Bohemia's case for independence/The Czecho-Slovaks and the Habsburgs

by Edvard Beneš

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 constitutional 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 organisation 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.

By the Pragmatic Sanction, Charles VI. began definitely to assure to his dynasty the succession to the throne of Bohemia.

Then came Maria Theresa, who struck the final blow to the Czech State.

With the accession of Maria Theresa and Joseph II., the secular policy of the Habsburgs entered a new phase. Weakened by the extinction of the Spanish branch of the House, and by the failure of the Austrian dynasty to assure to itself the succession to the Spanish throne, eclipsed by the prestige of Louis XIV., threatened by the Turkish peril, and by the growing power and ambitious of the new Prussian State, the Habsburgs had to abandon their European policy and to adopt an exclusively Austrian one. Maria Theresa could no longer hope to enforce her policy on Europe; all she could do was to defend her throne. At her succession the absolutism of the government was at its height; the power of the Czech Estates was almost nil, and everything was ripe for complete centralisation.

Europe provided Maria Theresa with numerous examples of absolute and strongly centralised monarchies. Maria Theresa and Joseph II. could therefore easily take what measures they liked to ensure their absolutism and centralisation. These measures resulted in depriving Bohemia of her independence, a deprivation which was accepted in silence and without any protest amidst general indifference.

Maria Theresa only completed the work begun by the first Habsburg: she only hastened by her enlightened absolutism the slow march of the Czech constitution towards its ruin. She believed she had found in centralisation the only possible salvation for her monarchy against the attacks of Frederick II. Seeing the Prussian State, even at this period a centralised and bureaucratic machine, the working of which depended on the sole will of the monarch, and in whose hands the entire military, economic and financial organisation was concentrated, she attributed Frederick's military successes to this system of government. She therefore determined to follow his example, and to make her empire, or rather her three states, a single, centralised, uniform, and homogeneous State.

By her decisive act in 1749, followed later by a series of other measures, Maria Theresa completed the task undertaken by her House. She destroyed the last remaining institutions of the autonomous, financial, and judicial administration in the Bohemian lands. By an autocratic and most arbitrary act she put an end to the existence of the Czech State.

Hungary in the course of her historic evolution found herself in a totally different situation. The Turkish peril, the existence of national and somewhat independent sovereigns in Transylvania, and the necessity of the Habsburgs to treat with consideration the Hungarian feudal Estates, assured the Magyars a form of government much in their favour, which soon became traditional, and thus spared them the fate of Bohemia.

The Czechs, who had twice rebelled, were always a target for hostilities on the part of the Crown, and were reduced to impotence. The relations between the Habsburgs and Hungary, however, were very different, and thus the first foundations of the Austro-Hungarian dualism were laid.

This dualism, which only received its official shape in 1867, and which was a concomitant of the centralisation and Germanisation of Austria (Cisleithania), was only the consequence of a very natural and very slow evolution, and the result of special conditions in the past.

Thus the actual Austro-Hungaria Empire, in its dualistic form, is the logical result of those fatalities and injustices which have gradually eaten away the political organism governed by the Habsburgs. Those nations who, in the beginning, had allowed their rights to be violated, were now paying the price, and being forced to submit to a constant abuse of power on the part of the monarchy. We may sum up the actual situation as follows: Germanisation and centralisation in Cisleithania (Austria), Magyarisation and centralisation in Transleithania (Hungary); the union of these two elements, German and Magyar, against the Slavs and Latins; a European war to hasten and facilitate their extermination.

The Czechs have never recognised or accepted this coup d'état. Up to the present day they consider all the constitutional measures taken by Maria Theresa as illegal and non-existing. They have never renounced the rights of their country, though outraged by sovereigns and abolished by measures absolutely anti-constitutional. Even when the era of the modern Constitution commenced (in 1848 and again in 1867) they persisted in claiming their ancient Constitution of the kingdom of Bohemia, and with it their independence.

Austria has never existed de jure for the Czechs; not one of the Czech national parties has renounced its claims, and even to-day the Czech parties in Bohemia are bringing forward the programme of the independence of the kingdom of Bohemia to set against the enterprise of a Pan-German Central Europe.

The reforms begun by Maria Theresa were continued with great persistency by Joseph II. To achieve the centralisation of the monarchy, Joseph II. endeavoured, with the aid of the centralist bureaucracy, to make of different-speaking peoples a single nation, speaking exclusively German, and to destroy anything that prevented him from imposing his will on the people. He followed this aim, not only in Cisleithania, but also in Hungary. Of all the Habsburgs, he alone, strange to say, was inspired by abstract ideas of enlightened absolutism, and a keen desire to serve his people rather than his dynasty.

