Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:50:10.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Congress of the Youngslovak Intelligentsia, June 1932: Its Context, Course and Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

James Felak
James Felak*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the editorial board of the bi-weekly current affairs journal Politika decided, in early 1932, to organize a congress of members of the so-called young Slovak generation, its intent was to find a solution to Slovakia's pressing political, economic, social, and cultural problems. Attended by approximately five hundred members of the intelligentsia, most of them in their late twenties or early thirties, the congress was held on June 25 and 26 in the health resort town of Trencianski Teplice in western Slovakia. The Congress of the Young Slovak Generation attracted the attention of its contemporaries for two reasons. First, it marked the first time since at least 1920 that Slovaks from across the political spectrum came together to discuss issues of mutual concern relating to Slovakia. Second, the congress provided an opportunity for observers of Slovak political life to gauge the mood and become acquainted with the ideas of Slovakia's future leaders, especially as far as the crucial question of relations between Czechs and Slovaks in the Czechoslovak Republic was concerned. From the vantage point of the present-day historian, a further factor enhances the congress's importance: as a manifestation of Slovak national discontent, it was a milestone on Slovakia's road to autonomy. An in-depth examination of the Trencianske Teplice Congress, its background, its course, and its consequences, will illustrate the congress's importance for Slovak national and political development.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 21 , Issue 2: Special Issue - The Ex-Soviet Nationalities Without Gorbachev , Fall 1993 , pp. 107 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Association for the Study of the Nationalities of the USSR and Eastern Europe, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Not since the dissolution of the Slovak Club, a parliamentary bloc of all representatives from Slovakia in Czechoslovakia's Provisional National Assembly, in April 1920, did Slovaks from the political Left, Center, and Right come together to discuss matters of common concern. See Victor S. Mamatey and Radomír Luza, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918-1948 (Princeton, NJ, 1973), pp. 73–75, for a discussion of the Slovak Club.Google Scholar

2. For a discussion of the historically-conditioned differences between Czechs and Slovaks which impeded Czech-Slovak cooperation after 1918, see Carol Skalnik Leff, National Conflict in Czechoslovakia, the Making and Remaking of a State, 1918-1987 (Princeton, NJ, 1988), pp. 11–41; see also the pioneering studies by R. W. Seton-Watson, Slovakia Then and Now (London, 1931) and Macartney, C. A., Hungary and Her Successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences (London, 1937).Google Scholar

3. Kropilak, M., ed., Dejiny Slovenska V (Bratislava, 1985), pp. 35–36 and pp. 123–124 for a discussion of the decline in industrial production in Slovakia after 1918; according to L'ubomír Lipták, Slovensko v. 20. storocí (Bratislava, 1968), p. 111, Slovakia had only 63% of the number of industrial workers in 1926 that it had in 1914.Google Scholar

4. For a treatment of the religious aspects of the tensions between Czechs and Slovaks, see Macartney, C. A., Hungary and Her Successors, p. 87; Mamatey and Luza, A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, p. 83; R. W. Seton-Watson, The New Slovakia (Prague, 1924), pp. 32–36; and Ludvik Nemec, Church and State in Czechoslovakia (New York, 1955), pp. 111–124.Google Scholar

5. Lettrich, Jozef, History of Modern Slovakia (New York, 1955), pp. 71–72; Macartney, Hungary and Her Successors, p. 116; R. W. Seton-Watson, The New Slovakia, p. 38; and Mamatey and Luza, A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, p. 77, p. 83.Google Scholar

6. In September, 1919, Andrej Hlinka, the founder and leader of the SPP, tried to present a memorandum listing Slovak complaints against the Czechoslovak regime to the Paris Peace Conference. The memorandum stated that “we are neither Czechs nor Czechoslovaks; we are quite simply Slovaks.” Charging Prague with anticlericalism, economic exploitation, and disregard for the Slovak language, it demanded political autonomy for Slovakia and protection for Slovaks under the terms of the minority protection treaties that several of the new states of East Central Europe were compelled to sign at the time. These complaints formed the basis of the SPP's program in the interwar period. See Hoensch, Jorg K., Dokumente zur Autonomiepolitik der slowakischen Volkspartei Hlinkas (Munich, 1984), pp. 120–127, for the text of the memorandum.Google Scholar

7. Jelinek, Yeshayahu A., The Lust for Power: Nationalism, Slovakia, and the Communists, 1918-1948 (Boulder, CO, 1983), pp. 9–12; Lipták, Slovensko, p. 140.Google Scholar

8. For electoral statistics, see Statistická prírucka republiky ceskoslovenské vol. IV (Prague, 1932), p. 402.Google Scholar

9. See Dejiny, Kropilák, pp. 167–191, for a discussion of the impact of the Depression on Slovakia.Google Scholar

10. Victor Mamatey, S. and Luza, Radomír, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918-1948 (Princeton, 1973), p. 179 Google Scholar

11. Felak, James, “‘At the Price of the Republic’: Hlinka's Slovak People's Party, 1929-1938,” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, (December, 1989), pp. 136–140.Google Scholar

12. Zuberec, Vladimir, “Ceskoslovakizmus Agrárnej strany na Slovensku v rokoch 1919-1938,” Historicky casopis XXVII, No. 4 (1979), p. 521; and Alena Bartlová, “Centralistické strany na Slovensku a ich postoj k rieseniu slovenskej otázky,” Zborník filozofickej fakulty Univerzity Komenského, Historica XXII (Bratislava, 1971), pp. 238–239.Google Scholar

