Description: Edvard Beneš VINTAGE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH President of Czechoslovakia from 1935 to 1938 and again from 1945 to 1948 FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER The Dissolution of Czechoslovakia (Czech: Rozdělení Československa, Slovak: Rozdelenie Česko-Slovenska) took effect on January 1, 1993, and was the self-determined split of the federal republic of Czechoslovakia into the independent countries of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Both mirrored the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak Socialist Republic, which had been created in 1969 as the constituent states of the Czechoslovak Federal Republic. It is sometimes known as the Velvet Divorce, a reference to the bloodless Velvet Revolution of 1989, which had led to the end of the rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Contents1Background2Partition into two entities3Causes4Legal aspects4.1National symbols4.2Territory4.3Division of national property4.4Currency division4.5International law5Aftermath5.1Economy5.2Citizenship5.2.1Roma people5.3Language contacts5.4Sport5.5Telecommunications6Legacy7See also8References8.1Citations8.2Bibliography9External linksBackgroundMain article: History of Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia between 1968 (Constitutional Law of Federation) and 1989 (Velvet Revolution)Czechoslovakia was created with the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I. In 1918, a meeting took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, at which the future Czechoslovak President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and other Czech and Slovak representatives signed the Pittsburgh Agreement, which promised a common state consisting of two equal nations: Slovaks and Czechs. Soon afterward, he and Edvard Beneš violated the agreement by pushing for greater unity and a single nation. Some Slovaks were not in favour of that change, and in March 1939, with pressure from Adolf Hitler, the First Slovak Republic was created as a satellite state of Germany with limited sovereignty. The alignment with the Soviet Union after World War II oversaw the reunification into the Third Czechoslovak Republic. In 1968, the Constitutional Law of Federation reinstated an official federal structure of the 1917 type, but during the Normalization Period in the 1970s, Gustáv Husák, despite being a Slovak himself, returned most of control to Prague. That approach encouraged a regrowth of separatism after the fall of communism. Partition into two entitiesMap indicating locations of Czech Republic and Slovakia Czech RepublicSlovakiaBy 1991, the Czech Republic's GDP per capita was some 20% higher than Slovakia's. Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991. Many Czechs and Slovaks desired the continued existence of a federal Czechoslovakia. Some major Slovak parties, however, advocated a looser form of coexistence[citation needed] and the Slovak National Party sought complete independence and sovereignty. For a few years, political parties re-emerged, but Czech parties had little or no presence in Slovakia and vice versa. To have a functioning state, the government demanded continued control from Prague, but Slovaks continued to ask for decentralisation.[1] In 1992, the Czech Republic elected Václav Klaus and others, who demanded either an even tighter federation ("viable federation") or two independent states. Vladimír Mečiar and other leading Slovak politicians wanted a kind of confederation. Both sides opened frequent and intense negotiations in June. On July 17, the Slovak parliament adopted the declaration of independence of the Slovak nation. Six days later, Klaus and Mečiar agreed to dissolve Czechoslovakia at a meeting in Bratislava. Czechoslovak President Václav Havel resigned, rather than oversee the dissolution, which he had opposed.[2] In a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution.[3] The goal of negotiations switched to achieving a peaceful division. Peaceful division was prioritized as the process ran in parallel with the violent breakup of Yugoslavia (another socialist, Slavic federal state created after the Dissolution of Austria-Hungary).[4] On November 13, the Federal Assembly passed Constitution Act 541, which settled the division of property between the Czech lands and Slovakia.[5] With Constitution Act 542, passed on November 25, they agreed to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as of December 31, 1992.[5] The partition occurred without violence and so was thus said to be "velvet", much like the "Velvet Revolution", which had preceded it and had been accomplished by massive peaceful demonstrations and actions. In contrast, other post-communist breakups (such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) involved violent conflict. Czechoslovakia is the only former Eastern bloc state that had an entirely-peaceful breakup. In the following years, as Slovakia's economy struggled, Slovaks began to describe the dissolution as a "sandpaper divorce".[6] CausesA number of reasons have been given for the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, with the main debates focusing on whether dissolution was inevitable or whether dissolution occurred in conjunction with or even in contrast to the events that occurred between the Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the end of the joined state in 1992.[7] Those who argue from the inevitability stance tend to point to the differences between the two nations, which date back to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and to other issues. There are differences between the Czechs and Slovaks, such as problems with the shared state during communism, the success of the state in the Czech lands, its failure in the Slovak lands that still resulted in the adoption of communism since the Czechs were more influential in the running of the state than Slovaks, and the 1968 constitution with its minority veto.[8] Those who argue that events between 1989 and 1992 led to the dissolution point to international factors such as the breakaway of the Soviet satellite nations, the lack of unified media between Czechia and Slovakia, and most importantly the actions of the political leaders of both nations like the disagreements between Prime Ministers Klaus and Mečiar.[9][10] Legal aspectsNational symbolsSince the coat of arms of Czechoslovakia was a composition of those of the historic geographic areas forming the country, each republic simply kept its own symbol: the Czechs the lion and the Slovaks the double cross. The same principle was applied to the two-part bilingual Czechoslovak national anthem that comprised two separate pieces of music, the Czech stanza Kde domov můj and the Slovak stanza Nad Tatrou sa blýska. Disputes occurred only with respect to the Czechoslovak flag. During the 1992 negotiations on the details of dissolution of Czechoslovakia, as demanded by Vladimír Mečiar and Václav Klaus, a clause forbidding the use of the state symbols of Czechoslovakia by its successor states was inserted into the constitutional law on the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.[11] From 1990 to 1992, the red and white flag of Bohemia (differing from the Polish flag only by the proportion of the colours) officially served as the flag of the Czech Republic. Eventually, after a search for new symbols, the Czech Republic unilaterally decided to ignore the constitutional law on the dissolution of Czechoslovakia (Article 3 of Law 542/1992 stated that the "Czech Republic and Slovak Republic shall not use the national symbols of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic after its dissolution.") and to keep the Czechoslovak flag, with an altered meaning.[12] Slovakia, meanwhile, adopted its traditional flag; however, just before independence, on September 3, 1992, the coat of arms was added in order to prevent confusion with the similar flags of Russia and Slovenia. TerritoryThe national territory was divided along the existing internal borders, but the border was not clearly defined at some points and, in some areas, the border cut across streets, access roads and communities that had coexisted for centuries. The most serious issues occurred around the following areas: U Sabotů or Šance (cs:Šance (Vrbovce)) – historically part of Moravia, awarded to Slovakia in 1997Sidonie or Sidónia (cs:Sidonie) – historically part of Hungary (which contained all present-day Slovak territory until 1918), awarded to the Czech Republic in 1997Kasárna (cs:Kasárna (Makov)) recreational area – historically Moravian, disputed between Moravia and Hungary since the 16th century, formally part of Hungary since 1734; accessible by car only from the Czech side until early 2000s; remained in Slovakia despite heavy objections from the mostly-Czech property owners, whose real estate effectively fell into a foreign country.The new countries were able to solve the difficulties via mutual negotiations, financial compensation and then an international treaty covering the border modifications.