Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T08:12:04.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nationalism in Slovakia and the Communists, 1918-1929

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Yeshayahu Jelinek
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“The attitude toward the national question always constituted in Czechoslovakia the touchstone for political understanding of the defense of revolutionary positions,” the Czech-German-Jewish historian of communism in Czechoslovakia, Paul Reimann, wrote in 1931. In these few words Reimann expressed the dilemma of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia. And to this dilemma my study is also devoted.

The peace treaties concluded after the First World War buried the multinational empire and created in its place a multinational republic. The Communists in Czechoslovakia labored hard to define their stand in relation to the national question. The purpose of this paper is to describe closely the policies of Communists toward Slovakia. We shall argue that confusion, inconsistency, ideological perplexities, and opportunism characterized the party's dealings with problems of nationalism and nationalities in that country.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 65 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1975

References

1. Reimann, Pavel, Dějiny Komunistické strany Československa (Prague, 1931), p. 89.Google Scholar

2. According to the first Czechoslovak census of 1921, of the 3, 000, 870 inhabitants of Slovakia, 650, 547 were Magyars, 145, 844 were Germans, 88, 970 were Ruthenians, and 73, 628 were Jews. Bella, Method, “The Minorities in Slovakia,” in Seton-Watson, R. W., ed., Slovakia Then and Now (London, 1931), p. 337 Google Scholar. The ethnic identity of the Slavic population of Subcarpathian Ukraine and parts of Eastern Slovakia was often disputed, and variously described.

3. See text of the law in Falt’an, Samo, Slovenská otázka v Ceskoslovensku (Bratislava, 1968)Google Scholar, appendix 8, p. 285.

4. The dispute around this topic covers countless pages. For older views see Holúby, Jozef L’udovit, “Slováci a Česi,” and Karel Kálal, “Čechové a Slováci,” in Kabelík, Jan, ed., Slovenská čitanka (Prague, 1925), pp. 331–42 Google Scholar; Jirásek, Josef, “Československá otázka na Slovensku,” Delnická osvĕta, 12, no. 1 (January 1926): 31–34, and 13, no. 2 (February 1927): 264-66Google Scholar; Novák, L’udovit, Jazykovednć glosy k československej otázke (Turčianský Sv. Martin, 1935)Google Scholar. For a doctrinaire Marxist study see Vladimir Kulíšek, “Úloha čechoslovakismu ve vztazích Čechů a Slováků (1918-1938),” Historický časopis (hereafter HČ), 12, no. 1 (1964): 50-74. For a contemporary analysis see Falt’an, Slovenská otázka. This sample by no means represents the whole gamut of opinions.

5. Süle, Tibor, Socialdemokratie in Ungarn (Cologne and Graz, 1967), pp. 171, 172Google Scholar. Cf. Istoriia vengerskogo revoliutsionnogo rabochego dvizheniia (Moscow, 1970), p. 64; Prehl’ad dejín KSČ na Slovensku (Bratislava, 1971), p. 60; Gosiorovský, Miloš, Dejiny slovenského robotníckeho hnutia (1848-1918) (Bratislava, 1956), pp. 185, 186.Google Scholar

6. Prehl’ad dejín, pp. 63, 64; Gosiorovský, Dejiny, pp. 177-80.

7. See the text of the resolution in Gosiorovský, Dejiny, pp. 347-48. For a perceptive evaluation see Mlynárik, Ján, “Prvná kráze slovenského Slovanství,” L (Prague), no. 2(13), Nov. 14, 1968.Google Scholar

8. “Vzpomínky dr. Ivana Dérera,” L, no. 2(13), Nov. 14, 1968.

