Table Of ContentThis book introduces ten victims of Stalinism who survived their own death. Political
persecution changed the lives of individuals, families, and perhaps whole generations
in many countries. Here we deal with the 1950s in former Czechoslovakia.
Young Czech authors, both doctoral candidates from Charles University in Prague,
introduce fve mwworced labor in Stalinist prisons and uranium camps, but also
illustrate how active citizenship, patriotism, and civil resistance of the youth
were rewarded in the Soviet times. They show the everyday life behind the Iron
Curtain where sudden captivity for ideological reasons was a daily bread.
All the narratives were recorded in 2007–2008 using the method of oral history
interview. The authors believe they can be used as an educational tool for today´s
youth. Witnesses of the past eighty years describe in them what they had gone through
in a very frank way. What and how are they telling us has one major aim: to share
the secrets of those who were meant to be forgotten.
See also: www.politicalprisoners.eu
Co-financed by the European Union within the programme ”Europe for Citizens” 2007–2013
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners 1
Co-fnanced by the European Union within the programme Europe for Citizens 2007 – 2013.
Tomáš Bouška, Klára Pinerová:
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners. Life Stories of 5 Male and 5 Female Victims of Stalinism.
www.politicalprisoners.eu
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the authors.
Copyright © Tomáš Bouška and Klára Pinerová, 2009
ISBN 978-80-254-3716-2
2
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Interview with Mrs. Jindřiška Havrlantová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Interview with Mrs. Julie Hrušková . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Interview with Mrs. Květoslava Moravečková . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Interview with Mrs. Drahomíra Stuchlíková . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Interview with Mrs. Hana Truncová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Interview with Mr. Augustin Bubník . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Interview with Mr. Zdeněk Kovařík. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Interview with Mr. Jozef Kycka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Interview with Mr. Jan Pospíšil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Interview with Mr. Hubert Procházka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
The main prisons and labor camps in communist Czechoslovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Labor camp Vojna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
A letter from prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
A suit for pardon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Photodocumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
About the authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners 3
4
Preface
This book is part of a larger project targeted at commemorating the victims of Stalinism. We,
the young volunteers from the Czech Republic, are introducing life stories of former political
prisoners as an educational tool for youth and wider public. Lives of political prisoners perse-
cuted in 1950s, then young people themselves, seem hardly believable today. It is the very sub-
ject of our interest, the narrators and their personal beliefs, strengths and hopes that underline
the times when Europe was split into two ideological blocs. It is their stories that question the
basic values we take for granted nowadays. It is their voices that will commemorate the victims
of Stalinism.
We do not mean to rewrite history by this book. In today´s world nothing is older than
yesterday´s newspaper. Life is fast and even faster is the information all around us. In order
to achieve an effective and effcient distribution of the results of this project a combination
of communication tools is used. We publish our work on our website, in a book publication,
and during youth conferences and workshops. Our intention is to stress an interdisciplinary
approach where interpretations of the past can be studied from the perspectives of history,
sociology, penology, political science, anthropology, psychology, and many others.
Male and female memories of political oppression in former Czechoslovakia offer a complex
interpretation of the recent past. Individual histories are something we do not have to believe
in. However, we can try to imagine how it felt. To be a young captive sentenced for crimes
against the Czechoslovak regime. Crimes which usually did not contain any criminal activity at
all. Victims of political brutality became the worst enemies of state. They were not allowed to
live a free life, to study, travel, or see their families. They were sent to prisons and forced-labor
camps instead. What is seen beyond possible today was a daily bread then.
What is more, the men and women who survived and started new lives after release were
meant to be forgotten. Their persecution went on. They had to fnd manual jobs only, their
children were put aside from the offcial education system. As former political prisoners they
refused to support Communist government and leading institutions and they had to pay for it.
They did pay indeed. They lived a bound life full of stigmas. The political pressure about
their anti-communist belief did not stop until 1989. Finally, when most of them were in their
twilight years, they were free. Luckily, they agreed to share their memories with us. Some of
their slavers are still alive. Some of the “modern slaves” too. What do we know about them?
Do we want to know? The answer is up to everyone of us. But we, the authors, want to voice
the life stories of those who would probably never be heard again. It is not the solution but it
may help us in fnding the right answer.
