[Illustration:
Professor Thomas G. Masaryk]
INDEPENDENT BOHEMIA
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAK STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY
By VLADIMIR NOSEK
Secretary to the Czecho-Slovak Legation in LONDON
1918
PREFACE
In the following pages I have attempted to outline the story
of our movement for independence. The manuscript of this book was completed
over four months ago. Since then many important changes have occurred in the
international situation. Chapters in which we dealt with the then still
existing Dual Monarchy must of course be read in the past tense, since Austria
exists no more. And again, many things which we anticipated and hoped for in
the future have already become accomplished facts. However, I trust that the
story itself has not only lost none of its value thereby, but has acquired an
additional interest from a historical point of view. Our aim of national
independence, only quite recently declared by our adversaries to be “an
empty dream of moonstruck idealists,” has become to-day not only a practical
proposition, but an accomplished fact. We have our own army, which is by no
means the smallest Allied army, and we also have our own Provisional Government
in Paris, recognised not only by the Allies and by all Czecho-Slovaks abroad,
but even by Czech leaders in Bohemia, with whom we have since the beginning of
the war worked in complete harmony and understanding. The organisation of our
independent State is rapidly proceeding. Austria-Hungary, exhausted
economically and bankrupt politically, has fallen to pieces by the free-will of
her own subject peoples, who, in anticipation of their early victory, broke
their fetters and openly renounced their allegiance to the hated Habsburg and
Hohenzollern rule, even before Austria had actually surrendered to the Allies.
Events have moved rapidly in Austria, especially since the
momentous British declaration of August 9, 1918, recognising the
Czecho-Slovaks–those resident in the Allied countries as much as those in
Bohemia–as an Allied nation, and the Czecho-Slovak National Council–in Paris
as well as in Prague–as the Provisional Government of Bohemia. British
statesmen already then foresaw the coming collapse of Austria and acted
accordingly. It is also no more a secret to-day that because of the
promulgation of the British and United States declarations our Council was able
to conclude special conventions with all the Allied Governments during
September last, whereby all the powers exercised by a real government have been
granted to it.
In the meantime Germany had been losing more and more
control over her allies, being herself hard pressed on the Western front, and
the consequence of this was a growing boldness on the part of the Austrian
Slavs. On October 2 deputy Staněk declared in the name of the whole Czech
deputation that the National Council in Paris were their true spokesmen and
representatives with whom Austria would have to negotiate. Soon afterwards the
Austrian Poles went to Warsaw, where they formed a new all-Polish Government,
and the Southern Slavs entrusted the government of their territorities to their
National Council in Zagreb. Similar councils were formed also by the Ruthenes
and Rumanians. On October 14 the Czecho-Slovak National Council in Paris
constituted itself as a Government of which the Council in Prague acts as an
integral part. The latter took over the reins of government in Bohemia a
fortnight later. On October 19 the Czecho-Slovak Council issued a Declaration
of Independence which we publish in the Appendix, and from which it will be
seen that Bohemia will be progressive and democratic both in her domestic and
foreign policy. A glorious future is no doubt awaiting her. She will be specially
able to render an immense service to the League of Nations as a bulwark of
peace and conciliation among the various peoples of Central Europe.
The break-up of Austria will, of course, affect enormously
the constitution of the future Europe, and in our last chapter we have tried to
give an outline of these impending changes of conditions and international relations.
The break-up of Austria was bound to come sooner or later, whether some
misinformed critics or prejudiced pro-Austrian politicians liked it or not. We
ourselves were always convinced, and we declared openly, that Austria could not
survive this war, because she was at war with the majority of her own subjects,
who wished for nothing more than for her destruction. Unfortunately the fact
that the sympathies of the thirty million of Austrian Slavs and Latins were on
the side of the Entente, constituting such an incontestable moral asset for the
Allies as it does, has not always been fully appreciated by Allied public
opinion. We ourselves, however, never doubted for a moment that the Allied
cause would ultimately triumph and that we would achieve our independence,
because we knew that in struggling for this aim we were only carrying out the
unanimous will of our whole nation. Without waiting for any pledges, without
regard as to which side would be victorious, our nation has from the beginning
staked its all on the Allied victory and has contributed with all its powers to
hasten it. Despite all adverse circumstances, our people, at first completely
at the mercy of their enemies, ruthlessly persecuted and tortured by them,
nevertheless remained firm and resolute. Their attitude was most outspoken and
courageous at all times, and they have also rendered the Allies active
assistance, which is being duly appreciated by them. It is chiefly due to the
efforts of the subject peoples themselves, of whom the Czechs have certainly
been the most outspoken, that the collapse of Austria has occurred, which
finally sealed the fate of Kaiserism and of the Pan-German plans of
Mitteleuropa.
To-day our hopes for a better future are at last being
fulfilled as a result of the Allies’ complete victory, assuring the creation of
a new and just international order. Our much-afflicted yet undaunted people
already consider themselves as independent. The Peace Conference, at which the
Czecho-Slovak Government will be represented, will only confirm the existence
of an independent Czecho-Slovak State.
In conclusion, we should like to express our deep gratitude
to all our English friends for their valuable assistance in our struggle for
the realisation of our ideals. We especially wish to thank once more the
British Government for the generous step taken by them in recognising us as an
Allied and belligerent nation. It was chiefly because of this recognition and
of the gallant deeds of our army that we achieved all our subsequent diplomatic
and political successes. We may assure Great Britain that the Czecho-Slovaks
will never forget what they owe to her, and that they will endeavour to do
their best to merit the trust so generously placed in them.
VLADIMIR NOSEK.
9, GROSVENOR PLACE, LONDON,
November, 1918.
[Illustration: The International Position Of The Czecho Slovak
Republic In Future Europe]
CONTENTS
II. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND THE PRESENT WAR
III. CZECH POLITICAL PARTIES
BEFORE AND DURING THE WAR
IV. TERRORISM IN BOHEMIA DURING THE WAR
(a) Czech Deputies and
Leaders imprisoned and sentenced to Death;
(b) Monster Trials, Arbitrary
Executions, Internment of Civilians, etc.;
(d) Reichsrat
Interpellations.
V. HOW THE CZECHO SLOVAKS AT HOME
ASSISTED THE ALLIES
VI. THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL ACTION
OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS ABROAD
VII. THE CZECHS AT HOME BEGIN TO SPEAK
(a) Czech Declaration of May
30, 1917;
(b) Courageous Speeches
delivered by Czech Deputies in the Reichsrat;
(c) After the Amnesty;
(d) During Peace
Negotiations with Russia;
(e) The Constituent
Assembly of Prague on January 6, 1918;
(f) The Oath of the Czecho
Slovak Nation;
(h) The Czecho-Slovak
National Council in Prague.
VIII. CZECHO-SLOVAK CO-OPERATION WITH
OTHER NON-GERMAN NATIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPE
(a) The Congress of Rome;
(b) The May
Manifestations in Prague.
IX. BOHEMIA AS A BULWARK AGAINST
PAN-GERMANISM
APPENDIX OF SOME RECENT DOCUMENTS
WHAT IS AUSTRIA-HUNGARY?
1. The Habsburg Empire is built upon centuries-old
traditions of reaction and violence. Its present power is chiefly based on the
alliance which Bohemia and Hungary concluded with Austria against the Turkish
peril in 1526. The Czechs freely elected the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia
which remained a fully independent state, its alliance with Austria and Hungary
being purely dynastic. But soon the Habsburgs began to violate the liberties of
Bohemia which they were bound by oath to observe, and this led finally to the
fateful Czech revolution of 1618. At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620
the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion. All
their nobility were either executed or sent into exile, and their property
confiscated. The country was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its
population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years’ War.
In 1627 Ferdinand II. greatly curtailed the administrative
rights of Bohemia, yet he did not dare to deprive her entirely of her
independence. In his “Renewed Ordinance of the Land” Ferdinand
declared the Bohemian crown to be hereditary in the House of Habsburg, and
reserved legislative power to the sovereign. But otherwise the historical
rights of Bohemia remained valid, notwithstanding all subsequent arbitrary
centralising measures taken by the Habsburgs. Bohemia’s rights were repeatedly
recognised by each succeeding Habsburg. Legally Bohemia is an independent state
to-day.
The heavy persecutions inflicted upon Bohemia had a
disastrous effect upon her intellectual life and national development which
were completely paralysed until the end of the eighteenth century, when owing to
the humanitarian ideals of those times, and as a reaction against the
Germanising centralistic efforts of Joseph II., the Czechs again began to
recover their national consciousness. This revival marked the beginning of the
Czecho-Slovak struggle for the re-establishment of their independence. The
movement was at first literary, and only in the forties became political. It
was a continuous struggle against reaction and absolutism, and if the Czecho-Slovaks
to-day can boast of an advanced civilisation, it is only owing to their
perseverance and hard endeavours, and not because of any good-will on the part
of the Austrian Government which put every possible obstacle in their way.
2. The present Austria-Hungary is primarily a
dynastic estate, for the crown was always its supreme political driving force,
although at present the Habsburgs are mere slaves of their masters, the
Hohenzollerns. It is this characteristic which justifies us in concluding that Austria
is an autocratic state par excellence. If there were no other reason,
this should be sufficient to make every true democrat an enemy of Austria.
Furthermore, it is this characteristic which makes us comprehend why the
Habsburg monarchy is fighting side by side with German autocracy and
imperialism against the allied democracies of the world.
Notwithstanding the so-called constitution which is a mere
cloak for absolutism, the monarch in Austria is emperor by “Divine
Right” alone, and is the absolute master of his subject peoples in virtue
of his privileged position which confers on him an inexhaustible amount of
power and influence. The internal as well as the foreign policy of the monarchy
is directed in the real or supposed interests of the dynasty. The principle divide
et impera is its leading idea in internal politics, and the increase of
dynastic power in foreign policy. The question of war and peace is decided by
the emperor, to whom it also appertains to order matters concerning the
management, leadership and organisation of the whole army. And though in Hungary
the power of the monarch largely depends on the Budapest Parliament, yet even
here the constitutional power of the dynasty is enormous, the King of Hungary
being a governing and legislative factor by no means inferior to that of the
parliament.
Even when attempts were made at enfranchising the masses (as
in 1896 and finally in 1905), the motive again was purely dynastic. Such
constitutional measures as were taken, only strengthened racial dissensions and
were equally insincere and inefficient. The present constitution of 1867, as
well as the previous constitutions of 1849, 1860 and 1861, was granted by the
crown, to whom it was reserved to reverse or modify the same. The parliament is
absolutely powerless in Austria. It is a mere cloak for absolutism, since the
famous Paragraph 14 provides for absolutist government by means of imperial
decrees without parliament in case of emergency. The dynasty took ample
advantage of this clause during the first three years of this war when
absolutism and terrorism reigned supreme in the Dual Monarchy. While since 1861
up to the beginning of the war 156 imperial decrees had been issued, fully 161
have been passed during the first three years of the present war.
The arbitrary power of the dynasty is based: upon the organisation
of the army, the leadership of which is entrusted to the Germans; upon the
feudal aristocracy who are the only real Austrians, since they have no
nationality, though they invariably side with the dominant Germans and Magyars;
upon the power of the police who form the chief instrument of the autocratic
government and who spy upon and terrorise the population; upon the German
bureaucrats who do not consider themselves the servants of the public, but look
upon the public as their servant, and whose spirit of meanness and corruption
is so characteristic of the Austrian body politic; finally, the dynasty relies
upon the Catholic hierarchy who hold vast landed property in Austria and regard
it as the bulwark of Catholicism, and who through Clericalism strive for
political power rather than for the religious welfare of their denomination. In
alliance with them are the powerful Jewish financiers who also control the
press in Vienna and Budapest. Clearly Austria is the very negation of
democracy. It stands for reaction, autocracy, falsehood and hypocrisy, and it
is therefore no exaggeration to say that nobody professing democratic views can
reasonably plead for the preservation of this system of political violence.
When we remember the enormous power of the dynasty and the
political system which supports it, we understand why in the past Austria has
always played the part of the most reactionary, autocratic and tyrannic state
in Europe. Hopes have indeed been expressed by some Austrophils in the
good-will of the new Austrian Emperor on account of his amiable character. The
Slavs have ample reason to distrust the Habsburgs who have proved to be
treacherous autocrats in the past, and whose records show them as an incapable
and degenerate family. As a political power Kaiser Karl is the same menace to
his subject Slavs as his predecessors. Above all, however, he is of necessity a
blind tool in the hands of Germany, and he cannot possibly extricate himself
from her firm grip. The Habsburgs have had their chance, but they missed it. By
systematic and continuous misgovernment they created a gulf between the Slavs
and themselves which nothing on earth can remove. Every Habsburg believes he
has a “mission” to fulfil. The only mission left for Kaiser Karl is to
abdicate and dissolve his empire into its component parts. There is no reason
whatever why Austria should be saved for the sake of the degenerate and
autocratic Habsburg dynasty.
3. Let us now examine the much misunderstood racial problems
of the Dual Monarchy. There is no Austrian nation, since there is no Austrian
language. Austria is a mere geographical expression. In fact the Slavs,
constituting the majority of Austrian subjects, would think it an insult to be
called Austrians. During the war they have been treated as subjects of an enemy
state, and to-day they have no part or lot with Austria. The Czech statesman
Rieger once declared that when the Slavs no longer desired the existence of Austria,
no one would be able to save her. And indeed, the claims raised by the majority
of Austria’s population to-day mean the death warrant of the Dual Monarchy.
To get a clear idea of the racial issue, we will quote the
official Austrian statistics, which tell us that in Austria-Hungary there are:
AUSTRIA. HUNGARY.
BOSNIA. TOTAL.
SLAVS: Million. Million. Million. Million.
Million.
Czecho-Slovaks 6.4 2 — 8.4
Yugoslavs 2 3 1.8 6.8
Poles 5 — — 5
Ruthenes 3.5 0.5 — 4
— 24.2
LATINS:
Italians 0.8 — — 0.8
Rumanians 0.3 2.9 — 3.2
—
4
GERMANS 10 2
— 12
MAGYARS — 10
— 10
OTHERS 0.6 0.4
— 1
28.6 20.8
1.8 51.2
Thus it appears that the Slavs alone (without Italians and
Rumanians) form about 48 per cent. of the total population. The Germans form
only 24 per cent. of the population of Austria-Hungary, while in Hungary proper
the dominant Magyars do not form quite 50 per cent. of the population. The
predominance of the German and Magyar minorities is apparent not only from the
fact that they hold the reins of government, but also from their unfair
proportional representation in both parliaments. Thus instead of 310 seats out
of 516 in the Reichsrat the Slavs hold only 259, while the Germans hold 232
instead of 160. By gaining 83 Polish votes in return for temporary concessions,
the Germans have thus always been in the majority in the Reichsrat in the past.
In Hungary the proportion is still more unjust. The Magyars hold 405 seats
instead of 210 in the parliament of Budapest out of the total number of 413,
while the non-Magyars, entitled according to their numbers to 203 seats, have
in reality only five representatives in the “democratic” parliament
of Budapest.
All the above calculations are based upon official
statistics which are grossly exaggerated in favour of the Germans and Magyars.
The picture would be still more appalling if we took into consideration the
actual number of the Slavs. The Austrian census is not based upon the
declaration of nationality or of the native language, but upon the statement of
the “language of communication” (“Umgangsprache”). In mixed
districts economic pressure is brought against the Slavs, who are often workmen
dependent upon German masters and bound to declare their nationality as German
for fear they should lose their employment. From private statistics it has been
found that the percentage of Germans in Bohemia can hardly exceed 20 per cent,
as against 37 per cent, given by the official census. Still greater pressure is
brought to bear against the Slavs by the Magyars in Hungary, who are famous for
the brutal methods in which they indulge for the purpose of shameless
falsification of their official statistics. Thus the actual strength of the
rival races of Austria-Hungary may with every justification be estimated as
follows:
SLAVS:
Czecho-Slovaks 10 million \
Yugoslavs 7-1/2
” |
> 27 million
Poles 5
” |
Ruthenes 4-1/2
” /
LATINS:
Italians 1 million \
>
5 “
Rumanians 4
” /
GERMANS 10
” \
>
18 “
MAGYARS 8
” /
OTHERS
1 “
__________________________
51
million
4. The rule of the German-Magyar minority over the Slav and
Latin majority, finally established by the introduction of dualism in 1867, was
made possible only by the demoralising system of violence described above. One
race was pitted against the other in Austria and this enabled the Germans to
rule them better, while the Magyars in Hungary, by keeping their subject races
in the darkness of ignorance and by using the most abominable methods of
violence, succeeded in securing for themselves the entire monopoly of
government. The Magyars, who are a race of Asiatic origin, are truly the
faithful descendants of the ancient Huns, and true allies of the Huns of
to-day.
When Kossuth came to England in 1848, he was hailed as the
champion of freedom and liberty, and entranced his audiences in London and
other English cities by his remarkable oratory. As a matter of fact Kossuth,
though called “the father of the Magyars,” was himself a
denationalised Slovak; instead of a “champion of liberty,” he might
with much greater justification have been called the champion of the greatest
racial tyranny in Europe. For even then, while fighting for their own liberty
and for the independence of Hungary, the Magyars denied the most elementary
political and national rights to the other peoples living in Hungary.
In 1910 there were 2,202,165 Slovaks in Hungary according to
the official census. These two million Slovaks had only two deputies (Dr. Blaho
and Juriga), while the 8,651,520 Magyars had 405 seats, so that every Slovak
deputy represented one million electors, every Magyar deputy, however, 21,000.
As regards administration, all civil service officials in Hungary have to be of
Magyar nationality. The cases of persecution for political offences are innumerable:
Slovak candidates were prevented from being elected by being imprisoned.
Corruption and violence are the two main characteristics of all elections in
“democratic” Hungary. Even to-day when some Radicals in Budapest talk
of electoral reform, they want suffrage to be extended to Magyar electors only,
and also stipulate that the candidates shall be of Magyar nationality. No
Magyar politicians will ever abandon the programme of the territorial integrity
of Hungary, their aims being expressed in the words of Koloman Tisza: “For
the sake of the future of the Magyar State it is necessary for Hungary to
become a state where only Magyar is spoken. To gain the Slovaks or to come to a
compromise with them is out of the question. There is only one means which is
effective–Extirpation!” And this aim the Magyars have faithfully kept
before them for at least the last hundred years.
In the same way also the economic development of the
non-Magyar nationalities has been systematically hampered, because the Magyars
know that economic dependence means also political subservience. The Slovaks
and Rumanians are not allowed to found co-operative societies or banks on the
ground that such institutions “are opposed to the interests of the
elements which hold the Magyar State together.”
But it is not only the non-Magyars who suffer. The Magyar
working classes and the majority of the Magyar country people themselves are
deprived of political rights, for Hungary is ruled by an oligarchy and scarcely
5 per cent. of the population has the suffrage right.
We may say, therefore, without exaggeration that to-day Hungary
is the most reactionary country of Europe. Nowhere else (not even in Prussia)
have the people so little power as in Hungary, where the Socialists have not a
single seat in parliament. The “politics” in Hungary are the
privilege of a few aristocrats. Hungary is a typical oligarchic and theocratic
state.
When the Magyars plead to-day for “peace without
annexations” and for the integrity of Hungary, they want to be allowed to
continue to oppress and systematically magyarise the Slavs and Rumanians of
Hungary. The triumphant allied democracies will not, however, stoop before
autocratic Hungary. The dismemberment of Hungary, according to the principle of
nationality, is a sine qua non of a permanent and just peace in Europe.
5. The four strongest races in Austria-Hungary, then, are
the Germans, Magyars, Czecho-Slovaks and Yugoslavs, numbering from eight to ten
million each. The Austrian Germans and the Magyars occupy the centre, while the
Czecho-Slovaks inhabit the north (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Slovakia), and
the Yugoslavs ten provinces in the southern part of the monarchy. In order to
facilitate German penetration and domination and to destroy the last remnants
of Bohemia’s autonomous constitution, the Austrian Government attempted, by the
imperial decree of May 19, 1918, to dismember Bohemia into twelve
administrative districts with German officials at the head, who were to possess
the same power to rule their respective districts as had hitherto appertained
only to the Governor (Statthalter) of Bohemia, legally responsible to the
Bohemian Diet.
But not only are the Czecho-Slovaks and Yugoslavs divided
between both halves of the monarchy and among numerous administrative districts
which facilitate German penetration. Dissensions were fomented among the
different parties of these two nations and religious differences exploited. The
Yugoslavs, for instance, consist of three peoples: the Serbs and Croats, who
speak the same language and differ only in religion and orthography, the former
being Orthodox and the latter Catholic; and the Slovenes, who speak a dialect
of Serbo-Croatian and form the most western outpost of the Yugoslav (or
Southern Slav) compact territory. It was the object of the Austrian Government
to exploit these petty differences among Yugoslavs so as to prevent them from
realising that they form one and the same nation entitled to independence. At
the same time Austria has done all in her power to create misunderstandings
between the Slavs and Italians, just as she tried to create dissensions between
Poles and Ruthenes in Galicia, and between Poles and Czechs in Silesia, well
knowing that the dominant races, the Germans and Magyars, would profit thereby.
Fortunately the war has opened the eyes of the subject peoples, and, as we
shall show later on, to-day they all go hand in hand together against their
common enemies in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND THE PRESENT WAR
In order to understand fully what is at stake in this war
and why the Slavs are so bitterly opposed to the further existence of Austria-Hungary,
it is necessary to study the foreign policy of the Central Powers during the
past century. The “deepened alliance” concluded between Germany and Austria-Hungary
in May, 1918, resulting in the complete surrender of Austria’s independence, is
in fact the natural outcome of a long development and the realisation of the
hopes of Mitteleuropa cherished by the Germans for years past. The scares about
the dangers of “Pan-slavism” were spread by the Germans only in order
to conceal the real danger of Pan-Germanism.
1. The original theory of Pan-Germanism was the
consolidation and unity of the whole German nation corresponding to the
movement of the Italians for national unity. In fact it was a German, Herder,
who first proclaimed the principle of nationality and declared the nation to be
the natural organ of humanity, as opposed to the idea of the state as an
artificial organisation: “Nothing seems to be so opposed to the purpose of
government as an unnatural extension of territory of a state and a wild
confusion of holding different races and nations under the sway of a single
sceptre.” It was this humanitarian philosophy recognising the natural rights
of all nations, great or small, to freedom which inspired the first Czech
regenerators such as Dobrovský, Jungman and Kollár.
The legitimate claims of the Germans to national unity
became unjust and dangerous for Europe when the Germans began to think of
subduing the whole of Central Europe to their hegemony, which meant the
subjugation of some 100 million Slavs and Latins. At first it was Austria
which, as the head of the former Holy Roman Empire, and the traditional bulwark
of Germany in the east (Osterreich–an eastern march), aspired to be the head
of the Pan-German Empire. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Austrian
Emperor became the head of the German Confederation. Prussia at that time
entirely gave way and left the leadership to Metternich’s system of absolutism.
By and by, it became obvious that Austria was, on account of
her non-German population, internally weak, condemned to constant employment of
violence and reaction, and therefore unfit to stand at the head of a strong
modern Pan-Germany. Prussia therefore, as the greatest of the homogeneous
German states, became Austria’s rival and was accepted by the Frankfurt
Assembly as the leader of the Confederation. The rivalry between Austria and Prussia
ended in 1866, when after Austria’s defeat the clever diplomacy of Bismarck
turned the rivalry between Austria and Prussia into friendship. Since the
Germans in Austria began to feel their impotence in the face of the growing
Slav power, a year later the centralising efforts of the Habsburgs were finally
embodied in the system of dualism which gave over the Slavs and Italians in Austria
to German hegemony and the Slavs and Rumanians in Hungary to Magyar tyranny.
For the support of this hegemony the Austrian Germans and Magyars, whose
ambitions are identical with those of Germany, were entirely dependent on Berlin.
Thus Austria-Hungary became inevitably Germany’s partner and vanguard in the
south-east. Finally, the present war was started by the Germans and Magyars
with the object of achieving the ambitious plans preached and expounded by
Pan-German writers for years past. The Germans wanted at all costs to become
the masters of Central Europe, to build an empire from Berlin to Bagdad, and
finally to strike for world domination.
2. In this turn of events Magyar influence played a greater
part than might be thought. Already in 1848 Kossuth defined the Hungarian
foreign policy as follows:–
“The Magyar nation is bound to maintain the most
cordial relations with the free German nation and help it in safeguarding
Western civilisation.”
And while the Hungarian Slavs were prohibited from attending
the Pan-Slav Congress held in Prague in 1848, the Magyars sent two delegates to
Frankfurt in order to give practical expression to the above Magyar policy.
The value of Hungary for the Pan-German plans has been
expressed by Friedrich List who, in 1862, dreamt of “a powerful oriental
German-Magyar Empire,” and declared:
“The way towards the realisation of this plan runs
through Hungary, and while without Hungary we can do nothing, with her aid we
can do everything. Hungary is for Germany the clue to Turkey and the Near East,
and at the same time a bulwark against a superior power from the north.”
The Magyars realised from the beginning the importance of an
understanding between themselves and Prussia, and they directed their foreign
policy accordingly. The setting up of dualism in 1867, which finally
established the German-Magyar hegemony in Austria-Hungary in the interests of Prussia,
was the work of two Magyars–Julius Andrassy and Francis Deak, who took
advantage of Austria’s defeat at Sadova to further their interests. In 1870,
when Vienna contemplated revenge against Prussia, the Magyars again intervened
in favour of Prussia. When questioned as to Hungary’s attitude, Andrassy, then
Premier, declared in the Hungarian Parliament that under no circumstances would
he allow any action against Prussia, and exerted all his influence in Vienna to
that effect. It was also due mainly to Magyar influence that all attempts of
the Czechs to weaken German influence in Austria were frustrated. Francis
Joseph always promised to be crowned King of Bohemia when he wished to placate
the Czechs in times of stress for Austria: in 1861, 1865, 1870 and 1871. But he
never carried out his promises. In this he was guided not only by
considerations of dynastic interest, but also by the advice of the Magyars.
But the most decisive and fateful exercise of Magyar
influence upon Austria’s foreign policy occurred in 1879, when the
Austro-German Alliance was finally concluded. This was equally the work of
Bismarck, who spared the defeated Austria in order to make an ally of her, and
of a Magyar–Count Andrassy–who from 1871 to 1879 was the Austro-Hungarian
Foreign Minister. It was this Magyar help which made Bismarck utter words of
gratitude and declare in 1883:
“Our political judgment leads us to the conviction
that German and Magyar interests are inseparable.”
It is true that there always was a Magyar opposition against
Austria (though never against Prussia). But this opposition was used as a
weapon to extort concessions from Austria. At the bottom of their hearts,
however, the Austrian Germans were always at one with the Magyars in their
common desire to oppress the Slavs. And the responsibility of Count Tisza for
the present world catastrophe is just as great as that of the Kaiser himself.
3. The Czechs saw clearly the progress of events. Bismarck
was well aware of the importance of Bohemia, for he declared that the master of
Bohemia would become the master of Europe. He did not desire to annex any
Austrian territory, since he knew that sooner or later Germany would swallow
the whole of Austria, as she has done in this war. Indeed, at the Congress of
Berlin in 1878, Bismarck did not conceal his intention of using Austria-Hungary
in Germany’s interests. At the bottom of his heart he was at one with the
radical Pan-German writers, like Lagarde, Treitschke, Mommsen, Naumann and
others, who openly declared that the Slavs should be subjugated and the Czechs,
as the most courageous and therefore the most dangerous of them, crushed.
The Slavs always bitterly opposed the encroachments of
Germanism, and saw in it their chief enemy. The Czech leader Palacký rejected
the invitation to Frankfurt in 1848 and summoned a Slav Congress to Prague. It
is true that Palacký at that time dreamt of an Austria just to all her nations.
He advocated a strong Austria as a federation of nations to counterbalance
Pan-Germanism. Yet at the same time Palacký has proved through his history and
work that Bohemia has full right to independence. He was well aware that a
federalistic and just Austria would have to grant independence to the Czecho-Slovaks.
But later on he gave up his illusions about the possibility of a just Austria,
when he saw that she abandoned the Slavs entirely to German-Magyar hegemony,
and declared that Bohemia existed before Austria and would also exist after
her. In 1866 he wrote:
“I myself now give up all hope of a long preservation
of the Austrian Empire; not because it is not desirable or has no mission to
fulfil, but because it allowed the Germans and Magyars to grasp the reins of
government and to found in it their racial tyranny.”
Exasperated by the pact of dualism which the Czechs never
recognised, Palacký went to Moscow and on his return declared:
“I have already said that I do not cherish any hopes
of the preservation of Austria, especially since the Germans and Magyars made
it the home of their racial despotism; the question therefore as to what will
happen to the Slavs hitherto living in Austria is not without significance.
Without attempting to prophesy future events which for a mortal man it is
difficult to foreshadow, I may say from my inner conviction that the Czechs as
a nation, if they fell under the subjection of either Russia or Prussia, would
never rest contented. It would never fade from their memory that according to
right or justice they should be ruled by themselves, that is by their own
government and by their own sovereign. They would regard the Prussians as their
deadly enemies on account of their germanising rage. But as to the Russians,
the Czechs would regard them as their racial brothers and friends; they would
not become their faithful subjects, but their true allies and, if need be, vanguards
in Europe.”
Moreover, modern Czech politicians always clearly saw what
the Germans were aiming at. Dr. Kramář, for instance, foresaw the present
situation with remarkable perspicacity. In the Revue de Paris for
February, 1899, he wrote on “The Future of Austria,” declaring that
her subject nationalities should be on guard lest she should become a vassal of
Germany and a bridge for German expansion into Asia:
“The Austrian Germans wish to see Austria subordinated
to German policy, and with the help of a subordinated Austria, the sphere of
German political and economic activity would extend from Hamburg to Asia Minor.”
Similarly also he warned Great Britain in the National
Review for October, 1902, that if Pan-German plans were realised,
“Austria would become an appanage of Germany as
regards international relations, and the policy of Europe would be obliged to
reckon, not with a free and independent Austria, but, owing to Austria’s
unconditional self-surrender, with a mighty, almost invincible Germany…. The
Pan-Germans are right, the Czechs are an arrow in the side of Germany, and such
they wish to and must and will remain. Their firm and unchangeable hope is that
they will succeed in making of themselves an impenetrable breakwater. They hope
for no foreign help; they neither wish for it nor ask for it. They have only
one desire, namely, that non-German Europe may also at last show that it
understands the meaning of the Bohemian question.”
In 1906 Dr. Kramář wrote again in detail on the plans
of German domination in Central Europe, in the Adriatic and in the Near East.
In a book on Czech policy he declared that to prevent the realisation of these
plans was the vital interest of the Czech nation: “A far-seeing Austrian
policy should see in the Czech nation the safeguard of the independence of the
State.” And then followed the famous passage which formed part of the
“evidence” quoted against him during his trial for high treason:
“If Austria-Hungary continues her internal policy by
centralising in order to be better able to germanise and preserve the German
character of the State, if she does not resist all efforts for the creation of
a customs and economic union with Germany, the Pan-German movement will prove
fatal for her. To preserve and maintain a state the sole ambition of which was
to be a second German State after Germany, would be superfluous not only for
the European Powers, but also for the non-German nations of Europe. And if,
therefore, a conflict should break out between the German and the non-German
world and the definite fate of Austria should be at stake, the conflict would
surely not end with the preservation of Austria.”