9. The major work on the Slovak Soviet Republic is Vietor, Martin, Slovenská sovietská republika r. 1919 (Bratislava, 1955)Google Scholar. See also Toma, Peter A., “The Slovak Soviet Republic of 1919,” American Slavic and East European Rcview, 17, no. 2 (April 1958): 203–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balogh, Eva S., “Nationality Problems of the Hungarian Soviet Republic,” in Volgyes, Ivan, ed., Hungary in Revolution, 1918-1919 (Lincoln, 1971), pp. 112–20 Google Scholar; Vietor, Martin, “K tridsiatemu piatemu výročiu Slovenskej republiky rád,” HČ, 2, no. 2 (1954): 161–90.Google Scholar

10. Rudé právo (Prague), May 31, 1935; Tokes, Rudolf L., Bela Kun and the Hungarian Soviet Republic (New York, 1967), p. 191 Google Scholar; Balogh, “Nationality Problems,” p. 116; Vietor, “K tridsiatemu piatemu,” p. 189; L'ubomír Lipták, Slovensko v 20. storoči (Bratislava, 1968), pp. 85-91.

11. Balogh, “Nationality Problems,” p. 95; Vietor, “K tridsiatemu piatemu,” pp. 161, 170, 172; Dejiny KSČ: Študijná príručka (Bratislava, 1967), p. 142.

12. For Communist historians see Falt’an, Slovenská otázka, pp. 43, 53, and Lipták, Slovensko, pp. 88, 89. For right-wing nationalists see Vnuk, František, Kapitoly z dejín Komunistickej strany Slovenska (Middletown, Pa., 1968), pp. 11–15 Google Scholar, and Pokorný, Ctibor, “Der Kommunismus und die Slowaken,” in Die Slowakei als mitteleuropäisches Problem in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Munich, 1965), pp. 181–83Google Scholar. See also Reimann, Dějiny, pp. 97-100.

13. Jankovec, Wolfgang, “Nové Slovensko,” Delnická osvĕta, 24, no. 9-10 (1938): 323.Google Scholar

14. Holotík, L’udovít, “Ohlas Vel’kej októbrovej socialistickej revolúcie na Slovensku od konca roku 1917 do vzniku ČSR,” HČ, 5, no. 4 (1957): 438 Google Scholar, and “Októbrová revolúcia a revolučné hnutie na Slovensku koncom roku 1918,” HČ, 15, no. 4 (1967): 425-50.

15. Mlynárik, Ján, “Robotnícke hnutie na Slovensku roku 1920 (Od parlamentných volieb do decembrového generálneho štrajku),” HČ, 8, no. 1 (1960): 42, 46Google Scholar; Reimann, Dĕjiny, p. 103.

16. Rudé právo, Aug. 19, 1920; parliamentary sessions no. 6 of Dec. 12, 1925, and no. 5 of Nov. 30, 1927 (Stenographische Protokolle des Abgeordnetenhauses, Prague).

17. Zdenka Holotíková, “Niektoré problémy slovenskej politiky v rokoch 1921-1925,” HČ, 14, no. 3 (1966): 446; Zdenka Holotíková, “The Slovak Question and Czechoslovak Communist Party in the Pre-Munich Czechoslovakia,” Studia Historica Slovaca, 4 (1966): 149; Ján Mlynárik, “O hlavním nebezpeči,” Reportér, 4, no. 8 (Feb. 27, 1969): 12; Viliam Plevza, “K niektorým otázkam vývinu komunistického hnutia za predmníchovskej ČSR,” HČ, 13, no. 4 (1965): 496. Cf. the nationalist Vnuk (Kapitoly, pp. 43-50), who accused the Communist Party of being Magyar-ridden. In order to prove it was “un-Slovak” he mentioned also the Jewish and Czech leaders.

18. Rudé právo, June 14, 1921.

19. Thesen und Resolutionen des V. Weltkongresses der Kommunistischeii Internationale, Moskau, von 17 Juni bis 8 Jnli 1924 (Hamburg, 1924), p. 133 (hereafter V. Weltkongress).

20. During the Convention of the CPCS on May 16, 1921, the leading Slovak leftist Julius Verčík proclaimed: “The opinion of several Magyar comrades, that Slovakia is the Ukraine of Hungary, is false. The Slovak proletariat will never accept serfdom and the yoke from the hands of other people. (Stormy applause.)” Rudé právo večernik (Prague), May 18, 1921.

21. Czech worker military units participated in the defense of Slovakia against the Magyar Communists (Dejiny KSČ, p. 49).

