THOMAS G:
MASARYK AND THE CROATS*
- - -
Journal of Croatian Studies, XXVIII-XXIX, 1987-88 Annual Review of the Croatian
Academy of America, Inc. New York, N.Y., Electronic edition by Studia
Croatica, by permission. All rights reserved by the Croatian Academy of
America.
- - -
Tomaš G. Masaryk (1850-1937)
was a very influential
theoretician of the history of his country. He was partly successful in turning
the Czechs away from romantic nationalism and in giving them a new ideology
with roots in their own past.
In books such as The Meaning of
Czech History (Česka otazka 1895), Jan Hus (1896), and Karel Havliček (1896), he outlined his philosophy of Czech
history: for him the Hussite era was the pinnacle of the Czech past, and the
Bohemian Brethren were the finest embodiment of the ideal of humanity. He
considered the Czech national revival at the beginning of the nineteenth
century a direct continuation of the Czech Reformation, and the modern Czech
democracy the fulfilment of the Hussite tradition.[1]
Masaryk, who began his career as
professor of philosophy at Prague University by attacking the authenticity of
the so-called Old Czech Manuscripts (forged chiefly by a poet Vaclav Hanka) and
was effective (together with others) in demolishing this myth, in the process
of time, when he became a politician and national leader, created many myths of
his own!
To prove this point I will adduce
the opinion of some respected Czech scholars.
Josef Kaizl (1854-1901),
a former colleague of
Masaryk in the Young Czech party, in his book Czech Thought (Česke
myšlenky 1896), challenged Masaryk's views of Czech history. He argued that the Czech
question was a national, not a religious problem. He emphasized that the
"awakeners" of the early nineteenth century were liberals in the tradition
of the French Enlightenment and not that of the Reformation. Even those who
were Protestants (e.g. Jan Kollar, František Palacky and Pavel J. Šafarik) did
not draw upon the Czech protestant tradition; they looked at the revival only in national and social terms.
From
professional historians came even more serious objections to Masaryk's
interpretations. One of the better known scholars, on account of his immense
erudition, was Josef Pekař (1870-1937), who in his
booklet Masaryk's Czech Philosophy (Masarykova česka filosofie, 1912; third
edition, 1927) argued that the Czech national awakening was
different from the Czech Reformation, that the ideal of humanity enunciated by Herder and accepted by
František Palacky (1779-1876), the "father" of Czech historiography, had nothing
to do with the Christian beliefs either of the Hussites or the Bohemian
Brethren. Pekař regarded the Hussites as "enthusiasts", who, for
the sake of their debatable opinions, went gladly to their death. He quoted
Palacky who had written that during the Reformation the idea of faith and
church was of the greatest significance, while for his contemporaries the most
important concept was that of Czech nation.[2]
Pekař pointed out that Masaryk's beloved Hussites had accepted the feudal
order and did not demand the emancipation of the serfs. Further, he denied that
the outcome of the battle of the White Mountain (1620) should be explained by the moral
decay of the Czech nation. Pekař repudiated Masaryk's philosophy of
history as an artificial fabrication without support in reality and even in
collision with it. Pekař concluded his attack against Masaryk's philosophy
of the Czech nation by saying that he felt obliged to oppose Masaryk's mystical
ideology and national mythology.[3]
René Wellek (1903- ), one of the most competent critics of
Masaryk's philosophy, who has remained a devoted admirer of the former Czech
president, recognizes, however, that "Masaryk was not and did not pretend
to be a professional historian doing research in archives ... Masaryk scarcely
makes an effort to enter into the minds of bygone people, to reconstruct their
outlook in its historical setting, for he does not care for the past in itself
but mainly for the consciousness and conscience of his contemporaries and their
descendants. The past for Masaryk must stay alive to shape the future".[4]
The persistent theme of Masaryk's
exhortations to his countrymen was that they should not be apathetic, that they
should work and prove assiduous even in petty daily duties. He encouraged them
to make their way in the contemporary world using both their muscles and brain.
In his book about Karel
Havliček, a leading Czech political figure (1821-56), when he discussed the "essence
of political realism", he said that it was not in the middle of two
extremes, namely of radical agitation and conservative inertia; his realism
(pragmatism, concretism) was continually moving forward. "When politics is
founded on precise observation, on experience illuminated by reason, meaningful
prediction becomes possible.[5]
He cited Havliček who had written: "In the past, men were read to die
for honour and for good of their people; for the same goals we are ready to
work and live".[6]
By his realism Masaryk was able to
instil in the mind of his countrymen a sense of duty and efficiency, which were
the basis reasons why, especially during his presidency (1918-35), the Czechs became a forward moving
nation.
Masaryk was first of all a moralist,
preoccupied with the ethical and moral implications of history and his own
teaching.
Already in his early writings, he
had begun to discuss literature. His literary views he formulated in works such
as Modern Man and Religion (Moderni človek a nabošenstvi, 1898) and Russia and Europa (Rusko
a Evropa, 1913). In them he sharply criticized romanticism, subjectivism and titanism; he
attacked Goethe's Faust and works of Nietzsche, de Musset and Zola. Although at
first he was fascinated, later he was repelled by Dostoevsky, whom he
considered an extreme romantic and mystic. Masaryk disliked the French
romantics, in whose poetry he was shocked by symptoms of decadence.
He always praised the human and
protestant spirit of the English letters. He had no interest for English
poetry, and assaulted Lord Byron as an example of romantic titanism. He
rejected novelists such as James Joyce and George Moore, who seemed to him
essentially Catholic and decadent.[7]
On the contrary, he appreciated women writers like Charlotte and Emily Bronte,
and Elisabeth B. Browning.
Masaryk definitely was not an
esthete or literary critic. He was interested in letters only as a mirror of
society. His rigid moralism and his lack of interest in problems of form led
him often to erroneous judgments about some of the greatest writers.
However,
the very bluntness with which he expressed his antiromantic and antidecadent
views has greatly influenced many Czech critics and writers. There were also
foreign students who accepted his ideas. They did not pay due attention to the
deficiencies of his
literary insight; they followed him for they respected him as their leader not
only in the domain of politics, but also in those of philosophy, religion,
sociology and even literary criticism.
***
The demonstration which occurred on
October 16th, 1895, when a Hungarian flag was burnt by University students at
Zagreb, is usually considered one of the turning points in Croatian history.
This date marks a boundary line after which the political and cultural life of
the Croatian nation would be gradually reoriented ("a new course").
One can say that at this date the Croats began to enter the twentieth century.