And he it was who, when not imbued with hostile sentiments against us, even though we were Czechs, understood his mission so well that he even tried to make us happy while assassinating, or rather trying to exterminate us as a nation. Happily his political measures had an unexpected effect. The ideas resulting from the French Revolution were now beginning to spread throughout Europe, and had penetrated also into Austria. The individualistic philosophy was liberating the individual consciousness, and influencing directly the life and liberty of nations. The downfall of the Feudal System and the coming of democracy confirmed the right of citizens, and through them the rights of oppressed nationalities. In Bohemia the doctrines of the encyclopædists, of Voltaire, of Rousseau, and of Herder, soon became popular, and gave to a few Czech patriots, who had never lost hope in the future of their people, a means of reviving the nation, seemingly dead for more than a century. The brutal acts of Joseph II. and the oppressive measures of his successors, Leopold II. and Francis I., and the Metternich régime, also helped to bring about a salutary reaction, which led to the regeneration of the nation.

We now come to the period when a small handful of enlightened men, the Czech "awakeners," by means of books written in Czech or translated from other languages began to spread the knowledge of the glorious past of Bohemia among the people; after seventy years of work they succeeded in creating a real revival of the Czech nation.

In 1848 the nation was able to celebrate its renaissance. It immediately threw itself into the political struggle. Inspired by the recollection of the ancient independence of the Crown of St Venceslas, and relying on the principle of the right of nationalities, the Czechs took part in the revolutionary movement, and sought to free their country.

They demanded autonomy for the Bohemian lands. And this was the beginning of the constitutional struggles.

 

(b) The Political Struggles of the Resuscitated Nation

 

At first the Czechs and the Germans living in Bohemia took common part in the revolutionary campaign against Metternich's absolutism. But before long the Germans perceived that Czech independence would leave them in a minority. The famous Frankfort Parliament had just assembled, and was propagating amongst the Germans ideas which it is wise to remember, especially to-day, in order to understand the dangers which have threatened the Czechs in every decisive period of European history.

It was to Frankfort that in 1848 were turned the eyes of all Germans who cherished the desire for liberty, who were imbued with the idea of the rights of nations, and who sugared in seeing the incoherence and discord which reigned in Germany and which encouraged the absolutism of the governments in the different German States. Their dream was to unite in a great and free Germany all the lands inhabited by Germans from the Baltic to the Adriatic. The German Liberals were disposed to give this new Germany the form of a monarchy, while the Radicals desired a republic. This movement soon assumed considerable proportions, and spread throughout Austria, being specially strong at Vienna, where absolutism was more pronounced than anywhere else, and where consequently the liberal revolutionaries were quite disposed to accept help from outside.

Since the fall of Napoleon ideas relating to the rights of nations had not ceased to occupy the public mind; the desire for a national, homegeneous State, which is the very foundation of the regeneration of the Slavs in Austria, inspired the German patriots themselves, and the same inspiration was kindled as well in Greece, Belgium, and Italy. This movement in Germany, therefore, reflected the general situation in Europe. But this dream of a Greater Germany entirely lost its original form, and, if realised, would have been contrary to the principles which gave it birth.

In fact the Pan-Germans of Frankfort wished to include in the new and Greater Germany all the countries which were classed by the Vienna Congress in 1815 in the German Confederation, countries which by their history and traditions were completely foreign to Germany, and of which the majority of the population were Slav or Italian. By this are meant principally Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Carniola, and the Littoral (Dalmatian Coast), not to mention Venetia and Italian Lombardy, which were working for the realisation of Italian national unity. The non-German population of these countries could not possibly have any enthusiasm for this Teuton dream, and would not at any cost be confounded with the German lands of the new Germany.

It was the programme of the Frankfort Parliament that gave rise to the first serious conflict between the Czechs and the Germans of Bohemia: perhaps even to all the Czech struggles in 1843 and subsequent years. The incorporation of the Crown of St Venceslas in the German Union meant for the Czechs, as well as for the Cisleithanian Slavs, the beginning of the end, the loss of their national rights, and the renouncement of all they had gained by their renaissance. It was in direct contradiction to the principles which gave birth to their movement of emancipation, and the Czechs opposed it by virtue of the same principles that were invoked by the Germans, and which were to bring about the realisation of the Pan-German Union.

All the promises made by the German Liberals and the Commission of Fifty of Frankfort did not delude the Czechs, who had now become suspicious. On the other hand the Magyars were favourably disposed towards the German plan, for the inclusion of Cisleithania in the German Union meant the rupture of all ties which held Hungary to Austria, and the complete liberation of the Magyars would inevitably have followed.