22. Peroutka, Ferdinand, Budování státu, 4 vols. (Prague, 1933-36), 1: 304.Google Scholar

23. Václav Krái, ed., Cesta k Leninismu: Prameny k dĕjinám KSČ v letech 1921-1929 (Prague, 1971), p. 17 Google Scholar; Miroslav Klír, “Úloha B. Šmerala pri vypracovaní strategicko-taktické orientace KSČ,” Příspĕvky k dĕjinám KSČ (hereafter PDKSČ), 5, no. 1 (1965): p. 17.

24. Klír, “Úloha Šmerala,” pp. 32, 33.

25. Lipscher, Ladislav, K vývoju politickej správy na Slovensku v rokoch 1918-1938 (Bratislava, 1966).Google Scholar

26. Čuleň, Konštantín, Boj Slovákov o slobodu (Bratislava, 1944), p. 157.Google Scholar

27. For the full text see Falt’an, Slovenská otázka, appendix 1, p. 275.

28. Peroutka, Budování státu, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 1218-40, gives a fine picture of the mood in Slovakia in 1919.

29. Plevza, Viliam, KSČ a revolučné hnutie na Slovensku, 1929-1938 (Bratislava, 1965), p. 19 Google Scholar; Purgat, Juraj, Od Trianonu po Košice (Bratislava, 1970), p. 73 Google Scholar; Rudé právo večernik, Aug. 1, 1920, May 10, 1921.

30. Mlynárik, “Robotnicke hnutie,” p. 30, and “Vývoj robotníckeho hnutia na strednom Slovensku v rokoch 1918-1920,” HČ, 4, no. 3 (1956): 325.

31. Deputies from Slovakia attacked cultural and political discrimination against Slovaks. See parliamentary sessions no. 150 of June 21, 1922, and no. 156 of June 26, 1922.

32. For Šmeral’s views on the national question in Slovakia see Reimann, Dĕjiny, p. 72; Rudé právo, Aug. 1, 1920, July 14, 1921; Miroslav Klir, “Dr. Bohumir Šmeral,” PDKSČ, 5, no. 6 (1965): 930-39; Klir, “Úloha Šmerala,” pp. 28-33; Ján Mlynárik, “Dr. Bohumir Šmeral a slovenská národnostná otázka v počiatkoch komunistického hnutia,” Českoslovesnský časopis historicitý (hereafter ČČH), 15 (1967): 653-66. The last essay particularly is important for understanding Šmeral’s views during the early years of the republic. Mlynárik argues forcefully that neglect of Šmeral’s views was detrimental to the further development of the party. See also Ján Mlynárik, “Kdo má tedy pravdu,” LL (Prague), no. 25, Aug. 15, 1968: Vladimir Dubský, “UtvaŘeni politické linie KSČ v obdobi Šmeralova vedeni,” PDKSŠ, 7, nos. 3 and 4 (1967): 645-68, 803-38.

33. For an English description of the foundation of the CPCS see H. Skilling, Gordon, “The Formation of a Communist Party in Czechoslovakia,” American Slavic and East European Review, 14, no. 3 (October 1955): 346–58 Google Scholar. See also Korbel, Josef, The Communist Subversion of Czechoslovakia, 1938-1948 (Princeton, 1959), pp. 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. There participated 149 delegates, including 88 Slovaks, 36 Magyars, 15 Germans, 6 Ruthenians, and 4 Jews (although there were many more delegates of Jewish origin, only four members of the Poale Zion Party identified themselves as Jews by nationality). Jozef Husár, ed., Zjazd v L’ubochni 1921, Dokumenty (Bratislava, 1969), p. 57 Google Scholar. See also Holotik, L’udovít, “Sjazd sociálnodemokratickej strany (l’avice) na Slovensku v januári 1921,” HČ, 11, no. 3 (1963): 337–65Google Scholar; Kuhn, Heinrich, Der Kommunismus in der Tschechoslowakei (Cologne, 1965), pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

35. Husár, Zjazd, pp. 34, 40, 57, 60, 61, 122.

36. Ibid., p. 38. Cf. Rudé právo veČcmík, Dec. 2, 1920.

37. Ibid., p. 125. We have few details on this debate. The police dispersed the meeting, and the participants did not finish the agenda.

