaks post-1968. Overall, this will contribute to intellectual studies by breaking down national paradigms and stereotypes. More, the population approach can be developed into a dense network of migration studies, that will serve both as a resource for tracing individuals and cohort analysis, as well as to establish methodological best practice. 398 Czech Scientists in Exile: Science vs. Music Karel Závěta The set of 100 Czech scientists who achieved eminent recognition for their scientific activities either before or during their exile and were included into our selection, represent a sufficiently large ensemble for various analyses. Beside the talent, dilligence, hard work, and maybe stroke of luck (but Fate favours the prepared ones) which enabled them their outstanding achievements, they had to possess the determination to persist in their decisions. One of their first decisions was the choice of their field of interest or studies and in relatively frequent cases, they faced the alternative to devote themselves to either science or music. We shall look in which scientific fields they worked and illustrate on several examples the level they reached in music although it only remained their hobby. Introduction The present conference has as its main topic exile, more specifically scientists in exile – its historical background and conditions, reasons that make people to leave their countries and the factors that influenced their further destinies and activities abroad. Our attention will be devoted in particular to Czech and Slovak scientists. Just a few days before the conference a book appeared Sto českých vědců v exilu (100 Czech scientists in exile) 1 comprising the biographies of 100 scientists selected from those, who left the institutions of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in the years 1952-1989 and achieved prominent recognition for their scientific achievements either before or during their years in exile. On the one hand this group represents a rather specific choice limited by strict criteria but on the other hand it forms a sufficiently large ensemble enabling some meaningful analysis. The biographies were mostly written by authors from the Czech Republic and in close collaboration with the portrayed scientists in the cases when they were alive and within reach. Thus we can claim that most of the data we used are „authorized“. 1 Soňa Štrbáňová and Antonín Kostlán (eds.), Sto českých vědců v exilu, Praha, Academia, 2011 399 The 100 scientists, whose biographies are in our book, worked in many fields and directions and the team responsible for assembling material for the mentioned book had defined mainly for organizational purposes the following 3 categories of sciences: I exact, applied, and earth sciences (29), II life sciences (including chemistry) (46), III humanities (25). In parantheses we give the number of scientists from each category, who made it to the selected 100. The final numbers in the individual categories were a result of lengthy and complicated discussions and they reflect to a large extent the personal opinions of the authors of the book. Decision making Let us turn our attention to „decision making“ from a more general point of view: the 100 scientists included in our selection had to make and made a decision of crucial importance – at a certain moment of their scientific careers and personal lives they decided to leave Czechoslovakia and to continue their work abroad, often with rather unclear prospects. Their presence among scientists that succeeded in their scientific activities and achieved top level status in their respective fields proves that their decision was correct or at least led to a successful career. When reading the biographies even superficially, an interesting point emerges – several of the scientists had to make another grave decision seriously influencing their subsequent lives. And the time for taking this decision usually came at the beginning of their university studies: Should they devote their lives to science or music? Among the 100 scientists we have found 7 instances where this choice between science and music had to be made and as is obvious from their place among “the 100 scientists”, the decision was for science as the main interest with music remaining “just” a hobby. This fact is explicitly mentioned in the biographies either by the scientists themselves 400 or their biographers. In one case, the decision between studying piano or geology was biased by the injury of the student’s hand which closed his otherwise promising career as a pianist; he later became a world known geologist. Let us mention at this point that the complementary information is missing – we do not know how many successful musicians weighed up scientific career and finally decided in favour of music. Distribution among science categories Out of the mentioned 7 people who had to decide between music and science, 5 were from the „exact, applied, and earth sciences“, and 2 from „life sciences“, actually biochemistry. These numbers together with the percentage in the given category of sciences are given in the Table. Category Number of Number of Relative scientists “deciders” amountin the category exact, applied, and 29 5 17% 46 2 4% earth sciences life sciences (incl. chemistry) humanities (biochemists) 25 0 0% It is obvious that these 7 cases are rather unevenly distributed among the 3 groups of sciences with an “overwhelming” majority falling into the category of the exact sciences. Is this just a consequence of the relatively small numbers we are dealing with, a fluctuation stemming from the same source? Is it really a coincidence, or the potential musicians who have chosen science were looking for an exact science as a contrast to their artistic ambitions? The answer to these questions would demand a much more broadly founded study with much larger statistics. 