Bohemia's case for independence

Front matter

BOHEMIA'S CASE

FOR INDEPENDENCE

BY

Front matter

BOHEMIA'S CASE

FOR INDEPENDENCE

DR EDOUARD BENES

Advertisement

Czech Folk Tales Collected and Translated from different Czech Sources. By J. B. Crown 8vo. With Illustrations. 4s. 6d. net.

This book contains a selection of the most characteristic Czecho-Slovak folk tales which have not hitherto appeared in English. They will surely be welcomed by all who are interested in Slavonic folk tales.

A Bulwark Against Germany The Fight of the Slovenes for National Existence. By Bogumil Vosnjak, late Lecturer of the University of Zagreb (Croatia). Translated by Fanny S. Copeland. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. net.

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The publication of this little book is timely. The British public, always prone to look upon "foreign affairs" as mysterious and unintelligible, has been groping its way, during the last two-and-a-half years, towards some dim knowledge of the causes of the war and of the fundamental conditions of a lasting peace. Its cognitions are still rudimentary. The neglect of generations cannot be made good in so brief a period, even under the stimulus of the greatest struggle known to history. Yet, though it be not possible to "cram" for the examination which the British peoples will presently be required to pass if a satisfactory peace is to end the war, it is possible to inculcate upon them the broad lessons of history, geography and ethnology in such a way as to give them a standard by which to judge situations and events. In this little volume, Dr. Beneš, the distinguished collaborator of Professor Masaryk, sets forth with cleaners and cogency "the case for the independence of Bohemia? Alongside of "the case" for the unity and independence of Poland, with which it is intimately connected, and "the case" for the independence and unity of the Southern Slav peoples, which forms its necessary pendant, the case for Bohemia is seen to be one of the cardinal points of the political firmament whenever the eye turns in search of a stable peace. It is true that the independence of Bohemia, that is, the independence and unity of the Czecho-Slovak race, involves tha "dismemberment of Austria" against which British pacifists so strangely protest. A sudden and touching solicitude for the preservation of the Habsburg realms, in some federalised form, has been noticeable of late in quartets formerly proud of their "Liberalism," Gladstone's verdict that "nowhere has Austria ever done good" seems to have been forgetten by these ultra-liberal partisans of Austrian intangibility. They have taken up the position held by the mid-Victorian Tories, against whom the famous parody of "Who is Sylvia?" was directed in Macmillan's Magazine of 1866:—

Who is Austria? What is she? That all our swells commend her? Dogged, proud and dull is she; The heavens such gifts did lend her That she might destroyed be. · · · · · But what is Austria? Is it fair To name among the nations Some Germans who have clutched the hair Of divers populations, And, having clutched, keep tugging there?

From the moment that Austria-Hungary, at the instance of Germany, decided to use the Sarajevo assassinations as a pretext far the long-planned "punitive expedition" against Serbia, I have been confirmed—as Count Albert Mensdorff, the former Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in London will remember—that the Habsburg Monarchy was about to commit suicide. It was evident to those practically acquainted with Austro-Hungarian affairs that, whether Austria-Hungary were left to crush Serbia without interference from the Great Powers, or whether the conflict were to grow into a European conflagration, the real independence of the Habsburgs would be a thing of the past. They could not overrun and annex Serbia without incurring such obligations towards Germany as to render them, more than ever, German vassals. In the event of a European conflagration they could only hope for victory through German support, and victory would render them a mere link in the Pan-German chain of States stretching from the North Sea to the Persian Gulf. In the event of defeat in a European war, they could not hope to resist the aspirations of their peoples for liberation, or, indeed, the demands of the victors for political guarantees against the recurrence of so foul a conspiracy against the tranquillity and equilibrium of Europe.

