Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T03:21:44.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keepers of Order? Strategic Legality in the 1935 Czechoslovak General Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Michael Walsh Campbell
Michael Walsh Campbell*
Affiliation:
University of Washington, U.S.A. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Konrad Henlein founded the Sudeten German Heimatfront (SHF) in October 1933 and in less than a year and a half it would become the largest party in the First Czechoslovak Republic. This achievement is all the more remarkable in light of the initiative undertaken by the Czech and German Social Democrats, as well as the Communists to have the SHF banned in the year before the elections. This initiative would most likely have succeeded had the matter not been referred to Czechoslovakia's ailing President, Tomáš Masaryk. After the state had banned both the Sudeten German Nazi and Nationalist parties on account of their alleged ties to Hitler, Masaryk concluded one month before the 19 May 1935 general elections that the SHF should be allowed to campaign.1 Masaryk, however, mandated that the Heimatfront must change its name to the more democratic “Sudeten German Party” (SdP). Despite the specter of a ban that still haunted the party in the month before the election, the SdP succeeded in transforming itself from a political pariah into a majority German party by using the legal protections and security forces of Czech democracy to wage a legalistic campaign against the state. In light of this stunning success, how then did the party leadership perform this act of political alchemy and what strategies did it deploy in campaigning against the state?

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 295 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

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

Notes

1. The Sudeten Nazi and Nationalist parties were banned in October 1933, only a week after Henlein founded the SHF. Although members of the banned parties did flock to the SHF, it should not be considered a successor party, on account of its independent leadership.Google Scholar

2. In 1930, the Sudeten Germans made up 22.32% of the state's population, while the Slovaks comprised only 15.76%. Cechoslovakische Statistik—Band 98. Reihe VI. Volkszählung, Heft (Prague: Orisis, 1934). Found in: Hoffmann, Roland J. and Harasko, Alois, eds, Odsun: die Vertreibung der Sudetendeutschen, Band I (Munich: Sudeten German Archive, 2000), p. 597.Google Scholar

3. In May 1935, Anschluss did not yet appear to be a viable political option, but rather was seen as a longer-term goal for the members of the former nationalist parties.Google Scholar

4. Novak, 10 (SÚA/SdP 1933–1938, 2 k—KH, HL, 10.12.1934). Olivová, “Kameradschaftsbund,” 252 (“Protokol o jednání hlavního vedení SHF 8/I/1935—SÚA, SdP—cit. dle F. štĕpána, Spolupráce, str. 46, document ̆. 21).Google Scholar

5. Although the KB was led by a closed inner circle of members, there also existed a much larger outer circle of KB associates, who were often referred to as “KB near standing.” Frank most likely belonged to this outer circle of the Bund. For more on Frank's association with the KB see: Jilga, Wilfred, “Zwischen Autoritärismus und Totalitarismus: Anmerkungen zu eine Kontroverse,” Bohemia, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1998, p. 104.Google Scholar

6. Interview with Burkert, Edi, 4 March 2001.Google Scholar

7. For more on this theory of political violence as “an institutionalised riot system” see: Brass, Paul, Theft of an Idol: Text and Context in Representation of Collective Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

8. Ibid., p. 16.Google Scholar

9. For the purposes of this article, the term “Marxists” designates only the Communist and German Social Democratic Parties, which made up the primary opposition to the SdP. The Czechoslovak Communist Party was the only party in the republic which was not divided by nationality.Google Scholar

10. “SdP pr̆edvolební agitace v okrese krnovském,” 30 May 1935 (SÚA/225/960/5).Google Scholar

11. This Interior Ministry report claimed that SdP functionaries received orders to agitate on the evening before the final wave of demonstrations broke out on 18 May. “SdP pr̆edvolební agitace v okrese krnovskem,” 30 May 1935 (SUA/225/960/5). Another Interior Ministry report notes that SdP functionaries were given orders over the telephone to agitate at an SdP demonstration in July 1934. “Relace,” 22 July 1934, Okresní hejtman. Rada politicke správy (225 [Interior Ministry]/920/1).Google Scholar

12. For more on Brass's concept of the “fire-tender,” see: Brass, , p. 17.Google Scholar

13. Brand, Walter, Auf verlorenen Posten: Ein Sudetendeutscher Politiker Zwischen Autonomie und Anschluss (Munich: Verlaghaus Sudetenland, 1985), p. 111.Google Scholar

14. “SdP pr̆edvolební agitace v okrese krnovskem,” 30 May 1935 (SÚA/225/960/5).Google Scholar

15. Goldberg, Robert R., Die Politische Versammlung (Okresní Archiv v Liberci/ Dokumentace—̀ystr̆iz̆ky o Henleinovi).Google Scholar

16. Biman, Stanislav and Malír̆, Jaroslav, Die Karriere eines Turnlehrers (Prague: Nordtschechischer Verlag, 1983), p. 97.Google Scholar

17. Goldberg, Robert R., Die Politische Versammlung (Okresní Archiv v Liberci/Dokumentace—v̀ystr̆iz̆ky o Henleinovi).Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar

21. “Tag der Volksgemeinschaft, Weisung Nr. 2,” 15 July 1934, SHF Kreisstelle Karlsbad (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/919/5).Google Scholar

22. Goldberg, Robert R., Die Politische Versammlung (Okresní Archiv v Liberci/Dokumentace—v̀ystr̆iz̆ky o Henleinovi).Google Scholar

23. The statistic on turnout at Bömisch Leipa is taken from: Smelser, Ronald, The Sudeten Problem 1933–1938 (Middletown, CT, 1975), p. 101. The turnout estimate at Teplitz-Schönau is from: Walter Brand, Auf verlorenem Posten, p. 111.Google Scholar