401 Distribution of the “abondoned” instruments Let us now look at the various instruments, which were in play in these 7 cases: according to the expectations piano prevailed, but was always accompanied by another instrument – French horn, kettle drums (!), and singing. Further we find violin twice, clarinet once and general interest in several musical fields also once. Illustrations of the musical achievements as a hobby Another interesting question concerns the level, which was reached in music, after the choice was made in favour of the scientific career and music only remained a hobby. Let us illustrate this point by two cases: one geologist (Petr Černý) brought his playing violin into practice by participating in the school symphonic orchestra. But far more interesting is the case of the “father of the Czech computers” Antonín Svoboda. As a pianist he played before his emigration with the well-known wind quintette of Václav Smetáček (later famous chief conductor of the Prague Symphony Orchestra) and often was co-repetitor for opera singers. Beside piano he also played kettle-drums at such a level that he occasionally substituted the kettle-drummer of the Czech Philharmony. During his first emigration to the USA during WWII, he had vivid contacts with the Czech musicians living in New York – composer Bohuslav Martinů, pianist Rudolf Firkušný, organist and cellist František Rypka – he played piano with them. Martinů and Svoboda became rather close friends also due to the fact that they had “mutual interests”: the composer was deeply interested in natural sciences and mathematics and Svoboda in music. And a remark en passant – as a man of many talents Svoboda was a brilliant bridge player and an author of an original and sophisticated bidding system (published in Czech in 1935) 2. There was, however, one fate of the exiled scientist, which led in the opposite direction. Wife of an astronomer, also an astronomer herself, was only able to find job in 2 Antonín Svoboda, Bridge, nová teorie, Praha, J. Bačkovský, 1935 402 Netherlands after their emigration as a music teacher, basing on her former Czech musical education including certificates of exams and her former experience. As a conclusion, let us bring the case of an eminent Czech physicist who successfully continued his scientific career after emigration. Only after his retirement he began with musical attempts both in computer-aided composition and piano playing. When he was invited to Prague to receive the highest award of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic for his life-long work in physics, he consulted his possible trip to Prague with his teacher of music. And her advice was unambiguous: if they offer you a medal for physics go and collect it, there’s next to no chance you get anything like that for your achievements in music. This study was supported by the grant of the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic for project No. IAAX00630801. 403 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 404 Ash, Mitchell mitchell.ash@univie.ac.at Institut für Geschichte, Universität Wien Dr. Karl-Lueger-Ring 1 A-1010 Wien Austria Boháček, Jan bohacek@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic Bošnjakovič, Branko branko.bosnjakovic@bluewin.ch Château de Tannay 1295 Tannay Switzerland Červinková, Alice alice.cervinkova@soc.cas.cz Institute of Sociology of the ASCR Jilská 1 110 00. Prague 1 Czech Republic Dmitrieva, Marina dmitriev@rz.uni-leipzig.de Centre for the History and Culture of East Central Europe (GWZO) Leipzig Germany Durnová, Helena durnova.helena@ped.muni.cz Katedra matematiky, Pedagogická fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity Brno Czech Republic Elina, Olga olgaelina@mail.ru S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow Russia Englová, Jana jana.englova@ujep.cz Katedra historie FF, Univerzita J.E.Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem, ul. České mládeže 8 400 96, Ústí nad Labem Czech Republic Ericsson, Rolf rolf.ericsson@ foreign.ministry.se Embassy of Sweden, Prague Czech Republic Ferdinand, Ursula Ursula.Ferdinand@ukmuenster.de Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Universität Münster Münster Germany Frank, Tibor tzsbe@hu.inter.net School of English and American Studies Eötvös Loránd University Budapest Hungary Frantisak, Frank frantisf@sympatico.ca 139 Valecrest Dr. Toronto, ON Canada Gasimov, Zaur gasimov@ieg-mainz.de Institute of European History Mainz Germany 405 Gilley, Christopher gilleycr@gmail.com Taxisstrasse 7 93049 Regensburg Germany Gorniok, Lukasz lukasz.gorniok@historia.umu.se Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University; Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier, Umeå universitet 901 87 Umeå Sweden Hálek, Jan halek@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Academy of ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Praha 8 Czech Republic Hampl, Petr P.Hampl@email.cz Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Science, Charles University Viničná 7 Prague 2 Czech Republic Hermann, Tomáš hermannt@centrum.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Hirsch, Yaël ybhirsch@gmail.com Sciences-po Paris, Research Center Groupe de Sociologie des religions et de la Laïcité Paris France Hladký, Jan hladky@fzu.cz Institute of Physics of the ASCR Na Slovance 2 182 21 Prague 8 Czech Republic Hoffmann, Dieter dh@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Boltzmannstr. 22 D-14195 Berlin Germany Hořejš, Miloš milos.horejs@ntm.cz National Technical Museum Kostelní 42 170 00 Prague 7 Czech Republic Hudlická, Olga O.HUDLICKA@bham.ac.uk Physiology, Medical School, University of Birmingham Birmingham B15 2 TT United Kingdom Izquierdo, Isabel izcam@hotmail.com National Autonomous University of Mexico, Lomas de Ahuatlán, Santa Cruz Vista Alegre, No. 10, Cuernavaca, Morelos. C.P. 62130 Mexico Janata, Jiří jiri.janata@chemistry.gatech.edu School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology 901 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, GA 30332-0400 USA 406 Janatová, Jarmila jarmila.janatova@mac.com University of Utah, Department Bioengineering 50 S Central Campus Drive Rm 2440 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9202 USA of Jindra, Jiří jindra@usd.cas.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Josefovičová, Milena josefovi@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic Karlsson, Blanka blankakarlsson@yahoo.se Blanka Pragensis Förlag, Babordsvägen 6, 603 75 Norrköping Sweden Kázecký, Stanislav Stanislav_Kazecky@mzv.cz Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic Hradčanské náměstí 182/5 Prague 1 Czech Republic Kettler, David kettler@bard.edu Division of Social Studies, Bard College, Annandale, New York 12504 (845) 7587294 USA Kopecká, Helena hkopecka@noos.fr CNRS Paris 3, rue du Harpon 92290 Chatenay Malabry France Kostlán Antonín kostlan@seznam.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Kotůlek, Jan jan.kotulek@vsb.cz Vysoká škola báňská v Ostravě, Katedra matematiky a deskriptivní geometrie Ostrava Czech Republic Krivosheina, Galina krivosheina@gmail.com S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow Russia Lefkovits, Ivan ivan.Lefkovits@unibas.ch Department of Biomedicine, Vesalianum Vesalgasse 1 CH-4051 Basel, 004 161 2673551 Switzerland Lorencová, Ivana ivana.lorencova@gmail.com National Technical Museum Kostelní 42 170 00 Prague 7 Czech Republic 407 Łukasiewicz Sławomir slawomir.lukasiewicz@ipn.gov.pl Institute of National Remembrance, Lublin Branch ul. Szewska 2 20-086 Lublin Poland Mádlová, Vlasta madlova@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic Marks, Sarah sarahmarks@ucl.ac.uk, sarahmarks@ymail.com University College London, Centre for the History of Medicine United Kingdom Mamali, Ioanna Ioanna.Mamali@ukmuenster.de Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin WWU Münster Germany Mandelíčková, Monika MonikaMandelickova@seznam.cz Nová 335 664 24 Drásov Czech Republic Marlinová, Olga marlin@chello.cz Jaselska 25 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Martínez-Vidal, Àlvar alvar.martinez@uv.es, alanadamar@gmail.com Universitat de València; Institut d’Història de la Medicina i de la Ciència Lòpez Piñero Pl. de Cisneros 4 46003 València Spain Metrich, Louise louise.metrich@diplomatie.gouv.fr French Embrassy Prague Czech Republic Michl, Josef michl@eefus.colorado.edu Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the ASCR, Prague; University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado USA/Czech Republic Morávková, Alena aljonuska.m@seznam.cz Czechoslovak Society of Arts & Sciences (SVU) Prague Czech Republic Munk, Petr petr.munk@gmail.com University of Texas at Austin 5000 Gregory Pl. West Lake Hills, TX 787461-5508 USA Novotný, Miloš novotny@indiana.edu Department of Chemistry, University 800 E. Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47405 USA 408 Indiana Nytrová, Zuzana nytrovaz@vcdv.cas.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Olšáková, Doubravka olsakova@usd.cas.