[13] People living or owning property in the border area, however, continued to experience practical problems until both new countries entered the Schengen Agreement Area in 2007, rendering the border less significant. Division of national propertyMost federal assets were divided in a ratio of two to one, the approximate ratio between the Czech and Slovak population in Czechoslovakia, including army equipment, rail and airliner infrastructure. Some minor disputes, such as gold reserves stored in Prague and federal know-how valuation, lasted for a few years after the dissolution. Currency division 1000 korun československých from 1945Initially, the old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, remained in use by both countries. Czech fears of an economic loss caused the adoption of two national currencies as early as February 8, 1993. At the beginning, the currencies had an equal exchange rate, but the value of the Slovak koruna was then usually lower than that of the Czech koruna (in 2004, around 25–27% lower). On August 2, 1993, both currencies were distinguished by different stamps that were first affixed to and then printed on old Czechoslovak koruna banknotes.[14] On January 1, 2009, Slovakia adopted the euro as its currency with an exchange rate of 30.126 SK/€, and the €2 commemorative coin for 2009, Slovakia's first, featured the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution in remembrance of the common struggle of the Czechoslovaks for democracy.[15] By a quirk of fate, the welcoming speech on the behalf of the European Union on the occasion of Slovakia's entry to the eurozone was delivered by Mirek Topolánek, the prime minister of the presiding country, the Czech Republic, naturally in his native language, but the other guest speakers used English. The Czech Republic continues to use the Czech koruna, or crown. International lawNeither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia sought recognition as the sole successor state to Czechoslovakia. This can be contrasted to the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, when the Russian Federation was recognised as successor state to not only the Russian SFSR but also the Soviet Union itself. Therefore, Czechoslovakia's membership in the United Nations ceased upon the dissolution of the country, but on January 19, 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted as new, separate states. With respect to other international treaties, the Czechs and the Slovaks agreed to honour the treaty obligations of Czechoslovakia. The Slovaks transmitted a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations on May 19, 1993, to express their intent to remain a party to all treaties signed and ratified by Czechoslovakia and to ratify treaties signed but not ratified before dissolution of Czechoslovakia. The letter acknowledged that under international law, all treaties signed and ratified by Czechoslovakia would remain in force. For example, both countries are recognised as signatories of the Antarctic Treaty from the date that Czechoslovakia had signed the agreement in 1962. Both countries have ratified the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, but it was not a factor in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia since it did not come into force until 1996. AftermathEconomyUnbalanced scales.svgThe neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (March 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)The dissolution had some negative impact on the two economies, especially in 1993, as traditional links were severed to accommodate the bureaucracy of international trade, but the impact was considerably less than expected by many people.[citation needed] A customs union between the Czech Republic and Slovakia remained in place from the dissolution until May 1, 2004, when both countries entered the European Union.[citation needed] Many Czechs hoped that dissolution would quickly start an era of high economic growth in the Czech Republic, which no longer had to sponsor the "less-developed Slovakia". Similarly, others looked forward to an independent unexploited Slovakia that might become a new "economic tiger".[citation needed] According to The Prague Post, "Slovak GDP reached 95 percent of the Czech GDP, and it is likely to draw level with it. The Slovak gross national product (GNP), which includes citizens' incomes abroad and deducts the money multinational companies move out of the country, is higher than the Czech one. Old-age pensions are more or less at the same level in both countries, and the consumption per capita is slightly higher in Slovakia. However, salaries are 10 percent lower on average in Slovakia than in the Czech Republic".[16] However, Martin Filko, the head of the Institute of Financial Policy of the Slovak Finance Ministry, pointed out that Slovakia is among the EU countries whose salaries form the lowest portion of their GDP. In other words, some of people's incomes come from sources other than their main employment, which reduces the real difference between the Czech and the Slovak salaries.[citation needed] Slovaks have become a more integral part of the EU because of their adoption of the euro and are more resolved to take part in the banking and fiscal unions. In the Czech Republic, the right wing opened the economy, and the left wing privatised banks and attracted foreign investors.[citation needed] Until 2005, the GDP of the two countries was growing at a similar rate. However, from 2005 to 2008, the Slovak economy grew faster than the Czech economy. Economists agree that this growth was caused by the right-wing reforms of the Mikuláš Dzurinda government and the promise to adopt the euro, which attracted investors.[citation needed] When the left-wing populist Robert Fico replaced Dzurinda as Slovak prime minister after eight years in 2006, he reduced the right-wing reforms only moderately, but he did not abolish them, unlike the Czech Social Democrats (ČSSD).[citation needed] Meanwhile, the Czechs had three ČSSD prime ministers in four years (2002–06), followed by a shaky centre-right cabinet, which cut and simplified taxes but failed to push through other reforms and did not want to adopt the euro because of the financial crisis and the Civic Democrats' ideological stance.[citation needed] CitizenshipSince federalisation in 1968, Czechoslovakia had divided citizenship, either of the Czech Socialist Republic or of the Slovak Socialist Republic, the word Socialist being dropped from both names shortly after the Velvet Revolution. That distinction, however, had little effect on citizens' life. On January 1, 1993, all Czechoslovak citizens automatically became citizens either of the Czech Republic or the Slovak Republic, based on their previous citizenship, permanent residence address, birthplace, family ties, job and other criteria. Additionally, people had one year's time to claim the other citizenship under certain conditions.[17][18] Slovak legislation allowed dual citizenship until 2010, when it was abolished (see Citizenship Act (Slovakia)).[19] Only a handful of people have exercised that right, but its significance is lessened by both nations' membership in the EU as the freedom of movement for workers, a policy that guarantees EU citizens the right to work and to live anywhere in the Union. In the case of movement between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the policy took effect from 2004. By contrast, the Czech Republic has prohibited dual citizenship for naturalized citizens and requires them to give up existing citizenship(s) prior to receiving citizenship of the Czech Republic. That requirement can be waived only if giving up an existing citizenship might put the applicant or their relatives in danger of persecution in their homeland, which was not the case of applicants from Slovakia. That situation changed with the new Citizenship Act of 2013 (186/2013 Sb.), in force since January 1, 2014.[20] However, most Slovak citizens are still unable to become dual citizens of both the Czech Republic and Slovakia since they automatically lose Slovak citizenship upon voluntarily acquiring another one (see previous paragraph). Exempt from that law are only Slovak citizens who obtain a foreign citizenship by virtue of marriage with a foreign national. Some Slovak politicians[who?] have speculated in the media[example needed] about softening the Citizenship Act, but no change has yet materialised as of January 2015. People of both countries were allowed to cross the border without a passport and were allowed to work anywhere without the need to obtain an official permit. Border checks were completely removed on December 21, 2007, when both countries joined the Schengen Agreement. Under the current European regulations, citizens of either country are entitled to the diplomatic protection of any other EU country and so both have been considering merging their embassies, together with nations of the Visegrád Group, to reduce costs.