Two different views of Hácha
The perception of Emil Hácha’s personality is currently divided. According to Černý, critics see him as a collaborator who, although under duress, collaborated with the Nazis. “By remaining in the position of state president after Heydrich’s arrival in Prague on September 27, 1941, he gave the occupation regime the appearance of a kind of legality,” the historian explained earlier.
–
On the contrary, Hách’s lawyers point to the fact that from the beginning of his presidency he maintained contacts with the Czechoslovak exile and, thanks to his interventions, contributed to saving the lives of many people imprisoned by the Nazis.
Historian Josef Tomeš again pointed out that in the last years of the war, Emil Hácha was not responsible for “what he was maneuvered in” due to his illness. According to Tomeš Hách, he sacrificed his reputation with the knowledge that if he resigned from the presidency, someone worse would be replaced.
Also, according to Vladimír Černý Hách, due to a serious illness, the Nazis later used it only as a puppet, which fit into their plans. “After all, the post-war National Court in Prague also came to this conclusion when it declared that Hácha had not been aware of his actions and actions since the second half of 1943 at the latest,” Černý pointed out.
At the same time, the view of Hách as a collaborator intensified the communist regime, which uncompromisingly called him a traitor. It was only after the November Revolution in 1989 that voices began to be heard that were more conciliatory towards Hách.
– .
