1. Czech economic historians, in contrast, argued that Czech crafts had been destroyed by the Thirty Years' War and unfairly suppressed by German domination. Czech industry had only begun to revive in the nineteenth century as part of the national awakening. Thus, Czechs stressed elements of discontinuity and struggle in their view of economic history and looked with hope to the emergence of a new Czech entrepreneurial class. They were also more likely to embrace change and advocate new policies. On German economic history, see Hallwich, Hermann, Böhmens Industrie und Handel (Separatabdruck aus “Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild,” Böhmen, Band II) (Vienna: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1896); and Ottokar Weber, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Industrie in Böhmen, 6 vols., (Prague: Verein zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1893-1898). In his introduction to the latter series, Weber described the condition of archival materials under Czech administration in Prague, complaining bitterly that the materials were not catalogued or handled properly, that there was not enough space to work with them, and that the storage conditions were so bad as to provide a “Wohnort für Mäuse und Ratten.” W. Hieke, ed., Literatur zur Geschichte der Industrie in Böhmens bis zum Jahre 1850 (Prague: Verein zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1893), p. vi.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Rauchberg, Heinrich, Der nationale Besitzstand in Böhmen, 3 vols., (Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1905); and Friedrich Wieser, “Nationale Einkommensverhältnisse in Böhmen,” Deutsche Arbeit 1 (1901-1902): pp. 5-19.Google Scholar

3. Turnwald, Josef, Die administrative Theilung Böhmens und das Curiavotum am Landtage 3rd ed., (Reichenberg: A. Schopfer, 1884). Turnwald's proposals had first been presented in the Reichenberger Zeitung; Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar

4. Havránek, Jan, “Snahy německé buržoazie o rozdelění Čech na sklonku 19. století' [Attempts of the German bourgeoisie to divide Bohemia at the end of the nineteenth century], Zápisky katedry československých dějin a archivního studia 1961, 5, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar

5. , Turnwald, Die administrative Theilung Böhmens, p. 10.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., p. 9. See also Jana Mandlerová, “Tematická orientace německá historiografie v Čechách ve 2. polovině 19. století” [The thematic orientation of German historiography in Bohemia in the second half of the nineteenth century], Sborník historický 1989 36, pp. 99–132.Google Scholar

7. Křen, Jan, “Češi a němci na přelomu století” [Czechs and Germans at the Turn of the Century], Sborník historický 1990, 37: pp. 142–143; see also Höbelt, Lothar, Kornblume und Kaiseradler: Die deutschfreiheitlichen Parteien Altösterreichs, 1882-1918 (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik and R. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1993).Google Scholar

8. Bachmann, Harald, “Der Deutscher Volksrat für Böhmen und die deutschböhmische Parteipolitik,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 1965, 14: pp. 266–294; “Zehn Jahre Deutscher Volksrat in Böhmen,” Deutsche Arbeit 1913, 12: pp. 483-488.Google Scholar

9. The failed Bohemian Compromise of 1890-1891 was an attempt by Prague Germans to divide some of the administrative structures of the province. Prague Germans lost influence to Germans in Reichenberg after the agreement was defeated by Czech opposition.Google Scholar

10. Whiteside, Andrew G., The Socialism of Fools: Georg Ritter von Schönerer and Austrian Pan-Germanism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).Google Scholar

11. When the Reichenberg chamber of commerce debated whether to participate in the 1891 Jubilee Exhibition, the point was raised that an exhibition in Prague would not benefit German industry in the border regions, since its trade was directed either to Vienna or to the neighboring German empire, and not to Prague. Reichenberger Zeitung, 1 August 1890. For a different point of view, see Wieser, “National Einkommensverhältnisse in Böhmen,” p. 19, where he argues that Prague, the center of German culture, is decisive for political power in Bohemia. As Jana Mandlerová has pointed out, German cultural organizations in Prague, such as the Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Böhmen (over which Wieser presided for several years), were designed to help bolster the position of Prague Germans within the province. Mandlerová, “K změnám v charakteru Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Böhmen v letech 1900-1910” [On the Change in the Character of the Society for the Promotion of German Scholarship, Art, and Literature] Sborník historický 1986, 33.Google Scholar

12. Friedrich Prinz and Jan Křen both argue that Reichenberg never gained more than a regional importance for German Austrian culture or economic life. The Sudetenland was isolated from the rest of German Austria, and the movement away from Prague (“Los von Prag”) undermined German Bohemians' claim to represent universal cultural standards. Křen, “Češi a němci na přelomu století,” p. 143; Prinz, “Probleme der böhmischen Geschichte zwischen 1848 und 1914,” Bohemia 1965 6: p. 341.Google Scholar

13. Schübert, Anton, Deutschböhmen als Wirtschaftsgrossmacht (Sonderabdruck aus der “Deutsche Volkszeitung in Reichenberg”) (Reichenberg: Rudolf Gerzabek, 1903), p. 22. Schübert also praises Schönerer in his pamphlet.Google Scholar