And on November 10, 1911, he admitted that his former hopes
for the destruction of the Austro-German Alliance and a rapprochement between Austria
and Russia proved to be in vain:
“… I had an aim in life and a leading idea. The
events of the annexation crisis have proved calamitous for the policy which I
followed all my life. I wished to do everything which lay within the
compass of my small powers, to render my own nation happy and great in a free,
powerful and generally respected Austria … I have always resented the fact
that when they talked about Austria people really meant only the Germans and
Magyars, as if the great majority of Slavs upon whom rest the biggest burdens
did not exist. But now–and no beautiful words can make me change my
opinion on that point–an entirely independent policy has become unthinkable,
because the only path which remains open to Vienna leads by way of Berlin. Berlin
will henceforward direct our policy.”
4. To offer any proofs that the present war was deliberately
planned and provoked by the Governments of Berlin, Vienna and Budapest seems to
me superfluous. Who can to-day have any doubt that Austria wilfully provoked
the war in a mad desire to crush Serbia? Who can doubt that Austria for a long
time entertained imperialist ambitions with respect to the Balkans which were
supported by Berlin which wished to use Austria as a “bridge to the
East”?
No more damning document for Austria can be imagined than
Prince Lichnowsky’s Memorandum. He denounces Austria’s hypocritical support of
the independence of Albania. In this respect he holds similar views to those
expressed in the Austrian delegations of 1913 by Professor Masaryk, who rightly
denounced the Austrian plan of setting up an independent Albania on the plea of
“the right of nationalities” which Austria denied her own Slavs.
Professor Masaryk rightly pointed out at that time that an outlet to the sea is
a vital necessity for Serbia, that the Albanians were divided into so many
racial, linguistic and religious groups and so uncivilised that they could not
form an independent nation, and that the whole project was part and parcel of
Austria’s anti-Serbian policy and her plans for the conquest of the Balkans.
Prince Lichnowsky admits that an independent Albania “had no prospect of
surviving,” and that it was merely an Austrian plan for preventing Serbia
from obtaining an access to the sea.
He apparently disagrees with the idea of “the power of
a Ruling House, the dynastic idea,” but stands up for “a National State,
the democratic idea.” That in itself seems to indicate that he is in
favour of the destruction of Austria and its substitution by new states, built
according to the principle of nationality. He admittedly disagrees with the
views of Vienna and Budapest, and criticises Germany’s alliance with Austria,
probably knowing, as a far-sighted and well-informed politician, that Austria-Hungary
cannot possibly survive this war.
Prince Lichnowsky frankly admits that the murder of the
Archduke Francis Ferdinand was a mere pretext for Vienna, which in fact had
resolved on an expedition against Serbia soon after the second Balkan war by
which she felt herself humiliated. In scathing terms he denounces the Triple
Alliance policy and thinks it a great mistake that Germany allied herself with
the “Turkish and Magyar oppressors.” And though he says that it was Germany
which “persisted that Serbia must be massacred,” he makes it quite
clear that it was Vienna that led the conspiracy against Europe, since on all
questions Germany “took up the position prescribed to her by Vienna.”
The policy of espousing Austria’s quarrels, the development of the
Austro-German Alliance into a pooling of interests in all spheres, was
“the best way of producing war.” The Balkan policy of conquest and
strangulation “was not the German policy, but that of the Austrian
Imperial House.” What better testimony is required to prove that Austria
was not the blind tool, but the willing and wilful accomplice of Germany?
CZECH POLITICAL PARTIES BEFORE AND DURING THE WAR
The Czech policy during the past seventy years has always
had but one ultimate aim in view: the re-establishment of the ancient kingdom
of Bohemia and the full independence of the Czecho-Slovak nation. From the
very beginning of their political activity Czech politicians resisted the
Pan-German scheme of Central Europe. They preached the necessity of the
realisation of liberty and equality for all nations, and of a federation of the
non-Germans of Central Europe as a barrier against German expansion.
The chief reason for the failure of their efforts was the
fact that they sometimes had illusions that the Habsburgs might favour the plan
of such an anti-German federation, although the Habsburgs always mainly relied
on the Germans and Magyars and could not and would not satisfy the Czech
aspirations. The Czechs were greatly handicapped in their political struggle,
because they had only just begun to live as a nation and had to face the
powerful German-Magyar predominance, with the dynasty and the whole state
machinery behind them. Moreover, the Czechs had no national aristocracy like
the Poles or Magyars, and their leaders lacked all political experience and all
sense of reality in politics which was so marked in a state built on deceit and
hypocrisy. They continually defended themselves with declarations about the
justice of their claims, satisfied themselves with empty promises which Austria
has never kept, and cherished vain illusions of obtaining justice in Austria,
while Austria was via facti steadily depriving them of all their rights.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that they were faced with a
government that had the whole powerful German Empire behind it, and that they
had to struggle for freedom in a state where genuine constitutional government
and democracy were unknown. The Czech efforts to obtain some measure of freedom
by struggling for democratic reforms were consistently opposed by the dominant
Germans. To-day, of course, the situation has greatly improved as compared with
the situation seventy years ago. The Czecho-Slovak nation, through its own work
and energy, is a highly advanced and economically self-supporting and rich nation,
and in its struggle for a just resettlement of Central Europe it has the
support not only of all the other non-German nations of Central Europe, but
also of the Entente on whose victory it has staked its all. The Czecho-Slovaks
are resolved not to let themselves be fooled by Austria any longer and claim
full independence from Berlin, Vienna and Budapest, which alone will safeguard
them against the possibility of being again exploited militarily, economically
and politically against their own interests for a cause which they detest.
1. Although as early as 1812 the Bohemian Diet (then a close
aristocratic body) demanded the restitution of the rights of the kingdom of
Bohemia, the political activity of the Czechs did not really begin until 1848
when, on April 8, the emperor issued the famous Bohemian Charter recognising
the rights of Bohemia to independence. It was that year which marked the end of
Metternich’s absolutism and in which revolution broke out in Western and Central
Europe, including Hungary and Bohemia. Already at that time the Czechs counted
on the break-up of Austria. Havlíček, who in 1846 began to publish the
first national Czech newspaper, wrote on May 7, 1848, when inviting the Poles
to attend the Pan-Slav Congress in Prague:
“An understanding between us–the Czecho-Slovaks and
the Poles–would be to the mutual advantage of both nations, especially under
the present circumstances when everything, even the break-up of Austria, may be
anticipated. I am sure that if the government continues to pursue its present
policy, Austria will fall to pieces before next winter and the Czechs are not
going to save her. The Czecho-Slovaks, Poles and Yugoslavs, united politically
and supporting each other, will surely sooner or later attain their object, which
is to obtain full independence, national unity and political liberty.”
It is characteristic of Austria that during the present war
she has prohibited the circulation of this article written seventy years ago.
Similarly, also, Palacký in his letter to Frankfurt,
explaining why the Czechs would not attend the Pan-German Parliament, made it
clear that he had no illusions about the good-will of Austria to adopt a just
policy towards her nationalities:
“In critical times we always saw this state, destined
to be the bulwark against Asiatic invasions, helpless and hesitating. In an
unfortunate blindness this state has never understood its true interests,
always suppressing its moral duty to accord to all races justice and equality
of rights.”
At the Pan-Slav Congress presided over by Palacký, Bakunin,
the Russian revolutionary, openly advocated the dismemberment of Austria in the
interests of justice and democracy, and proposed a free Slav federation in Central
Europe.
The Pan-Slav Congress, in which also the Poles and Yugoslavs
participated, issued a manifesto to Europe on June 12, 1848, proclaiming the “liberty, equality and fraternity of nations.” It ended prematurely by
the outbreak of an abortive revolt in Prague, provoked by the military, which
resulted in bloodshed and in the re-establishment of reaction and absolutism.
2. In the first Austrian Parliament of 1848, eighty-eight
Czech deputies formed a united Nationalist Party (later on called the Old
Czech Party), led by Palacký, Rieger and Brauner. They formed the Right
wing which stood for democratic and federalist ideals. The Left was formed by
the Germans who stood for centralism and a close union with Germany. Only an
insignificant number of Germans formed the Centre which stood for the
preservation of Austria.
In October, 1848, fresh troubles broke out in Vienna, partly
directed against the presence of the Czechs. On November 15, the parliament was
summoned to Kremsier, in which the Czechs, Ruthenes, Yugoslavs and some Poles
formed a Slav bloc of 120 members. On December 2, Francis Joseph
ascended the throne, and a constitution was proposed by a parliamentary
committee of which Rieger was a member. The proposal was opposed by the
government, because it defined “the people’s sovereignty as the foundation
of the power of the State,” and not the dynasty. On March 6, 1849, the parliament was dissolved and a constitution imposed by an imperial decree.
The Czech Radical Democrats, led by Frič, Sabina
and Sladkovský, who already in 1848 stood for a more radical policy than that
of the Liberal Nationalists led by Palacký, now again thought of organising an
armed revolt against Austria. But the leaders of the conspiracy were arrested
and sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. After the Austrian victories in Italy
and the collapse of the Hungarian revolution, absolutism again reigned supreme.
During the ten years that followed, Bach tried, relying upon
the army and the hierarchy, to centralise and germanise the empire. In January,
1850, Havlíček’s Národní Noviny was suppressed and later, also,
three of the other remaining Czech journals. Palacký openly declared that he
abandoned political activity and Rieger went abroad. Havlíček continued to
work for the national cause under great difficulties, until he was arrested in
December, 1851, and interned without a trial in Tyrol where he contracted an
incurable illness to which he succumbed in 1856. Even as late as 1859 the
Czechs were not allowed to publish a political newspaper.
3. After the defeats at Magenta and Solferino in 1859, Austria
began to see the impossibility of a continued rule of terrorism and absolutism.
Bach was obliged to resign, and on March 5, 1860, a state council was summoned
to Vienna. Bohemia was represented only by the nobility who had no sympathy
with the Czech national cause, and on September 24 the Rumanian delegate,
Mosconyi, openly deplored the fact that “the brotherly Czech nation was
not represented.”
The era of absolutism was theoretically ended by the
so-called “October Diploma” of 1860, conferring on Austria a
constitution which in many respects granted self-government to Hungary, but
ignored Bohemia, although formally admitting her historical rights. This
“lasting and irrevocable Constitution of the Empire” was revoked on February 26, 1861, when Schmerling succeeded Goluchowski, and the so-called “February
Constitution” was introduced by an arbitrary decree which in essence was
still more dualistic than the October Diploma and gave undue representation to
the nobility. The Czechs strongly opposed it and sent a delegation on April 14
to the emperor, who assured them on his royal honour of his desire to be
crowned King of Bohemia.
In the meantime Dr. Gregr founded the Národní Listy
in Prague in November, 1860, to support the policy of Rieger, and in January,
1861, the latter, with the knowledge of Palacký, concluded an agreement with
Clam-Martinic on behalf of the Bohemian nobility, by which the latter,
recognising the rights of the Bohemian State to independence, undertook to
support the Czech policy directed against the centralism of Vienna. The
Bohemian nobility, who were always indifferent in national matters and who had
strong conservative and clerical leanings, concluded this pact with the Czech
democrats purely for their own class interests This unnatural alliance had a
demoralising influence on the Old Czech Party and finally brought about its
downfall.
The Czechs elected two delegates to the parliament summoned
for April 29, 1861, while Hungary and Dalmatia sent none, so that the
parliament had 203 instead of 343 deputies. In the Upper House the Czechs were
represented by Palacký. In the Lower House the Slavs, forming a united body,
again found themselves in a hopeless minority which was absolutely powerless
against the government. In June, 1863, the Czechs decided not to attend the
chamber again, seeing that all hopes of a modification of the constitution in
the sense of the October Diploma were in vain. The government replied by
depriving them of their mandates and by suspending the constitution in 1865. A
period of “Sistierung,” that is of veiled absolutism, then set in.
4. In the meantime, a new political group came to the front
in Bohemia, called the Young Czechs. The party was led by Sladkovský, and had
more democratic leanings than the Old Czechs. In the diet, however, the Czechs
remained united in a single body. The Young Czechs opposed the policy of
passive resistance which the Old Czechs pursued for fully sixteen years, that
is up to 1879. The Young Czechs clearly saw that it enabled Vienna to rule
without the Czechs and against them. The Czechs, of course, still reckoned upon
the break-up of Austria, although, as we shall see later on, they failed entirely
to profit from Austria’s difficulties in that period. In 1865 Rieger openly
warned Austria:
“Those who direct the destinies of Austria should
remember that institutions based on injustice and violence have no duration. If
you desire to save Austria, the whole of Austria, you must make justice the
basis of your policy towards the Slavs. Do not then say that we did not warn
you. Discite justitiam moniti.”
In the same sense also Palacký warned the government against
dualism, pointing out that if it were introduced it would inevitably lead to
the break-up of Austria. Seeing that Austria did not listen to his warning, he
later on declared that he no longer believed in the future of Austria, and
added: “We existed before Austria, we shall also exist after her.”
The greatest mistake the Czechs made was when in 1866, after
the battle of Sadova, they thought that Austria would cease to be the bulwark
of Pan-Germanism and would do justice to her subject Slavs, and thus become a
protection against Germany. It is true that Austria did cease to be the head of
the Pan-German Confederation, but instead of becoming a bulwark against Prussia,
she became her faithful ally and obedient tool. The Czechs, who feared lest
they should be annexed by Prussia, failed to grasp the subtle plans of Bismarck
who in a short time succeeded in converting Austria into Germany’s bridge to
the East.
When the victorious Prussians entered Prague in 1866, they
issued a proclamation to the Czechs recognising their right to independence.
This proclamation was probably drafted by the Czech exile J.V. Frič, an
ardent democrat who fled abroad after the abortive revolution of 1848.
Frič, who was a man of keen sense for political reality and a great friend
of the Poles, exerted all his influence with the Czech leaders to proclaim Bohemia
independent, without an armed revolt, simply by means of a plebiscite, as he
was aware that the masses were always thoroughly anti-Austrian and desired
nothing more than independence. He proposed to his fellow-countrymen to
establish a monarchy, with some other dynasty than the Habsburgs on the throne,
preferably the youngest son of the Italian king, Victor Emmanuel. Even while
peace negotiations between Prussia and Austria were going on, he conducted an
active propaganda and distributed a proclamation all over Bohemia in which he
declared himself as “the deadly enemy of the Habsburg dynasty and of
Austrian militarism and bureaucracy”:
“The Hungarians are preparing, the Yugoslavs are
ready. Let us come to a common agreement with them and we shall succeed. And
when all the Austrian nations have been freed they may form a great federation
on the basis of international law which will be an example to Europe. A
federation without the freedom and independence of the nations who form part of
it is an empty dream. Let him who desires a federation work for the
independence of his nation first. It is not a question of a revolution, it
is a question of a public proclamation of the Czech nation so that Europe may
realise that we live and what we want. Europe will surely lend us a helping
hand, but she expects us to ask for it. Let us therefore, my brother Czecho-Slovaks,
proclaim aloud, so that the whole world may hear us: ‘We do not want Austria
because we realise that she not only does no good to us, but directly threatens
our very existence. We are able to and want to maintain an independent state
existence without Austria.”
Unfortunately, however, the Czech leaders at that time did
not follow Frič’s advice and, as we have already pointed out, they fell
into Bismarck’s trap.
In November, 1866, the Bohemian Diet uttered a warning
against the danger of dualism, pointing out that Bohemia had the same right to
independence as Hungary. Relying upon the support of the other Slav races of Austria,
the Czechs declared they would never enter the Reichsrat.
In February, 1867, Beust concluded an agreement with Hungary,
and on December 21 the “December Constitution” was introduced. Thus dualism
became a fait accompli.
5. Exasperated by this step, the Czech leaders visited Moscow
in the same year and fraternised with the Russians, thus showing their
hostility to Austria. In 1868 they published an eloquent declaration, written
by Rieger, declaring that they would never recognise dualism and emphasising Bohemia’s
right to independence. When Francis Joseph visited Prague in the same year,
people left the city in crowds, anti-Austrian demonstrations were held
throughout the country, and flowers were laid on the spot where prominent
members of the Bohemian nobility had been executed by the Austrians in 1621.
Vienna answered by fierce reprisals. Baron Koller was sent
to Prague where a state of siege was proclaimed. Czech papers were suppressed,
and their editors imprisoned. This only strengthened Czech opposition. The
passive policy of the Old Czechs gained popularity and the Czechs did not even
attend the Bohemian Diet. Finally, when the Franco-Prussian War was imminent,
the dynasty was forced to yield, and Potocki began to negotiate with the
Czechs.
Meanwhile the Czechs again entered the Bohemian Diet on the
day of the battle of Sedan, August 30, 1870, and issued a declaration of rights
with which also the Bohemian nobility for the first time publicly identified themselves.
On December 8, 1870, the Czechs (without the nobility) presented the Imperial
Chancellor, Beust, with a memorandum on Austrian foreign policy, declaring
their sympathy with France and Russia and protesting against the annexation of
Alsace-Lorraine and against an alliance of Austria with Germany.
In February, 1871, Hohenwart was appointed Minister
President with the object of conciliating the Czechs, and Francis Joseph
addressed to them an imperial proclamation, called the “September
Rescript,” in which he declared:–
“Remembering the constitutional (‘Staatsrechtliche’)
position of the Crown of Bohemia and the glory and power which the same has
lent to Us and Our ancestors, remembering further the unswerving loyalty with
which the population of Bohemia at all times supported Our throne, We gladly
recognise the rights of this Kingdom and We are ready to acknowledge this
recognition by Our solemn Royal Oath.”
It is well known, of course, that Francis Joseph did not
keep his word and was never crowned King of Bohemia.
6. In answer to the rescript, the Czechs formulated their
demands in the so-called “fundamental articles,” the main point of
which was that the Bohemian Diet should directly elect deputies to the
delegations. The Národní Listy declared that the “fundamental
articles” meant minimum demands, and that the Czechs would in any case work
“for the attainment of an independent Czecho-Slovak state, as desired by
the whole nation.”
At this stage Berlin and Budapest intervened. The emperor
yielded to the advice of William I. and Andrassy, and signed an unfavourable
reply to the Czech address on October 30, 1871. Czech opposition was now openly
directed against the dynasty. Hohenwart resigned on October 27. In November,
Baron Koller was again appointed Governor of Bohemia and repressive methods of
administration were once more introduced.
In 1873 elections were held, marked by violence and
corruption. Notwithstanding the passive resistance of Czech deputies, the
parliament continued to meet in Vienna. In 1878 Austria occupied Bosnia and
thus inaugurated the conquest of the Balkans for Germany. In 1879 Count Taaffe
at last induced the Czechs to abandon their policy of “passive
resistance” and to enter the parliament in return for some administrative
and other concessions, including a Czech university. On September 9, the
Czechs, united in a party of fifty-two members, entered the Reichsrat to
maintain their protest against the dual system.
7. In parliament it became clear that the Old Czech Party,
now led by Rieger, was inclined to be too conservative and too opportunist. In
1887 the Young Czechs left the national party and entered into opposition.
Their party grew steadily, and during the elections in 1889 gained a decided
victory in the country districts. The Old Czechs finally sealed their fate
when, in 1890, they concluded an unfavourable agreement with the Germans,
called the punctations, to the detriment of Czech interests and of the
integrity of Bohemia. This roused popular indignation throughout Bohemia and
brought about the complete collapse of the Old Czech Party.
At the same time the so-called “Realist”
movement originated in Bohemia, led by Professor Masaryk, Professor Kaizl
and Dr. Kramář. It was not a separate party movement, but a philosophic
effort for a regenerated democratic national policy. The Realists demanded a
practical, forward movement, such as would at last secure independence for the
Czechs. In 1890 the Realists published their programme and joined the Young
Czechs. This meant the end of the political career of Rieger and the Old
Czechs.
8. In parliament the Young Czechs inaugurated a radical
anti-German policy. In 1891 they openly attacked the Triple Alliance, and in
1892 Dr. Menger called Masaryk a traitor for his outspoken defence of the right
of Bohemia to independence.
A Radical movement was also started at this time in Bohemia,
mainly by students and advanced workers of the Young Czech Party, which called
itself “Omladina” (Czech word for “youth”). Its object was
to rouse the young generation against Austria. In 1893 anti-dynastic
demonstrations were organised by the “Omladina.” A state of siege was
proclaimed in Prague and seventy-seven members of this “secret
society” were arrested; sixty-eight of them, including Dr. Rašín,
were condemned for high treason, and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
In 1893 Professor Masaryk, realising the futility of his
efforts against the encroachments of Germanism, resigned his mandate and
devoted his energies to scientific and philosophical work. In 1900, however, he
founded a party of his own, with a progressive democratic programme.
In the elections to the Bohemian Diet in 1895, the Young
Czechs gained eighty-nine seats out of ninety-five; in the Moravian Diet
seventeen seats were held by the People’s Party, corresponding to the
Young Czech Party in Bohemia, thirteen by the Old Czechs and five by the Clericals.
In 1896 Badeni made an attempt at enfranchising the masses; seventy-two
additional deputies were to be elected by universal suffrage. In these
elections the Young Czechs again won in Bohemia. In Moravia the People’s Party
concluded a compromise with the Old Czechs and gained fifteen seats, the
Socialists gained three seats and the Clericals one. On entering the parliament
the Czechs again made a declaration of state right. In 1897 Badeni, a Pole,
issued his famous Language Ordinances, asserting the equality of the Czech and
German languages in Bohemia and Moravia. The Germans raised a fierce
opposition, supported by the Socialists, and the Reichsrat became the scene of
violent attempts on the part of the Germans to obstruct sittings by throwing
inkstands at the leader of the House and using whistles and bugles to make all
proceedings impossible. Badeni lost his head and resigned, and his decrees were
rescinded. The dynasty, afraid of a repetition of German obstruction, gave the
Germans a completely free hand in all matters of government.
9. Owing to the rapid cultural, economic and industrial
development of Bohemia, the Czech party system began to expand. The Czecho-Slav
Social Democratic Party, founded in 1878, began to acquire increasing
influence. At first it was based on purely international socialism, and in 1897
it even opposed the national Czech demands. Later, seeing the duplicity of
their German comrades who recognised the state right of Finland and Hungary,
but not that of Bohemia, and who openly preached the necessity of assimilating
the Slavs, the Czech Socialists began to identify themselves more and more with
the national struggle for independence. They organised their own trade unions,
which brought them into open conflict with the Austrian Socialists. This
question was discussed at the Socialist International Conference at Copenhagen
in 1910. It is, moreover, on account of these differences on nationality
questions that the various Socialist parties of Austria have not met since
1905.
In April, 1898, the Czech National Social Party, led
by Klofáč, was formed in opposition to the Socialists. It was radically
nationalist, and consisted mainly of workmen, as it was evolved from the
workers’ organisation in the Young Czech Party.
On January 6, 1899, the Agrarian Party was formed. It
was chiefly composed of farmers and peasants. It defended the interests of
their class and acquired considerable influence among them. In national matters
it subscribed to the programme of Bohemian independence, and its organs have
during the present war adopted a courageous anti-Austrian attitude.
In 1900 the so-called State Right Party was founded
by some of the members of the former “Omladina.” It had a radical
programme and stood uncompromisingly against Austria, demanding independence
for Bohemia chiefly on the ground of her historic rights.
In the elections of 1901 the United Czech Club gained
fifty-three seats, the National Socialists four and the Agrarians five. But the
real influence of the various new parties began to appear only in 1907, after
the introduction of the universal suffrage which deprived the Young Czechs of
their predominance. The Reichsrat elected in 1907 consisted of 257 non-Slav and
259 Slav members, of whom 108 were Czechs. The result of the election in Bohemia,
Moravia and Austrian Silesia was as follows:–
28 Agrarians
24 Social Democrats
23 Young Czechs
17 National Catholics
9 Radicals
4 Moravian People’s Party
2 Realists
1 Independent Candidate.
This result showed that the Young Czechs, owing to their
deficient organisation, had lost ground, especially among the country
population, which formed the bulk of the nation. Among the workers Socialist
doctrines were spreading with remarkable rapidity.
The parliamentary activity of the Czechs soon revealed to
them how vain were their hopes that a new era of democracy was dawning in Austria.
They soon found out that in Austria parliamentary institutions were a mere
cloak for absolutism and that all their efforts were doomed to failure.
The Czechs were strongly opposed to the annexation of Bosnia.
In 1909 Professor Masaryk gained a world reputation by his courageous defence
of the Yugoslav leaders, who were accused of high treason at Zagreb (Agram).
During the Friedjung trial it was again chiefly due to Professor Masaryk’s
efforts that forgeries of the Vienna Foreign Office, intended to discredit the
Yugoslav movement, were exposed and the responsibility for them fixed on Count
Forgach, the Austro-Hungarian minister in Belgrade. Professor Masaryk clearly
saw that Austria aimed at the conquest of the Balkans and intended at all costs
to crush Serbia.
10. In 1911 new elections to the Reichsrat took place with
the following result for the Czechs:–
40 Agrarians
25 Social Democrats
14 Young Czechs
13 National Socialists
7 Radicals
7 Clericals
1 Old Czech
1 Socialist (Centralist).
The Radicals (four Moravian People’s Party, two State Right
Party, one Realist) formed a party of independent deputies with Professor
Masaryk at their head. They demanded full independence for Bohemia, some of
them laying greater stress on her historical rights, some on the natural right
of Czecho-Slovaks to liberty.
The whole group of Czech deputies stood in opposition
against Vienna with the exception of Kramář, who tried to imitate the
Polish positivist policy in the hope of obtaining concessions in return. But,
as we have already shown in a previous chapter, Dr. Kramář abandoned this
policy even before the war, when he saw how completely Austria was tied to Germany.
The bulk of the Czech people were, of course, always solidly anti-Austrian.
During the Balkan War the Czechs openly showed their sympathies with their
brother Slavs who were struggling for liberty.
The Clerical Party had comparatively little influence
and prestige. All their deputies (seven) were elected in country districts of Moravia,
where civilisation is comparatively less developed than in Bohemia. In Bohemia
and in the more developed districts of Moravia, people resist the efforts of
the clergy to mix religion with politics. The three million Slovaks in Hungary,
who speak a dialect of Czech and who form with the Czechs a single
Czecho-Slovak nation, had only two deputies (Dr. Blaho and Father Juriga), and
were without any influence in the Budapest Parliament.
11. Although many Czech politicians foresaw that Austria’s
anti-Serbian policy in the Balkans and her increasing dependence on Germany
must lead to war, yet on the whole the Czechs were not prepared for this
contingency. The Reichsrat was closed when war broke out, and the Diet of
Bohemia had been replaced by an Imperial Commission in 1913. War was declared
by Austria against the will of the Slavs, and yet they did not dare to protest,
as an organised revolution was impossible in view of the presence of German
troops and of the perfect police spy system in Austria. Two German divisions
would have been sufficient to suppress the best organised revolutionary
movement in Bohemia.
The immediate effect of the declaration of war was the unity
of the whole Czech nation. One of the leaders, Professor Masaryk, escaped
abroad, and is at the head of the Czecho-Slovak Government, recognised by the
Allies as the trustee and representative of the Czecho-Slovak nation.
Political activity was of course out of the question until
the Reichsrat reopened on May 30, 1917. Before that date there was an absolute
reign of terror in Bohemia. Some of the leading Czech newspapers were suspended
soon after the outbreak of the war. The few Slovak papers published in Hungary
were suppressed at the same time.
Those newspapers which survived were subject to strict
censorship and were compelled to publish leading articles written by government
officials and supplied to them by the police. Dr. Kramář, one of the most
prominent Czech leaders, his colleague Dr. Rašín, and five National
Socialist deputies were thrown into prison, and some of them even sentenced to
death.
The effect of these persecutions was that all the
Czecho-Slovaks became unanimous in their desire to obtain full independence of Austria-Hungary.
Old party differences were forgotten and some of the Czech deputies who had
formerly been opportunist in tendency, such as Dr. Kramář and the Agrarian
ex-minister Prášek, now at last became convinced that all hopes of an
anti-German Austria were futile, that Austria was doomed, as she was a blind
tool in the hands of Germany, and that the only way to prevent the ten million
Czecho-Slovaks from being again exploited in the interests of German
imperialism was to secure their complete independence. On entering the
Reichsrat on May 30, 1917, all the Czech deputies, united in a single
“Bohemian Union,” made a unanimous declaration that it was their aim
to work for the union of all Czechs and Slovaks in an independent, democratic
state. To-day Dr. Kramář is in complete agreement with the Radicals who
formerly were his most bitter opponents. In fact four Czech nationalist parties
(the Young Czech, Realist, State Right and Moravian People’s Parties) united in
February, 1918, as a single body under the name of “The Czech State-Right
Democracy.” The president of its executive is the former Young Czech
leader Dr. Kramář, who was sentenced to death in 1916, but released in
July, 1917. The executive committee of the new party included all the leaders
of the four former parties, namely, Dr. Stránský, Dr. Herben, M. Dyk, Professor
Drtina, and others.
In their proclamation published in the Národní Listy
of February 10, 1918, the executive declared that:
“The chief aim of the new party will be to engage in a
common national effort for the creation of an independent Bohemian State, the
fundamental territory of which will be composed of the historical and
indivisible crown-lands of Bohemia and of Slovakia. The Bohemian State will be
a democratic state. All its power will come from the people. And as it will
come from the Czech people, it will be just towards all nationalities, towards
all citizens and classes.”
In a speech to the Young Czech Party before its dissolution,
Dr. Kramář openly declared that “at the moment of the outbreak of the
war it became quite clear that, despite all tactics of opportunism, our party
remained true to the programme of Czech independence. It became at once evident
to all of us that the chapter of our former policy was forever closed for us.
We felt with our whole soul that the Czech nation would not go through the
sufferings of the world war only to renew the pre-war tactics of a slow
progress towards that position to which we have full historical rights as well
as the natural rights of a living and strong nation….” And again, in an
article in the Národní Listy of December 25, 1917, Kramář wrote
under the heading “By Order of the Nation”:
“We have sought with utmost sacrifice to find a
compromise between our just claims and the international situation which was
unfavourable to us. The war has completely changed all our policy, removing the
possibility of a compromise to which we might have been disposed, and we cannot
once more roll up our flag now so proudly unfurled, and put it aside for the
next occasion.”
As we shall show also later on, there is not the least doubt
that the necessity for the independence of Bohemia was proclaimed not by a few
extremists, but by all the Czech parties with the approval of the entire
nation.
When Kramář in 1917 again took over the leadership of
the Young Czech Party, which led to the amalgamation of four nationalist
parties, a change took place also in the leadership of the Czech Social
Democratic Party which hitherto was in the hands of a few demagogues and
defeatists, such as Šmeral, who dominated the majority of the members. The
return of the Socialist Party to its revolutionary traditions and its entire
approval of the Bohemian state right and the national policy of Czecho-Slovak
independence means a complete and absolute consolidation of the whole Czech
nation.
As the Social Democrats became quite loyal to the Czech
cause, the National Socialist Party lost its raison d’être. Owing to the
great sufferings of the working class during the war, it became imbued with
Socialist ideas.
On April 1, 1918, the Czech National Socialist Party held
its eighth annual conference in Prague, at which it adopted a resolution
endorsing international Socialism and changing its name to “The Czech
Socialist Party.” The conference was attended also by two representatives
of the Czecho-Slav Social Democratic Party, J. Stivin and deputy Němec.
The National Socialist leader, deputy Klofáč, welcomed the representatives
of the Social Democrats “whom we have for years past been struggling
against, but with whom the trials of this war have united us.” He declared
that his party accepted the Socialist programme and would join the new
Socialist International. On September 6, 1918, the executive committees of the
two parties elected a joint council. Its object is to work for the
consolidation of the Czech working classes and for the formation of a united
Czech Labour Party, composed of Social Democrats as well as of the former
National Socialists. A similar process of consolidation is taking place also
among the other parties, so that soon there will probably be only three Czech
parties, on the basis of class difference, viz. Socialists, Agrarians and
Democratic Nationalists (bourgeoisie), all of whom will stand behind the
programme of full Czecho-Slovak independence.
