The Good Soldier Švejk mentions numerous institutions and firms, both public and private. Until 15 September 2013, these were categorised as
'Places' on these pages. That categorisation only partly makes sense, because this type of entity cannot always be
tied to geographical coordinates in the way that cities, mountains, and rivers can. This page therefore covers
military and civilian institutions (including army units, regiments, etc.), organisations, hotels, public houses,
newspapers, and magazines.
The boundary between this page and 'Places' is not always clear-cut. Churches, for instance, rarely change location
yet are still included here. By contrast, Prague and Vienna remain in the 'Places' database because they have fixed
coordinates. Institutions, however, may move: Odvodní komise and Bendlovka are not unambiguous geographical terms,
so they are listed on this page.
The names are colour-coded according to their role in the novel, as illustrated by the following examples:
U kalicha, a location where the plot takes place.
k.u.k. Kriegsministerium, mentioned in the narrative.
Resslova 1780/8: Českoslovanská akademie obchodní.
Address book from 1910.
Jan Řežábek
Zlatá Praha, 21.10.1892
Obchodní akademie
is mentioned when the author introduces Feldkurat Katz to the reader. He had studied at a commercial academy.
Background
Obchodní akademieCommercial Academy
is an ambiguous term, but we must assume that Otto Katz studied at one of the two commercial academies in Prague. Because he was Jewish, it is at first glance logical to assume that his mother tongue was German and he therefore studied at the German academy. On the other hand, the field chaplain was no doubt bilingual, so the Czech academy must also be considered.
Českoslovanská akademie obchodní in Resslova ulice is all in all the likelier candidate. Hašek himself studied here, and this weighs heavily in favour of the latter when guessing which commercial academy the future field chaplain studied at. It should also be noted that some Otto Katz actually graduated from this academy in 1881, and the author may well have been aware of him. Augustin Knesl claimed that this person was the model of Hašek's literary field chaplain.
Another Otto Katz graduated from the German academy in 1896, but in 1906 he lived in Trieste, so it is less likely that Hašek knew him.
Commercial academies as institutions
In Austria, commercial academies were institutions that offered three-year (later four-year) education in commerce and accounting. The first of those academies was founded in Prague in 1856 as Prager Handelsakademie; the first with Czech as instruction language was Českoslovanská akademie obchodní, which was established in 1872. From the beginning, they were located in Staré město, but in 1892 they moved to Resslova ulice in Prague II. They are still (2020) operating but located in another building in the same street. Commercial academies as institutions still exist in Czechia, Slovakia, and Austerrike.
Hašek and the Czechoslavonic Commercial Academy
Jaroslav Hašek studied here from 1899 to 1902 and left with good grades. Here he met some of his best friends, first and foremost Ladislav Hájek, but also Karel Marek, a person who probably lent his name to the literary Einjährigfreiwilliger Marek. Another fellow student was Jan Čulen, who joined Hašek on longer journeys in 1900 and 1901. It was this education that enabled Hašek to serve as a one-year volunteer in k.u.k. Heer. The institution was on the list of establishments that gave its graduates the right to one year of military service instead of the compulsory three (from 1912, two).
On bad terms with the headmaster
In 1909, Jaroslav Hašek wrote the story Obchodní akademie for Karikatury[a]. Here the head teacher, "Jeřábek", in real life Jan Řežábek[1], is mercilessly pilloried, and the piece was censored and was only printed the next year in a revised version. Jeřábek was even assigned qualities that readers of The Good Soldier Švejk will recognise in Oberst Kraus. In addition, the academy is mentioned multiple times in Strana mírného pokroku v mezích zákona.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Studoval obchodní akademii a sloužil jako jednoroční dobrovolník. A vyznal se tak dobře v směnečném právu a ve směnkách, že přivedl za ten rok obchodní firmu Katz a spol. k bankrotu tak slavnému a podařenému, že starý pan Katz odjel do Severní Ameriky, zkombinovav nějaké vyrovnání se svými věřiteli bez vědomí posledních i svého společníka, který odjel do Argentiny.
Katz a spol.
is mentioned when the author introduces Feldkurat Katz to the reader. The company traded in bills of exchange and was owned by Katz's father and his companion. When young Katz took over the business, he drove it to bankruptcy within a short time. His father settled with the creditors and moved to North America, whereas his companion emigrated to Argentina. Thus the firm continued to exist in the new world, as two incarnations.
Background
Katz a spol.
is the author's term for a firm in Prague. At least two companies that traded in Praha at the time were owned by an OttoKatz. None of the two companies traded in bills of exchange. In 1983, Augustin Knesl made an attempt to identify Feldkurat Katz and thus the company, and concluded that Katz was born in 1864, was educated at Obchodní akademie, and owned a company that went bankrupt in 1923.
The firm that Knesl refers to existed from at least 1918 until 1923 and was a weaver and linen manufacturer in Celetná ulice. The firm advertised widely in 1920 and 1921, and it may be that the author of The Good Soldier Švejk picked the name from these adverts (Jaroslav Hašek was an avid reader of newspapers, including adverts).
Another firm existed from 1893 onwards in Libeň (Královská třída 358) and manufactured rapeseed oil. In 1902, the company is no longer listed, but Otto Katz is still the owner of the property, as he is as late as 1932.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Studoval obchodní akademii a sloužil jako jednoroční dobrovolník. A vyznal se tak dobře v směnečném právu a ve směnkách, že přivedl za ten rok obchodní firmu Katz a spol. k bankrotu tak slavnému a podařenému, že starý pan Katz odjel do Severní Ameriky, zkombinovav nějaké vyrovnání se svými věřiteli bez vědomí posledních i svého společníka, který odjel do Argentiny.
Ústav šlechtičen
is mentioned by the author in his description of the baptism of Feldkurat Katz where a lady from this Institute for Noblewomen was present.
Background
Ústav šlechtičenInstitute for Noblewomen
was an institution for education of daughters of noblemen who were incapable of providing their daughters with an existence that was in line with their rank in society. The foundation was created by Maria Theresa in 1755 and accommodated 30 ladies. It was located in Rožmberský palác at Hradčany. The abbess was always an unmarried lady of the House of Habsburg, and from 1894 to 1918, Maria Annunziata, the sister of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, held the position.
On 1 May 1919, the nobility institute was dissolved and the palace transferred to the Ministry of Interior. The building is located on the castle premises and is today (2015) the property of the Czech state. It recently underwent extensive renovation and is used as a museum and exhibition area.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Křtili ho slavnostně v Emauzích. Sám páter Albán ho na máčel do křtitelnice. Byla to nádherná podívaná, byl u toho jeden nábožný major od pluku, kde Otto Katz sloužil, jedna stará panna z ústavu šlechtičen na Hradčanech a nějaký otlemený zástupce konsistoře, který mu dělal kmotra.