14. Arnold, Erhard, ed., Die Deutschböhmische Ausstellung Reichenberg 1906: Industrie-, Gewerbe-, Kunst-, und Landwirtschafts-Ausstellung der Deutschen Böhmen (Reichenberg: Grbruder Stiepel, [1909]); “Deutschböhmische Ausstellung Reichenberg, 1906,” Deutsche Arbeit 5 (September 1906): pp. 461–464.Google Scholar

15. “Die deutsche Ausstellung in Reichenberg und die Tschechen,” Deutsches Tagblatt (Aussig-Töplitz), 25 September 1906.Google Scholar

16. Křen argues that Germans had more employment opportunities in the private sphere and were less dependent on public employment than the Czechs. This point is borne out by complaints of Czech business leaders that the graduates of Czech business schools were more likely to find employment in the bureaucracy than in private enterprise. Křen, “Češi a němci na přelomu století,” p. 138.Google Scholar

17. Jodl, Josef, Zur Eintheilung der Handels- und Gewerbekammern in Böhmen: Topografisch-statistisches Bild (Prague: F. B. Batovec, 1885). See also commentary on the negotiations for the Bohemian compromise: “Theilung der Reichenberger Handelskammer,” Reichenberger Zeitung, 16 January 1890; and “Deutsche und Tscheche in Reichenberger Kammerbezirke,” Reichenberger Zeitung, 28 January 1890. For another proposal, from a German perspective, see A. Wirth, Die Handelskammerfrage im nördlichen und nordwestlichen Böhmen. Offenes Schreiben eines Kammer-Kontributeten (Leitmeritz: Wirth, 1882). Wirth also argued that the large industrialists who dominated the Reichenberg chamber ignored the interests of smaller producers. His solution was to create a separate chamber for the German areas of west Bohemia, between Eger and Reichenberg.Google Scholar

18. On the importance of the 1880 census as a turning point in German national consciousness, see Emil Brix, “Die Erhegungen der Umgangssprache im zisleithänischen … sterreich, 1880-1910: Nationale und sozioökonomische Ursachen der Sprachenkonflikte,” Mitteilungen des Institutes für österreischische Geschichte 197, 87; and Pieter Judson, “Inventing Germanness: class, ethnicity, and colonial fantasy at the margins of the Habsburg monarchy,” Working Papers in Austrian Studies, number 93–92, University of Minnesota, February 1993.Google Scholar

19. See, for example, the statements of Walter Riehl, summarized in Whiteside, The Socialism of Fools, pp. 279.Google Scholar

20. Rauchberg, Heinrich, “Der nationale Besitzstand in Böhmen und die Wanderbewegung,” Deutsche Arbeit 1902-1903, 2: pp. 585–625. Based on the 1900 census, Rauchberg demonstrated that Czech migrants living in large Czech communities were less likely to use German as their daily language. In Falkenau 76% of the 880 Czech migrants spoke German; in Brüx, 9% of the 18,841 Czech migrants spoke German. Ibid., 620.Google Scholar

21. Státní ústřední archiv (hereafter SÚA), PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2592, inv. no. 25/63, Národní jednota severočeská, Vyroční zpráva Národní jednoty severočeské za dvacáty čtvrtný rok trvání, 1908 [Annual Report of the North Bohemian National Union on the Twenty-Fourth Year of Its Existence, 1908], in which the union reports that it must continue to work to raise the national consciousness of Czechs living in the borderlands.Google Scholar

22. , Rauchberg, “Der nationale Besitzstand in Böhmen und die Wanderbewegung,”, pp. 621–624.Google Scholar

23. Ibid.; and Heinrich Rauchberg, “Die Zahlenverhältnisse der Deutschen und der Tschechen in Böhmen,” Deutsche Arbeit 1902-1903, 2: p. 33.Google Scholar

24. Živanský, “Rauchbergová ’Národn‘ dzava v Čechách'” [Rauchberg's “Der nationale Besitzstand in Böhmen”], Národopisný věstník Českoslovanský 1906 1: pp. 3–8.Google Scholar

25. Pieter Judson argues that the concern with property represented a narrower conception of the German nation than that based on German cultural achievements. Property was tied to an obsession with concepts of profit and loss and the search for a rational, objective standard by which to measure changes in national strength. Judson, ‘“Not another square foot!’: nationalist identity and the politics of ownership in nineteenth-century Austria,” Unpublished paper presented at the German Studies Association, October 1993.Google Scholar

26. , Whiteside, The Socialism of Fools, pp. 26–38.Google Scholar

27. The Böhmerwaldbund spent 226,000 K over twenty years; the Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen spent 145,021 K in 10 years; Penko, Franz, “Die wirtschaftlichen Schutzvereine Böhmens,” Deutsche Arbeit 4 (1904-1905): pp. 563–571, 609-617, here 569, 611. See also SÚA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2426, inv. no. 10/36, Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, Bericht über die Thätigkeit des Bundes der Deutschen in Böhmen in siebenten Vereinsjahre, 1900. Google Scholar

