1 50 9 https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/87da2d2d23b263fabccfae7eb79587b3.pdf 0b569feae6c5e2f174c2b5c8a09e6ca6 PDF Text Text 148 SLOVAKIA CONTRIBUTORS DAVID M. CROWE is Professor of History at Elon College in North Carolina. He is a specialist in the history of Eastern Europe and his most recent books include A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia (1994) and The Baltic States and the Great Powers: Foreign Relations, 1938-1940 (1993). JAN CHRYZOSTOM CARDINAL KOREC, S.J., is Roman Catholic Bishop of Nitra, Slovakia. Secretly ordained as a Bishop at the tender age of 28 in 1950, he helped create an underground Church during the Communist regime that ruled his homeland from 1948 to 1989. Arrested by the secret police in 1960, he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for his religious activities. Persecuted for many years, and forced to work as a manual labourer, Cardinal Korec outlasted his tormentors and is now working hard to rejuvenate the Roman Catholic Church in Slovakia. STEFAN POLAKOVIC received his Ph.D. from the Lateran University in Rome and was a Professor of Philosophy at the Slovak University in Bratislava during the first Slovak Republic. After the collapse of the Republic, he emigrated to Argentina where he became a successful business entrepreneur. Meanwhile, he published many books and articles pertaining to Slovak national identity and independence, he continued with such activities after the war, and still publishes, whether in the new Slovak Republic, or abroad. �SLOVAKIA 149 M. MARK STOLARIK is Professor of History and holder of the Chair in Slovak History and Culture at the University of Ottawa. He specializes in the history of Slovak immigration to North America and has published widely in the field, including Growing Up on the South Side: Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1880-1976 (Lewisburg, PA 1976) and Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-1918 (New York, 1989). SPENCER ZIFCAK is Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. In 1995 he was Visiting Professor at the UNESCO Centre for Human Rights Education at Comenius University in Bratislava. He has written extensively in the general fields of Constitutional and Administrative Law and, more recently, on the role of Constitutional Courts in Central Europe. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM is Professor of International Studies and Political Science at York University, Glendon College, in Toronto, Canada. A specialist on Slovak and Central European politics, he is the author of A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival (New York, 1995, 1996), A Historical Dictionary of Slovakia (Lanham, MD, 1998), and many other books and articles. �150 SLOVAKIA GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPTS Manuscripts of articles should be sent to the editor. Articles should not normally exceed twenty-five pages in length, and should be submitted in triplicate, typed double-spaced, numbered consecutively, and placed at the end of the paper. Text and format should adhere to Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writer.s . Proper ortography and diacritical marks must be supplied for all foreign words. Manuscripts will not be returned unless specifically requested and postage is provided. Books for review are to be sent to the editor. Unsolicited book reviews are not encouraged. Individuals who wish to review books should request them from the editor. They should send a 'curriculum vitae' with their request. ��THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA Organized in 1907 EDWARD J. BEHUNCIK, K.S .G., Honorary President Dr. LUDWIG J. PAVLO President JOSEPH J. TALAFOUS, Esq. Vice-President JOHN A. HOLY Secretary-Treasurer ANNE Z. SAROSY Vice-President MICHAL BUCKO Vice-President Executive Board Dr. Ludwig J. Pavlo, John A Holy, Daniel F. Tanzone, Dr. John Karch, Dr. L. P. Hinterbuchner, Thomas M. Hricik, Mary Ann S. Johanek, Esq., George J. Kostelnik, Rita M. Simalchik, David G. Balzek, Frank Rudzik Milan Cuba Youth Director SLOVAK FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATE[ WITH THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSOCIATION Beachwood, Ohio FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION OF THE U.S. AND CANADA Independence, Ohio SLOVAK CATHOLIC SOKOL Passaic, New Jersey NATIONAL SLOVAK SOCIETY OF THE U.S.A. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LADIES PENNSYLVANIA SLOVAK CATHOLIC UNION Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania SLOVAK NEWSPAPERMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA THE SLOVAK GARDEN, INC. Winter Park, Florida SLOVAKIA $ 8.00 per issue � 148 SLOVAKIA CONTRIBUTORS DAVID M. CROWE is Professor of History at Elon College in North Carolina. He is a specialist in the history of Eastern Europe and his most recent books include A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia (1994) and The Baltic States and the Great Powers: Foreign Relations, 1938-1940 (1993). JAN CHRYZOSTOM CARDINAL KOREC, S.J., is Roman Catholic Bishop of Nitra, Slovakia. Secretly ordained as a Bishop at the tender age of 28 in 1950, he helped create an underground Church during the Communist regime that ruled his homeland from 1948 to 1989. Arrested by the secret police in 1960, he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for his religious activities. Persecuted for many years, and forced to work as a manual labourer, Cardinal Korec outlasted his tormentors and is now working hard to rejuvenate the Roman Catholic Church in Slovakia. STEFAN POLAKOVIC received his Ph.D. from the Lateran University in Rome and was a Professor of Philosophy at the Slovak University in Bratislava during the first Slovak Republic. After the collapse of the Republic, he emigrated to Argentina where he became a successful business entrepreneur. Meanwhile, he published many books and articles pertaining to Slovak national identity and independence, he continued with such activities after the war, and still publishes, whether in the new Slovak Republic, or abroad. �SLOVAKIA 149 M. MARK STOLARIK is Professor of History and holder of the Chair in Slovak History and Culture at the University of Ottawa. He specializes in the history of Slovak immigration to North America and has published widely in the field, including Growing Up on the South Side: Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1880-1976 (Lewisburg, PA 1976) and Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-1918 (New York, 1989). SPENCER ZIFCAK is Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. In 1995 he was Visiting Professor at the UNESCO Centre for Human Rights Education at Comenius University in Bratislava. He has written extensively in the general fields of Constitutional and Administrative Law and, more recently, on the role of Constitutional Courts in Central Europe. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM is Professor of International Studies and Political Science at York University, Glendon College, in Toronto, Canada. A specialist on Slovak and Central European politics, he is the author of A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival (New York, 1995, 1996), A Historical Dictionary of Slovakia (Lanham, MD, 1998), and many other books and articles. �150 SLOVAKIA GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPTS Manuscripts of articles should be sent to the editor. Articles should not normally exceed twenty-five pages in length, and should be submitted in triplicate, typed double-spaced, numbered consecutively, and placed at the end of the paper. Text and format should adhere to Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writer.s . Proper ortography and diacritical marks must be supplied for all foreign words. Manuscripts will not be returned unless specifically requested and postage is provided. Books for review are to be sent to the editor. Unsolicited book reviews are not encouraged. Individuals who wish to review books should request them from the editor. They should send a 'curriculum vitae' with their request. ��THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA Organized in 1907 EDWARD J. BEHUNCIK, K.S .G., Honorary President Dr. LUDWIG J. PAVLO President JOSEPH J. TALAFOUS, Esq. Vice-President JOHN A. HOLY Secretary-Treasurer ANNE Z. SAROSY Vice-President MICHAL BUCKO Vice-President Executive Board Dr. Ludwig J. Pavlo, John A Holy, Daniel F. Tanzone, Dr. John Karch, Dr. L. P. Hinterbuchner, Thomas M. Hricik, Mary Ann S. Johanek, Esq., George J. Kostelnik, Rita M. Simalchik, David G. Balzek, Frank Rudzik Milan Cuba Youth Director SLOVAK FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATE[ WITH THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSOCIATION Beachwood, Ohio FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION OF THE U.S. AND CANADA Independence, Ohio SLOVAK CATHOLIC SOKOL Passaic, New Jersey NATIONAL SLOVAK SOCIETY OF THE U.S.A. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LADIES PENNSYLVANIA SLOVAK CATHOLIC UNION Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania SLOVAK NEWSPAPERMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA THE SLOVAK GARDEN, INC. Winter Park, Florida SLOVAKIA $ 8.00 per issue � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 148 SLOVAKIA CONTRIBUTORS DAVID M. CROWE is Professor of History at Elon College in North Carolina. He is a specialist in the history of Eastern Europe and his most recent books include A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia (1994) and The Baltic States and the Great Powers: Foreign Relations, 1938-1940 (1993). JAN CHRYZOSTOM CARDINAL KOREC, S.J., is Roman Catholic Bishop of Nitra, Slovakia. Secretly ordained as a Bishop at the tender age of 28 in 1950, he helped create an underground Church during the Communist regime that ruled his homeland from 1948 to 1989. Arrested by the secret police in 1960, he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for his religious activities. Persecuted for many years, and forced to work as a manual labourer, Cardinal Korec outlasted his tormentors and is now working hard to rejuvenate the Roman Catholic Church in Slovakia. STEFAN POLAKOVIC received his Ph.D. from the Lateran University in Rome and was a Professor of Philosophy at the Slovak University in Bratislava during the first Slovak Republic. After the collapse of the Republic, he emigrated to Argentina where he became a successful business entrepreneur. Meanwhile, he published many books and articles pertaining to Slovak national identity and independence, he continued with such activities after the war, and still publishes, whether in the new Slovak Republic, or abroad. SLOVAKIA 149 M. MARK STOLARIK is Professor of History and holder of the Chair in Slovak History and Culture at the University of Ottawa. He specializes in the history of Slovak immigration to North America and has published widely in the field, including Growing Up on the South Side: Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1880-1976 (Lewisburg, PA 1976) and Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-1918 (New York, 1989). SPENCER ZIFCAK is Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. In 1995 he was Visiting Professor at the UNESCO Centre for Human Rights Education at Comenius University in Bratislava. He has written extensively in the general fields of Constitutional and Administrative Law and, more recently, on the role of Constitutional Courts in Central Europe. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM is Professor of International Studies and Political Science at York University, Glendon College, in Toronto, Canada. A specialist on Slovak and Central European politics, he is the author of A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival (New York, 1995, 1996), A Historical Dictionary of Slovakia (Lanham, MD, 1998), and many other books and articles. 150 SLOVAKIA GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPTS Manuscripts of articles should be sent to the editor. Articles should not normally exceed twenty-five pages in length, and should be submitted in triplicate, typed double-spaced, numbered consecutively, and placed at the end of the paper. Text and format should adhere to Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writer.s . Proper ortography and diacritical marks must be supplied for all foreign words. Manuscripts will not be returned unless specifically requested and postage is provided. Books for review are to be sent to the editor. Unsolicited book reviews are not encouraged. Individuals who wish to review books should request them from the editor. They should send a 'curriculum vitae' with their request. THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA Organized in 1907 EDWARD J. BEHUNCIK, K.S .G., Honorary President Dr. LUDWIG J. PAVLO President JOSEPH J. TALAFOUS, Esq. Vice-President JOHN A. HOLY Secretary-Treasurer ANNE Z. SAROSY Vice-President MICHAL BUCKO Vice-President Executive Board Dr. Ludwig J. Pavlo, John A Holy, Daniel F. Tanzone, Dr. John Karch, Dr. L. P. Hinterbuchner, Thomas M. Hricik, Mary Ann S. Johanek, Esq., George J. Kostelnik, Rita M. Simalchik, David G. Balzek, Frank Rudzik Milan Cuba Youth Director SLOVAK FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATE[ WITH THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSOCIATION Beachwood, Ohio FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION OF THE U.S. AND CANADA Independence, Ohio SLOVAK CATHOLIC SOKOL Passaic, New Jersey NATIONAL SLOVAK SOCIETY OF THE U.S.A. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LADIES PENNSYLVANIA SLOVAK CATHOLIC UNION Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania SLOVAK NEWSPAPERMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA THE SLOVAK GARDEN, INC. Winter Park, Florida SLOVAKIA $ 8.00 per issue  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Back Matter, Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67) Description An account of the resource includes Contributors; Guidelines for Manuscripts Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/4653fcdcf869d030fcb7bdc00a736285.pdf 4593de865f9ba5d2f75a228dac130ad5 PDF Text Text REVIEWS ��SLOVAKIA 119 Paul Robert Magocsi (with cartographic design by Geoffrey J. Matthews). Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, 218 pages. GEORGE J. DEMKO Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire The Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a truly outstanding and valuable book. The combination of professionally and accurately rendered maps, and the accompanying text that is written with authority, accuracy and clarity represent a rich source of information on an important part of the world. The atlas is comprised of 50 sections, each with maps (in color) and related explanatory text. The themes are varied and arranged chronologically starting from A.D. 400 to the present. The final section incorporates the most recent political changes that have occurred in the region. The themes begin with the geographic zones and continue with subjects such as ecclesiastical jurisdiction, population and migrations to recent industrial development. Some of the themes are quite innovative and useful such as "Education and Culture through the 18th Century" and "Ethnolinguistic Distribution in 1900". There are also 28 tables containing quite valuable information on such topics as the estimated deaths of Jews in the region by 1945, and the size of Catholic and Orthodox populations in East Central Europe in 1900. For bibliophiles there is also an excellent bibliography with an especially useful and rare list of atlases and maps relevant to the region. There are, of course, some issues with which one might quibble. For example, the region is very broadly defined as "the lands between the linguistic frontier of the German and Italianspeaking peoples on the west and the political boundaries of the former Soviet Union on the east. The north-south parameters are the Baltic and Mediterranean seas" (P. XI) . These boundaries �120 SLOVAKIA were defined by the editors of the series to which this volume belongs (a multivolume History of East Central Europe published by the University of Washington Press). The author has expanded on the original boundaries to include the eastern part of Germany, Bavaria, Austria, northeastern Italy, historic Poland, Lithuania, Western Ukraine, Moldova and western Anatolia in Turkey! Certainly the author has erred on the conservative side by using such an inclusive and extensive set of bounding definitions. Given the fact that there are almost as many definitions of East Central Europe as there are "specialists" on the region, and that any defined region would have many important interactions with surrounding areas, the decision is an excellent one providing a very comprehensive perspective on an illdefined region, or rather a region on which a consensus would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. It is also possible to argue for themes that are important but omitted. For example, the omission of a section on emigration from this important region to the US and Canada (as well as other countries) is regrettable. This topic would have been particularly interesting for the Slovak and Polish areas. Also, the map of geographic zones is really a map of physiographic zones. A map of the "socio/cultural/linguistic regions" of the East Central Europe would have been much more useful and very interesting. In sum, Magocsi's Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a wonderful and fascinating addition to our educational sources on one of the most troubled and dynamic parts of the world. The cartography is first-rate, and attention to detail is commendable. Anyone, scholar, politican, or interested layperson should add this volume to his/her bookshelf. It is valuable, useful, visually pleasing and reasonably priced. �SLOVAKIA 121 Anton Spiesz. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Bratislava: Perfekt, 1992. Pp. 195. Gregory C. Ference Salisbury State University Salisbury, Maryland The late Anton Spiesz wrote a large number of books prior to the volume under review, most of which concentrated on economic history. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu, however, cannot be counted among this genre. Although economics play a prominent role in this book, it is best characterized as a historical survey of Slovakia. As such the first part of the title would have sufficed; na ceste k sebauvedomeniu misleads the reader, who is hard pressed to find anything about Slovak national awareness prior to chapter six where Spiesz introduced the issue of nationalism. Even though he began the story 200,000 years ago with the first evidence of humans on Slovak territory, the author quickly traversed the millennia. Evidently Spiesz started to write hi s book before the demise of Communism, as at times Marxist rhetoric appears in the study. In an apparent attempt to correct this problem, the author revised the text in several sections to distance himself from this outdated verbiage. Rather than soften the issue, however, it caused the book to become unwieldy in places. Although Spiesz intended it as a general overview of Slovak history, the book assumed too much. Spiesz sometimes failed to properly introduce people, or to explain events or documents, such as the Zilina Agreement of 1938, only mentioning them. Another fault was the author's penchant for lists, whether they were of animals in ancient Slovakia, manufactured goods from the mid-nineteenth century, or pedagogists. �122 SLOVAKIA The book also suffers from some major errors regarding dates. For example, Hungary proclaimed its independence in March 1849, not in 1848, Ladislav the Posthumous acceded to the throne in 1444 rather than in 1453, and the American Slovak organizations of Zivena and the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union were founded in 1891 and 1892, not in 1894 and 1890 as Spiesz noted. Furthermore, in his treatment of the impact of Slovaks in the United States on politics, Spiesz incorrectly stated that both men and women enjoyed equal rights and the franchise before the First World War, and he over emphasized the establishment and role of socialist organizations among American Slovaks. The last chapters are Spiesz's best, providing balanced coverage on how the Communists subverted the political system and the Slovaks in their takeover of Czechoslovakia. He also exploded the Communist myth that the Slovak National Uprising was one of the greatest moments in Slovak history. In the latter instance, the author painted a very brutal picture in which countless innocent people were murdered by the insurgents. Spiesz could have finished his volume on a high note, b~t his final chapter, "From the Building of Socialism to its Bankruptcy," destroyed the seemingly solid effort found in its several preceding sections. Claiming that a historian cannot write effectively and objectively about events unless a period of at least thirty years has elapsed, he merely gave a thumbnail sketch of the period from 1960 to 1989 which included the tumultuous events of the "Prague Spring" and the "Velvet Revolution." An attack on Gustav Husak undeservedly received the most coverage in this four-page chapter. Here, Spiesz appeared to place himself on a soapbox in an attempt to further disavow his connections with the former regime. The author might instead have covered the fast-paced events after 1989 through the date of publication in order to give the reader a sense of closure. �SLOVAKIA 123 Finally, the book has no index which, though not unusual for European publications, would in this case have been indispensable, since Spiesz covered so much in so few pages. On the whole, this book would be appropriate only for someone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of Slovak history. Richard Marsina a kolektfv. Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1993, 334 pp. R. VLADIMIR BAUMGARTEN Tallahassee, Rorida This works represents the first general attempt since the collapse of the communist system in 1989 to reevaluate the history of the Slovak people. As such, it offers surprisingly little that is new or original. Indeed, were it not for the fact that Slovenske dejiny condemns the excesses of communist dictatorship, many of its conclusions would be politicaly acceptable to the deceased Husak regime. The early portion of the book deals with events and developments from which various schools ot thought concerning Slovak historiography have traditionally drawn common conclusions: Slovakia was settled by man since the dawn of history, the Slovaks retained a sense of identity in the Hungarian kingdom, there were embryonic tendencies towards statehood in earlier times, and so on. A subtle change of interpretation may be found in the treatment of the national awakening, specifically concerning the leaders of the 1848 revolution. Earlier Marxist interpretation of the 1848 events portrayed Cudovft Stur and his colleagues as conterrevolutionaries for siding with the Habsburgs against the Hungarians. Later, Slovak historiography during Alexander Dubcek' s tenure as First Secretary of the Slovak �124 SLOVAKIA Communist Party reversed this trend, portraying the Slovak leaders as socially progressive figures. This interpretation was continued throughout the Husak regime. Slovenske dejiny, by contrast, depicts the Slovak leaders in a strictly national rather than a social context. The work concedes that they initially attempted to cooperate with Hungarian leader Lajos Kossuth on questions of social reform, but indicates that a breakdown of relations occured concerning Hungary's national question. One significant, and, in retrospect, surprising change of interpretation concerns the circumstances surrounding the Czecho-Slovak merger of 1918. Communist historiography traditionally regarded the merger as a "bourgeois swindle", in which the Slovak people were treated as colonial subjects until the victory of the working class under Communist leadership rectified relations between two nationalities. Given the pressures of Magyarization at the turn of the century, however, Slovenske dejiny treats pro-Czech sentiment as a positive force. The activities of T. G. Masaryk and the Czecho-Slovak emigres, the exploits of the Czechoslovak Legion on foreign battlefields, and even the career of the extreme Czechophile Vavro Srobar are all cast in a heroic light. No mention is made of the previously lauded Slovak Soviet Republic which was founded on the bayonets of Bela Kun's Hungarian Red Army. This work conveys the impression that, if Czecho-Slovak union in 1918 was not the best of all possible worlds, it was at least a step in the right direction. Slovenske dejiny is critical of Czech centralism in the interwar period, but regards the cultural emancipation of the Slovaks and their economic advancement as positive features. Honorable mention is given to Milan Hodfa's appointment as the first Slovak prime minister of Czechoslovakia. His career might have been given more attention. In spite of a long history of personal opportunism, Hodfa's ideas concerning Central European federalism are still worth studying today. �SLOVAKIA 125 While the work hails the attainment of Slovak autonomy in 1938, subsequent developments are portrayed as negative. Advocates of the rehabilitation of Monsignor Jozef Tiso are particularly bound to be disappointed: the Slovak Republic continues to be regarded as a Nazi puppet state, and the deportation of the Jews is treated in the same simplistic manner, which does not inquire deeper into the divisions of policy among Slovak leaders themselves. The 1944 uprising, correspondingly, is still regarded as a heroic event, notwithstanding the surrounding circumstances or tragic consequences. Surprisingly little attention is given to subsequent developments, perhaps out of sense of caution. It must be noted that, although the book was published in 1993, it was prepared during the previous year, at a time when many Czechs and Slovaks still hoped to maintain a federal republic. It reflects history written during a time of transition, and all the limitations found therein. This work's most revealing feature is a lack of vindictive malice towards the Czechs, a phenomenon which helped assure that the "Velvet Divorce" would not become another Balkanstyle bloodbath. A more comprehensive history, however, remains to be written. Katarina Sultajerova. Compiled by. Najstarsie rody na Slovensku, Martin: Slovenska genealogicko-heraldicka spolocnosr pri Matici slovenskej, 1994, 128 pp. DUNCAN B. GARDINER Lakewood, Ohio This collection of articles is essentialy a scholarly primer of the earliest documented Slovak aristocracy. It consists of papers delivered at the October, 1993 Symposium on the Oldest Line- �126 SLOVAKIA ages in Slovakia, which was co-sponsored by the State Regional Archives in Bratislava, the Archives Section of the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, and by the Slovak Ministries of Culture and the Interior. Jozef Novak, author of the two-volume Rodove erby na Slovensku ( 1986), wrote the preface and the lead article "Genealogia ako historicka disciplfna" , which discuses the importance of genealogy in understanding the early history of Slovakia. He recommends making heraldy and genealogy more valuable to historians by broadening genealogical studies to the geographic spread of a family over time, to the bibliography of published literature on a lineage, and to biographies of prominent individuals in the family. Novak also emphasises the importance of thorough source documentation. Roman Zelenay, the late State Secretary of the Slovak Ministry of Culture, wrote "Genealogicke met6dy vfskumu najstarsfch rodov". He discussed traditional Slovak naming customs dating to the Great Moravian period, showing that despite the lack of surnames, it is possible to establish genealogical betwe~n individuals by analyzing the system by which first names were given. The Battle of Mohacs ( 1526) disrupted the Slovak social order and this earlier naming system with it, a fact which makes post-Mohacs genealogies based on onomastics quite different. Milan Majtan, historian and author of Nazvy obcf na Slovensku za ostatnfch 200 rokov (1972), discusses the historical development of personal and family names in Slovakia in "Vfvin JXJmemivania osob na Slovensku", giving examples of proto-Slavic, pre-Christian and Christian naming traditions. Majtan cites copious examples from a range of early manuscript sources. In "Struktura sl'achty na Slovensku v 9 . - 13. storoci'', Richard Marsina relates that the upper aristocracy in Slovakia consisted of Magyars and Magyarized Slovaks. Therefore, the �SLOVAKIA 127 genealogist and historian must look to the lesser nobility within each of the old countries to study the prominent Slovak lineages. Vincent Mucska's "Anonymovo dielo ako genealogickf pramen'""' takes a critical look at the twelfth-century "gesta". He dismisses it as a source of concrete historic or genealogical fact. "Panovnicka dynastia v JO. - 11. storocl" by Ladislav Vrtel' chronicles in some detail the families of the two sons of Takson, a granson of Arpad, the first Magyar leader, showing their quite different fates. Nine more articles, written by wel-known historians, deal with the earliest aristocratic families of individual counties: Saris and Uz by Ferdinand Ulicny; Spis by Ivan Chalupecky; Turiec, Liptov and Orava by Jan Benko; Trencfn by Richard Marsina; Bratislava by Vincent Sedlak; Nitra by Jan Lukacka; Zvolen by Maria Durk ova; and Malohont by Leon Sokolovsky. Each article is in Slovak with a short summary in English or, in several cases, German. The English summaries are readable, but the number of typographical and gramatical errors show that a native English-speaking editor was needed. Short biographies of the authors would have been most useful. The articles are based both on original research and the literature in the field in a number of languages: Polish, German, French, Hungarian, Latin. The Genealogical-Heraldic Society has single-handedly placed Slovakia on the genealogical map by publishing the Hlas, a twice-yearly journal of genealogy and heraldry and by organizing local genealogy groups, not only in Martin, but also in Bratislava, Kosice, and Trencfn. The founding of this society is connected with the fact that the authors of the Slovenskf biografickf slovmk (6 vols., Matica slovenska, 1986 - 1994), aware that the 19th-century Slovak intelligentsia was related by a complex series of intermarriages, have wanted to investigate �128 SLOVAKIA their genealogies for some time. This volume is an admirable contribution to that effort. Dejiny SJXJlocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku: 1561 - 1988. Emil Krapka, S. J. and Vojtech Mikula, S. J. - editors: Cambridge, Ontario: Dobra kniha, 1990, 526 pp. and 24 pp. of color illustrations. GERALD J. SABO, S. J. John Carroll University University Heights, Ohio This is a historical survey of the Jesuits and their activities in the Slovak area, part of the 1990 celebration of the Society of Jesus on the 450th anniversary of its papal approval. As noted on the bibliographic page, this monograph was prepared between the fall of 1986 and that of 198 8, before the so-called "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989. Its two editors and eight authors have presented much interesting material to a Slovak-reading public which lacked substantive, accurate information on a religious order important in Slovak history and culture since the sixteenth century. In the main body are a good number of black and white illustrations, supplemented with sixty-four color ones for Slovakia and ten related to Slovak Jesuit activity in Canada. This extensive history is probably unique among such writing, and given the circumstances under which it was realised, all those involved deserve much praise and gratitude. The monograph is divided into five major parts. The first four comprise the Jesuits' history from 1561 with their first establishment in Tmava and on through 1988. The first part of the history covers the time period through 1615, the second, through the suppression of the Jesuit order in 1773, the third, the �SLOVAKIA 129 order's suppression and its effect in the Slovak portion of the Hungarian Kingdom, and the fourth, the context of the Society's universal restoration and its work among Slovaks at home and beyond from 1853 through 1988. The second and fourth parts together comprise two-thirds of the entire work. A major part usually begins with the larger European and Church background in which the Slovak events arose and evolved, and then Slovakrelated material is divided according to geographical locations and pastoral/apostolic activity. The fifth and final part of this history includes a chronological summary of important events among Jesuits of this area, an explanation of religious and Jesuit terminology, a substantial bibliography on the Society at large and in the Slovak area, name and place indexes, and summaries in Slovak, English, German, French, and Magyar. Twice in this history, Jesuits suffered dramatically at the hands of civil authorities. In 1773, Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa was finally impelled to supress legally the Society of Jesus in her realm from fear that if she did not do so, her daughter Marie Antoinette would not be allowed to marry the future French King, Louis XVI. Louis was a Bourbon, member of a royal family that strove mightily to eradicate throughout their European and foreign realms that "least" Society of Jesus for its greater loyalty to Church than state. Yet the Jesuits came back and thrived, just as they do today after their far more brutal suppression and persecution under the Communists between April, 1950 and the revolution of November, 1989. At present, Slovakia is a democratic, sovereign country, and publications such as the Dejiny need to showcase its role in European history and culture. Yet certain features of the Dejiny significantly limit its valuable effect and should be remedied. Prepared for a wide-ranging public conversant in Slovak, this work would also be of great interest to many others, whether general readers or scholars, who do not read Slovak, yet for �130 SLOVAKIA whom the summaries in languages other then Slovak are woefully inadequate. For this much wider audience, the Dejiny should be translated into English, the current lingua franca. Further, the lack of any documentation in notes is a serious limitation, yet nowadays such material could be collected within a reasonable time. This data is needed to provide crucial scholarship about Jesuits in Slovak territory and beyond which is available nowhere else. The activities of these Jesuits, mostly Slovak yet also of other nationalities, have remained hidden from appreciation even in Jesuit publications. For instance, in English-language studies of the Jesuits, the activities and influence of the universities in Trnava and Kosice - cities often disguised behind their German or Magyar names - are briefly mentioned, if that. No mention at all is made of the Slovak Benedikt Szollosi, compiler of the first Catholic hymnal Cantus catholici with songs in Latin and "Cultural Slovak". No more fortunate has been the Slovak Martin Szentivanyi, whose varied writings, encyclopedic studies, and very able directorship of the Trnava University press contributed significantly to Slovak history, culture, and language development. Also unknown among English readers is the Slovak Samuel Timon, whose writings made him a pioneer in scholarly Slovak historiography. Nor is Jesuit history in Slovak territory better known in other Western languages. For instance, nearly fourty years ago the Magyar Jesuit Laszl6 Lukacs wrote in German about the Jesuit Antonio Possevino's papal mission to establish a network of seminaries and schools in northern Europe in the late sixteenth century, but nothing was said about any Slovak area plans or effects. The Dejiny, though, discusses Posse vino's mission and its effects in re-establishing Jesuits there, as well as many other points not found outside of Slovaklanguage publications. Yet how is a general reader or scholar to appreciate the important Jesuit role and contributions to Slovak �SLOVAKIA 131 history, culture, and society, if he is unable to read this history, or is even unaware that it exists? Clearly, the Dejiny cannot remain a hidden Slovak treasure. Indeed, the Slovak Jesuits have an obligation to make the Dejiny with proper documentation known and accessible to a non-Slovak-reading public. They must present themselves before the world and not simply in the Slovak heart of Europe. Otherwise, a part of Slovakia, its culture, history, people, and achievements will remain concealed behind a language that few in today's world will bother to learn even for reading. James Ramon Felak. "At the Price of the Republic." Hlinka's Slovak People's Party,1929-1938. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994, xiv & 263 p. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM York University, Glendon College Czechoslovakia is a state that broke up twice in its seventyfour year history: the fust time it was under the pressure of international events and on the eve of a world war, the second in the aftermath of democratic elections. The fust break-up has been mired in controversy, due not only to the circumstances surrounding it, but above all to the responsibility that is often ascribed to the Slovak People's Party (SPP) for bringing about that outcome. James Felak's study looks at this party, in particular during the decade that precedes the fust break-up. There are very few studies of Slovak politics in the first Czechoslovak Republic (CSR), fewer still that offer an in depth examination of the role and policies of the main parties that influenced and shaped inter-war Slovak political life. The handful of monographs that have been written on Slovakia in the first �132 SLOVAKIA CSR, or indeed on the first CSR itself, have generally looked at how the "Slovak question" has contributed to, been responsible for, or unable to prevent its break-up. It would not be inaccurate to say that most take a position for (the Czechoslovak and Marxist approach) or against (the nationalist Slovak approach) the first CSR; very few seek to examine the question from the dynamics of Czech-Slovak relations as did Carol Skalnik Leff in National Conflict in Czechoslovakia. The Making and Remaking of a State, 1918-1987 (1988), or from the challenges a multinational state faces when dealing with its constituent nations and national minorities. Felak's study fills some of the gaps in our knowledge of Slovak inter-war political life, but, regretfully, it does little to advance our understanding of it. Of the seven chapters that present the Hlinka Slovak People's Party, five offer a relatively detailed examination of its policies for the decade that begins with the Depression. The first chapter presents a rapid and, unfortunately, superficial overview of Slovak nationalism until 1929 whereas the second outlines in detail the party's ideology and programme. The remaining chapters are divided according to certain events that mark a change of fortune or direction for the party. The author looks in depth at some of the more important ones, such as the Tuka affair of 1929, the 1929 and 1935 elections, the 1931 Slovak orthography dispute, the 1933 Pribina celebrations, the different party congresses, in particular the Youth Congress of 1932 and that of 1936, and the 1938 Pittsburgh Pact celebration, all of which marked Slovak political life. Equally useful and interesting are his descriptions of the SPP platform at different times and the relations with other Czech and Slovak political parties and formations. As for the various leading personalities, Andrej Hlinka, Vojtech Tuka, Karol Sidor, and Jozef Tiso, among others, the author seeks to give a sense of their role and importance in the development of SPP policies. In sum, most of the �SLOVAKIA 133 book offers a detailed examination of the role of the SPP in an important decade in Slovak political life and is in this respect a contribution to the existing literature. The main problem with this study lies in its approach to the subject. This is due not only to too great a reliance on certain earlier studies, but above all to the indiscriminate use of police reports as authoritative sources of political analysis. In fairness to the author, he makes an attempt to present a balanced approach on the "Slovak question". Yet the language he uses clearly indicates that he identifies with and accepts generally the interpretations of those authors who have a Czechoslovak view ?f Slovak history, a view that is mostly negative toward the Slovaks and uncritically favourable toward Czechoslovakia. For example he refers to Slovakia as "relatively underdeveloped, politically, economically, socially, culturally, and nationally" (p. 17) or describes Hlinka as having a "parochial, clerical mentality that resembled that of a Slovak peasant." (p. 25) In addition, like earlier authors, his examination of Prague policies toward Slovakia and toward the SPP, is at best cursory and certainly not critical. On occasion one gets the feeling from his presentation that there was a specific Prague-SPP dynamic, yet there is little analysis of the reasons for and the consequences of Prague policies, only of the SPP reactions and actions. For example, Prague exercized censorship on the SPP press to such an extent that in 1938, when the government was considering the possibility of a coaliton with the SPP, one of that party's conditions was the lifting of that censorship. Equally problematic is the reliance on police reports as a research source. The fact that the Prague government felt it necessary to have police spies within the SPP is in itself a fact worth examining, not to say anything of the accuracy of these reports. The emphasis that Felak places on factional struggles within the SPP comes mostly from these reports. That the police �134 SLOVAKIA spies reported such struggles is not in the least bit surprising; it was in the government's interest to be able to neutralize an opposition party that Pelak on many occasions describes as the most important one in Slovakia. Also, there is nothing surprising about factional differences; this is a fact of life in political parties in all democratic states. But in this case, the factionalism represented the dilemmas the SPP faced in its twin objectives: the autonomy of Slovakia and the integrity and security of Czechoslovakia. The failure of Prague to have understood this and to have dealt with it adequately was paid, in the end, "at the price of the republic." For all its richness about the SPP, Felak's examination of its policies is nevertheless incomplete; on the other hand, it has the merit of provoking additional questions and showing the way for further study. Hope Dies Last, The Autobiogra]Xly of Alexander Dubcek. Edited and translated by Jin Hochman. New York: Kodansha America, Inc., 1993. 354 pp. ROBERT K. EV ANSON Uni versify of Missouri Kansas City The automobile accident of September 1, 1992, which led to Alexander Dubcek's death nine weeks later, robbed Slovakia of one of its most distinguished political leaders. Whether Dubcek could have played a vital role in shaping the politics of an independent Slovakia will never be known. What is certain, and what we are reminded of in this fascinating autobiography excellently edited and translated by Jin Hochman - is that he did establish for himself a place of lasting historical importance. �SLOVAKIA 135 It seems necessary to say this because, as Dubcek himself was aware, there is insufficient appreciation among many of today's young Slovaks and Czechs of what he and his fellow "reform Communists" attempted to do in the 1960s. It remains for historians to sort out the difficult issue of just how much impact the Prague Spring had on the subsequent course of Czechoslovak politics that ended ultimately in the demise of the country's neo-Stalinist regime twenty-one years later, but clearly the impact was significant.The Prague Spring, which Dubcek more than anyone else helped to shape, set an example for democratic aspirations that resurfaced in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s. It also was an obvious model for some of Gorbachev's policies in -the 1980s. The Soviet suppression of the reform movement also created deep wounds of alienation among Czechs and Slovaks towards the USSR and the post-1968 regime that never healed. Ironically, both Dubcek and the Soviets were correct in their 1968 dialogue, Dubcek in warning the Soviets of the need to better understand how many Czechs and Slovaks viewed the old regime as an unnatural entity, and the Soviets in recognizing the degree to which Dubcek's reform movement threatened the very foundations of Leninist rule in Eastern Europe. Dubcek's autobiography begins appropriately with his early years, and an examination of that period of his life teaches us a great deal about why he acted as he did in his maturity. It is difficult not to admire the man, and this book, which is not egregiously self-serving, merely strengthens that attitude. Several aspects of character and personality come to mind - decency, courage, political shrewdness, and a trust and idealism that were at once his greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses. We find him as a teenager in Kirghizia defending young Muslims against bullying by his fellow Czechs and Slovaks, and after World War Two pressing relentlessly for the release from the Soviet Gulag of a physician who had treated the injured Dubcek �136 SLOVAKIA during the Uprising; it was a small moral step to his passionate commitment to the complete rehabilitation of all political prisoners in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. In 1952, in the wake of the Shinsky trial and at the height of the terror, he cast aside a Soviet-censored version of a speech and instead delivered a ringing eulogy at the funeral of fellow Communist Karol Smidke, who had been a victim of the persecution. He stood up for the reforms in the face of immense Soviet pressure throughout 1968, acted honorably after his abduction to Moscow following the Soviet and allied invasion, refused to take the safety of exile because he thought his proper place was with his people, and sent off a stream of letters of protest long after his removal from power at considerable personal risk. Dubcek also was a very clever and careful political tactician. Some of the most fascinating passages in his book concern the way he built alliances in his ultimately successful effort to bring down Communist Party First Secretary Antonin Novotny in 1967. I would like to have read even more details about conversations he had with various political figures in this process, as well as about the way he blunted Novotny's efforts to consign him to political oblivion in 1962, but there still is plenty to captivate anyone with a taste for Prague-style Kremlinology. The period of the early 1960s is especially interesting in this book, because Dubcek discusses the first signs of the movement against neo-Stalinism and Prague centralism, including his election over Novotny's opposition to the position of Slovak Communist Party First Secretary in April, 1963. This event represented a stinging defeat for Novotny, because Dubcek already had established himself as the leading advocate for sweeping rehabilitation of the victims of the purges of so-called "Slovak bourgeois nationalists" in the early 1950s. As such, he had become the major opponent of Prague centralism in the Party leadership. �SLOVAKIA 137 While Dubcek was never foolhardy, he could be surprisingly bold. An interesting illustration of this was his successful ploy with Jin Hendrych, the number two man in the Party hierarchy in 1967 and, until then, a staunch Novotny loyalist. Sensing that Hendrych was beginning to vacillate in his commitment to Novotny, Dubcek walked into his office that late November and said that Novotny's days as First Secretary clearly were numbered, and that Hendrych might consider getting on the bandwagon or he too would fall. As an added enticement, he invited the startled Hendrych to consider whether he would like Novotny's job as First Secretary! The amusing climax of this story is that shortly thereafter, Leonid Brezhnev came to Prague to assess Novotny's prospects and naturally sought out Hendrych's opinion. Reportedly, Brezhnev barely got inside the door when Hendrych told him he was "willing" to serve as First Secretary. While Hendrych never got the chance - Dubcek succeeded Novotny - his abandonment of Novotny may have persuaded Brezhnev of the futility of a rescue operation. The most painful reading in this book is the period of the mounting Soviet hostility to the Prague Spring and the ultimate invasion and subsequent period of "normalization." It is impossible not to become angry all over again when one reads of the treatment Dubcek and his comrades received at the hands of their Soviet kidnappers, as well as the incredible pettiness and maliciousness of their successors in Prague and Bratislava. While Dubcek does not cast a great deal of new light on the events of 1968, he minces no words in assessing various political figures and spares no criticism of his worst tormentors. Thus we learn that Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin was as cold in private as in public and capable of extreme rudeness. He and his Soviet comrades are rightly dismissed by Dubcek as "gangsters" and "thugs." Novotny is confirmed as hopelessly ignorant of Slovak affairs, as well as contemptuous toward Slovak national �138 SLOVAKIA feelings, one of the keys to his ultimate demise. Dubcek also brands Vasil Bifak, Alois Indra, and the other conspirators of 1968 as "traitors." No one comes across worse, however, than Gustav Husak, who presided over the restoration of neo-Stalinism in Czechoslovakia. His shabby treatment of Dubcek after 1968, despite Dubcek's pivotal role in bringing about his political resurrection, is a sad counter to the courage he displayed when fighting for his own rehabilitation in the early 1960s. Despite the claims that he "protected" the ousted reformers from "hardliners" in the Party, Husak comes across here as a man incapable of normal feelings and as a complete opportunist. Naturally Dubcek was bitter about Husak, but the tone of his evaluations of Husak and other political figures is in fact measured and convincing. No discussion of Dubcek's political career would be complete without addressing his failure to discern the danger of a Soviet invasion in 1968. Part of the answer may lie in his family background. He was born in 1921 to a pair of committed socialists who were so enamored of the Soviet experiment that they were willing to relocate to Central Asia to help build a new society. At the same time, his parents had the good sense to return to Czechoslovakia when the dangers of remaining in the Soviet Union became obvious. Nonetheless, Dubcek never abandoned the socialist idealism he inherited from them. While he certainly understood the evils of Stalinism and the incompatibility of the Soviet-type system with Czech and Slovak traditions, he had a blind spot that served him poorly in 1968. Specifically, despite all the Soviet expressions of alarm about what he and his fellow reformers were doing, he could not bring himself to believe the USSR would intervene. There is no question Dubcek had evolved into a democrat and was aware of what he was doing. He writes that the Action Program put forth by Party reformers in 1968 "was a plan for a gradual return to �SLOVAKIA 139 the concept of democratic socialism ... " He acknowledges that his regime was rejecting various aspects of Leninism - he believed that the Communist Party could win popular support in competitive elections, once it had embraced democracy, and thus he downplayed the Soviet concern that his reforms were jeopardizing "the leading role of the party." At the same time, he knew he had to avoid making any references to multi-party democracy for fear of alarming them unnecessarily. He also believed that "socialism could function better in a market-oriented environment, with significant elements of private enterprise." He writes that of course he recalled what happened to Hungary in 1956, but he had made clear to the Soviets his determination that Czechoslovakia would remain loyal to its Soviet bloc allies, so the situations were not comparable. Perhaps it was due to his conviction that what he and his colleagues were doing would benefit socialism by strengthening the Communist Party's legitimacy among the people, and by bringing the country closer to the original ideals of socialism, that he could not believe that the Soviet leadership would not, however reluctantly, allow him to proceed. (In a postscript, Jiff Hochman notes Dubcek's inclination to believe in people's good intentions.) In fairness, it is difficult to fault Dubcek very much had he opted for concessions, it seems unlikely that the Soviet leadership would have accepted anything short of a complete abandonment of the democratization process to which he had committed his country. Still, his discussion of how he assessed the Soviet mindset at the time is not entirely satisfactory. Alexander Dubcek's autobiography is a thoughtful and wellwritten account of the life of a man of extraordinary moral and political qualities. It is indispensable reading for anyone with an interest in the Czechoslovak political experience. �140 SLOVAKIA Paul Robert Magocsi. The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey. New York: East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1993, x, 185 pp., Maps, Notes, Bibliography, Index. KEITH P. DYRUD Concordia College St. Paul,MN The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey is essentially a revision of an earlier work by Prof. Magocsi, The RusynUkrainians of Czechoslovakia: An Historical Survey (Vienna, 1981 ). But there is an additional twist to this revision. The "Preface" says: ''This volume is a translation of an introductory historical survey published in the newly codified Rusyn literary language as well as in Slovak by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Presov." Prof. Magocsi played a leading role in the formation of the national movement that spawned the Rusyn Renaissance Society and the First World Congress of Rusyns that sponsored the codification of the Rusyn literary language. The professor, however, is modest. His name does not once appear in the text in connection with that activity; however, he is pictured with other leaders of the First World Congress of Rusyns (122). The contents of the book should be familiar to those have read the author's earlier works. Magocsi traces the Rusyns' history from their first settlement in eastern Slovakia to the present. He partially assumes and partially attempts to demonstrate that the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia form a distinct nationality. Magocsi documents the cooperation that existed between the Rusyns and the Slovaks while they were dominated by Hungary prior to 1914, but he is critical of the "slovakization" of the Rusyns between the world wars, and he also identifies the �SLOVAKIA 141 Ukrainian movement as a threat to the Rusyn national identity that the book clearly endorses. During the inter-war yars slovakization was a greater threat to the Rusyns than "ukrainianization", but after the Second World War, official government support for the Ukrainian identity led to a decline of any national consciousness. Many Rusyns identified themselves as Slovaks to avoid the Ukrainian label. After the "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989, the Rusyns in the Presov region were again free to publicly promote their own national identity as separate from either Slovak or Ukrainian. In this effort, the Rusyns received support from both the Prague and the Bratislava governments. Magocsi suggests that this support for the Rusyns harkens back to "the historical friendship and attention on the part of Czechs and Slovaks toward their Rusyn brethren ... " (126). It could also suggest that the number of people identifying themselves as Rusyns is now very small and the Rusyn movement is not likely to become a major competitor to the Slovak identity in eastern Slovakia. In fact the major problem with Prof. Magocsi 's interpretation of the Rusyn movement in estem Slovakia is his confidence that the small number of Rusyns can develop a national identity. He is dissatisfied with the 1991 census figures that identify fewer than 33,000 "Rusnak/Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian" people in the Presov region, with just under 17,000 of them unambiguously identifying themselves as "Rusyn" ( 126). According to Magocsi, that number could potentially be as high as 130 000 (2 - 3). Many readers of Magocsi's first book: The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus', 1848 - 1948 (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) were persuaded by his convincing argument that the Rusyns in Subcarpathia did, at least, "shape" a national identity during the inter-war years. But in that era, he was dealing with a larger critical mass of Rusyns. In eastern Slovakia, that critical mass does not seem to exist. With the Slovaks claiming �142 SLOVAKIA most of those 130,000 potential Rusyns, and the Ukrainians competing for the rest, it does not seem likely that the critical mass will develop. In the meantime, those who do identify themselves as Rusyns can read their history in their own "newly codified language". And those who identify themselves as Slovaks can also read the translation in their language just as Rusyns in North America can read it in English. Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout the World: A Demographic and Sociological Guide to the Homeland and Its Diaspora. Edited by Ann Lencyk Pawliczko. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press for the Shevchenko Scientific Society, 1994, xxxvi, 508 pp. PAUL R. MAGOCSI University of Toronto The goal of this volume is to provide brief factual data on Ukrainians wherever they may live in the world. The newlyindependent country of Ukraine has within its borders only 64 percent of the estimated 58.7 million inhabitants who inhabit various parts of the globe. Therefore, a history or description of the Ukrainian people as a whole must be concerned with many other places than Ukraine. This book in fact deals primarily with the estimated 21.2 million Ukrainians living outside Ukraine. The approach is comprehensive, with an effort to say something about communities, however small they may be, in places like Luxembourg, Ireland, Tunisia and New Zealand as well as in the more known countries of Ukrainian immigrant settlement like the United States, Canada, and Australia. �SLOVAKIA 143 The editor, Ann Lencyk Pawliczko, felt the need to trace the political and cultural history of Ukraine (pp. 37 - 84), which is the least satisfactory portion of this otherwise encyclopedic compendium. The rest of the volume consists of entries by 28 authors on the various countries where Ukrainians live. Each entry begins with a general overview of a specific country followed by a history of its Ukrainian community. Many entries include statistical charts and each ends with a list of further readings. Slovak readers will likely be interested in the entry called "Ukrainian-Ruthenians in the Slovak Republic", written by Vasyl Markus (pp. 157 - 166). While the author recognizes the enormous cultural achievements made by the Ukrainians in Slovakia after World War II, he does not attribute the achievements to the favorable policies of the former Czechoslovak Communist government that lavished extensive funding on the group, but rather to the efforts of the local Ukrainian-oriented intelligentsia. He claimes that the official census figures (30,800 Rusyns and Ukrainians in 1991) are far below the 110,000 to 120,000 that supposedly live in northeastern Slovakia. Markus argues the statistical discrepancy exists because of manipulation by Slovak census takers and a policy of "denationalization" carried out by both the former Communist and post-1989 governments in Slovakia. He does not mention the real reason for the numerical differences. Since the 1950s thousands of "Ukrainians-Ruthenians" voluntarily opted to identify as Slovaks in protest against Communist government decrees that banned the Rusyn national identity and required people to call themselves Ukrainian. The author also indirectly blames Slovak governments for responding favorably since 1989 to the Rusyn national revival and for allowing people in the 1991 census to identify with the Rusyn nationality (16,937 Rusyns as opposed to 13,847 Ukrainians) and with the Rusyn language (49,099 Rusyn speakers as opposed to 9,480 Ukrainian speakers) - the latter �144 SLOVAKIA figures are not provided by Markus. The otherwise democratic policies of present-day Slovakia are described as promoting "political Ruthenianism" a phenomenon that is "influenced by outside anti-Ukrainian forces" and that is intent on de-Ukrainianizing the local population. Fortunately, the rest of this volume maintains a less biased tone in describing Ukrainian communities in other countries. Nina Trnka: Slovak-English I English-Slovak Dictionary, N. Y., Hippocrene Books, 1992, 360 pp. JOHN M. KOCHIK Scottsdale, Anizona Any contribution to the field of Slovak reference materials is always welcome. Attempts at popularization are encouradged only to the extent that a work demonstrates quality. Standards, of course, should always be high to reflect the expertise of the _ contributor. The backcover boasts "You are holding the only SlovakEnglish/English-Slovak Dictionary available in North America". What about Smejkalova et al.? The book is intended for "students and travelers", and claims to be "concise". For all its advertising pretense, its format is disappointing. It looks like a thesis. It lacks an Introduction which it sorely needs for efficient use. It omits a separating page (175) between the two major divisions for facile access, wherein an appropriate blank page or second title page would suffice. Pronunciation (pages i through iii) is confusing. The list of consonants is incomplete, not accounting for - among others important palatals d', I, ii, ( used in too many words to be ignored. As immediate as page one, there is no knowing how ''t~' �SLOVAKIA 145 in "akost' must be pronounced according to her presentation. Questions arise as to "studi'ia" (123) and "studna" (353 - see "well")? Why then "anP' (2) gives [a-nyi], or "odev" (71) [odyef]? How then distinguish cited "Javica" (44) from un-cited "/avica" - "left hand"? Equating long "6" with "6" in Pronunciation is erroneous, being that the latter "6" is diphotong [.u.o]. The remarks in Pronunciation are unclear and inadequate. The uninitiated will render Slovak pronunciation ludicrous. Examples provided are ambiguous for articulation of varietes of vowel "a", because speakers of American-English are inconsistent in their renditions of "a" in cited forms "ma-ma, fast, rat, grass, pad". To present digraph "ch" as aspirated [kh] in "khaki" (sic!) is not true for the guttural [)c]. And, to state that Slovak "r' is approximated by labial untrilled "r' of "red" - bellies the trilled "r' performed by the tongue. Transcription in Pronunciation is defective, since the symbols given are arbitrary, not in accord either with the conventions of Slovak texts or even the International Phonetic System. A hard look at the symbols presented defies logic. Examples follow. Since Standard Slovak (i. e. spisovna slovencina) utilizes digraph "dz" as the phone in medzi and other words - to employ "dz' as a symbol for English pronunciation of th [b] of "they" is incomprehensible! In like manner, use of [s] for [0] of "thank" produces comic theatrical effect as in [Sank you] for [Sank you]! Moreover, to present the nasal-guttural -ng [ri] of "long" as underlined [g] can be misinterpreted into a humorous exagerated liaison of oft-quoted misquoted "LoNGJsland" with defined [NGJ]. �146 SLOVAKIA Further examination into the deficiencies given in Pronunciation would require a complete revision after careful editing. So far only the unavoidable pitfalls have been critiqued. Editorial work appears lax or nonexistent as evidenced by "thruth" (sic! page ii), presumably "truth". And, "heith" (sic! page 158) following vyska and page 244, apparently meant to be "height"). In both citings of "heith", consistency seems to demonstrate persistent misspelling. There is an unexpected thrust from V (350) into W (351) without a notification-heading W. As for word-selection, it might be hoped that high-frequency was a criterion for efficiency. On the contrary, superfluous are words among others like "elephant" (222), "volcano" (350), "yacht" (358), "zebra" (359) - scarcely indigenous to Slovakia! Yet the word kamzik (36?) "chamois" (198?) indigenous to the Tatras finds no listing in either section. Why "warden" (351) is given makes one wonder of its sociological implications. Why is "warrant" (351) so important to find place here? Surely one expects utilitarian vocabulary in such a work. As for semantics, a first-hand impression might be that if several meanings are provided without explanation or definition - an indiscriminate interchange might be possible. Not so for automat (3) "slot-machine, snack-bar, machine-gun". Thus also for "minister" (268) "minister, vyslanec, duchovnf" mean different things. Each having a distinct, specific meaning. It is most unlikely that "students and travelers" will discern clearly which term fits which circumstance. Cross-references are not provided for necessary clarification. See "warm" (351) ...srdecnf... for which neither "cordial" (206?) nor "sincerely" (315) are given on expected pages in parentheses. In similar manner, aktiv (1) "meeting, gathering" makes no reference or distinction from "meeting" (266) schodza, stretnutie. �SLOVAKIA 147 Perusal of the text will result in startling revelations. For instance, pronunciation of odJXJr (72) gives [od-por], whereas in fact it is [ot-por], a morphophonetic alternation called regressive assimilation. Where the voiced d automatically becomes unvoiced/devoiced t, in harmony with unvoiced p which sets the condition for the process. The same phenomenon occurs in other instances like odstup (72) to [ot-stup], bezplatny (6) to [bes-platnee], modlitba and prosba for "prayer" (289) not given in the text as [mod-lit-ba] and [proz-ba]. Interesting to note is that word-final voiced consonants are given as de-voiced as in smrad (116) [smrat]. However, no account has been made of v as a semi-vowel [IJ.] in such words as pravda (92) [prau.da], rovno (105) [rouno], domov (18) [domo.1J.]; instead, Czech ussage [domof] (18) is presented. Two outstanding examples given: [svatba] (125) for svadba and ['strukh] (101) for pstruh are unintelligible. For all the effort involved in the production of this Dictionary, it is unfortunate that it should fall short of the desired quality expected. In spite of the good intentions of the contributor, the end result is full of inconsistencies and inadequacies. � REVIEWS ��SLOVAKIA 119 Paul Robert Magocsi (with cartographic design by Geoffrey J. Matthews). Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, 218 pages. GEORGE J. DEMKO Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire The Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a truly outstanding and valuable book. The combination of professionally and accurately rendered maps, and the accompanying text that is written with authority, accuracy and clarity represent a rich source of information on an important part of the world. The atlas is comprised of 50 sections, each with maps (in color) and related explanatory text. The themes are varied and arranged chronologically starting from A.D. 400 to the present. The final section incorporates the most recent political changes that have occurred in the region. The themes begin with the geographic zones and continue with subjects such as ecclesiastical jurisdiction, population and migrations to recent industrial development. Some of the themes are quite innovative and useful such as "Education and Culture through the 18th Century" and "Ethnolinguistic Distribution in 1900". There are also 28 tables containing quite valuable information on such topics as the estimated deaths of Jews in the region by 1945, and the size of Catholic and Orthodox populations in East Central Europe in 1900. For bibliophiles there is also an excellent bibliography with an especially useful and rare list of atlases and maps relevant to the region. There are, of course, some issues with which one might quibble. For example, the region is very broadly defined as "the lands between the linguistic frontier of the German and Italianspeaking peoples on the west and the political boundaries of the former Soviet Union on the east. The north-south parameters are the Baltic and Mediterranean seas" (P. XI) . These boundaries �120 SLOVAKIA were defined by the editors of the series to which this volume belongs (a multivolume History of East Central Europe published by the University of Washington Press). The author has expanded on the original boundaries to include the eastern part of Germany, Bavaria, Austria, northeastern Italy, historic Poland, Lithuania, Western Ukraine, Moldova and western Anatolia in Turkey! Certainly the author has erred on the conservative side by using such an inclusive and extensive set of bounding definitions. Given the fact that there are almost as many definitions of East Central Europe as there are "specialists" on the region, and that any defined region would have many important interactions with surrounding areas, the decision is an excellent one providing a very comprehensive perspective on an illdefined region, or rather a region on which a consensus would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. It is also possible to argue for themes that are important but omitted. For example, the omission of a section on emigration from this important region to the US and Canada (as well as other countries) is regrettable. This topic would have been particularly interesting for the Slovak and Polish areas. Also, the map of geographic zones is really a map of physiographic zones. A map of the "socio/cultural/linguistic regions" of the East Central Europe would have been much more useful and very interesting. In sum, Magocsi's Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a wonderful and fascinating addition to our educational sources on one of the most troubled and dynamic parts of the world. The cartography is first-rate, and attention to detail is commendable. Anyone, scholar, politican, or interested layperson should add this volume to his/her bookshelf. It is valuable, useful, visually pleasing and reasonably priced. �SLOVAKIA 121 Anton Spiesz. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Bratislava: Perfekt, 1992. Pp. 195. Gregory C. Ference Salisbury State University Salisbury, Maryland The late Anton Spiesz wrote a large number of books prior to the volume under review, most of which concentrated on economic history. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu, however, cannot be counted among this genre. Although economics play a prominent role in this book, it is best characterized as a historical survey of Slovakia. As such the first part of the title would have sufficed; na ceste k sebauvedomeniu misleads the reader, who is hard pressed to find anything about Slovak national awareness prior to chapter six where Spiesz introduced the issue of nationalism. Even though he began the story 200,000 years ago with the first evidence of humans on Slovak territory, the author quickly traversed the millennia. Evidently Spiesz started to write hi s book before the demise of Communism, as at times Marxist rhetoric appears in the study. In an apparent attempt to correct this problem, the author revised the text in several sections to distance himself from this outdated verbiage. Rather than soften the issue, however, it caused the book to become unwieldy in places. Although Spiesz intended it as a general overview of Slovak history, the book assumed too much. Spiesz sometimes failed to properly introduce people, or to explain events or documents, such as the Zilina Agreement of 1938, only mentioning them. Another fault was the author's penchant for lists, whether they were of animals in ancient Slovakia, manufactured goods from the mid-nineteenth century, or pedagogists. �122 SLOVAKIA The book also suffers from some major errors regarding dates. For example, Hungary proclaimed its independence in March 1849, not in 1848, Ladislav the Posthumous acceded to the throne in 1444 rather than in 1453, and the American Slovak organizations of Zivena and the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union were founded in 1891 and 1892, not in 1894 and 1890 as Spiesz noted. Furthermore, in his treatment of the impact of Slovaks in the United States on politics, Spiesz incorrectly stated that both men and women enjoyed equal rights and the franchise before the First World War, and he over emphasized the establishment and role of socialist organizations among American Slovaks. The last chapters are Spiesz's best, providing balanced coverage on how the Communists subverted the political system and the Slovaks in their takeover of Czechoslovakia. He also exploded the Communist myth that the Slovak National Uprising was one of the greatest moments in Slovak history. In the latter instance, the author painted a very brutal picture in which countless innocent people were murdered by the insurgents. Spiesz could have finished his volume on a high note, b~t his final chapter, "From the Building of Socialism to its Bankruptcy," destroyed the seemingly solid effort found in its several preceding sections. Claiming that a historian cannot write effectively and objectively about events unless a period of at least thirty years has elapsed, he merely gave a thumbnail sketch of the period from 1960 to 1989 which included the tumultuous events of the "Prague Spring" and the "Velvet Revolution." An attack on Gustav Husak undeservedly received the most coverage in this four-page chapter. Here, Spiesz appeared to place himself on a soapbox in an attempt to further disavow his connections with the former regime. The author might instead have covered the fast-paced events after 1989 through the date of publication in order to give the reader a sense of closure. �SLOVAKIA 123 Finally, the book has no index which, though not unusual for European publications, would in this case have been indispensable, since Spiesz covered so much in so few pages. On the whole, this book would be appropriate only for someone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of Slovak history. Richard Marsina a kolektfv. Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1993, 334 pp. R. VLADIMIR BAUMGARTEN Tallahassee, Rorida This works represents the first general attempt since the collapse of the communist system in 1989 to reevaluate the history of the Slovak people. As such, it offers surprisingly little that is new or original. Indeed, were it not for the fact that Slovenske dejiny condemns the excesses of communist dictatorship, many of its conclusions would be politicaly acceptable to the deceased Husak regime. The early portion of the book deals with events and developments from which various schools ot thought concerning Slovak historiography have traditionally drawn common conclusions: Slovakia was settled by man since the dawn of history, the Slovaks retained a sense of identity in the Hungarian kingdom, there were embryonic tendencies towards statehood in earlier times, and so on. A subtle change of interpretation may be found in the treatment of the national awakening, specifically concerning the leaders of the 1848 revolution. Earlier Marxist interpretation of the 1848 events portrayed Cudovft Stur and his colleagues as conterrevolutionaries for siding with the Habsburgs against the Hungarians. Later, Slovak historiography during Alexander Dubcek' s tenure as First Secretary of the Slovak �124 SLOVAKIA Communist Party reversed this trend, portraying the Slovak leaders as socially progressive figures. This interpretation was continued throughout the Husak regime. Slovenske dejiny, by contrast, depicts the Slovak leaders in a strictly national rather than a social context. The work concedes that they initially attempted to cooperate with Hungarian leader Lajos Kossuth on questions of social reform, but indicates that a breakdown of relations occured concerning Hungary's national question. One significant, and, in retrospect, surprising change of interpretation concerns the circumstances surrounding the Czecho-Slovak merger of 1918. Communist historiography traditionally regarded the merger as a "bourgeois swindle", in which the Slovak people were treated as colonial subjects until the victory of the working class under Communist leadership rectified relations between two nationalities. Given the pressures of Magyarization at the turn of the century, however, Slovenske dejiny treats pro-Czech sentiment as a positive force. The activities of T. G. Masaryk and the Czecho-Slovak emigres, the exploits of the Czechoslovak Legion on foreign battlefields, and even the career of the extreme Czechophile Vavro Srobar are all cast in a heroic light. No mention is made of the previously lauded Slovak Soviet Republic which was founded on the bayonets of Bela Kun's Hungarian Red Army. This work conveys the impression that, if Czecho-Slovak union in 1918 was not the best of all possible worlds, it was at least a step in the right direction. Slovenske dejiny is critical of Czech centralism in the interwar period, but regards the cultural emancipation of the Slovaks and their economic advancement as positive features. Honorable mention is given to Milan Hodfa's appointment as the first Slovak prime minister of Czechoslovakia. His career might have been given more attention. In spite of a long history of personal opportunism, Hodfa's ideas concerning Central European federalism are still worth studying today. �SLOVAKIA 125 While the work hails the attainment of Slovak autonomy in 1938, subsequent developments are portrayed as negative. Advocates of the rehabilitation of Monsignor Jozef Tiso are particularly bound to be disappointed: the Slovak Republic continues to be regarded as a Nazi puppet state, and the deportation of the Jews is treated in the same simplistic manner, which does not inquire deeper into the divisions of policy among Slovak leaders themselves. The 1944 uprising, correspondingly, is still regarded as a heroic event, notwithstanding the surrounding circumstances or tragic consequences. Surprisingly little attention is given to subsequent developments, perhaps out of sense of caution. It must be noted that, although the book was published in 1993, it was prepared during the previous year, at a time when many Czechs and Slovaks still hoped to maintain a federal republic. It reflects history written during a time of transition, and all the limitations found therein. This work's most revealing feature is a lack of vindictive malice towards the Czechs, a phenomenon which helped assure that the "Velvet Divorce" would not become another Balkanstyle bloodbath. A more comprehensive history, however, remains to be written. Katarina Sultajerova. Compiled by. Najstarsie rody na Slovensku, Martin: Slovenska genealogicko-heraldicka spolocnosr pri Matici slovenskej, 1994, 128 pp. DUNCAN B. GARDINER Lakewood, Ohio This collection of articles is essentialy a scholarly primer of the earliest documented Slovak aristocracy. It consists of papers delivered at the October, 1993 Symposium on the Oldest Line- �126 SLOVAKIA ages in Slovakia, which was co-sponsored by the State Regional Archives in Bratislava, the Archives Section of the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, and by the Slovak Ministries of Culture and the Interior. Jozef Novak, author of the two-volume Rodove erby na Slovensku ( 1986), wrote the preface and the lead article "Genealogia ako historicka disciplfna" , which discuses the importance of genealogy in understanding the early history of Slovakia. He recommends making heraldy and genealogy more valuable to historians by broadening genealogical studies to the geographic spread of a family over time, to the bibliography of published literature on a lineage, and to biographies of prominent individuals in the family. Novak also emphasises the importance of thorough source documentation. Roman Zelenay, the late State Secretary of the Slovak Ministry of Culture, wrote "Genealogicke met6dy vfskumu najstarsfch rodov". He discussed traditional Slovak naming customs dating to the Great Moravian period, showing that despite the lack of surnames, it is possible to establish genealogical betwe~n individuals by analyzing the system by which first names were given. The Battle of Mohacs ( 1526) disrupted the Slovak social order and this earlier naming system with it, a fact which makes post-Mohacs genealogies based on onomastics quite different. Milan Majtan, historian and author of Nazvy obcf na Slovensku za ostatnfch 200 rokov (1972), discusses the historical development of personal and family names in Slovakia in "Vfvin JXJmemivania osob na Slovensku", giving examples of proto-Slavic, pre-Christian and Christian naming traditions. Majtan cites copious examples from a range of early manuscript sources. In "Struktura sl'achty na Slovensku v 9 . - 13. storoci'', Richard Marsina relates that the upper aristocracy in Slovakia consisted of Magyars and Magyarized Slovaks. Therefore, the �SLOVAKIA 127 genealogist and historian must look to the lesser nobility within each of the old countries to study the prominent Slovak lineages. Vincent Mucska's "Anonymovo dielo ako genealogickf pramen'""' takes a critical look at the twelfth-century "gesta". He dismisses it as a source of concrete historic or genealogical fact. "Panovnicka dynastia v JO. - 11. storocl" by Ladislav Vrtel' chronicles in some detail the families of the two sons of Takson, a granson of Arpad, the first Magyar leader, showing their quite different fates. Nine more articles, written by wel-known historians, deal with the earliest aristocratic families of individual counties: Saris and Uz by Ferdinand Ulicny; Spis by Ivan Chalupecky; Turiec, Liptov and Orava by Jan Benko; Trencfn by Richard Marsina; Bratislava by Vincent Sedlak; Nitra by Jan Lukacka; Zvolen by Maria Durk ova; and Malohont by Leon Sokolovsky. Each article is in Slovak with a short summary in English or, in several cases, German. The English summaries are readable, but the number of typographical and gramatical errors show that a native English-speaking editor was needed. Short biographies of the authors would have been most useful. The articles are based both on original research and the literature in the field in a number of languages: Polish, German, French, Hungarian, Latin. The Genealogical-Heraldic Society has single-handedly placed Slovakia on the genealogical map by publishing the Hlas, a twice-yearly journal of genealogy and heraldry and by organizing local genealogy groups, not only in Martin, but also in Bratislava, Kosice, and Trencfn. The founding of this society is connected with the fact that the authors of the Slovenskf biografickf slovmk (6 vols., Matica slovenska, 1986 - 1994), aware that the 19th-century Slovak intelligentsia was related by a complex series of intermarriages, have wanted to investigate �128 SLOVAKIA their genealogies for some time. This volume is an admirable contribution to that effort. Dejiny SJXJlocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku: 1561 - 1988. Emil Krapka, S. J. and Vojtech Mikula, S. J. - editors: Cambridge, Ontario: Dobra kniha, 1990, 526 pp. and 24 pp. of color illustrations. GERALD J. SABO, S. J. John Carroll University University Heights, Ohio This is a historical survey of the Jesuits and their activities in the Slovak area, part of the 1990 celebration of the Society of Jesus on the 450th anniversary of its papal approval. As noted on the bibliographic page, this monograph was prepared between the fall of 1986 and that of 198 8, before the so-called "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989. Its two editors and eight authors have presented much interesting material to a Slovak-reading public which lacked substantive, accurate information on a religious order important in Slovak history and culture since the sixteenth century. In the main body are a good number of black and white illustrations, supplemented with sixty-four color ones for Slovakia and ten related to Slovak Jesuit activity in Canada. This extensive history is probably unique among such writing, and given the circumstances under which it was realised, all those involved deserve much praise and gratitude. The monograph is divided into five major parts. The first four comprise the Jesuits' history from 1561 with their first establishment in Tmava and on through 1988. The first part of the history covers the time period through 1615, the second, through the suppression of the Jesuit order in 1773, the third, the �SLOVAKIA 129 order's suppression and its effect in the Slovak portion of the Hungarian Kingdom, and the fourth, the context of the Society's universal restoration and its work among Slovaks at home and beyond from 1853 through 1988. The second and fourth parts together comprise two-thirds of the entire work. A major part usually begins with the larger European and Church background in which the Slovak events arose and evolved, and then Slovakrelated material is divided according to geographical locations and pastoral/apostolic activity. The fifth and final part of this history includes a chronological summary of important events among Jesuits of this area, an explanation of religious and Jesuit terminology, a substantial bibliography on the Society at large and in the Slovak area, name and place indexes, and summaries in Slovak, English, German, French, and Magyar. Twice in this history, Jesuits suffered dramatically at the hands of civil authorities. In 1773, Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa was finally impelled to supress legally the Society of Jesus in her realm from fear that if she did not do so, her daughter Marie Antoinette would not be allowed to marry the future French King, Louis XVI. Louis was a Bourbon, member of a royal family that strove mightily to eradicate throughout their European and foreign realms that "least" Society of Jesus for its greater loyalty to Church than state. Yet the Jesuits came back and thrived, just as they do today after their far more brutal suppression and persecution under the Communists between April, 1950 and the revolution of November, 1989. At present, Slovakia is a democratic, sovereign country, and publications such as the Dejiny need to showcase its role in European history and culture. Yet certain features of the Dejiny significantly limit its valuable effect and should be remedied. Prepared for a wide-ranging public conversant in Slovak, this work would also be of great interest to many others, whether general readers or scholars, who do not read Slovak, yet for �130 SLOVAKIA whom the summaries in languages other then Slovak are woefully inadequate. For this much wider audience, the Dejiny should be translated into English, the current lingua franca. Further, the lack of any documentation in notes is a serious limitation, yet nowadays such material could be collected within a reasonable time. This data is needed to provide crucial scholarship about Jesuits in Slovak territory and beyond which is available nowhere else. The activities of these Jesuits, mostly Slovak yet also of other nationalities, have remained hidden from appreciation even in Jesuit publications. For instance, in English-language studies of the Jesuits, the activities and influence of the universities in Trnava and Kosice - cities often disguised behind their German or Magyar names - are briefly mentioned, if that. No mention at all is made of the Slovak Benedikt Szollosi, compiler of the first Catholic hymnal Cantus catholici with songs in Latin and "Cultural Slovak". No more fortunate has been the Slovak Martin Szentivanyi, whose varied writings, encyclopedic studies, and very able directorship of the Trnava University press contributed significantly to Slovak history, culture, and language development. Also unknown among English readers is the Slovak Samuel Timon, whose writings made him a pioneer in scholarly Slovak historiography. Nor is Jesuit history in Slovak territory better known in other Western languages. For instance, nearly fourty years ago the Magyar Jesuit Laszl6 Lukacs wrote in German about the Jesuit Antonio Possevino's papal mission to establish a network of seminaries and schools in northern Europe in the late sixteenth century, but nothing was said about any Slovak area plans or effects. The Dejiny, though, discusses Posse vino's mission and its effects in re-establishing Jesuits there, as well as many other points not found outside of Slovaklanguage publications. Yet how is a general reader or scholar to appreciate the important Jesuit role and contributions to Slovak �SLOVAKIA 131 history, culture, and society, if he is unable to read this history, or is even unaware that it exists? Clearly, the Dejiny cannot remain a hidden Slovak treasure. Indeed, the Slovak Jesuits have an obligation to make the Dejiny with proper documentation known and accessible to a non-Slovak-reading public. They must present themselves before the world and not simply in the Slovak heart of Europe. Otherwise, a part of Slovakia, its culture, history, people, and achievements will remain concealed behind a language that few in today's world will bother to learn even for reading. James Ramon Felak. "At the Price of the Republic." Hlinka's Slovak People's Party,1929-1938. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994, xiv & 263 p. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM York University, Glendon College Czechoslovakia is a state that broke up twice in its seventyfour year history: the fust time it was under the pressure of international events and on the eve of a world war, the second in the aftermath of democratic elections. The fust break-up has been mired in controversy, due not only to the circumstances surrounding it, but above all to the responsibility that is often ascribed to the Slovak People's Party (SPP) for bringing about that outcome. James Felak's study looks at this party, in particular during the decade that precedes the fust break-up. There are very few studies of Slovak politics in the first Czechoslovak Republic (CSR), fewer still that offer an in depth examination of the role and policies of the main parties that influenced and shaped inter-war Slovak political life. The handful of monographs that have been written on Slovakia in the first �132 SLOVAKIA CSR, or indeed on the first CSR itself, have generally looked at how the "Slovak question" has contributed to, been responsible for, or unable to prevent its break-up. It would not be inaccurate to say that most take a position for (the Czechoslovak and Marxist approach) or against (the nationalist Slovak approach) the first CSR; very few seek to examine the question from the dynamics of Czech-Slovak relations as did Carol Skalnik Leff in National Conflict in Czechoslovakia. The Making and Remaking of a State, 1918-1987 (1988), or from the challenges a multinational state faces when dealing with its constituent nations and national minorities. Felak's study fills some of the gaps in our knowledge of Slovak inter-war political life, but, regretfully, it does little to advance our understanding of it. Of the seven chapters that present the Hlinka Slovak People's Party, five offer a relatively detailed examination of its policies for the decade that begins with the Depression. The first chapter presents a rapid and, unfortunately, superficial overview of Slovak nationalism until 1929 whereas the second outlines in detail the party's ideology and programme. The remaining chapters are divided according to certain events that mark a change of fortune or direction for the party. The author looks in depth at some of the more important ones, such as the Tuka affair of 1929, the 1929 and 1935 elections, the 1931 Slovak orthography dispute, the 1933 Pribina celebrations, the different party congresses, in particular the Youth Congress of 1932 and that of 1936, and the 1938 Pittsburgh Pact celebration, all of which marked Slovak political life. Equally useful and interesting are his descriptions of the SPP platform at different times and the relations with other Czech and Slovak political parties and formations. As for the various leading personalities, Andrej Hlinka, Vojtech Tuka, Karol Sidor, and Jozef Tiso, among others, the author seeks to give a sense of their role and importance in the development of SPP policies. In sum, most of the �SLOVAKIA 133 book offers a detailed examination of the role of the SPP in an important decade in Slovak political life and is in this respect a contribution to the existing literature. The main problem with this study lies in its approach to the subject. This is due not only to too great a reliance on certain earlier studies, but above all to the indiscriminate use of police reports as authoritative sources of political analysis. In fairness to the author, he makes an attempt to present a balanced approach on the "Slovak question". Yet the language he uses clearly indicates that he identifies with and accepts generally the interpretations of those authors who have a Czechoslovak view ?f Slovak history, a view that is mostly negative toward the Slovaks and uncritically favourable toward Czechoslovakia. For example he refers to Slovakia as "relatively underdeveloped, politically, economically, socially, culturally, and nationally" (p. 17) or describes Hlinka as having a "parochial, clerical mentality that resembled that of a Slovak peasant." (p. 25) In addition, like earlier authors, his examination of Prague policies toward Slovakia and toward the SPP, is at best cursory and certainly not critical. On occasion one gets the feeling from his presentation that there was a specific Prague-SPP dynamic, yet there is little analysis of the reasons for and the consequences of Prague policies, only of the SPP reactions and actions. For example, Prague exercized censorship on the SPP press to such an extent that in 1938, when the government was considering the possibility of a coaliton with the SPP, one of that party's conditions was the lifting of that censorship. Equally problematic is the reliance on police reports as a research source. The fact that the Prague government felt it necessary to have police spies within the SPP is in itself a fact worth examining, not to say anything of the accuracy of these reports. The emphasis that Felak places on factional struggles within the SPP comes mostly from these reports. That the police �134 SLOVAKIA spies reported such struggles is not in the least bit surprising; it was in the government's interest to be able to neutralize an opposition party that Pelak on many occasions describes as the most important one in Slovakia. Also, there is nothing surprising about factional differences; this is a fact of life in political parties in all democratic states. But in this case, the factionalism represented the dilemmas the SPP faced in its twin objectives: the autonomy of Slovakia and the integrity and security of Czechoslovakia. The failure of Prague to have understood this and to have dealt with it adequately was paid, in the end, "at the price of the republic." For all its richness about the SPP, Felak's examination of its policies is nevertheless incomplete; on the other hand, it has the merit of provoking additional questions and showing the way for further study. Hope Dies Last, The Autobiogra]Xly of Alexander Dubcek. Edited and translated by Jin Hochman. New York: Kodansha America, Inc., 1993. 