[21] Roma peopleOne of the problems not solved during dissolution was the question of a large number of Romani living in the Czech Republic born and officially registered in today's Slovakia. Most of them did not re-register their official place of stay during the months before dissolution and so the question of their citizenship was left open. The 1992 Czech Nationality Act allowed a grant of automatic citizenship only to those who were born on Czech territory. For others, the right to citizenship required proof of a five-year period of residence, an "unobjectionable" criminal record, significant fees and a complicated bureaucratic process, which reportedly excluded a rather large percentage of Roma.[22] The Slovak government did not want to grant citizenship to nonresidents. Significant numbers of Roma living in Czech orphanages did not have their legal status clarified and were released from care as adult noncitizens without any right to work or live in the Czech Republic.[23] Under pressure from the European Union, the Czech government made amendments to its nationality law in 1999 and 2003, which effectively solved the problem, but compensation has not been provided to those rendered stateless in 1992.[22] Language contacts This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "Dissolution of Czechoslovakia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)In the former Czechoslovakia, the first television channel was a federal one and Czech and Slovak were languages that were used in equal ratios in the television news there, but foreign films and television series were almost exclusively dubbed into Czech, for example. That and the fact that the two languages are very similar made almost all people of both nations passively bilingual: they could understand but not necessarily speak the other language. After the dissolution in 1990s, the new television channels in the Czech Republic practically stopped using Slovak, and young Czech people now have a much lower understanding of Slovak. Also, the number of Slovak-language books and newspapers sold in the Czech Republic dropped drastically. The Czech television news, however, started to reintroduce Slovak-language coverage from Slovakia and Slovak television (STV2) rebroadcasts the Czech television newscast Události ČT daily, ten minutes after midnight. On the public Radio and Television of Slovakia, it is common to have at least one daily newscast from the Czech Republic during prime time news. Furthermore, many programmes on Slovak television channels are still dubbed into Czech, some films in cinemas are subtitled in Czech and there are far more Czech-language books and periodicals on the market than there were before the dissolution. The major boost for the language interchange has come from private television channel providers like CS Link (Czech Republic) and Sky Link (Slovakia) that offer Slovak channels in the Czech Republic and vice versa. Additionally, several channels, regardless of their national origin, offer programs both in Czech and Slovak (CSFilm, TV Barrandov) or even mix like TV Nova's Nova Sport coverage of the English Premier League. New impulses to mutual contacts coming via television are also common shows like the Intelligence Test of Nations, Czechoslovakia's Got Talent, and Masked Singer[24] broadcast by PRIMA and TV JOJ, and Czecho-Slovak SuperStar, the latter being the first international edition of the Pop Idol song contest broadcast by TV Nova and Markíza (both owned by CME), which also organized joint versions of MasterChef and The Voice in 2012. Also, the New Year's Eve Program for 2009 was prepared and broadcast jointly by ČT and STV and for 2010 by the Czech TV PRIMA and the Slovak TV JOJ, this time even including the singing of the Czechoslovak national anthem. Young Slovak people still have the same knowledge of Czech as their predecessors, if not better.[citation needed] In Slovakia, Czech may still be used automatically in all judicial proceedings, and all documents written in Czech are acknowledged by Slovak authorities and vice versa. Further, the Slovak Official Language Act, passed in 2009, reconfirmed the right of Czechs to use their language in all official communication when dealing with Slovak authorities although it explicitly limited the use of Czech in Slovakia to persons with Czech as their mother tongue. The same is true about using Slovak in the Czech Republic because of the Administration Procedure Act of 2004.[25] Gustáv Slamečka, a Slovak citizen who was the Czech transport minister (2009–2010), used only Slovak exclusively during his official communication. See also differences between Slovak and Czech languages. SportThe official breakup occurred right in the middle of the 1993 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships, which took place in Sweden. The team representing Czechoslovakia was renamed "Czech–Slovak" on January 1. In international ice hockey tournaments, the Czech Republic took over Czechoslovakia's place in the A-groups, and Slovakia had to start in the lower divisions. During the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 1993 in Falun, Sweden, the ski jumping team competed as a combined Czech–Slovakia team in the team large hill event and won silver. The team had been selected prior to the dissolution. Jaroslav Sakala won two medals in the individual hill events for the Czech Republic at those games along with his silver in the team event. In their qualifying section for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, the Czechoslovakia national football team competed under the name RCS, which stood for "Representation of Czechs and Slovaks". It was afterward that it was officially split up into Czech and Slovak national teams. The team failed to qualify after it got only a draw in its final match against Belgium, a match that it needed to win to qualify. The mutual encounters between the national teams of both countries in many sports are followed by most of the populations, and the number of players and coaches active in the other republic is significant. Martin Lipták, a Slovak handball coach, successfully led the Czech national team to the EHF 2010 Handball European Championship in Austria.[26] A Slovak team under his coaching, Tatran Prešov, won the Czech national league in 2008 and 2009.[27] Czech ice hockey coach Vladimír Vůjtek led the Slovak national team to the silver medal at the 2012 IIHF World Championship, having beaten the Czech team in the semifinals. Several sports have featured a common league, and discussions about having a common football or ice hockey league continue.[28] The road cyclist Ján Svorada earned Slovak citizenship in 1993. In 1994, he became the first Slovak rider ever to win a Tour de France stage. Two years later, he earned Czech citizenship, and he became the first Czech rider ever to win another Tour de France stage in 1998. TelecommunicationsThe two successor states continued to use the country code +42 until February 1997,[29] when it was replaced by two separate codes: +420 for the Czech Republic[30] and +421 for Slovakia.[31] Since then, telephone calls between both countries have required international dialing.[32] LegacyPublic perception of the dissolution has not changed much, with a December 2017 poll showing that just 42% of Czechs and 40% of Slovaks agree with what happened (compared to 36% and 37% in 1992, respectively). According to the Czech political analyst Lubomir Kopeček, many Czechs and Slovaks view the breakup process unfavourably because they had no say in the matter, and most would have rather had a referendum decide. In 2015, a Slovak movement called "Czechoslovakia 2018" was established to try to get a referendum by 2018. Its leader, Ladislav Zelinka, said that he had received thousands of emails and calls from supporters, but it was unable to reach the necessary 350,000 petition signatures. The younger generations of both countries are largely indifferent to the issue since they never experienced the previous period themselves, and older generations are more focused on present issues such as immigration and favour their own separate nationalism.