The most significant demonstration of the Czech national
sentiment took place at Prague on January 6, 1918, at a meeting of all the
Czech deputies of the Reichsrat and of the diets of Bohemia, Moravia and
Austrian Silesia, with which we deal in another chapter, and at which a
resolution was unanimously carried demanding full independence and
representation at the peace conference.
Finally, on July 13, 1918, a National Council or Committee
was formed in Prague on which all the parties are represented and which may
rightly be described as part of the Provisional Government of Bohemia.
The whole Czech nation to-day is unanimously awaiting the
victory of the Entente, from which it expects its long-cherished independence.
The Czecho-Slovaks are only waiting for a favorable opportunity to strike the
death-blow at the Dual Monarchy.
TERRORISM IN BOHEMIA DURING THE WAR
Austria-Hungary declared war not only on her enemies outside
her frontiers, but also on her internal enemies, on her own Slav and Latin
subjects. From the very first day of war terrorism reigned supreme in Bohemia,
where the Austrian Government behaved as in an enemy country. Three political
parties (the National Socialist, Radical and Realist Parties) were dissolved
and their organs suppressed. Fully three-quarters of all Czech journals and all
Slovak journals were suspended. Political leaders were arrested, imprisoned,
and some of them even sentenced to death. Many leaders have been imprisoned as
hostages in case an insurrection should break out. Over 20,000 Czech civilians
have been interned merely for being “politically suspect,” and about
5000 were hanged in an arbitrary way by military tribunals, since juries had
been abolished by an imperial decree. Other Slav districts were no better off:
the Polish Socialist deputy Daszynski stated in the Reichsrat that 30,000
persons were hanged in Galicia alone, and another deputy stated that the number
of Slavs (Austrian subjects) who were executed by Austria exceeded 80,000.
Czech troops were marched to the trains watched by German soldiers like
prisoners of war. Thousands of them were massacred at the front. The property
of those who surrendered was confiscated, while the families of those Czech
leaders who escaped abroad were brutally persecuted. It is impossible for us to
give a detailed description of all the persecutions committed by Austria on the
Czecho-Slovaks, but the following is a brief summary of them:–
(a) Czech Deputies and Leaders
imprisoned and sentenced to Death
The most important perhaps was the case of Dr.
Kramář, one of the most moderate of the Czech leaders. Dr. Kramář
was arrested on May 21, 1915, on a charge of high treason as the leader of the
Young Czechs; together with him were also arrested his colleague, deputy Dr.
Rašín, Mr. Červinka, an editor of the Národní Listy, and
Zamazal, an accountant. On June 3, 1916, all four of them were sentenced to
death, although no substantial proofs were produced against them. Subsequently,
however, the sentence was commuted to long terms of imprisonment, but after the
general amnesty of July, 1917, they were released. Among the reasons for which
they were imprisoned and sentenced to death were the following, as given in the
official announcement, published in the Austrian press on January 4, 1917:
Dr. Kramář before the war was “the leader of
Pan-Slav propaganda and of the Russophil movement in Bohemia.” He was also
alleged to have kept up a connection with the pro-Ally propaganda conducted by
the Czecho-Slovaks and their friends abroad during the war, and the Czech
military action against Austria on the side of the Entente. Dr. Kramář was
further blamed for the “treasonable” behaviour of Czech regiments who
voluntarily surrendered to Russia and Serbia, and for the anti-German
sentiments cherished by the Czecho-Slovaks for centuries past. Obviously in
striking Dr. Kramář Austria meant to strike at the Czech nation. The
“proofs” for the high treasonable activity of Dr. Kramář before
and during the war were the following:[1]
(1) Dr. Kramář was (before the war) in communication
with Brancianov, Bobrinski, Denis, Masaryk, Pavlů and others, who now
preach the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary.
(2) In his articles in the Národní Listy, published
during the war, Dr. Kramář advocated the liberation of small nations as
proclaimed by the Entente. His organ, “the Národní Listy, laid
special stress on news favourable to our enemies and on the state of disruption
of Austria, and indirectly invited Czechs to passive resistance.”
(3) A copy of La Nation Tchèque was found in Dr.
Kramář’s pocket at the time of his arrest.
(4) Dr. Kramář had a conversation with the Italian
consul in April, 1915, which is “an important cause of suspicion.”
(5) In a letter to the Governor of Bohemia, Prince Thun, Dr.
Kramář admitted that, always faithful to his political principles, he
refrained from everything that might appear as approval of the war.
This was the evidence brought up against Kramář, on the
ground of which he was to be hanged. These are the “proofs” of his
responsibility for the distribution of treasonable Russian proclamations in Bohemia,
repeated manifestations of sympathy with the enemy, and the refusal of Czech
deputies to take part in any declarations or manifestations of loyalty.
Equally characteristic is also the case of the National
Socialist leader, deputy Klofáč, who was arrested in September, 1914.
Owing to lack of proofs the trial was repeatedly postponed, while Klofáč
was left in prison. A formal charge was brought against him only when the
Reichsrat was about to open in May, 1917, so as to prevent him from attending
the meeting. Nevertheless he was released after the amnesty of July, 1917.
Writing in the Národní Politika about his experience in prison, deputy
Klofáč says:
“Many educated and aged political prisoners were not
allowed out to walk in the yard for five months or more, which is contrary to
all regulations. They were also not allowed to read books given to them by the
judge, and they had to do the lowest work. One student who refused to wash the
floor was beaten and confined to a dark cell. No wonder that many committed
suicide. Dr. Vrbenský could tell how he used to get excited by the cry of the
ill-treated prisoners. Even his nerves could not stand it. It is quite comprehensible,
therefore, that Dr. Scheiner (the president of the ‘Sokol’ Union) in such an
atmosphere was physically and mentally broken down in two months. Dr.
Kramář and Dr. Rašín also had an opportunity of feeling the brutality
of Polatchek and Teszinski. In the winter we suffered from frosts, for there
was no heating. Some of my friends had frozen hands. We resisted the cold by
drilling according to the Müller system. This kept us fit and saved us from
going to the prison doctor, Dr. A. Prinz, who was a Magyar and formerly a
doctor in Karlsbad. If a prisoner went to this ‘gentleman,’ he did not ask
after his illness, but after his nationality, and for the reason of his remand
imprisonment. On hearing that a prisoner was Czech and on remand for Par. 58c
(high treason), he only hissed: ‘You do not want any medicine. It would be
wasted, for in any case you will be hanged.'”
Besides Klofáč, the following four National Socialist
deputies were also imprisoned: Choc, Buřival, Vojna and Netolický. The
accused were condemned on July 30, 1916, for “failing to denounce
Professor Masaryk’s revolutionary propaganda.”
Professor Masaryk, who escaped abroad in 1915, was
sentenced to death in Austria in December, 1916. Unable to reach him, the
Austrian Government revenged themselves on his daughter, Dr. Alice Masaryk,
whom they imprisoned. Only after an energetic press campaign abroad was she
released. A similar fate also met the wife of another Czech leader, Dr.
Beneš, who escaped abroad in the autumn of 1915 and became secretary
general of the Czecho-Slovak National Council.
Dr. Scheiner, president of the “Sokol”
Gymnastic Association, was imprisoned, but was again released owing to lack of
proofs. A similar fate also met the Czech Social Democratic leader Dr.
Soukup, who was for some time kept in prison.
(b) Monster Trials, Arbitrary
Executions, Internment of Civilians, etc.
A notorious reason for imprisonment, and even execution, was
the possession of the so-called Russian Manifesto dropped by Russian
aeroplanes, being a proclamation of the Tsar to the people of Bohemia promising
them the restoration of their independence. Mr. Matějovský, of the Prague
City Council, and fifteen municipal clerks were sentenced to many years’
imprisonment for this offence in February, 1915. In May, 1915, six persons,
among them two girls, were condemned to death in Kyjov, Moravia, for the same
offence. On the same charge also sixty-nine other persons from Moravia were
brought to Vienna and fifteen of them sentenced to death. One of the Czech
girls who were executed for this offence was a Miss Kotíková, aged twenty-one,
who, according to the Arbeiter Zeitung of September 8, 1917, refused to say from whom she had received the manifesto, and through her heroic attitude
saved the lives of others.
Without a fair trial and without evidence, the editor of the
National Socialist organ Pokrok in Prostějov, Mr. Joseph Kotek, was
sentenced to death on Christmas Eve of 1914. The sentence was passed at noon,
confirmed at half-past four and carried out at half-past six. As no one could
be found to act as hangman, Kotek was shot. The reason given for the verdict
was that the accused editor of the Pokrok, which was suppressed as being
dangerous to the State, delivered a speech at a meeting of a co-operative
society in which he said that all Czechs were unanimous that they knew that
Austria was losing the war and that they prayed to God that her downfall might
be soon. He was further alleged to have said that it was doubtful how Europe
would be divided after the war, but that in any case the Czecho-Slovak
countries would be made independent as a wedge between Germany and Austria, and
that if Germany won the Czechs would be germanised, like the Poles in Germany.
The accused admitted that he did speak about the reorganisation of Europe, but
not in the words used by the prosecution. But, as the Arbeiter Zeitung
said, even if he did say what the prosecution alleged, as a civilian he should
never have been sentenced to death by a military tribunal. According to Czech
papers, Kotek was buried among ordinary criminals outside the cemetery. The
grave of the innocent martyr was not even marked with his name, and his wife
was not allowed to visit it, because the military authorities forbade the
sexton of the church to allow any one to see the graves of those executed for
high treason.
Dr. Preiss, the manager of the Czech bank,
Živnostenská Banka, which has its branches in Galicia, Rumania, Serbia and
elsewhere, and four of his colleagues were imprisoned, because the Czechs would
not subscribe to Austrian war loans and Dr. Preiss had done nothing to induce
them to do so.
As regards the horrors of the internment camps, in which
over 20,000 innocent Czechs, men, women and children, were confined, we will
only quote the revelations of the Czech National Socialist deputy
Stříbrný, who declared in the Reichsrat on June 14, 1917:
“This war was begun by the Austrian Government without
the consent of the Austrian Parliament, against the will of the Czech people.
“In Bohemia, the most brutal cruelties have been
perpetrated by the Austrian authorities against the Czech population. An
anonymous denunciation suffices to bring about the arrest and imprisonment of
any Czech man, woman or child. Thousands of Czech citizens have simply been
seized and placed in internment camps on the ground that their political opinions
are dangerous to the existence of Austria.
“Such prisoners were led away from their homes
handcuffed and in chains. They included women, girls and old grey-haired men.
They were conveyed from their homes to internment camps in filthy cattle trucks
and were cruelly ill-treated with a strange persistence. On one occasion
forty-three Czechs, who were being conveyed to a camp of internment, were
killed on the way by a detachment of Honveds (Hungarian militia) which was
escorting them to their place of imprisonment.
“The conditions under which the Czechs were interned
at the Talerhof Camp, near Graz, were absolutely outrageous. They were beaten
and tortured on their way there. Immediately after their arrival many were tied
to stakes and kept thus day and night in absolutely indescribable sanitary
conditions. Many were done to death by their guards. When the thermometer
showed 20 degrees of frost, old men, women and girls were left to sleep in the
open air, and mortality increased amongst them to a frightful extent. Two
thousand unhappy victims of Austria’s brutal tyranny lie buried in the cemetery
attached to the Talerhof Camp of internment. Of these, 1200 died of
epidemics.”
Other information concerning the same camp of Talerhof fully
corroborates this statement. In a letter to his friends, a Czech interned at
Talerhof wrote as follows:
“Many of my friends died from bayonet wounds; out of
12,000 at least, 2000 have so perished. The majority of us did not know why we
were interned. Many were hanged without a trial on mere denunciation. Human
life had no value for them. The soldiers had orders to strike us with bayonets
for the slightest movement….
“We were covered with insects. One day an order was
given that everybody should undress to be rubbed with paraffin. Some ladies who
objected were undressed by force before our eyes, since men and women slept
together, and the soldiers rubbed them with paraffin.
“A Ruthene who protested against the ill-treatment of
women, who were forced to do the lowest work, was bayonetted. He was lying for
five days between two barracks more dead than alive. His face and body were all
green and covered with lice and his hands were bound. Then the Austrian
officers and soldiers ill-treated him till he died.”
In consequence of the general political amnesty, over
100,000 political prisoners in Austria were released. Thousands of them emerged
from prison or internment camps reduced to mere skeletons by the systematic
lack of food.
According to reports published in the Austrian press, one of
the Ukrainian prisoners, named Karpinka, was left in solitary confinement
without any fire in winter, so that his feet were frost-bitten and had to be
amputated.
A Czech named Jarý, who was condemned to twelve years’ hard
labour, came out with consumption contracted through the rigour of his
imprisonment. Many others were reduced to such weakness through starvation that
they had to be carried out of the prison.
Among the Czech journals suppressed in Bohemia at the
beginning of the war, the following deserve to be especially mentioned:
České Slovo, organ of the National Socialist
Party; the editors have been imprisoned. Čas (“Times”),
organ of Professor Masaryk (Realist Party); the editors Dušek and Hájek
were imprisoned. Samostatnost, organ of the State Right (Radical) Party;
the editors were imprisoned or sent to the front.
The Národní Listy (Kramář’s organ) was twice
suspended, and in May, 1918, suppressed altogether because it “fostered
sympathies for the Entente.”
The Lidové Noviny, organ of Dr. Stránský (Moravian
People’s Party), was also several times suspended during the war.
All Socialist journals were suppressed except Právo Lidu
and Rovnost.
According to the Wiener Zeitung, seventy-eight Czech
journals were suspended during the months of April, May and June, 1916, alone.
All Slovak newspapers were also suppressed.
As regards censorship, we need only mention that even
speeches delivered in the Austrian Parliament were censored in the press. The
sense of the speeches delivered by Allied statesmen was invariably distorted
and declarations in favour of Czecho-Slovak independence were suppressed.
Foreign newspapers were not allowed to be quoted; and the journals were forced
to publish unsigned articles supplied to them by the police….
The Union of Czech Journalists declared on April 25, 1917
“We protest against the practice prevailing in Prague
as against means quite contradictory to the moral principles of modern
journalism, as in Prague the newspapers are forced to publish articles supplied
by the Official Press Bureau, as though written by the editor, without being
allowed to mark them as inspired. Thus the journals are not in reality edited
by the editors themselves, but by the Press institution of the state.”
The same union again protested on November 16, 1917
“After the victorious Russian Revolution which brought
about also the opening of the Reichsrat, the fetters binding the Czech press
were a little relaxed, but only for a short time, and to-day we see the same
conditions prevailing in which we lived for the first three years of war. Every
free reflection in the Czech journals is confiscated. They are even prohibited
to publish articles which appeared in the German and Austrian press.
Furthermore, they are again compelled to publish articles written by officials
without marking them as such. They cannot even inform their readers correctly
about parliamentary debates, as speeches and interpellations delivered in
parliament are suppressed. We ask the Union of Czech Deputies to protest
again against this violation of parliamentary immunity, and to obtain a
guarantee that in future the Czech papers will not be compelled to print
articles not written by the editorial staff and that the Czech press shall
enjoy at least the same freedom as the press in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest.”
To complete the picture of Austrian terrorism, we will quote
some of the interpellations addressed to the Austrian Government by Czech
deputies in the summer of 1917.
The Czech deputies Prokeš, Jaroš and Charvát
(Socialists) have demanded an explanation from the Minister for Home Defence
respecting 300 Czech teachers from Moravia who were interned in 1915, being
suspected of disloyalty, although there was no charge made against them either
by the civil or by the military authorities. They were first interned in Lower
Austria and then in Hungary, and had to do the hardest work. Though the
educational authorities reclaimed them they were not set free even to attend to
the burials of their relatives. The only exception made was when one teacher
was allowed to be married in Vienna, and even then he was followed by the guard
with fixed bayonets. In Hungary the conditions were still worse, and many of
these teachers died and many of them are still in hospitals.
A long interpellation was addressed to the government by the
Czech deputies Biňovec, Filipinský and Stejskal (Socialists)
regarding the outrageous and inhuman treatment of the Czech political
prisoners. They mentioned a vast number of appalling instances of deliberate
torturing and starving of the prisoners. All rights of the prisoners were
suspended and they depended entirely on the will of the commander: many of
these political prisoners were imprisoned together with ordinary murderers;
they were not allowed to read books or to write letters; their families were
not permitted to visit them or even to send them provisions from home, so they
starved in prison. Such cruel treatment did not affect only political prisoners
but even people on remand, and it was nothing extraordinary for them to be
imprisoned for years on remand only. The deputies asked whether the authorities
wanted these prisoners to die from starvation.
The most interesting document is the interpellation of
deputies Staněk, Tobolka and Co. on the persecutions against the
Czech nation during the war. The interpellation has been published as a book of
200 pages which has been prohibited by Austria to be sent abroad, but a copy of
which we have nevertheless been able to secure. The following are short
extracts from the volume:
The Behaviour of the Austrian Government towards
the Czech Nation during the War
“YOUR EXCELLENCY,–At a time when it proved impossible
to continue to rule in an absolute way in this empire and when after more than
three years the Reichsrat is sitting again, we address to you the following
interpellation in order to call your attention to the persecutions which during
the past three years have been perpetrated on our nation, and to demand
emphatically that these persecutions shall be discontinued. They were not done
unintentionally or accidentally, but, as will be shown from the following
survey, this violence was committed deliberately and systematically by the
Austrian Government on our nation, which took the abominable view that the
present war is the most suitable period for realising the plans and aims of
German centralism in the Habsburg Monarchy by curing the Czechs forever of all
hallucinations about equality among nations, and about the glorious past of
Bohemia and her relationship with other Slav nations. A general attack was made
upon the Czech nation during the critical situation created by the war: our
participation in civil service was curtailed, German was made the official
language of the state, the press was muzzled, schools persecuted, the Sokol
idea declared to be high treason, men distinguished for service in the state
arrested, imprisoned, persecuted and sentenced to death, everything reminding
the population of the famous past of Bohemia removed, the ancient Czech
aspirations for political independence or even aims for a mere reorganisation
of the Habsburg Monarchy on a federal basis were not allowed and were
suppressed, even the name of the ancient kingdom of Bohemia, which was the
foundation stone to the Habsburg Monarchy in 1526, was to disappear for ever.
“The persecutions against our nation were very cruel
indeed.
“In the first place, Dr. Kramář was
attacked as the veritable leader of the Czech nation. In return for his
valuable services for this state and for his nation, in return for his
endeavours to educate the Czech nation towards realism in politics, he was
recompensed by being arrested, imprisoned and sentenced to death, although a
member of the delegations and therefore enjoying immunity. He was not brought
up before the ordinary tribunal, but before a judge who was absolutely ignorant
of Czech or foreign politics, so that his condemnation might be assured.
“The same fate also met his political friends, deputy
Dr. Rašín and the editor of Národní Listy, V. Červinka.
“Incredible proceedings were taken against the deputy
Klofáč. Although being a member of the delegations and therefore enjoying
immunity, he was arrested on September 7, 1914, and has been imprisoned ever
since. A charge was hurriedly prepared against him on May 24, 1917, that is when the Reichsrat was to be opened. Both Dr. Kramář and Klofáč were
prosecuted by the Vienna court-martial under the direction of Colonel Gliwitzki
and Dr. Preminger in such a way that no ordinary judge would dare to act.
“The way in which the military tribunals treated the
ordinary uneducated people is apparent from the following examples:
“The tailor Šmejkal in Vienna was sentenced to
six months’ hard labour for saying, ‘The government does not want to give us
Czech schools in Vienna.’
“For saying, ‘I do not know whether the Emperor
Francis Joseph was ever crowned King of Bohemia or not,’ a boy gardener named
Tesař was sentenced to six months’ hard labour, which sentence was altered
to sixteen months by the High Court of Justice (the poor boy died in prison).
“The shoemaker’s assistant Hamouz, of Vienna,
sixty-seven years of age, ill and mentally stunted, served in his youth with
the 28th Regiment. He defended this regiment, therefore, by saying, ‘It is a
good regiment.’ He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
“Private Čepera from Moravia was sentenced to
three years’ hard labour for saying, ‘The German Kaiser is responsible for the
war.’
“For saying that ‘those of the 28th Regiment are our
“boys,”‘ gunner Purs, of Benatky, was sentenced to four years’
imprisonment. He was sent in chains to the military prison in Möllersdorf.
“The wilfulness of military tribunals, culminating in
many cases in apparent hatred against everything that is Czech, is shown by the
following, out of many examples:
“The editor of České Slovo, E.
Špatny, of Prague, was arrested on September 26, 1914, and interned in Prague,
without being told the reason. In March, 1915, he was transferred to the
internment camp at Göllersdorf, in Lower Austria. The Czechs interned there
arranged on July 5 a Hus anniversary at which the editor E. Špatny and Dr.
Vrbenský spoke about the life and importance of Hus. Being accused by a certain
fellow-prisoner, Davidovský, that they had been speaking against the Germans
and that ‘the speakers expected deliverance by a certain state but were
disappointed,’ they were transferred to the military prison in Vienna, and
charged with high treason according to Par. 58c. The latter was
discharged for want of proofs, but the editor Špatny was sentenced to
fourteen years’ hard labour.
“The Sarajevo prisoners were not allowed to be visited
by their relatives in contravention of the orders of the official statutes D 6.
Out of five of those prisoners, three have already died, the fourth is dying,
and the last one, a student Cubulič, was allowed a visit after two years
when it became certain that the Reichsrat would meet.
“The extent to which starvation and inhuman treatment
is raging in the state prisons is best shown by the conditions prevailing in
the prison of Möllersdorf. In the years 1915-16, 61 prisoners died there out of
350 to 450 prisoners on the roll. Between January 1, 1917, and May, 1917, 101 prisoners were doomed to death. The majority belong to the sixth category
of prisoners. The thieves, criminals and impostors, if they had served
previously in the army, enjoy special treatment in Möllersdorf prison. They
wear civilian clothes, and are treated with consideration and well fed. On the
other hand, political prisoners, especially those classed as second category,
are dying from ill-treatment and insufficient nourishment. The judge, auditor
A. König, famous for his arbitrary verdicts against the Czech people, was a
solicitor’s clerk in civil life, and now recommends to his wealthy defendants
his Vienna lawyer friends as splendid specialists and advocates in political
matters. Thus, for instance, he forced Dr. Glaser upon Mr. Kotik as the
counsel. Kotik was sentenced to death by König, and Glaser sent him a bill for
10,000 kronen (£400) for the ‘successful defence.’
The Persecutions of the Sokols
“Terrible persecutions were inflicted on the Sokol
Gymnastic Association during the war. The sphere of the Sokols’ activity does
not touch political affairs at all, being reserved to gymnastics and spiritual
education. Their activity was public, open to official inquiries and
supervision. But this did not save them from persecutions. The first
persecution was already committed in 1914 in Moravia, when some branches of the
Sokol Association were dissolved for various reasons. Numerous societies were
afterwards dissolved throughout Bohemia and Moravia.
“On November 23, 1915, the Central
Czech Sokol Association (Česká Obec Sokolska) was dissolved as the
centre of the Czech Sokol movement, which before the war kept up lively
relations with foreign countries and manifested brotherly feelings of sympathy
towards Serbia and Russia. It was alleged that the Central Sokol Association
had had relations with the American Sokol branches during the war through its
president, Dr. J. Scheiner, and conducted an active propaganda against Austria.
The alleged relations were founded on a communication of the American branches
to the president, Dr. Scheiner, asking him whether he would be willing to
distribute money collected in America to people in Bohemia afflicted by the
war. Dr. Scheiner was arrested and kept in prison for two months.
“Very characteristic was the way in which the military
authorities treated the members of Sokol societies. In many cases soldiers,
especially recruits, were questioned whether they belonged to the Sokol
Association. The authorities searched for Sokol badges or membership cards, and
those who were found to have these in their possession were severely punished.
The members of the Sokol societies as long as they were in the army were
invariably subjected to ill-treatment and persecution. They were transferred to
do heavy work, and not recommended for promotion, and in every way treated more
brutally than other soldiers. In the case of both civil and military trials,
one of the most important questions asked, was whether the accused belonged to
any Sokol society, and if the accused did belong to a society this always went
against him.
Bohemian History
“Every possible means was employed to wipe out the
memory of important events in Bohemian history. Not only were historical books
(like Lützow’s Bohemia and others) confiscated, but even scientific
lectures on John Hus and the Hussite movement were prohibited. The metal
memorial plate with the names of Bohemian lords executed in 1621 inscribed upon
it was removed from the Town Hall, and that part of the square which showed the
spot on which they were executed was ordered to be repaved.
“In order to destroy the idea that the Czechs are of
Slav origin, any use of red, blue and white colours was prohibited. Varnishes
in these colours were not allowed to be used. The street plates of pre-war
times had to be repainted in black and yellow. Newspaper posters, match-boxes
and other articles were not allowed to be sold or exhibited, if they were painted
in the Slav tricolours.
The Suppression of Czech Literature
“More than two hundred books published before the war
were confiscated. The tendency of this action was clear. The government wanted
to destroy the memory of the glorious past of Bohemia, of John Hus and the
Hussite movement, of the suffering of the Czech nation after the defeat of the
White Mountain, to restrict all progressive and liberal movements and to kill
the ‘Sokol’ idea, and further to destroy the consciousness that Czechs and Slovaks
are the same nation and belong to the great Slav family. The apostles of this
idea were proclaimed traitors, especially Dr. Kramář, J.S. Machar and
others. These persecutions cover a great period before the war, and the
following is a list of the books suppressed (follows a list comprising eleven
foolscap columns). The government treated the Czech nation with special
brutality. The persecutions in Bohemia were opposed not only to the liberal
ideas of Czechs, but especially to their national feelings. The anxiety of the
censor for the safety of the monarchy often bordered on absurdity. The word
‘shocking’ was deleted from a play, for instance, because it was English. Henry
IV. was not allowed to be played ‘until we reach a settlement with England,’
and it was only when it was reported by the Vienna and Berlin papers that the
prohibition was withdrawn.
Persecution of the Czech Press
“The Czech press was persecuted in a peculiar manner.
Its editors were not allowed to receive papers from neutral countries and to
express their own opinions as regards the propaganda of the Czechs abroad.
Under threats of suppression of the journals and imprisonment of the editors,
the journals were obliged to print and publish articles supplied to them by the
police, without mentioning the source from whence they came. The articles had
to be put in in such a way that they appeared as if they were the editors’
views. The articles betrayed the low intellectual level of the authors who
lacked any knowledge of Czech affairs. Such articles which the Czech journals
were compelled to publish were, for instance: ‘In Foreign Pay,’ published March 25, 1916; ‘The Czechs in America against Masaryk’s Agents,’ published in all Czech
papers on April 8, 1916; on January 16, 1917, the article ‘Our Answer to the
Quadruple Entente.’
“The Police Directorate ordered first that such
articles should appear on the same day in all papers and in the same wording,
but recognising the stupidity of such an action, they compelled only one
journal to publish them and the others had to ‘quote’ from them.
“Preventive censorship was established and a number of
articles were passed by the censor for publication in Czech papers only when
proofs were supplied that the articles had already appeared in some other
journal in Austria. Independent articles or reports were not allowed to be
published. The Národní Listy was treated with special spite by the
censorship.
“Almost ninety important journals were suppressed
by the government, the majority of them without any apparent reason or
justification.
The Suppression of Czech School
and National Literature
“Words, sentences or whole paragraphs in school books
were found objectionable, since they were alleged to propagate Pan-Slavism and
to encourage in the pupils hostile feelings against Austria’s allies. According
to the official ideas about Austrian patriotism, purely educational paragraphs
were considered as wanting in patriotic feeling; not only literary but also
historical paragraphs were ‘corrected,’ and official advice was issued as to
how to write handbooks on patriotic lines on special subjects, as for instance
on natural history, physics, geometry, etc. The foundations of all knowledge to
be supplied to the pupils in the public schools had to reflect the spirit of
the world war.
“Numerous folk-songs with absolutely no political
tendency in them were confiscated, merely because they expressed the Czech
national spirit. All songs were suppressed which mentioned the word Slav–‘The
Slav Linden Tree’–the army or the Allies. Even if the publishers offered to
publish new editions without the objectionable songs they were not allowed to
do so, and were asked to put in more ‘loyal songs’ and to replace melancholy
songs with cheerful ones.
“In every secondary school a zealous library revision
was started and many books were removed, so that these libraries lost all their
value for the students. The Czech youth must not know the principal works
either of their own or foreign literature. Certain libraries had to be deprived
of some hundreds of books. All this happened at a time when the discussions
here and abroad were taking place about the importance of raising the standard
of knowledge of the educated classes.
“The opening of Czech minority schools has been
postponed since the beginning of 1914. Consequently the Czech School Society
must keep them up and pay the expenses in connection with them, amounting to a
loss of more than two million kronen up till now. On the other hand, many
German schools have been established in Bohemia.
“The steps which are being taken against Czech schools
in Lower Austria, especially in Vienna, are not only contrary to the standing
laws but also to the decisions of the ministry concerned.
“We conclude by asking:
“Are the above facts of systematic persecution of the
Czech nation during the war known to your Excellency?
“Is your Excellency prepared to investigate them
thoroughly?
“Is your Excellency prepared to stop the persecution
of the Czech nation and the wrongs suffered by us through these proceedings?
“In Vienna, June 6, 1917.”
[Footnote 1: For the full text of this document see Dr.
Beneš’ Bohemia’s Case for Independence.]
HOW THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS AT HOME ASSISTED THE ALLIES
From the foregoing chapters it is clear that by continuous
misrule and by the attempt to reduce the Czecho-Slovak nation to impotence
through terrorism and extermination during this war, the Habsburgs have created
a gulf between themselves and their Czecho-Slovak subjects which can never
again be bridged over. Realising this, and seeing that since Austria has
voluntarily sold herself to Berlin their only hope for a better future lies in
the destruction of the political system called Austria-Hungary, the
Czecho-Slovaks have from the beginning staked their all on the victory of the
Entente, towards which they have contributed with all possible means at their
disposal.
1. Since they could not think of revolting, the
Czecho-Slovaks at home tried to paralyse the power of Austria in every way. Not
only individuals but also Czech banks and other institutions refused to
subscribe to the war loans. Their newspapers published official reports with
reluctance, and between the lines laid stress on news unfavourable to Austria
so as to keep up the spirit of the people. Czech peasants refused to give up
provisions, and thus the Czechs, who already before the war boycotted German
goods, accelerated the present economic and financial ruin of Austria.
2. Politically, too, they contributed to the internal
confusion of the Dual Monarchy, and to-day their opposition forms a real menace
to the existence of Austria. Czech political leaders unanimously refused to
sign any declaration of loyalty to Austria, and they never issued a single
protest against Professor Masaryk and his political and military action abroad.
On several occasions they even publicly expressed their sympathies and approval
of this action. For nearly three years they prevented the opening of the
Austrian Parliament which would have been to their prejudice. Only after the
Russian Revolution, when Austria began to totter and her rulers were
apprehensive lest events in Russia should have a repercussion in the Dual
Monarchy, did the Czechs decide to speak out and exerted pressure to bring
about the opening of the Reichsrat, where they boldly declared their programme,
revealed Austria’s rule of terror during the first three years of war, and by
their firm opposition, which they by and by induced the Poles and Yugoslavs to
imitate, they brought about a permanent political deadlock, menacing Austria’s
very existence internally and weakening her resistance externally.
3. But the most important assistance the Czechs rendered to
the Allies was their refusal to fight for Austria.