Khuen-Hedervary, a Magyar Count, who
had already for twelve years (since 1883) ruthlessly governed Croatia-Slavonia
as its Ban (civil governor, viceroy), thought the time was propitious to invite
Franz Joseph, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, to Zagreb where he could see for
himself subjugated and magyarised Croatia. Khuen with his advisers believed
that the moment was well chosen.
The strongest party in opposition,
the Party of Rights (nationalistic), just then, a year before its founder Ante
Starčević died (1896), had split into two antagonistic factions. One
of them expected the recognition of Croatian national rights through the
Viennese Court on the basis of the trialist solution, and therefore it was
ready to cooperate with Vienna (Josip Frank); the other faction, having lost
every hope that the Croatian question was being comprehended either by
Austrians or Magyars, started slowly to orient itself toward closer cooperation
with the Serbian component, sincerely believing that in the future all the
South Slavs would be united on equal terms (Fran Folnegović).[8]
But all these and other political parties
did not mean very much: they did not represent more than a tiny fragment of the
Croatian population;[9]
they were made up of people the majority of whom for different reasons could
not, at least for a long time, remain in the opposition.
No one troubled
about the large Croatian peasant masses (85% of the total population), who
lived in most primitive and precarious economic conditions.[10] It was
not difficult for all sorts of "agents" to convince these toiling
masses that the best solution for them was to emigrate to the United States or
elsewhere.[11] As soon
as they departed, the foreign element started to immigrate, especially into
Slavonia, the richest Croatian province, and eventually took the key positions
in agriculture and national economy.
Life was equally precarious for the
steadily growing Croatian intelligentsia. If they wished to compete for a
limited number of governmental positions, knowledge of the Magyar language was
a prerequisite; moreover, they were supposed to keep far away from any
opposition party.
To darken the picture even more, the
fight between the Croatian majority and the Serbian minority was reaching a
climax: the Serbs, for the sake of good positions and certain religious
privileges, were a most reliable tool in the hands of Khuen-Hedervary. Not a
single Serbian deputy was in the ranks of the opposition.[12]
The Croats, on the other hand, under the influence of the nationalistic,
pan-Croatian ideas of the uncompromising Starčević, did not show any
willingness to recognize the Serbian minority as such. When these Orthodox
dared to hang up the Serbian flag, the Croats burned it. Thus, the Illyrian
idea (either Yugoslav or Panslavic) with regard to the Slavic brotherhood
seemed a long forgotten utopia. The governor skilfully played with and
exploited this bitter animosity among these two linguistically related and
often intermingled South Slavic nations.[13]
Khuen-Hedervary
was sure that the Emperor, who had always shown a strong liking for him, would
be impressed by the results of his shrewd and unscrupulous policy. How could he
think otherwise? Even the most liberal newspaper, Obzor, the organ
around which gathered the dispersed forces of the Yugoslav idea, greeted Franz
Joseph by printing on its first page this odious title: "Ave Caesar".
From where was the reaction against this brutal and arrogant tyranny to come?
From the intellectuals? Many of them were passing through one of those low
tides. On this autumn day for the Croatian patriots (there were still many of them!) even the sun must
have lost its shining aspect and vital force.
But, all tyrants never know how far
they can go; they never sense the real undercurrents. Their biggest mistake is
their belief that if they succeed in subduing the parents they automatically
have at their disposal the souls of the children.[14]
In retaliation for their
demonstration, the authorities first imprisoned and then expelled a large
number of students from Zagreb University. As they retained the right to study
at some other university, they moved to Prague, Vienna and Munich.
These central-European cultural
centers played a decisive role in modern Croatian culture. Since Vienna and
Munich were then under the strong influence of French artistic currents,
Croatian students thus came, indirectly, into close contact with various
movements then predominant in Paris. Antun G. Matoš (1873-1914 was the only man of letters who had
direct contact with the French capital because he lived there for five years (1899-1904).
During the preceding realist
period, when Russian literary influence was predominant, two significant
Croatian novelists, August Šenoa and Eugen Kumičić (who lived in
Paris for more than one year 1875-77), did their best to attract the Croatian intelligentsia toward
France.
The largest group among these
expelled students went to Prague, where they fell under the powerful influence
of Thomas G. Masaryk. From him they learned to be "realists". Masaryk
emphasized the study of life and of present-day conditions; he rejected l'art
pour l'art, decadence, mysticism, unhistorical glorification of the past. On
the basis of solid work he planned to lay a real foundation for national
awakening and progress.[15]
The Croatian students, who had come
to Prague as confirmed political romanticists and in a short time became
convinced realists started in January of 1897 to publish their own magazine Hrvatska
misao-Croatian Thought (which the following year changed its name into Novo
Doba-New Times.[16]
The real driving force behind this
publication was Stjepan Radić (1871-1928), who had lived in Prague before and
spoke Czech fluently. Radić was the most important member of the Zagreb
anti-Magyar demonstration and the main instigator of the influx of so many
students to Prague. Hrvatska misao bore the indelible stamp of
Radić's creative power. Much later Radić wrote: "Here (in Hrvatska
Misao) for the first time I expressed all my political and social
ideas".[17] The group around Hrvatska Misao
declared that the dogma of Croatian state rights conflicted with the national
rights of the Croats. The majority of them were obviously fervent disciples of
Masaryk.
Though the influence of Thomas
Masaryk on Croats, as on other South Slavs, between 1895-1918,
was a potent stimulus
for their independence and later union, though many politicians and
sociologists returned home from Prague, no significant literary figure, with
the exception of Milan Marjanović (1879-1955) whose quantity of work grew at the
expense of its quality, was produced by this "realist" school. From
Vienna, on the other hand, a more artistic though less realistic wind blew. The
greatest single influence upon the Croatian "modernists" was
exercised by Hermann Bahr (1863-1934), the Austrian critic, playwright and prose-writer. If not the
originator, Bahr was at any rate the indicator of almost every literary
movement between 1890 and
1920.[18]
Since I
speak about Croatian literature during the "Moderna" period, I should
not forget at least to mention that some of the best writers (such as Ivo
Vojnović, Vladimir Nazor and Milan Begović) were born in the
territory of Dalmatia and received a beneficial influence from Italian letters.