28. Ibid., Bericht über die Thätigkeit des Bundes der Deutschen in Böhmen im neunten Vereinsjahre, 1902. In this report, the Bund reports that some of its local branches have been inactive and that it can provide direct financial assistance to purchase property only in the most extreme cases, when the loss of property will influence nationality relations in a direct way.Google Scholar

29. The bank received support from the German Foreign Office beginning in 1925. Ronald M. Smelser, “The betrayal of a myth: National Socialism and the financing of middle-class socialism in the Sudetenland,” Central European History 1992 5/3: pp. 256–277.Google Scholar

30. Archiv národího musea, Albín Bráf papers, carton 12, folder 657 (correspondence of Petr Nesý); Archiv České akademia věd, Národohospodářský ústav, inv. no. 59, carton 13 (biographical sketch of Petr G. Nesy:).Google Scholar

31. Wieser concluded that Germans paid 52% of direct taxes in Bohemia and 61% of direct taxes in Cisleithania. Wieser, “Die deutsche Steuerleistung und der öffeöntliche Haushalt in Böhmen,” Deutsche Arbeit October-December 1903, 3: pp. 1–28; 117-147; 205-234.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., p. 230.Google Scholar

33. , Wieser, “Über die gesellschaftliche Gewalten,” published in Deutsche Arbeit 1901, 1. For analysis of Wieser's position, see Harry Ritter, “Friedrich von Wieser and Austrian liberalism,” Unpublished paper presented at the German Studies Association, 28 September 1991; Mandlerová, “K znemán v charakteru Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literature in Böhmen.”Google Scholar

34. , Prinz, “Probleme der böhmische Geschichte,” p. 350.Google Scholar

35. Schübert, Deutschböhmen als Wirtschaftsgrossmacht, p. 23.Google Scholar

36. SÚA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 426, inv. no. 10/36, Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, 19 November 1903, Report of meeting of the Academische Ortsgruppe “Nord” at which Franz Jesser presented a lecture entitled “Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung Deutschböhmens” based on Wieser's work.Google Scholar

37. When the chambers of commerce in Reichenberg and Eger began to use Wieser's statistics to bolster their own demands, Leon Bondy asked the Prague chamber of commerce to analyze the demographic and tax statistics on its own. Památce Leona Bondyho (Prague: ástředná čsl. obchodních a živnostenských komor v Praze, 1924), p. 65.Google Scholar

38. Národnostní poplatnost a zemské hospodařství v král. českém: Odpoved' na úvahu Prof. Dra. Bar. Wiesera (Prague: J. Otto, 1905).Google Scholar

39. Kramář, Karel, Anmerkungen zur böhmischen Politik (trans. Josef Penížek) (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1906), cited in Prinz, “Probleme der böhmischen Geschichte,” p. 349.Google Scholar

40. Jaworski, Rudolf, Handel und Gewerbe im Nationalitätenkampf: Studien zur Wirtschaftsgesinnung der Polen in der Provinz Posen, 1871-1914 (Göttingen, 1986); Judson, “‘Not another square foot!'” The same “national virtues” were integral to the Czech national economic program as well.Google Scholar

41. SÚA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2588, inv. no. 25/62, Národní jednota pošumavská, Police reports for 1894 and 1895.Google Scholar

42. SÚA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2425, inv. no. 10/36, Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, Printed leaflet addressed to Deutsche Volksgenossen and dated 16 Herbstmund 1895, complaining of the “guerilla war” being waged by German liberal leaders against the leaders of the Bund. Tactics included refusing the leaders of the Bund credit at municipal savings banks in northeast Bohemia. See also Jesser, Franz, Zehn Jahre völkischer Schutzarbeit (Prague: Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1904), p. 3.Google Scholar

43. SÚA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2425, inv. no. 10/36, Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, Printed leaflet addressed to Deutsche Volksgenossen and dated 16 Herbstmund 1895, complaining of the “guerilla war” being waged by German liberal leaders against the leaders of the Bund. Tactics included refusing the leaders of the Bund credit at municipal savings banks in northeast Bohemia. See also Jesser, Franz, Zehn Jahre völkischer Schutzarbeit (Prague: Bund der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1904), p. 3.Google Scholar

44. , Penko, “Die wirtschaftlichen Schutzvereine Böhmens.”Google Scholar

45. , SUA, PP/V (1908-1915), carton 2435, inv. no. 10/81, Böhmerwaldbund, Satzungen der Deutschen Böhmerwaldbunde, 20 March 1884.Google Scholar

46. Archiv nároníiho musea, Albín Bráf papers, carton 46, folders 3679-3680.Google Scholar

47. On the Deutscher Volksrat, see Harald Bachmann, “Der deutsche Volksrat für Böhmen; and “Zehn Jahre Deutscher Volksrat in Böhmen”.Google Scholar

48. Křen, “Češi a němci na přelomu století.”Google Scholar