This situation was full of danger for the Czechs and the other Slavs of Austria and Hungary. The success of this plan would have meant that the Czechs and the Southern Slavs would be sacrificed to Germany, on whose Liberalism they naturally could not rely; while, on the other hand, the Serbians, Croats, Romanians, and, more important for the Czechs, the three millions of Slovaks would be handed over to the domination of the Magyars, who had never shown the least tolerance for the feelings of other nationalities in Hungary. In a constitutional and federalist Austria, the Slavs would naturally form a majority; but in a German Union and an independent Hungary, they would be in a minority, oppressed, deprived of their rights, doomed to the ruin from which they had only just escaped half a century before.

Hence the Czech policy was logically anti-German and anti-Magyar: it was Austrian and dynastic. A powerful Austria was their only hope: Austria of the Habsburgs, who had never shown them any consideration, who had never tried to do justice to their claims, and who, for many centuries, had pursued an anti-Slav policy.

It was a question of Austria's existence. The absolutist dynasty considered the Pan-German propaganda dangerous, fearing both the boldness of the German Liberal and Radical Republicans of Frankfort and the absorption of Austria, which would have resulted from the realisation of their plans. The dynasty would therefore consent to the German Union only on condition that Austria were predominant. She felt only repugnance for a free Germany, where the governments of the different States would be negligible, and where Austria could not play the leading part.

Under these conditions, the dynasty ought to have taken the side of the Slavs, but she did nothing of the sort, a it was against all her past traditions and policy. The government hesitated, its actions were inconsistent and indecisive. But, faithful to their former ideal of a Greater Germany with Austria at the head, and supported by the Southern Catholic states, the Habsburgs decided to participate at any cost in the formation of the new Germany, in order to secure precedence for themselves over their Prussian rivals. So they decided to suppress the Slav movement, which would have compromised Austria in the eyes of her German friends. In fact, an Austria where the Slav element was uppermost could never aspire to be at the head of purely German States.

These dynastic plans forced the government, first to remain inactive, then definitely to take side with the Germans against the Slavs. On the 25th and 29th April 1848 the constituents were called upon to elect the delegates for the Frankfort Parliament.

The Czechs were annoyed. They emphatically refused a union with Germany. The controversy on the subject of the Frankfort Parliament became still more violent, and the ill-feeling between the Czechs and the Germans more manifest.

The attitude of the Czechs was clearly shown in Palacký's famous letter addressed to the Commission of Fifty, in answer to an invitation to take part in the work of preparing the Constituent Assembly. In this letter he contested the German assertion that Bohemia had always belonged to Germany. The relations between Bohemia and Germany were, according to his opinion, only an understanding between the sovereigns, not between the peoples. The efforts of the Parliament were directed against the independence of Austria, and were therefore threatening the existence of the Slav nationalities. Palacký then gave the above-mentioned arguments as the grounds on which the Czechs abstained from participating in the formation of the new Germany. In this letter the political programme of all the Czechs and Austrian Slavs of 1848 was clearly set forth, and it was then that Palacký used his celebrated and so often quoted sentence, "In truth, if the Austrian State had not already existed, we ought in the interest of Europe and even of humanity itself, to work for its establishment." Later on, when Palacký realised how completely the Habsburgs had given the Slavs over to the Germans, he completed his phrase by another statement, "We existed before Austria, and shall exist after her."

This period of the Czech policy was the last attempt at reconciliation between the Czechs and the Crown. Once again the Habsburgs had betrayed them, and sacrificed them without sample to the Germans, and to their own selfish dynastic plans.

Seeing that for the present it was impossible to constitute a Greater Germany placed under their hegemony, the Habsburgs retired from the scene and prepared for a new struggle. After vain attempts to establish a constitution, they resorted again to absolutism, a rule which lasted till 1860, and the proceedings so dear to the two Ferdinands of the seventeenth century were once again used in the struggle against the Czechs. Military disasters at last obliged Francis Joseph arbitrarily to decree a constitution to his people In 1860 he promised in the October Diploma to establish a constitutional rule, based on federalist principles. The Czechs, forced to renounce all hope of the reconstitution of the Czech countries in the form of an independent State, joined to the other Austrian provinces only by the person of the Emperor, demanded as a minimum programme a constitution in which the different provinces of the Empire, and particularly the Bohemian lands, would enjoy a large measure of autonomy. In a word they wished for a federal Austria, without renouncing for ever the realisation of their supreme goal—the complete independence of their country.

But the constitution granted by the Emperor in February 1861 was, on the contrary, essentially centralistic; moreover, the system of election sought to reduce the Slav element throughout the Empire to impotence. The throne continued its historic aim of uniting under its sceptre the whole of Greater Germany—and this programme necessitated the annihilation of all the Slavs.