354 pp. ROBERT K. EV ANSON Uni versify of Missouri Kansas City The automobile accident of September 1, 1992, which led to Alexander Dubcek's death nine weeks later, robbed Slovakia of one of its most distinguished political leaders. Whether Dubcek could have played a vital role in shaping the politics of an independent Slovakia will never be known. What is certain, and what we are reminded of in this fascinating autobiography excellently edited and translated by Jin Hochman - is that he did establish for himself a place of lasting historical importance. �SLOVAKIA 135 It seems necessary to say this because, as Dubcek himself was aware, there is insufficient appreciation among many of today's young Slovaks and Czechs of what he and his fellow "reform Communists" attempted to do in the 1960s. It remains for historians to sort out the difficult issue of just how much impact the Prague Spring had on the subsequent course of Czechoslovak politics that ended ultimately in the demise of the country's neo-Stalinist regime twenty-one years later, but clearly the impact was significant.The Prague Spring, which Dubcek more than anyone else helped to shape, set an example for democratic aspirations that resurfaced in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s. It also was an obvious model for some of Gorbachev's policies in -the 1980s. The Soviet suppression of the reform movement also created deep wounds of alienation among Czechs and Slovaks towards the USSR and the post-1968 regime that never healed. Ironically, both Dubcek and the Soviets were correct in their 1968 dialogue, Dubcek in warning the Soviets of the need to better understand how many Czechs and Slovaks viewed the old regime as an unnatural entity, and the Soviets in recognizing the degree to which Dubcek's reform movement threatened the very foundations of Leninist rule in Eastern Europe. Dubcek's autobiography begins appropriately with his early years, and an examination of that period of his life teaches us a great deal about why he acted as he did in his maturity. It is difficult not to admire the man, and this book, which is not egregiously self-serving, merely strengthens that attitude. Several aspects of character and personality come to mind - decency, courage, political shrewdness, and a trust and idealism that were at once his greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses. We find him as a teenager in Kirghizia defending young Muslims against bullying by his fellow Czechs and Slovaks, and after World War Two pressing relentlessly for the release from the Soviet Gulag of a physician who had treated the injured Dubcek �136 SLOVAKIA during the Uprising; it was a small moral step to his passionate commitment to the complete rehabilitation of all political prisoners in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. In 1952, in the wake of the Shinsky trial and at the height of the terror, he cast aside a Soviet-censored version of a speech and instead delivered a ringing eulogy at the funeral of fellow Communist Karol Smidke, who had been a victim of the persecution. He stood up for the reforms in the face of immense Soviet pressure throughout 1968, acted honorably after his abduction to Moscow following the Soviet and allied invasion, refused to take the safety of exile because he thought his proper place was with his people, and sent off a stream of letters of protest long after his removal from power at considerable personal risk. Dubcek also was a very clever and careful political tactician. Some of the most fascinating passages in his book concern the way he built alliances in his ultimately successful effort to bring down Communist Party First Secretary Antonin Novotny in 1967. I would like to have read even more details about conversations he had with various political figures in this process, as well as about the way he blunted Novotny's efforts to consign him to political oblivion in 1962, but there still is plenty to captivate anyone with a taste for Prague-style Kremlinology. The period of the early 1960s is especially interesting in this book, because Dubcek discusses the first signs of the movement against neo-Stalinism and Prague centralism, including his election over Novotny's opposition to the position of Slovak Communist Party First Secretary in April, 1963. This event represented a stinging defeat for Novotny, because Dubcek already had established himself as the leading advocate for sweeping rehabilitation of the victims of the purges of so-called "Slovak bourgeois nationalists" in the early 1950s. As such, he had become the major opponent of Prague centralism in the Party leadership. �SLOVAKIA 137 While Dubcek was never foolhardy, he could be surprisingly bold. An interesting illustration of this was his successful ploy with Jin Hendrych, the number two man in the Party hierarchy in 1967 and, until then, a staunch Novotny loyalist. Sensing that Hendrych was beginning to vacillate in his commitment to Novotny, Dubcek walked into his office that late November and said that Novotny's days as First Secretary clearly were numbered, and that Hendrych might consider getting on the bandwagon or he too would fall. As an added enticement, he invited the startled Hendrych to consider whether he would like Novotny's job as First Secretary! The amusing climax of this story is that shortly thereafter, Leonid Brezhnev came to Prague to assess Novotny's prospects and naturally sought out Hendrych's opinion. Reportedly, Brezhnev barely got inside the door when Hendrych told him he was "willing" to serve as First Secretary. While Hendrych never got the chance - Dubcek succeeded Novotny - his abandonment of Novotny may have persuaded Brezhnev of the futility of a rescue operation. The most painful reading in this book is the period of the mounting Soviet hostility to the Prague Spring and the ultimate invasion and subsequent period of "normalization." It is impossible not to become angry all over again when one reads of the treatment Dubcek and his comrades received at the hands of their Soviet kidnappers, as well as the incredible pettiness and maliciousness of their successors in Prague and Bratislava. While Dubcek does not cast a great deal of new light on the events of 1968, he minces no words in assessing various political figures and spares no criticism of his worst tormentors. Thus we learn that Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin was as cold in private as in public and capable of extreme rudeness. He and his Soviet comrades are rightly dismissed by Dubcek as "gangsters" and "thugs." Novotny is confirmed as hopelessly ignorant of Slovak affairs, as well as contemptuous toward Slovak national �138 SLOVAKIA feelings, one of the keys to his ultimate demise. Dubcek also brands Vasil Bifak, Alois Indra, and the other conspirators of 1968 as "traitors." No one comes across worse, however, than Gustav Husak, who presided over the restoration of neo-Stalinism in Czechoslovakia. His shabby treatment of Dubcek after 1968, despite Dubcek's pivotal role in bringing about his political resurrection, is a sad counter to the courage he displayed when fighting for his own rehabilitation in the early 1960s. Despite the claims that he "protected" the ousted reformers from "hardliners" in the Party, Husak comes across here as a man incapable of normal feelings and as a complete opportunist. Naturally Dubcek was bitter about Husak, but the tone of his evaluations of Husak and other political figures is in fact measured and convincing. No discussion of Dubcek's political career would be complete without addressing his failure to discern the danger of a Soviet invasion in 1968. Part of the answer may lie in his family background. He was born in 1921 to a pair of committed socialists who were so enamored of the Soviet experiment that they were willing to relocate to Central Asia to help build a new society. At the same time, his parents had the good sense to return to Czechoslovakia when the dangers of remaining in the Soviet Union became obvious. Nonetheless, Dubcek never abandoned the socialist idealism he inherited from them. While he certainly understood the evils of Stalinism and the incompatibility of the Soviet-type system with Czech and Slovak traditions, he had a blind spot that served him poorly in 1968. Specifically, despite all the Soviet expressions of alarm about what he and his fellow reformers were doing, he could not bring himself to believe the USSR would intervene. There is no question Dubcek had evolved into a democrat and was aware of what he was doing. He writes that the Action Program put forth by Party reformers in 1968 "was a plan for a gradual return to �SLOVAKIA 139 the concept of democratic socialism ... " He acknowledges that his regime was rejecting various aspects of Leninism - he believed that the Communist Party could win popular support in competitive elections, once it had embraced democracy, and thus he downplayed the Soviet concern that his reforms were jeopardizing "the leading role of the party." At the same time, he knew he had to avoid making any references to multi-party democracy for fear of alarming them unnecessarily. He also believed that "socialism could function better in a market-oriented environment, with significant elements of private enterprise." He writes that of course he recalled what happened to Hungary in 1956, but he had made clear to the Soviets his determination that Czechoslovakia would remain loyal to its Soviet bloc allies, so the situations were not comparable. Perhaps it was due to his conviction that what he and his colleagues were doing would benefit socialism by strengthening the Communist Party's legitimacy among the people, and by bringing the country closer to the original ideals of socialism, that he could not believe that the Soviet leadership would not, however reluctantly, allow him to proceed. (In a postscript, Jiff Hochman notes Dubcek's inclination to believe in people's good intentions.) In fairness, it is difficult to fault Dubcek very much had he opted for concessions, it seems unlikely that the Soviet leadership would have accepted anything short of a complete abandonment of the democratization process to which he had committed his country. Still, his discussion of how he assessed the Soviet mindset at the time is not entirely satisfactory. Alexander Dubcek's autobiography is a thoughtful and wellwritten account of the life of a man of extraordinary moral and political qualities. It is indispensable reading for anyone with an interest in the Czechoslovak political experience. �140 SLOVAKIA Paul Robert Magocsi. The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey. New York: East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1993, x, 185 pp., Maps, Notes, Bibliography, Index. KEITH P. DYRUD Concordia College St. Paul,MN The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey is essentially a revision of an earlier work by Prof. Magocsi, The RusynUkrainians of Czechoslovakia: An Historical Survey (Vienna, 1981 ). But there is an additional twist to this revision. The "Preface" says: ''This volume is a translation of an introductory historical survey published in the newly codified Rusyn literary language as well as in Slovak by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Presov." Prof. Magocsi played a leading role in the formation of the national movement that spawned the Rusyn Renaissance Society and the First World Congress of Rusyns that sponsored the codification of the Rusyn literary language. The professor, however, is modest. His name does not once appear in the text in connection with that activity; however, he is pictured with other leaders of the First World Congress of Rusyns (122). The contents of the book should be familiar to those have read the author's earlier works. Magocsi traces the Rusyns' history from their first settlement in eastern Slovakia to the present. He partially assumes and partially attempts to demonstrate that the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia form a distinct nationality. Magocsi documents the cooperation that existed between the Rusyns and the Slovaks while they were dominated by Hungary prior to 1914, but he is critical of the "slovakization" of the Rusyns between the world wars, and he also identifies the �SLOVAKIA 141 Ukrainian movement as a threat to the Rusyn national identity that the book clearly endorses. During the inter-war yars slovakization was a greater threat to the Rusyns than "ukrainianization", but after the Second World War, official government support for the Ukrainian identity led to a decline of any national consciousness. Many Rusyns identified themselves as Slovaks to avoid the Ukrainian label. After the "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989, the Rusyns in the Presov region were again free to publicly promote their own national identity as separate from either Slovak or Ukrainian. In this effort, the Rusyns received support from both the Prague and the Bratislava governments. Magocsi suggests that this support for the Rusyns harkens back to "the historical friendship and attention on the part of Czechs and Slovaks toward their Rusyn brethren ... " (126). It could also suggest that the number of people identifying themselves as Rusyns is now very small and the Rusyn movement is not likely to become a major competitor to the Slovak identity in eastern Slovakia. In fact the major problem with Prof. Magocsi 's interpretation of the Rusyn movement in estem Slovakia is his confidence that the small number of Rusyns can develop a national identity. He is dissatisfied with the 1991 census figures that identify fewer than 33,000 "Rusnak/Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian" people in the Presov region, with just under 17,000 of them unambiguously identifying themselves as "Rusyn" ( 126). According to Magocsi, that number could potentially be as high as 130 000 (2 - 3). Many readers of Magocsi's first book: The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus', 1848 - 1948 (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) were persuaded by his convincing argument that the Rusyns in Subcarpathia did, at least, "shape" a national identity during the inter-war years. But in that era, he was dealing with a larger critical mass of Rusyns. In eastern Slovakia, that critical mass does not seem to exist. With the Slovaks claiming �142 SLOVAKIA most of those 130,000 potential Rusyns, and the Ukrainians competing for the rest, it does not seem likely that the critical mass will develop. In the meantime, those who do identify themselves as Rusyns can read their history in their own "newly codified language". And those who identify themselves as Slovaks can also read the translation in their language just as Rusyns in North America can read it in English. Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout the World: A Demographic and Sociological Guide to the Homeland and Its Diaspora. Edited by Ann Lencyk Pawliczko. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press for the Shevchenko Scientific Society, 1994, xxxvi, 508 pp. PAUL R. MAGOCSI University of Toronto The goal of this volume is to provide brief factual data on Ukrainians wherever they may live in the world. The newlyindependent country of Ukraine has within its borders only 64 percent of the estimated 58.7 million inhabitants who inhabit various parts of the globe. Therefore, a history or description of the Ukrainian people as a whole must be concerned with many other places than Ukraine. This book in fact deals primarily with the estimated 21.2 million Ukrainians living outside Ukraine. The approach is comprehensive, with an effort to say something about communities, however small they may be, in places like Luxembourg, Ireland, Tunisia and New Zealand as well as in the more known countries of Ukrainian immigrant settlement like the United States, Canada, and Australia. �SLOVAKIA 143 The editor, Ann Lencyk Pawliczko, felt the need to trace the political and cultural history of Ukraine (pp. 37 - 84), which is the least satisfactory portion of this otherwise encyclopedic compendium. The rest of the volume consists of entries by 28 authors on the various countries where Ukrainians live. Each entry begins with a general overview of a specific country followed by a history of its Ukrainian community. Many entries include statistical charts and each ends with a list of further readings. Slovak readers will likely be interested in the entry called "Ukrainian-Ruthenians in the Slovak Republic", written by Vasyl Markus (pp. 157 - 166). While the author recognizes the enormous cultural achievements made by the Ukrainians in Slovakia after World War II, he does not attribute the achievements to the favorable policies of the former Czechoslovak Communist government that lavished extensive funding on the group, but rather to the efforts of the local Ukrainian-oriented intelligentsia. He claimes that the official census figures (30,800 Rusyns and Ukrainians in 1991) are far below the 110,000 to 120,000 that supposedly live in northeastern Slovakia. Markus argues the statistical discrepancy exists because of manipulation by Slovak census takers and a policy of "denationalization" carried out by both the former Communist and post-1989 governments in Slovakia. He does not mention the real reason for the numerical differences. Since the 1950s thousands of "Ukrainians-Ruthenians" voluntarily opted to identify as Slovaks in protest against Communist government decrees that banned the Rusyn national identity and required people to call themselves Ukrainian. The author also indirectly blames Slovak governments for responding favorably since 1989 to the Rusyn national revival and for allowing people in the 1991 census to identify with the Rusyn nationality (16,937 Rusyns as opposed to 13,847 Ukrainians) and with the Rusyn language (49,099 Rusyn speakers as opposed to 9,480 Ukrainian speakers) - the latter �144 SLOVAKIA figures are not provided by Markus. The otherwise democratic policies of present-day Slovakia are described as promoting "political Ruthenianism" a phenomenon that is "influenced by outside anti-Ukrainian forces" and that is intent on de-Ukrainianizing the local population. Fortunately, the rest of this volume maintains a less biased tone in describing Ukrainian communities in other countries. Nina Trnka: Slovak-English I English-Slovak Dictionary, N. Y., Hippocrene Books, 1992, 360 pp. JOHN M. KOCHIK Scottsdale, Anizona Any contribution to the field of Slovak reference materials is always welcome. Attempts at popularization are encouradged only to the extent that a work demonstrates quality. Standards, of course, should always be high to reflect the expertise of the _ contributor. The backcover boasts "You are holding the only SlovakEnglish/English-Slovak Dictionary available in North America". What about Smejkalova et al.? The book is intended for "students and travelers", and claims to be "concise". For all its advertising pretense, its format is disappointing. It looks like a thesis. It lacks an Introduction which it sorely needs for efficient use. It omits a separating page (175) between the two major divisions for facile access, wherein an appropriate blank page or second title page would suffice. Pronunciation (pages i through iii) is confusing. The list of consonants is incomplete, not accounting for - among others important palatals d', I, ii, ( used in too many words to be ignored. As immediate as page one, there is no knowing how ''t~' �SLOVAKIA 145 in "akost' must be pronounced according to her presentation. Questions arise as to "studi'ia" (123) and "studna" (353 - see "well")? Why then "anP' (2) gives [a-nyi], or "odev" (71) [odyef]? How then distinguish cited "Javica" (44) from un-cited "/avica" - "left hand"? Equating long "6" with "6" in Pronunciation is erroneous, being that the latter "6" is diphotong [.u.o]. The remarks in Pronunciation are unclear and inadequate. The uninitiated will render Slovak pronunciation ludicrous. Examples provided are ambiguous for articulation of varietes of vowel "a", because speakers of American-English are inconsistent in their renditions of "a" in cited forms "ma-ma, fast, rat, grass, pad". To present digraph "ch" as aspirated [kh] in "khaki" (sic!) is not true for the guttural [)c]. And, to state that Slovak "r' is approximated by labial untrilled "r' of "red" - bellies the trilled "r' performed by the tongue. Transcription in Pronunciation is defective, since the symbols given are arbitrary, not in accord either with the conventions of Slovak texts or even the International Phonetic System. A hard look at the symbols presented defies logic. Examples follow. Since Standard Slovak (i. e. spisovna slovencina) utilizes digraph "dz" as the phone in medzi and other words - to employ "dz' as a symbol for English pronunciation of th [b] of "they" is incomprehensible! In like manner, use of [s] for [0] of "thank" produces comic theatrical effect as in [Sank you] for [Sank you]! Moreover, to present the nasal-guttural -ng [ri] of "long" as underlined [g] can be misinterpreted into a humorous exagerated liaison of oft-quoted misquoted "LoNGJsland" with defined [NGJ]. �146 SLOVAKIA Further examination into the deficiencies given in Pronunciation would require a complete revision after careful editing. So far only the unavoidable pitfalls have been critiqued. Editorial work appears lax or nonexistent as evidenced by "thruth" (sic! page ii), presumably "truth". And, "heith" (sic! page 158) following vyska and page 244, apparently meant to be "height"). In both citings of "heith", consistency seems to demonstrate persistent misspelling. There is an unexpected thrust from V (350) into W (351) without a notification-heading W. As for word-selection, it might be hoped that high-frequency was a criterion for efficiency. On the contrary, superfluous are words among others like "elephant" (222), "volcano" (350), "yacht" (358), "zebra" (359) - scarcely indigenous to Slovakia! Yet the word kamzik (36?) "chamois" (198?) indigenous to the Tatras finds no listing in either section. Why "warden" (351) is given makes one wonder of its sociological implications. Why is "warrant" (351) so important to find place here? Surely one expects utilitarian vocabulary in such a work. As for semantics, a first-hand impression might be that if several meanings are provided without explanation or definition - an indiscriminate interchange might be possible. Not so for automat (3) "slot-machine, snack-bar, machine-gun". Thus also for "minister" (268) "minister, vyslanec, duchovnf" mean different things. Each having a distinct, specific meaning. It is most unlikely that "students and travelers" will discern clearly which term fits which circumstance. Cross-references are not provided for necessary clarification. See "warm" (351) ...srdecnf... for which neither "cordial" (206?) nor "sincerely" (315) are given on expected pages in parentheses. In similar manner, aktiv (1) "meeting, gathering" makes no reference or distinction from "meeting" (266) schodza, stretnutie. �SLOVAKIA 147 Perusal of the text will result in startling revelations. For instance, pronunciation of odJXJr (72) gives [od-por], whereas in fact it is [ot-por], a morphophonetic alternation called regressive assimilation. Where the voiced d automatically becomes unvoiced/devoiced t, in harmony with unvoiced p which sets the condition for the process. The same phenomenon occurs in other instances like odstup (72) to [ot-stup], bezplatny (6) to [bes-platnee], modlitba and prosba for "prayer" (289) not given in the text as [mod-lit-ba] and [proz-ba]. Interesting to note is that word-final voiced consonants are given as de-voiced as in smrad (116) [smrat]. However, no account has been made of v as a semi-vowel [IJ.] in such words as pravda (92) [prau.da], rovno (105) [rouno], domov (18) [domo.1J.]; instead, Czech ussage [domof] (18) is presented. Two outstanding examples given: [svatba] (125) for svadba and ['strukh] (101) for pstruh are unintelligible. For all the effort involved in the production of this Dictionary, it is unfortunate that it should fall short of the desired quality expected. In spite of the good intentions of the contributor, the end result is full of inconsistencies and inadequacies. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document REVIEWS SLOVAKIA 119 Paul Robert Magocsi (with cartographic design by Geoffrey J. Matthews). Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, 218 pages. GEORGE J. DEMKO Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire The Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a truly outstanding and valuable book. The combination of professionally and accurately rendered maps, and the accompanying text that is written with authority, accuracy and clarity represent a rich source of information on an important part of the world. The atlas is comprised of 50 sections, each with maps (in color) and related explanatory text. The themes are varied and arranged chronologically starting from A.D. 400 to the present. The final section incorporates the most recent political changes that have occurred in the region. The themes begin with the geographic zones and continue with subjects such as ecclesiastical jurisdiction, population and migrations to recent industrial development. Some of the themes are quite innovative and useful such as "Education and Culture through the 18th Century" and "Ethnolinguistic Distribution in 1900". There are also 28 tables containing quite valuable information on such topics as the estimated deaths of Jews in the region by 1945, and the size of Catholic and Orthodox populations in East Central Europe in 1900. For bibliophiles there is also an excellent bibliography with an especially useful and rare list of atlases and maps relevant to the region. There are, of course, some issues with which one might quibble. For example, the region is very broadly defined as "the lands between the linguistic frontier of the German and Italianspeaking peoples on the west and the political boundaries of the former Soviet Union on the east. The north-south parameters are the Baltic and Mediterranean seas" (P. XI) . These boundaries 120 SLOVAKIA were defined by the editors of the series to which this volume belongs (a multivolume History of East Central Europe published by the University of Washington Press). The author has expanded on the original boundaries to include the eastern part of Germany, Bavaria, Austria, northeastern Italy, historic Poland, Lithuania, Western Ukraine, Moldova and western Anatolia in Turkey! Certainly the author has erred on the conservative side by using such an inclusive and extensive set of bounding definitions. Given the fact that there are almost as many definitions of East Central Europe as there are "specialists" on the region, and that any defined region would have many important interactions with surrounding areas, the decision is an excellent one providing a very comprehensive perspective on an illdefined region, or rather a region on which a consensus would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. It is also possible to argue for themes that are important but omitted. For example, the omission of a section on emigration from this important region to the US and Canada (as well as other countries) is regrettable. This topic would have been particularly interesting for the Slovak and Polish areas. Also, the map of geographic zones is really a map of physiographic zones. A map of the "socio/cultural/linguistic regions" of the East Central Europe would have been much more useful and very interesting. In sum, Magocsi's Historical Atlas of East Central Europe is a wonderful and fascinating addition to our educational sources on one of the most troubled and dynamic parts of the world. The cartography is first-rate, and attention to detail is commendable. Anyone, scholar, politican, or interested layperson should add this volume to his/her bookshelf. It is valuable, useful, visually pleasing and reasonably priced. SLOVAKIA 121 Anton Spiesz. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Bratislava: Perfekt, 1992. Pp. 195. Gregory C. Ference Salisbury State University Salisbury, Maryland The late Anton Spiesz wrote a large number of books prior to the volume under review, most of which concentrated on economic history. Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu, however, cannot be counted among this genre. Although economics play a prominent role in this book, it is best characterized as a historical survey of Slovakia. As such the first part of the title would have sufficed; na ceste k sebauvedomeniu misleads the reader, who is hard pressed to find anything about Slovak national awareness prior to chapter six where Spiesz introduced the issue of nationalism. Even though he began the story 200,000 years ago with the first evidence of humans on Slovak territory, the author quickly traversed the millennia. Evidently Spiesz started to write hi s book before the demise of Communism, as at times Marxist rhetoric appears in the study. In an apparent attempt to correct this problem, the author revised the text in several sections to distance himself from this outdated verbiage. Rather than soften the issue, however, it caused the book to become unwieldy in places. Although Spiesz intended it as a general overview of Slovak history, the book assumed too much. Spiesz sometimes failed to properly introduce people, or to explain events or documents, such as the Zilina Agreement of 1938, only mentioning them. Another fault was the author's penchant for lists, whether they were of animals in ancient Slovakia, manufactured goods from the mid-nineteenth century, or pedagogists. 122 SLOVAKIA The book also suffers from some major errors regarding dates. For example, Hungary proclaimed its independence in March 1849, not in 1848, Ladislav the Posthumous acceded to the throne in 1444 rather than in 1453, and the American Slovak organizations of Zivena and the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union were founded in 1891 and 1892, not in 1894 and 1890 as Spiesz noted. Furthermore, in his treatment of the impact of Slovaks in the United States on politics, Spiesz incorrectly stated that both men and women enjoyed equal rights and the franchise before the First World War, and he over emphasized the establishment and role of socialist organizations among American Slovaks. The last chapters are Spiesz's best, providing balanced coverage on how the Communists subverted the political system and the Slovaks in their takeover of Czechoslovakia. He also exploded the Communist myth that the Slovak National Uprising was one of the greatest moments in Slovak history. In the latter instance, the author painted a very brutal picture in which countless innocent people were murdered by the insurgents. Spiesz could have finished his volume on a high note, b~t his final chapter, "From the Building of Socialism to its Bankruptcy," destroyed the seemingly solid effort found in its several preceding sections. Claiming that a historian cannot write effectively and objectively about events unless a period of at least thirty years has elapsed, he merely gave a thumbnail sketch of the period from 1960 to 1989 which included the tumultuous events of the "Prague Spring" and the "Velvet Revolution." An attack on Gustav Husak undeservedly received the most coverage in this four-page chapter. Here, Spiesz appeared to place himself on a soapbox in an attempt to further disavow his connections with the former regime. The author might instead have covered the fast-paced events after 1989 through the date of publication in order to give the reader a sense of closure. SLOVAKIA 123 Finally, the book has no index which, though not unusual for European publications, would in this case have been indispensable, since Spiesz covered so much in so few pages. On the whole, this book would be appropriate only for someone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of Slovak history. Richard Marsina a kolektfv. Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1993, 334 pp. R. VLADIMIR BAUMGARTEN Tallahassee, Rorida This works represents the first general attempt since the collapse of the communist system in 1989 to reevaluate the history of the Slovak people. As such, it offers surprisingly little that is new or original. Indeed, were it not for the fact that Slovenske dejiny condemns the excesses of communist dictatorship, many of its conclusions would be politicaly acceptable to the deceased Husak regime. The early portion of the book deals with events and developments from which various schools ot thought concerning Slovak historiography have traditionally drawn common conclusions: Slovakia was settled by man since the dawn of history, the Slovaks retained a sense of identity in the Hungarian kingdom, there were embryonic tendencies towards statehood in earlier times, and so on. A subtle change of interpretation may be found in the treatment of the national awakening, specifically concerning the leaders of the 1848 revolution. Earlier Marxist interpretation of the 1848 events portrayed Cudovft Stur and his colleagues as conterrevolutionaries for siding with the Habsburgs against the Hungarians. Later, Slovak historiography during Alexander Dubcek' s tenure as First Secretary of the Slovak 124 SLOVAKIA Communist Party reversed this trend, portraying the Slovak leaders as socially progressive figures. This interpretation was continued throughout the Husak regime. Slovenske dejiny, by contrast, depicts the Slovak leaders in a strictly national rather than a social context. The work concedes that they initially attempted to cooperate with Hungarian leader Lajos Kossuth on questions of social reform, but indicates that a breakdown of relations occured concerning Hungary's national question. One significant, and, in retrospect, surprising change of interpretation concerns the circumstances surrounding the Czecho-Slovak merger of 1918. Communist historiography traditionally regarded the merger as a "bourgeois swindle", in which the Slovak people were treated as colonial subjects until the victory of the working class under Communist leadership rectified relations between two nationalities. Given the pressures of Magyarization at the turn of the century, however, Slovenske dejiny treats pro-Czech sentiment as a positive force. The activities of T. G. Masaryk and the Czecho-Slovak emigres, the exploits of the Czechoslovak Legion on foreign battlefields, and even the career of the extreme Czechophile Vavro Srobar are all cast in a heroic light. No mention is made of the previously lauded Slovak Soviet Republic which was founded on the bayonets of Bela Kun's Hungarian Red Army. This work conveys the impression that, if Czecho-Slovak union in 1918 was not the best of all possible worlds, it was at least a step in the right direction. Slovenske dejiny is critical of Czech centralism in the interwar period, but regards the cultural emancipation of the Slovaks and their economic advancement as positive features. Honorable mention is given to Milan Hodfa's appointment as the first Slovak prime minister of Czechoslovakia. His career might have been given more attention. In spite of a long history of personal opportunism, Hodfa's ideas concerning Central European federalism are still worth studying today. SLOVAKIA 125 While the work hails the attainment of Slovak autonomy in 1938, subsequent developments are portrayed as negative. Advocates of the rehabilitation of Monsignor Jozef Tiso are particularly bound to be disappointed: the Slovak Republic continues to be regarded as a Nazi puppet state, and the deportation of the Jews is treated in the same simplistic manner, which does not inquire deeper into the divisions of policy among Slovak leaders themselves. The 1944 uprising, correspondingly, is still regarded as a heroic event, notwithstanding the surrounding circumstances or tragic consequences. Surprisingly little attention is given to subsequent developments, perhaps out of sense of caution. It must be noted that, although the book was published in 1993, it was prepared during the previous year, at a time when many Czechs and Slovaks still hoped to maintain a federal republic. It reflects history written during a time of transition, and all the limitations found therein. This work's most revealing feature is a lack of vindictive malice towards the Czechs, a phenomenon which helped assure that the "Velvet Divorce" would not become another Balkanstyle bloodbath. A more comprehensive history, however, remains to be written. Katarina Sultajerova. Compiled by. Najstarsie rody na Slovensku, Martin: Slovenska genealogicko-heraldicka spolocnosr pri Matici slovenskej, 1994, 128 pp. DUNCAN B. GARDINER Lakewood, Ohio This collection of articles is essentialy a scholarly primer of the earliest documented Slovak aristocracy. It consists of papers delivered at the October, 1993 Symposium on the Oldest Line- 126 SLOVAKIA ages in Slovakia, which was co-sponsored by the State Regional Archives in Bratislava, the Archives Section of the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, and by the Slovak Ministries of Culture and the Interior. Jozef Novak, author of the two-volume Rodove erby na Slovensku ( 1986), wrote the preface and the lead article "Genealogia ako historicka disciplfna" , which discuses the importance of genealogy in understanding the early history of Slovakia. He recommends making heraldy and genealogy more valuable to historians by broadening genealogical studies to the geographic spread of a family over time, to the bibliography of published literature on a lineage, and to biographies of prominent individuals in the family. Novak also emphasises the importance of thorough source documentation. Roman Zelenay, the late State Secretary of the Slovak Ministry of Culture, wrote "Genealogicke met6dy vfskumu najstarsfch rodov". He discussed traditional Slovak naming customs dating to the Great Moravian period, showing that despite the lack of surnames, it is possible to establish genealogical betwe~n individuals by analyzing the system by which first names were given. The Battle of Mohacs ( 1526) disrupted the Slovak social order and this earlier naming system with it, a fact which makes post-Mohacs genealogies based on onomastics quite different. Milan Majtan, historian and author of Nazvy obcf na Slovensku za ostatnfch 200 rokov (1972), discusses the historical development of personal and family names in Slovakia in "Vfvin JXJmemivania osob na Slovensku", giving examples of proto-Slavic, pre-Christian and Christian naming traditions. Majtan cites copious examples from a range of early manuscript sources. In "Struktura sl'achty na Slovensku v 9 . - 13. storoci'', Richard Marsina relates that the upper aristocracy in Slovakia consisted of Magyars and Magyarized Slovaks. Therefore, the SLOVAKIA 127 genealogist and historian must look to the lesser nobility within each of the old countries to study the prominent Slovak lineages. Vincent Mucska's "Anonymovo dielo ako genealogickf pramen'""' takes a critical look at the twelfth-century "gesta". He dismisses it as a source of concrete historic or genealogical fact. "Panovnicka dynastia v JO. - 11. storocl" by Ladislav Vrtel' chronicles in some detail the families of the two sons of Takson, a granson of Arpad, the first Magyar leader, showing their quite different fates. Nine more articles, written by wel-known historians, deal with the earliest aristocratic families of individual counties: Saris and Uz by Ferdinand Ulicny; Spis by Ivan Chalupecky; Turiec, Liptov and Orava by Jan Benko; Trencfn by Richard Marsina; Bratislava by Vincent Sedlak; Nitra by Jan Lukacka; Zvolen by Maria Durk ova; and Malohont by Leon Sokolovsky. Each article is in Slovak with a short summary in English or, in several cases, German. The English summaries are readable, but the number of typographical and gramatical errors show that a native English-speaking editor was needed. Short biographies of the authors would have been most useful. The articles are based both on original research and the literature in the field in a number of languages: Polish, German, French, Hungarian, Latin. The Genealogical-Heraldic Society has single-handedly placed Slovakia on the genealogical map by publishing the Hlas, a twice-yearly journal of genealogy and heraldry and by organizing local genealogy groups, not only in Martin, but also in Bratislava, Kosice, and Trencfn. The founding of this society is connected with the fact that the authors of the Slovenskf biografickf slovmk (6 vols., Matica slovenska, 1986 - 1994), aware that the 19th-century Slovak intelligentsia was related by a complex series of intermarriages, have wanted to investigate 128 SLOVAKIA their genealogies for some time. This volume is an admirable contribution to that effort. Dejiny SJXJlocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku: 1561 - 1988. Emil Krapka, S. J. and Vojtech Mikula, S. J. - editors: Cambridge, Ontario: Dobra kniha, 1990, 526 pp. and 24 pp. of color illustrations. GERALD J. SABO, S. J. John Carroll University University Heights, Ohio This is a historical survey of the Jesuits and their activities in the Slovak area, part of the 1990 celebration of the Society of Jesus on the 450th anniversary of its papal approval. As noted on the bibliographic page, this monograph was prepared between the fall of 1986 and that of 198 8, before the so-called "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989. Its two editors and eight authors have presented much interesting material to a Slovak-reading public which lacked substantive, accurate information on a religious order important in Slovak history and culture since the sixteenth century. In the main body are a good number of black and white illustrations, supplemented with sixty-four color ones for Slovakia and ten related to Slovak Jesuit activity in Canada. This extensive history is probably unique among such writing, and given the circumstances under which it was realised, all those involved deserve much praise and gratitude. The monograph is divided into five major parts. The first four comprise the Jesuits' history from 1561 with their first establishment in Tmava and on through 1988. The first part of the history covers the time period through 1615, the second, through the suppression of the Jesuit order in 1773, the third, the SLOVAKIA 129 order's suppression and its effect in the Slovak portion of the Hungarian Kingdom, and the fourth, the context of the Society's universal restoration and its work among Slovaks at home and beyond from 1853 through 1988. The second and fourth parts together comprise two-thirds of the entire work. A major part usually begins with the larger European and Church background in which the Slovak events arose and evolved, and then Slovakrelated material is divided according to geographical locations and pastoral/apostolic activity. The fifth and final part of this history includes a chronological summary of important events among Jesuits of this area, an explanation of religious and Jesuit terminology, a substantial bibliography on the Society at large and in the Slovak area, name and place indexes, and summaries in Slovak, English, German, French, and Magyar. Twice in this history, Jesuits suffered dramatically at the hands of civil authorities. In 1773, Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa was finally impelled to supress legally the Society of Jesus in her realm from fear that if she did not do so, her daughter Marie Antoinette would not be allowed to marry the future French King, Louis XVI. Louis was a Bourbon, member of a royal family that strove mightily to eradicate throughout their European and foreign realms that "least" Society of Jesus for its greater loyalty to Church than state. Yet the Jesuits came back and thrived, just as they do today after their far more brutal suppression and persecution under the Communists between April, 1950 and the revolution of November, 1989. At present, Slovakia is a democratic, sovereign country, and publications such as the Dejiny need to showcase its role in European history and culture. Yet certain features of the Dejiny significantly limit its valuable effect and should be remedied. Prepared for a wide-ranging public conversant in Slovak, this work would also be of great interest to many others, whether general readers or scholars, who do not read Slovak, yet for 130 SLOVAKIA whom the summaries in languages other then Slovak are woefully inadequate. For this much wider audience, the Dejiny should be translated into English, the current lingua franca. Further, the lack of any documentation in notes is a serious limitation, yet nowadays such material could be collected within a reasonable time. This data is needed to provide crucial scholarship about Jesuits in Slovak territory and beyond which is available nowhere else. The activities of these Jesuits, mostly Slovak yet also of other nationalities, have remained hidden from appreciation even in Jesuit publications. For instance, in English-language studies of the Jesuits, the activities and influence of the universities in Trnava and Kosice - cities often disguised behind their German or Magyar names - are briefly mentioned, if that. No mention at all is made of the Slovak Benedikt Szollosi, compiler of the first Catholic hymnal Cantus catholici with songs in Latin and "Cultural Slovak". No more fortunate has been the Slovak Martin Szentivanyi, whose varied writings, encyclopedic studies, and very able directorship of the Trnava University press contributed significantly to Slovak history, culture, and language development. Also unknown among English readers is the Slovak Samuel Timon, whose writings made him a pioneer in scholarly Slovak historiography. Nor is Jesuit history in Slovak territory better known in other Western languages. For instance, nearly fourty years ago the Magyar Jesuit Laszl6 Lukacs wrote in German about the Jesuit Antonio Possevino's papal mission to establish a network of seminaries and schools in northern Europe in the late sixteenth century, but nothing was said about any Slovak area plans or effects. The Dejiny, though, discusses Posse vino's mission and its effects in re-establishing Jesuits there, as well as many other points not found outside of Slovaklanguage publications. Yet how is a general reader or scholar to appreciate the important Jesuit role and contributions to Slovak SLOVAKIA 131 history, culture, and society, if he is unable to read this history, or is even unaware that it exists? Clearly, the Dejiny cannot remain a hidden Slovak treasure. Indeed, the Slovak Jesuits have an obligation to make the Dejiny with proper documentation known and accessible to a non-Slovak-reading public. They must present themselves before the world and not simply in the Slovak heart of Europe. Otherwise, a part of Slovakia, its culture, history, people, and achievements will remain concealed behind a language that few in today's world will bother to learn even for reading. James Ramon Felak. "At the Price of the Republic." Hlinka's Slovak People's Party,1929-1938. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994, xiv & 263 p. STANISLAV J. KIRSCHBAUM York University, Glendon College Czechoslovakia is a state that broke up twice in its seventyfour year history: the fust time it was under the pressure of international events and on the eve of a world war, the second in the aftermath of democratic elections. The fust break-up has been mired in controversy, due not only to the circumstances surrounding it, but above all to the responsibility that is often ascribed to the Slovak People's Party (SPP) for bringing about that outcome. James Felak's study looks at this party, in particular during the decade that precedes the fust break-up. There are very few studies of Slovak politics in the first Czechoslovak Republic (CSR), fewer still that offer an in depth examination of the role and policies of the main parties that influenced and shaped inter-war Slovak political life. The handful of monographs that have been written on Slovakia in the first 132 SLOVAKIA CSR, or indeed on the first CSR itself, have generally looked at how the "Slovak question" has contributed to, been responsible for, or unable to prevent its break-up. It would not be inaccurate to say that most take a position for (the Czechoslovak and Marxist approach) or against (the nationalist Slovak approach) the first CSR; very few seek to examine the question from the dynamics of Czech-Slovak relations as did Carol Skalnik Leff in National Conflict in Czechoslovakia. The Making and Remaking of a State, 1918-1987 (1988), or from the challenges a multinational state faces when dealing with its constituent nations and national minorities. Felak's study fills some of the gaps in our knowledge of Slovak inter-war political life, but, regretfully, it does little to advance our understanding of it. Of the seven chapters that present the Hlinka Slovak People's Party, five offer a relatively detailed examination of its policies for the decade that begins with the Depression. The first chapter presents a rapid and, unfortunately, superficial overview of Slovak nationalism until 1929 whereas the second outlines in detail the party's ideology and programme. The remaining chapters are divided according to certain events that mark a change of fortune or direction for the party. The author looks in depth at some of the more important ones, such as the Tuka affair of 1929, the 1929 and 1935 elections, the 1931 Slovak orthography dispute, the 1933 Pribina celebrations, the different party congresses, in particular the Youth Congress of 1932 and that of 1936, and the 1938 Pittsburgh Pact celebration, all of which marked Slovak political life. Equally useful and interesting are his descriptions of the SPP platform at different times and the relations with other Czech and Slovak political parties and formations. As for the various leading personalities, Andrej Hlinka, Vojtech Tuka, Karol Sidor, and Jozef Tiso, among others, the author seeks to give a sense of their role and importance in the development of SPP policies. In sum, most of the SLOVAKIA 133 book offers a detailed examination of the role of the SPP in an important decade in Slovak political life and is in this respect a contribution to the existing literature. The main problem with this study lies in its approach to the subject. This is due not only to too great a reliance on certain earlier studies, but above all to the indiscriminate use of police reports as authoritative sources of political analysis. In fairness to the author, he makes an attempt to present a balanced approach on the "Slovak question". Yet the language he uses clearly indicates that he identifies with and accepts generally the interpretations of those authors who have a Czechoslovak view ?f Slovak history, a view that is mostly negative toward the Slovaks and uncritically favourable toward Czechoslovakia. For example he refers to Slovakia as "relatively underdeveloped, politically, economically, socially, culturally, and nationally" (p. 17) or describes Hlinka as having a "parochial, clerical mentality that resembled that of a Slovak peasant." (p. 25) In addition, like earlier authors, his examination of Prague policies toward Slovakia and toward the SPP, is at best cursory and certainly not critical. On occasion one gets the feeling from his presentation that there was a specific Prague-SPP dynamic, yet there is little analysis of the reasons for and the consequences of Prague policies, only of the SPP reactions and actions. For example, Prague exercized censorship on the SPP press to such an extent that in 1938, when the government was considering the possibility of a coaliton with the SPP, one of that party's conditions was the lifting of that censorship. Equally problematic is the reliance on police reports as a research source. The fact that the Prague government felt it necessary to have police spies within the SPP is in itself a fact worth examining, not to say anything of the accuracy of these reports. The emphasis that Felak places on factional struggles within the SPP comes mostly from these reports. That the police 134 SLOVAKIA spies reported such struggles is not in the least bit surprising; it was in the government's interest to be able to neutralize an opposition party that Pelak on many occasions describes as the most important one in Slovakia. Also, there is nothing surprising about factional differences; this is a fact of life in political parties in all democratic states. But in this case, the factionalism represented the dilemmas the SPP faced in its twin objectives: the autonomy of Slovakia and the integrity and security of Czechoslovakia. The failure of Prague to have understood this and to have dealt with it adequately was paid, in the end, "at the price of the republic." For all its richness about the SPP, Felak's examination of its policies is nevertheless incomplete; on the other hand, it has the merit of provoking additional questions and showing the way for further study. Hope Dies Last, The Autobiogra]Xly of Alexander Dubcek. Edited and translated by Jin Hochman. New York: Kodansha America, Inc., 1993. 354 pp. ROBERT K. EV ANSON Uni versify of Missouri Kansas City The automobile accident of September 1, 1992, which led to Alexander Dubcek's death nine weeks later, robbed Slovakia of one of its most distinguished political leaders. Whether Dubcek could have played a vital role in shaping the politics of an independent Slovakia will never be known. What is certain, and what we are reminded of in this fascinating autobiography excellently edited and translated by Jin Hochman - is that he did establish for himself a place of lasting historical importance. SLOVAKIA 135 It seems necessary to say this because, as Dubcek himself was aware, there is insufficient appreciation among many of today's young Slovaks and Czechs of what he and his fellow "reform Communists" attempted to do in the 1960s. It remains for historians to sort out the difficult issue of just how much impact the Prague Spring had on the subsequent course of Czechoslovak politics that ended ultimately in the demise of the country's neo-Stalinist regime twenty-one years later, but clearly the impact was significant.The Prague Spring, which Dubcek more than anyone else helped to shape, set an example for democratic aspirations that resurfaced in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s. It also was an obvious model for some of Gorbachev's policies in -the 1980s. The Soviet suppression of the reform movement also created deep wounds of alienation among Czechs and Slovaks towards the USSR and the post-1968 regime that never healed. Ironically, both Dubcek and the Soviets were correct in their 1968 dialogue, Dubcek in warning the Soviets of the need to better understand how many Czechs and Slovaks viewed the old regime as an unnatural entity, and the Soviets in recognizing the degree to which Dubcek's reform movement threatened the very foundations of Leninist rule in Eastern Europe. Dubcek's autobiography begins appropriately with his early years, and an examination of that period of his life teaches us a great deal about why he acted as he did in his maturity. It is difficult not to admire the man, and this book, which is not egregiously self-serving, merely strengthens that attitude. Several aspects of character and personality come to mind - decency, courage, political shrewdness, and a trust and idealism that were at once his greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses. We find him as a teenager in Kirghizia defending young Muslims against bullying by his fellow Czechs and Slovaks, and after World War Two pressing relentlessly for the release from the Soviet Gulag of a physician who had treated the injured Dubcek 136 SLOVAKIA during the Uprising; it was a small moral step to his passionate commitment to the complete rehabilitation of all political prisoners in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. In 1952, in the wake of the Shinsky trial and at the height of the terror, he cast aside a Soviet-censored version of a speech and instead delivered a ringing eulogy at the funeral of fellow Communist Karol Smidke, who had been a victim of the persecution. He stood up for the reforms in the face of immense Soviet pressure throughout 1968, acted honorably after his abduction to Moscow following the Soviet and allied invasion, refused to take the safety of exile because he thought his proper place was with his people, and sent off a stream of letters of protest long after his removal from power at considerable personal risk. Dubcek also was a very clever and careful political tactician. Some of the most fascinating passages in his book concern the way he built alliances in his ultimately successful effort to bring down Communist Party First Secretary Antonin Novotny in 1967. I would like to have read even more details about conversations he had with various political figures in this process, as well as about the way he blunted Novotny's efforts to consign him to political oblivion in 1962, but there still is plenty to captivate anyone with a taste for Prague-style Kremlinology. The period of the early 1960s is especially interesting in this book, because Dubcek discusses the first signs of the movement against neo-Stalinism and Prague centralism, including his election over Novotny's opposition to the position of Slovak Communist Party First Secretary in April, 1963. This event represented a stinging defeat for Novotny, because Dubcek already had established himself as the leading advocate for sweeping rehabilitation of the victims of the purges of so-called "Slovak bourgeois nationalists" in the early 1950s. As such, he had become the major opponent of Prague centralism in the Party leadership. SLOVAKIA 137 While Dubcek was never foolhardy, he could be surprisingly bold. An interesting illustration of this was his successful ploy with Jin Hendrych, the number two man in the Party hierarchy in 1967 and, until then, a staunch Novotny loyalist. Sensing that Hendrych was beginning to vacillate in his commitment to Novotny, Dubcek walked into his office that late November and said that Novotny's days as First Secretary clearly were numbered, and that Hendrych might consider getting on the bandwagon or he too would fall. As an added enticement, he invited the startled Hendrych to consider whether he would like Novotny's job as First Secretary! The amusing climax of this story is that shortly thereafter, Leonid Brezhnev came to Prague to assess Novotny's prospects and naturally sought out Hendrych's opinion. Reportedly, Brezhnev barely got inside the door when Hendrych told him he was "willing" to serve as First Secretary. While Hendrych never got the chance - Dubcek succeeded Novotny - his abandonment of Novotny may have persuaded Brezhnev of the futility of a rescue operation. The most painful reading in this book is the period of the mounting Soviet hostility to the Prague Spring and the ultimate invasion and subsequent period of "normalization." It is impossible not to become angry all over again when one reads of the treatment Dubcek and his comrades received at the hands of their Soviet kidnappers, as well as the incredible pettiness and maliciousness of their successors in Prague and Bratislava. While Dubcek does not cast a great deal of new light on the events of 1968, he minces no words in assessing various political figures and spares no criticism of his worst tormentors. Thus we learn that Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin was as cold in private as in public and capable of extreme rudeness. He and his Soviet comrades are rightly dismissed by Dubcek as "gangsters" and "thugs." Novotny is confirmed as hopelessly ignorant of Slovak affairs, as well as contemptuous toward Slovak national 138 SLOVAKIA feelings, one of the keys to his ultimate demise. Dubcek also brands Vasil Bifak, Alois Indra, and the other conspirators of 1968 as "traitors." No one comes across worse, however, than Gustav Husak, who presided over the restoration of neo-Stalinism in Czechoslovakia. His shabby treatment of Dubcek after 1968, despite Dubcek's pivotal role in bringing about his political resurrection, is a sad counter to the courage he displayed when fighting for his own rehabilitation in the early 1960s. Despite the claims that he "protected" the ousted reformers from "hardliners" in the Party, Husak comes across here as a man incapable of normal feelings and as a complete opportunist. Naturally Dubcek was bitter about Husak, but the tone of his evaluations of Husak and other political figures is in fact measured and convincing. No discussion of Dubcek's political career would be complete without addressing his failure to discern the danger of a Soviet invasion in 1968. Part of the answer may lie in his family background. He was born in 1921 to a pair of committed socialists who were so enamored of the Soviet experiment that they were willing to relocate to Central Asia to help build a new society. At the same time, his parents had the good sense to return to Czechoslovakia when the dangers of remaining in the Soviet Union became obvious. Nonetheless, Dubcek never abandoned the socialist idealism he inherited from them. While he certainly understood the evils of Stalinism and the incompatibility of the Soviet-type system with Czech and Slovak traditions, he had a blind spot that served him poorly in 1968. Specifically, despite all the Soviet expressions of alarm about what he and his fellow reformers were doing, he could not bring himself to believe the USSR would intervene. There is no question Dubcek had evolved into a democrat and was aware of what he was doing. He writes that the Action Program put forth by Party reformers in 1968 "was a plan for a gradual return to SLOVAKIA 139 the concept of democratic socialism ... " He acknowledges that his regime was rejecting various aspects of Leninism - he believed that the Communist Party could win popular support in competitive elections, once it had embraced democracy, and thus he downplayed the Soviet concern that his reforms were jeopardizing "the leading role of the party." At the same time, he knew he had to avoid making any references to multi-party democracy for fear of alarming them unnecessarily. He also believed that "socialism could function better in a market-oriented environment, with significant elements of private enterprise." He writes that of course he recalled what happened to Hungary in 1956, but he had made clear to the Soviets his determination that Czechoslovakia would remain loyal to its Soviet bloc allies, so the situations were not comparable. Perhaps it was due to his conviction that what he and his colleagues were doing would benefit socialism by strengthening the Communist Party's legitimacy among the people, and by bringing the country closer to the original ideals of socialism, that he could not believe that the Soviet leadership would not, however reluctantly, allow him to proceed. (In a postscript, Jiff Hochman notes Dubcek's inclination to believe in people's good intentions.) In fairness, it is difficult to fault Dubcek very much had he opted for concessions, it seems unlikely that the Soviet leadership would have accepted anything short of a complete abandonment of the democratization process to which he had committed his country. Still, his discussion of how he assessed the Soviet mindset at the time is not entirely satisfactory. Alexander Dubcek's autobiography is a thoughtful and wellwritten account of the life of a man of extraordinary moral and political qualities. It is indispensable reading for anyone with an interest in the Czechoslovak political experience. 140 SLOVAKIA Paul Robert Magocsi. The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey. New York: East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1993, x, 185 pp., Maps, Notes, Bibliography, Index. KEITH P. DYRUD Concordia College St. Paul,MN The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey is essentially a revision of an earlier work by Prof. Magocsi, The RusynUkrainians of Czechoslovakia: An Historical Survey (Vienna, 1981 ). But there is an additional twist to this revision. The "Preface" says: ''This volume is a translation of an introductory historical survey published in the newly codified Rusyn literary language as well as in Slovak by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Presov." Prof. Magocsi played a leading role in the formation of the national movement that spawned the Rusyn Renaissance Society and the First World Congress of Rusyns that sponsored the codification of the Rusyn literary language. The professor, however, is modest. His name does not once appear in the text in connection with that activity; however, he is pictured with other leaders of the First World Congress of Rusyns (122). The contents of the book should be familiar to those have read the author's earlier works. Magocsi traces the Rusyns' history from their first settlement in eastern Slovakia to the present. He partially assumes and partially attempts to demonstrate that the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia form a distinct nationality. Magocsi documents the cooperation that existed between the Rusyns and the Slovaks while they were dominated by Hungary prior to 1914, but he is critical of the "slovakization" of the Rusyns between the world wars, and he also identifies the SLOVAKIA 141 Ukrainian movement as a threat to the Rusyn national identity that the book clearly endorses. During the inter-war yars slovakization was a greater threat to the Rusyns than "ukrainianization", but after the Second World War, official government support for the Ukrainian identity led to a decline of any national consciousness. Many Rusyns identified themselves as Slovaks to avoid the Ukrainian label. After the "Velvet Revolution" of November 1989, the Rusyns in the Presov region were again free to publicly promote their own national identity as separate from either Slovak or Ukrainian. In this effort, the Rusyns received support from both the Prague and the Bratislava governments. Magocsi suggests that this support for the Rusyns harkens back to "the historical friendship and attention on the part of Czechs and Slovaks toward their Rusyn brethren ... " (126). It could also suggest that the number of people identifying themselves as Rusyns is now very small and the Rusyn movement is not likely to become a major competitor to the Slovak identity in eastern Slovakia. In fact the major problem with Prof. Magocsi 's interpretation of the Rusyn movement in estem Slovakia is his confidence that the small number of Rusyns can develop a national identity. He is dissatisfied with the 1991 census figures that identify fewer than 33,000 "Rusnak/Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian" people in the Presov region, with just under 17,000 of them unambiguously identifying themselves as "Rusyn" ( 126). According to Magocsi, that number could potentially be as high as 130 000 (2 - 3). Many readers of Magocsi's first book: The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus', 1848 - 1948 (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) were persuaded by his convincing argument that the Rusyns in Subcarpathia did, at least, "shape" a national identity during the inter-war years. But in that era, he was dealing with a larger critical mass of Rusyns. In eastern Slovakia, that critical mass does not seem to exist. With the Slovaks claiming 142 SLOVAKIA most of those 130,000 potential Rusyns, and the Ukrainians competing for the rest, it does not seem likely that the critical mass will develop. In the meantime, those who do identify themselves as Rusyns can read their history in their own "newly codified language". And those who identify themselves as Slovaks can also read the translation in their language just as Rusyns in North America can read it in English. Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout the World: A Demographic and Sociological Guide to the Homeland and Its Diaspora. Edited by Ann Lencyk Pawliczko. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press for the Shevchenko Scientific Society, 1994, xxxvi, 508 pp. PAUL R. MAGOCSI University of Toronto The goal of this volume is to provide brief factual data on Ukrainians wherever they may live in the world. The newlyindependent country of Ukraine has within its borders only 64 percent of the estimated 58.7 million inhabitants who inhabit various parts of the globe. Therefore, a history or description of the Ukrainian people as a whole must be concerned with many other places than Ukraine. This book in fact deals primarily with the estimated 21.2 million Ukrainians living outside Ukraine. The approach is comprehensive, with an effort to say something about communities, however small they may be, in places like Luxembourg, Ireland, Tunisia and New Zealand as well as in the more known countries of Ukrainian immigrant settlement like the United States, Canada, and Australia. SLOVAKIA 143 The editor, Ann Lencyk Pawliczko, felt the need to trace the political and cultural history of Ukraine (pp. 37 - 84), which is the least satisfactory portion of this otherwise encyclopedic compendium. The rest of the volume consists of entries by 28 authors on the various countries where Ukrainians live. Each entry begins with a general overview of a specific country followed by a history of its Ukrainian community. Many entries include statistical charts and each ends with a list of further readings. Slovak readers will likely be interested in the entry called "Ukrainian-Ruthenians in the Slovak Republic", written by Vasyl Markus (pp. 157 - 166). While the author recognizes the enormous cultural achievements made by the Ukrainians in Slovakia after World War II, he does not attribute the achievements to the favorable policies of the former Czechoslovak Communist government that lavished extensive funding on the group, but rather to the efforts of the local Ukrainian-oriented intelligentsia. He claimes that the official census figures (30,800 Rusyns and Ukrainians in 1991) are far below the 110,000 to 120,000 that supposedly live in northeastern Slovakia. Markus argues the statistical discrepancy exists because of manipulation by Slovak census takers and a policy of "denationalization" carried out by both the former Communist and post-1989 governments in Slovakia. He does not mention the real reason for the numerical differences. Since the 1950s thousands of "Ukrainians-Ruthenians" voluntarily opted to identify as Slovaks in protest against Communist government decrees that banned the Rusyn national identity and required people to call themselves Ukrainian. The author also indirectly blames Slovak governments for responding favorably since 1989 to the Rusyn national revival and for allowing people in the 1991 census to identify with the Rusyn nationality (16,937 Rusyns as opposed to 13,847 Ukrainians) and with the Rusyn language (49,099 Rusyn speakers as opposed to 9,480 Ukrainian speakers) - the latter 144 SLOVAKIA figures are not provided by Markus. The otherwise democratic policies of present-day Slovakia are described as promoting "political Ruthenianism" a phenomenon that is "influenced by outside anti-Ukrainian forces" and that is intent on de-Ukrainianizing the local population. Fortunately, the rest of this volume maintains a less biased tone in describing Ukrainian communities in other countries. Nina Trnka: Slovak-English I English-Slovak Dictionary, N. Y., Hippocrene Books, 1992, 360 pp. JOHN M. KOCHIK Scottsdale, Anizona Any contribution to the field of Slovak reference materials is always welcome. Attempts at popularization are encouradged only to the extent that a work demonstrates quality. Standards, of course, should always be high to reflect the expertise of the _ contributor. The backcover boasts "You are holding the only SlovakEnglish/English-Slovak Dictionary available in North America". What about Smejkalova et al.? The book is intended for "students and travelers", and claims to be "concise". For all its advertising pretense, its format is disappointing. It looks like a thesis. It lacks an Introduction which it sorely needs for efficient use. It omits a separating page (175) between the two major divisions for facile access, wherein an appropriate blank page or second title page would suffice. Pronunciation (pages i through iii) is confusing. The list of consonants is incomplete, not accounting for - among others important palatals d', I, ii, ( used in too many words to be ignored. As immediate as page one, there is no knowing how ''t~' SLOVAKIA 145 in "akost' must be pronounced according to her presentation. Questions arise as to "studi'ia" (123) and "studna" (353 - see "well")? Why then "anP' (2) gives [a-nyi], or "odev" (71) [odyef]? How then distinguish cited "Javica" (44) from un-cited "/avica" - "left hand"? Equating long "6" with "6" in Pronunciation is erroneous, being that the latter "6" is diphotong [.u.o]. The remarks in Pronunciation are unclear and inadequate. The uninitiated will render Slovak pronunciation ludicrous. Examples provided are ambiguous for articulation of varietes of vowel "a", because speakers of American-English are inconsistent in their renditions of "a" in cited forms "ma-ma, fast, rat, grass, pad". To present digraph "ch" as aspirated [kh] in "khaki" (sic!) is not true for the guttural [)c]. And, to state that Slovak "r' is approximated by labial untrilled "r' of "red" - bellies the trilled "r' performed by the tongue. Transcription in Pronunciation is defective, since the symbols given are arbitrary, not in accord either with the conventions of Slovak texts or even the International Phonetic System. A hard look at the symbols presented defies logic. Examples follow. Since Standard Slovak (i. e. spisovna slovencina) utilizes digraph "dz" as the phone in medzi and other words - to employ "dz' as a symbol for English pronunciation of th [b] of "they" is incomprehensible! In like manner, use of [s] for [0] of "thank" produces comic theatrical effect as in [Sank you] for [Sank you]! Moreover, to present the nasal-guttural -ng [ri] of "long" as underlined [g] can be misinterpreted into a humorous exagerated liaison of oft-quoted misquoted "LoNGJsland" with defined [NGJ]. 146 SLOVAKIA Further examination into the deficiencies given in Pronunciation would require a complete revision after careful editing. So far only the unavoidable pitfalls have been critiqued. Editorial work appears lax or nonexistent as evidenced by "thruth" (sic! page ii), presumably "truth". And, "heith" (sic! page 158) following vyska and page 244, apparently meant to be "height"). In both citings of "heith", consistency seems to demonstrate persistent misspelling. There is an unexpected thrust from V (350) into W (351) without a notification-heading W. As for word-selection, it might be hoped that high-frequency was a criterion for efficiency. On the contrary, superfluous are words among others like "elephant" (222), "volcano" (350), "yacht" (358), "zebra" (359) - scarcely indigenous to Slovakia! Yet the word kamzik (36?) "chamois" (198?) indigenous to the Tatras finds no listing in either section. Why "warden" (351) is given makes one wonder of its sociological implications. Why is "warrant" (351) so important to find place here? Surely one expects utilitarian vocabulary in such a work. As for semantics, a first-hand impression might be that if several meanings are provided without explanation or definition - an indiscriminate interchange might be possible. Not so for automat (3) "slot-machine, snack-bar, machine-gun". Thus also for "minister" (268) "minister, vyslanec, duchovnf" mean different things. Each having a distinct, specific meaning. It is most unlikely that "students and travelers" will discern clearly which term fits which circumstance. Cross-references are not provided for necessary clarification. See "warm" (351) ...srdecnf... for which neither "cordial" (206?) nor "sincerely" (315) are given on expected pages in parentheses. In similar manner, aktiv (1) "meeting, gathering" makes no reference or distinction from "meeting" (266) schodza, stretnutie. SLOVAKIA 147 Perusal of the text will result in startling revelations. For instance, pronunciation of odJXJr (72) gives [od-por], whereas in fact it is [ot-por], a morphophonetic alternation called regressive assimilation. Where the voiced d automatically becomes unvoiced/devoiced t, in harmony with unvoiced p which sets the condition for the process. The same phenomenon occurs in other instances like odstup (72) to [ot-stup], bezplatny (6) to [bes-platnee], modlitba and prosba for "prayer" (289) not given in the text as [mod-lit-ba] and [proz-ba]. Interesting to note is that word-final voiced consonants are given as de-voiced as in smrad (116) [smrat]. However, no account has been made of v as a semi-vowel [IJ.] in such words as pravda (92) [prau.da], rovno (105) [rouno], domov (18) [domo.1J.]; instead, Czech ussage [domof] (18) is presented. Two outstanding examples given: [svatba] (125) for svadba and ['strukh] (101) for pstruh are unintelligible. For all the effort involved in the production of this Dictionary, it is unfortunate that it should fall short of the desired quality expected. In spite of the good intentions of the contributor, the end result is full of inconsistencies and inadequacies.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Book Reviews, Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67) Description An account of the resource includes:<br /><ul><li>Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of East Central Europe (George J. Demko), p. 119</li> <li>Anton Špiesz, Dejiny Slovenska na cesta k sebauvedomeniu (Gregory C. Ference), p. 121</li> <li>Richard Marsina a kolektív, Slovenské dejiny (R. Vladimír Baumgarten), p. 123</li> <li>Katarína Šultajerová, comp., Najstaršie rody na Slovensku (Duncan B. Gardiner), p. 125</li> <li>Emil Krapka and Vojtech Mikula, eds., Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Slovensku: 1561-1988 (Gerald J. Sabo), p. 128</li> <li>James Ramon Felak, "At the Price of the Republic." Hlinka' s Slovak People's Party, 1929-1938 (Stanislav J. Kirschbaum), p. 131</li> <li>Jiří Hochman, ed., Hope Dies Last: The Autobiography of Alexander Dubček (Robert K. Evanson), p. 134</li> <li>Paul Robert Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey (Keith P. Dyrud), p. 140</li> <li>Ann Lensyk Pawliczko, ed., Ukraine and Ukrainians throughout the World: A Demographic and Sociological Guide to the Homeland and Its Disapora (Paul R. Magocsi), p. 142</li> <li>Nina Trnka, Slovak-English/English-Slovak Dictionary (John M. Kochik), p. 144</li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baumgarten, R. Vladimir Demko, George J., 1933- Dyrud, Keith P. 1940- Evanson, Robert Kent, 1944- Ference, Gregory Curtis, 1957- Gardiner, Duncan B., 1940- Kirschbaum, Stanislav J., 1942- Kochik, John Michael Magocsi, Paul Robert, 1945- Sabo, Gerald J., 1945–2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 LCNAF LCNAF+dates name SNK https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/6e729b4ce6b09bc6074d5be831d93e6a.pdf 7070c82f3b46098fb3ada5a17d8baf87 PDF Text Text 98 SLOVAKIA Une oraison de messe: Monument culture) ., europeen Stefan Polakovic Une oraison de messe: Monument culture/? Et de /'Europe? Eh, oui! Seulement pour le comprendre, nous devons descendre dans les entrailles memes de l'histoire de l'Europe. Avant de pouvoir qualifier un phenomene d'europeen, il nous faut savoir ce que nous entendons par "Europe". Et l'on ne comprendra rien a l'Europe, tant qu' on ne saura rien sur ses origines et sa formation. Elements constitutifs de /'Europe 11 fut un temps ou cette Europe que nous connaissons a l'heure actuelle n'existait pas. C'est a Charlemagne que nous devons son existence. A partir du V-eme siecle, apres la destruction de l'Europe Romaine par les tribus germaniques, il n'y eut plus qu'un tas de debris administratifs, juridiques et sociaux. C'est precisement a ce moment la que commence l'ouvre grandiose de Charlemagne pour reconstruire et fonder une nouvelle Europe. �SLOVAKIA 99 Dans une Europe ou regnait un desordre general, il introduisit l'ordre avant tout, en creant un nouveau systeme d'organization politique connu comme feodal qui dura pendant mil ans. Cet ordre s'appuyait sur le principe que le roi etat le seul proprietaire de toutes les terres. Pendant la royaute il y avait une noblesse superieure a laquelle le roi concedait l'usage des terres en fief (du latin: feudum, d'ou: feodal). Plus bas se trouvait la noblesse inferieure, les habitants des villes (artisans, marchands et bourgeois) et encore plus en dessous au bas de la pyramide politique, se trouvaient les paysans (90% de la population). A vec le systeme feodal nacquit en Europe la sfirete juridique, !'administration de la justice et, par consequent, la rennaissance ·de la vie economique. Grace au systeme feodal I'Europe a pu se relever du desastre general. Par la fondation d'une nouvelle politique, Charlemagne contribua ace que l'Europe se retrouve. L'introduction des ecoles constitua un autre element qui favorisa la naissance de I'Europe. Pour commencer, il ordonna l'ouverture d'ecoles gratuites dans les cathedrales, monasteres et paroisses, destinees avant tout a la formation des foncionnaires d'Etat. Sur !'initiative de Charlemagne, prenant probablement exemple sur l' Academie de Bizance, fut creee l"'Accademia Palatina", qui fut, posterieurement, d'une enorme importance pour !'evolution et la formation de l'Europe, car en peu de temps les Ecoles Superieures se sont transformees en Universites. Sans universites, l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est. L'Europe doit aux universites son developpement scientifique, les progres technologiques et economiques et, surtout, !'evolution politique. En effet, c'est grace aux universites que les peuples europeens ont commence a envisager, plus tard, une reforme du systeme feodal pour le remplacer, a partir de la Revolution Fran~aise, par un systeme democratique. Systeme �100 SLOVAKIA democratique qui fut implante pour la premiere fois aux EtatsU nis en 1776, seize ans avant la Revolution Fran~aise. De plus, Charlemagne encouragea les arts en general: architecture, peinture, sculpture. Lors de ses voyages en Italie il admira ses basiliques et ses eglises. Grace a son appui surgit ce que nous connaissons comme rennaissance artistique carolingienne. 11 voulut voir la floraison des arts dans son empire. 11 fit construire la "CAPELLA PALATINA" a Aix-la-Chapelle, qui est une imitation de la Basilique de Saint Vital a Ravenne. Sous Charlemagne, les architectes commencerent a remplacer dans leurs constructions le bois par la pierre. On vit l 'Europe entiere se couvrir de cathedrales de style roman. En peu de temps le style roman arriva jusqu'au centre de l'Europe grace aux moines benedictins. En effet, on trouve en Slovaquie, centre geographique de l'Europe des eglises romanes contruites en pierre peu apres la mort de Charlemagne. Une fois commence, l'art europeen ne connut pas d'interruption jusqu'a nos jours. L'art europeen occupe une place predominante dans l'histoire de l'art. Autre phenomene, sans lequel la constitution de l'Europe n'aurait pu se produire, ce sont ses nations et leurs cultures qui ont surgi a l'abri du feodalisme, l'education, les arts et la religion chretienne. Par "nation" je n'entends pas ici "Etat-nation", mais les communautes spirituelles des gens unis principalement par les liens d'une langue, d'une culture et d'une histoire communes, merne si elles n'ont pas un Etat propre (i. e.: les Kurdes). Comme dit Ernest Renan, lors de sa conference prononcee a la Sorbonne en 1880, a cause "des complications de l'histoire". Pour la meme raison, pendant des siecles, plusieurs nations europeennes n 'ont pu reconstituer leurs propres Etats apres les avoir perdus, comme par exemple les Slovaques, Croates, Slovenes, Lituaniens, Lettons, Estoniens, Finlandais, etc. �SLOVAKIA 101 La nation se developpe a partir d'une tribu lorsque les conditions sont favorables. La condition fondamentale est la possesion d'un territoire ou elle pourra deployer sa richesse spirituelle et fortifier son unite ontologique en toute tranquillite. En l'etat nomade, aucune nation ne put se constituer ni se consolider, comme nous le confirme l'auteur gitan espagnol Juan Ramirez Heredia dans son livre "Nosotros, los Gitanos", en decrivant la tragedie de son peuple: "Pelerins perpetuels, exiles volontaires, fugitifs toujours en route, marchant sans reJXJs depuis des siecles sans decider ou s' etablir'. Beaucoup de tribuns et nations embryonnaires de souche celtique, germanique et slave ont disparu, absorbees par des cultures superieures. Certains processus ethnogenetiques ont pu reussir avec une cartaine facilite grace au fait qu'ils se developpaient a l'abri d'un Etat, tandis que d'autres, etant donne les "complications de l'histoire" mentionnees plus haut, croissaient plus lentement. Quoiqu ' il en fut, en Europe existent actuellement les nations suivantes: Du groupe Celtique: Bretons, Irlandais, Gallois et Ecossais; Du groupe Latin: Italiens, Fran~ais, Espagnols, Catalans, Portugais, Roumains et Rhetoromans (en Suisse); Du groupe Germanique: Allemands, Suedois, Norvegiens, Danois, Hollandais, Flamands et Anglais; Du groupe Slave: Russes, Bielorusses, Ukrainiens, Bulgares, Serbes, Croates, Slovenes, Slovaques, Tcheques, Polonais, Macedoniens et Lusitiens (en Allemagne). D'origine non indo-europeenne nous avons les Magyars, Lituaniens, Estoniens, Lettons, Finlandais et Basques. �102 SLOVAKIA Demierement, certaines de ces nations ont pu reconstruire leur ancien Etat. Entin, la religion chretienne fait partie des elements constitutifs de !'Europe. Le christianisme s 'epanouit non seulement grace a la force de la parole, mais avant tout, grace a la force de l'exemple. Suivant l'exemple de la population des anciennes provinces romaines, les tribus germaniques qui s'y infiltrerent ont accepte le bapteme et ont change leurs coutumes. ll est vrai que le changement fut lent, mais grace a ce changement nous assistons, deja au IX-eme siecle, a la creation d'ouvres d'art, de peuples autrefois barbares, inspirees par la doctrine chretienne. L'esprit du christianisme a marque profondement tous les peuples europeens. La vie du peuple commun (la grande majorite etaient des paysans) s'est adaptee en general aux commandements de la morale chretienne. Nous avons comme preuve les exemples de saintete et les traditions, chansons, legendes et contes populaires de toutes les nations europeennes. Apres la chute de !'Empire Romain il y avait en Europe une seule organisation qui resista a la debacle generale et ce fut celle de l'Eglise. Les eveques etaient la seule autorite qui maintenait un peu d' ordre juridique en appliquant le droit canon et le droit romain. En dehors de cela, l'Eglise encourageait la fondation de monasteres qui se sont transformes en centres d'aide et de civilisation. Par exemple celui de MARMOUTIER-SUR-LOIRE, en France, qui a ere fonde en 375. Plus tard, au VI-eme siecle, Saint Benoit introduisit une regle commune a tous les monasteres. Les monasteres benedictins ont contribue a la bonne marche de la vie economique et sociale, et de par leur oeuvre, l 'heridite de Rome fut sauvee. �SLOVAKIA 103 Les bibliotheques des grands couvents benedictins ont transmis a l 'Europe des ouvres litteraires qui autrement auraient disparu. 11 est vrai qu' au temps ou nacquit Charlemagne, les territoires des anciennes provinces romaines etaient deja christianisees. Sa propre tribu, les Francs, suivant l'exemple de leur roi Clovis (496), accepta le christianisme. Mais au temps de Charlemagne il fallait christianiser la Germanie, ou etaient installees plusieurs tribus germaniques, parmi lesquelles la plus puissante etait celle des Saxons. Et derriere, les tribus germaniques se trouvaient les tribus slaves qui ont occupe les territoires du Nord de l'Europe, derriere la ligne qui commence a l'embourchure de l'Elbe pour aboutir, en passant par Trieste, aux Balkans. Un peu d'histoire des Slovaques Parmi ces tribus slaves, se trouvaient les ancetres des Slovaques d'aujourd'hui. C'est parmi eux que surgit l'oraison que nous avons qualifiee de "monument culturel europeen". A partir du IV-eme siecle, les anciens Slovaques penetrerent dans le Bassin du Danube et occuperent les territoires sur le Danube, la Morava, V ah, Nitra, Hron et Tisa. Deux cents ans apres, ils ont ete subjugues par les A vars qui, venant des steppes russes, se sont infiltres dans le Bassin du Danube (576). Par suite de cette occupation, les ancetres des Slovaques ont perdu contact avec les tribus slaves du Nord. Cette separation geographique, ajoutee a la difference de langue et de moeurs (les A vars etaient des nomades qui s' adonnaient au pillage des territoires allemands tandis que les anciens Slovaques etaient des agriculteurs etablis et des artisans) contribuait a la formation d'un refus et d'une conscience de differences qui se manifestait, �104 SLOVAKIA d'apres le chroniqueur franc Fredegaire, par de continuelles rebellions contre les Avars. En 624, au moment d'une de ces rebellions, arriva en ces territoires un marchand franc nomme Samo qui se mit a la tete des Slaves. Il battit les A vars et organisa le premier Etat protoslovaque dans ces regions. Sous le regne du roi Samo la population connut trente ans de paix, ce qui contribua a la consolidation d'une conscience ethnique embryonnaire. Nous en trouvons des traces dans l 'oraison mentionnee. En 796, Charlemagne se decida aen terminer avec les A vars. Avec l' aide des anciens Slovaques, Charlemagne detruisit l' empire primitif des A vars, de sorte que ce peuple disparut de l'histoire de !'Europe. Le contact de Charlemagne avec les anciens Slovaques est d' un symbolisme tres profond pour l'histoire de l'Europe car, grace acette rencontre, les nations slaves ont commence a entrer dans l'histoire de l'Europe. Les protagonistes de cet evement historique etaient les anciens Slovaques. Les premiers et les seuls d'entre les Slaves a avoir connu Charlemagne de son vivant. Les Slovaques en sont restes tres impressionnes. La preuve en est qu'ils ont commence autiliser le nom propre de Charlemagne "Karl" pour designer le roi (kni/). Cette designation slovaque fut plus tard acceptee par les autres nations slaves (Tcheques et Polonais) voisines des Slovaques et les Magyars (kinily) l'adopterent egalement apres !'occupation des territoires slovaques. C'est la deuxieme fois, apres "Caesar", que le nom propre d'un commandant militaire devient titre pour l'autorite supreme de l'Etat. La presence de Charlemagne sur les frontieres slovaques se fit sentir sous deux aspects: premierement, fidele a sa conception d'Etat, Charlemagne se considerait souverain feodal des territoires slovaques apres la defaite des A vars. Deuxiemement, comme proprietaire feodal preoccupe par la christianisation de �SLOVAKIA 105 ses terres, en 798 il donna l'ordre personnel a l'archeveque de Salzbourg d'envoyer des missionnaires dans les regions recemment annexees a son Empire ("lpse imperator praecepit Amoni archiepiscoJXJ pergere in partes Sclavomm"). Evidemment, Charlemagne ne savait pas que le christianisme avait ete preche parmi les anciens Slovaques par les missions italienne, irlandaise et anglo-saxonne. C'est ainsi qu'apres d'autres missionnaires, les territoires des anciens Slovaques ont ete evangelises par des moines bavarois avec un tel succes que, probablement deja en 824 fut consacree, par l'archeveque de Salzbourg, la premiere eglise batie en pierres, a Nitra siege du prince slovaque Pribina. La presence des missionnaires bavarois suscitait chez la noblesse slovaque une mefiance politique, parce qu'ils essayaient de renforcer leurs pretensions politiques sur les terres ou ils prechaient l 'Evangile. 11 est fort probable egalement, que la noblesse slovaque ait res:u des nouvelles sur la brutalite germanique envers les Slaves du Nord. D'autant plus que la noblesse ne put oublier la domination avare et craignait de tomber a nouveau sous la souverainete etrangere. C'est probablement pour cela qu'un autre prince slovaque, Mojmfr, chassa Pribine de Nitra, le considerant germanophile (sa femme etait allemande). Mojmfr unifia les deux principautes slovaques en un seul etat connu dans l'histoire comme "Grande Moravie". Ces changements deplurent au roi bavarois, Ludwig (neveu de Charlemagne) et en 846 il penetra dans les territoires slovaques, deposa Mojmfr et installa Rastislav. Mais Rastislav, a son tour, ne reconnaissait pas la souverainete feodale de Ludwig. C'est la raison pour laquelle il s' adressa a l 'empereur bizantin Michel III en le priant de lui envoyer des missionnaires qui connussent la langue du peuple (861). 11 y avait a Bizance, en ce temps la, deux freres: �106 SLOVAKIA Constantin et Methode, qui dominaient la langue paleoslave. Ils se rendirent en 863 en territoire slovaque. Pour reussir dans cette mission, Constantin crea !'alphabet dit 'glagolique', adapte aux sons de la langue slave a laquelle ils traduisirent les textes fondamentaux de la Bible. En s'installant au royaume de Rastislav, ils constaterent que les messes etaient deja celebrees en latin d' apres la liturgie romaine. Ils se sont decide a maintenir la liturgie romaine mais, en meme temps ils traduisirent les textes remains (latins) a la langue du peuple. Et nous voici en presence de l'une de ces oraisons de messe dont nous avons dit qu'elle est un "monument culturel europeen". "Vingtieme oraison de Kiev' On la nomme "vingtieme" parce qu'elle se trouve sur la vingtieme feuille de la collection connue comme "Collection de Kiev" (en Ukraine). Voici le texte paleoslave de cette oraison: "Cesarstve nasemu, Gospodi, milostjo Tvojejo prizri. I ne otdai nasego tuiim I ne obrati nas v plen narodom poganskym". En fran~ais: "Veillez, Seigneur, sur notre royaume avec Votre grace. Et ne livrez pas ce qui est notre aux etrangers et ne nous convertissez pas en proie des nations pa·iennes". Nous avons deja dit que les anciens Slovaques recevaient le christianisme des le VII-eme siecle et, par consequent, il y eut probablement parmi les pretres slovaques un grand nombre d'entre aux qui dominait bien le latin. En effet, avant sa mort, �SLOVAKIA 107 Saint Methode dit de Saint Gorazd, son disciple slovaque qu "'il est bien instruit dans Jes livres latins". En examinant le texte, les philologues slovaques ont trouve le texte latin, correspondant a toutes les oraisons de la Collection Kiev, sauf celui de la vingtieme oraison. Ils en sont restes perplexes. Mais a tort, car le sujet de cette oraison fait reference aux besoins particuliers du royaume slovaque. 11 est done bien naturel qu' ils n 'aient pas trouve le texte dans les missels de l'Eglise universelle car nous savons que chaque pays a ses propres oraisons de messe. La "vingtieme" oraison est, d'apres son contenu, une oraison "propre" au royaume slovaque. Nous pouvons legitimement nous demander quand a-t-elle ete ecrite. Sans encourir en erreur, nous pouvons en toute quietude affirmer qu'elle a ete ecrite avant l'arrivee de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode car, peu apres leur arrivee, elle fut traduite au paleoslovaque. Je dis "paleoslovaque" parce que, d'apres les philologues, dans le texte on trouve deja des elements qui la distinguent de la langue paleoslave. Et c 'est bien comprehensible car les anciens Slovaques se trouverent isoles des Slaves du Nord pendant plus de trois siecles (a cause des Avars et egalement a cause du royaume de Samo). D'autre part, elle a pu etre ecrite apres la formation de la Principaute slovaque (836) ou, au plus tard, apres la deposition de Mojmir par Ludwig (846). L'auteur de l'oraison a du etre membre de la haute noblesse slovaque car il semble tres bien verse en questions politiques. Comme enfant il a du ecouter ses parents parler des cruautes des Avars et par sa propre experience il se rendait compte des velleites politiques du roi bavarois. L'auteur re~ut une tres bonne formation latine car il a parfaitement saisi la construction des oraisons de messe latine qui excellent par leur brievete, leur contenu condense, leur clarte des concepts et la cadence poetique. �108 SLOVAKIA De plus il devait avoir une position elevees dans la hierarchie latine en Slovaquie, qui seule pouvait autoriser l'usage public d'une oraison de messe. Le texte latin a du etre le suivant: "Regnum nostrum, Domine, gratia Tua respice. Et _ne tradas nostra alienis nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum". A la premiere lecture, on s' aper~oit de la maturite politique de cette oraison car d'un cote elle fait allusion a la destitution du prince Mojmir (ne tradas nostra aliensis) et de l'autre elle fait allusion aux nouvelles sur l'apparition des avant-gardes Magyars sur la frontiere orientale du royaume (nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum). Faisant reference a la demiere partie de l' oraison, le philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrit que "derriere cette oraison on entend le bruit des sabots de envahisseurs magyars". Ou'y-a-t-il d'Europeen dans cette oraison? Avant tout, il nous faut rappeler que l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est sans ses nations qui sont toutes ses enfants, nes a I' abri de sa formation. Parmi celles-ci, la nation slovaque etait presente quand Charlemagne posait les fondations de !'Europe, meme si les Slovaques sont aujourd'hui peu connus pour leur histoire politique mouvementee. La nation slovaque a brille trop peu de temps et s 'etait eclipsee pendant mil ans. L'Europe ne peut nier !'existence d'aucune de ses nations sans se trahir. C'est pour cela qu'elle a reconu !'existence de la nation slovaque en acceptant la Republique Slovaque comme un de ses members. Une des lumieres qui nous parvient de tres loin et qui temoigne du sens europeen des Slovaques, c'est precisement la vingtieme oraison de Kiev. �SLOVAKIA 109 Les anciens Slovaques consideraient leur pays comme une propriete inalienable. C'est un point de vue commun a toutes les nations europeennes. Ils etaient preoccupes de voir leur pays assujetti anouveau comme au temps des A vars. Et voici que les Francs veulent s'emparer de leurs terres au titre de la divulgation de l'Evangile! Et, sur la frontiere orientale se trouvait apres les Avars, un autre peuple mongolien: les Magyars! En effet, l'oraison est une expression d'angoisse d'une communaute nationale, menacee de deux cotes, qui n'aspire a autre chose qu'a vivre en paix avec tous. C'est pour ces raisons que l 'oraison est dirigee a Dieu, pour implorer sa protection. Elle n'invoque pas les foudres divines pour aneantir les ennemis, ce que prouve que l'esprit de christianisme etait deja bien enracine parmi les Slovaques. Sous un autre aspect, cette oraison est un resume d'un traite embryonnaire des droits ethniques. En effet, nous pouvons y lire, sans exagerer, le droit a la terre propre, le droit a la liberte, le droit a la vie et le droit a l'autodetermination. Il s'agit des valeurs humaines "to which the Jaws of nature and of nature's God entide them" comme l'ont exprime les fondateurs des Etats-Unis, le 4 Juillet 1776, presque mil ans apres. L' oraison anticipe ce qu' a Helsinki I'Europe reconna1tra comme droits ethniques legitimes. Il s' agit, en effet, du premier document europeen qui devance les siecles a venir de l'histoire de l'Europe: !'existence des communautes nationales conscientes de leurs droits. Il y a un autre aspect tres important: cette oraison exprime, pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire de l'Europe, la conscience nationale d ' un groupe ethnique. Mais il l'exprime comme quelque chose de pur, d'humain et de noble. En effet, l'aspect bumain du national devrait devenir un tresor commun a toutes les nations pour eviter la deformation du national et pour etablir une base ferme pour cohabitation pacifique des peuples. �110 SLOVAKIA Ou'y-a-t-il de culture/? Tous les grands auteurs qui se sont occupes du phenomene "nation" sont unanimes: la culture est une forme de spiritualite. A son tour, la spiritualite est une forme de culture; quelque chose d ' inseparable de l'homme concret. C'est pour cela que la culture d 'un people pauvre qui vit sa spiritualite est superieure a celle d 'un people riche drape dans des valeurs materielles. Et comme "la culture cache beaucoup plus que ce qu' elle reveJe" (Edward T. Hall), son secret indique que sa derniere raison d'etre est d'une nature transcendante. Probablement c'est a cet aspect que fait allusion Aleksandr Soljeni tsyne lorsqu 'il dit, a l 'occasion du Prix Nobel, que Jes nations et Jeurs cultures sont Jes differents visages de Dieu. L 'Europe est le resultat de la culture de ses nations. La beaute d' un pre est le resultat de la multiplicite des aspeces de fleurs. S' il n'y avait au monde qu ' un seul type de fleurs, le monde nous paraitrait tres pauvre en beaute. La beaute de l'Europe est due ala multiplicite de cultures qui surgirent du meme sol spirituel duquel elles recevaient leur nourriture. Dans une roseraie il y a beaucoup de rosiers qui tous produisent des roses, mais les roses different par leurs parfums. La multiplicite des cultures europeennes represente la richesse spirituelle de l'Europe car chaque culture nationale contient quelque chose de propre, ce qui est la consequence de son individualite. L'europeite de cultures se doit a ce qu 'elles sont enracinees dans les fondements de l 'Europe. La beaute humaine de cette oraison de messe depasse les chroniques germaniques d'une maniere extraordinaire. Elle contient le desir de justice comme fondement de la coexistence pacifique des peoples sans en blesser aucun. Apres plus de mil ans, un ecrivain slovaque (Vladimir Mimic) en interpretant le sens de l'histoire des Slovaques a pu �SLOVAKIA 111 dire que "etre Slovaque, cela signifie etre frere de tous Jes hommes, ce qui constitue le noble heritage de notre histoire". La culture d'un peuple depend aussi de la richesse de sa litterature. La vingtieme oraison de messe represente un des monuments litteraires slovaques du IX-eme siecle, parce qu'elle est ecrite dans une langue qui etait non seulement une langue liturgique mais, par l'oeuvre de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode, elle s' est convertie en langue litteraire de la Grande Moravie, qui etait aussi employee dans la jurisprudence et dans !'administration publique. Surles qualites grammaticales de cette langue, l 'eminent philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrivit: "il s' agissait d' une Jangue polie et culti vee. La richesse des formes de construction grammaticales, J'elaboration de la syntaxe, la ch11te et la variete du tresor verbal, placent la Jangue paleoslovaque a la hauteur des Jangues culturelles de ce temps-la: le grec et le Jatin". C' est pour ces raison que la vingtieme oraison de la Collection de Kiev appartient au tresor spirituel de !'Europe. Elle ne peut s' en desinteresser. L'histoire postirieure des Slovaques En 907, lors de la bataille de Bratislava (Capitale contemporaine de la Slovaquie) sous une attaque commune des Francs et des Magyars, le royaume de la Grande Mora vie s' est ecroule. On suppose que la grande majorite de la noblesse a perdu la vie sur le champ de bataille. Les territoires slovaques ont ete partiellement occupes par les Magyars et, pendant mil ans, la Slovaquie a fait partie du royaume connu sous le nom de HONGRIE. Les Slovaques ont perdu leur royaume, mais ils n'ont pas perdu leur vie grace aune circonstance providentielle. �112 SLOVAKIA Ernest Renan, dans sa conference de 1880, se demandait comment la "couronne de Saint Etienne (le premier roi hongrois) ne put assimiler Jes Slovaques" (ii parlait des Slaves, parce qu'apres l'an 1201 un autre peuple slave - le croate - faisait partie de la Hongrie). La raison en est tres simple. Le roi n 'a pas pu introduire la langue slovaque comme langue officielle du royaume, malgre ses valeurs litteraires et administratives, tout simplement parce qu'il s'agissait de la langue d' un peuple subjugue. Et ii ne pu recourir a la langue magyar parce qu 'elle n 'existait pas. Les Magyars etaient des nomades qui ont ete ecrasees en 955 sur la Lech par l'Empereur Otto I-er. Ce n 'est qu ' apres cette defaite qu' ils deciderent de s 'etablir et d' abandonner le pillage. Par consequent, Saint Etiene introduisit en Hongrie le latin comme langue officielle, ce qui a dure jusqu'en 1840. A cause de cette mesure aussi bien la culture slovaque que celle des Magyars s 'est limitee a la culture populaire. En effet, il n'y a pas eu d'oeuvres litteraires slovaques ou magyares pendant des ciecles. Elles n'apparurent qu'a la fin du XVIII-eme siecle. II y a des preuves irrefutables permettant d'affirmer que les Magyars re~urent leur civilisation des anciens Slovaques. Bien evidement, les historiens magyars essayent de les minimiser. C'est par les Slovaques que les Magyars ont appris a cultiver la terre. Les termes magyars ayant trait a }'agriculture sont d' origine slovaque. Les slovaques nobles qui survecurent au desastre ont contribue a l 'organisation de l'Etat. En effet, les noms des foncionnaires de la cour royale sont d'origine slovaque (roi = kral - kiraly, prefet = span - ispan; cour = dvor - udvar, courtisan = dvomik - udvamok). II y a egalement des preuves demontrant que l' ordre juridique de la Grande Moravie fut transplante en Hongrie. En effet, juge en magyar se dit kenez du mot slovaque knaz. Les �SLOVAKIA 113 Magyars disaient, en ce temps la, qu'ils iraient "ad pravdam" lorsqu 'ils prenaient la decision de s 'adresser au tribunal pour regler leurs droits. "Pravda" signifie en slovaque "droit". La terminologie de la religion est aussi d' origine slovaque (bapteme =krstit' - keresztelni; pa'ien =pohan - pogany, enfer =peklo - pokol; frere = brat - banit). Au debut les Magyars n'avaient pas de terme magyar pour la "grace" divine, ils utilisaient le mot slovaque "milost"'. Naturellement, la science magyare contemporaine fait !'impossible pour effacer cette dependance culturelle des anciens Slovaques. Pendant des siecles, les deux communautes nationales cohabitaient en paix, contribuant par leur travail et leur sang au progres de la Hongrie. Le changement se produisit a un moment historique de !'Europe lorsque !es nations se sont reveillees et ont pris conscience de leurs identites differentes les unes des autres. Des le XVII-eme siecle, nous assistons en Europe a un phenomene generalise. Dans les Etats ou, pendant des siecles, cohabitaient deux ou trois nations, la nation qui detenait le pouvoir politique commern;a a faire pression pour faire dispara1tre les langues qui n'etaient pas la sienne. Ce fut aussi le cas de la Hongrie. Les Magyars decha1nerent une persecution contre tout ce qui etait slovaque. En 1872, pour eviler la formation de I'intelligentsia, ils fermerent les dernieres ecoles de l'enseignement secondaire et, plus tard, les ecoles furent magyarisees. La revolution de 1918 a sauve les Slovaques de la mort ethnique. En 1918, les Slovaques s'unirent aux Tcheques pour former un Etat commun. Mais le mot Tcheco-Slovaquie (c'etait le nom du nouvel Etat dans le Traite de Versailles) fut changee en "Tchecoslovaquie" par les Tcheques qui lancerent la theorie selon laquelle les Slovaques n 'etaient qu 'une tribu tcheque. �I 14 SLOVAKIA Ni Masaryk, ni Benes (President et Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres) ne se rendaient compte qu'une nation n'est pas un troupeau de brebis qu'ont peut envoyer dans n'importe quel bercail. 