Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T15:04:46.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A “Common Enterprise”? The Role of Utility Infrastructure in the Divided City of Teschen, 1920–1938

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2024

Zora Piskačová
Zora Piskačová*
Affiliation:
UNC Chapel-Hill, zora.piskacova@unc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Teschen Silesia after the First World War is typically portrayed as a region of ethnic conflict and national rivalry. Focusing on gas, electricity, and water infrastructures of the divided city of Teschen, now Polish Cieszyn and Czech Český Těšín, this article shifts the focus from nationalist discourses of animosity and upheaval to stabilization and local cross-border cooperation. In examining the cities’ conjoined utility networks’ management as well as their partial reorientation towards domestic suppliers, it demonstrates that local interests and economic pragmatism often trumped national antagonism. Moreover, by allowing municipal politics to take central stage, the article shows that small town leaders on the periphery were not only obedient servants of their respective central governments. While the Polish and Czechoslovak nation-states attempted to curb transnational municipal dependency and thus erase all remnants of the Habsburg regime, small town leaders often acted as administrators first and nationalists second.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , Winter 2023 , pp. 926 - 948
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research for this article has been in part funded by the Zeit-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius within the Ph.D. scholarship program “Beyond Borders.” The author would like to thank Chad Bryant, Ota Konrád, Sören Urbansky, Tereza Juhászová and Oskar Czendze, as well as Mira Markham and the participants of the UNC-Chapel Hill European History Workshop for their help and feedback during different stages of the drafting process.

References

1. Władysław Michejda quoted in the Municipal Assembly on September 30, 1932, in Státní okresní archiv Karviná (SOAK), Fond Archiv Města Český Těšín (AMČT), inventární (inv.) číslo (č.) 56 (Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung, 1932).

2. Michejda, Władysław, Nie rzucim ziemi skąd nasz ród (Cieszyn, 1934), 12–13Google Scholar.

3. According to Czechoslovak police files, some 1,500 individuals participated. See report from February 26, 1934, in Zemský archiv v Opavě (ZAO), Fond Policejní ředitelství v Moravské Ostravě (PŘMO), karton (k.) 357, signatura (sign.) 1/46.

4. The remaining 2% worked in agriculture. See Berufsstatistik nach den Ergebnissen der Volkszählung vom 31. December 1910 in Österreich, vol. 3, no. 9 (Vienna, 1916), 11.

5. See Idzi Panic, ed., Dzieje Śląska Cieszyńskiego od zarania do czasów współczesnych: Śląsk Cieszyński w okresie od Wiosny Ludów do I wojny światowej, vol. 5 (Cieszyn, 2013).

6. According to the last Austro-Hungarian census of 1910, more Polish- than Czech-speakers lived in the region. The majority in Teschen, 61.5%, indicated German as “everyday language,” 31.7% Polish, and 6.6% Czech. The city's most represented religious groups were Roman Catholics (67.3%), followed by Protestants (23%), and Jews (10%). After WWI, the number of self-proclaimed Germans decreased due to out-migration and the fact that many bilingual individuals now declared themselves as members of the respective new nation-states. The Czechoslovak census of 1921 shows that in Český Těšín “Germans” still dominated, but in Cieszyn “Poles” already outnumbered “Germans.” In 1930, Český Těšín was 45.4% Czech, 33.5% German and 15.0% Polish. In 1931, Cieszyn was 82.7% Polish, while the rest consisted mostly of Germans. Silesian nationality further complicated these census categories. As a distinct regional minority, Silesians typically spoke the transitional Teschen dialect referred as po naszymu (“in our own way”). It was included as national category in the 1921 and 1930 censuses with a required choice of an attribute (Silesian-Czech/Pole/German). The statistics offer even less reliable data than usual. See Dan Gawrecki, Jazyk a národnost ve sčítání lidu na Těšínsku v letech 1880–1930 (Český Těšín, 2017).

7. “Die Besetzung von Teschen,” Silesia, January 29, 1919, 1.

8. Tajna Organizacja Wojskowa (Secret Military Organization), Konfederacja Śląska (Silesian Confederation) in Poland, and Občanská obrana (Civil Defense) in Czechoslovakia. See Krzysztof Nowak, “Polsko-czechosłowacki konflikt graniczny (1918–1920),” in Idzi Panic, ed., Dzieje Śląska Cieszyńskiego od zarania do czasów współczesnych: Śląsk Cieszyński w latach 1918–1945, vol. 6 (Cieszyn 2015), 58–65.