Some Scandinavian (Ibsen, Björnson and Brandes) and Polish writers were well
known and imitated at that time.[19]
After the
violent anti-Magyar demonstrations, which took place at Zagreb in 1903, Khuen-Hedervary
was replaced as the governor of Croatia. Two years later (1905) was formed
the Croato-Serbian Coalition, whose most dynamic and daring politician was
Frano Supilo (1870-1917), a journalist first stationed in
Dubrovnik and then in
Rijeka. The Austro-Hungarian authorities did everything to discredit the
Coalition and eliminate Supilo, who had established cordial relations with
Masaryk.[20]
Baron Aloys Aehrenthal, the Austrian
Minister of foreign affairs, thinking that the time was opportune, announced
(in 1901) that
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the two provinces which had been "occupied"
since 1878, were
formally "annexed". Though at first seemed that this act could
provoke an international conflict, all the major powers gradually acquiesced in
the "fait accompli". Only Serbia was ready to resist, but soon
realized that she alone was not equal to Austrian might.
As he had done previously (1892-93) by critizing Benjamin Kallay, the
governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so even now, in the Viennese parliament,
Masaryk attacked the annexation and predicted that it could mean the beginning
of the end of the Austrian monarchy. He said this with the best intentions, for
he still accepted the dictum of Palacky who had said that "if Austria did
not exist, it would been necessary to create her".
Though the war was avoided, Austria
was widely considered an usurper. In order to justify his action, Aehrenthal
tried to prove that his government had acted in self-defense, because there was
a "conspiracy" of the Serbs in Croatia whose final goal was it
disintegration. He sent his agents to Croatia, who found many alleged plotters.
In March of 1909 a
process was instituted against them in Zagreb. Judges known for their servility
were chosen; only hostile witnesses were allowed to give testimony.
Pupils of Masaryk, his former
students or those who admire him on account of his teaching and deeds, informed
him of the travesty of justice in Zagreb. They asked him to come, watch the
trial and do what he could for the innocent accused. At first he was reluctant,
but when they appealed to his love of truth and his chivalry, he came. In
Zagreb he found R. W. Seton-Watson, the famous English historian, who was also
observing the trial.[21]
They became friends and some years later contributed much towards the
disintegration of the Empire.
Returning to Vienna, Masaryk in the parliament accuse Aehrenthal, together with the ban of Croatia, baron Rauch, for their brutal behaviour in Croatia. He told how the witnesses were prevented from giving their testimony and how lies were fabricated.
Thereupon Masaryk was labelled an
"agent provocateur" and a traitor to his government. However, the
brave professor was successful for a retrial was ordered.
While the process in Zagreb was still
going on, a new affair erupted. An article appeared in Neue Freie Presse
(March 24, 1909), written by Professor H. Friedjung (1851-1920), entitled
"Austria, Hungary and Serbia". In it Serbia was accused of
interfering in the internal affairs of Austria. Friedjung wrote that he had the
documents to justify his accusation. The Serbs and Croats denied having any
knowledge of such documents and charged Friedjung for libel in a Viennese
court. The trial opened on December 9th, 1909.
Supilo went to Prague and informed
Masaryk that the documents were forgeries and that behind them stood Count J.
Forgach, the Austrian ambassador in Belgrade.[22]
Many of the accused were Masaryk's former students or followers. So he went to
Belgrade to investigate the facts. Among other things, he found that Božo
Marković, the president of the club Slovenski Jug, who supposedly
was chairing an important revolutionary meeting, had been in Germany at that
time.[23]
Masaryk returned to Vienna as a witness for the accused. He proved to the court
that the Slovenski Jug was no secret organization since its basic aim
was purely cultural. As regards the documents he showed on the basis of the
linguistic evidence that they were spurious. Aehrenthal was finally obliged to
recognize that the reasons which he had given for the annexation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina were sheer lies, and that both trials (in Zagreb and Vienna) lacked
any legal foundation.
A.G. Matoš then wrote that Masaryk
by his courageous and methodic intervention had not only saved many deputies
from being treated as national traitors, but had also revealed to the entire
world an unbelievable spectacle: Austria, a supposedly civilized and lawful
state, was persecuting her innocent citizens.[24]
Milada Paulova believes that Masaryk, after being deeply involved in the
explosive South Slavic problems, and becoming convinced that the Austrians and
Magyars were unwilling to accept the democratic principles and the
reorganization of the state in which the Slavs would be equal partners
gradually espoused revolutionary ideas for the overthrow of the decrepit
government.[25]
Hermann Bahr in Austria, Guglielmo
Ferrero in Italy, R. W. Seton-Watson and Henry W. Steed, the London Times correspondent,
these men of integrity and international reputation, were shocked by the
behaviour of the Austrian officials.
Stjepan
Radić (1871-1928), during his student years in Prague gradually adopted
and propagated Masaryk's ideas. He was also interested in learning the Czech
language and the Czech way of thinking. His daily companion was František Hlavaček, who later became
a Czech publicist and politician; Radić taught him Croatian and with him
he improved his Czech. When the students expelled from Zagreb began to publish
(in January of 1897) their periodical Hrvatska misao, the spiritus
movens behind it was Radić. Hlavaček was present at their meetings
and discussions of which direction they should take.[26] Though
they wanted to follow their beloved teacher (Masaryk), the situation in
Croatian lands being different from that in Bohemia and Moravia, they tried to
adapt his general principles to their concrete circumstances. Therefore I agree
with Ivo Banac who says that "the sources of Radić 's inspiration
were partly his own practical experience and partly Czech political theory,
which he acquired as a result of intermittent studies in Prague".[27]
Radić had fallen in love (in
1894) with a Czech teacher Marija Dvořak with whom he established a
regular correspondence. In his letter of January, 1897, in which he
communicated to her his intention of going to Paris, he mentioned that two days
earlier (on Jan. 5), together with other five Croats and Hlavaček, he had
been at Masaryk's place for three hours. Masaryk was pleased to hear that
Radić intended to study in Paris. The host listened to Radić's views
and agreed with most of them.[28]
In spite of the opposition of Marija's parents that she should not marry
Radić, whom they considered a dreamer often in conflict with the
authorities,[29] they were
wed (in 1898).
In July of
1899 Radić returned from Paris to Prague, hoping that the secret police
would not find him there. He lived in the neighbourhood of Masaryk with whom he
became friend. They disagreed however in two important respects: Masaryk was
then interested in the Jewish question,[30] and
Radić suggested to him that he, as a born Slovak, with his international
authority, should rather
intervene in favour of his countrymen. Further, Radić writes that, while
he preferred the pro-Russian orientation of Czech politics, Masaryk was closer
to the German.[31]
Motivated by a burning desire to see
his native country finally freed, and shocked by the social injustice under
which his dear peasants lived, Stjepan Radić, together with his brother
Antun (1868-1919), in 1904, initiated a movement to organize the
large Croatian masses. At the beginning the response was far from encouraging,
but thanks to the assiduous work of both brothers and the somewhat more
favourable conditions which prevailed after the first world war, Radić
became the undisputed leader of the Croatian nation as a whole. One could
safely say that only with this movement of Radić did the Croats become
united into a single block and thus were able to withstand external pressure.