Out of 70,000 prisoners taken by Serbia during the first
months of the war, 35,000 were Czechs. Of these, 24,000 perished during the
Serbian retreat, and 8000 died of typhoid fever and cholera at Asinara. The
remaining 3000 were transferred to France and voluntarily joined the
Czecho-Slovak army.
Over 300,000 Czecho-Slovaks surrendered voluntarily to Russia
whom they regarded as their liberator. Unfortunately the old régime in Russia
did not always show much understanding of their aspirations. They were
scattered over Siberia, cut off from the outer world, and often abandoned to
the ill-treatment of German and Magyar officers. It is estimated that over
thirty thousand of them perished from starvation. It was only after great
efforts, after the Russian Revolution, and especially when Professor Masaryk
himself went to Russia, that the Czecho-Slovak National Council succeeded in
organising a great part of them into an army. Finally, when Austria desired to
strike a death-blow at Italy in 1918, and began again to employ Slav troops,
she failed again, and this failure was once more to a large extent caused by
the disaffection of her Slav troops, as is proved by the Austrian official
statements. Indeed, whenever Austria relied solely on her own troops she was
always beaten, even by the “contemptible” Serbians. The Czechs and
other Slavs have greatly contributed to these defeats by their passive
resistance. It was only the intervention of German troops which saved Austria
from an utter collapse in 1915, and which prevented the Czechs from completing
their aim of entirely disorganising the military power of Austria. Slav
regiments have since then been intermixed with German and Magyar troops. The
Slavs receive their ammunition only at the front, where they are placed in the
foremost ranks with Germans or Magyars behind them, so that they are exposed to
a double fire if they attempt to surrender. Nevertheless, up to 1916 some
350,000 Czechs out of a total of 600,000 in the Austrian army surrendered to
the Allies.
4. From the very beginning of the war Czech soldiers showed
their real feelings. They were driven to fight against the Russians and Serbs
who were their brothers by race and their sincere and devoted friends. They
were driven to fight for that hated Austria which had trampled their liberties
underfoot for centuries past, and for a cause which they detested from the
bottom of their hearts. They were driven to fight in the interests of their
German and Magyar enemies against their Slav brothers and friends under
terrible circumstances.
In September, 1914, the 8th Czech Regiment refused to go to
the front until threatened by the German troops. The 11th Czech Regiment of
Pisek refused to march against Serbia and was decimated. The 36th Regiment
revolted in the barracks and was massacred by German troops. The 88th Regiment,
which made an unsuccessful attempt to surrender to Russia, was shot down by the
Magyar Honveds. A similar fate befell the 13th and 72nd Slovak Regiments.
On the other hand, many Czech troops succeeded in
surrendering. The 35th Regiment of Pilsen went over to the Russians in a body
half-an-hour after arriving at the front. Soon after, the 28th Regiment of
Prague surrendered en masse, having been “fetched” by the
Czechs fighting on the Russian side. Immediately afterwards the Austrian
commander-in-chief issued an order of the day in which he declared.
“On April 3, 1915, almost the whole of the 28th
Regiment surrendered without fighting to a single enemy battalion…. This
disgraceful act not only destroys the reputation of this regiment, but
necessitates its name being struck off the list of our army corps, until new
deeds of heroism retrieve its character. His Apostolic Majesty has accordingly
ordered the dissolution of this regiment, and the deposition of its banners in
the army museum.”
And indeed “new deeds of heroism” did follow. A
fresh battalion was founded composed of Czech youths who were sent to the
Isonzo front and exposed in a dangerous position to deadly artillery fire.
Almost the whole battalion was thus unscrupulously wiped out. Only eighteen of
them survived. This was followed by a new imperial order saying that the
disgrace of the 28th Regiment was “atoned for” by the
“sacrifice” of this regiment on the Isonzo.
As regards Italy, over 20,000 Czechs surrendered voluntarily
on the Italian front up to 1917, and 7000 during the last offensive on the
Piave in June, 1918. Of recent cases we need mention only the “treachery
of Carzano,” where, on September 18, 1917, some Czech officers went over
to the Italians, communicated to them the Austrian plans of campaign and led
them against the Austrians whose front was thus successfully broken through.
This incident was not the only one of its kind. It has been repeated several
times by Czech officers whenever they found an opportunity of going over to the
Italians. During the offensive of June, 1918, the Austrian press openly
attributed the Austrian failure to “Czech treachery,” asserting that
the plan of the offensive was communicated to the Italian headquarters staff by
Czecho-Slovak officers. This the Austrian military authorities themselves
admitted later, when they published the following official statement, which
appeared in the German press on July 28:
“On the morning of June 15, we started a vigorous
offensive on the whole front between the Tyrolese mountains and the Adriatic,
with a power that can be attained only by complete co-operation of all the
units and with an accurate execution and a common and uniform action. But, just
at the beginning of the attack, it became apparent that the enemy were making a
counter-attack according to a well-defined plan, as in the case of a projected
vigorous offensive. It was also found out that the enemy was perfectly aware of
the extent, the day and the hour of our attack. The intended surprise, so
important for the success of an offensive, has thus failed. In due course Italy
also obtained, from documents which some deserters handed to the Italian high
command, information which gave her a sufficiently precise idea of our
dispositions. English, French and Italian officers and men captured by us
declare unanimously that their regiments were advised on the evening of June 14
that the Austrian offensive would start at two o’clock on the following
morning.
“The exact time of the beginning of our offensive must
have been betrayed by Yugoslav and Czech deserters. The enemy took steps
against the bombardment by means of gas, which was expected. These steps later
proved insufficient. As an example we may mention only the following facts: The
battalion of bersaglieri received, at 3.20 on June 14, a quantity of ammunition
at 72 to 240 cartridges per man. The Pinerolo Brigade took up fighting position
at 2 o’clock at night. An order, captured late on July 14, said: ‘According to
reports received, the enemy will commence early on June 15 their bombardment
preparations for attack. At midnight hot coffee and meat conserves will be
distributed. The troops will remain awake, armed and prepared to use their
gas-masks.’
“For some time now the Italian command have tried to
disorganise our troops by high treasonable propaganda. In the Italian
prisoners-of-war camps the Slavs are persuaded by promises and corruption to
enlist in the Czecho-Slovak army. This is done in a way prohibited by law.
Their ignorance of the international situation and their lack of news from
home, partly caused by Italian censorship, are exploited by means of propaganda
without scruples. An order of the 5th Italian Army Corps (1658 Prot. R. J.) of May 14, 1918, refers to active propaganda by Czecho-Slovak volunteers with the object of
disorganising the Austro-Hungarian army. The Italian military authorities on
their part deceive the Czecho-Slovaks by telling them of the continuous
disorders and insurrections in Bohemia. In the above-mentioned order it is
asserted that in the corps to which it is addressed, as well as in other corps,
some attempts of the Czecho-Slovak elements have been successful in causing
confusion among enemy ranks. Some of our Czecho-Slovak soldiers deserted and
went over to the Italians. Others remained in touch with them and declared themselves
ready to stay in our positions as a source of ferment for future insurrections.
Although the high treason miscarried owing to the heroic resistance which our
troops, without distinction of nationality, offered to the enemy, it is
nevertheless true that some elements succumbed to the treacherous enemy
propaganda.
“The gunner Rudolf Paprikar, of the machine gun
section, according to reports of the 8th Army Corps jumped off the river bank
into the Piave below Villa Jacur and swam across under danger of being drowned.
He betrayed the position, strength and composition of his sector, and through
observation and spying, he acquired some valuable information by which our
projected attack against Montello was disclosed. Further, he revealed to the
enemy some very secret preparations for the crossing of the river Piave, and
also supplied him with plans of the organisation of troops, battery positions,
etc.
“The principal part in the treachery is attributed by
the Italian high command, not without reason, to Lieutenant Karel Stiny of an
infantry regiment, who deserted near Narenta. It appears from the detailed
Italian official report in which his statements are embodied, that he betrayed
all our preparations on the Piave and provided the enemy with a great deal of
most important information. Let us mention further that Stiny in his mendacious
statements to the Italian command about the Austro-Hungarian situation at the
front and in the interior, followed the line of all traitors in order to appear
in a favourable light. It is characteristic that in his declaration about our
offensive he said that many Austro-Hungarian troops would have surrendered if
it had not been for the German and Bulgarian bayonets behind their backs.
“It is proved by various documents to what extent
the Czechs have forgotten their honour and duty. By breaking their oath to Austria
and her emperor and king, they have also forgotten all those who were with them
at the front, and they are responsible for the blood of our patriots and the
sufferings of our prisoners in Italy. The false glory which is attributed to
them by the Italian command, who have lost all sense of the immorality of these
proceedings, cannot efface the eternal crime which history always attaches to
the names of traitors.”
5. We could give many proofs of the great service the
Czecho-Slovaks rendered the Allies by their surrenders. But for our purpose it
will be sufficient to quote only some more admissions of the Germans and
Magyars themselves.
Count Tisza admitted that Czech troops could not be relied
upon, and Count Windischgrätz stated that the chief of staff dare not use them
except when mixed with Magyars and Germans.
Deputy Urmanczy declared in the Budapest Parliament on September 5, 1916, that during the first encounters with Rumania, a Czech regiment retired
without the slightest resistance, provided themselves with provisions, entered
a train and disappeared. The men went over to Rumania. He blamed the Czechs for
the Austrian reverse in Transylvania.
On June 22, 1917, when the case of deputy Klofáč was
discussed by the Immunity Committee of the Reichsrat, General von Georgi,
Austrian Minister for Home Defence, according to the Czech organ Pozor
of June 24, described
“… the conditions prevailing in the army, especially
the behaviour of certain Czech regiments, and brought forward all the material
which had been collected against the Czechs since the outbreak of the war, and
which had been used against them. He referred to the 28th and 36th Regiments as
well as to eight other Czech regiments which had voluntarily surrendered to the
Russians. He mentioned also that Czech officers, not only those in reserve but
also those on active service, including some of the highest ranks of the staff,
surrendered to the enemy; in one instance fourteen officers with a staff
officer thus surrendered. Czech soldiers in the Russian and French armies, as
well as in other enemy armies, are fighting for the Entente and constitute
legions and battalions of their own. The total number of Czechs in the enemy
armies exceeds 60,000. In the prisoners’ camps in the enemy countries,
non-German prisoners were invited to join the enemy’s ranks. Czech legions and
battalions are composed almost entirely of former prisoners of war. The minister
further went on to describe the propaganda of the Czechs abroad, the activity
of Czech committees in enemy and neutral countries, especially in Russia and Switzerland.
He also mentioned the case of Pavlu, a Czech soldier, who in a Russian
newspaper described how he penetrated the Austrian trenches in the uniform of
an Austrian officer, annihilated the occupants and after a successful scouting
reconnaissance returned to the Russian ranks. The minister described the
attitude of the ‘Sokols’ and the Czech teachers. The tenor of his speech was
that Klofáč is responsible for the anti-Austrian feeling of the Czech
nation and that therefore he should not be released.”
When the Russian offensive of July, 1917, started, Herr
Hummer, member of the Austrian Reichsrat, addressed the following
interpellation to the Austrian Minister for Home Defence:
“Is the Austrian Minister for Home Defence aware that
in one of the early engagements of the new Russian offensive, the 19th Austrian
Infantry Division, which consists almost entirely of Czecho-Slovaks and other
Slavs, openly sided with the enemies of Austria by refusing to fight against
the Russians and by surrendering as soon as an opportunity offered
itself?”
The most interesting document in regard to the attitude of Czecho-Slovaks
during the war is the interpellation of ninety German Nationalist deputies
(Schurf, Langenhahn, Wedra, Richter, Kittinger and others), of which we possess
a copy. It contains 420 large-size printed pages, and it is therefore
impossible for us to give a detailed account of it. The chapters of this
interpellation have the following headings:
1. The dangers of Pan-Slavistic propaganda.
2. The situation at the outbreak of the war.
3. Motives for the arrest of Kramář.
4. The behaviour of Czechs in Austria:
(a) Demonstrations of Czech national spirit in Prague;
(b) Czech school-books;
(c) Czech officials;
(d) The activities of the “Sokols”;
(e) What happened at Litomeřice and elsewhere;
(f) The Czech attitude towards war loans;
(g) The Živnostenská Banka and the war loans;
(h) The financial policy of the Živnostenská Banka;
(i) The Czechs and war emergency affairs;
(k) The Czechs and the question of food supplies.
5. The anti-Austrian attitude of Czechs abroad:
(a) In France;
(b) In England;
(c) In Russia;
(d) In America;
(e) In Switzerland;
(f) The campaign of Professor Masaryk;
(g) The Czech secret intelligence service.
6. The conduct of Czech soldiers on the battlefield.
7. Military consequences.
8. Some recent documents.
According to the Neue Freie Presse of June 6, 1918, the Austrian Minister for Home Defence made the following important
admissions in reply to the part of this interpellation concerning the Czech
contribution to the defeats of Austria:
“The 36th Regiment, according to unanimous reports of
the high command, failed to do its duty in May, 1915, on the Russian front, and
thereby caused a heavy defeat of other detachments. This regiment was dissolved
by the imperial decree of July 16, 1915.
“The unsuccessful fighting and heavy losses of the
19th Division in the battle north of Tarnopol between September 9 and 11, 1915,
were caused by the weak resistance of the 35th Regiment…. During the battles
of June 29 to July 2, 1917, near Zloczow the resistance offered by this
regiment was weak.
“As regards Regiment No. 28 of Prague, according to
the statement of regimental commanders, it appears that the whole detachment,
without firing a single shot, was taken prisoner by a single enemy battalion,
or rather was brought by that battalion from its position.”
And in this policy Czech soldiers continue by surrendering
voluntarily to the Entente troops whenever they have the opportunity.
THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL ACTION OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS
ABROAD
When war broke out, the Czecho-Slovaks all over the world
felt it their duty to prove by deeds that their place was on the side of the
Entente. The Czecho-Slovaks in Great Britain, France and Russia volunteered to
fight for the Allies, while in the United States of America, where there are
some one and a half million Czecho-Slovaks, they have counteracted German
propaganda and revealed German plots intended to weaken the American assistance
to the Allies.
1. In France 471 Czechs, i.e. over 60 per cent.,
entered the Foreign Legion and greatly distinguished themselves by their
bravery. The majority of them have been mentioned in dispatches and received
the Military Cross. They have also won five crosses and twenty medals of the
Russian Order of St. George. Their losses amount to more than 70 per cent.
Further, many Czechs living in Great Britain at the outbreak
of the war joined the French Foreign Legion in France, and after His Majesty’s
Government allowed Czechs to volunteer for service in the British army in the
autumn of 1916, practically all Czechs of military age resident in Great
Britain enrolled so far as they were not engaged on munitions. In Canada, too,
the Czechs joined the army in order to fight for the British Empire.
The most important part was taken, however, by the
Czecho-Slovak colonies in Russia and America. In Russia, where there are large
Czecho-Slovak settlements, numbering several thousand, a Czecho-Slovak legion
was formed at the outbreak of the war which has rendered valuable services,
especially in scouting and reconnoitring. This legion grew gradually larger,
especially when Czech prisoners began to be allowed to join it, and finally,
under the direction of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, it was formed into a
regular army. In September, 1917, it had already two divisions, and in 1918
fresh prisoners joined it, so that it counted some 100,000.
In order to be able fully to appreciate this achievement, we
must remember that this was an army of volunteers, organised by the Czecho-Slovak
Council without the powers of a real government. At the beginning of the war
the Czecho-Slovaks not only had no government of their own, but not even any
united organisation. And if we realise that to-day, after three and a half
years of strenuous effort, the National Council are recognised by the Allies as
the Provisional Government of Bohemia with the right of exercising all powers
appertaining to a real government, including the control of an army as large as
Great Britain had at the outbreak of the war, it must be admitted that the
action of the Czecho-Slovaks abroad was crowned with wonderful success.
In Russia the difficulties with which the National Council
had to cope were especially grave, and mainly for two reasons. In the first
place, the Czecho-Slovak prisoners who voluntarily surrendered were scattered
all over Russia. It was extremely difficult even to get into touch with them.
In addition there was a lack of good-will on the part of the old Russian
Government. Thus very often these prisoners, who regarded Russia as Bohemia’s
elder brother and liberator, were sadly disillusioned when they were left under
the supervision of some German officers, and thousands of them died from
starvation. Nevertheless they never despaired. Eager to fight for the Allies,
many of them entered the Yugoslav Division which fought so gallantly in the
Dobrudja. Nearly all the Czech officers in this division were decorated with
the highest Russian, Serbian and Rumanian orders. Half of them committed
suicide, however, during the retreat rather than fall into the hands of the
enemy.
It was not until after the Russian Revolution, and
especially after the arrival of Professor Masaryk in Russia in May, 1917, that
the Czecho-Slovak army in Russia became a reality.
The Czecho-Slovaks have been mentioned in Russian official communiqués
of February 2, 1916, and March 29, 1917. The most glorious part was taken by
the Czecho-Slovak Brigade during the last Russian offensive in July, 1917, in
which the Czechs showed manifestly the indomitable spirit that animates them.
Since every Czech fighting on the side of the Entente is shot, if he is
captured by the Austrians, the Czechs everywhere fight to the bitter end, and
rather commit suicide than be captured by their enemies. For this reason they
are justly feared by the Germans. As in the Hussite wars, the sight of their
caps and the sound of their songs struck terror in the hearts of the Germans
and Magyars. At the battle of Zborov on July 2, 1917, the Czechs gave the whole
world proof of their bravery. Determined to win or fall, they launched an
attack almost without ammunition, with bayonets and hand-grenades–and they
gained a victory over an enemy vastly superior in numbers.
According to the official Russian communiqué:
“On July 2, at about three o’clock in the afternoon,
after a severe and stubborn battle, the gallant troops of the Czecho-Slovak
Brigade occupied the strongly fortified enemy position on the heights to the
west and south-west of the village of Zborov and the fortified village of Koroszylow.
Three lines of enemy trenches were penetrated. The enemy has retired across the
Little Strypa. The Czecho-Slovak Brigade captured sixty-two officers and 3150
soldiers, fifteen guns and many machine guns. Many of the captured guns were
turned against the enemy.”
Finally, however, when the Russians refused to fight, the
Czechs had to retire as well. General Brussiloff declared:
“The Czecho-Slovaks, perfidiously abandoned at
Tarnopol by our infantry, fought in such a way that the world ought to fall on
its knees before them.”
2. The spontaneous and unanimous political action of the
Czecho-Slovaks abroad became co-ordinated when Professor Masaryk escaped from Austria
and placed himself at the head of the movement.
Professor Masaryk, the distinguished Czech leader and
scholar, whose name we have already mentioned in the preceding chapters, went
to Italy in December, 1914, and although he desired once more to return to Austria
before leaving finally for France, he found it too dangerous, as the reign of
terror had already been established in Bohemia. He accordingly went to Switzerland
and afterwards on to France and England. In October, 1915, he was appointed
lecturer at the newly founded School of Slavonic Studies at King’s College, University
of London. Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, who was prevented through
indisposition from presiding at Professor Masaryk’s inaugural lecture on October 19, 1915, sent the following message to the meeting:
“I congratulate King’s College on Professor Masaryk’s
appointment, and I can assure him that we welcome his advent to London both as
a teacher–the influence of whose power and learning is felt throughout the
Slav world–and as a man to whose personal qualities of candour, courage and
strength we are all glad to pay a tribute. We believe that his presence here
will be a link to strengthen the sympathy which unites the people of Russia and
Great Britain.”
“First and foremost the Allies are fighting for the
liberties of small nations, to the end that they may be left in future free
from the tyranny of their more powerful neighbours to develop their own
national life and institutions. Above all, to-day our thoughts and our
sympathies are moved towards Serbia, whose undaunted courage wins day by day our
unbounded sympathy and admiration.”
During the lecture on the Problem of Small Nations in the
European Crisis, Professor Masaryk outlined his political programme which he
has ever since insisted the Allies should adopt, to destroy the German plans of
Mitteleuropa. He declared:
“Great Britain came into this war to protect little Belgium,
and now with her Allies she is faced by the task of protecting Serbia. This
evolution of the war is almost logical, for Germany’s aim is and was Berlin–Bagdad,
the employment of the nations of Austria-Hungary as helpless instruments, and
the subjection of the smaller nations which form that peculiar zone between the
west and east of Europe. Poland, Bohemia, Serbo-Croatia (the South Slavs)
are the natural adversaries of Germany, of her Drang nach Osten; to
liberate and strengthen these smaller nations is the only real check upon
Prussia. Free Poland, Bohemia and Serbo-Croatia would be so-called buffer states,
their organisation would facilitate and promote the formation of a Magyar
state, of Greater Rumania, of Bulgaria, Greece and the rest of the smaller
nations. If this horrible war, with its countless victims, has any meaning, it
can only be found in the liberation of the small nations who are menaced by Germany’s
eagerness for conquest and her thirst for the dominion of Asia. The Oriental
question is to be solved on the Rhine, Moldau and Vistula, not only on the Danube,
Vardar and Maritza.”
Soon afterwards Professor Masaryk issued a proclamation
signed by representatives of all Czecho-Slovaks abroad, the full text of which
reads as follows:
“We come before the political public at a moment when
the retreat of the victorious Russian army is exploited against Russia and her
Allies. We take the side of the struggling Slav nations and their Allies
without regard to which party will be victorious, simply because the Allies’
cause is just. The decision as to which party in this fatal struggle is
defending the right, is a question of principle and political morality which
to-day cannot be evaded by any honest and clear-thinking politician nor by any
self-conscious nation. But we are prompted to step forward also by our vivid
sense of Slav solidarity: we express our ardent sympathies to our brother Serbs
and Russians, as well as to our brother Poles, so heavily struck by the war. We
believe in the ultimate victory of the Slavs and their Allies, and we are
convinced that this victory will contribute towards the welfare of the whole of
Europe and humanity. The spiteful anti-Slav attitude of Ferdinand the Koburg
and his government cannot retard the victory of a just cause.
“The Czech nation made an alliance with Hungary and
the Austrian Germans by a free election of a Habsburg to the throne of the kingdom
of Bohemia in 1526; but the dynasty created through a systematic
centralisation and germanisation a unitary absolutist state, thus violating
their treaty guaranteeing the independence of the Bohemian State within and
without. The Czech nation, exhausted by the European and Habsburg anti-reformation,
has only since the Czech regeneration at the end of the eighteenth century been
able to resist this violence. It was especially the revolution of 1848 which
challenged it.
“The revolution was crushed, and the secured rights of
nations, especially of the Czechs, were again sacrificed to absolutism which,
however, was shattered by the war of 1859, and replaced by an incomplete
constitutionalism. Then Vienna gave way to the Magyars. But the Czechs had to
content themselves with solemn promises that were never kept. The Czech nation
started a struggle of passive opposition. Later on it also took an active part
in the new parliament, but whether in parliament or in the diets, it always
claimed its historic right of independence and struggled against the
German-Magyar dualism. The attempts made to come to an understanding were
frustrated by the obstinate spirit of domination of the Germans and Magyars.
“The present war has only accentuated the
Czecho-Slovak opposition to Austria-Hungary. War was declared without the
parliament being consulted: all other states presented the declaration of war
to their parliaments for ratification, only the Viennese Government was afraid
to consult its peoples, because the majority of them would have declared
against the war. The representatives of the Czech nation would have certainly
protested with the greatest emphasis. That is why the government did not
consult a single Czech deputy or politician with regard to taking so momentous
a step.
“The Czech nation has always in modern times defended
a thoroughly Slav programme. Also during this war, which has found our nation
unprepared like all other peaceful nations, the Czechs have since the very
beginning expressed their sympathies for Russia, Serbia and their Allies, notwithstanding
the unprecedented Austrian terrorism, suppressing every manifestation of the
real feelings of the people. The pro-Austrian declarations are enforced by the
government. To-day the leading Czech politicians are in prison, the gallows
have become the favourite support of the incapable administration, and Czech
regiments have been decimated for acting spontaneously up to our national Czech
programme. The rights of the Czech language have been ruthlessly violated
during the war, and the absolutist military rule has reigned throughout Bohemia
and other non-German and non-Magyar parts of the monarchy as in enemy
countries. Every declaration in the Czech journals is suppressed, while our
national adversaries are not only allowed to make propaganda against the Czech
nation, but even the pan-German orgies in the spirit of Lagarde, von Hartmann,
Mommsen, and Treitschke are supported by Vienna and Budapest.
“Under these circumstances the Czech nation cannot
continue to keep silence. That is why the Czech and Slovak emigrants abroad
deem it their duty to inform foreign opinion about the true situation of Bohemia,
to interpret the aspirations of the Czecho-Slovak nation to the Allied
statesmen, politicians and journalists, and to defend the Czecho-Slovak
programme.
“The Czech parties have hitherto striven for the
independence of their nation inside Austria-Hungary. The course which this
fratricidal war has taken and the ruthless violence of Vienna
make it necessary for all of us to strive for independence without regard to Austria-Hungary.
We are struggling for an absolutely independent Czecho-Slovak State.
“The Czech nation has come to the conclusion that it
must take its destiny into its own hands. Austria was defeated not only by Russia,
but also by the small and despised Serbia, and became a dependency of Germany.
To-day it has recovered a little under the direction of Berlin, but that
desperate strain of forces does not deceive us: it is only a proof of the
abdication of Austria-Hungary. We have lost all confidence in the vitality of Austria-Hungary,
and we no more recognise its right to existence. Through its incapability and
dependence it has proved to the whole world that the assumption of the
necessity of Austria has passed, and has through this war been proved to be
wrong. Those who have defended the possibility and necessity of
Austria-Hungary–and at one time it was Palacký himself–demanded a
confederated state of equal nations and lands. But the dualist Austria-Hungary
became the oppressor of non-German and non-Magyar nationalities. It is the
obstacle to peace in Europe and it has degenerated into a mere tool for Germany’s
expansion to the East, without a positive mission of its own, unable to create
a state organisation of equal nations, free and progressive in civilisation.
The dynasty, living in its absolutist traditions, maintains itself a phantom of
its former world empire, assisted in government by its undemocratic partners,
the barren aristocracy, the anti-national bureaucracy, and the anti-national
military staff.
“To-day there is no doubt that Austria-Hungary wrongly
used the assassination at Sarajevo as a pretext against Serbia. Vienna and Budapest
did not hesitate to use forged documents manufactured by their own embassy
against the Yugoslavs, and in this policy of deceit Vienna and Budapest have
persisted during this war. To this deceit they have now added revengeful
spitefulness and cruelty truly barbarian against the non-Germans and
non-Magyars.
“Germany shares the guilt with Austria-Hungary; it was
in Germany’s power and it was her duty towards civilisation and humanity to
prevent the war and not to take advantage of the imperialist lust of Vienna and
Budapest.
“Austria-Hungary and Germany are fighting with their
Turkish and Bulgarian Allies for a cause which is unjust and doomed.”
Later on, when Dr. Edward Beneš, lecturer at the
Czech University of Prague and author of several well-known studies in
sociology, also escaped abroad, the Czecho-Slovak National Council was formed,
of which Professor Masaryk became the president, Dr. Štefanik, a
distinguished airman and scientist, Hungarian Slovak by birth, the
vice-president, and Dr. E. Beneš the general secretary. A French review
was started in Paris (La Nation Tchèque) in May, 1915, which became the
official organ of the Czecho-Slovak movement. Up to May, 1917, it was published
under the editorship of Professor Denis, and since then its editor has been Dr.
Beneš. A Central Czech organ is also published in Paris called Samostatnost
(“Independence”), edited by Dr. Sychrava, an eminent Czech
journalist.
The undisputed authority enjoyed by Professor Masaryk among
all the Czecho-Slovaks is undoubtedly the secret of the great strength and
unity of the movement. It is also the reason for the great diplomatic successes
achieved by the Czechs. The chief lieutenants of Professor Masaryk were Dr.
Beneš, an untiring worker with rare political instinct and perspicacity,
and Dr. Milan Štefanik, who entered the French army as a private at the
beginning of the war, was gradually promoted, and in May, 1918, rose to the
rank of brigadier-general. He rendered valuable service to France as an
astronomist before the war, and as an airman during the war. He has rendered
still greater service to the Czecho-Slovak cause as a diplomat. These three
men, unanimously recognised by the two million Czecho-Slovaks in the Allied
countries as their leaders, were finally, in the summer of 1918, recognised
also by the Allies as the de facto provisional government of the Czecho-Slovak
State, with all rights and powers of a real government. The central seat of
the Czecho-Slovak Government is in Paris, and official Czecho-Slovak
representatives and legations are in all the Allied capitals.
3. The first political success of the National Council was
the Allies’ Note to President Wilson of January 10, 1917. The Czechs are
especially grateful to France for this first recognition of their claims.
In this Note, in which the Allies for the first time stated
publicly and explicitly their war aims, the Allies declared that these include:
“The reorganisation of Europe guaranteed by a stable
settlement, based upon the principle of nationality, upon the right which all
peoples, whether small or great, have to the enjoyment of full security and
free economic development, and also upon territorial agreements and
international arrangements so framed as to guarantee land and sea frontiers
against unjust attacks; the restitution of provinces or territories formerly
torn from the Allies by force or contrary to the wishes of their inhabitants; the
liberation of Italians, Slavs, Rumanians and Czecho-Slovaks from foreign
domination; the liberation of the peoples who now lie beneath the murderous
tyranny of the Turks, and the expulsion from Europe of the Ottoman Empire,
which has proved itself so radically alien to Western civilisation.”
The greatest success of the Czecho-Slovak National Council,
however, has been the formal recognition by France of the formation of an
autonomous Czecho-Slovak army in France with the National Council at its head.
By this act France recognised:
(1) That the Czecho-Slovaks have a right to form an army of
their own, which right appertains only to a sovereign and independent nation;
(2) That the Czecho-Slovaks have a right to fight on the side
of the Entente, and therefore are to be considered as one of the Allies;
(3) That the political direction of the army is reserved to
the Czecho-Slovak National Council, which right is usually accorded only to the
government of an independent state.
The full text of this historic document, signed by the
President of the French Republic, M. Poincaré, the French Premier, M.
Clémenceau, and the Foreign Secretary, M. Pichon, and dated December 19, 1917, reads as follows:
“1. The Czecho-Slovaks organised in an autonomous army
and recognising, from the military point of view, the superior authority of the
French high command, will fight under their own flag against the Central
Powers.
“2. This national army is placed, from the political
point of view, under the direction of the Czecho-Slovak National Council whose
headquarters are in Paris.
“3. The formation of the Czecho-Slovak army as well as
its further work are assured by the French Government.
“4. The Czecho-Slovak army will be subject to the same
dispositions as regards organisation, hierarchy, administration and military
discipline as those in force in the French army.
“5. The Czecho-Slovak army will be recruited from
among:
(a) Czecho-Slovaks at present serving with the
French army;
(b) Czecho-Slovaks from other countries admitted to
be transferred into the Czecho-Slovak army or to contract a voluntary
engagement with this army for the duration of war.
“6. Further ministerial instructions will settle the
application of this decree.
“7. The President of the War Cabinet, the Secretary of
War, and the Foreign Secretary are charged each in his own sphere to bring into
effect the present decree, which will be published in the Bulletin des Lois
and inserted in the Journal Officiel de la République Française.”
In a covering letter, dated December 16, 1917, and addressed to M. Poincaré, the French Premier and the Foreign Secretary declared:
“France has always supported by all means in her power
the national aspirations of the Czecho-Slovaks. The number of volunteers of
this nationality who at the outbreak of the war enlisted to fight under the
French flag was considerable; the gaps created in their ranks prove
unquestionably the ardour with which they fought against our enemies.
“Certain Allied governments, especially the Russian
Provisional Government, did not hesitate to authorise the formation on our
front of units composed of Czecho-Slovaks who had escaped from the oppression
of their enemy.