Life story interviews and biographical narratives started to be popular in Central Europe after
the fall of Communism. Even this book has been prepared using the modern approach of oral
history. Yet not all the experts studying recent history are familiar with these methods, some
even refuse them strictly in the Czech Republic. This is why we would like to contribute to the
debate and offer empirical examples how fruitful oral histories can be. We do not argue that
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners 5
spoken memories equal historical sources like standard historical annals, chronicles, and other
records (that are equally subjective). What we believe in is they are equally valuable sources of
historical and perhaps even general knowledge. Individual histories should contribute to the
descriptions of the past especially there, where offcial historical records fail. Such information
can only enrich the well known facts. After all, history was at frst oral and all the knowledge
was spread by a spoken language. It is our task to put down the words of those who “were
there.” If not for us then for generations after us as it seems obvious that such stories can teach
us more then many textbooks.
It was not always easy to explain to the narrators there is a sense behind all the recording,
transcribing and editing.
As a result we gathered ten examples of the “little history” of former Czechoslovakia in
this book in 2008. We provide you, our readers, with stories dealing with “big history,” but
using one´s own words and delivering personal explanations and interpretations of what has
happened, what has been seen and lived through. We do it at dawn of electronic technolo-
gies which offer fast and precise information and data on-line. Reading books may seem old
fashioned and unpractical especially from the point of view of today´s youth. However, we are
aware of it and our aims go further than that. We do not want to fall back “just” with con-
ventional books. This is why we created a website dedicated not only to former Czechoslovak
political prisoners, but to all who were once politically oppressed. We wish to give the foor to
all who feel they belong to the huge family of political prisoners in the world.
Last but not least, it is important to thank at this place to all who assisted in making this
dream come true. This book would never be born without the kind help of Kamila Nováková
and Justin A. Osswald who translated it in English from the Czech original. Many volunteers in-
cluding Marcela Kubíčková, Michal Louč, Berta Štěpánová and many others contributed to the
existence of our initiative with great enthusiasm. The Czech non-proft organization ANO pro
Evropu (YES for Europe) gave us the auspices for running a project supported by the Education,
Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission. Some of the necessary
costs related to publishing this book were covered by this project. Another important partner
to be mentioned is the Czech Oral History Association and mainly its President, Mirek Vaněk,
who kindly supported our work with great understandment. Special thanks goes to Ondřej
Kafka, head of Kafka Design studio, and Jana Petrželová, graphic designer, who gave this book
its visual identity.
However, the biggest gratitude shall be expressed to the heroes of this book. The ten former
political prisoners introduced in this book are the most precious result of this project. Their
stories are the peak of an ice-berg of victims of political oppression in the sea of oblivion. Un-
fortunately, one of the narrators, Mr. Jozef Kycka, will not be able to read this book anymore
as he passed away before it was published. It is for the memory of people like him, respected
wise men and women, why we run initiatives like politicalprisoners.eu Therefore, we wish to
dedicate this book to all the political prisoners who are unable to read it anymore.
The authors.
Prague, Christmas 2008
6
Historical Overview
Postwar Development of Czechoslovakia
The development of the Czechoslovakian society in the postwar was an important historical
break in its story. The relations in Europe changed since the European political feld got two
new great powers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. They fought together to
knock down Nazi Germany. After the victory, the interests of these two countries were increas-
ingly different until they divided into two antagonistic blocks. Czechoslovakia was attempting
to become, “A bridge between East and West.” That means it would be a country that would
connect both blocks and would maintain good relations with both, whether in economical,
political, or a cultural way. That did not happen though and the years from 1945 –1948 Czecho-
slovakia was inclining more to the Soviet Union.
The end of WWII meant for this country great changes in the political, economic, and social
sphere. The most expressive change was in the population structure because the German in-
habitants were displaced from the Czechoslovakian border area. This dramatically ended the
co-existance of German-Czech relations, which had existed since the German colonization in
the Middle Ages. The irreconcilable German attitude and longing for reward after the war
arose was evident in the frst part of the displacement when there were many cases of violence,
inhumanity, and humiliation. The organized displacement started January 1, 1946 when the
great powers gave their consent to it at the Potsdam Conference, which took place on August
2, 1945. In this way, Czechoslovakia lost more then 2.5 million German inhabitants1, which also
contributed to a huge economic problem in the border areas since the new inhabitants never
flled such numbers. The population was lower in the border areas and people there were not
that skilled in cultural, moral, and economic ways to fully replace the old population.
