Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T19:59:21.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working with the Enemy: Labor Politics in the Czech Borderlands, 1945–48

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2010

David Gerlach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first issue of Settlement (Osidlování), the weekly paper of the Czechoslovak Settlement Office, an article entitled, “So That It Is Not Forgotten,” explained the reasons for the Czech hatred of Germans: “[I]t is hatred as the reaction for the most ruthless attack which was undertaken by Germans against humanity and not least against us.” After invoking the authority of Jan Hus, the fifteenth-century religious reformer and longtime Czech national icon, the author concluded: “It is the spontaneous wish of the entire nation that we completely get rid of the Germans with final certainty, even at the price of clear material loss. It is up to us to prove that all Germans are replaceable, and that we not only have the ability, but especially enough good will and self-sacrifice to prove this in deed.” This column became a regular series that provided different examples of Germans betraying the Czech nation and thereby helped to justify the need to expel them from the country. Coming as it did in the spring of 1946, when the pace of the Allied-sponsored “population transfer” began to accelerate, the column seems somewhat out of place. Hundreds of thousands of Sudeten Germans had previously been expelled in 1945; with current Allied support there was no apparent need to justify the policy further. Yet the attempts to rekindle the atmosphere of hatred spawned by the war came at a time when some Czechs sought to retain Sudeten Germans for labor needs, especially in the borderland regions where the vast majority of these German speakers lived and worked. The “spontaneous wish of the nation” to expel every last German needed some prodding.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 38 , January 2007 , pp. 179 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2007

Access options

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

References

1 Dr. Josíf, “Aby se nezapomnělo” [So that it is not forgotten], Osidlování [Settlement], 17 May 1946.

2 This article uses various designations for those generally considered “German” and living in the Czech lands. Using “Germans” to refer to these people would impose an identity accepted by the expellers, but not necessarily by the expellees. To draw attention to this fact, I attempt to use “German” only when it is warranted by the “Czech” (also problematic) perspective. Elsewhere I use “Sudeten Germans” (a more current and accepted designation) or “German speakers” (drawing attention to one of the primary markers of nationality at this time). While these descriptions also have their drawbacks, other neutral references, such as “Czechoslovak Germans” or “borderland Germans,” would be overly cumbersome for the reader.

3 Curp, David T., “The Politics of Ethnic Cleansing: The PPR, the PZZ and Wielkopolska's Nationalist Revolution, 1944–1946,” Nationalities Papers 29, no. 4 (2001): 575–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snyder, Timothy, “To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947,” Journal of Cold War Studies 1, no. 2 (1999): 86–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the chapters on Poland in the following: Várdy, Steven B. and Tooley, T. Hunt, eds., Ethnic Cleansing in 20th Century Europe (Boulder, 2003)Google Scholar; Ther, Philipp and Siljak, Ana, eds., Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944–1948 (Lanham, 2001)Google Scholar.

4 The Sudetenland refers geographically to areas along the northern border of the present-day Czech Republic where the Sudety mountain range runs. Following World War I and even more so during the 1930s, the Sudetenland became a geopolitical designation, for some, and included all the border regions of Czechoslovakia along the borders of Austria and Germany where significant numbers of German speakers lived. The borderlands (pohraničí in Czech) relates specifically to those areas annexed by Germany and attached to Austria following the Munich Agreement, both in popular and official usage. This article's primary concern is border areas in the northern part of present-day Czech Republic.

5 Brandes, Detlef, Cesta do vyhnání, 1938–1945: Plány a rozhodnutí o „transferu“Němců z Československa a z Polska [The road to expulsion, 1938–1945: Plans and decisions about “the transfer” of Germans from Czechoslovakia and Poland], trans. Dvořáček, Petr (Prague, 2002)Google Scholar; Smelser, Ronald, “The Expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, 1945–1952,” Nationalities Papers 24, no. 1 (1996): 79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Staněk, Tomáš, Odsun Němců z Československu, 1945–1948 [The transfer of Germans from Czechoslovakia, 1945–1948] (Prague, 1991)Google Scholar; de Zayas, Alfred, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East, 2nd ed. (Lincoln, 1989)Google Scholar.

6 Tampke, Jürgen, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe: From Bohemia to the EU (New York, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, Jeremy, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–1948 (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Bryant, Chad, “Either German or Czech: Fixing Nationality in Bohemia and Moravia, 1939–1946,” Slavic Review 61, no. 4 (2002): 683–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Naimark, Norman, “The Expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia,” in Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe (Cambridge, MA, 2001), 108–38Google Scholar; Glassheim, Eagle, “National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing: The Expulsion of Czechoslovak Germans in 1945,” Central European History 33, no. 4 (2000): 463–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frommer, Benjamin, “Expulsion or Integration: Unmixing Interethnic Marriage in Postwar Czechoslovakia,” East European Politics and Societies 14, no. 2 (2000): 381–410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Gross, Jan, “War as Revolution,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, ed. Deák, István, Gross, Jan, and Judt, Tony (Princeton, 2000), 17–40Google Scholar. Bradley Abrams makes a similar argument; see Abrams, Bradley, “The Second World War and the East European Revolution,” East European Politics and Societies 16, no. 3 (2002): 623–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Gross, “War as Revolution,” 24–25.