38. Ibid., pp. 158, 160.

39. Prehl’ad dejín, p. 116.

40. Reimann, Dĕjiny, p. 93; Rudé právo večemík, May 18, 1921. In an editorial of May 10, 1921, the paper admitted the existence of the Czechoslovak language.

41. Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” pp. 658, 659. For secret details on the founding of the CPCS see Gorovský, Karel, “O založeni KSČ—dražd’anská konference v dubnu 1921,” Revue dejin socialismu, 3 (1968): 600–620 Google Scholar. See also Gordon Skilling, H., “The Comintern and Czechoslovak Communism: 1921-1929,” American Slavic and East European Review, 19, no. 2 (April 1960): 234–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Die Tätigkeit der Exekutive des Präsidiums des EK der Kommunistischen Internationale vom 13 Juli 1921 bis 7 Februar 1922 (Petrograd, 1922), p. 40; Král, Cesta, document no. 6, p. 68, and no. 8, p. 71.

43. Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 496; Kuhn, Der Kommunismus, p. 21; Holotíkova, “Niektoré problémy,” p. 448; Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” p. 665.

44. Kramer, Juraj and Mlynárik, Ján, “Revolučné hnutie a národnostná otázka na Slovensku v dvadsiatych rokoch,” HČ, 13, no. 3 (1965): 430 Google Scholar. An outstanding leader of Slovak Communists, Jozef Schiffel, emigrated in disappointment to the United States.

45. Lipták, Slovensko, p. 104. Pravda chudoby, Oct. 4, 1923.

46. Krái, Cesta, document no. 22, p. 101; Rudé právo, May 9, 1922, Nov. 23, 1922; Pravda chudoby, Jan. 2 and 9, 1923.

47. Die Tätigkeit, p. 43; Rudé právo, Oct. 8, 1921; Hájek, Miloš, Jednotná fronta: K politické orientaci Komunistické internacionaly v letech 1921-1935 (Prague, 1969), p. 51.Google Scholar

48. Parliamentary session no. 150 of June 21, 1922; Pravda chudoby, Jan. 2, 1923.

49. Rudé právo, May 30, 1922, Nov. 23, 1922; parliamentary session no. 151 of June 22, 1922; Pravda chudoby, Jan. 2, 1923. Of particular interest is the article “Cesta Hlinková” ( “Hlinka’s Way” ) in Pravda chudoby, Jan. 16, 1923. The anonymous writer explains that one cannot oppose a demand for national autonomy, since every nation has the right to self-government. But Slovakia is not self-sufficient enough to stay on her own feet. Economic crises strike not only Slovakia but the entire world, and only doing away with capitalism will solve the country’s problems.

50. Rudé právo, July 18, 1924, Feb. 12, 1929.

51. Cf. Bericht über den IV. Kongress der Kommunistischen Internationale: Petrograd-Moskau vom 5 November bis 5 Dezember 1922 (Hamburg, 1923), p. 60.

52. Klír, “Úloha Šmerala,” p. 33; Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 506.

53. Pravda chudoby, May 29 and 31, July 31, Dec. 8, 13, and 18, 1923; Holotíková, Zdenka, “Bol’ševizačný proces KSČ v rokoch 1924-1929,” HČ, 5, no. 2 (1957): 208 Google Scholar; Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 497; Miloš Gosiorovský, “Slovensko a V. Sjazd KSČ,” ČČH, 2, no. 1 (1954): 9 Google Scholar; Protokoll der Konferenz der eriweiterten Exekutive der Kommunistischen Internationale, Moskau, 12-23 Jnni 1923 (Hamburg, 1923), p. 199.

54. Parliamentary sessions nos. 150 and 151 of June 22, 1922, and no. 156 of June 26, 1922.

55. Pravda chudoby, Jan. 16 and 23, Feb. 2, Mar. 10 and 22, Sept. 18, and Oct. 9, 1923.

56. Rudé právo, Jan. 14, 1926; Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” p. 662; Gosiorovský, “Slovensko,” pp. 8-11.

57. Holotíková, “Niektoré problémy,” p. 433.

58. Pravda chudoby, Mar. 10, Apr. 14 and 29, May 12, Aug. 12, Sept. 4, 1923.

59. The Lubochňa meeting disbanded the Jewish faction (Husár, Zjazd, pp. 67, 68, 125). Cf. Protokol VII. sjezdu KSČ 11-14 dubna 1936 (Prague, 1967), 137, 138; Holotík, “Sjazd,” p. 355.