Radić was also successful in teaching the peasantry that their future
rested in their own hands, that the state should exist and function primarily
for their benefit because they constituted the vast majority of the nation.
What had been Radić's relations
with Masaryk at the end of the Austrian empire and until his assassination in the
Belgrade parliament by Puniša Radić, a Serbian deputy? It is not easy to
answer this question, because there exists only fragmentary and indirect
information. However, it is clear that the former friends had gone in different
directions as regards the centralism of their respective states; while the
Croatian leader was wondering what had happened to Masaryk's previously
proclaimed democratic ideas, the first president of a newly created state,
though in general very reserved, spoke about Radić in deprecatory terms.
After it became clear that Austria
would not survive, Svetozar Pribićević (1875-1936), a Serb and the leader of the Croato-Serbian
coalition, was arbitrarily placing the destiny of Croatia in the hands of the
Belgrade government, without any respect for her long established autonomy.
Radić became scared witnessing how from one centralism his nation was
being pushed towards another one; he tried to avoid this either by his public
statements or by begging the leaders of the western world to mediate so that
Serbian soldiers would not behave brutally in Croatia. He suggested to the
National Council that a delegate should be sent to Masaryk, who was already
acting as the president of Czechoslovakia, so that he could inform the allied
governments and particularly president Wilson what was going on in the new
kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.[32][
Jere Jareb quotes the articles of
Ivan Pernar (1948) and Radić's widow (1957)[33]
in which they claim
that Radić himself went to Prague at the end of November (1918) to describe to the Czech government
the situation in his homeland. It seems (what is hardly believable and is contrary
to Maček's assertion)[34]
that at this moment Radić was suggesting to the Czech government that
Austria should not be abolished but modernized so that her Slavic majority
would finally enjoy its full national and personal rights. According to Pernar,
Masaryk accused Radić of being an Austrophile Marija Radić informs
that, while Radić was still in Prague and violent demonstrations had
erupted in Zagreb, her husband was accused to fomenting them.
In his autobiography Radić
writes that, toward the end of 1918, he had sent to Masaryk two deputies of his Peasant party with documents
to inform him that after the first of December, the date when the new kingdom
was solemnly proclaimed, inhuman beatings of peasants had begun in Croatia,
especially in the district of Bjelovar; they were punished because they had
declared themselves "republicans" or had read Dom (the organ
of his party). Masaryk promised to intervene so that the beatings should stop
but he added that otherwise he would not mix in the internal al fairs of
Yugoslavia.[35] Radić
complains that immediately afterwards the foreign newspapers published an
official denial that peasants had been beaten in Croatia.
During his
stay in Geneva (January-September, 1915), Masaryk
was requested by the young Yugoslav students to write the Preface to their
booklet L'Unité yougoslave (The Yugoslav Unity, Paris 1915); he gladly
accepted this invitation. In his Introduction he stressed that all Slavs,
citizens of the Austro-Hungarian empire (Poles, Czechs and South Slavs), did
not enjoy equal rights. In their pangermanic programme (the "Drang nach
Osten"), the Austrian authorities saw in the South Slavs an obstacle to
their expansion Therefore the Serbs had been attacked, but they and the
Montenegrins were courageously resisting the aggressor. Once the war would be
over, Masaryk encouraged all Yugoslav students to return to their country,
which was devastated, and to rebuild it by becoming good administrators,
businessmen, industrialists and engineers. He urged them to make ready for
those important assignments.[36]
This appeal for "Yugoslav
unity" was written in the middle of 1915, in Geneva, where there existed a
Serbian press Bureau and a journal "La Serbie". Masaryk did not enter
into polemics carefully avoided taking a position in controversial issues such
as e.g. a centralist or federal arrangement of the future Yugoslav state.
During the ensuing years, however, most probably for various reasons - his
contact with some Serbian diplomats abroad and also Serbia's initial success in
military operations coupled with his own programme as to how the Czech and
Slovak lands should be arranged - Masaryk was gradually leaning to give Serbia
a preponderant role.
To corroborate this point one should
compare his Preface to the mentioned brochure with his book The New Europe
(1918) and his Memoirs (1925).
The first was written during his
journey between Russian Siberia and the Pacific to Washington (in October of
1918). It was first published in English and French (1918) and then in Czech
(1920) and German (1922).
I quote some fragments from the
English translation: "The Serbians in Serbia and Montenegro showed in
their fight against the Turks for the defence of liberty a wonderful
perseverance and ability ... Up to now the Jugoslavs more than any other nation
suffered from being separated into many parts. Ecclesiastically, too, the
nation is not united, there are Orthodox parts (Serbia), Catholic (Croatians
and Slovenes, but there are Catholic Serbians in Ragusa) and Mohammedan
(national consciousness - Serbia - is awakening only in recent days), but
consciousness of nationality and a desire for unification does not suffer
thereby".[37]
If one compares the English and
French editions with those in Czech and German, he would notice that in the
first two, when the author mentioned "the Serbians in Serbia and
Montenegro", he did not include Dubrovnik as Serbian while in the two
later redactions Dubrovnik is mentioned twice: first it is identified as
"Serbian", together with Serbia and Montenegro, and at the end, where
the author considered it a propos to emphasize that there were "Catholic
Serbians in Ragusa".
Moreover, it was incorrect to praise
only the Serbs for their fight against the Turks. While they were defeated at
Kosovo (1389) and resumed their resistance only at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, on the contrary, the Croats continued their patriotic and
Christian struggle even after their defeat at Krbava (1492); together with the
Magyars and Austrians, they were for long centuries a bastion of Christianity
against the infidels.
If the
Croats who read Masaryk's book the New Europe did not like it for the
reasons mentioned, they were even more astonished by his Memoirs; they
were wondering in which direction this supposedly religious and
"democratic" president was moving. I will quote certain controversial
passages from their excellent English translation by H.W. Steed (The Making
of a State - Memoirs and Observations, 1914-1918, New York 1969).