The Czechoslovakian government also tried to displace the Hungarian population living
mainly in southern Slovakia. This displacement was not successful though, because it was not
supported internationally.
Another consequence that was brought by the end of the war was the pursuit and punish-
ment of those who were cooperating with the Nazi powers. As well as the leaders of Nazi Ger-
many who faced the Nuremberg Trials in 1945 also some Czechoslovakians were to be punished
for their crimes. Here it happened on the basis of vindictive decrees number 16. The members
of the protectorate government were judged by the newly established National Court and
these processes were a big political precedent and the judges’ independence was affected.
1 Not only were Germans supposed to disappear, but also the names that people could remember them by. The circular
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs from August 10, 1945, “The regeneration of the constitutional aspects and new legal
position of Germans in Bohemian and Moravian territory requires the renaming of streets and public places. The Ministry
of Internal Affairs requires (…) so that all names would be dispatched (…) reminding of the time of a lack of freedom, Na-
zism and its representatives, as well as any Germanization and German culture. The old names will therefore be replaced
with new ones, better names.” Old names that had nothing to do with Nazism were also dispatched. For example in Plzeň
they renamed the Saxon bridge to Roosevelt‘s bridge or the “Empire outskirts” was renamed to Southern although these
names were given during the Era of Monarchy and had nothing to do with Nazi Germany.
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners 7
The collaborators who were not that high in society and other people who cooperated with
the Nazi power were judged by the extraordinary people’s court. In total 33,000 people were
sentenced.
The postwar rise of the left and the transformation of the country.
With the end of WWII the political situation in Czechoslovakia changed and turned dra-
matically to the left. Of course this was a worldwide effect and similar tendencies for example
were seen in Italy and France. After the war the prewar political parties on the right were pro-
hibited. In Czechoslovakia this meant the end of the Czech Agrarian Party and the Slovakian
People’s Party. The prohibition of these two was explained with words that these two parties,
2
“Strongly overstepped the interests of the country.” A new block was established under the
name National Front and it formed the national political scene. There were four Czech parties:
the Communist Czechoslovakian Party, the Czechoslovakian People’s Party, the Czech National
Social Party, and the Czech Social Democratic Party. There were also two Slovak parties: the
Democratic Party and the Communist Party of Slovakia. The time between 1945-1948 is called
delimited democracy because there was no opposition against the National Front, although
this party was forming the state politics, infuencing the main problems, and business issues of
the country. Its decisions were accepted with complete consent and was obligatory for govern-
ment, parliament, and others in public service. The special position in government had its pre-
sidium: a chairman and fve deputies, who were representing the other political parties. These
six people were deciding on all the important questions and they were holding an unusual
amount of power this way.
3
The strongest interference into the state economy was the nationalization of industry,
mines, and fnancial institutions whereby Czechoslovakia was on its way towards socializa-
tion. The nationalization happened in other countries too, but its reach was not as extensive
and it was done for the purpose of propping up certain major industries that were suffering
as a result of the war. The governments in other countries deviated towards nationalization
with compensation and they were counting on the fact that the organization will be ready for
denationalization later. Czechoslovakian denationalization was distinguished with its huge ex-
tension. Its main bearers were two political powers: the Social Democratic Party and the Com-
munist Party. The other parties fnally agreed on everything, but there were disputes about its
reach. The demands of the Communists and the Social Democrats seemed to high to the other
2
The Republican party of agriculture and farming, in short the Agrarian party. During the Second Czechoslovakian Re-
public it was a main part of a Party for national unity. It was often upbraided for collaboration during WWII. However,
many of its representatives joined the rebellions abroad and had no sympathy towards Nazi occupants. As it was already
mentioned, the representatives of the protectorate goverment were sentenced after the war to imprisonment.
Hlinka’s Slovakian People‘s party was a Slovakian right political party, which existed in the frst half of the 20th century.