24. “SHF, volební schůze/Touškov,” 2 May 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

25. “Volební schůze podle plakátu ‘Öffentliche Wahlversammlung’”, Rada polit. správy, 3 May 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

26. Ibid. Google Scholar

27. Ibid. Google Scholar

28. “SHF, volební schůze/Touškov,” 2 May 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

29. “Volební schůze podle plakátu ‘Öffentliche Wahlversammlung’”, Rada polit. správy, 3 May 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

30. Ibid. Google Scholar

31. “‘Fonogramm’ z policejního komisar̆ství v Mar. Lázních,” 28 January 1935 (SÚA/207 [Provincial offices of the Ministry of the Interior]/1336/2-17).Google Scholar

32. Ibid. Google Scholar

33. “Tag der Volksgemeinschaft, Weisung Nr. 2,” 15 July 1934, SHF Kreisstelle Karlsbad (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/919/5).Google Scholar

34. “SdP pr̆edvolební agitace v okrese krnovském,” 30 May 1935 (SÚA/225/960/5).Google Scholar

35. Ibid. Google Scholar

36. Ibid. Google Scholar

37. Smelser, Ronald, “Reich National Socialist and Sudeten German Party Elites: A Collective Biographical Approach,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, Vol. 23, 1974, pp. 639–660.Google Scholar

38. Brass, , p. 17.Google Scholar

39. Ibid. Google Scholar

40. Olivová, Vĕra, “Kameradschaftsbund,” Z C̆eskỳch dĕjin: Sborník prací in memoriam Prof. Dr. Václava Husy (Prague: Universita Karlova, 1966), pop. 237–268.Google Scholar

41. “SdP Opava.-Pr̆ehled ̆innnosti bĕhem voleb i po volbách,” Presidium zemskĕho úr̆adu v Brnĕ, 3 June 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

42. “Persönliche Weisung Konrad Henleins an alle Mitglieder der SHF,” 1 September 1934, Hauptstelle SHF, Eger (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/919/5).Google Scholar

43. Brand, , Auf verlorenem Posten, p. 104.Google Scholar

44. Ibid. “An die Bezirksleitung der SHF,” 20 April 1935, Haida (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/918/1).Google Scholar

45. For further discussion of the power of migrations for mobilizing new nationalisms, see: Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities (New York: Verso, 1991).Google Scholar

46. “Henlein Rede in Teplitz-Schönau,” 20 May 1935 (SÚA/SdP/1/KH). Brand, , Auf verlorenem Posten, p. 111.Google Scholar

47. Sozialdemokrat, 11 May 1935, p. 1.Google Scholar

48. This personal account was taken from Brand's autobiography: Auf verlorenem Posten , p. 104. For the perspective of the SdP opposition, see: “Fiasko Henleins in Zaim: viele Tausende demonstrieren gegen den ‘Führer’,” SD, 28 April 1935, p. 5. According to the Sozialdemokrat, Henlein's motorcade initiated a rock-throwing brawl with the Socialist counter-demonstrators. The Henleinists then allegedly opened fire on the Socialists, who responded with a hail of rocks, which broke Henlein's window.Google Scholar

49. This Interior Ministry report notes the widespread sympathy that Henlein won on his election tour. “SdP Opava.-Pr̆ehled ̆innnosti bĕhem voleb i po volbách,” Presidium zemského úr̆adu v Brnĕ, 3 June 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5). Brand, Auf verlorenen Posten, p. 109.Google Scholar

50. “SdP Opava.-Pr̆ehled ̆innnosti bĕhem voleb i po volbách,” Presidium zemského úr̆adu v Brnĕ, 3 June 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

51. Brand, , Auf verlorenen Posten, p. 109.Google Scholar

52. Burkert interview, 3 March 2001.Google Scholar

53. “Relace,” Okresní hejtman. Rada politickĕ správy, 22 July 1934 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/920/1).Google Scholar

54. See the appeal to the director of police in Karlsbad by SHF lawyers Friedrich Tischer and Josef Peuker, who protested against the ban of the “Day of the Volksgemeinschaft” in Karlsbad. They effectively counter police charges that the demonstration would constitute an unreasonable threat to public order, by detailing the many provisions that the party had made to maintain order at this demonstration. “An das Polizeikommissariat in Karlsbad,” 20 September 1934 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/918/1).Google Scholar

55. In this document, the Liberec Police grant the Turnverband permission to demonstrate, but they place the following restrictions on the demonstration: the procession must maintain its planned direction; it may not retreat; participants must leave the festival individually; the state flag must be flown if others are flown; and a long list of German nationalist songs are explicitly forbidden. “Polizeidirektion in Reichenberg,” 19 June 1937 (Okresni archiv v Liberci, Archiv mĕsta Liberce, Karton: 208).Google Scholar

56. “SdP Oprava–Pr̆ehled ̆innnosti bĕhem voleb i po volbách,” Presidium zemského úr̆adu v Brnĕ, 3 June 1935 (SÚA/225 [Interior Ministry]/960/5).Google Scholar

57. Okresní Archiv v Liberci/Okresí soud 1934–38/TX 1914–34.Google Scholar

58. “SHF, důvĕrná schůze dne 29. listopadu 1934 v Brnĕ,” Presidium zemského úr̆adu, 1 December 1934 (SÚA/225 [Interior Mirristry]/920/3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. “Die Arbeiter trotzen dem SHF-Terror” and “Blutiger Kampf in Neudek,” SD, 26 April 1935, p. 1.Google Scholar

60. “Wahlen unter Terror: Ein Beitrag zur Problematik der Wahlfreiheit,” SD, 29 May 1935, p. 3.Google Scholar

61. Ibid. Google Scholar