11 est vrai que les Slovaques et les Tcheques sont deux nations voisines, mais ils n'avaient jamais vecu dans le meme Etat. Leur histoire s'est deroulee d'une maniere differente, leurs langues et leurs cultures populaires ont des caracteristiques differentes et, par consequent, leurs personnalites ethniques sont differentes. Les Tcheques ont fait leur possible pendant soixante-dix ans pour tchequiser les Slovaques. La resistance slovaque fut telle qu'ils n'y reussirent pas. Ils firent, cependant, grand tort a la conscience d'identite nationale slovaque. A nouveau, la revolution de 1989 sauva les Slovaques d'un embrassement suffoquant du point de vue national, politique et economique. Le I-er Janvier 1993 apparut, sur la carte geographique de !'Europe, la Republique slovaque desireuse de participer a la vie economique, politique et culturelle de !'Europe, sans intermediaires. Bibliographie Bartek, Henrich: Les debuts du christianisme chez Jes Slovaques (en slovaque). Slobodne Slovensko, Vol. X, 5. Bro, Bertrand: La beaute sauvera le monde, Cerf, Paris, 1990. Carrere d'Encausse, Helene: La gloire des nations, Fayard, Paris, 1990. The Celts, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Chadwick, Nora: England, 1970. �SLOVAKIA Dejiny Slovenska: Delort, Robert: Hall, Edward T.: Herrn, Gerhard: Heer, Friedrich: Krajcovic, Rudolf: Lacko, Michal: Martini, Alberto: Montanelli, lndro: Pauliny, Eugen: Ratkos, Peter: Simons, Gerald: Veiter, Theodor: 115 L'histoire de la Slovaquie, Vol. I, Bratislava, 1986. LeMoyen-Age, Edita, Lausanne, 1972. The Silent Language, Anchor, New York, 1973. Die Kellen, Econ Verlag, Diisseldorf, 1975. Das heilige romische Reich, Heyne Verlag, Miinchen, 1967. Le temoignage de l'histoire sur le Slovaque, Matica slovenska, Martin, 1977 (en slovaque ). Saint Cyrill and Methodius, Slovensky ustav, Rome 1969. Le Moyen-Age Europeen, Fabbri, Milano, 1963. Storia d'Italia, Rizzoli, Milano, 1959. La litterature et la langue culturelle de la Grande Mora vie, SA V, Bratislava, 1964 (en slovaque). Les sources de l'histoire de la Grande Moravie, SAY, Bratislava, 1961 (en slovaque). Orfgenes de Europa , Time-Life Int. , Amsterdam, 1968. Nationalitiittenfrage und Volksgroppenrecht, Braumiiller, Vienne, 1984. �� 98 SLOVAKIA Une oraison de messe: Monument culture) ., europeen Stefan Polakovic Une oraison de messe: Monument culture/? Et de /'Europe? Eh, oui! Seulement pour le comprendre, nous devons descendre dans les entrailles memes de l'histoire de l'Europe. Avant de pouvoir qualifier un phenomene d'europeen, il nous faut savoir ce que nous entendons par "Europe". Et l'on ne comprendra rien a l'Europe, tant qu' on ne saura rien sur ses origines et sa formation. Elements constitutifs de /'Europe 11 fut un temps ou cette Europe que nous connaissons a l'heure actuelle n'existait pas. C'est a Charlemagne que nous devons son existence. A partir du V-eme siecle, apres la destruction de l'Europe Romaine par les tribus germaniques, il n'y eut plus qu'un tas de debris administratifs, juridiques et sociaux. C'est precisement a ce moment la que commence l'ouvre grandiose de Charlemagne pour reconstruire et fonder une nouvelle Europe. �SLOVAKIA 99 Dans une Europe ou regnait un desordre general, il introduisit l'ordre avant tout, en creant un nouveau systeme d'organization politique connu comme feodal qui dura pendant mil ans. Cet ordre s'appuyait sur le principe que le roi etat le seul proprietaire de toutes les terres. Pendant la royaute il y avait une noblesse superieure a laquelle le roi concedait l'usage des terres en fief (du latin: feudum, d'ou: feodal). Plus bas se trouvait la noblesse inferieure, les habitants des villes (artisans, marchands et bourgeois) et encore plus en dessous au bas de la pyramide politique, se trouvaient les paysans (90% de la population). A vec le systeme feodal nacquit en Europe la sfirete juridique, !'administration de la justice et, par consequent, la rennaissance ·de la vie economique. Grace au systeme feodal I'Europe a pu se relever du desastre general. Par la fondation d'une nouvelle politique, Charlemagne contribua ace que l'Europe se retrouve. L'introduction des ecoles constitua un autre element qui favorisa la naissance de I'Europe. Pour commencer, il ordonna l'ouverture d'ecoles gratuites dans les cathedrales, monasteres et paroisses, destinees avant tout a la formation des foncionnaires d'Etat. Sur !'initiative de Charlemagne, prenant probablement exemple sur l' Academie de Bizance, fut creee l"'Accademia Palatina", qui fut, posterieurement, d'une enorme importance pour !'evolution et la formation de l'Europe, car en peu de temps les Ecoles Superieures se sont transformees en Universites. Sans universites, l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est. L'Europe doit aux universites son developpement scientifique, les progres technologiques et economiques et, surtout, !'evolution politique. En effet, c'est grace aux universites que les peuples europeens ont commence a envisager, plus tard, une reforme du systeme feodal pour le remplacer, a partir de la Revolution Fran~aise, par un systeme democratique. Systeme �100 SLOVAKIA democratique qui fut implante pour la premiere fois aux EtatsU nis en 1776, seize ans avant la Revolution Fran~aise. De plus, Charlemagne encouragea les arts en general: architecture, peinture, sculpture. Lors de ses voyages en Italie il admira ses basiliques et ses eglises. Grace a son appui surgit ce que nous connaissons comme rennaissance artistique carolingienne. 11 voulut voir la floraison des arts dans son empire. 11 fit construire la "CAPELLA PALATINA" a Aix-la-Chapelle, qui est une imitation de la Basilique de Saint Vital a Ravenne. Sous Charlemagne, les architectes commencerent a remplacer dans leurs constructions le bois par la pierre. On vit l 'Europe entiere se couvrir de cathedrales de style roman. En peu de temps le style roman arriva jusqu'au centre de l'Europe grace aux moines benedictins. En effet, on trouve en Slovaquie, centre geographique de l'Europe des eglises romanes contruites en pierre peu apres la mort de Charlemagne. Une fois commence, l'art europeen ne connut pas d'interruption jusqu'a nos jours. L'art europeen occupe une place predominante dans l'histoire de l'art. Autre phenomene, sans lequel la constitution de l'Europe n'aurait pu se produire, ce sont ses nations et leurs cultures qui ont surgi a l'abri du feodalisme, l'education, les arts et la religion chretienne. Par "nation" je n'entends pas ici "Etat-nation", mais les communautes spirituelles des gens unis principalement par les liens d'une langue, d'une culture et d'une histoire communes, merne si elles n'ont pas un Etat propre (i. e.: les Kurdes). Comme dit Ernest Renan, lors de sa conference prononcee a la Sorbonne en 1880, a cause "des complications de l'histoire". Pour la meme raison, pendant des siecles, plusieurs nations europeennes n 'ont pu reconstituer leurs propres Etats apres les avoir perdus, comme par exemple les Slovaques, Croates, Slovenes, Lituaniens, Lettons, Estoniens, Finlandais, etc. �SLOVAKIA 101 La nation se developpe a partir d'une tribu lorsque les conditions sont favorables. La condition fondamentale est la possesion d'un territoire ou elle pourra deployer sa richesse spirituelle et fortifier son unite ontologique en toute tranquillite. En l'etat nomade, aucune nation ne put se constituer ni se consolider, comme nous le confirme l'auteur gitan espagnol Juan Ramirez Heredia dans son livre "Nosotros, los Gitanos", en decrivant la tragedie de son peuple: "Pelerins perpetuels, exiles volontaires, fugitifs toujours en route, marchant sans reJXJs depuis des siecles sans decider ou s' etablir'. Beaucoup de tribuns et nations embryonnaires de souche celtique, germanique et slave ont disparu, absorbees par des cultures superieures. Certains processus ethnogenetiques ont pu reussir avec une cartaine facilite grace au fait qu'ils se developpaient a l'abri d'un Etat, tandis que d'autres, etant donne les "complications de l'histoire" mentionnees plus haut, croissaient plus lentement. Quoiqu ' il en fut, en Europe existent actuellement les nations suivantes: Du groupe Celtique: Bretons, Irlandais, Gallois et Ecossais; Du groupe Latin: Italiens, Fran~ais, Espagnols, Catalans, Portugais, Roumains et Rhetoromans (en Suisse); Du groupe Germanique: Allemands, Suedois, Norvegiens, Danois, Hollandais, Flamands et Anglais; Du groupe Slave: Russes, Bielorusses, Ukrainiens, Bulgares, Serbes, Croates, Slovenes, Slovaques, Tcheques, Polonais, Macedoniens et Lusitiens (en Allemagne). D'origine non indo-europeenne nous avons les Magyars, Lituaniens, Estoniens, Lettons, Finlandais et Basques. �102 SLOVAKIA Demierement, certaines de ces nations ont pu reconstruire leur ancien Etat. Entin, la religion chretienne fait partie des elements constitutifs de !'Europe. Le christianisme s 'epanouit non seulement grace a la force de la parole, mais avant tout, grace a la force de l'exemple. Suivant l'exemple de la population des anciennes provinces romaines, les tribus germaniques qui s'y infiltrerent ont accepte le bapteme et ont change leurs coutumes. ll est vrai que le changement fut lent, mais grace a ce changement nous assistons, deja au IX-eme siecle, a la creation d'ouvres d'art, de peuples autrefois barbares, inspirees par la doctrine chretienne. L'esprit du christianisme a marque profondement tous les peuples europeens. La vie du peuple commun (la grande majorite etaient des paysans) s'est adaptee en general aux commandements de la morale chretienne. Nous avons comme preuve les exemples de saintete et les traditions, chansons, legendes et contes populaires de toutes les nations europeennes. Apres la chute de !'Empire Romain il y avait en Europe une seule organisation qui resista a la debacle generale et ce fut celle de l'Eglise. Les eveques etaient la seule autorite qui maintenait un peu d' ordre juridique en appliquant le droit canon et le droit romain. En dehors de cela, l'Eglise encourageait la fondation de monasteres qui se sont transformes en centres d'aide et de civilisation. Par exemple celui de MARMOUTIER-SUR-LOIRE, en France, qui a ere fonde en 375. Plus tard, au VI-eme siecle, Saint Benoit introduisit une regle commune a tous les monasteres. Les monasteres benedictins ont contribue a la bonne marche de la vie economique et sociale, et de par leur oeuvre, l 'heridite de Rome fut sauvee. �SLOVAKIA 103 Les bibliotheques des grands couvents benedictins ont transmis a l 'Europe des ouvres litteraires qui autrement auraient disparu. 11 est vrai qu' au temps ou nacquit Charlemagne, les territoires des anciennes provinces romaines etaient deja christianisees. Sa propre tribu, les Francs, suivant l'exemple de leur roi Clovis (496), accepta le christianisme. Mais au temps de Charlemagne il fallait christianiser la Germanie, ou etaient installees plusieurs tribus germaniques, parmi lesquelles la plus puissante etait celle des Saxons. Et derriere, les tribus germaniques se trouvaient les tribus slaves qui ont occupe les territoires du Nord de l'Europe, derriere la ligne qui commence a l'embourchure de l'Elbe pour aboutir, en passant par Trieste, aux Balkans. Un peu d'histoire des Slovaques Parmi ces tribus slaves, se trouvaient les ancetres des Slovaques d'aujourd'hui. C'est parmi eux que surgit l'oraison que nous avons qualifiee de "monument culturel europeen". A partir du IV-eme siecle, les anciens Slovaques penetrerent dans le Bassin du Danube et occuperent les territoires sur le Danube, la Morava, V ah, Nitra, Hron et Tisa. Deux cents ans apres, ils ont ete subjugues par les A vars qui, venant des steppes russes, se sont infiltres dans le Bassin du Danube (576). Par suite de cette occupation, les ancetres des Slovaques ont perdu contact avec les tribus slaves du Nord. Cette separation geographique, ajoutee a la difference de langue et de moeurs (les A vars etaient des nomades qui s' adonnaient au pillage des territoires allemands tandis que les anciens Slovaques etaient des agriculteurs etablis et des artisans) contribuait a la formation d'un refus et d'une conscience de differences qui se manifestait, �104 SLOVAKIA d'apres le chroniqueur franc Fredegaire, par de continuelles rebellions contre les Avars. En 624, au moment d'une de ces rebellions, arriva en ces territoires un marchand franc nomme Samo qui se mit a la tete des Slaves. Il battit les A vars et organisa le premier Etat protoslovaque dans ces regions. Sous le regne du roi Samo la population connut trente ans de paix, ce qui contribua a la consolidation d'une conscience ethnique embryonnaire. Nous en trouvons des traces dans l 'oraison mentionnee. En 796, Charlemagne se decida aen terminer avec les A vars. Avec l' aide des anciens Slovaques, Charlemagne detruisit l' empire primitif des A vars, de sorte que ce peuple disparut de l'histoire de !'Europe. Le contact de Charlemagne avec les anciens Slovaques est d' un symbolisme tres profond pour l'histoire de l'Europe car, grace acette rencontre, les nations slaves ont commence a entrer dans l'histoire de l'Europe. Les protagonistes de cet evement historique etaient les anciens Slovaques. Les premiers et les seuls d'entre les Slaves a avoir connu Charlemagne de son vivant. Les Slovaques en sont restes tres impressionnes. La preuve en est qu'ils ont commence autiliser le nom propre de Charlemagne "Karl" pour designer le roi (kni/). Cette designation slovaque fut plus tard acceptee par les autres nations slaves (Tcheques et Polonais) voisines des Slovaques et les Magyars (kinily) l'adopterent egalement apres !'occupation des territoires slovaques. C'est la deuxieme fois, apres "Caesar", que le nom propre d'un commandant militaire devient titre pour l'autorite supreme de l'Etat. La presence de Charlemagne sur les frontieres slovaques se fit sentir sous deux aspects: premierement, fidele a sa conception d'Etat, Charlemagne se considerait souverain feodal des territoires slovaques apres la defaite des A vars. Deuxiemement, comme proprietaire feodal preoccupe par la christianisation de �SLOVAKIA 105 ses terres, en 798 il donna l'ordre personnel a l'archeveque de Salzbourg d'envoyer des missionnaires dans les regions recemment annexees a son Empire ("lpse imperator praecepit Amoni archiepiscoJXJ pergere in partes Sclavomm"). Evidemment, Charlemagne ne savait pas que le christianisme avait ete preche parmi les anciens Slovaques par les missions italienne, irlandaise et anglo-saxonne. C'est ainsi qu'apres d'autres missionnaires, les territoires des anciens Slovaques ont ete evangelises par des moines bavarois avec un tel succes que, probablement deja en 824 fut consacree, par l'archeveque de Salzbourg, la premiere eglise batie en pierres, a Nitra siege du prince slovaque Pribina. La presence des missionnaires bavarois suscitait chez la noblesse slovaque une mefiance politique, parce qu'ils essayaient de renforcer leurs pretensions politiques sur les terres ou ils prechaient l 'Evangile. 11 est fort probable egalement, que la noblesse slovaque ait res:u des nouvelles sur la brutalite germanique envers les Slaves du Nord. D'autant plus que la noblesse ne put oublier la domination avare et craignait de tomber a nouveau sous la souverainete etrangere. C'est probablement pour cela qu'un autre prince slovaque, Mojmfr, chassa Pribine de Nitra, le considerant germanophile (sa femme etait allemande). Mojmfr unifia les deux principautes slovaques en un seul etat connu dans l'histoire comme "Grande Moravie". Ces changements deplurent au roi bavarois, Ludwig (neveu de Charlemagne) et en 846 il penetra dans les territoires slovaques, deposa Mojmfr et installa Rastislav. Mais Rastislav, a son tour, ne reconnaissait pas la souverainete feodale de Ludwig. C'est la raison pour laquelle il s' adressa a l 'empereur bizantin Michel III en le priant de lui envoyer des missionnaires qui connussent la langue du peuple (861). 11 y avait a Bizance, en ce temps la, deux freres: �106 SLOVAKIA Constantin et Methode, qui dominaient la langue paleoslave. Ils se rendirent en 863 en territoire slovaque. Pour reussir dans cette mission, Constantin crea !'alphabet dit 'glagolique', adapte aux sons de la langue slave a laquelle ils traduisirent les textes fondamentaux de la Bible. En s'installant au royaume de Rastislav, ils constaterent que les messes etaient deja celebrees en latin d' apres la liturgie romaine. Ils se sont decide a maintenir la liturgie romaine mais, en meme temps ils traduisirent les textes remains (latins) a la langue du peuple. Et nous voici en presence de l'une de ces oraisons de messe dont nous avons dit qu'elle est un "monument culturel europeen". "Vingtieme oraison de Kiev' On la nomme "vingtieme" parce qu'elle se trouve sur la vingtieme feuille de la collection connue comme "Collection de Kiev" (en Ukraine). Voici le texte paleoslave de cette oraison: "Cesarstve nasemu, Gospodi, milostjo Tvojejo prizri. I ne otdai nasego tuiim I ne obrati nas v plen narodom poganskym". En fran~ais: "Veillez, Seigneur, sur notre royaume avec Votre grace. Et ne livrez pas ce qui est notre aux etrangers et ne nous convertissez pas en proie des nations pa·iennes". Nous avons deja dit que les anciens Slovaques recevaient le christianisme des le VII-eme siecle et, par consequent, il y eut probablement parmi les pretres slovaques un grand nombre d'entre aux qui dominait bien le latin. En effet, avant sa mort, �SLOVAKIA 107 Saint Methode dit de Saint Gorazd, son disciple slovaque qu "'il est bien instruit dans Jes livres latins". En examinant le texte, les philologues slovaques ont trouve le texte latin, correspondant a toutes les oraisons de la Collection Kiev, sauf celui de la vingtieme oraison. Ils en sont restes perplexes. Mais a tort, car le sujet de cette oraison fait reference aux besoins particuliers du royaume slovaque. 11 est done bien naturel qu' ils n 'aient pas trouve le texte dans les missels de l'Eglise universelle car nous savons que chaque pays a ses propres oraisons de messe. La "vingtieme" oraison est, d'apres son contenu, une oraison "propre" au royaume slovaque. Nous pouvons legitimement nous demander quand a-t-elle ete ecrite. Sans encourir en erreur, nous pouvons en toute quietude affirmer qu'elle a ete ecrite avant l'arrivee de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode car, peu apres leur arrivee, elle fut traduite au paleoslovaque. Je dis "paleoslovaque" parce que, d'apres les philologues, dans le texte on trouve deja des elements qui la distinguent de la langue paleoslave. Et c 'est bien comprehensible car les anciens Slovaques se trouverent isoles des Slaves du Nord pendant plus de trois siecles (a cause des Avars et egalement a cause du royaume de Samo). D'autre part, elle a pu etre ecrite apres la formation de la Principaute slovaque (836) ou, au plus tard, apres la deposition de Mojmir par Ludwig (846). L'auteur de l'oraison a du etre membre de la haute noblesse slovaque car il semble tres bien verse en questions politiques. Comme enfant il a du ecouter ses parents parler des cruautes des Avars et par sa propre experience il se rendait compte des velleites politiques du roi bavarois. L'auteur re~ut une tres bonne formation latine car il a parfaitement saisi la construction des oraisons de messe latine qui excellent par leur brievete, leur contenu condense, leur clarte des concepts et la cadence poetique. �108 SLOVAKIA De plus il devait avoir une position elevees dans la hierarchie latine en Slovaquie, qui seule pouvait autoriser l'usage public d'une oraison de messe. Le texte latin a du etre le suivant: "Regnum nostrum, Domine, gratia Tua respice. Et _ne tradas nostra alienis nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum". A la premiere lecture, on s' aper~oit de la maturite politique de cette oraison car d'un cote elle fait allusion a la destitution du prince Mojmir (ne tradas nostra aliensis) et de l'autre elle fait allusion aux nouvelles sur l'apparition des avant-gardes Magyars sur la frontiere orientale du royaume (nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum). Faisant reference a la demiere partie de l' oraison, le philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrit que "derriere cette oraison on entend le bruit des sabots de envahisseurs magyars". Ou'y-a-t-il d'Europeen dans cette oraison? Avant tout, il nous faut rappeler que l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est sans ses nations qui sont toutes ses enfants, nes a I' abri de sa formation. Parmi celles-ci, la nation slovaque etait presente quand Charlemagne posait les fondations de !'Europe, meme si les Slovaques sont aujourd'hui peu connus pour leur histoire politique mouvementee. La nation slovaque a brille trop peu de temps et s 'etait eclipsee pendant mil ans. L'Europe ne peut nier !'existence d'aucune de ses nations sans se trahir. C'est pour cela qu'elle a reconu !'existence de la nation slovaque en acceptant la Republique Slovaque comme un de ses members. Une des lumieres qui nous parvient de tres loin et qui temoigne du sens europeen des Slovaques, c'est precisement la vingtieme oraison de Kiev. �SLOVAKIA 109 Les anciens Slovaques consideraient leur pays comme une propriete inalienable. C'est un point de vue commun a toutes les nations europeennes. Ils etaient preoccupes de voir leur pays assujetti anouveau comme au temps des A vars. Et voici que les Francs veulent s'emparer de leurs terres au titre de la divulgation de l'Evangile! Et, sur la frontiere orientale se trouvait apres les Avars, un autre peuple mongolien: les Magyars! En effet, l'oraison est une expression d'angoisse d'une communaute nationale, menacee de deux cotes, qui n'aspire a autre chose qu'a vivre en paix avec tous. C'est pour ces raisons que l 'oraison est dirigee a Dieu, pour implorer sa protection. Elle n'invoque pas les foudres divines pour aneantir les ennemis, ce que prouve que l'esprit de christianisme etait deja bien enracine parmi les Slovaques. Sous un autre aspect, cette oraison est un resume d'un traite embryonnaire des droits ethniques. En effet, nous pouvons y lire, sans exagerer, le droit a la terre propre, le droit a la liberte, le droit a la vie et le droit a l'autodetermination. Il s'agit des valeurs humaines "to which the Jaws of nature and of nature's God entide them" comme l'ont exprime les fondateurs des Etats-Unis, le 4 Juillet 1776, presque mil ans apres. L' oraison anticipe ce qu' a Helsinki I'Europe reconna1tra comme droits ethniques legitimes. Il s' agit, en effet, du premier document europeen qui devance les siecles a venir de l'histoire de l'Europe: !'existence des communautes nationales conscientes de leurs droits. Il y a un autre aspect tres important: cette oraison exprime, pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire de l'Europe, la conscience nationale d ' un groupe ethnique. Mais il l'exprime comme quelque chose de pur, d'humain et de noble. En effet, l'aspect bumain du national devrait devenir un tresor commun a toutes les nations pour eviter la deformation du national et pour etablir une base ferme pour cohabitation pacifique des peuples. �110 SLOVAKIA Ou'y-a-t-il de culture/? Tous les grands auteurs qui se sont occupes du phenomene "nation" sont unanimes: la culture est une forme de spiritualite. A son tour, la spiritualite est une forme de culture; quelque chose d ' inseparable de l'homme concret. C'est pour cela que la culture d 'un people pauvre qui vit sa spiritualite est superieure a celle d 'un people riche drape dans des valeurs materielles. Et comme "la culture cache beaucoup plus que ce qu' elle reveJe" (Edward T. Hall), son secret indique que sa derniere raison d'etre est d'une nature transcendante. Probablement c'est a cet aspect que fait allusion Aleksandr Soljeni tsyne lorsqu 'il dit, a l 'occasion du Prix Nobel, que Jes nations et Jeurs cultures sont Jes differents visages de Dieu. L 'Europe est le resultat de la culture de ses nations. La beaute d' un pre est le resultat de la multiplicite des aspeces de fleurs. S' il n'y avait au monde qu ' un seul type de fleurs, le monde nous paraitrait tres pauvre en beaute. La beaute de l'Europe est due ala multiplicite de cultures qui surgirent du meme sol spirituel duquel elles recevaient leur nourriture. Dans une roseraie il y a beaucoup de rosiers qui tous produisent des roses, mais les roses different par leurs parfums. La multiplicite des cultures europeennes represente la richesse spirituelle de l'Europe car chaque culture nationale contient quelque chose de propre, ce qui est la consequence de son individualite. L'europeite de cultures se doit a ce qu 'elles sont enracinees dans les fondements de l 'Europe. La beaute humaine de cette oraison de messe depasse les chroniques germaniques d'une maniere extraordinaire. Elle contient le desir de justice comme fondement de la coexistence pacifique des peoples sans en blesser aucun. Apres plus de mil ans, un ecrivain slovaque (Vladimir Mimic) en interpretant le sens de l'histoire des Slovaques a pu �SLOVAKIA 111 dire que "etre Slovaque, cela signifie etre frere de tous Jes hommes, ce qui constitue le noble heritage de notre histoire". La culture d'un peuple depend aussi de la richesse de sa litterature. La vingtieme oraison de messe represente un des monuments litteraires slovaques du IX-eme siecle, parce qu'elle est ecrite dans une langue qui etait non seulement une langue liturgique mais, par l'oeuvre de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode, elle s' est convertie en langue litteraire de la Grande Moravie, qui etait aussi employee dans la jurisprudence et dans !'administration publique. Surles qualites grammaticales de cette langue, l 'eminent philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrivit: "il s' agissait d' une Jangue polie et culti vee. La richesse des formes de construction grammaticales, J'elaboration de la syntaxe, la ch11te et la variete du tresor verbal, placent la Jangue paleoslovaque a la hauteur des Jangues culturelles de ce temps-la: le grec et le Jatin". C' est pour ces raison que la vingtieme oraison de la Collection de Kiev appartient au tresor spirituel de !'Europe. Elle ne peut s' en desinteresser. L'histoire postirieure des Slovaques En 907, lors de la bataille de Bratislava (Capitale contemporaine de la Slovaquie) sous une attaque commune des Francs et des Magyars, le royaume de la Grande Mora vie s' est ecroule. On suppose que la grande majorite de la noblesse a perdu la vie sur le champ de bataille. Les territoires slovaques ont ete partiellement occupes par les Magyars et, pendant mil ans, la Slovaquie a fait partie du royaume connu sous le nom de HONGRIE. Les Slovaques ont perdu leur royaume, mais ils n'ont pas perdu leur vie grace aune circonstance providentielle. �112 SLOVAKIA Ernest Renan, dans sa conference de 1880, se demandait comment la "couronne de Saint Etienne (le premier roi hongrois) ne put assimiler Jes Slovaques" (ii parlait des Slaves, parce qu'apres l'an 1201 un autre peuple slave - le croate - faisait partie de la Hongrie). La raison en est tres simple. Le roi n 'a pas pu introduire la langue slovaque comme langue officielle du royaume, malgre ses valeurs litteraires et administratives, tout simplement parce qu'il s'agissait de la langue d' un peuple subjugue. Et ii ne pu recourir a la langue magyar parce qu 'elle n 'existait pas. Les Magyars etaient des nomades qui ont ete ecrasees en 955 sur la Lech par l'Empereur Otto I-er. Ce n 'est qu ' apres cette defaite qu' ils deciderent de s 'etablir et d' abandonner le pillage. Par consequent, Saint Etiene introduisit en Hongrie le latin comme langue officielle, ce qui a dure jusqu'en 1840. A cause de cette mesure aussi bien la culture slovaque que celle des Magyars s 'est limitee a la culture populaire. En effet, il n'y a pas eu d'oeuvres litteraires slovaques ou magyares pendant des ciecles. Elles n'apparurent qu'a la fin du XVIII-eme siecle. II y a des preuves irrefutables permettant d'affirmer que les Magyars re~urent leur civilisation des anciens Slovaques. Bien evidement, les historiens magyars essayent de les minimiser. C'est par les Slovaques que les Magyars ont appris a cultiver la terre. Les termes magyars ayant trait a }'agriculture sont d' origine slovaque. Les slovaques nobles qui survecurent au desastre ont contribue a l 'organisation de l'Etat. En effet, les noms des foncionnaires de la cour royale sont d'origine slovaque (roi = kral - kiraly, prefet = span - ispan; cour = dvor - udvar, courtisan = dvomik - udvamok). II y a egalement des preuves demontrant que l' ordre juridique de la Grande Moravie fut transplante en Hongrie. En effet, juge en magyar se dit kenez du mot slovaque knaz. Les �SLOVAKIA 113 Magyars disaient, en ce temps la, qu'ils iraient "ad pravdam" lorsqu 'ils prenaient la decision de s 'adresser au tribunal pour regler leurs droits. "Pravda" signifie en slovaque "droit". La terminologie de la religion est aussi d' origine slovaque (bapteme =krstit' - keresztelni; pa'ien =pohan - pogany, enfer =peklo - pokol; frere = brat - banit). Au debut les Magyars n'avaient pas de terme magyar pour la "grace" divine, ils utilisaient le mot slovaque "milost"'. Naturellement, la science magyare contemporaine fait !'impossible pour effacer cette dependance culturelle des anciens Slovaques. Pendant des siecles, les deux communautes nationales cohabitaient en paix, contribuant par leur travail et leur sang au progres de la Hongrie. Le changement se produisit a un moment historique de !'Europe lorsque !es nations se sont reveillees et ont pris conscience de leurs identites differentes les unes des autres. Des le XVII-eme siecle, nous assistons en Europe a un phenomene generalise. Dans les Etats ou, pendant des siecles, cohabitaient deux ou trois nations, la nation qui detenait le pouvoir politique commern;a a faire pression pour faire dispara1tre les langues qui n'etaient pas la sienne. Ce fut aussi le cas de la Hongrie. Les Magyars decha1nerent une persecution contre tout ce qui etait slovaque. En 1872, pour eviler la formation de I'intelligentsia, ils fermerent les dernieres ecoles de l'enseignement secondaire et, plus tard, les ecoles furent magyarisees. La revolution de 1918 a sauve les Slovaques de la mort ethnique. En 1918, les Slovaques s'unirent aux Tcheques pour former un Etat commun. Mais le mot Tcheco-Slovaquie (c'etait le nom du nouvel Etat dans le Traite de Versailles) fut changee en "Tchecoslovaquie" par les Tcheques qui lancerent la theorie selon laquelle les Slovaques n 'etaient qu 'une tribu tcheque. �I 14 SLOVAKIA Ni Masaryk, ni Benes (President et Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres) ne se rendaient compte qu'une nation n'est pas un troupeau de brebis qu'ont peut envoyer dans n'importe quel bercail. 11 est vrai que les Slovaques et les Tcheques sont deux nations voisines, mais ils n'avaient jamais vecu dans le meme Etat. Leur histoire s'est deroulee d'une maniere differente, leurs langues et leurs cultures populaires ont des caracteristiques differentes et, par consequent, leurs personnalites ethniques sont differentes. Les Tcheques ont fait leur possible pendant soixante-dix ans pour tchequiser les Slovaques. La resistance slovaque fut telle qu'ils n'y reussirent pas. Ils firent, cependant, grand tort a la conscience d'identite nationale slovaque. A nouveau, la revolution de 1989 sauva les Slovaques d'un embrassement suffoquant du point de vue national, politique et economique. Le I-er Janvier 1993 apparut, sur la carte geographique de !'Europe, la Republique slovaque desireuse de participer a la vie economique, politique et culturelle de !'Europe, sans intermediaires. Bibliographie Bartek, Henrich: Les debuts du christianisme chez Jes Slovaques (en slovaque). Slobodne Slovensko, Vol. X, 5. Bro, Bertrand: La beaute sauvera le monde, Cerf, Paris, 1990. Carrere d'Encausse, Helene: La gloire des nations, Fayard, Paris, 1990. The Celts, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Chadwick, Nora: England, 1970. �SLOVAKIA Dejiny Slovenska: Delort, Robert: Hall, Edward T.: Herrn, Gerhard: Heer, Friedrich: Krajcovic, Rudolf: Lacko, Michal: Martini, Alberto: Montanelli, lndro: Pauliny, Eugen: Ratkos, Peter: Simons, Gerald: Veiter, Theodor: 115 L'histoire de la Slovaquie, Vol. I, Bratislava, 1986. LeMoyen-Age, Edita, Lausanne, 1972. The Silent Language, Anchor, New York, 1973. Die Kellen, Econ Verlag, Diisseldorf, 1975. Das heilige romische Reich, Heyne Verlag, Miinchen, 1967. Le temoignage de l'histoire sur le Slovaque, Matica slovenska, Martin, 1977 (en slovaque ). Saint Cyrill and Methodius, Slovensky ustav, Rome 1969. Le Moyen-Age Europeen, Fabbri, Milano, 1963. Storia d'Italia, Rizzoli, Milano, 1959. La litterature et la langue culturelle de la Grande Mora vie, SA V, Bratislava, 1964 (en slovaque). Les sources de l'histoire de la Grande Moravie, SAY, Bratislava, 1961 (en slovaque). Orfgenes de Europa , Time-Life Int. , Amsterdam, 1968. Nationalitiittenfrage und Volksgroppenrecht, Braumiiller, Vienne, 1984. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 98 SLOVAKIA Une oraison de messe: Monument culture) ., europeen Stefan Polakovic Une oraison de messe: Monument culture/? Et de /'Europe? Eh, oui! Seulement pour le comprendre, nous devons descendre dans les entrailles memes de l'histoire de l'Europe. Avant de pouvoir qualifier un phenomene d'europeen, il nous faut savoir ce que nous entendons par "Europe". Et l'on ne comprendra rien a l'Europe, tant qu' on ne saura rien sur ses origines et sa formation. Elements constitutifs de /'Europe 11 fut un temps ou cette Europe que nous connaissons a l'heure actuelle n'existait pas. C'est a Charlemagne que nous devons son existence. A partir du V-eme siecle, apres la destruction de l'Europe Romaine par les tribus germaniques, il n'y eut plus qu'un tas de debris administratifs, juridiques et sociaux. C'est precisement a ce moment la que commence l'ouvre grandiose de Charlemagne pour reconstruire et fonder une nouvelle Europe. SLOVAKIA 99 Dans une Europe ou regnait un desordre general, il introduisit l'ordre avant tout, en creant un nouveau systeme d'organization politique connu comme feodal qui dura pendant mil ans. Cet ordre s'appuyait sur le principe que le roi etat le seul proprietaire de toutes les terres. Pendant la royaute il y avait une noblesse superieure a laquelle le roi concedait l'usage des terres en fief (du latin: feudum, d'ou: feodal). Plus bas se trouvait la noblesse inferieure, les habitants des villes (artisans, marchands et bourgeois) et encore plus en dessous au bas de la pyramide politique, se trouvaient les paysans (90% de la population). A vec le systeme feodal nacquit en Europe la sfirete juridique, !'administration de la justice et, par consequent, la rennaissance ·de la vie economique. Grace au systeme feodal I'Europe a pu se relever du desastre general. Par la fondation d'une nouvelle politique, Charlemagne contribua ace que l'Europe se retrouve. L'introduction des ecoles constitua un autre element qui favorisa la naissance de I'Europe. Pour commencer, il ordonna l'ouverture d'ecoles gratuites dans les cathedrales, monasteres et paroisses, destinees avant tout a la formation des foncionnaires d'Etat. Sur !'initiative de Charlemagne, prenant probablement exemple sur l' Academie de Bizance, fut creee l"'Accademia Palatina", qui fut, posterieurement, d'une enorme importance pour !'evolution et la formation de l'Europe, car en peu de temps les Ecoles Superieures se sont transformees en Universites. Sans universites, l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est. L'Europe doit aux universites son developpement scientifique, les progres technologiques et economiques et, surtout, !'evolution politique. En effet, c'est grace aux universites que les peuples europeens ont commence a envisager, plus tard, une reforme du systeme feodal pour le remplacer, a partir de la Revolution Fran~aise, par un systeme democratique. Systeme 100 SLOVAKIA democratique qui fut implante pour la premiere fois aux EtatsU nis en 1776, seize ans avant la Revolution Fran~aise. De plus, Charlemagne encouragea les arts en general: architecture, peinture, sculpture. Lors de ses voyages en Italie il admira ses basiliques et ses eglises. Grace a son appui surgit ce que nous connaissons comme rennaissance artistique carolingienne. 11 voulut voir la floraison des arts dans son empire. 11 fit construire la "CAPELLA PALATINA" a Aix-la-Chapelle, qui est une imitation de la Basilique de Saint Vital a Ravenne. Sous Charlemagne, les architectes commencerent a remplacer dans leurs constructions le bois par la pierre. On vit l 'Europe entiere se couvrir de cathedrales de style roman. En peu de temps le style roman arriva jusqu'au centre de l'Europe grace aux moines benedictins. En effet, on trouve en Slovaquie, centre geographique de l'Europe des eglises romanes contruites en pierre peu apres la mort de Charlemagne. Une fois commence, l'art europeen ne connut pas d'interruption jusqu'a nos jours. L'art europeen occupe une place predominante dans l'histoire de l'art. Autre phenomene, sans lequel la constitution de l'Europe n'aurait pu se produire, ce sont ses nations et leurs cultures qui ont surgi a l'abri du feodalisme, l'education, les arts et la religion chretienne. Par "nation" je n'entends pas ici "Etat-nation", mais les communautes spirituelles des gens unis principalement par les liens d'une langue, d'une culture et d'une histoire communes, merne si elles n'ont pas un Etat propre (i. e.: les Kurdes). Comme dit Ernest Renan, lors de sa conference prononcee a la Sorbonne en 1880, a cause "des complications de l'histoire". Pour la meme raison, pendant des siecles, plusieurs nations europeennes n 'ont pu reconstituer leurs propres Etats apres les avoir perdus, comme par exemple les Slovaques, Croates, Slovenes, Lituaniens, Lettons, Estoniens, Finlandais, etc. SLOVAKIA 101 La nation se developpe a partir d'une tribu lorsque les conditions sont favorables. La condition fondamentale est la possesion d'un territoire ou elle pourra deployer sa richesse spirituelle et fortifier son unite ontologique en toute tranquillite. En l'etat nomade, aucune nation ne put se constituer ni se consolider, comme nous le confirme l'auteur gitan espagnol Juan Ramirez Heredia dans son livre "Nosotros, los Gitanos", en decrivant la tragedie de son peuple: "Pelerins perpetuels, exiles volontaires, fugitifs toujours en route, marchant sans reJXJs depuis des siecles sans decider ou s' etablir'. Beaucoup de tribuns et nations embryonnaires de souche celtique, germanique et slave ont disparu, absorbees par des cultures superieures. Certains processus ethnogenetiques ont pu reussir avec une cartaine facilite grace au fait qu'ils se developpaient a l'abri d'un Etat, tandis que d'autres, etant donne les "complications de l'histoire" mentionnees plus haut, croissaient plus lentement. Quoiqu ' il en fut, en Europe existent actuellement les nations suivantes: Du groupe Celtique: Bretons, Irlandais, Gallois et Ecossais; Du groupe Latin: Italiens, Fran~ais, Espagnols, Catalans, Portugais, Roumains et Rhetoromans (en Suisse); Du groupe Germanique: Allemands, Suedois, Norvegiens, Danois, Hollandais, Flamands et Anglais; Du groupe Slave: Russes, Bielorusses, Ukrainiens, Bulgares, Serbes, Croates, Slovenes, Slovaques, Tcheques, Polonais, Macedoniens et Lusitiens (en Allemagne). D'origine non indo-europeenne nous avons les Magyars, Lituaniens, Estoniens, Lettons, Finlandais et Basques. 102 SLOVAKIA Demierement, certaines de ces nations ont pu reconstruire leur ancien Etat. Entin, la religion chretienne fait partie des elements constitutifs de !'Europe. Le christianisme s 'epanouit non seulement grace a la force de la parole, mais avant tout, grace a la force de l'exemple. Suivant l'exemple de la population des anciennes provinces romaines, les tribus germaniques qui s'y infiltrerent ont accepte le bapteme et ont change leurs coutumes. ll est vrai que le changement fut lent, mais grace a ce changement nous assistons, deja au IX-eme siecle, a la creation d'ouvres d'art, de peuples autrefois barbares, inspirees par la doctrine chretienne. L'esprit du christianisme a marque profondement tous les peuples europeens. La vie du peuple commun (la grande majorite etaient des paysans) s'est adaptee en general aux commandements de la morale chretienne. Nous avons comme preuve les exemples de saintete et les traditions, chansons, legendes et contes populaires de toutes les nations europeennes. Apres la chute de !'Empire Romain il y avait en Europe une seule organisation qui resista a la debacle generale et ce fut celle de l'Eglise. Les eveques etaient la seule autorite qui maintenait un peu d' ordre juridique en appliquant le droit canon et le droit romain. En dehors de cela, l'Eglise encourageait la fondation de monasteres qui se sont transformes en centres d'aide et de civilisation. Par exemple celui de MARMOUTIER-SUR-LOIRE, en France, qui a ere fonde en 375. Plus tard, au VI-eme siecle, Saint Benoit introduisit une regle commune a tous les monasteres. Les monasteres benedictins ont contribue a la bonne marche de la vie economique et sociale, et de par leur oeuvre, l 'heridite de Rome fut sauvee. SLOVAKIA 103 Les bibliotheques des grands couvents benedictins ont transmis a l 'Europe des ouvres litteraires qui autrement auraient disparu. 11 est vrai qu' au temps ou nacquit Charlemagne, les territoires des anciennes provinces romaines etaient deja christianisees. Sa propre tribu, les Francs, suivant l'exemple de leur roi Clovis (496), accepta le christianisme. Mais au temps de Charlemagne il fallait christianiser la Germanie, ou etaient installees plusieurs tribus germaniques, parmi lesquelles la plus puissante etait celle des Saxons. Et derriere, les tribus germaniques se trouvaient les tribus slaves qui ont occupe les territoires du Nord de l'Europe, derriere la ligne qui commence a l'embourchure de l'Elbe pour aboutir, en passant par Trieste, aux Balkans. Un peu d'histoire des Slovaques Parmi ces tribus slaves, se trouvaient les ancetres des Slovaques d'aujourd'hui. C'est parmi eux que surgit l'oraison que nous avons qualifiee de "monument culturel europeen". A partir du IV-eme siecle, les anciens Slovaques penetrerent dans le Bassin du Danube et occuperent les territoires sur le Danube, la Morava, V ah, Nitra, Hron et Tisa. Deux cents ans apres, ils ont ete subjugues par les A vars qui, venant des steppes russes, se sont infiltres dans le Bassin du Danube (576). Par suite de cette occupation, les ancetres des Slovaques ont perdu contact avec les tribus slaves du Nord. Cette separation geographique, ajoutee a la difference de langue et de moeurs (les A vars etaient des nomades qui s' adonnaient au pillage des territoires allemands tandis que les anciens Slovaques etaient des agriculteurs etablis et des artisans) contribuait a la formation d'un refus et d'une conscience de differences qui se manifestait, 104 SLOVAKIA d'apres le chroniqueur franc Fredegaire, par de continuelles rebellions contre les Avars. En 624, au moment d'une de ces rebellions, arriva en ces territoires un marchand franc nomme Samo qui se mit a la tete des Slaves. Il battit les A vars et organisa le premier Etat protoslovaque dans ces regions. Sous le regne du roi Samo la population connut trente ans de paix, ce qui contribua a la consolidation d'une conscience ethnique embryonnaire. Nous en trouvons des traces dans l 'oraison mentionnee. En 796, Charlemagne se decida aen terminer avec les A vars. Avec l' aide des anciens Slovaques, Charlemagne detruisit l' empire primitif des A vars, de sorte que ce peuple disparut de l'histoire de !'Europe. Le contact de Charlemagne avec les anciens Slovaques est d' un symbolisme tres profond pour l'histoire de l'Europe car, grace acette rencontre, les nations slaves ont commence a entrer dans l'histoire de l'Europe. Les protagonistes de cet evement historique etaient les anciens Slovaques. Les premiers et les seuls d'entre les Slaves a avoir connu Charlemagne de son vivant. Les Slovaques en sont restes tres impressionnes. La preuve en est qu'ils ont commence autiliser le nom propre de Charlemagne "Karl" pour designer le roi (kni/). Cette designation slovaque fut plus tard acceptee par les autres nations slaves (Tcheques et Polonais) voisines des Slovaques et les Magyars (kinily) l'adopterent egalement apres !'occupation des territoires slovaques. C'est la deuxieme fois, apres "Caesar", que le nom propre d'un commandant militaire devient titre pour l'autorite supreme de l'Etat. La presence de Charlemagne sur les frontieres slovaques se fit sentir sous deux aspects: premierement, fidele a sa conception d'Etat, Charlemagne se considerait souverain feodal des territoires slovaques apres la defaite des A vars. Deuxiemement, comme proprietaire feodal preoccupe par la christianisation de SLOVAKIA 105 ses terres, en 798 il donna l'ordre personnel a l'archeveque de Salzbourg d'envoyer des missionnaires dans les regions recemment annexees a son Empire ("lpse imperator praecepit Amoni archiepiscoJXJ pergere in partes Sclavomm"). Evidemment, Charlemagne ne savait pas que le christianisme avait ete preche parmi les anciens Slovaques par les missions italienne, irlandaise et anglo-saxonne. C'est ainsi qu'apres d'autres missionnaires, les territoires des anciens Slovaques ont ete evangelises par des moines bavarois avec un tel succes que, probablement deja en 824 fut consacree, par l'archeveque de Salzbourg, la premiere eglise batie en pierres, a Nitra siege du prince slovaque Pribina. La presence des missionnaires bavarois suscitait chez la noblesse slovaque une mefiance politique, parce qu'ils essayaient de renforcer leurs pretensions politiques sur les terres ou ils prechaient l 'Evangile. 11 est fort probable egalement, que la noblesse slovaque ait res:u des nouvelles sur la brutalite germanique envers les Slaves du Nord. D'autant plus que la noblesse ne put oublier la domination avare et craignait de tomber a nouveau sous la souverainete etrangere. C'est probablement pour cela qu'un autre prince slovaque, Mojmfr, chassa Pribine de Nitra, le considerant germanophile (sa femme etait allemande). Mojmfr unifia les deux principautes slovaques en un seul etat connu dans l'histoire comme "Grande Moravie". Ces changements deplurent au roi bavarois, Ludwig (neveu de Charlemagne) et en 846 il penetra dans les territoires slovaques, deposa Mojmfr et installa Rastislav. Mais Rastislav, a son tour, ne reconnaissait pas la souverainete feodale de Ludwig. C'est la raison pour laquelle il s' adressa a l 'empereur bizantin Michel III en le priant de lui envoyer des missionnaires qui connussent la langue du peuple (861). 11 y avait a Bizance, en ce temps la, deux freres: 106 SLOVAKIA Constantin et Methode, qui dominaient la langue paleoslave. Ils se rendirent en 863 en territoire slovaque. Pour reussir dans cette mission, Constantin crea !'alphabet dit 'glagolique', adapte aux sons de la langue slave a laquelle ils traduisirent les textes fondamentaux de la Bible. En s'installant au royaume de Rastislav, ils constaterent que les messes etaient deja celebrees en latin d' apres la liturgie romaine. Ils se sont decide a maintenir la liturgie romaine mais, en meme temps ils traduisirent les textes remains (latins) a la langue du peuple. Et nous voici en presence de l'une de ces oraisons de messe dont nous avons dit qu'elle est un "monument culturel europeen". "Vingtieme oraison de Kiev' On la nomme "vingtieme" parce qu'elle se trouve sur la vingtieme feuille de la collection connue comme "Collection de Kiev" (en Ukraine). Voici le texte paleoslave de cette oraison: "Cesarstve nasemu, Gospodi, milostjo Tvojejo prizri. I ne otdai nasego tuiim I ne obrati nas v plen narodom poganskym". En fran~ais: "Veillez, Seigneur, sur notre royaume avec Votre grace. Et ne livrez pas ce qui est notre aux etrangers et ne nous convertissez pas en proie des nations pa·iennes". Nous avons deja dit que les anciens Slovaques recevaient le christianisme des le VII-eme siecle et, par consequent, il y eut probablement parmi les pretres slovaques un grand nombre d'entre aux qui dominait bien le latin. En effet, avant sa mort, SLOVAKIA 107 Saint Methode dit de Saint Gorazd, son disciple slovaque qu "'il est bien instruit dans Jes livres latins". En examinant le texte, les philologues slovaques ont trouve le texte latin, correspondant a toutes les oraisons de la Collection Kiev, sauf celui de la vingtieme oraison. Ils en sont restes perplexes. Mais a tort, car le sujet de cette oraison fait reference aux besoins particuliers du royaume slovaque. 11 est done bien naturel qu' ils n 'aient pas trouve le texte dans les missels de l'Eglise universelle car nous savons que chaque pays a ses propres oraisons de messe. La "vingtieme" oraison est, d'apres son contenu, une oraison "propre" au royaume slovaque. Nous pouvons legitimement nous demander quand a-t-elle ete ecrite. Sans encourir en erreur, nous pouvons en toute quietude affirmer qu'elle a ete ecrite avant l'arrivee de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode car, peu apres leur arrivee, elle fut traduite au paleoslovaque. Je dis "paleoslovaque" parce que, d'apres les philologues, dans le texte on trouve deja des elements qui la distinguent de la langue paleoslave. Et c 'est bien comprehensible car les anciens Slovaques se trouverent isoles des Slaves du Nord pendant plus de trois siecles (a cause des Avars et egalement a cause du royaume de Samo). D'autre part, elle a pu etre ecrite apres la formation de la Principaute slovaque (836) ou, au plus tard, apres la deposition de Mojmir par Ludwig (846). L'auteur de l'oraison a du etre membre de la haute noblesse slovaque car il semble tres bien verse en questions politiques. Comme enfant il a du ecouter ses parents parler des cruautes des Avars et par sa propre experience il se rendait compte des velleites politiques du roi bavarois. L'auteur re~ut une tres bonne formation latine car il a parfaitement saisi la construction des oraisons de messe latine qui excellent par leur brievete, leur contenu condense, leur clarte des concepts et la cadence poetique. 108 SLOVAKIA De plus il devait avoir une position elevees dans la hierarchie latine en Slovaquie, qui seule pouvait autoriser l'usage public d'une oraison de messe. Le texte latin a du etre le suivant: "Regnum nostrum, Domine, gratia Tua respice. Et _ne tradas nostra alienis nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum". A la premiere lecture, on s' aper~oit de la maturite politique de cette oraison car d'un cote elle fait allusion a la destitution du prince Mojmir (ne tradas nostra aliensis) et de l'autre elle fait allusion aux nouvelles sur l'apparition des avant-gardes Magyars sur la frontiere orientale du royaume (nee nos convertas in praedam JXJpulorum paganorum). Faisant reference a la demiere partie de l' oraison, le philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrit que "derriere cette oraison on entend le bruit des sabots de envahisseurs magyars". Ou'y-a-t-il d'Europeen dans cette oraison? Avant tout, il nous faut rappeler que l'Europe ne serait ce qu 'elle est sans ses nations qui sont toutes ses enfants, nes a I' abri de sa formation. Parmi celles-ci, la nation slovaque etait presente quand Charlemagne posait les fondations de !'Europe, meme si les Slovaques sont aujourd'hui peu connus pour leur histoire politique mouvementee. La nation slovaque a brille trop peu de temps et s 'etait eclipsee pendant mil ans. L'Europe ne peut nier !'existence d'aucune de ses nations sans se trahir. C'est pour cela qu'elle a reconu !'existence de la nation slovaque en acceptant la Republique Slovaque comme un de ses members. Une des lumieres qui nous parvient de tres loin et qui temoigne du sens europeen des Slovaques, c'est precisement la vingtieme oraison de Kiev. SLOVAKIA 109 Les anciens Slovaques consideraient leur pays comme une propriete inalienable. C'est un point de vue commun a toutes les nations europeennes. Ils etaient preoccupes de voir leur pays assujetti anouveau comme au temps des A vars. Et voici que les Francs veulent s'emparer de leurs terres au titre de la divulgation de l'Evangile! Et, sur la frontiere orientale se trouvait apres les Avars, un autre peuple mongolien: les Magyars! En effet, l'oraison est une expression d'angoisse d'une communaute nationale, menacee de deux cotes, qui n'aspire a autre chose qu'a vivre en paix avec tous. C'est pour ces raisons que l 'oraison est dirigee a Dieu, pour implorer sa protection. Elle n'invoque pas les foudres divines pour aneantir les ennemis, ce que prouve que l'esprit de christianisme etait deja bien enracine parmi les Slovaques. Sous un autre aspect, cette oraison est un resume d'un traite embryonnaire des droits ethniques. En effet, nous pouvons y lire, sans exagerer, le droit a la terre propre, le droit a la liberte, le droit a la vie et le droit a l'autodetermination. Il s'agit des valeurs humaines "to which the Jaws of nature and of nature's God entide them" comme l'ont exprime les fondateurs des Etats-Unis, le 4 Juillet 1776, presque mil ans apres. L' oraison anticipe ce qu' a Helsinki I'Europe reconna1tra comme droits ethniques legitimes. Il s' agit, en effet, du premier document europeen qui devance les siecles a venir de l'histoire de l'Europe: !'existence des communautes nationales conscientes de leurs droits. Il y a un autre aspect tres important: cette oraison exprime, pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire de l'Europe, la conscience nationale d ' un groupe ethnique. Mais il l'exprime comme quelque chose de pur, d'humain et de noble. En effet, l'aspect bumain du national devrait devenir un tresor commun a toutes les nations pour eviter la deformation du national et pour etablir une base ferme pour cohabitation pacifique des peuples. 110 SLOVAKIA Ou'y-a-t-il de culture/? Tous les grands auteurs qui se sont occupes du phenomene "nation" sont unanimes: la culture est une forme de spiritualite. A son tour, la spiritualite est une forme de culture; quelque chose d ' inseparable de l'homme concret. C'est pour cela que la culture d 'un people pauvre qui vit sa spiritualite est superieure a celle d 'un people riche drape dans des valeurs materielles. Et comme "la culture cache beaucoup plus que ce qu' elle reveJe" (Edward T. Hall), son secret indique que sa derniere raison d'etre est d'une nature transcendante. Probablement c'est a cet aspect que fait allusion Aleksandr Soljeni tsyne lorsqu 'il dit, a l 'occasion du Prix Nobel, que Jes nations et Jeurs cultures sont Jes differents visages de Dieu. L 'Europe est le resultat de la culture de ses nations. La beaute d' un pre est le resultat de la multiplicite des aspeces de fleurs. S' il n'y avait au monde qu ' un seul type de fleurs, le monde nous paraitrait tres pauvre en beaute. La beaute de l'Europe est due ala multiplicite de cultures qui surgirent du meme sol spirituel duquel elles recevaient leur nourriture. Dans une roseraie il y a beaucoup de rosiers qui tous produisent des roses, mais les roses different par leurs parfums. La multiplicite des cultures europeennes represente la richesse spirituelle de l'Europe car chaque culture nationale contient quelque chose de propre, ce qui est la consequence de son individualite. L'europeite de cultures se doit a ce qu 'elles sont enracinees dans les fondements de l 'Europe. La beaute humaine de cette oraison de messe depasse les chroniques germaniques d'une maniere extraordinaire. Elle contient le desir de justice comme fondement de la coexistence pacifique des peoples sans en blesser aucun. Apres plus de mil ans, un ecrivain slovaque (Vladimir Mimic) en interpretant le sens de l'histoire des Slovaques a pu SLOVAKIA 111 dire que "etre Slovaque, cela signifie etre frere de tous Jes hommes, ce qui constitue le noble heritage de notre histoire". La culture d'un peuple depend aussi de la richesse de sa litterature. La vingtieme oraison de messe represente un des monuments litteraires slovaques du IX-eme siecle, parce qu'elle est ecrite dans une langue qui etait non seulement une langue liturgique mais, par l'oeuvre de Saint Cyrille et de Saint Methode, elle s' est convertie en langue litteraire de la Grande Moravie, qui etait aussi employee dans la jurisprudence et dans !'administration publique. Surles qualites grammaticales de cette langue, l 'eminent philologue slovaque Eugen Pauliny ecrivit: "il s' agissait d' une Jangue polie et culti vee. La richesse des formes de construction grammaticales, J'elaboration de la syntaxe, la ch11te et la variete du tresor verbal, placent la Jangue paleoslovaque a la hauteur des Jangues culturelles de ce temps-la: le grec et le Jatin". C' est pour ces raison que la vingtieme oraison de la Collection de Kiev appartient au tresor spirituel de !'Europe. Elle ne peut s' en desinteresser. L'histoire postirieure des Slovaques En 907, lors de la bataille de Bratislava (Capitale contemporaine de la Slovaquie) sous une attaque commune des Francs et des Magyars, le royaume de la Grande Mora vie s' est ecroule. On suppose que la grande majorite de la noblesse a perdu la vie sur le champ de bataille. Les territoires slovaques ont ete partiellement occupes par les Magyars et, pendant mil ans, la Slovaquie a fait partie du royaume connu sous le nom de HONGRIE. Les Slovaques ont perdu leur royaume, mais ils n'ont pas perdu leur vie grace aune circonstance providentielle. 112 SLOVAKIA Ernest Renan, dans sa conference de 1880, se demandait comment la "couronne de Saint Etienne (le premier roi hongrois) ne put assimiler Jes Slovaques" (ii parlait des Slaves, parce qu'apres l'an 1201 un autre peuple slave - le croate - faisait partie de la Hongrie). La raison en est tres simple. Le roi n 'a pas pu introduire la langue slovaque comme langue officielle du royaume, malgre ses valeurs litteraires et administratives, tout simplement parce qu'il s'agissait de la langue d' un peuple subjugue. Et ii ne pu recourir a la langue magyar parce qu 'elle n 'existait pas. Les Magyars etaient des nomades qui ont ete ecrasees en 955 sur la Lech par l'Empereur Otto I-er. Ce n 'est qu ' apres cette defaite qu' ils deciderent de s 'etablir et d' abandonner le pillage. Par consequent, Saint Etiene introduisit en Hongrie le latin comme langue officielle, ce qui a dure jusqu'en 1840. A cause de cette mesure aussi bien la culture slovaque que celle des Magyars s 'est limitee a la culture populaire. En effet, il n'y a pas eu d'oeuvres litteraires slovaques ou magyares pendant des ciecles. Elles n'apparurent qu'a la fin du XVIII-eme siecle. II y a des preuves irrefutables permettant d'affirmer que les Magyars re~urent leur civilisation des anciens Slovaques. Bien evidement, les historiens magyars essayent de les minimiser. C'est par les Slovaques que les Magyars ont appris a cultiver la terre. Les termes magyars ayant trait a }'agriculture sont d' origine slovaque. Les slovaques nobles qui survecurent au desastre ont contribue a l 'organisation de l'Etat. En effet, les noms des foncionnaires de la cour royale sont d'origine slovaque (roi = kral - kiraly, prefet = span - ispan; cour = dvor - udvar, courtisan = dvomik - udvamok). II y a egalement des preuves demontrant que l' ordre juridique de la Grande Moravie fut transplante en Hongrie. En effet, juge en magyar se dit kenez du mot slovaque knaz. Les SLOVAKIA 113 Magyars disaient, en ce temps la, qu'ils iraient "ad pravdam" lorsqu 'ils prenaient la decision de s 'adresser au tribunal pour regler leurs droits. "Pravda" signifie en slovaque "droit". La terminologie de la religion est aussi d' origine slovaque (bapteme =krstit' - keresztelni; pa'ien =pohan - pogany, enfer =peklo - pokol; frere = brat - banit). Au debut les Magyars n'avaient pas de terme magyar pour la "grace" divine, ils utilisaient le mot slovaque "milost"'. Naturellement, la science magyare contemporaine fait !'impossible pour effacer cette dependance culturelle des anciens Slovaques. Pendant des siecles, les deux communautes nationales cohabitaient en paix, contribuant par leur travail et leur sang au progres de la Hongrie. Le changement se produisit a un moment historique de !'Europe lorsque !es nations se sont reveillees et ont pris conscience de leurs identites differentes les unes des autres. Des le XVII-eme siecle, nous assistons en Europe a un phenomene generalise. Dans les Etats ou, pendant des siecles, cohabitaient deux ou trois nations, la nation qui detenait le pouvoir politique commern;a a faire pression pour faire dispara1tre les langues qui n'etaient pas la sienne. Ce fut aussi le cas de la Hongrie. Les Magyars decha1nerent une persecution contre tout ce qui etait slovaque. En 1872, pour eviler la formation de I'intelligentsia, ils fermerent les dernieres ecoles de l'enseignement secondaire et, plus tard, les ecoles furent magyarisees. La revolution de 1918 a sauve les Slovaques de la mort ethnique. En 1918, les Slovaques s'unirent aux Tcheques pour former un Etat commun. Mais le mot Tcheco-Slovaquie (c'etait le nom du nouvel Etat dans le Traite de Versailles) fut changee en "Tchecoslovaquie" par les Tcheques qui lancerent la theorie selon laquelle les Slovaques n 'etaient qu 'une tribu tcheque. I 14 SLOVAKIA Ni Masaryk, ni Benes (President et Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres) ne se rendaient compte qu'une nation n'est pas un troupeau de brebis qu'ont peut envoyer dans n'importe quel bercail. 11 est vrai que les Slovaques et les Tcheques sont deux nations voisines, mais ils n'avaient jamais vecu dans le meme Etat. Leur histoire s'est deroulee d'une maniere differente, leurs langues et leurs cultures populaires ont des caracteristiques differentes et, par consequent, leurs personnalites ethniques sont differentes. Les Tcheques ont fait leur possible pendant soixante-dix ans pour tchequiser les Slovaques. La resistance slovaque fut telle qu'ils n'y reussirent pas. Ils firent, cependant, grand tort a la conscience d'identite nationale slovaque. A nouveau, la revolution de 1989 sauva les Slovaques d'un embrassement suffoquant du point de vue national, politique et economique. Le I-er Janvier 1993 apparut, sur la carte geographique de !'Europe, la Republique slovaque desireuse de participer a la vie economique, politique et culturelle de !'Europe, sans intermediaires. Bibliographie Bartek, Henrich: Les debuts du christianisme chez Jes Slovaques (en slovaque). Slobodne Slovensko, Vol. X, 5. Bro, Bertrand: La beaute sauvera le monde, Cerf, Paris, 1990. Carrere d'Encausse, Helene: La gloire des nations, Fayard, Paris, 1990. The Celts, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Chadwick, Nora: England, 1970. SLOVAKIA Dejiny Slovenska: Delort, Robert: Hall, Edward T.: Herrn, Gerhard: Heer, Friedrich: Krajcovic, Rudolf: Lacko, Michal: Martini, Alberto: Montanelli, lndro: Pauliny, Eugen: Ratkos, Peter: Simons, Gerald: Veiter, Theodor: 115 L'histoire de la Slovaquie, Vol. I, Bratislava, 1986. LeMoyen-Age, Edita, Lausanne, 1972. The Silent Language, Anchor, New York, 1973. Die Kellen, Econ Verlag, Diisseldorf, 1975. Das heilige romische Reich, Heyne Verlag, Miinchen, 1967. Le temoignage de l'histoire sur le Slovaque, Matica slovenska, Martin, 1977 (en slovaque ). Saint Cyrill and Methodius, Slovensky ustav, Rome 1969. Le Moyen-Age Europeen, Fabbri, Milano, 1963. Storia d'Italia, Rizzoli, Milano, 1959. La litterature et la langue culturelle de la Grande Mora vie, SA V, Bratislava, 1964 (en slovaque). Les sources de l'histoire de la Grande Moravie, SAY, Bratislava, 1961 (en slovaque). Orfgenes de Europa , Time-Life Int. , Amsterdam, 1968. Nationalitiittenfrage und Volksgroppenrecht, Braumiiller, Vienne, 1984.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Une oraison de messe: Monument culturel européen Description An account of the resource Štefan Polakovič Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 98-115 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Polakovič, Štefan, 1912-1999 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 LCNAF https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/04d889eb437b60c6ff07a9e7ed381a70.pdf b0af527f0b6ff4be550df0241e33abc7 PDF Text Text SLOVAKIA 81 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum In the two centuries since the beginning of the French Revolution and the fall of Communism in Central Europe, Slovak political life has centered around the attainment of three political objectives: autonomy, federation, and independence. The first two are linked to the question of the relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks in a common state while the third reflects the teleological objectives of the principle of selfdetermination whose origins go back to the French Revolution but whose implementation was proposed only on the morrow of the First World War. It was to implement this principle that Central Europe was reorganized from the break-up of the Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Ottoman, and Romanov empires. Each one of these objectives was preceded by a series of declarations, memoranda, resolutions, pacts, and agreements that paved the way for their implementation. It is a singularity of Slovak history that there are very few such documents in this two-centuries span; Jorg K. Hoensch presents 57 that are linked to the objective of autonomy,' Karol Rebro puts together 27 that he L See Jorg K. Hoensch, Hrsg. Dokumente zur A utonomiepolitik der Slowakischen Vo/kspartei Hlinkas. Miinchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1984, pp. 71-257 . Hoen sch also includes three additional documents that deal with �82 SLOVAKIA associates with the drive to federalization,2 while Jaroslav Chovanec and Peter Mozolfk offer 32 documents that deal with or are connected to independence. 3 The difference in the numbers is explained by the fact that many of the documents that were chosen are specific to the objective sought; nevertheless, there are two that appear in all three volumes: the Cleveland Agreement and the Pittsburgh Pact. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate their importance in the attainment of Slovak political objectives in the twentieth century. It is their link to the three objectives that explains their interest. Still, one Slovak historian, Anton Spiesz, 4 and one Western scholar, Hoensch,5 have seen fit not to mention either; in all other works, they find their place in the history of the nation. Both documents share four principal characteristics. First, they embody the essence of Slovak political activity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, namely the attainment of selfdetermination; second, both seek the same objective: the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks at the end of the Great War; third, they are laconic texts, in some respects even imprecise in their content; and fourth, they are linked to Slovaks living not in Slovakia, but in the United States. It is the differences between them, the reasons for these differences, and 2 independence, thus bringing the total to 60 documents. Karol Rebro, The Road to Federation. Bratislava: Tatrapress, 1970, pp. 64-130. It should be noted that Rebro includes also the text of the Treaty of Protection of 1939 between Slovakia and Germany, thus bringing the total to 28 . 1 Jaroslav Chovanec a Peter Mozolik, Historicke a statopnivne korene samostatnosti Slovenskej republiky. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Procom, 1994, pp. 67-216. The two authors include six additional documents that pertain to Slovak history prior to the nineteenth century. •- Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slo venska. Na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Brati slava : Yydavatefstvo Respekt, I 992. 1 Jorg K. Hoensch, Geschichte der Tschechoslowakischen Republik 1918 bis 1965. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966. �SLOVAKIA 83 the impact that they had that make them so interesting and that have also made them the object not only of political but also scholarly controversy. Until the international context of a world war offered the Slovaks the possibility of leaving Austria-Hungary, the main Slovak objective, shared by American Slovaks, was the attainment of a form of self-determination through self-administration. From the time of the French Revolution, three proposals embodied this objective. The first is Ignac Martinovic's democratic constitution, which he worked out at the time of the French Revolution, and which included the nationality principle; its application would have turned Slovakia into an independent administrative unit called Slavonica. As Slovak Marxist historians write: "It is in fact the first proposal to include Slovakia as an independent national administrative unit within the framework of Hungary. 116 The second is the Ziadosti slovenskeho naroda (The Demands of the Slovak Nation), worked out in May 1848; the Slovak nation demanded the recognition and guarantee of national identity; the transformation of Hungary into a state composed of equal nations, each with its own parliament and equal representation in the Hungarian Diet; and the use of Slovak in all Slovak county offices. In addition, it insisted on democratic rights, including universal and equal suffrage, the total abolition of serfdom, and the return of the land to the peasants from whom it had been taken away. 7 The third is the Memorandum slovenskeho naroda (Memorandum of the Slovak Nation) adopted in Turciansky Svaty Martin in June 1861; it sought equal rights with the Magyars, the recognition of their national individuality by law, the formation of a North Hungarian Slovak ~ Dejiny S/ovenska II. Bratislava: Veda, Vydavatefstvo Slovenskej akademie vied, I 987, p. 48 I. 1 • For the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 64-67, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolfk, pp. 74-77, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 71 -74. �84 SLOVAKIA District (Okolie in Slovak), Slovak as the official language of adminstration of this district, a Slovak Academy of Law and a chair of Slavonic studies in Pest, and the repeal of all Hungarian laws that infringed on the principles of the equality of the nationalities. 8 In the words of Slovak historians, the memorandum "became the basic Slovak constitutional programme even if it was not worked out in detail and contained merely basic principles about a certain Slovak autonomy within the framework of Hungary." 9 American Slovaks were familiar with Slovak objectives in Hungary, since most were immigrants to the United States, forced out by Budapest's policy of Magyarization and Hungary's slow economic development. Their main organization, the Slovak League of America, prepared a memorandum in May 1914 on the occasion of an earlier visit by Hungarian Count Mihaly Karolyi in the United States. The memorandum reiterated the demands of the 1861 Memorandum, thus in effect seeking a solution in Austria-Hungary. But it became the object of some controversy 10 as it underwent certain changes before it was · published in its final version on 2 September 1914 as the Memorandum o krivdach a JX)iiadavkach slovenskfch (Memorandum on Slovak Injustices and Demands). 11 No specific conFor the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 73-76, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolik, pp. 81-89, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 92-99. 9 • R. Marsina et. al., Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1992, p. 173. n This is described in Konstantfn Culen, Pittsburghska dohoda . Bratislava: Knfhtlaciarell Andreja uc. spol., 1937, pp. 20-32. 11 • The original and modified versions are found in ibid., pp. 42-52. According to Ivan Markovic: "It was a political error and an indication of insufficient political foresight on the part of the Slovak League to publish this memorandum." See Ivan Markovic, Slovaci v zahranicnej revolucii. Bratislava: no publisher, no date; lecture given on 16 April 1923, p. 13. As for its publication date, Milan Getting writes that it was published on 24 September. See Milan Getting, Americkf Slovaci a vjvin ceskoslovenskej myslienky v rokoch 1914-1918. Pittsburgh: Slovenska Telocvicna Jednota & �SLOVAKIA 85 stitutional solution was put forth for Slovakia, but there was a demand for full self-administration and self-determination. In the discussions around this document the idea of Czecho-Slovak unity had also been mentioned. 12 This document opened the way for Slovak American organizations thereafter to examine a number of options that would be the object of debate for some time: 13 Slovakia in a federated Slavic state in Austria-Hungary; a Slovak-Polish union ; a Slovak-Russian union ; autonomy in a reorganized Hungary; and the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. 14 Clearly, the objective had been redefined and had become one of national emancipation. The Cleveland Agreement _ With the outbreak of war, American Slovaks opted for cooperation with the Czechs in their struggle for national emancipation. But their approaches differed. The latter directed their efforts at the creation of a Czech state. However, according to Chovanec and Mozolfk, "the representatives of the Slovak organizations in the United States fought against the attempts of their Czech partners to attach the Slovaks as a sort of appendage to the basic Czech anti-Habsburg programme." 15 The Slovaks were seeking a solution that was in the spirit of previous Slovak demands and that would ensure national development. After months of discussions, 16 an attempt was made to create a common front and a meeting was organized in Cleveland on 22 Sokol v Amerike, 1933, p. 40. Ibid., p. 40. 13. See Markovit, p. 13. 14 • Some of these options are examined in Stanislav Matou~ek, Vznik a vfvoj spolecneho statu Cechu a Slovakii . Praha: Academia, 1980, pp. 57-60. u. Chovanec a Mozolfk, p. 19. "' For more on these discussions, see Marian Mark Stolarik, "The Role of American Slovaks in the Creation of Czecho-Slovakia, 1914-19 I 8," Slovak Studies, VIII ( 1968), pp. 23-26. ll �86 SLOVAKIA October 1915 between representatives of Czech and Slovak American organizations. Cubomfr Liptak writes that "[t]he decision of American Slovaks to support the struggle for the creation of a common state with the Czechs - and its worth is found here - was taken after long and often bitter discussions in which the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution were weighed, including the possibilities and limits of Slovak activity." 17 The Czechs proposed a text that was only slightly modified by the Slovaks present. It has since become known as the Cleveland Agreement. Short and imprecise as it is, this text is, perhaps because of these characteristics, the object of some controversy. Composed of five points, its only two concrete proposals are found in points one and three on the independence of the Czech Lands and Slovakia and secret universal suffrage. It is the second point that has historians trying to figure out what the authors had in mind when they proposed "a union of the Czech and Slovak nations in a federative union of states with complete national autonomy for Slovakia, with its own parliament, its own state administration, complete cultural freedom, that is to say with the full right to use the Slovak language, its own financial and political administration, and an official Slovak state language." 18 Was this a federal proposal, if so, what kind, and if not, what was it, given its language? There are two schools of thought on this question. One rejects outright the affirmation that this was federal solution for a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. Stanislav Matousek suggests that what was proposed was a union within a federalized monarchy. He bases his argument not only on the phrase 11 • 1& Cubomir Liptak, Slovensko v 20. storoci. Bratislava: Vydavatet'stvo politickej literatury, 1968, p. 64. Rebro, p. 80. Stol~rik, on the other hand, translates "vo federatfvnom zviizku ~t~tov" as "in a federal state." StolMik, p. 55. �SLOVAKIA 87 "in a federative union of states" ( vo federativnom sviizku stitov), but also on the reference to Slovakia's autonomy. According to him, such a reference would not have been necessary if a federation between the Czechs and Slovaks had been envisaged; it would have been assumed for both nations. He also suggests that the authors based their understanding of federalism on their American experience. 19 The latter is also the view of some Slovak historians.'.!) Finally, to strengthen this approach, Viliam Plevza shows that reactions in the months that followed support this interpretation? Others, on the other hand, recognize the document as proposing a federal arrangement between the two nations. Rebro writes that "[t]he Cleveland Agreement represents a clear federative model of two equal nations on the basis of partnership." 22 Josef Kalvoda understands the text to mean that "[b]oth the Czechs and Slovaks were to have autonomy in the federative state to be established after the war."n Konstantin Culen indicates that the agreement "announced the federalization of the future republic". 24 Ivan Markovic and Marian Mark Stolarik perceive it as expressing a federal solution for two nationally autonomous entities. 75 Not surprisingly, some historians pass no judgment and limit themselves simply to quoting or using directly the text of the agreement. 26 Such use of the text is 19 • Matousek, pp. 61-62. n Marsina et al., p. 197. 21 • Viliam Plevza, Ceskos/ovenska statnosf a sl ovenska otazka v politike KSC. Bratislava: Praca, 1971 , pp. 49-50. n Rebro, p. 22. 21. Josef Kalvoda, The Genesis of Czechoslovakia. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1986, p. 70. ll Culen, p. 81 . 21 Markovit, p. 25; Stolarik, p. 26. li Among those who pass no judgment are Chovanec and Mozolik, p. 19, Liptak, p. 63, Franti~ek Bokes, Dejiny S/ovenska a Slovakov od najstarsfch cias po os/obodenie. Bratislava: Slovenska akademia vied a umen1, 1946, p. 350 and �88 SLOVAKIA interpreted by at least one author as a tacit acknowledgement of this interpretation.Zl Of the two, the second interpretation seems more acceptable than the first for a number of reasons. First of all, the language of the agreement suggests that its authors were not experts in political and constitutional terminology; otherwise the language would have been precise. This allows us to infer that a federation of the two nations was the objective as this was the reason for the meeting: to decide on the framework of an arrangement between them. Those who make the claim that the authors were influenced by American federalism project their own expertise and historical experience on men of a generation that had recently emigrated to the United States and whose education was not likely to have included constitutional law and political science or specialized knowledge of the American constitution. Secondly, the reference to Slovak autonomy must be seen as understandable given the Slovak political struggle in Hungary and the demands made in the documents of 1848 and 1861. For most Slovaks, this was their main point of reference in the national struggle. It is unlikely that the document would have obtained the support from American Slovaks that it did obtain had it not included a specific reference to autonomy.28 Thirdly, subsequent events indicate that American Slovaks understood that their nation would enter into a common state with the Czechs in a federal arrangement. Dusan Kovac\ Slovaci - Cesi - Dejiny. Bratislava: Academic Electronic Press, 1997, p. 65. n. Plevza considers Liptak as belonging to those who accept the federal interpretation. See Plevza, p. 49n. 2& It is interesting to note that Albert Mamatey, President of the Slovak League in America, who would be present when the agreement was signed the next day, wrote on 21 October 1915 in Narodne noviny that the League "is for [Slovak] independence regardless of the greater state organization in which we find ourselves." Quoted in Getting, p. 63. �SLOVAKIA 89 The agreement was generally well received, but Slovak Marxist historians also note that "[i]n France, the periodical Ceskoslovenska samostatnosf, as the "organ of political emigration" presented the Cleveland agreement in the spirit of Czechoslovakism - as the attainment of Czechoslovak national unity. This point of view resulted in protests because American Slovaks had begun to support all of the activities of the external struggle on the principle of two equal nations as outlined in the Cleveland agreement. "29 Slovak Americans were not unaware of Czech objectives, and in particular the role that Czechoslovak unity was playing in these objectives. They knew that they had to counter this. In addition, Frantisek Bokes writes that the agreement "did not eliminate distrust and the possibility of misunderstanding between Czechs and Slovaks. "D This uncertainty resulted in the Slovak League of America sending in April 1916 two representatives to Europe, Stefan Osusky and Gustav Kosfk, "to meet Professor [T.G.] Masaryk and to explain the Slovak program to the British and French foreign ministries."31 Nevertheless, as Culen writes: "from this meeting [in Cleveland] on, Czechs and Slovaks begin to appear together throughout the United States. "32 Such behaviour again strongly points to a Slovak understanding of what the agreement meant to them and also their determination to achieve their objective, a federation of the two nations. However, it must aso be pointed out that some American Slovaks saw the agreement as having brought forth "Czechoslovak unity" 33 . Equally interesting is that fact that 29 • Dejiny S/ovenska JI, p. 429. Italics added. Bokes, p. 35 I. 3 1. Kalvoda, p. 83. For an analysis of the Osusky-Ko§ik mission to Europe, see Stolarik, pp. 28-30. See also the interview with Osusky in ibid., pp. 59-61. :u Culen, p. 83. n Getting, p. 66. :n �90 SLOVAKIA Masaryk, despite his later behaviour, is said to have approved of it.34 The Pittsburgh Pact A series of developments soon made it clear that the Cleveland Agreement would have to be revisited, if not revised. In the first place, there was vigorous debate on the question of Czechoslovak unity and the nature of the future state in Slovak publications in the United States and abroad throughout 1916 and 1917. 35 Furthermore, according to Stolarik, in 1916 American Slovaks had "split into Slovak and Czechoslovak camps. "36 Secondly, there was the evolution of the Czech agenda and its transformation into a Czechoslovak one. 37 The creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks had to be seen as embodying the principle of self-determination, as inferred from President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points38 and, above all, had to be sold to the Allied Powers. The second development put American Slovaks in a very difficult position; while they did not want to give up their objective, they needed Czech support to achieve it and they also had to ensure that their mutual project of a common state did not fail because of their demands or because of serious disputes with Ibid., p. 84. Rebro also writes that Masaryk "tried to find comprise formulations that would not contradict his own conceptions. But he could not simply refuse the terms of the Cleveland agreement because they were supported by the moral, financial and first of all voluntary help of the Slovaks abroad." Rebro, pp. 24-25. 35. Getting, pp. 85-86. 36. Stolarik, p. 22. n. For more on this see Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 144-152. 31!. On the question of the role of the principle of self-determination in the Fourteen Points, see Dov Ronen, The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict, Democracy and Self-Determination in Central Europe. London: Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 48-53 . 34. �SLOVAKIA 91 the Czechs. For Masaryk, the best solution to this dilemma was Czechoslovakism, that is to say the fusion of the Czechs and Slovaks into one nation. This was a concept that not only had historical roots (it was first proposed in 1848), but that could easily be proposed within the framework of the principle of selfdetermination. In addition, as the English historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote, "Masaryk knew little of the Slovaks; others knew even less. That was his strength in dealing with the allied leaders. "39 What Masaryk also had to do was to overcome the suspicions and disagreements that had arisen between Czechs and Slovaks in the United States and bring the latter to accept the necessity for a common front that would persuade the Allied Powers to create the new state.'° He achieved this with the document called the Pittsburgh Pact (also called the Pittsburgh Agreement) which he himself signed on two occasions, the hand-written copy on 31 May 1918, and the calligraphic copy on 14 November, the day he was elected president of Czecho-Slovakia in Prague by the Revolutionary National Assembly. The Pittsburgh document is composed of six resolutions approved by the representatives of the Slovak League of America, the Czech National Alliance, the Federation of Czech Catholics, and the Czecho-Slovak National Council in the person of Masaryk himself. Of importance to Slovakia is the acknowledgement of its own institutions, namely a state administration, a parliament, and a judiciary and the status of the Slovak language as the official language in the schools, in the public offices and in public life generally. In addition to approving a union of the two nations in an independent state, the document specifies that the state shall be a republic and that its constitution shall be 39 • CJ. A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967, p. 258. Stolarik also points out that "[t]he attitude of American Slovaks towards the Czechs changed radically in 1917." Stolarik, p. 32. �92 SLOVAKIA democratic. There is reference to "the organization of the cooperation between Czechs and Slovaks," but the most important point refers to the relegation of the "detailed provisions" to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives. 1141 The most important difference between the Cleveland and Pittsburgh texts is found in the political objectives each proposes; there was a shift from a federal solution to the autonomy of Slovakia. The Pittsburgh document not only leaves out any direct reference to the type of arrangement there would be between the Czechs and Slovaks as the Cleveland Agreement had done, but it also gives the responsibility of finding an arrangement to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives." Simply put, the agreement avoids the issue of the future constitutional make-up of the common state. It should also be noted that there is no direct use of the term autonomy; while this is clearly evident in the enumeration of the powers Slovakia would exercise, its non-mention is not without significance. It is linked directly to the avoidance of defining the future constitutional set-up of Czecho-Slovakia. Why did Masaryk, the author of the Pittsburgh Pact, propose such a text and why did the American Slovaks accept it? Aware of the differences of opinion there existed between the Czechs and Slovaks in the United States, Masaryk came to the United States in order to find a common ground and eliminate any argument that might put his cause in doubt. 42 In addition, as a •1. ~ Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovakia . Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. New York, Robert A Speller & Sons Publisher, Inc., 1960, p. 326. Stolarik, translates "pravoplatnym predstavitefom" as "legal representatives" which is more correct. Stolarik, p. 56. Catholic American Slovaks, under the leadership of Jozef Hu~k. editor of Jednota , the publication of the First Catholic Slovak Union, the largest single Slovak organization in the United States, were distrustful of Masaryk. For more on Hu~ek's role, especially with regards to the Pittsburgh document, see �SLOVAKIA 93 Slovak historian writes: "The need for legitimacy brought forth the Pittsburgh Pact. When Masaryk left for the United States at the end of April 1918, he went there with the clear objective of trying to overcome the President Wilson's mistrust of the plan to destroy Austria-Hungary. One of the arguments had to be a newly documented unity of the objectives of the Czech and Slovak citizens of the United States. "43 But Masaryk had a second, less evident objective: the acceptance of a document that would not put anything in his way in the achievement of the policy of Czechoslovakism. The Pittsburgh text, unlike the Cleveland one, made this possible, as Marxist historians point out: "Masaryk formulated the union of the Czechs and Slovaks in one state on the basis of equality but side-stepped the original -demand on the Slovak side, that is to say a federal constitutional organization linked to the recognition of two independent nations - the Czechs and the Slovaks. "44 The result was that "he changed the aim of the resistance movement abroad [by] leaving out the sentences about the federal structure of the Czechoslovak Republic."45 American Slovaks accepted Masaryk's text for two reasons: first they accepted his argument about the need for a document that he could show President Wilson that would convince the American president and the American public of Czech and Slovak American support for his objectives. The search for such support from the American people was made even more forcefully with the Washington Declaration of October 1918 which addressed the link between democracy and the new state: "Another document that was meant to mobilize the American public in favour of the Czecho-Slovak cause was the declaration StolArik, pp. 47-50. Koviic, p. 66 . .._ Dejiny, p. 464. -0. 4.i. Rebro, p. 25. �94 SLOVAKIA of sovereignty known as the Washington Declaration. Both documents [the Pittsburgh Pact and the Washington Declaration] fulfilled their objectives. "46 The second reason is linked to the person of Masaryk himself. He was the president of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, the leader of the resistance movement who was received by the heads of state and government of the Allied Powers; American Slovaks had reason to trust him. In addition, the text of the Pittsburgh document did not suggest the absence of equality between the Czechs and Slovaks. Little did they suspect that he had very definite ideas about their nation which he had expressed as early as 1915 in a memorandum to the Foreign Office: "The Slovaks are Bohemians in spite of their using their dialect as their literary language. The Slovaks strive also for independence and accept the programme of union with Bohemia. "47 In addition, Masaryk also reflected an attitude toward the Slovaks that was prevalent among the Czechs: "at that time, no one among the Czechs understood the Slovak_ problem in its full importance and implication nor thought about the constitutional position of Slovakia in a Czecho-Slovak state, about the way of respecting Slovak individuality in a unitary state, not to say anything of a federation. Concrete approaches did not correspond to the sentimental-patriarchal feelings of the Czech public. "48 There was no Slovak leader, at home or abroad, who could counter Masaryk's influence and articulate properly and forcefully Slovak demands. Milan R. Stefanik was the most influential Slovak, but he was ill placed to represent the Slovaks. 46 Kovlit, p. 66. For more on the Washington Declaration, see J.B. Kozak, T.G. Masaryk a vznik Washingtonske deklarace v ffjnu 1918. Praha: Melantrich, 1968 . ~- Quoted in R. W. Seton-Watson, Masaryk in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943, p. 125. In the United States, Hu~k was one American Slovak who was suspicious of Masaryk's motives. See Stollirik, p. 47. • Chovanec a Mozolik, p. 20. �SLOVAKIA 95 As Jaroslav Sole writes about him: "The first Slovak in the struggle against the Habsburgs was a Czechoslovak -this was not only a definite paradox from the Slovak point of view, but also one of the formative conditions of the Czech approach!. "49 Masaryk had come to Pittsburgh to tell the Slovaks that he needed their support to achieve an aim that was also theirs, national emancipation. The Pittsburgh Pact, as had the Cleveland Agreement, helped to attain this objective; but that was all. There was nothing else as far as he was concerned, as later events would show. Much ink has flowed about the Pittsburgh Pact, especially about its binding character.:xi Two days before Masaryk signed the calligraphic copy, on 12 November 1918, the Revolutionary National Assembly in Prague had ratified all of the commitments that he had made during the war. Despite this ratification, the literature stresses the non-binding character of the Pittsburgh document based on one of its paragraphs. As Seton-Watson writes: "the final clause made the whole arrangement contingent upon its endorsement by constitutionally elected representatives of both Czechs and Slovaks at home after the war. "51 It was such a legal-constitutional argument that justified not only the Czechoslovak government's refusal to honour the clauses of the Pittsburgh document but also Masaryk's own repudiation of it as "a local understanding between American Czechs and Slovaks upon the policy they were prepared to advocate." 52 There was 111 - Jaroslav Sole, Slovensko v ceskej politike. Banska Bystrica: M.O. Enterprise, 1993, p. 43 . n Vavro Srobar went so far as to claim that the Czechoslovak Republic gave the Slovaks rights that went beyond the autonomy provisions of the Pittsburgh Pact. See Plevza, p. 75. 5 '- R.W. Seton-Watson, A History of Czechs and Slovaks. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1965, p. 306. 52 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations /914-1918, An English version, arranged and prepared with an introduction �96 SLOVAKIA also a political reason according to Stolarik: "Masaryk rejected the Pittsburgh Agreement partly because all Slovaks did not support it. "53 Whatever the legal justifications, it was an error on the part of Masaryk to ignore the Pittsburgh Pact's political ramification and importance. Masaryk was not unaware of the meaning of both documents, and not just for the Slovaks in the United States. As Seton-Watson wrote shortly after the creation of Czecho-Slovakia: if the Pittsburgh document was in no sense a treaty, it may fairly be taken as representing the mental attitude and political aspiration of most Czechs and Slovaks in America and (what is more important) of the chief shaper of Czechoslovak policy at the supreme crisis in 1918. To this extent it has, not a legal, but a moral, value. Moreover it may safely be claimed that in the first days of the new Republic it coincided with the general feeling in the "historic lands", that the Slovaks were fully entitled to make their own terms of union. The course of events, however, inevitably gave a different tum to the question. 54 The failure to honour it, indeed the failure of the Czechoslovak government to heed the demands of the Slovak People's Party during the two decades of interwar Czechoslovakia to implement it, 55 was, in the end, paid at the price of the First Czechoslovak Republic. by Henry Wickham Steed. New York: Frederick A Stokes Co., 1927, p. 220 . Masaryk also wrote a letter to Andrej Hlinka declaring the pact a "falsum ;" the text of the letter is found in Joseph M. Kirschbaum, pp. 238-240. n Stolarik, p. 54. Italics in the original. " R.W. Seton-Watson, The New Slovakia . Prague: Fr. Borovy, 1924, p. 21. 51 This is examined in detail in Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, pp. I 55- I 83. �SLOVAKIA 97 Conclusion Both documents represent important milestones in the history of the Slovak search for self-determination in the twentieth century. Their chronology is important in this respect. The Pittsburgh Pact does indicate a retreat in political objectives when compared to those proposed in the Cleveland Agreement. But it also represents a willingness on the part of the Slovaks to accept autonomy if historical and international conditions made only that option possible; what was important was to have an opportunity to leave Hungary and proceed with national development. If the Cleveland Agreement was repudiated, it also served notice of an alternative. The drive to federalization in 1968 came as a result of the experience with autonomy, from the failure to implement it in 1918- I938 to the experience of its implementation in 1938-1939 and 1945-1968. Slovak independence in 1993 was achieved as a result of the experience with the federal system since 1968. Ultimately, both documents succumbed to the Czech agenda in Czechoslovakia and its failure to accommodate properly and adequately their objectives, thus making Slovak independence the only option left. Put another way: If neither document was acceptable, then neither was what they had in common, a state of the Czechs and Slovaks. In this sense, these two documents were also precursors of Slovak independence. � SLOVAKIA 81 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum In the two centuries since the beginning of the French Revolution and the fall of Communism in Central Europe, Slovak political life has centered around the attainment of three political objectives: autonomy, federation, and independence. The first two are linked to the question of the relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks in a common state while the third reflects the teleological objectives of the principle of selfdetermination whose origins go back to the French Revolution but whose implementation was proposed only on the morrow of the First World War. It was to implement this principle that Central Europe was reorganized from the break-up of the Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Ottoman, and Romanov empires. Each one of these objectives was preceded by a series of declarations, memoranda, resolutions, pacts, and agreements that paved the way for their implementation. It is a singularity of Slovak history that there are very few such documents in this two-centuries span; Jorg K. Hoensch presents 57 that are linked to the objective of autonomy,' Karol Rebro puts together 27 that he L See Jorg K. Hoensch, Hrsg. Dokumente zur A utonomiepolitik der Slowakischen Vo/kspartei Hlinkas. Miinchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1984, pp. 71-257 . Hoen sch also includes three additional documents that deal with �82 SLOVAKIA associates with the drive to federalization,2 while Jaroslav Chovanec and Peter Mozolfk offer 32 documents that deal with or are connected to independence. 3 The difference in the numbers is explained by the fact that many of the documents that were chosen are specific to the objective sought; nevertheless, there are two that appear in all three volumes: the Cleveland Agreement and the Pittsburgh Pact. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate their importance in the attainment of Slovak political objectives in the twentieth century. It is their link to the three objectives that explains their interest. Still, one Slovak historian, Anton Spiesz, 4 and one Western scholar, Hoensch,5 have seen fit not to mention either; in all other works, they find their place in the history of the nation. Both documents share four principal characteristics. First, they embody the essence of Slovak political activity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, namely the attainment of selfdetermination; second, both seek the same objective: the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks at the end of the Great War; third, they are laconic texts, in some respects even imprecise in their content; and fourth, they are linked to Slovaks living not in Slovakia, but in the United States. It is the differences between them, the reasons for these differences, and 2 independence, thus bringing the total to 60 documents. Karol Rebro, The Road to Federation. Bratislava: Tatrapress, 1970, pp. 64-130. It should be noted that Rebro includes also the text of the Treaty of Protection of 1939 between Slovakia and Germany, thus bringing the total to 28 . 1 Jaroslav Chovanec a Peter Mozolik, Historicke a statopnivne korene samostatnosti Slovenskej republiky. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Procom, 1994, pp. 67-216. The two authors include six additional documents that pertain to Slovak history prior to the nineteenth century. •- Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slo venska. Na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Brati slava : Yydavatefstvo Respekt, I 992. 1 Jorg K. Hoensch, Geschichte der Tschechoslowakischen Republik 1918 bis 1965. