Area H

Punishment, violence and the armed forces

Panel H1: Transformation and reform of criminal law

The post-war years of 1918-1925 saw significant shifts in the area of discipline and the punishment of citizens both in comparison with the wartime era with its repressions bordering on terror, and the pre-war period from which it moved away dramatically. The state, with two different legal areas, including the criminal, had the urgent task of the unification and modernization of criminal law. At the same time, there were claims for the transformation of criminal law which would be in better harmony with the requirements of humanity, democracy and also have a preventive effect. Some of these efforts were successful (suspended sentences). However, there were also new repressive measures (the act on protection of the republic). A committee of professors for the preparation of the new criminal code, which was convened in this period, eventually presented a new outline of this material in 1925. Contributions may focus on key disputes regarding the changes in criminal law and criticism of them, ideally in comparison with the relevant development in other Central European countries. Contributions in the areas of legal, social and political history, anthropology and philosophy would be appreciated.

Ladislav Soukup (chair)

Panel H2: Transformation of the armed forces of the state

The new state needed new armed forces for reasons of stability, whether the army, gendarmerie or police. We are interested in the background and education of their members and the ways they were further trained for their careers (training, foreign training, etc.), their economic status and political opinions (among others, in the context of attempts to restrict the right of soldiers and gendarmes to vote) as well as forms of deployment, careers and promotions of former legionaries and members of the former Austro-Hungarian army. Other topics to be studied include the questions of management of these forces and agenda transfers (transfer of the gendarmerie agenda to the Ministry of the Interior) in the power structure of that time and the ways these forces used violence, e.g., through the perspective of investigation of service offences, adjourned complaints and military justice. Another topic which should not be neglected is the ethnic structure of the armed forces and bullying (including its perception), and alternative visions of the armed forces, such as militia, election of officers, and other features of army democratization which were in conflict with traditional views.

Zdenko Maršálek (chair)

Panel H3: Building the state and the question of physical violence

The change in Czechoslovakia of October 1918 is traditionally seen, especially in international comparison, as a basically successful process with a rather peaceful change of power and rapid formation of the new state. This perspective is largely built on events taking place in the centre of the new state, and possibly in the peripheral areas where introduction of the new regime had no distinctive marks of physical violence. This section provides the opportunity to scrutinize this thesis by exploring less known peripheral regions and connections grounded in different points and lines of conflict than the traditional Czech-German one. We would thus welcome mainly contributions focused on conflicts based along religious lines or the conflicts between the Czech winners of the war and the other non-German nationalities present in the new state. Other appreciated contributions would be those describing the resistance of the “Green Corps” (“Grüne Kader”) groups and other participants standing in opposition to the emerging structures of the new state, as well as contributions studying various forms of collective violence.

Rudolf Kučera (chair)