9. Isabelle Davion, “Teschen and its Impossible Plebiscite: Can the Genie be Put Back in the Bottle?,” in Marcus M. Payk and Roberta Pergher, eds., Beyond Versailles: Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and the Formation of New Polities after the Great War (Bloomington, 2019), 38–58.

10. The decision left the larger portion of the region, including its coalmines, to Czechoslovakia. See Conrad, Benjamin, Umkämpfte Grenzen, umkämpfte Bevölkerung: Die Entstehung der Staatsgrenzen der Zweiten Polnischen Republik 1918–1923 (Stuttgart, 2014), 186–90Google Scholar.

11. Poland was still fighting the Soviets in the northeast, and violent plebiscite agitation hit Prussian Silesia in the northwest. For more examples, consult Jochen Böhler, Ota Konrád and Rudolf Kučera, eds., In the Shadow of the Great War: Physical Violence in East-Central Europe, 1917–1923 (New York, 2021).

12. See Gerwarth, Robert and Horne, John, “Vectors of Violence: Paramilitarism in Europe after the Great War, 1917–1923,” The Journal of Modern History 83, no. 3 (September 2011): 489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Włodzimierz Borodziej and Maciej Górny, Nasza Wojna, vol. 2, Narody, 1917–1923 (Warsaw, 2018); Michal Frankl and Miloslav Szabó, Budování státu bez antisemitismu?: Násilí, diskurz loajality a vznik Československa (Prague, 2016).

13. Paul, Ellen L., “Czech Teschen Silesia and the Controversial Czechoslovak Census of 1921,” The Polish Review 43, no. 2 (1998): 161–71Google Scholar; Kamiński, Marek K., Konflikt polsko–czeski 1918–1921 (Warsaw, 2003)Google Scholar; Buttin, Felix, “The Polish-Czechoslovak Conflict over Teschen Silesia (1918–1920): A Case Study,” Perspectives: Review of International Affairs 25 (Winter 2005): 63–78Google Scholar.

14. Broader overviews of the interwar period nestle these arguments in narratives that deliberately skip over the peaceful years. See Wiechowski, Jerzy, Spór o Zaolzie, 1918–1920 i 1938 (Warsaw, 1990)Google Scholar; Długajczyk, Edward, Tajny front na granicy cieszyńskiej: Wywiad i dywersja w latach 1919–1939 (Katowice, 1993)Google Scholar; Jiří Bílek, Kyselá těšínská jablíčka: Československo-polské konflikty o Těšínsko 1919, 1938, 1945, 2nd ed. (Prague, 2018). Others rely on sources that naturally highlight conflict, such as nationalist press or police reports. See, for example, Dan Gawrecki, Politické a národnostní poměry v Těšínském Slezsku 1918–1938 (Český Těšín, 1999).

15. Notable exceptions include Kevin Hannan, Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia (New York, 1996).

16. See for example Reill, Dominique K., The Fiume Crisis: Life in the Wake of the Habsburg Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 2020)Google Scholar; Egry, Gábor, “Navigating the Straits: Changing Borders, Changing Rules and Practices of Ethnicity and Loyalty in Romania after 1918,” The Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 3 (2013): 449–76Google Scholar; Wheatley, Natasha, “Central Europe as Ground Zero of the New International Order,” Slavic Review 78, no. 4 (Winter 2019): 900–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. For legal dimensions of local government see Artur Warzocha, “Samorząd terytorialny w II RP—w drodze ku własnemu państwu,” Samorząd miejski i jego elity, a special issue of Res Politicae (2012): 351–63; Karel Schelle, Organizace československého státu v meziválečném období (1918–1938) (Prague, 2006). Examples of municipal transition offer Jeremy King, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–1948 (Princeton, 2002); Johannes Florian Kontny, “Herrschaftssicherung an der Peripherie? Die Transformation der städtischen Selbstverwaltung in Eupen und Znojmo/Znaim nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg (1918–1922),” Bohemia 56, no. 2 (2016): 381–405. For an excellent study of the regional level see Martin Klečacký, Poslušný vládce okresu: Okresní hejtman a proměny státní moci v Čechách v letech 1868–1938 (Prague, 2021).

