¹ See Richard, Maltby and Ruth, Vasey, “The International Language Problem,” in Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony, ed. Ellwood, David W. and Rob, Kroes (Amsterdam, 1994), 79Google Scholar, and Saunders, Thomas J., Hollywood in Berlin: American Cinema and Weimar Germany(Berkeley, Calif., 1994), 233.Google Scholar

² Luboš, Bartošek, Náš film. Kapitoly z dějin (1896–1945) (Our film: Chapters from history, 1896–1945) (Prague, 1985), 171.Google Scholar

³ On the role of Czech film in the First Republic, see JiříRak, , “Úvahy o národním charakteru českèlio filmu po roce 1918” (Reflections on the national character of Czech film after 1918), lluminace 1, no. 1 (1989): 30–42.Google Scholar

⁴ See, for example, Bartošek, , Náš film, 171–72, who mentions the film protests in conjunction with the problems posed by the introduction of sound in films;Google ScholarPeter, Becher, “Kulturpolitische Konfliktherde in der Ersten Republik. Der Streit um das Prager Standetheater 1920 und die Prager Tonfilmaffäre 1930,” in Das Scheitern der Verständigung. Tschechen, Deutsche und Slowaken in der Ersten Republik (1918–1938), ed. Jörg, Hoensch and Dušan, Kováč (Essen. 1994), 119–34,Google Scholar who concentrates on Czech-German domestic relations (a Czech version of the book is also available: Ztroskotání spolužití: Češi, Němci, Slováci v první republice. 1918–1938 [Prague, 1993]);Google ScholarJohann Wolfgang, Brügel, Tschechen und Deutsche 1918–1938 (Munich, 1967), 219–20,Google ScholarandCampbell, F. Gregory, Confrontation in Central Europe: Weimar Germany and Czechoslovakia (Chicago, 1975), 217–19,Google Scholar both of whom are interested in the foreign-political implications of the protests; Jan, Havránek, “Fascism in Czechoslovakia,” in Native Fascism in the Successor States, 1918–1945, ed. Peter, Sugar (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1971), 47–55,Google Scholar who briefly mentions the protests in conjunction with the Czech fascists; David, Kelly, The Czech Fascist Movement, 1922–1942 (Boulder, Colo., 1995), 93–94,Google Scholar whose interest is domestic politics; Harry, Klepetař, Seit 1918. Eine Ceschichte der Tschechoslowakischen Republik (M.-Ostrau, 1937), 306–10,Google Scholar who focuses mainly on domestic politics; Antonín, Klimek and Petr, Hofman, Vítěz, kteý prohrál Gener´al Radola Gajda (The winner who lost: General Radola Gajda) (Prague, 1995), 212–13, who concentrate on the role of the fascists in the demonstrations.Google Scholar

⁵ Garver, Bruce M. has noted this pattern of Czech nationalist twinning of Jews and Germans. I think he underestimates the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism among Czechs partly because he overstates Czech success “in modern agriculture, industry, and finance,” and understates the influence of Jewish merchants and bankers (The Young Czech Party, 1874–1901, and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System [New Haven, Conn., 1978], 302–3).Google Scholar For another view on the Young Czechs and anti-Semitism, seeKieval, Hillel J., The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York, 1988), 77–78.Google Scholar I would like to thank Mills Kelly for drawingmy attention to numerous articles in the Czech National Socialist daily, České slovo, that reflect the identification of Jews with Germans as well as the class and national components of Czech anti-Semitism. See, for example, Českě slovo, Oct. 21 and29 and Nov. 24,1908.Google Scholar

⁶ Bartošek, , Náš film, 170.Google Scholar

⁷ Bohemia, July 5, 1930, 3; and Prager Tagblatt, July 5, 1930, 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Bohemia, July 29, 1930, 7; Aug. 29,1930, 6.Google Scholar

⁹ České slovo, Aug. 15,1930,1. This editorial was discussed the following day in Bohemia, Aug. 16, 1930, 5. The National Democrats, writing in Národni listy, hotly denied owning the theater (Sept. 25,1930, 3).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Polední list, Sept. 23, 1930, 6.Google Scholar

¹¹ See correspondence in Státni ústřední archiv (hereafter SÚA), Ministerstvo vnitra, 1925–30 (hereafter MV), kart. č. 1062, sign. 6/240/13. On grounds for recent cases of censorship, see Prager Abendzeitung, Oct. 22,1930, 2.Google Scholar