“It is only just that this nationality should be given
means of defending, under their own flag and side by side with us, the cause of
right and liberty of peoples, and it will be in accord with French traditions
to assist the organisation of an autonomous Czecho-Slovak army.”
Needless to say, the joy over this recognition was very
great in Bohemia, while the German papers were furious. The Neue Freie
Presse of December 28 devoted its leading article to the Czecho-Slovak army
on the Western front, and concluded with the following remarks:
“Although the strength of this new army is estimated
at 120,000 men, the Czecho-Slovak army will not have a decisive influence on
the military operations. Nevertheless, it may do us considerable harm in case
we should transfer troops to the Western front. However, the greatest harm is
in the moral effect which this act of wholesale treachery of the Czechs will
have on the military power of the monarchy. In any case the co-operation of the
Czecho-Slovak army on the side of the Entente will only strengthen the Allies’
belief that right is on their side.”
Soon afterwards Italy also generously allowed an
expeditionary corps of the Czecho-Slovak army to be formed from the
Czecho-Slovak prisoners of war who surrendered to her. On May 23, 1918, the Czecho-Slovak troops welcomed the Prince of Wales to Rome, and soon afterwards they
distinguished themselves on the Piave and were mentioned in one of General
Diaz’s dispatches and also in the official Italian communiqué of September 22, 1918.
From the recognition of the Czecho-Slovak army followed the
full recognition which the National Council obtained from the Allies.
4. While the general secretariat was actively working for
these concessions in the West, Professor Masaryk, after devoting his attention
to the education of public opinion in Great Britain on the importance of Bohemia,
by means of private memoranda and various articles in the New Europe,
Weekly Dispatch and elsewhere, decided in May, 1917, to go to Russia.
In Russia, Professor Masaryk succeeded admirably in uniting
and strengthening all Czecho-Slovak forces, and in organising a regular army of
the many thousands of Czecho-Slovak prisoners there. As we have already pointed
out elsewhere, before the Revolution these efforts of the National Council and
the Czech prisoners, who were always eager to fight for the Allies, were
rendered immensely difficult by the obstacles inherent in the geographic
conditions of Russia and by obstacles placed in their way by the old Russian
régime.
Unfortunately now, when the Czecho-Slovaks had at last
succeeded after much work in realising their plans, the Czecho-Slovak army
became powerless owing to the collapse of Russia. Without ammunition, without
support from anywhere, the Czecho-Slovaks thought they could no more render
very effective service to the Allies in the East. They decided, therefore, to
go over to join their compatriots in France.
The position of our army was as follows: After the offensive
of July, 1917, the Czechs retreated to Kieff where they continued to
concentrate fresh forces. At that time they numbered about 60,000, and this
number had gradually increased to 80,000 by the end of 1917. They always
observed strict neutrality in Russia’s internal affairs on the advice of their
venerable leader, Professor Masaryk. It was necessary to counsel this neutrality
for the sake of our army itself, since it contained partisans of different
creeds and parties disagreement among whom might have led to its dissolution.
On the whole, the Czecho-Slovaks, who are an advanced nation, fully conscious
of their national aspirations, remained unaffected by the misleading Bolshevist
theories. The Czechs abstained throughout from interfering with Russian
affairs, yet they did not wish to leave Russia as long as there was any chance
for them to assist her. It was not until the shameful peace of Brest-Litovsk in
February, 1918, that Professor Masaryk decided that the Czecho-Slovak army
should leave Russia via Siberia and join the Czecho-Slovak army in France.
The Bolsheviks granted them free passage to Vladivostok.
This journey of some 5000 miles was not, however, an easy
task for an army to accomplish. The troops had to move in small échelons or
detachments, and concentration at the stations was prohibited. They had to
procure their trains and their provisions, and they had constant trouble with
the Bolsheviks, because in every district there was a practically independent
Soviet Government with whom the Czechs had to negotiate. The first detachments
with the generalissimo of the army, General Diderichs, at the head arrived in Vladivostok
at the end of April, 1918. But the other detachments were constantly held up by
the Bolsheviks and had great trouble in passing through.
They moved from Kieff via Kursk, Tambov, Penza and
Samara. The two last-named towns lie on the line between Moscow and
Tcheliabinsk at the foot of the Urals, whence a direct line runs across Siberia
to Vladivostok.
As we have already pointed out, the Bolsheviks agreed in
principle to allow our troops to leave Russia. Their commander-in-chief,
General Muraviev, allowed the Czechs free passage to France on February 16. The
same concession had been granted by the Moscow Soviet. On the whole the Czechs
were on tolerably good terms with the Bolsheviks. Professor Masaryk rejected
every plan directed against the Bolsheviks submitted to him even by such of
their political adversaries as could not justly be called
counter-revolutionaries. The Czecho-Slovak troops went still further; they
actually complied with the request of the Bolsheviks and partially disarmed.
The trouble only began in May, 1918, when the Bolsheviks yielded to German
intrigues and resolved to destroy our army.
Already at the beginning of May the Czechs had begun to feel
embittered against the Bolsheviks, because in defiance of the agreement their
troops were constantly being held up by local Soviets. At Tambov, for instance,
they were held up for a whole month. At Tcheliabinsk the Czechs had a serious
scuffle with Magyar ex-prisoners on May 26, and the Bolsheviks sided entirely
with the Magyars, even arresting some Czecho-Slovak delegates. The Czechs
simply occupied the city, liberated their comrades, and at a congress held by
them at Tcheliabinsk on May 28 it was decided to refuse to surrender any more
arms and ammunition and to continue transports to Vladivostok, if necessary
with arms in their hands. This was a reply to Trotsky’s telegram that the
Czecho-Slovaks should be completely disarmed, which the Czecho-Slovaks defied
as they knew that another order had been issued by Trotsky simultaneously, no
doubt on the instigation of Count Mirbach, saying that the Czecho-Slovak troops
must be dissolved at all costs and interned as prisoners of war. The Bolsheviks
now arrested prominent members of the Moscow branch of the Czecho-Slovak
National Council on the ground that they were “anti-revolutionaries.”
They alleged also that they had no guarantee that ships would be provided for
the Czechs to be transported to France, and that the Czechs were holding up
food supplies from Siberia. The Bolsheviks deliberately broke their word, and
Trotsky issued an order to “all troops fighting against the
anti-revolutionary Czecho-Slovak brigades” in which he said:
“The concentration of our troops is complete. Our army
being aware that the Czecho-Slovaks are direct allies of the anti-revolution
and of the capitalists, fights them well. The Czecho-Slovaks are retreating
along the railway. Obviously they would like to enter into negotiations with
the Soviets. We issued an order that their delegates should be received. We
demand in the first place that they should be disarmed. Those who do not do
so voluntarily will be shot on the spot. Warlike operations on the railway
line hinder food transports. Energetic steps must be taken to do away with this
state of affairs.”
The Czecho-Slovaks were greatly handicapped, since they were
not only almost unarmed, but were also dispersed along the trans-Siberian line
in small detachments which had considerable difficulty in keeping in touch with
each other. Nevertheless the fates were favourable to them. They were
victorious almost everywhere, thanks to their wonderful spirit and discipline.
The first victories gained by the Czecho-Slovaks over the
Bolsheviks were at Penza and Samara. Penza was captured by them after three
days’ fighting at the end of May. Later the Czecho-Slovaks also took Sysran on
the Volga, Kazan with its large arsenal, Simbirsk and Yekaterinburg, connecting
Tcheliabinsk with Petrograd, and occupied practically the whole Volga region.
In Siberia they defeated a considerable force of
German-Magyar ex-prisoners in Krasnoyarsk and Omsk and established themselves
firmly in Udinsk. On June 29, 15,000 Czecho-Slovaks under General Diderichs,
after handing an ultimatum to the Bolsheviks at Vladivostok, occupied the city
without much resistance. Only at one spot fighting took place and some 160
Bolsheviks were killed. The Czecho-Slovaks, assisted by Japanese and Allied
troops, then proceeded to the north and north-west, while the Bolsheviks and
German prisoners retreated to Chabarovsk. In September the Czech and Allied
troops from Vladivostok joined hands with the Czecho-Slovaks from Irkutsk and Western
Siberia, and thus gained control over practically the whole trans-Siberian
railway. By this means they have done great service to the Allies, especially
to Great Britain, by defending the East against the German invaders.
Furthermore, it was the Czecho-Slovaks’ bold action which induced Japan and
America at last to intervene in Russia and for the sake of Russia, and it was
their control of the Siberian railway which made such intervention possible.
Let us hope that their action will lead to the regeneration and salvation of
the Russian nation.
The service rendered by Czecho-Slovak troops to the Allied
cause was, of course, justly appreciated by the Allies. Mr. Lloyd George sent
the following telegram to Professor Masaryk on September 9:
“On behalf of the British War Cabinet I send you our
heartiest congratulations on the striking successes won by the Czecho-Slovak
forces against the armies of German and Austrian troops in Siberia. The story
of the adventures and triumphs of this small army is, indeed, one of the
greatest epics of history. It has filled us all with admiration for the
courage, persistence and self-control of your countrymen, and shows what can be
done to triumph over time, distance and lack of material resources by those
holding the spirit of freedom in their hearts. Your nation has rendered
inestimable service to Russia and to the Allies in their struggle to free the
world from despotism. We shall never forget it.”
The deeds of our army met with equal admiration and
gratitude also in Bohemia. This is clearly shown by the speech of the Czech
deputy Stříbrný, delivered in the Austrian Reichsrat on July 17, and
entirely suppressed in the Austrian and German press. Despite the vigilance on
the part of the Austrian authorities, however, we have been able to secure the
full text of this remarkable speech which reads as follows:
“GENTLEMEN,–Let me first of all emphasise that my
speech is not a defence of the Czech nation and of the Czech soldiers. There
are no judges in this parliament competent to judge us.
“You call us traitors. We accept your declaration as
the view of our enemy. Nothing more–nothing less.
“You gentlemen on the German benches, you dared,
however, to touch the honour of our soldiers–you called them cowards. And in
this respect we are not going to keep silent. We shall always protest against
such injustice! We shall never permit these heroes to be abused by being called
‘cowards.’ If there is a single gentleman among you he ought for a moment to
reflect on the soul of a Czech soldier–a soldier who has been compelled by
force to fight in a war which the German Imperial Chancellor has openly called
‘a war of Germans against the Slavs’; a soldier who was compelled under the
threat of immediate execution to take up arms against the interests of the
Slavs, against the interests of his brothers, against the interests of his own
country–Bohemia. Well then, was it cowardice on the part of this soldier when he,
exposed to the fire of Austrian and German guns and machine guns from behind,
went over to the other side? Was he a coward when, while free to remain in his
captivity as a prisoner of war safely waiting until the end of the war, he
volunteered to fight again and was ready to risk his life and health once more?
Is that Czech soldier a coward who went once more into the trenches, although
aware that if he were captured he would not be treated as an ordinary prisoner
of war but as a deserter, and hanged accordingly? Is that man a coward who
sacrifices his family which he has left behind and his soil and property
inherited from his ancestors? Is that man a coward who sacrifices himself, his
father and mother, his wife and children for the sake of his nation and country?
“Is that Czech soldier not a hero who to-day is
voluntarily fighting from the Ural Mountains to Vladivostok, on the Piave and
in France?
“If there is a single gentleman, a real gentleman
among you, let him stand up and answer these questions.
“And if there is not such a gentleman among you,
remember the words of our bitter enemy the late Minister for Home Defence,
Baron Georgi, who related to this House in a secret sitting all that our
regiments have accomplished. He could not as a soldier suppress a sigh and say,
‘We regret all those treacheries of Czech soldiers, still more because from
their deeds committed on the side of our enemy we can realise what a splendid
military material we have lost.’ And if this is not sufficient, I will remind
you of the opinion of those who are in your eyes the best judges–the Prussian
officers. In an Austrian officers’ canteen where Czech soldiers had been abused
the whole evening by being called cowards, the Prussian officers present were
asked to give their opinion on this point. They answered, ‘We shall only be
able to judge as to whether the Czechs are cowards or not when they begin to
fight against us.’
“You should at least be gentlemanly enough not to
slander your enemies who have proved themselves to be greater heroes than any
other soldiers, because they are voluntary heroes, whereas the others are
heroes under compulsion!
“This question of cowardice is therefore, I hope,
settled forever.
“And now with regard to the title of ‘traitors.’ We
are traitors to Austria–every one of us admits it honestly.
Not one of you, however, has the right to reproach us for this. All of you are
patriots by order, and it cannot be otherwise in a dynastic state like Austria.
“With regard to the patriotism of the Magyars, we have
proofs of this dating from 1866. They have done the same as we are doing
to-day. They surrendered and organised Klapka’s legions against Austria. The
fact that they were punished for their treachery by being given their own
independence does not speak against us.
“Yes, gentlemen, we are traitors as much as you
Magyars, or as you Germans were, or would be under similar circumstances. And we
want the same as you want, i.e. to be free citizens of our own state.
Our own state–that does not mean to have a few officials or one more
university. To have a state of our own–that means to be able to decide freely
if our soldiers shall go to war again, and if they do, to see that they go only
for the interests of their own nation, and not for the interests of their enemies.
An independent state–that means for us no longer to die by order of
foreigners, and no longer to live under foreign domination.
“Let me remind the gentlemen on the German benches of
a lesson in history. Up till 1866 Germany was nominally under the sceptre of
the Habsburg dynasty–a German dynasty, mind you. Prussia and Northern Germany
felt the indignity of the ‘foreign’ rule of the Habsburgs–and they started the
fratricidal war in 1866 in order to get rid of this rule….
“It is for you gentlemen on the German benches to
speak! Let him who regrets the blood then spilt stand up and speak. Let him
stand up and condemn Bismarck and William I. who started the war in order to
deliver Germany from the same yoke from which we are trying to free ourselves
to-day. If there is a single man among the Germans who would be prepared to say
that the war against Austria should never have happened, let him stand up. That
war was carried on to free Germany from the incapable rule of Vienna and it had
the same aim in view which you reproach us with to-day and call high treason!
“You are silent, gentlemen! We are satisfied with your
silence. And now go and continue to stone and abuse us.”
5. In the meantime, Professor Masaryk arrived in the United
States via Japan in May, 1918. He was accorded a splendid reception at
Chicago where some 200,000 Czecho-Slovaks, as well as various Allied
representatives, greeted him. His presence in the United States not only
stimulated recruiting among Czecho-Slovaks there, but had also political
results, especially when the Central Powers launched their peace offensive.
At the end of May, Mr. Lansing issued the following
statement:
“The Secretary of State desires to announce that the
proceedings of the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria-Hungary which
was held in Rome in April have been followed with great interest by the
Government of the United States, and that the nationalist aspirations of the
Czecho-Slovaks and Jugoslavs have the earnest sympathy of this
government.”
This declaration was endorsed by the representatives of Great
Britain, France and Italy at Versailles on June 3, 1918. On June 29, Mr. Lansing completed and explained his statement as follows:
“Since the issuance by this government on May 29 of a
statement regarding the nationalist aspirations for freedom of the
Czecho-Slovaks and Jugoslavs, German and Austrian officials have sought to
misinterpret and distort its manifest interpretation. In order, therefore, that
there may be no misunderstanding concerning the meaning of this statement, the
Secretary of State to-day further announces the position of the United States
Government to be that all branches of the Slav race should be completely
freed from German and Austrian rule.”
On the following day, that is on June 30, 1918, President Poincaré presented the Czecho-Slovak army with a flag and delivered an
inspiring speech to them.
On the occasion of the handing of this flag by President
Pioncaré to the Czecho-Slovak army, M. Pichon, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, on behalf of the government of the French Republic, addressed the
following letter to Dr. Edouard Beneš, the general secretary of the
Czecho-Slovak National Council in Paris:
“At the moment when the 21st Regiment of Chasseurs,
the first unit of the autonomous Czecho-Slovak army in France, after receiving
its flag, is leaving its quarters to take up its position in a sector amongst
its French brothers-in-arms, the Republican Government, in recognition of your
efforts and your attachment to the Allied cause, considers it just and
necessary to proclaim the right of your nation to its independence and to
recognise publicly and officially the National Council as the supreme organ of
its general interests and the first step towards a future Czecho-Slovak
Government.
“During many centuries the Czecho-Slovak nation has
enjoyed the incomparable benefit of independence. It has been deprived of this
independence through the violence of the Habsburgs allied to the German
princes. The historic rights of nations are imperishable. It is for the defence
of these rights that France, attacked, is fighting to-day together with her
Allies. The cause of the Czechs is especially dear to her.
“France will never forget the Prague manifestation of December 8, 1870. Neither will she forget the resistance of its population and the refusal
of Czech soldiers to fight for Austria-Hungary, for which heroism thousands of
these patriots paid with their lives. France has also heard the appeals of the
Czech deputies of January 6, April 13, and May 16, 1918.
“Faithful to the principles of respect for
nationalities and the liberation of oppressed nations, the Government of the
Republic considers the claims of the Czecho-Slovak nation as just and well
founded, and will, at the right moment, support with all its solicitude the
realisation of your aspirations to independence within the historic boundaries
of your territories at present suffering under the oppressive yoke of
Austria and Hungary.
“It is very pleasant for me, Monsieur le Secrétaire
Général, to make this declaration. Your sentiments, reflecting those of your
compatriots, are for me the measure of the high degree of the future happiness
of your country.
“In the name of the Government of the French Republic
I tender my warmest and most sincere wishes that the Czecho-Slovak State may
speedily become, through the common efforts of all the Allies and in close
union with Poland and the Jugoslav State, an insurmountable barrier to Teutonic
aggression and a factor for peace in a reconstituted Europe in accordance
with the principles of justice and rights of nationalities.”
It is unnecessary to add long comments to this clear and
explicit state paper which forms a veritable pledge on the part of France to
secure Czecho-Slovak independence. It is a recognition of Bohemia’s right to
independence and of the National Council as the supreme organ of the
Czecho-Slovak nation abroad. At the same time it is also an acceptance of our
programme of the reorganisation of Central Europe, necessitating the break-up
of Austria, and in this respect it is also a success and a pledge for the Poles
and Yugoslavs.
6. If France and Italy showed such deep understanding of the
cause of Bohemia’s liberty, exhibited in practice by special military
conventions concluded with our National Council, Great Britain may be proud of
no less generosity. Although having no direct interests in seeing Bohemia
independent, Great Britain, true to her traditions as a champion of the
liberties of small nations, did not hesitate to give us a declaration which not
only fully endorses all pledges of France and Italy, but which goes still
further and practically recognises our full national sovereignty.
On August 9, 1918, His Majesty’s Government issued the
following declaration:
“Since the beginning of the war the Czecho-Slovak
nation has resisted the common enemy by every means in its power. The
Czecho-Slovaks have constituted a considerable army, fighting on three
different battlefields and attempting, in Russia and Siberia, to arrest the
Germanic invasion.
“In consideration of their efforts to achieve
independence, Great Britain regards the Czecho-Slovaks as an Allied nation and
recognises the unity of the three Czecho-Slovak armies as an Allied and
belligerent army waging a regular warfare against Austria-Hungary and Germany.
“Great Britain also recognises the right of the
Czecho-Slovak National Council as the supreme organ of the Czecho-Slovak
national interests, and as the present trustee of the future Czecho-Slovak
Government to exercise supreme authority over this Allied and belligerent army.”
It will be readily seen of what a tremendous significance
this declaration is from an international point of view. Apart from the fact
that it recognises our efforts towards independence, the declaration says explicitly
that the Czecho-Slovaks, abroad and at home, are an Allied nation, which
implies that the Allies will treat them henceforward as such, and will allow
their government to establish consular service and to send representatives to
Allied conferences. The sovereignty both of the Czecho-Slovak army and of the
National Council is fully recognised in this declaration which proclaims
“the unity of the three Czecho-Slovak armies (in Russia, France and Italy)
as an Allied and belligerent army waging regular warfare against Austria.”
Only a sovereign army is a belligerent army waging regular warfare. Thus the
Czecho-Slovaks, according to international law, are no more rebels but regular
soldiers whom, when captured, Austria has no more the right to execute. Similarly
also the recognition of the National Council as the “trustee” of the
Czecho-Slovak Government is clear and explicit; in fact a “trustee”
is the word applied to a provisional government of a state. As a matter of
fact, the National Council, on the ground of this recognition of full
sovereignty, was constituted as a Provisional Government on October 14, 1918, and has the power to exercise all rights appertaining to a sovereign and
independent government.
Thus implicitly Great Britain considers Czecho-Slovak
independence already a fait accompli. It speaks of and considers a Czecho-Slovak
State no more as a probability, but as a certainty. As with the Czecho-Slovaks
so with Great Britain, Austria exists no more.
The recognition is of additional importance because it comes
from Great Britain who has always been considered a traditional friend of Austria,
and who is known for conservatism in foreign politics. The decision to issue a
declaration of such far-reaching importance was surely arrived at only after
due and careful deliberation. The step which Great Britain has taken thereby
once more proves the deep sense of justice and the far-sightedness of British
statesmen. Needless to say that the Czecho-Slovaks will always remain grateful
to Great Britain for this bold and generous act. Its immediate effect has been
consternation in Vienna and encouragement both to the Czecho-Slovak soldiers
fighting on the side of the Entente and to the Czech leaders courageously
defending Bohemia’s rights in Vienna. As deputy Klofáč put it at a meeting
in Laibach on August 15:
“Henceforward the Czechs will refuse to hold any
negotiations with Vienna, with whom any compromise is now out of the question.
The Czecho-Slovaks will firmly continue the struggle for complete national
independence, strengthened by the support of other Slavs, and by the knowledge
that the British and other Allied governments had formally acknowledged and
were working for the establishment of an independent Czecho-Slovak State.”
This chapter would not be complete if we did not quote the
subsequent declarations of the United States of America and Japan, practically
endorsing the British declaration.
On September 3, Mr. Lansing issued the following statement:
“The Czecho-Slovak peoples having taken up arms
against the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, and having placed in the field
organised armies, which are waging war against those empires under officers of
their own nationality and in accordance with the rules and practices of
civilised nations, and Czecho-Slovaks having in the prosecution of their
independence in the present war confided the supreme political authority to the
Czecho-Slovak National Council, the Government of the United States recognises
that a state of belligerency exists between the Czecho-Slovaks thus organised
and the German and Austro-Hungarian empires.
“It also recognises the Czecho-Slovak National
Council as a de facto belligerent government, clothed with proper
authority to direct the military and political affairs of the Czecho-Slovaks.
“The Government of the United States further declares
that it is prepared to enter formally into relations with the de facto
government thus recognised for the purpose of prosecuting the war against the
common enemy, the empires of Germany and Austria-Hungary.”
A week later the Japanese Government, through the medium of
its ambassador in London, communicated the following declaration to the
Czecho-Slovak National Council:
“The Japanese Government have noted with deep and
sympathetic interest the just aspirations of the Czecho-Slovak people for a
free and independent national existence. These aspirations have conspicuously
been made manifest in their determined and well-organised efforts to arrest the
progress of the Germanic aggression.
“In these circumstances, the Japanese Government are
happy to regard the Czecho-Slovak army as an Allied and belligerent army waging
regular warfare against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and to recognise the
rights of the Czecho-Slovak National Council to exercise the supreme control
over that army. They are further prepared to enter into communication with the
duly authorised representatives of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, whenever
necessary, on all matters of mutual interest to the Japanese and the Czecho-Slovak
forces in Siberia.”
THE CZECHS AT HOME BEGIN TO SPEAK
The opening of the Reichsrat in May, 1917, was intended to
give Austria the appearance of a “democratic” country in which
diverse nationalities live in peace and happiness. Democratic indeed! A parliament,
subject to censorship, lacking the freedom of speech and all influence on the
government, with 463 members instead of 516, many of whom were still in prison
and in exile! And if there was still any person in the Allied countries having
any doubts concerning the attitude of the Czechs and Yugoslavs, these doubts
were certainly dispelled after the courageous indictment against Austria made
by the Slav deputies, representing practically all the Czech and Yugoslav
political parties. The declaration of the Poles in favour of a united and
independent Poland, the statement of Messrs. Staněk and Korošec in
the name of all Czechs and Yugoslavs in favour of a Czecho-Slovak and
Yugoslav State, the speech of deputy Kalina denying all responsibility of the
Czechs for the war, and expressing Czech sympathies with the Entente Powers, and
the terrible story of persecutions which the Czechs had to suffer from Austria
during the war, told by deputy Stříbrný, formed a veritable “Mene
Tekel,” a death sentence pronounced by the Austrian Slavs on their tyrants
in Vienna and Budapest.
The revelation in the Reichsrat of the hopeless state of
decay prevailing in Austria-Hungary was, of course, due to the Russian
Revolution. If it was not for the Russian Revolution, the Austrian Emperor and
Clam-Martinic would perhaps have continued their reign of absolutism by way of
imperial decrees, and they would never have dreamt of convoking the Reichsrat.
However, the desperate economic and political situation
forced Austria to find some way out of her difficulties, and to plead for peace
as she began to realise that otherwise she was doomed. The change of order and
the situation in Russia and the uncertain attitude of some Allied statesmen
seemed favourable for the Austrian calculations respecting a separate peace.
But Austria could not possibly hope to deceive free Russia or the Allies and
lure them into concluding a premature peace if the reign of terrorism and
absolutism still prevailed in the Dual Monarchy. For this reason Tisza, with
his sinister reputation, was forced to go, and the Reichsrat was convened. Austria
based her plans on the ignorance of some Allied politicians who really believed
in the “new orientation” of the Vienna Government because of the
Bohemian names (not sympathies) of Clam-Martinic and Czernin. In the
same way Austria wanted to make outsiders believe that a change in the name of
the Hungarian Premier meant a change of system, and that the convocation of the
Reichsrat meant a new era of “democracy” in Austria.
Neither of these assumptions was, of course, correct. If the
Magyars talk of introducing universal suffrage, they want to extend it to
Magyar electors, and on one condition only, viz. that all the candidates shall
be of Magyar nationality, or, as the Hungarian Premier, Count Esterhazy,
put it, “democracy in Hungary can only be a Magyar democracy”–that
is, a system utterly at variance with the principles of justice.
But far from averting the doom of Austria and bringing her
peace and consolation, the opening of the Reichsrat only hastened Austria’s
downfall, for it enabled the Austrian Slavs, who now felt that the moment had
come for them to speak, to declare before the whole world their aspirations,
and their determination to destroy the monarchy.
(a) The Czech Declaration of May 30, 1917
Before entering the Reichsrat, the Czechs made it clear that
they no longer desired any compromise with Austria. In a manifesto signed by
150 Czech authors and subsequently endorsed by professors, teachers and various
societies and corporations, the Czech deputies were reminded that the fate of
their nation was at stake:
“The doors of the Austrian Parliament are opening and
the political representatives of the nations have for the first time the
opportunity of speaking and acting freely. Whatever they may say and decide
will be heard not only at home, but also throughout Europe and overseas…. The
programme of our nation is founded on its history and racial unity, on its
modern political life and rights. The present time emphasises the necessity for
carrying out this programme completely…. To-day you are forced to develop
this programme, to defend it to the last breath before the forum of Europe, and
to demand its realisation without limitations…. Democratic Europe, the Europe
of free and independent nations, is the Europe of the future. The nation asks
you to be equal to this historic occasion, to devote to it all your abilities
and to sacrifice to it all other considerations….”
And to this appeal of their nation the Czech, deputies did
not turn a deaf ear.
On entering the Reichsrat on May 30, 1917, Mr. Staněk, president of the Union of Czech Deputies, made the following memorable
declaration in the name of all the Czech deputies:
“While taking our stand at this historic moment on the
natural right of peoples to self-determination and free development–a right
which in our case is further strengthened by inalienable historic rights fully
recognised by this state–we shall, at the head of our people, work for the
union of all branches of the Czecho-Slovak nation in a single democratic
Bohemian State, comprising also the Slovak branch of our nation which lives
in the lands adjoining our Bohemian Fatherland.”
Both the Yugoslav and the Polish press greeted this
declaration with undisguised joy and sympathy.
The Glos Naroda welcomed the Czech declaration, and
added: “Those who to-day are asking for an independent national existence
do not claim anything but the minimum of their rights. Nothing less could
satisfy them (i.e. the Czechs and Yugo-slavs), seeing that even smaller
and less historic nations claim the same.” The Nowa Reforma also
said that the Czechs were quite right to ask for full independence. “They
are entitled to it by their position in which they can lose nothing more than
they have lost already, but gain a great deal. Among the Entente Powers there
is nobody who would have an open or disguised interest in opposing even the
boldest claims of the Czecho-Slovak nation.”
The declaration of deputy Staněk was completed by a
statement of deputy Kalina who made it quite clear that the Czechs refuse
responsibility for the war, and that their sympathies are with the Entente.
Kalina, a prominent leader of the State Right Party, said:
“As deputies elected by the Czech nation, we
absolutely reject every responsibility for this war.
“After three years, the government has summoned the Reichsrat,
which the Czechs never recognised, and against which, as well as against
the so-called constitution, they again make a formal protest. The great Russian
Revolution forced the government to a plausible restoration of constitutional
life.
“The Czech nation hails with unbounded joy and
enthusiasm the liberation of Eastern Europe. The main principles of that
memorable Revolution are closely related to our own traditions, i.e. to
the principle of liberty, equality and fraternity of all nations. Bohemia
is a free country. Never in her history did she accept laws from aliens, not
even from her powerful neighbours in Europe. Liberty of individuals, liberty of
nations is again our motto which the nation of Hussites is bringing before the
world. In these historic moments, when from the blood-deluged battlefields a
new Europe is arising, and the idea of the sovereignty of nations and
nationalities is triumphantly marching throughout the Continent, the Czech
nation solemnly declares before the world its firm will for liberty and
independence on the ground of the ancient historic rights of the Bohemian
Crown. In demanding independence, the Czech nation asks, in the sense of the
new democracy, for the extension of the right of self-determination to the
whole Czecho-Slovak nation.”
(b) Courageous Speeches delivered
by Czech Deputies in the Reichsrat
During the subsequent session of the Reichsrat, various
Czech deputies, representing all the Czech parties, made declarations, some of
which we will quote in order to show the remarkable unanimity of the Czechs in
their opposition to Austria and in their demand for independence. It was
chiefly this unanimity of all Czech parties and classes in Bohemia
and the absolute harmony between their action and the Czecho-Slovak action
abroad which formed the real strength of the movement.
Dr. Stránský, leader of the Moravian People’s Party,
delivered a long speech in the Reichsrat on June 12, 1917, from which we quote the following significant passages:
“The Germans say that germanisation is not carried out
except where it is in the interests of the state. We do not think that the
interests of the state should go first. If the interests of a state are not
identical with the liberties and interests of a nation, then such a state
has for that nation no right to exist.
“If Clam-Martinic thinks that we will enter the
Reichsrat which the Polish deputies would not attend in their present strength,
then he is greatly mistaken. We heartily wish the Poles to achieve their
national independence, but should we be denied an equal right, then it would
mean an end to this Reichsrat. We want to enjoy the same happiness as the rest,
we want to be free from all oppression, from all foreign domination. We want
to decide for ourselves the form of our political existence. We want to
choose our own laws, we want to govern ourselves. We claim the restitution
of our political independence and of the supreme historic right of the Czech
nation in the lands of the Bohemian Crown. The time is ripe also when the
Austrian fortresses of St. Peter and St. Paul will open, and when
their prisoners will change places with their persecutors. The state and
dynasty have lately taken away the rights and liberties of our nation and
trampled them underfoot.”