9 For more on the relationship between the expulsions and retribution in Czechoslovakia, see Frommer, Benjamin, National Cleansing: Retribution against Nazi Collaborators in Postwar Czechoslovakia (Cambridge, 2005), 228–66Google Scholar.

10 Nicosia, Francis R. and Huener, Jonathan, eds., Business and Industry in Nazi Germany (New York, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aly, Götz and Heim, Susanne, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, trans. Blunden, A. G. (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Browning, Christopher, Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 For the story of workers and industrialization in the Soviet 1930s, see Kotkin, Stephen, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization (Berkley, 1995)Google Scholar; Kuromiya, Hiroaki, Stalin's Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 1988)Google Scholar; Siegelbaum, Lewis, Stakhanovism and the Politics of Productivity in the USSR (Cambridge, 1988)Google Scholar. For an introduction into the economy of the Gulag, see Gregory, Paul R. and Lazarev, Valery, eds., The Economics of Forced Labor: The Soviet Gulag (Stanford, 2003)Google Scholar.

12 In the borderlands, where German speakers predominated, local and district administrative commissions were created until enough Czechs had settled these areas. Administrative commissions were smaller, and their members were appointed rather than elected, like those in national committees. While these political and administrative organs sometimes operated differently, in terms of using German workers, they faced the same problems and often arrived at similar solutions. Therefore, I generally use “national committee” to designate both administrative commissions and national committees, except when referring to specific examples. For more on national committees, see 6. vědecká archivní konference: Revoluční národní vybory, osídlování pohraničí a význam národních vyborů pří zajišt'ování národně-democratického procesu v ČSR v letech 1944–1948 [Sixth archival conference: Revolutionary national committees, borderland settlement and the role of national committees during the implementation of the national democratic process in Czechoslovakia, 1944–1948] (Ústí nad Labem, 1990)Google Scholar; Bertelmann, Karel, Vývoj národních vyborů do ústavy 9. května [The development of national committees until the May 9th constitution] (Prague, 1964)Google Scholar.

13 Beinhauerová, Anna and Sommer, Karel, “K některým aspektům průmyslové zaměstnanosti v českých zemích od osvobození do zahájení dvouletky” [On several aspects of industrial employment in the Czech lands from liberation to the beginning of the Two-Year Plan], Československý časopis historický [Czechoslovak historical journal] 37, no. 3 (1989): 321–46Google Scholar; Hrabovec, Emilia, “Politisches Dogma kontra wirtschaftliches Kalkül,” in Heimat und Exil, ed. Heumos, Peter (Munich, 2001): 163–85Google Scholar; Jirásek, Zdeněk, “Němečtí specialisté ve lnářském průmyslu severovýchodních Čech po roce 1945” [German specialists in the linen industry in northeastern Bohemia aft er 1945], Acta historica et museologica [Historical and museological reports] 1 (1994): 72–89Google Scholar; Staněk, Odsun Němců, 155–61, 290–318.

14 See Article VIII of the Košice Program. Program první Českoslovnské vlády Národní fronty [Program of the first Czechoslovak government of the National Front] (Prague, 1955), 14–16Google Scholar.

15 Zinner, Paul, Communist Strategy and Tactics in Czechoslovakia, 1918–1948 (New York, 1963), 104–6Google Scholar. The actual title of the “Socialist Bloc” was “The National Block of Working People in the Cities and the Countryside.”

16 Srb, Vladimir, Populační, ekonomický a národnostní vývoj pohraničích okresů ČSR od roku 1930 do roku 2010 [Population, economic and nationality development of borderland districts of Czechoslovakia from 1930 to 2010] (Prague, 1989), 8Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, ed., The Expulsion of the German Population from Czechoslovakia, vol. 4, Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe, trans. de Sausmarez, G. H. (Bonn, 1960), 105Google Scholar.

17 Article 13 of the Agreement, which related to the transfer, is reprinted in Schieder, Expulsion of the German Population, 108n53.

18 0536/taj.1.odd.1945 from Velitelství první oblasti (hereafter cited as VO1), 7 June 1945, fond (hereafter cited as f.) Velitelství první oblasti (VO1), karton (hereafter cited as k.) 49 inventární čislo (hereaft er cited as inv.č.) 267, Vojenský historický archiv (hereafter cited as VHA) Prague, Czech Republic.

19 Instructions from Ministry of National Defense, 12 June 1945, f. VO1, k.2 inv.č.21, VHA; Biman, S. a Cílek, R., Poslední mrtví, první živí: České pohraničí květen až srpen 1945 [The last dead, the first living: The Czech borderlands May to August 1945] (Ústí nad Labem, 1989), 31Google Scholar; Staněk, Odsun Němců, 64–65. This helps explain why the Provincial National Committee in Prague ordered lower national committees to stop their own expulsions as of 14 June 1945. Glassheim, “National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing,” 478.