Konsistoř
is mentioned by the author in his description of the baptism of Feldkurat Katz where a representative of the consistory acted as Katz's godfather.
Background
KonsistořConsistory
(also called Curia) is a religious council that advises, for instance, the archbishop or the pope. In this case, it is surely the archbishop's consistory at Hradčany (Knížecí arcibiskupská konsistoř). In 1907, the council's address was the archbishop's palace itself, and they held meetings every Wednesday.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Křtili ho slavnostně v Emauzích. Sám páter Albán ho na máčel do křtitelnice. Byla to nádherná podívaná, byl u toho jeden nábožný major od pluku, kde Otto Katz sloužil, jedna stará panna z ústavu šlechtičen na Hradčanech a nějaký otlemený zástupce konsistoře, který mu dělal kmotra.
Adresář královského hlavního města Prahy a obcí sousedních,1907
Seminář is mentioned 3 times in The Good Soldier Švejk.
Seminář
is mentioned by the narrator in his introduction of Feldkurat Katz and his illustrious career. The newly converted priest was educated at the Seminary. In the next chapter, [I.10,2], he mentions the Seminary in between some drunken drivel.
Background
SeminářSeminary
most probably refers to Arcibiskupský seminář (The Archbishop's Seminary), an institution for education of Catholic priests that still exists. During the times of Jaroslav Hašek, the Seminary was located in Klementinum, but it was in 1929 relocated to Dejvice, where it is still housed[a].
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Ale jednoho dne se opil a šel do kláštera, zanechal šavle a chopil se kutny. Byl u arcibiskupa na Hradčanech a dostal se do semináře. Opil se na mol před svým vysvěcením v jednom velmi pořádném domě s dámskou obsluhou v uličce za Vejvodovic a přímo z víru rozkoše a zábavy šel se dát vysvětit.
[I.10.2] Počal se hlasitě smát, ale za chvíli zesmutněl a apaticky se díval na Švejka pronášeje: „Dovolte, pane, já vás již někde viděl. Nebyl jste ve Vídni? Pamatuji se na vás ze semináře.“
[I.13] Zatím polní kurát si v katechismu zopakoval, co kdysi v semináři neutkvělo mu v paměti
U Vejvodů
is mentioned in connection with Feldkurat Katz drinking himself to the ground the night before being ordained as chaplain. This is supposed to have happened "in a decent house with lady service" in a small street behind Vejvodovice.
Background
U Vejvodů
is a house and a restaurant in Staré město in Prague and one of the oldest of its kind. It has existed at least since 1560. In 1717 Jan Václav Vejvoda bought the property and the building is named after him. Early in the 20th century Karel Klusáček took over and rebuilt it to become what it was known as until 1990. The house was also for a period the home of a cinema as well as hosting Umělecká beseda (the artist's union).
U Vejvodů still exists as a large restaurant which serves Czech food and Pilsner Urquell. The place is totally changed after the renovation in the 1990's, but is still very popular and relatively affordable considering the location.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Opil se na mol před svým vysvěcením v jednom velmi pořádném domě s dámskou obsluhou v uličce za Vejvodovic a přímo z víru rozkoše a zábavy šel se dát vysvětit.
Dům za Vejvodovic
is mentioned in connection with Feldkurat Katz drinking himself to the ground the night before being ordained as chaplain. This is supposed to have happened "in a very decent house with lady service in a small street behind Vejvodovice".
Background
Dům za VejvodovicHouse behind Vejvodovice
most probably refers to a brothel owned by Čeněk Bartoníček in Vejvodova ulice 10, just a few steps east of U Vejvodů. Bartoníček was in the address book of 1913 listed as owner of the brothel at this address. This is also the only house of pleasure that fits the description in the novel.
In the address book from 1910 a man who carried this name was listed as a "coffee-house" owner in Lužickáulice 29 in Malá strana. This café was entered as a brothel in 1913 but with František Stránský as owner. Bartoníček thus seems to have sold and re-established himself east of the Vltava. Police registers reveal that he lived in Lužická ulice, Praha III/124 already from 1901 and he is registered in Vejvodová ulice from 24 November 1910.
The house itself, also known as Bílý kříž (the white cross) was in 1910 owned by Josef Sobička. To judge by the address books there was no "café" in Vejvodova 10 in 1910 so Bartoníček seems to have started the establishment from scratch.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Opil se na mol před svým vysvěcením v jednom velmi pořádném domě s dámskou obsluhou v uličce za Vejvodovic a přímo z víru rozkoše a zábavy šel se dát vysvětit.
Vězeňské kaple
was the scene of Feldkurat Katz' grand sermon for the prisoners in the garrison gaol. Here the drunk field chaplain discovered Švejk when the latter started crying during his speech. It ended well for the good soldier who was eventually released and continued in a carefree existence, serving a field chaplain he got on with ever so well.
Background
Vězeňské kaplePrison chapel at Hradčany
possibly refers to Vojenský kostel sv. Jana Nepomuckého at Hradčany. The church belongs to the same building complex as the military hospital, the garrison prison, and the military court. It is easily accessible across the courtyard between the buildings. It shares the address with Voršilské kasárny.
Another place the author might have had in mind is a chapel on the premises of the Royal Country Penitentiary next door. This was not an army institution, but that will not necessarily have stopped the author from including it in the plot. It also fits the description in the novel more accurately as a house chapel (of the garrison) and a prison chapel is mentioned.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] „Zejtra máme u nás divadlo. Povedou nás do kaple; na kázání. My všichni v podvlíkačkách stojíme zrovna pod kazatelnou. To ti bude legrace!“. Jako ve všech věznicích a trestnicích, tak i na garnisoně těšila se domácí kaple; velké oblibě. Nejednalo se o to, že by nucená návštěva vězeňské kaple; sblížila návštěvníky s bohem, že by se vězňové více dověděli o mravnosti. O takové hlouposti nemůže být ani řeči.
Infanterieregiment Nr. 28 is mentioned 7 times in The Good Soldier Švejk.
Infanterieregiment Nr. 28
is first mentioned when Feldkurat Katz gives his sermon to the soldiers at Vězeňské kaple. His altar boy was a petty thief from the regiment.
In [II.1] the author mentions an episode in which a soldier from the regiment explains how the Hungarians in Szeged mocked the Czech soldiers by raising their hands above their heads.
IR. 28 crossing over to the Russians, as presented in a school text-book.
Československo 1918-1938,1992
In [III.1] IR. 28 reappears in the narrative in connection with a report that two of their battalions on 3 April 1915 by Dukla crossed over to the Russians to the sound of the regimental band. The regiment was permanently disbanded by an Army Order issued by Emperor Franz Joseph I and their standard was handed over to the Army Museum in Vienna.
The order is read aloud to the departing soldiers in Királyhida, together with a related order from Archduke Joseph Ferdinand. Both army orders are quoted verbatim in The Good Soldier Švejk.