¹² Among those who were skeptical about the transition to sound, arguingamong other things that it “enriched film only superficially,” were both those who produced films and those who critiqued them. See Wolfgang, Jacobsen, “Die Tonfilmmaschine,” in Babelsberg. Ein Filmstudio 1912–1992, ed. Jacobsen, (Berlin, 1992), 152;Google ScholarWollenberg, Hans H., Fifty Years of German Film (New York, 1972), 24–25;Google Scholar and Saunders, , Hollywood in Berlin, 226.Google ScholarSee also Wolfgang, Jacobsen, Anton, Kaes, and Hans Helmut, Prinzler, eds., Geschichte des deutschen Films (Stuttgart, 1993), 87–94.Google Scholar

¹³ Bohemia, July 16,1930, 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Maltby, and Vasey, , “International Language Problem,” in Hollywood in Europe, ed. Ellwood, and Kroes, , 79. One of the advantages of Two Hearts was that the Czech-language text had simply been copied into the film so that the spoken words and the translation appeared at the same time (Bohemia, 08. 22,1930,6).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Until the middle of 1931, about one-third of all German sound films were also produced in foreign languages, primarily English and French. Different versions of a film might require changes in costume, direction, or cast (Uta Berg-Ganschow, “Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch,” in Babelsberg, ed. Jacobsen, 169).Google Scholar

¹⁶ A recent Czech-language work on Czech fascism is Klimek and Hofman, Vátěz, který prohrál. In English, in addition to the recent volume by Kelly, The Czech Fascist Movement, see Havránek, , “Fascism in Czechoslovakia,” 49–50. Havránek, notes that Czech fascists, who had their major support in Prague, were less pro-Czech than they were anti-German. Anoisy but numerically negligible party, the fascists received only 1 percent of the vote in the 1929 parliamentary elections. In 1934, the fascists joined ranks with the Czech National Democrats, and in the parliamentary elections of May 1935, they got 5.6 percent of the vote and 17 seats in the National Assembly.Google Scholar

¹⁷ National Archives of the United States (hereafter NA), Record Group (hereafter RG) 59-General Records of the Department of State, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.00, Despatch 127, Oct. 11,1930, from Prague (no name), 2.

¹⁸ Bohemia, Sept. 20, 1930, 1. Viennese papers also carried details of the Mayer case; see Neue Freie Presse, Sept. 18, 1930, 4, and Neues Wiener Journal, Sept. 20, 1930,13. The Bohemian K.u.k. Twenty-eighth infantry regiment went over en masse to the Russian side in the spring of 1915. For two or three decades thereafter, the term Achtundzwanziger would be synonymous with “disloyal” and “unreliable” in the German-speaking military circles of Central Europe. The Czech perspective was, however, entirely different. Communication from Jeremy King, Apr. 1996.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bohemia, Sept. 23, 1930, 6.Google Scholar

²⁰ Národní listy, Sept. 26, 1930, 1; and Večer, Sept. 26, 1930, 2; Nov. 6, 1930, 1, article headlined “Another Mayer Who Rails against the Republic.”Google Scholar

²¹ SÚA, Censurní sbor kinematografický (hereafter CSK), kart. č. 36, č. 461/1930, Předváděni filmu “Nesmrtelný Lump” v biografu “Avion” v Praze (The showing of the film “The Immortal Tramp” at the Avion theater in Prague), Sept. 24, 1930. See also SÚA, Presidium zemského úřadu, 1921–30 (hereafter PZÚ), kart. č. 121, sign. 8/1/69/48, Policejní ředitelstvi v Praze, Fašistická demonstrace při večerním představení v biografu “Avion” dne 22. září 1930 (Fascist demonstration during the evening showing in the Avion theater on September 22,1930), Sept. 24, 1930, 1.

²² České slovo, Sept. 23,1930, 11.Google Scholar

²³ Bohemia, Sept. 24, 1930, 5; Národí listy (evening edition), Sept. 23, 1930, 1; and Polední list, Sept. 24, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bohemia, Sept. 24, 1930, 5; Poledni list, Sept. 24, 1930, 1; and Archiv Ústavu Masaryka, T. G., Masarykův archiv, kart.: Vnitropolitické situace-vlády (Domestic-political situation—government), Jednání vyslance Dra Krofty, K. s německým vyslancem Dr Kochem pražských demonstracích (Minister Kamil Krofta's talks with German minister Koch about the Prague demonstrations), Oct. 17, 1930.Google Scholar

²⁵ Berliner Tageblatt, Sept. 27, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

²⁶ Bohemia, Sept. 25, 1930, 1, 2.Google Scholar

²⁷ Compare “Nehlásíme se k filmu, který je naší celonárodní ostudou” (We don't advocate this film that is our international disgrace), Filmové listy 2, no. 25 (Sept. 30, 1930): 188.Google Scholar

²⁸ Selbstwehr, Sept. 26, 1930, 2.Google Scholar

²⁹ SÚA, Policejní presidium, 1921–30 (hereafter PP), sign. D/12/35, Výpis ze zprávy o událostech politického rázu ze dne 24.9.30 (Account of the report on the events of a political nature on September 24, 1930).

