Category Archives: Call for Papers

CfP: Acts of Justice, Public Events: World War II Criminals on Trial

Deadline for submission of proposals: 30 March 2017
Notification due: 1 June 2017
When and Where: 12-14 Octobre 2017, CEFRES, Prague
Language: English

This conference originates from the encounter of three projects: a Russian-French project on trials in the USSR (FMSH/RGNF), the micro-project of the Labex Création, Arts, Patrimoines ‘Images de la justice”, and the WW2CRIMESONTRIAL1943-1991 project supported by the French National Research Agency, whose first step it is.

Partners : CEFRES, March Bloch Center, CERCEC, CEFR, GDR “CEM” and CERHEC
Scientific Committee: D. Astashkin, A. Blum, A. Kichelewski, S. Lindeperg, F. Mayer, G. Mouralis, M. Steinle, I. Tcherneva

Please send by the 30 of March 2017 a 300 word proposal in English including a title, along with a selective bibliography and a short resume to:

Audrey Kichelewski :
Irina Tcherneva:

Travel and accommodation costs will be covered by the organizers in priority for researchers without tenure.


The social history of trials of war crimes and of crimes against humanity,[1] which took place in the aftermath of WWII and its following decades, opens up two new investigation fields. First, taking into account the legal, political and social dimensions of these trials calls forth the inclusion of the various actors who co-produced the legal action. Recent historiography has indeed started to investigate the practices and discourses of the professionals working in the justice system, as well as of the political authorities and of the witnesses who somehow shaped the trials. Second, the diversity of the media mobilized to cover the trials, along with the diversity and temporalities of their hybrid usages, are still a brand new field of exploration. Therefore, the studies focusing on the platforms disseminating the information about these trials cast a new light on the frictions between the ‘legal dramaturgy’ and those provided by journalistic, literary, and visual narratives.

The aim of this conference is to join these two fields of investigation focusing on the trials which were designed as public events. By including the many professional and social actors who got involved and shaped such public, or publicized, trials, we endeavour to question the notion of publicization. The political and institutional choices not to have closed hearings had an impact on the ways such trials were made public. A specific policy accompanied the distribution of the information in order to channel their perception by the population as well as the interactions . On an epistemological level, putting at a distance the notions of communication and mediatization allows for a reappraisal of these actors, who were more than those implementing political decisions. It also enables to consider the press, written or filmed, the radio and the theatre, not only as sheer channels of political information through other media. Analysing the forms of involvement of these various actors (magistrates and police force, whistle-blowers, witnesses, defendants…) should therefore be crossed with a study of the part played by the media supports in the organization, the development and the reception of the trials. The conference will thus highlight the specificity of these publicized trials within the procedures conducted against criminals against humanity.

The tensions between the legal and historical nature of such trials shall not only be studied through the intents and practices of the political and legal authorities, but also through the part played by the other co-makers of the event. Special emphasis will be put for instance on the search for perpetrators by former victims who called on investigative bodies to bring them to justice, on the involvement of commemorative associations in organizing the trials, on the reactions of the public, on the media coverage of the trials. the readers of the newspapers which published such promotional materials, demanded heavier sentences and a large coverage of the prosecutions of war criminals. Was such public participation only organized from the top? Moreover, legal and media actors, witnesses and memory communities took part in the shaping of WWII narratives promoted in the public space in part by legal action.

If we consider these trials as social facts, another challenge must be met that concerns more specifically the trials taking place in the East of Europe, in the states undergoing Soviet satellization. An analytical method seeks to understand how public space was thought up in socialist regimes. Benefiting from the outcomes of the research led on the forms of autonomy of social actors under socialism, we strive to intertwine this perspective with a comparative approach as we investigate the trials taking place in Eastern and Western Europe. Such approach will enable to deal both with the political dimension of public trials and with the forms of mobilization of professional and social actors in the context of the Cold War.

The political time frame pertaining to each country will be taken into consideration. For instance, the legacy of the Soviet trials of the 1930s shall not be overlooked, although the transformations introduced in the after-war should not be underestimated. How were such trials of crimes against humanity employed in order to consolidate the internal legitimacy of the various regimes, to unfold political pedagogy and stir popular participation within the societal project aimed at? Did individual requests or popular unrest influence the choice to make these trials public or not? The proposed method should enable to position them in connection with the national narratives on WWII cast after the war and to give a sense of the responses according to the various types of political regimes.