In its second chapter, entitled
"Roma aeterna", when he speaks about his work in Rome and mentions
many South Slav politicians, he was displeased to notice the dissension between
the Croatian and Serbian representatives and comments: "The Serbian Minister
(Ljuba Mihailovitch) strongly favoured unity in good understanding with the
Croats; yet it seemed to me that man: Croats were over-insistent upon the
superiority of their culture and forgot that what mattered chiefly then and in
the whole war was military and political leadership. As my Southern Slav friend
knew, I thought their unity should be achieved under the political leadership
of Serbia, and imagined it as a result of a consistent any gradual unification
of the Southern Slav Lands, each of which had its own culture and
administrative peculiarities".[38]
In the fifth chapter, when he deals
with Pan-Slavism and the Russian anarchy of 1917, Masaryk speaks also about
Fran Supilo (1870-1917), who in Petrograd had discovered that the Allies Powers
intended soon to sign a treaty with the Italians, promising them a greater part
of Dalmatia if only they switched their alliance from Germany and Austria. Not
only Supilo but also all other Croat were disgusted both with the Russians who
did not care about them since they were not Orthodox, and with the western
democracies which were ready to sacrifice the vital territory of Croatia for
their own military interests. Masaryk first comments: "Undoubtedly, the
Treaty of London was inimical to the unification of the Southern Slav Lands and
corresponded rather to the Great Serbia programme", and then without any
shame recognizes: "Though Supilo was right, I did not agree with the
agitation by which he set Petrograd not only against himself but against the
Croats, while intensifying the antagonism between them and Serbia".[39]
It means, though Supilo
was right, he should have accepted quietly without any protests, in order not
to displease the Russians and Serbians, that Dalmatia would be absorbed by the
Italians who were there a tiny minority. Masaryk too was invoking a double
standard when the cause of the Czechs and their allies was in question,
national and human rights were sacred, otherwise he demonstrates at times an
irritation that others should claim the same privileges.
In the
middle of his Memoirs, when he discusses at length the Czech cooperation with
the Yugoslavs, Masaryk reveals several of his basic views and limitations.
Thus, discussing events at the beginning of 1918, he writes: "Despite the temporary reverses suffered by Serbia in
the field, I looked upon her as the centre of the Southern Slav world and, what
counted most, as its political and military centre. The Croats had assuredly
their own special rights ... This, however, did not preclude the recognition of
Serbia as the political point of crystallization."[40]
He says again that he did not like
the terms of the Treaty of London (April 26, 1915) but continues by saying that:
"Italy had her irredentist aspirations, and it was natural that she should
invoke her historical rights (!) and should claim union with the minorities of
Italians beyond her borders.[41] His reaction was quite different
when Austria invoked her historical rights on the Czech lands and pointed out
that there were many Germans among the Czech inhabitants. No wonder that
"many a Croat and Slovene looked upon him as excessively pro-Italian and
pro-Serb"![42]
Throughout his Memoirs Masaryk
showed a great respect for Ante Trumbić (1864-1938), a leading figure in Croatian
political life and the president of the Yugoslav committee. However, though
always moderate and calm, Trumbić did not approve of Masaryk's support for
Pašić's centralist views and openly expressed his displeasure. Masaryk
writes: "Even Dr. Trumbitch came under the influence of unjustified
suspicions, and taxed us (the Czechs) with selfishness during the discussions
on the Declaration of Corfu".[43]
The rest of Masaryk's Memoirs was
written in the same spirit, and therefore I do not see any purpose in quoting
him further.
There is
however one question which should be at least touched upon, namely "the
corridor" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It is not clear who had
initiated it, what justifications for it were given, and how it was abandoned.
Though Masaryk says that "the idea of a corridor between Slovakia and
Croatia interested the Southern Slavs in Rome", that he thought it should
be discussed but Trumbić "was reserved and wished it to be left to the
Czechs",[44] on the
contrary, Trumbić in his Diary (which was published by D. Šepić)[45] expressly
affirms that Masaryk told him of the plan for the Czech-Yugoslav corridor and
insisted that "Bohemia and Yugoslavia must most certainly be linked
together, territorially".[46]
F. Lukas, who spoke with Trumbić about this corridor before he died (in 1938), wrote that Trumbić remained opposed to this Czech
initiative even later, at the Peace conference at Versailles, arguing that it
was not just to include in it 600,000 Germans for the sake of 70,000 Slavs. He insisted that the
idea of the corridor was contrary to the principle of self-determination in the
name of which their respective states were created. It seem that Trumbić had
displeased Masaryk and Beneš, who thereafter became cold toward him.[47]
There is no doubt that Masaryk was deeply involved with it, because on the map
of the Central Europe which was presented to the Allies, and on which the
corridor was delineated, there was also a note in Masaryk's handwriting.[48]
The sculptor Ivan Meštrović (1885-1962)
had been friendly with
Masaryk from the years when they both lived in exile (1914-18). When in 1924 Meštrović was invited to
portray Masaryk he gladly accepted this request. Meštrović had several
long conversations with the Czech president and his daughter Alice. Both of
them disliked Radić and his Czech wife; they were probably influenced by
their previous guest, King Alexander of Yugoslavia and were afraid seeing the
similarity between the Slovak and Croatian demands for decentralized government.
I will summarize Meštrović's recollections.[49]
Masaryk did not like
Nikola Pašić, the Premier of Yugoslavia and criticized his methods. He
accused both him and Radić for the bad situation in the country. He
considered Radić a confused and unrealistic politician, and his wife an
impossible woman.[50]
Alice Masaryk said that the most
responsible for all those troubles was Radić. To prove her point she
pointed to his "separatism". She was enchanted with the powerful Serbian
army. [51]
However,
they reproached the Serbian politicians for imposing the Constitution which was
not in agreement with the Corfu Declaration (July, 1917).[52]
Meštrović replied that he did
not know Radić personally and did not appreciate certain of his maneuvres,
nevertheless, one should not forget that the entire Croatian nation stood with
him.[53]
This was less due to Radić's demagogy than to the brutal behaviour of the
centralized government.
In the course of later
conversations, Masaryk said that, though Radić seemed confused and
excessive in his demands, this did not justify the attitude of Belgrade toward
the Croats. He recognized that the Czechs had hoped that the Serbs would be
"debalkanised", but it seemed that the entire country would be
"balkanised under their influence".[54]
If the Czechs had obtained a common border with the Croats, perhaps they could
have interfered in this mess. He insisted that he liked Croats and Serbs
equally; perhaps he respected the Serbs more on account of their army and
reputation for bravery. However, he did not approve the behaviour of the
Serbian officials toward the Croats. He did not blame only the prime minister
Pašić but also King Alexander, whom he found uncultured and undemocratic,
a typical product of military mentality.