³⁰ Berliner Tageblatt, Sept. 26, 1930, n.p.; and Bohemia, Sept. 26, 1930, 1, 2.Google Scholar

³¹ České slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 1; Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 27, 1930, 1; and SÚA, PP, 1921–30, sign. D/12/35, Policejní ředitelství v Praze, Zpráva, Sept. 26, 1930.Google Scholar

³² Prager Presse, Sept. 28, 1930, 2.Google Scholar

³³ For arrest lists from the various police districts in Prague, see SÚA, PP, 1921–30, sign. D/12/35; and PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č. 120, sign. 8/1/69/48; for police injuries on Sept. 25, see PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č. 120, sign. 8/1/69/48, Opis, Sept. 26, 1930.

³⁴ See reports in NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, from A. C. Ratshesky in Prague, 5, as well as in the Czechoslovak and international press.

³⁵ Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 26, 1930, 2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Česté slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 3; Poledný list, Sept. 28, 1930, 1; Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 28, 1930, 1; and Neue Freie Presse (morning edition), Oct. 1,1930, 9.Google Scholar

³⁷ Bohemia, Sept. 28, 1930, 2.Google Scholar

³⁸ Speech of Josef, Keibl, Příloha k těsnopisecké zprávě o 70. schůzi poslanecké sněmovny Národního shromáždění repububliky Československé (Supplement to the stenographic protocols of the 70th session of the house of deputies of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic), Sept. 25, 1930, 97–98.Google Scholar

³⁹ Speech of Charles, Pergler, 70. schůze poslanecké sněmovny Národního shromážděí republiky Československé (The 70th session of the house of deputies of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic), Sept. 25, 1930, 44–45.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Speech of Radola, Gajda, 70. schůze poslanecké snémovny Národního shromázděni republiky Československé, Sept. 25, 1930, 57.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Characterized by Elizabeth, Wiskemann, Czechs and Germans, 2nd ed. (London, 1967), 215,Google Scholar as “the well-known Germanophobe,” Karel Baxa, who was born in Sedlčany (district Příbram) in 1863, was an attorney who made his name as a member of the defense in the Omladina trial of 1894. He also served as prosecutor in the Hilsner trial for blood libel. Initially a member of the State Rights Progressive party, he joined the Czech National Socialists in 1911. He was mayor of Prague from 1919 to 1937.

⁴² NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, Oct. 10, 1930, from Chargé ď Affaires Barton Hall in Prague, 2. The resolution was published in České slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 3.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the city council debate, see Archiv hlavního města Prahy (AHMP), Zápísy o schůzích rady méstské 1930 VIII (září), “Zápis o schůzi rady městské konané dne 26. září 1930” (Minutes of the meeting of the city council from Sept. 26, 1930).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For Šámal's remarks, see Archiv kanceláře presidenta republiky (AKPR), sign. 1170/21 (Praha-obec a magistrát), T/1366/30, Oct. 16, 1930, report by Přemysl Šámal.

⁴⁵ AHMP, Demonstrace, 83a/l, letter of Oct. 1, 1930, from Karel Baxa to Kamil Krofta.

⁴⁶ NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, 2.

⁴⁷ NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.63/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, 4; Protokol XVI. Sjezdu Československé sociálně demokratické strany dělnickě (Protocol of the 16th Congress of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers' Party), Sept. 27–29, 1930; see the remarks of German Social Democratic party secretary, Siegfried Taub, 7; and of Jan Fára, a Czechoslovak Social Democrat from Prague, 70–71.Google ScholarSee also Herman, Kopecek, “ ‘It is a Question of Tactics’: Cooperation among Czech and German Social Democrats in Interwar Czechoslovokia” (Ph.D.diss., University of Washington, 1997), 100–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On Dolejš's alleged fascist tendencies, see NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, 5; see also Šámaľs report, AKPR, sign. 1170/21 (Prahaobec a magistrát), T1300/30, Sept. 27, 1930.

⁴⁹ Neue Freie Presse (morning edition), Oct. 1,1930, 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Berlin), 10. 2,1930, 1.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For district and regional reports responding to the government's apparently unjustified concern about the showing of German-language films on Oct. 28, see SÚA, PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č.121, sign. 8/1/69/48.