The last mention of the regiment is in [IV.1] as a spy enters Švejk's cell in Przemyśl. He claims to have served in IR. 28 (although he spoke Czech with a Polish accent).
Background
Heeresergänzungsbezirk Nr. 28
Schematismus für das k.u.k. Heer (s. 1802),1911
Infanterieregiment Nr. 28
was one of 102 infantry regiments in the k.u.k. Heer. It was founded as early as 1698 and was one of the oldest in the entire army. The regiment thus took part in many campaigns and particularly distinguished itself at Custozza on 24 June 1866. They also participated in battles during the Napoleonic Wars, for example at Aspern and Leipzig.
It was a predominantly Czech regiment (95 per cent), recruited from Heeresergänzungsbezirk Nr. 28, Prague. They had moved here from Kutná Hora in 1817. Apart from the capital, it recruited from the administrative districts (hejtmanství) of Karlín, Žižkov, Smíchov, Královské Vinohrady, Kladno, Slany, Mělník and Brandýs nad Labem.
The regiment's home barracks were at Bruska kasárna in Malá Strana. In 1914 only the 2nd battalion and the recruitment district command were located here. The rest of the regiment had, since 1912, been garrisoned in Tyrol: staff and the 3rd battalion in Innsbruck and the 1st and 4th battalions in Schlanders (it. Silandro) and Malè respectively. The regimental commander in 1914 was Colonel Ferdinand Sedlaczek[a].
During the war
Josef Srbek,1935
After the outbreak of war, the three battalions from Tyrol[1] were sent to the Eastern Front and took part in the invasion of Russian Poland, including the battle at Komarów on 28 August 1914. For the rest of the year and until April 1915, they were fighting north of and in the Carpathians, for example at Limanowa in December, where they suffered heavy casualties.
The detached 2nd battalion was sent to the Serbian front by the Drina as part of 9. Infanteriedivision. In February 1915, they were moved to the Carpathians, but remained separated from the rest of the regiment.
Mass surrender
Easter Saturday, 3 April 1915, would become the most controversial day in the history of the regiment. At the front section north of Bardejov, the bulk of the regiment surrendered after having been partly cut off by numerically superior Russian forces during a surprise attack in the early hours.
Contributing to the collapse were the regiment's exposed position, the soldiers' poor condition and low morale, and inept leadership. Another factor was the preparations undertaken by the Russians with the help of Czech volunteers. Leading up to the breakthrough, they captured some soldiers from IR. 28. These prisoners informed the Russians about the positions of the regiment and also about the poor morale that prevailed in the unit.
IR. 28's losses from 3rd to 5th April 1915
Richard Lein,2011
During the fighting between 3 and 5 April, the regiment lost 1,461 soldiers out of a total of 1,850. Of these, 124 were reported dead, 32 wounded, 645 missing and 660 captured. One must assume that most of the missing soldiers were taken prisoner. The 1st battalion lost around 400 men, with remarkably few killed or wounded, indicating that it did not put up much of a fight. The 3rd and 4th battalions suffered similar losses in manpower but with more killed and wounded[m].
From Russian archives the following account emerges: the 195. Orovaj Regiment (195-й пехотный Оровайский полк) attacked the positions of IR. 28 on 3 April in the early hours and quickly overwhelmed the Austro-Hungarian positions. This regiment captured around 800 men that day and suffered six dead and 62 wounded[n].
Disbanded
Předání praporu 28. pěšího pluku do Vojenského historického muzea ve Vídni
On 8 April, Feldmarschall-LeutnantJosef Krautwald, commander of 3. Armeekorps, reported to 3. Armee[m]:
Aus den noch nicht abgeschlossenen Untersuchungen über das Verhalten
des IR 28 in den Kämpfen am 3. April früh geht bisher aus der Aussage
des eigenen Regimentskommandanten mit Sicherheit hervor, dass das
Regiment, ohne einen Schuss abzugeben, von einem russischen Bataillon
gefangen oder eigentlich aus der Stellung abgeholt wurde. Die alte
Mannschaft soll vergleichsweise verlässlich gewesen sein, 2 Tage vor dem
Gefecht traf aber beim Regiment ein Marschbaon ein, dessen Mannschaft
von schlechtem Geist erfüllt ( ... ) und total verhetzt war. Von diesem
Ergänzungstransport liefen am Vortag des Gefechts einige Patrouillen
zum Feind über und dienten ihm am nächsten Tage als Führer".
It is evident from Krautwald's report that, even at this stage, news propagating up the military command chain deviated from the situation in the field during the two days the battle raged. The collapse of IR. 28 is presented as if the entire regiment surrendered to one enemy battalion without firing a shot, quoting the regiment's commander. As seen from the casualty list, this was not true, and the commander Schaumeier later denied having made such a statement.
On 10 April, the commander of 3. Armee, General Svetozar Boroević von Bojna, decided to dissolve the regiment temporarily, with effect from the following day. The remaining officers and soldiers were to be distributed amongst 3. Armeekorps[m].
Franz Josef's order from the 17 April 1915. It was not an army order per se, simply an official approval of the measures taken by the 3rd Army to temporarily disband the regiment and to deposit the regiment's standard in the Army Museum.
The decision was deferred to AOK where Archduke Friedrich on 16 April presented the case to the Emperor. The document that His Highness was presented differed somewhat from the one Krautwald reported to 3. Armee on 8 April. In the new version, the term "regiment" was replaced with "three battalions" and it was added that the regiment counted around 2,000 men before the battle started, but only 150 reported on the 4th, when the battle ended[A-01].
As can be seen, these numbers differ markedly from those in the Verlustliste, but it should be noted that some of the men who had initially been reported missing later reported. This was usually the case in the chaos that ensued during battles.
On 17 April 1915 the Emperor approved Boroević's decision to temporarily disband the regiment, ordered its standard to be deposited in the Army Museum in Vienna, and that the decision be announced throughout the army[A-01].
Ich genehmige die vom 3. Armeekommando angeordnete,
vorläufige Auflösung des Infanterieregiments Nr. 28 und befehle,
dass diese Maßregelung in der Armee allgemein verlautbart,
die Regimentsfahne aber im Heeresmuseum deponiert werde.
Wien, am 17. April 1915.
Franz Joseph
On 22 April the news about the provisional disbandment of the regiment was finally announced to the troops.
The replacement battalion, from February garrisoned in Szeged, continued to function and from here it trained further march battalions. The 9th and 10th battalions were distributed among other army units, but with the 11th march battalion, the situation changed. Italy had just declared war on Austria-Hungary and it was decided that this battalion should be deployed against the Italians as a unit. On the Isonzo front, they took part in several battles during the summer and autumn of 1915.
Investigations and restoration
The investigations lasted for some months, and in the meantime MajorFlorian Knobloch and others appealed to the Emperor for the regiment to be reconstituted and the standard handed back.