Since Meštrović had a
penetrating eye for the psyche of his interlocutors, I find interesting certain
of his observations on Masaryk himself:
When Ivan Lorković (1876-1926),
a prominent member of
the Croato-Serbian Coalition, came to Rome in 1914 with a memorandum how to break the
Austrian empire and preserve the continuation of Croatian statehood, Masaryk
was sceptical about this plan. He did not believe that England and France would
accept the idea of the total abrogation of the Empire, and therefore he was in
favour of a confederate state. He himself had prepared a note, which he
transmitted to Seton-Watson, in which he suggested that the Slavs, namely
Czechs, Croats and Slovenes, should become equal partners with the Germans and
Magyars.[55]
Ten years had elapsed. Now, in 1924, he was glad, as the respected
president of his land, that events had turned much better that he had once
expected.
While he was making his bust, both
from his conversation and physical features, Meštrović concluded that he
was in the presence of a "gentle fanatic, but nevertheless a fanatic with
a typical Slavic and Slovak stubborness. He had succeeded in subjugating it,
but it was present in his subconsciousness. In spite of his broad culture, he
was as doctrinaire as a fanatic protestant pastor".[56]
His own daughter, Alice, informed Meštrović
that her father had fixed ideas about certain (e.g. Slovak) questions, and that
it was better to avoid discussion of them.[57]
Though
Masaryk had a typically Slavic heart and soul, nevertheless, he had become a
convinced "realist". This was apparent even when he spoke about the
Russian and Czech writers. Those features which are usually called Slavic
became inaccessible to him, more exactly he was afraid of them. He looked at
them with the same repugnance as did West Europeans. He avoided everything
which seemed to him mystical or metaphysical: he saw it as sick daydreaming.[58]
During the eight days which he spent
with Masaryk, Meštrovič felt that he was in the presence of an honest
individual who was always guided by his own principles.
Thus, for example, when king
Alexander expressed his wish that Masaryk should visit him in Belgrade without
stopping at Zagreb, Masaryk refused this suggestion. He replied to the autocrat
that he would not go to Yugoslavia if he could not visit his friends wherever
they were. Meštrović comments that Masaryk replied as a man whose
democratic conscience and human feelings were stronger than any diplomatic
considerations.[59] He did not
believe that a country was free so long as the human rights and dignity of its
citizens were not protected.
In those years when Czechoslovakia
was undergoing one of the most difficult periods in her history, namely when
Masaryk was dead and his country was dismembered by Hitler's orders, there
appeared in the Croatian press and periodicals quite opposite appraisals of the
late President and his degree of responsibility for the tragic events:
While some (like e.g. M.
Ćurčin) praised Masaryk as a kind of a superman, if not a divinity,
the nationalists (e.g. F. Lukas) intensified their attacks against him and his
successor, and a moderate group (e.g. Lupis-Vukić), though pro-Yugoslav
and admirers to a degree of Czechoslovakia, reproached those supposed "democrats"
for not being willing or able to solve two crucial problems: those of the
Slovaks and the Sudeten Germans. There was also a resentment among the
Catholics, about a half of the population, that Masaryk as a president
continued his bitter Hussite propaganda, treating them as spiritual slaves and
unpatriotic. He was unable to distinguish between what he was allowed to remark
on as a professor and what, as a president of the entire nation, he should do
and say.
Nova
Evropa (Zagreb), the periodical which was edited during the
interwar years by M. Ćurčin (1880-1960), on several
occasions printed eulogies of Masaryk "the leader" (1922,
1934). Now when was dead "the greatest contemporary
European", a man who "cared about his people and democracy in
general", who had been "a defender of truth and justice", he was
proclaimed by Ćurčin as a symbol of unity not only of the Czechs but
also other nations. He was a "real prophet" and accepted as such. He
had been "our common leader and teacher". Masaryk, like Abraham
Lincoln, writes Ćurčin, had strenuously worked to bring all citizens
together.[60]
Hrvatska revija, the organ of the nationalists, had
never shown any enthusiasm for the President living at the Hradčany. After
the assassination of Stjepan Radić and the subsequent proclamation of
dictatorship by king Alexander, when even the mild and humane Vladimir
Maček had been thrown into jail, the Croatian patriots were disturbed at
seeing the continuation of close collaboration between Prague and Belgrade:
However, toward the end of the thirties, when Croatian national unity was
stronger and the centralists, seeing that Yugoslavia could be attacked by the
Nazis and fascists, were ready to make concessions, there was much greater
freedom of expression. In those favourable circumstances, Filip Lukas, the
president of Matica hrvatska, the most important Croatian cultural
organization, intensified his attacks against the late President and E. Bene?,
his successor. He asked his countrymen why so many squares and streets had been
named in Masaryk's honour. He did not see any reason for this excess of
flattery. However, Lukas has certainly exaggerated in saying that Masaryk
"hated" the Croats on account of their catholicism and their unwillingness
to be "unified".[61]
Lukas obviously did not make the necessary distinction between personal
convictions, which are often tied with prejudices, and pure hatred. Masaryk was
a human being and like the majority of mortals, he had his foibles and
antipathies!
It seems to me that I. F.
Lupis-Vukić was more objective than Ćurčin and Lukas. In Nova
Evropa, a year later than Ćurčin, he openly analysed the tragic
events in Czechoslovakia and at the same time pointed out both Masaryk's
undeniable achievements and failures.
Ivan F. Lupis-Vukić (1876-1960),
a publicist who had
lived for many years in America and later became a deputy in the Dalmatian
Diet, gave three reasons for the collapse of the Czech republic:
First of all, the Czechs should have
realized that they were given at Versailles three million Sudeten Germans, not
because they had a right to incorporate them on the basis of their historical
and natural frontier, but rather to make Germany smaller and less dangerous to
France. Once those Germans had become them citizens, political wisdom required
that the Prague government should guarantee to them such national and financial
privileges which would eliminate later the attractive appeal of the third
Reich.
Second, they should have respected
their agreement with the Slovaks representatives, signed at Pittsburgh (June 30, 1918), and not behave in such a way that
the Slovaks felt that they were not "liberated" but had simply
changed masters: previously they had been oppressed by the Magyars and now by
the "Slavic brothers".
Third, the
Czechs lived in an illusion that nothing could happen to them because they had
reliable allies, such as France and England, not foreseeing that those two
western powers would abandon them at the critical moment (by the Munich
agreement, Sept. 30, 1938), when they thought that this was required by their
interests.[62]
I believe that Lupis-Vukić,
though a devoted friend of the Czech people and much grieved by their tragedy,
rightly pointed to the basic reasons why Czechoslovakia, well organized and
enjoying international prestige, collapsed so easily - that there was no trace
of rebellion at home nor outrage abroad.
