1.TOPOGRAFIA DE LAS SUPERFICIES DE IMPLANTES

Although we primarily focus on the period after February 1948 in this text, it will be useful to offer at least a partial picture of the situation just after the Second World War. At the same time, we would like to mention that this topic has already attracted a certain amount of scholarly attention, and so we need give no more than an outline of developments.4 _{First and foremost, it should be borne in mind}

that Czech Silesia was suffering from enormous disreuption as compared to the rest of the Czech Lands. The intense fi ghting in the area towards the end of the war caused huge economic losses. There was major demographic upheaval: the mass transfer of the German population is well known, but another process was also underway in the form of mass arrival of new settlers without any ties to the territory in concern. Many Czechs had been forced to leave in 1938, and only some returned. The empty place left by the Jews of Silesia, murdered by the Nazis, was the greatest reminder of tragedy. There was also a particularly uncertain situa- tion in the Těšínsko/Cieszyn area, disputed between Poland and Czechoslovakia, where the lacerations of recent years had cut deep into the life prospects of many of its inhabitants.

Despite all the devastation and upheaval, the idea of a Silesian identity started to gain momentum almost immediately. Now interpreted in exclusively Czech terms, it was promoted primarily by intellectual circles in Opava, but also by some peo- ple linked with Ostrava and its surroundings. Another infl uence was the Silesian Cultural Institute in Prague (in Czech Slezský kulturní ústav v Praze), which had kept on functioning throughout the occupation and had been preparing the ground for the promotion of “Silesian” demands soon after the liberation of the country.5

Unlike in the prewar period, the national (Czech ethnic) element was now clearly dominant in ideas of Silesian identity while the non–ethnic territorial conception was sidelined. Leopold Peřich, the Director of the Silesian Land Archive in Opava (in Czech Zemský archiv v Opravě) and a regional cultural functionary and historian,

4 See Ibid., pp. 186–190; PLAČKOVÁ, Magda – PLAČEK, Vilém: Ke snahám o zřízení Slezské

univerzity v Opavě v letech 1946 až 1948 [Attempts to Set Up a Silesian University in Opa- va in the Years 1946–1948]. In: Vlastivědné listy Slezska a severní Moravy, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1992), pp. 5–14.

5 See KNAPÍK, Jiří: Zapomenutá národní jednota: Slezský kulturní ústav v Praze 1939–1945 [A Forgotten National Association: The Silesian Cultural Institute in Prague 1939–1945]. In: Acta historica Universitatis Silesianae Opaviensis, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2008), pp. 253–264.

was perhaps alone in stressing the three–culture heritage of Silesia and rejecting a narrow ethno–national position in favour of a “Silesian standpoint.”6 _{To some}

extent, this attitude can still be discerned in 1946 in the line taken by the cultural educational functionary Arnošt Mazur. In one of his articles, he wrote: “The time of occupation weighed very heavily on Silesia. Yet, the Silesian preserved his good qualities. […] There is something in the Silesian nature that arouses respect, some- thing constant, solid. It is an honesty in work and in recreation, in life as a whole, something specifi cally Silesian.”7 _{Nonetheless, the views of the two Opava cultural}

workers were pale and unemphatic compared to the perceptions of Silesian nation- ality that had been widespread from the early 1890s.

All the other manifestations of the Silesian idea in the postwar period were based on the construction of the Silesian region as exclusively Czech. Here we fi nd a whole constellation of different views and studies associated, for example, with the poet Petr Bezruč, the idea of creating a Silesian Slavín (pantheon), or with forms of publicity for the results of the terminology (place–name) committee, and other similar issues.

Several important corporations and institutions of the time were working to conserve and construct a Silesian identity. In the fi rst place, we should mention the revived Opava Cultural Organisation (in Czech Matice opavská) with its Matice Days and its motto, “Ostrá hůrka [the Steep Hill] is the symbol – Matice opavská the guardian of the national unity of the Silesian people.”8 _{There was also the}

Silesian Cultural Organisation for Popular Education (in Czech Slezská matice lidové osvěty), which was primarily active in Těšínsko, and the Opava Silesian Study Library. Particularly important was the Silesian Cultural Institute in Prague, which has already been mentioned above, and whose leading fi gures (most often National Socialist in political orientation) worked in senior positions at various ministries and in central national authorities.9 _{Ideas of a Silesian identity were}

6 PEŘICH, Leopold: Slezsko: Přehled národnostního vývoje [Silesia: An Outline of Ethnic/Na-

tionality Development]. Praha, Vyšehrad 1945, pp. 9–11.