The 28th regiment was re-established in December 1915 after court investigations in Kassa (Košice) and Temesvár (Timișoara) concluded that the mass surrender was less serious than first believed. The performance of the 11th march battalion during the first battles of the Isonzo in the summer also played a part, and this became the official explanation. Thus, the authorities did not have to admit that they had made an error in the first place.
The subsequent investigation of the incident, which took months, brought to light the fact that there had been an overreaction, and that many factors, not least a dismal leadership style, had caused the regiment to surrender and at least not make efforts to sacrifice itself in a difficult situation. Manfried Rauchensteiner, 2014. “The First World War and the end of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914 - 1918.” p. 348
During the rest of the war, the regiment operated in Albania, Sarajevo, Carinthia and on the Isonzo front. They took part in the advance on the Piave in October and November 1917 (Caporetto) and also participated in the last battle of the war during the days of the final collapse of Austria-Hungary.
Ersatzbataillon
Svět,21.11.1918
In the meantime, the replacement battalion had been transferred from Prague to Szeged where they arrived on 6 February 1915[A-02]. It was thus one of the first of many Czech regiments that were moved away from their recruitment area that year. The reason for these measures was fear in military circles that the pan-Slavic sentiments and increasing dissatisfaction with the war amongst Czechs would have a negative influence on the soldiers. Already from September 1914, there were reports of poor discipline and dissatisfaction when the soldiers left Prague with the 2nd march battalion. Many were reportedly drunk and some demonstrated openly.
The commander of the Ersatzbataillon, the pensioned but now re-activated OberstJosef Krček, was later accused of neglect and of allowing an irresponsible lifestyle among the officers. After the regiment's transfer to Szeged, he ordered 6,000 litres of beer a month for the officers' mess![c] In their home city, they were replaced by Infanterieregiment Nr. 2 from Brassó (now Brașov in Romania).
The replacement battalion was in 1916 moved from Szeged to Bruckan der Mur where they were garrisoned until the war ended. These were the first soldiers from the now defunct k.u.k. Heer who returned to Prague. Here they were celebrated as heroes, and the regiment was absorbed into the Czechoslovak army under their old number, and streets were named after them.
In history writing
After the war, the assessment of the regiment's collapse on 3 April 1915 was generally unanimous: in one way or another they deserted, even crossed over to the enemy, traitors to Austrians and Hungarians, heroes to Czechs. The few dissenting voices were largely ignored so the narrative became established as fact and found its way into many history books and newspaper articles, whether in Austria, Czechoslovakia or the rest of the world.
In the last 30 years, however, critical questions have started to appear, mainly thanks to the thorough research of Josef Fučík[r] and Richard Lein[m]. The following paragraphs seek to explain how forged army orders (in Austria) and wartime propaganda (by the Czech independence movement) created and perpetuated myths around the regiment's alleged defection that were rarely contested, whether in Austria or in Czechoslovakia.
Fabricated army orders
The decision to announce the temporary dissolution of IR. 28 only to the troops and not to the civilian population predictably set in motion a flood of rumours. The first direct sign was that during the summer of 1915, leaflets containing manipulated versions of the circumstances around IR. 28's collapse started to circulate.
The forgeries appeared in four different versions, where each version carried the same message but where spelling, word order, date of issue and author often diverged.
Forgery #1. The Emperor's army order
A telegramme version of Franz Josef's army order. Note the date 11 April.
This text claimed to be an army order issued by Emperor Franz Joseph I on 17 April 1915 (dates diverge). Whereas the original is brief and written in neutral language, befitting a civil servant, the bogus order is emotional and more verbose, giving the impression that the Emperor was personally affronted.
Further, it incorrectly claims that the disbandment of the regiment was permanent. In the end, the only factually correct information is that the Emperor ordered the regiment's standard to be deposited in Heeresmuseum.
This order often appears in tandem with an attachment allegedly written by Archduke Friedrich. This part seeks to explain the circumstances surrounding the regiment's collapse (see forgery #2).
It is indeed this "army order" that Hašek reproduces almost verbatim in The Good Soldier Švejk.
Forgery #2. Friedrich's add-on
Archduke Friedrich's Army order contained many inaccuracies and falsehoods. It eventually turned out to be fabricated.
Salzburger Chronik,17.4.1926
This text was allegedly written by Archduke Friedrich, and pretends to explain what happened when IR. 28 imploded. It claims that two battalions with officers had surrendered to a single Russian battalion without firing a shot, that the incident happened by Dukla on 3 April 1915. Further, IR73 and German troops had allegedly stepped in and defended the abandoned positions, suffering great losses in dead and wounded.
Additionally, IR. 28 would forever be removed from the list of Austro-Hungarian regiments, and the remaining men and soldiers would be distributed across the army and the navy where they would pay for their guilt with their blood.
This version partly corresponds to a letter that Archduke Friedrich presented to the Emperor for approval, but expands "three companies" to "two battalions" (surrendering to the one Russian battalion without using firearms). The information that IR73 and German forces had to plug the gap left by IR. 28 is, however, pure fabrication. IR73 was fighting 100 km to the east and there were no German troops at this section of the front at the time.
In The Good Soldier Švejk, fragments from this "order" creep in when the narrator introduces the reader to the event. Hašek reproduces the erroneous reference to Dukla, and also the claim that two battalions with officers crossed over to the enemy. The dates 3 April 1915 and 17 April 1915 are correctly reproduced but the allegation "crossed over to the Russians to the tunes of the orchestra" is not part of "Friedrich's army order". Further, Hašek inserted the last two lines from this document into his version of Archduke Joseph Ferdinand's army order (see forgery #4).
Forgery #3. Captured by Bavarians
Grazer Tagblatt,18.9.1930
According to this narrative, the regiment raised the white flag in front of a unit they believed to be Russians. However, the "Russians" turned out to be the 4. Bayrische Garderegiment. The Bavarians allegedly surrounded, disarmed, and arrested IR. 28.
Moreover, it claims that five officers and their subordinates were executed under martial law in Szeged on 5 May 1915. This version is sometimes attached to forgeries #1 and #2, despite blatantly contradicting forgery #2 (the regiment could not possibly have surrendered to a "single Russian battalion" and a "Bavarian regiment" at the same time). Needless to say, this story is fabricated from start to finish.
This description is not reflected in The Good Soldier Švejk, but is included here for completeness.
Forgery #4. Joseph Ferdinand
Czech translation of Joseph Ferdinand's army order from the Czech exile press in Russia. The newspaper states that the content is faked and distributed as leaflets. Further, it claims that a skirt-maker has been arrested.
Čechoslovák,2.10.1915
The text of this "army order" exists in various versions, and is sometimes attributed to other generals, including Ludwig Matuschka and Archduke Friedrich. The dates of issue vary, if they are provided at all. It is related to the mass surrender of Mladá Boleslav's Infanterieregiment Nr. 36 by Sienawa on 27 May 1915, and this regiment was indeed struck permanently from the list of Austro-Hungarian regiments. In some variations, other regiments are also mentioned.