The course of the war and the political developments by which it has been accompanied in Central Europe have justified this estimate; but they have also shown that there may exist a fourth contingency from which the Habsburgs might hope to profit. It is with this contingency that the Allies are now confronted. Should Austria-Hungary, and her open and occult partisans, succeed in persuading the Allied Governments that the leopard can change his spots, there might still be a chance that the adoption of a formula like "the federalisation of Austria would save Germany from the full consequences of her crime by preserving in a new disguise the old Habsburg State which has been, is, and must remain a principal asset in German political calculations. Prominent German writers, notably Herr Georg Bernhard, in the Vossische Zeitung of April 23, have, it is true, clearly proclaimed the great value to Germany of a federalised Austria. "As long as Austria retained the ambition of being a German State," he wrote, "she was—or she might have become—a rival of Germany. But a strong, new, many-peopled Austria will be our complement." "Changes in the home policy of the Dual Monarchy do not imply any change in its foreign policy, because the Monarchy can maintain the best relations with Germany and yet enjoy the confidence of the Entente." A federated Austria would he "a German bridge between West and East." The soundness of Herr Bernhard's views from the German standpoint cannot be gainsaid. It follows—or it ought to follow—that their unsoundness from the standpoint of the Allies, is equally incontestable.

The considerations that should guide the Allies in dealing with the question of Austria can be briefly stated. Quite apart from the liberal and humanitarian claims advanced in the name of "the rights of nationalities" or "the fight of peoples to determine their own fate," it is evident that the power of Germany to dispose of 50,000,000 Habsburg subjects for the furtherance of her military and political designs has been a main source of German strength, of this source of strength Germany must be deprived. The creation of an independent Bohemia, or rather Czechoslovakia, would remove some 12,000,000 Habsburg Slav subjects from German control, and would set them up as active custodians of European freedom. Upon the economic resources of Bohemia Dr. Beneš rightly insists. Of the devotion of the Czechs to the Allied cause he gives abundant proof. The sturdy vitality of a people that has survived persecution and oppression almost without precedent in European history needs no demonstration. The unification of Poland would deprive Austria and Germany of many more millions of oppressed Slavs who, like the Czechs, would help to safeguard the liberties of Europe. Similarly, the constitution of an ethnically-complete Romania, of a united Southern Slavia, and of a completed Italy, would subtract from 10 to 12 millions more from the Habsburg populations, hitherto at the disposal of the Hohenzollerns. The Magyars retaining independent possession of the Central Hungarian plain, the true Magyar-land, but deprived of the power to oppress non-Magyars might find their place in a Danubian Federation of States such as that of which Louis Kossuth once dreamed; while the Germans of Austria would be free, should they desire it, to join the peoples of the present German Empire. Their adhesion to Germany would not counterbalance the diminution of strength which the Hohenzollern-Habsburg combination would suffer by the liberation of the non-German and non-Magyar peoples whom the present "Central Powers" control.

These are the true lines of a lasting resettlement of Central Europe. In it an independent Bohemia would play a part of which the importance can be gauged only by those who know the history and the potentialities of the Bohemian lands and of the Czecho-Slovak race. As to the Habsburgs, who for so long have "clutched the hair of diverse populations," the words of the famous parody still hold good:—

They had their chance; for so, in rough All nations had beginnings. But Habsburgs were not wise enough For any solid winning; Or else their task was over tough.

It is time that the peoples whom they have persistently misgoverned should be allowed to work out their own salvation; and among these peoples the thrifty, industrious and gifted Bohemian race holds a place second to none.

Henry Wickham Steed

London, June 25th, 1917

The Czecho-Slovaks: Outline of their History

BOHEMIA'S CASE FOR INDEPENDENCE

I

THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS: OUTLINE OF THEIR HISTORY

The term Czecho-Slovaks, or simply the Czechs, includes two branches of the same nation: seven millions of Czechs living in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and three millions of Slovaks inhabiting the north of Hungary, from the junction of the River Morava and the Danube to the Upper Tisza. These two peoples have the same civilisation, the same language and history: the Slovak dialect hardly differs from the Czech, certainly much less than the Slovene from the Serbo-Croat. The only obstacle to their complete union is one of a political character, the Czechs being under the yoke of Austria, while the Slovaks are under that of Hungary and the Magyars.