On June 15, the National Socialist deputy Stříbrný,
openly demanded the creation of a Czecho-Slovak Republic:
“The German annexationist plans are doomed. The Czechs
greet with joy the new era of equality and fraternity, an era in which a democratic
republic is considered as the best form of government. The Czechs demand
the creation of a Bohemia in which they will possess their own independent
government. Too long have they been oppressed by Austria, and
now they are determined to achieve their national liberty.”
On June 26, Dr. Soukup, the leader of the Czecho-Slav
Social Democratic Party, made an equally remarkable statement:
“As a Social Democrat I say that we, the Czecho-Slovak
nation, have also a right to a place in the sun, and we want to be seen. Do you
consider that a nation numbering over ten million and boasting of a highly
developed civilisation can continue to breathe under such oppressive
conditions, seeing what an important role is being played by four million
Bulgars, two million Greeks, two million Danes and other small nations? We
welcome the resurrection of the great and united Polish State,
we witness the great Yugoslav nation shaping its boundaries along the Adriatic,
and we also see Ukrainia arising. At such moments we want to live as well, and
we will live!”
The political amnesty of July, 1917, intended to appease the
Slavs, had just the opposite effect: it only strengthened the Slav resistance
which acquired fresh strength and impetus by the return of the old leaders.
Kramář was hailed like a sovereign when he entered Prague
again. He now became the recognised leader of the whole nation. The Národní
Listy became the mouthpiece of all the most eminent leaders of the nation
without party distinction. Its issue of October 31, 1917, contained a map of the future independent Czecho-Slovak State and a series of articles. We
will quote only a few passages from an article written by deputy Rašín
which read as follows:
“The war has brought our problem home not only to us
but to the whole world. Nothing could have better expressed our situation than
the propaganda of Mitteleuropa. Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria had to form a
bridge for the imperialistic march of Germany to the Persian Gulf via Constantinople
and Bagdad. The Czechs and Yugoslavs were to be crushed and become the victims
of those plans. This was the ideal that the German nation considered as its war
aim and as a war aim of Austria-Hungary. They could not have obtained a better
reply than was given to them by the Czechs and Yugoslavs in their demand for
their own independent states, which would be able to form a permanent bulwark
against the Drang nach Osten as planned by the Germans and Magyars. Even
if Herr Naumann ceases to promote the idea of Central Europe, in reality a
new programme which would do away with the old evils and assign a new mission
to Austria-Hungary is inconceivable. All the declarations of
the government are only destined to conceal their real intentions. The
German-Magyar hegemony is as strong as ever, and the Polish question is to be
solved only according to the Pan-German programme. During this war Austria’s
real face has been unmasked before the whole world by her persecutions,
arbitrary decrees and the Pan-German propaganda.
“The Czechs, who in their policy always went hand in
hand with the Yugoslavs, saw all this, and consequently the only thing left for
them to do is to insist on their attitude, constantly to reveal Austria’s
insincerity, to reject all pretty phrases without any meaning in them, and all
compromises, which we know would never be kept. We also must reject a
compromise peace which would lead to fresh wars.
“The policy of the Czechs cannot but aim at the
absolute independence of the whole Czecho-Slovak nation, and all our action
at home and abroad must tend towards persuading the world that only thus can a
stable peace in Europe be achieved.”
It was about this time also when Seidler made desperate
attempts to induce the Slav leaders to participate in a special commission for
the revision of the Austrian Constitution. Dr. Stránský, speaking in the name
of the Czechs, openly refused the proposal, declaring that the Czech problem
could not be solved by Austria, but only by the Peace Conference, that is after
the victory of the Entente. A joint committee of representatives of the Young
Czech, National Socialist, Progressive Independence and Moravian Progressive
Parties issued a proclamation protesting against any participation of Czechs in
Austrian politics, and declaring that since the Czech question is an
international one and can therefore be decided only at the Peace Conference,
the duty of the Czech deputies is not to assist in the revision of the Austrian
Constitution, but to insist upon the creation of an “independent
Czecho-Slovak State with all the attributes of sovereignty.”
Simultaneously also the Czech Agrarian deputy, Zahradník,
made the following remarkable declaration in the Reichsrat on September 26:
“In view of the prevailing policy directed against the
Czech people, can any one wonder that they have lost all confidence in Vienna
and that they refuse to let this parliament decide their fate? It is
necessary to secure for all peoples, great or small, the right to decide their
own destinies. This applies also to the ten million Czecho-Slovaks who,
moreover, cannot rightly be considered merely as a ‘small’ nation: the Czechs,
too, do not desire anything more than peace, but it must not be forgotten that
our men did not shed their blood merely for imperialism or for Pan-Germanism. We
do not want anything but an honourable peace which would bring equality to all
peoples, a peace assuring liberty and equality to all, and not a peace
which would leave our fetters unbroken. We regret that the Pope omitted to
mention the Czechs in his peace offer although he mentioned the Poles. But
we shall obtain our right without alien support. The Czechs will never swerve
from their demand for an independent Slovak State
with all the attributes of sovereignty. The Czechs are convinced that the
question of Bohemia is too great to be solved in Vienna.
It must be decided at the Peace Conference.”
On November 9, deputy Staněk made it clear that the
Czecho-Slovaks expect the resurrection of their independence only from the
break-up of Austria:
“We cannot conceive of peace or of the transformation
of Europe except when on the ruins of the Dual Monarchy new national
states shall arise. The German-Magyar misrule must be destroyed.”
And when on November 21 Seidler talked about the peace
conditions of the “enemy,” Dr. Stránský interrupted him by
exclaiming, “Our enemies are here, in Vienna and in Budapest!”
(d) During Peace Negotiations with Russia
When peace negotiations were opened with the Bolsheviks, the
Austro-Hungarian delegations were also summoned, for the first time during the
war, on December 3, 1917. During the speech from the throne the Czechs demonstratively
left the hall. On the same day the Bohemian Union, the Yugoslav Club and the
Ruthenes issued a protest against the government having published a distorted
version of the Russian peace offer. In this protest the Slav deputies asked:
“How can the government answer for having purposely
distorted such a highly important document as the Russian Note of November 28,
and why did the government suppress just the paragraph out of it containing
guarantees for national self-determination?”
Their declaration naturally exasperated the Germans and the
government. The organ of the Austrian Foreign Office, the Fremdenblatt,
expressed regret that the Slav parties in the Reichsrat “place obstacles
in the way of peace.” It also regretted that “some parties in the
Austrian Parliament should take up an attitude incompatible with our state’s
self-preservation.” On the next day, M. Staněk made a declaration in
the delegations in the name of Czechs and Yugoslavs, saying:
“We Czech and Yugoslav delegates declare that it is
our deep conviction as well as the firm will of our respective nations that a
lasting peace is possible only on the ground of the full right of
self-determination. The Imperial Government deliberately and wilfully
distorted the most important part of the Russian peace offer, viz. the
demand for the self-determination of nations. It is still more surprising that
the prime ministers in both halves of the monarchy should try to deceive the
public opinion of the world by a false interpretation of the right of
self-determination. The Austrian Premier, Dr. Seidler, declared that the
Viennese Parliament is a forum through which the nations could obtain
self-determination, while the Hungarian Premier had the impudence to
describe the conditions in Hungary, which are a mockery of all civilisation,
as the ideal of national liberty. We, therefore, declare in regard to any
peace negotiations: Our national development can only then be secured when
the right of self-determination of all nations shall be fully, clearly and
unreservedly recognised with binding guarantees of its immediate
realisation.”
At the same time the Slavs made a proposal in the
Austro-Hungarian Delegations, insisting that the peace negotiations with Russia
should be conducted by a committee selected from both parliaments on the basis
of nationality, and consisting of twelve Germans, ten Magyars, ten
Czecho-Slovaks, seven Yugoslavs, five Poles, four Ruthenes, three Rumanians and
one Italian.
Finally, on December 5, the Czech Socialist deputy Tusar declared
in the Reichsrat:
“We want to be our own masters, and if it is high
treason to ask for liberty and independence, then let us say at once that each
of us is a traitor, but such high treason is an honour, and not a dishonour.
As regards the negotiations with Russia, we declare that Count Czernin does
not represent the nations of Austria and has no right to speak in
our name; he is merely the plenipotentiary of the dynasty. The old Austria,
based on police, bureaucracy, militarism and racial tyranny, cannot survive
this war. We also want peace, but it must be a just peace. The
Czecho-Slovaks will under all circumstances defend their rights.”
In conjunction with this declaration we may quote two other
Czech Socialists showing the opinion of the Czechs on the Russian Revolution.
On November 29, deputy Modráček declared in the
Reichsrat:
“The Revolution of the Bolsheviks is a misfortune for
the Russian Revolution, the Russian Republic and all the oppressed nations of Europe.
So long as the German Social Democracy permits the working masses to be
brought to the battlefield in the interests of Imperialism, the action of the
Bolsheviks is not the work for Socialism but for German Tsarism. I do not
undervalue the significance and the greatness of the Russian Revolution: it is
the German Social Democrats who fail to perform their moral duty in this war
and do not comprehend the Russian Revolution.”
Still more outspoken is the declaration of deputy Winter,
who said in the Reichsrat on February 21, 1918:
“The workers of the whole world will never forget that
the Russian Revolution was the first social revolution on a large scale. And on
this revolutionary movement Germany has directly and Austria-Hungary indirectly
declared war. Perhaps Austria-Hungary wants to repay the
Romanoffs in 1918 for the aid which they rendered to the Habsburgs in
1848…. Austria-Hungary once before engaged in the European reaction by
crushing revolution in Italy. She gathered the fruits of this act in 1848,
1859, 1866, and in the present war. Formerly France and Russia participated in
the Holy Alliance, but to-day the Central Powers are the only refuge of
reaction in Europe.”
(e) The Constituent Assembly of
Prague on January 6, 1918
The most important manifestation of Czecho-Slovak national
will took place in Prague on January 6, 1918, when all the Czech deputies
assembled in order to give expression to their deep gratitude for the French
recognition of the constitution of a Czecho-Slovak army on the side of the
Entente. At the same time it was a protest against Austria-Hungary and a demand
for representation at the Peace Conference.
As to the resolution unanimously adopted by this constituent
assembly, there is no doubt about its meaning: in it the Czecho-Slovaks no more
act with Austria but demand full liberty. This even the Austrian Premier, Dr.
Seidler, had to admit, when he declared in the Reichsrat on January 22:
“This resolution, in which we in vain look for a
distant echo of dynastic or state allegiance, adopts to a certain extent an
international standpoint, and shows that this people is ready, at any rate on
the conclusion of peace, to accept international support with a view to
obtaining the recognition of foreign states. Such a standpoint is calculated to
encourage our enemies and to prolong the war.
“The resolution demands the right of
self-determination in order to dissolve the existing unity of the state, and to
assure full independence and sovereignty. The resolution gives the
impression of having been conceived in a sense absolutely hostile to the state,
and must be indignantly rejected by every Austrian and resisted by every
Austrian Government with all the means in its power.”
The Czech declaration of January 6, which is the most
important of all declarations of the Czechs and which has been suppressed in
the Austrian press, reads as follows:
“In the fourth year of this terrible war, which has
already cost the nations numberless sacrifices in blood and treasure, the first
peace efforts have been inaugurated. We Czech deputies recognise the
declarations in the Reichsrat, and deem it our duty emphatically to declare, in
the name of the Czech nation and of its oppressed and forcibly-silenced Slovak
branch of Hungary, our attitude towards the reconstruction of the international
situation.
“When the Czech deputies of our regenerated nation
expressed themselves, during the Franco-Prussian War, on the international
European problems, they solemnly declared in the memorandum of December 8,
1870, that ‘only from the recognition of the equality of all nations and from
natural respect of the right of self-determination could come true equality and
fraternity, a general peace and true humanity.’
“We, deputies of the Czech nation, true even to-day to
these principles of our ancestors, have therefore greeted with joy the fact
that all states, based upon democratic principles, whether belligerent or
neutral, now accept with us the right of nations to free self-determination as
a guarantee of a general and lasting peace.
“The new Russia also accepted the principle of
self-determination of nations during its attempts for a general settlement and
as a fundamental condition of peace. The nations were freely to determine their
fate and decide whether they want to live in an independent state of their own
or whether they choose to form one state in common with other nations.
“On the other hand, the Austro-Hungarian delegate
declared, in the name of the Quadruple Alliance, that the question of the
self-determination of those nations which have not hitherto enjoyed political
independence should be solved in a constitutional manner within the existing
state. This point of view of the Austro-Hungarian representative is not our
point of view, because we know, from our own numberless bitter experiences,
that it means nothing but the negation of the principle of self-determination.
We indignantly express our regret that our nation was deprived of its political
independence and of the right of self-determination, and that by means of
artificial electoral statutes we were left to the mercy of the German minority
and of the government of the centralised German bureaucracy.
“Our brother Slovaks became the victims of Magyar
brutality and of unspeakable violence in a state which, notwithstanding all its
apparent constitutional liberties, remains the darkest corner of Europe, and in
which the non-Magyars who form the majority of the population are ruthlessly
oppressed by the ruling minority, extirpated, and denationalised from
childhood, unrepresented in parliament and the civil service, and deprived of
public schools as well as of all private educational institutions.
“The constitution to which the Austro-Hungarian
representative refers, nullified even the right of general suffrage by an
artificial creation of an over-representation of the German minority in the
Reichsrat, and its utter uselessness for the liberty of nations was clearly
demonstrated during the three years of unscrupulous military absolutism during
this war. Every reference to this constitution, therefore, means in reality
only a repudiation of the right of self-determination for the non-German
nations of Austria who are at the mercy of the Germans: and it means an
especially cruel insult and injury to the non-Magyar nations in Hungary,
where the constitution is nothing but a means of shameful domination by the oligarchy
of a few Magyar aristocratic families, as was again proved by the recent
electoral reform proposal.
“Our nation longs with all the democracies of the
world for a general and lasting peace. But our nation is fully aware that no
peace can be permanent except a peace which will abolish old injustice,
brutal force and the predominance of arms, as well as the predominance of
states and nations over other nations, which will assure a free development to
all nations, great or small, and which will liberate especially those nations
which are still suffering under foreign domination. That is why it is necessary
that this right of free national development and of self-determination of
nations, great or small, to whatever state they may belong, should become the
foundation of future international rights, a guarantee of peace, and of a
friendly co-operation of nations, as well as a great ideal which will liberate
humanity from the terrible horrors of a world war.
“We deputies of the Czech nation declare that a peace
which would not bring our nation full liberty could not be and would not mean a
peace to us, but would only be the beginning of a new, desperate and
continuous struggle for our political independence, in which our nation would
strain to the utmost its material and moral forces. And in that uncompromising
struggle it would never relax until its aim had been achieved. Our nation
asks for independence on the ground of its historic rights, and is imbued
with the fervent desire to contribute towards the new development of humanity
on the basis of liberty and fraternity in a free competition with other free
nations, which our nation hopes to accomplish in a sovereign, equal, democratic
and socially just state of its own, built upon the equality of all its citizens
within the historic boundaries of the Bohemian lands and of Slovakia,
guaranteeing full and equal national rights to all minorities.
“Guided by these principles, we solemnly protest
against the rejection of the right of self-determination at the peace
negotiations, and demand that, in the sense of this right, all nations,
including, therefore, also the Czecho-Slovaks, be guaranteed participation and
full freedom of defending their rights at the Peace Conference.”
(f) The Oath of the Czecho-Slovak
Nation
It will be remembered that Count Czernin delivered a speech
to the Vienna Municipal Council on April 2, 1918, which caused his downfall. In
this pronouncement he also attacked Czech leaders and blamed them for the
failure of his peace efforts. This interesting passage of his speech reads as
follows:
“What terrible irony it is that, while our brothers
and sons are fighting like lions on the battlefield and millions of men and
women at home are heroically bearing their losses and are sending up urgent prayers
to the Almighty for the speedy termination of the war, certain leaders of the
people and the people’s representatives agitate against the German Alliance,
which has so splendidly stood the test, pass resolutions which no longer
have the slightest connection with the state idea, find no word of blame for
the Czech troops which criminally fight against their own country and their
brothers-in-arms, would tear parts out of the Hungarian State, under the
protection of their parliamentary immunity make speeches which cannot be
considered otherwise than as a call to enemy countries to continue the struggle
solely in order to support their own political efforts, and ever anew kindle
the expiring war spirit in London, Rome and Paris. The wretched and
miserable Masaryk is not the only one of his kind. There are also Masaryks
within the borders of the monarchy. I would much rather have spoken on this
sad matter in the delegations, but, as I have already mentioned, the convoking
of the committee has at present proved to be impossible and I cannot
wait.”
Thereupon he attempted to absolve the Czech
“people” from the charge of high treason.
The Czech leaders did not resent his charge that they were
“traitors” like Masaryk. Indeed, the Lidové Noviny openly
declared: “We are proud to be called traitors.” But they resented his
subsequent allegation that the Czech people do not stand behind their leaders.
In order to refute this allegation and to assure the Czech soldiers fighting on
the side of the Entente of their solidarity, the Czechs summoned a meeting at Prague
in which some 6000 delegates of all Czech parties and classes took part,
as well as twenty-three delegates of the Yugoslavs. The meeting was most solemn
and impressive. It was a new manifestation by the whole nation of its unanimity
in the struggle for independence. The Czecho-Yugoslav solidarity was again
emphasised. Finally, a solemn oath was unanimously taken by the whole assembly.
The following are some of its passages:
“To the Czecho-Slovak Nation!
“The terrible world war is approaching its
culmination. In awe and sorrow a great number of Czecho-Slovak men and women
are standing here.
“The Czecho-Slovak blood has been and is still being
shed in torrents.
“Unbroken, united in suffering, our nation believed
and believes that the storm of the world war will ultimately result in a better
future and that its humanitarian ideals will be sanctioned by a universal peace
which will forever guard humanity against a repetition of the present
catastrophe.
“We never asked for anything but to be able to live a
free life, to govern our own destinies free from foreign domination, and to
erect our own state after the manner of all other civilised nations. That is
our sacred right. It is the national and international right of a nation which
has done great service to civilisation and can proudly range itself among the
most civilised and democratic nations of Europe.
“This is the firm and unanimous will of the nation:
“We have assembled here to-day as the legitimate
representatives of the Czecho-Slovak nation in order to manifest unmistakably
that the whole nation is united as it never was before, and that it stands like
a rock behind the memorable and historic declarations of its deputies.
“So we are standing here, firmly convinced of the
ultimate victory of Justice, of the victory of Right over Might, of Liberty
over Tyranny, of Democracy over Privilege and of Truth over Falsehood and
Deceit.
“At the cross-roads of history, we swear by the
glorious memory of our ancestors, before the eyes of the sorrow-stricken
nation, over the graves of those who have fallen for the cause of liberty,
to-day and for all eternity:
“We will hold on and will never give way!
“We will be faithful in all our work, struggles and
sufferings, faithful unto death!
“We will hold on unto victory!
“We will hold on until our nation obtains
independence.
“Long live the Czecho-Slovak nation!
“Let our nation grow and flourish freely in the great
family of nations, for its own welfare as well as for the welfare of the future
liberated humanity!”
The appalling terrorism prevailing in Hungary made it
impossible for the Slovaks to manifest their feelings as they would have liked
to do. The Slovaks abroad, of course, work hand in hand with the Czechs for
their common cause.
Nevertheless, even in Hungary the Slovaks showed their
unanimity with the Czechs.
According to the Národní Listy of July 24, 1917, the
Slovak political leaders, especially their two deputies, Father P. Juriga and
Dr. P. Blaho, and the veteran leader of the Slovak National Party, M. Dula,
have been subjected to all sorts of persuasions and threats on the part of the
Magyars who were anxious that the Slovaks should disavow the declaration of the
Bohemian Club in favour of the union of all Czechs and Slovaks in an
independent state. The Slovak leaders, however, refused to become the dupes of
the Magyar Government.
According to the Národní Listy of May 5, 1918, a great manifestation was arranged by Slovak Socialists in St. Miklos on May
1 in favour of the union of the Hungarian Slovaks with the Czechs of Bohemia, Moravia
and Silesia. Several thousand Slovaks took part in the manifestation despite
the obstacles put in the way by the Magyar gendarmerie and police spies. A
resolution was carried unanimously demanding amongst other things a just and
lasting peace which would prevent the outbreak of fresh conflagrations and
assure liberty to all nations in Europe, and “self-determination for
all nations, including also that branch of the Czecho-Slovak nation which
lives in Hungary.” Besides this manifestation, the Slovaks sent
representative delegates to the National Theatre celebrations in Prague, with
which we deal in our next chapter.
(h) The Czecho-Slovak National
Council in Prague
On July 13, 1918, an important event took place in Prague.
The Czecho-Slovaks established an inter-party council which may well be
described as part of the Provisional Government of Bohemia, whose
programme is identical with that of the Czecho-Slovak Provisional Government in
Paris.
The inaugural meeting of the council in Prague was opened by
the president of the Agrarian Party, Mr. Švehla, who gave a report about
the preparatory work and principles which led to the constitution of the
council. On the proposal of M. Staněk, president of the Union of Czech
Deputies, Dr. Karel Kramář, the leader of the Independent
Democratic Party, was elected president of the council, M. Klofáč,
leader of the National Socialists, and M. Švehla vice-presidents,
and Dr. Soukup, leader of the Socialists, secretary. Dr. Kramář
greeted the assembly in the name of the presidency. Afterwards deputy
Klofáč delivered a speech in the name of the Socialists, and the
vice-president of the Czech Union, supported by deputy Habermann, proposed that
the presidency should itself select members of the council. The proposal was
unanimously accepted. Deputy Staněk greeted the National Council in the
name of the Czech Union as the supreme representative of the whole
Czecho-Slovak nation, of all its classes and parties. Thereupon Dr. Soukup
proposed a resolution which was carried unanimously and the chief passages of
which read as follows:
“To the Czecho-Slovak Nation!
“On the decision of all political parties,
representing the united will of our whole nation, the Czecho-Slovak National
Council has been formed to-day. The immense gravity of the present times and
our common concern for the future fate of the Czecho-Slovak nation have united
us in a national organisation.
“The ultimate aim of the Czecho-Slovak National
Council in Prague is postulated by the demand of these times: to enlist for
systematic work, to organise and lead the great spiritual, moral and national
resources of the nation to that end which is the most sacred and
inalienable right of every nation and which cannot and will not be denied also
to our nation:
“The right of self-determination in a fully
independent Czecho-Slovak State with its own
administration within its own borders and under its own sovereignty.
“The Czecho-Slovak National Council wish to interpret
this will of the nation and to be the executive organ of all the common
declarations of its delegates which culminated in the solemn oath of April 13, 1918.
“Our work will not be easy. We shall have to suffer
much more opposition and we shall have to undergo another great test.
But no obstacles are able to arrest our nation’s progress. In full mutual
agreement with our delegates and with the whole cultural and economic Czech
world, the Czecho-Slovak National Council will faithfully fulfil its difficult
and responsible task, so that it may be truly said before the conscience of the
nation that we did everything that was in our human power.
“We know that our whole nation stands behind the
Czecho-Slovak National Council as one united rampart. Full of joy at the
great political act which the constitution of the National Council represents,
and full of confidence in the victory of our common cause, we address to-day to
the whole Czecho-Slovak nation an urgent appeal to support our work with all
its strength, to obey all orders of common discipline and to follow firmly our
common national aim.”
It is significant that the presidency of this council is
composed of four of the most eminent leaders of the four greatest parties in Bohemia:
Dr. Kramář, Klofáč, Švehla and Soukup. All of these have been in
prison during this war, as well as the following members of the council: Dr.
Rašín and Červinka, friends of Kramář; Cyril Dušek, former
editor of Masaryk’s organ The Times; Dr. Scheiner, president of the
“Sokol” Gymnastic Association; and Machar, the eminent Czech poet.
Besides these the members of the council include: the Socialist leaders
Bechyně, Habermann, Krejčí, Němec, Stivín, Meissner, Tusar and
Vaněk; the Clerical leaders Hruban, Šrámek and Kordáč; the
author Jirásek; Agrarians Staněk (president of the Czech Union),
Udržal and Zahradník, Dr. Herben, of Professor Masaryk’s party, and
others. All Czech parties are represented on the council without exception,
from the Socialists on the extreme Left to the Clericals on the extreme Right.
The council is the supreme organ of the Czecho-Slovak
nation, and represents all its classes and parties. It is a national organ and
its sole aim is to work for the welfare of Bohemia, without any regard to Austria.
It stands above all party politics and is the supreme organ to which all
disputes are referred that may arise affecting Czecho-Slovak national
interests. Its aim is, in the words of its proclamation, “to enlist for
systematic work, to organise and lead the great spiritual, moral and national
resources of the Czecho-Slovak nation.” Its ultimate object is to realise
“the right of self-determination in a fully independent Czecho-Slovak State
with its own administration within its own borders and under its own
sovereignty.” Its aims are obviously identical with those of the
Czecho-Slovak Government in Paris, who alone, of course, are able to exercise
the executive power as a government, especially to organise armies fighting on
the side of the Entente. On the other hand, the National Council in Prague is
organising the nation for the final blow which the Slavs will, no doubt at an
opportune moment, strike at the Dual Monarchy.
Immediately after this important event most significant
declarations were made by Czech deputies in the Reichsrat of Vienna. The Czech
deputy Tusar declared that “the war must end with the creation
of a Czecho-Slovak State, with the victory of
democratic ideas and with the defeat of militarism and despotism. We will
obtain freedom, cost what it may.” Thereupon the Czech deputies sang the
Czech national anthem.
The next day deputy Stříbrný delivered a speech
which we have quoted in a previous chapter.
The most significant speech, however, was that of Dr.
Stránský in the Austrian Reichsrat on July 23, which surpasses any of those
we have quoted hitherto in its frank anti-Austrian spirit and expression:
“We want to expose and show up before the whole world
the intolerable state of foreign domination over us. You cannot prevent
us, not only before a helpless curtailed parliament, not only before an
illusory high court, but before the whole world, raising our voice against the
Premier who is a typical representative of that Austria whose mere existence
is a constant and automatic prolongation of the war. One of the obstacles to
peace is the oppression of nationalities in Austria and their domination by
the Germans. In this war the Germans, even if they do not openly admit it,
have come to the conclusion that the German hegemony in Central Europe,
and especially in Austria, is standing on its last legs.
Since they see that their predominance can no longer be maintained, they
endeavour to translate all that they have acquired into reality, so as to
secure the spoils for themselves. Thus the Germans conceived the idea of
establishing a province ‘Deutschböhmen’ which must be prepared by the
establishment of district governments. From this a very interesting conclusion
may be drawn–that the Germans themselves lost faith in the further
existence of Austria, otherwise they would not be in a hurry to save
their province Deutschböhmen in the present Austria. Because they rather wish
for no Austria than for an Austria where they would not be able to rule, they
are already counting upon the break-up of Austria: since the
Germans do not want to accept the solution of a free Danubian confederation of
nations, they prepare already their union with the Hohenzollerns.
“But then we must ask the Germans to take nothing with
them that does not belong to them. It is more than questionable whether
Deutschböhmen really is German.
“There is another reason which speaks against the
creation of a Deutschböhmen. I am convinced that if a plebiscite were
carried out among German people in Northern Bohemia, they would
declare against separation from Bohemia. Why? Because the Germans
are too clever not to know that Bohemia forms not only a historical and
geographical unity, but that this unity has besides a historical basis, also a
practical foundation. The relation between the Czech part of Bohemia and Northern
Bohemia is to a large degree the relation of the consumer and the producer.
Where do you want to export your articles if not to your Czech hinterland? How
could the German manufacturers otherwise exist? When after the war a Czecho-Slovak
State is erected, the Germans of Bohemia will much rather remain in Bohemia
and live on good terms with the Czech peasant than be identified with Germany,
boycotted, opposed and hated by the whole world, especially if we
guarantee, not only by promises, but by deeds and laws, full autonomy to the
German population within the Bohemian State.
“The real question which puzzles us to-day is: How
can Austria exist at all? That is the question. And I again
repeat solemnly Palacký’s word that Austria may exist only so long as
her nations wish for it, and that she will cease to exist as soon as
her nations do not want her to exist. The Slav nations of Austria declared
clearly and emphatically their wishes and desires in their proclamations. If
instead of working for the conversion of the ruling factor in favour of these
wishes Dr. Seidler shows us Gessler’s hat of Austria with a German head and
backbone, then let him remember that we shall hate this Austria for all
eternity (loud cheers and applause) and we shall fight her, and God
willing, we shall in the end smash her to pieces so completely that nothing
will remain of her.”
The President: “I cannot admit such an
expression about this state and I call the deputy to order.”
Dr. Stránský: “Excellency, I really do not
deserve such a rebuke. It would be sad if we could not speak freely and with
proper emphasis against a state form which has been imposed upon us.
“Let Dr. Seidler remember that we regard Austria,
whose integrity according to him must not be questioned, as a centuries-old
crime on the liberties of humanity. Let him remember that it is not only our
political intention, not only our instinct of self-preservation, but our
highest duty and–do not hesitate to say so–our national religion and our greatest
moral mission to damage Austria wherever and whenever possible, and that our
loyalty to our own nation, to our native country, to our history, to our future
and to the Bohemian Crown, prompts us to betray Austria which is backed up by
Germany. We are therefore determined faithfully to betray her whenever and
wherever we can. I tell you further, gentlemen, that this state, this Austria
which Seidler talks about, is not a state at all. It is a hideous,
centuries-old dream, a nightmare, a beast, and nothing else. It is a state
without a name, it is a constitutional monarchy without a crown and without
a constitution. For what kind of a constitution is it if it has not the
necessary confirmation by oath and won the general approval of nations because
it was found to be untenable? It is a state without patriots and without
patriotism, it is a state which arose by the amalgamation of eight
irredents–the German one included–it is a state which had no future and in
which the dynasty … (suppressed) … in a word, it is a state which is no
state at all. As a matter of fact, Austria no longer exists,
it is an absurdity and an impossibility. If I spoke about Czech regiments which
went to embrace their ‘enemies,’ I must admit that personally I know nothing
about them except what I heard from my German colleagues who persist in making
complaints against us. We believe every word of what they say to be true, but
… (suppressed by censor). Did you ever hear that a husband conscious of his
honour and respectability told the whole world about the infidelity of his wife
who left him because he ill-treated her? No, because the husband knows that it
is his shame and not hers. And if Czecho-Slovak brigades are to-day fighting
against Austria-Hungary it is only a proof that there is
something very wrong with Austria, that Austria is
more rotten than Shakespeare’s Denmark. For what other state
has soldiers who ran over voluntarily to the enemy? You keep on saying that England
has the Irish problem. Did you ever hear of Irish brigades, did you ever
hear that any French legions were fighting for the Central Powers against
France, or Russian legions against Russia when we were at war with Russia?
Indeed, gentlemen, not even Turkey has any legions fighting with the enemy
against her. There must therefore be some deep reason for Czecho-Slovak,
Polish and Yugoslav legions fighting on the side of the Entente.”
We think that any comments on this explicit declaration, in
which a Czech deputy representing his whole nation openly expressed hope for
the dismemberment of Austria and praised the Czecho-Slovak troops fighting for
the Allies, are superfluous.
CZECHO-SLOVAK CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER NON-GERMAN
NATIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPE
The Czechs have always clearly seen that one of the chief reasons
which enable the German-Magyar minority to rule over the Slav majority is the
lack of co-operation amongst the subject peoples. Already before the war the
Czechs were pioneers of Slav solidarity and reciprocity, wrongly called
Pan-Slavism. Thanks to their geographic position, they have no claims
conflicting with any nations except the Germans and Magyars who are their only
enemies.