[33] Surveys from 2010 showed that the majority of the population of Prague (Czechs) still considers the division of the country a mistake;[34] similarly, the general representative survey in Slovakia (from 2008)[35] showed that society is still divided in opinion on the dissolution, with 47% favouring the dissolution and 44% considering it a mistake. Political influences between the countries are minimal, but social democrats tend to cooperate very closely on regional and European topics in recent years. Furthermore, it has become customary that the elected presidents pay their first and last official foreign visits during their term to the other republic of the former Czechoslovakia. Appointed foreign ministers tend to follow that unwritten rule. On October 29, 2012, to commemorate Czechoslovakia's declaration of independence, which occurred on October 28, 1918, the Czech and the Slovak governments held, for the first time, a joint cabinet meeting in the communities of Trenčín and Uherské Hradiště, near the common border.[36] Also, peacekeeping troops stationed in the former Yugoslavia were put under joint command on several occasions. For example, from 2002 to July 2005, the Czech Armed Forces joined with the Armed Forces of the Slovak Republic to form a joint Czech–Slovak KFOR battalion in Kosovo, which contributed to the Multinational Brigade CENTRE.[37] Trade relationships were re-established and stabilised, and the Czech Republic continues to be Slovakia's most important business partner. After a short interruption, Slovakia's resorts in the Carpathian mountains are again the destination of a growing number of Czech tourists. Following the death of the last Czechoslovak (and the first Czech) president, Václav Havel, on December 18, 2011, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia observed a day of national mourning. During the funeral mass in Prague's St. Vitus Cathedral, prayers were recited in an equal ratio in Czech and Slovak. See also The Czechoslovak Republic (Czech: Československá republika, Slovak: Československá republika) or Fourth Czechoslovak Republic existed between 1948 and 1960 in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Czech and Slovak: Československá socialistická republika, ČSSR) was the official name of the country from 1960 to 23 April 1990. From 1948 until the end of November 1989, the country was under Communist rule and was a satellite state of the Soviet Union.[3] Following the coup d'état of February 1948, when the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia seized power with the support of the Soviet Union, the country was declared a socialist republic when the Ninth-of-May Constitution became effective. The traditional name Československá republika (Czechoslovak Republic), along with several other state symbols, were changed on 11 July 1960 following the implementation of the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia as a symbol of the "final victory of socialism" in the country. In April 1990, shortly after the Velvet Revolution of November 1989, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was renamed to the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. Contents1Name2History2.1Background2.2Czechoslovak Republic (1948-1960)2.31968–19933Geography4Politics4.1Leaders of the Communist Party4.2Heads of state and government4.3Foreign relations4.4Administrative divisions5Economy5.1Resource base6Demographics6.1Society and social groups6.2Emigration6.3Religion7Culture and society7.1Health, social welfare and housing7.2Mass media8Military9See also10Notes11References12External linksNameThe official name of the country was the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Conventional wisdom suggested that it would be known as simply the "Czechoslovak Republic"—its official name from 1920 to 1938 and from 1945 to 1960. However, Slovak politicians felt this diminished Slovakia's equal stature, and demanded that the country's name be spelled with a hyphen (i.e. "Czecho-Slovak Republic"), as it was spelled from Czechoslovak independence in 1918 until 1920, and again in 1938 and 1939. President Havel then changed his proposal to "Republic of Czecho-Slovakia"—a proposal that did not sit well with Czech politicians who saw reminders of the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which Nazi Germany annexed a part of that territory. The name also means "Land of the Czechs and Slovaks" while Latinised from the country's original name – "the Czechoslovak Nation"[4] – upon independence in 1918, from the Czech endonym Češi – via its Polish orthography[5] The name "Czech" derives from the Czech endonym Češi via Polish,[5] from the archaic Czech Čechové, originally the name of the West Slavic tribe whose Přemyslid dynasty subdued its neighbors in Bohemia around AD 900. Its further etymology is disputed. The traditional etymology derives it from an eponymous leader Čech who led the tribe into Bohemia. Modern theories consider it an obscure derivative, e.g. from četa, a medieval military unit.[6] Meanwhile, the name "Slovak" was taken from the Slavic "Slavs" as the origin of the word Slav itself remains uncertain. During the state's existence, it was simply referred to "Czechoslovakia", or sometimes the "ČSSR" and "ČSR" for short. HistoryBackgroundEastern Bloc Republics of the USSRAllied statesRelated organizationsDissent and oppositionCold War eventsFallvteBefore the Prague Offensive in 1945, Edvard Beneš, the Czechoslovak leader, agreed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's demands for unconditional agreement with Soviet foreign policy and the Beneš decrees.[7] While Beneš was not a Moscow cadre and several domestic reforms of other Eastern Bloc countries were not part of Beneš' plan, Stalin did not object because the plan included property expropriation and he was satisfied with the relative strength of communists in Czechoslovakia compared to other Eastern Bloc countries.[7] In April 1945, the Third Republic was formed, led by a National Front of six parties. Because of the Communist Party's strength and Beneš's loyalty, unlike in other Central and Eastern European countries, USSR did not require Eastern Bloc politics or "reliable" cadres in Czechoslovak power positions, and the executive and legislative branches retained their traditional structures.[8] The Communists were the big winners in the 1946 elections, taking a total of 114 seats (they ran a separate list in Slovakia). Thereafter, the Soviet Union was disappointed that the government failed to eliminate "bourgeois" influence in the army, expropriate industrialists and large landowners and eliminate parties outside of the "National Front".[9] Hope in Moscow was waning for a Communist victory in the 1948 elections following a May 1947 Kremlin report concluding that "reactionary elements" praising Western democracy had strengthened.[10] Following Czechoslovakia's brief consideration of taking Marshall Plan funds,[11] and the subsequent scolding of Communist parties by the Cominform at Szklarska Poręba in September 1947, Rudolf Slánský returned to Prague with a plan for the final seizure of power, including the StB's elimination of party enemies and purging of dissidents.[12] Thereafter, Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin arranged a communist coup d'état, followed by the occupation of non-Communist ministers' ministries, while the army was confined to barracks.[13] Pro-Communist demonstrations before the coup d'état in 1948On 25 February 1948, Beneš, fearful of civil war and Soviet intervention, capitulated and appointed a Communist-dominated government who was sworn in two days later. Although members of the other National Front parties still nominally figured, this was, for all intents and purposes, the start of out-and-out Communist rule in the country.[14][15][16] Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk, the only prominent Minister still left who was not either a Communist or fellow traveler, was found dead two weeks later.[17] On 30 May, a single list of candidates from the National Front, which became an organization dominated by the Communist Party, was elected to the National Assembly. Czechoslovak Republic (1948-1960)After passage of the Ninth-of-May Constitution on 9 June 1948, the country became a People's Republic until 1960. Although it was not a completely Communist document, it was close enough to the Soviet model that Beneš refused to sign it. He had resigned a week before it was finally ratified, and died in September. The Ninth-of-May Constitution confirmed that the KSČ possessed absolute power, as other Communist parties had in the Eastern Bloc. On 11 July 1960, the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia was promulgated, changing the name of the country from the "Czechoslovak Republic" to the "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic". 