20 Postup vysídlování obyvatelstva německé národnosti [The progress of expatriating German national inhabitants], 12 divise, First Divisional Headquarters, 9 August 1945, f. VO1, k.49 inv.č.271, VHA.

21 See, for example, Report from Štáb-2.oddělení VO1, 7 July 1945, f. VO1, k.48 inv.č.264, VHA; Report from Štáb-1.oddělení VO1, 16 July 1945, f. VO1, k.49 inv.č.267, VHA.

22 Směrnice k nařízení zemského národního výboru o vystěhování Němců [Directive to the order of the provincial national committee about the removal of Germans] č.874, Zemský národní výbor v Praze (hereaft er cited as ZNVP), 12 June 1945, f. Ministerstvo vnitra-Nová registratura (hereaft er cited as MV-NR), k.7443 inv.č.4148 signatura (hereafter cited as s.) B300, Národní archiv (hereaft er cited as NA), Prague; 75 Taj.1.odděl.1945, 19 June 1945, Velitelství 1. sboru, f. VO1, k.48, i.263, VHA; Zásadení směrnice pro řizení a provádění akce k vyčíšténí Moravy a Slezska od Němců [Basic directive for the administration and operational action to cleanse Moravia and Silesia of Germans], Velitelství 3. oblastí (hereaft er cited as VO3), 25 June 1945. f. Okresní národní výbor (hereafter cited as ONV) Bruntál I, k.13 inv.č. 81, Státní okresní archiv (hereafter cited as SOkA) Bruntál; Biman and Cílek, Poslední mrtví, první živí, 44–45; Staněk, Odsun Němců, 155.

23 Zápis o stěhovací akcí za voj. součinnosti, Československý Národní výbor v Polevsku [Record of the removal action under military cooperation], 20 June 1945, f. VO1, k.49, inv.č.267, VHA.

24 Pamětní záznam [Witness record], 14 July 1945, f. Severočeský hnědouhelné doly-generalní ředitelství (hereafter cited as SHD-GŘ;), s. 5–3–10 č. 279 01, 03, Státní oblastní archiv, Litoměříce, pobočka v Mostě (hereaft er cited as SOA, p. Most).

25 See meeting of various district officials about problems with the expulsion of miners, 22 August 1945, f. ONV Teplice, k.8 inv.č.239, SOkA Teplice.

26 See examples in the following: Proposal for the organization of the local national committee, undated (likely early May 1945), f. Městský národní vybor (hereafter cited as MěNV) SOkA Jablonec nad Nisou, k.123 inv.č.58, SOkA Jablonec; Minutes from meeting of the Revolutionary National Committee Děčín, 20 May 1945, f. MěNV Děčín, k.1, inv.č.39, SOkA Děčín; See lists for requests of exemption from local factories, f. MěNV Vejprty, k.16 inv.č.20, SOkA Chomutov.

27 Report from Josef Gottwald to the Office of the Presidium of the Government, 11 August 1945, f. Ministerstvo průmyslu, 1945–50 (hereaft er cited as MP), k.1141, inv.č.3631, NA.

28 Ibid; Vystěhování Němců z Jablonec nad Nisou [Removal of Germans from Jablonec], Ministerstvo vnitra (hereafter cited as MV), 24 July 1945, f. Úřad předsednictva vlády-tajné (hereaft er cited as ÚPV-T), s.127/2 k.308 inv. č.1635, NA.

29 Report from Josef Gottwald, 11 August 1945, f. MP, k.1141, inv.č.3631, NA; Vl. Mikolášek, “Jak je postupováno v odsunu německých odborníků na jablonecku” [How the transfer of German specialists from Jablonec is progressing], Stráž severu [Sentinel of the north], 8 December 1946.

30 Interior memo from Department 13, MP, 5 September 1945, f. MP, k.1140 inv.č.3631, NA; Oběžník B-2111–11/7–45-II/1, MV, 10 July 1945, f. MV-NR, k.1948 inv.č.1602 s.B2111, NA; Reports from Úřad národní bezpečnosti [Office of national security], Jablonec, 4 July 1945, 20 July 1945, 1 August 1945, f. MV-NR, k.7445 inv.č.4148 s.B300, NA.

31 Internal memo for minister from Department II, Ministerstvo hospodářství a práce, 25 July 1945, f. Ministerstvo ochrany práce a sociální péče, 1945–51 (hereafter cited as MOPSP), k.556 inv.č.1131 s.2246, NA.

32 Letter from MV, 19 August 1945, f. MP, k.1140, inv.č.3631, NA; see also directive Z-1 11856/1945–9, MV, 13 September 1945, f. ONV Opava-venkov, k.12, inv.č.114, SOkA Opava.

33 Browning, Nazi Policy, 65–68.

34 Report from Josef Gottwald, 18 September 1945, f. MP, k.1141, inv.č.3631, NA; Report from Josef Gottwald, 13 September 1945, f. MV-NR, k.1943 inv.č.1602 s.B2111, NA.