Till the middle of the nineteenth century, the ties which held them together were very close, and some of the most illustrious pioneers of the Czech renaissance were Slovaks. Towards the middle of the last century, certain Slovak patriots conceived the idea that in order to stir up the mass of the people to fight the Magyars, it would be advisable to abandon the Czech literary language, and adopt the local Slovak dialect. This separatist movement was accentuated by the establishment of the Austro-Hungarian dualism in 1867, which made the Slovaks members of another State, and completely separated them from the Czechs. This division of the two branches of the Czecho-Slovak nation has therefore existed only since the second half of the nineteenth century and has produced quite insignificant differences. By reason of their geographical position, the lot of the Slovaks has differed slightly from that of the Czechs; many of the sufferings which were inflicted on the Czechs were spared them, but on the other hand they sustained others which only indirectly affected the Czechs.

Briefly, the history of the Czecho-Slovaks may be summed up as follows:—

The Czech nation, inspired by a lofty idealism, has ever aimed throughout its history to attain to a high moral and religious conception of existence. Its activity has been concentrated on the search for moral and philosophical truths, and the realisation of ideals of justice and humanity. To this end the people of this nation have wished to live in the peace that allows of the fulfilment of such aims.

But the attainment of this peace has been opposed by three foes: firstly, up to the fifteenth century, by the Germans; secondly, by the Habsburg dynasty, who made use of the Germans in their endeavour to exterminate the Czechs; finally, by the Magyars, the traditional allies of the Germans, who tried to extirpate the Slovaks.

Inhabiting the most western of the Slav territories, wedged deeply into the German block and surrounded by Magyars on the east, the position of the Czecho-Slovaks has made their history a history of perpetual struggle. There is not a single period in the history of this people which does not record a conflict with one or another of these three enemies. And the struggle continues.

It is a significant fact that today these three adversaries are considered the most malignant enemies of humanity: the history of the Czech nation shows that it was ever thus. If Europe to-day groans under the German-Austro-Magyar brutality, it must not be forgotten that the Czecho-Slovak nation has suffered under it for twelve hundred years. During these twelve centuries the Czechs were never the aggressors. With great difficulty they defended themselves, and only by a miracle escaped the fate of their unhappy brother Slavs of the Elbe.

It must be confessed that fate was not kind in placing us in such circumstances. Let us take our enemies one by one and review the events of the struggle.

The Struggle of the Czecho-Slovaks against the Germans

II

THE STRUGGLE OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS AGAINST THE GERMANS

The Czechs originally came and established themselves in the lands they now hold towards the end of the sixth, or in the seventh century a.d. From the beginning they were obliged to defend themselves against the attacks of the Germanic tribes, and history tells us of their struggles against Charlemagne.

The first of our national heroes, St Venceslas, had to fight the Teutonic people and was forced to pay them tribute. All his successors without exception found themselves in more or less violent conflict with the Germans. The Bohemian lands were continually threatened, especially by the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Our national kings (Boleslav, Soběslav, Přemysl, Ottakar) were obliged to wage continuous war against the Teutons.

Until the fourteenth century the history of Bohemia is the history of wars against the Germans, while the history of the Southern Slavs records their struggles against the Turks. With the Czechs, the rôle of hereditary enemy was played by the Austro-Germans. Our earliest historical and literary documents, legends, customs, and traditions bear unmistakable traces of these struggles. Indeed, they colour our entire civilisation.

It was when the last king of the first autochtonous dynasty of the Premyslides died, and the kingdom of Bohemia passed to the House of Luxembourg, that Bohemia's most brilliant and glorious period commenced: it was her king, Charles IV., who, having been crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, continued to hold his Court at Prague, and contributed largely towards making Bohemia one of the intellectual centres of Europe. Not only did he promote the economical prosperity of his country, enlarge his territories, and embellish his capital of Prague with monuments of great artistic value, but he also founded the University of Prague, and thus gave birth to the great intellectual, moral, and religious movement from which arose John Hus, and with him the splendid period of the Hussite wars.

Without entering into details of these stirring times, we may state that the Czechs consider this period as one of the most glorious of their history. They gave Europe the man who began the fight for the freedom of individual conscience, John Hus. He was not only a religious reformer, he was the initiator of that great philosophical movement which resulted in the French Revolution, and in the establishment of modern philosophical and political individualism. It is through John Hus that Bohemia is connected with the religious reformation in England, and with Wyckliff, as well as with the great thinkers of France.