1968–1993Main articles: History of Czechoslovakia, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), and History of Czechoslovakia (1989–1992) Czechoslovakia in 1969With the exception of the Prague Spring in the late-1960s, Czechoslovakia was characterized by the absence of democracy and competitiveness of its Western European counterparts as part of the Cold War. In 1969, the country became a federative republic comprising the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic. Under the federation, social and economic inequities between the Czech and Slovak halves of the country were largely eliminated. A number of ministries, such as Education, were formally transferred to the two republics. However, the centralized political control by the Communist Party severely limited the effects of federalization. The 1970s saw the rise of the dissident movement in Czechoslovakia, represented (among others) by Václav Havel. The movement sought greater political participation and expression in the face of official disapproval, making itself felt by limits on work activities (up to a ban on any professional employment and refusal of higher education to the dissident's children), police harassment and even prison time. In late 1989, the country became a democracy again through the Velvet Revolution. In 1992, the Federal Assembly decided it would break up the country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993. GeographyThe Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was bounded on the west by West Germany and East Germany, on the north by Poland, on the east by the Soviet Union (via the Ukrainian SSR) and on the south by Hungary and Austria. PoliticsMain article: Politics of Communist CzechoslovakiaFurther information: Eastern Bloc politicsThe Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ) led initially by First Secretary Klement Gottwald, held a monopoly on politics. Following the 1948 Tito–Stalin split and the Berlin Blockade, increased party purges occurred throughout the Eastern Bloc, including a purge of 550,000 party members of the KSČ, 30% of its members.[18][19] Approximately 130,000 people were sent to prisons, labor camps and mines.[19] The evolution of the resulting harshness of purges in Czechoslovakia, like much of its history after 1948, was a function of the late takeover by the communists, with many of the purges focusing on the sizable numbers of party members with prior memberships in other parties.[20] The purges accompanied various show trials, including those of Rudolf Slánský, Vladimír Clementis, Ladislav Novomeský and Gustáv Husák (Clementis was later executed).[18] Slánský and eleven others were convicted together of being "Trotskyist-zionist-titoist-bourgeois-nationalist traitors" in one series of show trials, after which they were executed and their ashes were mixed with material being used to fill roads on the outskirts of Prague.[18] Antonín Novotny served as First Secretary of the KSČ from 1953 to 1968. Gustáv Husák was elected first secretary of KSČ in 1969 (changed to General Secretary in 1971) and president of Czechoslovakia in 1975. Other parties and organizations existed but functioned in subordinate roles to KSČ. All political parties, as well as numerous mass organizations, were grouped under the umbrella of National Front of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Human rights activists and religious activists were severely repressed. In terms of political appointments, the KSČ maintained cadre and nomenklatura lists, with the latter containing every post that was important to the smooth application of party policy, including military posts, administrative positions, directors of local enterprises, social organization administrators, newspapers, etc.[21] The KSČ's nomenklatura lists were thought to contain 100,000 post listings.[21] The names of those that the party considered to be trustworthy enough to secure a nomenklatura post were compiled on the cadre list.[21] Leaders of the Communist PartyNamePhotoTitleIn officeAntonín NovotnyAntonín Novotný 1968.jpgFirst Secretary14 March 1953 – 5 January 1968Alexander DubčekDubcek 1991.jpgFirst Secretary5 January 1968 – 17 April 1969Gustáv HusákPortrait of Gustáv Husák wearing a suit, tie and spectaclesFirst Secretary /General Secretary 17 April 1969 – 17 December 1987as First Secretary 1969–1971as General Secretary 1971–1987 Miloš JakešPortrait of Milos Jakes wearing a hat, tie and coatGeneral Secretary17 December 1987 – 24 November 1989Karel UrbánekGeneral Secretary24 November 1989 – 20 December 1989Ladislav AdamecChairman21 December 1989 – 1 September 1990Heads of state and government Edvard Benes was born as the youngest son into a peasant family living in the district of Rakovnik. After his studies at Prague Vinohrady Gymnasium in the years 1896-1904 he enrolled to the Faculty of Philosophy in Prague. After studying briefly he left for Paris, where he studied at the Sorbonne and at the Independent School of Political and Social Studies. Except for his short stay in London he stayed in France until 1907 when he moved to Berlin. By receiving his Doctorate of Laws he completed his university studies firstly in Dijon (1908) by receiving Doctorate of Laws, and one year later by passing rigorous exams in Prague. He taught for three years at the Prague Academy of Commerce, and later on he came to lecture sociology at Charles University as private associate professor. The outbreak of the World War I provoked Benes into organising an internal resistance movement called "Maffia". In particular he was responsible for channels of communication between Prague and future President Masaryk, who was exiled in Switzerland at the time. In September 1915 Benes left for abroad and from that time on his destiny was closely tied to personalities of T.G. Masaryk a M.R. Stefanik. Benes then lived in Paris where he also organized and managed individual sections of foreign emigration as well as contributed to promotion of Czechoslovak political programme. He reorganised the courier service, which maintained the covert links between him and "Maffia" in Czech lands. Aside from diplomatic efforts to gain political prestige in the eyes of foreign resistance movements he was giving a cycle of lectures at the Sorbonne in Paris on the subject of Slavicism, and wrote a series of articles for French and Czech foreign newspapers. He was instrumental in establishing the Czechoslovak National Council (1916), where he was bestowed with the function of the General Secretary. Together with M.R. Stefanik, he negotiated with the representatives of consensual powers in order to establish independent Czechoslovak military units. Subsequently, after obtaining consent as well as support the first legions were created in France (December 1917), Russia (summer 1918) and in Italy (April 1918). The outstanding result of Benes' diplomatic efforts led to the recognition of the Czechoslovak National Council as the representative of the new Czechoslovak State by France (June 1918), England (August 1918) and Italy (October 1918). This also enabled representatives of the Czechoslovak National Council to be admitted to the collective talks of the states of the Treaty of Versailles. On October 28, 1918 Benes acting as the representative of the foreign resistance negotiated with domestic politicians in Geneva on the future of the newly independent Czechoslovak state, and upon reaching an agreement Benes became the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of the newly formed Czechoslovakia. However, he did not return home until September 1919, for already in November 1918 he had to go to Paris in order to secure the previously non-existent southern Slovak border, and to extricate Slovakia from Hungary, as well as to procure the recognition of the historical borders of the Czech State. At that time, Czechoslovakia emerged in a new state form never existing before, on the basis of Woodrow Wilson's principle of nations' rights for self-determination, which was, however, acknowledged only to the purposefully defined Czechoslovak nation in the new state. This concept, accepted to this date by most of the Czech nationals as natural and just, Benes vindicated in Peace Convents of 1919 and 1920, and as a creator of the Czechoslovak foreign politics he endeavoured to secure it by international pacts. Edvard Benes was present at the inception of the League of Nations, and as its deputy chairman (1920), member of the Board (in 1923-27) and member of the Security Council, and its chairman (1935) he supported the principle of collective security. In 1920-22, Benes founded the Little Alliance with Yugoslavia and Romania, and in 1924, he negotiated an alliance treaty with the post-war European power, the France. He was a renowned person at important international conferences (e.g. in Genoa 1922, Locarno 1925, the Hague 1930, and Lausanne 1932) and had profound knowledge and understanding of international politics and relations. Although his primary domain was foreign affairs, he also played an important role in internal matters. From the inception of the State, Edvard