60. Parliamentary session no. 172 of Nov. 23, 1922.

61. Hájek, Jednotná fronta, p. 98.

62. Král, Cesla, p. 31, and document no. 25, p. 108. Cf. V. Weltkongress, pp. 124-31.

63. V. Weltkongress, p. 131.

64. Reimann, Dĕjiny, p. 151; Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 506.

65. Rudé právo, Sept. 23, 1924.

66. Karol Kreibich, “Národnostná otázka v Československu,” Kommunisticheskii Internatsional, no. 3-4 (May-June 1924), pp. 96-103, quoted by Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 498; Rudé právo, July 5 and Aug. 18, 1924; parliamentary session no. 295 of Aug. 30, 1924.

67. Pondelní noviny (Prague), Sept. 13 and 22, 1924.

68. Krái, Cesta, document no. 32, p. 124; Rudé právo, Sept. 3 and 4, 1924.

69. Pravda chudoby, July 30, 1924. Rudé právo, Aug. 22, 1924.

70. Gosiorovský, Miloš, “K niektorým otázkam vzt’ahu Čechov a Slovákov v politike Komunistickej strany Československa,” HČ, 16, no. 3 (1968): 362 Google Scholar; Mencl, Vojtĕch, “K historii II. sjezdu KSČ,” ČČH, 3, no. 4 (1955): 586 Google Scholar; Purgat, Od Trianonu, pp. 76, 77; Plevza, “K niektorým,” pp. 506, 507.

71. Rudé právo, Nov. 7, 1924.

72. The “national bolsheviks” later came to be called “bourgeois nationalists.” Cf. Kulíšek, “Úloha,” p. 69.

73. The address by Manuilsky is in Rudé právo, Nov. 5, 1924.

74. Rudé právo, Sept; 4, 1924. It should be noted that Verčik himself deserted the line and requested the breakup of Czechoslovakia and independence for Slovakia. Mencl, “K historii,” p. 586.

75. Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” p. 665. The party’s inconsistency in dealing with Slovakia was criticized not only by the men of the Czechoslovak Spring but also by the orthodox, such as Miloš Gosiorovský and Bohuslav Graca, and by opportunists such as Viliam Plevza, and Zdenek and L’udovít Holotík. The historiography of the history of nationalism in Slovakia and the Communists is an amusing story, worthy of an essay by itself.

76. Holotíková, “The Slovak Question,” p. 154.

77. For an interpretation of the party’s weakness among the Slovaks see ibid., pp. 148-51.

78. For Dav and its contributors see Plevza, Viliam, Davisti v revolučnom hnutí (Bratislava, 1965)Google Scholar; DAV: Spomienky a študie (Bratislava, 1965); Štefan Drug, DAV a davisti (Bratislava, 1965).

79. Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 508; Král, Cesta, document no. 49, p. 197; Holotíková, “Bol’ševizačný proces,” p. 213.

80. Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 508; Král, Cesta, document no. 63, p. 249. Even Zinoviev branded the Slovaks as ultraleftist. See Rudé právo, June 18, 1925.

81. Protokoll erweiterte Exekutive der Kommunistischen Internationale, Moskau, 21 Marz-6 April 1925 (Hamburg, 1925), p. 73; Rudé právo, Apr. 15, 1925. See also Stalin’s participation in the Czechoslovak committee of the Comintern, Král, Cesta, document no. 53, p. 202.

82. Rudé právo, Jan. 24, Sept. 19, and Oct. 29, 1925; parliamentary sessions no. 368 of Oct. 1, 1925, and no. 3 of Dec. 18, 1925. Rudé právo večerník, July 13, 1925.

83. Protokol III. řádného sjezdu KSČ (Prague, 1967), p. 262.

84. Szaksservezeti Munkas (Prague), 3, no. 11 (November 1925). For the crisis and the rightist coalition see Olivová, Vĕra, The Doomed Democracy (London and Montreal, 1972), pp. 157–60.Google Scholar

85. Rudé právo, Jan. 10, 1926, carried the text of the communiqué (see also the editorial and the commentaries). Rudé právo, Jan. 13, 1926.