It is common knowledge that he was burnt alive at Constance, and that the entire Czech nation rose up to avenge his death. The struggle, which contended above all things for liberty of conscience and religion, soon transformed itself into a fight against the Germans. On several occasions the latter invaded Bohemia with the object of exterminating the Czech heretics, but each time they were put to flight. Then the Czechs began to fight the German settlers who had penetrated into the interior of their country, and ended by almost freeing Bohemia of their presence. Thus the Hussite wars assumed a national character.

Since the fifteenth century these struggles of the Czechs against Germans have never ceased, only sometimes their character has been hidden or modified in appearance owing to Czech antagonism towards the Habsburg dynasty. At bottom, the struggle was Catholic against Protestant, but since the Germans were Catholics and the Czechs persisted in remaining heretics, the contest naturally assumed a racial character.

Shortly after the Hussite wars, we see these struggles renewed under George of Poděbrad (1458–71), who during his entire reign defended Bohemia, like a true hero, against the invasions of the neighbouring German States.

The Czecho-Slovaks and the Habsburgs

III

THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS AND THE HABSBURGS

Omitting the short period of the reign of the two kings of the Polish Jagellon, we come to the fatal date 1526.

This was the date of the accession of the Habsburg dynasty in Bohemia, the most disastrous date in the whole history of the Czech nation. From this time onwards, their struggle for the liberty of conscience, for the right of religious freedom against the Germans was embittered by the enmity of the House of Habsburg and of the Magyars.

In accepting the doctrines of John Hus, the Czechs opened the door to religious reform; and when Luther adopted these same doctrines and created a new Protestant movement, it found a warm reception in Bohemia, where a large majority of the population became Protestant.

The vicissitudes of these religious wars in Europe, from the time of Luther to the end of the Thirty Years' War, are well known. Bohemia was always the battle-ground and suffered terribly in consequence.

Living under an intolerant Catholic dynasty which for a long time in the Middle Ages was also the ruler of the German Empire, the Czech nation soon found itself in a desperate situation. The reigning dynasty resolved on the conversion of Bohemia to Catholicism, and to achieve this and called to their aid the Germans, who were hostile to us and who during the preceding centuries had been in continual conflict with us. Jealous of might, having an insatiable thirst for aggrandisement, and an unparalleled dynastic pride, and employing without hesitation any means which seemed most effectual, the House of Austria tried by every conceivable method to exterminate us.

When the Czechs in 1526 voluntarily accepted a prince of the House of Habsburg for their sovereign, they acted in complete independence. But the Habsburgs, becoming masters of Bohemia, determined to deprive the Czechs of their independence, both religious and political.

From the very outset of the Hahsburg reign in Bohemia, an irreconcilable antagonism sprung up between the Crown and the nation, and a relentless conflict ensued of which the following gives some account:—

(a) The Extermination of the Czechs in Bohemia and Moravia

The three portions of the Austrian monarchy, that is to say, the Bohemian (Czech) lands, the Austro-German provinces, and Hungary, united in 1526 under the sceptre of the Habsburgs, were essentially distinct and independent states. The person of the monarch was the only tie between these states, as each was absolutely independent of the other. It was therefore purely a personal union. The most important of these states was Bohemia, not only as regards the extent of her territory, but also on account of the part she played in the history of Europe, and by her feudal Constitution, which gave both her nobility and her cities important privileges tending to curtail the royal power. The hereditary Austrian lands have for a long time been in the hands of the Habsburgs, who exercised absolute power over them. This power, in fact, was almost unlimited by any rights or privileges of the Estates; the governmental functions were exclusively reserved to the sovereign, whose will was law. It was through these hereditary lands alone that Austria formed a part of the German Empire.

In Hungary the situation under the first of the Habsburgs was very different. On one side this country was harassed by war with the Turks, who occupied the greater part of the land; on the other side was Transylvania with her hereditary sovereign, who was the declared opponent of Ferdinand I. The power of the latter monarch, however, was very much limited by the old con laws passed by the Estates of the Diet in the preceding centuries, and confirmed by both history and tradition.