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966. �SLOVAKIA 83 the impact that they had that make them so interesting and that have also made them the object not only of political but also scholarly controversy. Until the international context of a world war offered the Slovaks the possibility of leaving Austria-Hungary, the main Slovak objective, shared by American Slovaks, was the attainment of a form of self-determination through self-administration. From the time of the French Revolution, three proposals embodied this objective. The first is Ignac Martinovic's democratic constitution, which he worked out at the time of the French Revolution, and which included the nationality principle; its application would have turned Slovakia into an independent administrative unit called Slavonica. As Slovak Marxist historians write: "It is in fact the first proposal to include Slovakia as an independent national administrative unit within the framework of Hungary. 116 The second is the Ziadosti slovenskeho naroda (The Demands of the Slovak Nation), worked out in May 1848; the Slovak nation demanded the recognition and guarantee of national identity; the transformation of Hungary into a state composed of equal nations, each with its own parliament and equal representation in the Hungarian Diet; and the use of Slovak in all Slovak county offices. In addition, it insisted on democratic rights, including universal and equal suffrage, the total abolition of serfdom, and the return of the land to the peasants from whom it had been taken away. 7 The third is the Memorandum slovenskeho naroda (Memorandum of the Slovak Nation) adopted in Turciansky Svaty Martin in June 1861; it sought equal rights with the Magyars, the recognition of their national individuality by law, the formation of a North Hungarian Slovak ~ Dejiny S/ovenska II. Bratislava: Veda, Vydavatefstvo Slovenskej akademie vied, I 987, p. 48 I. 1 • For the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 64-67, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolfk, pp. 74-77, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 71 -74. �84 SLOVAKIA District (Okolie in Slovak), Slovak as the official language of adminstration of this district, a Slovak Academy of Law and a chair of Slavonic studies in Pest, and the repeal of all Hungarian laws that infringed on the principles of the equality of the nationalities. 8 In the words of Slovak historians, the memorandum "became the basic Slovak constitutional programme even if it was not worked out in detail and contained merely basic principles about a certain Slovak autonomy within the framework of Hungary." 9 American Slovaks were familiar with Slovak objectives in Hungary, since most were immigrants to the United States, forced out by Budapest's policy of Magyarization and Hungary's slow economic development. Their main organization, the Slovak League of America, prepared a memorandum in May 1914 on the occasion of an earlier visit by Hungarian Count Mihaly Karolyi in the United States. The memorandum reiterated the demands of the 1861 Memorandum, thus in effect seeking a solution in Austria-Hungary. But it became the object of some controversy 10 as it underwent certain changes before it was · published in its final version on 2 September 1914 as the Memorandum o krivdach a JX)iiadavkach slovenskfch (Memorandum on Slovak Injustices and Demands). 11 No specific conFor the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 73-76, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolik, pp. 81-89, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 92-99. 9 • R. Marsina et. al., Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1992, p. 173. n This is described in Konstantfn Culen, Pittsburghska dohoda . Bratislava: Knfhtlaciarell Andreja uc. spol., 1937, pp. 20-32. 11 • The original and modified versions are found in ibid., pp. 42-52. According to Ivan Markovic: "It was a political error and an indication of insufficient political foresight on the part of the Slovak League to publish this memorandum." See Ivan Markovic, Slovaci v zahranicnej revolucii. Bratislava: no publisher, no date; lecture given on 16 April 1923, p. 13. As for its publication date, Milan Getting writes that it was published on 24 September. See Milan Getting, Americkf Slovaci a vjvin ceskoslovenskej myslienky v rokoch 1914-1918. Pittsburgh: Slovenska Telocvicna Jednota & �SLOVAKIA 85 stitutional solution was put forth for Slovakia, but there was a demand for full self-administration and self-determination. In the discussions around this document the idea of Czecho-Slovak unity had also been mentioned. 12 This document opened the way for Slovak American organizations thereafter to examine a number of options that would be the object of debate for some time: 13 Slovakia in a federated Slavic state in Austria-Hungary; a Slovak-Polish union ; a Slovak-Russian union ; autonomy in a reorganized Hungary; and the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. 14 Clearly, the objective had been redefined and had become one of national emancipation. The Cleveland Agreement _ With the outbreak of war, American Slovaks opted for cooperation with the Czechs in their struggle for national emancipation. But their approaches differed. The latter directed their efforts at the creation of a Czech state. However, according to Chovanec and Mozolfk, "the representatives of the Slovak organizations in the United States fought against the attempts of their Czech partners to attach the Slovaks as a sort of appendage to the basic Czech anti-Habsburg programme." 15 The Slovaks were seeking a solution that was in the spirit of previous Slovak demands and that would ensure national development. After months of discussions, 16 an attempt was made to create a common front and a meeting was organized in Cleveland on 22 Sokol v Amerike, 1933, p. 40. Ibid., p. 40. 13. See Markovit, p. 13. 14 • Some of these options are examined in Stanislav Matou~ek, Vznik a vfvoj spolecneho statu Cechu a Slovakii . Praha: Academia, 1980, pp. 57-60. u. Chovanec a Mozolfk, p. 19. "' For more on these discussions, see Marian Mark Stolarik, "The Role of American Slovaks in the Creation of Czecho-Slovakia, 1914-19 I 8," Slovak Studies, VIII ( 1968), pp. 23-26. ll �86 SLOVAKIA October 1915 between representatives of Czech and Slovak American organizations. Cubomfr Liptak writes that "[t]he decision of American Slovaks to support the struggle for the creation of a common state with the Czechs - and its worth is found here - was taken after long and often bitter discussions in which the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution were weighed, including the possibilities and limits of Slovak activity." 17 The Czechs proposed a text that was only slightly modified by the Slovaks present. It has since become known as the Cleveland Agreement. Short and imprecise as it is, this text is, perhaps because of these characteristics, the object of some controversy. Composed of five points, its only two concrete proposals are found in points one and three on the independence of the Czech Lands and Slovakia and secret universal suffrage. It is the second point that has historians trying to figure out what the authors had in mind when they proposed "a union of the Czech and Slovak nations in a federative union of states with complete national autonomy for Slovakia, with its own parliament, its own state administration, complete cultural freedom, that is to say with the full right to use the Slovak language, its own financial and political administration, and an official Slovak state language." 18 Was this a federal proposal, if so, what kind, and if not, what was it, given its language? There are two schools of thought on this question. One rejects outright the affirmation that this was federal solution for a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. Stanislav Matousek suggests that what was proposed was a union within a federalized monarchy. He bases his argument not only on the phrase 11 • 1& Cubomir Liptak, Slovensko v 20. storoci. Bratislava: Vydavatet'stvo politickej literatury, 1968, p. 64. Rebro, p. 80. Stol~rik, on the other hand, translates "vo federatfvnom zviizku ~t~tov" as "in a federal state." StolMik, p. 55. �SLOVAKIA 87 "in a federative union of states" ( vo federativnom sviizku stitov), but also on the reference to Slovakia's autonomy. According to him, such a reference would not have been necessary if a federation between the Czechs and Slovaks had been envisaged; it would have been assumed for both nations. He also suggests that the authors based their understanding of federalism on their American experience. 19 The latter is also the view of some Slovak historians.'.!) Finally, to strengthen this approach, Viliam Plevza shows that reactions in the months that followed support this interpretation? Others, on the other hand, recognize the document as proposing a federal arrangement between the two nations. Rebro writes that "[t]he Cleveland Agreement represents a clear federative model of two equal nations on the basis of partnership." 22 Josef Kalvoda understands the text to mean that "[b]oth the Czechs and Slovaks were to have autonomy in the federative state to be established after the war."n Konstantin Culen indicates that the agreement "announced the federalization of the future republic". 24 Ivan Markovic and Marian Mark Stolarik perceive it as expressing a federal solution for two nationally autonomous entities. 75 Not surprisingly, some historians pass no judgment and limit themselves simply to quoting or using directly the text of the agreement. 26 Such use of the text is 19 • Matousek, pp. 61-62. n Marsina et al., p. 197. 21 • Viliam Plevza, Ceskos/ovenska statnosf a sl ovenska otazka v politike KSC. Bratislava: Praca, 1971 , pp. 49-50. n Rebro, p. 22. 21. Josef Kalvoda, The Genesis of Czechoslovakia. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1986, p. 70. ll Culen, p. 81 . 21 Markovit, p. 25; Stolarik, p. 26. li Among those who pass no judgment are Chovanec and Mozolik, p. 19, Liptak, p. 63, Franti~ek Bokes, Dejiny S/ovenska a Slovakov od najstarsfch cias po os/obodenie. Bratislava: Slovenska akademia vied a umen1, 1946, p. 350 and �88 SLOVAKIA interpreted by at least one author as a tacit acknowledgement of this interpretation.Zl Of the two, the second interpretation seems more acceptable than the first for a number of reasons. First of all, the language of the agreement suggests that its authors were not experts in political and constitutional terminology; otherwise the language would have been precise. This allows us to infer that a federation of the two nations was the objective as this was the reason for the meeting: to decide on the framework of an arrangement between them. Those who make the claim that the authors were influenced by American federalism project their own expertise and historical experience on men of a generation that had recently emigrated to the United States and whose education was not likely to have included constitutional law and political science or specialized knowledge of the American constitution. Secondly, the reference to Slovak autonomy must be seen as understandable given the Slovak political struggle in Hungary and the demands made in the documents of 1848 and 1861. For most Slovaks, this was their main point of reference in the national struggle. It is unlikely that the document would have obtained the support from American Slovaks that it did obtain had it not included a specific reference to autonomy.28 Thirdly, subsequent events indicate that American Slovaks understood that their nation would enter into a common state with the Czechs in a federal arrangement. Dusan Kovac\ Slovaci - Cesi - Dejiny. Bratislava: Academic Electronic Press, 1997, p. 65. n. Plevza considers Liptak as belonging to those who accept the federal interpretation. See Plevza, p. 49n. 2& It is interesting to note that Albert Mamatey, President of the Slovak League in America, who would be present when the agreement was signed the next day, wrote on 21 October 1915 in Narodne noviny that the League "is for [Slovak] independence regardless of the greater state organization in which we find ourselves." Quoted in Getting, p. 63. �SLOVAKIA 89 The agreement was generally well received, but Slovak Marxist historians also note that "[i]n France, the periodical Ceskoslovenska samostatnosf, as the "organ of political emigration" presented the Cleveland agreement in the spirit of Czechoslovakism - as the attainment of Czechoslovak national unity. This point of view resulted in protests because American Slovaks had begun to support all of the activities of the external struggle on the principle of two equal nations as outlined in the Cleveland agreement. "29 Slovak Americans were not unaware of Czech objectives, and in particular the role that Czechoslovak unity was playing in these objectives. They knew that they had to counter this. In addition, Frantisek Bokes writes that the agreement "did not eliminate distrust and the possibility of misunderstanding between Czechs and Slovaks. "D This uncertainty resulted in the Slovak League of America sending in April 1916 two representatives to Europe, Stefan Osusky and Gustav Kosfk, "to meet Professor [T.G.] Masaryk and to explain the Slovak program to the British and French foreign ministries."31 Nevertheless, as Culen writes: "from this meeting [in Cleveland] on, Czechs and Slovaks begin to appear together throughout the United States. "32 Such behaviour again strongly points to a Slovak understanding of what the agreement meant to them and also their determination to achieve their objective, a federation of the two nations. However, it must aso be pointed out that some American Slovaks saw the agreement as having brought forth "Czechoslovak unity" 33 . Equally interesting is that fact that 29 • Dejiny S/ovenska JI, p. 429. Italics added. Bokes, p. 35 I. 3 1. Kalvoda, p. 83. For an analysis of the Osusky-Ko§ik mission to Europe, see Stolarik, pp. 28-30. See also the interview with Osusky in ibid., pp. 59-61. :u Culen, p. 83. n Getting, p. 66. :n �90 SLOVAKIA Masaryk, despite his later behaviour, is said to have approved of it.34 The Pittsburgh Pact A series of developments soon made it clear that the Cleveland Agreement would have to be revisited, if not revised. In the first place, there was vigorous debate on the question of Czechoslovak unity and the nature of the future state in Slovak publications in the United States and abroad throughout 1916 and 1917. 35 Furthermore, according to Stolarik, in 1916 American Slovaks had "split into Slovak and Czechoslovak camps. "36 Secondly, there was the evolution of the Czech agenda and its transformation into a Czechoslovak one. 37 The creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks had to be seen as embodying the principle of self-determination, as inferred from President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points38 and, above all, had to be sold to the Allied Powers. The second development put American Slovaks in a very difficult position; while they did not want to give up their objective, they needed Czech support to achieve it and they also had to ensure that their mutual project of a common state did not fail because of their demands or because of serious disputes with Ibid., p. 84. Rebro also writes that Masaryk "tried to find comprise formulations that would not contradict his own conceptions. But he could not simply refuse the terms of the Cleveland agreement because they were supported by the moral, financial and first of all voluntary help of the Slovaks abroad." Rebro, pp. 24-25. 35. Getting, pp. 85-86. 36. Stolarik, p. 22. n. For more on this see Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 144-152. 31!. On the question of the role of the principle of self-determination in the Fourteen Points, see Dov Ronen, The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict, Democracy and Self-Determination in Central Europe. London: Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 48-53 . 34. �SLOVAKIA 91 the Czechs. For Masaryk, the best solution to this dilemma was Czechoslovakism, that is to say the fusion of the Czechs and Slovaks into one nation. This was a concept that not only had historical roots (it was first proposed in 1848), but that could easily be proposed within the framework of the principle of selfdetermination. In addition, as the English historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote, "Masaryk knew little of the Slovaks; others knew even less. That was his strength in dealing with the allied leaders. "39 What Masaryk also had to do was to overcome the suspicions and disagreements that had arisen between Czechs and Slovaks in the United States and bring the latter to accept the necessity for a common front that would persuade the Allied Powers to create the new state.'° He achieved this with the document called the Pittsburgh Pact (also called the Pittsburgh Agreement) which he himself signed on two occasions, the hand-written copy on 31 May 1918, and the calligraphic copy on 14 November, the day he was elected president of Czecho-Slovakia in Prague by the Revolutionary National Assembly. The Pittsburgh document is composed of six resolutions approved by the representatives of the Slovak League of America, the Czech National Alliance, the Federation of Czech Catholics, and the Czecho-Slovak National Council in the person of Masaryk himself. Of importance to Slovakia is the acknowledgement of its own institutions, namely a state administration, a parliament, and a judiciary and the status of the Slovak language as the official language in the schools, in the public offices and in public life generally. In addition to approving a union of the two nations in an independent state, the document specifies that the state shall be a republic and that its constitution shall be 39 • CJ. A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967, p. 258. Stolarik also points out that "[t]he attitude of American Slovaks towards the Czechs changed radically in 1917." Stolarik, p. 32. �92 SLOVAKIA democratic. There is reference to "the organization of the cooperation between Czechs and Slovaks," but the most important point refers to the relegation of the "detailed provisions" to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives. 1141 The most important difference between the Cleveland and Pittsburgh texts is found in the political objectives each proposes; there was a shift from a federal solution to the autonomy of Slovakia. The Pittsburgh document not only leaves out any direct reference to the type of arrangement there would be between the Czechs and Slovaks as the Cleveland Agreement had done, but it also gives the responsibility of finding an arrangement to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives." Simply put, the agreement avoids the issue of the future constitutional make-up of the common state. It should also be noted that there is no direct use of the term autonomy; while this is clearly evident in the enumeration of the powers Slovakia would exercise, its non-mention is not without significance. It is linked directly to the avoidance of defining the future constitutional set-up of Czecho-Slovakia. Why did Masaryk, the author of the Pittsburgh Pact, propose such a text and why did the American Slovaks accept it? Aware of the differences of opinion there existed between the Czechs and Slovaks in the United States, Masaryk came to the United States in order to find a common ground and eliminate any argument that might put his cause in doubt. 42 In addition, as a •1. ~ Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovakia . Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. New York, Robert A Speller & Sons Publisher, Inc., 1960, p. 326. Stolarik, translates "pravoplatnym predstavitefom" as "legal representatives" which is more correct. Stolarik, p. 56. Catholic American Slovaks, under the leadership of Jozef Hu~k. editor of Jednota , the publication of the First Catholic Slovak Union, the largest single Slovak organization in the United States, were distrustful of Masaryk. For more on Hu~ek's role, especially with regards to the Pittsburgh document, see �SLOVAKIA 93 Slovak historian writes: "The need for legitimacy brought forth the Pittsburgh Pact. When Masaryk left for the United States at the end of April 1918, he went there with the clear objective of trying to overcome the President Wilson's mistrust of the plan to destroy Austria-Hungary. One of the arguments had to be a newly documented unity of the objectives of the Czech and Slovak citizens of the United States. "43 But Masaryk had a second, less evident objective: the acceptance of a document that would not put anything in his way in the achievement of the policy of Czechoslovakism. The Pittsburgh text, unlike the Cleveland one, made this possible, as Marxist historians point out: "Masaryk formulated the union of the Czechs and Slovaks in one state on the basis of equality but side-stepped the original -demand on the Slovak side, that is to say a federal constitutional organization linked to the recognition of two independent nations - the Czechs and the Slovaks. "44 The result was that "he changed the aim of the resistance movement abroad [by] leaving out the sentences about the federal structure of the Czechoslovak Republic."45 American Slovaks accepted Masaryk's text for two reasons: first they accepted his argument about the need for a document that he could show President Wilson that would convince the American president and the American public of Czech and Slovak American support for his objectives. The search for such support from the American people was made even more forcefully with the Washington Declaration of October 1918 which addressed the link between democracy and the new state: "Another document that was meant to mobilize the American public in favour of the Czecho-Slovak cause was the declaration StolArik, pp. 47-50. Koviic, p. 66 . .._ Dejiny, p. 464. -0. 4.i. Rebro, p. 25. �94 SLOVAKIA of sovereignty known as the Washington Declaration. Both documents [the Pittsburgh Pact and the Washington Declaration] fulfilled their objectives. "46 The second reason is linked to the person of Masaryk himself. He was the president of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, the leader of the resistance movement who was received by the heads of state and government of the Allied Powers; American Slovaks had reason to trust him. In addition, the text of the Pittsburgh document did not suggest the absence of equality between the Czechs and Slovaks. Little did they suspect that he had very definite ideas about their nation which he had expressed as early as 1915 in a memorandum to the Foreign Office: "The Slovaks are Bohemians in spite of their using their dialect as their literary language. The Slovaks strive also for independence and accept the programme of union with Bohemia. "47 In addition, Masaryk also reflected an attitude toward the Slovaks that was prevalent among the Czechs: "at that time, no one among the Czechs understood the Slovak_ problem in its full importance and implication nor thought about the constitutional position of Slovakia in a Czecho-Slovak state, about the way of respecting Slovak individuality in a unitary state, not to say anything of a federation. Concrete approaches did not correspond to the sentimental-patriarchal feelings of the Czech public. "48 There was no Slovak leader, at home or abroad, who could counter Masaryk's influence and articulate properly and forcefully Slovak demands. Milan R. Stefanik was the most influential Slovak, but he was ill placed to represent the Slovaks. 46 Kovlit, p. 66. For more on the Washington Declaration, see J.B. Kozak, T.G. Masaryk a vznik Washingtonske deklarace v ffjnu 1918. Praha: Melantrich, 1968 . ~- Quoted in R. W. Seton-Watson, Masaryk in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943, p. 125. In the United States, Hu~k was one American Slovak who was suspicious of Masaryk's motives. See Stollirik, p. 47. • Chovanec a Mozolik, p. 20. �SLOVAKIA 95 As Jaroslav Sole writes about him: "The first Slovak in the struggle against the Habsburgs was a Czechoslovak -this was not only a definite paradox from the Slovak point of view, but also one of the formative conditions of the Czech approach!. "49 Masaryk had come to Pittsburgh to tell the Slovaks that he needed their support to achieve an aim that was also theirs, national emancipation. The Pittsburgh Pact, as had the Cleveland Agreement, helped to attain this objective; but that was all. There was nothing else as far as he was concerned, as later events would show. Much ink has flowed about the Pittsburgh Pact, especially about its binding character.:xi Two days before Masaryk signed the calligraphic copy, on 12 November 1918, the Revolutionary National Assembly in Prague had ratified all of the commitments that he had made during the war. Despite this ratification, the literature stresses the non-binding character of the Pittsburgh document based on one of its paragraphs. As Seton-Watson writes: "the final clause made the whole arrangement contingent upon its endorsement by constitutionally elected representatives of both Czechs and Slovaks at home after the war. "51 It was such a legal-constitutional argument that justified not only the Czechoslovak government's refusal to honour the clauses of the Pittsburgh document but also Masaryk's own repudiation of it as "a local understanding between American Czechs and Slovaks upon the policy they were prepared to advocate." 52 There was 111 - Jaroslav Sole, Slovensko v ceskej politike. Banska Bystrica: M.O. Enterprise, 1993, p. 43 . n Vavro Srobar went so far as to claim that the Czechoslovak Republic gave the Slovaks rights that went beyond the autonomy provisions of the Pittsburgh Pact. See Plevza, p. 75. 5 '- R.W. Seton-Watson, A History of Czechs and Slovaks. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1965, p. 306. 52 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations /914-1918, An English version, arranged and prepared with an introduction �96 SLOVAKIA also a political reason according to Stolarik: "Masaryk rejected the Pittsburgh Agreement partly because all Slovaks did not support it. "53 Whatever the legal justifications, it was an error on the part of Masaryk to ignore the Pittsburgh Pact's political ramification and importance. Masaryk was not unaware of the meaning of both documents, and not just for the Slovaks in the United States. As Seton-Watson wrote shortly after the creation of Czecho-Slovakia: if the Pittsburgh document was in no sense a treaty, it may fairly be taken as representing the mental attitude and political aspiration of most Czechs and Slovaks in America and (what is more important) of the chief shaper of Czechoslovak policy at the supreme crisis in 1918. To this extent it has, not a legal, but a moral, value. Moreover it may safely be claimed that in the first days of the new Republic it coincided with the general feeling in the "historic lands", that the Slovaks were fully entitled to make their own terms of union. The course of events, however, inevitably gave a different tum to the question. 54 The failure to honour it, indeed the failure of the Czechoslovak government to heed the demands of the Slovak People's Party during the two decades of interwar Czechoslovakia to implement it, 55 was, in the end, paid at the price of the First Czechoslovak Republic. by Henry Wickham Steed. New York: Frederick A Stokes Co., 1927, p. 220 . Masaryk also wrote a letter to Andrej Hlinka declaring the pact a "falsum ;" the text of the letter is found in Joseph M. Kirschbaum, pp. 238-240. n Stolarik, p. 54. Italics in the original. " R.W. Seton-Watson, The New Slovakia . Prague: Fr. Borovy, 1924, p. 21. 51 This is examined in detail in Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, pp. I 55- I 83. �SLOVAKIA 97 Conclusion Both documents represent important milestones in the history of the Slovak search for self-determination in the twentieth century. Their chronology is important in this respect. The Pittsburgh Pact does indicate a retreat in political objectives when compared to those proposed in the Cleveland Agreement. But it also represents a willingness on the part of the Slovaks to accept autonomy if historical and international conditions made only that option possible; what was important was to have an opportunity to leave Hungary and proceed with national development. If the Cleveland Agreement was repudiated, it also served notice of an alternative. The drive to federalization in 1968 came as a result of the experience with autonomy, from the failure to implement it in 1918- I938 to the experience of its implementation in 1938-1939 and 1945-1968. Slovak independence in 1993 was achieved as a result of the experience with the federal system since 1968. Ultimately, both documents succumbed to the Czech agenda in Czechoslovakia and its failure to accommodate properly and adequately their objectives, thus making Slovak independence the only option left. Put another way: If neither document was acceptable, then neither was what they had in common, a state of the Czechs and Slovaks. In this sense, these two documents were also precursors of Slovak independence. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SLOVAKIA 81 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum In the two centuries since the beginning of the French Revolution and the fall of Communism in Central Europe, Slovak political life has centered around the attainment of three political objectives: autonomy, federation, and independence. The first two are linked to the question of the relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks in a common state while the third reflects the teleological objectives of the principle of selfdetermination whose origins go back to the French Revolution but whose implementation was proposed only on the morrow of the First World War. It was to implement this principle that Central Europe was reorganized from the break-up of the Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Ottoman, and Romanov empires. Each one of these objectives was preceded by a series of declarations, memoranda, resolutions, pacts, and agreements that paved the way for their implementation. It is a singularity of Slovak history that there are very few such documents in this two-centuries span; Jorg K. Hoensch presents 57 that are linked to the objective of autonomy,' Karol Rebro puts together 27 that he L See Jorg K. Hoensch, Hrsg. Dokumente zur A utonomiepolitik der Slowakischen Vo/kspartei Hlinkas. Miinchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1984, pp. 71-257 . Hoen sch also includes three additional documents that deal with 82 SLOVAKIA associates with the drive to federalization,2 while Jaroslav Chovanec and Peter Mozolfk offer 32 documents that deal with or are connected to independence. 3 The difference in the numbers is explained by the fact that many of the documents that were chosen are specific to the objective sought; nevertheless, there are two that appear in all three volumes: the Cleveland Agreement and the Pittsburgh Pact. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate their importance in the attainment of Slovak political objectives in the twentieth century. It is their link to the three objectives that explains their interest. Still, one Slovak historian, Anton Spiesz, 4 and one Western scholar, Hoensch,5 have seen fit not to mention either; in all other works, they find their place in the history of the nation. Both documents share four principal characteristics. First, they embody the essence of Slovak political activity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, namely the attainment of selfdetermination; second, both seek the same objective: the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks at the end of the Great War; third, they are laconic texts, in some respects even imprecise in their content; and fourth, they are linked to Slovaks living not in Slovakia, but in the United States. It is the differences between them, the reasons for these differences, and 2 independence, thus bringing the total to 60 documents. Karol Rebro, The Road to Federation. Bratislava: Tatrapress, 1970, pp. 64-130. It should be noted that Rebro includes also the text of the Treaty of Protection of 1939 between Slovakia and Germany, thus bringing the total to 28 . 1 Jaroslav Chovanec a Peter Mozolik, Historicke a statopnivne korene samostatnosti Slovenskej republiky. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Procom, 1994, pp. 67-216. The two authors include six additional documents that pertain to Slovak history prior to the nineteenth century. •- Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slo venska. Na ceste k sebauvedomeniu. Brati slava : Yydavatefstvo Respekt, I 992. 1 Jorg K. Hoensch, Geschichte der Tschechoslowakischen Republik 1918 bis 1965. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966. SLOVAKIA 83 the impact that they had that make them so interesting and that have also made them the object not only of political but also scholarly controversy. Until the international context of a world war offered the Slovaks the possibility of leaving Austria-Hungary, the main Slovak objective, shared by American Slovaks, was the attainment of a form of self-determination through self-administration. From the time of the French Revolution, three proposals embodied this objective. The first is Ignac Martinovic's democratic constitution, which he worked out at the time of the French Revolution, and which included the nationality principle; its application would have turned Slovakia into an independent administrative unit called Slavonica. As Slovak Marxist historians write: "It is in fact the first proposal to include Slovakia as an independent national administrative unit within the framework of Hungary. 116 The second is the Ziadosti slovenskeho naroda (The Demands of the Slovak Nation), worked out in May 1848; the Slovak nation demanded the recognition and guarantee of national identity; the transformation of Hungary into a state composed of equal nations, each with its own parliament and equal representation in the Hungarian Diet; and the use of Slovak in all Slovak county offices. In addition, it insisted on democratic rights, including universal and equal suffrage, the total abolition of serfdom, and the return of the land to the peasants from whom it had been taken away. 7 The third is the Memorandum slovenskeho naroda (Memorandum of the Slovak Nation) adopted in Turciansky Svaty Martin in June 1861; it sought equal rights with the Magyars, the recognition of their national individuality by law, the formation of a North Hungarian Slovak ~ Dejiny S/ovenska II. Bratislava: Veda, Vydavatefstvo Slovenskej akademie vied, I 987, p. 48 I. 1 • For the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 64-67, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolfk, pp. 74-77, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 71 -74. 84 SLOVAKIA District (Okolie in Slovak), Slovak as the official language of adminstration of this district, a Slovak Academy of Law and a chair of Slavonic studies in Pest, and the repeal of all Hungarian laws that infringed on the principles of the equality of the nationalities. 8 In the words of Slovak historians, the memorandum "became the basic Slovak constitutional programme even if it was not worked out in detail and contained merely basic principles about a certain Slovak autonomy within the framework of Hungary." 9 American Slovaks were familiar with Slovak objectives in Hungary, since most were immigrants to the United States, forced out by Budapest's policy of Magyarization and Hungary's slow economic development. Their main organization, the Slovak League of America, prepared a memorandum in May 1914 on the occasion of an earlier visit by Hungarian Count Mihaly Karolyi in the United States. The memorandum reiterated the demands of the 1861 Memorandum, thus in effect seeking a solution in Austria-Hungary. But it became the object of some controversy 10 as it underwent certain changes before it was · published in its final version on 2 September 1914 as the Memorandum o krivdach a JX)iiadavkach slovenskfch (Memorandum on Slovak Injustices and Demands). 11 No specific conFor the text in English, see Rebro, pp. 73-76, in Slovak, Chovanec and Mozolik, pp. 81-89, and in German, Hoensch, pp. 92-99. 9 • R. Marsina et. al., Slovenske dejiny. Martin: Matica slovenska, 1992, p. 173. n This is described in Konstantfn Culen, Pittsburghska dohoda . Bratislava: Knfhtlaciarell Andreja uc. spol., 1937, pp. 20-32. 11 • The original and modified versions are found in ibid., pp. 42-52. According to Ivan Markovic: "It was a political error and an indication of insufficient political foresight on the part of the Slovak League to publish this memorandum." See Ivan Markovic, Slovaci v zahranicnej revolucii. Bratislava: no publisher, no date; lecture given on 16 April 1923, p. 13. As for its publication date, Milan Getting writes that it was published on 24 September. See Milan Getting, Americkf Slovaci a vjvin ceskoslovenskej myslienky v rokoch 1914-1918. Pittsburgh: Slovenska Telocvicna Jednota & SLOVAKIA 85 stitutional solution was put forth for Slovakia, but there was a demand for full self-administration and self-determination. In the discussions around this document the idea of Czecho-Slovak unity had also been mentioned. 12 This document opened the way for Slovak American organizations thereafter to examine a number of options that would be the object of debate for some time: 13 Slovakia in a federated Slavic state in Austria-Hungary; a Slovak-Polish union ; a Slovak-Russian union ; autonomy in a reorganized Hungary; and the creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. 14 Clearly, the objective had been redefined and had become one of national emancipation. The Cleveland Agreement _ With the outbreak of war, American Slovaks opted for cooperation with the Czechs in their struggle for national emancipation. But their approaches differed. The latter directed their efforts at the creation of a Czech state. However, according to Chovanec and Mozolfk, "the representatives of the Slovak organizations in the United States fought against the attempts of their Czech partners to attach the Slovaks as a sort of appendage to the basic Czech anti-Habsburg programme." 15 The Slovaks were seeking a solution that was in the spirit of previous Slovak demands and that would ensure national development. After months of discussions, 16 an attempt was made to create a common front and a meeting was organized in Cleveland on 22 Sokol v Amerike, 1933, p. 40. Ibid., p. 40. 13. See Markovit, p. 13. 14 • Some of these options are examined in Stanislav Matou~ek, Vznik a vfvoj spolecneho statu Cechu a Slovakii . Praha: Academia, 1980, pp. 57-60. u. Chovanec a Mozolfk, p. 19. "' For more on these discussions, see Marian Mark Stolarik, "The Role of American Slovaks in the Creation of Czecho-Slovakia, 1914-19 I 8," Slovak Studies, VIII ( 1968), pp. 23-26. ll 86 SLOVAKIA October 1915 between representatives of Czech and Slovak American organizations. Cubomfr Liptak writes that "[t]he decision of American Slovaks to support the struggle for the creation of a common state with the Czechs - and its worth is found here - was taken after long and often bitter discussions in which the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution were weighed, including the possibilities and limits of Slovak activity." 17 The Czechs proposed a text that was only slightly modified by the Slovaks present. It has since become known as the Cleveland Agreement. Short and imprecise as it is, this text is, perhaps because of these characteristics, the object of some controversy. Composed of five points, its only two concrete proposals are found in points one and three on the independence of the Czech Lands and Slovakia and secret universal suffrage. It is the second point that has historians trying to figure out what the authors had in mind when they proposed "a union of the Czech and Slovak nations in a federative union of states with complete national autonomy for Slovakia, with its own parliament, its own state administration, complete cultural freedom, that is to say with the full right to use the Slovak language, its own financial and political administration, and an official Slovak state language." 18 Was this a federal proposal, if so, what kind, and if not, what was it, given its language? There are two schools of thought on this question. One rejects outright the affirmation that this was federal solution for a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks. Stanislav Matousek suggests that what was proposed was a union within a federalized monarchy. He bases his argument not only on the phrase 11 • 1& Cubomir Liptak, Slovensko v 20. storoci. Bratislava: Vydavatet'stvo politickej literatury, 1968, p. 64. Rebro, p. 80. Stol~rik, on the other hand, translates "vo federatfvnom zviizku ~t~tov" as "in a federal state." StolMik, p. 55. SLOVAKIA 87 "in a federative union of states" ( vo federativnom sviizku stitov), but also on the reference to Slovakia's autonomy. According to him, such a reference would not have been necessary if a federation between the Czechs and Slovaks had been envisaged; it would have been assumed for both nations. He also suggests that the authors based their understanding of federalism on their American experience. 19 The latter is also the view of some Slovak historians.'.!) Finally, to strengthen this approach, Viliam Plevza shows that reactions in the months that followed support this interpretation? Others, on the other hand, recognize the document as proposing a federal arrangement between the two nations. Rebro writes that "[t]he Cleveland Agreement represents a clear federative model of two equal nations on the basis of partnership." 22 Josef Kalvoda understands the text to mean that "[b]oth the Czechs and Slovaks were to have autonomy in the federative state to be established after the war."n Konstantin Culen indicates that the agreement "announced the federalization of the future republic". 24 Ivan Markovic and Marian Mark Stolarik perceive it as expressing a federal solution for two nationally autonomous entities. 75 Not surprisingly, some historians pass no judgment and limit themselves simply to quoting or using directly the text of the agreement. 26 Such use of the text is 19 • Matousek, pp. 61-62. n Marsina et al., p. 197. 21 • Viliam Plevza, Ceskos/ovenska statnosf a sl ovenska otazka v politike KSC. Bratislava: Praca, 1971 , pp. 49-50. n Rebro, p. 22. 21. Josef Kalvoda, The Genesis of Czechoslovakia. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1986, p. 70. ll Culen, p. 81 . 21 Markovit, p. 25; Stolarik, p. 26. li Among those who pass no judgment are Chovanec and Mozolik, p. 19, Liptak, p. 63, Franti~ek Bokes, Dejiny S/ovenska a Slovakov od najstarsfch cias po os/obodenie. Bratislava: Slovenska akademia vied a umen1, 1946, p. 350 and 88 SLOVAKIA interpreted by at least one author as a tacit acknowledgement of this interpretation.Zl Of the two, the second interpretation seems more acceptable than the first for a number of reasons. First of all, the language of the agreement suggests that its authors were not experts in political and constitutional terminology; otherwise the language would have been precise. This allows us to infer that a federation of the two nations was the objective as this was the reason for the meeting: to decide on the framework of an arrangement between them. Those who make the claim that the authors were influenced by American federalism project their own expertise and historical experience on men of a generation that had recently emigrated to the United States and whose education was not likely to have included constitutional law and political science or specialized knowledge of the American constitution. Secondly, the reference to Slovak autonomy must be seen as understandable given the Slovak political struggle in Hungary and the demands made in the documents of 1848 and 1861. For most Slovaks, this was their main point of reference in the national struggle. It is unlikely that the document would have obtained the support from American Slovaks that it did obtain had it not included a specific reference to autonomy.28 Thirdly, subsequent events indicate that American Slovaks understood that their nation would enter into a common state with the Czechs in a federal arrangement. Dusan Kovac\ Slovaci - Cesi - Dejiny. Bratislava: Academic Electronic Press, 1997, p. 65. n. Plevza considers Liptak as belonging to those who accept the federal interpretation. See Plevza, p. 49n. 2& It is interesting to note that Albert Mamatey, President of the Slovak League in America, who would be present when the agreement was signed the next day, wrote on 21 October 1915 in Narodne noviny that the League "is for [Slovak] independence regardless of the greater state organization in which we find ourselves." Quoted in Getting, p. 63. SLOVAKIA 89 The agreement was generally well received, but Slovak Marxist historians also note that "[i]n France, the periodical Ceskoslovenska samostatnosf, as the "organ of political emigration" presented the Cleveland agreement in the spirit of Czechoslovakism - as the attainment of Czechoslovak national unity. This point of view resulted in protests because American Slovaks had begun to support all of the activities of the external struggle on the principle of two equal nations as outlined in the Cleveland agreement. "29 Slovak Americans were not unaware of Czech objectives, and in particular the role that Czechoslovak unity was playing in these objectives. They knew that they had to counter this. In addition, Frantisek Bokes writes that the agreement "did not eliminate distrust and the possibility of misunderstanding between Czechs and Slovaks. "D This uncertainty resulted in the Slovak League of America sending in April 1916 two representatives to Europe, Stefan Osusky and Gustav Kosfk, "to meet Professor [T.G.] Masaryk and to explain the Slovak program to the British and French foreign ministries."31 Nevertheless, as Culen writes: "from this meeting [in Cleveland] on, Czechs and Slovaks begin to appear together throughout the United States. "32 Such behaviour again strongly points to a Slovak understanding of what the agreement meant to them and also their determination to achieve their objective, a federation of the two nations. However, it must aso be pointed out that some American Slovaks saw the agreement as having brought forth "Czechoslovak unity" 33 . Equally interesting is that fact that 29 • Dejiny S/ovenska JI, p. 429. Italics added. Bokes, p. 35 I. 3 1. Kalvoda, p. 83. For an analysis of the Osusky-Ko§ik mission to Europe, see Stolarik, pp. 28-30. See also the interview with Osusky in ibid., pp. 59-61. :u Culen, p. 83. n Getting, p. 66. :n 90 SLOVAKIA Masaryk, despite his later behaviour, is said to have approved of it.34 The Pittsburgh Pact A series of developments soon made it clear that the Cleveland Agreement would have to be revisited, if not revised. In the first place, there was vigorous debate on the question of Czechoslovak unity and the nature of the future state in Slovak publications in the United States and abroad throughout 1916 and 1917. 35 Furthermore, according to Stolarik, in 1916 American Slovaks had "split into Slovak and Czechoslovak camps. "36 Secondly, there was the evolution of the Czech agenda and its transformation into a Czechoslovak one. 37 The creation of a common state of the Czechs and Slovaks had to be seen as embodying the principle of self-determination, as inferred from President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points38 and, above all, had to be sold to the Allied Powers. The second development put American Slovaks in a very difficult position; while they did not want to give up their objective, they needed Czech support to achieve it and they also had to ensure that their mutual project of a common state did not fail because of their demands or because of serious disputes with Ibid., p. 84. Rebro also writes that Masaryk "tried to find comprise formulations that would not contradict his own conceptions. But he could not simply refuse the terms of the Cleveland agreement because they were supported by the moral, financial and first of all voluntary help of the Slovaks abroad." Rebro, pp. 24-25. 35. Getting, pp. 85-86. 36. Stolarik, p. 22. n. For more on this see Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia. The Struggle for Survival. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 144-152. 31!. On the question of the role of the principle of self-determination in the Fourteen Points, see Dov Ronen, The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict, Democracy and Self-Determination in Central Europe. London: Frank Cass, 1997, pp. 48-53 . 34. SLOVAKIA 91 the Czechs. For Masaryk, the best solution to this dilemma was Czechoslovakism, that is to say the fusion of the Czechs and Slovaks into one nation. This was a concept that not only had historical roots (it was first proposed in 1848), but that could easily be proposed within the framework of the principle of selfdetermination. In addition, as the English historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote, "Masaryk knew little of the Slovaks; others knew even less. That was his strength in dealing with the allied leaders. "39 What Masaryk also had to do was to overcome the suspicions and disagreements that had arisen between Czechs and Slovaks in the United States and bring the latter to accept the necessity for a common front that would persuade the Allied Powers to create the new state.'° He achieved this with the document called the Pittsburgh Pact (also called the Pittsburgh Agreement) which he himself signed on two occasions, the hand-written copy on 31 May 1918, and the calligraphic copy on 14 November, the day he was elected president of Czecho-Slovakia in Prague by the Revolutionary National Assembly. The Pittsburgh document is composed of six resolutions approved by the representatives of the Slovak League of America, the Czech National Alliance, the Federation of Czech Catholics, and the Czecho-Slovak National Council in the person of Masaryk himself. Of importance to Slovakia is the acknowledgement of its own institutions, namely a state administration, a parliament, and a judiciary and the status of the Slovak language as the official language in the schools, in the public offices and in public life generally. In addition to approving a union of the two nations in an independent state, the document specifies that the state shall be a republic and that its constitution shall be 39 • CJ. A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967, p. 258. Stolarik also points out that "[t]he attitude of American Slovaks towards the Czechs changed radically in 1917." Stolarik, p. 32. 92 SLOVAKIA democratic. There is reference to "the organization of the cooperation between Czechs and Slovaks," but the most important point refers to the relegation of the "detailed provisions" to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives. 1141 The most important difference between the Cleveland and Pittsburgh texts is found in the political objectives each proposes; there was a shift from a federal solution to the autonomy of Slovakia. The Pittsburgh document not only leaves out any direct reference to the type of arrangement there would be between the Czechs and Slovaks as the Cleveland Agreement had done, but it also gives the responsibility of finding an arrangement to the "liberated Czechs and Slovaks and to their duly accredited representatives." Simply put, the agreement avoids the issue of the future constitutional make-up of the common state. It should also be noted that there is no direct use of the term autonomy; while this is clearly evident in the enumeration of the powers Slovakia would exercise, its non-mention is not without significance. It is linked directly to the avoidance of defining the future constitutional set-up of Czecho-Slovakia. Why did Masaryk, the author of the Pittsburgh Pact, propose such a text and why did the American Slovaks accept it? Aware of the differences of opinion there existed between the Czechs and Slovaks in the United States, Masaryk came to the United States in order to find a common ground and eliminate any argument that might put his cause in doubt. 42 In addition, as a •1. ~ Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovakia . Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe. New York, Robert A Speller & Sons Publisher, Inc., 1960, p. 326. Stolarik, translates "pravoplatnym predstavitefom" as "legal representatives" which is more correct. Stolarik, p. 56. Catholic American Slovaks, under the leadership of Jozef Hu~k. editor of Jednota , the publication of the First Catholic Slovak Union, the largest single Slovak organization in the United States, were distrustful of Masaryk. For more on Hu~ek's role, especially with regards to the Pittsburgh document, see SLOVAKIA 93 Slovak historian writes: "The need for legitimacy brought forth the Pittsburgh Pact. When Masaryk left for the United States at the end of April 1918, he went there with the clear objective of trying to overcome the President Wilson's mistrust of the plan to destroy Austria-Hungary. One of the arguments had to be a newly documented unity of the objectives of the Czech and Slovak citizens of the United States. "43 But Masaryk had a second, less evident objective: the acceptance of a document that would not put anything in his way in the achievement of the policy of Czechoslovakism. The Pittsburgh text, unlike the Cleveland one, made this possible, as Marxist historians point out: "Masaryk formulated the union of the Czechs and Slovaks in one state on the basis of equality but side-stepped the original -demand on the Slovak side, that is to say a federal constitutional organization linked to the recognition of two independent nations - the Czechs and the Slovaks. "44 The result was that "he changed the aim of the resistance movement abroad [by] leaving out the sentences about the federal structure of the Czechoslovak Republic."45 American Slovaks accepted Masaryk's text for two reasons: first they accepted his argument about the need for a document that he could show President Wilson that would convince the American president and the American public of Czech and Slovak American support for his objectives. The search for such support from the American people was made even more forcefully with the Washington Declaration of October 1918 which addressed the link between democracy and the new state: "Another document that was meant to mobilize the American public in favour of the Czecho-Slovak cause was the declaration StolArik, pp. 47-50. Koviic, p. 66 . .._ Dejiny, p. 464. -0. 4.i. Rebro, p. 25. 94 SLOVAKIA of sovereignty known as the Washington Declaration. Both documents [the Pittsburgh Pact and the Washington Declaration] fulfilled their objectives. "46 The second reason is linked to the person of Masaryk himself. He was the president of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, the leader of the resistance movement who was received by the heads of state and government of the Allied Powers; American Slovaks had reason to trust him. In addition, the text of the Pittsburgh document did not suggest the absence of equality between the Czechs and Slovaks. Little did they suspect that he had very definite ideas about their nation which he had expressed as early as 1915 in a memorandum to the Foreign Office: "The Slovaks are Bohemians in spite of their using their dialect as their literary language. The Slovaks strive also for independence and accept the programme of union with Bohemia. "47 In addition, Masaryk also reflected an attitude toward the Slovaks that was prevalent among the Czechs: "at that time, no one among the Czechs understood the Slovak_ problem in its full importance and implication nor thought about the constitutional position of Slovakia in a Czecho-Slovak state, about the way of respecting Slovak individuality in a unitary state, not to say anything of a federation. Concrete approaches did not correspond to the sentimental-patriarchal feelings of the Czech public. "48 There was no Slovak leader, at home or abroad, who could counter Masaryk's influence and articulate properly and forcefully Slovak demands. Milan R. Stefanik was the most influential Slovak, but he was ill placed to represent the Slovaks. 46 Kovlit, p. 66. For more on the Washington Declaration, see J.B. Kozak, T.G. Masaryk a vznik Washingtonske deklarace v ffjnu 1918. Praha: Melantrich, 1968 . ~- Quoted in R. W. Seton-Watson, Masaryk in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943, p. 125. In the United States, Hu~k was one American Slovak who was suspicious of Masaryk's motives. See Stollirik, p. 47. • Chovanec a Mozolik, p. 20. SLOVAKIA 95 As Jaroslav Sole writes about him: "The first Slovak in the struggle against the Habsburgs was a Czechoslovak -this was not only a definite paradox from the Slovak point of view, but also one of the formative conditions of the Czech approach!. "49 Masaryk had come to Pittsburgh to tell the Slovaks that he needed their support to achieve an aim that was also theirs, national emancipation. The Pittsburgh Pact, as had the Cleveland Agreement, helped to attain this objective; but that was all. There was nothing else as far as he was concerned, as later events would show. Much ink has flowed about the Pittsburgh Pact, especially about its binding character.:xi Two days before Masaryk signed the calligraphic copy, on 12 November 1918, the Revolutionary National Assembly in Prague had ratified all of the commitments that he had made during the war. Despite this ratification, the literature stresses the non-binding character of the Pittsburgh document based on one of its paragraphs. As Seton-Watson writes: "the final clause made the whole arrangement contingent upon its endorsement by constitutionally elected representatives of both Czechs and Slovaks at home after the war. "51 It was such a legal-constitutional argument that justified not only the Czechoslovak government's refusal to honour the clauses of the Pittsburgh document but also Masaryk's own repudiation of it as "a local understanding between American Czechs and Slovaks upon the policy they were prepared to advocate." 52 There was 111 - Jaroslav Sole, Slovensko v ceskej politike. Banska Bystrica: M.O. Enterprise, 1993, p. 43 . n Vavro Srobar went so far as to claim that the Czechoslovak Republic gave the Slovaks rights that went beyond the autonomy provisions of the Pittsburgh Pact. See Plevza, p. 75. 5 '- R.W. Seton-Watson, A History of Czechs and Slovaks. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1965, p. 306. 52 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations /914-1918, An English version, arranged and prepared with an introduction 96 SLOVAKIA also a political reason according to Stolarik: "Masaryk rejected the Pittsburgh Agreement partly because all Slovaks did not support it. "53 Whatever the legal justifications, it was an error on the part of Masaryk to ignore the Pittsburgh Pact's political ramification and importance. Masaryk was not unaware of the meaning of both documents, and not just for the Slovaks in the United States. As Seton-Watson wrote shortly after the creation of Czecho-Slovakia: if the Pittsburgh document was in no sense a treaty, it may fairly be taken as representing the mental attitude and political aspiration of most Czechs and Slovaks in America and (what is more important) of the chief shaper of Czechoslovak policy at the supreme crisis in 1918. To this extent it has, not a legal, but a moral, value. Moreover it may safely be claimed that in the first days of the new Republic it coincided with the general feeling in the "historic lands", that the Slovaks were fully entitled to make their own terms of union. The course of events, however, inevitably gave a different tum to the question. 54 The failure to honour it, indeed the failure of the Czechoslovak government to heed the demands of the Slovak People's Party during the two decades of interwar Czechoslovakia to implement it, 55 was, in the end, paid at the price of the First Czechoslovak Republic. by Henry Wickham Steed. New York: Frederick A Stokes Co., 1927, p. 220 . Masaryk also wrote a letter to Andrej Hlinka declaring the pact a "falsum ;" the text of the letter is found in Joseph M. Kirschbaum, pp. 238-240. n Stolarik, p. 54. Italics in the original. " R.W. Seton-Watson, The New Slovakia . Prague: Fr. Borovy, 1924, p. 21. 51 This is examined in detail in Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, pp. I 55- I 83. SLOVAKIA 97 Conclusion Both documents represent important milestones in the history of the Slovak search for self-determination in the twentieth century. Their chronology is important in this respect. The Pittsburgh Pact does indicate a retreat in political objectives when compared to those proposed in the Cleveland Agreement. But it also represents a willingness on the part of the Slovaks to accept autonomy if historical and international conditions made only that option possible; what was important was to have an opportunity to leave Hungary and proceed with national development. If the Cleveland Agreement was repudiated, it also served notice of an alternative. The drive to federalization in 1968 came as a result of the experience with autonomy, from the failure to implement it in 1918- I938 to the experience of its implementation in 1938-1939 and 1945-1968. Slovak independence in 1993 was achieved as a result of the experience with the federal system since 1968. Ultimately, both documents succumbed to the Czech agenda in Czechoslovakia and its failure to accommodate properly and adequately their objectives, thus making Slovak independence the only option left. Put another way: If neither document was acceptable, then neither was what they had in common, a state of the Czechs and Slovaks. In this sense, these two documents were also precursors of Slovak independence.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Description An account of the resource Stanislav J. Kirschbaum Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 81-97 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kirschbaum, Stanislav J., 1942- Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 SNK https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/b39a1656e960f4eb12a2ef6d79601d00.pdf b13ae9748db576ed4e4a1e2d6018043b PDF Text Text 70 SLOVAKIA The Battle Over Presidential Power In Slovakia Spencer Zifcak On the 5th May, 1995 the National Council of the Slovak Republic, the country's parliament, passed a motion of no confidence in the President, Mr. Michal Kovac. This motion was passed 80 votes to 40 with 30 abstentions. It was a clear victory - but Mr. Kovac stayed put. Kovac declared that the parliament's vote was unconstitutional and meaningless, indicating to the press and the public that he would not, under any circumstances, be forced to resign. The Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, responded by saying that the President had acted contrary to the interest of the state and of the democratically-elected parliament. He renewed his calls for Mr. Kovac to vacate his office. This was a test of strength, he asserted, between the will of the democratically-elected government and a President who had lost both his mandate and authority. The two then traded further insults in bitter personal exchanges that would make most western observers blanch. It was these vitriolic exchanges that captured the attention of the press and the public. It is a sad fact of the recent Slovak political life that invective has tended to replace debate as the "modus vivendi" of political and journalistic discourse. Beneath these exchanges, however, lay more fundamental political and constitutional issues. For the impasse that was reached in May would not have occured had the institutional and constitutional structure of Slovakia been different. Without the �SLOVAKIA 71 clear appreciation of these latter difficulties, therefore, the political brawling that has recently taken place cannot be seen in its proper perspective. In the remainder of this article, I will examine this flawed constitutional framework with a view to casting a clearer light on current political development. The Curious Constitutional Relationship between President, Government and Parliament. The Slovak Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government. 1 That is, it provides that the government is drawn from the parliament which is directly elected by the people. The government is then responsible to the parliament and through the parliament to the people. The government, headed by the Prime Minister, is designated as the principal repository of state power. It is the government, therefore, which has stewardship of the affairs of state. The President is the head of state. In this role he/she performs a number of important but essentially residual functions. Unlike the parliament, however, the President is not elected directly. He or she is elected for a five year term by the parliament and requires a three-fifths majority of the parliament in order to assume the position. The President appoints and recalls the Prime Minister, the government and heads of important state authorities. He or she convenes sessions of the parliament and may dissolve it under certain specified conditions. The President signs all laws and may return them to the parliament for comment, thus exercising a limited form of veto. But here the similarities in the well-understood relationship between President, government and parliament end. For the position of the President in Slovakia also possesses some rather 1 See further Shugart M. "Of Presidents and Parliaments" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1993), pp. 30-32. �72 SLOVAKIA unusual features which, for example, set it apart from its counterparts in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Unlike the constitutions of Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Slovak Constitution does not distinguish clearly between the powers its President exercises independently and those which he or she must exercise upon government advice. From a purely textual reading, it would appear that, with the notable exeption of declaring war, the President may exercise each and every one of his or her other powers independently of the recommendation of the government of the day. Potentially, therefore, the Presidency may assume considerable political importance. The strength of the office is also enhanced by a number of other constitutional provisions. For example, the President may submit reports on the state of the nation and other serious political issues to the parliament and may also submit bills and other decrees for its consideration. More extraordinarily, however, the President has the right not only to attend sessions of the parliament but also to attend sessions of the government, to chair them and to demand reports from the government and its members as he or she sees fit. 2 This confuses the position of President and Prime Minister in a parliamentary system and injects an immediate element of conflict between them. Although the President's position in relation to the government is a strong one, his or her position in relation to the parliament is weak. The President may disolve the parliament only if the Government' s programme is rejected by the parliament three times within six months of it assuming office. Once the government's programme is accepted, however, the parliament may not be disolved until the time of the next election. More importantly, the parliament may remove the President from office at any time during his or her term. So, the President may be recalled if he or 2 This latter provision is contained in Article 102(q) of the Constitution and, as far as I am aware, has no other counterpart in the Central European region. �SLOVAKIA 73 she "undertakes activities directed against the sovereignty and integrity of the Slovak Republic or if his (or her) activities undermine the democratic order of the Slovak Republic." 3 The votes of three-fifths of the members of parliament are needed to remove the President from office. Again, this provision is inconsistent with traditional understanding of parliamentary democracy. According to these understandings, the Presidency exists to guard the constitution, to act as a counterweight to the abuse of governmental power and provide the means through which governmental and parliamentary crises may be resolved. It is incompatible with each of these roles for the President to be removable on broadly defined grounds at the will of either the government or parliament. It is against this somewhat strange constitutional backround that the present political turmoil is best understood. Presidential and Prime Ministerial Power In 1993 a row erupted between Prime Minister Meciar and his foreign minister Milan Knazko. Meciar accused Knazko of treachery in that he had persuaded some members of the governing coalition to vote against Meciar' s preferred candidate for the Presidency. Knazko denied the charges and counterattacked, saying that Meciar conducted government in an authoritarian manner and ought to consult more widely with the parliament and the public. Meciar then advised the new President, Mr. Kovac, to recall Mr. Knazko from his ministerial post. At first, Kovac cavilled at this request, preferring instead to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. More specifically, the President petitioned the Court to determine whether he was under a duty to follow the Prime Minister's advice when appointing and 3 Article 106 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. �74 SLOVAKIA recalling ministers. Undeterred, Meciar threatened to resign unless Knazko was removed. To defuse the situation, Kovac then recalled Knazko from office before the Court had rolled on his petition. The Court's decision appeared in June and favoured the President. After an extensive examination of the relevant constitutional provisions and an exploration of the political and constitutional history of the office of President, the Court decided that the President was not obliged to follow the Prime Minister's recomendations.4 The Court remarked that the Constitution had created a Presidency possessing considerable power. Further, it observed that article 111, which provides that the President appoints and recalls ministers on the Prime Minister's recomendation, was cast in discretionary rather then imperative terms. For these and other reasons it determined that the President exercised his powers of appointment and recall independently. This decission had no impact in the Knazko case but ignited new fires in November, 1993 when Prime Minister Meciar submitted a new cabinet for the President's approval. Meciar submitted seven names as a package, indicating to the President that he must appoint every person nominated or appoint no one at all. Kovac, however, took exception to the appointment of Ivan Lexa as minister for privatisation on the grounds that Lexa was unqualified for the position and that a conflict of interest rendered him unfit to hold the post. He refused to appoint him, calling the Prime Minister's bluff and provoking a hostile governmental response. Three months later, Meciar' s government come to an end. The Prime Minister proposed to amend privatisation laws in a manner that would have concentrated all power over privati- • Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, Volume 1, C.5. �SLOVAKIA 75 sation in his own hands and slowed the privatisation program significantly. President Kovac publicly criticised the Prime Minister, warning that his dictatorial style could produce significant problems for Slovak democracy. With Kovac's tacit approval, a number of opposition parties then banded together to pass a vote of no confidence in the government. Meciar resigned and Kovac installed the new government led by Jozef Moravcik five days afterwards. New elections were held in September, 1994 and, despite his setback, Meciar' s HZDS emerged with the largest single block of votes. HZDS deputies were infuriated, however, when President Kovac failed immediately to appoint Meciar as Prime Minister, prefering instead to allow the new parliamentary deputies to explore a number of different governmental configurations. A Meciar-led coalition was finally appointed however and parliament reconvened on November 3. After its first formal session, the governing parties reconvened parliament immediately for a second sitting which took place throughout the night. During that evening, the new coalition partners moved a vote of no confidence in two former Moravcfk government ministers and dismissed a swath of senior governmental officials including members of the boards of Slovak Radio and television, members of the National Property Fund and the chairman and vice chairman of the Supreme Auditing Office. 5 The coalition also attempted to introduce retrospective amendments to privatisation laws instituted by the previous government but this initiative met with a Presidential veto a few days later. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the President had sunk to an all-time low and it was simply a matter of time before their political and personal animosity would be rekindled. 5 For further details of these disturbing parliamentary developments see "Slovakia" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1995), pp. 30-32. �76 SLOVAKIA The Parliament's Vote of No Confidence in the President On May, 5 1995 and without notice, HZDS deputies in the parliament moved a vote of no confidence in President Kovac. The HZDS statement which accompanied the motion declared that after two years in office, the President "is not capable of carrying out his duties because he is causing a polarisation of society, his actions are not impartial and he has failed to respect the seriousness of the democratic decisions approved by the parliament, and, thus, the will of the majority of Slovak people." The motion of no confidence was based on a confidential report produced by OKO, the parliamentary committee responsible for overseeing the operation of the state intelligence services (SIS). This committee was headed by Ivan Lexa, whose appointment as privatisation minister the President had rejected one year before. The contents of the report are not known. Nor is the content of the parliamentary discussion about it. This is because the government and some members of the opposition parties voted ' to close the session of parliament at which the report was considered. The Constitution permits the closure of parliament if three-fifths of the deputies vote in favor of doing so. 6 For one day, democracy in Slovakia was suspended. In any event, the parliament voted in favor of the motion of no confidence but failed to achieve the three-fifths majority that was required to remove the President from office. The President was not given a copy of the report and it was not until six days later that he was permitted to enter parliament to deliver his defence. As he stood to address the parliament, every member of the governing coalition rose and left the chamber leaving the parliament in tatters. In his address, the President denied the 6 Article 83(4). �SLOVAKIA 77 rumoured charges against him, which included the allegation that he had requested the SIS to produce confidential security reports on his political opponents. He criticized the Meciar government's propensity to concentrate power in its own hands. He argued that the parliament's resolution conformed neither with parliamentary standing orders nor with the terms of the constitution. He concluded by reaffirming that he would not be driven from his position. The following day, the Prime Minister was on the attack again asserting that the President's mandate had concluded with his own re-election. In the light of the parliament's vote of no confidence, therefore, the only principled position the President could take was to resign. Constitutional Travail It is clear from this account of events that the marriage between former political allies Kovac and Meciar has broken down irretrievably. But to say this is to tell only half the relevant story. The constitutional problematic is just as important and far more interesting. In conclusion, therefore, let me draw out this salient points. 1. The constitution itself established the preconditions for the current political debacle. It juxtaposes a strong government with a strong presidency, leaving it quite unclear, therefore, how the respective roles of President and Prime Minister should properly be reconciled. In certain key respects, the constitutional text is uncertain or indefinite. The problem of whether and when the President should exercise his or her designated constitutional functions independently provides the clearest and most pressing example of this textual ambiguity. The lack of clarity in these two respects is aggravated by the absence of established constitutional conventions governing the relationship between �78 SLOVAKIA the two offices in question. In the absence of either mutual respect or good will between the protagonists, the political traditions that are now being established are likely to create even greater conflict and uncertainty in the future. 2. The stability of the Presidency and hence the effective operation of the separation of powers is undermined completely by the parliament's power to remove the President from office. Such a provision does not exist in other comparable constitutions in the region and this for good reason. Symbolically, the role of the President is to unify the nation and to protect its democratic institutions. In practice, the President can cause a government to think before it acts precipitously, either to misuse or enhance its own power or to deny other institutions and individuals the capacity to exercise theirs. It is in recognition of the fact that the President represents the continuity and certainty of constitutional values, that the office holder is, in most cases, elected for a term which exceeds that of any one government. But the Slovak provision fails entirely to recognize this. Instead it establishes an irreconcilable tension between the President with the power to check the actions of the government, and the parliament which may, at one and the same time, remove the President at the behest of the government. 7 3. Article 106 which gives the parliament this power is itself fundamentally flawed. It casts the grounds for the President's removal in such broad terms that it is difficult to attribute any precise meaning to them. In fact, the form of words used resembles the definition of treason contained in some other Central European constitutions. But article 107 of the Slovak Constitution deals separately with treason, leaving the scope of 7 For an earlier analysis of a similar effect see Hollander, P. "The New Slovak Constitution: A Critique", in East European Constitutional Review (Fall 1992). �SLOVAKIA 79 Article 106 quite unclear. Further, Article 106 provides no indication as to how the parliament should proceed in determining whether the President meets the grounds for dismissal set down. To prevent the parliament from engaging in a political witchhunt, one might have expected that any charges against the President would have been referred to an independent body, for example the Constitutional Court, for determination. But no such procedure is set down and no such independent body was called upon during the recent fracas. 4. By failing to make it clear which of the President's powers should be exercised independently and which should be exercised upon governmental advice, the constitution provides an avenue for Presidents with pretentions to greater power to interfere significantly in the day-to-day affairs of state. This is bound to be a source of irritation to an elected government and, when combined with personal animosity between leaders and a marked lack of respect for the institutions of government, sets the scene for just the kind of escalating political conflict which Slovakia has witnessed. 5. Article 83(4), which allows the National Council of the Slovak Republic to hold closed sessions in circumstances defined by law or where three-fifths of the deputies agree that sessions be held in secret, is a flat denial of fundamental democratic principle and should never have been countenacted. Its effect, when combined with Article 106, is to permit a President to be removed from office in secret without the opportunity to defend himself or herself against the allegations made and to deprive the courts, the media and the public of any opportunity to asses the validity of such allegations and, therefore, to hold the President or parliament responsible for their actions. �80 SLOVAKIA Conclusion Very little that is good has come out of the recent battle over Presidential power. The intensity of the conflict has left the principal protagonists bruised, Slovak politics is more divided than at any time since 1989, and the flaws in the constitution are more clearly and dangerously exposed than ever before. But there has been one hopeful sign. Not long after the President delivered his defence to parliament, two of the major opposition parties called a protest rally. Over 30,000 people attended, making it the biggest since the revolutionary rallies of 1989. In his speach to the rally Jan Carnogursky, the leader of the Christian Democratic Movement, declared that neither he, nor any of the participants, should let the current government "steal the Slovak nation from its people." The implication of his remark was that the new Slovakia should be identified not only as a national, but also as a democratic and constitutional entity. The many people at the rally took the point. Part of the problem with the entire fabric of Slovak constitutionalism and politics has been that the people themselves have taken so little interest in it. Perhaps this rally might mark the beginning of a new, more active and more democratic awareness. � 70 SLOVAKIA The Battle Over Presidential Power In Slovakia Spencer Zifcak On the 5th May, 1995 the National Council of the Slovak Republic, the country's parliament, passed a motion of no confidence in the President, Mr. Michal Kovac. This motion was passed 80 votes to 40 with 30 abstentions. It was a clear victory - but Mr. Kovac stayed put. Kovac declared that the parliament's vote was unconstitutional and meaningless, indicating to the press and the public that he would not, under any circumstances, be forced to resign. The Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, responded by saying that the President had acted contrary to the interest of the state and of the democratically-elected parliament. He renewed his calls for Mr. Kovac to vacate his office. This was a test of strength, he asserted, between the will of the democratically-elected government and a President who had lost both his mandate and authority. The two then traded further insults in bitter personal exchanges that would make most western observers blanch. It was these vitriolic exchanges that captured the attention of the press and the public. It is a sad fact of the recent Slovak political life that invective has tended to replace debate as the "modus vivendi" of political and journalistic discourse. Beneath these exchanges, however, lay more fundamental political and constitutional issues. For the impasse that was reached in May would not have occured had the institutional and constitutional structure of Slovakia been different. Without the �SLOVAKIA 71 clear appreciation of these latter difficulties, therefore, the political brawling that has recently taken place cannot be seen in its proper perspective. In the remainder of this article, I will examine this flawed constitutional framework with a view to casting a clearer light on current political development. The Curious Constitutional Relationship between President, Government and Parliament. The Slovak Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government. 1 That is, it provides that the government is drawn from the parliament which is directly elected by the people. The government is then responsible to the parliament and through the parliament to the people. The government, headed by the Prime Minister, is designated as the principal repository of state power. It is the government, therefore, which has stewardship of the affairs of state. The President is the head of state. In this role he/she performs a number of important but essentially residual functions. Unlike the parliament, however, the President is not elected directly. He or she is elected for a five year term by the parliament and requires a three-fifths majority of the parliament in order to assume the position. The President appoints and recalls the Prime Minister, the government and heads of important state authorities. He or she convenes sessions of the parliament and may dissolve it under certain specified conditions. The President signs all laws and may return them to the parliament for comment, thus exercising a limited form of veto. But here the similarities in the well-understood relationship between President, government and parliament end. For the position of the President in Slovakia also possesses some rather 1 See further Shugart M. "Of Presidents and Parliaments" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1993), pp. 30-32. �72 SLOVAKIA unusual features which, for example, set it apart from its counterparts in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Unlike the constitutions of Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Slovak Constitution does not distinguish clearly between the powers its President exercises independently and those which he or she must exercise upon government advice. From a purely textual reading, it would appear that, with the notable exeption of declaring war, the President may exercise each and every one of his or her other powers independently of the recommendation of the government of the day. Potentially, therefore, the Presidency may assume considerable political importance. The strength of the office is also enhanced by a number of other constitutional provisions. For example, the President may submit reports on the state of the nation and other serious political issues to the parliament and may also submit bills and other decrees for its consideration. More extraordinarily, however, the President has the right not only to attend sessions of the parliament but also to attend sessions of the government, to chair them and to demand reports from the government and its members as he or she sees fit. 2 This confuses the position of President and Prime Minister in a parliamentary system and injects an immediate element of conflict between them. Although the President's position in relation to the government is a strong one, his or her position in relation to the parliament is weak. The President may disolve the parliament only if the Government' s programme is rejected by the parliament three times within six months of it assuming office. Once the government's programme is accepted, however, the parliament may not be disolved until the time of the next election. More importantly, the parliament may remove the President from office at any time during his or her term. So, the President may be recalled if he or 2 This latter provision is contained in Article 102(q) of the Constitution and, as far as I am aware, has no other counterpart in the Central European region. �SLOVAKIA 73 she "undertakes activities directed against the sovereignty and integrity of the Slovak Republic or if his (or her) activities undermine the democratic order of the Slovak Republic." 3 The votes of three-fifths of the members of parliament are needed to remove the President from office. Again, this provision is inconsistent with traditional understanding of parliamentary democracy. According to these understandings, the Presidency exists to guard the constitution, to act as a counterweight to the abuse of governmental power and provide the means through which governmental and parliamentary crises may be resolved. It is incompatible with each of these roles for the President to be removable on broadly defined grounds at the will of either the government or parliament. It is against this somewhat strange constitutional backround that the present political turmoil is best understood. Presidential and Prime Ministerial Power In 1993 a row erupted between Prime Minister Meciar and his foreign minister Milan Knazko. Meciar accused Knazko of treachery in that he had persuaded some members of the governing coalition to vote against Meciar' s preferred candidate for the Presidency. Knazko denied the charges and counterattacked, saying that Meciar conducted government in an authoritarian manner and ought to consult more widely with the parliament and the public. Meciar then advised the new President, Mr. Kovac, to recall Mr. Knazko from his ministerial post. At first, Kovac cavilled at this request, preferring instead to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. More specifically, the President petitioned the Court to determine whether he was under a duty to follow the Prime Minister's advice when appointing and 3 Article 106 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. �74 SLOVAKIA recalling ministers. Undeterred, Meciar threatened to resign unless Knazko was removed. To defuse the situation, Kovac then recalled Knazko from office before the Court had rolled on his petition. The Court's decision appeared in June and favoured the President. After an extensive examination of the relevant constitutional provisions and an exploration of the political and constitutional history of the office of President, the Court decided that the President was not obliged to follow the Prime Minister's recomendations.4 The Court remarked that the Constitution had created a Presidency possessing considerable power. Further, it observed that article 111, which provides that the President appoints and recalls ministers on the Prime Minister's recomendation, was cast in discretionary rather then imperative terms. For these and other reasons it determined that the President exercised his powers of appointment and recall independently. This decission had no impact in the Knazko case but ignited new fires in November, 1993 when Prime Minister Meciar submitted a new cabinet for the President's approval. Meciar submitted seven names as a package, indicating to the President that he must appoint every person nominated or appoint no one at all. Kovac, however, took exception to the appointment of Ivan Lexa as minister for privatisation on the grounds that Lexa was unqualified for the position and that a conflict of interest rendered him unfit to hold the post. He refused to appoint him, calling the Prime Minister's bluff and provoking a hostile governmental response. Three months later, Meciar' s government come to an end. The Prime Minister proposed to amend privatisation laws in a manner that would have concentrated all power over privati- • Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, Volume 1, C.5. �SLOVAKIA 75 sation in his own hands and slowed the privatisation program significantly. President Kovac publicly criticised the Prime Minister, warning that his dictatorial style could produce significant problems for Slovak democracy. With Kovac's tacit approval, a number of opposition parties then banded together to pass a vote of no confidence in the government. Meciar resigned and Kovac installed the new government led by Jozef Moravcik five days afterwards. New elections were held in September, 1994 and, despite his setback, Meciar' s HZDS emerged with the largest single block of votes. HZDS deputies were infuriated, however, when President Kovac failed immediately to appoint Meciar as Prime Minister, prefering instead to allow the new parliamentary deputies to explore a number of different governmental configurations. A Meciar-led coalition was finally appointed however and parliament reconvened on November 3. After its first formal session, the governing parties reconvened parliament immediately for a second sitting which took place throughout the night. During that evening, the new coalition partners moved a vote of no confidence in two former Moravcfk government ministers and dismissed a swath of senior governmental officials including members of the boards of Slovak Radio and television, members of the National Property Fund and the chairman and vice chairman of the Supreme Auditing Office. 5 The coalition also attempted to introduce retrospective amendments to privatisation laws instituted by the previous government but this initiative met with a Presidential veto a few days later. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the President had sunk to an all-time low and it was simply a matter of time before their political and personal animosity would be rekindled. 5 For further details of these disturbing parliamentary developments see "Slovakia" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1995), pp. 30-32. �76 SLOVAKIA The Parliament's Vote of No Confidence in the President On May, 5 1995 and without notice, HZDS deputies in the parliament moved a vote of no confidence in President Kovac. The HZDS statement which accompanied the motion declared that after two years in office, the President "is not capable of carrying out his duties because he is causing a polarisation of society, his actions are not impartial and he has failed to respect the seriousness of the democratic decisions approved by the parliament, and, thus, the will of the majority of Slovak people." The motion of no confidence was based on a confidential report produced by OKO, the parliamentary committee responsible for overseeing the operation of the state intelligence services (SIS). This committee was headed by Ivan Lexa, whose appointment as privatisation minister the President had rejected one year before. The contents of the report are not known. Nor is the content of the parliamentary discussion about it. This is because the government and some members of the opposition parties voted ' to close the session of parliament at which the report was considered. The Constitution permits the closure of parliament if three-fifths of the deputies vote in favor of doing so. 6 For one day, democracy in Slovakia was suspended. In any event, the parliament voted in favor of the motion of no confidence but failed to achieve the three-fifths majority that was required to remove the President from office. The President was not given a copy of the report and it was not until six days later that he was permitted to enter parliament to deliver his defence. As he stood to address the parliament, every member of the governing coalition rose and left the chamber leaving the parliament in tatters. In his address, the President denied the 6 Article 83(4). �SLOVAKIA 77 rumoured charges against him, which included the allegation that he had requested the SIS to produce confidential security reports on his political opponents. He criticized the Meciar government's propensity to concentrate power in its own hands. He argued that the parliament's resolution conformed neither with parliamentary standing orders nor with the terms of the constitution. He concluded by reaffirming that he would not be driven from his position. The following day, the Prime Minister was on the attack again asserting that the President's mandate had concluded with his own re-election. In the light of the parliament's vote of no confidence, therefore, the only principled position the President could take was to resign. Constitutional Travail It is clear from this account of events that the marriage between former political allies Kovac and Meciar has broken down irretrievably. But to say this is to tell only half the relevant story. The constitutional problematic is just as important and far more interesting. In conclusion, therefore, let me draw out this salient points. 1. The constitution itself established the preconditions for the current political debacle. It juxtaposes a strong government with a strong presidency, leaving it quite unclear, therefore, how the respective roles of President and Prime Minister should properly be reconciled. In certain key respects, the constitutional text is uncertain or indefinite. The problem of whether and when the President should exercise his or her designated constitutional functions independently provides the clearest and most pressing example of this textual ambiguity. The lack of clarity in these two respects is aggravated by the absence of established constitutional conventions governing the relationship between �78 SLOVAKIA the two offices in question. In the absence of either mutual respect or good will between the protagonists, the political traditions that are now being established are likely to create even greater conflict and uncertainty in the future. 2. The stability of the Presidency and hence the effective operation of the separation of powers is undermined completely by the parliament's power to remove the President from office. Such a provision does not exist in other comparable constitutions in the region and this for good reason. Symbolically, the role of the President is to unify the nation and to protect its democratic institutions. In practice, the President can cause a government to think before it acts precipitously, either to misuse or enhance its own power or to deny other institutions and individuals the capacity to exercise theirs. It is in recognition of the fact that the President represents the continuity and certainty of constitutional values, that the office holder is, in most cases, elected for a term which exceeds that of any one government. But the Slovak provision fails entirely to recognize this. Instead it establishes an irreconcilable tension between the President with the power to check the actions of the government, and the parliament which may, at one and the same time, remove the President at the behest of the government. 7 3. Article 106 which gives the parliament this power is itself fundamentally flawed. It casts the grounds for the President's removal in such broad terms that it is difficult to attribute any precise meaning to them. In fact, the form of words used resembles the definition of treason contained in some other Central European constitutions. But article 107 of the Slovak Constitution deals separately with treason, leaving the scope of 7 For an earlier analysis of a similar effect see Hollander, P. "The New Slovak Constitution: A Critique", in East European Constitutional Review (Fall 1992). �SLOVAKIA 79 Article 106 quite unclear. Further, Article 106 provides no indication as to how the parliament should proceed in determining whether the President meets the grounds for dismissal set down. To prevent the parliament from engaging in a political witchhunt, one might have expected that any charges against the President would have been referred to an independent body, for example the Constitutional Court, for determination. But no such procedure is set down and no such independent body was called upon during the recent fracas. 4. By failing to make it clear which of the President's powers should be exercised independently and which should be exercised upon governmental advice, the constitution provides an avenue for Presidents with pretentions to greater power to interfere significantly in the day-to-day affairs of state. This is bound to be a source of irritation to an elected government and, when combined with personal animosity between leaders and a marked lack of respect for the institutions of government, sets the scene for just the kind of escalating political conflict which Slovakia has witnessed. 5. Article 83(4), which allows the National Council of the Slovak Republic to hold closed sessions in circumstances defined by law or where three-fifths of the deputies agree that sessions be held in secret, is a flat denial of fundamental democratic principle and should never have been countenacted. Its effect, when combined with Article 106, is to permit a President to be removed from office in secret without the opportunity to defend himself or herself against the allegations made and to deprive the courts, the media and the public of any opportunity to asses the validity of such allegations and, therefore, to hold the President or parliament responsible for their actions. �80 SLOVAKIA Conclusion Very little that is good has come out of the recent battle over Presidential power. The intensity of the conflict has left the principal protagonists bruised, Slovak politics is more divided than at any time since 1989, and the flaws in the constitution are more clearly and dangerously exposed than ever before. But there has been one hopeful sign. Not long after the President delivered his defence to parliament, two of the major opposition parties called a protest rally. Over 30,000 people attended, making it the biggest since the revolutionary rallies of 1989. In his speach to the rally Jan Carnogursky, the leader of the Christian Democratic Movement, declared that neither he, nor any of the participants, should let the current government "steal the Slovak nation from its people." The implication of his remark was that the new Slovakia should be identified not only as a national, but also as a democratic and constitutional entity. The many people at the rally took the point. Part of the problem with the entire fabric of Slovak constitutionalism and politics has been that the people themselves have taken so little interest in it. Perhaps this rally might mark the beginning of a new, more active and more democratic awareness. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 70 SLOVAKIA The Battle Over Presidential Power In Slovakia Spencer Zifcak On the 5th May, 1995 the National Council of the Slovak Republic, the country's parliament, passed a motion of no confidence in the President, Mr. Michal Kovac. This motion was passed 80 votes to 40 with 30 abstentions. It was a clear victory - but Mr. Kovac stayed put. Kovac declared that the parliament's vote was unconstitutional and meaningless, indicating to the press and the public that he would not, under any circumstances, be forced to resign. The Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, responded by saying that the President had acted contrary to the interest of the state and of the democratically-elected parliament. He renewed his calls for Mr. Kovac to vacate his office. This was a test of strength, he asserted, between the will of the democratically-elected government and a President who had lost both his mandate and authority. The two then traded further insults in bitter personal exchanges that would make most western observers blanch. It was these vitriolic exchanges that captured the attention of the press and the public. It is a sad fact of the recent Slovak political life that invective has tended to replace debate as the "modus vivendi" of political and journalistic discourse. Beneath these exchanges, however, lay more fundamental political and constitutional issues. For the impasse that was reached in May would not have occured had the institutional and constitutional structure of Slovakia been different. Without the SLOVAKIA 71 clear appreciation of these latter difficulties, therefore, the political brawling that has recently taken place cannot be seen in its proper perspective. In the remainder of this article, I will examine this flawed constitutional framework with a view to casting a clearer light on current political development. The Curious Constitutional Relationship between President, Government and Parliament. The Slovak Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government. 1 That is, it provides that the government is drawn from the parliament which is directly elected by the people. The government is then responsible to the parliament and through the parliament to the people. The government, headed by the Prime Minister, is designated as the principal repository of state power. It is the government, therefore, which has stewardship of the affairs of state. The President is the head of state. In this role he/she performs a number of important but essentially residual functions. Unlike the parliament, however, the President is not elected directly. He or she is elected for a five year term by the parliament and requires a three-fifths majority of the parliament in order to assume the position. The President appoints and recalls the Prime Minister, the government and heads of important state authorities. He or she convenes sessions of the parliament and may dissolve it under certain specified conditions. The President signs all laws and may return them to the parliament for comment, thus exercising a limited form of veto. But here the similarities in the well-understood relationship between President, government and parliament end. For the position of the President in Slovakia also possesses some rather 1 See further Shugart M. "Of Presidents and Parliaments" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1993), pp. 30-32. 72 SLOVAKIA unusual features which, for example, set it apart from its counterparts in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Unlike the constitutions of Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Slovak Constitution does not distinguish clearly between the powers its President exercises independently and those which he or she must exercise upon government advice. From a purely textual reading, it would appear that, with the notable exeption of declaring war, the President may exercise each and every one of his or her other powers independently of the recommendation of the government of the day. Potentially, therefore, the Presidency may assume considerable political importance. The strength of the office is also enhanced by a number of other constitutional provisions. For example, the President may submit reports on the state of the nation and other serious political issues to the parliament and may also submit bills and other decrees for its consideration. More extraordinarily, however, the President has the right not only to attend sessions of the parliament but also to attend sessions of the government, to chair them and to demand reports from the government and its members as he or she sees fit. 2 This confuses the position of President and Prime Minister in a parliamentary system and injects an immediate element of conflict between them. Although the President's position in relation to the government is a strong one, his or her position in relation to the parliament is weak. The President may disolve the parliament only if the Government' s programme is rejected by the parliament three times within six months of it assuming office. Once the government's programme is accepted, however, the parliament may not be disolved until the time of the next election. More importantly, the parliament may remove the President from office at any time during his or her term. So, the President may be recalled if he or 2 This latter provision is contained in Article 102(q) of the Constitution and, as far as I am aware, has no other counterpart in the Central European region. SLOVAKIA 73 she "undertakes activities directed against the sovereignty and integrity of the Slovak Republic or if his (or her) activities undermine the democratic order of the Slovak Republic." 3 The votes of three-fifths of the members of parliament are needed to remove the President from office. Again, this provision is inconsistent with traditional understanding of parliamentary democracy. According to these understandings, the Presidency exists to guard the constitution, to act as a counterweight to the abuse of governmental power and provide the means through which governmental and parliamentary crises may be resolved. It is incompatible with each of these roles for the President to be removable on broadly defined grounds at the will of either the government or parliament. It is against this somewhat strange constitutional backround that the present political turmoil is best understood. Presidential and Prime Ministerial Power In 1993 a row erupted between Prime Minister Meciar and his foreign minister Milan Knazko. Meciar accused Knazko of treachery in that he had persuaded some members of the governing coalition to vote against Meciar' s preferred candidate for the Presidency. Knazko denied the charges and counterattacked, saying that Meciar conducted government in an authoritarian manner and ought to consult more widely with the parliament and the public. Meciar then advised the new President, Mr. Kovac, to recall Mr. Knazko from his ministerial post. At first, Kovac cavilled at this request, preferring instead to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. More specifically, the President petitioned the Court to determine whether he was under a duty to follow the Prime Minister's advice when appointing and 3 Article 106 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. 74 SLOVAKIA recalling ministers. Undeterred, Meciar threatened to resign unless Knazko was removed. To defuse the situation, Kovac then recalled Knazko from office before the Court had rolled on his petition. The Court's decision appeared in June and favoured the President. After an extensive examination of the relevant constitutional provisions and an exploration of the political and constitutional history of the office of President, the Court decided that the President was not obliged to follow the Prime Minister's recomendations.4 The Court remarked that the Constitution had created a Presidency possessing considerable power. Further, it observed that article 111, which provides that the President appoints and recalls ministers on the Prime Minister's recomendation, was cast in discretionary rather then imperative terms. For these and other reasons it determined that the President exercised his powers of appointment and recall independently. This decission had no impact in the Knazko case but ignited new fires in November, 1993 when Prime Minister Meciar submitted a new cabinet for the President's approval. Meciar submitted seven names as a package, indicating to the President that he must appoint every person nominated or appoint no one at all. Kovac, however, took exception to the appointment of Ivan Lexa as minister for privatisation on the grounds that Lexa was unqualified for the position and that a conflict of interest rendered him unfit to hold the post. He refused to appoint him, calling the Prime Minister's bluff and provoking a hostile governmental response. Three months later, Meciar' s government come to an end. The Prime Minister proposed to amend privatisation laws in a manner that would have concentrated all power over privati- • Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, Volume 1, C.5. SLOVAKIA 75 sation in his own hands and slowed the privatisation program significantly. President Kovac publicly criticised the Prime Minister, warning that his dictatorial style could produce significant problems for Slovak democracy. With Kovac's tacit approval, a number of opposition parties then banded together to pass a vote of no confidence in the government. Meciar resigned and Kovac installed the new government led by Jozef Moravcik five days afterwards. New elections were held in September, 1994 and, despite his setback, Meciar' s HZDS emerged with the largest single block of votes. HZDS deputies were infuriated, however, when President Kovac failed immediately to appoint Meciar as Prime Minister, prefering instead to allow the new parliamentary deputies to explore a number of different governmental configurations. A Meciar-led coalition was finally appointed however and parliament reconvened on November 3. After its first formal session, the governing parties reconvened parliament immediately for a second sitting which took place throughout the night. During that evening, the new coalition partners moved a vote of no confidence in two former Moravcfk government ministers and dismissed a swath of senior governmental officials including members of the boards of Slovak Radio and television, members of the National Property Fund and the chairman and vice chairman of the Supreme Auditing Office. 5 The coalition also attempted to introduce retrospective amendments to privatisation laws instituted by the previous government but this initiative met with a Presidential veto a few days later. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the President had sunk to an all-time low and it was simply a matter of time before their political and personal animosity would be rekindled. 5 For further details of these disturbing parliamentary developments see "Slovakia" East European Constitutional Review (Winter, 1995), pp. 30-32. 76 SLOVAKIA The Parliament's Vote of No Confidence in the President On May, 5 1995 and without notice, HZDS deputies in the parliament moved a vote of no confidence in President Kovac. The HZDS statement which accompanied the motion declared that after two years in office, the President "is not capable of carrying out his duties because he is causing a polarisation of society, his actions are not impartial and he has failed to respect the seriousness of the democratic decisions approved by the parliament, and, thus, the will of the majority of Slovak people." The motion of no confidence was based on a confidential report produced by OKO, the parliamentary committee responsible for overseeing the operation of the state intelligence services (SIS). This committee was headed by Ivan Lexa, whose appointment as privatisation minister the President had rejected one year before. The contents of the report are not known. Nor is the content of the parliamentary discussion about it. This is because the government and some members of the opposition parties voted ' to close the session of parliament at which the report was considered. The Constitution permits the closure of parliament if three-fifths of the deputies vote in favor of doing so. 6 For one day, democracy in Slovakia was suspended. In any event, the parliament voted in favor of the motion of no confidence but failed to achieve the three-fifths majority that was required to remove the President from office. The President was not given a copy of the report and it was not until six days later that he was permitted to enter parliament to deliver his defence. As he stood to address the parliament, every member of the governing coalition rose and left the chamber leaving the parliament in tatters. In his address, the President denied the 6 Article 83(4). SLOVAKIA 77 rumoured charges against him, which included the allegation that he had requested the SIS to produce confidential security reports on his political opponents. He criticized the Meciar government's propensity to concentrate power in its own hands. He argued that the parliament's resolution conformed neither with parliamentary standing orders nor with the terms of the constitution. He concluded by reaffirming that he would not be driven from his position. The following day, the Prime Minister was on the attack again asserting that the President's mandate had concluded with his own re-election. In the light of the parliament's vote of no confidence, therefore, the only principled position the President could take was to resign. Constitutional Travail It is clear from this account of events that the marriage between former political allies Kovac and Meciar has broken down irretrievably. But to say this is to tell only half the relevant story. The constitutional problematic is just as important and far more interesting. In conclusion, therefore, let me draw out this salient points. 1. The constitution itself established the preconditions for the current political debacle. It juxtaposes a strong government with a strong presidency, leaving it quite unclear, therefore, how the respective roles of President and Prime Minister should properly be reconciled. In certain key respects, the constitutional text is uncertain or indefinite. The problem of whether and when the President should exercise his or her designated constitutional functions independently provides the clearest and most pressing example of this textual ambiguity. The lack of clarity in these two respects is aggravated by the absence of established constitutional conventions governing the relationship between 78 SLOVAKIA the two offices in question. In the absence of either mutual respect or good will between the protagonists, the political traditions that are now being established are likely to create even greater conflict and uncertainty in the future. 2. The stability of the Presidency and hence the effective operation of the separation of powers is undermined completely by the parliament's power to remove the President from office. Such a provision does not exist in other comparable constitutions in the region and this for good reason. Symbolically, the role of the President is to unify the nation and to protect its democratic institutions. In practice, the President can cause a government to think before it acts precipitously, either to misuse or enhance its own power or to deny other institutions and individuals the capacity to exercise theirs. It is in recognition of the fact that the President represents the continuity and certainty of constitutional values, that the office holder is, in most cases, elected for a term which exceeds that of any one government. But the Slovak provision fails entirely to recognize this. Instead it establishes an irreconcilable tension between the President with the power to check the actions of the government, and the parliament which may, at one and the same time, remove the President at the behest of the government. 7 3. Article 106 which gives the parliament this power is itself fundamentally flawed. It casts the grounds for the President's removal in such broad terms that it is difficult to attribute any precise meaning to them. In fact, the form of words used resembles the definition of treason contained in some other Central European constitutions. But article 107 of the Slovak Constitution deals separately with treason, leaving the scope of 7 For an earlier analysis of a similar effect see Hollander, P. "The New Slovak Constitution: A Critique", in East European Constitutional Review (Fall 1992). SLOVAKIA 79 Article 106 quite unclear. Further, Article 106 provides no indication as to how the parliament should proceed in determining whether the President meets the grounds for dismissal set down. To prevent the parliament from engaging in a political witchhunt, one might have expected that any charges against the President would have been referred to an independent body, for example the Constitutional Court, for determination. But no such procedure is set down and no such independent body was called upon during the recent fracas. 4. By failing to make it clear which of the President's powers should be exercised independently and which should be exercised upon governmental advice, the constitution provides an avenue for Presidents with pretentions to greater power to interfere significantly in the day-to-day affairs of state. This is bound to be a source of irritation to an elected government and, when combined with personal animosity between leaders and a marked lack of respect for the institutions of government, sets the scene for just the kind of escalating political conflict which Slovakia has witnessed. 5. Article 83(4), which allows the National Council of the Slovak Republic to hold closed sessions in circumstances defined by law or where three-fifths of the deputies agree that sessions be held in secret, is a flat denial of fundamental democratic principle and should never have been countenacted. Its effect, when combined with Article 106, is to permit a President to be removed from office in secret without the opportunity to defend himself or herself against the allegations made and to deprive the courts, the media and the public of any opportunity to asses the validity of such allegations and, therefore, to hold the President or parliament responsible for their actions. 80 SLOVAKIA Conclusion Very little that is good has come out of the recent battle over Presidential power. The intensity of the conflict has left the principal protagonists bruised, Slovak politics is more divided than at any time since 1989, and the flaws in the constitution are more clearly and dangerously exposed than ever before. But there has been one hopeful sign. Not long after the President delivered his defence to parliament, two of the major opposition parties called a protest rally. Over 30,000 people attended, making it the biggest since the revolutionary rallies of 1989. In his speach to the rally Jan Carnogursky, the leader of the Christian Democratic Movement, declared that neither he, nor any of the participants, should let the current government "steal the Slovak nation from its people." The implication of his remark was that the new Slovakia should be identified not only as a national, but also as a democratic and constitutional entity. The many people at the rally took the point. Part of the problem with the entire fabric of Slovak constitutionalism and politics has been that the people themselves have taken so little interest in it. Perhaps this rally might mark the beginning of a new, more active and more democratic awareness.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Battle Over Presidential Power in Slovakia Description An account of the resource Spencer Žifčák Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 70-80 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Zifcak, Spencer, 1950- Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 LCNAF https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/3a823f2f39ca0ebe74a15054e883f343.pdf b4b83f53dbab03ee2267a07c3949cb2e PDF Text Text 56 SLOVAKIA Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec (Address of His Eminence on the Occasion of the Conferral on him of the degree Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, by Sacred Heart University, Bridgeport, CT February 22, 1992) Eminences, Excellencies, Reverend Fathers, Mr. President, venerable members of the Board of Trustees, professors, students, honourable guests, dear American friends, beloved Slovak compatriots! I would like to say a few words about my life in bondage over the last forty years, and about our current search for a new way of life in our reborn democracy. I will not address you as a teacher--you have here excellent professors and competent lecturers. Instead, I would like to bear witness to an experience which did not arise from academia, but from sweatshops where I labored for the last twenty years, and from jail cells which I and others inhabited during our fight against the forces of totalitarianism. I was secretly consecrated a bishop during severe persecutions forty years ago, in a time when the prisons were overcrowded, and people were being executed. At that time I tried to promote a Christian way of life, especially among students and families. As a worker, I clandestinely wrote books that are still �SLOVAKIA 57 being read today-books that defended life and faith in order to raise people's hopes and spread the message of love. Only today do we realize how many things we were deprived of by the Marxist-atheists for forty years, and how backward we are today. Our teachers lack solid knowledge, the new politicians do not have the necessary experience of life, many writers are mindless, others have no conscience or character. We live in a country whose ecology and spiritual life has been devastated. We face the huge task of educating a new generation of young people, fathers and mothers, intellectuals and leaders of the nation. It will have to be an all-embracing education, which will not consider people to be merely cogs in a machine, or mute faces in the hands of powerful dictators and tyrants. Such an education will have to seek its inspiration in the Gospels, in our only true teacher Jesus Christ, and in our mother Church, which has experienced the true Spirit of God for twenty centuries. As we approached the end of the twentieth century, we were surprised by unexpected events. Communism collapsed in most of the world. This collapse was preceded by the disintegration of an artificial and inhumane ideology which had propped it up. Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, the president of Germany, recently said at a symposium in Bratislava that, "The year 1989 will never be forgotten. Six states in eastern Europe experienced revolutions that led to their freedom. In five of these countries, it happened without any bloodshed, which is unique in history. This road to freedom is an unforseen and exciting gift. But, in the long run, it is in danger. 11 Mr. Weizsacker then expressed some concerns about this freedom: Economic freedom became one of the most important events. But, does the market economy solve social problems? Is it able, for instance, to prevent our living space from being destroyed? The social and economic order, as well as that of our living space, are determined within the framework of the �58 SLOVAKIA state. But there is not only one state in the world. It is humanity as a whole that must face the problems of the modem world. But how? The first necessity is to change people's consciousness. Thus, Germany's president has also expressed the main goal of education--to change people's way of thinking about themselves and the world in which they live. Economic freedom alone cannot solve our problems. The market economy is essentially restricted in itself--because of the egoism of its practitioners. This danger was revealed very emphatically in all of the papal social encyclicals, including the "Centesimus Annus." It's one thing to be ambitious and diligent; it's quite another to be egotistical. The latter is a menace to every community. Egoism, which rejects concern for one's neighbor, is not only un-Christian, but it is inhuman and even stupid. Society cannot be better than the capacity of all its members to look at each other respectfully. This is man's fundamental calling. If we have to create new laws, then let us do so with the goal of changing people's minds and consciences. This is the mission of the Church. Just as the market economy will not save us in our new-found freedom, so too will technology not save us. Technology is dangerous if it does not consider the good of all nations and of all of humankind. That is why we need a good moral education, in addition to technical expertise, in order to change our ways of thinking. In eastern Europe there exist nations, which were almost destroyed by Communism, that are experiencing a rebirth. It is important to note that this is not a re-awakening of the "masses," but of nations. This is a phenomenon that is not always acknowledged or understood in the west. For us it is very evident. Once there existed only tribes, towns, principalities and empires. After �SLOVAKIA 59 that nations with a Christian tradition were formed. Today the term "nation" is unavoidable. The French, the Germans and the Italians are nations. The Croats and the Slovaks are nations as well. The largest organization in the world bears the name "United Nations." It is a natural right and desire of every nation to be independent. This right is also embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. We know that Communism tried to be international but it did not work. Communist internationalism nearly destroyed our country's national traditions and devastated our lives. Now our nation has experienced a revival and has rediscovered its Christian tradition. Nations, as such, must not succumb to chauvinism. They must be open to each other, without barbed-wire frontiers, and they must also develop a mutual exchange of spiritual and economic goods. This should hold true not only in a united Europe, but in a united world. Since 1948 in central and eastern Europe we experienced a harsh rule of selfish and unscrupulous regimes that considered people as mere cogs in machines. Everything was moral which served those in power. Everybody had to accept Marxist ideology. Those who refused lost their jobs because the state was the only employer. The Communist Party directed the school curriculum, controlled radio and television programs, as well as the press and culture in general. The Church was regarded as Communism's greatest enemy. All of its institutionsmonasteries, schools, seminaries and publishing houses-were closed. Almost all the bishops, many priests and laypersons were imprisoned, and the Greek Catholic Church was dissolved. In this situation, at the age of 27, I was secretly consecrated a bishop in 1951. For the next 20 years I lived the life of a worker. Since the visible Church was controlled by the Communists, I did my religious work underground. Meanwhile, the cruelty of the regime spread. Even Communist ministers were imprisoned! Everybody suspected everybody else. Many people informed on �60 SLOVAKIA each other. In this way, the atheistic regime poisoned our lives. Politicians ruled in the name of the "working class," but from my experience as a worker I can attest to the fact that the workers toiled in dirty factories while the ruling class lived in palaces, villas and hunting lodges. Any kind of criticism was dangerous, and many critics were executed. When in 1960 I was discovered and sentenced to twelve years of prison for my pastoral work, I met six other bishops and 200 priests in jail! After the failure of the experiment to create "socialism with a human face" in 1968, resistance against totalitarianism began in earnest. Some former Communists, who had fallen into disgrace, became dissidents, but their number was small. The main resistance to Communism in Slovakia was still organized by believers. They defended the dignity of the human person, and demanded the freedom to educate their children as they pleased. They risked a lot. Many were imprisoned, faced discrimination at school, in their professions and in public life in general. They could not teach, become historians or philosophers, were never given any responsible jobs, whether in civilian life or in the army. But, they did not give up. They met in the privacy of their homes, or in the woods. Later on they participated 'en masse' in pilgrimages, sometimes attracting over 200,000 followers! On March 25th, 1988, many thousands held a public prayer-meeting at Hviezdoslav square in Bratislava. They were attacked by police armed with truncheons and water-cannons. A Marxist dissident described it as a unique manifestation because it was not for better wages but rather for human rights. State atheism, with its cruelty and emptiness, had awakened the force of faith and the immense dynamism of the Church! The fight for freedom and human rights in our country was closely linked with the defense of the nation and its Christian traditions. Nowadays it quite often happens that the reality which �SLOVAKIA 61 we call a nation is regarded with suspicion. In our country the existence of the nation always fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, a positive role. Pope John Paul II had a similar experience in Poland and he expressed it to UNESCO in the following words: I am the son of a nation that has overcome the most horrible experience in history .. .It has preserved its Christian identity ... only with the help of its own national culture which has proved to be stronger than any other numerical superiority ... This is not a remote echo of nationalism, but a permanent element of human experience and humanistic perspective on the whole subsequent development of man! Eastern Europe was quite fortunate to find, at first, individuals, then groups, and finally hundreds and thousands of people who resisted the humiliation of Communism. At first, after 1948, there were only tiny pockets of resistance among believers. A great many, however, resisted quietly, but firmly. In 1946 the anti-Communist Democratic Party won 62% of the vote in Slovakia. Now, in 1991, 65% of the population of Slovakia reported that they were practicing Catholics. What helped our people to keep their faith during the last 40 years of persecution? There are several reasons. The proclamation of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as co-parton Saints of Europe by Pope John Paul II in 1980 certainly helped. Indeed, the interventions of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II, who publicly addressed us on several occasions, gave us great encouragement. By citing the Gospels, the Church defended humanity and freedom, and it helped the workers to stand up against the only employer under Communism, the state with all of its power. What can we learn from our experiences? Marxism brought with it only totalitarianism and inhumanity. A person can develop his real abilities and his moral being only if he is free. �62 SLOVAKIA Communism interpreted this freedom as submitting oneself to the necessity of history. This necessity was determined by a few leaders of the Party. Everyone else had to obey and fill the quotas. Hatred became the principle of life. The enemy of the working class had to be destroyed, even if that enemy was your father, your brother or sister. Human life in such a system became slavery. The roots of morality were severed by atheism. People became an anonymous herd, in the beginning filled with enthusiasm and many promises, later becoming cowardly, and finally frightened and powerless in the merciless grip of the well-paid police. During the era of Communism, people lost their individuality. Children did not belong to their parents, but to the state. The student was not allowed to think independently. He had to embrace the convictions of the state. He had to be an atheist. Only atheists were allowed to become teachers, professors, military officers, government officials, and so on. Therefore, some people conformed to the system, others played along, and society was deformed. People were not allowed to o._wn property, or even to possess themselves. In public everybody had to speak the language of the state. So, people were alienated. Only in private could people speak their minds. The following joke summed it up: At a political screening, an employee was asked for his reaction to a recent government measure. He professed to agree with it. His bosses wanted him to elaborate. He answered, "Even if I had an opinion, I could not agree with it!" Nobody could publicly agree with his own convictions. This state of permanent hypocrisy was terrible. But what is offered to us in the post-Communist era? Some people think it is liberalism in its economic, political, cultural and ethical forms. What does this mean? If it means "everything goes," it is but another route to the cemetery. Dostoevski once said that if atheism and life without God took over, it would no �SLOVAKIA 63 longer be possible to determine what is good and what is bad, and in the end everything would be allowed. Communism sanctioned everything, even the murder of tens of thousands of people. Hitler did the same thing. Without God there was no morality. And, without morality, society is destroyed. Dostoevski wrote that, if that moment arrived, such a darkness would come over us that the whole structure would collapse under the burden of human blasphemy. The structure of Communism fell in the same way as Nazism. Whenever life lost its conscience, good and evil lost their meaning. The only measure of morality was usefulness--either to the pure race or to the working-class. What are we offered now? If we conceive of liberalism as a system where everything is allowed, we have a new reason to worry. Francis Fukuzama writes that the fall of Communism does not spell the victory of economic and political liberalism, and therefore, he does not foresee a new golden age for mankind; he even fears the end of history, where the spirit of sacrifice for an ideal or a moral value will perish. The struggle for ideas requiring courage and enthusiasm will be replaced by purely economic calculations and technological solutions. Everything will be concentrated on care for the environment, on consumer claims, and on unlimited entertainment. If Communism maintained that it marked the end of history, and that afterwards there was nothing else to be expected, it represented something like the end of history. Time came to a standstill, the system blocked all new ideas, and dead precepts no longer worked. We withdrew from history for decades. Now that we have abandoned Communism, we can re-enter into history and can help to re-build it. But which road should we now follow? Pure liberalism, as some people assert, is the offer of some kind of new paradise. We are offered the market economy, free enterprise, private ownership, a share in the profits, respect for a plurality of ideas in matters of morality, art, �64 SLOVAKIA culture, and all that goes with them without any inhibitions. We are offered consumer goodies of every kind, starting with food of all sorts, holidays by the sea, as well as pornography and sex without any barriers. Liberal well-being without any limits is being offered to us. And this is supposed to bring us happiness? Our believers did not resist Communist tyranny for this kind of happiness. We resisted in the name of God and for the respect of the human being! Communism failed because it did not understand man, either in his greatness, or in his weakness. At the same time, it sought to create a new man. But it did not. It produced some tyrants, many egotists and a great many cowards. Liberalism, which some people are trying to introduce into our country, is a faulty system which does not understand man, and makes many of the same mistakes as Communism. A man is not a man because he has many choices in what he eats. Consumption is not enough. And, man is a sinner--he can be ferocious, selfish and uncaring. That is why he has to set limits for himself. If he does not do it by himself, then society must do it for him. Therefore, Communism cannot just be replaced by a boundless liberalism where a few thousand people live in luxury, as they had under Communism, while the great majority toil in factories without question. Christianity offers us a much fuller life, one of liberty but guided by our consciences as ordered by God. During the Communist era history seemed to stop. Mankind had reached the last stage of its development, according to Marxist theory. Collective ownership was the key to paradise. But there was no paradise. Instead, there was hell. Stalin gave orders to execute thousands of workers, then hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers, among them Marshal Tuchacevski, and others. Together with Molotov and Lazar M. Kaganovich, he signed a list ordering the execution of about 230,000 people at once! Similar things happened in Poland, Czecho- �SLOVAKIA 65 Slovakia, Hungary, in Cambodia and Ethiopia later on. Man was valued only for his capacity to work. If he disagreed with those in power, he lost his value and was shot. This was the horror of Christian Europe. What was moral and just was what served the so-called working class, and this was decided by three or four people in power. Everybody else trembled with fear, even among co-workers or friends. The atheist totalitarian state tried to buy everyone off, especially the young. It constructed an open morality. It tried to awake base passions. It created slogans such as "Whoever is not with us, is against us!" or "Down with religion! It is the opiate of the people!" and "Man must redeem himself. Paradise is here on earth. The Soviet Union is our model!" It was all done by force. Prisons were overcrowded, labor camps were organized, and false accusations abounded: "collaborator," "saboteur," "enemy of the working-class," "spy," "traitor," "subversive," "reactionary," "clerical," and so on were hurled about. If a worker criticized his master, it was considered an attack upon socialism and the whole Republic. Therefore, workers stayed quiet and were the most wretched class of people. I toiled among them for about twenty-five years, whether at liberty or in prison. In my last job I repaired elevators. The workers I knew had minds of their own, but during official meetings they said not a word. How did this dehumanized life shape our people? It deformed them. It affected families, workers, officials, prisoners and even children, because everyone was encouraged to become an informer! In his Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn describes the effects of this suffocating atheism. In 1955 the writer A.A. Fadeev committed suicide in the USSR. He explained his action in the following words: "The best writers died all too soon ... they did not even make it to age forty or fifty ... My life as a writer has lost its purpose and I am running away from an existence where man is turned over to emptiness and lies." �66 SLOVAKIA The Slovak writer Dominik Tatarka wrote similarly before his death: "All the authorities who were blaspheming God were humiliating us." Another writer who supported the atheistic regime for decades wrote in 1990: "Marxism has been dead for a long time .. .It could not stand up to the social or personal test of time. The blackboard of hope is empty." Still another wrote in 1992 after he was hospitalized: "And suddenly it has dawned! Without being aware of it, you realize that you have changed. Everything that you mocked yesterday you understand today. And you start to enjoy God's blessings in order not to walk alone with empty hands on such a long journey ... " These are no longer complaints. They reflect the search for and the discovery of life in God and His Church. What are our experiences and attitudes after the collapse of 40 years totalitarianism? We face a lot of shortcomings and diseases. But neither the country, not the nation is dead, although they have been severely weakened by many vices. Every society is beset by vices. The important thing is to recognize our vices, and to try to overcome them. The Church, which viewed man as the personification of God, played a major role in the struggle with atheistic regimes. It never ceased to stress the dignity and greatness of the human being, who cannot be altered into an obedient tool of tyrants, or into a mere worker or a powerless sheep in a large herd. Man is born free, made into the image and likeness of God, and is on his way to eternity with Him. The Church has to remind man of his greatness, it must educate and protect him. This is the Church's mission, whether it is practiced at Masses or at universities. This is the only road to true freedom and happiness. During the last forty years we had to fight against atheistic slavery for freedom. Again and again we preached that "Man does not live by bread alone." Without freedom even well-fed people committed suicide. Freedom is not found in material �SLOVAKIA 67 goods, but in people. That is the message we preached. Our goal was always clear, and it was worth every sacrifice. We now face a new problem. Our people are divided on how to interpret and live in the new freedom. That is because two generations were educated in atheistic Marxism. To many intellectuals the idea that man was created in the image of God is a foreign concept. They still conceive of man as a product of his environment. To them it is very difficult to define what is a "conscience," what are "ethics," what is "responsibility" and what is man's goal in life? In such a confused state, they mistake freedom for wilfulness, and decide that everything is permitted. Thus, there are no limits of morality in art, science, in sexual practices, and so on. That is why it is so difficult to have a dialogue with them. That is why we often have to begin it with pragmatic and practical arguments. However, we cannot stop here. We have to convince everyone that it is wrong to attack or to kill someone; it is anti-social and destructive to spread drugs; it is wilful to use guns just as it is forbidden to poison wells. The freedom of the individual has limits; certain principles must be accepted. The state is bound by laws, just as the whole world community is bound by conventions based on moral principles. After a forty-year struggle for the lower limit of freedom, we are now struggling with the upper limit of human freedom. But at which point can man become happy in his freedom? We have learned that not everything that can be done by man is moral. Life teaches us that. I will conclude with a reference to science and technology. If people doubt the validity of Christian principles in matters of abortion or euthanasia, then surely they must face other situations where they are confronted by the matter of morals and ethics. Nowadays we have to ask ourselves if humankind is permitted to do all that it is capable of doing physically with nuclear weapons and biogenetics. We already have international agreements that prohibit the use of chemical �68 SLOVAKIA weapons, that prohibit nuclear testing, and that provide for the gradual reduction of the nuclear arsenal. It is at this point that science runs into religion, and Christianity in particular. A meeting of the two could prove useful in reconciling these opposite poles. In his unrestrained desire for power, man could devastate our planet. This must never happen! Here is where the dialogue between people of good will must begin. A common formulation and elaboration of questions would be a good starting point. Shortly before his death in 1973, the Nobel Prize-winner Werner Heisenberg wrote in Der Tei] und das Ganze (The Part and the Whole): While in our western world we often ask the question what is good and bad, what is worth fighting for and what must be refused, we still run into Christianity's measures of values, even when many people do not understand the images and allegories used by this religion. Should this magnetic force directing the compass of our life ever disappear, then I am afraid that many terrible things would occur, even more terrible than concentration camps and nuclear bombs ... After our experience of life without God for over forty years, we can appreciate these words of warning. Christianity has something to say about man, about nations and about the world. In 1945 Europe was liberated from the horrors of Nazism. But this liberation did not bring us liberty. It brought us a new slavery called Communism. Now we are liberated from this slavery as well. Some of the new programs that are offered to us keep repeating the same mistakes as before. Real freedom is not self-will. This is what threatens us all, whether in the economic sphere or in culture. Our experience tells us that real freedom can only take root in a ground that is based upon truth. And only the �SLOVAKIA 69 truth as revealed by Gcxt will make us free. It is the task of those of us who are believers to spread this truth, and to build our lives upon it in our quest for eternal happiness. This is exactly what your famous University tries to teach, as your president Mr. Cemera wrote to me a few weeks ago: "The University aims to assist in the development of people, knowledge of self, rooted in faith, educated in mind, compassionate in heart, responsive to social and civic obligations, and able to respond to an everchanging world." Envy is a sin and we must avoid it. However, if there exists something outwardly similar, in reality it is admiration and the desire to achieve the same result. In this sense we admire you and your University and in our hearts we long for all that you have here. It is an excellent gift of Gcxt and an important means of education for new generations of scholars. � 56 SLOVAKIA Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec (Address of His Eminence on the Occasion of the Conferral on him of the degree Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, by Sacred Heart University, Bridgeport, CT February 22, 1992) Eminences, Excellencies, Reverend Fathers, Mr. President, venerable members of the Board of Trustees, professors, students, honourable guests, dear American friends, beloved Slovak compatriots! I would like to say a few words about my life in bondage over the last forty years, and about our current search for a new way of life in our reborn democracy. I will not address you as a teacher--you have here excellent professors and competent lecturers. Instead, I would like to bear witness to an experience which did not arise from academia, but from sweatshops where I labored for the last twenty years, and from jail cells which I and others inhabited during our fight against the forces of totalitarianism. I was secretly consecrated a bishop during severe persecutions forty years ago, in a time when the prisons were overcrowded, and people were being executed. At that time I tried to promote a Christian way of life, especially among students and families. As a worker, I clandestinely wrote books that are still �SLOVAKIA 57 being read today-books that defended life and faith in order to raise people's hopes and spread the message of love. Only today do we realize how many things we were deprived of by the Marxist-atheists for forty years, and how backward we are today. Our teachers lack solid knowledge, the new politicians do not have the necessary experience of life, many writers are mindless, others have no conscience or character. We live in a country whose ecology and spiritual life has been devastated. We face the huge task of educating a new generation of young people, fathers and mothers, intellectuals and leaders of the nation. It will have to be an all-embracing education, which will not consider people to be merely cogs in a machine, or mute faces in the hands of powerful dictators and tyrants. Such an education will have to seek its inspiration in the Gospels, in our only true teacher Jesus Christ, and in our mother Church, which has experienced the true Spirit of God for twenty centuries. As we approached the end of the twentieth century, we were surprised by unexpected events. Communism collapsed in most of the world. This collapse was preceded by the disintegration of an artificial and inhumane ideology which had propped it up. Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, the president of Germany, recently said at a symposium in Bratislava that, "The year 1989 will never be forgotten. Six states in eastern Europe experienced revolutions that led to their freedom. In five of these countries, it happened without any bloodshed, which is unique in history. This road to freedom is an unforseen and exciting gift. But, in the long run, it is in danger. 11 Mr. Weizsacker then expressed some concerns about this freedom: Economic freedom became one of the most important events. But, does the market economy solve social problems? Is it able, for instance, to prevent our living space from being destroyed? The social and economic order, as well as that of our living space, are determined within the framework of the �58 SLOVAKIA state. But there is not only one state in the world. It is humanity as a whole that must face the problems of the modem world. But how? The first necessity is to change people's consciousness. Thus, Germany's president has also expressed the main goal of education--to change people's way of thinking about themselves and the world in which they live. Economic freedom alone cannot solve our problems. The market economy is essentially restricted in itself--because of the egoism of its practitioners. This danger was revealed very emphatically in all of the papal social encyclicals, including the "Centesimus Annus." It's one thing to be ambitious and diligent; it's quite another to be egotistical. The latter is a menace to every community. Egoism, which rejects concern for one's neighbor, is not only un-Christian, but it is inhuman and even stupid. Society cannot be better than the capacity of all its members to look at each other respectfully. This is man's fundamental calling. If we have to create new laws, then let us do so with the goal of changing people's minds and consciences. This is the mission of the Church. Just as the market economy will not save us in our new-found freedom, so too will technology not save us. Technology is dangerous if it does not consider the good of all nations and of all of humankind. That is why we need a good moral education, in addition to technical expertise, in order to change our ways of thinking. In eastern Europe there exist nations, which were almost destroyed by Communism, that are experiencing a rebirth. It is important to note that this is not a re-awakening of the "masses," but of nations. This is a phenomenon that is not always acknowledged or understood in the west. For us it is very evident. Once there existed only tribes, towns, principalities and empires. After �SLOVAKIA 59 that nations with a Christian tradition were formed. Today the term "nation" is unavoidable. The French, the Germans and the Italians are nations. The Croats and the Slovaks are nations as well. The largest organization in the world bears the name "United Nations." It is a natural right and desire of every nation to be independent. This right is also embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. We know that Communism tried to be international but it did not work. Communist internationalism nearly destroyed our country's national traditions and devastated our lives. Now our nation has experienced a revival and has rediscovered its Christian tradition. Nations, as such, must not succumb to chauvinism. They must be open to each other, without barbed-wire frontiers, and they must also develop a mutual exchange of spiritual and economic goods. This should hold true not only in a united Europe, but in a united world. Since 1948 in central and eastern Europe we experienced a harsh rule of selfish and unscrupulous regimes that considered people as mere cogs in machines. Everything was moral which served those in power. Everybody had to accept Marxist ideology. Those who refused lost their jobs because the state was the only employer. The Communist Party directed the school curriculum, controlled radio and television programs, as well as the press and culture in general. The Church was regarded as Communism's greatest enemy. All of its institutionsmonasteries, schools, seminaries and publishing houses-were closed. Almost all the bishops, many priests and laypersons were imprisoned, and the Greek Catholic Church was dissolved. In this situation, at the age of 27, I was secretly consecrated a bishop in 1951. For the next 20 years I lived the life of a worker. Since the visible Church was controlled by the Communists, I did my religious work underground. Meanwhile, the cruelty of the regime spread. Even Communist ministers were imprisoned! Everybody suspected everybody else. Many people informed on �60 SLOVAKIA each other. In this way, the atheistic regime poisoned our lives. Politicians ruled in the name of the "working class," but from my experience as a worker I can attest to the fact that the workers toiled in dirty factories while the ruling class lived in palaces, villas and hunting lodges. Any kind of criticism was dangerous, and many critics were executed. When in 1960 I was discovered and sentenced to twelve years of prison for my pastoral work, I met six other bishops and 200 priests in jail! After the failure of the experiment to create "socialism with a human face" in 1968, resistance against totalitarianism began in earnest. Some former Communists, who had fallen into disgrace, became dissidents, but their number was small. The main resistance to Communism in Slovakia was still organized by believers. They defended the dignity of the human person, and demanded the freedom to educate their children as they pleased. They risked a lot. Many were imprisoned, faced discrimination at school, in their professions and in public life in general. They could not teach, become historians or philosophers, were never given any responsible jobs, whether in civilian life or in the army. But, they did not give up. They met in the privacy of their homes, or in the woods. Later on they participated 'en masse' in pilgrimages, sometimes attracting over 200,000 followers! On March 25th, 1988, many thousands held a public prayer-meeting at Hviezdoslav square in Bratislava. They were attacked by police armed with truncheons and water-cannons. A Marxist dissident described it as a unique manifestation because it was not for better wages but rather for human rights. State atheism, with its cruelty and emptiness, had awakened the force of faith and the immense dynamism of the Church! The fight for freedom and human rights in our country was closely linked with the defense of the nation and its Christian traditions. Nowadays it quite often happens that the reality which �SLOVAKIA 61 we call a nation is regarded with suspicion. In our country the existence of the nation always fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, a positive role. Pope John Paul II had a similar experience in Poland and he expressed it to UNESCO in the following words: I am the son of a nation that has overcome the most horrible experience in history .. .It has preserved its Christian identity ... only with the help of its own national culture which has proved to be stronger than any other numerical superiority ... This is not a remote echo of nationalism, but a permanent element of human experience and humanistic perspective on the whole subsequent development of man! Eastern Europe was quite fortunate to find, at first, individuals, then groups, and finally hundreds and thousands of people who resisted the humiliation of Communism. At first, after 1948, there were only tiny pockets of resistance among believers. A great many, however, resisted quietly, but firmly. In 1946 the anti-Communist Democratic Party won 62% of the vote in Slovakia. Now, in 1991, 65% of the population of Slovakia reported that they were practicing Catholics. What helped our people to keep their faith during the last 40 years of persecution? There are several reasons. The proclamation of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as co-parton Saints of Europe by Pope John Paul II in 1980 certainly helped. Indeed, the interventions of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II, who publicly addressed us on several occasions, gave us great encouragement. By citing the Gospels, the Church defended humanity and freedom, and it helped the workers to stand up against the only employer under Communism, the state with all of its power. What can we learn from our experiences? Marxism brought with it only totalitarianism and inhumanity. A person can develop his real abilities and his moral being only if he is free. �62 SLOVAKIA Communism interpreted this freedom as submitting oneself to the necessity of history. This necessity was determined by a few leaders of the Party. Everyone else had to obey and fill the quotas. Hatred became the principle of life. The enemy of the working class had to be destroyed, even if that enemy was your father, your brother or sister. Human life in such a system became slavery. The roots of morality were severed by atheism. People became an anonymous herd, in the beginning filled with enthusiasm and many promises, later becoming cowardly, and finally frightened and powerless in the merciless grip of the well-paid police. During the era of Communism, people lost their individuality. Children did not belong to their parents, but to the state. The student was not allowed to think independently. He had to embrace the convictions of the state. He had to be an atheist. Only atheists were allowed to become teachers, professors, military officers, government officials, and so on. Therefore, some people conformed to the system, others played along, and society was deformed. People were not allowed to o._wn property, or even to possess themselves. In public everybody had to speak the language of the state. So, people were alienated. Only in private could people speak their minds. The following joke summed it up: At a political screening, an employee was asked for his reaction to a recent government measure. He professed to agree with it. His bosses wanted him to elaborate. He answered, "Even if I had an opinion, I could not agree with it!" Nobody could publicly agree with his own convictions. This state of permanent hypocrisy was terrible. But what is offered to us in the post-Communist era? Some people think it is liberalism in its economic, political, cultural and ethical forms. What does this mean? If it means "everything goes," it is but another route to the cemetery. Dostoevski once said that if atheism and life without God took over, it would no �SLOVAKIA 63 longer be possible to determine what is good and what is bad, and in the end everything would be allowed. Communism sanctioned everything, even the murder of tens of thousands of people. Hitler did the same thing. Without God there was no morality. And, without morality, society is destroyed. Dostoevski wrote that, if that moment arrived, such a darkness would come over us that the whole structure would collapse under the burden of human blasphemy. The structure of Communism fell in the same way as Nazism. Whenever life lost its conscience, good and evil lost their meaning. The only measure of morality was usefulness--either to the pure race or to the working-class. What are we offered now? If we conceive of liberalism as a system where everything is allowed, we have a new reason to worry. Francis Fukuzama writes that the fall of Communism does not spell the victory of economic and political liberalism, and therefore, he does not foresee a new golden age for mankind; he even fears the end of history, where the spirit of sacrifice for an ideal or a moral value will perish. The struggle for ideas requiring courage and enthusiasm will be replaced by purely economic calculations and technological solutions. Everything will be concentrated on care for the environment, on consumer claims, and on unlimited entertainment. If Communism maintained that it marked the end of history, and that afterwards there was nothing else to be expected, it represented something like the end of history. Time came to a standstill, the system blocked all new ideas, and dead precepts no longer worked. We withdrew from history for decades. Now that we have abandoned Communism, we can re-enter into history and can help to re-build it. But which road should we now follow? Pure liberalism, as some people assert, is the offer of some kind of new paradise. We are offered the market economy, free enterprise, private ownership, a share in the profits, respect for a plurality of ideas in matters of morality, art, �64 SLOVAKIA culture, and all that goes with them without any inhibitions. We are offered consumer goodies of every kind, starting with food of all sorts, holidays by the sea, as well as pornography and sex without any barriers. Liberal well-being without any limits is being offered to us. And this is supposed to bring us happiness? Our believers did not resist Communist tyranny for this kind of happiness. We resisted in the name of God and for the respect of the human being! Communism failed because it did not understand man, either in his greatness, or in his weakness. At the same time, it sought to create a new man. But it did not. It produced some tyrants, many egotists and a great many cowards. Liberalism, which some people are trying to introduce into our country, is a faulty system which does not understand man, and makes many of the same mistakes as Communism. A man is not a man because he has many choices in what he eats. Consumption is not enough. And, man is a sinner--he can be ferocious, selfish and uncaring. That is why he has to set limits for himself. If he does not do it by himself, then society must do it for him. Therefore, Communism cannot just be replaced by a boundless liberalism where a few thousand people live in luxury, as they had under Communism, while the great majority toil in factories without question. Christianity offers us a much fuller life, one of liberty but guided by our consciences as ordered by God. During the Communist era history seemed to stop. Mankind had reached the last stage of its development, according to Marxist theory. Collective ownership was the key to paradise. But there was no paradise. Instead, there was hell. Stalin gave orders to execute thousands of workers, then hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers, among them Marshal Tuchacevski, and others. Together with Molotov and Lazar M. Kaganovich, he signed a list ordering the execution of about 230,000 people at once! Similar things happened in Poland, Czecho- �SLOVAKIA 65 Slovakia, Hungary, in Cambodia and Ethiopia later on. Man was valued only for his capacity to work. If he disagreed with those in power, he lost his value and was shot. This was the horror of Christian Europe. What was moral and just was what served the so-called working class, and this was decided by three or four people in power. Everybody else trembled with fear, even among co-workers or friends. The atheist totalitarian state tried to buy everyone off, especially the young. It constructed an open morality. It tried to awake base passions. It created slogans such as "Whoever is not with us, is against us!" or "Down with religion! It is the opiate of the people!" and "Man must redeem himself. Paradise is here on earth. The Soviet Union is our model!" It was all done by force. Prisons were overcrowded, labor camps were organized, and false accusations abounded: "collaborator," "saboteur," "enemy of the working-class," "spy," "traitor," "subversive," "reactionary," "clerical," and so on were hurled about. If a worker criticized his master, it was considered an attack upon socialism and the whole Republic. Therefore, workers stayed quiet and were the most wretched class of people. I toiled among them for about twenty-five years, whether at liberty or in prison. In my last job I repaired elevators. The workers I knew had minds of their own, but during official meetings they said not a word. How did this dehumanized life shape our people? It deformed them. It affected families, workers, officials, prisoners and even children, because everyone was encouraged to become an informer! In his Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn describes the effects of this suffocating atheism. In 1955 the writer A.A. Fadeev committed suicide in the USSR. He explained his action in the following words: "The best writers died all too soon ... they did not even make it to age forty or fifty ... My life as a writer has lost its purpose and I am running away from an existence where man is turned over to emptiness and lies." �66 SLOVAKIA The Slovak writer Dominik Tatarka wrote similarly before his death: "All the authorities who were blaspheming God were humiliating us." Another writer who supported the atheistic regime for decades wrote in 1990: "Marxism has been dead for a long time .. .It could not stand up to the social or personal test of time. The blackboard of hope is empty." Still another wrote in 1992 after he was hospitalized: "And suddenly it has dawned! Without being aware of it, you realize that you have changed. Everything that you mocked yesterday you understand today. And you start to enjoy God's blessings in order not to walk alone with empty hands on such a long journey ... " These are no longer complaints. They reflect the search for and the discovery of life in God and His Church. What are our experiences and attitudes after the collapse of 40 years totalitarianism? We face a lot of shortcomings and diseases. But neither the country, not the nation is dead, although they have been severely weakened by many vices. Every society is beset by vices. The important thing is to recognize our vices, and to try to overcome them. The Church, which viewed man as the personification of God, played a major role in the struggle with atheistic regimes. It never ceased to stress the dignity and greatness of the human being, who cannot be altered into an obedient tool of tyrants, or into a mere worker or a powerless sheep in a large herd. Man is born free, made into the image and likeness of God, and is on his way to eternity with Him. The Church has to remind man of his greatness, it must educate and protect him. This is the Church's mission, whether it is practiced at Masses or at universities. This is the only road to true freedom and happiness. During the last forty years we had to fight against atheistic slavery for freedom. Again and again we preached that "Man does not live by bread alone." Without freedom even well-fed people committed suicide. Freedom is not found in material �SLOVAKIA 67 goods, but in people. That is the message we preached. Our goal was always clear, and it was worth every sacrifice. We now face a new problem. Our people are divided on how to interpret and live in the new freedom. That is because two generations were educated in atheistic Marxism. To many intellectuals the idea that man was created in the image of God is a foreign concept. They still conceive of man as a product of his environment. To them it is very difficult to define what is a "conscience," what are "ethics," what is "responsibility" and what is man's goal in life? In such a confused state, they mistake freedom for wilfulness, and decide that everything is permitted. Thus, there are no limits of morality in art, science, in sexual practices, and so on. That is why it is so difficult to have a dialogue with them. That is why we often have to begin it with pragmatic and practical arguments. However, we cannot stop here. We have to convince everyone that it is wrong to attack or to kill someone; it is anti-social and destructive to spread drugs; it is wilful to use guns just as it is forbidden to poison wells. The freedom of the individual has limits; certain principles must be accepted. The state is bound by laws, just as the whole world community is bound by conventions based on moral principles. After a forty-year struggle for the lower limit of freedom, we are now struggling with the upper limit of human freedom. But at which point can man become happy in his freedom? We have learned that not everything that can be done by man is moral. Life teaches us that. I will conclude with a reference to science and technology. If people doubt the validity of Christian principles in matters of abortion or euthanasia, then surely they must face other situations where they are confronted by the matter of morals and ethics. Nowadays we have to ask ourselves if humankind is permitted to do all that it is capable of doing physically with nuclear weapons and biogenetics. We already have international agreements that prohibit the use of chemical �68 SLOVAKIA weapons, that prohibit nuclear testing, and that provide for the gradual reduction of the nuclear arsenal. It is at this point that science runs into religion, and Christianity in particular. A meeting of the two could prove useful in reconciling these opposite poles. In his unrestrained desire for power, man could devastate our planet. This must never happen! Here is where the dialogue between people of good will must begin. A common formulation and elaboration of questions would be a good starting point. Shortly before his death in 1973, the Nobel Prize-winner Werner Heisenberg wrote in Der Tei] und das Ganze (The Part and the Whole): While in our western world we often ask the question what is good and bad, what is worth fighting for and what must be refused, we still run into Christianity's measures of values, even when many people do not understand the images and allegories used by this religion. Should this magnetic force directing the compass of our life ever disappear, then I am afraid that many terrible things would occur, even more terrible than concentration camps and nuclear bombs ... After our experience of life without God for over forty years, we can appreciate these words of warning. Christianity has something to say about man, about nations and about the world. In 1945 Europe was liberated from the horrors of Nazism. But this liberation did not bring us liberty. It brought us a new slavery called Communism. Now we are liberated from this slavery as well. Some of the new programs that are offered to us keep repeating the same mistakes as before. Real freedom is not self-will. This is what threatens us all, whether in the economic sphere or in culture. Our experience tells us that real freedom can only take root in a ground that is based upon truth. And only the �SLOVAKIA 69 truth as revealed by Gcxt will make us free. It is the task of those of us who are believers to spread this truth, and to build our lives upon it in our quest for eternal happiness. This is exactly what your famous University tries to teach, as your president Mr. Cemera wrote to me a few weeks ago: "The University aims to assist in the development of people, knowledge of self, rooted in faith, educated in mind, compassionate in heart, responsive to social and civic obligations, and able to respond to an everchanging world." Envy is a sin and we must avoid it. However, if there exists something outwardly similar, in reality it is admiration and the desire to achieve the same result. In this sense we admire you and your University and in our hearts we long for all that you have here. It is an excellent gift of Gcxt and an important means of education for new generations of scholars. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 56 SLOVAKIA Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec (Address of His Eminence on the Occasion of the Conferral on him of the degree Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, by Sacred Heart University, Bridgeport, CT February 22, 1992) Eminences, Excellencies, Reverend Fathers, Mr. President, venerable members of the Board of Trustees, professors, students, honourable guests, dear American friends, beloved Slovak compatriots! I would like to say a few words about my life in bondage over the last forty years, and about our current search for a new way of life in our reborn democracy. I will not address you as a teacher--you have here excellent professors and competent lecturers. Instead, I would like to bear witness to an experience which did not arise from academia, but from sweatshops where I labored for the last twenty years, and from jail cells which I and others inhabited during our fight against the forces of totalitarianism. I was secretly consecrated a bishop during severe persecutions forty years ago, in a time when the prisons were overcrowded, and people were being executed. At that time I tried to promote a Christian way of life, especially among students and families. As a worker, I clandestinely wrote books that are still SLOVAKIA 57 being read today-books that defended life and faith in order to raise people's hopes and spread the message of love. Only today do we realize how many things we were deprived of by the Marxist-atheists for forty years, and how backward we are today. Our teachers lack solid knowledge, the new politicians do not have the necessary experience of life, many writers are mindless, others have no conscience or character. We live in a country whose ecology and spiritual life has been devastated. We face the huge task of educating a new generation of young people, fathers and mothers, intellectuals and leaders of the nation. It will have to be an all-embracing education, which will not consider people to be merely cogs in a machine, or mute faces in the hands of powerful dictators and tyrants. Such an education will have to seek its inspiration in the Gospels, in our only true teacher Jesus Christ, and in our mother Church, which has experienced the true Spirit of God for twenty centuries. As we approached the end of the twentieth century, we were surprised by unexpected events. Communism collapsed in most of the world. This collapse was preceded by the disintegration of an artificial and inhumane ideology which had propped it up. Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, the president of Germany, recently said at a symposium in Bratislava that, "The year 1989 will never be forgotten. Six states in eastern Europe experienced revolutions that led to their freedom. In five of these countries, it happened without any bloodshed, which is unique in history. This road to freedom is an unforseen and exciting gift. But, in the long run, it is in danger. 11 Mr. Weizsacker then expressed some concerns about this freedom: Economic freedom became one of the most important events. But, does the market economy solve social problems? Is it able, for instance, to prevent our living space from being destroyed? The social and economic order, as well as that of our living space, are determined within the framework of the 58 SLOVAKIA state. But there is not only one state in the world. It is humanity as a whole that must face the problems of the modem world. But how? The first necessity is to change people's consciousness. Thus, Germany's president has also expressed the main goal of education--to change people's way of thinking about themselves and the world in which they live. Economic freedom alone cannot solve our problems. The market economy is essentially restricted in itself--because of the egoism of its practitioners. This danger was revealed very emphatically in all of the papal social encyclicals, including the "Centesimus Annus." It's one thing to be ambitious and diligent; it's quite another to be egotistical. The latter is a menace to every community. Egoism, which rejects concern for one's neighbor, is not only un-Christian, but it is inhuman and even stupid. Society cannot be better than the capacity of all its members to look at each other respectfully. This is man's fundamental calling. If we have to create new laws, then let us do so with the goal of changing people's minds and consciences. This is the mission of the Church. Just as the market economy will not save us in our new-found freedom, so too will technology not save us. Technology is dangerous if it does not consider the good of all nations and of all of humankind. That is why we need a good moral education, in addition to technical expertise, in order to change our ways of thinking. In eastern Europe there exist nations, which were almost destroyed by Communism, that are experiencing a rebirth. It is important to note that this is not a re-awakening of the "masses," but of nations. This is a phenomenon that is not always acknowledged or understood in the west. For us it is very evident. Once there existed only tribes, towns, principalities and empires. After SLOVAKIA 59 that nations with a Christian tradition were formed. Today the term "nation" is unavoidable. The French, the Germans and the Italians are nations. The Croats and the Slovaks are nations as well. The largest organization in the world bears the name "United Nations." It is a natural right and desire of every nation to be independent. This right is also embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. We know that Communism tried to be international but it did not work. Communist internationalism nearly destroyed our country's national traditions and devastated our lives. Now our nation has experienced a revival and has rediscovered its Christian tradition. Nations, as such, must not succumb to chauvinism. They must be open to each other, without barbed-wire frontiers, and they must also develop a mutual exchange of spiritual and economic goods. This should hold true not only in a united Europe, but in a united world. Since 1948 in central and eastern Europe we experienced a harsh rule of selfish and unscrupulous regimes that considered people as mere cogs in machines. Everything was moral which served those in power. Everybody had to accept Marxist ideology. Those who refused lost their jobs because the state was the only employer. The Communist Party directed the school curriculum, controlled radio and television programs, as well as the press and culture in general. The Church was regarded as Communism's greatest enemy. All of its institutionsmonasteries, schools, seminaries and publishing houses-were closed. Almost all the bishops, many priests and laypersons were imprisoned, and the Greek Catholic Church was dissolved. In this situation, at the age of 27, I was secretly consecrated a bishop in 1951. For the next 20 years I lived the life of a worker. Since the visible Church was controlled by the Communists, I did my religious work underground. Meanwhile, the cruelty of the regime spread. Even Communist ministers were imprisoned! Everybody suspected everybody else. Many people informed on 60 SLOVAKIA each other. In this way, the atheistic regime poisoned our lives. Politicians ruled in the name of the "working class," but from my experience as a worker I can attest to the fact that the workers toiled in dirty factories while the ruling class lived in palaces, villas and hunting lodges. Any kind of criticism was dangerous, and many critics were executed. When in 1960 I was discovered and sentenced to twelve years of prison for my pastoral work, I met six other bishops and 200 priests in jail! After the failure of the experiment to create "socialism with a human face" in 1968, resistance against totalitarianism began in earnest. Some former Communists, who had fallen into disgrace, became dissidents, but their number was small. The main resistance to Communism in Slovakia was still organized by believers. They defended the dignity of the human person, and demanded the freedom to educate their children as they pleased. They risked a lot. Many were imprisoned, faced discrimination at school, in their professions and in public life in general. They could not teach, become historians or philosophers, were never given any responsible jobs, whether in civilian life or in the army. But, they did not give up. They met in the privacy of their homes, or in the woods. Later on they participated 'en masse' in pilgrimages, sometimes attracting over 200,000 followers! On March 25th, 1988, many thousands held a public prayer-meeting at Hviezdoslav square in Bratislava. They were attacked by police armed with truncheons and water-cannons. A Marxist dissident described it as a unique manifestation because it was not for better wages but rather for human rights. State atheism, with its cruelty and emptiness, had awakened the force of faith and the immense dynamism of the Church! The fight for freedom and human rights in our country was closely linked with the defense of the nation and its Christian traditions. Nowadays it quite often happens that the reality which SLOVAKIA 61 we call a nation is regarded with suspicion. In our country the existence of the nation always fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, a positive role. Pope John Paul II had a similar experience in Poland and he expressed it to UNESCO in the following words: I am the son of a nation that has overcome the most horrible experience in history .. .It has preserved its Christian identity ... only with the help of its own national culture which has proved to be stronger than any other numerical superiority ... This is not a remote echo of nationalism, but a permanent element of human experience and humanistic perspective on the whole subsequent development of man! Eastern Europe was quite fortunate to find, at first, individuals, then groups, and finally hundreds and thousands of people who resisted the humiliation of Communism. At first, after 1948, there were only tiny pockets of resistance among believers. A great many, however, resisted quietly, but firmly. In 1946 the anti-Communist Democratic Party won 62% of the vote in Slovakia. Now, in 1991, 65% of the population of Slovakia reported that they were practicing Catholics. What helped our people to keep their faith during the last 40 years of persecution? There are several reasons. The proclamation of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as co-parton Saints of Europe by Pope John Paul II in 1980 certainly helped. Indeed, the interventions of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II, who publicly addressed us on several occasions, gave us great encouragement. By citing the Gospels, the Church defended humanity and freedom, and it helped the workers to stand up against the only employer under Communism, the state with all of its power. What can we learn from our experiences? Marxism brought with it only totalitarianism and inhumanity. A person can develop his real abilities and his moral being only if he is free. 62 SLOVAKIA Communism interpreted this freedom as submitting oneself to the necessity of history. This necessity was determined by a few leaders of the Party. Everyone else had to obey and fill the quotas. Hatred became the principle of life. The enemy of the working class had to be destroyed, even if that enemy was your father, your brother or sister. Human life in such a system became slavery. The roots of morality were severed by atheism. People became an anonymous herd, in the beginning filled with enthusiasm and many promises, later becoming cowardly, and finally frightened and powerless in the merciless grip of the well-paid police. During the era of Communism, people lost their individuality. Children did not belong to their parents, but to the state. The student was not allowed to think independently. He had to embrace the convictions of the state. He had to be an atheist. Only atheists were allowed to become teachers, professors, military officers, government officials, and so on. Therefore, some people conformed to the system, others played along, and society was deformed. People were not allowed to o._wn property, or even to possess themselves. In public everybody had to speak the language of the state. So, people were alienated. Only in private could people speak their minds. The following joke summed it up: At a political screening, an employee was asked for his reaction to a recent government measure. He professed to agree with it. His bosses wanted him to elaborate. He answered, "Even if I had an opinion, I could not agree with it!" Nobody could publicly agree with his own convictions. This state of permanent hypocrisy was terrible. But what is offered to us in the post-Communist era? Some people think it is liberalism in its economic, political, cultural and ethical forms. What does this mean? If it means "everything goes," it is but another route to the cemetery. Dostoevski once said that if atheism and life without God took over, it would no SLOVAKIA 63 longer be possible to determine what is good and what is bad, and in the end everything would be allowed. Communism sanctioned everything, even the murder of tens of thousands of people. Hitler did the same thing. Without God there was no morality. And, without morality, society is destroyed. Dostoevski wrote that, if that moment arrived, such a darkness would come over us that the whole structure would collapse under the burden of human blasphemy. The structure of Communism fell in the same way as Nazism. Whenever life lost its conscience, good and evil lost their meaning. The only measure of morality was usefulness--either to the pure race or to the working-class. What are we offered now? If we conceive of liberalism as a system where everything is allowed, we have a new reason to worry. Francis Fukuzama writes that the fall of Communism does not spell the victory of economic and political liberalism, and therefore, he does not foresee a new golden age for mankind; he even fears the end of history, where the spirit of sacrifice for an ideal or a moral value will perish. The struggle for ideas requiring courage and enthusiasm will be replaced by purely economic calculations and technological solutions. Everything will be concentrated on care for the environment, on consumer claims, and on unlimited entertainment. If Communism maintained that it marked the end of history, and that afterwards there was nothing else to be expected, it represented something like the end of history. Time came to a standstill, the system blocked all new ideas, and dead precepts no longer worked. We withdrew from history for decades. Now that we have abandoned Communism, we can re-enter into history and can help to re-build it. But which road should we now follow? Pure liberalism, as some people assert, is the offer of some kind of new paradise. We are offered the market economy, free enterprise, private ownership, a share in the profits, respect for a plurality of ideas in matters of morality, art, 64 SLOVAKIA culture, and all that goes with them without any inhibitions. We are offered consumer goodies of every kind, starting with food of all sorts, holidays by the sea, as well as pornography and sex without any barriers. Liberal well-being without any limits is being offered to us. And this is supposed to bring us happiness? Our believers did not resist Communist tyranny for this kind of happiness. We resisted in the name of God and for the respect of the human being! Communism failed because it did not understand man, either in his greatness, or in his weakness. At the same time, it sought to create a new man. But it did not. It produced some tyrants, many egotists and a great many cowards. Liberalism, which some people are trying to introduce into our country, is a faulty system which does not understand man, and makes many of the same mistakes as Communism. A man is not a man because he has many choices in what he eats. Consumption is not enough. And, man is a sinner--he can be ferocious, selfish and uncaring. That is why he has to set limits for himself. If he does not do it by himself, then society must do it for him. Therefore, Communism cannot just be replaced by a boundless liberalism where a few thousand people live in luxury, as they had under Communism, while the great majority toil in factories without question. Christianity offers us a much fuller life, one of liberty but guided by our consciences as ordered by God. During the Communist era history seemed to stop. Mankind had reached the last stage of its development, according to Marxist theory. Collective ownership was the key to paradise. But there was no paradise. Instead, there was hell. Stalin gave orders to execute thousands of workers, then hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers, among them Marshal Tuchacevski, and others. Together with Molotov and Lazar M. Kaganovich, he signed a list ordering the execution of about 230,000 people at once! Similar things happened in Poland, Czecho- SLOVAKIA 65 Slovakia, Hungary, in Cambodia and Ethiopia later on. Man was valued only for his capacity to work. If he disagreed with those in power, he lost his value and was shot. This was the horror of Christian Europe. What was moral and just was what served the so-called working class, and this was decided by three or four people in power. Everybody else trembled with fear, even among co-workers or friends. The atheist totalitarian state tried to buy everyone off, especially the young. It constructed an open morality. It tried to awake base passions. It created slogans such as "Whoever is not with us, is against us!" or "Down with religion! It is the opiate of the people!" and "Man must redeem himself. Paradise is here on earth. The Soviet Union is our model!" It was all done by force. Prisons were overcrowded, labor camps were organized, and false accusations abounded: "collaborator," "saboteur," "enemy of the working-class," "spy," "traitor," "subversive," "reactionary," "clerical," and so on were hurled about. If a worker criticized his master, it was considered an attack upon socialism and the whole Republic. Therefore, workers stayed quiet and were the most wretched class of people. I toiled among them for about twenty-five years, whether at liberty or in prison. In my last job I repaired elevators. The workers I knew had minds of their own, but during official meetings they said not a word. How did this dehumanized life shape our people? It deformed them. It affected families, workers, officials, prisoners and even children, because everyone was encouraged to become an informer! In his Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn describes the effects of this suffocating atheism. In 1955 the writer A.A. Fadeev committed suicide in the USSR. He explained his action in the following words: "The best writers died all too soon ... they did not even make it to age forty or fifty ... My life as a writer has lost its purpose and I am running away from an existence where man is turned over to emptiness and lies." 66 SLOVAKIA The Slovak writer Dominik Tatarka wrote similarly before his death: "All the authorities who were blaspheming God were humiliating us." Another writer who supported the atheistic regime for decades wrote in 1990: "Marxism has been dead for a long time .. .It could not stand up to the social or personal test of time. The blackboard of hope is empty." Still another wrote in 1992 after he was hospitalized: "And suddenly it has dawned! Without being aware of it, you realize that you have changed. Everything that you mocked yesterday you understand today. And you start to enjoy God's blessings in order not to walk alone with empty hands on such a long journey ... " These are no longer complaints. They reflect the search for and the discovery of life in God and His Church. What are our experiences and attitudes after the collapse of 40 years totalitarianism? We face a lot of shortcomings and diseases. But neither the country, not the nation is dead, although they have been severely weakened by many vices. Every society is beset by vices. The important thing is to recognize our vices, and to try to overcome them. The Church, which viewed man as the personification of God, played a major role in the struggle with atheistic regimes. It never ceased to stress the dignity and greatness of the human being, who cannot be altered into an obedient tool of tyrants, or into a mere worker or a powerless sheep in a large herd. Man is born free, made into the image and likeness of God, and is on his way to eternity with Him. The Church has to remind man of his greatness, it must educate and protect him. This is the Church's mission, whether it is practiced at Masses or at universities. This is the only road to true freedom and happiness. During the last forty years we had to fight against atheistic slavery for freedom. Again and again we preached that "Man does not live by bread alone." Without freedom even well-fed people committed suicide. Freedom is not found in material SLOVAKIA 67 goods, but in people. That is the message we preached. Our goal was always clear, and it was worth every sacrifice. We now face a new problem. Our people are divided on how to interpret and live in the new freedom. That is because two generations were educated in atheistic Marxism. To many intellectuals the idea that man was created in the image of God is a foreign concept. They still conceive of man as a product of his environment. To them it is very difficult to define what is a "conscience," what are "ethics," what is "responsibility" and what is man's goal in life? In such a confused state, they mistake freedom for wilfulness, and decide that everything is permitted. Thus, there are no limits of morality in art, science, in sexual practices, and so on. That is why it is so difficult to have a dialogue with them. That is why we often have to begin it with pragmatic and practical arguments. However, we cannot stop here. We have to convince everyone that it is wrong to attack or to kill someone; it is anti-social and destructive to spread drugs; it is wilful to use guns just as it is forbidden to poison wells. The freedom of the individual has limits; certain principles must be accepted. The state is bound by laws, just as the whole world community is bound by conventions based on moral principles. After a forty-year struggle for the lower limit of freedom, we are now struggling with the upper limit of human freedom. But at which point can man become happy in his freedom? We have learned that not everything that can be done by man is moral. Life teaches us that. I will conclude with a reference to science and technology. If people doubt the validity of Christian principles in matters of abortion or euthanasia, then surely they must face other situations where they are confronted by the matter of morals and ethics. Nowadays we have to ask ourselves if humankind is permitted to do all that it is capable of doing physically with nuclear weapons and biogenetics. We already have international agreements that prohibit the use of chemical 68 SLOVAKIA weapons, that prohibit nuclear testing, and that provide for the gradual reduction of the nuclear arsenal. It is at this point that science runs into religion, and Christianity in particular. A meeting of the two could prove useful in reconciling these opposite poles. In his unrestrained desire for power, man could devastate our planet. This must never happen! Here is where the dialogue between people of good will must begin. A common formulation and elaboration of questions would be a good starting point. Shortly before his death in 1973, the Nobel Prize-winner Werner Heisenberg wrote in Der Tei] und das Ganze (The Part and the Whole): While in our western world we often ask the question what is good and bad, what is worth fighting for and what must be refused, we still run into Christianity's measures of values, even when many people do not understand the images and allegories used by this religion. Should this magnetic force directing the compass of our life ever disappear, then I am afraid that many terrible things would occur, even more terrible than concentration camps and nuclear bombs ... After our experience of life without God for over forty years, we can appreciate these words of warning. Christianity has something to say about man, about nations and about the world. In 1945 Europe was liberated from the horrors of Nazism. But this liberation did not bring us liberty. It brought us a new slavery called Communism. Now we are liberated from this slavery as well. Some of the new programs that are offered to us keep repeating the same mistakes as before. Real freedom is not self-will. This is what threatens us all, whether in the economic sphere or in culture. Our experience tells us that real freedom can only take root in a ground that is based upon truth. And only the SLOVAKIA 69 truth as revealed by Gcxt will make us free. It is the task of those of us who are believers to spread this truth, and to build our lives upon it in our quest for eternal happiness. This is exactly what your famous University tries to teach, as your president Mr. Cemera wrote to me a few weeks ago: "The University aims to assist in the development of people, knowledge of self, rooted in faith, educated in mind, compassionate in heart, responsive to social and civic obligations, and able to respond to an everchanging world." Envy is a sin and we must avoid it. However, if there exists something outwardly similar, in reality it is admiration and the desire to achieve the same result. In this sense we admire you and your University and in our hearts we long for all that you have here. It is an excellent gift of Gcxt and an important means of education for new generations of scholars.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism Description An account of the resource Ján Chryzostom Cardinal Korec Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 56-69 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Korec, Ján Chryzostom, 1924-2015 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 SNK https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/6ab65a70c2b64609832cfafbb7ce7d5d.pdf f6a76f57ce452b3fd5966ad435268d54 PDF Text Text 26 SLOVAKIA The Roma Of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe One of the most intriguing ethnic groups in Slovakia are the Roma or Gypsies. Traditionally regarded as social outcasts and misfits, the Roma have been a unique part of the Slovak historical landscape. Though there have been Roma in Slovakia since the Middle Ages, it was not until World War II that significant efforts were made to deal with the Slovak Roma. From 1939 until 1945, the Roma, often lumped together with the country's Jews, were subjected to a number of restrictive policies. Within a decade after the end of World War II, attention again was drawn to the Roma in the reconstructed Czechoslovak Republic, but particularly in Slovakia, where most of the country's Gypsies lived. To Czechoslovakia's communist leaders, the low socioeconomic status of the Roma was a national embarassment and underscored at least one failed aspect of the communist experiment. Driven by statistics that illustrated the low social, economic, educational, and cultural status of the Roma, considerable efforts were made through the 1980s to transform this traditionally nomadic people into sedentary, assimilated Slovak and Czech citizens. Though some significant gains were made, Slovak and Czech leaders were unable to stifle the centuries-old prejudice that had haunted Gypsies throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Though large numbers of Slovak Roma fled to the �SLOVAKIA 27 Czech Republic after the 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, a large Roma population still resides in Slovakia. The Roma or Gypsies have lived in Slovakia since the Middle Ages. By the 14th century, considerable Gypsy settlements began to appear in the Slovak portions of Hungary, particularly around feudal castles such as Spis (Zips) Castle. Initially, Roma were welcomed by local officials. Slovak peasants regarded these "Egyptians" as religious exiles from the Middle East. However, over time, positive Slovak attitudes towards the Roma began to change, particularly during the 16th century, when the region was plagued by religious wars and the Turkish threat. In Slovak Royal Hungary, for example, some noblemen began forcibly to expel Gypsies or force them to settle on the outskirts of towns and villages. 1 During the 17th century, Gypsies and others fleeing the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648) entered Slovakia, which adopted new anti-Gypsy regulations to deal with the new Roma presence. Once the Austrian Habsburgs retook much of Hungary at the end of the 17th century, they implemented new regulations that strongly discouraged Roma settlement throughout the Austrian Empire. These harsh policies began to change under Maria Theresa (1740 - 1780). Her policies were designed to halt Gypsy immigration into her empire and force those already there to become sedentary. The Roma now became subject to all imperial taxes and obligations such as the draft. Gypsies were also required to give up their traditional dress and customs, and forbidden to marry other Gypsies. Roma children over five were taken from their parents and placed in the care of non-Gypsy Catholic parents. These policies were continued by Maria Theresa's son, Jopseph II (r. 1780 -1790), but fell into disarray after his death. 