13. M. Kropilák, Dejiny, p. 195.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 208, p. 332; Jelinek, The Lust for Power, p. 4.Google Scholar

15. Rothschild, Joseph, East Central Europe between the Two World Wars (Seattle WA, 1974), p. 120.Google Scholar

16. For the text of the Czechoslovak language law of 1920, see Hoensch, Dokumente, pp. 133–134.Google Scholar

17. For a description and discussion of the events at the Matica Slovenská on May 12, 1932, see Tomás Winkler, Matica Slovenská v rokoch 1919-1945 (Martin, 1971); Slovak, May 14, 1932, no. 110, p. 1; Slovensky deník, May 14, 1932, no. 112, p. 1; Pritomnost, May 25, 1932, no. 21, p. 330; and Politika, June 1, 1932, no. 10, p. 112.Google Scholar

18. Politika, , June 20, 1932, no. 11, p. 121.Google Scholar

19. Estimates as to the number in attendance at Trencianske Teplice ranged from 300, according to a police observer, to 500, according to Politika; see Státní Ϻstrední archiv, Prague, Predsedníctvi ministerské rady (hereafter referred to as SUA, PMR-S), K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932; Politika, July 1, 1932, no. 12, p. 165; see also Slovak, June 28, 1932, no. 146, p. 1.Google Scholar

20. Slovák, June 28, 1932, no. 146, p. 1.Google Scholar

21. Státny slovensky Ϻstredny archiv, Bratislava, fond Policajné riaditel'stvo (hereafter referred to as SSUA, PR), K. 223, F. 879-882, June 28, 1932.Google Scholar

22. SUA, PMR-S, K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. The term Magyarone, which literally meant a person who was Slovak in ethnicity but Hungarian in national consciousness, became a label unjustly applied to Slovak nationalists by advocates of the idea of a Czechoslovak nation. The fact that some genuine Magyarones indeed belonged to Slovak political parties, especially the SPP, added some credence to what were otherwise largely unfounded charges.Google Scholar

24. Politika, June 20, 1932, no. 11, pp. 123–126.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., pp. 127–130.Google Scholar

26. The practice of using fixed-order lists enabled the leadership of a given political party to determine which of its candidates would receive the seats in the National Assembly won by that party in an election. Thus, parliamentary representatives were answerable directly to their party leadership rather than to their voters. As things, stood, voters cast their votes for a given party rather than for specific individuals. The party then allotted the seats in a predetermined order. Since most of the candidates in Slovakia belonged to parties headquartered in Prague, the abolition of fixed-order lists was seen by some Slovaks as a necessary prerequisite for Slovak politicians to gain freedom of action vis-à-vis their party bosses in Prague; see Edward Taborsky, Czechoslovak Democracy at Work (London, 1945), pp. 42–44.Google Scholar

27. Politika, June 20, 1932, no. 11, pp. 131–135.Google Scholar

28. Slovák, June 28, 1932, no. 146, p. 1.Google Scholar

29. Ibid.Google Scholar

30. Ibid.Google Scholar

31. SUA, PMR-S, K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Politika, July 1, 1932, no. 12, p. 165.Google Scholar

33. Slovensky denik, June 28, 1932, no. 148, p. 1.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.Google Scholar

35. SUA, PMR-S, K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Politika, June 20, 1932, no. 11, p. 135.Google Scholar

37. Kirschbaum, Joseph M., Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe (New York, 1960), p. 236.Google Scholar

38. Politika, June 20, 1932, no. 11, p. 139.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., pp. 139–142.Google Scholar

40. Ibid., pp. 143–146.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., pp. 147–151.Google Scholar

42. Ibid., pp. 151–154.Google Scholar

43. Slovák, June 28, 1932, no. 146, p. 2.Google Scholar

44. Ibid.Google Scholar

45. SUA, PMR-S, K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Ibid.Google Scholar

47. Slovak, June 28, 1932, no. 146.Google Scholar

48. SSUA, PR, K. 223, F. 879-882, June 28, 1932.Google Scholar

49. Politika, July 1, 1932, no. 12, p. 165.Google Scholar

50. SUA, PMR-S, K. 24, attachment to no. 11.388, June 27, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. Politika, June 20, 1932, no. 11, p. 157.Google Scholar

52. For the reports of Kordos, Millo, Okáli and Panák, see Politika, July 1, 1932, no. 11, pp. 154–164.Google Scholar

53. SSUA, PR. K. 223, F. 879-882, June 28, 1932.Google Scholar

54. Slovak, June 28, 1932, no. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Politika, July 1, 1932, no. 12, p. 165.Google Scholar

56. Slovak, June 28, 1932, no. 146, p. 1.Google Scholar

57. Viliam Plevza and Vlasta Plevzová, Slovenská inteligencia v komunistickom hnutí (1921-1938) (Bratislava, 1979), p. 191.Google Scholar

58. Slovensky deník, June 28, 1932, no. 148, p. 1.Google Scholar

59. Slovensky deník, June 29, 1932, no. 149, p. 1 and July 1, 1932, no. 151, p. 2.Google Scholar

60. Politika, August 15, 1932, no. 15, p. 193.Google Scholar

61. Politika, July 15, 1932, no. 13-14, pp. 177–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62. Prítomnost, July 6, 1932, no. 27, pp. 419–420 and July 13,1932, no. 28, pp. 440–442.Google Scholar

63. Plevza and Plevzová, op. cit., p. 187.Google Scholar

64. Zuberec, Vladimir, “Ceskoslovakizmus Agrárnej strany,” pp. 524–525.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., pp. 525–527.Google Scholar