35 Reports from Josef Gottwald, 10 and 24 October 1945, f. MV-NR, k.1943 inv.č.1602 s.B2111, NA; Report from Zemský odbor bezpečnosti odd. II., ZNVP, 18 October 1945. Ibid.

36 Report from Zemský odbor bezpečnosti odd. II., ZNVP, 18 October 1945, f. MV-NR, k.1943 inv.č.1602 s.B2111, NA.

37 Srb, Vladimír, Materialy k problematice novoosídleneckého pohraničí [Materials on the problems of the newly settled borderlands] (Prague, 1984), 76–77Google Scholar; Československá statistika. Soupisy obyvatelstva v Československu v letech 1946–1947 [Czechoslovak statistics. Registration of inhabitants in Czechoslovakia in 1946–1947], svazek 184, řada VI, sešit 15 (Prague, 1951), 528Google Scholar. This table gives 729,126 as number of inhabitants present on 1 May 1945 in borderland communities, including German speakers still present in May 1947. The number of Germans, according to Srb elsewhere, was 180,000. See Srb, Populační, ekonomický a národnostní, 7. The Settlement Office listed 350,000 Czech speakers living in the borderlands at the beginning of May 1945. These figures do not include 100,000 workers, which Settlement officials argued returned to the interior of the country following the war. See, for example, “Rok úsilovné práce” [A year of diligent work], Osidlování, 25 September 1946; Report on settlement, Osidlovací úřad (OÚ), 28 January 1946, f. Osídlovací komise při Ústřední výbor KSČ (hereafter cited as 23), archivní jednotek (hereafter cited as a.j.) 359, NA.

38 Ruman, L., “Vývoj průmyslové zaměstnanosti od března do července 1946” [Development of industrial employment from March to June 1946], Statistický zpravodaj [Statistical bulletin] 9, no. 10 (1946): 315Google Scholar; Karel Janu, “Pohraničí, průmysl a dvouletý plan” [Borderlands, industry and the Two-Year Plan], Osidlováni, 10 November 1946. This article gives 122,000 as the number of Czech speakers in industry to 31 July 1945, though this does not correspond with other labor figures.

39 Stráž severu, 8 June 1945.

40 Jech, Karel and Kaplan, Karel, eds., Dekrety prezidenta republiky 1940–1945: Dokumenty [Decrees of the president of the republic 1940–1945: Documents], 2 vols. (Brno, 1995), 1:276–303Google Scholar.

41 Kotátko, Jiří, Konfiskace, rozdělování a osidlování půdy [Confiscation, allocation and settlement of farmland] (Prague, 1946), 7Google Scholar; Slezák, Lubomír, Zemědělské osídlování pohraničí českých zemí po druhé světové válce [Agricultural settlement of the Czech lands' borderlands after the Second World War] (Brno, 1978), 59–60Google Scholar.

42 Z-3751/1945/II, MV, 10 July 1945, f. MOPSP, k.556 inv.č.1131 s.2246, NA.

43 Report on population and workforce, Okresní úřad ochraný práce (hereafter cited as OÚOP) Krnov, 1 November 1945, f. OÚOP Krnov, k.6 inv.č.21, SOkA Bruntál; For Krnov's population growth, compare reports: Situační zpráva—úřad Národní bezpečností [Situation report—office of national security] Krnov, 11 July 1945 and 15 October 1945, f. ONV Krnov I, dodatky, k.11 inv.č.92, SOkA Bruntál.

44 Stav osazenstva dolů dle revírů v červenci [Employment level of mines according to district in July], MOPSP, f. MOPSP, k.477 inv.č.1068 s.2140, NA.

45 Zpráva na schůzi na Ministerstvo průmyslu [Report on the meeting at the Ministry of Industry], 29–30 October 1945, f. 23, a.j.349/1, NA; Dnešek [Today], 2 May 1945; Beinhauerová and Sommer, “K některým aspektům,” 325–26, 330–33; Staněk, Odsun Němců, 156.

46 Letter from Ústředí ostravsko-karvinského kamenouhelného revíru [Headquarters of the Ostrava-Karvina anthracite district], 16 August 1945, f. MOPSP, k.477 inv.č.1068 s.2140, NA.

47 Německé pracovní síly v hornictví-návrh [German labor force in mining proposal], OÚOP Mor. Ostrava, 5 November 1945, f. MOPSP, k.477 inv.č.1068 s.2140, NA; Zpráva o politického a hospodářského situace [Report about the political and economic situation], Úřad národní bezpečnosti [Office of national security], Krnov, 15 October 1945, f. ONV Krnov I, dodatky, k.11 inv.č.92, SOkA Bruntál.

48 Interior memo for minister, 22 December 1945, f. MOPSP, k.477 inv.č.1068 s.2142, NA. For other measures carried out at SHD, see Zdeněk Radvanovský, “Resettling Czechs into Northwestern Bohemia,” in Redrawing Nations, ed. Ther and Siljak, 247–48.