In these efforts for promoting Slav solidarity the Czechs
met serious obstacles. In the case of some of their Slav friends it was lack of
internal unity which prevented co-operation. In other cases it was the quarrels
artificially fomented by Austria between her subject nations, notably between
the Poles and Ruthenes and between the Yugoslavs and Italians. Finally, the Poles
lacked a definite international point of view. They were justly sceptical of
Slav solidarity seeing that they were oppressed by a government which claimed
to represent a great Slav nation.
All these obstacles, however, have one by one disappeared as
the war has gone on. All the subject peoples of Central Europe saw that they
were persecuted and driven to be slaughtered by the same enemies in Berlin, Vienna
and Budapest. The oppressed races found at last that they have common
aspirations and interests, and the collapse of Russia to-day makes even the
Poles realise where their real enemies are. The Polish people may to-day have
only one orientation: against the Central Powers. It is an inspiriting sign
that even some Polish “Realpoliticians” begin to realise that Austria
is doomed and that it is bad politics to count upon Vienna, to say nothing of Berlin.
(a) The Congress of Rome
In order to give practical expression to the growing sense
of co-operation amongst the oppressed nations of Austria-Hungary, their
representatives assembled in Rome at the beginning of April, 1918. In those
days the great spirit of Mazzini revived again in Rome, and from that moment Italy
definitely became the champion of the movement of the oppressed nations of Austria-Hungary
towards independence.
The congress was attended by numerous Italian senators,
deputies, ministers and other leading men. The Yugoslav Committee was
represented by its president, Dr. Trumbić, the Dalmatian sculptor
Mestrović, the Bosnian deputy Stojanović and others; the
Czecho-Slovak Council by Dr. Beneš and Colonel Štefanik; the Poles by
the Galician deputy Mr. Zamorski, and by Messrs. Seyda, Skirmunt, Loret and
others; the Rumanians by the senators Draghicescu and Minorescu, the deputy
Lupu and the Transylvanians Mandrescu and De Luca. The Serbian Skupština
sent a deputation of twelve deputies and a delegation of officers from the
Yugoslav division at Salonica. Among the foreign visitors invited to the
congress were M. Franklin-Bouillon, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the French Chamber of Deputies, the ex-minister M. Albert Thomas, M.
Fournol, M. Pierre de Quirielle, Mr. H.W. Steed, Mr. Seton-Watson, and Mr.
Nelson Gay.
The congress unanimously adopted the following general
resolutions agreed upon between the various nationalities and the special
Italo-Yugoslav Convention concluded between Messrs. Torre and Trumbić:
“The representatives of the nationalities subjected in
whole or in part to the rule of Austria-Hungary–the Italians, Poles, Rumanians,
Czechs and Yugoslavs–join in affirming their principles of common action as
follows:
“1. Each of these peoples proclaims its right to
constitute its own nationality and state unity or to complete it and to attain
full political and economic independence.
“2. Each of these peoples recognises in the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the instrument of German domination and the
fundamental obstacle to the realisation of its aspirations and rights.
“3. The assembly recognises the necessity of a common
struggle against the common oppressors, in order that each of these peoples may
attain complete liberation and national unity within a free state.
“The representatives of the Italian people and of the
Yugoslav people in particular agree as follows:
“1. In the relations between the Italian nation and
the nation of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes–known also under the name of the
Yugoslav nation–the representatives of the two peoples recognise that the
unity and independence of the Yugoslav nation is of vital interest to Italy,
just as the completion of Italian national unity is of vital interest to the
Yugoslav nation, and therefore pledge themselves to employ every effort in
order that at the moment of the peace these decisions (finalita) of the
two nations may be completely attained.
“2. They declare that the liberation of the Adriatic
Sea and its defence against every present and future enemy is of vital
interest to the two peoples.
“3. They pledge themselves also in the interest of
good and sincere relations between the two peoples in the future, to solve
amicably the various territorial controversies on the basis of the principles
of nationality and of the right of peoples to decide their own fate, and in
such a way as not to injure the vital interests of the two nations, as they
shall be defined at the moment of peace.
“4. To such racial groups (nuclei) of one
people as it may be found necessary to include within the frontiers of the
other there shall be recognised and guaranteed the right of preserving their
own language, culture, and moral and economic interests.”
The Polish delegates laid before the congress a special
memorandum of their own from which we quote the following:
“The Polish question admits of no cut-and-dried
solution and of no compromise. Poland will either be saved by the Allies or she
will become dependent upon Germany, whether the latter is associated with Austria
or not; above all, upon all-powerful Prussia.
“There is only one way of avoiding this latter
alternative, and that is by countering the plans of the Central Powers with
regard to Poland by the proclamation of the Polish programme, which is that of
the Allies. This programme is the restitution to Poland of the mouth of the Vistula,
of Dantzig and of the Polish portion of the Baltic coastline. This programme
will prevent Lithuania and the Ukraine from becoming instruments of
Prusso-German oppression and Austrian intrigue. It is only such a Poland as
this which will be able to fulfil its historic mission as a rampart against the
Germans.
“Its resistance will be still more effectual when
united with that of an independent Czecho-Slovak State, and of a strong Rumania,
healed of all the wounds inflicted by the war, and if, at the same time, the
Yugoslav peoples achieve their unity and independence. The Poles, in claiming
the Polish districts of Austria, declare themselves categorically for the
complete liberation of Bohemia, which would otherwise be left at the mercy of
the German-Austrians. The independence of neighbouring Bohemia
is as necessary to an independent Poland as a great independent Poland
is necessary to the very existence of Bohemia. The united
forces of the Polish, Czecho-Slovak and Rumanian nations, forming a great belt
from the Baltic to the Black Sea, will prove a barrier against the German
‘Drang nach Osten.’ For, since the collapse of Russia, these are the only real
forces upon which the Allies can depend.”
On the day following the congress its leaders were
officially received by the Italian Premier, Signer Orlando, who conveyed to them
the warm greetings of the government:
“We have seen with keen satisfaction this assembly
here in Rome, where for centuries the representative spirits of all peoples and
races have always found refuge, and where hard facts seem to assume a prophetic
form and ideal meaning.
“These neighbouring nationalities are, in their turn,
subjected to Austria, and it has only been the traditional astuteness of this
state which has unchained the ethnic passions of the oppressed races, inciting
one against the other in order more easily to rule them. Hence, it seems
natural and necessary to follow the opposite policy from that which has so
greatly helped the enemy, and to establish a solidarity sprung from common
suffering. There is no substantial reason for a quarrel, if we sincerely
examine the conditions of mutual existence, remember the mutual sacrifices and
agree in our determination to grant just guarantees to those racial minorities
which necessity may assign to one or the other of the different state groups.
“Italy should be able to understand better than any
other country the aspirations of the nationalities, since the history of Italy,
now completed, is simply your history now awaiting completion…. No other
people, before forming itself into a free and independent state, had to undergo
so long an apprenticeship, so methodical an oppression, such varied forms of
violence. Like generous Poland, Italy was shattered, partitioned by strangers,
and treated for centuries as a res nullius. The firm resolve of the Bohemian
people to revive the glorious kingdom which has so valiantly stemmed the onset
of the Germans is the same resolve which moved our ancestors and our fathers to
conspiracy and revolt, that Italy might become a united state.
The impetuous and vigorous character of the Southern Slavs and the Rumanians of
Transylvania already has led to the making of heroes and martyrs; and here they
are met by the endless stream of our heroes and martyrs; who across time and
space fraternise on the scaffold erected by their common enemy.
“For your nations ‘To be or not to be’ is the
inexorable choice at this moment. Here cautious subtleties are of no avail, nor
the adroit reservations borrowed from diplomacy, nor discussions more or less
Byzantine, ‘while the Turk is at the gates.’ The necessities are Faith and
Work; it is thus that nations are formed.”
We have already mentioned that the U.S. Government
identified themselves with the resolutions adopted by the Rome Conference. As
regards Great Britain, Lord Robert Cecil made the following declaration on May 23, 1918:
“Above all I welcome especially the recent congress
at Rome, which has done so much to strengthen the Alliance of which Italy
is a part. I believe that the congress was valuable for its wisdom and its
moderation. I believe that it was valuable for the spirit of brotherhood which
it displayed. But above all I welcome it because it showed that the Italian
Government, as expressed by the speech of the Italian Prime Minister (Signor
Orlando), recognise to the full that the principles on which the kingdom of
Italy was founded were not only of local application, but extend to
international relations. (Cheers) Italy has shown herself ready to extend to
the Poles, to those gallant Czecho-Slovaks, to the Rumanians, and last, but not
least, to the Yugoslavs, the principles on which her own ‘Risorgimento’ was
founded, and on which she may still go forward to a greater future than she
has ever seen in the past. (Cheers.) That is a great work, and those who
have borne any part in it may well be proud of their accomplishment.
“People talk sometimes about the dismemberment of Austria.
I have no weakness for Austria; but I venture to think that that is the wrong
point of view. The way to regard this problem is not the dismemberment of Austria,
but the liberation of the population subject to her rule. We are anxious to
see all these peoples in the enjoyment of full liberty and independence; able
by some great federation to hold up in Central Europe the principles upon which
European policy must be founded, unless we are to face disasters too
horrible to contemplate. The old days of arbitrary allotment of this population
or that to this sovereignty or that are gone–and, I trust, gone forever. We
must look for any future settlement, to a settlement not of courts or cabinets,
but of nations and populations. On that alone depends the whole conception
of the League of Nations, of which we have heard so much; and
unless that can be secured as the foundation for that great idea, I myself despair
of its successful establishment.”
(b) The May Manifestations in Prague
A direct re-percussion of the Rome Conference was the great
meeting which took place in Prague on May 16, on the occasion of the jubilee
celebration of the foundation of the Czech National Theatre.
The manifestations took pre-eminently a political character,
especially as they were attended by numerous distinguished foreign guests.
These included delegates from all parts of the Southern Slav territories,
Poles, Rumanians and Italians. The Russians, although invited, could not take
part, because of the obstacles placed in the way by the Austrian Government. As
regards the Yugoslavs, there were over 100 delegates from the Slovene districts
alone, including Dr. Pogačnik, deputies Ravničar and Rybář, the
Mayor of Lublanja, Dr. Tavčar, President of the Chamber of Commerce, J.
Kněz and others. The Yugoslavs were further represented by Count
Vojnovitch and M. Hribar, by delegates of the Croatian Starčević
Party, the Serbian Dissidents, Dr. Budisavljević, Mr. Val
Pribičević, Dr. Sunarić, Mr. Sola from Bosnia, representatives
of the national, cultural, economic institutions, and representatives of the
city of Zagreb, with the mayor, Dr. Srpulje, at the head.
There were seventeen Italians with deputies Conci and De
Caspari at the head. The Rumanians from Hungary and Bukovina also arrived. The
Slovaks of Hungary met with the most hearty welcome. They were led by the poet
Hviezdoslav. An inspiring feature was the presence of the Poles, of whom about
sixty took part in the manifestations, the majority of them from Galicia, three
from Silesia and one from Posen.
The delegation from Galicia included prominent
representatives of the Polish Democratic Party, Count Dr. A. Skarbek, deputy
and ex-minister Glombínski and deputy Witoš, the Socialist leader
Moraczewski whose father took part in the Pan-Slav Congress of Prague in 1848,
deputy Tetmajer, representatives of the cities of Lvoff and Cracow and of the
University of Cracow, members of municipal and county councils, journalists,
artists, painters, sculptors, authors and others.
At a meeting arranged in honour of the Slav guests, Dr.
Kramář declared that “the Czech nation is stronger to-day than ever
before. There is no worse policy than that which gives in before danger. I am
sure that our people will not give way. We have suffered so much that there is
no horror which could divert us from the path we follow. Happily enough, we see
that what we want is also desired by the whole world. We see that we are not
alone. To-day the representatives of other nations, which have suffered in the
same way as ourselves, have come to us. Of course, they did not come to us only
to take part in our festivals, but also to express on the Bohemian soil their
determination that their nations want to live freely. We are united by the same
interests. Our victory is theirs and theirs is ours.”
The Yugoslav deputy Radič thanked the Czechs, in the
name of the Yugoslavs, for unity and solidarity. The Polish deputy Moraczewski
expressed his thanks not only for the welcome accorded to the Poles in Prague,
but also for the proclamation of the watchword: “For your liberty and
ours!”
The main celebrations took place in the Bohemian Museum on
May 16. Since the speeches delivered on that occasion were of such significance
and are sure to prove of great international importance in the near future, we
propose to quote at least the chief passages from them.
The first speaker was Dr. Kramář who declared:
“You know that they are in vain trying to crush us.
Every wrong will come back to the authors. That is our firm belief, and
therefore you will find no despondency in Bohemia, but only firm
determination not only to defend to the last the integrity of our kingdom, but
also to accomplish the unity of the whole Czecho-Slovak nation. We firmly
believe in the ultimate victory of the right of nations to liberty and
self-determination. And we therefore welcome you in our beautiful golden
city of Prague, because we know that your presence here to-day is the best
proof that our faith is the faith of all nations who have hitherto been
clamouring in vain for right and justice.
“Allow me to make a personal remark. We were far away
from public life, confined in prison, and only very little news reached us.
Various events filled us with anxiety and despondency. Bohemia seemed to be
like a large, silent and dead churchyard. And all of a sudden we heard that
underneath the shroud with which they tried to cover our nation there still was
some life. Czech books were read more than ever, and the life of the national
soul expressed itself in the performances in the National Theatre. When we
heard about the storm of enthusiasm which greeted the prophecy in Smetana’s
opera Libusha, we felt suddenly relieved, and we knew that our
sufferings were not in vain.
“We placed everything that we want into the prophecy
of Libusha–a new life, free, not constrained by disfavour or misunderstanding.
We do not want to remain within the limits prescribed to us by Vienna
(applause), we want to be entire masters of our national life as a whole. We do
not need foreign spirit and foreign advice; our best guide is our past, the
great democratic traditions of our nation. We have enough strength and
perseverance not to be afraid of anything that threatens us, because we want
the full freedom for the whole nation, including the millions of our oppressed
brothers beneath the Tatra Mountains. (A stormy applause.)
“That does not depend on any circumstances outside our
scope; it depends entirely upon ourselves, upon our will. We must show that
we are worthy of liberty and of the great future which we are striving for.
It must not be left to the generosity of individuals to support our peoples who
under oppressive conditions are awakening national consciousness in their
countrymen. We must mobilise our whole nation. All of us will be
required to assist in the great tasks which are awaiting us.
“I think we may confidently look into the future. The
war has united us internally, and it has taught us that all party politics
which for a long time past have poisoned our life, are insignificant in view of
the great issues of our national future which are at stake. We have lived long
enough to see our whole people united in the demand for an independent Czecho-Slovak
State, although the modern times have deepened class differences.
“We recollect our past to-day with a firm hope for a
better future. The hearts of all are to-day filled with joyous confidence and
expectation that we shall live to see the day when in our National Theatre we
shall rejoice over the victory of liberty, justice and self-determination of
nations. Our golden Slav Prague will again become a royal
city, and our Czech nation will again be free, strong and glorious.”
After Dr. Kramář had finished, the aged Czech author
Jirásek described the history of the National Theatre during the past fifty
years, and concluded:
“To-day as fifty years ago our nation is united
without party distinction. We form a single front, and follow a single
policy. We all demand our natural and historic rights, and strengthened by the
co-operation of the Yugoslavs, we firmly believe that as we succeeded in
erecting our National Theatre, so shall we also obtain our rights and be able
to rejoice with a song of a full and free life.”
When the enthusiasm which followed Jirásek’s speech
subsided, the great Slovak poet Hviezdoslav “conveyed the greeting from
that branch of the Czecho-Slovak nation which lives in Hungary,” and
assured the assembly that after going back he would spread everywhere the news
of the enthusiasm animating the Czechs so as to cheer up his sorely suffering
fellow-countrymen, the Slovaks of Hungary.
Professor Kasprovicz from Lemberg, who followed, declared in
the name of the Poles:
“We are united with you not only by blood affinity,
but by our united will, and we can reach the goal only by co-operation and by
joint efforts.
“This co-operation is perplexing to our enemies who,
therefore, do all in their power to disrupt this union. Their endeavours are in
vain. All of us believe that neither the Czech nor the Polish nation will
perish, that even a great war cannot bring about their extirpation; that
besides the war there is something greater than all human efforts, that the day
of justice will also come, and that the Czech and Polish nations not only
must be but already are victorious.”
A tremendous applause ensued, and the people sang
“Jeszcie Polska niezgynela” (“Poland has not perished
yet”). And when the chairman announced that the next speaker was to be the
Italian Irredentist deputy, Signer Conci, another storm of applause and cries
of “Eviva!” burst out. Signor Conci declared:
“I convey to you the expression of the heartiest
greetings from all Italians who are participating in this brilliant
manifestation, and from all those who, like myself, follow with great sympathy
everything that concerns the fate of the noble Czech nation.
“An old verse speaks about ‘Socii dolorum’ (‘Friends
in suffering’), and I must say that this consolation for the different nations
of this state has been amply provided for. But nothing helps the union and
brotherhood better than the common misfortune and common persecutions which
strengthen the character of the nation. In defence against this menace, we and
you have written on our shield: ‘Fanger, non flector’ (‘I can be broken but not
bent’).
“When I saw with what indomitable firmness you
withstood all unjust persecutions, and with what a fervent devotion and
enthusiasm the whole nation supported your best and unjustly persecuted
leaders, I realised that this nation cannot die, and that when the time
comes its just cause will triumph. And I bring you our sincere wish that this
may be as soon as possible. It is a wish from one oppressed nation to
another, from a representative of an afflicted nation which has suffered
and still is suffering intolerable oppression. May the roaring Bohemian lion
soon be able to repose in peace and fully enjoy his own triumph.”
Dr. Tavčar, representing the Slovenes, declared:
“We Yugoslavs are deeply feeling how much the Czech
culture is helping us and how great is its influence upon us. We are the
most faithful allies of our brother Czechs, and at the same time their
assiduous and I dare say very gifted pupils. At a moment when our oppressors
want to build a German bridge over our bodies to the Slav Adriatic, we come to
you as your allies. We shall fall if you fall, but our victory is
certain.”
Two other Yugoslav leaders, Dr. Srpulje, Mayor of Zagreb,
for the Croats, and V. Šola, President of the Bosnian Sabor, for the
Serbs, expressed the same sentiments.
After the speech of the Czech author Krejčí, M.
Staněk, President of the Bohemian Parliamentary Union, concluded the
meeting.
Stormy demonstrations then took place in the streets of Prague,
where the people loudly cheered Professor Masaryk and the Entente.
On the same day also the Socialists had a meeting in which
prominent Czech, Polish and Yugoslav Socialists took part.
The Polish Socialist deputy Moraczewski, from Cracow,
declared that “the Poles, like the Czechs, are fighting for
self-determination of nations.” Comrade Kristan, speaking for the Slovene
workers, emphasised the idea of Yugoslav unity. The spokesman of the Social
Democrats from Bosnia, comrade Smitran, hailed the Czecho-Yugoslav
understanding, and said that, although living under intolerable conditions, his
nation hopes for deliverance, and like the Czecho-Slovak nation, demands
liberty and independence. After the Polish comrade Stanczyk, the leaders of the
two Czech Socialist parties, Dr. Soukup and Klofáč, delivered long
speeches in which they emphasised the solidarity of the three Western Slav
nations, the Poles, Czecho-Slovaks and Yugoslavs, and their identical claims
for liberty and independence. Dr. Soukup declared that “Socialism is
to-day a great factor not only in Bohemia, but in the whole world.” The
manifestation was concluded by the Czech Socialist deputy Němec, and by
the singing of the Czech national anthem.
On the day following, fresh manifestations were held in Prague,
and a meeting was arranged, described by the Czech press as the Congress of
Oppressed Nations of Austria-Hungary. Among those who supported the resolutions
were representatives of Czecho-Slovaks, Yugoslavs, Rumanians and Italians, as
well as Poles. The resolution carried unanimously by the assembly reads as
follows:
“The representatives of Slav and Latin nations who for
centuries past have been suffering under foreign oppression, assembled in
Prague this seventeenth day of May, 1918, have united in a common desire to do
all in their power in order to assure full liberty and independence to their
respective nations after this terrible war. They are agreed that a better
future for their nations will be founded and assured by the world democracy, by
a real and sovereign national people’s government, and by a universal League of
Nations, endowed with the necessary authorities.
“They reject emphatically all steps of the government
taken without the consent of the people. They are convinced that the peace
which they, together with all other democratic parties and nations, are
striving for, will only be a just and lasting peace if it liberates the world
from the predominance of one nation over another and thus enables all nations
to defend themselves against aggressive imperialism by means of liberty and
equality of nations. All nations represented are determined to help each other,
since the victory of one is also the victory of the other, and is not only in
the interests of the nations concerned, but in the interests of civilisation,
of fraternity and equality of nations, as well as of true humanity.”
BOHEMIA AS A BULWARK AGAINST PAN-GERMANISM
From the foregoing chapters it is clear that:
(a) The Austro-Hungarian Government represents only
the Habsburgs, and the Austrian Germans and the Magyars, who form a minority of
the total population of the monarchy. The majority, consisting of Slavs and
Latins, is opposed to the further existence of Austria-Hungary.
(b) The Austrian Germans and Magyars, who exercised
their hegemony in Austria and Hungary respectively, will always be bound to
look to Germany for the support of their predominance as long as Austria-Hungary
in whatever form exists. The collapse of the Habsburg Empire in October, 1918,
practically put an end to this possibility.
(c) The Habsburgs, Austro-Germans and Magyars, just
like the Bulgars, became the willing and wilful partners of Prussia in this
war, while the Austrian Slavs, especially the Czecho-Slovaks, have done all in
their power to assist the Allies at the price of tremendous sacrifices. Under
these circumstances, the only possible policy for the Allies is to support the
claims of those peoples who are heart and soul with them. Any policy which
would not satisfy the just Slav aspirations would play into the hands of Germany.
(d) The restoration of the status quo ante bellum
of Austria or Hungary is out of the question. The Allies have pledged
themselves to unite the Italian and Rumanian territories of Austria with Italy
and Rumania respectively. The aim of Serbia is to unite all the Yugoslavs.
Deprived of her Italian, Rumanian and Yugoslav provinces, Austria-Hungary would
lose some twelve million Slavs and Latins. The problem of Poland also cannot be
solved in a satisfactory way without the incorporation in Poland of the Polish
territories of Galicia. If the status quo were re-established, the
Czecho-Slovaks, whom Great Britain has recognised as an Allied nation, would be
placed in a decisive minority and would be powerless in face of the
German-Magyar majority. This the Allies in their own interests cannot allow.
They must insist upon the restoration of Bohemia’s full independence.
(e) The disappearance of Austria-Hungary therefore
appears to be the only solution if a permanent peace in Europe is to be
achieved. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, her dissolution is a political
necessity for Europe, and is to-day already an accomplished fact.
The dismemberment of Austria does not mean a destructive
policy. On the contrary, it means only the destruction of oppression and racial
tyranny. It is fundamentally different from the dismemberment of Poland, which
was a living nation, while Austria is not. The dismemberment of Austria will,
on the contrary, unite nations at present dismembered, and will reconstruct
Europe so as to prevent further German aggressive attempts towards the East and
South-East. A close alliance between Poland, Czecho-Slovak Bohemia, Greater
Rumania, Greater Serbia (or Yugoslavia) and Italy would assure a stable peace
in Central Europe.
The issue really at stake was: Central Europe either
Pan-German or anti-German. If Germany succeeded in preserving Austria-Hungary,
the Pan-German plans of Mitteleuropa would be a fait accompli, and Germany
would have won the war: the Germans would, with the aid of the Magyars and
Bulgars, directly and indirectly control and exploit over one hundred million
Slavs in Central Europe. On the other hand, now that Austria has fallen to
pieces the German plans have been frustrated. The Germans will not only be
unable to use the Austrian Slavs again as cannon-fodder, but even the economic
exploitation of Central Europe will be barred to them.
From the international point of view, Bohemia will form the
very centre of the anti-German barrier, and with the assistance of a new Poland
in the north, and Italy, Yugoslavia and Rumania in the south, she will
successfully prevent German penetration to the East, Near East and the Adriatic.
Austria and Hungary, reduced to their proper racial
boundaries, will be states of about eight million each. The Magyars, being
situated in the Lowlands, which are mainly agricultural, hemmed in between Bohemia,
Rumania and Yugoslavia, will be in a hopeless strategic and economic
position. They will be unable to attack any of their neighbours, and they will
be wholly dependent on them for industrial products. Hungary will thus be
forced to come to an understanding with her neighbours. Austria will be in a
similar position: deprived of her richest provinces, she will no longer be of
any great economic or military value to Germany.
Let us now examine the probable future relations between Bohemia
and her neighbours.
1. The formation of a strong Polish-Czech block is
the only means of arresting the German expansion towards the East. To-day, when
Russia has collapsed, the liberation of the non-Germans of Central Europe can
alone save Europe from the hegemony of the German Herrenvolk. The creation of a
strong and united Poland with access to the sea at Gdansk (Dantzig) and an
independent Czecho-Slovak State has become a necessity for Europe.
The understanding between the Poles and Czechs is of vital
interest to both peoples concerned, and to Europe as a whole. It is by no means
hypothetical, considering that geographically the Poles and Czechs are
neighbours, that they speak almost the same language, and that their national
spirit, history and traditions bear a close resemblance. The history of Poland
offers many strange parallels to that of Bohemia. It is specially interesting
to note that in the fifteenth century, as to-day, the Poles and Czechs together
resisted the German “Drang nach Osten.” The Czech with their famous
leader Zižka participated in the splendid Polish victory over the Teutonic
knights at Grünwald in 1410, while on the other hand, there were many Poles in
the Hussite regiments who so gloriously defended the Czech religious and
national liberties in the fifteenth century. Poland and Bohemia were also
united several times under a common dynasty.
After Bohemia lost her independence at the battle of the White
Mountain in 1620, she became the prey of Austrian barbarity. The Habsburgs
have done their best to extirpate the Czech heretics and abolish and destroy
the Bohemian Constitution. With Bohemia’s loss of independence her contact with
Poland also ceased. And Poland herself became the prey of Prussia, Russia and
Austria some 170 years later, notwithstanding the constitution of May 3 and
the heroic resistance of Kosciuszko.
The regeneration of the Czechs at the end of the eighteenth
century meant the resumption of friendly relations between Czechs and Poles.
The Czechs desired to come to an agreement with the Poles because the latter
are their nearest kinsmen in race and language, and like themselves have
suffered terribly from alien oppression. There were many Polonophils amongst
the first Czech regenerators, and the Polish revolutions always evoked sincere
sympathy in Bohemia. The modern Czech writers were all sincere friends of the
Poles. Thanks to their efforts, Sienkiewicz and Mickiewicz are read in every
household in Bohemia, and the dramas of Slowacki, Krasinski, Wyspianski and
others are frequently played on the stage of our National Theatre in Prague.
The present interests and aspirations of Poles and Czechs
are identical. Like the Czechs, the Poles are threatened by the Pan-German
schemes of Mitteleuropa and “Drang nach Osten,” to which they are
bitterly opposed. These plans can be checked effectively only by the
establishment of a strong and united Poland with access to the sea, a strong
Czecho-Slovak State, and a united and independent Yugoslavia and Rumania.
It was proved by events that Russian imperialism and
oppression was never so dangerous to Europe as Pan-Germanism, since the former
was built upon sand and opposed by the Russian people themselves; while
Pan-Germanism rests upon effective organisation, and its brutal principles of
domination are supported by the bulk of the German people. The Central Powers
are to-day Poland’s only enemies, and are a danger to her as to all Europe. Poland’s
interests lie only in one orientation: in absolute opposition to Pan-Germany.
The alliance between Poland and Bohemia will provide the
latter with an outlet to the sea (Gdansk). This will draw the two countries
still closer together. Economically such an alliance would be to the mutual
interests of both countries. Since Bohemia has not, like Poland, been
devastated during this war, she could greatly assist Poland in rebuilding her
trade and industries, and this would prevent German economic penetration to the
East. On the other hand, Poland could supply her with oil and salt from Galicia.
The Czecho-Polish block would prevent German penetration in Russia,
which would thus be able to set her own affairs in order. The Czecho-Polish
block would also frustrate the German plans of creating a Polish-German-Magyar
combination by means of a small Poland, completely dependent on the Central
Powers, or by means of the so-called Austro-Polish solution. The
Czecho-Slovaks, owing to their geographic position and past traditions, and
owing to their advanced civilisation, may be fully relied upon as the pioneers
of peace and stability in Central Europe.
2. The Czecho-Slovak State will probably have a common
frontier with Rumania. The Rumanians-and Czecho-Slovaks will have common
interests, and their mutual political and economic relations will be of great
importance. Economically, agricultural Rumania and industrial Bohemia will
complete each other. Prague will have direct railway connection with Bukarest
and Jassy, while the Danube will connect the Czecho-Slovaks both with the
Yugoslavs and the Rumanians, under the protection of the League of Nations.
Politically the alliance between a united Poland, Bohemia
and Greater Rumania is of paramount importance, because if Poland and Rumania
remain as small as they are at present, and if the Czecho-Slovaks and Yugoslavs
are left at the mercy of Vienna and Budapest, the Germans will be masters of Central
Europe.
3. The relations between Czechs and Yugoslavs have
always been cordial, since both of them have always had the same anti-German
and anti-Magyar orientation. By way of the Danube the Czecho-Slovaks would be
in direct communication with Belgrade. The Czechs could further also be
accorded an international railway connecting Pressburg with the Adriatic. The
Czechs, being well developed industrially and commercially, could greatly
assist the Yugoslavs in organising a state sufficiently strong to arrest German
and Magyar penetration in the Balkans.
The Czechs, being good friends of the Yugoslavs and
Italians, will at the same time exert their efforts to prevent all
misunderstandings between these two Adriatic nations from which only the
Germans would profit. A close alliance between Bohemia, Italy, Yugoslavia and Rumania
will form an effective safeguard against German penetration in the Near East.
Since Rumania will border both on Bohemia and Yugoslavia, the Germans will be
completely encircled by a strong Latin-Slav barrier, of which Bohemia will form
the centre, working for stability in Central Europe and safeguarding Europe
from a repetition of the German attempts at world domination.
4. The Czecho-Slovak State itself will be strong both
strategically and economically. It will number over twelve million, and its
territory, comprising Bohemia, Moravia, Austrian-Silesia and Slovakia, will be
about 50,000 square miles, that is a territory as large as England (without
Scotland, Ireland and Wales).
Surrounded by high mountains, Bohemia forms a veritable
fortress in the heart of Europe. Economically, too, she will be strong and
self-supporting.
In the past Bohemia was the richest part of the Habsburg
Empire, with well-developed agriculture and industries. Bohemia produced 829
lbs. of grain per inhabitant, the rest of Austria 277 lbs. The Bohemian lands
are responsible for 93 per cent. of Austria’s, production of sugar, most of
which has been exported to England. Hops of remarkable quality are produced in Bohemia,
and Pilsen beer is known all over the world. Bohemia manufactures over 50 per
cent. of all the beer produced in Austria. Bohemia has also abundant wealth in
minerals, the only mineral which is not found there being salt. Bohemia
produces 60 per cent. of Austria’s iron and 83 per cent. (26 million tons) of
her coal. As regards trade, almost all the business between Bohemia and Western
Europe has always passed through Vienna, which of course greatly profited
thereby. This will cease when Bohemia becomes independent.
Two-thirds of the total Austrian exports, the value of which
was over £63,000,000 in 1912, come from the Bohemian lands. To England alone Austria
exported £9,000,000 worth of Bohemian sugar annually. Bohemian beer, malt and
hops were exported especially to France, textiles and machines to Italy. On the
other hand, Germany and German-Austria imported from the Bohemian lands
especially agricultural products (butter, eggs, cheese, cereals, fruit), also
coal and wood manufactures.
