  Professor Thomas G. Masaryk [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.
The International Position Of The Czecho Slovak Republic In Future Europe [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. |
|