Lupis-Vukić did not mention the
religions tension to which Masaryk himself contributed. Throughout his Memoirs
Masaryk attacked the Catholics and their hierarchy. Thus when he speaks about
France and her writers, he contends that they were indulging in "morbid
and perverse sexualism", because they were under the influence of
Catholicism.[63]
I will cite some excerpts from a section entitled "Our relation to
Catholicism":
"Our Reformation fortified our
nationality as never before. While Catholicism predominated, Germanisation went
on and the Hussite movement saved us from it ...
In endeavouring to raise the level
of morality, the Reformation strengthened our national character ...
Notwithstanding the Battle of the
White Mountains and its sequel, Catholicism failed to take deep root among us.
It was addicted to violence, its leaders were alien in blood and in creed -
especially the Jesuits, who are alien even today - and, with few exceptions,
its hierarchy was German and Hapsburgian, not Czech ...
The facts that the Reformation
affected us profoundly ... and that the fight for religion and morality formed
for four centuries the main substance of our history, prove that our
Reformation arose from and responded to national character".[64]
I will conclude these remarks about
Masaryk and his relations with the Croats by referring to an article written in
this postwar period, by the late professor Jaroslav Šidak (1903-86),
the best Yugoslav
historian of Czech origin. In it he summarized his views about Masaryk, this
renowned professor and skilful politician, who remains even today dear to the
Czechs. However, Šidak writes that Masaryk "exaggerated" when he
accused the Austrian officials of falsifying the documents in the Friedjung
process, that Radić already in 1900 had begun to criticize him for his
"realism" and neglect of the Croatian question, and that he had
viewed Serbia as the "leader and centre" of unified Yugoslavia.[65]
In those separate segments of my
presentation, I tried to be true to my sources and historical changes, which
influenced the attitude not only of the masses, but also of their leaders.
I hope that Masaryk's portrait comes
out as an acceptable human being, more humanist than Christian and stubborn in
his convictions. He should not be placed on a pedestal of infallibility, but he
stands above dirty politics. He dedicated his great talent and enormous energy
to the benefit of his people! If the Czechs even today (in their own way)
resist foreign oppression, to a great extent they are inspired by the example
of this militant professor, who did not have his head in the clouds, but was
mostly grounded in reality.
He died peacefully, aware that he
had acted in accordance with his conscience and that the interests of his
nation were dearer to him than his own.
However, we wish that the leaders of
present and future generations, in contrast to Masaryk, would continue the
struggle for universal democracy, so that all nations (including Croatia) may
one day enjoy freedom.
* This paper was presented at the 20th National
Convention of the American Association for
the Advancement of Slavic Studies held in
Honolulu, Hawaii November 18-21, 1988.
[1] René Wellek, in Columbia Dictionary of Modern European Literature, ed. W. Edgerton, New York 1980, p. 520.
[2] J.
Pekař, Masarykova česka filosofie, Prague 1927, p. 31.
[3] Idem, p. 44.
[4] R. Wellek, Introduction to Masaryk, The Meaning of
Czech History, New York 1974, p.
XXII and XVII. - A young Czech historian, R.H. Pospišil (1952- ), in his doctoral dissertation, Great Truths and Small Lies: Tomaš G.
Masaryk and his Critics, 1886-1926 (Bloomington,
Indiana, 1983) writes in its Preface: "Many of Masaryk's views, especially those about
religion and his interpretation of Czech history, diverged significantly from those of most of the Czech
intellectual establishment. Moreover,
Masaryk's frequent disregard for scholarly method, and the frequent tautology
of his arguments, made him an object of scorn among Czech intellectuals, including many of his former pupils
and followers. By 1914, Masaryk was
no longer being taken seriously in Czech politics and academia. Finally, his critics charged that Masaryk frequently distorted
facts in order to support his preconceived
arguments, that is, that he championed the truth only when it suited his purposes" (p. VII).
[5] Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, p. 141.
[6] Idem, p. 142.
[7] R. Wellek, "Masaryk's Philosophy", Essays
on Czech Literature, The Hague 1963, p. 70.
[8] Josip Horvat, Stranke kod Hrvata i njihova
ideologija, Belgrade 1939, pp. 56-64; Vaso
Bogdanov, Historija političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb 1958, pp. 760-66.
[9] Rudold Horvat, Najnovije doba hrvatske povijesti,
Zagreb 1906, p. 292, estimates that less than 2%
of the population were able to vote.
[10] The long period of depression in the whole of
European agriculture from 1873 to 1895 profoundly affected the economic and
social structure of Croatia. On this and many other correlated problems there
is an excellent summary in Milan Marjanović's "Introduction" to
the first volume of his Hrvatska Moderna, I, Zagreb 1951, pp. 9-21, with notes on pp. 55-60. The most penetrating analysis in
English about the Croatian peasants and their miserable standard of living is
to be found in Jozo Tomaševich, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in
Yugoslavia, Stanford 1955, passim.
[11] Toward the end of the nineteenth century the Croatian
emigration to the United States took such
extreme proportions that it became a national and social problem. As regards the number of Croats who
settled in the USA there exist quite different
opinions: while some believe that they numbered up to one million, others are more conservative and estimate their number at
about a half million. On this topic there are numerous studies; among
the most recent and best are those by Većeslav
Holjevac, Hrvati izvan domovine, Zagreb 1967, and George Prpich, The Croatian
Immigrants in America, New York 1971.
[12] See a quite objective study by a Serbian historian
Vaso Bogdanov, "Začeci nesporazuma između Hrvata i Srba",
in his book, Živa prošlost, Zagreb 1957,
pp. 11-17.
[13] About Khuen-Hedervary and his regime cf. Oscar Jaszi,
The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, Chicago, 1929, pp. 370-71; R. W.
Seton-Watson, Absolutism in Croatia, London 1912, p. 4.
[14] "The political historians of the world recorded
the fact that Croatia was so dissatisfied
with her relations with Hungary that the youth of the University had expressed their discontent by the burning of the
Hungarian flag in the presence of the
Emperor himself" (Stjepan Radić, in Current History, October 1928,
p. 90) See also Vlatko Maček, In the Struggle for Freedom, New
York, 1957, pp. 33-34.
[15] Dragutin Prohaska, "Uticaj T.G. Masaryka na
modernu jugoslovenski kulturu", T.G. Masaryk - Zbornik, Beograd-Praha, 1927,
pp. 102-168. About the Yugoslav students in Prague see Irena Gantar
Godina, Masaryk in Masarykovsty pri Slovencih, Ljubljana 1987, p. 22-32.