It was only natural that the sovereign of these three states should wish to unite his dominions in a closer bond. In each state the constitutional conditions were different, and therefore the power of the monarch differently determined. Seeing that in one of these three states the power of the monarch was almost unlimited, that the Feudal System was on the decline, and that absolutist tendencies were at this period making themselves felt throughout Europe, it was natural that the monarch should endeavour to reduce the constitutions of the other two free states to the level of the institutions of the hereditary state. This singular situation favoured the dynastic pride of the Habsburgs, assisted them in the attainment of their aims, and encouraged them in their political ambitions. Thus, the history of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is the history of a conflict between these two combatants: on the one hand the Habsburgs, impelled by their dynastic ambitions, encouraged by the peculiar condition of their lands, fighting for a closer union between the three parts of their monarchy, and regardless of their original independence towards one another; on the other hand the Czech and Hungarian group, resisting these constant attacks and trying instead to uphold their independence and to diminish the absolute power of the sovereign. While the lands of the Crown of St Venceslas, i.e. Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, fought unsuccessfully, Hungary, on the contrary, achieved a large measure of success.

The first Habsburg elected King of Bohemia in 1526 by the representatives of the Protestant Czech Estates in agreement with their Catholic colleagues, immediately showed his interpretation of the policy of the House of Austria. From the very beginning he inaugurated a new governmental regime in Bohemia, putting into practice his new ideas on the political organisation of the country, and on the functions of the feudal Diet and Estates. In view of the absolutist and dynastic tendencies of Ferdinand I. these Estates were not slow in showing their displeasure, and an open rebellion resulted.

Without difficulty Ferdinand suppressed the revolt. The rebel Estates, particularly the cities, were severely punished. Ferdinand then found an opportunity to increase the royal privileges, and he shrewdly exploited the defeat of the Czech revolt to assure to his family the hereditary right to the Crown of St Venceslas, and so render his dynasty independent of the Czech Estates. In addition he arrogated to himself some very important rights in the management of internal aflairs, consolidating his power, and affirming absolutist principles. He abolished the rights of the cities and their local autonomy, and imposed royal officials on them. His absolutism brought him universal hatred. But the nobles, gradually losing sight of the people's interests, no longer resisted, except for the selfish and personal interests of that class. Thanks to their attitude, Ferdinand easily succeeded in his work of centralisation and absolutism: at a moment when the towns were deprived of all power, the only force able to resist the self—seeking nobles was the dynasty, which was blinded by its family interests.

His successors continued his policy. During the sixteenth century the struggle between the Bohemian nobles and the Crown became more acute. The new religious quarrels of the Catholic dynasty against the Protestant heresy curiously complicated the old strife for the independence of Bohemia and the privileges of the nobles. At the commencement of the seventeenth century an abyss already separated the Czechs from the Habsburgs in consequence of the religious intolerance of the dynasty, and a second revolt of the Czechs against the House of Austria was on the point of breaking out. Finally, in 1619 the Czech Estates elected Frederic of the Palatinate for their king, and rose up against Ferdinand II.

Thus commenced the Thirty Years' War. The Czechs, defeated in the Battle of White Mountain near Prague, had to bear the terrible consequences of an abortive revolt.

The Battle of White Mountain marks the end of the first period of struggle between the Czech Estates and the Habsburgs. The victorious king, Ferdinand II., took care to turn his success to good account, as his predecessor, Ferdinand I., had done. He had twenty-seven Bohemian lords beheaded as leaders of the revolt. He exiled a large number of the Czech nobility, and confiscated their entire fortunes. He assured the final triumph of the Catholic Church in driving away from the country all those who refused to embrace Catholicism. In the ten years that followed the defeat, 659 nobles, all more or less powerful, were deprived of their fortunes and land property. The total value of these confiscations exceeded thirty millions of florins, that is to say nearly a milliard of our current money. The 112 feudal nobles, who till then had been independent, now became vassals of the Crown, and were deprived of all they possessed. The fines and confiscations imposed on the towns exceeded many millions.

