A brief history of Jewish identity and belonging in Czechoslovakia
What do Czechs and Czech historians think about Czech treatment of the Jewish community in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and Czechoslovakia in the 20th century? I spoke to historian Ivan Puš to understand the shifting narratives surrounding Jewish belonging in Czechoslovakia.
We discussed Jewish assimilation before the Second World War, Czechoslovak attitudes toward Jews that evolved in the latter half of the 20th century, and the role of censorship until the political changes of 1989, among other topics.
So first, let's get into some background. Can you address the extent to which Jews were assimilated in the Czech lands prior to the Second World War?
“The Jewish community was partially assimilated into the Czechoslovak state. This was a complex and long-standing process that began during the time of the Habsburg monarchy and continued after 1918.
“Some members of the Jewish community became Czechoslovak citizens, while others, or possibly all of them, held Czechoslovak citizenship. Additionally, some identified as being of Czechoslovak nationality, while others were officially recognized as having German nationality.
“What was specific about this period is that many were bilingual. Most of them spoke both German and Czech.”
To provide some context for a comparative account, would you say that the treatment of Jews in the Czech lands prior to the Second World War was better? Were they more assimilated than in other parts of Europe? Throughout history, Christendom had a long history of anti-Semitism, from the Crusades and beyond. However, there were certain regions in Europe where Jews were treated somewhat better. Could this be said about the treatment of Jews in the Czech lands?
“I would put it this way: The Czechoslovak state, or more precisely the Czechoslovak Republic, provided them with the framework of a new state. It created a space for new possibilities.
“In fact, their rights were very similar to those they had under the Habsburg monarchy. The difference in the new situation was that they now had the opportunity to become a part of the Czechoslovak nation.”
And what year was that?
“We are talking about the early 1920s, specifically the year 1921, which was when headcount lists were compiled after the war. It was during this time that the concept of nationality first appeared in official statistics. Prior to the war, the official classification was based on the so-called umgangssprache (or obcovací řeč), the language of everyday communication. This was, of course, something different from nationality.”
Given that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was directly controlled by Nazi Germany, how much does that frame the conversation about Czech complicity versus coercion in treatment of Jews directly after the Second World War? And then we can get after 1989.
“I see. What is specific about this period is that the Holocaust became a huge taboo. Czechoslovak Jews were not part of the discourse; they were not seen as victims. If there was any discussion about the Jews during the war, they were viewed as bystanders, or even as collaborators. This was because they were often seen as Germans, primarily based on the headcount lists from 1930, when a significant portion of them were officially classified as Germans. People would say, 'You are actually Germans,' and because of this, they were accused of collaborating with the Germans, with the German-speaking population of Czechoslovakia before 1930. In 1938-39, of course, many survived the concentration camps, but they were still seen as part of German society. [They would say:] ‘We survived, but you were not part of the story.’ ”
So, they would say that they were part of German society, but specifically, I’m not sure if I have the numbers right, but my understanding is that about 1% of the Czech lands, or the Czech part of Czechoslovakia, was Jewish. More specifically, in larger towns like Prague and Brno, around 4% of the population was Jewish. So when you say 'German nation,' would they primarily view themselves as part of it because they spoke German, even though they lived mostly in these larger cities?
“Partially. This was a product of the so-called nationalistic antisemitism. However, an important foundation for antisemitism, or rather for these anti-Jewish, antisemitic attitudes among Czechoslovak people, was based on folk stories—let’s say, myths. These were tales such as Jews killing non-Jewish people, virgins, children, and so on. So, it was connected with these kinds of stories.”
When the Holocaust started being talked about in the Western world, particularly around the time of Schindler's List and other survivors sharing their stories, with some also becoming scholars, do you think that influenced Czechoslovak understanding of the Holocaust in the 70s and 80s? Was there any conversation reaching through from the Western world, or was it completely censored until 1989?
“I would say the turning point was 1968, or the late 1960s. During this time, discussion became possible. However, it truly became a turning point after August 1968, when some Jewish people left Czechoslovakia because it was clear that the Prague Spring philosophy would not be realized, etc.
“During the 1970s, especially by the late 1970s, some discussions and different attitudes became possible, partly due to the Helsinki Conference, a very limited space for human rights, but there was at least some room for dialogue. Then came 1989 and the early 1990s, when it became possible for some Jewish exiles to return to Czechoslovakia, later to the Czech Republic. But after such a long time, it was difficult to reconnect or establish a liaison with the past.”
And then in the 1990s, was it difficult to move past the historical memory or the framing of the Communist era? And maybe let’s look at the immediate aftermath of the Second World War because, as you mentioned, the framing at that time was that Jews were somehow complicit because they spoke German. What was the conversation like in the 1990s? Was there more Holocaust education during that time? Did it take a long time to have that conversation?
“Yes, it was definitely a new space for reconstructing the era, or rather for constructing the era, because essentially, the memory had been erased. There was little knowledge about Jewish history, culture, and so on. So, it became a chance, and it still is a chance, to construct the framework of interpretations and a culture around the entire heritage, through museums, galleries, universities, and, of course, education in schools. I believe that in the past 10 to 15 years, there have been some successes in teaching modern history, even in primary and secondary schools.”
What about the current political framing? Is there something that needs to be improved upon in the way, let's say, the right-wing populist leaders in the Czech Republic talk about the Holocaust versus center-right or left-leaning? Is there enough discussion about this and how do they use it in historical memory, political memory today?
“I believe there should be more space for historians and other scholars in the media. It’s also important for the objective results of research that institutions are truly free from any political influence. There should not be institutions primarily tied to a political party, political movement, or even a government. The philosophy or the politics should be that we have a certain amount of funding available for research institutions, with no pressure for specific outputs, for example.”