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Pacner, Karel Karel.Pacner@mfdnes.cz Volutová 2522/16 158 00 Prague 58-Stodůlky Czech Republic Palló, Gábor gabor.pallo@ella.hu Institute for Research Organisation Hungarian Academy of Sciences Budapest Hungary Pánek, Jaroslav panek@hiu.cas.cz The Institute of History of the ASCR Czech Republic Popa, Catrinel p_catrinel@yahoo.com University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, Rimnicel Alley, no. 2, Bl.M6, 3rd floor, Drumul Taberei, 061913 Romania Pithart, Petr pithartp@senat.cz Senate of the Czech Republic Prague Czech Republic Poštová, Věra sekretariat@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic Prečan, Vilém precan@csds.cz The Czechoslovak Documentation Centre Prague Czech Republic Přenosil, Jiří jirip@retired.ethz.ch Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, CH; University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Switzerland/Canada Přenosilová, Miluše Switzerland Rechcígl, Miloslav svu.one@gmail.com 1703 Mark Lane, Rockville, 20852-4106 USA Říhová, Blanka rihova@biomed.cas.cz Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Prague Czech Republic Sekyrková, Milada sekyrkova@ruk.cuni.cz Institute of the History of Charles University and Archive of Charles University, Ovocný trh 5 116 36 Prague 1 Czech Republic 409 Schulte-Umberg, Thomas schulte-umberg@ieg-mainz.de Institut für Europäische Geschichte Alte Universitätsstrasse 19 551 16 Mainz Germany Stark, Jaroslav jaroslavstark@me.com Hospital for Sick Children Great Ormond Street London United Kingdom Strobl, Philipp pstrobl@uno.edu; p.strobl@student.uibk.ac.at Universität Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria Stein, Michael Czech Position Ostrovní 13/129 110 00 Prague Czech Republic Stella, Marco marco.stella@email.cz Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Charles University Viničná 7 128 00 Prague 2 Czech Republic Sugiyama, Anna anna.na.927@gmail.com University of Warsaw, Institute of Political Science P-148, Belwederska 26/30 00594 Warsaw Poland Svobodný, Petr petr.svobodny@ruk.cuni.cz Institute of the History of Charles University and Archive of Charles University Ovocný trh 5 116 36 Prague 1 Czech Republic Šimsová, Sylva simsova@simsova.demon.co.uk 18 Muswell Ave, London N10 2EG United Kingdom Šimůnek, Michal simunekm@centrum.cz Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Špička, Václav spicka@fzu.cz Institute of Physics of the ASCR Na Slovance 2 182 21 Prague 8 Czech Republic Štrbáňová, Soňa Sonast2@gmail.com Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, Institute for Contemporary History of the ASCR Puškinovo náměstí 9 160 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic Ulyankina Tatiana tatparis70@gmail.com S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow Russia 410 Velická, Helena mudrvelicka@seznam.cz Státní zdravotní ústav Šrobárova 48 100 42 Prague 10 Czech Republic Velický, Bedřich velicky@physics.muni.cz Ústav teoretické fyziky a astrofyziky, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Masarykova Universita v Brně Brno Czech Republic Vondráčková, Eva vondrackova@mua.cas.cz Masaryk Institute and Archives of the ASCR Gabčíkova 2362/10 182 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic Weindling, Paul pjweindling@brookes.ac.uk Centre for Health Medicine and Society Department of History, Oxford Brookes University Oxford OX3 0BP United Kingdom Woods, Sheelagh United Kingdom Zarzoso, Alfons alfons.zarzoso@uab.cat Universitat de València; Institut d’Història de la Medicina i de la Ciència Lòpez Piñero Pl. de Cisneros 4 46003 València Spain Závěta, Karel zaveta@fzu.cz Institute of Physics of the ASCR Na Slovance 2 182 21 Prague 8 Czech Republic 411 CENTRE FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE ASCR The Centre specializes in historical investigation of scientific development understood in terms of intellectual and social history as an entirety of empirical, theoretical and practical knowledge leading to new findings produced by specific communities of researchers. The time and thematic span in which research is pursued in the Centre is quite wide: from the cosmology of the Middle Ages, through analysis of the intellectual potential of the Early Modern “res publica litteraria”, to the 20th century communication in science and relation of science and politics. A long-term priority represents tracking scientific development and transformation of the Czech scientific community in the multicultural and multinational interwar Czechoslovakia and during the totalitarian regimes, both the Nazi (1939-1945) and the communist (1948-1989) ones. The scientific disciplines whose history is treated are especially astronomy, nuclear physics, genetics and biochemistry, some chemical disciplines, and selected humanities, especially historiography. One of the Centre’s recent key projects is “Czech Scholars in Exile, 1948-1989”; it explores the phenomenon of scientific exile investigating as target group scientific workers of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences who escaped from the country during the communist oppression in the years 1952-1989. The Centre issues irregularly its own Czech, German and English publications in the series Práce z dějin vědy – Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, as well as individual works, monographs, proceedings and editions. For http://www.science.usd.cas.cz/. Kabinet dějin vědy, Ústav pro soudobé dějiny, AV ČR, v.v.i. Head: PhDr. Antonín Kostlán, CSc. Adress: Puškinovo náměstí 9 Prague 6 160 00 Czech republic Phone: +420221990611 Fax: +420224 943 057 E-Mail: kostlan@usd.cas.cz nytrova@usd.cas.cz 412 further information, see