[16] The most
interesting articles from these two periodicals were reprinted in M. Marjanović, Hrvatska Moderna, I, Zagreb 1951. How strong was Masaryk's impact
on these young people is evidenced, for example, in the article about Croatian literature written by Milan Šarić (1881-1913) in which
he claims that it is one'; duty not to
die stupidly but rather to live, and to fight not with rhetoric but with the brain and in accordance with systematic and
pragmatic principles!
[17] In his
autobiography, published in Current History, October 1928, no. 1, p. 91.
[18] See in Columbia
Dictionary of Modern European Literature, 2nd ed. New York 1980, p. 44.
[19] There are many good books and studies about the
Croatian Moderna. Besides Marjanović's Hrvatska Moderna, I-II,
Zagreb 1951, one should consult also Panorama hrvatske književnosti XX. stoljeća, Zagreb 1965, p. 7-260; Nevenka Košutić,
"Evropski okviri hrvatske
Modern", in Hrvatska književnost prema evropskim književnostima,
Zagreb 1970, pp. 345-64; Miroslav Sicel, Književnost Moderne, Zagreb 1982; Ivo Frangeš, Povijest hrvatske književnosti,
Zagreb 1987, pp. 227-83.
[20] Vaso Bogdanov, "Friedjungov proces", Enciklopedija
Jugoslavije, III Zagreb 1958, 406-408;
also his Introduction to Supilo, Politika u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb 1953.
[21] R. W. Seton-Watson,
The Southern Slav Question, London 1913. See also an excellent Introduction to his Correspondence by
his sons, Hugh and Christopher in R.W. Seton-Watson and the
Yugoslavs: Correspondence 1906-1941, vol. I-I Zagreb 1976.
[22] Victor Cohen, Life and Times of Masaryk,
London 1941, p. 127.
[23] Božidar
Marković, "Masaryk i
Jugoslaveni", T. G. Masaryk -
Zbornik, Beograd-Praha, 1927, pp. 28-35. In this book is to be found a photo which the accused Serbs at the Zagreb trial sent to Masaryk;
they call themselves "the fighters for progressive and free thought in Croatia"!
[24] A. G. Matoš, "Hrvatska i uhode" (1910), in Misli i pogledi AG Matoša, ed. M. Ujević, Zagreb 1955, p. 339.
[25] See Jaroslav Šidak, in Enciklopedija Jugoslavije,
III (1984), 229.
[26] D. Prohaska, in T.G. Masaryk - Zbornik, p. 197.
[27] Ivo Banac, The
National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ithaca 1984, p. 96.
[28] B. Krizman,
Korespondencija S. Radića, I, Zagreb 1972, 238.
[29] Idem, 31.
[30] He defended a Jew Leopold Hillsner who was
accused of committing a ritual murder (see V. Cohen, Life and Times of Mosaryk, p. 98-103).
[31] S. Radić, Politički
spisi, ed. Z. Kulundžić, Zagreb 1971, p. 67.
[32] B. Krizman, Korespondencija S. Radića, I,
67.
[33] J.
Jareb, Pola stoljeća hrvatske politike, Buenos
Aires 1960, p. 20.
[34] V. Maček, In the Struggle for Freedom,
New York 1957, p.
68-69.
[35] "Predsjednik Masaryk mi je obečao da će se zauzeti kod beogradske vlad da batinjanja prestanu, ali da se inače ne može miješati u naše unutrašnje
poslove" (S.
Radić, Politički spisi, p. 90-91).
[36] L'Unité yougoslave,
"Preface", p. V-IX.
[37] T. G. Masaryk, The New Europe - The Slav Standpoint, London 1918, p. 59.
[38] T.G. Masaryk, The Making of a State - Memoirs and Observations, 1914-18.
[39] Idem, 146-47.
[40] ldem, 225.
[41] Ibidem. - S.
Radič had pointed out, in his speech to the Croatian National Council (on November 24,
1918) that Masaryk was contradicting
himself: he who had become famous by
opposing "historical rights", invoked them when they suited his interests or arguments (S. Radić, Politički
spisi, Zagreb 1971, p. 328).
[42] lbidem.
[43] Idem, 226.
[44] Idem, 55.
[45] D. Šepič, "Trumbićev Dnevnik", Historijski
pregled, V-1959, no. 2, 168-75.
[46] Z. Zeman, The Masaryks - The Making of Czechoslovakia, London 1976 p. 72-73; Karel Pichlik, Zahranični odboj 1914-18 bez legend, Praha 1968, p. 107.
[47] F. Lukas, "Masaryk prema Hrvatima", Hrvatska revija XI (1938), 574-81 was reprinted in
his book, Hrvatski narod i hrvatska državna misao, Zagreb 1944 p. 229-240.
[48] Masaryk's map of the future Czech state with the corridor is reproduced
in Lukas' book,
between pp. 228 and 229.
[49] Ivan Meštrović, Uspomene na
političke ljude i događaje, Buenos Aires 1961.
[50] Idem, 173.
[51] Ibidem.
[52] Idem, 174.
[53] "Ali je skoro cio hrvatski narod uz Radića"
(Ibidem).
[54] Idem, 177.
[55] Idem, 47.
[56] "Bio je ćovjekoljubivi fanatik, ali ipak fanatik, sa
slovačkom i slavenskom tvrdoglavosti. On ju je doduše
ukrotio, vladao je njome, ali je ona bila u podsvijesti. Uza svu svoju široku kulturu, Masaryk je imao nešto doktrinamo suha, kao kakav zagrišeni protestantski pastor" (Idem, 174).
[57] Idem, 175.
[58] "Bježao
je od svega što mu je izgledalo
mistično ili metafizičko, kao od nekog
boležljivog sanjarenja" (Idem, 178).
[59] Idem, 177
[60] M. Ćurčin, in Nova Evropa, 1937, p. 273-74.
[61] In a conversation with Ivan Krajač, when he
declared himself in favor of Great Serbia,
and Krajač asked him what would then happen with Croatia, Masaryk supposedly
replied that she should "disappear together with Austria." (Hrvatska revija, 1938, no. 1, 562). Lukas
from it concludes that Masaryk hated the Croats (Hrvatski narod i hrvatska državna misao, p. 238).
[62] I.F.
Lupis-Vukić, "Čemu nas uči sudbina Cehoslovačke",
Nova Evropa, 1938, no. 11, 345-51.
[63] T.G. Masaryk, The
Making of a State, p. 112.
[64] Idem, 432-34. - I find
revealing chapter IV in Pospišil's dissertation (Great Truths and Small Lies)
because it proves that Masaryk used "all available means to destroy
Catholic influence".
[65] J. Šidak,
in Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, vol. VI (1965),
35.