Even the defeat of Sadova did not put an end to this mad policy, and after Sadova the Court of Vienna would not renounce its hegemony in the German lands, and began to think of revenge. However, worn out by war and internal struggles, the Habsburgs were obliged to grant concessions to the Magyars, and in 1867 the Emperor consented to divide the Monarchy into two States each under a centralised government. This was, after all, the inevitable and final act of a historic evolution. This combination had the advantage for Francis Joseph and the Magyars of subduing the Slavs. The Austrian Slavs were given over to the Germans, those of Hungary to the Magyars. Divide et impera was always the motto of the Viennese government.

Then the fight between the Czechs and Vienna began anew. The creation of the German Empire under the hegemony of Prussia caused the Austrian government to reflect, and ask itself if it would not be better to modify its policy and shape it differently. In 1871 Francis Joseph opened negotialions with the Czechs and solemnly promised to satisfy their demands. A new era seemed on the point of dawning in Austria.

But the inveterate enemies of the Slavs, the Germans and the Magyars, energetically opposed this policy.

Berlin intervened, and the Magyars openly declared that they would never tolerate an autonomous Bohemia, dangerous to their domination of the Slovaks.

The Habsburgs betrayed us once more, and as a punishment for daring to show our dissatisfaction, General Koller was on two occasions despatched to Bohemia with full power to subdue us by massacres, imprisonments, and every persecution possible.

During the last thirty years the Czechs adopted new political tactics; instead of open rebellion, they prepared in silence for more propitious days. They worked at their economic development, at the enlargement of their political influence; by degrees they occupied important posts in the administration, and succeeded in obtaining new rights for the use of their language and their schools; they strengthened the local autonomy and improved public instruction. Very successful in this new campaign, they at the same time opposed strenuously the pretension of the Germans and Magyars to administer the whole internal organisation of the Monarchy. The details of these quarrels are well known, and it is unnecessary to recall that the parliaments of Vienna and Budapest were never able to sit regularly on account of Slav obstruction.

In Hungary the reign of violence is still better known. Since 1867, when the Magyars became absolute masters of the country, the situation of the non-Magyar nationalities has been intolerable. The Slovaks up till now have not had even primary national schools, to say nothing of secondary or high schools. The Magyars tried to denationalise the Slovak people by the most violent means. All law appointments were reserved solely for Magyars, and political persecutions became innumerable. The Press was barely able to subsist, muzzled, suppressed, and materially impoverished as it was. The economic development of the Slovaks was systematically obstructed by the most treacherous proceedings. The local administration was completely in the hands of the Magyars, while the Slovaks, who number some three millions, had just two members to represent them in the Parliament of Budapest before the war.

In fact, the same absolutist régime was in practice on both sides of the Leitha, and with the same brutality; and it was this very absolutism which served to unite the Magyar and German cause.

It is for these reasons that the Habsburg Monarchy always remained so unstable, and that all Europe was convinced that the first great shock would break up the State. It is for these reasons that internally everything was in such a state of confusion and disorder, that the different nationalities, pitted one against another, only desired the destruction of this political and social organism, which was so obviously moribund, and which, by its structure, organisation, traditions, and system of government deserved nothing better than to be swept off the map of the world.

When war broke out, our struggle was in full swing. Our political parties had never renounced their ancient national programme, and as soon as the first shot at Belgrade was fired, a single voice rang out throughout the Czech countries: "This war will at last deliver us from the yoke of the Habsburgs, the Germans, and the Magyars."

It was the internal situation which finally drew Austria into the war. She had never accepted the federalist programme. The actual system could no longer continue because of the Slav resistance, which was growing ever more powerful. At all costs this resistance had to be broken. The war of 1870 had considerably modified the foreign policy of the monarchy. Bismarck with remarkable perspicacity had refused to deprive Austria of her German provinces. He sought thus to realise, indirectly, but surely, the Pan-German plan, by gaining the whole of Austria-Hungary. He foresaw the time when the internal conditions of this Empire would force its two constituent nations to call in the help of Prussia, and throw themselves into her arms. To assure better the success of his plan, he directed the ambition of Austria towards the Balkans, by assigning her two new Yugo-Slav provinces, at the same time indicating to her the road to Salonika. Austria, with her Slav population ever increasing, and her internal situation still more unstable, decided to pursue at all costs her dynastic and imperialistic policy in order to save the German and Magyar character of the Dual Monarchy. Thus Vienna saw herself forced to accept the hegemony of Prussia—Austria willingly became the vanguard of the German Drang nach Osten, and her government prepared and let loose the present catastrophe.

This, in essence, is our history and the prelude to the gigantic struggle of to-day.