49 Reports from district labor offices, MOPSP, 10 November 1945, f. MOPSP, k.556 inv.č.1131 s.2246, NA.

50 The Settlement Office controlled policies concerning non-agricultural confiscated property. The Ministry of Agriculture had a separate office to deal with confiscated farmland. For an analysis of the OÚ's role in settlement and expulsion policy making, see von Arburg, Adrian, “Tak či onak” [One way or another], Soudobé dějiny [Contemporary history] 10, no. 3 (2003): 253–92Google Scholar.

51 Kreysa, Miroslav, Budujeme pohraničí [We are constructing the borderlands] (Prague, 1946), 11Google Scholar; For other discussions of “settlement politics,” see Miroslav Kreysa, “Osidlovací politika lidově demokratického státu [Settlement politics of a people's democratic state], Osidlování, 17 May 1946; Kot'átko, Jiří, Zemědělská osidlovací politika v pohraničí [Agricultural settlement politics in the borderlands] (Prague, 1946)Google Scholar.

52 Resoluce národní správy podníků průmyslových, exportních obchodních a řemeslných [Resolution of national administrators of industrial, export and craft firms], 17 October 1945, f. MP, k.1141, inv.č.3631, NA.

53 Prozatimní všeobečné směrnice o Němcích [Interim general directive about Germans], Národní bezpečnostní stráž pro Moravu v Brně [National security force for Moravia in Brno], 20 May 1945, f. ONV Krnov, k.217 inv.č.262, SOkA Bruntál.

54 Announcement, OÚOP Šumperk, 27 June 1945, f.MOPSP, k.120 inv.č.3611, NA. Reprinted in Schieder, Expulsion of the German Population, 306–7.

55 Jech and Kaplan, Dekrety, 1:454.

56 Staněk, Tomáš, Tábory v českých zemích, 1945–1948 [Camps in the Czech lands, 1945–1948] (Opava, 1996), 28Google Scholar.

57 Joza, Petr, Rabštejnské údolí [Rabstein Valley] (Děčín, 2002)Google Scholar.

58 Report on district camps, Sběrné středisko [Collection center] Krnov, 24 February 1947, f. ONV Krnov I, k.217 inv.č.261, SOkA Bruntál.

59 Intimovany výnos [Information report] 2118/45, MV, f. MOPSP, k. 556 inv.č. 1131 s.2246, NA.

60 II 5310–8/9 from MOPSP, 8 September 1945, k. 556 inv.č. 1131 s.2246, NA; See also Staněk, Tábory, 59–64.

61 Staněk, Tábory, 29.

62 Mesíční zpráva o politické situace [Monthly report about the political situation], Okresní spravní komise (hereafter cited as OSK) Frývaldov, 20 August 1945, f. ONV Jeseník, k.2 inv.č.63, SOkA Jeseník. The shooting was reportedly carried out by a small group on 14 and 17 August. See Staněk, Tábory, 48–49; Hradilová, Jana, “Internace německého obyvatelstva v adolfovickém táboře 1945–1946” [Internment of German inhabitants in the Adolfov camp 1945–1946], Jesenicko [Jeseník] 2 (2001): 28Google Scholar.

63 Mesíční zpráva o politické situace [Monthly report about the political situation], OSK Frývaldov, 20 September 1945, f. ONV Jeseník, k.2 inv.č.63, SOkA Jeseník.

64 Staněk, Tábory, 77. For more on the brutal treatment of Germans in camps, see Staněk, Tábory, 76–87; Schieder, Expulsion of the German Population, 87–88.

65 Her story and the quotations for the next two paragraphs can be found in Schieder, Expulsion of the German Population, 415–20.

66 Browning, Nazi Policy, 2; Naimark, “Th e Expulsion of Germans,” 3–4, 35–38; Mann, Michael, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge, 2004), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Staněk, Tábory, 129.

68 Compare, for example, Letter from Hospodářská skupina oděvního průmyslu [Economic group of footwear industry], 22 June 1945, and Letter from Pracovní tábor, Opavaská ulice, [Labor camp, Opava street] Krnov, 26 August 1945, f. MOPSP k.489 inv.č.1085 s.2160/25, NA.

69 II-1620–3/11–45-V/4, MV, 2 November 1945, f. MOPSP k.489 inv.č.1085 s.2160/25, NA. Reprinted in Schieder, Expulsion of the German Population, 268–72.

70 As the transfer came to a close in late 1946, the Ministry of Finance realized that many Germans were owed money in wages that they had earned while awaiting transfer. Because they earned this money after their property had been confiscated, the ministry feared that it would create a future debt against the country. Considering that many workers were held for the final transports at the end of 1946 and early 1947, this debt must have been considerable. See Záznam o poradě konané v Hospodařské radě [Report about a meeting of the Economic Council], 5 November 1946, f. MV–NR, k.1787, i.1581, s.B–1700, NA.