In 1905 Austria exported 425,000 metric tons of wheat and
186,000 metric tons of malt, which were mostly produced in Bohemia. The export
of Bohemian beer brings Austria 15,000,000 kronen annually (£625,000), of malt
55,000,000 kronen (£2,290,000). The Bohemian lands further export 130,000,000
kronen (£5,430,000) worth of textiles annually.
The Austrian import trade is also largely dependent on Bohemia.
All French articles bought by Bohemia come through Vienna, two-thirds of the
whole French export being destined for that country.
As regards England, in 1914 £2,676,000 worth of goods were
exported to Austria-Hungary, the greater part of which again was destined for Bohemia,
the chief articles being printing and agricultural machines and textile
manufactures. England will after the war find a good market in Bohemia, and
valuable assistants in Czech banks and business men in the economic competition
against the Germans in the Near East, since the Czechs boycotted German goods
even before the war. Prague is a railway centre of European importance, being
situated just midway between the Adriatic and the Baltic Sea. An agreement with
her neighbours (Poland, Yugoslavia and Rumania) and the League of Nations
arrangement would secure her an outlet to the sea by means of international
railways, while the Elbe and Danube would also form important trade routes. Bohemia
would become an intermediary between the Baltic and Adriatic as well as between
East and West.
Also the future relations of Bohemia with the British
colonies are not without importance. More than half the trade of Austria with
the British colonies was transacted by the Czechs, and Austria-Hungary exported
to British colonies £3,500,000 and imported from them £10,500,000 worth of
goods annually.
5. One of the most important reasons why the Czecho-Slovaks,
when independent, will be able to render such valuable services to the Allies,
is the high degree of their civilisation. Despite all efforts of the Austrian
Government to the contrary, the Czechs have nevertheless been able to attain a
high standard of education, and they also excel in literature, music and the
arts.
The Czechs are not only the most advanced of all Slavs, but
they are even the most advanced of all nations of Austria-Hungary. In Austria
as a whole 6.7 per cent. of the children do not attend school; in Bohemia only
1-1/2 per cent. The standard of education of the Czechs compares with that of
the Austrian-Germans and Magyars, according to the Monatschrift für
Statistik of 1913, as follows:
Czechs. Austrian Magyars.
Germans.
Persons knowing how to write
and read 95-1/2%
92% 40%
Persons knowing how to read
only 3%
1% 4%
Illiterates 1-1/2%
7% 56%
The Czechs have accomplished this by their own efforts, as
is shown by the fact that 151 Czech schools are kept up by a private Czech
society. These 151 schools have altogether 287 classes and 522 teachers, and
are attended by more than 15,000 children. The unjust treatment of the Czechs
in regard to schools is further shown by the fact that 9,000,000 Germans in Austria
had five universities, 5,000,000 Poles two universities, while 7,000,000 Czechs
had only one. The German University in Prague had 878 students in 1912, the Czech
University 4713. The Germans in Prague number some 10,000 (i.e. 1-1/2
per cent.), yet they have their public schools and even a university; while the
Czechs in Vienna, numbering at least some 300,000 (i.e. over 15 per
cent.), are deprived even of elementary schools, to say nothing of secondary
schools and universities.
The Slovaks of Hungary were, of course, in an absolutely
hopeless position in view of the terrible system of Magyar oppression. The
Magyars consider the schools as the most effective means for magyarisation. In
the 16 counties inhabited by the Slovaks there are only 240 Slovak schools, and
even in those schools Magyar is taught sometimes fully 18 hours a week. The
number of Slovak schools has been systematically reduced from 1921 in 1869 to
440 in 1911, and 240 in 1912, and these are attended by some 18,000 children
out of 246,000, i.e. 8 per cent. The Slovaks opened three secondary
schools in the early seventies, but all three were arbitrarily closed in 1874.
They have, of course, no university. Thus they were deprived of intellectual
leaders and are doomed to complete denationalisation, unless liberated and
united with the Czechs in an independent Bohemia.
In literature the Czechs may rightly range themselves side
by side with the great nations of Western Europe. Practically all the most
important works of foreign literature have been translated into Czech. The
Czechs have many good dramas, novels, and much excellent poetry which can be
fully appreciated only by those knowing their language. They are also very
musical, and their composers such as Dvořák, Smetana, Novák or Suk,
singers such as Emmy Destinn, and violinists such as Kubelík, are known all
over the world. They are also developed in all other arts, and their
folk-songs, peasant arts and industries, especially those of the Slovaks, bear
ample testimony to their natural talents and sense for beauty and art.
6. It is obvious that the cause of Bohemia is of very great
importance to the very existence of the British Empire. If Germany succeeded in
preserving her grip on Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and Turkey, she would soon
strike at Egypt and India, and thus endanger the safety of the British Empire. Germany
would control vast resources in man-power and material which would enable her
to plunge into another attempt at world-domination in a very short time. On the
other hand, when the non-German nations of Central Europe are liberated, Germany
will be absolutely prevented from repeating her present exploits, Great Britain
will be no more menaced by her, and a permanent peace in Europe will be
assured. Thus with the cause of Bohemia the cause of Great Britain will either
triumph or fall. Bismarck truly said that the master of Bohemia would be the
master of Europe.
Bohemia has many traditions in common with England, and she
will become her natural ally and friend. In the Czecho-Slovaks, the most
democratic, homogeneous and advanced nation of Central Europe, Great Britain
will find a true ally and fellow-pioneer in the cause of justice, freedom and
democracy.
APPENDIX OF SOME RECENT DOCUMENTS
THE CZECHO-SLOVAK RESOLUTION OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1918
The following is the text of the resolution passed by the
Czecho-Slovak National Council in Prague, in conjunction with the Union of
Czech Deputies, on September 29, 1918, and suppressed by the Austrian censor:
“Our nation once more and with all possible emphasis
lays stress on the fact that it firmly and unswervedly stands by the historical
manifestations of its freely elected representatives, firmly convinced of the
ultimate success of its highest ideals of full independence and liberty. Our
silenced and oppressed nation has no other answer to all attempts at a change
of the constitution than a cool and categorical refusal, because we know
that these attempts are nothing except products of an ever-increasing strain,
helplessness and ruin. We do not believe to-day in any more promises given
and not kept, for experience has taught us to judge them on their merits.
The most far-reaching promises cannot blind us and turn us away from our aims.
The hard experiences of our nation order us imperatively to hold firm in
matters where reality is stronger than all promises. The Vienna
Government is unable to give us anything we ask for. Our nation can never
expect to get its liberty from those who at all times regarded it only as a
subject of ruthless exploitations; and who even in the last moment do not
shrink from any means to humiliate, starve and wipe out our nation and by cruel
oppression to hurt us in our most sacred feelings. Our nation has nothing in
common with those who are responsible for the horrors of this war.
Therefore there will not be a single person who would, contrary to the
unanimous wish of the nation, deal with those who have not justice for the
Czech nation at heart and who have also no sympathy with the Polish and
Yugoslav nations, but who are only striving for the salvation of their present
privileged position of misrule and injustice. The Czech nation will follow
its anti-German policy, whatever may happen, assured that its just cause will
finally triumph, especially to-day when it becomes a part of the great ideals
of the Entente, whose victory will be the only good produced by this terrible
war.”
CZECH LEADERS REFER THE AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT TO THE
CZECHO-SLOVAK GOVERNMENT AS THEIR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES
Speaking in the Reichsrat, deputy Staněk declared in
the name of the Union of Czech Deputies on October 2, 1918:
“This terrible war, started against the will and
despite the warnings of the Czecho-Slovaks, has now reached the culminating
point. Two worlds have been struggling in this war. One of them stood for the Middle
Ages and has with daring impudence inscribed upon its banner ‘Might is Right.’
Inspired by this watchword, the spirit of German Imperialism believed it had a
mission to rule the whole world, and it was voluntarily joined by the rulers of
Austria-Hungary in the mad desire of enslaving the whole world.
“It was not difficult to guess which side would win
unless civilisation were to be thrown back for centuries. On one side stood the
mediaeval spirit of autocracy; on the other, pure love of liberty and
democracy. And we who have been oppressed by Austria for centuries and who have
tasted Austrian ‘education’ have naturally not formed voluntary legions on the
side of Austria. In fact the Czecho-Slovaks have not voluntarily shed a
single drop of blood for the Central Powers. But our compatriots abroad,
remembering the centuries-old Austrian oppression, have formed voluntary
legions in all the Allied armies. They are shedding their blood for the
most sacred rights of humanity and at a moment of the greatest danger for the
Allies they saved the situation. In Russia, too, they are fighting for
democracy. Nobody will succeed in arresting the triumphant progress of true
democracy, not even the Austrian and German Governments, nor any diplomacy, nor
any peace notes or crown councils. The world will not be deceived again and
nobody takes the Central Powers and their governments seriously any more.
“Your peace offensives will avail nothing to you,
nobody will speak with you again. Even the Austrian peoples refuse to
negotiate with you, knowing the value of your words. We have no intention of
saving you from destruction. Your aim is still the German-Magyar hegemony
and the oppression of Slavs and Latins. You must look elsewhere for support.
The fateful hour for you and the Magyars has come sooner than we expected.
“And the dynasty? Look at the electoral reform in Hungary
sanctioned by the emperor! This reform is intended to destroy completely the
political and national existence of the non-Magyars in Hungary. This is how the
emperor keeps his word.
“In view of these events we must ask ourselves: Are
there any moral guarantees in this empire? We do not see them and therefore we
declare that we reject all community with the political system of this
empire. We want a single front of three Slav States extending from Gdansk
(Dantzig) via Prague to the Adriatic. We
protest against any partial solution of the Czecho-Slovak question. The Czecho-Slovak
State which must also include the Slovaks of Hungary is our minimum programme.
We again emphasise our solidarity with our Yugoslav brethren, whether they live
in Belgrade, Sarajevo, Mostar or Lubljana, and we ask for the removal of those
statesmen who wish to subjugate the remainder of the Bosnian population. A
free Yugoslavia, an independent Greater Poland and the Czecho-Slovak State
are already in process of formation, closely allied to each other, not only by
the knowledge of common economic interests, but also on the ground of the moral
prerogatives of international right.
“Peace is in sight. We wanted to be admitted to peace
negotiations with representatives of other nations. The Germans refused and
replied: ‘If you insist you will be hanged.’ Of course the Germans never kept
their word except when they promised to hang some one! But the Entente replied
by deeds recognising the Czecho-Slovak army as an Allied and belligerent army.
Thereupon the Austrian Government asked us, Czech leaders in Austria,
to protest against it. But of course we refused. I said so openly to the
Premier, and if you like, I will tell it to the Austrian Emperor himself. You
would not admit us to the peace negotiations with Russia, and now
you will have to negotiate with Czech leaders after all, whether you like
it or not. These leaders will be representatives of the same Czecho-Slovak
brigades which Count Hertling called rascals (‘Gesindel‘). You
will have to negotiate with them, and not with us, and therefore we will
not speak with you. Our question will not be solved in Vienna. If you accept
President Wilson’s terms, if the German people, and not the German bureaucrats,
accept them, then you can have peace at once and save humanity from further
bloodshed. There is no other way out, and we therefore advise you honestly
and frankly to surrender to the Allies unconditionally, because in the end
nothing else will be left to you.
“In agreement with the whole Yugoslav nation, in
agreement with Polish representatives, voicing the will of the Polish people,
the Czecho-Slovaks declare before the whole world:
‘Forward in our struggle for liberty and for a new life in
our own liberated, restored state!'”
PRESIDENT WILSON’S REPLY TO THE AUSTRIAN PEACE OFFER
In reply to the Austro-Hungarian proposal for an armistice
of October 7, 1918, Mr. Robert Lansing addressed the following communication
from President Wilson to the Austrian Government through the medium of the
Swedish Legation in Washington on October 18, 1918:
“The President deems it his duty to say to the
Austro-Hungarian Government that he cannot entertain the present suggestion of
that government because of certain events of the utmost importance which,
occurring since the delivery of his address of January 8 last, have necessarily
altered the attitude and responsibility of the Government of the United States.
“Among the fourteen terms of peace which the President
formulated at that time occurred the following:
“‘The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place
among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded
the freest opportunity of autonomous development.’
“Since that sentence was written and uttered to the
Congress of the United States, the Government of the United States has
recognised that a state of belligerency exists between the Czecho-Slovaks and
the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, and that the Czecho-Slovak National
Council is a de facto belligerent government, clothed with proper
authority to direct the military and political affairs of the Czecho-Slovaks.
“It has also recognised in the fullest manner the
justice of the nationalistic aspirations of the Yugo-Slavs for freedom.
“The President therefore is no longer at liberty to
accept a mere ‘autonomy’ of these peoples as a basis of peace, but is obliged
to insist that they, and not he, shall be the judges of what action on the part
of the Austro-Hungarian Government will satisfy their aspirations and their
conception of their rights and destiny as members of the family of
nations.”
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAK PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
On October 14, Dr. E. Beneš addressed the following
letter to all the Allied Governments:
“By the declaration of the Government of the United
States of September 3, 1918, the Czecho-Slovak National Council, whose seat
is in Paris, has been recognised as a de facto Czecho-Slovak Government.
This recognition has been confirmed by the following Allied Governments: by
Great Britain in her agreement with the National Council of September 3, 1918;
by France in her agreement of September 28, 1918, and by Italy in the
declaration of her Premier on October 3,1918. I have the honour to inform you
that in view of these successive recognitions a Provisional Czecho-Slovak
Government has been constituted by the decision of September 26, 1918, with its
provisional seat in Paris and consisting of the following members:
“Professor Thomas G. Masaryk, President
of the Provisional Government and of the Cabinet of Ministers, and Minister of
Finance.
“Dr. Edward Beneš, Minister for
Foreign Affairs and of the Interior.
“General Milan R. Štefanik, Minister of
War.
“The undersigned ministry has subsequently decided to
accredit the following representatives with the Allied Powers:
“Dr. Stephan Osuský. Chargé d’Affaires of
the Czecho-Slovak Legation in London, accredited with His Majesty’s Government
in Great Britain.
“Dr. Leo Sychrava, Chargé d’Affaires of
the Czecho-Slovak Legation in Paris, accredited with the French Government.
“Dr. Leo Borský, Chargé d’Affaires of the
Czecho-Slovak Legation in Rome, accredited with the Royal Government of Italy.
“Dr. Charles Pergler, Chargé d’Affaires
of the Czecho-Slovak Legation in Washington, accredited with the Government of
the United States.
“Bohdan Pavlu, at present at Omsk, is to
represent our Government in Russia.
“Our representatives in Japan and Serbia will be
appointed later.
“We have the honour to inform you that we have taken
these decisions in agreement with the political leaders at home. During the
past three years our whole political and military action has been conducted in
complete agreement with them. Finally, on October 2, 1918, the Czecho-Slovak
deputy Staněk, President of the Union of Czech Deputies to the Parliament
in Vienna, solemnly announced that the Czecho-Slovak National Council in Paris
is to be considered as the supreme organ of the Czecho-Slovak armies and that
it is entitled to represent the Czecho-Slovak nation in the Allied countries
and at the Peace Conference. On October 9, his colleague, deputy Zahradník,
speaking in the name of the same union, declared that the Czecho-Slovaks are
definitely leaving the Parliament in Vienna, thereby breaking for ever all
their ties with Austria-Hungary.
“Following the decision of our nation and of our
armies, we are henceforth taking charge as a Provisional National Government
for the direction of the political destinies of the Czecho-Slovak State, and as
such we are entering officially into relations with the Allied Governments,
relying both upon our mutual agreement with them and upon their solemn
declarations.
“We make this declaration in a specially solemn manner
at a moment when great political events call upon all the nations to take part
in decisions which will perhaps give Europe a new political régime for
centuries to come.
“Assuring you of my devoted sentiments, believe me to
remain, in the name of the Czecho-Slovak Government,
(Signed) “DR. EDWARD BENEŠ,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.”
CZECHO-SLOVAK DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
“At this grave moment when the Hohenzollerns are
offering peace in order to stop the victorious advance of the Allied armies and
to prevent the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and when the
Habsburgs are promising the federalisation of the empire and autonomy to the
dissatisfied nationalities committed to their rule, we, the Czecho-Slovak
National Council, recognised by the Allied and American Governments as the
Provisional Government of the Czecho-Slovak State and nation, in complete
accord with the declaration of the Czech deputies in Prague on January 6, 1918,
and realising that federalisation and, still more, autonomy mean nothing under
a Habsburg dynasty, do hereby make and declare this our Declaration of
Independence:
“Because of our belief that no people should be forced
to live under a sovereignty they do not recognise and because of our knowledge
and firm conviction that our nation cannot freely develop in a Habsburg
confederation which is only a new form of the denationalising oppression which
we have suffered for the past three centuries, we consider freedom to be the
first pre-requisite for federalisation and believe that the free nations of
Central and Eastern Europe may easily federate should they find it necessary.
“We make this declaration on the basis of our historic
and natural right: we have been an independent state since the seventh century,
and in 1526 as an independent state, consisting of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia,
we joined with Austria and Hungary in a defensive union against the Turkish
danger. We have never voluntarily surrendered our rights as an independent
state in this confederation. The Habsburgs broke their compact with our nation
by illegally transgressing our rights and violating the constitution of our
state, which they had pledged themselves to uphold, and we therefore refuse any
longer to remain a part of Austria-Hungary in any form.
“We claim the right of Bohemia to be reunited with her
Slovak brethren of Slovakia, which once formed part of our national state, but
later was torn from our national body and fifty years ago was incorporated in
the Hungarian State of the Magyars, who by their unspeakable violence and
ruthless oppression of their subject races have lost all moral and human right
to rule anybody but themselves.
“The world knows the history of our struggle against
the Habsburg oppression, intensified and systematised by the Austro-Hungarian
dualistic compromise of 1867. This dualism is only a shameless organisation of
brute force and exploitation of the majority by the minority. It is a political
conspiracy of the Germans and Magyars against our own as well as the other Slav
and Latin nations of the monarchy.
“The world knows the justice of our claims, which the
Habsburgs themselves dare not deny. Francis Joseph in the most solemn manner
repeatedly recognised the sovereign rights of our nation. The Germans and
Magyars opposed this recognition, and Austria-Hungary, bowing before the
Pan-Germans, became a colony of Germany and as her vanguard to the East
provoked the last Balkan conflict as well as the present world war, which was
begun by the Habsburgs alone without the consent of the representatives of the
people.
“We cannot and will not continue to live under the
direct or indirect rule of the violators of Belgium, France and Serbia, the
would-be murderers of Russia and Rumania, the murderers of tens of thousands of
civilians and soldiers of our blood, and the accomplices in numberless
unspeakable crimes committed in this war against humanity by the two degenerate
and irresponsible dynasties of Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns. We will not remain
a part of a state which has no justification for existence and which, refusing
to accept the fundamental principles of modern world organisation, remains only
an artificial and immoral political structure, hindering every movement towards
democratic and social progress. The Habsburg dynasty, weighed down by a huge
inheritance of error and crime, is a perpetual menace to the peace of the
world, and we deem it our duty towards humanity and civilisation to aid in
bringing about its downfall and destruction.
“We reject the sacrilegious assertion that the power
of the Habsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties is of divine origin. We refuse to
recognise the divine right of kings. Our nation elected the Habsburgs to the
throne of Bohemia of its own free will and by the same right deposes them. We
hereby declare the Habsburg dynasty unworthy of leading our nation and deny all
their claims to rule in the Czecho-Slovak land, which we here and now declare
shall henceforth be a free and independent people and nation.
“We accept and shall adhere to the ideals of modern
democracy as they have been ideals of our nation for centuries. We accept the
American principles as laid down by President Wilson, the principles of
liberated mankind of the actual equality of nations and of governments,
deriving all their just power from the consent of the governed. We, the nation
of Comenius, cannot but accept those principles expressed in the American
Declaration of Independence, the principles of Lincoln and of the Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. For these principles our nation shed
its blood in the memorable Hussite wars five hundred years ago. For these same
principles beside her Allies our nation is shedding its blood to-day in Russia,
Italy and France.
“We shall outline only the main principles of the
constitution of the Czecho-Slovak nation. The final decision as to the
constitution itself falls to the legally chosen representatives of the
liberated and united people. The Czecho-Slovak State shall be a republic in
constant endeavour for progress. It will guarantee complete freedom of
conscience, religion and science, literature and art, speech, the press and the
right of assembly and petition. The Church shall be separated from the State. Our
democracy shall rest on universal suffrage; women shall be placed on an equal
footing with men politically, socially and culturally, while the right of the
minority shall be safeguarded by proportional representation. National
minorities shall enjoy equal rights. The government shall be parliamentary in
form and shall recognise the principles of initiative and referendum. The
standing army will be replaced by militia. The Czecho-Slovak nation will carry
out far-reaching social and economic reforms. The large estates will be
redeemed for home colonisation, and patents of nobility will be abolished. Our
nation will assume responsibility for its part of the Austro-Hungarian pre-war
public debt. The debts for this war we leave to those who incurred them.
“In its foreign policy the Czecho-Slovak nation will
accept its full share of responsibility in the reorganisation of Eastern Europe.
It accepts fully the democratic and social principle of nationality and
subscribes to the doctrine that all covenants and treaties shall be entered
into openly and frankly without secret diplomacy. Our constitution shall
provide an efficient, national and just government which will exclude all
special privileges and prohibit class legislation.
“Democracy has defeated theocratic autocracy,
militarism is overcome, democracy is victorious. On the basis of democracy
mankind will be reorganised. The forces of darkness have served the victory of light,
the longed-for age of humanity is dawning. We believe in democracy, we believe
in liberty and liberty for evermore.
“Given in Paris on the 18th October, 1918.
(Signed) “PROFESSOR THOMAS G. MASARYK,
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
GENERAL DR. MILAN ŠTEFANIK,
Minister of National Defence.
DR. EDWARD BENEŠ,
Minister for Foreign Affairs and of the Interior.”
PAN-GERMANISM
CHÉRADAME, A.: The Pan-German Plot Unmasked. John
Murray, London, 1916.
NAUMANN, F.: Central Europe. King & Son, London,
1916.
For complete survey of Pan-Germanism and Pan-German
literature, see Prof. Masaryk’s articles in the first volume of the New
Europe, as well as various articles in La Nation Tchèque.
THE SLAVS
BAILEY, V.F.: The Slavs of the War Zone. Chapman
& Hall, London, 1917.
LEGER, Louis: Etudes slaves. Leroux,
Paris, 1875, 1880 and 1886.
—-Le monde slave. Hachette,
Paris, 1910.
MASARYK, T.G.: The Slavs amongst Nations. London, 1915.
NIEDERLE, L.: La race slave. Hachette,
Paris, 1910.
TUČIĆ, S.: The Slav Nations. Daily Telegraph
War Books, London, 1914.
See also Le Monde Slave, a monthly review published
in Paris by Prof. Ernest Denis at 19-21 rue Cassette.
THE AUSTRIAN PROBLEM
BENEŠ, EDWARD: Le problème autrichien
et la question tchèque. Girard-Brière, Paris, 1908.
—-Détruisez l’Autriche-Hongrie. Delagrave,
Paris, 1915.
COLQUHOUN, A.R.: The Whirlpool of Europe. Harpers, London, 1907.
CHÉRADAME, A.: L’Europe et la question
d’Autriche-Hongrie. Paris, 1900.
DRAGE, GEOFFREY: Austria-Hungary. John Murray, London, 1909.
EISENMANN, L.: Le compromis
austro-hongrois. Paris, 1904.
FOURNOL, E.: Sur la succession de
l’Autriche-Hongrie. Paris, 1917.
GAYDA, V.: Modern Austria. Fisher Unwin, London,
1914.
GRIBBLE, F.J.: The Emperor Francis Joseph. Eveleigh Nash, London, 1914.
LEGER, Louis: Histoire de
l’Autriche-Hongrie. Hachette, Paris, 1888.
—-La liquidation de l’Autriche-Hongrie.
MITTON, G.E.: Austria-Hungary. A. & C.
Black, London, 1915.
McCURDY, C.A., M.P.: The Terms of the Coming Peace. W.H.
Smith & Son, 1918.
STEED, HENRY WICKHAM: The Habsburg Monarchy. Constable,
1914 and 1916.
SETON-WATSON, R.W.: The Future of Austria-Hungary.
Constable, London, 1907.
SETON-WATSON, R.W., and others: War and Democracy.
Macmillan & Co., 1914.
TOYNBEE, A.: Nationality and the War. Dent &
Sons, London, 1915.
—-The New Europe. Dent & Sons.
HUNGARY AND THE SLOVAKS
ČAPEK, THOMAS: The Slovaks of Hungary.
Knickerbocker Press, New York, 1906.
DENIS, ERNEST: Les Slovaques. Delagrave, Paris, 1917.
SCOTUS-VIATOR: Racial Problems in Hungary.
Constable, 1908.
SETON-WATSON, R.W.: German, Slav and Magyar. Williams & Norgate, London, 1916.
BOHEMIAN HISTORY
DENIS, ERNEST: Huss et la Guerre des
Hussites. Leroux, Paris, 1878.
—-Les origines de l’unité des frères
bohèmes. Angers, Burdin, 1881.
—-Fin de l’indépendance bohème.
Colin, Paris, 1890.
—-La Bohème depuis la Montagne Blanche.
Leroux, Paris, 1903.
FRICZ: Table de l’histoire de la Bohème.
GINDELY, A.: History of the Thirty Years’ War. Translation
from Czech. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1884.
GREGOR, F.: Story of Bohemia. Hunt & Eaton, New York, 1895.
HANTICH, H.: La révolution de 1848 en
Bohème. Schneider, Lyon, 1910.
—-Le droit historique de la Bohème.
Chevalier, Paris, 1910.
LEGER, LOUIS: La renaissance tchèque en
XIXe siècle. Paris, 1911.
LÜTZOW, COUNT FRANCIS: Bohemia. A historical
sketch. Everyman’s Library. Dent & Sons, London, 1907.
—-The Story of Prague. Dent &
Sons, London, 1902.
—-Life and Times of John Hus. Dent & Sons,
1909.
MAURICE, C.E.: The Story of Bohemia.
Fisher Unwin, 1896.
SCHWARZE, REV. J.: John Hus. The Revel Co., New York,
1915.
SCHAFF, DAVID: John Huss. George Allen & Unwin, London,
1915.
WRATISLAW, A.H.: John Hus. Young & Co., London,
1882.
BOHEMIAN LITERATURE
BOWRING, SIR JOHN: Cheskian Anthology. Rowland
Hunter, London, 1832.
BAUDIŠ, PROF. JOSEPH: Czech Folk Tales. George
Allen & Unwin, London, 1917.
FRICZ: L’idée nationale dans la poésie et
la tradition bohème.
GAMBERT, E.: Poésie tchèque contemporaine.
Paris, 1903.
JELINEK, H.: La littérature tchèque
contemporaine. Paris, 1912.
KOMENSKY, J.A.: Labyrinth of the World. Translated
from Czech by Count Lützow. Dent & Sons, London, 1900.
LÜTZOW, COUNT FRANCIS: Bohemian Literature.
Heinemann, London, 1907.
MARCHANT, F.P.: Outline of Bohemian Literature. London,
1911.
MORFILL, W.R.: A Grammar of the Bohemian (Čech)
Language. With translations from Bohemian literature. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1899.
—-Slavonic Literature. London, 1883.
NĚMCOVÁ, B.: The Grandmother. A novel translated
from Czech. McClurg, Chicago, 1892.
SELVER, PAUL: Anthology of Modern Bohemian Poetry.
Drane, London, 1912.
BOHEMIAN CIVILISATION
BAKER, JAMES: Pictures from Bohemia. Chapman
& Hall, London, 1904.
HANTICH, H.: La musique tchèque. Nilsson, Paris,
1910.
MONROE, W.S.: Bohemia and the Čechs. Bell
& Sons, London, 1910.
PROCHAZKA, J.: Bohemia‘s Claim for Freedom. Chatto
& Windus, London, 1915.
TYRŠOVA, R., and HANTICH, H.: Le paysan tchèque.
Nilsson, Paris.
ZMRHAL, J.J., and BENEŠ, V.: Bohemia. Bohemian
National Alliance, Chicago, 1917.
—-Les pays tchèques, published by the Ligue
Franco-Tchèque, Paris, 1917.
BOHEMIAN POLITICS
BENEŠ, EDWARD: Bohemia‘s Case for Independence.
George Allen & Unwin, London, 1917.
BOURLIER, JEAN: Les Tchèques et la Bohème.
F. Alcan, Paris, 1897.
ČAPEK, THOMAS: Bohemia under Habsburg Misrule.
Chicago, 1915.
For reference re the Czecho-Slovak movement, see its
official organ La Nation Tchèque, published at 18, rue Bonaparte, Paris.
First two volumes edited by E. Denis, the following by Dr. E. Beneš.
Numerous useful articles on Bohemia and the Austrian problem
from the pen of H.W. Steed, R.W. Seton-Watson, L.B. Namier, Professor Masaryk,
Dr. Beneš, V. Nosek and others will be found in the weekly review of
foreign politics, the New Europe, published by Messrs. Constable &
Co., 10, Orange Street, London, W.C.2.
The following list of some recent articles in the English
(not American) monthly and quarterly reviews is also recommended:
BARRY, The Very Rev. Canon WILLIAM: Break Austria.
Nineteenth Century, September, 1917.
—-How to Break Austria. Nineteenth
Century, November, 1917.
—-Shall England save Austria?
Nineteenth Century, June, 1918.
CHÉRADAME, A.: How to Destroy Pan-Germany. National
Review, January, 1918.
—-The Western Front and Political Strategy. National
Review, July, 1918.
FORMAN, JOSEPH: The Liberation of the Czecho-Slovaks.
Nineteenth Century, March, 1917.
GRIBBLE, FRANCIS: Czech Claims and Magyar Intrigues.
Nineteenth Century, March, 1918.
—-The Passing of a Legend. Nineteenth Century,
October, 1917.
LANDA, M.J.: Bohemia and the War. Contemporary,
July, 1915.
AN OLD MAZZINIAN: Italy and the Nationalities of Austria-Hungary.
Contemporary, June, 1918.
NOSEK, VLADIMIR: The New Spirit in Austria. A
Reply to Mr. Brailsford. Contemporary, October, 1917.
—-Bohemia as a Bulwark against Pan-Germanism.
National Review, July, 1918.
POLITICUS: Austria‘s Hour of Destiny. Fortnightly,
August, 1917.
Round Table, Quarterly Review of the Politics of the
Empire: No. 16 (September, 1914): Origins of the War.
—-No. 17 (December, 1914): Racial Problems in Austria-Hungary.
—-No. 26 (March, 1917): Methods of Ascendancy: Bohemia.
SELVER, PAUL: Březina’s Poetry. The Quest,
January, 1916.
—-Modern Czech Poetry. Poetry Review, May, 1918.
SETON-WATSON, R.W.: Pan-Slavism. Contemporary,
October, 1916.
—-Austria-Hungary and the Federal System.
Contemporary, March, 1918.
STEED, HENRY WICKHAM: The Quintessence of Austria.
Edinburgh Review, October, 1915.
—-The Programme for Peace. Edinburgh
Review, April, 1916.
—-What is Austria? Edinburgh
Review, October, 1917.
TAYLOR, A.H.E.: The Entente and Austria.
Fortnightly, May, 1918.
For a detailed and exhaustive list of all writings in the
English language on Bohemia and the Czecho-Slovaks, see Bohemian
Bibliography, by Thomas Čapek and Anna Vostrovsky Čapek,
published by the Fleming H. Revell Co., Chicago, New York, Edinburgh and London,
1918.