2 1 David M. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994 ), pp. 31-35. ' Ibid., pp. 36-40. �28 SLOVAKIA There are few glimpses of Slovak Rom during the first half of the 19th century, though there is more on them during the second half of this period. In 1856, a Gypsy school, one of the first in Europe, was opened in Nove Zamky. However, it was not until the general Hungarian census of 1880 and the Hungarian Gypsy census of 1893 that the first concrete evidence about the Roma presence in Slovakia surfaced. According to 1893 data, there were 36,231 Roma in Slovakia, most of them settled. Almost half of those employed worked in traditional Gypsy occupations, while an almost equal number were musicians. The census also indicated that a considerable number of Roma were involved in unsavory occupations. Almost 90% of Slovakia's Gypsies were Roman Catholics.3 Total Gypsy population figures declined dramatically in the new post-World War I Czechoslovak census of 1921. It showed only 7,967 Roma in Slovakia and almost none in the Czech lands. Experts reasoned that the low numbers could be caused by exclusive use of "mother tongue" in the census. More accurate 1926 data indicated 62,192 Roma in Slovakia, though gypsiologist Dr. Eva Davidova felt the real numbers were much higher. 4 Efforts were made in Slovakia during this period to open schools for Gypsies and to encourage the development of cultural organizations for them. Some attempts were also inade privately to improve Gypsy health. One of the most famous Gypsy schools in Slovakia at this time was in Uzhorod. Opened in 1925 by Pavel Fodor, it gained an international reputation for its instruction in Slovak. 5 What gains were made by Slovak Roma disappeared with the coming of World War II. After the German dismemberment 3 Ibid., pp. 40-42. • Ibid., pp. 42-44. ' Ibid., pp. 44-47. �SLOVAKIA 29 of Czechoslovak.a in 1939, two separate states emerged - the German- controlled Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the German-allied state of Slovakia. Whereas Gypsies in Bohemia and Moravia suffered from harsh Nazi policies throughout the Porajmos or Gypsy Holocaust, the Roma in Slovakia fared much better. 6 Part of the reason for Slovakia's comparatively mild treatment of its Gypsies centered around Germany's desire for Slovakia to be a model satellite state in southeastern Europe. Consequently, the government, the Catholic church, and business enjoyed semi-autonomy. Furthermore, Father Jozef Tiso, the head of state, opposed the complete nazification of his country. In time, Reich officials came to realize that the only way - they could achieve their goals was through political pressure and an intense propaganda campaign. Anything else would hamper Slovakia's contribution to the German war effort. Almost all of Slovakia's Gypsies survived the war because of this. This did not mean, however, that the Slovak government left its Roma population alone. Within months after the creation of Slovakia in the spring of 1939, the Tiso government ordered nomadic Gypsies to return to their legal residences, and made it illegal for them to do any horse trading. On September 25, 1939, Jews were deprived of their Slovak citizenship, while Gypsies who were born in Slovakia and wanted Slovak citizenship had to prove that they lived an orderly way of life; had a steady place of residence and employment; and were honorable citizens as reflected in their education, their moral and political trustworthiness, and their activity in their community, could they be included in the Slovak national community. If they did not fulfill the aforementioned conditions, or if they fulfilled them only ' Ibid. , pp. 47-51. �30 SLOVAKIA partially-if they worked only occasionally, if they spoke the Gypsy language among themselves, if their moral and political trustworthiness was doubtful, etc.--they could not be considered members of the Slovak national community. In other words, wandering Gypsies did not qualify for citizenship. 1 Four months later, Ferdinand Durcansky, Slovakia's Interior Minister, ordered that Gypsies and Jews were to work in special labor units as alternatives to military service, which was later set "at two terms of two months twice annually." Durcansky defined a Gypsy in Law No. 130/1940 of June 18, 1940, as someone who had two Roma parents and lived as a nomad, or a sedentary person who avoided work. Other regulations issued during this period made it illegal for Gypsies to ride public transportation, eat in cafes, or enter public parks. As Germany intensified pressure on the Slovaks to increase their contribution to the war effort, the Tiso government created seasonal labor camps in 1941 where Gypsies often made up over half of the workers. Conditions in the labor units were bad. Inmates suffered increasingly from inadequate clothing and shoes, cold, infestation with lice and bedbugs, hunger, and disease, especially trachoma and typhus. 8 7 Jorg K. Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic, 1939-1945," in Victor S. Mamatey and Radomfr Luza, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic J9 J 8- J 948 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 278-279, 284-286; Jiff Upa, "The Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia under Nazi Domination," in Michael Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims· Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 209-210; Ctibor Necas. Nad osudem ceskych a sI ovenskych Cikam1 v letech I 939- I 945 (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne, 1981 ), p. 70. • Upa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210; Gypsy and Jewish service regulations were included in legislation of January 18, 1940, and February 29, 1940. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 82-129, devotes a great deal of time to the little �SLOVAKIA 31 Many prisoners practiced self-mutilation to gain their freedom. In 1943, one member of the Slovak Diet, Hut'ka, criticized the conditions of the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou. He felt the labor camps had been opened "to re-educate the asocial elements, not...to torture people and bring them into an even worse moral degradation." 9 On April 20, 1941, nomadic Gypsies were given eight days to return home. Once there, they were watched by the police and only allowed to leave with special permission. The Roma were also given two weeks to dispose of their horses and wagons . Gypsy houses located near public thoroughfares had to be torn down and reconstructed at a new site determined by officials. A Gypsy representative was to work with the local mayor to ensure that local ordinances were followed. Roma were also not allowed to own dogs. These regulations evidently did not curb all Gypsy nomadism, and officials explained when they opened a new labor camp in Krupina in the summer of 1941, that nomadic Roma were to be put in such camps to force them to live a sedentary life and to learn to do productive labor. These efforts still did not stop Gypsy nomadism, and on June 21, 1943, the government ordered that all Gypsy housing be removed from alongside busy roads. 10 Each Slovak community dealt with its Roma in a different manner. The 500 Gypsies in the village of Smizany were well integrated and none were sent to labor camps. When Hlinka Guards, the Slovak paramilitary group that modeled itself on the Italian "Black Shirts" and the German SA, arrived to take Gypknown history of the Gypsy Labor Units (pracovni utvary) from 1941-1944. He provides detailed Gypsy inmate statistics for the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou , Dubnica nad Vlihom, llava, and Revuca; Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon, ~ Destiny of Europe's Gypsies (New York: Basic Books, I972), p. 136. • Lfpa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210. 10 Ibid., p. 211; Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 74-75, 130. �32 SLOVAKIA sies from the village of Letanovce, the mayor only agreed to send two Roma who had reputations as drunks. Both Gypsies returned to Letanovce at the end of the war. 11 This atmosphere changed drastically during the summer of 1944. In June, Slovak Roma were accused of spreading typhoid throughout the country, and were forbidden to ride trains unless they had a special travel permit backed by a physician's certificate that showed them free of typhoid. Gypsies could only use the rail passes for outbound trips and had to get another one if they wanted to return home. The following month, the Interior Ministry informed its regional offices that there were still Roma in some of the country's towns and villages. It ordered local officials to move all Gypsies away from roadsides, and said that if any refused to comply, they would be executed. The decree added that more forced labor camps were being prepared for Slovak Roma. 12 The climate for the Gypsies got considerably worse with the German occupation of Slovakia on September 29, 1944. Spurred by the Slovak National Insurrection of August 29-0ctober 27, 1944, the Germans clamped down harshly on the Slovaks, including the Roma, because they had actively supported the uprising. One Gypsy leader, Tomas Farkas, headed a mixed guerilla band of Roma and Slovaks during the uprising. Farkas' detachment momentarily held up German forces near Tisovec as they moved towards Banska Bystrica, the military center of the rebellion. After Banska Bystrica fell, authorities arrested Farkas' son, and imprisoned him. When Slovak partisans retreated in the 11 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 136; Emflia Horvlithova, Cii:ani na SJovensku (Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1964), p. 171. Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 137; Horvathova, Ciian.i na SJoyensku, p. 171; the train regulations were issued on June 13, 1944, while others appeared on June 19-21, 1944. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 130-132. 12 �SLOVAKIA 33 face of the German advance in the fall of 1944, the Gypsies, using hidden weapons, stayed behind to protect their families. After the rebellion's collapse, a German intelligence officer tricked the Roma into revealing details about their weapons cache. Hlinka Guards executed the Gypsy partisans as their families watched in horror. The Germans then killed all Roma women and children and buried their bodies in a lime pit. 13 Similar Gypsy massacres took place in other parts of Slovakia as retribution for their role in the Slovak National Insurrection. On November 14, 1944, 65 Roma were burned to death in two huts in Cierny Balog, while other Gypsies were forced to dig a large grave for their fallen comrades. Hlinka - Guards murdered the entire community of 111 Gypsies in Ilija eight days later, and on November 23 , butchered as many Roma as they could find in Slatina. Only three Gypsies escaped the massacre. A similar tragedy took place at Neresnice, where only two families survived. 14 Atrocities also took place at the labor camp at Dubnica nad Vahom. On September 29, 1944, German authorities in Trencin just south of Dubnica nad Vahom ordered that all male Roma from this region be sent to the labor camp at Dubnica. The Gypsy transfers were halted once the camp became full two weeks later. On November 2, 1944, Dubnica na Vahom was transformed into a concentration center for all Roma. Authorites freed all of the camp's non-Gypsy inmates to make room for the Roma. After a typhus epidemic ravaged a Gypsy camp at Ustie 1 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, pp. 137- 138; Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic," pp. 293-295 ; Anna Josko, "The Slovak Resistance Movement," in Mamatey and Luza, Histocy of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp . 375-380, 382-383. 14 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gyspies. pp. 137-138; authorities later found a mass grave at Kremnica, which was occupied by the Germans from November 5, 1944, to January 12, 1945. It contaimed 3,723 bodies, some of them Gypsies. Netas, Nad osudem, pp. 138-141. ' �34 SLOVAKIA nad Oravou in mid-December, authorites shipped its inmates to Dubnica nad Vahom. Before the arrival of the new Roma inmates, there were 729 Roma at Dubnica nad V ahom, 250 of them children. The only recorded atrocity at the camp took place on January 17, 1945, when 16 sick Gypsy prisoners were taken from the camp and told they were being shipped to the hopsital at Trencfn. Instead, they were driven in military trucks to a wooded area, forced into a pit, and executed. The Dubnica nad V ahom camp was closed on the eve of its capture by Soviet forces on April 8, 1945. Despite these tragedies, the Gypsy survival rate in Slovakia was quite high, and estimates are that only a few hundred of Slovakia's 100,000 Rom died in the Porajmos. 15 The liberation of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1945 found the country traumatized by the human and economic devastation of the war. A massive campaign of expulsions aimed primarily at Germans and Magyars saw I .5 million people move into the former Sudetenland from other parts of Czechoslovakia, including some Gypsies. As the Germans were expelled from Cze- __ choslovakia, many Slovak Gypsies were sent to camps in northern Bohemia and Moravia where they worked as unskilled laborers. Not all Slovak Gypsies remained in the Czech lands, 15 Lfpa, "Fate of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 211 -213; Necas, Nad llS..Ll.d.e.m, pp. 111-112, I 34- 137 ; Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 138; Horvathova, Cii:ani na S)ovensku, p. 173 n34; David J. Kostelancik, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia: Political and Ideological Considerations in the Development of Policy," Studies in Comparative Communism, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter 1984), p. 309; the Gypsies were not Slovakia's only victims after the Slovak National Insurrection. Estimates are that from August 1944 until April 1945, "7,500 soldiers and 2,500 partisans were killed and 3,723 civilians ... were murdered and buried in mass graves; 900 were burned in lime kilns; 30,000 people were de)Xlrted to German concentration camps; 60 communities were completely destroyed by fires and 142 were partially wiped out." Josko, "Slovak Resistance Movement," p. 383. �SLOVAKIA 35 and some returned to Slovakia where they began to buy new homes. In addition, about 6,000 Olach [Olassti] Gypsies continued to live as nomads. Officials hoped the returning Slovak Roma would help solve the regions's severe labor shortage and serve as role models for other Roma. After the strong communist showing in the May 26, 1946, elections, the new Minister of the Interior, the Czech Vaclav Nosek, and others, called for restrictive policies against the Roma, whom Nosek and his supporters called questionable citizens of Czechoslovakia. 16 Efforts by Evzan Erban, the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, to continue to send Slovak Gypsies to camps in the Czech lands were stopped by the non-communist Minister of Justice, Prokop Drtina in 1947. Nosek convinced Drtina to do a census of the country's Roma population to determine how many lived as nomads. According to the census, there were 84,438 Roma in Slovakia, and 16,752 in the Czech lands. The successful communist coup in early 1948 brought to power a party that a year earlier had pledged that it would do everything possible to integrate the Gypsies into the fabric of Czechoslovakian society, and raise their social, economic, and cultural status. 17 In 1949, the government of Klement Gottwald created a special commission to investigate the "Gypsy question." The 16 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 309-310; Willy Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms: The Case of Czechoslovakia," in Farnham Rehfisch, ed., Gypsies Tinkers and Other Travellers (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 213; Tom~ Grulich and Tom~ Hai~man, "lnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske obyvatelstvo v Ceskoslovensku v letech 1945-1958," C:esky Lid, Vol. 73 , No. 2 ( 1986), p. 73. 17 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 310-3 I I ; Vladimir Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku Demo2rafje, Vol. Xl , No. 3 (1969), p. 194; Zdenek Suda, The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 32-36; Radomfr Luui, "Czechoslovakia between Democracy and Communism," in Mamatey and Luui, History of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp. 412-415. �36 SLOVAKIA new commission sponsored a detailed study of Czechoslovakia's Gypsies that appeared in 1950 as Zarazovani osob cikanskeho puvodu do trvaleho pracovniho procesu (Position of Individuals of Gypsy Origin in the Work Process). Two years later, this study was partly integrated into another report by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Uprava pomeru osob cikanskeho puvodu (Report About the Life of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia). This latter study blamed earlier governments and societies for the Roma's low social and economic status, and promised that the new People's Democratic State would resolve the "Gypsy question" if the Roma willingly and quickly become accustomed to conscientious work, they adopt trades, they take part in socialist competition, they become shock-workers, members and functionaries of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and the Revolutionary Trade-Union Movement. 18 However, over the next eight years, Czechoslovak leaders did little to help the Gypsies improve their quality of life. Numerous regional and local decrees touched on health care and housing needs, and emphasized changing the behavior of the Roma. 19 Communist Party propaganda, however, underscored improved Gypsy school attendance, literacy, and new attitudes towards work and integration. By the mid-1950s, this congratulatory tone changed as the reality of the Gypsy's plight and demographic growth became more apparent to the country's leadership. In 1956, authorities began to talk about a national Gypsy crisis, which was linked to their continued nomadism. 18 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 0-311; Grulich and Hai~man, "Institucionalnf zajem o cikanske," p. 74. " Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 311, 320; Josef Kalvoda, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," in David M. Crowe and John Kolsti, eds., ~ Gypsies of Eastern Europe (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991), p. 93. �SLOVAKIA 37 According to an article in Zemedelske Novjny (Agricultural Newspaper) in 1957, only 40% of the country's Roma were working in industry and agriculture. The Slovak journal Smena (Direction) added that the nomadic Roma lifestyle heightened prejudice towards them, which the journal compared to "discrimination against the Negro in the United States.":n These problems and attitudes, coupled with the size of the Roma population nationwide, which Radio Bratislava estimated in 1958 to be 150,000, prompted the Communist Party to approve a resolution on April 8, 1958, that demanded a new campaign to resolve the "Gypsy question." Similar to new policies throughout the Soviet bloc at that time, the Party called for a mass campaign addressed to both the Gypsies and white -- bigots, for lifting the Gypsies' extraterritorial immunities and punishment of nomadism. 21 Czechoslovakia's Gypsies were now officially divided into three categories - nomads, semi-nomads, and completely sedentary - in anticipation of Law No. 74, of October 17, 1958, "Act on Permanent Settlement of Nomadic People." The new law instructed local officials to work with nomads, whom it defined as an individual who 0 Otto Ulc, "Communist National Minority Policy: The Case of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Soviet Studies, Vol. XX, No. 4 (April 1969), pp. 422-424 ; "Minorites in Eastern Europe," Eastern Europe. Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1959), pp . 13-14. 21 "M inorities in Eastern Europe," p. 14; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 311, improperly places the date for the passage of Law No. 74 as November 17, 1958; Grulich and Hai§man, "Jnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske," pp. 77-78; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 214-215. Guy estimates the number of registered nomads at 20,000-27,000; Ulc, "Gyps ies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-426, says officials estimated that the semi-nomadic Rom were the largest group among the Gypsies. ' �38 SLOVAKIA in groups or individually, wanders from place to place, shuns honest work or obtains his livelihood by iniquitious means even though he may be registered in some community as its permanent resident.-n. According to the new law, if anyone continued to live in this manner, he or she could be imprisoned for six months to three years. Two other parts of Law No. 74 gave the Minister of the Interior the right 11 to issue executive orders to this effect, including registration of the nomads. 11 Though the new regulations never mentioned the Roma, they were its only target, particularly the country's 6,000 nomadic Olach Gypsies. Official estimates indicated that there were from 11,000 to 40,000 nomadic Roma in Czechoslovakia at this time. 23 In an effort to avoid charges of racism, officials also upgraded the Gypsies' official status to a "socio-ethnic group." Unfortunately, Czechoslovak authorities did not anticipate the complex economic and social problems that would accompany their efforts to force the complete integration of the nation's Gypsies. Many nomadic Roma found ways to avoid punishment for thsir lifestyle, while local efforts to force settlement through the assignment of precious housing to Gypsies created growing resentment against a group that some came to see as privileged. Many Slovaks and Czechs felt the Roma were a privileged group that had special rights without obligations. The public complained that the Gypsies were measured by different standards and took advantage of their unique position. More importantly, the government's new efforts did little to upgrade the low socio-economic status of the Roma, and perhaps made it worse for the newly settled Gypsies, who, located principally in Slova- 22 23 UII!, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-425. Ibid., pp. 425-426. �SLOVAKIA 39 kia, still lived in slums with inadequate plumbing and sanitation facilites. 24 Consequently, in 1965, the Communist Party asked local officials to do a more thorough investigation of the plight of the Roma and develop a long range plan for Gypsy assimilation. The result was Ordinance No. 502 of June 1965, which developed a Gypsy reform progam that centered around fullemployment possibilities for Gypsies able to work full time. These efforts were considered essential to upgrading the standard of living for Roma, and tied to plans to destroy substandard Gypsy settlements and the movement of Roma from Slovakia to other parts of the country. The Academy of Sciences was asked to do a study of Roma life, while the state-controlled media was ord.tred to help counter nationwide prejudice against the Roma. A new government body, the National Council for Questions of the Gypsy Population (NCQGP), which had no Gypsy members, was to serve as the program's watchdog. The NCQGP produced three position papers, but was abolished in 1968. 25 At the center of this new program was the destruction of substandard Gypsy housing and settlements, primarily in Slovakia, and the forced resettlement and employment of their Rom inhabitants. Officials estimated that 67.3% of Slovakia's 153,000 Gypsies lived in extremely substandard housing. The government pin-pointed 1,266 Roma settlements in Slovakia for destruction, and the transfer of 64,096 Gypsies. Officials planned to move the effected Slovak Gypsies to the Czech lands after their settlements were razed. Local governments, aided by national ,. Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 426; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 98-99. 25 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 312-313; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia." pp. 430-431. Of the 56,000 Rom in eastern Slovakia, only 2.2% had an adequate water supply; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 2 I 922 . �40 SLOVAKIA subsidies, would then be responsible for the Gypsies' housing and employment. The resettlement program was voluntary. Once a Gypsy family was convinced of the wisdom of moving, the government would give the family a special payment, combined with a 25-30% subsidy and low cost government loan, which would be used to purchase a new home in the Czech lands. However, inadequate funding, coupled with growing resentment towards the new Roma presence in the Czech lands, and the unwillingness of some Gypsies to remain there, undercut the success of the program. Between 1965-1968, the government was only able to eliminate a third of the Roma settlements targeted for destruction. 26 As authorities struggled with the mixed results of this new transfer and employment program, Czechoslovakia was turned inside out by the events of the Prague Spring in 1968.Z7 On the eve of the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakia had an official Gypsy population of 223,993, with 164,526 in Slovakia, and 59,467 in the Czech lands. In 1968, the Roma in Slovakia formed their first official organization, the Union of Gypsy-Romanies (UGR or Zvaz Cikanov-Romov; Romani, Romano Jekhetaniben), followed by a similar Czech organization in 1969. Later that year, both groups joined together, but maintained separate Slovak and Czech branches. The UGR received funds from the National Front and had branches throughout Czechoslovakia. Its goals were to improve the socio-economic status of the Roma and enhance the Gypsies' awareness of their own culture and 2 • Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 432-433 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 312-314; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 219-220; Hiibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," p. 115 n I 9. 27 Otto Ulc, "Czechoslovakia," in Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, ed., Communism io Eastern Europe, Second Edition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), pp. 121-123; William Shawcross, ~ (New York : Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1990), pp. 114-119. �SLOVAKIA 41 traditions. The UGR also wanted to acquire nationality status for the Roma, which triggered an engaging debate between Gypsy and non-Gypsy intellectuals about the entire "Gypsy question." Central to the debate was Jaroslav Sus' 1963 study, Cikanska otazka v CSSR (The Gypsy Question in the CSSR), which described the Rom way of life as [an] undesirable combination of 'nomadism, tribalism ...and blood f euds,' and the Romani language as ... unworthy of preservation. Consequently, Sus felt that "unconditional assimilation [was] ... the only solution for the question." 28 Roma scholar Elena Htibschmannova, long an advcoate of --Gypsy nationality status, led the attack on Sus' ideas. Htibschmannova shifted responsibility for some aspects of the "Gypsy Question" to the shoulders of the government, as did the August 1969 Programme of the Founding Congress of the Czech Gypsy-Rom Association [Union], which felt that "fears of the results of granting rights to the Gypsies as a nationality" lay at the heart of the question. As this debate raged, plans were made to start a Roma journal, and the UGR's membership rolls swelled to 20,000 between 1968 - 1971. Several hundred Gypsy musical and sports groups were formed, and the media began to refer to the country's Roma as "citizens of Gypsy origin." Unfortunately, after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, the new government of Gustav Husak introduced an era of "normalization" that gradually chipped away at many of the gains achieved by the Roma during the Prague Spring. In April I 973, the government expelled the UGR from the National Front, and outlawed other Gypsy organizations because "they had failed to fulfill their integrative function." 29 21 " Crowe, Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, pp. 58-59. Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku, ~ p. 194; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of �42 SLOVAKIA What followed was a renewed effort to force Gypsy integration and assimilation, coupled with a new sterialization scheme to reduce Gypsy births.~ One of the darker sides of the new Roma assimilation campaign were efforts to promote the sterilization of Gypsy women. The seed for this idea was planted in a February 29, 1972, Ministry of Health "Decree on Sterilization." Though "designed to safeguard against arbitrary or illinformed sterilization of all Czechoslovak citizens," the decree was used to encourage the sterilization of Romany women in order to reduce the high unhealthy' Romany population and, as a result, a disproportionately high number of Romany women were sterilized, often in violation of the existing safeguards and of their rights to non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or sex. 3 ' Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 7-318 ; Eva Davidova, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia, " Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society. Third Series, Vol. I, Nos. 12 (Jan uary-April), pp. 53-54; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 220-22 I , 223, n44; Grattan Puxon, "Gypsies: Blacks of East Europe," The Nation. April 17, I 976, pp. 461-462; Hlibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," pp . 105, I 12 nl6, I 13- 114, I 16 n23, 117-118 ; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 101-103 ; Otto Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia: A Case of Unfinished Integration," Eastern European Politics and Societies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1988), pp. 310-312. 30 Other estimates put the 1970 Roma population at over 300,000. Vladimir Srb, "Demograficky profil ~eskoslovenskych romu," Cesky Lid, Vol. 72 ( 1985), p. 139; Vladimir Srb, "K integraci cikanskeho obyvatelstva v CSSR," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XXI, No. 4 (1979), p. 323; V. Srb and J. Job, "Nektere demograficke, ekonomicke a kultumi charakteristiky romskehe obyvatelstva v CSSR 1970," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (1974), p. 173 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 106; Paul S. Shoup, The East European and Soviet Data Handbook (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), pp. 42, 48; Chris Cook and John Stevenson, The Loni:man Handbook of Modern European History )763-)985 (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 216,218. 31 Rachael Tritt, Jeri Laber, and Lois Whitman, Strui:i:Jini: for Ethnic Identity · Czechoslovakia's Endani:eced Gypsies (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1992), �SLOVAKIA 43 According to a Slovak document released in 1979 by Charter 77, a Czechoslovak dissident group, the Slovak government had already begun a program that used economic incentives to get Gypsy women to be sterilized because of earlier, unsuccessful government efforts "to control the high unhealthy Romany population through family planning and contraception." Local health workers offered some prospective sterilization candidates as much as 5,000 Crowns to undergo the procedure. As pressure intensified to get more Gypsy women to agree to sterilization, some health workers often made unfulfilled offers of as high as 30,000 Crowns. Charter 77 protested this practice in 1979, and claimed that it violated Article No. 259 of the state penal code, which dealt with genocide. But this was not the only - . criticism in Charter 77's 1979 document. On a broader scale, Charter 77 decried government practices designed to stop Gypsy nomadism and force assimilation, and the official denial of Roma ethnic status. According to Charter 77, the collective impact of these programs set into play "a process of social disintegration which has no comparison in the history of the Gypsies. This fact is substantiated by an ever increasing number of Gypsies who are sentenced to loss of freedom." 32 While it difficult to gauge the impact of the 1979 Charter 77 report on the plight of the Roma, population data from the 1980 census spurred further government action. The 1980 census showed a Roma population of 288,440, an increase of 31.3% over 1970 figures. Czechoslovakia's total population only grew by 6%. during the same period. The greatest increase in Gypsy growth rates was in the Czech republic, where the Roma population increased 47% between 1970 - 1980, versus a 25.5% rise in Slovakia. Even these figures, though, are misleading, since pp. 19, 139-144. 2 ' Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 20, 24, 26-27; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 314-315. �44 SLOVAKIA arbitrary counting methods showed a discrepancy between national census figures, and those recorded in local "Gypsy Registers," which indicated that there were 306,246 Roma in Czechoslovakia in 1980. The absolute rise in Gypsy population numbers was less troubling to the government than the national and Rom childbirth rate figures. The overall Czechoslovak childbirth rate was on the decline, and by 1982 was "below the level of biological reproduction." The average Czechoslovak woman bore 2.4 children in the 1970s compared to 6.4 children for a Gypsy woman. 33 These increases were remarkable, particularly in light of continued government efforts to destroy Slovak Gypsy slums and the forced movement of Slovak Roma to Czech portions of the country. Other Gypsies also moved to the Czech lands because of better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. Between 1972-1980, officials destroyed 4,000 Roma dwellings in Slovakia, and moved 4,850 Gypsies elsewhere. Though Gypsy housing standards improved appreciably between during this period, there were still 5.6 persons in thct average Roma apartment or house versus a national average of 3.1 persons per dwelling. By 1980, a little more than 70% of the country's Gypsy population lived in apartments, while 10% still lived in primitive settlements that were to be destroyed by 1990. The number in extremely unfit housing dropped from 80.7% in 1970 to 49% between 1970 and 1980. Another part of the Roma assimilation campaign centered around attempts to force more Gypsy children into the public schools. In 1971, only 10% of the eligible Roma children in Czechoslovakia attended kindergarten, a figure that rose to 33 Srb, "Demograficky profil foskoslovenskych Romu," pp. 139-140. There were 88,507 Gypsies in the Czech Republic in 1980, and 199,853 in Slovakia; Ul~, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 315-316; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 108-109. �SLOVAKIA 45 58.5% in 1980. During the same period, the number .of Gypsy children that finished public school rose from 16.6% to 25.6%, while the number enrolled in colleges and universities increased from 39 to 191. Nationwide, literacy rates rose to 90% among Roma adults. On the other hand, Gypsy school dropout rates in Slovakia increased substantially as Roma pupils moved from grade to grade. In 1983-1984, 72.2% of the Slovak students who failed to go into the second grade were Gypsies, and almost a third of the Roma who went to second grade barely had minimal literacy skills, a figure that jumped to 50% for Gypsy 4th graders. Nationwide, many Gypsies entered the school system with a knowledge of only a few hundred Slovak or Czech words, and were often assigned to special instititions (zvlastnf skoly) designed for the mentally retarded. Only a third of the country's Gypsy children finished 8th grade in 19831984, and only 4% went on to university or college. 34 Gypsy employment figures for this period were also a mixture of success and failure. Though 1981 data showed an 87.7% employment rate for male Gypsy workers that was close to the national average of 91 .9% for all adult males, the 54.95% employment rate for Roma female workers was well below the national average of 87.7% for all women. In addition, over three quarters of all Gypsies employed held low paying, non-skilled jobs. The overall impact of the employment, educational, and housing data found Czechoslovakia's Roma on a socio-economic plateau that proved difficult to transcend. According to Irnrich Farkas, the official responsible for Gypsy matters in Slovakia, the government felt that it would be harder to improve the quality " Kostelanc ik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 313-3 I 5. In I 980, 59% of the Gypsies in Slovakia lived in the lowest classification for housing, Class IV. Kindergarten attendance rates in eastern Slovakia, where 53% of Slovakia's Rom lived in 1980, rose from 10% to 66% between 1970-1980; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 319-320. �46 SLOVAKIA of Gypsy life "because increasingly left for solution are those socially and culturally backward families." 35 The government tried to put the best light on its assimilation efforts, and publicized some Gypsy success stories. Bratislava Pravda reported that 435 Roma had been elected to predominantly low level positions as deputies of Peoples Committees, and that one Gypsy, Emil Rigo, had briefly been a member of the Politburo in 1968. Officials also used successful Gypsies to counter efforts to acquire nationality status for the Roma. In 1986, Rude Pravo responded to the World Romany Congress' appeal for nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Gypsies partially with a statement by Mirosalv 2.ajda, an assimilated Roma and Party member who told the newspaper that he was quite content with his life. 36 The lack of nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Roma, who were officially referred to as citizens "of Gypsy origin," robbed them of the special rights and financial support afforded officially recognized minorities. It also placed them into a limbo world where they were forced to identify with other ethnic groups. Their plight was compounded by the growing body of prejudice that accompanied their growing numbers and official attention. 37 To many Slovaks and Czechs, Gypsies were the tmavi kluci (dark boys), a term that automatically identified one as a Roma. According to Otto Ulc, post-1968 Czechsolvakia became a society that was "less tolerant, more impatient, and egotistic." Increasingly, he observed, the public saw Gypsies as "beneficiaries of a host of privileges on their path to the less- " Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 3I3-315; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322-323 . 36 Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322 n36, 326. 37 Ibid., pp. 323-326. Not all Gypsies suffered from lack of nationality status on the same scale, and there were a number of instances, particularly in Slovakia, where local officials encouraged Rom ethnicity. �SLOVAKIA 47 than-cherished goal of integration." Furthermore, Ulc argued, Slovaks and Czechs became "thoroughly uninhibited about making racial slurs and expressing racist prejudice of the oldfashioned vintage." They saw the Roma as "dirty, lazy, dishonest, primitive, parasitic, and inferior." 38 Government efforts to counter this prejudice met with mixed results, since the press used stories that gave explicit details about instances of unfair treatment of Gypsies with others that detailed Roma crime. Bratislava Pravda, for example, claimed in 1983 that the Gypsies, who made up 4 % of Slovakia's population, accounted for 24 percent of the charges of parasitism, 50 __ percent of robberies, 60 percent of petty thefts, 75 percent of charges for endangering the morals of youth, and 20 percent of all crimes committed.'39 The overall impact of such reports was to create a very unwelcome, suspicious climate for Czechoslovakia's growing Roma population that worsened as the country and its leadership drifted towards the collapse of the system that had dominated the country since 1948.'° As the Velvet Revolution swept Czechoslovakia in 1989, a plethora of political parties and other organizations surfaced. A number of Gypsy parties emerged during this period, including the Party of the Integration of the Romany People in Slovakia and the Party of the Democratic Romany Union. The most important was the Romany Civic Inititative (ROI or Romska obcanska iniciativa), which had close links to Civic Forum (Obcanske Forum), the umbrella political organization for a number of the country's dissident factions . ROI soon had a 31 Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 327-328. " Kalvoda, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. I06. •• lhid., p. 106. �48 SLOVAKIA membership of over 70,000, and held its first national meeting in Prague in the spring of 1990. One of its first decisions was to vote to erect a monument in Bratislava to the Rom victims of the Holocaust. The ROI congress elected Emil Scuka, a lawyer and playwright, to head the organization.41 Yet the very democracy that gave Slovak and Czech Gypsies the opportunity to form their own political and other organizations also created a new atmosphere for open, virulent expressions of prejudice towards them. Of particular concern to many non-Gypsies was the dramatic growth of the Roma population. In 1988, the government estimated that there were 391 ,000 Rom in Czechoslovakia, a 35.5% increase over 1980 figures. Other sources estimated there were as many as 700,000-800,000 Roma in Czechoslovakia, with 470,000 a more reasonable figure. Some perceived these figures to be a new threat, and the newspaper Express warned in an article on July 2, 1990, "that the Gypsy fertility may mean a ' tragedy', that within a century the country may well have to be renamed the Romska republika. 42 These fears combined with the deep-rooted, traditional prejudices towards the Roma, and prompted some people to depict the-Gypsies as new symbols of everything gone awry in Czechoslo- " Otto Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Ethnic Groups. Vol. 9, No. 2 ( 1991 ), pp. 11 2- 11 3; in 1986, Scuka produced the "musical drama Amaro Drom (Our Road)...only the second play in Romanes ever to be staged in Czechoslovakia." Grattan Puxon, Roma· Europe's Gypsies (London: Minority Rights Group, 1987), p. 11 . " Radio Free Europe/Rad io Liberty, "Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 39 (22 September 1989), pp. 33, 36-37 ; Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 113-114; Czechoslovakia's population was 15,658,079, in Ju ly 1989, and 15,683,234, a year later, an increase of 25,155. Suda, "Czechoslovakia," p. 319, and Carol Skalnik Leff, "Czechoslovakia," in Richard F. Staar and Margit N. Grigory, eds., Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1221 (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1991), p. 269. �SLOVAKIA 49 vakia. At the forefront of this new assualt on the Rom were renewed charges of criminality. Dramatic increases in crime had plagued the country since the early 1980s, particularly in Bratislava and Prague. In a society accustomed to traditionally low crime rates, crime reached epidemic proportions by 1990. Slovakia experienced a 17.7% rise in crime between 1988-1989, while the Czech Republic reported a 52% increase during the same pericxi. Much of this increase was attributed to Gypsies, who as early as 1987 had been blamed by television reports for 38% of Bratislava's crimes, and 40% of those committed in eastern Slovakia. Gypsies 18 years old and younger were accused of being part of over 44% of all crimes nationwide in 1988. Clearer heads proved that many of these statistics were exaggerated, and that the Roma were responsible for no more than 7.5-11 % of the crime in the country. Though the more conservative estimates were still out of proportion to the number of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia, they were directly tied to post1989 Gypsy unemployment figures that reached as high as 50% in certain areas. 43 Whatever the true numbers, Czechoslovakia's Roma paid a dear price for the accusations against them. Skinhead attacks, sometimes quietly encouraged by onlookers, mounted dangerously against Gypsies and the 35,000 Vietnamese workers in Czechoslovakia throughout 1990. On April 26, Prime Minister Petr Pithart of the Czech Republic called for "peaceful coexis0 Jan Orbman, "Crime Rate Among the Young," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 12, No. 32 (14 August 1987), p. 18; Martina Nevesky, "The Gypsy Problem," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 31 (4 August 1989), p. 40; Jan Orbman, "Minorities Not a Major Issue Yet," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. 2, No. 50 (December 13, 1991 ), p. 11 ; Wheaton and Kavan, The Yel vet Revo)utjon, p. 147; Jiti Pehe, "Crime Rises in Czechoslovakia," R.EElRL Research Report, Vol. 1, No. 14 (3 April 1992), p. 58; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 112, claims the Rom were responsible for 15.6% of all crimes in the Czech Republic. �50 SLOVAKIA tence with our fellow citizens of Gypsy origin," while federal Deputy Prime Minister Jan Carnogursky demanded "tougher action against those skinheads who had attacked the Gypsies." On May 3, 1990, ROI urged national leaders and organizations to speak out against racist incidents against Roma and foreigners. Four days later, Charter 77 and the Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee condemned such attacks on the Vietnamese and Gypsies, and said they constitute attacks on all of us. They are attacks on the most basic principles of ethics and humanism, attacks on the state based on Jaw that is being bom , attacks contradicting the ideals of our democratic revolution. The fact that we silently tolerate such attacks makes us accomplices. We call on all citizens to stop being indifferent to the manifestations of violence and intolerance. We appeal to our executive bodies to put a final stop to these attacks. Let us make the people who for years have been working in our country feel that they live in a society in which it is JX)SSible to have their basic human rights protected.44 Vaclav Havel detailed the wrongs done Gypsies in public statements on May 2 and in an address on July 27, 1990, to the First World Romany Festival in Brno. Though admirable, particularly when coupled with the new rights acquired by the Roma over the next year, they did not prevent the racially motivated deaths of 26 Gypsies before the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993.45 Both the federal and individual Czechoslovak republics granted the Roma full minority status, rights, and protections in " Jiri Pehe, "Racial Violence Increasing," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. I, No. 20 (May I 8, 1990), pp. 15, 18; David Binder, "European Gypsies Issue Call for Human Rights at Meeting," The New York Times, May 5, 1993, p. 6. 5 • Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 13-14. �SLOVAKIA 51 1990-1991. Over thirty Gypsy cultural organizations arose during this period, anchored by the Union of Romany Writers and numerous newspapers and magazines. Programs in Romany Studies were opened at Charles University in Prague and at the Pedagogical Faculty in Nitra. Unfortunately, these developments were overshadowed by a new set of problems that accompanied the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993. Before the formal separation, Slovakia had an estimated Gypsy population of 400,000, and the Czech lands, 150,000. However, only 81,000 Slovak Gypsies officially identified themselves as Roma in the 1991 census. In anticipation of the breakup, a number of Slovak Rom began to move to the Czech lands because they felt • the political and social atmosphere would be more tolerant, and economic conditions better. The sudden increase in "unemployed Romanies, often unassimilated families from Romany villages in eastern Slovakia," stunned many Czechs, who soon claimed that 90% of the republic's new crime was committed by Slovak Roma. Led by individual community actions throughout the Czech Republic, the new state's Prosecutor-General "proposed to the Czech parliament a draft Law on Extraordinary Measures as a means of dealing with unrest caused by undisciplined groups of migrants." Though condemned by human rights groups and the Romany Democratic Congress, which represented 19 Gypsy groups in the Czech Republic, the law had surprising support from conservatives and local officials. The controversial legislation never passed, while the debate that surrounded it brought to the surface traditionally strong prejudice towards the Roma. 46 These feelings were also expressed in several public opinion surveys conducted before and after the January 1, 1993, breakup " Jin Pehe, "Law on Romanies Causes Uproar in Czech Republic,• REElRL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 7 (12 February 1993), pp. 18-22; Zoltan Barany, "Grim Realities in Eastern Europe." Transition, Vol. I, No. 4 (29 May 1995), p. 8. �52 SLOVAKIA of Czechoslovakia that showed almost universal hatred and distrust towards Gypsies, particularly among young Slovaks and Czechs. Officials in both countries have also been critical of the Roma. One Czech official claimed in the summer of 1993 that the Gypsies remained "a problem ... because most of them are criminals who are getting rich through thievery and prostitution." Slovak Premier Vladimfr Meciar, who lost his post in midMarch 1994 but later regained it, created an uproar on September 4, 1993, in a speech he made in Spis, where Gypsies made up 13% of the population. Meciar felt it "was necessary to curtail the extended reproduction of the socially unadaptable and mentally backward population by decreasing family allowances," which some observers felt was a reference to the country's Gypsies. Famed Nazi hunter and human rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal said that Meciar "has adopted the thinking and diction of Nazism." Meciar sued the newspaperman who originally wrote about his speech, while the Slovak government threatened to sue "any newspaper, radio or television station which refused to apologize for reporting it." Slovak authorities explained that the media had distorted Meciar's speech and released an official translation of his talk. Part of it read: They [Gypsies] should be perceived as a problem group that is growing in size ...This means that if we do not deal with them now, they will deal with us later.. Another thing we have to consider is extended reproduction of socially inadequate population.,f/ 0 Los Angeles Times Mirror, The Pulse of Europe· A Survey of Political and Socja! Values and Attitudes (Washington: Times Mirror Center for People & The Press, 1992), pp. 184-185; Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, Democracy Economic Reform and Western Assistance in Czechoslovakia Huni:ary and Poland· A Comparative Public Opinion Survey (New York: Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, 1991), pp. 63-65; "Iron in the Soul," The Economist, March 12, 1994, pp. 55-56; Jane Perlez, "A New �SLOVAKIA 53 Several months later, Monika Nemcokova, the Press Secretary for the Slovak Embassy in Washington, D.C., wrote The New York Times to complain about other distortions in an article by Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs." Kamm's article centered on Gypsies in the Slovak village of Svinia, and their poor living conditions and high unemployment. According to a parish priest in the village of Medzev, the Rom "don't want to work," and were satisfied subsisting on government welfare. The mayor of Medzev said the only solution to Slovakia's Gypsy problem was "to shoot them all," though, after a few moments, he added, "I'm no racist...But some Gypsies you would have to shoot." Ms. Nemcokova said such attitudes were "not based on racial intole. ranee, but on a significant difference in life styles and standards." She added that almost 40% of all crimes in Slovakia were committed by Roma, figures that ranged from 40-50% for all "youth cases in Slovakia." The Press Secretary felt that the Rom stipend of $71 a month was more than adequate to maintain a reasonable lifestyle in Slovakia, though she admitted it was less than half the average monthly salary of a worker. Ms. Nemcokova strongly disagreed with Kamm's assertion that there were 400,000 Roma in Slovakia, and put the figure at 250,000. She noted that the government spent 70 milllion crowns annually to help the Roma, which was "used for improving living standards in Gypsy villages, education and children's summer camps, including 3.6 million crowns for Gypsy periodicals, and 10.7 million crowns for Gypsy cultural activities.''48 Slovak Government Pledges Moderation,• The New York Times, March 17, 1994, p. A6; Peter Maas, "Half a Century after Hitler, Gypsies Face New Fight to Exist," The Washini:ton Post, August 13, 1993, p. A29; "Reported Racist Remarks Makes Slovakians Angry," Greensboro News & Record, Setpember 7, 1993, p. A5; "His Struggle," The Economjst, September 18-24, 1993, p. 56. " Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs,• The New �SLOVAKIA 54 The current status of the Roma in Slovakia is quite grim. The Slovak Gypsies have been hit particularly hard by the sluggish economy, and there are reports of Roma unemployment rates as high as 100%, particularly in eastern Slovakia, where most Roma live. The rather topsy turvy political situation and lack of commitment to address the complex problems faced by the country's Roma has stifled any significant government efforts to develop a mature program to raise Gypsy educational, social, and economic standards. The Slovak Government's minority department has only five people on its staff, and there is only one Gypsy expert in the Ministry of Education. Until something more is done to address the sad plight of Slovak Roma, they will remain a community outside of the fabric of Slovak society. 49 The serious social, economic, employment, and educational problems faced by Slovakia's Roma are not unique to this young Republic. Roma suffer from similar difficulties throughout Central and Eastern Europe, where most continental Gypsies live. Most of Slovakia's neighbors are faced with rising Roma birthrates vis vis static native rates, and serious financial problems that hinder the dramatic types of educational and social experiments used earlier to try to draw the Roma more deeply into the fabric of the societies of Central and Eastern Europe. These difficulties, though, should not be used as an excuse to fail to deal with the problems of this growing minority. Hopes that the Roma, in the right circumstances, might move elsewhere, are misguided, since Slovakia's Roma have lived in the region for centuries and have deep roots there. Furthermore, in light of their growing numbers and new political activism, the Roma could, in future, present an interesting political threat to Slovakia's current ruling parties. Moreover, rulers in Slovakia and a York Times, November 28, 1993, p. A4; Monica Nemcokova, "Don't Blame Slovakia for Gypsy Problem," The New York Times, December 15, 1993, p. A14. " Barany, "Grim Realities," p. 8. �SLOVAKIA 55 elsewhere in the region should remember that their treatment of the Roma has become an important litmus test of the depth of their democratic experiments in Western eyes. Any failure to deal positively and creatively with each country's Roma population could have negative implications for any of the states in the region trying to draw closer to the West. � 26 SLOVAKIA The Roma Of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe One of the most intriguing ethnic groups in Slovakia are the Roma or Gypsies. Traditionally regarded as social outcasts and misfits, the Roma have been a unique part of the Slovak historical landscape. Though there have been Roma in Slovakia since the Middle Ages, it was not until World War II that significant efforts were made to deal with the Slovak Roma. From 1939 until 1945, the Roma, often lumped together with the country's Jews, were subjected to a number of restrictive policies. Within a decade after the end of World War II, attention again was drawn to the Roma in the reconstructed Czechoslovak Republic, but particularly in Slovakia, where most of the country's Gypsies lived. To Czechoslovakia's communist leaders, the low socioeconomic status of the Roma was a national embarassment and underscored at least one failed aspect of the communist experiment. Driven by statistics that illustrated the low social, economic, educational, and cultural status of the Roma, considerable efforts were made through the 1980s to transform this traditionally nomadic people into sedentary, assimilated Slovak and Czech citizens. Though some significant gains were made, Slovak and Czech leaders were unable to stifle the centuries-old prejudice that had haunted Gypsies throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Though large numbers of Slovak Roma fled to the �SLOVAKIA 27 Czech Republic after the 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, a large Roma population still resides in Slovakia. The Roma or Gypsies have lived in Slovakia since the Middle Ages. By the 14th century, considerable Gypsy settlements began to appear in the Slovak portions of Hungary, particularly around feudal castles such as Spis (Zips) Castle. Initially, Roma were welcomed by local officials. Slovak peasants regarded these "Egyptians" as religious exiles from the Middle East. However, over time, positive Slovak attitudes towards the Roma began to change, particularly during the 16th century, when the region was plagued by religious wars and the Turkish threat. In Slovak Royal Hungary, for example, some noblemen began forcibly to expel Gypsies or force them to settle on the outskirts of towns and villages. 1 During the 17th century, Gypsies and others fleeing the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648) entered Slovakia, which adopted new anti-Gypsy regulations to deal with the new Roma presence. Once the Austrian Habsburgs retook much of Hungary at the end of the 17th century, they implemented new regulations that strongly discouraged Roma settlement throughout the Austrian Empire. These harsh policies began to change under Maria Theresa (1740 - 1780). Her policies were designed to halt Gypsy immigration into her empire and force those already there to become sedentary. The Roma now became subject to all imperial taxes and obligations such as the draft. Gypsies were also required to give up their traditional dress and customs, and forbidden to marry other Gypsies. Roma children over five were taken from their parents and placed in the care of non-Gypsy Catholic parents. These policies were continued by Maria Theresa's son, Jopseph II (r. 1780 -1790), but fell into disarray after his death. 2 1 David M. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994 ), pp. 31-35. ' Ibid., pp. 36-40. �28 SLOVAKIA There are few glimpses of Slovak Rom during the first half of the 19th century, though there is more on them during the second half of this period. In 1856, a Gypsy school, one of the first in Europe, was opened in Nove Zamky. However, it was not until the general Hungarian census of 1880 and the Hungarian Gypsy census of 1893 that the first concrete evidence about the Roma presence in Slovakia surfaced. According to 1893 data, there were 36,231 Roma in Slovakia, most of them settled. Almost half of those employed worked in traditional Gypsy occupations, while an almost equal number were musicians. The census also indicated that a considerable number of Roma were involved in unsavory occupations. Almost 90% of Slovakia's Gypsies were Roman Catholics.3 Total Gypsy population figures declined dramatically in the new post-World War I Czechoslovak census of 1921. It showed only 7,967 Roma in Slovakia and almost none in the Czech lands. Experts reasoned that the low numbers could be caused by exclusive use of "mother tongue" in the census. More accurate 1926 data indicated 62,192 Roma in Slovakia, though gypsiologist Dr. Eva Davidova felt the real numbers were much higher. 4 Efforts were made in Slovakia during this period to open schools for Gypsies and to encourage the development of cultural organizations for them. Some attempts were also inade privately to improve Gypsy health. One of the most famous Gypsy schools in Slovakia at this time was in Uzhorod. Opened in 1925 by Pavel Fodor, it gained an international reputation for its instruction in Slovak. 5 What gains were made by Slovak Roma disappeared with the coming of World War II. After the German dismemberment 3 Ibid., pp. 40-42. • Ibid., pp. 42-44. ' Ibid., pp. 44-47. �SLOVAKIA 29 of Czechoslovak.a in 1939, two separate states emerged - the German- controlled Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the German-allied state of Slovakia. Whereas Gypsies in Bohemia and Moravia suffered from harsh Nazi policies throughout the Porajmos or Gypsy Holocaust, the Roma in Slovakia fared much better. 6 Part of the reason for Slovakia's comparatively mild treatment of its Gypsies centered around Germany's desire for Slovakia to be a model satellite state in southeastern Europe. Consequently, the government, the Catholic church, and business enjoyed semi-autonomy. Furthermore, Father Jozef Tiso, the head of state, opposed the complete nazification of his country. In time, Reich officials came to realize that the only way - they could achieve their goals was through political pressure and an intense propaganda campaign. Anything else would hamper Slovakia's contribution to the German war effort. Almost all of Slovakia's Gypsies survived the war because of this. This did not mean, however, that the Slovak government left its Roma population alone. Within months after the creation of Slovakia in the spring of 1939, the Tiso government ordered nomadic Gypsies to return to their legal residences, and made it illegal for them to do any horse trading. On September 25, 1939, Jews were deprived of their Slovak citizenship, while Gypsies who were born in Slovakia and wanted Slovak citizenship had to prove that they lived an orderly way of life; had a steady place of residence and employment; and were honorable citizens as reflected in their education, their moral and political trustworthiness, and their activity in their community, could they be included in the Slovak national community. If they did not fulfill the aforementioned conditions, or if they fulfilled them only ' Ibid. , pp. 47-51. �30 SLOVAKIA partially-if they worked only occasionally, if they spoke the Gypsy language among themselves, if their moral and political trustworthiness was doubtful, etc.--they could not be considered members of the Slovak national community. In other words, wandering Gypsies did not qualify for citizenship. 1 Four months later, Ferdinand Durcansky, Slovakia's Interior Minister, ordered that Gypsies and Jews were to work in special labor units as alternatives to military service, which was later set "at two terms of two months twice annually." Durcansky defined a Gypsy in Law No. 130/1940 of June 18, 1940, as someone who had two Roma parents and lived as a nomad, or a sedentary person who avoided work. Other regulations issued during this period made it illegal for Gypsies to ride public transportation, eat in cafes, or enter public parks. As Germany intensified pressure on the Slovaks to increase their contribution to the war effort, the Tiso government created seasonal labor camps in 1941 where Gypsies often made up over half of the workers. Conditions in the labor units were bad. Inmates suffered increasingly from inadequate clothing and shoes, cold, infestation with lice and bedbugs, hunger, and disease, especially trachoma and typhus. 8 7 Jorg K. Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic, 1939-1945," in Victor S. Mamatey and Radomfr Luza, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic J9 J 8- J 948 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 278-279, 284-286; Jiff Upa, "The Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia under Nazi Domination," in Michael Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims· Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 209-210; Ctibor Necas. Nad osudem ceskych a sI ovenskych Cikam1 v letech I 939- I 945 (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne, 1981 ), p. 70. • Upa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210; Gypsy and Jewish service regulations were included in legislation of January 18, 1940, and February 29, 1940. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 82-129, devotes a great deal of time to the little �SLOVAKIA 31 Many prisoners practiced self-mutilation to gain their freedom. In 1943, one member of the Slovak Diet, Hut'ka, criticized the conditions of the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou. He felt the labor camps had been opened "to re-educate the asocial elements, not...to torture people and bring them into an even worse moral degradation." 9 On April 20, 1941, nomadic Gypsies were given eight days to return home. Once there, they were watched by the police and only allowed to leave with special permission. The Roma were also given two weeks to dispose of their horses and wagons . Gypsy houses located near public thoroughfares had to be torn down and reconstructed at a new site determined by officials. A Gypsy representative was to work with the local mayor to ensure that local ordinances were followed. Roma were also not allowed to own dogs. These regulations evidently did not curb all Gypsy nomadism, and officials explained when they opened a new labor camp in Krupina in the summer of 1941, that nomadic Roma were to be put in such camps to force them to live a sedentary life and to learn to do productive labor. These efforts still did not stop Gypsy nomadism, and on June 21, 1943, the government ordered that all Gypsy housing be removed from alongside busy roads. 10 Each Slovak community dealt with its Roma in a different manner. The 500 Gypsies in the village of Smizany were well integrated and none were sent to labor camps. When Hlinka Guards, the Slovak paramilitary group that modeled itself on the Italian "Black Shirts" and the German SA, arrived to take Gypknown history of the Gypsy Labor Units (pracovni utvary) from 1941-1944. He provides detailed Gypsy inmate statistics for the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou , Dubnica nad Vlihom, llava, and Revuca; Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon, ~ Destiny of Europe's Gypsies (New York: Basic Books, I972), p. 136. • Lfpa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210. 10 Ibid., p. 211; Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 74-75, 130. �32 SLOVAKIA sies from the village of Letanovce, the mayor only agreed to send two Roma who had reputations as drunks. Both Gypsies returned to Letanovce at the end of the war. 11 This atmosphere changed drastically during the summer of 1944. In June, Slovak Roma were accused of spreading typhoid throughout the country, and were forbidden to ride trains unless they had a special travel permit backed by a physician's certificate that showed them free of typhoid. Gypsies could only use the rail passes for outbound trips and had to get another one if they wanted to return home. The following month, the Interior Ministry informed its regional offices that there were still Roma in some of the country's towns and villages. It ordered local officials to move all Gypsies away from roadsides, and said that if any refused to comply, they would be executed. The decree added that more forced labor camps were being prepared for Slovak Roma. 12 The climate for the Gypsies got considerably worse with the German occupation of Slovakia on September 29, 1944. Spurred by the Slovak National Insurrection of August 29-0ctober 27, 1944, the Germans clamped down harshly on the Slovaks, including the Roma, because they had actively supported the uprising. One Gypsy leader, Tomas Farkas, headed a mixed guerilla band of Roma and Slovaks during the uprising. Farkas' detachment momentarily held up German forces near Tisovec as they moved towards Banska Bystrica, the military center of the rebellion. After Banska Bystrica fell, authorities arrested Farkas' son, and imprisoned him. When Slovak partisans retreated in the 11 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 136; Emflia Horvlithova, Cii:ani na SJovensku (Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1964), p. 171. Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 137; Horvathova, Ciian.i na SJoyensku, p. 171; the train regulations were issued on June 13, 1944, while others appeared on June 19-21, 1944. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 130-132. 12 �SLOVAKIA 33 face of the German advance in the fall of 1944, the Gypsies, using hidden weapons, stayed behind to protect their families. After the rebellion's collapse, a German intelligence officer tricked the Roma into revealing details about their weapons cache. Hlinka Guards executed the Gypsy partisans as their families watched in horror. The Germans then killed all Roma women and children and buried their bodies in a lime pit. 13 Similar Gypsy massacres took place in other parts of Slovakia as retribution for their role in the Slovak National Insurrection. On November 14, 1944, 65 Roma were burned to death in two huts in Cierny Balog, while other Gypsies were forced to dig a large grave for their fallen comrades. Hlinka - Guards murdered the entire community of 111 Gypsies in Ilija eight days later, and on November 23 , butchered as many Roma as they could find in Slatina. Only three Gypsies escaped the massacre. A similar tragedy took place at Neresnice, where only two families survived. 14 Atrocities also took place at the labor camp at Dubnica nad Vahom. On September 29, 1944, German authorities in Trencin just south of Dubnica nad Vahom ordered that all male Roma from this region be sent to the labor camp at Dubnica. The Gypsy transfers were halted once the camp became full two weeks later. On November 2, 1944, Dubnica na Vahom was transformed into a concentration center for all Roma. Authorites freed all of the camp's non-Gypsy inmates to make room for the Roma. After a typhus epidemic ravaged a Gypsy camp at Ustie 1 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, pp. 137- 138; Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic," pp. 293-295 ; Anna Josko, "The Slovak Resistance Movement," in Mamatey and Luza, Histocy of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp . 375-380, 382-383. 14 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gyspies. pp. 137-138; authorities later found a mass grave at Kremnica, which was occupied by the Germans from November 5, 1944, to January 12, 1945. It contaimed 3,723 bodies, some of them Gypsies. Netas, Nad osudem, pp. 138-141. ' �34 SLOVAKIA nad Oravou in mid-December, authorites shipped its inmates to Dubnica nad Vahom. Before the arrival of the new Roma inmates, there were 729 Roma at Dubnica nad V ahom, 250 of them children. The only recorded atrocity at the camp took place on January 17, 1945, when 16 sick Gypsy prisoners were taken from the camp and told they were being shipped to the hopsital at Trencfn. Instead, they were driven in military trucks to a wooded area, forced into a pit, and executed. The Dubnica nad V ahom camp was closed on the eve of its capture by Soviet forces on April 8, 1945. Despite these tragedies, the Gypsy survival rate in Slovakia was quite high, and estimates are that only a few hundred of Slovakia's 100,000 Rom died in the Porajmos. 15 The liberation of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1945 found the country traumatized by the human and economic devastation of the war. A massive campaign of expulsions aimed primarily at Germans and Magyars saw I .5 million people move into the former Sudetenland from other parts of Czechoslovakia, including some Gypsies. As the Germans were expelled from Cze- __ choslovakia, many Slovak Gypsies were sent to camps in northern Bohemia and Moravia where they worked as unskilled laborers. Not all Slovak Gypsies remained in the Czech lands, 15 Lfpa, "Fate of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 211 -213; Necas, Nad llS..Ll.d.e.m, pp. 111-112, I 34- 137 ; Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 138; Horvathova, Cii:ani na S)ovensku, p. 173 n34; David J. Kostelancik, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia: Political and Ideological Considerations in the Development of Policy," Studies in Comparative Communism, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter 1984), p. 309; the Gypsies were not Slovakia's only victims after the Slovak National Insurrection. Estimates are that from August 1944 until April 1945, "7,500 soldiers and 2,500 partisans were killed and 3,723 civilians ... were murdered and buried in mass graves; 900 were burned in lime kilns; 30,000 people were de)Xlrted to German concentration camps; 60 communities were completely destroyed by fires and 142 were partially wiped out." Josko, "Slovak Resistance Movement," p. 383. �SLOVAKIA 35 and some returned to Slovakia where they began to buy new homes. In addition, about 6,000 Olach [Olassti] Gypsies continued to live as nomads. Officials hoped the returning Slovak Roma would help solve the regions's severe labor shortage and serve as role models for other Roma. After the strong communist showing in the May 26, 1946, elections, the new Minister of the Interior, the Czech Vaclav Nosek, and others, called for restrictive policies against the Roma, whom Nosek and his supporters called questionable citizens of Czechoslovakia. 16 Efforts by Evzan Erban, the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, to continue to send Slovak Gypsies to camps in the Czech lands were stopped by the non-communist Minister of Justice, Prokop Drtina in 1947. Nosek convinced Drtina to do a census of the country's Roma population to determine how many lived as nomads. According to the census, there were 84,438 Roma in Slovakia, and 16,752 in the Czech lands. The successful communist coup in early 1948 brought to power a party that a year earlier had pledged that it would do everything possible to integrate the Gypsies into the fabric of Czechoslovakian society, and raise their social, economic, and cultural status. 17 In 1949, the government of Klement Gottwald created a special commission to investigate the "Gypsy question." The 16 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 309-310; Willy Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms: The Case of Czechoslovakia," in Farnham Rehfisch, ed., Gypsies Tinkers and Other Travellers (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 213; Tom~ Grulich and Tom~ Hai~man, "lnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske obyvatelstvo v Ceskoslovensku v letech 1945-1958," C:esky Lid, Vol. 73 , No. 2 ( 1986), p. 73. 17 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 310-3 I I ; Vladimir Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku Demo2rafje, Vol. Xl , No. 3 (1969), p. 194; Zdenek Suda, The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 32-36; Radomfr Luui, "Czechoslovakia between Democracy and Communism," in Mamatey and Luui, History of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp. 412-415. �36 SLOVAKIA new commission sponsored a detailed study of Czechoslovakia's Gypsies that appeared in 1950 as Zarazovani osob cikanskeho puvodu do trvaleho pracovniho procesu (Position of Individuals of Gypsy Origin in the Work Process). Two years later, this study was partly integrated into another report by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Uprava pomeru osob cikanskeho puvodu (Report About the Life of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia). This latter study blamed earlier governments and societies for the Roma's low social and economic status, and promised that the new People's Democratic State would resolve the "Gypsy question" if the Roma willingly and quickly become accustomed to conscientious work, they adopt trades, they take part in socialist competition, they become shock-workers, members and functionaries of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and the Revolutionary Trade-Union Movement. 18 However, over the next eight years, Czechoslovak leaders did little to help the Gypsies improve their quality of life. Numerous regional and local decrees touched on health care and housing needs, and emphasized changing the behavior of the Roma. 19 Communist Party propaganda, however, underscored improved Gypsy school attendance, literacy, and new attitudes towards work and integration. By the mid-1950s, this congratulatory tone changed as the reality of the Gypsy's plight and demographic growth became more apparent to the country's leadership. In 1956, authorities began to talk about a national Gypsy crisis, which was linked to their continued nomadism. 18 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 0-311; Grulich and Hai~man, "Institucionalnf zajem o cikanske," p. 74. " Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 311, 320; Josef Kalvoda, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," in David M. Crowe and John Kolsti, eds., ~ Gypsies of Eastern Europe (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991), p. 93. �SLOVAKIA 37 According to an article in Zemedelske Novjny (Agricultural Newspaper) in 1957, only 40% of the country's Roma were working in industry and agriculture. The Slovak journal Smena (Direction) added that the nomadic Roma lifestyle heightened prejudice towards them, which the journal compared to "discrimination against the Negro in the United States.":n These problems and attitudes, coupled with the size of the Roma population nationwide, which Radio Bratislava estimated in 1958 to be 150,000, prompted the Communist Party to approve a resolution on April 8, 1958, that demanded a new campaign to resolve the "Gypsy question." Similar to new policies throughout the Soviet bloc at that time, the Party called for a mass campaign addressed to both the Gypsies and white -- bigots, for lifting the Gypsies' extraterritorial immunities and punishment of nomadism. 21 Czechoslovakia's Gypsies were now officially divided into three categories - nomads, semi-nomads, and completely sedentary - in anticipation of Law No. 74, of October 17, 1958, "Act on Permanent Settlement of Nomadic People." The new law instructed local officials to work with nomads, whom it defined as an individual who 0 Otto Ulc, "Communist National Minority Policy: The Case of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Soviet Studies, Vol. XX, No. 4 (April 1969), pp. 422-424 ; "Minorites in Eastern Europe," Eastern Europe. Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1959), pp . 13-14. 21 "M inorities in Eastern Europe," p. 14; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 311, improperly places the date for the passage of Law No. 74 as November 17, 1958; Grulich and Hai§man, "Jnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske," pp. 77-78; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 214-215. Guy estimates the number of registered nomads at 20,000-27,000; Ulc, "Gyps ies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-426, says officials estimated that the semi-nomadic Rom were the largest group among the Gypsies. ' �38 SLOVAKIA in groups or individually, wanders from place to place, shuns honest work or obtains his livelihood by iniquitious means even though he may be registered in some community as its permanent resident.-n. According to the new law, if anyone continued to live in this manner, he or she could be imprisoned for six months to three years. Two other parts of Law No. 74 gave the Minister of the Interior the right 11 to issue executive orders to this effect, including registration of the nomads. 11 Though the new regulations never mentioned the Roma, they were its only target, particularly the country's 6,000 nomadic Olach Gypsies. Official estimates indicated that there were from 11,000 to 40,000 nomadic Roma in Czechoslovakia at this time. 23 In an effort to avoid charges of racism, officials also upgraded the Gypsies' official status to a "socio-ethnic group." Unfortunately, Czechoslovak authorities did not anticipate the complex economic and social problems that would accompany their efforts to force the complete integration of the nation's Gypsies. Many nomadic Roma found ways to avoid punishment for thsir lifestyle, while local efforts to force settlement through the assignment of precious housing to Gypsies created growing resentment against a group that some came to see as privileged. Many Slovaks and Czechs felt the Roma were a privileged group that had special rights without obligations. The public complained that the Gypsies were measured by different standards and took advantage of their unique position. More importantly, the government's new efforts did little to upgrade the low socio-economic status of the Roma, and perhaps made it worse for the newly settled Gypsies, who, located principally in Slova- 22 23 UII!, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-425. Ibid., pp. 425-426. �SLOVAKIA 39 kia, still lived in slums with inadequate plumbing and sanitation facilites. 24 Consequently, in 1965, the Communist Party asked local officials to do a more thorough investigation of the plight of the Roma and develop a long range plan for Gypsy assimilation. The result was Ordinance No. 502 of June 1965, which developed a Gypsy reform progam that centered around fullemployment possibilities for Gypsies able to work full time. These efforts were considered essential to upgrading the standard of living for Roma, and tied to plans to destroy substandard Gypsy settlements and the movement of Roma from Slovakia to other parts of the country. The Academy of Sciences was asked to do a study of Roma life, while the state-controlled media was ord.tred to help counter nationwide prejudice against the Roma. A new government body, the National Council for Questions of the Gypsy Population (NCQGP), which had no Gypsy members, was to serve as the program's watchdog. The NCQGP produced three position papers, but was abolished in 1968. 25 At the center of this new program was the destruction of substandard Gypsy housing and settlements, primarily in Slovakia, and the forced resettlement and employment of their Rom inhabitants. Officials estimated that 67.3% of Slovakia's 153,000 Gypsies lived in extremely substandard housing. The government pin-pointed 1,266 Roma settlements in Slovakia for destruction, and the transfer of 64,096 Gypsies. Officials planned to move the effected Slovak Gypsies to the Czech lands after their settlements were razed. Local governments, aided by national ,. Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 426; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 98-99. 25 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 312-313; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia." pp. 430-431. Of the 56,000 Rom in eastern Slovakia, only 2.2% had an adequate water supply; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 2 I 922 . �40 SLOVAKIA subsidies, would then be responsible for the Gypsies' housing and employment. The resettlement program was voluntary. Once a Gypsy family was convinced of the wisdom of moving, the government would give the family a special payment, combined with a 25-30% subsidy and low cost government loan, which would be used to purchase a new home in the Czech lands. However, inadequate funding, coupled with growing resentment towards the new Roma presence in the Czech lands, and the unwillingness of some Gypsies to remain there, undercut the success of the program. Between 1965-1968, the government was only able to eliminate a third of the Roma settlements targeted for destruction. 26 As authorities struggled with the mixed results of this new transfer and employment program, Czechoslovakia was turned inside out by the events of the Prague Spring in 1968.Z7 On the eve of the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakia had an official Gypsy population of 223,993, with 164,526 in Slovakia, and 59,467 in the Czech lands. In 1968, the Roma in Slovakia formed their first official organization, the Union of Gypsy-Romanies (UGR or Zvaz Cikanov-Romov; Romani, Romano Jekhetaniben), followed by a similar Czech organization in 1969. Later that year, both groups joined together, but maintained separate Slovak and Czech branches. The UGR received funds from the National Front and had branches throughout Czechoslovakia. Its goals were to improve the socio-economic status of the Roma and enhance the Gypsies' awareness of their own culture and 2 • Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 432-433 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 312-314; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 219-220; Hiibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," p. 115 n I 9. 27 Otto Ulc, "Czechoslovakia," in Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, ed., Communism io Eastern Europe, Second Edition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), pp. 121-123; William Shawcross, ~ (New York : Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1990), pp. 114-119. �SLOVAKIA 41 traditions. The UGR also wanted to acquire nationality status for the Roma, which triggered an engaging debate between Gypsy and non-Gypsy intellectuals about the entire "Gypsy question." Central to the debate was Jaroslav Sus' 1963 study, Cikanska otazka v CSSR (The Gypsy Question in the CSSR), which described the Rom way of life as [an] undesirable combination of 'nomadism, tribalism ...and blood f euds,' and the Romani language as ... unworthy of preservation. Consequently, Sus felt that "unconditional assimilation [was] ... the only solution for the question." 28 Roma scholar Elena Htibschmannova, long an advcoate of --Gypsy nationality status, led the attack on Sus' ideas. Htibschmannova shifted responsibility for some aspects of the "Gypsy Question" to the shoulders of the government, as did the August 1969 Programme of the Founding Congress of the Czech Gypsy-Rom Association [Union], which felt that "fears of the results of granting rights to the Gypsies as a nationality" lay at the heart of the question. As this debate raged, plans were made to start a Roma journal, and the UGR's membership rolls swelled to 20,000 between 1968 - 1971. Several hundred Gypsy musical and sports groups were formed, and the media began to refer to the country's Roma as "citizens of Gypsy origin." Unfortunately, after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, the new government of Gustav Husak introduced an era of "normalization" that gradually chipped away at many of the gains achieved by the Roma during the Prague Spring. In April I 973, the government expelled the UGR from the National Front, and outlawed other Gypsy organizations because "they had failed to fulfill their integrative function." 29 21 " Crowe, Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, pp. 58-59. Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku, ~ p. 194; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of �42 SLOVAKIA What followed was a renewed effort to force Gypsy integration and assimilation, coupled with a new sterialization scheme to reduce Gypsy births.~ One of the darker sides of the new Roma assimilation campaign were efforts to promote the sterilization of Gypsy women. The seed for this idea was planted in a February 29, 1972, Ministry of Health "Decree on Sterilization." Though "designed to safeguard against arbitrary or illinformed sterilization of all Czechoslovak citizens," the decree was used to encourage the sterilization of Romany women in order to reduce the high unhealthy' Romany population and, as a result, a disproportionately high number of Romany women were sterilized, often in violation of the existing safeguards and of their rights to non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or sex. 3 ' Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 7-318 ; Eva Davidova, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia, " Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society. Third Series, Vol. I, Nos. 12 (Jan uary-April), pp. 53-54; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 220-22 I , 223, n44; Grattan Puxon, "Gypsies: Blacks of East Europe," The Nation. April 17, I 976, pp. 461-462; Hlibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," pp . 105, I 12 nl6, I 13- 114, I 16 n23, 117-118 ; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 101-103 ; Otto Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia: A Case of Unfinished Integration," Eastern European Politics and Societies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1988), pp. 310-312. 30 Other estimates put the 1970 Roma population at over 300,000. Vladimir Srb, "Demograficky profil ~eskoslovenskych romu," Cesky Lid, Vol. 72 ( 1985), p. 139; Vladimir Srb, "K integraci cikanskeho obyvatelstva v CSSR," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XXI, No. 4 (1979), p. 323; V. Srb and J. Job, "Nektere demograficke, ekonomicke a kultumi charakteristiky romskehe obyvatelstva v CSSR 1970," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (1974), p. 173 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 106; Paul S. Shoup, The East European and Soviet Data Handbook (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), pp. 42, 48; Chris Cook and John Stevenson, The Loni:man Handbook of Modern European History )763-)985 (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 216,218. 31 Rachael Tritt, Jeri Laber, and Lois Whitman, Strui:i:Jini: for Ethnic Identity · Czechoslovakia's Endani:eced Gypsies (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1992), �SLOVAKIA 43 According to a Slovak document released in 1979 by Charter 77, a Czechoslovak dissident group, the Slovak government had already begun a program that used economic incentives to get Gypsy women to be sterilized because of earlier, unsuccessful government efforts "to control the high unhealthy Romany population through family planning and contraception." Local health workers offered some prospective sterilization candidates as much as 5,000 Crowns to undergo the procedure. As pressure intensified to get more Gypsy women to agree to sterilization, some health workers often made unfulfilled offers of as high as 30,000 Crowns. Charter 77 protested this practice in 1979, and claimed that it violated Article No. 259 of the state penal code, which dealt with genocide. But this was not the only - . criticism in Charter 77's 1979 document. On a broader scale, Charter 77 decried government practices designed to stop Gypsy nomadism and force assimilation, and the official denial of Roma ethnic status. According to Charter 77, the collective impact of these programs set into play "a process of social disintegration which has no comparison in the history of the Gypsies. This fact is substantiated by an ever increasing number of Gypsies who are sentenced to loss of freedom." 32 While it difficult to gauge the impact of the 1979 Charter 77 report on the plight of the Roma, population data from the 1980 census spurred further government action. The 1980 census showed a Roma population of 288,440, an increase of 31.3% over 1970 figures. Czechoslovakia's total population only grew by 6%. during the same period. The greatest increase in Gypsy growth rates was in the Czech republic, where the Roma population increased 47% between 1970 - 1980, versus a 25.5% rise in Slovakia. Even these figures, though, are misleading, since pp. 19, 139-144. 2 ' Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 20, 24, 26-27; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 314-315. �44 SLOVAKIA arbitrary counting methods showed a discrepancy between national census figures, and those recorded in local "Gypsy Registers," which indicated that there were 306,246 Roma in Czechoslovakia in 1980. The absolute rise in Gypsy population numbers was less troubling to the government than the national and Rom childbirth rate figures. The overall Czechoslovak childbirth rate was on the decline, and by 1982 was "below the level of biological reproduction." The average Czechoslovak woman bore 2.4 children in the 1970s compared to 6.4 children for a Gypsy woman. 33 These increases were remarkable, particularly in light of continued government efforts to destroy Slovak Gypsy slums and the forced movement of Slovak Roma to Czech portions of the country. Other Gypsies also moved to the Czech lands because of better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. Between 1972-1980, officials destroyed 4,000 Roma dwellings in Slovakia, and moved 4,850 Gypsies elsewhere. Though Gypsy housing standards improved appreciably between during this period, there were still 5.6 persons in thct average Roma apartment or house versus a national average of 3.1 persons per dwelling. By 1980, a little more than 70% of the country's Gypsy population lived in apartments, while 10% still lived in primitive settlements that were to be destroyed by 1990. The number in extremely unfit housing dropped from 80.7% in 1970 to 49% between 1970 and 1980. Another part of the Roma assimilation campaign centered around attempts to force more Gypsy children into the public schools. In 1971, only 10% of the eligible Roma children in Czechoslovakia attended kindergarten, a figure that rose to 33 Srb, "Demograficky profil foskoslovenskych Romu," pp. 139-140. There were 88,507 Gypsies in the Czech Republic in 1980, and 199,853 in Slovakia; Ul~, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 315-316; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 108-109. �SLOVAKIA 45 58.5% in 1980. During the same period, the number .of Gypsy children that finished public school rose from 16.6% to 25.6%, while the number enrolled in colleges and universities increased from 39 to 191. Nationwide, literacy rates rose to 90% among Roma adults. On the other hand, Gypsy school dropout rates in Slovakia increased substantially as Roma pupils moved from grade to grade. In 1983-1984, 72.2% of the Slovak students who failed to go into the second grade were Gypsies, and almost a third of the Roma who went to second grade barely had minimal literacy skills, a figure that jumped to 50% for Gypsy 4th graders. Nationwide, many Gypsies entered the school system with a knowledge of only a few hundred Slovak or Czech words, and were often assigned to special instititions (zvlastnf skoly) designed for the mentally retarded. Only a third of the country's Gypsy children finished 8th grade in 19831984, and only 4% went on to university or college. 34 Gypsy employment figures for this period were also a mixture of success and failure. Though 1981 data showed an 87.7% employment rate for male Gypsy workers that was close to the national average of 91 .9% for all adult males, the 54.95% employment rate for Roma female workers was well below the national average of 87.7% for all women. In addition, over three quarters of all Gypsies employed held low paying, non-skilled jobs. The overall impact of the employment, educational, and housing data found Czechoslovakia's Roma on a socio-economic plateau that proved difficult to transcend. According to Irnrich Farkas, the official responsible for Gypsy matters in Slovakia, the government felt that it would be harder to improve the quality " Kostelanc ik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 313-3 I 5. In I 980, 59% of the Gypsies in Slovakia lived in the lowest classification for housing, Class IV. Kindergarten attendance rates in eastern Slovakia, where 53% of Slovakia's Rom lived in 1980, rose from 10% to 66% between 1970-1980; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 319-320. �46 SLOVAKIA of Gypsy life "because increasingly left for solution are those socially and culturally backward families." 35 The government tried to put the best light on its assimilation efforts, and publicized some Gypsy success stories. Bratislava Pravda reported that 435 Roma had been elected to predominantly low level positions as deputies of Peoples Committees, and that one Gypsy, Emil Rigo, had briefly been a member of the Politburo in 1968. Officials also used successful Gypsies to counter efforts to acquire nationality status for the Roma. In 1986, Rude Pravo responded to the World Romany Congress' appeal for nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Gypsies partially with a statement by Mirosalv 2.ajda, an assimilated Roma and Party member who told the newspaper that he was quite content with his life. 36 The lack of nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Roma, who were officially referred to as citizens "of Gypsy origin," robbed them of the special rights and financial support afforded officially recognized minorities. It also placed them into a limbo world where they were forced to identify with other ethnic groups. Their plight was compounded by the growing body of prejudice that accompanied their growing numbers and official attention. 37 To many Slovaks and Czechs, Gypsies were the tmavi kluci (dark boys), a term that automatically identified one as a Roma. According to Otto Ulc, post-1968 Czechsolvakia became a society that was "less tolerant, more impatient, and egotistic." Increasingly, he observed, the public saw Gypsies as "beneficiaries of a host of privileges on their path to the less- " Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 3I3-315; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322-323 . 36 Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322 n36, 326. 37 Ibid., pp. 323-326. Not all Gypsies suffered from lack of nationality status on the same scale, and there were a number of instances, particularly in Slovakia, where local officials encouraged Rom ethnicity. �SLOVAKIA 47 than-cherished goal of integration." Furthermore, Ulc argued, Slovaks and Czechs became "thoroughly uninhibited about making racial slurs and expressing racist prejudice of the oldfashioned vintage." They saw the Roma as "dirty, lazy, dishonest, primitive, parasitic, and inferior." 38 Government efforts to counter this prejudice met with mixed results, since the press used stories that gave explicit details about instances of unfair treatment of Gypsies with others that detailed Roma crime. Bratislava Pravda, for example, claimed in 1983 that the Gypsies, who made up 4 % of Slovakia's population, accounted for 24 percent of the charges of parasitism, 50 __ percent of robberies, 60 percent of petty thefts, 75 percent of charges for endangering the morals of youth, and 20 percent of all crimes committed.'39 The overall impact of such reports was to create a very unwelcome, suspicious climate for Czechoslovakia's growing Roma population that worsened as the country and its leadership drifted towards the collapse of the system that had dominated the country since 1948.'° As the Velvet Revolution swept Czechoslovakia in 1989, a plethora of political parties and other organizations surfaced. A number of Gypsy parties emerged during this period, including the Party of the Integration of the Romany People in Slovakia and the Party of the Democratic Romany Union. The most important was the Romany Civic Inititative (ROI or Romska obcanska iniciativa), which had close links to Civic Forum (Obcanske Forum), the umbrella political organization for a number of the country's dissident factions . ROI soon had a 31 Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 327-328. " Kalvoda, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. I06. •• lhid., p. 106. �48 SLOVAKIA membership of over 70,000, and held its first national meeting in Prague in the spring of 1990. One of its first decisions was to vote to erect a monument in Bratislava to the Rom victims of the Holocaust. The ROI congress elected Emil Scuka, a lawyer and playwright, to head the organization.41 Yet the very democracy that gave Slovak and Czech Gypsies the opportunity to form their own political and other organizations also created a new atmosphere for open, virulent expressions of prejudice towards them. Of particular concern to many non-Gypsies was the dramatic growth of the Roma population. In 1988, the government estimated that there were 391 ,000 Rom in Czechoslovakia, a 35.5% increase over 1980 figures. Other sources estimated there were as many as 700,000-800,000 Roma in Czechoslovakia, with 470,000 a more reasonable figure. Some perceived these figures to be a new threat, and the newspaper Express warned in an article on July 2, 1990, "that the Gypsy fertility may mean a ' tragedy', that within a century the country may well have to be renamed the Romska republika. 