Abstract
The three-republican activity of writing about history, not to mention the accentuation of the Hussite past and tradition, basically opened the space for post-February engaged history and history politics serving the non-Jewish concept of communist heirs. Indeed, post-war party-political activism could only continue, develop, intensify or specify without being an unknown intruder in the field of academic and public treatment of history.
Already the post-war intensity of the invocation of the Hussite past signalled the actual national and social value of Hussitism, and in turn the conviction of its importance provoked the continuous attention of experts and laymen alike. Post-February Marxist-Leninist work is certainly unique and idiosyncratic, but it may be original in the sense of exacerbated partisanship or in the intensity of its entry into the public sphere, but not principally as a present- and future-oriented public understanding of the past.