18. See Ivan Šedivý, “K otázce kontinuity nositelů státní moci: Jmenování vedoucích úředníků v kompetenci ministerstva vnitra v letech 1918–1921,” in Jan Hájek and Dagmar Hájková et al., eds., Moc, vliv a autorita v procesu vzniku a utváření meziválečné ČSR (1918–1921) (Prague, 2008), 184–97. See also selected articles in Paul Miller and Claire Morelon, eds., Embers of Empire: Continuity and Rupture in the Habsburg Successor States After 1918 (New York, 2019).

19. Peter Sahlins, Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley, 1989); Edith Sheffer, Burned Bridge: How East and West Germans Made the Iron Curtain (Oxford, 2011); Kathryn Ciancia, On Civilization's Edge: A Polish Borderland in the Interwar World (New York, 2021).

20. James E. Bjork, Neither German nor Pole: Catholicism and National Indifference in a Central European Borderland (Ann Arbor, 2008); Pieter Judson, Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge, Mass., 2006); Tara Zahra, Kidnapped Souls: National Indifference and the Battle for Children in the Bohemian Lands, 1900–1948 (Ithaca, 2008).

21. Jane Summerton, “Introductory Essay: The Systems Approach to Technological Change,” in Jane Summerton, ed., Changing Large Technical Systems (Boulder, 1994), 1.

22. In Berlin and Jerusalem, utility infrastructure was reoriented shortly after the border introduction and reintegrated once it vanished. Timothy Moss, “Divided City, Divided Infrastructures: Securing Energy and Water Services in Postwar Berlin,” Journal of Urban History 35, no. 7 (October 2009): 923–42; Meron Benvenisti, Jerusalem: The Torn City (Jerusalem, 1976), 31–62 and 129–48.

23. The mutual use of Nicosia's sewage system by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is often hailed as rare example of municipal cooperation between antagonistic sides. See Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia, 2009), 125.

24. For precise border delineation and allocation of utility facilities see SOAK, Fond Okresní Úřad Český Těšín (OÚČT), k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 289 (International Commission for the Czech-Polish Border Delineation, “Protocol” from August 12, 1921). Border diplomacy is further discussed in Dagmar Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State: Diplomatic History of the Boundaries of Czechoslovakia, 1914–1920 (Leiden, Netherlands, 1962), 97–120 and 228–75, and Conrad, Umkämpfte Grenzen, 185–90.

25. F.B., “Przyszłość Cieszyna,” Gwiazdka Niedzielna: Tygodniowe wydanie Gwiazdki Cieszyńskiej, August 1, 1920, 1–2, here 1.

26. “Pro nedělitelnost Těšína,” Moravsko-slezský deník, September 26, 1920, 4.

27. “Die Entscheidung über Teschen,” Silesia, July 25, 1920, 1.

28. The Silesian minority often shared this sentiment. See Andrea Schmidt-Rösler, “Autonomie- und Separatismusbestrebungen in Oberschlesien 1918–1922,” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 48, no. 1 (1999): 1–49; Piotr Dobrowolski, Ugrupowania i kierunki separatystyczne na Górnym Śląsku i w Cieszyńskiem w latach 1918–1939 (Krakow, 1972), 192–218.

29. SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 289 (Declaration of the Municipal Assembly of Český Těšín, undated); and Archiwum Państwowe w Katowicach Oddział w Cieszynie (APwKC), Zespół Akta Miasta Cieszyna (AMC), sygnatura (sygn.) 4/13/0/1/61 (Administrative Commission on September 27, 1920, in Protokoły posiedzeń Komisji administracyjnej miasta Cieszyna z 1920 roku).

30. Władysław Michejda's uncle, Jan Michejda (1853–1927), became the first mayor of Polish Cieszyn and was like Koždoň a member of the Silesian Landtag. For more information, see Elektroniczny słownik biograficzny Śląska Cieszyńskiego at katalog-slownik.kc-cieszyn.pl/ (accessed November 30, 2023).

31. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 4/13/0/1/61 (Administrative Commission on August 31 and December 7, 1920 in Protokoły posiedzeń Komisji administracyjnej miasta Cieszyna z 1920 roku). The habit of meeting alternately in each town mirrors the practice instituted after the 1867 Austro-Hungarian Compromise when the two royal delegations overseeing shared ministries met once in Vienna and once in Budapest. The Ausgleich more generally is discussed in Pieter M. Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, Mass., 2016), 259–64.

32. SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 289 (International Commission for the Czech-Polish Border Delineation, “Protocol” from August 12, 1921). See also SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 365 (Meeting regarding Implementation of Article 37 of the Liquidation Agreement from April 24, 1925, held in Pl. Cieszyn on March 16, 1927 and in Cz. Cieszyn on March 17, 1927).

33. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/63 (Administrative Commission on February 14 and September 7, 1921 in Protokoły posiedzeń Komisji administracyjnej miasta Cieszyna z 1921 roku).

34. §20 in “68/1931 Sb. Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o užívání městských objektů bývalé obce Těšína podepsaná v Olomouci dne 21. prosince 1929” in Sbírka zákonů a nařízení Státu Československého (Prague, 1931), 507–517, here 515. Various drafts can be found in SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 365.

35. For more on the introduction of the gasworks, see Karel Sedláček, “Plynárenství v Těšíně a Českém Těšíně,” Těšínsko 25, no. 4 (1982): 27–29.

36. Teschen's electrification is described in Czesław Gamrot, “Elektrifikace Těšína na počátku 20. století,” Těšínské listy: Informační dvouměsíčník města Český Těšín 12, no. 4 (2018): 14–15.

37. Włodzimierz Borodziej, Geschichte Polens im 20. Jahrhundert (Munich, 2010), 134–49.

38. Janusz Kaliński and Zbigniew Landau, Gospodarka Polski w XX wieku, 2 ed. (Warsaw, 2003), 71–74.

39. For the exchange rates see Jürgen Schneider, Oskar Schwarzerer, and Markus A. Denzel, eds., Währungen der Welt II.: Europäische und nordamerikanische Devisenkurse 1914–1951 (Stuttgart, 1997), 334.

40. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/63 (Administrative Commission on May 30 and February 14, 1921 in Protokoły posiedzeń Komisji administracyjnej miasta Cieszyna z 1921 roku).

41. See APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/74 (Municipal Assembly on 14 March 1923 in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1922–1925); and Archiwum Państwowe w Katowicach (APwK), Zespół Urząd Wojewódzki Śląski w Katowicach (UWSwK), sygn. 12/27/0/9.8.27/1771 (Letter from the Municipal Council of Cieszyn to the Economic Subdivision of Silesian Voivodeship from July 11, 1937).

42. The reforms are discussed in Kaliński and Landau, Gospodarka Polski, 74–80.

43. Born in Teschen, Artur Gabrisch (1881–1963) first ran a chimney sweep firm before becoming the manager of the municipal power plant. He was a member of the Liberal German Party. In September 1939, he became mayor of Teschen under Nazi occupation. Elektroniczny słownik biograficzny Śląska Cieszyńskiego at katalog-slownik.kc-cieszyn.pl/ (accessed February 9, 2024).

44. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/75 (Municipal Assembly on February 15, 1926, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1926–1929).

45. 100 zł equaled 666 Kč, while in May 1924 one million Mp equaled 3.80 Kč. See Schneider, Schwarzerer and Denzel, eds., Währungen der Welt, 346.

46. See APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/75 (Municipal Assembly on February 15, 1926, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1926–1929); Gamrot, “Elektrifikace Těšína,” 14. For more on MSE see Jan Mikeš, “Elektrifikace Československa do roku 1938” (PhD diss., Charles University in Prague, 2016), 299–301.

47. §20 in “68/1931 Sb. Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o užívání městských objektů bývalé obce Těšína podepsaná v Olomouci dne 21. prosince 1929,” in Sbírka zákonů a nařízení Státu Československého (Prague, 1931), 207–517, here 515.

48. APwK, UWSwK, sygn. 12/27/0/9.8.27/1771 (Letter to the Subcommittee for Industry and Trade of the Silesian Voivodeship by Rudolf Halfar, April 20, 1937).

49. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/77 (Municipal Assembly on January 5, 1934, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1934–1936).

50. The press covered matters of infrastructure only factually. Yet, while reporting on the toll introduction, Gwiazdka Cieszyńska defended the central government's actions and argued that the city should “naturally” build its own gasworks. N.D., “Z cieszyńskiego wydziału gminnego,” Gwiazdka Cieszyńska, January 12, 1934, 3.

51. See APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/77 (Municipal Assembly on March 21, 1934, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1934–1936).

52. SOAK, AMČT, k. 1, inv. č. 88 (Report from Intervention in Prague on October 24 and 25, 1933 in Intervence Městského úřadu u různých ministerstev v Praze v obecních záležitostech).

53. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/77 (Municipal Assembly on February 22, 1935, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1934–1936).