42 These fears combined with the deep-rooted, traditional prejudices towards the Roma, and prompted some people to depict the-Gypsies as new symbols of everything gone awry in Czechoslo- " Otto Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Ethnic Groups. Vol. 9, No. 2 ( 1991 ), pp. 11 2- 11 3; in 1986, Scuka produced the "musical drama Amaro Drom (Our Road)...only the second play in Romanes ever to be staged in Czechoslovakia." Grattan Puxon, Roma· Europe's Gypsies (London: Minority Rights Group, 1987), p. 11 . " Radio Free Europe/Rad io Liberty, "Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 39 (22 September 1989), pp. 33, 36-37 ; Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 113-114; Czechoslovakia's population was 15,658,079, in Ju ly 1989, and 15,683,234, a year later, an increase of 25,155. Suda, "Czechoslovakia," p. 319, and Carol Skalnik Leff, "Czechoslovakia," in Richard F. Staar and Margit N. Grigory, eds., Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1221 (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1991), p. 269. �SLOVAKIA 49 vakia. At the forefront of this new assualt on the Rom were renewed charges of criminality. Dramatic increases in crime had plagued the country since the early 1980s, particularly in Bratislava and Prague. In a society accustomed to traditionally low crime rates, crime reached epidemic proportions by 1990. Slovakia experienced a 17.7% rise in crime between 1988-1989, while the Czech Republic reported a 52% increase during the same pericxi. Much of this increase was attributed to Gypsies, who as early as 1987 had been blamed by television reports for 38% of Bratislava's crimes, and 40% of those committed in eastern Slovakia. Gypsies 18 years old and younger were accused of being part of over 44% of all crimes nationwide in 1988. Clearer heads proved that many of these statistics were exaggerated, and that the Roma were responsible for no more than 7.5-11 % of the crime in the country. Though the more conservative estimates were still out of proportion to the number of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia, they were directly tied to post1989 Gypsy unemployment figures that reached as high as 50% in certain areas. 43 Whatever the true numbers, Czechoslovakia's Roma paid a dear price for the accusations against them. Skinhead attacks, sometimes quietly encouraged by onlookers, mounted dangerously against Gypsies and the 35,000 Vietnamese workers in Czechoslovakia throughout 1990. On April 26, Prime Minister Petr Pithart of the Czech Republic called for "peaceful coexis0 Jan Orbman, "Crime Rate Among the Young," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 12, No. 32 (14 August 1987), p. 18; Martina Nevesky, "The Gypsy Problem," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 31 (4 August 1989), p. 40; Jan Orbman, "Minorities Not a Major Issue Yet," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. 2, No. 50 (December 13, 1991 ), p. 11 ; Wheaton and Kavan, The Yel vet Revo)utjon, p. 147; Jiti Pehe, "Crime Rises in Czechoslovakia," R.EElRL Research Report, Vol. 1, No. 14 (3 April 1992), p. 58; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 112, claims the Rom were responsible for 15.6% of all crimes in the Czech Republic. �50 SLOVAKIA tence with our fellow citizens of Gypsy origin," while federal Deputy Prime Minister Jan Carnogursky demanded "tougher action against those skinheads who had attacked the Gypsies." On May 3, 1990, ROI urged national leaders and organizations to speak out against racist incidents against Roma and foreigners. Four days later, Charter 77 and the Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee condemned such attacks on the Vietnamese and Gypsies, and said they constitute attacks on all of us. They are attacks on the most basic principles of ethics and humanism, attacks on the state based on Jaw that is being bom , attacks contradicting the ideals of our democratic revolution. The fact that we silently tolerate such attacks makes us accomplices. We call on all citizens to stop being indifferent to the manifestations of violence and intolerance. We appeal to our executive bodies to put a final stop to these attacks. Let us make the people who for years have been working in our country feel that they live in a society in which it is JX)SSible to have their basic human rights protected.44 Vaclav Havel detailed the wrongs done Gypsies in public statements on May 2 and in an address on July 27, 1990, to the First World Romany Festival in Brno. Though admirable, particularly when coupled with the new rights acquired by the Roma over the next year, they did not prevent the racially motivated deaths of 26 Gypsies before the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993.45 Both the federal and individual Czechoslovak republics granted the Roma full minority status, rights, and protections in " Jiri Pehe, "Racial Violence Increasing," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. I, No. 20 (May I 8, 1990), pp. 15, 18; David Binder, "European Gypsies Issue Call for Human Rights at Meeting," The New York Times, May 5, 1993, p. 6. 5 • Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 13-14. �SLOVAKIA 51 1990-1991. Over thirty Gypsy cultural organizations arose during this period, anchored by the Union of Romany Writers and numerous newspapers and magazines. Programs in Romany Studies were opened at Charles University in Prague and at the Pedagogical Faculty in Nitra. Unfortunately, these developments were overshadowed by a new set of problems that accompanied the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993. Before the formal separation, Slovakia had an estimated Gypsy population of 400,000, and the Czech lands, 150,000. However, only 81,000 Slovak Gypsies officially identified themselves as Roma in the 1991 census. In anticipation of the breakup, a number of Slovak Rom began to move to the Czech lands because they felt • the political and social atmosphere would be more tolerant, and economic conditions better. The sudden increase in "unemployed Romanies, often unassimilated families from Romany villages in eastern Slovakia," stunned many Czechs, who soon claimed that 90% of the republic's new crime was committed by Slovak Roma. Led by individual community actions throughout the Czech Republic, the new state's Prosecutor-General "proposed to the Czech parliament a draft Law on Extraordinary Measures as a means of dealing with unrest caused by undisciplined groups of migrants." Though condemned by human rights groups and the Romany Democratic Congress, which represented 19 Gypsy groups in the Czech Republic, the law had surprising support from conservatives and local officials. The controversial legislation never passed, while the debate that surrounded it brought to the surface traditionally strong prejudice towards the Roma. 46 These feelings were also expressed in several public opinion surveys conducted before and after the January 1, 1993, breakup " Jin Pehe, "Law on Romanies Causes Uproar in Czech Republic,• REElRL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 7 (12 February 1993), pp. 18-22; Zoltan Barany, "Grim Realities in Eastern Europe." Transition, Vol. I, No. 4 (29 May 1995), p. 8. �52 SLOVAKIA of Czechoslovakia that showed almost universal hatred and distrust towards Gypsies, particularly among young Slovaks and Czechs. Officials in both countries have also been critical of the Roma. One Czech official claimed in the summer of 1993 that the Gypsies remained "a problem ... because most of them are criminals who are getting rich through thievery and prostitution." Slovak Premier Vladimfr Meciar, who lost his post in midMarch 1994 but later regained it, created an uproar on September 4, 1993, in a speech he made in Spis, where Gypsies made up 13% of the population. Meciar felt it "was necessary to curtail the extended reproduction of the socially unadaptable and mentally backward population by decreasing family allowances," which some observers felt was a reference to the country's Gypsies. Famed Nazi hunter and human rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal said that Meciar "has adopted the thinking and diction of Nazism." Meciar sued the newspaperman who originally wrote about his speech, while the Slovak government threatened to sue "any newspaper, radio or television station which refused to apologize for reporting it." Slovak authorities explained that the media had distorted Meciar's speech and released an official translation of his talk. Part of it read: They [Gypsies] should be perceived as a problem group that is growing in size ...This means that if we do not deal with them now, they will deal with us later.. Another thing we have to consider is extended reproduction of socially inadequate population.,f/ 0 Los Angeles Times Mirror, The Pulse of Europe· A Survey of Political and Socja! Values and Attitudes (Washington: Times Mirror Center for People & The Press, 1992), pp. 184-185; Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, Democracy Economic Reform and Western Assistance in Czechoslovakia Huni:ary and Poland· A Comparative Public Opinion Survey (New York: Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, 1991), pp. 63-65; "Iron in the Soul," The Economist, March 12, 1994, pp. 55-56; Jane Perlez, "A New �SLOVAKIA 53 Several months later, Monika Nemcokova, the Press Secretary for the Slovak Embassy in Washington, D.C., wrote The New York Times to complain about other distortions in an article by Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs." Kamm's article centered on Gypsies in the Slovak village of Svinia, and their poor living conditions and high unemployment. According to a parish priest in the village of Medzev, the Rom "don't want to work," and were satisfied subsisting on government welfare. The mayor of Medzev said the only solution to Slovakia's Gypsy problem was "to shoot them all," though, after a few moments, he added, "I'm no racist...But some Gypsies you would have to shoot." Ms. Nemcokova said such attitudes were "not based on racial intole. ranee, but on a significant difference in life styles and standards." She added that almost 40% of all crimes in Slovakia were committed by Roma, figures that ranged from 40-50% for all "youth cases in Slovakia." The Press Secretary felt that the Rom stipend of $71 a month was more than adequate to maintain a reasonable lifestyle in Slovakia, though she admitted it was less than half the average monthly salary of a worker. Ms. Nemcokova strongly disagreed with Kamm's assertion that there were 400,000 Roma in Slovakia, and put the figure at 250,000. She noted that the government spent 70 milllion crowns annually to help the Roma, which was "used for improving living standards in Gypsy villages, education and children's summer camps, including 3.6 million crowns for Gypsy periodicals, and 10.7 million crowns for Gypsy cultural activities.''48 Slovak Government Pledges Moderation,• The New York Times, March 17, 1994, p. A6; Peter Maas, "Half a Century after Hitler, Gypsies Face New Fight to Exist," The Washini:ton Post, August 13, 1993, p. A29; "Reported Racist Remarks Makes Slovakians Angry," Greensboro News & Record, Setpember 7, 1993, p. A5; "His Struggle," The Economjst, September 18-24, 1993, p. 56. " Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs,• The New �SLOVAKIA 54 The current status of the Roma in Slovakia is quite grim. The Slovak Gypsies have been hit particularly hard by the sluggish economy, and there are reports of Roma unemployment rates as high as 100%, particularly in eastern Slovakia, where most Roma live. The rather topsy turvy political situation and lack of commitment to address the complex problems faced by the country's Roma has stifled any significant government efforts to develop a mature program to raise Gypsy educational, social, and economic standards. The Slovak Government's minority department has only five people on its staff, and there is only one Gypsy expert in the Ministry of Education. Until something more is done to address the sad plight of Slovak Roma, they will remain a community outside of the fabric of Slovak society. 49 The serious social, economic, employment, and educational problems faced by Slovakia's Roma are not unique to this young Republic. Roma suffer from similar difficulties throughout Central and Eastern Europe, where most continental Gypsies live. Most of Slovakia's neighbors are faced with rising Roma birthrates vis vis static native rates, and serious financial problems that hinder the dramatic types of educational and social experiments used earlier to try to draw the Roma more deeply into the fabric of the societies of Central and Eastern Europe. These difficulties, though, should not be used as an excuse to fail to deal with the problems of this growing minority. Hopes that the Roma, in the right circumstances, might move elsewhere, are misguided, since Slovakia's Roma have lived in the region for centuries and have deep roots there. Furthermore, in light of their growing numbers and new political activism, the Roma could, in future, present an interesting political threat to Slovakia's current ruling parties. Moreover, rulers in Slovakia and a York Times, November 28, 1993, p. A4; Monica Nemcokova, "Don't Blame Slovakia for Gypsy Problem," The New York Times, December 15, 1993, p. A14. " Barany, "Grim Realities," p. 8. �SLOVAKIA 55 elsewhere in the region should remember that their treatment of the Roma has become an important litmus test of the depth of their democratic experiments in Western eyes. Any failure to deal positively and creatively with each country's Roma population could have negative implications for any of the states in the region trying to draw closer to the West. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 26 SLOVAKIA The Roma Of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe One of the most intriguing ethnic groups in Slovakia are the Roma or Gypsies. Traditionally regarded as social outcasts and misfits, the Roma have been a unique part of the Slovak historical landscape. Though there have been Roma in Slovakia since the Middle Ages, it was not until World War II that significant efforts were made to deal with the Slovak Roma. From 1939 until 1945, the Roma, often lumped together with the country's Jews, were subjected to a number of restrictive policies. Within a decade after the end of World War II, attention again was drawn to the Roma in the reconstructed Czechoslovak Republic, but particularly in Slovakia, where most of the country's Gypsies lived. To Czechoslovakia's communist leaders, the low socioeconomic status of the Roma was a national embarassment and underscored at least one failed aspect of the communist experiment. Driven by statistics that illustrated the low social, economic, educational, and cultural status of the Roma, considerable efforts were made through the 1980s to transform this traditionally nomadic people into sedentary, assimilated Slovak and Czech citizens. Though some significant gains were made, Slovak and Czech leaders were unable to stifle the centuries-old prejudice that had haunted Gypsies throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Though large numbers of Slovak Roma fled to the SLOVAKIA 27 Czech Republic after the 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, a large Roma population still resides in Slovakia. The Roma or Gypsies have lived in Slovakia since the Middle Ages. By the 14th century, considerable Gypsy settlements began to appear in the Slovak portions of Hungary, particularly around feudal castles such as Spis (Zips) Castle. Initially, Roma were welcomed by local officials. Slovak peasants regarded these "Egyptians" as religious exiles from the Middle East. However, over time, positive Slovak attitudes towards the Roma began to change, particularly during the 16th century, when the region was plagued by religious wars and the Turkish threat. In Slovak Royal Hungary, for example, some noblemen began forcibly to expel Gypsies or force them to settle on the outskirts of towns and villages. 1 During the 17th century, Gypsies and others fleeing the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648) entered Slovakia, which adopted new anti-Gypsy regulations to deal with the new Roma presence. Once the Austrian Habsburgs retook much of Hungary at the end of the 17th century, they implemented new regulations that strongly discouraged Roma settlement throughout the Austrian Empire. These harsh policies began to change under Maria Theresa (1740 - 1780). Her policies were designed to halt Gypsy immigration into her empire and force those already there to become sedentary. The Roma now became subject to all imperial taxes and obligations such as the draft. Gypsies were also required to give up their traditional dress and customs, and forbidden to marry other Gypsies. Roma children over five were taken from their parents and placed in the care of non-Gypsy Catholic parents. These policies were continued by Maria Theresa's son, Jopseph II (r. 1780 -1790), but fell into disarray after his death. 2 1 David M. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994 ), pp. 31-35. ' Ibid., pp. 36-40. 28 SLOVAKIA There are few glimpses of Slovak Rom during the first half of the 19th century, though there is more on them during the second half of this period. In 1856, a Gypsy school, one of the first in Europe, was opened in Nove Zamky. However, it was not until the general Hungarian census of 1880 and the Hungarian Gypsy census of 1893 that the first concrete evidence about the Roma presence in Slovakia surfaced. According to 1893 data, there were 36,231 Roma in Slovakia, most of them settled. Almost half of those employed worked in traditional Gypsy occupations, while an almost equal number were musicians. The census also indicated that a considerable number of Roma were involved in unsavory occupations. Almost 90% of Slovakia's Gypsies were Roman Catholics.3 Total Gypsy population figures declined dramatically in the new post-World War I Czechoslovak census of 1921. It showed only 7,967 Roma in Slovakia and almost none in the Czech lands. Experts reasoned that the low numbers could be caused by exclusive use of "mother tongue" in the census. More accurate 1926 data indicated 62,192 Roma in Slovakia, though gypsiologist Dr. Eva Davidova felt the real numbers were much higher. 4 Efforts were made in Slovakia during this period to open schools for Gypsies and to encourage the development of cultural organizations for them. Some attempts were also inade privately to improve Gypsy health. One of the most famous Gypsy schools in Slovakia at this time was in Uzhorod. Opened in 1925 by Pavel Fodor, it gained an international reputation for its instruction in Slovak. 5 What gains were made by Slovak Roma disappeared with the coming of World War II. After the German dismemberment 3 Ibid., pp. 40-42. • Ibid., pp. 42-44. ' Ibid., pp. 44-47. SLOVAKIA 29 of Czechoslovak.a in 1939, two separate states emerged - the German- controlled Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the German-allied state of Slovakia. Whereas Gypsies in Bohemia and Moravia suffered from harsh Nazi policies throughout the Porajmos or Gypsy Holocaust, the Roma in Slovakia fared much better. 6 Part of the reason for Slovakia's comparatively mild treatment of its Gypsies centered around Germany's desire for Slovakia to be a model satellite state in southeastern Europe. Consequently, the government, the Catholic church, and business enjoyed semi-autonomy. Furthermore, Father Jozef Tiso, the head of state, opposed the complete nazification of his country. In time, Reich officials came to realize that the only way - they could achieve their goals was through political pressure and an intense propaganda campaign. Anything else would hamper Slovakia's contribution to the German war effort. Almost all of Slovakia's Gypsies survived the war because of this. This did not mean, however, that the Slovak government left its Roma population alone. Within months after the creation of Slovakia in the spring of 1939, the Tiso government ordered nomadic Gypsies to return to their legal residences, and made it illegal for them to do any horse trading. On September 25, 1939, Jews were deprived of their Slovak citizenship, while Gypsies who were born in Slovakia and wanted Slovak citizenship had to prove that they lived an orderly way of life; had a steady place of residence and employment; and were honorable citizens as reflected in their education, their moral and political trustworthiness, and their activity in their community, could they be included in the Slovak national community. If they did not fulfill the aforementioned conditions, or if they fulfilled them only ' Ibid. , pp. 47-51. 30 SLOVAKIA partially-if they worked only occasionally, if they spoke the Gypsy language among themselves, if their moral and political trustworthiness was doubtful, etc.--they could not be considered members of the Slovak national community. In other words, wandering Gypsies did not qualify for citizenship. 1 Four months later, Ferdinand Durcansky, Slovakia's Interior Minister, ordered that Gypsies and Jews were to work in special labor units as alternatives to military service, which was later set "at two terms of two months twice annually." Durcansky defined a Gypsy in Law No. 130/1940 of June 18, 1940, as someone who had two Roma parents and lived as a nomad, or a sedentary person who avoided work. Other regulations issued during this period made it illegal for Gypsies to ride public transportation, eat in cafes, or enter public parks. As Germany intensified pressure on the Slovaks to increase their contribution to the war effort, the Tiso government created seasonal labor camps in 1941 where Gypsies often made up over half of the workers. Conditions in the labor units were bad. Inmates suffered increasingly from inadequate clothing and shoes, cold, infestation with lice and bedbugs, hunger, and disease, especially trachoma and typhus. 8 7 Jorg K. Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic, 1939-1945," in Victor S. Mamatey and Radomfr Luza, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic J9 J 8- J 948 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 278-279, 284-286; Jiff Upa, "The Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia under Nazi Domination," in Michael Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims· Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis (New York: New York University Press, 1990), pp. 209-210; Ctibor Necas. Nad osudem ceskych a sI ovenskych Cikam1 v letech I 939- I 945 (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne, 1981 ), p. 70. • Upa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210; Gypsy and Jewish service regulations were included in legislation of January 18, 1940, and February 29, 1940. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 82-129, devotes a great deal of time to the little SLOVAKIA 31 Many prisoners practiced self-mutilation to gain their freedom. In 1943, one member of the Slovak Diet, Hut'ka, criticized the conditions of the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou. He felt the labor camps had been opened "to re-educate the asocial elements, not...to torture people and bring them into an even worse moral degradation." 9 On April 20, 1941, nomadic Gypsies were given eight days to return home. Once there, they were watched by the police and only allowed to leave with special permission. The Roma were also given two weeks to dispose of their horses and wagons . Gypsy houses located near public thoroughfares had to be torn down and reconstructed at a new site determined by officials. A Gypsy representative was to work with the local mayor to ensure that local ordinances were followed. Roma were also not allowed to own dogs. These regulations evidently did not curb all Gypsy nomadism, and officials explained when they opened a new labor camp in Krupina in the summer of 1941, that nomadic Roma were to be put in such camps to force them to live a sedentary life and to learn to do productive labor. These efforts still did not stop Gypsy nomadism, and on June 21, 1943, the government ordered that all Gypsy housing be removed from alongside busy roads. 10 Each Slovak community dealt with its Roma in a different manner. The 500 Gypsies in the village of Smizany were well integrated and none were sent to labor camps. When Hlinka Guards, the Slovak paramilitary group that modeled itself on the Italian "Black Shirts" and the German SA, arrived to take Gypknown history of the Gypsy Labor Units (pracovni utvary) from 1941-1944. He provides detailed Gypsy inmate statistics for the camps at Bystre nad Topl'ou , Dubnica nad Vlihom, llava, and Revuca; Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon, ~ Destiny of Europe's Gypsies (New York: Basic Books, I972), p. 136. • Lfpa, "Fate of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 210. 10 Ibid., p. 211; Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 74-75, 130. 32 SLOVAKIA sies from the village of Letanovce, the mayor only agreed to send two Roma who had reputations as drunks. Both Gypsies returned to Letanovce at the end of the war. 11 This atmosphere changed drastically during the summer of 1944. In June, Slovak Roma were accused of spreading typhoid throughout the country, and were forbidden to ride trains unless they had a special travel permit backed by a physician's certificate that showed them free of typhoid. Gypsies could only use the rail passes for outbound trips and had to get another one if they wanted to return home. The following month, the Interior Ministry informed its regional offices that there were still Roma in some of the country's towns and villages. It ordered local officials to move all Gypsies away from roadsides, and said that if any refused to comply, they would be executed. The decree added that more forced labor camps were being prepared for Slovak Roma. 12 The climate for the Gypsies got considerably worse with the German occupation of Slovakia on September 29, 1944. Spurred by the Slovak National Insurrection of August 29-0ctober 27, 1944, the Germans clamped down harshly on the Slovaks, including the Roma, because they had actively supported the uprising. One Gypsy leader, Tomas Farkas, headed a mixed guerilla band of Roma and Slovaks during the uprising. Farkas' detachment momentarily held up German forces near Tisovec as they moved towards Banska Bystrica, the military center of the rebellion. After Banska Bystrica fell, authorities arrested Farkas' son, and imprisoned him. When Slovak partisans retreated in the 11 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 136; Emflia Horvlithova, Cii:ani na SJovensku (Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1964), p. 171. Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 137; Horvathova, Ciian.i na SJoyensku, p. 171; the train regulations were issued on June 13, 1944, while others appeared on June 19-21, 1944. Necas, Nad osudem, pp. 130-132. 12 SLOVAKIA 33 face of the German advance in the fall of 1944, the Gypsies, using hidden weapons, stayed behind to protect their families. After the rebellion's collapse, a German intelligence officer tricked the Roma into revealing details about their weapons cache. Hlinka Guards executed the Gypsy partisans as their families watched in horror. The Germans then killed all Roma women and children and buried their bodies in a lime pit. 13 Similar Gypsy massacres took place in other parts of Slovakia as retribution for their role in the Slovak National Insurrection. On November 14, 1944, 65 Roma were burned to death in two huts in Cierny Balog, while other Gypsies were forced to dig a large grave for their fallen comrades. Hlinka - Guards murdered the entire community of 111 Gypsies in Ilija eight days later, and on November 23 , butchered as many Roma as they could find in Slatina. Only three Gypsies escaped the massacre. A similar tragedy took place at Neresnice, where only two families survived. 14 Atrocities also took place at the labor camp at Dubnica nad Vahom. On September 29, 1944, German authorities in Trencin just south of Dubnica nad Vahom ordered that all male Roma from this region be sent to the labor camp at Dubnica. The Gypsy transfers were halted once the camp became full two weeks later. On November 2, 1944, Dubnica na Vahom was transformed into a concentration center for all Roma. Authorites freed all of the camp's non-Gypsy inmates to make room for the Roma. After a typhus epidemic ravaged a Gypsy camp at Ustie 1 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, pp. 137- 138; Hoensch, "The Slovak Republic," pp. 293-295 ; Anna Josko, "The Slovak Resistance Movement," in Mamatey and Luza, Histocy of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp . 375-380, 382-383. 14 Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gyspies. pp. 137-138; authorities later found a mass grave at Kremnica, which was occupied by the Germans from November 5, 1944, to January 12, 1945. It contaimed 3,723 bodies, some of them Gypsies. Netas, Nad osudem, pp. 138-141. ' 34 SLOVAKIA nad Oravou in mid-December, authorites shipped its inmates to Dubnica nad Vahom. Before the arrival of the new Roma inmates, there were 729 Roma at Dubnica nad V ahom, 250 of them children. The only recorded atrocity at the camp took place on January 17, 1945, when 16 sick Gypsy prisoners were taken from the camp and told they were being shipped to the hopsital at Trencfn. Instead, they were driven in military trucks to a wooded area, forced into a pit, and executed. The Dubnica nad V ahom camp was closed on the eve of its capture by Soviet forces on April 8, 1945. Despite these tragedies, the Gypsy survival rate in Slovakia was quite high, and estimates are that only a few hundred of Slovakia's 100,000 Rom died in the Porajmos. 15 The liberation of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1945 found the country traumatized by the human and economic devastation of the war. A massive campaign of expulsions aimed primarily at Germans and Magyars saw I .5 million people move into the former Sudetenland from other parts of Czechoslovakia, including some Gypsies. As the Germans were expelled from Cze- __ choslovakia, many Slovak Gypsies were sent to camps in northern Bohemia and Moravia where they worked as unskilled laborers. Not all Slovak Gypsies remained in the Czech lands, 15 Lfpa, "Fate of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 211 -213; Necas, Nad llS..Ll.d.e.m, pp. 111-112, I 34- 137 ; Kenrick and Puxon, Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 138; Horvathova, Cii:ani na S)ovensku, p. 173 n34; David J. Kostelancik, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia: Political and Ideological Considerations in the Development of Policy," Studies in Comparative Communism, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter 1984), p. 309; the Gypsies were not Slovakia's only victims after the Slovak National Insurrection. Estimates are that from August 1944 until April 1945, "7,500 soldiers and 2,500 partisans were killed and 3,723 civilians ... were murdered and buried in mass graves; 900 were burned in lime kilns; 30,000 people were de)Xlrted to German concentration camps; 60 communities were completely destroyed by fires and 142 were partially wiped out." Josko, "Slovak Resistance Movement," p. 383. SLOVAKIA 35 and some returned to Slovakia where they began to buy new homes. In addition, about 6,000 Olach [Olassti] Gypsies continued to live as nomads. Officials hoped the returning Slovak Roma would help solve the regions's severe labor shortage and serve as role models for other Roma. After the strong communist showing in the May 26, 1946, elections, the new Minister of the Interior, the Czech Vaclav Nosek, and others, called for restrictive policies against the Roma, whom Nosek and his supporters called questionable citizens of Czechoslovakia. 16 Efforts by Evzan Erban, the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, to continue to send Slovak Gypsies to camps in the Czech lands were stopped by the non-communist Minister of Justice, Prokop Drtina in 1947. Nosek convinced Drtina to do a census of the country's Roma population to determine how many lived as nomads. According to the census, there were 84,438 Roma in Slovakia, and 16,752 in the Czech lands. The successful communist coup in early 1948 brought to power a party that a year earlier had pledged that it would do everything possible to integrate the Gypsies into the fabric of Czechoslovakian society, and raise their social, economic, and cultural status. 17 In 1949, the government of Klement Gottwald created a special commission to investigate the "Gypsy question." The 16 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 309-310; Willy Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms: The Case of Czechoslovakia," in Farnham Rehfisch, ed., Gypsies Tinkers and Other Travellers (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 213; Tom~ Grulich and Tom~ Hai~man, "lnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske obyvatelstvo v Ceskoslovensku v letech 1945-1958," C:esky Lid, Vol. 73 , No. 2 ( 1986), p. 73. 17 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 310-3 I I ; Vladimir Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku Demo2rafje, Vol. Xl , No. 3 (1969), p. 194; Zdenek Suda, The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 32-36; Radomfr Luui, "Czechoslovakia between Democracy and Communism," in Mamatey and Luui, History of the Czechoslovak Republic, pp. 412-415. 36 SLOVAKIA new commission sponsored a detailed study of Czechoslovakia's Gypsies that appeared in 1950 as Zarazovani osob cikanskeho puvodu do trvaleho pracovniho procesu (Position of Individuals of Gypsy Origin in the Work Process). Two years later, this study was partly integrated into another report by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Uprava pomeru osob cikanskeho puvodu (Report About the Life of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia). This latter study blamed earlier governments and societies for the Roma's low social and economic status, and promised that the new People's Democratic State would resolve the "Gypsy question" if the Roma willingly and quickly become accustomed to conscientious work, they adopt trades, they take part in socialist competition, they become shock-workers, members and functionaries of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and the Revolutionary Trade-Union Movement. 18 However, over the next eight years, Czechoslovak leaders did little to help the Gypsies improve their quality of life. Numerous regional and local decrees touched on health care and housing needs, and emphasized changing the behavior of the Roma. 19 Communist Party propaganda, however, underscored improved Gypsy school attendance, literacy, and new attitudes towards work and integration. By the mid-1950s, this congratulatory tone changed as the reality of the Gypsy's plight and demographic growth became more apparent to the country's leadership. In 1956, authorities began to talk about a national Gypsy crisis, which was linked to their continued nomadism. 18 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 0-311; Grulich and Hai~man, "Institucionalnf zajem o cikanske," p. 74. " Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 311, 320; Josef Kalvoda, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," in David M. Crowe and John Kolsti, eds., ~ Gypsies of Eastern Europe (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991), p. 93. SLOVAKIA 37 According to an article in Zemedelske Novjny (Agricultural Newspaper) in 1957, only 40% of the country's Roma were working in industry and agriculture. The Slovak journal Smena (Direction) added that the nomadic Roma lifestyle heightened prejudice towards them, which the journal compared to "discrimination against the Negro in the United States.":n These problems and attitudes, coupled with the size of the Roma population nationwide, which Radio Bratislava estimated in 1958 to be 150,000, prompted the Communist Party to approve a resolution on April 8, 1958, that demanded a new campaign to resolve the "Gypsy question." Similar to new policies throughout the Soviet bloc at that time, the Party called for a mass campaign addressed to both the Gypsies and white -- bigots, for lifting the Gypsies' extraterritorial immunities and punishment of nomadism. 21 Czechoslovakia's Gypsies were now officially divided into three categories - nomads, semi-nomads, and completely sedentary - in anticipation of Law No. 74, of October 17, 1958, "Act on Permanent Settlement of Nomadic People." The new law instructed local officials to work with nomads, whom it defined as an individual who 0 Otto Ulc, "Communist National Minority Policy: The Case of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Soviet Studies, Vol. XX, No. 4 (April 1969), pp. 422-424 ; "Minorites in Eastern Europe," Eastern Europe. Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1959), pp . 13-14. 21 "M inorities in Eastern Europe," p. 14; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 311, improperly places the date for the passage of Law No. 74 as November 17, 1958; Grulich and Hai§man, "Jnstitucionalnf zajem o cikanske," pp. 77-78; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 214-215. Guy estimates the number of registered nomads at 20,000-27,000; Ulc, "Gyps ies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-426, says officials estimated that the semi-nomadic Rom were the largest group among the Gypsies. ' 38 SLOVAKIA in groups or individually, wanders from place to place, shuns honest work or obtains his livelihood by iniquitious means even though he may be registered in some community as its permanent resident.-n. According to the new law, if anyone continued to live in this manner, he or she could be imprisoned for six months to three years. Two other parts of Law No. 74 gave the Minister of the Interior the right 11 to issue executive orders to this effect, including registration of the nomads. 11 Though the new regulations never mentioned the Roma, they were its only target, particularly the country's 6,000 nomadic Olach Gypsies. Official estimates indicated that there were from 11,000 to 40,000 nomadic Roma in Czechoslovakia at this time. 23 In an effort to avoid charges of racism, officials also upgraded the Gypsies' official status to a "socio-ethnic group." Unfortunately, Czechoslovak authorities did not anticipate the complex economic and social problems that would accompany their efforts to force the complete integration of the nation's Gypsies. Many nomadic Roma found ways to avoid punishment for thsir lifestyle, while local efforts to force settlement through the assignment of precious housing to Gypsies created growing resentment against a group that some came to see as privileged. Many Slovaks and Czechs felt the Roma were a privileged group that had special rights without obligations. The public complained that the Gypsies were measured by different standards and took advantage of their unique position. More importantly, the government's new efforts did little to upgrade the low socio-economic status of the Roma, and perhaps made it worse for the newly settled Gypsies, who, located principally in Slova- 22 23 UII!, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 424-425. Ibid., pp. 425-426. SLOVAKIA 39 kia, still lived in slums with inadequate plumbing and sanitation facilites. 24 Consequently, in 1965, the Communist Party asked local officials to do a more thorough investigation of the plight of the Roma and develop a long range plan for Gypsy assimilation. The result was Ordinance No. 502 of June 1965, which developed a Gypsy reform progam that centered around fullemployment possibilities for Gypsies able to work full time. These efforts were considered essential to upgrading the standard of living for Roma, and tied to plans to destroy substandard Gypsy settlements and the movement of Roma from Slovakia to other parts of the country. The Academy of Sciences was asked to do a study of Roma life, while the state-controlled media was ord.tred to help counter nationwide prejudice against the Roma. A new government body, the National Council for Questions of the Gypsy Population (NCQGP), which had no Gypsy members, was to serve as the program's watchdog. The NCQGP produced three position papers, but was abolished in 1968. 25 At the center of this new program was the destruction of substandard Gypsy housing and settlements, primarily in Slovakia, and the forced resettlement and employment of their Rom inhabitants. Officials estimated that 67.3% of Slovakia's 153,000 Gypsies lived in extremely substandard housing. The government pin-pointed 1,266 Roma settlements in Slovakia for destruction, and the transfer of 64,096 Gypsies. Officials planned to move the effected Slovak Gypsies to the Czech lands after their settlements were razed. Local governments, aided by national ,. Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. 426; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 98-99. 25 Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia." pp. 312-313; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia." pp. 430-431. Of the 56,000 Rom in eastern Slovakia, only 2.2% had an adequate water supply; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 2 I 922 . 40 SLOVAKIA subsidies, would then be responsible for the Gypsies' housing and employment. The resettlement program was voluntary. Once a Gypsy family was convinced of the wisdom of moving, the government would give the family a special payment, combined with a 25-30% subsidy and low cost government loan, which would be used to purchase a new home in the Czech lands. However, inadequate funding, coupled with growing resentment towards the new Roma presence in the Czech lands, and the unwillingness of some Gypsies to remain there, undercut the success of the program. Between 1965-1968, the government was only able to eliminate a third of the Roma settlements targeted for destruction. 26 As authorities struggled with the mixed results of this new transfer and employment program, Czechoslovakia was turned inside out by the events of the Prague Spring in 1968.Z7 On the eve of the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakia had an official Gypsy population of 223,993, with 164,526 in Slovakia, and 59,467 in the Czech lands. In 1968, the Roma in Slovakia formed their first official organization, the Union of Gypsy-Romanies (UGR or Zvaz Cikanov-Romov; Romani, Romano Jekhetaniben), followed by a similar Czech organization in 1969. Later that year, both groups joined together, but maintained separate Slovak and Czech branches. The UGR received funds from the National Front and had branches throughout Czechoslovakia. Its goals were to improve the socio-economic status of the Roma and enhance the Gypsies' awareness of their own culture and 2 • Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 432-433 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 312-314; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 219-220; Hiibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," p. 115 n I 9. 27 Otto Ulc, "Czechoslovakia," in Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, ed., Communism io Eastern Europe, Second Edition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), pp. 121-123; William Shawcross, ~ (New York : Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1990), pp. 114-119. SLOVAKIA 41 traditions. The UGR also wanted to acquire nationality status for the Roma, which triggered an engaging debate between Gypsy and non-Gypsy intellectuals about the entire "Gypsy question." Central to the debate was Jaroslav Sus' 1963 study, Cikanska otazka v CSSR (The Gypsy Question in the CSSR), which described the Rom way of life as [an] undesirable combination of 'nomadism, tribalism ...and blood f euds,' and the Romani language as ... unworthy of preservation. Consequently, Sus felt that "unconditional assimilation [was] ... the only solution for the question." 28 Roma scholar Elena Htibschmannova, long an advcoate of --Gypsy nationality status, led the attack on Sus' ideas. Htibschmannova shifted responsibility for some aspects of the "Gypsy Question" to the shoulders of the government, as did the August 1969 Programme of the Founding Congress of the Czech Gypsy-Rom Association [Union], which felt that "fears of the results of granting rights to the Gypsies as a nationality" lay at the heart of the question. As this debate raged, plans were made to start a Roma journal, and the UGR's membership rolls swelled to 20,000 between 1968 - 1971. Several hundred Gypsy musical and sports groups were formed, and the media began to refer to the country's Roma as "citizens of Gypsy origin." Unfortunately, after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, the new government of Gustav Husak introduced an era of "normalization" that gradually chipped away at many of the gains achieved by the Roma during the Prague Spring. In April I 973, the government expelled the UGR from the National Front, and outlawed other Gypsy organizations because "they had failed to fulfill their integrative function." 29 21 " Crowe, Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, pp. 58-59. Srb, "Cikani v Ceskoslovensku, ~ p. 194; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of 42 SLOVAKIA What followed was a renewed effort to force Gypsy integration and assimilation, coupled with a new sterialization scheme to reduce Gypsy births.~ One of the darker sides of the new Roma assimilation campaign were efforts to promote the sterilization of Gypsy women. The seed for this idea was planted in a February 29, 1972, Ministry of Health "Decree on Sterilization." Though "designed to safeguard against arbitrary or illinformed sterilization of all Czechoslovak citizens," the decree was used to encourage the sterilization of Romany women in order to reduce the high unhealthy' Romany population and, as a result, a disproportionately high number of Romany women were sterilized, often in violation of the existing safeguards and of their rights to non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or sex. 3 ' Czechoslovakia," pp. 3 I 7-318 ; Eva Davidova, "The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia, " Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society. Third Series, Vol. I, Nos. 12 (Jan uary-April), pp. 53-54; Guy, "Ways of Looking at Roms," pp. 220-22 I , 223, n44; Grattan Puxon, "Gypsies: Blacks of East Europe," The Nation. April 17, I 976, pp. 461-462; Hlibschmannova, "Co je tak zvana cikanska otazka," pp . 105, I 12 nl6, I 13- 114, I 16 n23, 117-118 ; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 101-103 ; Otto Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia: A Case of Unfinished Integration," Eastern European Politics and Societies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1988), pp. 310-312. 30 Other estimates put the 1970 Roma population at over 300,000. Vladimir Srb, "Demograficky profil ~eskoslovenskych romu," Cesky Lid, Vol. 72 ( 1985), p. 139; Vladimir Srb, "K integraci cikanskeho obyvatelstva v CSSR," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XXI, No. 4 (1979), p. 323; V. Srb and J. Job, "Nektere demograficke, ekonomicke a kultumi charakteristiky romskehe obyvatelstva v CSSR 1970," Demoi:rafie, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (1974), p. 173 ; Kostelancik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 106; Paul S. Shoup, The East European and Soviet Data Handbook (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), pp. 42, 48; Chris Cook and John Stevenson, The Loni:man Handbook of Modern European History )763-)985 (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 216,218. 31 Rachael Tritt, Jeri Laber, and Lois Whitman, Strui:i:Jini: for Ethnic Identity · Czechoslovakia's Endani:eced Gypsies (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1992), SLOVAKIA 43 According to a Slovak document released in 1979 by Charter 77, a Czechoslovak dissident group, the Slovak government had already begun a program that used economic incentives to get Gypsy women to be sterilized because of earlier, unsuccessful government efforts "to control the high unhealthy Romany population through family planning and contraception." Local health workers offered some prospective sterilization candidates as much as 5,000 Crowns to undergo the procedure. As pressure intensified to get more Gypsy women to agree to sterilization, some health workers often made unfulfilled offers of as high as 30,000 Crowns. Charter 77 protested this practice in 1979, and claimed that it violated Article No. 259 of the state penal code, which dealt with genocide. But this was not the only - . criticism in Charter 77's 1979 document. On a broader scale, Charter 77 decried government practices designed to stop Gypsy nomadism and force assimilation, and the official denial of Roma ethnic status. According to Charter 77, the collective impact of these programs set into play "a process of social disintegration which has no comparison in the history of the Gypsies. This fact is substantiated by an ever increasing number of Gypsies who are sentenced to loss of freedom." 32 While it difficult to gauge the impact of the 1979 Charter 77 report on the plight of the Roma, population data from the 1980 census spurred further government action. The 1980 census showed a Roma population of 288,440, an increase of 31.3% over 1970 figures. Czechoslovakia's total population only grew by 6%. during the same period. The greatest increase in Gypsy growth rates was in the Czech republic, where the Roma population increased 47% between 1970 - 1980, versus a 25.5% rise in Slovakia. Even these figures, though, are misleading, since pp. 19, 139-144. 2 ' Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 20, 24, 26-27; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 314-315. 44 SLOVAKIA arbitrary counting methods showed a discrepancy between national census figures, and those recorded in local "Gypsy Registers," which indicated that there were 306,246 Roma in Czechoslovakia in 1980. The absolute rise in Gypsy population numbers was less troubling to the government than the national and Rom childbirth rate figures. The overall Czechoslovak childbirth rate was on the decline, and by 1982 was "below the level of biological reproduction." The average Czechoslovak woman bore 2.4 children in the 1970s compared to 6.4 children for a Gypsy woman. 33 These increases were remarkable, particularly in light of continued government efforts to destroy Slovak Gypsy slums and the forced movement of Slovak Roma to Czech portions of the country. Other Gypsies also moved to the Czech lands because of better job opportunities and a higher standard of living. Between 1972-1980, officials destroyed 4,000 Roma dwellings in Slovakia, and moved 4,850 Gypsies elsewhere. Though Gypsy housing standards improved appreciably between during this period, there were still 5.6 persons in thct average Roma apartment or house versus a national average of 3.1 persons per dwelling. By 1980, a little more than 70% of the country's Gypsy population lived in apartments, while 10% still lived in primitive settlements that were to be destroyed by 1990. The number in extremely unfit housing dropped from 80.7% in 1970 to 49% between 1970 and 1980. Another part of the Roma assimilation campaign centered around attempts to force more Gypsy children into the public schools. In 1971, only 10% of the eligible Roma children in Czechoslovakia attended kindergarten, a figure that rose to 33 Srb, "Demograficky profil foskoslovenskych Romu," pp. 139-140. There were 88,507 Gypsies in the Czech Republic in 1980, and 199,853 in Slovakia; Ul~, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 315-316; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 108-109. SLOVAKIA 45 58.5% in 1980. During the same period, the number .of Gypsy children that finished public school rose from 16.6% to 25.6%, while the number enrolled in colleges and universities increased from 39 to 191. Nationwide, literacy rates rose to 90% among Roma adults. On the other hand, Gypsy school dropout rates in Slovakia increased substantially as Roma pupils moved from grade to grade. In 1983-1984, 72.2% of the Slovak students who failed to go into the second grade were Gypsies, and almost a third of the Roma who went to second grade barely had minimal literacy skills, a figure that jumped to 50% for Gypsy 4th graders. Nationwide, many Gypsies entered the school system with a knowledge of only a few hundred Slovak or Czech words, and were often assigned to special instititions (zvlastnf skoly) designed for the mentally retarded. Only a third of the country's Gypsy children finished 8th grade in 19831984, and only 4% went on to university or college. 34 Gypsy employment figures for this period were also a mixture of success and failure. Though 1981 data showed an 87.7% employment rate for male Gypsy workers that was close to the national average of 91 .9% for all adult males, the 54.95% employment rate for Roma female workers was well below the national average of 87.7% for all women. In addition, over three quarters of all Gypsies employed held low paying, non-skilled jobs. The overall impact of the employment, educational, and housing data found Czechoslovakia's Roma on a socio-economic plateau that proved difficult to transcend. According to Irnrich Farkas, the official responsible for Gypsy matters in Slovakia, the government felt that it would be harder to improve the quality " Kostelanc ik, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," pp. 313-3 I 5. In I 980, 59% of the Gypsies in Slovakia lived in the lowest classification for housing, Class IV. Kindergarten attendance rates in eastern Slovakia, where 53% of Slovakia's Rom lived in 1980, rose from 10% to 66% between 1970-1980; Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 319-320. 46 SLOVAKIA of Gypsy life "because increasingly left for solution are those socially and culturally backward families." 35 The government tried to put the best light on its assimilation efforts, and publicized some Gypsy success stories. Bratislava Pravda reported that 435 Roma had been elected to predominantly low level positions as deputies of Peoples Committees, and that one Gypsy, Emil Rigo, had briefly been a member of the Politburo in 1968. Officials also used successful Gypsies to counter efforts to acquire nationality status for the Roma. In 1986, Rude Pravo responded to the World Romany Congress' appeal for nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Gypsies partially with a statement by Mirosalv 2.ajda, an assimilated Roma and Party member who told the newspaper that he was quite content with his life. 36 The lack of nationality status for Czechoslovakia's Roma, who were officially referred to as citizens "of Gypsy origin," robbed them of the special rights and financial support afforded officially recognized minorities. It also placed them into a limbo world where they were forced to identify with other ethnic groups. Their plight was compounded by the growing body of prejudice that accompanied their growing numbers and official attention. 37 To many Slovaks and Czechs, Gypsies were the tmavi kluci (dark boys), a term that automatically identified one as a Roma. According to Otto Ulc, post-1968 Czechsolvakia became a society that was "less tolerant, more impatient, and egotistic." Increasingly, he observed, the public saw Gypsies as "beneficiaries of a host of privileges on their path to the less- " Kostelancik, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 3I3-315; Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322-323 . 36 Ulc, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 322 n36, 326. 37 Ibid., pp. 323-326. Not all Gypsies suffered from lack of nationality status on the same scale, and there were a number of instances, particularly in Slovakia, where local officials encouraged Rom ethnicity. SLOVAKIA 47 than-cherished goal of integration." Furthermore, Ulc argued, Slovaks and Czechs became "thoroughly uninhibited about making racial slurs and expressing racist prejudice of the oldfashioned vintage." They saw the Roma as "dirty, lazy, dishonest, primitive, parasitic, and inferior." 38 Government efforts to counter this prejudice met with mixed results, since the press used stories that gave explicit details about instances of unfair treatment of Gypsies with others that detailed Roma crime. Bratislava Pravda, for example, claimed in 1983 that the Gypsies, who made up 4 % of Slovakia's population, accounted for 24 percent of the charges of parasitism, 50 __ percent of robberies, 60 percent of petty thefts, 75 percent of charges for endangering the morals of youth, and 20 percent of all crimes committed.'39 The overall impact of such reports was to create a very unwelcome, suspicious climate for Czechoslovakia's growing Roma population that worsened as the country and its leadership drifted towards the collapse of the system that had dominated the country since 1948.'° As the Velvet Revolution swept Czechoslovakia in 1989, a plethora of political parties and other organizations surfaced. A number of Gypsy parties emerged during this period, including the Party of the Integration of the Romany People in Slovakia and the Party of the Democratic Romany Union. The most important was the Romany Civic Inititative (ROI or Romska obcanska iniciativa), which had close links to Civic Forum (Obcanske Forum), the umbrella political organization for a number of the country's dissident factions . ROI soon had a 31 Ult, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 327-328. " Kalvoda, "Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," p. I06. •• lhid., p. 106. 48 SLOVAKIA membership of over 70,000, and held its first national meeting in Prague in the spring of 1990. One of its first decisions was to vote to erect a monument in Bratislava to the Rom victims of the Holocaust. The ROI congress elected Emil Scuka, a lawyer and playwright, to head the organization.41 Yet the very democracy that gave Slovak and Czech Gypsies the opportunity to form their own political and other organizations also created a new atmosphere for open, virulent expressions of prejudice towards them. Of particular concern to many non-Gypsies was the dramatic growth of the Roma population. In 1988, the government estimated that there were 391 ,000 Rom in Czechoslovakia, a 35.5% increase over 1980 figures. Other sources estimated there were as many as 700,000-800,000 Roma in Czechoslovakia, with 470,000 a more reasonable figure. Some perceived these figures to be a new threat, and the newspaper Express warned in an article on July 2, 1990, "that the Gypsy fertility may mean a ' tragedy', that within a century the country may well have to be renamed the Romska republika. 42 These fears combined with the deep-rooted, traditional prejudices towards the Roma, and prompted some people to depict the-Gypsies as new symbols of everything gone awry in Czechoslo- " Otto Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," Ethnic Groups. Vol. 9, No. 2 ( 1991 ), pp. 11 2- 11 3; in 1986, Scuka produced the "musical drama Amaro Drom (Our Road)...only the second play in Romanes ever to be staged in Czechoslovakia." Grattan Puxon, Roma· Europe's Gypsies (London: Minority Rights Group, 1987), p. 11 . " Radio Free Europe/Rad io Liberty, "Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 39 (22 September 1989), pp. 33, 36-37 ; Ulc, "Integration of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia," pp. 113-114; Czechoslovakia's population was 15,658,079, in Ju ly 1989, and 15,683,234, a year later, an increase of 25,155. Suda, "Czechoslovakia," p. 319, and Carol Skalnik Leff, "Czechoslovakia," in Richard F. Staar and Margit N. Grigory, eds., Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1221 (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1991), p. 269. SLOVAKIA 49 vakia. At the forefront of this new assualt on the Rom were renewed charges of criminality. Dramatic increases in crime had plagued the country since the early 1980s, particularly in Bratislava and Prague. In a society accustomed to traditionally low crime rates, crime reached epidemic proportions by 1990. Slovakia experienced a 17.7% rise in crime between 1988-1989, while the Czech Republic reported a 52% increase during the same pericxi. Much of this increase was attributed to Gypsies, who as early as 1987 had been blamed by television reports for 38% of Bratislava's crimes, and 40% of those committed in eastern Slovakia. Gypsies 18 years old and younger were accused of being part of over 44% of all crimes nationwide in 1988. Clearer heads proved that many of these statistics were exaggerated, and that the Roma were responsible for no more than 7.5-11 % of the crime in the country. Though the more conservative estimates were still out of proportion to the number of Gypsies in Czechoslovakia, they were directly tied to post1989 Gypsy unemployment figures that reached as high as 50% in certain areas. 43 Whatever the true numbers, Czechoslovakia's Roma paid a dear price for the accusations against them. Skinhead attacks, sometimes quietly encouraged by onlookers, mounted dangerously against Gypsies and the 35,000 Vietnamese workers in Czechoslovakia throughout 1990. On April 26, Prime Minister Petr Pithart of the Czech Republic called for "peaceful coexis0 Jan Orbman, "Crime Rate Among the Young," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 12, No. 32 (14 August 1987), p. 18; Martina Nevesky, "The Gypsy Problem," Radio Free Europe Research, Vol. 14, No. 31 (4 August 1989), p. 40; Jan Orbman, "Minorities Not a Major Issue Yet," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. 2, No. 50 (December 13, 1991 ), p. 11 ; Wheaton and Kavan, The Yel vet Revo)utjon, p. 147; Jiti Pehe, "Crime Rises in Czechoslovakia," R.EElRL Research Report, Vol. 1, No. 14 (3 April 1992), p. 58; Kalvoda, "Gypsies of Czechoslovakia," p. 112, claims the Rom were responsible for 15.6% of all crimes in the Czech Republic. 50 SLOVAKIA tence with our fellow citizens of Gypsy origin," while federal Deputy Prime Minister Jan Carnogursky demanded "tougher action against those skinheads who had attacked the Gypsies." On May 3, 1990, ROI urged national leaders and organizations to speak out against racist incidents against Roma and foreigners. Four days later, Charter 77 and the Czechoslovak Helsinki Committee condemned such attacks on the Vietnamese and Gypsies, and said they constitute attacks on all of us. They are attacks on the most basic principles of ethics and humanism, attacks on the state based on Jaw that is being bom , attacks contradicting the ideals of our democratic revolution. The fact that we silently tolerate such attacks makes us accomplices. We call on all citizens to stop being indifferent to the manifestations of violence and intolerance. We appeal to our executive bodies to put a final stop to these attacks. Let us make the people who for years have been working in our country feel that they live in a society in which it is JX)SSible to have their basic human rights protected.44 Vaclav Havel detailed the wrongs done Gypsies in public statements on May 2 and in an address on July 27, 1990, to the First World Romany Festival in Brno. Though admirable, particularly when coupled with the new rights acquired by the Roma over the next year, they did not prevent the racially motivated deaths of 26 Gypsies before the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993.45 Both the federal and individual Czechoslovak republics granted the Roma full minority status, rights, and protections in " Jiri Pehe, "Racial Violence Increasing," Report on Eastern Europe, Vol. I, No. 20 (May I 8, 1990), pp. 15, 18; David Binder, "European Gypsies Issue Call for Human Rights at Meeting," The New York Times, May 5, 1993, p. 6. 5 • Tritt, Czechoslovakia's Endangered Gypsies, pp. 13-14. SLOVAKIA 51 1990-1991. Over thirty Gypsy cultural organizations arose during this period, anchored by the Union of Romany Writers and numerous newspapers and magazines. Programs in Romany Studies were opened at Charles University in Prague and at the Pedagogical Faculty in Nitra. Unfortunately, these developments were overshadowed by a new set of problems that accompanied the breakup of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993. Before the formal separation, Slovakia had an estimated Gypsy population of 400,000, and the Czech lands, 150,000. However, only 81,000 Slovak Gypsies officially identified themselves as Roma in the 1991 census. In anticipation of the breakup, a number of Slovak Rom began to move to the Czech lands because they felt • the political and social atmosphere would be more tolerant, and economic conditions better. The sudden increase in "unemployed Romanies, often unassimilated families from Romany villages in eastern Slovakia," stunned many Czechs, who soon claimed that 90% of the republic's new crime was committed by Slovak Roma. Led by individual community actions throughout the Czech Republic, the new state's Prosecutor-General "proposed to the Czech parliament a draft Law on Extraordinary Measures as a means of dealing with unrest caused by undisciplined groups of migrants." Though condemned by human rights groups and the Romany Democratic Congress, which represented 19 Gypsy groups in the Czech Republic, the law had surprising support from conservatives and local officials. The controversial legislation never passed, while the debate that surrounded it brought to the surface traditionally strong prejudice towards the Roma. 46 These feelings were also expressed in several public opinion surveys conducted before and after the January 1, 1993, breakup " Jin Pehe, "Law on Romanies Causes Uproar in Czech Republic,• REElRL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 7 (12 February 1993), pp. 18-22; Zoltan Barany, "Grim Realities in Eastern Europe." Transition, Vol. I, No. 4 (29 May 1995), p. 8. 52 SLOVAKIA of Czechoslovakia that showed almost universal hatred and distrust towards Gypsies, particularly among young Slovaks and Czechs. Officials in both countries have also been critical of the Roma. One Czech official claimed in the summer of 1993 that the Gypsies remained "a problem ... because most of them are criminals who are getting rich through thievery and prostitution." Slovak Premier Vladimfr Meciar, who lost his post in midMarch 1994 but later regained it, created an uproar on September 4, 1993, in a speech he made in Spis, where Gypsies made up 13% of the population. Meciar felt it "was necessary to curtail the extended reproduction of the socially unadaptable and mentally backward population by decreasing family allowances," which some observers felt was a reference to the country's Gypsies. Famed Nazi hunter and human rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal said that Meciar "has adopted the thinking and diction of Nazism." Meciar sued the newspaperman who originally wrote about his speech, while the Slovak government threatened to sue "any newspaper, radio or television station which refused to apologize for reporting it." Slovak authorities explained that the media had distorted Meciar's speech and released an official translation of his talk. Part of it read: They [Gypsies] should be perceived as a problem group that is growing in size ...This means that if we do not deal with them now, they will deal with us later.. Another thing we have to consider is extended reproduction of socially inadequate population.,f/ 0 Los Angeles Times Mirror, The Pulse of Europe· A Survey of Political and Socja! Values and Attitudes (Washington: Times Mirror Center for People & The Press, 1992), pp. 184-185; Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, Democracy Economic Reform and Western Assistance in Czechoslovakia Huni:ary and Poland· A Comparative Public Opinion Survey (New York: Freedom House and The American Jewish Committee, 1991), pp. 63-65; "Iron in the Soul," The Economist, March 12, 1994, pp. 55-56; Jane Perlez, "A New SLOVAKIA 53 Several months later, Monika Nemcokova, the Press Secretary for the Slovak Embassy in Washington, D.C., wrote The New York Times to complain about other distortions in an article by Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs." Kamm's article centered on Gypsies in the Slovak village of Svinia, and their poor living conditions and high unemployment. According to a parish priest in the village of Medzev, the Rom "don't want to work," and were satisfied subsisting on government welfare. The mayor of Medzev said the only solution to Slovakia's Gypsy problem was "to shoot them all," though, after a few moments, he added, "I'm no racist...But some Gypsies you would have to shoot." Ms. Nemcokova said such attitudes were "not based on racial intole. ranee, but on a significant difference in life styles and standards." She added that almost 40% of all crimes in Slovakia were committed by Roma, figures that ranged from 40-50% for all "youth cases in Slovakia." The Press Secretary felt that the Rom stipend of $71 a month was more than adequate to maintain a reasonable lifestyle in Slovakia, though she admitted it was less than half the average monthly salary of a worker. Ms. Nemcokova strongly disagreed with Kamm's assertion that there were 400,000 Roma in Slovakia, and put the figure at 250,000. She noted that the government spent 70 milllion crowns annually to help the Roma, which was "used for improving living standards in Gypsy villages, education and children's summer camps, including 3.6 million crowns for Gypsy periodicals, and 10.7 million crowns for Gypsy cultural activities.''48 Slovak Government Pledges Moderation,• The New York Times, March 17, 1994, p. A6; Peter Maas, "Half a Century after Hitler, Gypsies Face New Fight to Exist," The Washini:ton Post, August 13, 1993, p. A29; "Reported Racist Remarks Makes Slovakians Angry," Greensboro News & Record, Setpember 7, 1993, p. A5; "His Struggle," The Economjst, September 18-24, 1993, p. 56. " Henry Kamm, "In Slovak Gypsy Ghetto, Hovels and Plea for Jobs,• The New SLOVAKIA 54 The current status of the Roma in Slovakia is quite grim. The Slovak Gypsies have been hit particularly hard by the sluggish economy, and there are reports of Roma unemployment rates as high as 100%, particularly in eastern Slovakia, where most Roma live. The rather topsy turvy political situation and lack of commitment to address the complex problems faced by the country's Roma has stifled any significant government efforts to develop a mature program to raise Gypsy educational, social, and economic standards. The Slovak Government's minority department has only five people on its staff, and there is only one Gypsy expert in the Ministry of Education. Until something more is done to address the sad plight of Slovak Roma, they will remain a community outside of the fabric of Slovak society. 49 The serious social, economic, employment, and educational problems faced by Slovakia's Roma are not unique to this young Republic. Roma suffer from similar difficulties throughout Central and Eastern Europe, where most continental Gypsies live. Most of Slovakia's neighbors are faced with rising Roma birthrates vis vis static native rates, and serious financial problems that hinder the dramatic types of educational and social experiments used earlier to try to draw the Roma more deeply into the fabric of the societies of Central and Eastern Europe. These difficulties, though, should not be used as an excuse to fail to deal with the problems of this growing minority. Hopes that the Roma, in the right circumstances, might move elsewhere, are misguided, since Slovakia's Roma have lived in the region for centuries and have deep roots there. Furthermore, in light of their growing numbers and new political activism, the Roma could, in future, present an interesting political threat to Slovakia's current ruling parties. Moreover, rulers in Slovakia and a York Times, November 28, 1993, p. A4; Monica Nemcokova, "Don't Blame Slovakia for Gypsy Problem," The New York Times, December 15, 1993, p. A14. " Barany, "Grim Realities," p. 8. SLOVAKIA 55 elsewhere in the region should remember that their treatment of the Roma has become an important litmus test of the depth of their democratic experiments in Western eyes. Any failure to deal positively and creatively with each country's Roma population could have negative implications for any of the states in the region trying to draw closer to the West.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Roma of Slovakia Since 1939 Description An account of the resource David M. Crowe Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 26-55 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Crowe, David M., 1943- Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 LCNAF+dates https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/331321884c9f55aa84206b61ad4f3cc0.pdf 64fa100b538c3e122102ada6133bffb9 PDF Text Text SLOVAKIA 7 Slovak FraternalBenefit Societies in North America: An Overview (1883-1993) M. Mark Stolarik (Conference on The Development and Significance of the Fraternal Movement and Fraternal Organizations Among Immigrants in North and South America and Europe, Maribor, Slovenia, May, 1994) In a book of essays that set out to explore how ethnic groups have used the principles of collectivism to deal with their new life in America, Scott Cummings lamented that "Relatively little has been written about self-help institutions and mutual benefit societies created by immigrant groups." 1 When applied to the Slovaks in North America, this statement still holds true. While several community studies of Slovaks in North America have appeared in recent years, none have compared and contrasted the creation of fraternal-benefit societies among Slovaks in the United States and Canada. 2 This essay will make such an attempt, 1 Scott Cummings, ed., Self-Help in Urban America: Patterns of Minority Business Enterprise (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1980), 5. 2 The principal community studies are M. Mark Stolarik, Growing Up on the South Side: Three Generations of Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, /880- 1976 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1985) and June Granatir Alexander, �8 SLOVAKIA although only in a preliminary fashion, because we still lack professional studies of the many fraternal-benefit societies established by Slovak immigrants to North America over the last 100 years. 3 When Slovaks from the Kingdom of Hungary (and other immigrants as well) began to migrate to North America in search of work in the late 19th century, they quickly discovered that, while the New World had plenty of job opportunities in the coal mines, steel mills and oil refineries, it did not provide much in the way of social welfare benefits. Thus, if an immigrant fell ill, was injured on the job, or even killed, neither his employer, nor The Immigrant Church and Community: Pittsburgh's Slovak Catholics and Lutherans, 1880-1915 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987). 3 Besides many jubilee-books written by talented amateurs (some of which will be cited later on), three semi-professional histories of Slovak fratemals do exist: Jozef Pauco's 75 rokov Prvej Katolfckej Slovenskej Jednoty (75 Years of the First Catholic Slovak Union] (Cleveland : First Catholic Slovak Union , 1965); Anthony X. Sutherland's The Canadian Slovak League: A History, /9321982 (Toronto: Canadian Slovak League, 1984); and R. Vladimir Baumgarten's and Joseph Stefka's The National Slovak Society: JOO Year History, 1890-1990 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1990). Although the latter do provide us with basic information about these societies over time, they are all "in-house" histories aimed at their members and ignore the basic conventions of professional historians, especially the concerns of the new social history. In addition, three articles (or chapters in books) written by professional historians or anthropologists focusing on Slovak fraternals in specific locations also exist. June Alexander has detailed the rise and functions of fraternals in the Pittsburgh area in chapter two "From Self-Help to Community Development: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," of her book cited above, pp.15-27; the psycho-anthropologist Howard F. Stein has analyzed Slovak fraternals in western Pennsylvania, especially in the McKeesport and Duquesne settlements in "An Ethnohistory of Slovak-American Religious and Fraternal Associations: A Study in Cultural Meaning, Group Identity, and Social Institutions," in Slovakia, XXIX (1980-1981) , 63-88; and the author of this paper has provided an over-view of Slovak-American fraternals based upon his study of the Slovak community in Bethlehem in "A Place for Everyone: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," in the book edited by Scott Cummings, cited above, pp.130-41. �SLOVAKIA 9 any level of government, paid him or his family any form of support or compensation. 4 The Slovaks were not the first to discover this shortcoming in American society. Indeed, as early as the 17th century, Scottish immigrants to America began to form self-help organizations, which later came to be known as fraternal-benefit societies. These were private bodies consisting of immigrants and their descendants who pooled their resources, established a common treasury, and paid relief or compensation to members who had become victims of some misfortune. 5 Contrary to Oscar Handlin's claim that they were products of the American environment, fraternal-benefit societies had roots in Europe dating back to at least the 15th century, and perhaps even earlier. Similarly, craft-guilds, which were not abolished until 1872 in the Kingdom of Hungary, also had a social-welfare component. 6 4 Margaret Byington, Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town (Pitt sburgh : The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910. Reprinted by the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), 161. 5 Gordon Donaldson, "Scots," in Stephan Thernstrom et.al., Harvard Encyclo- pedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1980), 915 . 6 Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that MadetheAmerican People (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1951), 170-71, 176; Al:!beta Gacsova traced the first fraternal-benefit society in Hungary to the silver miners of Slovakia in 1460. See her Boje slovenskeho fudu proti feudalnemu utlaku a vykorist'ovaniu [The Struggle of the Slovak People Against Feudal Oppression and Exploitation] (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1960), 64; Slovak editors discussed both fraternal-benefit societies and craft guilds in Narodnf hlasnik (National Herald , Turc. Sv. Martin), October 31, 1868, p.225 ; January 31, 1869, p.22; November 30, 1871, pp.331-32; and August 31, 1872, pp.242-44; and workers in Slovakia did try to organize fraternal-benefit societies in the 1870's and l 880's, before the massive emigration of Slovaks to the United States began. Cf. Narodnf hlasnik, March 31, 1874, pp.62-3, and Narodnie noviny (National News, Turc. Sv. Martin), February 8, 1881 , p. I. For an analysis of workers' societies in the city of Kosice in eastern Slovakia in the late �SLOVAKIA Thus, when central and eastern European migrants came to North America in the late 19th century, they had several models to choose from when they began to establish fraternal-benefit societies. They could copy from their American neighbours the structure of their fraternal-benefit societies, or some of these Slovaks, especially the skilled craftsmen or former miners, could draw upon previous experiences with craft guilds or fraternalbenefit societies in their homelands.7 Whatever their model, Slovak immigrants, who started to appear in the United States in the late 1870's, established around 50 local fraternal-benefit societies by 1890. 8 When one looks closely at these societies, one is bound to notice a tremendous variety in their origins, composition, religious, secular or national orientation. From Stefan Vesely's recent description, and listing of Slovak-American fraternals between 1883 and 1890, I extrapolated the following information: seven of these fraternals included the word "Hungarian" (along with "Slovak") in their titles; 26 used only the word "Slovak" (and not Hungarian) in their official name; 16 were secular-oriented, and 33 were religious. Of the 16 secular ones, two were organized by and for craftsmen. Furthermore, 25 of the fratemals arose in Pennsylvania, 8 in New Jersey, 6 in Ohio, 5 in New York, 3 in Connecticut and 1 each in Illinois and Minnesota. The largest concentration in and around cities was found in the Pittsburgh region 19th century, see Pavel Hapak, "K dejinam robotnfckych spolkov v Ko~iciach v druhej polovici 19. storocia," Nove obzory, 4 (1962), 162-63. 7 Slovaks in Bayonne, New Jersey and in Braddock, Pennsylvania said they learned about fraternal -benefit societies from their German and Irish neighbours. Cf. Ignac Gessay, "Spolky pred organizaciami." [Fraternals Before Organizations] , Narodnf kalendar, 191 I (Pittsburgh), 74-76. For a discussion of fraternal-benefit societies in Slovakia in the late 19th century see my Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-/918 (New York : AMS Press, 1989), 70-72. 8 Stefan Vesely, "Prve slovenske spolky v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in America], S/ovaci v zahranicf, 4-5 (Martin: Matica slovenska, 1979, 53-55. �SLOVAKIA 11 (7), followed by Cleveland (6), New York City (3), Passaic, New Jersey (3) and Bridgeport, Connecticut (3). The largest regional concentration was in eastern Pennsylvania, where 16 of the 50 fraternals sprang up. 9 The above statistical summary very nicely parallels what is widely-known about the Slovak-American community: that approximately half of all Slovak immigrants settled in Pennsylvania, and the rest in the surrounding Northeastern states; that the religious orientation of Slovak immigrants outweighed the secular, and that Slovak nationalism established a quick foothold in America at the expense of pro-Hungarian feeling. 10 Furthermore, when one looks at Slovak fraternals at a local level, as I have done in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, one will learn even more about the Slovak community in America. Between 1891 and 1918, the approximately 1,000 Slovaks who settled in the steel town of Bethlehem in eastern Pennsylvania, established 19 fraternal-benefit societies. Since the men had come first, they created the 10 earliest fraternals, starting in 1891, and their wives followed suit with 9 fraternals of their own (the men initially did not allow women to join their fraternals ). 11 In addition to this division by sex, Slovak fraternals were also established on the basis of religion. Thus, of the 19 fraternals in Bethlehem, 12 were religious, with the Roman Catholics claiming eight, the Lutherans two and the Greek Catholics two as well. These religiously-based fraternals were equally divided by gender. 12 9 Ibid. IO Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920, Vol. II, Population: General Report and Analytical Tables (Washington, D.C., 1922), 984. Stolarik, Immigration and Urbanization, 99; Alexander, Immigrant Church and Community, 132-34; and M. Mark Stolarik, "The Slovak Search for Identity in the United States, 1880-19 I 8," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism , XX (Nos. 1-2, 1993), 45-55 . I I Stolarik, Growing Up, 34-38. 12 Ibid. �12 SLOVAKIA Seven of the Slovak fraternals in Bethlehem were secularoriented, and they also highlighted both national and regional differences among the Slovaks. Six of these fraternals were ultra-nationalist, and their members hailed predominantly from central and western Slovakia. 13 This major difference among Slovaks in Bethlehem became apparent only in the fraternal records, because the majority of Slovaks in this town came from Eastern Slovakia. 14 Both dialectical, and national feelings, divided the Slovaks in Bethlehem. Furthermore, some of the fraternal records in Bethlehem also revealed class divisions within the Slovak community. The Sts. Cyril and Methodius Society, for instance, which was the first to be founded (in 1891 ), attracted the wealthiest and most successful of the Slovak businessmen in town, and by 1900 it demanded a $6.00 initiation fee from prospective members. Since this represented half a week's wages in the steel mill, only the better-off Slovaks could afford to join this lodge. The rest had to content themselves with less-expensive (and lessprestigious) lodges.1 s While Slovak fraternals mirrored the divisions within the community, they also performed many positive functions. As already mentioned, in return for monthly dues of about $0.50 they provided accident, illness or death benefits to their members, or their survivors. 16 They also provided personal loans, or even mortgages, to members in good standing, if their treasuries were large enough. 17 Furthermore, they taught their members the principles of democracy through their election of officers, and through the procedure of their meetings. 18 Indeed, many Slovak 13 Ibid., 36. 14 Ibid., 23, 28-30, 36. 15 Ibid., 34-5. I 6 Ibid., 38, 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 39. �SLOVAKIA 13 politicians started their careers as officers of fraternal-benefit societies, and used them as launching pads for election to city and even state offices. 19 Fratemals also enforced a personal code of behavior, especially if they were founded on religious principles. 20 And, by helping to establish parish churches, by publishing their own newspapers, and often by erecting meeting halls, they helped to create other very important pillars of their ethnic communities. 21 Meanwhile, among the Slovaks in North America, local fratemals began to federate into larger bodies starting in 1890. This movement was launched by the ex-seminarian and leading Slovak nationalist Peter V. Rovnianek ( 1867-1933 ). He dreamed of uniting all Slovak fratemals into a National Slovak Society, which he founded in Pittsburgh on February 15, 1890.22 However, another budding leader of American Slovaks, the Rev. Stefan Furdek ( 1855-1915) dashed Rovnianek's dreams. Furdek, who was pastor of a Czech parish in Cleveland, had witnessed the growing anti-clericalism of the secular Czech Slavic Benevolent Society which had been founded in St. Louis in 1854. Furdek feared that Rovnianek's society would follow a similar path. Therefore, on September 4, 1890, he founded the First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America I 9 Ibid., 102-03. 20 Ibid., 39. 21 Ibid., 45-9, 39-40; for the story of Slovak newspapers published by fraternal- benefit societies see my "The Slovak-American Press," in Sally M. Miller's The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987), 356. 22 P.V. Rovnianek, Zapisky z.a liva pochovaneho. Z mojho 25 rocneho verejneho ucinkovania na naroda roli dedicnej [Notes of One Buried Alive: My 25 Years of Work on Behalf of the Slovak Nation] (Pittsburgh : National Slovak Society, 1924), 127-30. �14 SLOVAKIA (and later Canada) and formalized at the national level what had already been happening locally. 23 Once the secular-Catholic split was formalized, other groups followed suit. Slovak Lutherans established their Slovak Evangelical Union in Freeland, Pennsylvania in 1893, and the Calvinists likewise created their Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania in 1901.24 Militant Slovak nationalists, meanwhile, formed the Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol in 1896 in New York City, while their more devout countrymen split off and established the Slovak Roman and Greek Catholic Sokol in Passaic, New Jersey in 1905. 25 Even a tiny group of Slovak socialists established a Slovak Workers' Society in Newark, New Jersey, in 1915. 26 All of these organizations encouraged the local fratemals to federate with their national bodies, and most did so. 23 Ibid., 127; Jan Pankuch, Dejiny Clevelandskfch a Lakewoodskfch Slovakov [A History of Cleveland and Lakewood Slovaks] (Cleveland: Author's publication, I 930), 32; Stefan Furdek, "Katolfcka Slovenska Jednota v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America], Kalendar Jednota, 1896 (Cleveland), 26-7; for more Information on the Czech Slavic Benevolent Society see Jan Habenicht, Dejiny Cechuv Americkfch [A History of American Czechs] (St. Louis: Hlas Publishing Co., 1910), 36-7, and Thomas Capek, The Cechs (Bohemians) in America (Boston : Houghton Mifflin), 1920, 258 . 24 Stefan Zeman, "Pat'desiat rokov st'achetnej prace slov . evanjelikov v Amerike," in Martin Brozek ed., Zlata kniha Slovenskej Evanje/ickej Jednoty, 1893-/943 [Golden Jubilee of the Slovak Evangelical Union, 1893-1943] (Pittsburgh : Slovenskf hlasnik, 1943), 33-36; Frank Uherk.a, "Kratky prehfad S.K.P. Jednoty" [A Short History of the Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union], Kalendar pre slovenskfch Kalvfnov, 1927 (Pittsburgh), 37-8. 25 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny (Pittsburgh), July 13, 1896, p.l, and Gusto Kosfk, "Prve desairocie nasej Jednoty" [The First Decade of Our Union], Sbomik Rfmsko a Grecko Katolfckej Telocvitnej Jednoty Sokol, 1916 (Passaic, NJ.), 35-51. 26 Jan Diacik, "Z dejin Slovenskeho Robotnickeho Spolku" [A History of the Slovak Workers' Society], in Jan Vrabel ed., Pamatnik Slovenskeho Robotnfckeho Spolku, 1915-1925 (Chicago, Rovnos( l:udu, 1925), 5. �SLOVAKIA 15 Since these national Slovak fratemals were founded by men, and initially most did not admit women into their ranks, Slovak women quickly proceeded to establish their own national organizations. The first to do so were the wives of the men who had founded the National Slovak Society. Urged on by P. V. Rovnianek, these women founded the 'Zivena' Slovak National Women's Benefit Society on July 19, 1891 in New York City. 27 Not to be outdone, the Reverend Stefan Furdek then urged a group of Roman Catholic women in Cleveland to establish the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union in 1892. 28 After this Lutheran women established their own Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and the wives of the secular and Catholic Sokols established their own "Wreaths" as adjuncts to the men's national organizations. 29 In addition, Slovaks also established fraternals on a regional basis. For instance, in 1893 Slovak men in eastern Pennsylvania created the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union and a little later their wives organized the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Ladies Union.30 Similarly, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Slovaks founded the Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle in 1896. 31 Similar regional organizations also arose in New York, Passaic, New Jersey, 27 Helen Pn1cazky, "Kratke dejiny I. odboru v New York, N.Y." [A Short Hi story of Branch I in New York], in Pavel Blazek, ed., Pamiitnica k zlatemu jubileju Ziveny, 1891-1941 (Pittsburgh : Slavia Printing Company, 1941), 211. 28 Kenneth Baka, "The First Catholic Slovak Ladies Association," in Joseph C. Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America: A Bicentennial Study (Middletown, PA: Slovak League of America, 1976), 172. 29 Alvin J. Schmidt, Fraternal Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 343 for the establishment of the Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and Joseph G. Prufa, ed., Golden Jubilee (1905-1955) Souvenir Book of the Slovak Catholic Sokol (Passaic, NJ : Slovak Catholic Sokol, 1955), for the Sokol Wreaths. 30 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, July 4, I 896, p. l ; "Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union," in Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America, 197; and "The Ladies Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union, 1898-1976," Ibid., 20 I. 31 "First Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle," Ibid., 22 I. �16 SLOVAKIA Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere, and many soon also began to recruit members nation-wide.32 If we look at some membership statistics, we will quickly notice that Slovak Catholic fratemals attracted far more members than the secular ones in the United States. For instance, Thomas Capek Jr. did a survey of the principal Slovak national fratemals in 1920 and discovered that twelve such societies had a combined adult membership of 212,241. 33 This was an astonishing number when one considers that the 1920 United States Census counted 619,866 Slovaks in this country. 34 Furthermore, Capek's survey actually under-counted the number of Slovaks enrolled in fraternals because he did not list members of youth divisions. For instance, in 1920 the First Catholic Slovak Union also had 21,860 Youth Division members and the National Slovak Society's Young Folks Circle counted 14,124. 35 Nevertheless, if we break down Capek's adult members into those who belonged to religious fraternals versus those who belonged to secular ones, we discover that 142,946 were members of religious fraternals and only 69,315 belonged to non-denominational ones.36 If we compare the principal Catholic versus secular societies established by Slovaks in the United States over a longer period of time, we will notice an ever-widening gulf between them. Thus, while the National Slovak Society initially enrolled more members than the First Catholic Slovak Union (2,871 versus 864 in 1891), by 1898 the FCSU had overtaken the NSS 32 Thomas Capek, Jr., The Slovaks in America (New York: Czechoslovak Section of America's Making, Inc. , 1921 ), 88-9. 33 Ibid., 89. 34 See above, footnote 10. 35 Paufo, 75 rokov, 158; and Juraj J. Niznansky and Vendelin Platek, compilers, Dejiny a Pamatnica Narodneho Slovenskeho Spolku, 1890-1950 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1950), 219. 36 Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88-9. �SLOVAKIA 17 (10,547 versus 9,573) and eventually left it far behind. 37 By 1929, when the membership of the National Slovak Society peaked, the latter had 42,646 adult members and 21,437 youth, for a grand total of 64,083, whereas the First Catholic Slovak Union had 102,000 adult and youth members that year. 38 Indeed, after 1929 membership in the NSS began a slow and steady decline to only 30,129 adult members and 7,508 youth in 1949, while the FCSU actually grew to 104,558 members in 1931, declined to 91,719 in 1939 due to the Great Depression, but rebounded after World War II to 95,712 members in 1948, and ultimately to 105,800 members in 1977, when its membership peaked.39 By contrast, membership in the National Slovak Society had fallen to 23,415 in 1975.40 While no-one has yet systematically studied the rise and decline of the major Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in America, I have noticed a surprising trend when briefly comparing men's and women's fratemals. For instance, while Capek reported 49,680 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Union in 1920, and only 28,264 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union that year,41 by 1985 the women's organization had outstripped the men in both membership and assets. In that year the women's Union had 105,955 members and assets of $94,000,000 versus 95,090 members in the men's Union, and assets of only $51 ,800,000.42 How and why the women overtook the men still needs to be determined. 37 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 2 14; Pauco, 75 rokov, 13, 31. 38 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214, 219; Pauco, 75 rokov, 230. 39 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214; Pauco, 75 rokov, 246, 322, 370, and Slovakia, 27 (1977), back cover. 4o Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 156. 4 l Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88. 42 1985 Statistics of Fraternal Benefit Societies, 1986 Edition (Naperville, ILL: The National Fraternal Congress of America, 1986), I I 8-19. �18 SLOVAKIA The story of the establishment of Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in Canada likewise reveals a great deal about the Slovak-Canadian community, and its similarities and differences when compared with the American community. Unlike Slovak immigration to the United States, which proceeded directly from Slovakia to the industrial heartland of the American Northeast in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Slovak immigration to Canada before World War I was principally from the United States to the western provinces. American Slovaks were lured to Canada's west either by work to be found in the newly-opened coal mines of Alberta or British Columbia, to construction of spurs of Canada's railroads through the Rocky Mountains, or by cheap and available farmland on the prairies. 43 Since these Slovak pioneers had gone to Canada via the United States, they naturally brought with them ties to SlovakAmerican institutions, including fraternal-benefit societies. From the only complete list of Canadian branches of an American Slovak fraternal in existence, we can clearly see the pattern of Slovak settlement in Canada. The first branch of a SlovakAmerican fraternal arose in the coal-mining town of Ladysmith, British Columbia in 1891. It was Assembly number 52 of the 4 3 Slovak-American newspapers had many reports from these "pioneers" who settled in Canada before World War I. For examples of coal miners who settled in British Columbia and Alberta see Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, January 28, 1902, p.1, Slovak v Amerike (New York), January 12, 1902, p.1, February 11 , 1902, p.l, February 9, 1906, p.3, July 29, 1913, p.7, Narodnie noviny, No. 69 (1902), p.3, Jed nota (Cleveland), August 23, 1905, p.5, October 10, 1906, p.1, April 9, 1909, p.2, November 15, 191 I, p.2, December 20, 1911, p.2, December 4, 1912, p.2, November 26, 1913, p.2; for examples of American Slovaks who settled on Canada's prairies and took up farming see Slovak v Amerike, October 29, 1901, p.3, January 2, 1908, p.2, June 17, 1909, p.2, December 21, 1909, p.4, August 25, 1910, p.2, January 2, 1912, p.3, June 17, 1913, p.6, Jednota, February 22, 1905, p.5, October 15, 1905, p.5, June 27, 1906, p.2, January 8, 1914, p.3 . For the story of a railroad worker who came to British Columbia via the United States in 1910 consult my interview with Andrej Potocky of Thunder Bay, Ontario, June 24, 1977, tapes STO-C-46, 47, 48, 49, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. �SLOVAKIA 19 National Slovak Society, and in subsequent years branches of the NSS also arose in Fernie, British Columbia (1900), in Natal, B.C. (1903), in Coleman, Alberta (1904), in Frank Alberta (1905), in Trail, B.C. (1906), in Canmore, Alberta (1906), in Corbin, B.C. (1909), in Maple Leaf, Ontario (1913) and in Blainnore, Alberta ( 1918). 44 Thus, nine of the ten branches of the NSS established in Canada before the end of World War I were in the two westernmost provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Only after World War I, when the United States started to close its borders to unrestricted immigration, while Canada still accepted cheap laborers, did the pattern of Slovak settlement change. 45 Now Slovaks immigrated directly to Canada via the ports of Quebec and Montreal, and, although the Canadian government wanted them to continue on to the West, most chose to settle in Ontario and Quebec, which formed the industrial heartland of Canada. 46 Thus, branches of the National Slovak Society sprang up in Windsor in 1929 and in 1937; in Montreal in 1931; in Hamilton in 1931 and 1939 and in Timmins in 1932. After World War II more branches arose in Toronto in 1956, and in Montreal that same year; in Welland in 1957, another one in Toronto in 1964, and in Galt in 1965.47 In spite of this growth in branches, membership in the NSS in Canada was unimpres- 44 Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 251, 264, 266-67, 27071, 275-76, 278. 45 For the story of the Immigration Restriction Acts in the United States see E.P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press for the Balch Institute, 1981 ), 171-213. 46 For Canada's Immigration Policies during the 1920's see Donald Avery, Reluctant Host: Canada's Response to Immigrant Workers , 1896-1994 (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1995), 82-107. 4 7 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 279-82. �20 SLOVAKIA sive at only 320 adults in 1964.48 Indeed, in 1989 the few remaining members of the NSS in Canada were urged by the Head Officers in Pittsburgh to join local branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union because the cost of administering so few members had become prohibitive. 49 While we do not have complete lists of branches of other Slovak-American societies in Canada, we do have partial listings of their locations, and these confirm the above observations. Thus, the first five branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union established in Canada before World War I appeared in Lethbridge, Alberta (1894), Fernie, B.C., Canmore and Coleman, Alberta, and Fort William, Ontario. 50 After the first and second World Wars another 51 branches of the "Jednota" were established principally in Ontario and Quebec, and by 1965 all the Jednota branches combined had 2,988 members, making them by far the largest American-Slovak fraternal-benefit society in Canada. 