Editor of BOHEMIA sacked
because of criticism

One should suggest that the end of Communism meant a mayor breakthrough for academic studies focussing on Eastern Europe. Ten years later however, as the pink clouds of enthusiasm evoked by the possibilities of free travelling, uncensored communication and open archives are dissolving, the academic discipline of East European history in Germany experiences a cathartic crisis. Whereas the majority of the scientific establishment mourns the vanishing political relevance of its subject and the thinning flow of state money, it has mainly been members of the younger generation who connected the situation of East European studies in Germany to its methods, structure and history.

The debate was heated up when Jörg Baberowski (University of Tübingen) published an appeal to substitute the regionally defined sub-disciplines and the germanocentric common mediaeval and modern history with an integrated European history to be differentiated by time and methods. See «Jörg Baberowski: Das Ende der Osteuropäischen Geschichte. Bemerkungen zur Lage einer geschichtswissenschaftlichen Disziplin». In: OSTEUROPA 48 (1998) no. 8/9, pp. 784–789.

(summary at http://www.rwth-aachen.de/ipw/Ww/osteuropa/inh8998.html#baberowski)

Baberowski noticed that the German East European history, being an offspring of the 'Ostforschung' and a kind of knowledge base for 'Cold Warriors' has been cut off from the methodical discourse taking place in international social and historical sciences since the eighties.

In April 1999 Eva Hahn, who has been with the Collegium Carolinum (CC) in Munich for 17 years and editor of BOHEMIA. Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der böhmischen Länder for 10 years stepped forward with «Deutsche Bohemistik – von außen gesehen». In: Osteuropa 49 (1999) no. 4, pp. 387–396.

(summary at http://www.rwth-aachen.de/ipw/Ww/osteuropa/inh0499.html#hahn)

Hahn, herself a Czech by origin, analyzed the situation of the Bohemian studies following the questions raised by Baberowski. She made clear that the German 'Bohemistik' was even more isolated than the East European history at large. The discipline emerged as a consequence of the expulsion of the German population from the Czech lands at the end of World War II and has been connected to a number of Sudetengerman political and cultural organizations, even though Ferdinand Seibt himself belongs to the outspoken critics of the best known among them, the Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft. Meanwhile the CC, founded in 1956 as a center for German scholars from the Czech lands, has developed into a kind of Academy of Sciences for Czech and Slovak history and culture and gave access to scientists without Sudetengerman background or Bavarian residence.

(for information about the CC, unfortunately only in German, see http://www.collegium-carolinum.de)

Nevertheless, it is still a relatively closed society and a waste land as far as methodical approaches are concerned: the member historians are still waving the banner of 'Sozialgeschichte' and treat other ways of analysis, e. g. culturalist or discoursive studies, as a short-lived fashion not to be taken seriously or a 'postmodern' threat to their positions.

How unwilling to allow a discussion about these topics the Bohemist establishment is, was revealed by the fact that Eva Hahn was dismissed without notice once her article had appeared in OSTEUROPA. This decision was taken by Ferdinand Seibt, the first chairman of the CC, without consulting the other 52 members.

Although the disputed article contains several controversial opinions there can be no doubt that Eva Hahn raised an important issue and that her criticism is basically right. One might find the text a bit too agitated, but then it has to be known that on several occasions before Eva Hahn had attempted in vain to start a debate within the CC.

We believe it to be intolerable that a named scientist was fired because she spoke up for a reorientation of her discipline. Furthermore, we regard Eva Hahn as a courageous person who has always shown complete commitment to matters she considers to be right and important. This made her leave Czechoslovakia after the crushing of the Prague spring in 1968. And now she should be ostracized for pointing out that research concerning Czech and Slovak history in Germany needs to be opened for the methods successfully used by American and British scientists for several years and that the CC should allow the new perspectives of historians who are no longer part of the history of the Bohemian lands themselves?

We owe much to Eva Hahn. Like many others of the younger generation of historians working on Czech or Slovak subjects, she gave us good pieces of advice and helped us to publish the results of our research. Therefore, we will be very happy, if others stand up to take her side, too and find an answer to Mr. Seibt's behavior on the one hand and contribute to the discussion initiated by Eva Hahn on the other.

The debate in OSTEUROPA continues and the next issue (June 6/1999) will contain a reply of Ferdinand Seibt. A summary of it which is, unfortunately, not very substantial is already available on the website of OSTEUROPA at

(http://www.rwth-aachen.de/ipw/Ww/osteuropa/inh0699.html#seibt)

As far as we know the journal OSTEUROPA still welcomes contributions to the debate.

If you want your name to be added to the list of Eva Hahn's supporters, if you want to make a contribution to the discussion or if you need more information, please send an email to christopher.storck@uni-koeln.de

Cologne, 27 May 1999