[1]  The generic term ‘war crimes’ was commonly used in the texts and proceedings of this period referring to acts and violations of the rights and customs of war (definition of “war crimes” in the August Statute of the International Military Tribunal, 1945), and to ‘crimes against humanity’ (ibidem).

[2] Interrogation which continues the analyses on Western media transforming the information on such trials. A. Pinchevski & T. Liebes 2010, M. Steinle 2004, J. Maeck & M. Steinle 2016.


The conference will be built around three research topics. Which professional, institutional and individual actors got involved as these trials unfolded within the different historical and national contexts, and what was the extent of their autonomy? To what political and social aims did the publicization practices of these trials answer to? How did the arts and the press media shape the reception of these trials?

The first research topic of this conference shall be devoted to identifying of the involved actors, and to understanding the forms and extent of their involvement, and the mutual interactions of such actors with uneven political and symbolic assets. It shall follow the steps of the publicization of the trials: the mobilization of actors (broadly speaking, e.g. including close and distant audiences of the trials); the making of media (films, photography exhibitions, etc.); the reception.
Papers dealing with the following topics will be especially welcome: what relationships did political makers engage with the population? What could prompt new actors (institutional, associative…) to get involved as the trials were set up? What interactions can be observed during the reception of these trials? In socialist regimes, could the political pedagogy conducted by political authorities during the trials stir social initiatives? According to which criteria, the degrees of the autonomy of the bottom up legal elaboration can be determined for different national contexts?

The second research topic shall investigate the aims granted by the State to such public trials and their political consequences. The reinterpretation of WWII during the trials stands out within the range of legitimacy strategies followed by the State. Was the public nature of these trials connected with commemorative endeavours, even with small-scaled investigations? More broadly, how were such decisions to make these trials public received? In this wake, what practices were unfolded by legal and professional actors or by witnesses? What spaces of autonomy were at stake as knowledge and expertises met? What pedagogy of power can be disclosed as the work of the legal system received such emphasis?

Special focus shall be put in a third topic area on the communication tools used to cover the trials and on their content. Connecting studies on cinema, the written press, the radio, leaflets, and the arts, can help understanding the specificity and temporality of the usages of each medium.
Media professionals, who put into words and images the portraits of the victims, the perpetrators and the witnesses, shall be put under scrutiny, along with the processes they resorted to. How did they interact with the know-how and the documentation that were provided by other professional actors implied in setting up the legal procedures? In which social, political and professional contexts did the visual and textual representations get shaped? How did the media impact the trial dramaturgy, the attorneys, judges, defendants and witnesses?[2] What portraits of the public did they sketch? Observing the possible correlations, or even confrontations, between the ‘legal dramaturgy’ elaborated by legal actors and the police, on the one hand, by the media on the other, shall be at the core of this topic.

Papers can consist in case studies of trials or approach transversal dynamics can focus on types of involved actors, forms of public engagement and of mediatization of the trials. The analysis of international dimensions of such trials is particularly welcome, both in terms of aims sought by a large-scale media coverage and in terms of international exchange of information, legal know-how, witnesses, exhibits.