Benes was Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in the years 1919 to 1926 and 1929 to 1935, he was en elected member of the National Assembly, including Prime Minister in the years 1921 to 1922. Following president T.G. Masaryk's abdication, Benes became President of the Czechoslovak Republic on December 18, 1935. As the vice chairman of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party (Benes was its member in 1923 to 1935), he had a profound influence over its policies. He rejected Marxism, but adhered to socialist ideas, the "overall development towards agricultural and workers democratism as well as natural and unavoidable weakening of the municipal bourgeoisie influence" he considered as one of the important results of the World War I. His opinions disallowed him to fully understand totalitarian principle of the Bolshevism, although he disagreed with it. In his endeavour to firmly anchor the security of the State, he tried to abolish the international isolation of the U.S.S.R. and to bring it into the League of Nations. When this was successfully accomplished, he closed an Alliance Treaty with the U.S.S.R. (in 1935). Shortly after that Munich treaty took place in 1938. It will remain the eternal theme of the Czech history, whether it would be back then better to fight in international isolation than the moral marasmus after capitulation. It is certain that Slovaks longed for autonomy, Hungarians and Germans for alliance with their nations, and Czechs did not compel war from their political representatives including Benes. He abdicated on October 5, 1938, and went to exile. After war occupation of the Czech Lands and establishment of the Slovak State in March 1939 Benes proclaimed Munich treaty as invalid and held the theory of legal continuity of the Czechoslovakia. During the World War II Benes reached acknowledgement of the Czechoslovak exile government by all allied countries. The Munich treaty meant trauma to Benes the same as to his Czech fellow citizens, and he was literally possessed to rectify it. Already after the events in Munich Benes occupied his mind with the problem of Germans in Czech Lands, and with future foreign-politics orientation, and for his conclusions he was able to win not only politicians of his generation - for example J. Sramek or J. Stransky - but also younger politics: H. Ripka, P. Drtina and others. Benes came to a conclusion, supported from his homeland, that a war is an apt historical moment to solve problems of the State by expulsion of Germans. Far before the Postdam Conference he communicated that end of the war"in our country must mean a great people's vengeance and a really bloody and unmerciful end for Germans" (February 1944). During the war Benes came to understanding of how the powers will be distributed in post-war Central Europe, which led him to sign treaty with the Soviet Union in December 1943, in despite of initial disagreement of the Brits. He appealed to his countrymen to view his trip to Moscow "in the spirit of our entire national history of the past centuries". He did not event oppose to the significant changes in domestic policy. Besides the Czechoslovak Communist Party he was willing to allow socialist parties and the leftist bourgeoisie parties into the political system, and intended to implement very radical social and economic changes in the country. This was on the agenda of his visit to Moscow in December 1943, and was discussed with the foreign leadership of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. It was also from Moscow that he would return to a liberated homeland. After his triumphant arrival in Prague on May 16, 1945, Benes began taking steps to realising his intention to "unite the national revolution with the economic revolution" by his Decree. He was reinstated to his political office on October 28, 1945 and re-elected president on June 19, 1946. To much he stemmed from the thought that the Czechoslovakia may become "a bridge" between the Soviet Union and Western democratic countries, and thus help maintain stability in Europe. As a sociologist, he was convinced that politics are "practical sociology" and that his policies were based in science. However, further development has shown that the ideas behind his policies stemmed from wishes, not from science. Benes' faith in democratisation of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was defeated by dramatic events in February 1948. Shortly thereafter, on June 7, 1948, Benes abdicated and died soon. (mch, ss) Edvard Beneš, (born May 28, 1884, Kozlany, Bohemia, Austria-Hungary [now in Czech Republic]—died September 3, 1948, Sezimovo Ústí, Czechoslovakia [now in Czech Republic]), statesman, foreign minister, and president, a founder of modern Czechoslovakia who forged its Western-oriented foreign policy between World Wars I and II but capitulated to Adolf Hitler’s demands during the Czech crisis of 1938. After studying in Prague, Paris, and Dijon, France, Beneš received a doctorate of laws in 1908 and taught at the Prague Commercial Academy and the Czech University of Prague (now Charles University) before World War I. Influenced by the nationalist ideas of Tomáš Masaryk, who wished to liberate the Czechs and Slovaks from Austrian rule, Beneš followed his mentor to Switzerland during World War I and then established himself in Paris. With Masaryk and the Slovak leader Milan Štefánik, Beneš formed a propaganda organization that eventually became a Czechoslovak provisional government on October 14, 1918. With the collapse of Austria-Hungary in November 1918, a new Czechoslovak state was quickly formed. As foreign minister, a post he was to retain until 1935, Beneš headed his country’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and championed the League of Nations throughout the interwar period, serving as its Council chairman six times. Opposed to plans for union between Austria and Germany (after World War I and again in 1931), which he deemed a threat to Czechoslovakia’s continued existence, he attempted to reestablish a balance of power in eastern Europe. To fill the partial power vacuum created by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Beneš negotiated the treaties with Romania and Yugoslavia (1921) that formed the Little Entente, originally aimed at revisionist Hungary. France joined in 1924, and thereafter the alliance became a bloc against Germany and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union. In 1935, however, he signed a mutual assistance pact between his country and the Soviet Union. With the resignation of Masaryk as president in 1935, Beneš was elected to that office. Relations with Poland and Germany, never amicable, steadily worsened. Though he granted substantially the first Sudetenland German autonomy demands in 1938, he was nevertheless unable to avert the crisis that led to the destruction of the Czechoslovak state. Abandoned by his allies, Beneš capitulated before the German ultimatum, and his country lost the Sudetenland in September 1938. Poland soon occupied the disputed Teschen area. Resigning on October 5, 1938, Beneš went into exile. After the outbreak of World War II he established in France a Czechoslovak national committee, which moved to London in 1940. Reestablishing a government on his native soil on April 3, 1945, Beneš entered Prague on May 16 to the enthusiastic welcome of the population. His was the only eastern European exile government to be allowed to return after the war. Backlash against the ethnic German and Hungarian populations in postwar Czechoslovakia was swift and brutal. Beginning in 1945, the so-called “Beneš decrees” (officially the Decrees of the President of the Republic) were enacted, stripping the citizenship of millions of Sudeten Germans and tens of thousands of Hungarians unless they could prove their wartime loyalty to the Czechoslovak state. Their property was confiscated without compensation, and as many as 19,000 “expellees” were killed during their forced expulsion from Czechoslovakia. The Beneš decrees continued to be a contentious point into the 21st century, but they remained in force, precluding any claim to reparations by those dispossessed in the 1940s. Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription.Subscribe todayBeneš realized that Czechoslovakia had to cooperate closely with the Soviet Union. Increasingly ill, he suffered two strokes in 1947. When his communist prime minister, Klement Gottwald, demanded on February 25, 1948, that Beneš accept a communist-dominated cabinet, Beneš again had no choice but to capitulate. Refusing to sign the new constitution, he resigned on June 7, 1948. Having witnessed the apparent suicide of his lifelong friend Jan Masaryk (son of Tomáš Masaryk) a few months earlier, Beneš died a broken man in 1948. His unfinished Memoirs: From Munich to New War and New Victory appeared in English in 1954. The youngest son of 10 children, Eduard (he would change the spelling of his first name when he was attending university) was born May 28, 1884 in Kožlany, Bohemia, about 60 kilometers from Prague. His brother Vojta also took up politics. The future statesman spent his childhood years in Prague’s Vinohrady district. After graduating from the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University, he went abroad with a two-year tenure in Paris and another year in Berlin. In Paris Beneš studied at the Sorbonne and the Independent School of Political and Social Studies. He earned his doctorate in Dijon, France, where he focused on the political struggles of Slavonic nations in Austria. Back in Prague, Beneš received another doctorate. After completing his studies, he taught at a business school and at university. Beneš and the struggle for Czechoslovak independenceConvinced that Czechs and Slovaks shared the same ethnic identity, Beneš was very active in the struggle for Czechoslovak independence during World War I. He coordinated the anti-Austrian resistance group Maffia and set up a home base in Paris during September of 1915, where along with future president Tomáš G. Masaryk and one of the major players in the resistance government, Slovak Milan Rastislav Štefánik, he tried to gain support for an independent Czechoslovakia. The Czech resistance leader was also responsible for coordinating legions that fought for the West in France, Russia and Italy. Prague Sightseeing Tours Beneš as Minister of Foreign AffairsWhen Czechoslovakia was born in 1918, Beneš became Minister of Foreign Affairs. The experienced diplomat served as Prime Minister from 1921-22, when he built up a defensive system against Austro-Hungary, called the Little Entente, with Romania and Yugoslavia, and he also paved the way for the Czechoslovak French Treaty of 1924. A representative in Parliament from 1919-26 and 1929-35, Beneš was a member of the Czechoslovak Socialist Party, as of 1926 the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party, which was not affiliated with the Nazi German National Socialist Workers’ Party. Established in 1898, the Czechoslovak Socialist Party aspired to gain independence from Austro-Hungary and asserted that democracy and morality were conditions of socialism. In 1935 the treaty he signed with the Soviet Union stated that the USSR would aid Czechoslovakia in war time if France also came to the country’s assistance. Slovak unrestThe second half of the 1930s was a period fraught with complaints from the German and Slovak minorities who demanded more rights and freedom. For example, during May of 1935 the fascist and nationalistic Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party tried to pressure the dedicated diplomat to make Slovak the official language of Slovakia and to provide them with a legislative diet in Bratislava, among other demands. Beneš stood firm, asserting that only a united Czechoslovak nation could survive the threats caused by the Nazi and fascist regimes in neighboring countries. Czechoslovak President Edvard BenešBeneš succeeded Masaryk as president in December of 1935. The Sudeten Germans – ethnic Germans living in the Czech lands – and Slovaks continued to assert more and more pressure. In 1938 Beneš recognized Slovakia as an independent nation. During April of that same year, the Sudeten German question came to a head when the German minority issued the Carlsbad demands, which included rights such as full equality with the Czechs, complete self-government and freedom to express Nazi ideology. At first Beneš stood his ground, but he finally did agree to the demands that September. Beneš also engineered a „Third Plan,“ which involved setting up 20 or more small districts where Germans would have much autonomy if they proved to be the majority in those areas. Surrendering to the demands of the Germans and Slovaks triggered much disapproval in the government. Convinced the Munich Agreement that ceded the Sudetenland to the Third Reich was unjust, Beneš resigned October 5, 1938. Resistance activities during the Nazi OccupationDuring 1938 he found himself abroad once more. When Britain and France joined the war against Germany in October of 1939, he established a government-in-exile in London, and Britain acknowledged it during 1940. The Soviet Union followed in 1941. Beneš and Czechoslovak military intelligence officer and resistance leader František Moravec contributed to the plan formed in England by the Czechoslovak army-in-exile that aspired to assassinate high-ranking Nazi official Reinhard Heydrich with Operation Anthropoid. The successful plan brought about brutal reprisals, though. More than 13,000 people were arrested, and about 5,000 were killed in reprisals. The villages of Lidice and Ležáky were razed. In Lidice 199 men were murdered, 95 children (most of whom would be gassed) were taken away from their parents, eight children were given to German families and 195 women were sent to a concentration camp. All the men in Ležáky were executed. Leanings toward RussiaDuring the first three years of the war, Beneš sought to set up a federation between the Czechoslovaks and Poles, but due to pressure from Moscow, it did not become a reality. He did, though, sign treaties with Great Britain and France. The Czechoslovak statesman with leanings toward Russia went to Moscow to meet with Stalin and signed a new treaty with the USSR during 1943, feeling assured that the West would become more socialist after the war and the USSR would have a more western orientation. Beneš’ second term as president and the Beneš decreesBeneš returned to Czechoslovakia in 1945 and was elected President of the second republic in June of 1946. Arguing that the Sudeten Germans were collectively responsible for the destruction of independent Czechoslovakia, he put into effect the Beneš decrees, confiscating the property of Germans, traitors and collaborators in the country, stripping them of their citizenship and even expelling them from the nation. The controversial decrees are still in effect. Communism and February 25, 1948Communists became major players in the new government as they controlled the most important ministries. Communist Klement Gottwald became Prime Minister during 1947. On February 20, 1948 the Communists asserted much pressure by forming a people’s militia of 15,000 members. That day the 12 noncommunist ministers resigned, convinced that Beneš would establish a new government without the Communist Party. However, Beneš made no attempt to mobilize the fierce opposition against the Communists because he thought the USSR should play a major role in central Europe and was afraid that Germany would become powerful again. Beneš was convinced that Soviet socialism would be moderate and European while he predicted that European capitalism would lean more toward socialism. It was Benes’ hesitation in February of 1948 that allowed the Communists to take over the government and make Czechoslovakia into a totalitarian state. Surrendering to the Communist threat, he appointed a Communist majority government February 25, 1948. Refusing to sign the new pro-Communist constitution, Beneš abdicated June 7 of that year, and Klement Gottwald became the new president. The death of a prominent statesmanThree months later Beneš died. Stricken by spinal tuberculosis and other illnesses, the prominent Czechoslovak statesman passed away September 3, 1948 at his villa in Sezimovo Ústí, where he is buried alongside his wife. Beneš’ writing legacyBeneš was an avid writer advocating democracy as well as a politician. His memoirs and speeches make up a few of the many books he published. His works printed in English translation are Bohemia’s Case for Independence from 1917, his My War Memoirs from 1928 and Democracy Today and Tomorrow from 1939. The controversial Edvard BenešEdvard Beneš is a name that triggers much controversy: some people consider him a phenomenal politician dedicated to democracy while others sneer at him, pinpointing the tragedies of his political career. Beneš did make great achievements in his resistance work during both wars and was responsible for some ground-breaking events as foreign minister and president. Along with Masaryk he put Czech politics on the European and world map. Yet he was trapped in a tragic drama of international relations. He made mistakes. He put too much faith in the USSR and Russian socialism, for example. He hesitated when he should have taken action during February of 1948. Both his achievements and tragedies have to be considered within the historical context of the times as he was not once but twice defeated by ideological parties that destroyed democracy in Czechoslovakia. (b. 28 May 1884, d. 3 Sept. 1948). President of Czechoslovakia 