71 Letter from Závodní rada [Factory council] Ditmar, March 1946, f. ONV Teplice, kn.1 inv.č.1, SOkA Teplice. See also Letter from Kovodělné zavody [Metalworks factories] Rachmann, Česká Lípa, 2 August 1945, f. MP, k.1140 inv. č.3631, NA.

72 B-300/3825–46, MV, Směrnice o úlevách pro některé osoby německé národnosti [Directive about concessions for several people of German nationality], 27 May 1946. Předpisy z oboru působnosti OÚ a FNO: Zákony (dekrety), vládní nařízení, vyhlášky [Regulations from the province of the OÚ and FNO: Laws (decrees), government decisions, announcements], 2 vols. (Prague, 1947), 2:305–12Google Scholar.

73 Použití německých pracovních sil v průmyslu [Use of German labor force in industry], MOPSP, 25 July 1945, f. MOPSP, k.561 inv.č.1152 s.5200, NA.

74 Summary of meeting at MOPSP, 13 July 1945, f. MOPSP, k.561 inv.č.1152 s.5200, NA. Others also commented on the overwhelming interest in national administrator positions. See for instance, Stráž severu, 8 and 26 June 1945.

75 For the number of expelled Sudeten Germans in 1946, see “Souhrnná zpráva pro československou vládu o dosavadím průběhu odsunu Němců z Československé republiky” [Comprehensive report for the Czechoslovak government about the current progress of the transfer of Germans from the Czechoslovak Republic] (hereaft er cited as Souhrnná zpráva), MV, 29 November 1946, f. Úřad předsednictva vláda-běžná spisovna (hereafter cited as ÚPV-B), k.720, inv.č.2908 s.753/4, NA; Staněk: Odsun Němců, 230. For slightly different figures of expellees, see Reports from Ministerstvo národní obrany hl. štab 7 odd, f. ÚPV-T, k.308 inv.č.1635 s.127/2, NA; For figures on settlers see Srb, Materialy, 76–77.

76 Karel Janu, “NPR žádá o spolupráci místní národní výbory [NPR requests cooperation with local national committees],” Osidlování, 10 November 1946; Slezák, Zemědelské osídlování, 54; Průmyslová statistika [Industrial statistics], r.1947, rada A, č.8, 3 April 1947, f.23, a.j.360, NA.

77 Souhrnná zpráva, MV, 29 November 1946, f. ÚPV-B, k.720, inv.č.2908 s.753/4, NA.

78 Usnesení [Order], Úřad předsednictva vlády [Office of the Government's Presidium], 19 March 1946, f. ÚPV-B, k.720 inv.č.2908 s.753/1, NA; Staněk, Odsun Němců, 305.

79 Zpráva z MV odbor pro celostátní politické zpravodajství [Report from the Interior Ministry's Department for Statewide Political Intelligence], 9 April 1946, f. Expozitura Moravskoslezského ZNV 1945–49, k.140 inv.č.273 s.Taj., Zemský Archive (hereafter cited as ZA) Opava. This report was earlier sent as a letter to the Presidium with additional comments. See f. ÚPV-T, k.308 inv.1635 s.127/2, NA.

80 Odsun Němců a situace ve výrobě průmyslové a zemědělské [Transfer of the Germans and the situation in industrial and agricultural production], Vládní zmocněnec pro provádění odsunu Němců [Government delegate for implementing the transfer of Germans], 9 June 1946, f. ÚPV-T, k.308 inv.č.1635 s.127/2, NA.

81 Záznam o vývoj těžby při odsunu [Report about the development of extraction during the transfer], SHD, 25 July 1946, f. SHD-GŘ, s. 5–3–10 č. 279 01, 03, SOA, p. Most.

82 Jednání na dole Masaryk [Meeting at the Masaryk mine], 15 June 1946, f. SHD-GŘ, s. 5–3–10 č. 279 01, 03, SOA, p. Most.

83 Minutes from the meeting of the Místní národní výbor (hereaft er cited as MNV) Ervěnice, 25 September 1946, f. MNV Ervěnice, k. 2 inv.č.125, SOkA Chomutov.

84 Letter from MNV Ervěnice, 25 June 1946, f. MNV Ervěnice, k.101 inv.č.237, SOkA Chomutov.

85 Letter from MNV Ervěnice, 1 November 1946, f. MNV Ervěnice, k.101 inv.č.237, SOkA Chomutov.

86 Cornwall, Mark, “The Struggle on the Czech-German Language Border, 1880–1940,” English Historical Review 109, no. 433 (1994): 914–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zahra, Tara, “Reclaiming Children for the Nation: Germanization, National Ascription, and Democracy in the Bohemian Lands, 1900–1945,” Central European History 37, no. 4 (2004): 501–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Letter from SHD, 6 November 1946, f. SHD-GŘ, s. 5–3–10 č. 279 01, 03, SOA, p. Most.