51 Meanwhile, among other American fraternals established in Canada, the same pattern appears. Thus, two branches of the Slovak Catholic Sokol arose in Canmore and Blairmore, Alberta, before World War I; and one each in Toronto and Montreal after the war. 52 The Slovak Evangelical Union did not move into Canada until after World War I, probably because Slovak Lutherans did not come in any great numbers until that time. However, it did eventually establish twelve branches in Ontario and Quebec, starting in Fort William in 1927, and later in Windsor, 48 Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovaks in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Ethnic Press Association of Ontario, 1967), 182. 49 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 184. 5o Kirschbaum, op.cit., 184; and Elena Jake~ova, Vysfahovalectvo Slovakov do Kanady (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1981), 75-6. 5 l Kirschbaum, op.cit., 185. 52 Ibid., 187. �SLOVAKIA 21 Timmins, Toronto, Montreal, and elsewhere. 53 The Slovak Workers' Society also established six branches in Canada between 1926 and 1929, principally in Ontario and Quebec. 54 By 1934 various American Slovak fraternal-benefit societies had organized around 100 branches in Canada performing the same functions, and reflecting the same divisions in the Slovak community, as they had had in the United States. 55 Meanwhile, with the arrival of immigrants directly from Slovakia in the 1920's, a movement arose to establish purely Canadian fraternals as well. It started in Montreal in 1924 when the restaurant-owner Frantisek Capkovic decided to create a Slovak fraternal-benefit society. However, some Czechs also wished to join it, and the local Czechoslovak Consul persuaded Capkovic to organize the Czechoslovak Benefit Society, in order to promote the philosophy of "Czechoslovakism" among immigrants in Canada. This philosophy received official government sanction in 1918 with the creation of the new Republic of Czechoslovakia upon the ruins of Austria-Hungary. Thus, the new Czechoslovak Consulate in Montreal subsidized the Czechoslovak Benefit Society with a monthly contribution of $60.00. 56 While this Czechoslovak society grew to 1, 135 members in 17 branches across Ontario and Quebec, and even a few in the west by 1931, old-world politics ultimately divided it. Slovak nationalists in both the United States and Canada attacked this society as a tool of the Czechoslovak government. Therefore, in 1931 it split into the First Slovak Benefit Society headquartered 53 Jake§ova, op. cit., 113. 5 4 Ibid., 113-15. 55 This is my estimate, based upon my reading of Kirschbaum, Jake~ova, Baumgarten & Stefka. Kirschbaum under-counted them at only 78 in that year. Cf. Kirschbaum, op.cit., 193. The exact number of branches of Slovak-American fratemals in Canada in that year, and in others, still remains to be determined. 56 Jakdova, op. cit., I 16. �22 SLOVAKIA in Montreal (8 branches) and the old Czechoslovak Benefit Society (9 branches).57 Furthermore, one of the early organizers and supporters of the original Czechoslovak Benefit Society also broke with it Gabriel Kurdel, who had been its secretary in 1926-1927, decided to take up farming near Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1928. However, his organizing instinct spurred him to establish several Slovak Benefit Societies in the West, and also among the precious metals miners in Northern Ontario between 1929 and 1932. These societies eventually federated into the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society in 1946, and became the second-largest purely Canadian fraternal with 38 branches and 2,035 members in 1965. 58 The largest Slovak-Canadian fraternal-benefit society, ironically enough, was a child of an American organization. Nationalist Slovaks in Fort William, Ontario, had established a branch of the Slovak League of America in 1916, and other branches arose soon after the war in Corbin, British Columbia, Flin Flon and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Toronto and Oshawa, Ontario, Montreal, Quebec, and in New Waterford, Nova Scotia. 59 Slovaks in these centers were grateful that a delegate of the Slovak League of America had visited various camps in Canada in which Slovaks, among others, had been interned as "enemy aliens" in 1915 and 1916, and had persuaded the Canadian authorities to release them. 60 Unfortunately for these Canadian members of the Slovak League of America, the latter was not a fraternal-benefit society. It was the cover organization that spoke for most American57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 117-20; Kirschbaum, op. cit., 194-95, 204, 206-09. 59 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198-20 I ; Jakefova, op. cit., 120; Sutherland, op. cit., 24-8. 60 Jednota , June 9, 1915, p.1, June 23 , 1915, p.5, July 14, 1915, p.l , July 21, 1915, p.1, August 11 , 1915, p. l , January 12, 1916, p.5, February 2, 1916, p.1, June 13, 1917, p.6. See also Kirschbaum, op. cit. , 92-3. �SLOVAKIA 23 Slovak fratemals, but it had few assets of its own. 61 Thus, after the Great Depression had broken out, members of the Slovak League of America in Canada felt the need to organize a mutualaid society, and, therefore, in December, 1932, in a meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba, delegates from Slovak League of America branches in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Corbin, B.C., met and established the Canadian Slovak League, which remained strongly nationalist, but also began to function as a fraternalbenefit society.62 In the next few decades the Canadian Slovak League grew into the largest Slovak organization in Canada, with 55 branches and 3,247 members in 1965. 63 Also, as a reflection of the shifting population of Slovaks in the Dominion, the Canadian Slovak League moved its headquarters first from Winnipeg to Fort William, Ontario, later to Montreal, and finally , to Toronto, where most Slovak-Canadian fraternals are now headquartered. 64 Slovak socialists, meanwhile, also began to shift allegiances. After the Great Depression broke out, Canadian members of the American Slovak Workers' Society were no longer able to pay their dues, and the six branches of the American society withered. 65 However, the Canadian socialists did not abandon the cause. Instead, in 1931 they began to establish "Workers' Education Clubs," along the lines followed by other ethnic groups, principally the Hungarians. In 1934 these clubs joined the Communist Party of Canada, and by 1936 they federated into the 61 For a brief history of the Slovak League of America see Mikula~ Sprinc, ed., Slovenska Liga v Amerike styridsalrocna [Forty Y~ of the Slovak League of America], (Scranton, PA: Obrana Press, 1947). 62 Sutherland, op. cit., 25 . 63 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198, 204. 64 Jake~ova, op.cit., 120, and Sutherland, op. cit., 70. According to lmrich Stolarik, who was president of the CSL at the time, the League's headquarters was moved to Toronto in 1980, when the League purchased a building for this purpose (telephone conversation with the author, May 6, 1994). 65 Jake~ova, op. cit., 120. �24 SLOVAKIA Slovak Cultural Society. During the Second World War these Slovak socialists finally formed a fraternal Slovak Benefit Society and by 1965 it had grown to 27 branches with 1,200 members, making it the third-largest Slovak-Canadian fraternalbenefit organization at that time. 66 Having surveyed the creation of the principal American and Canadian Slovak fraternal-benefit societies over the last 100 years, we are now in a position to notice their similarities and differences. American Slovak fraternals tended to reflect their earlier origins and were divided by religion, gender, class, regionalism and nationalism. Thus, among American fraternals the religious ones predominated, the men and women established their own organizations, there was some class differentiation both at the local, and at the national level, as there was in regional origins, and the chief political division initially had to do with Slovak nationalism versus loyalty to Hungary. Branches of American fraternals established in Canada tended to reflect these divisions. Canadian Slovak fraternals, by contrast, were founded later and reflected new political and other concerns. The major political divisions among them concerned Slovak identity versus 'Czechoslovakism.' On the other hand, Canadian Slovaks did not establish fraternals based upon gender, nor did they splinter along religious lines. Their much stronger national feeling, arising from their origins in the new Republic of Czechoslovakia, seemed to overcome these potential divisions. On class lines, however, Canadian Slovaks showed a much greater propensity towards division than did American Slovaks. While both groups founded Slovak "workers" organizations, those in Canada had proportionately more members than their cousins in the United States. Thus, in 1939, when the American Slovak Workers' Society peaked at approximately 11,000 members (out of a total of perhaps 400,000 Slovaks organized in 66 Ibid., 121-23, and Kirschbaum, op. cit., 209-12. �SLOVAKIA 25 fratemals), its Canadian counterpart peaked at 1,200 members in 1965.67 At first glance, the latter number seems very small, but it actually represents third place among Slovak-Canadian fratemals (the Canadian Slovak League had over 3,000 members and the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society around 2,000 in that same year). If we were to rank the American Slovak Workers' Society in 1939, it would not even have made tenth place among its countrymen's fraternals . Thus, socialism had a much stronger hold upon Canadian Slovaks than it did among its American cousins. In the final analysis, when establishing fraternal-benefit societies, Canadian Slovaks faced the same dilemmas that other immigrants to North America confronted: would they follow American models, or create distinctly Canadian ones? They ended up doing both, which is a typically Canadian reaction to the problem of ethnic identity in North America. 68 67 Milo~ Gosiorovsky, "K hist6rii Slovenskeho robotnfckeho spolku v USA" (A History of the Slovak Workers Society in the USA], Zbomlk Fi/ozofickej Fakulty Univerzity Komenskeho, historica , //-12 (Bratislava: Comenius University, 1962), 56. 68 For a brilliant discussion of Canada's continuing efforts to forge a national identity see Robert F. Hamey, "So Great a Heritage as Ours" : Immigration and the Survival of the Canadian Polity," Daedalus, 117 (No. 4, 1988), 51-97. � SLOVAKIA 7 Slovak FraternalBenefit Societies in North America: An Overview (1883-1993) M. Mark Stolarik (Conference on The Development and Significance of the Fraternal Movement and Fraternal Organizations Among Immigrants in North and South America and Europe, Maribor, Slovenia, May, 1994) In a book of essays that set out to explore how ethnic groups have used the principles of collectivism to deal with their new life in America, Scott Cummings lamented that "Relatively little has been written about self-help institutions and mutual benefit societies created by immigrant groups." 1 When applied to the Slovaks in North America, this statement still holds true. While several community studies of Slovaks in North America have appeared in recent years, none have compared and contrasted the creation of fraternal-benefit societies among Slovaks in the United States and Canada. 2 This essay will make such an attempt, 1 Scott Cummings, ed., Self-Help in Urban America: Patterns of Minority Business Enterprise (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1980), 5. 2 The principal community studies are M. Mark Stolarik, Growing Up on the South Side: Three Generations of Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, /880- 1976 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1985) and June Granatir Alexander, �8 SLOVAKIA although only in a preliminary fashion, because we still lack professional studies of the many fraternal-benefit societies established by Slovak immigrants to North America over the last 100 years. 3 When Slovaks from the Kingdom of Hungary (and other immigrants as well) began to migrate to North America in search of work in the late 19th century, they quickly discovered that, while the New World had plenty of job opportunities in the coal mines, steel mills and oil refineries, it did not provide much in the way of social welfare benefits. Thus, if an immigrant fell ill, was injured on the job, or even killed, neither his employer, nor The Immigrant Church and Community: Pittsburgh's Slovak Catholics and Lutherans, 1880-1915 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987). 3 Besides many jubilee-books written by talented amateurs (some of which will be cited later on), three semi-professional histories of Slovak fratemals do exist: Jozef Pauco's 75 rokov Prvej Katolfckej Slovenskej Jednoty (75 Years of the First Catholic Slovak Union] (Cleveland : First Catholic Slovak Union , 1965); Anthony X. Sutherland's The Canadian Slovak League: A History, /9321982 (Toronto: Canadian Slovak League, 1984); and R. Vladimir Baumgarten's and Joseph Stefka's The National Slovak Society: JOO Year History, 1890-1990 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1990). Although the latter do provide us with basic information about these societies over time, they are all "in-house" histories aimed at their members and ignore the basic conventions of professional historians, especially the concerns of the new social history. In addition, three articles (or chapters in books) written by professional historians or anthropologists focusing on Slovak fraternals in specific locations also exist. June Alexander has detailed the rise and functions of fraternals in the Pittsburgh area in chapter two "From Self-Help to Community Development: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," of her book cited above, pp.15-27; the psycho-anthropologist Howard F. Stein has analyzed Slovak fraternals in western Pennsylvania, especially in the McKeesport and Duquesne settlements in "An Ethnohistory of Slovak-American Religious and Fraternal Associations: A Study in Cultural Meaning, Group Identity, and Social Institutions," in Slovakia, XXIX (1980-1981) , 63-88; and the author of this paper has provided an over-view of Slovak-American fraternals based upon his study of the Slovak community in Bethlehem in "A Place for Everyone: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," in the book edited by Scott Cummings, cited above, pp.130-41. �SLOVAKIA 9 any level of government, paid him or his family any form of support or compensation. 4 The Slovaks were not the first to discover this shortcoming in American society. Indeed, as early as the 17th century, Scottish immigrants to America began to form self-help organizations, which later came to be known as fraternal-benefit societies. These were private bodies consisting of immigrants and their descendants who pooled their resources, established a common treasury, and paid relief or compensation to members who had become victims of some misfortune. 5 Contrary to Oscar Handlin's claim that they were products of the American environment, fraternal-benefit societies had roots in Europe dating back to at least the 15th century, and perhaps even earlier. Similarly, craft-guilds, which were not abolished until 1872 in the Kingdom of Hungary, also had a social-welfare component. 6 4 Margaret Byington, Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town (Pitt sburgh : The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910. Reprinted by the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), 161. 5 Gordon Donaldson, "Scots," in Stephan Thernstrom et.al., Harvard Encyclo- pedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1980), 915 . 6 Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that MadetheAmerican People (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1951), 170-71, 176; Al:!beta Gacsova traced the first fraternal-benefit society in Hungary to the silver miners of Slovakia in 1460. See her Boje slovenskeho fudu proti feudalnemu utlaku a vykorist'ovaniu [The Struggle of the Slovak People Against Feudal Oppression and Exploitation] (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1960), 64; Slovak editors discussed both fraternal-benefit societies and craft guilds in Narodnf hlasnik (National Herald , Turc. Sv. Martin), October 31, 1868, p.225 ; January 31, 1869, p.22; November 30, 1871, pp.331-32; and August 31, 1872, pp.242-44; and workers in Slovakia did try to organize fraternal-benefit societies in the 1870's and l 880's, before the massive emigration of Slovaks to the United States began. Cf. Narodnf hlasnik, March 31, 1874, pp.62-3, and Narodnie noviny (National News, Turc. Sv. Martin), February 8, 1881 , p. I. For an analysis of workers' societies in the city of Kosice in eastern Slovakia in the late �SLOVAKIA Thus, when central and eastern European migrants came to North America in the late 19th century, they had several models to choose from when they began to establish fraternal-benefit societies. They could copy from their American neighbours the structure of their fraternal-benefit societies, or some of these Slovaks, especially the skilled craftsmen or former miners, could draw upon previous experiences with craft guilds or fraternalbenefit societies in their homelands.7 Whatever their model, Slovak immigrants, who started to appear in the United States in the late 1870's, established around 50 local fraternal-benefit societies by 1890. 8 When one looks closely at these societies, one is bound to notice a tremendous variety in their origins, composition, religious, secular or national orientation. From Stefan Vesely's recent description, and listing of Slovak-American fraternals between 1883 and 1890, I extrapolated the following information: seven of these fraternals included the word "Hungarian" (along with "Slovak") in their titles; 26 used only the word "Slovak" (and not Hungarian) in their official name; 16 were secular-oriented, and 33 were religious. Of the 16 secular ones, two were organized by and for craftsmen. Furthermore, 25 of the fratemals arose in Pennsylvania, 8 in New Jersey, 6 in Ohio, 5 in New York, 3 in Connecticut and 1 each in Illinois and Minnesota. The largest concentration in and around cities was found in the Pittsburgh region 19th century, see Pavel Hapak, "K dejinam robotnfckych spolkov v Ko~iciach v druhej polovici 19. storocia," Nove obzory, 4 (1962), 162-63. 7 Slovaks in Bayonne, New Jersey and in Braddock, Pennsylvania said they learned about fraternal -benefit societies from their German and Irish neighbours. Cf. Ignac Gessay, "Spolky pred organizaciami." [Fraternals Before Organizations] , Narodnf kalendar, 191 I (Pittsburgh), 74-76. For a discussion of fraternal-benefit societies in Slovakia in the late 19th century see my Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-/918 (New York : AMS Press, 1989), 70-72. 8 Stefan Vesely, "Prve slovenske spolky v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in America], S/ovaci v zahranicf, 4-5 (Martin: Matica slovenska, 1979, 53-55. �SLOVAKIA 11 (7), followed by Cleveland (6), New York City (3), Passaic, New Jersey (3) and Bridgeport, Connecticut (3). The largest regional concentration was in eastern Pennsylvania, where 16 of the 50 fraternals sprang up. 9 The above statistical summary very nicely parallels what is widely-known about the Slovak-American community: that approximately half of all Slovak immigrants settled in Pennsylvania, and the rest in the surrounding Northeastern states; that the religious orientation of Slovak immigrants outweighed the secular, and that Slovak nationalism established a quick foothold in America at the expense of pro-Hungarian feeling. 10 Furthermore, when one looks at Slovak fraternals at a local level, as I have done in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, one will learn even more about the Slovak community in America. Between 1891 and 1918, the approximately 1,000 Slovaks who settled in the steel town of Bethlehem in eastern Pennsylvania, established 19 fraternal-benefit societies. Since the men had come first, they created the 10 earliest fraternals, starting in 1891, and their wives followed suit with 9 fraternals of their own (the men initially did not allow women to join their fraternals ). 11 In addition to this division by sex, Slovak fraternals were also established on the basis of religion. Thus, of the 19 fraternals in Bethlehem, 12 were religious, with the Roman Catholics claiming eight, the Lutherans two and the Greek Catholics two as well. These religiously-based fraternals were equally divided by gender. 12 9 Ibid. IO Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920, Vol. II, Population: General Report and Analytical Tables (Washington, D.C., 1922), 984. Stolarik, Immigration and Urbanization, 99; Alexander, Immigrant Church and Community, 132-34; and M. Mark Stolarik, "The Slovak Search for Identity in the United States, 1880-19 I 8," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism , XX (Nos. 1-2, 1993), 45-55 . I I Stolarik, Growing Up, 34-38. 12 Ibid. �12 SLOVAKIA Seven of the Slovak fraternals in Bethlehem were secularoriented, and they also highlighted both national and regional differences among the Slovaks. Six of these fraternals were ultra-nationalist, and their members hailed predominantly from central and western Slovakia. 13 This major difference among Slovaks in Bethlehem became apparent only in the fraternal records, because the majority of Slovaks in this town came from Eastern Slovakia. 14 Both dialectical, and national feelings, divided the Slovaks in Bethlehem. Furthermore, some of the fraternal records in Bethlehem also revealed class divisions within the Slovak community. The Sts. Cyril and Methodius Society, for instance, which was the first to be founded (in 1891 ), attracted the wealthiest and most successful of the Slovak businessmen in town, and by 1900 it demanded a $6.00 initiation fee from prospective members. Since this represented half a week's wages in the steel mill, only the better-off Slovaks could afford to join this lodge. The rest had to content themselves with less-expensive (and lessprestigious) lodges.1 s While Slovak fraternals mirrored the divisions within the community, they also performed many positive functions. As already mentioned, in return for monthly dues of about $0.50 they provided accident, illness or death benefits to their members, or their survivors. 16 They also provided personal loans, or even mortgages, to members in good standing, if their treasuries were large enough. 17 Furthermore, they taught their members the principles of democracy through their election of officers, and through the procedure of their meetings. 18 Indeed, many Slovak 13 Ibid., 36. 14 Ibid., 23, 28-30, 36. 15 Ibid., 34-5. I 6 Ibid., 38, 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 39. �SLOVAKIA 13 politicians started their careers as officers of fraternal-benefit societies, and used them as launching pads for election to city and even state offices. 19 Fratemals also enforced a personal code of behavior, especially if they were founded on religious principles. 20 And, by helping to establish parish churches, by publishing their own newspapers, and often by erecting meeting halls, they helped to create other very important pillars of their ethnic communities. 21 Meanwhile, among the Slovaks in North America, local fratemals began to federate into larger bodies starting in 1890. This movement was launched by the ex-seminarian and leading Slovak nationalist Peter V. Rovnianek ( 1867-1933 ). He dreamed of uniting all Slovak fratemals into a National Slovak Society, which he founded in Pittsburgh on February 15, 1890.22 However, another budding leader of American Slovaks, the Rev. Stefan Furdek ( 1855-1915) dashed Rovnianek's dreams. Furdek, who was pastor of a Czech parish in Cleveland, had witnessed the growing anti-clericalism of the secular Czech Slavic Benevolent Society which had been founded in St. Louis in 1854. Furdek feared that Rovnianek's society would follow a similar path. Therefore, on September 4, 1890, he founded the First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America I 9 Ibid., 102-03. 20 Ibid., 39. 21 Ibid., 45-9, 39-40; for the story of Slovak newspapers published by fraternal- benefit societies see my "The Slovak-American Press," in Sally M. Miller's The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987), 356. 22 P.V. Rovnianek, Zapisky z.a liva pochovaneho. Z mojho 25 rocneho verejneho ucinkovania na naroda roli dedicnej [Notes of One Buried Alive: My 25 Years of Work on Behalf of the Slovak Nation] (Pittsburgh : National Slovak Society, 1924), 127-30. �14 SLOVAKIA (and later Canada) and formalized at the national level what had already been happening locally. 23 Once the secular-Catholic split was formalized, other groups followed suit. Slovak Lutherans established their Slovak Evangelical Union in Freeland, Pennsylvania in 1893, and the Calvinists likewise created their Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania in 1901.24 Militant Slovak nationalists, meanwhile, formed the Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol in 1896 in New York City, while their more devout countrymen split off and established the Slovak Roman and Greek Catholic Sokol in Passaic, New Jersey in 1905. 25 Even a tiny group of Slovak socialists established a Slovak Workers' Society in Newark, New Jersey, in 1915. 26 All of these organizations encouraged the local fratemals to federate with their national bodies, and most did so. 23 Ibid., 127; Jan Pankuch, Dejiny Clevelandskfch a Lakewoodskfch Slovakov [A History of Cleveland and Lakewood Slovaks] (Cleveland: Author's publication, I 930), 32; Stefan Furdek, "Katolfcka Slovenska Jednota v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America], Kalendar Jednota, 1896 (Cleveland), 26-7; for more Information on the Czech Slavic Benevolent Society see Jan Habenicht, Dejiny Cechuv Americkfch [A History of American Czechs] (St. Louis: Hlas Publishing Co., 1910), 36-7, and Thomas Capek, The Cechs (Bohemians) in America (Boston : Houghton Mifflin), 1920, 258 . 24 Stefan Zeman, "Pat'desiat rokov st'achetnej prace slov . evanjelikov v Amerike," in Martin Brozek ed., Zlata kniha Slovenskej Evanje/ickej Jednoty, 1893-/943 [Golden Jubilee of the Slovak Evangelical Union, 1893-1943] (Pittsburgh : Slovenskf hlasnik, 1943), 33-36; Frank Uherk.a, "Kratky prehfad S.K.P. Jednoty" [A Short History of the Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union], Kalendar pre slovenskfch Kalvfnov, 1927 (Pittsburgh), 37-8. 25 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny (Pittsburgh), July 13, 1896, p.l, and Gusto Kosfk, "Prve desairocie nasej Jednoty" [The First Decade of Our Union], Sbomik Rfmsko a Grecko Katolfckej Telocvitnej Jednoty Sokol, 1916 (Passaic, NJ.), 35-51. 26 Jan Diacik, "Z dejin Slovenskeho Robotnickeho Spolku" [A History of the Slovak Workers' Society], in Jan Vrabel ed., Pamatnik Slovenskeho Robotnfckeho Spolku, 1915-1925 (Chicago, Rovnos( l:udu, 1925), 5. �SLOVAKIA 15 Since these national Slovak fratemals were founded by men, and initially most did not admit women into their ranks, Slovak women quickly proceeded to establish their own national organizations. The first to do so were the wives of the men who had founded the National Slovak Society. Urged on by P. V. Rovnianek, these women founded the 'Zivena' Slovak National Women's Benefit Society on July 19, 1891 in New York City. 27 Not to be outdone, the Reverend Stefan Furdek then urged a group of Roman Catholic women in Cleveland to establish the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union in 1892. 28 After this Lutheran women established their own Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and the wives of the secular and Catholic Sokols established their own "Wreaths" as adjuncts to the men's national organizations. 29 In addition, Slovaks also established fraternals on a regional basis. For instance, in 1893 Slovak men in eastern Pennsylvania created the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union and a little later their wives organized the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Ladies Union.30 Similarly, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Slovaks founded the Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle in 1896. 31 Similar regional organizations also arose in New York, Passaic, New Jersey, 27 Helen Pn1cazky, "Kratke dejiny I. odboru v New York, N.Y." [A Short Hi story of Branch I in New York], in Pavel Blazek, ed., Pamiitnica k zlatemu jubileju Ziveny, 1891-1941 (Pittsburgh : Slavia Printing Company, 1941), 211. 28 Kenneth Baka, "The First Catholic Slovak Ladies Association," in Joseph C. Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America: A Bicentennial Study (Middletown, PA: Slovak League of America, 1976), 172. 29 Alvin J. Schmidt, Fraternal Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 343 for the establishment of the Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and Joseph G. Prufa, ed., Golden Jubilee (1905-1955) Souvenir Book of the Slovak Catholic Sokol (Passaic, NJ : Slovak Catholic Sokol, 1955), for the Sokol Wreaths. 30 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, July 4, I 896, p. l ; "Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union," in Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America, 197; and "The Ladies Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union, 1898-1976," Ibid., 20 I. 31 "First Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle," Ibid., 22 I. �16 SLOVAKIA Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere, and many soon also began to recruit members nation-wide.32 If we look at some membership statistics, we will quickly notice that Slovak Catholic fratemals attracted far more members than the secular ones in the United States. For instance, Thomas Capek Jr. did a survey of the principal Slovak national fratemals in 1920 and discovered that twelve such societies had a combined adult membership of 212,241. 33 This was an astonishing number when one considers that the 1920 United States Census counted 619,866 Slovaks in this country. 34 Furthermore, Capek's survey actually under-counted the number of Slovaks enrolled in fraternals because he did not list members of youth divisions. For instance, in 1920 the First Catholic Slovak Union also had 21,860 Youth Division members and the National Slovak Society's Young Folks Circle counted 14,124. 35 Nevertheless, if we break down Capek's adult members into those who belonged to religious fraternals versus those who belonged to secular ones, we discover that 142,946 were members of religious fraternals and only 69,315 belonged to non-denominational ones.36 If we compare the principal Catholic versus secular societies established by Slovaks in the United States over a longer period of time, we will notice an ever-widening gulf between them. Thus, while the National Slovak Society initially enrolled more members than the First Catholic Slovak Union (2,871 versus 864 in 1891), by 1898 the FCSU had overtaken the NSS 32 Thomas Capek, Jr., The Slovaks in America (New York: Czechoslovak Section of America's Making, Inc. , 1921 ), 88-9. 33 Ibid., 89. 34 See above, footnote 10. 35 Paufo, 75 rokov, 158; and Juraj J. Niznansky and Vendelin Platek, compilers, Dejiny a Pamatnica Narodneho Slovenskeho Spolku, 1890-1950 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1950), 219. 36 Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88-9. �SLOVAKIA 17 (10,547 versus 9,573) and eventually left it far behind. 37 By 1929, when the membership of the National Slovak Society peaked, the latter had 42,646 adult members and 21,437 youth, for a grand total of 64,083, whereas the First Catholic Slovak Union had 102,000 adult and youth members that year. 38 Indeed, after 1929 membership in the NSS began a slow and steady decline to only 30,129 adult members and 7,508 youth in 1949, while the FCSU actually grew to 104,558 members in 1931, declined to 91,719 in 1939 due to the Great Depression, but rebounded after World War II to 95,712 members in 1948, and ultimately to 105,800 members in 1977, when its membership peaked.39 By contrast, membership in the National Slovak Society had fallen to 23,415 in 1975.40 While no-one has yet systematically studied the rise and decline of the major Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in America, I have noticed a surprising trend when briefly comparing men's and women's fratemals. For instance, while Capek reported 49,680 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Union in 1920, and only 28,264 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union that year,41 by 1985 the women's organization had outstripped the men in both membership and assets. In that year the women's Union had 105,955 members and assets of $94,000,000 versus 95,090 members in the men's Union, and assets of only $51 ,800,000.42 How and why the women overtook the men still needs to be determined. 37 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 2 14; Pauco, 75 rokov, 13, 31. 38 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214, 219; Pauco, 75 rokov, 230. 39 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214; Pauco, 75 rokov, 246, 322, 370, and Slovakia, 27 (1977), back cover. 4o Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 156. 4 l Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88. 42 1985 Statistics of Fraternal Benefit Societies, 1986 Edition (Naperville, ILL: The National Fraternal Congress of America, 1986), I I 8-19. �18 SLOVAKIA The story of the establishment of Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in Canada likewise reveals a great deal about the Slovak-Canadian community, and its similarities and differences when compared with the American community. Unlike Slovak immigration to the United States, which proceeded directly from Slovakia to the industrial heartland of the American Northeast in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Slovak immigration to Canada before World War I was principally from the United States to the western provinces. American Slovaks were lured to Canada's west either by work to be found in the newly-opened coal mines of Alberta or British Columbia, to construction of spurs of Canada's railroads through the Rocky Mountains, or by cheap and available farmland on the prairies. 43 Since these Slovak pioneers had gone to Canada via the United States, they naturally brought with them ties to SlovakAmerican institutions, including fraternal-benefit societies. From the only complete list of Canadian branches of an American Slovak fraternal in existence, we can clearly see the pattern of Slovak settlement in Canada. The first branch of a SlovakAmerican fraternal arose in the coal-mining town of Ladysmith, British Columbia in 1891. It was Assembly number 52 of the 4 3 Slovak-American newspapers had many reports from these "pioneers" who settled in Canada before World War I. For examples of coal miners who settled in British Columbia and Alberta see Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, January 28, 1902, p.1, Slovak v Amerike (New York), January 12, 1902, p.1, February 11 , 1902, p.l, February 9, 1906, p.3, July 29, 1913, p.7, Narodnie noviny, No. 69 (1902), p.3, Jed nota (Cleveland), August 23, 1905, p.5, October 10, 1906, p.1, April 9, 1909, p.2, November 15, 191 I, p.2, December 20, 1911, p.2, December 4, 1912, p.2, November 26, 1913, p.2; for examples of American Slovaks who settled on Canada's prairies and took up farming see Slovak v Amerike, October 29, 1901, p.3, January 2, 1908, p.2, June 17, 1909, p.2, December 21, 1909, p.4, August 25, 1910, p.2, January 2, 1912, p.3, June 17, 1913, p.6, Jednota, February 22, 1905, p.5, October 15, 1905, p.5, June 27, 1906, p.2, January 8, 1914, p.3 . For the story of a railroad worker who came to British Columbia via the United States in 1910 consult my interview with Andrej Potocky of Thunder Bay, Ontario, June 24, 1977, tapes STO-C-46, 47, 48, 49, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. �SLOVAKIA 19 National Slovak Society, and in subsequent years branches of the NSS also arose in Fernie, British Columbia (1900), in Natal, B.C. (1903), in Coleman, Alberta (1904), in Frank Alberta (1905), in Trail, B.C. (1906), in Canmore, Alberta (1906), in Corbin, B.C. (1909), in Maple Leaf, Ontario (1913) and in Blainnore, Alberta ( 1918). 44 Thus, nine of the ten branches of the NSS established in Canada before the end of World War I were in the two westernmost provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Only after World War I, when the United States started to close its borders to unrestricted immigration, while Canada still accepted cheap laborers, did the pattern of Slovak settlement change. 45 Now Slovaks immigrated directly to Canada via the ports of Quebec and Montreal, and, although the Canadian government wanted them to continue on to the West, most chose to settle in Ontario and Quebec, which formed the industrial heartland of Canada. 46 Thus, branches of the National Slovak Society sprang up in Windsor in 1929 and in 1937; in Montreal in 1931; in Hamilton in 1931 and 1939 and in Timmins in 1932. After World War II more branches arose in Toronto in 1956, and in Montreal that same year; in Welland in 1957, another one in Toronto in 1964, and in Galt in 1965.47 In spite of this growth in branches, membership in the NSS in Canada was unimpres- 44 Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 251, 264, 266-67, 27071, 275-76, 278. 45 For the story of the Immigration Restriction Acts in the United States see E.P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press for the Balch Institute, 1981 ), 171-213. 46 For Canada's Immigration Policies during the 1920's see Donald Avery, Reluctant Host: Canada's Response to Immigrant Workers , 1896-1994 (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1995), 82-107. 4 7 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 279-82. �20 SLOVAKIA sive at only 320 adults in 1964.48 Indeed, in 1989 the few remaining members of the NSS in Canada were urged by the Head Officers in Pittsburgh to join local branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union because the cost of administering so few members had become prohibitive. 49 While we do not have complete lists of branches of other Slovak-American societies in Canada, we do have partial listings of their locations, and these confirm the above observations. Thus, the first five branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union established in Canada before World War I appeared in Lethbridge, Alberta (1894), Fernie, B.C., Canmore and Coleman, Alberta, and Fort William, Ontario. 50 After the first and second World Wars another 51 branches of the "Jednota" were established principally in Ontario and Quebec, and by 1965 all the Jednota branches combined had 2,988 members, making them by far the largest American-Slovak fraternal-benefit society in Canada. 51 Meanwhile, among other American fraternals established in Canada, the same pattern appears. Thus, two branches of the Slovak Catholic Sokol arose in Canmore and Blairmore, Alberta, before World War I; and one each in Toronto and Montreal after the war. 52 The Slovak Evangelical Union did not move into Canada until after World War I, probably because Slovak Lutherans did not come in any great numbers until that time. However, it did eventually establish twelve branches in Ontario and Quebec, starting in Fort William in 1927, and later in Windsor, 48 Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovaks in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Ethnic Press Association of Ontario, 1967), 182. 49 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 184. 5o Kirschbaum, op.cit., 184; and Elena Jake~ova, Vysfahovalectvo Slovakov do Kanady (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1981), 75-6. 5 l Kirschbaum, op.cit., 185. 52 Ibid., 187. �SLOVAKIA 21 Timmins, Toronto, Montreal, and elsewhere. 53 The Slovak Workers' Society also established six branches in Canada between 1926 and 1929, principally in Ontario and Quebec. 54 By 1934 various American Slovak fraternal-benefit societies had organized around 100 branches in Canada performing the same functions, and reflecting the same divisions in the Slovak community, as they had had in the United States. 55 Meanwhile, with the arrival of immigrants directly from Slovakia in the 1920's, a movement arose to establish purely Canadian fraternals as well. It started in Montreal in 1924 when the restaurant-owner Frantisek Capkovic decided to create a Slovak fraternal-benefit society. However, some Czechs also wished to join it, and the local Czechoslovak Consul persuaded Capkovic to organize the Czechoslovak Benefit Society, in order to promote the philosophy of "Czechoslovakism" among immigrants in Canada. This philosophy received official government sanction in 1918 with the creation of the new Republic of Czechoslovakia upon the ruins of Austria-Hungary. Thus, the new Czechoslovak Consulate in Montreal subsidized the Czechoslovak Benefit Society with a monthly contribution of $60.00. 56 While this Czechoslovak society grew to 1, 135 members in 17 branches across Ontario and Quebec, and even a few in the west by 1931, old-world politics ultimately divided it. Slovak nationalists in both the United States and Canada attacked this society as a tool of the Czechoslovak government. Therefore, in 1931 it split into the First Slovak Benefit Society headquartered 53 Jake§ova, op. cit., 113. 5 4 Ibid., 113-15. 55 This is my estimate, based upon my reading of Kirschbaum, Jake~ova, Baumgarten & Stefka. Kirschbaum under-counted them at only 78 in that year. Cf. Kirschbaum, op.cit., 193. The exact number of branches of Slovak-American fratemals in Canada in that year, and in others, still remains to be determined. 56 Jakdova, op. cit., I 16. �22 SLOVAKIA in Montreal (8 branches) and the old Czechoslovak Benefit Society (9 branches).57 Furthermore, one of the early organizers and supporters of the original Czechoslovak Benefit Society also broke with it Gabriel Kurdel, who had been its secretary in 1926-1927, decided to take up farming near Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1928. However, his organizing instinct spurred him to establish several Slovak Benefit Societies in the West, and also among the precious metals miners in Northern Ontario between 1929 and 1932. These societies eventually federated into the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society in 1946, and became the second-largest purely Canadian fraternal with 38 branches and 2,035 members in 1965. 58 The largest Slovak-Canadian fraternal-benefit society, ironically enough, was a child of an American organization. Nationalist Slovaks in Fort William, Ontario, had established a branch of the Slovak League of America in 1916, and other branches arose soon after the war in Corbin, British Columbia, Flin Flon and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Toronto and Oshawa, Ontario, Montreal, Quebec, and in New Waterford, Nova Scotia. 59 Slovaks in these centers were grateful that a delegate of the Slovak League of America had visited various camps in Canada in which Slovaks, among others, had been interned as "enemy aliens" in 1915 and 1916, and had persuaded the Canadian authorities to release them. 60 Unfortunately for these Canadian members of the Slovak League of America, the latter was not a fraternal-benefit society. It was the cover organization that spoke for most American57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 117-20; Kirschbaum, op. cit., 194-95, 204, 206-09. 59 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198-20 I ; Jakefova, op. cit., 120; Sutherland, op. cit., 24-8. 60 Jednota , June 9, 1915, p.1, June 23 , 1915, p.5, July 14, 1915, p.l , July 21, 1915, p.1, August 11 , 1915, p. l , January 12, 1916, p.5, February 2, 1916, p.1, June 13, 1917, p.6. See also Kirschbaum, op. cit. , 92-3. �SLOVAKIA 23 Slovak fratemals, but it had few assets of its own. 61 Thus, after the Great Depression had broken out, members of the Slovak League of America in Canada felt the need to organize a mutualaid society, and, therefore, in December, 1932, in a meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba, delegates from Slovak League of America branches in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Corbin, B.C., met and established the Canadian Slovak League, which remained strongly nationalist, but also began to function as a fraternalbenefit society.62 In the next few decades the Canadian Slovak League grew into the largest Slovak organization in Canada, with 55 branches and 3,247 members in 1965. 63 Also, as a reflection of the shifting population of Slovaks in the Dominion, the Canadian Slovak League moved its headquarters first from Winnipeg to Fort William, Ontario, later to Montreal, and finally , to Toronto, where most Slovak-Canadian fraternals are now headquartered. 64 Slovak socialists, meanwhile, also began to shift allegiances. After the Great Depression broke out, Canadian members of the American Slovak Workers' Society were no longer able to pay their dues, and the six branches of the American society withered. 65 However, the Canadian socialists did not abandon the cause. Instead, in 1931 they began to establish "Workers' Education Clubs," along the lines followed by other ethnic groups, principally the Hungarians. In 1934 these clubs joined the Communist Party of Canada, and by 1936 they federated into the 61 For a brief history of the Slovak League of America see Mikula~ Sprinc, ed., Slovenska Liga v Amerike styridsalrocna [Forty Y~ of the Slovak League of America], (Scranton, PA: Obrana Press, 1947). 62 Sutherland, op. cit., 25 . 63 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198, 204. 64 Jake~ova, op.cit., 120, and Sutherland, op. cit., 70. According to lmrich Stolarik, who was president of the CSL at the time, the League's headquarters was moved to Toronto in 1980, when the League purchased a building for this purpose (telephone conversation with the author, May 6, 1994). 65 Jake~ova, op. cit., 120. �24 SLOVAKIA Slovak Cultural Society. During the Second World War these Slovak socialists finally formed a fraternal Slovak Benefit Society and by 1965 it had grown to 27 branches with 1,200 members, making it the third-largest Slovak-Canadian fraternalbenefit organization at that time. 66 Having surveyed the creation of the principal American and Canadian Slovak fraternal-benefit societies over the last 100 years, we are now in a position to notice their similarities and differences. American Slovak fraternals tended to reflect their earlier origins and were divided by religion, gender, class, regionalism and nationalism. Thus, among American fraternals the religious ones predominated, the men and women established their own organizations, there was some class differentiation both at the local, and at the national level, as there was in regional origins, and the chief political division initially had to do with Slovak nationalism versus loyalty to Hungary. Branches of American fraternals established in Canada tended to reflect these divisions. Canadian Slovak fraternals, by contrast, were founded later and reflected new political and other concerns. The major political divisions among them concerned Slovak identity versus 'Czechoslovakism.' On the other hand, Canadian Slovaks did not establish fraternals based upon gender, nor did they splinter along religious lines. Their much stronger national feeling, arising from their origins in the new Republic of Czechoslovakia, seemed to overcome these potential divisions. On class lines, however, Canadian Slovaks showed a much greater propensity towards division than did American Slovaks. While both groups founded Slovak "workers" organizations, those in Canada had proportionately more members than their cousins in the United States. Thus, in 1939, when the American Slovak Workers' Society peaked at approximately 11,000 members (out of a total of perhaps 400,000 Slovaks organized in 66 Ibid., 121-23, and Kirschbaum, op. cit., 209-12. �SLOVAKIA 25 fratemals), its Canadian counterpart peaked at 1,200 members in 1965.67 At first glance, the latter number seems very small, but it actually represents third place among Slovak-Canadian fratemals (the Canadian Slovak League had over 3,000 members and the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society around 2,000 in that same year). If we were to rank the American Slovak Workers' Society in 1939, it would not even have made tenth place among its countrymen's fraternals . Thus, socialism had a much stronger hold upon Canadian Slovaks than it did among its American cousins. In the final analysis, when establishing fraternal-benefit societies, Canadian Slovaks faced the same dilemmas that other immigrants to North America confronted: would they follow American models, or create distinctly Canadian ones? They ended up doing both, which is a typically Canadian reaction to the problem of ethnic identity in North America. 68 67 Milo~ Gosiorovsky, "K hist6rii Slovenskeho robotnfckeho spolku v USA" (A History of the Slovak Workers Society in the USA], Zbomlk Fi/ozofickej Fakulty Univerzity Komenskeho, historica , //-12 (Bratislava: Comenius University, 1962), 56. 68 For a brilliant discussion of Canada's continuing efforts to forge a national identity see Robert F. Hamey, "So Great a Heritage as Ours" : Immigration and the Survival of the Canadian Polity," Daedalus, 117 (No. 4, 1988), 51-97. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SLOVAKIA 7 Slovak FraternalBenefit Societies in North America: An Overview (1883-1993) M. Mark Stolarik (Conference on The Development and Significance of the Fraternal Movement and Fraternal Organizations Among Immigrants in North and South America and Europe, Maribor, Slovenia, May, 1994) In a book of essays that set out to explore how ethnic groups have used the principles of collectivism to deal with their new life in America, Scott Cummings lamented that "Relatively little has been written about self-help institutions and mutual benefit societies created by immigrant groups." 1 When applied to the Slovaks in North America, this statement still holds true. While several community studies of Slovaks in North America have appeared in recent years, none have compared and contrasted the creation of fraternal-benefit societies among Slovaks in the United States and Canada. 2 This essay will make such an attempt, 1 Scott Cummings, ed., Self-Help in Urban America: Patterns of Minority Business Enterprise (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1980), 5. 2 The principal community studies are M. Mark Stolarik, Growing Up on the South Side: Three Generations of Slovaks in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, /880- 1976 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1985) and June Granatir Alexander, 8 SLOVAKIA although only in a preliminary fashion, because we still lack professional studies of the many fraternal-benefit societies established by Slovak immigrants to North America over the last 100 years. 3 When Slovaks from the Kingdom of Hungary (and other immigrants as well) began to migrate to North America in search of work in the late 19th century, they quickly discovered that, while the New World had plenty of job opportunities in the coal mines, steel mills and oil refineries, it did not provide much in the way of social welfare benefits. Thus, if an immigrant fell ill, was injured on the job, or even killed, neither his employer, nor The Immigrant Church and Community: Pittsburgh's Slovak Catholics and Lutherans, 1880-1915 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987). 3 Besides many jubilee-books written by talented amateurs (some of which will be cited later on), three semi-professional histories of Slovak fratemals do exist: Jozef Pauco's 75 rokov Prvej Katolfckej Slovenskej Jednoty (75 Years of the First Catholic Slovak Union] (Cleveland : First Catholic Slovak Union , 1965); Anthony X. Sutherland's The Canadian Slovak League: A History, /9321982 (Toronto: Canadian Slovak League, 1984); and R. Vladimir Baumgarten's and Joseph Stefka's The National Slovak Society: JOO Year History, 1890-1990 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1990). Although the latter do provide us with basic information about these societies over time, they are all "in-house" histories aimed at their members and ignore the basic conventions of professional historians, especially the concerns of the new social history. In addition, three articles (or chapters in books) written by professional historians or anthropologists focusing on Slovak fraternals in specific locations also exist. June Alexander has detailed the rise and functions of fraternals in the Pittsburgh area in chapter two "From Self-Help to Community Development: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," of her book cited above, pp.15-27; the psycho-anthropologist Howard F. Stein has analyzed Slovak fraternals in western Pennsylvania, especially in the McKeesport and Duquesne settlements in "An Ethnohistory of Slovak-American Religious and Fraternal Associations: A Study in Cultural Meaning, Group Identity, and Social Institutions," in Slovakia, XXIX (1980-1981) , 63-88; and the author of this paper has provided an over-view of Slovak-American fraternals based upon his study of the Slovak community in Bethlehem in "A Place for Everyone: Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies," in the book edited by Scott Cummings, cited above, pp.130-41. SLOVAKIA 9 any level of government, paid him or his family any form of support or compensation. 4 The Slovaks were not the first to discover this shortcoming in American society. Indeed, as early as the 17th century, Scottish immigrants to America began to form self-help organizations, which later came to be known as fraternal-benefit societies. These were private bodies consisting of immigrants and their descendants who pooled their resources, established a common treasury, and paid relief or compensation to members who had become victims of some misfortune. 5 Contrary to Oscar Handlin's claim that they were products of the American environment, fraternal-benefit societies had roots in Europe dating back to at least the 15th century, and perhaps even earlier. Similarly, craft-guilds, which were not abolished until 1872 in the Kingdom of Hungary, also had a social-welfare component. 6 4 Margaret Byington, Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town (Pitt sburgh : The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910. Reprinted by the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), 161. 5 Gordon Donaldson, "Scots," in Stephan Thernstrom et.al., Harvard Encyclo- pedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1980), 915 . 6 Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that MadetheAmerican People (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1951), 170-71, 176; Al:!beta Gacsova traced the first fraternal-benefit society in Hungary to the silver miners of Slovakia in 1460. See her Boje slovenskeho fudu proti feudalnemu utlaku a vykorist'ovaniu [The Struggle of the Slovak People Against Feudal Oppression and Exploitation] (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1960), 64; Slovak editors discussed both fraternal-benefit societies and craft guilds in Narodnf hlasnik (National Herald , Turc. Sv. Martin), October 31, 1868, p.225 ; January 31, 1869, p.22; November 30, 1871, pp.331-32; and August 31, 1872, pp.242-44; and workers in Slovakia did try to organize fraternal-benefit societies in the 1870's and l 880's, before the massive emigration of Slovaks to the United States began. Cf. Narodnf hlasnik, March 31, 1874, pp.62-3, and Narodnie noviny (National News, Turc. Sv. Martin), February 8, 1881 , p. I. For an analysis of workers' societies in the city of Kosice in eastern Slovakia in the late SLOVAKIA Thus, when central and eastern European migrants came to North America in the late 19th century, they had several models to choose from when they began to establish fraternal-benefit societies. They could copy from their American neighbours the structure of their fraternal-benefit societies, or some of these Slovaks, especially the skilled craftsmen or former miners, could draw upon previous experiences with craft guilds or fraternalbenefit societies in their homelands.7 Whatever their model, Slovak immigrants, who started to appear in the United States in the late 1870's, established around 50 local fraternal-benefit societies by 1890. 8 When one looks closely at these societies, one is bound to notice a tremendous variety in their origins, composition, religious, secular or national orientation. From Stefan Vesely's recent description, and listing of Slovak-American fraternals between 1883 and 1890, I extrapolated the following information: seven of these fraternals included the word "Hungarian" (along with "Slovak") in their titles; 26 used only the word "Slovak" (and not Hungarian) in their official name; 16 were secular-oriented, and 33 were religious. Of the 16 secular ones, two were organized by and for craftsmen. Furthermore, 25 of the fratemals arose in Pennsylvania, 8 in New Jersey, 6 in Ohio, 5 in New York, 3 in Connecticut and 1 each in Illinois and Minnesota. The largest concentration in and around cities was found in the Pittsburgh region 19th century, see Pavel Hapak, "K dejinam robotnfckych spolkov v Ko~iciach v druhej polovici 19. storocia," Nove obzory, 4 (1962), 162-63. 7 Slovaks in Bayonne, New Jersey and in Braddock, Pennsylvania said they learned about fraternal -benefit societies from their German and Irish neighbours. Cf. Ignac Gessay, "Spolky pred organizaciami." [Fraternals Before Organizations] , Narodnf kalendar, 191 I (Pittsburgh), 74-76. For a discussion of fraternal-benefit societies in Slovakia in the late 19th century see my Immigration and Urbanization: The Slovak Experience, 1870-/918 (New York : AMS Press, 1989), 70-72. 8 Stefan Vesely, "Prve slovenske spolky v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in America], S/ovaci v zahranicf, 4-5 (Martin: Matica slovenska, 1979, 53-55. SLOVAKIA 11 (7), followed by Cleveland (6), New York City (3), Passaic, New Jersey (3) and Bridgeport, Connecticut (3). The largest regional concentration was in eastern Pennsylvania, where 16 of the 50 fraternals sprang up. 9 The above statistical summary very nicely parallels what is widely-known about the Slovak-American community: that approximately half of all Slovak immigrants settled in Pennsylvania, and the rest in the surrounding Northeastern states; that the religious orientation of Slovak immigrants outweighed the secular, and that Slovak nationalism established a quick foothold in America at the expense of pro-Hungarian feeling. 10 Furthermore, when one looks at Slovak fraternals at a local level, as I have done in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, one will learn even more about the Slovak community in America. Between 1891 and 1918, the approximately 1,000 Slovaks who settled in the steel town of Bethlehem in eastern Pennsylvania, established 19 fraternal-benefit societies. Since the men had come first, they created the 10 earliest fraternals, starting in 1891, and their wives followed suit with 9 fraternals of their own (the men initially did not allow women to join their fraternals ). 11 In addition to this division by sex, Slovak fraternals were also established on the basis of religion. Thus, of the 19 fraternals in Bethlehem, 12 were religious, with the Roman Catholics claiming eight, the Lutherans two and the Greek Catholics two as well. These religiously-based fraternals were equally divided by gender. 12 9 Ibid. IO Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920, Vol. II, Population: General Report and Analytical Tables (Washington, D.C., 1922), 984. Stolarik, Immigration and Urbanization, 99; Alexander, Immigrant Church and Community, 132-34; and M. Mark Stolarik, "The Slovak Search for Identity in the United States, 1880-19 I 8," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism , XX (Nos. 1-2, 1993), 45-55 . I I Stolarik, Growing Up, 34-38. 12 Ibid. 12 SLOVAKIA Seven of the Slovak fraternals in Bethlehem were secularoriented, and they also highlighted both national and regional differences among the Slovaks. Six of these fraternals were ultra-nationalist, and their members hailed predominantly from central and western Slovakia. 13 This major difference among Slovaks in Bethlehem became apparent only in the fraternal records, because the majority of Slovaks in this town came from Eastern Slovakia. 14 Both dialectical, and national feelings, divided the Slovaks in Bethlehem. Furthermore, some of the fraternal records in Bethlehem also revealed class divisions within the Slovak community. The Sts. Cyril and Methodius Society, for instance, which was the first to be founded (in 1891 ), attracted the wealthiest and most successful of the Slovak businessmen in town, and by 1900 it demanded a $6.00 initiation fee from prospective members. Since this represented half a week's wages in the steel mill, only the better-off Slovaks could afford to join this lodge. The rest had to content themselves with less-expensive (and lessprestigious) lodges.1 s While Slovak fraternals mirrored the divisions within the community, they also performed many positive functions. As already mentioned, in return for monthly dues of about $0.50 they provided accident, illness or death benefits to their members, or their survivors. 16 They also provided personal loans, or even mortgages, to members in good standing, if their treasuries were large enough. 17 Furthermore, they taught their members the principles of democracy through their election of officers, and through the procedure of their meetings. 18 Indeed, many Slovak 13 Ibid., 36. 14 Ibid., 23, 28-30, 36. 15 Ibid., 34-5. I 6 Ibid., 38, 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 39. SLOVAKIA 13 politicians started their careers as officers of fraternal-benefit societies, and used them as launching pads for election to city and even state offices. 19 Fratemals also enforced a personal code of behavior, especially if they were founded on religious principles. 20 And, by helping to establish parish churches, by publishing their own newspapers, and often by erecting meeting halls, they helped to create other very important pillars of their ethnic communities. 21 Meanwhile, among the Slovaks in North America, local fratemals began to federate into larger bodies starting in 1890. This movement was launched by the ex-seminarian and leading Slovak nationalist Peter V. Rovnianek ( 1867-1933 ). He dreamed of uniting all Slovak fratemals into a National Slovak Society, which he founded in Pittsburgh on February 15, 1890.22 However, another budding leader of American Slovaks, the Rev. Stefan Furdek ( 1855-1915) dashed Rovnianek's dreams. Furdek, who was pastor of a Czech parish in Cleveland, had witnessed the growing anti-clericalism of the secular Czech Slavic Benevolent Society which had been founded in St. Louis in 1854. Furdek feared that Rovnianek's society would follow a similar path. Therefore, on September 4, 1890, he founded the First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America I 9 Ibid., 102-03. 20 Ibid., 39. 21 Ibid., 45-9, 39-40; for the story of Slovak newspapers published by fraternal- benefit societies see my "The Slovak-American Press," in Sally M. Miller's The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987), 356. 22 P.V. Rovnianek, Zapisky z.a liva pochovaneho. Z mojho 25 rocneho verejneho ucinkovania na naroda roli dedicnej [Notes of One Buried Alive: My 25 Years of Work on Behalf of the Slovak Nation] (Pittsburgh : National Slovak Society, 1924), 127-30. 14 SLOVAKIA (and later Canada) and formalized at the national level what had already been happening locally. 23 Once the secular-Catholic split was formalized, other groups followed suit. Slovak Lutherans established their Slovak Evangelical Union in Freeland, Pennsylvania in 1893, and the Calvinists likewise created their Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania in 1901.24 Militant Slovak nationalists, meanwhile, formed the Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol in 1896 in New York City, while their more devout countrymen split off and established the Slovak Roman and Greek Catholic Sokol in Passaic, New Jersey in 1905. 25 Even a tiny group of Slovak socialists established a Slovak Workers' Society in Newark, New Jersey, in 1915. 26 All of these organizations encouraged the local fratemals to federate with their national bodies, and most did so. 23 Ibid., 127; Jan Pankuch, Dejiny Clevelandskfch a Lakewoodskfch Slovakov [A History of Cleveland and Lakewood Slovaks] (Cleveland: Author's publication, I 930), 32; Stefan Furdek, "Katolfcka Slovenska Jednota v Spojenych Statoch Americkych" [The First Catholic Slovak Union of the United States of America], Kalendar Jednota, 1896 (Cleveland), 26-7; for more Information on the Czech Slavic Benevolent Society see Jan Habenicht, Dejiny Cechuv Americkfch [A History of American Czechs] (St. Louis: Hlas Publishing Co., 1910), 36-7, and Thomas Capek, The Cechs (Bohemians) in America (Boston : Houghton Mifflin), 1920, 258 . 24 Stefan Zeman, "Pat'desiat rokov st'achetnej prace slov . evanjelikov v Amerike," in Martin Brozek ed., Zlata kniha Slovenskej Evanje/ickej Jednoty, 1893-/943 [Golden Jubilee of the Slovak Evangelical Union, 1893-1943] (Pittsburgh : Slovenskf hlasnik, 1943), 33-36; Frank Uherk.a, "Kratky prehfad S.K.P. Jednoty" [A Short History of the Slovak Calvin Presbyterian Union], Kalendar pre slovenskfch Kalvfnov, 1927 (Pittsburgh), 37-8. 25 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny (Pittsburgh), July 13, 1896, p.l, and Gusto Kosfk, "Prve desairocie nasej Jednoty" [The First Decade of Our Union], Sbomik Rfmsko a Grecko Katolfckej Telocvitnej Jednoty Sokol, 1916 (Passaic, NJ.), 35-51. 26 Jan Diacik, "Z dejin Slovenskeho Robotnickeho Spolku" [A History of the Slovak Workers' Society], in Jan Vrabel ed., Pamatnik Slovenskeho Robotnfckeho Spolku, 1915-1925 (Chicago, Rovnos( l:udu, 1925), 5. SLOVAKIA 15 Since these national Slovak fratemals were founded by men, and initially most did not admit women into their ranks, Slovak women quickly proceeded to establish their own national organizations. The first to do so were the wives of the men who had founded the National Slovak Society. Urged on by P. V. Rovnianek, these women founded the 'Zivena' Slovak National Women's Benefit Society on July 19, 1891 in New York City. 27 Not to be outdone, the Reverend Stefan Furdek then urged a group of Roman Catholic women in Cleveland to establish the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union in 1892. 28 After this Lutheran women established their own Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and the wives of the secular and Catholic Sokols established their own "Wreaths" as adjuncts to the men's national organizations. 29 In addition, Slovaks also established fraternals on a regional basis. For instance, in 1893 Slovak men in eastern Pennsylvania created the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union and a little later their wives organized the Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Ladies Union.30 Similarly, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Slovaks founded the Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle in 1896. 31 Similar regional organizations also arose in New York, Passaic, New Jersey, 27 Helen Pn1cazky, "Kratke dejiny I. odboru v New York, N.Y." [A Short Hi story of Branch I in New York], in Pavel Blazek, ed., Pamiitnica k zlatemu jubileju Ziveny, 1891-1941 (Pittsburgh : Slavia Printing Company, 1941), 211. 28 Kenneth Baka, "The First Catholic Slovak Ladies Association," in Joseph C. Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America: A Bicentennial Study (Middletown, PA: Slovak League of America, 1976), 172. 29 Alvin J. Schmidt, Fraternal Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 343 for the establishment of the Evangelical Slovak Women's Union, and Joseph G. Prufa, ed., Golden Jubilee (1905-1955) Souvenir Book of the Slovak Catholic Sokol (Passaic, NJ : Slovak Catholic Sokol, 1955), for the Sokol Wreaths. 30 Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, July 4, I 896, p. l ; "Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union," in Krajsa et.al., Slovaks in America, 197; and "The Ladies Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union, 1898-1976," Ibid., 20 I. 31 "First Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle," Ibid., 22 I. 16 SLOVAKIA Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere, and many soon also began to recruit members nation-wide.32 If we look at some membership statistics, we will quickly notice that Slovak Catholic fratemals attracted far more members than the secular ones in the United States. For instance, Thomas Capek Jr. did a survey of the principal Slovak national fratemals in 1920 and discovered that twelve such societies had a combined adult membership of 212,241. 33 This was an astonishing number when one considers that the 1920 United States Census counted 619,866 Slovaks in this country. 34 Furthermore, Capek's survey actually under-counted the number of Slovaks enrolled in fraternals because he did not list members of youth divisions. For instance, in 1920 the First Catholic Slovak Union also had 21,860 Youth Division members and the National Slovak Society's Young Folks Circle counted 14,124. 35 Nevertheless, if we break down Capek's adult members into those who belonged to religious fraternals versus those who belonged to secular ones, we discover that 142,946 were members of religious fraternals and only 69,315 belonged to non-denominational ones.36 If we compare the principal Catholic versus secular societies established by Slovaks in the United States over a longer period of time, we will notice an ever-widening gulf between them. Thus, while the National Slovak Society initially enrolled more members than the First Catholic Slovak Union (2,871 versus 864 in 1891), by 1898 the FCSU had overtaken the NSS 32 Thomas Capek, Jr., The Slovaks in America (New York: Czechoslovak Section of America's Making, Inc. , 1921 ), 88-9. 33 Ibid., 89. 34 See above, footnote 10. 35 Paufo, 75 rokov, 158; and Juraj J. Niznansky and Vendelin Platek, compilers, Dejiny a Pamatnica Narodneho Slovenskeho Spolku, 1890-1950 (Pittsburgh: National Slovak Society, 1950), 219. 36 Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88-9. SLOVAKIA 17 (10,547 versus 9,573) and eventually left it far behind. 37 By 1929, when the membership of the National Slovak Society peaked, the latter had 42,646 adult members and 21,437 youth, for a grand total of 64,083, whereas the First Catholic Slovak Union had 102,000 adult and youth members that year. 38 Indeed, after 1929 membership in the NSS began a slow and steady decline to only 30,129 adult members and 7,508 youth in 1949, while the FCSU actually grew to 104,558 members in 1931, declined to 91,719 in 1939 due to the Great Depression, but rebounded after World War II to 95,712 members in 1948, and ultimately to 105,800 members in 1977, when its membership peaked.39 By contrast, membership in the National Slovak Society had fallen to 23,415 in 1975.40 While no-one has yet systematically studied the rise and decline of the major Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in America, I have noticed a surprising trend when briefly comparing men's and women's fratemals. For instance, while Capek reported 49,680 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Union in 1920, and only 28,264 adult members in the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union that year,41 by 1985 the women's organization had outstripped the men in both membership and assets. In that year the women's Union had 105,955 members and assets of $94,000,000 versus 95,090 members in the men's Union, and assets of only $51 ,800,000.42 How and why the women overtook the men still needs to be determined. 37 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 2 14; Pauco, 75 rokov, 13, 31. 38 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214, 219; Pauco, 75 rokov, 230. 39 Nifoansky & Platek, Dejiny, 214; Pauco, 75 rokov, 246, 322, 370, and Slovakia, 27 (1977), back cover. 4o Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 156. 4 l Capek, Jr., op.cit., 88. 42 1985 Statistics of Fraternal Benefit Societies, 1986 Edition (Naperville, ILL: The National Fraternal Congress of America, 1986), I I 8-19. 18 SLOVAKIA The story of the establishment of Slovak fraternal-benefit societies in Canada likewise reveals a great deal about the Slovak-Canadian community, and its similarities and differences when compared with the American community. Unlike Slovak immigration to the United States, which proceeded directly from Slovakia to the industrial heartland of the American Northeast in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Slovak immigration to Canada before World War I was principally from the United States to the western provinces. American Slovaks were lured to Canada's west either by work to be found in the newly-opened coal mines of Alberta or British Columbia, to construction of spurs of Canada's railroads through the Rocky Mountains, or by cheap and available farmland on the prairies. 43 Since these Slovak pioneers had gone to Canada via the United States, they naturally brought with them ties to SlovakAmerican institutions, including fraternal-benefit societies. From the only complete list of Canadian branches of an American Slovak fraternal in existence, we can clearly see the pattern of Slovak settlement in Canada. The first branch of a SlovakAmerican fraternal arose in the coal-mining town of Ladysmith, British Columbia in 1891. It was Assembly number 52 of the 4 3 Slovak-American newspapers had many reports from these "pioneers" who settled in Canada before World War I. For examples of coal miners who settled in British Columbia and Alberta see Amerikansko-slovenske noviny, January 28, 1902, p.1, Slovak v Amerike (New York), January 12, 1902, p.1, February 11 , 1902, p.l, February 9, 1906, p.3, July 29, 1913, p.7, Narodnie noviny, No. 69 (1902), p.3, Jed nota (Cleveland), August 23, 1905, p.5, October 10, 1906, p.1, April 9, 1909, p.2, November 15, 191 I, p.2, December 20, 1911, p.2, December 4, 1912, p.2, November 26, 1913, p.2; for examples of American Slovaks who settled on Canada's prairies and took up farming see Slovak v Amerike, October 29, 1901, p.3, January 2, 1908, p.2, June 17, 1909, p.2, December 21, 1909, p.4, August 25, 1910, p.2, January 2, 1912, p.3, June 17, 1913, p.6, Jednota, February 22, 1905, p.5, October 15, 1905, p.5, June 27, 1906, p.2, January 8, 1914, p.3 . For the story of a railroad worker who came to British Columbia via the United States in 1910 consult my interview with Andrej Potocky of Thunder Bay, Ontario, June 24, 1977, tapes STO-C-46, 47, 48, 49, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. SLOVAKIA 19 National Slovak Society, and in subsequent years branches of the NSS also arose in Fernie, British Columbia (1900), in Natal, B.C. (1903), in Coleman, Alberta (1904), in Frank Alberta (1905), in Trail, B.C. (1906), in Canmore, Alberta (1906), in Corbin, B.C. (1909), in Maple Leaf, Ontario (1913) and in Blainnore, Alberta ( 1918). 44 Thus, nine of the ten branches of the NSS established in Canada before the end of World War I were in the two westernmost provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Only after World War I, when the United States started to close its borders to unrestricted immigration, while Canada still accepted cheap laborers, did the pattern of Slovak settlement change. 45 Now Slovaks immigrated directly to Canada via the ports of Quebec and Montreal, and, although the Canadian government wanted them to continue on to the West, most chose to settle in Ontario and Quebec, which formed the industrial heartland of Canada. 46 Thus, branches of the National Slovak Society sprang up in Windsor in 1929 and in 1937; in Montreal in 1931; in Hamilton in 1931 and 1939 and in Timmins in 1932. After World War II more branches arose in Toronto in 1956, and in Montreal that same year; in Welland in 1957, another one in Toronto in 1964, and in Galt in 1965.47 In spite of this growth in branches, membership in the NSS in Canada was unimpres- 44 Baumgarten & Stefka, The National Slovak Society, 251, 264, 266-67, 27071, 275-76, 278. 45 For the story of the Immigration Restriction Acts in the United States see E.P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press for the Balch Institute, 1981 ), 171-213. 46 For Canada's Immigration Policies during the 1920's see Donald Avery, Reluctant Host: Canada's Response to Immigrant Workers , 1896-1994 (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1995), 82-107. 4 7 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 279-82. 20 SLOVAKIA sive at only 320 adults in 1964.48 Indeed, in 1989 the few remaining members of the NSS in Canada were urged by the Head Officers in Pittsburgh to join local branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union because the cost of administering so few members had become prohibitive. 49 While we do not have complete lists of branches of other Slovak-American societies in Canada, we do have partial listings of their locations, and these confirm the above observations. Thus, the first five branches of the First Catholic Slovak Union established in Canada before World War I appeared in Lethbridge, Alberta (1894), Fernie, B.C., Canmore and Coleman, Alberta, and Fort William, Ontario. 50 After the first and second World Wars another 51 branches of the "Jednota" were established principally in Ontario and Quebec, and by 1965 all the Jednota branches combined had 2,988 members, making them by far the largest American-Slovak fraternal-benefit society in Canada. 51 Meanwhile, among other American fraternals established in Canada, the same pattern appears. Thus, two branches of the Slovak Catholic Sokol arose in Canmore and Blairmore, Alberta, before World War I; and one each in Toronto and Montreal after the war. 52 The Slovak Evangelical Union did not move into Canada until after World War I, probably because Slovak Lutherans did not come in any great numbers until that time. However, it did eventually establish twelve branches in Ontario and Quebec, starting in Fort William in 1927, and later in Windsor, 48 Joseph M. Kirschbaum, Slovaks in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Ethnic Press Association of Ontario, 1967), 182. 49 Baumgarten & Stefka, op.cit., 184. 5o Kirschbaum, op.cit., 184; and Elena Jake~ova, Vysfahovalectvo Slovakov do Kanady (Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1981), 75-6. 5 l Kirschbaum, op.cit., 185. 52 Ibid., 187. SLOVAKIA 21 Timmins, Toronto, Montreal, and elsewhere. 53 The Slovak Workers' Society also established six branches in Canada between 1926 and 1929, principally in Ontario and Quebec. 54 By 1934 various American Slovak fraternal-benefit societies had organized around 100 branches in Canada performing the same functions, and reflecting the same divisions in the Slovak community, as they had had in the United States. 55 Meanwhile, with the arrival of immigrants directly from Slovakia in the 1920's, a movement arose to establish purely Canadian fraternals as well. It started in Montreal in 1924 when the restaurant-owner Frantisek Capkovic decided to create a Slovak fraternal-benefit society. However, some Czechs also wished to join it, and the local Czechoslovak Consul persuaded Capkovic to organize the Czechoslovak Benefit Society, in order to promote the philosophy of "Czechoslovakism" among immigrants in Canada. This philosophy received official government sanction in 1918 with the creation of the new Republic of Czechoslovakia upon the ruins of Austria-Hungary. Thus, the new Czechoslovak Consulate in Montreal subsidized the Czechoslovak Benefit Society with a monthly contribution of $60.00. 56 While this Czechoslovak society grew to 1, 135 members in 17 branches across Ontario and Quebec, and even a few in the west by 1931, old-world politics ultimately divided it. Slovak nationalists in both the United States and Canada attacked this society as a tool of the Czechoslovak government. Therefore, in 1931 it split into the First Slovak Benefit Society headquartered 53 Jake§ova, op. cit., 113. 5 4 Ibid., 113-15. 55 This is my estimate, based upon my reading of Kirschbaum, Jake~ova, Baumgarten & Stefka. Kirschbaum under-counted them at only 78 in that year. Cf. Kirschbaum, op.cit., 193. The exact number of branches of Slovak-American fratemals in Canada in that year, and in others, still remains to be determined. 56 Jakdova, op. cit., I 16. 22 SLOVAKIA in Montreal (8 branches) and the old Czechoslovak Benefit Society (9 branches).57 Furthermore, one of the early organizers and supporters of the original Czechoslovak Benefit Society also broke with it Gabriel Kurdel, who had been its secretary in 1926-1927, decided to take up farming near Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1928. However, his organizing instinct spurred him to establish several Slovak Benefit Societies in the West, and also among the precious metals miners in Northern Ontario between 1929 and 1932. These societies eventually federated into the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society in 1946, and became the second-largest purely Canadian fraternal with 38 branches and 2,035 members in 1965. 58 The largest Slovak-Canadian fraternal-benefit society, ironically enough, was a child of an American organization. Nationalist Slovaks in Fort William, Ontario, had established a branch of the Slovak League of America in 1916, and other branches arose soon after the war in Corbin, British Columbia, Flin Flon and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Toronto and Oshawa, Ontario, Montreal, Quebec, and in New Waterford, Nova Scotia. 59 Slovaks in these centers were grateful that a delegate of the Slovak League of America had visited various camps in Canada in which Slovaks, among others, had been interned as "enemy aliens" in 1915 and 1916, and had persuaded the Canadian authorities to release them. 60 Unfortunately for these Canadian members of the Slovak League of America, the latter was not a fraternal-benefit society. It was the cover organization that spoke for most American57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 117-20; Kirschbaum, op. cit., 194-95, 204, 206-09. 59 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198-20 I ; Jakefova, op. cit., 120; Sutherland, op. cit., 24-8. 60 Jednota , June 9, 1915, p.1, June 23 , 1915, p.5, July 14, 1915, p.l , July 21, 1915, p.1, August 11 , 1915, p. l , January 12, 1916, p.5, February 2, 1916, p.1, June 13, 1917, p.6. See also Kirschbaum, op. cit. , 92-3. SLOVAKIA 23 Slovak fratemals, but it had few assets of its own. 61 Thus, after the Great Depression had broken out, members of the Slovak League of America in Canada felt the need to organize a mutualaid society, and, therefore, in December, 1932, in a meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba, delegates from Slovak League of America branches in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Corbin, B.C., met and established the Canadian Slovak League, which remained strongly nationalist, but also began to function as a fraternalbenefit society.62 In the next few decades the Canadian Slovak League grew into the largest Slovak organization in Canada, with 55 branches and 3,247 members in 1965. 63 Also, as a reflection of the shifting population of Slovaks in the Dominion, the Canadian Slovak League moved its headquarters first from Winnipeg to Fort William, Ontario, later to Montreal, and finally , to Toronto, where most Slovak-Canadian fraternals are now headquartered. 64 Slovak socialists, meanwhile, also began to shift allegiances. After the Great Depression broke out, Canadian members of the American Slovak Workers' Society were no longer able to pay their dues, and the six branches of the American society withered. 65 However, the Canadian socialists did not abandon the cause. Instead, in 1931 they began to establish "Workers' Education Clubs," along the lines followed by other ethnic groups, principally the Hungarians. In 1934 these clubs joined the Communist Party of Canada, and by 1936 they federated into the 61 For a brief history of the Slovak League of America see Mikula~ Sprinc, ed., Slovenska Liga v Amerike styridsalrocna [Forty Y~ of the Slovak League of America], (Scranton, PA: Obrana Press, 1947). 62 Sutherland, op. cit., 25 . 63 Kirschbaum, op. cit., 198, 204. 64 Jake~ova, op.cit., 120, and Sutherland, op. cit., 70. According to lmrich Stolarik, who was president of the CSL at the time, the League's headquarters was moved to Toronto in 1980, when the League purchased a building for this purpose (telephone conversation with the author, May 6, 1994). 65 Jake~ova, op. cit., 120. 24 SLOVAKIA Slovak Cultural Society. During the Second World War these Slovak socialists finally formed a fraternal Slovak Benefit Society and by 1965 it had grown to 27 branches with 1,200 members, making it the third-largest Slovak-Canadian fraternalbenefit organization at that time. 66 Having surveyed the creation of the principal American and Canadian Slovak fraternal-benefit societies over the last 100 years, we are now in a position to notice their similarities and differences. American Slovak fraternals tended to reflect their earlier origins and were divided by religion, gender, class, regionalism and nationalism. Thus, among American fraternals the religious ones predominated, the men and women established their own organizations, there was some class differentiation both at the local, and at the national level, as there was in regional origins, and the chief political division initially had to do with Slovak nationalism versus loyalty to Hungary. Branches of American fraternals established in Canada tended to reflect these divisions. Canadian Slovak fraternals, by contrast, were founded later and reflected new political and other concerns. The major political divisions among them concerned Slovak identity versus 'Czechoslovakism.' On the other hand, Canadian Slovaks did not establish fraternals based upon gender, nor did they splinter along religious lines. Their much stronger national feeling, arising from their origins in the new Republic of Czechoslovakia, seemed to overcome these potential divisions. On class lines, however, Canadian Slovaks showed a much greater propensity towards division than did American Slovaks. While both groups founded Slovak "workers" organizations, those in Canada had proportionately more members than their cousins in the United States. Thus, in 1939, when the American Slovak Workers' Society peaked at approximately 11,000 members (out of a total of perhaps 400,000 Slovaks organized in 66 Ibid., 121-23, and Kirschbaum, op. cit., 209-12. SLOVAKIA 25 fratemals), its Canadian counterpart peaked at 1,200 members in 1965.67 At first glance, the latter number seems very small, but it actually represents third place among Slovak-Canadian fratemals (the Canadian Slovak League had over 3,000 members and the Canadian Slovak Benefit Society around 2,000 in that same year). If we were to rank the American Slovak Workers' Society in 1939, it would not even have made tenth place among its countrymen's fraternals . Thus, socialism had a much stronger hold upon Canadian Slovaks than it did among its American cousins. In the final analysis, when establishing fraternal-benefit societies, Canadian Slovaks faced the same dilemmas that other immigrants to North America confronted: would they follow American models, or create distinctly Canadian ones? They ended up doing both, which is a typically Canadian reaction to the problem of ethnic identity in North America. 68 67 Milo~ Gosiorovsky, "K hist6rii Slovenskeho robotnfckeho spolku v USA" (A History of the Slovak Workers Society in the USA], Zbomlk Fi/ozofickej Fakulty Univerzity Komenskeho, historica , //-12 (Bratislava: Comenius University, 1962), 56. 68 For a brilliant discussion of Canada's continuing efforts to forge a national identity see Robert F. Hamey, "So Great a Heritage as Ours" : Immigration and the Survival of the Canadian Polity," Daedalus, 117 (No. 4, 1988), 51-97.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in North America: An Overview (1883-1993) Description An account of the resource M. Mark Stolarik Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998 pp. 7-25 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stolarik, M. Mark, 1943- Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 LCNAF https://slovakia.wordsofpassage.net/files/original/d56fd6074c3661cf914ed03573d66881.pdf 5ce335b13322a29391c25ad02763435a PDF Text Text SLOVAKIA Published By THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA ��SLOVAKIA VOLUME XXXVI NUMBERS 66-67 1998 A scholarly annual devot ed to the history, literature, and culture o f the Slovaks the world over. Editor M. MARK STOLARIK University of Ott awa Editorial Board ...{)A YID P. DANIEL Slovak Academic Informatio n Agency MICHAEL NOVAK American Enterprise Institute ROBERT K. EV ANSON University of Missouri PETER PETRO University of British Columbia LOUISE B. HAMMER Indiana University NORMAL. RUDINSKY Oregon State University Publisher Slovak League of America 205 Madison Str. Passaic, NJ 07055 Inquiries regarding subscriptions should be sent to the above address. The cost of a single issue is U.S. $8.00 Manuscripts for possible publication and books for review should be sent to M. Mark Stolarik, Editor, Slovakia, 22 Bren- Maur Road, Nepean, Ontario, Canada K2J 3Z7. ��Table of Contents ARTICLES Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in North America: An Overview (18831993) M. Mark Stolarik .... .. ... .... .......... .. ... .. ... ... ........ .... ...... ...... .... .. ....... ... 7 The Roma of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe ..... ... .... ............ ......... .. ...... .... ...... ... .. ....... .... .... .. .. 26 Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism......_ Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec ...... .... ................ .. ............. .. .... ... ..... 56 The Battle Over Presidential Power in Slovakia Spencer tifcak ........ ...... .... ............ ............ ... ..... ..... .... ...... .. ........... 70 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ....... ..... .. ....... ........ .. ...... .. .. .... .. ..... .... ........ . 81 Une oraison de messe: monument culture! europeen Stefan Polako vic ..... ..... ....................... .. ......... ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 98 REVIEWS Paul R. Magocsi, Historical A das of East Central Europe George J. Demko ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. ... ............ ........ ...... ..... .. ..... .......... . 119 Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu Gregory C. Ference .. .. .......... .... .... .. ... ............ ..... ....... ................. .. 121 Richard Marsina a kolektfv, Slovenske dejiny R . Vladimir Baumgarten ... ..................... .. ... ...................... ....... ..... 123 �4 SLOVAKIA Katarfna Sultrajerova, comp., Najstarsie rody na Slovensku Duncan B . Gardiner .... .... ...... .. .... ...... .... ... .... .... ..... ...... .. ... ....... .... . 125 Emil Krapka and Vojtech Mikula, eds., Dejiny Spolocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku Gerald J. Sabo ... .... ....... ........ ....... .... .... ........ ... .. ... .. .. ........ .... .. .. .. . 129 James Felak, "A t the Price of the Republic." Hlinka ' s Slovak People's Party Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ............ ....... .. ........ .... .......... .... .... ... ........ . 13 I Jiff Hochman, ed., Hope Dies Last: The Autobiogra[Xly of Alexander Dubcek Robert K. Evanson .................. .. .. ... ........ .. .. .......... ................... ... . 134 Paul R. Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia Keith P. Dyrud .............. ........ ... .......... .. ..... ..... .... ...... ......... ...... ... 140 Ann L. Pawliczko, ed., Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World Paul R. Magocsi .. ..... .... .. .... ... .... ... .... .. .... .... .... .......... .... .. .... ... .... . 142 Nina Trnka, Slovak-English/English-Slovak Dictionary John M . Kochik ......................... ... .... ........ .. ........ ...... ..... ......... .... 144 Contributors ... .. .... ... .... ........ ............. ............ ... .... .... ......... .......... .1 - .. 148 Guidelines for Manuscripts ...... ......... .. .. ........ .. ...... ......................... ...... 150 �ARTICLES �� SLOVAKIA Published By THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA ��SLOVAKIA VOLUME XXXVI NUMBERS 66-67 1998 A scholarly annual devot ed to the history, literature, and culture o f the Slovaks the world over. Editor M. MARK STOLARIK University of Ott awa Editorial Board ...{)A YID P. DANIEL Slovak Academic Informatio n Agency MICHAEL NOVAK American Enterprise Institute ROBERT K. EV ANSON University of Missouri PETER PETRO University of British Columbia LOUISE B. HAMMER Indiana University NORMAL. RUDINSKY Oregon State University Publisher Slovak League of America 205 Madison Str. Passaic, NJ 07055 Inquiries regarding subscriptions should be sent to the above address. The cost of a single issue is U.S. $8.00 Manuscripts for possible publication and books for review should be sent to M. Mark Stolarik, Editor, Slovakia, 22 Bren- Maur Road, Nepean, Ontario, Canada K2J 3Z7. ��Table of Contents ARTICLES Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in North America: An Overview (18831993) M. Mark Stolarik .... .. ... .... .......... .. ... .. ... ... ........ .... ...... ...... .... .. ....... ... 7 The Roma of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe ..... ... .... ............ ......... .. ...... .... ...... ... .. ....... .... .... .. .. 26 Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism......_ Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec ...... .... ................ .. ............. .. .... ... ..... 56 The Battle Over Presidential Power in Slovakia Spencer tifcak ........ ...... .... ............ ............ ... ..... ..... .... ...... .. ........... 70 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ....... ..... .. ....... ........ .. ...... .. .. .... .. ..... .... ........ . 81 Une oraison de messe: monument culture! europeen Stefan Polako vic ..... ..... ....................... .. ......... ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 98 REVIEWS Paul R. Magocsi, Historical A das of East Central Europe George J. Demko ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. ... ............ ........ ...... ..... .. ..... .......... . 119 Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu Gregory C. Ference .. .. .......... .... .... .. ... ............ ..... ....... ................. .. 121 Richard Marsina a kolektfv, Slovenske dejiny R . Vladimir Baumgarten ... ..................... .. ... ...................... ....... ..... 123 �4 SLOVAKIA Katarfna Sultrajerova, comp., Najstarsie rody na Slovensku Duncan B . Gardiner .... .... ...... .. .... ...... .... ... .... .... ..... ...... .. ... ....... .... . 125 Emil Krapka and Vojtech Mikula, eds., Dejiny Spolocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku Gerald J. Sabo ... .... ....... ........ ....... .... .... ........ ... .. ... .. .. ........ .... .. .. .. . 129 James Felak, "A t the Price of the Republic." Hlinka ' s Slovak People's Party Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ............ ....... .. ........ .... .......... .... .... ... ........ . 13 I Jiff Hochman, ed., Hope Dies Last: The Autobiogra[Xly of Alexander Dubcek Robert K. Evanson .................. .. .. ... ........ .. .. .......... ................... ... . 134 Paul R. Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia Keith P. Dyrud .............. ........ ... .......... .. ..... ..... .... ...... ......... ...... ... 140 Ann L. Pawliczko, ed., Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World Paul R. Magocsi .. ..... .... .. .... ... .... ... .... .. .... .... .... .......... .... .. .... ... .... . 142 Nina Trnka, Slovak-English/English-Slovak Dictionary John M . Kochik ......................... ... .... ........ .. ........ ...... ..... ......... .... 144 Contributors ... .. .... ... .... ........ ............. ............ ... .... .... ......... .......... .1 - .. 148 Guidelines for Manuscripts ...... ......... .. .. ........ .. ...... ......................... ...... 150 �ARTICLES �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1998, Vol. 36 Description An account of the resource Vol. 36 (No. 66-67), 1998. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Slovak League of America Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SLOVAKIA Published By THE SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA SLOVAKIA VOLUME XXXVI NUMBERS 66-67 1998 A scholarly annual devot ed to the history, literature, and culture o f the Slovaks the world over. Editor M. MARK STOLARIK University of Ott awa Editorial Board ...{)A YID P. DANIEL Slovak Academic Informatio n Agency MICHAEL NOVAK American Enterprise Institute ROBERT K. EV ANSON University of Missouri PETER PETRO University of British Columbia LOUISE B. HAMMER Indiana University NORMAL. RUDINSKY Oregon State University Publisher Slovak League of America 205 Madison Str. Passaic, NJ 07055 Inquiries regarding subscriptions should be sent to the above address. The cost of a single issue is U.S. $8.00 Manuscripts for possible publication and books for review should be sent to M. Mark Stolarik, Editor, Slovakia, 22 Bren- Maur Road, Nepean, Ontario, Canada K2J 3Z7. Table of Contents ARTICLES Slovak Fraternal-Benefit Societies in North America: An Overview (18831993) M. Mark Stolarik .... .. ... .... .......... .. ... .. ... ... ........ .... ...... ...... .... .. ....... ... 7 The Roma of Slovakia Since 1939 David M. Crowe ..... ... .... ............ ......... .. ...... .... ...... ... .. ....... .... .... .. .. 26 Reflections on the Downfall of Communism and the Transition to Capitalism......_ Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec ...... .... ................ .. ............. .. .... ... ..... 56 The Battle Over Presidential Power in Slovakia Spencer tifcak ........ ...... .... ............ ............ ... ..... ..... .... ...... .. ........... 70 The Cleveland and Pittsburgh Documents Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ....... ..... .. ....... ........ .. ...... .. .. .... .. ..... .... ........ . 81 Une oraison de messe: monument culture! europeen Stefan Polako vic ..... ..... ....................... .. ......... ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 98 REVIEWS Paul R. Magocsi, Historical A das of East Central Europe George J. Demko ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. ... ............ ........ ...... ..... .. ..... .......... . 119 Anton Spiesz, Dejiny Slovenska na ceste k sebauvedomeniu Gregory C. Ference .. .. .......... .... .... .. ... ............ ..... ....... ................. .. 121 Richard Marsina a kolektfv, Slovenske dejiny R . Vladimir Baumgarten ... ..................... .. ... ...................... ....... ..... 123 4 SLOVAKIA Katarfna Sultrajerova, comp., Najstarsie rody na Slovensku Duncan B . Gardiner .... .... ...... .. .... ...... .... ... .... .... ..... ...... .. ... ....... .... . 125 Emil Krapka and Vojtech Mikula, eds., Dejiny Spolocnosti Jeiisovej na Slovensku Gerald J. Sabo ... .... ....... ........ ....... .... .... ........ ... .. ... .. .. ........ .... .. .. .. . 129 James Felak, "A t the Price of the Republic." Hlinka ' s Slovak People's Party Stanislav J. Kirschbaum ............ ....... .. ........ .... .......... .... .... ... ........ . 13 I Jiff Hochman, ed., Hope Dies Last: The Autobiogra[Xly of Alexander Dubcek Robert K. Evanson .................. .. .. ... ........ .. .. .......... ................... ... . 134 Paul R. Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia Keith P. Dyrud .............. ........ ... .......... .. ..... ..... .... ...... ......... ...... ... 140 Ann L. Pawliczko, ed., Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World Paul R. Magocsi .. ..... .... .. .... ... .... ... .... .. .... .... .... .......... .... .. .... ... .... . 142 Nina Trnka, Slovak-English/English-Slovak Dictionary John M . Kochik ......................... ... .... ........ .. ........ ...... ..... ......... .... 144 Contributors ... .. .... ... .... ........ ............. ............ ... .... .... ......... .......... .1 - .. 148 Guidelines for Manuscripts ...... ......... .. .. ........ .. ...... ......................... ...... 150 ARTICLES  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Front Matter, Slovakia, Vol. 36 (No. 66-67) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998