Its original aim was the autonomy of Slovakia, but gradually an authoritative and fascistic tendency grew in it. It was a
leading party of the newly established “Slovak Republic” on March 14, 1939. The main ideas this party proclaimed were:
catholic clergy, nationalistic intelligentsia, and a Christian and nationalistic thinking nation.
3
Nationalization is mentioned in an interview with Pavel Levý who said, “My father lost his business quickly. First it was
stated that businessman will gather in cooperatives, but fnally everything was nationalized in 1949. The business was
taken over by a company called Mototechna and then by Domácí potřeby and my dad was kept there as the manager.
The typical way they did it was taking his business over with unpaid invoices. He had to pay those. My father did not have
much stuff, but if one bought new machines he had to pay them off for a long time then. This happened to my colleague
from work whose parents had a mill and they had to pay off the machines for the rest of their lives. Then there was a
fnancial reform and all money lost its validity 1:50 and debits dropped on 1:5. It was a thievish regime.”
8
4
political parties and especially to President Edvard Beneš , but they all fnally conceded. For
the nationalized organization the compensation was supposed to be paid, but that never hap-
pened. In the end, more then 60 % of the industrial production was nationalized.
The next big change in the possessive relations was the agrarian reform. That meant the
confscation of land from Germans, Hungarians, collaborators, and enemies of the state whose
land was given back to people who did not have any land and to small farmers. All though
this was mainly land located in the Czechoslovakian border area there were also changes hap-
5
pening in the interior . The reform dispatched large private estates and the face of the village
changed because the socially weaker population left. This agrarian reform was done mainly by
the Communist Party, which received a lot of future votes as a result.
The successful elections of the Communist Party
The frst postwar elections in Czechoslovakia took place May 26, 1946 and for a long time these
were the last democratic parliamentary elections. In the Czech lands four different parties were
campaigning: Communist, Social Democratic, National Social, and the People’s Party. In Slovakia
there were two possible winners, the Democrats or the Communists, but just before the elections
two more parties were established which were the Party of Freedom and the Labor Party. The voters
who did not agree with the present regime and existing parties had the chance to express it with
the so-called, “white ballots.” It was expected that these ballots would be used by the supporters
of the prohibited parties. The Communists came up with this idea of the white ballots and other
parties thought it was a trick and originally did not agree with this suggestion. The Communist
Party was bringing many mottos and slogans to the campaign, but most of them were just varieties
of one theme, “More work for the country, that’s our issue.” It also proclaimed that it would work,
without beneft to themselves, on construction and farming. The economic effect of this activity
was not big, but it brought them powerful political power. The Communist Party got over 40 % of
the total vote and for the frst time in the history of Czechoslovakian it got into the government.
It was benefting mainly from the postwar attitudes and expectations and its ideas spread mainly
between the middle class and rural folk. It mainly got the votes of the already mentioned Agrarian
Party, which was not renewed. The day after the elections, Monday May 27, the newspaper, “Rudé
6
Právo” came up with banner headlines, “Communists as a Leading Power of the Nation – No po-
litical party ever had so much support before – In the most democratic elections the population
proved and extended the Communist mandate – The nation is happy – Only a few people used the
white ballots against the People’s Democratic Regime and against the National Front.”
President Beneš was again elected unanimously to be the head of state and on July 2, 1946
he named the new government, which was represented by the Communist Prime Minister,
Klement Gottwald. The government put in its program a new constitution and a two-year eco-
nomic plan, so that within two years the postwar damaged economy would be renewed.
4
Edvard Beneš – Edward Beneš was the second President after T.G. Masaryk from 1935 to 1938. He was also a President
in exile in 1940 –1945 and the President of Czechoslovakia after the War (1945 –1948). Together with T.G. Masaryk and
M. R. Štefánik, he took part in the resistance movement during WW I and he is one of the founders of Czechoslovakia.
After the WWII his position of President was confrmed and he was newly elected on June 19, 1946. He was one of the
st nd
leaders of the 1 resistance group and the head of the 2 resistance group.
5
Collectivization took place in Czechoslovakia during the 1950’s. As a result the major part of agricultural land was cen-
tered into JZD – Unifed Cooperative Farms. This process was not without violence and threats.
6
Rudé právo – (in English „Red right“) before 1989 a daily newspaper of the Communist Party.
Czechoslovak Political Prisoners 9