The first part of the text may be authentic as it is relatively factual in content and written in a neutral style. The last part is, however, written in an emotional tone, similar to forgery #1. See Archduke Joseph Ferdinand for more about this document.
In The Good Soldier Švejk, this "order" is reproduced more or less as is, but with the last few lines from forgery #2 added, giving the impression that this order also relates to the 28th Regiment. In Grete Reiner's translation into German (1926), even more text from forgery #2 is inserted, now at the beginning. We have no information that sheds light on how this happened. One possibility is that Reiner used the text of the forged order directly so she did not have to translate Hašek's version, and in a careless moment used too much.
Investigations
Conrad informs the Ministry of the Interior that the leaflet purported to be the Emperor's order from 17 April 1915 is completely fabricated.
In early July the civilian authorities in the Czech Lands asked for insight into the case of IR. 28. This was to address the rumours that were in circulation, amplified by the aforementioned leaflets that by now had appeared in Vienna, Brno, Salzburg, Kladno and other places.
k.k. Innenministerium (Ministry of the Interior) enquired with Kriegsministerium about the exact content of the army order. The case was passed on to AOK and on 17 July 1915Feldmarschall Conrad informed the ministry of the interior that "das Flugblatt völlig erfunden ist" (the leaflet is completely fabricated)[A-04], referring to the Emperor's "order" with Archduke Friedrich's "attachment".
Wiener Zeitung,11.8.1915
In August Wiener Zeitung reported that a court in Reichenberg (Liberec) on 2 August 1915 had ordered "the seizure of non-periodical printed materials distributed without indication of the place, printer and publisher", titled "Army Order of 17 April 1917"[k]. To be confiscated was also an alleged army order issued by Archduke Joseph Ferdinand (also reproduced in The Good Soldier Švejk).
Similar news items appeared in other newspapers. There is, however, no evidence that those who printed and distributed the leaflets were prosecuted and within a few months the authorities stopped pursuing the perpetrators. One possible exception is a skirt trader who was imprisoned in Terezín[s] but further details are not available.
Czech wartime propaganda
The Czech version of events had already started to develop in 1915. The Petrograd newspaper Čechoslovák reported the "Easter Incident". In 1916 other newspapers (in France, USA and Russia) printed similar-sounding articles that featured the attitudes of Czech soldiers towards the war. Now, it was no longer a question of IR. 28 cowardly surrendering as the aforementioned forgeries claim, but a conscious defection to the Russians, including the "music"[i].
Significantly, this narrative found its way into a book written by Edvard Beneš in 1917[p], where the narrative reads as follows:
To complete this sketch it is necessary to recite the tragic tale of the surrender of the 28th Czech Regiment of Prague, which caused such a stir a year ago, and which illustrates best of all the true spirit of the Czech nation. This regiment had surrendered to the Russians in the Carpathians on April 3rd, 1915, with all their arms and baggage, not even excepting their military band. In this way nearly 2,000 men went over to the Russians and the greater part of the regiment commenced immediately to fight the Austrians. After that they were transported to Kieff, where they were received with enthusiasm. The Emperor, in the Order of the Day read to all the soldiers, dishonoured for ever this regiment, ordered it to be dissolved, and its colours placed in the military museum in Vienna. Connected with this incident there is a very painful story for the Czechs, which was enacted on the Italian front, and which has since been mentioned in the Italian Press. The news of the dissolution of the 28th Regiment had everywhere made a great stir abroad and had given the lie to all the Austrian gossips, who were pretending that everything was going well with the Empire. It had also provoked sentiments of revolt among the Czechs in Bohemia and Moravia. The military authorities of Vienna, therefore, determined to correct this impression and to revenge themselves on the Czechs in the most brutal manner. Last autumn they formed a new battalion, the 28th Regiment, composed exclusively of young men of twenty; they were sent to the Isonzo front and without pity or regard, and without the slightest scruple were exposed to the most murderous Italian artillery fire near Gorizia. Only eighteen soldiers survived the massacre, the rest of the thousand young men remained on the battlefield. Immediately afterwards, the Emperor caused a new Order of the Day to be read to the army, proclaiming that the disgrace of the 28th Regiment of Prague was atoned for by the sacrifice of this regiment on the Isonzo. Edvard Beneš, 1917. “Bohemia's case for independence”, S: 57-58
La Nation Tchèque,1.6.1916
This much distorted story seems first to have appeared in Corriere d'Italia on 3 March 1916 (the Italian newspapers quoted Czech sources) and was soon reproduced in a Czech émigré monthly that was published in France by Lev Sychrava[l]. On 1 June, the Paris-based mouthpiece of the Czech National Council published a variation of the story, now in French[b].
The article was propagated further by the London-based weekly Everyman on 22 September 1916[j]. Some time later it was quoted by a Czech-American newspaper and it is probably from here the press in neutral countries picked up the story.
Čechoslovan,30.10.1916
Čechoslovan also reproduced parts of the article, quoting the aforementioned Everyman[j]. This happened at a time when Jaroslav Hašek was contributing to the newspaper so it is probably here he first became aware of the content. Sensibly, Čechoslovan left out the claim that the regiment had been welcomed in Kiev with "great enthusiasm"!
More or less the same narrative subsequently appeared in two books written by Beneš. In 1916 he published Destroy Austria-Hungary[o] and in 1917 he followed up with Bohemia's case for independence[p] (English and Italian)[2]. The paragraphs that concern IR. 28 and other Czech regiments are nearly identical in all these publications.
In Austria
Der Sturz der Mittelmächte, Karl Friedrich Nowak, 1921
In 1921 the historian Karl Friedrich Nowak[3] published the book Der Sturz der Mittelmächte (The Fall of the Central Powers) where he openly questioned the established narrative. He wrote that the regiment fought for more than 24 hours against a superior enemy before giving up. He added that although some groups no doubt deserted or allowed themselves to be captured, it did not apply to battalions as units[f].
Still, there is no indication that his observations made any impact on public opinion, nor in anything that was published in German in the inter-war years. Even Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg maintained the essence of the "desertion" story[u]. On the 11th anniversary of the Emperor's Army order, Salzburger Chronik wrote about the 28th regiment but the narrative had not changed. In September 1938, Kronen-Zeitung in the now Nazi-ruled Austria used the affair in some particularly crude anti-Czech propaganda[h]. This was during the days leading up to the infamous Munich Agreement that forced Czechoslovakia to cede Sudetenland to Germany.
Over many years the former k.u.k. officer Robert Nowak wrote a manuscript titled Die Klammer des Reichs, probably completed around 1960. It deals with the attitudes of the nations of the Dual Monarchy during the war. Nowak tried to have parts of it published in a major Viennese newspaper but the editor refused, explaining that the content was not in line with the public mood. Many historians have since referred to Nowak's work but it remains unpublished, stored in Vienna's Kriegsarchiv[i] with copies in the Czech Military Institute.