Selective Bibliography

  • Astaškin, Dmitrij. 2014. ‘Otkrytyj sudebnyj process nad nacistskimi voennymi prestupnikami v Novgorode (1947 god)’, in: Janin, V. (Ed.), Novgorodskij Istoričeskij Sbornik. Sbornik Naučnyh Trudov. Velikij Novgorod, Institut istorii RAN / Novg. gos. universitet, Velikij Novgorod: 352-375.
  • Astaškin, Dmitrij. 2015. Sovetskij Njurnberg. Processy nad nacistskimi prestupnikami na territorii SSSR v 1943-1949 gg.. Rossijskoe istoričeskoe obščestvo / Gosudarstvennyj central’nyj Muzej sovremennoj istorii, Moskva.
  • Bankier, David & Michman, Dan (Eds.), 2010. Holocaust and justice: representation and historiography of the Holocaust in post-war trials. Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • Barbat, Victor. 2017. ‘Une guerre en marge. Le conflit sino-japonais sur les écrans soviétiques, 1938-1941’. Conserveries mémorielles. To be published in 2017.
  • Berkhoff, Karel C. 2009. ‘“Total Annihilation of the Jewish Population”: The Holocaust in the Soviet Media, 1941-45’. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 10 (1): 61 ‑ 105.
  • Berkhoff, Karel C. 2012. Motherland in Danger Soviet Propaganda during World War II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Bosch. William. 1970. Judgement on Nuremberg. American Attitudes toward the Major German War-Crime Trials. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
  • Cassiday, Julie A. 2000. The Enemy on Trial: Early Soviet Courts on Stage and Screen. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.
  • Cehreli, Ayse Sila. 2014. Les magistrats ouest-allemands font l’histoire: la “Zentrale Stelle” de Ludwigsburg. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
  • Christian, Michel & Emmanuel Droit. 2005. “Écrire l’histoire du communisme : l’histoire sociale de la RDA et de la Pologne communiste en Allemagne, en Pologne et en France”. Genèses no 61 (4): 118‑33.
  • Delage, Christian. 2006. La vérité par l’image: de Nuremberg au procès Milosevic. Paris: Denoel.
  • Delpla, Isabelle. 2011. Le mal en procès: Eichmann et les théodicées modernes. Paris: Hermann.
  • Douglas, Lawrence. 2001. The Memory of Judgement Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust. New Haven [CT]: Yale University Press.
  • Douglas, Lawrence, Martha Merrill Umphrey & Austin Sarat. 2005. Law on the Screen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Douglas, Lawrence, 2016. The right wrong man: John Demjanjuk and the last great Nazi war crimes trial. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Dufour, Diane & Christian Delage. 2015. Images of conviction: the construction of visual evidence. Paris: Le Bal : Éditions Xavier Barral.
  • Feferman, Kiril. 2014. ‘Soviet legal procedures against the Nazi criminals and Soviet collaborators as Historical Sources’. Legacy, no 6: 34‑ 43.
  • Feltman. Brian K. 2004. ‘Legimizing Justice: The American Press and the InternationalMilitary Tribunal, 1945–1946’. Historian, 66 (2): 300–319.
  • Fischer, Axel. 2014. ‘Promoting International Criminal Law: The Nuremberg Trial Film Project and US Information Policy after the Second World War’. In Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1, Morten Bergsmo, Wui Ling Cheah, et Ping Yi: 623‑53.
  • Friedman, Alexander. 2016. ‘Krankenmorde im Raum Minsk und ihre Aufarbeitung in der Sowjetunion und in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in Alexander Friedman and Rainer Hudemann (eds.): Diskriminiert – vernichtet – vergessen. Behinderte und Kranke in der Sowjetunion, in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten und im Ostblock, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag: 395-414.
  • Friedman, Alexander, 2016. “”Objektiv unausweichliche Maßnahmen“. Die Ermordung von Menschen mit körperlichen und geistigen Behinderungen In den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten: Die Beispiele Šumjači (Gebiet Smolensk) und Makar’evo (Gebiet Leningrad)’ In Alexander Friedman and Rainer Hudemann (eds.): Diskriminiert – vernichtet – vergessen. Behinderte und Kranke in der Sowjetunion, in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten und im Ostblock, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 385–393.
  • Hicks, Jeremy. 2012. First Films of the Holocaust: Soviet Cinema and the Genocide of the Jews, 1938–1946. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Holmila. Antero. 2011. Reporting on the Holocaust in the British, Swedish and Finnish Press, 1945-50. London. Palgrave Macmillan: 89–106.
  • Smith, Jeremy & Melanie J. Ilic. 2011. Khrushchev in the Kremlin: Policy and Government in the Soviet Union, 1953–1964. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge.