88 Letter from MNV Ervěnice, 19 August 1946, f. MNV Ervěnice, k.101 inv.č.237, SOkA Chomutov.

89 Letter from ONV Bruntál, 16 August 1945, f. ONV Bruntál, k.145 inv.č. 126, SOkA Bruntál.

90 Potvrzené legitimace něm. specialistů o vynětí z odsunu [Confirmation of German specialists' legitimacy of exemption from transfer], MV, 1 October 1946, f. ONV Bruntál, k.145 inv.č. 126, SOkA Bruntál.

91 Compare labor reports from OÚOP, Opava, February and October 1946, f. MOPSP, k.401 inv.č. 841 s.2306, NA; Kaňá, Otákar, Historické proměny pohraničí [Historical transformations of the borderlands] (Ostrava, 1976), 66–67Google Scholar. For more on continued fl uctuation during the Two-Year Plan, see Beinhauerová, Anna, “Pracovní moralka a vykonnost v průmyslové výrobě v českých zemích v období dvouletky” [Worker morale and productivity in industrial production in the Czech lands during the Two-Year Plan], Slezský sborník [Silesian collection] 88, no. 2 (1990): 131–36Google Scholar.

92 Lists of specialists, f. MV-NR, k.1949 inv.č.1602 s.B2111, NA.

93 Průcha, Václav and Jech, Karel, “First Steps in Post War Economic Reconstruction (1945–1946),” in The Czechoslovak Economy 1945–1948, ed. Jech, Karel (Prague, 1968), 42Google Scholar; Beinhauerová and Sommer, “K některým aspektům,” 336. The number of certified female textile specialists was 3,966 compared to 2,977 males. See Výkazy německých specialistů v průmyslu a hornictví [Evidence of German specialists in industry and mining], November 1947, f. 23, a.j.378, NA.

94 Letter to Minister of Interior, ONV Bruntál, 29 April 1947, and Minister of Interior response, 11 August 1947, f. ONV Bruntál, k.145 inv.č.126, SOkA Bruntál; Protocol from review at Moravolen, Lichtvard, 12 February 1947, f. MP, k.1153 inv.č.3631, NA.

95 See for example, Odsunutí Němci-illegální přechody státních hranic [Transferred Germans-illegal crossing of the state borders], MV, 22 January 1947, f. MP, k.1152 inv.č.3631, NA.

96 Dr. Vlk, the government representative for the mines, called for the creation of an office with dictatorial powers that would resolve problems with the lack of Czech-speaking miners. See Zápis ze schůze ve Svazu průmyslu [Minutes from a meeting at the Association of Industry], 22 November 1946, f.23, a.j.349/1, NA.

97 Report from Ministry of Defense, 30 September 1947, f. MP, k.1157 inv.č.3631, NA.

98 Letter from Vládní zmocněnec pro odsun Němců [Government delegate for implementing the transfer of Germans], MV, 18 April 1947, f. 23, a.j.378, NA.

99 Letter from OÚ, Oblastní úřadovná [Regional office] Opava, 7 April 1947, f. MP, k.1153 inv.č.3631 NA.

100 Letter from Ústřední kancelář továren na umělé květiny [Central office of factories for artificial fl owers], Dolní Poustevna, 31 October 1945, f. MP, k.1141 inv.č.3631, NA.

101 Zpráva o revisi německých specialistů [Report on the review of German specialists], Oblastní referent minsterstva průmyslu [Regional representative of the Ministry of Industry], 5 February 1947, f. MP, k.1152 inv.č.3631, N.A.

102 Ibid., 20. February 1947, f. MP, k.1152 inv.č.3631, NA.

103 Minutes from the ONV Council meeting, ONV Šluknov, 20 February 1947. ONV Šluknov, k.3 inv.č.46, SOkA Děčín.

104 See various letters, f. MP, k.1152 inv.č.3631, NA.

105 Zápis o pracovní poradě členů rady [Record about the working conference of council members], ONV Šluknov, 2 April 1947. f. ONV Šluknov, k.3 inv.č.46, SOkA Děčín.

106 Ibid.

107 Minutes from a meeting of the ONV Jablonec, 6 August 1947, f. ONV Jablonec, k.1 inv.č.3, SOkA Jablonec.

108 Letter from MNV Ervěnice, 2 October 1947, and response from ONV Chomutov, 5 February 1948, f. MNV Ervěnice, k.101 inv.č.237, SOkA Chomutov.

109 B300/11949–47-ref. B, MV, 21 May 1947, f. MP, k.1155 inv.č.3631, NA.

110 Soupisy obyvatelstva, 547.

111 Němci-odsun do vnitrozemí na zemědělské práce [Germans—transfer to interior for agricultural work], ONV Vejprty, 23 May 1947, f. ONV Vejprty, k.25 inv.č.108, SOkA Chomutov.

112 Odsun německých zaměstnanců z továren [Transfer of German employees from the factories], Raimund Bittner, 5 August 1947, f. ONV Vejprty, k.25 inv.č.108, SOkA Chomutov.

