Publication details
Zmarněný život Emila Šourka. Osudy důstojníka monarchie a republiky, předáka Vlajky a žurnalisty v protektorátu
| Title in English | Waisted life of Emil Šourek. Life story of a military officer who served both the Monarchy and the Republic, a Vlajka leader and a protectorate journalist |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2021 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Historie a vojenství |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | http://www.vhu.cz/veda/zakladni-informace-o-hav/ |
| Keywords | Collaboration during Second World War; Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia; Protectorate Printed Media; The Far Right in the First and Second Republics |
| Description | The aim of the paper is to introduce the personality of former Austro-Hungarian and later Czech officer Emil Šourek, who became a collaborator during the occupation of czech lands by Nazi Germany (1939-1945). This was preceded by his gradual but increasingly dramatic political radicalization. The study attempts to trace the causes of this radicalization and then focuses on Scrotum's work in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, in which he went from an activist of the pro-Nazi movement Flag to a collaborating journalist serving Moravec's program collaboration, but even before stalingrad's turn he began to sober up from his initial enthusiasm and zeal. In the end, the text follows Scrotum's trial before the National Court, the top institution of retribution justice in liberated Czechoslovakia, and the years Scrotum spent in prison, where he also died. Scrotum's path to political radicalization seems to have been affected by long-term economic difficulties, amplified by the economic crisis of the late 1920's and early 1930's. Along with social frustration, anti-Semitic ideas, opposition to democracy, and socially and class-based politics, this led him to sympathize with fascism, and even Nazism misconcepted as radical nationalist movements. After the occupation of March 15, 1939, Scrotum partially identified himself with the occupiers, whom he perceived as ideological "comrades." It was only after his expulsion from the flag movement in 1941 that a process of ideological reassessment began, manifested in the weakening of his collaborative zeal. After stalingrad's turnaround, and especially since 1944, his initiative has weakened even further. He also tried to help the victims of procrisy in his neighborhood – perhaps it was just an alibi for the postwar period, but perhaps also an unspoken confession of his own mistake, and thus of guilt. |