In Czechoslovakia
In inter-war Czechoslovakia the desertion narrative was obviously cultivated for different reasons than in Austria. The 28th regiment was celebrated as heroes who had voted with their feet against Habsburg oppression and for an independent Czechoslovak state. The deluge of legionnaire literature further underpinned this narrative and also partly credited the desertion to agitators from Družina (the predecessor of the Legions) who were operating in the area when the affair took place. Instrumental in forwarding this version were the legionnaires Klecanda and Vuchterle who were both doing reconnaissance for the Russians in the days leading up to the battle.
General Kunz
General Jaroslav Kunz. Probably the first Czech who officially questioned the official narrative of the desertion of IR. 28.
The only dissenting Czech voice from this period seems to have been retired General Jaroslav Kunz[4]. In 1931 he published an article called Falešná legenda (False legend) in the weekly Pestrý týden where he openly questioned the official Czechoslovak and Austrian versions of the affair. Referring to Nowak's book he went further in his analysis, investigating witness accounts from the trial. His conclusion was that although desertions no doubt took place, there was no reason to believe that the battalions deserted without putting up a fight.
Kunz pointed out that there were many war graves of 28ers in the area of the battle, that few of those captured on 3 April 1915 ever joined the Legions and when prisoners were returned after the Brest-Litovsk treaty in March 1918, the returning soldiers were not punished for desertion.
Later that year Kunz's study appeared as a chapter in the book The secrets of the Austrian general staff[t]. Here Kunz added more observations and noted how hostile the reaction to his article had been, be it in Czechoslovakia or Austria.
General Klecanda, who led the Družina (the predecessor of the Legions) reconnaissance patrols in the area where the 28th regiment was operating during Easter 1915, reacted immediately and called Kunz "unpatriotic". Kunz also reveals that his article was refused by many newspapers until Pestrý týden finally agreed to print it in February 1931.
Karel Pichlík
Karel Pichlík, Historie a vojenství, 1959
Even under Communist rule there was little interest in revising the established narrative. The most useful study from this period was surely that of the well-known historian Karel Pichlík who in 1959 published a detailed and well-documented paper in Historie a vojenství[e]. He keeps the interwar interpretation as an example of collective betrayal but takes aim at the agenda of "bourgeois" Czechoslovakia and the Austrian "imperialists".
Pichlík takes issue with Kunz and states that the latter merely provided evidence that the regiment put up some resistance. Drawing on many sources, he convincingly documented the anti-Austrian sentiments amongst the Prague recruits both from IR. 28 and k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 8 and how it manifested itself as open dissent. Predictably, he fitted the narrative to the political dogma that prevailed at the time.
Recent publications
Josef Fučík,2006
The modern reassessment of the history of IR. 28 seems to have started with Josef Fučík[5], who in 1994 published a paper about the regiment in the journal Střední Evropa. Later he wrote the book Osmadvacátníci (The Twentyeighters, 2006)[r], which is an explicit rehabilitation of the regiment, to the extent that even the sleeve contains quotes from Nowak. The book is rich in detail and very well researched.
Fučík was seemingly not aware of the forged army orders but sheds light on the errors in the command chain that resulted in the disbanding of the regiment. Further, he addresses the apparent contradiction between the accounts of the legionnaires Wuchterle and Klecanda and documents stored in Kriegsarchiv. According to the former, the regiment surrendered without fighting, whereas archive material reveals two days of fighting and heavy losses. He explains this contradiction with the fact that Klecanda and other legionnaires operated against the 1st battalion, which indeed surrendered without much resistance, but the 3rd and 4th battalions continued fighting for two days and suffered greater losses.
In 2011 Richard Lein followed up with more or less similar conclusions[m], and, in addition, exposed the mentioned "army orders" as forgeries. The book is extremely well researched with copious references to archive material.
"Rehabilitation" in this context does not necessarily mean that the accusations of treason were entirely unfounded, simply that many of the claims made about IR. 28 and the events on 3 April 1915 were false, and have since served political purposes.
That said, these two books underplay the fact that AOK's distrust of Czech regiments to a degree was justified. There was indeed widespread resentment amongst Czechs against the war, also amongst Czech soldiers. Many incidents had preceded that of IR. 28 and the conclusion of historian Manfried Rauchensteiner probably sums it up: this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Hašek and IR. 28
There were no units from IR. 28 in Trento in 1906, the year that Hašek (according to Menger) enrolled with the regiment.
Schematismus für das k.u.k. Heer (s. 471),1906
Apart from the author's own IR. 91 and its subordinated units, IR. 28 is no doubt the military unit that is most often mentioned in The Good Soldier Švejk. This could be explained by the fact that the author himself was from Prague and thus would have known many who served in the regiment. Václav Menger even claimed that Hašek served with them for a few weeks in 1906 until he was superarbitrated. Closer investigations, however, reveal that this cannot be true because there were no units from IR. 28 in Trento that year. The major part of the regiment was stationed in Trento from 1895 to 1899 and again in 1911 and 1912.
Hašek would, as a volunteer in České legie, have known several former soldiers from the 28th regiment. One such person was Břetislav Hůla who, according to the service record from the Legions, was captured by Dukla on 3 April 1915. Why the document states Dukla instead of Stebnícka Huta is not known, but Austrian loss lists confirm that when Hůla was reported missing he served in the 10th company (3rd battalion). This battalion was indeed part of the fateful battle.
Břetislav Hůla himself wrote about IR. 28 in his explanations to The Good Soldier Švejk (published in 1953) and states that "without offering serious resistance all three battalions let themselves get captured by much weaker Russian forces". His version is strangely at odds with the material collected by Kunz, Fučík and Lein but one should not expect individual soldiers to have a full overview during the chaos of a battle.
The Dukla incident mirrored in Švejk
The popularity of The Good Soldier Švejk has no doubt played a part in spreading the myths about the Prague house regiment. This was, however, not the work of Hašek, despite the fact that he, on half a page, disseminated both Austrian and Czechoslovak propaganda. He simply replicated the information that was in circulation when he wrote the novel, including the claim about the regiment's orchestra joining the desertion.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Zrzavý ministrant, dezertér z kostelnických kruhů, specialista v drobných krádežích u 28. pluku, snažil se poctivě vybavovat z paměti celý postup, techniku i text mše svaté.
[II.1] Od vedlejšího stolu řekl nějaký voják, že když přijeli do Segedina s 28. regimentem, že na ně Maďaři ukazovali ruce do výšky.
[II.2] Černožluté obzory počaly se zatahovat mraky revoluce. Na Srbsku, v Karpatech přecházely bataliony k nepříteli. 28. regiment, 11. regiment. V tom posledním vojáci z píseckého kraje a okresu.