54. SOAK, AMČT, k. 1, inv. č. 88 (Report from Intervention in Prague on March 26 and 27, 1935 in Intervence Městského úřadu u různých ministerstev v Praze v obecních záležitostech).

55. Ibid.

56. SOAK, AMČT, inv. č. 58 (Municipal Assembly on February 16, 1934, in Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung 1934).

57. SOAK, AMČT, k. 1, inv. č. 88 (Report from Intervention in Prague on July 17, 1935, in Intervence Městského úřadu u různých ministerstev v Praze v obecních záležitostech).

58. National politics often curbed energy pragmatism. See Maria Hidvegi and Nikolaus Wolf, “Power Failure: The Electrification of Central-Eastern Europe, 1918–39,” European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire 26, no. 2 (March 2019): 1–24.

59. Sprawozdanie z zamknięcia rachunkowego gminy miasta Cieszyna za rok 1935–36 (Cieszyn, 1936), 130.

60. Ibid., 88–89.

61. Ibid., 127–130.

62. Ibid., 127.

63. “Z historie těšínského vodovodu,” Těšínsko 28, no. 2 (1985): 36–38.

64. §2 in “68/1931 Sb. Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o užívání městských objektů bývalé obce Těšína podepsaná v Olomouci dne 21. prosince 1929” in Sbírka zákonů, 508.

65. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/63 (Administrative Commission on September 7, 1921, in Protokoły posiedzeń Komisji administracyjnej miasta Cieszyna z 1921 roku).

66. Unless discussing a strictly national matter, such as schooling, the assemblies worked mostly harmoniously. For the composition of the municipal governments see Wacław Dubiański, “Skład władz gminnych Cieszyna w okresie międzywojennym,” Pamiętnik Cieszyński 15 (2000): 103–12; and Dan Gawrecki, “Politický a správní vývoj 1849–1918/1920,” in Radim Jež, David Pindur and Henryk Wawreczka, eds., Český Těšín 1920–2020 (Český Těšín, 2020), 64.

67. SOAK, AMČT, k. 1, inv č. 88 (Report from Intervention in Prague on May 12, 13 and 14, 1924 in Intervence Městského úřadu u různých ministerstev v Praze v obecních záležitostech).

68. See APwK, UWSwK, sygn. 12/27/0/5/1300 (Contract and municipal council letters to the Silesian Voivodeship).

69. See APwK, UWSwK, sygn. 12/27/0/5/1300 (Letter from the Waterwork Commissioner to the Silesian Voivodeship).

70. SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 365 (Minutes of the Joint Committee for the Waterworks meeting on November 6, 1924).

71. §37 in “56/1926 Sb. Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o otázkách právních a finančních ze dne 23. dubna 1925,” in Sbírka zákonů a nařízení Státu Československého (Prague, 1926), 271–306, here 288.

72. Senát Národního shromáždění R. Čs., “Tisk 281” Zpráva o vládním návrhu, kterým se předkládá Národnímu shromáždění Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o užívání městských objektů bývalé obce Těšína, podepsaná v Olomouci dne 21. prosince 1929, se Závěrečným protokolem z téhož dne,” Senát PČR, at www.senat.cz/informace/z_historie/tisky/3vo/tisky/T0281_00.htm (accessed November 30, 2023).

73. SOAK, OÚČT, k. 2, inv. č. 80, spis 365 (Letter to the Ministry of Public Works in Prague by Josef Koždoň in the name of the Český Těšín City Council, July 9, 1928).

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid.

76. Archiv Ministerstva Zahraničních Věcí České Republiky, Fond II. Sekce 1918–1939 III. Řada, k. 193 (Letter to the Český Těšín City Council from the Ministerial Officer Roubík in the name of the Minister of Public Works, September 25, 1928).

77. See §2–17 in “68/1931 Sb. Smlouva mezi republikou Československou a republikou Polskou o užívání městských objektů bývalé obce Těšína podepsaná v Olomouci dne 21. prosince 1929” in Sbírka zákonů, 508–14.

78. See APwK, UWSwK, sygn. 12/27/0/5/1300 (Wladysław Michejda's letter to the Office of the Silesian Voivodeship in the name of Cieszyn City Council, January 20, 1930).

79. The projected costs were shared equally by the National Treasury and Silesian Voivodeship. See APwK, UWSwK, sygn. 12/27/0/5/1300 (Letter from the Silesian Voivodeship Council to the Department of Construction, September 20, 1932).