113 Minutes of a meeting at MOPSP, 11 August 1947, f. MP, k.1155 inv.č.3631, NA.

114 Přesun a rozptyl Němců z pohraničních krajů [Relocation and dispersal of Germans from borderland regions], MV, 1948, f. Ministerstvo vnitra-Nosek (hereaft er cited as MV-N), k.254 inv.č.160, NA.

115 Záznam o poradě ve věci přesunu a rozptylu [Record of a conference concerning relocation and dispersal], MV, 2 April 1948, f. MOPSP, k.378 inv.č.805 s.2119, NA.

116 Letter from MP, 9 February 1948, f. MP, k.1156 inv. č.3631, NA. According to incomplete lists, the Ministry of Industry requested 3,502 Germans.

117 117D-300/9299/1948-DN, Odsun a přesun Němců [Transfer and relocation of Germans], MV, 8 June 1948, f. ONV Vejprty, k.25 inv.č.108, SOkA Chomutov.

118 Letter from Československé textilní závody [Czechoslovak textile factories], 13 April 1948, f. MP, k.1156 inv. č.3631, NA.

119 Report from Oblastní zmocněnec Ministerstva vnitra pro Odsun Němců [Reigional delegate of the interior ministry for the transfer of Germans] Litoměříce, 20 February 1948, f. ONV Teplice, k.225 inv.č.280, SOkA Teplice.

120 Inquiry by the ONV Vejprty, 11 November 1948, f. ONV Vejprty, k.25 inv.č.108, SOkA Chomutov.

121 Report from MěNV Vejprty, 21 April 1950, f. MěNV Vejprty, k.15 inv.č.20, SOkA Chomutov.

122 Ruman, L., “Pracovní silý začatkem r.1945: Odsun Němců a vývoj celkové zaměstnanosti v r.1946” [Labor force at the beginning of 1945: The transfer of Germans and the overall development of employment in 1946], Statistický zpravodaj 10, no. 3 (1947): 90–93Google Scholar; Nimmerfoth, V. O., “Několik pohledů do vývoje naŠeho průmyslu” [Several views about the development of our industry], Československý průmysl [Czechoslovak industry] 2, no. 11 (1946): 410Google Scholar.

123 Průmyslová statistika, rok 1947, rada A, čislo 8, 3 April 1947. For a copy, see f.23, a.j.360, NA.

124 Generální sekretariát Hospodářské rady, Průběh plnění hospodářského plánu rok 1947 [The course of fulfilling the 1947 economic plan] (Prague, 1948), 244Google Scholar.

125 Jiří Hejda, “Odsun Němců a naŠe výroba” [The transfer of Germans and our production], DneŠek, 18 April 1946.

126 “Srovnání dneŠního čsl. zahraničního obchodu s dobou předválečnou (1937) [A comparison of current Czechoslovak foreign trade with the prewar (1937) period],” Statistický zpravodaj, 10, no. 2 (1947): 49Google Scholar. The general fi gure for calculating the increase in the value of export goods was three times their 1937 value.

127 Beinhauerová and Sommer, “K některým aspektům,” 333–41.

128 Statistický zpravodaj, 11, no. 2 (1948): 62–63Google Scholar.

129 Generální sekretariát Hospodářské rady, Průběh plnění, 86–87; Generální sekretariát Hospodářské rady, Průběh plnění hospodářského plánu III čtvrtletí 1948 [The course of fulfilling the 3rd quarter 1948 economic plan] (Prague, 1949), 33–34Google Scholar. For a general overview of labor problems during the Two-Year Plan, see Beinhauerová, “Pracovní moralka a vykonnost,” 131–36.

130 Mitchell, B. R., International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750–1988, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992), 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131 BuŠek, Vratislav and Spulber, Nicholas, eds., Czechoslovakia (New York, 1957), 282Google Scholar.

132 Mitchell, International Historical Statistics, 912.

133 Abrams, “Second World War,” 655; Kenney, Padraic, Rebuilding Poland: Workers and Communists, 1945–1950 (Ithaca, 1997)Google Scholar.

134 Browning, Nazi Policy, 2–25; Aly, Götz, Final Solution: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of European Jews, trans. Cooper, Belinda and Brown, Allison (London, 1999)Google Scholar; Magocsi, Robert, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe (Seattle, 1993), 164–68Google Scholar; Bramwell, Anna C., “The Re-settlement of Ethnic Germans, 1939–1941,” in Refugees in the Age of Total War, ed. Bramwell, (London, 1988), 112–32Google Scholar.

135 For more on German deportations in the Soviet Union, see Brown, Kate, A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Hinterland to Soviet Heartland (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar; Polian, Pavel, Against Their Will: The History and Geography of Forced Migrationa in the USSR, trans. Yastrzhembska, Anna (Budapest, 2004), 233–49, 277–303Google Scholar; Pohl, J. Otto, Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937–1949 (Westport, 1999), 27–52Google Scholar; Martin, Terry, “Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing,” Journal of Modern History 70, no. 4 (1998): 813–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 Adrian von Arburg estimates that roughly 17 percent of the borderlands' inhabitants were non-Czech speakers in 1950. Arburg, “Tak či onak,” 281–82.