7 Z dějin Matice opavské: K 70. výročí jejího založení [From the History of the Opava Cultural

Organisation: On the 70th _{Anniversary of its Founding], Supplement to the Silesian Bulletin.}

Opava, Slezský studijní ústav 1947, p. 4.

8 For the most recent account of the organisation, see KNAPÍKOVÁ, Jaromíra: Matice opavs-

ká: Spolek, osobnosti a národní snahy ve Slezsku 1877–1948 [The Opava Cultural Organisa-

tion: The Society, Personalities and National Endeavours in Silesia 1877–1948]. Opava, Matice Slezská 2007.

9 This organisation, founded in Prague in 1906 by natives of Silesia, was an important bearer of the idea of Czech Silesian identity throughout the fi rst half of the 20th _{century. The ori-}

gins and programme of the association are analysed in the article: KNAPÍK, Jiří – KNAPÍK- OVÁ, Jaromíra: Od Slezanu k Národní jednotě slezské v Praze: Formování intervenčního programu spolku v letech 1906–1918 [From The Silesian to the National Silesian Organisa- tion in Prague: The Formation of the Association’s Intervention Programme in the Years 1906–1918]. In: Slezský sborník, Vol. 105, No. 4 (2007), pp. 241–274. The history of the association up to the end of the Second World War is the subject of a monograph by the same authors: IDEM: “Slezský konzulát” v Praze: Od Slezanu ke Slezskému kulturnímu

also naturally evident in the work of the Silesian Land Museum (in Czech Slezské zemské museum), and the name of the Opava theatre company at the time – the Silesian National Theatre (in Czech Slezské národní divadlo) – speaks for itself.

Also worthy of note were one–off projects to promote postwar consciousness of a Silesian identity, and it should be added that such events attracted interest from Czechs even outside the region. They included various exhibitions and lecture programmes, some of them leading to publications of a less ephemeral kind. For example, there was a series of lectures from Opava scholars on Silesian history, cultural and ethnic topics from January to March 1946.10 _{The lecturers included}

Leopold Peřich,11 _{Bohumil Sobotík and Adolf Turek. There was also a lecture se-}

ries given by the staff of Masaryk University in Brno, which was later published in book form. 12

Ideas on Silesian identity acquired specifi c forms in relation to the question of postwar state frontiers. In the case of Těšínsko, the Czech side was unwilling to discuss the matter with the Poles on any level, and insisted that the border existing before 1 October 1938 had to be restored. There were many initiatives support- ing the annexation of various territories of currently Polish Silesia – Ratibořsko, Hlubčicko and Kozelsko13 _{– and extending the border mountain belt to include}

the German, respectively Polish foot of the mountains and the region of Kladsko. The relevant central bodies were rather lukewarm on these matters but people at the lower levels of government and interest organisations often argued that the Germanised Silesian territories needed to be re–Czechised.

The fi nal level of concern with Czech Silesian identity after 1945 was expressed in attempts to secure a clearly defi ned regional–administrative position in the frame- work of the Czechoslovak Republic for Silesia. Czech Silesia was not ultimately to be recognised in any way in its historic borders as an offi cial governmental or administrative entity, but the campaign seemed to many of its exponents realistic and with good prospects of success at the time: an Ostrava Branch Offi ce of the Land National Committee in Brno was established, and many saw this as a provi- sional arrangement paving the way for the creation of a Silesian Land authority with full territorial competence. As things turned out, these hopes were illusory.

ústavu 1906–1945 [The “Silesian Consulate” in Prague: From the Silesian to the Silesian Cul-

tural Organisation 1906–1945]. Opava, Ústav historických věd Filozofi cko–přírodovědecké fakulty Slezské univerzity v Opavě 2010.

10 See VALUŠEK, Bohuslav: Vlastivědné přednášky o Slezsku [Ethnographic Lectures on Sile- sia]. In: Slezský sborník, Vol. 43, No. 3 (1945), p. 195 ff.

11 Most recently on this fi gure, see ŠOPÁK, Pavel – MÜLLER Karel (ed.): PEŘICH, Leopold:

Texty [Texts]. Opava, Slezská univerzita v Opavě 2007.

12 Slezsko, český stát a česká kultura: Cyklus přednášek pořádaných Masarykovou univerzi-

tou v Brně [Silesia, the Czech State and Czech Culture: A Series of Lectures Organised by

Masaryk University in Brno]. Opava, Matice opavská 1946.

13 See JANÁK, Dušan: Neklidná hranice: Slezské pohraničí v letech 1945–1947 [The Unquiet Borderlands:The Silesian Borderlands in the Years 1945–1947], in Časopis Slezského zem-