80. For Great Depression in the Polish context, see Zbigniew Landau and Jerzy Tomaszewski, Gospodarka Polski Międzywojennej 1918–1939, vol. 3, Wielki kryzys 1930–1935 (Warsaw, 1982). For Czechoslovakia, see Vlastislav Lacina, Velká hospodářská krize v Československu, 1929–1934 (Prague, 1984), and the general overview of Jakub Rákosník and Jiří Noha, Kapitalismus na kolenou: Dopad velké hospodářské krize na evropskou společnost v letech 1929–1934 (Prague, 2012).

81. See APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/75 (Municipal Assembly on March 18, 1929, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1926–1929).

82. Ironically, Cieszyn representatives accepted an invitation to attend the opening ceremony. See SOAK, AMČT, inv. č. 53 (Municipal Assembly on April 14, 1929, in Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung 1929).

83. See APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/75 (Municipal Assembly on March 18, 1929, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1926–1929).

84. Ibid.

85. See SOAK, AMČT, inv. č. 58 (Municipal Assembly on October 9, 1934, in Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung 1934). For initial debates about the construction see APwKC, AMC, 14/13/77 (Municipal Assembly on July 10, 1931, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1934–1936).

86. See Sprawozdanie zamknięcia rachunkowego gminy miasta Cieszyna za rok 1936–37 (Cieszyn, 1937), 101–6.

87. Ibid, 103. For more on the building process consult APwK, UWSwK, 12/27/0/5/1300 (Construction of Waterwarks in Cieszyn). Detailed construction plans are in APwKC, Zespól Starostwo Powiatowe Cieszyńskie (SPC), sygn. 14/11/0/4/38 (Waterworks Project for the City of Cieszyn).

88. Rudolf Halfar (1884–1967), a teacher and school director, became member of the National Council of the Duchy of Cieszyn following WWI and acted as an ardent Polish plebiscite activist. As supporter of Sanacja, he subsequently served the city council before becoming mayor in 1937. Esłownik biograficzny Śląska Cieszyńskiego at katalog-slownik.kc-cieszyn.pl/ (accessed February 9, 2024).

89. Based on the available sources, it cannot be determined if representatives of Český Těšín were invited or if they attended the occasion. See “Otwarcie wodociągu miasta Cieszyna,” Gwiazdka Cieszyńska, June 18, 1937, 4 and “Die Eröffnung der neuen Wasserleitung von Cieszyn,” Silesia, June 15, 1937, 2.

90. Sprawozdanie zamknięcia rachunkowego gminy miasta Cieszyna 1937–38 (Cieszyn, 1938), 105.

91. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/75 (Municipal Assembly on February 16, 1926, in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1926–1929).

92. “Z historie těšínského vodovodu,” 37.

93. Český Těšín City Council, “Uzavření vodních přítoků,” July 1, 1930 (Permanent exhibition of Muzeum Těšínska in Český Těšín).

94. “Brak wody w Cieszynie,” Gwiazdka Cieszyńska, July 1, 1930, 3.

95. Sprawozdanie Zamknięcia Rachunkowego za Rok 1937–38, 104.

96. For the international context see Zara Steiner, The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933–1939 (New York, 2011); 62–66. For Polish-Czechoslovak relations consult Gawrecki, Politické a národnostní poměry, 248–55; and Jerzy Kozeński, Czechosłowacja w polskiej polityce zagranicznej 1932–1938 (Poznań, 1964), 86–89.

97. See SOAK, AMČT, inv. č. 58 (Municipal Assembly on October 9, 1934, in Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung 1934).

98. See SOAK, AMČT, inv. č. 60 (Municipal Assembly on December 21, 1937, in Sitzungsprotokolle der Stadtvertretung 1937).

99. Sprawozdanie zamknięcia rachunkowego za rok 1937–38, 105.

100. Banner quoted in Bílek, Kyselá těšínská jablíčka, 173.

101. Jan Benda, Útěky a vyhánění z pohraničí českých zemí 1938–1939: Migrace z okupovaného pohraničí ve druhé republice (Prague, 2012), 112–18.

102. APwKC, AMC, sygn. 14/13/0/1/79 (Municipal Assembly on December 12, 1939 [sic] in Protokoły posiedzeń Wydziału Gminnego w Cieszynie z lat 1937–1939).

103. Ibid. The overall integration process is explored in Witold Marcoń, “Unifikacja Zaolzia w ramach województwa Śląskiego z II Rzecząpospolitą,” Dzieje Najnowsze 42, no. 3 (2010): 3–14.