Two-thirds of all feudal holdings and properties of the towns were confiscated. Indeed the victory of the Catholic Church and the Habsburgs was complete. The whole national and social organisa of Bohemia was changed: the Czech element eliminated from the upper classes, the aristocracy punished, fortunes confiscated, the gentry driven from the country, the middle classes obliged either to quit their native land or to become Catholic—in a word, the nation was demated, demoralised, and reduced almost to ruin. Adventurers of all kinds came from every part of Europe to help the king in his war against Bohemia, and in place of the ancient Czech nobles a new aristocracy was created by the sovereign, who handed over to them the land of people suspected of heresy. This foreign aristocracy naturally showed itself very ready to fall in with the schemes of the Habsburgs, since its members received grants of land as a recompense for their docility; they made the feudal yoke weigh heavily upon the Czech nation, always using the defence of religion as a pretext for their oppression. There is no other nation known to history which has suffered a like vengeance from the hands of its lawful sovereign.

From the Battle of White Mountain flowed three principal results: the complete victory of the Habsburgs and the establishment of royal absolutism, the setting up of a new and foreign aristocracy, and the final triumph of the Catholic Church. These changes exercised a marked and lasting influence on the after-development of the country, which may easily be discerned to-day. The new nobility as well as the dynasty succeeded in establishing in Bohemia the foundation of future power, a power which they continue to enjoy at the present time: the nobles are the masters in the present Diet of Bohemia, and the dynasty has succeeded in completely converting the people to Catholicism, and in maintaining its power in Austria as well as in Bohemia until to-day.

To legalize his terrible proceedings and definitely to subdue Bohemia, Ferdinand II. introduced, in 1620-27, a series of measures under the name of the "New Constitution," which became the foundation of public law in the Czech countries.

He found it necessary to modify in his favour some of the articles in the old Constitution, but it is evident that he could not do so legally, except through the medium of the Diet itself. But this constitutional revision was never submitted to the Diet. The Habsburgs were ever indifferent to their oaths to observe the laws of the country, and Ferdinand made these changes in an autocratic manner.

Thus the modifications wrought by him in the Constitution were a coup d'état, both illegal and anti-constitutional. One important innovation related to the question of languages. German became equal with Czech in the courts of law. This had disastrous consequences for the Czech people and magistrates. During the eighteenth century this equality changed into a predominance of the German tongue, and Czech was only employed in certain formulæ used before the tribunals of the country and the Diet.

The Battle of White Mountain and the changes which followed it did much to promote the aims of the Habsburgs.

But from the constitutional point of view the principle of the independence of the Bohemian State remained intact. The King of Bohemia became a more absolute sovereign, but he always remained King of Bohemia. Legally the Czech State never ceased to exist. The Diet preserved its ancient constitutional rights, somewhat curtailed, yet in the main the same as before. The general parliament of all the lands of the Crown of St Venceslas remained a constitutional body. The disaster of 1620, followed by the New Constitution of 1627, did not destroy Bohemia's independence.

The Thirty Years' War, which followed the revolt of the Czech Estates, completed the ruin of Bohemia. At the commencement of the war Bohemia counted three million people, on the day of the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 she mustered only 800,000; and the devastation, havoc, and ruin of the country is difficult to picture. The war terminated in favour of the Habsburgs: Bohemia's best sons, amongst others, Comenius and members of the Unity of Bohemian Brethren, abandoned by their allies, were obliged to take refuge for ever in exile. Ferdinand III., the successor of Ferdinand II., continued the persecution with even greater harshness; he increased the confiscations, and forced the best of the Czechs to leave their native land.

The Habsburg victors, determined to assure their power over the Czechs, who were ever ready to revolt, succeeded admirably. They banished nearly the whole of the population capable of resistance, and tried to exterminate the rest. They destroyed all Czech books, and persecuted without mercy all patriots who tried to defend Czech traditions. Their cold, calculating methods of destroying the Czech civilisation were only too successful.

One hundred and twenty years after the establishment of the New Constitution, when Maria Therese accomplished a last coup d'état against the Constitution of the kingdom of Bohemia, the Czech nation had almost ceased to exist.

Such was the work of the first Habsburgs in Bohemia.

Let us now consider the second phase in their fight against the Czechs.

The successors of Ferdinand III. had only to continue the work of their predecessors: the Czechs were disarmed; it only remained to legalise their subjugation. The New Constitution of Ferdinand II. had allowed the unity of the Czech lands to exist as a national, independent body, but the successors of Ferdinand practically succeeded in depriving them of the last remnant of their ancient independence.