[II.3] „Případ vašeho černocha Kristiána,“ řekl jednoroční dobrovolník, „třeba promyslit i ze stanoviska válečného. Dejme tomu, že toho černocha odvedli. Je Pražák, tak patří k 28. regimentu. Přece jste slyšel, že dvacátý osmý; přešel k Rusům.
[III.1] Potom Švejk počal mluvit o známých rozkazech, které jim byly přečteny před vstoupením do vlaku. Jeden byl armádní rozkaz podepsaný Františkem Josefem a druhý byl rozkaz arcivévody Josefa Ferdinanda, vrchního velitele východní armády a skupiny, kteréž oba týkaly se událostí na Dukelském průsmyku dne 3. dubna 1915, kdy přešly dva batalióny 28. pluku i s důstojníky k Rusům za zvuků plukovní kapely.
Oba rozkazy byly jim přečteny třaslavým hlasem a zněly v českém překladu:
Armádní rozkaz ze dne 17. dubna 1915:
Přeplněn bolestí nařizuji, aby c. k. pěší pluk čís.28 pro zbabělost a velezrádu byl vymazán z mého
vojska. Plukovní prapor budiž zneuctěnému pluku
odebrán a odevzdán do vojenského musea. Dnešním
dnem přestává existovat pluk, který, otráven mravně
z domova, vytáhl do pole, aby se dopustil velezrády.
František Josef I.
Rozkaz arcivévody Josefa Ferdinanda:
České trupy během polního tažení zklamaly,
zejména v posledních bojích. Zejména zklamaly při
obraně posic, ve kterých se nalézaly po delší dobu
v zákopech, čehož použil často nepřítel, aby navázal
styky a spojení s ničemnými živly těchto trup.
Obyčejně vždy směřovaly pak útoky nepřítele,
podporovaného těmito zrádci, proti těm oddílům na
frontě, které byly od takových trup obsazeny.
Často podařilo se nepříteli překvapit naše části a
takřka bez odporu proniknout do našich posic a
zajmouti značný, velký počet obránců.
Tisíckrát hanba, potupa i opovržení těmto bídákům
bezectným, kteří dopustili se zrady císaře i říše
a poskvrňují nejen čest slavných praporů naší slavné
a statečné armády, nýbrž i čest té národnosti, ku
které se hlásí.
Dřív nebo později zastihne je kulka nebo provaz kata.
Povinností každého jednotlivého českého vojáka,
který má čest v těle, je, aby označil svému komandantovi
takového ničemu, štváče a zrádce.
Kdo tak neučiní, je sám takový zrádce a ničema.
Tento rozkaz nechť je přečten všemu mužstvu u
českých pluků.
C. k. pluk čís. 28 nařízením našeho mocnáře jest
již vyškrtnut z armády a všichni zajatí přeběhlíci z
pluku splatí svou krví těžkou vinu.
Arcivévoda Josef Ferdinand
[IV.1] Já jsem sloužil u 28. regimentu a hned jsem vstoupil k Rusům do služby, a pak se dám tak hloupé chytit.
[IV.1] ... snad ty si vzpomeneš na někoho, s kým si se tam tak stýkal, rád bych věděl, kdo tam je od našeho 28. regimentu?
The Prague-based 2nd battalion was dispatched to the Serbian front by the Drina as part of 9. Infanteriedivision. In February 1915 they were moved to the Carpathians, but were still detached from the rest of the regiment.
Florian Schaumeier, Austrian officer who served with the 28th regiment from 1903 to 1915. In 1914 he was commander of the replacement battalion, rank Major. By March 1915 he was regimental commander but was transferred to Infanterieregiment Nr. 11 after the regiment was dissolved. He later became commander of the regiment on the Italian front. In 1917 he was ennobled, taking the predicative name von Anderschell.
Manfried Rauchensteiner (1942-), Austrian historian regarded as one of the leading experts on the Dual Monarchy and its role in World War I. Former director of Herresgeschichtliches Museum.
Karl Friedrich Nowak (1882-1932), Austrian journalist, publisher and historian who during the war worked for Kriegspressequartier. From 1916 he had access to Feldmarschall Conrad and the general staff.
Edvard Beneš, Bohemia's case for independence, 1917. This book is a political pamphlet that aimed to influence decision-makers in the allied capitals towards accepting the need to break up Austria-Hungary.
Jaroslav Kunz (1869-1933), Austrian, later Czechoslovak military lawyer and general. From 1915 to 1918 war he was head of the Divisional Court in Vienna, in Czechoslovakia he held positions in the ministry of law. Kunz wrote several books where the theme was the Austro-Hungarian military and judiciary and their relation to Czechs matters.
The court was first mentioned by the angry policeman at c.k. policejní ředitelství who wishes the devil may take Švejk. If he dares to appear once more he will be sent straight to the military court.
In [II.2] the court is mentioned again as this is where Pepík Vyskoč was sentenced.
Background
Vojenský soud HradčanyMilitary Court Hradčany
refers to the military court of the Prague garrison. The court was located at Hradčany in the same building complex as the garrison prison and the military hospital. An article in Prager Tagblatt also mentions a brigade court, but it is not clear how these administrative subdivisions worked. To judge by newspapers reports from 1914 HauptmannG. Heinrich led the court[a]. The address book of 1912 lists MajorJosef Plzák as the highest ranking officer. His assistant was OberleutnantVladimír Dokoupil.
The Good Soldier Švejk in Captivity
In Dobrý voják Švejk v zajetí the military court is also part of the plot and to a higher degree than in the novel. An auditor handles Švejk's case but he is not named. The narrator also explains how the Austro-Hungarian military judiciary works.[1]
V duchu opustil hradčanský vojenský soud a mysl jeho zaletěla na Vinohrady do malého krámku, svezla se po obraze Františka Josefa a vyhledala pod starou postelí dvě morčata. Švejk k smrti rád pěstoval morčata. A jich osud byl také jedinou chmurou zde.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.6] „Vem vás čert, Švejku,“ řekla nakonec úřední brada, „jestli se sem ještě jednou dostanete,tak se vás vůbec nebudu na nic ptát a poputujete přímo k vojenskému soudu na Hradčany. Rozuměl jste?“
[I.9] Vyšetřující auditor Bernis byl muž společnosti, půvabný tanečník a mravní zpustlík, který se zde strašně nudil a psal německé verše do památníků, aby měl pohotově vždy nějakou zásobu. Byl nejdůležitější složkou celého aparátu vojenského soudu, poněvadž měl tak hrozné množství restů a spletených akt, že uváděl v respekt celý vojenský soud na Hradčanech. Ztrácel obžalovací materiál a byl nucen vymýšlet si nový. Přehazoval jména, ztrácel nitě k žalobě a soukal nové, jak mu to napadlo.