  • Kantorovitch, Nati. 2007. ‘Soviet Reactions to the Eichmann Trial: A Preliminary Investigation 1960–1965’, Yad Vashem Studies, t. 35. 91–122.
  • Koskenniemi, Martti. 2002. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Koskenniemi, Martti 2002. Between Impunity and Show Trials. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 6, 1–35.
  • Kozlovsky-Golan, Yvonne. 2011. “L’image visuelle de la Shoah et les procès de Nuremberg. Le film Les Camps de concentration nazis et son impact”. Les Écrans de la Shoah. La Shoah au regard du cinéma, Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, no 195: 61‑104.
  • Krakovsky, Roman. 2014. Réinventer le monde. Les cadres sociaux d’espace et de temps en Tchécoslovaquie communiste. Paris: Publications Sorbonne.
  • Lindeperg, Sylvie & Annette Wieviorka. 2008. “Les deux scènes du procès Eichmann”. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 63 (6): 1249‑74.
  • Lindeperg, Sylvie & Annette Wievorka, éd. 2016. Le Moment Eichmann. Bibliothèque histoire. Paris: Albin Michel.
  • Maeck, Julie, et Matthias Steinle. 2016. L’image d’archives: Une image en devenir. PU Rennes.
  • Marrus. M. R.. 2000. “L’histoire de l’Holocauste dans le prétoire”. In Bayard. Florent, (dir.), Le génocide des Juifs entre procès et histoire. 1943-2000. Bruxelles. Complexe: 26–56.
  • Michalczyk, John J. 2014. Filming the End of the Holocaust: Allied Documentaries, Nuremberg and the Liberation of the Concentration Camps.
  • Moine, Nathalie. 2011. ‘Defining “war Crimes against Humanity” in the Soviet Union Nazi Arson of Soviet Villages and the Soviet Narrative on Jewish and Non-Jewish Soviet War Victims, 1941–1947’. Cahiers Du Monde Russe 52 (2-3): 441‑73.
  • Moine, Nathalie. 2013. ‘‘Fascists Have Destroyed the Fruit of My Honest Work”. The Great Patriotic War, International Law and the Property of Soviet Citizens’. Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 61 (2): 172‑95.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2008. Une épuration allemande: la RDA en procès, 1949-2004. Paris: Fayard.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2015. “Outsiders du droit international. Trajectoires professionnelles et innovation juridique à Londres, Washington et Nuremberg, 1943-1945”. Monde(s) 1: 113-34.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2012. ‘Lawyers versus Jurisconsults: Sociography of the Main Nuremberg Trial’, In: X., D.K.M., Leuwers, H. Luyten, D. et Rousseaux, (Ed.), Justice in Wartime and Revolutions: Europe, 1795–1950: Europe, 1795–1950, Justice and Society. Archives générales du Royaume, Bruxelles: 325–36.
  • Pendas, David O. 2006. The Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, 1963-65: genocide, history and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
  • Pinchevski, Amit, & Tamar Liebes. 2010. ‘Severed Voices: Radio and the Mediation of Trauma in the Eichmann Trial’. Public Culture 22 (2): 265 ‑ 91. doi:10.1215/08992363-2009-028.
  • Schulberg. Sandra. 2012. ‘Filmmakers for the Prosecution. The Making of Nuremberg: Its lessons for Today’. American Bar Association. Chicago.
  • Shneer, David. 2011. Through Soviet Jewish Eyes: Photography, War, and the Holocaust, Rutgers U.P.
  • Shneer, David. 2015. ‘Is Seeing Believing ?: Photographs, Eyewitness Testimony, and Evidence of the Holocaust’, In East European Jewish Affairs, vol. 45, no. 1.
  • Steinle, Matthias. 2004. “Images inter-allemandes pendant la guerre froide: les séries “Archive sagen aus” (DEFA) et “Mitteldeutsches Tagebuch” (SFB).” Allemagne d’aujourd’hui: 178‑90.
  • Voisin, V., 2012. ““Au nom des vivants”, de Léon Mazroukho : une rencontre entre discours officiel et hommage personnel”, In Pozner, V., Laurent, N. (Eds.), Kinojudaica: les représentations des Juifs dans le cinéma de Russie et d’Union Soviétique des années 1910 aux années 1980. Nouveau monde ; Cinémathèque de Toulouse, Paris; Toulouse: 365-407.
  • Voisin, Vanessa. 2015. L’URSS contre ses traîtres: l’Épuration soviétique (1941-1955). Paris, France: Publications de la Sorbonne.
  • Voisin, Vanessa. 2016. “Le procès de Jérusalem et la représentation de la Shoah en URSS”. In Lindeperg. Sylvie, Wieviorka. Annette (eds.). Le Moment Eichmann. Paris: Albin Michel, 139 ‑ 68.
  • Weiss-Wendt, Anton. 2009. Murder without hatred Estonians and the Holocaust, Syracuse, N.Y., Syracuse University Press.
  • Weiss-Wendt, Anton. 2004. ‘Extermination of the Gypsies in Estonia during World War II’. In Collaboration and Resistance During the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eds.: David Gaunt et al., Bern: Peter Lang: 383‑402.
  • Wittmann, Rebecca. 2005. Beyond Justice the Auschwitz Trial. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

