Renegotiating the empire, forging the nation (-state): the Bohemian/Czechoslovakian case through the political–economic thought of Thomas G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář, c. 1890–1920s

Abstract

This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation (-state) in staying “in” or “out” of the larger Habsburg supranational entity in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century. It does so mainly through the language of political economy (on national wealth creation and redistribution) articulated in the opinions and political actions of Czechoslovakia's two founding statesmen, the first president, Thomas G. Masaryk, and the first prime minister, Karel Kramař. The article argues that their choice of staying “in” the large imperial space was premised upon renegotiating a better political and political–economic deal for the Bohemian Lands, whereas the option of abandoning it and of forging the Czechoslovak nation-state was essentially based on political reasons. And while both advocated an interventionist role for the state in the economy during the imperial period, they considered such a prerogative even more essential for their new nation-state.

There Used to Be a River Ferry: Identifying and Analyzing Localities by Means of Old Topographic Maps

“…The aftermath of World War I completely redesigned the maps of the region. Several states arose from the ruins of Austria-Hungary and the German Empire; these new formations included, among others, Czechoslovakia and Poland [58,59]. The Hlučín region, originally lost to Prussia as a part of Silesia, was assigned to Czechoslovakia in 1920 through the Treaty of Versailles [60].…”

Identity, Contingency, and Interaction: Historical Research and Social Science Analysis of Nation-State Proliferation

“…For Czechoslovakia, Tomáš Masaryk had clear influence on the thinking of major leaders and the formation of a Czech foreign legion serving as the linchpin for Allied recognition of Czechoslovakia, leading Wilson to eventually support the French lead in sanctioning the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire. Yet, a closer look at Masaryk’s thinking reveals that he was, in fact, a consistent supporter of an enlarged Austria before the war , declaring in 1891, “We wish for a strong Austria because its strength is our strength” (Doubek 1999, 75 [quoted in translation in Brisku 2017, 634]). When reiterating support in 1909, Masaryk simultaneously noted the dangers of European and global economic and political integration for smaller nations, particularly by bureaucratization, centralization, and Germanization in the case of Austria-Hungary (Brisku 2017, 636).…”

“…Yet, a closer look at Masaryk’s thinking reveals that he was, in fact, a consistent supporter of an enlarged Austria before the war , declaring in 1891, “We wish for a strong Austria because its strength is our strength” (Doubek 1999, 75 [quoted in translation in Brisku 2017, 634]). When reiterating support in 1909, Masaryk simultaneously noted the dangers of European and global economic and political integration for smaller nations, particularly by bureaucratization, centralization, and Germanization in the case of Austria-Hungary (Brisku 2017, 636). Masaryk’s shift to support for independence owed mostly to great power policies’ diminution of Czech freedom, primarily the sheer difficulty of domestic reform in the empire, and Austria-Hungary’s subjugation to Germany (Brisku 2017, 647).…”

“…When reiterating support in 1909, Masaryk simultaneously noted the dangers of European and global economic and political integration for smaller nations, particularly by bureaucratization, centralization, and Germanization in the case of Austria-Hungary (Brisku 2017, 636). Masaryk’s shift to support for independence owed mostly to great power policies’ diminution of Czech freedom, primarily the sheer difficulty of domestic reform in the empire, and Austria-Hungary’s subjugation to Germany (Brisku 2017, 647).…”

Renegotiating the Empire, Forging the Nation-State: The Albanian Case through the Political Economic Thought of Ismail Qemali, Fan Noli, and Luigj Gurakuqi, c. 1890–1920s

“…Crucially, also, in recovering slivers of their visions and alternatives on the nation's economic development within and without the Ottoman Empire, including political and geopolitical implications surrounding it, this article addresses the main question, which has been posed in other scholarship on modern economy and small nation(-states) (Brisku 2016(Brisku , 2017b, namely whether they, having had political experience in both periods, considered that a small Albania was better off economically, staying within a larger supranational political and economic space and renegotiating its political sovereignty, or outside of it as a politically independent entity. Equally insightful is examining whether this political move by "patriots" fighting for the "oppressed" nation against the "ruling nation" was a sharp and antagonistic process-accounted in nationalism scholarship on small nations' revival within multi-ethnic empires (Hroch [1985] 2000, 12-13)-or an ongoing process of renegotiation and even cooperation between "patriots" and "ruling nation" representatives (Kappeler 2006, 2-3).…”