[II.4] Když jsem seděl u garnisonsgerichtu, tak se ve vedlejší cimře jeden voják přiznal, a jak se to vostatní dozvěděli, tak mu dali deku a poručili mu, že musí svý přiznání vodvolat."
Policejní komisařství XIII.
is mentioned by Švejk when Auditor Bernis asks him why he has ended up in the garrison prison. Švejk tells him that he doesn't know, just like the two-year-old who had walked from Vinohrady to Libeň and had been locked up at the local police station. The analogy is that Švejk was also a foundling, just like the two-year-old child.
Background
Policejní komisařství XIII.
was the police station in Libeň, Prague's police district number 13. It was located in Stejskalova ulice 185 and the station's head in 1906 was Chief Inspector Josef Roubal.
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] „Poslušně hlásím, že to mohu vysvětlit náramně jednoduchým způsobem. U nás v ulici je uhlíř a ten měl úplně nevinnýho dvouletýho chlapečka a ten se jednou dostal pěšky z Vinohrad až do Libně, kde ho strážník našel sedět na chodníku. Tak toho chlapečka odved na komisařství a zavřeli je tam, to dvouletý dítě. Byl, jak vidíte, ten chlapeček úplně nevinnej, a přece byl zavřenej.
K.k. Landwehr
is first mentioned in the cell at Posádková věznice, when Švejk does not return because Feldkurat Katz has chosen him as his servant. A Landwehr soldier with a vivid imagination assumed he had been taken to Motolské cvičiště to be executed.
In [II.1] an old landverák (a home defence soldier) at the station in Tábor explains to a sergeant the meaning of the word miláček (which Švejk had used to address him). Later in the same chapter the author mentions a Landwehr regiment for the first time: k.k. Schützenregiment Nr. 21.
In [II.2]k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 7 is referred to implicitly, as this is where Toníček Mašků was called up. Later in the chapter Einjährigfreiwilliger Marek mentions k.k. Landwehr patrols; since the plot has now moved to Budějovice, the unit in question is k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 29.
K.k. Landwehr
(lit. Land Guard) was the territorial army in Cisleithania, created in 1868 after Ausgleich. Their Hungarian counterpart was Honvéd. Landwehr reported to Ministerium für Landesverteidigung and was more of a regular fighting force than a purely territorial reserve. Its units were not part of the k.u.k. Heer and had their own barracks and infrastructure, including their own military academies. The length of service was two or three years, and the arrangement with one-year volunteers worked roughly as in the common army.
Handbuch für den Infanteristen des k.u.k. Heeres, sowie der k. k. Landwehr,1914
Landwehr consisted of 37 infantry regiments but as opposed to k.u.k. Heer the numbers of recruitment districts did not always correspond to those of the infantry regiments. There was for instance a Landwehrergänzungsbezirk Nr. 38 (Beroun) but no corresponding k.k. Landwehr infantry regiment. Landwehr also contained artillery and cavalry units but had no fortresses. The infantry regiments were smaller than their counterparts in k.u.k. Heer, consisting mostly of three instead of four battalions. Because of the lower number of regiments the recruitment districts were larger than those of the common army. Drafting of recruits was however coordinated and the men were divided between k.u.k. Heer and Landwehr, drawn by lot. At army corps level there was also some coordination as both the common army and Landwehr reported to the same Korpskommando.
The k.k. Landwehr high command was located in the building of the Ministry of Justice at Schillerplatz in Vienna. The district of Landwehrterritorialkommando Prag raised five Landwehr regiments (names according to Schematismus): Nr. 6 Eger, Nr. 7 Pilsen, Nr. 8 Prag, Nr. 28 Pisek and Nr. 29 Budweis. The number of infantry regiments in the k.u.k. Heer in the same area was eight.
During the war
Ehrenhalle des k. k. Landwehr, des k. k. Landsturmes und der k. k. Gendarmerie, 1916
Landwehr in Bohemia were mobilised at the very start of the war. As part of 8. Korps, with HQ in Prague, 21. Landwehr-Infanteriedivision was sent to the front against Serbia, where it suffered heavy losses and was partly blamed for the failed first invasion of Serbia in August 1914. In February 1915 the division was moved to the Carpathians, where other k.k. Landwehr troops from Bohemia were already fighting.
Like the Czech regiments in k.u.k. Heer, the k.k. Landwehr reserve battalions in Bohemia were relocated to non-Czech parts of the empire. This happened in the autumn of 1914 and the first half of 1915, due to the feared disloyalty of Czech recruits (not entirely unfounded). Examples include k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 7 from Pilsen, which was relocated to the German-speaking Rumburk, and k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 28 from Písek, which was moved to Linz in late 1914.
K.k. Landwehr ⇒ K.k. Schützen
Arbeiter-Zeitung,4.4.1917
In April 1917 k.k. Landwehr was renamed k.k. Schützen. The justification was that the new name better reflected that Landwehr were fighting units on a level with k.u.k. Heer and not second-line home defence as the former name indicated. The Imperial decree deciding the name change was issued on 19 March 1917, published in Verordnungsblatt für die k.k. Landwehr on 4 April [a].
Hašek and Landwehr
Jaroslav Hašek would, of course, have known (and had contact with) k.k. Landwehr throughout. In The Good Soldier ŠvejkEinjährigfreiwilliger Marek tells Švejk about conflicts with Landwehr in Budějovice; in this setting it would have been k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 29 that was garrisoned here. Towards the end of his stay he might also have come into contact with k.k. Landwehrinfanterieregiment Nr. 6 from Eger (now Cheb), which was moved here at the end of May 1915. Parts of this regiment were even housed in Mariánská kasárna, but probably only after IR. 91 vacated it. Two of Hašek's best friends served with Landwehr: Zdeněk Matěj Kuděj (LIR 6 and LIR 7) and Václav Menger (LIR 28).
Quote(s) from the novel
[I.9] Nějaký pihovatý voják od zeměbrany, který měl největší fantasii, rozhlásil, že Švejk střelil po svém hejtmanovi a že dnes ho odvedli na motolské cvičiště na popravu.
[II.1] „Was ist das Wort: milatschek?“ obrátil se šikovatel k jednomu ze svých vojáků, starému landverákovi, který podle všeho dělal svému šikovateli všechno naschvál, poněvadž řekl klidně: „Miláček, das ist wie Herr Feldwebel.“
[II.2] „U nás byl taky jeden takovej nezbeda. Ten měl ject do Plzně k landvér, nějakej Toníček Mašků,“ povzdechla si babička, „von je vod mojí neteře příbuznej, a vodjel.
[II.2] ...dá se chytit landveráckou nebo dělostřeleckou patrolou v noci...
[II.2] ,Prokristapána,` slyšel jsem ho jednou hulákat na chodbě, ,tak už ho potřetí chytla landverácká patrola.
[II.2] Hejtman Spíro udeřil pěstí do stolu. "Zeměbrana vykonává službu v zemi v čas míru."