CfP: The Emergence of the Business School in Europe: Social, Economic, and Scientific Contexts (1818-1939)

CEFRES Platform Workshop for Young Scholars

Deadline for submission: February 28, 2017
Decision notification due: March 15, 2017
Submission of papers: May 15, 2017
Date & Place: CEFRES, Prague, June 6, 2017
Language of the workshop: English

Organizer: Mátyás Erdélyi (CEFRES & CEU)
Partners: CEFRES and Department of Historical Sociology of the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University

Confirmed discussants: Marianne Blanchard (University of Toulouse, ESPE Midi-Pyrénées /CERTOP); Marcela Efmertová (ČVUT) ; Jiří Hnilica (Charles University, Faculty of Pedagogy); Victor Karady (Central European University, Department of History)

Please send a paper title, a 400 word-long abstract, and a short academic CV to: A limited number of accommodation grants are available.

Call for papers

The emergence of business or trade education makes an essential, although seldom recognized, part of the overall modernization of European societies in the nineteenth century. The significant growth of business schools in the middle of the nineteenth century can be directly connected to the second phase of industrialization and, consequently, to the growing needs of a professionally trained workforce in industry and trade. The present workshop is interested in the history of all types of business education – schools teaching uniquely business courses and other vocational-technical schools offering business courses (e.g. the Technische Hochschulen). It thus seeks to provide a comparative overview of the emergence of business education in its historical context focusing on the following problem areas: the business school in the educational field, its economic context, its social environment, and its scientific pretensions in the Europe between 1818 and 1938.

The workshop will bring together junior researchers (PhD candidates and early career researchers) engaged in the field of the history of science, social history, economic history, the history of ideas, or sociology.

A) The Institutionalization and Systematization of Business Education

In the educational context, the emergence of business education can be studied in relation to the general systematization of secondary and higher education, as part of the social transformation of the educational system in the nineteenth century, and as one of the main forms of institutional diversification. We are interested in case studies of institutions and national systems of business education that reflect upon the historical development and the functioning of business schools, the legislative, economic, cultural environment of their foundation, the origins of the curriculum, the transfer and influence of institutional patterns in the European context, the conflict between state and private institutions, the professionalization of business education (professional associations, teacher training colleges, professional journals, publication of textbooks), and the scope of the business schools and their positioning in relation to other forms of education.

B) The Business School in the Economic Context

This problem area seeks contributions that address the following general questions: what is the contribution of business education to economic transformation, industrialization, and the rise of capitalism? How business methods influence the cognitive content of vocational education; how the connections between the business school and the world of business could be comprehended (direct involvement of businessmen in the management of schools, recruitment patterns in business favoring or not favoring certain qualifications, professors co-employed in schools and business enterprises)? What are the career patterns of business school graduates and how to analyze the connection between the emergence of the large enterprise, the separation of ownership management, and the rise of vocational education?

C) The Business School in Society

The main concept here is the social transformation of secondary and higher education, which refers to the social functions the educational system performed in the frame of larger social change (mobility, social legitimation, etcetera). The aura of secondary and higher education could enhance the social recognition of certain professions (most importantly trade); and most business schools became an important avenue of social mobility as it granted access to secondary education and provided bourgeois social prerogatives to its graduates. We invite contributions dealing with recruitment patterns of business schools (social and denominational) in relation to other educational institutions, the social representation and prestige of the school, the business school as an avenue of mobility, its function in the shift from an emphasis on hereditary rights to meritocracy, the evaluation of the gender proportions in business schools.

D) The Business School and Science

This section of the workshop concentrates on the status and production of knowledge transmitted in business schools. Their emergence is intertwined with a claim over the scientificity of the ‘sciences of trade’ (sciences commerciales, Handelswissenschaften, obchodní nauka, kereskedelmi tudományok). However, there is an increasing gap between the theory and practice of business in the educational setting. It is not by chance that contemporaries vehemently discussed whether the instruction of business and trade should be comprehended as a Bildung or as a vocational training. Contributions may address the following problem areas: how the scientificity of business management is enhanced through the educational system and vice versa; how to conceptualize the contention between theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the field of business education; how the interaction of scientists and business reshape scientific epistemologies, methods, and tools; who the agents are and where the knowledge production of business management takes place.