⁵² Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 22, 1930, 4.Google Scholar

⁵³ Večerní České slovo, Sept. 26, 1930, 1. This article and a translation were appended to NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/6, Despatch 129, Oct. 13, 1930, from Hall in Prague, 2. Hall made no comment on the allegations (Central European Observer 40, no. 8 [Oct.3,1930]: 354).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See, for example, České slovo, Sept. 23, 1930, 11, and Sozialdemokrat, Oct. 8, 1930, 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ On operettas, see Wollenberg, , Fifty Years of German Film, 26. For 1930–31 rankings,Google Scholarsee Uli, Jung, ed., Der deutsche Film. Aspekte seiner Geschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Trier, 1993), 199.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Central European Observer 40, no. 8 (10. 3, 1930):354. The descriptions of the demonstrations were fairly similar in most of the newspapers in Prague, with the exception of the government papers, which attempted to downplay their importance by limiting coverage. The variation came in the attitude of the various publications toward the protests.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ AKPR, sign. 1170/21 (obec a magistrát), T 1527/30, letter from Baxa to Dr. Schwink, dated Oct. 13,1930.

⁵⁹ Central European Observer 40, no. 8 (10. 3, 1930): 354.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Sigfried, Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of German Film (Princeton, N.J., 1947), 207–8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ “Více statečnosti” (More gallantry), Přítomnost 7, no. 39 (10. 1, 1930): 609.Google Scholar

⁶² Národní politika, Sept. 25, 1930, 3; Sept. 26, 1930, 5;Google Scholar and Polední list, Sept. 26, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

⁶³ Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 25–26, 1930.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Selbstwehr, Sept. 26, 1930, 2; Oct. 5, 1930, 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Rudý večerník, Sept. 24, 1930, 1;Google Scholar and Rudé právo, Oct. 25, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ AHMP, “Demonstrace,” 893/1.

⁶⁷ Central European Observer 39, no. 8 (Sept. 26, 1930): 340.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ AHMP, “Demonstrace,” 839/1, Dortmunder Zeitung, Sept. 27, 1930;Google Scholarthe headlines of München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, Sept. 25, 1930, 1, read “Eine Kulturschande. Tschechenpöbel gegen deutsche Filme.”Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Der Völkische Beobachter (Munich), 10. 3, 1930 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 27, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Prager Tagblatt, Oct. 5, 1930, 1.Google Scholar

⁷² Archiv ministerstva zahraničních věcí (hereafter AMZV), Berlín 1930, Periodická zpráva politicka vyslanectví ČSR v Berlině (Periodic political reports from the Czechoslovak minister in Berlin), ”Dr. Curtius, ministr. zahranicních vecí: Projev proti ČSR” (Dr. Curtius, minister of foreign affairs: Speech against the ČSR), no. 305, Oct. 2, 1930; no. 332, Oct. 31, 1930; and NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, Oct. 10, 1932, from Hall in Prague, 2.Google Scholar

⁷³ Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 8, 1930, 3; see also SÚA, PZÚ, 1921–1930, sign. 8/1/69/48, Opis, Opava, Oct. 6, 1930.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Prager Tagblatt, Nov. 11, 1930, 8; and NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, Despatch 162, Nov. 19,1930, from Hall in Prague, 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ SÚA, MV, 1931–35, X/F/7 (filmy).

⁷⁶ Campbell, Confrontation, 255, 340, n. 154.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ AMZV, III. sekce, 1918–39, kart. č. 400, Filmy-zásadní dovoz amerických filmů 1934–38, Mar. 30, 1938, 3 (unsigned). For the Ludendorff letter, see Erich, Ludendorff, “Schreiben an das Kgl. Kriegsministerium vom 4. Juli 1917,” in Film und Gesellschaft im Deutschland. Dokumente und Materialien, ed. Wilfried von, Bredow and Rolf, Zurek (Hamburg, 1975), 102–4;Google Scholar a Czech-language translation can be found in “Edice a materiály: Dopis generála Ludendorffa Královskému válečnému ministerstvu” (Editions and materials: The letter of General Ludendorff to the Imperial War Ministry), Iluminace 6, no. 3 (15) (1994): 79–80.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Kelly, , Czech Fascism, 95.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Campbell, Confrontation, 219.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.00, Despatch 127, Oct. 11, 1930, no signature, 1, 2.

⁸¹ SÚA, CSK, kart. č. 37, č. 586/1930; and kart. č. 40, č. 1149/1930.