86. Rudé právo večernik, Jan. 12, 1926. Rudé právo, Jan. 14 and 20, 1926.

87. Parliamentary sessions no. 10 of Feb. 19, 1926, and no. 36 of June 19, 1926.

88. Pravda chudoby of July 29, 1926, carried the text of the proclamation.

89. Kramer and Mlynárik, “Revolučné hnutie,” pp. 431, 437, 438, 439; Plevza, “K niektorým,” p. 510; Mlynárik, “Kdo má” ; Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” p. 661; Holotíková, “The Slovak Question,” pp. 155, 156; Gosiorovský, “Slovensko,” pp. 8, 9.

90. Reimann, Dĕjiny, p. 172; Mlynárik, “Kdo má” ; Kramer and Mlynárik, “Revolučné hnutie,” p. 439. See the harsh attack on Verčik in Gosiorovský, “Slovensko,” pp. 8, 9.

91. See examples in Rudé právo, Jan. 18, 1927; parliamentary session no. 93 of July 1, 1927. Cf. Viliam Plevza, Československá štátnost’ a sloveiiská otázka v politike KSČ (Bratislava, 1971), pp. 111 , 112.

92. Lipscher, K vývinu, pp. 157-59; parliamentary session no. 93 of July 1, 1927.

93. Parliamentary sessions no. 61 of Jan. 15, 1927, and no. 90 of July 20, 1927; Rudé právo, July 20, 1927.

94. Rudé právo, Mar. 24, 26, and 27, 1927. Cf. Gosiorovský, “K niektorým,” p. 364, and Za bolševickou orientaci KSČ, Sborník dokumentů k I. svazku spisů Klementa Gottwalda (Prague, 1953), p. 68.

95. Rudé právo, Mar. 8, 11, and 12. and June 18. 1927.

96. Václav Kopecký, ČSR a KSČ (Prague, 1960), p. 227. Karlín is a section of Prague. Mlynárik, “O hlavnini nebezpeči,” pp. 12, 13; Mlynárik, “Kdo má”; Zdenek Hradilak. “Místo v dejinách: Čtyricet let od V. sjezdu KSČ,” Reportér, 4, no. 7 (Feb. 20, 1969): 14-16. During the Czechoslovak Spring historians argued that the Fifth Congress rerouted the CPCS away from the wise guidance of ၠmeral and opened the door to the “cult of personality.” For an attack on the “revisionist” historians and a defense of the Gottwald group see Michal Štefánek’s introduction to Protokol V. řádného sjezdu KSČ, 18-23 túnora 1929 (Prague, 1971), esp. p. 7 (hereafter V. Sjezd). Cf. Plevza, Československá štátnost’, pp. 116-22.

97. Viliam Plevza, “Príspevok o činnosti davistov v revolučnom hnutí za predmníchovskej ČSR,” HČ, 12, no. 1 (1964): 7-9; Holotíková, “Bol’ševizačný proces,” pp. 217, 218; Gosiorovský, “Slovensko,” pp. 12-14; Bohuslav Graca, “O vzniku a boji KSČ za predmníchovskej ČSR,” HČ, 9, no. 2 (1961): 197.

98. Sechster Weltkongress der Kommunistischcn Internationale, Moskau, 17 Juni-1 September, 1928 (Hamburg and Berlin, 1928), p. 341; Král, Cesta, document no. 80, pp. 302-9. Vladimir Dubský, “Historický význam V. sjezdu KSČ,” ČČH, 7 (1959): 22.

99. V. Sjezd, pp. 50, 51; Klement Gottwald, Výbor z dila (Prague, 1971), pp. 59, 60, 70, 71.

100. V. Sjezd, pp. 76-79, 90-92. 121-23, 147-49, 197-99, etc. Cf. Rudé právo, Feb. 12, 1929: Miroslav Klír, “Karel Kreibich,” PDKSČ, 7, no. 1 (1967): 85.

101. V. Sjezd, pp. 449-53.

102. Mlynárik, “Šmeral,” p. 656: Kramer and Mlynárik, “Revolučné hnutie,” p. 432.