CFP: French pragmatism and the renewal of contemporary sociology

Deadline for abstracts: 15 November 2016
Date & Place: 15&16 December 2016
Language: English
Organizers: Paul Blokker (FSV UK) and Nicolas Maslowski (CCFEF of Warsaw University)

French pragmatic sociology will be the main theme in the workshop on “French pragmatism and the renewal of contemporary sociology”, held on 15 and 16 December, and organized by the Institute of Sociological Studies (Faculty of Social Sciences), the Department of Historical Sociology (Faculty of Humanities), Charles University, the French Research Center in Humanities and Social Sciences (CEFRES) and the CCFEF UW—Center for French Civilization and Francophone Studies of Warsaw University.

Pragmatic sociology – as a distinct, new type of French social science – probably became most well-known in the global academic community because of the publication in English of the landmark publication by Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot, On Justification. Economies of Worth, in 2006 (original: 1991, Editions Gallimard).  On Justification is, however, probably best understood as a ‘travail d’étape’ , an intermediate stage in a much larger and highly original social-theoretical enterprise, to which evermore scholars in a variety of disciplines contribute (e.g. historians, anthropologists, economists) in a range of research endeavours. The workshop will explore the fundamentals of this approach and the insights it has brought, and still brings, to contemporary sociological and interdisciplinary research. The upshot is to explore the rich potentialities of pragmatic sociology and to discuss its relevance and usage in Czech sociology.

Prof. Laurent Thévenot will open the workshop with a lecture on the recent and current further developments in his work. Much of prof. Thévenot’s work since On Justification draws on earlier insights while developing an innovative and rich perspective on the analysis of social life. Prof. Thévenot explores the dimensions of social life ‘under the public’ as a condition to enlarge the scope of public critique to oppressions, and to understand the required transformations and obstacles to their exposition in common, to the discord of the political community.

Please send your proposition (150-200 words) to the organizers before November 15th.

A workshop organized by:
Institute of Sociological Studies (Faculty of Social Sciences)
Department of Historical Sociology (Faculty of Humanities), Charles University
French Research Center in Humanities and Social Sciences (CEFRES)
Center for French Civilization and Francophone Studies of Warsaw University

CFP: New Approaches to the History of the Jews under Communism

European Association of Jewish Studies Conference, Prague

Deadline for abstracts: End of October 2016
Decision notification due: End of November 2016
Date & Place: Villa Lanna, Prague, from 23 to 25 May 2017
Language: English
Organizers: Kateřina Čapková (Institute of Contemporary History, Czech Academy of Sciences), Kamil Kijek (Department of Jewish Studies, University of Wrocław), Stephan Stach (Institute of Contemporary History, Czech Academy of Sciences)

The experience of the Jews under the Communist régimes of east-central and eastern Europe has been a hotly debated topic of historiography since the 1950s. Until the 1980s, Cold War propaganda exerted a powerful influence on most interpretations presented in articles and books published on both sides of the ‘Iron Curtain’. Moreover, most works focused both on the relationship between the régime and the Jews living under it and on the role of the Jews in the Communist/Socialist movements and the political events connected with the rise of antisemitism and emigration.

Continue reading CFP: New Approaches to the History of the Jews under Communism

The Holocaust and its Aftermath from the Family Perspective

Deadline for abstracts: 31 July 2016
Date & Place: 15-16 March 2017 – Villa Lana, Prague
Language: English
Organizers: Eliyana Adler (Pennsylvania State University), Kateřina Čapková (Institute for Contemporary History, Czech Academy of Sciences) and Ruth Leiserowtz (German Historical Institute, Warsaw)

See the call on

Please send the abstract of your paper (500 words) and a short bio by 31 July 2016 to all of the conference organizers:,, and   Results will be announced by the end of August 2016.

Conference is sponsored by:

  • Deutsches Historisches Institut, Warsaw
  • Institute for Contemporary History, Prague
  • CEFRES, Prague


Deadline for abstracts: 30 June 2016
Decision notification due: 30 September 2016
Deadline for papers (for moderators only): 20 January 2017
Date & Place: 7-8-9 February 2017 – CEFRES Prague
Language: English, possibly French
Organizers: Dr. Chiara Mengozzi (CEFRES & University of Hradec Králové) in cooperation with Dr. Anna Barcz (University of Bielsko-Biala in Poland)

This conference will bring together in Prague researchers from different European countries. One of its main purposes is to create a Central European network of scholars dealing with the topic of the human-animal relations across disciplines.