1935–8, 1945–8. Born in Kozlány (Bohemia), he was educated in Prague and at the Sorbonne (Paris), and became a lecturer in economics at Prague University before World War I. In 1914 he fled from Prague to Paris, where he helped Masaryk to form the Czechoslovak National Council. He became the leader of the Czech National Socialist Party, and was Czech delegate at the Paris Peace Conference. As Foreign Minister (1918–35) he sought to stabilize the young state through international treaties. The Little Entente was created in 1921 to prevent the restoration of the Habsburg King Charles in Hungary. The Czechoslovak–French treaty of 1924 was designed to guarantee the country's independence. As one‐time Prime Minister (1921–2), and one of Masaryk's closest allies, he was the natural successor to the presidency following Masaryk's resignation. A pragmatist as well as a nationalist, he grudgingly accepted Slovak demands for recognition of their distinctiveness, and was even prepared to surrender the Sudetenland in return for peace with Germany. Ultimately, however, he resigned in solidarity with the entire Cabinet over the Munich Agreement. Beneš went into exile and taught in the USA until the outbreak of war, when he became head of the Czechoslovak government‐in‐exile in 1939, first in Paris, and then in London. He had no ideological prejudices against Stalin, and believed that after the war there would be a ‘convergence’, whereby the USSR would become more capitalist, and Western Europe more socialist. This explains his willingness to accept the growing power of the Czechoslovak Communist Party under Gottwald in his postwar government, and his failure to mobilize opposition against the Communist takeover of the state in February 1948. Indeed, he agreed to stay on as President, resigning only on 6 May 1948. ww2dbaseEdvard Beneš was born in Kožlany, Bohemia, at the time a province of Austria-Hungary. In 1912, he taught at the Charles University of Prague, and from 1916 to 1918 he was a Secretary of the Czechoslovak National Council in Paris and Minister of the Interior and of Foreign Affairs of the province. His political ideal saw the Czechs and Slovaks working together for a common Czechoslovakia, and with this vision he was a strong organizer of Czechoslovakians abroad. Between 1918 and 1935, he was the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, and from 1920 to 1925 and again from 1929 to 1935 he was a member of the Parliament. Between 1935 and 1938, he was the President of Czechoslovakia, but resigned from office on 5 Oct 1938 as his personal protest against German aggression and western appeasement. Emigrating to Britain, immediately outside of London, he headed the Czechoslovakian government-in-exile as president. In Britain, he organized various movements against German occupation of his home country, one of which culminated in the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. After the war ended, he returned to Czechoslovakia and resumed his role as the president of the nation, with a new policy to eventually deport ethnic Germans to Germany and Austria. On 7 Jun 1948, he resigned once again, this time due to the communist takeover several months before; Prime Minister Klement Gottwald, the head of the communist movement, succeeded him as the next president. Beneš died at his villa in Sezimovo Ústí, Czechoslovakia. Edvard Beneš, sometimes anglicised to Edward Benesh (Czech pronunciation: [ˈɛdvard ˈbɛnɛʃ] (About this soundlisten); 28 May 1884 – 3 September 1948), was a Czech politician and statesman who was President of Czechoslovakia from 1935 to 1938 and again from 1945 to 1948. He also led the Czechoslovak government-in-exile 1939 to 1945, during World War II. As President, Beneš faced two major crises which both resulted in his resignation. His first resignation came after the Munich Agreement and subsequent German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which brought his government into exile in the United Kingdom. The second came about with the 1948 communist coup, which created a communist regime. Before his time as President, Beneš was also the first Minister of Foreign Affairs (1918–1935) and the fourth Prime Minister (1921–1922) of Czechoslovakia. A member of the Czechoslovak National Social Party, he was known as a skilled diplomat.[1] Contents1Early life1.1Birth and family1.2Education and marriage2Political career before independence3Foreign minister4First presidency4.1Sudeten Crisis5Wartime exile in Britain5.1Organizing the government-in-exile5.2Operation Barbarossa begins5.3Working with the Czech resistance5.4Britain rejects the Munich Agreement6Second presidency6.1Role in the Prague uprising6.2Return to Prague6.3Expulsion of the Sudeten Germans6.4Communist coup of 19487Death8Legacy9In fiction10See also11References12Sources12.1Primary sources13External linksEarly lifeBirth and familyEduard Beneš was born into a peasant family in 1884 in the small town of Kožlany, Bohemia, in what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was the youngest son and tenth child overall of Matěj Beneš (1843–1910) and Anna Petronila (née Beneš;[2] 1840–1909).[3][4] One of his siblings was the future Czechoslovak politician Vojta Beneš. His nephew through his brother Václav was Bohuš Beneš, a diplomat and author. Bohuš was the father of Emilie Benes Brzezinski, an American sculptor, and Václav E. Beneš, a Czech-American mathematician.[5] Education and marriage Edvard Beneš with his wife Hana, seen here in 1934.Beneš spent much of his youth in the Vinohrady district of Prague, where he attended a grammar school from 1896 to 1904, his landlord's family being acquainted with his future wife Anna Vlčková (1885–1974) (cs). The two would later study French, history, and literature together at the Sorbonne. Edvard and Anna got engaged in May 1906, and married in November 1909. Some time after their engagement, Anna changed her name to Hana, which was the name Edvard had called her by since he met her (because he had just ended a relationship with another woman named Anna). Around the same time, Edvard Beneš also changed his name, going from the original spelling "Eduard" to "Edvard".[6][7] He played soccer as an amateur for Slavia Prague.[8] After studying philosophy at Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague, Beneš left for Paris and continued his studies at the Sorbonne and at the Independent School of Political and Social Studies. He completed his first degree in Dijon, where he received his doctorate of law in 1908. Beneš then taught for three years at a business college, and after his 1912 habilitation in philosophy, Beneš became a lecturer of sociology at Charles University. He was also involved in scouting.[9] In 1907, Beneš published over 200 articles in the Czech social democratic newspaper Právo Lidu (cs) containing his impressions of life in Western Europe.[10] Beneš wrote he found the German "empire of force and power" repulsive after visiting Berlin, and from London he wrote that "The situation here is terrible and so is life".[10] During World War II, when Beneš was living in exile in London, the German Propaganda Ministry gleefully republished his articles from 1907 expressing mostly negative sentiments about life in Britain.[10] Paris, the "city of light", was, however, a city that Beneš loved, as he wrote that he found it to be "almost miraculously...a magnificent synthesis of modern civilization, of which France is the bearer".[10] For the rest of his life, Beneš was a passionate Francophile and he always stated that Paris was his favorite city.[11] Political career before independenceDuring World War I, Beneš was one of the leading organizers of an independent Czechoslovakia from abroad. He organized a pro-independence and anti-Austrian secret resistance movement, Maffia. In September 1915, he went into exile in Paris, where he made intricate diplomatic efforts to gain recognition from France and the United Kingdom for Czechoslovak independence. From 1916 to 1918, he was a Secretary of the Czechoslovak National Council in Paris and Minister of the Interior and of Foreign Affairs in the Provisional Czechoslovak government. In May 1917, Beneš, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Milan Rastislav Štefánik were reported to be organizing a "Czechoslovak Legion" to fight for the Western Allies in France and Italy, recruited from among Czechs and Slovaks who were able to get to the front and also from the large emigrant populations in the United States, which was said to number more than 1,500,000.[12] The force grew into one of tens of thousands and took part in several battles, including the Battles of Zborov and Bakhmach in Russia.[13] Foreign ministerFrom 1918 to 1935, Beneš was the first and longest-serving Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia. On 31 October 1918, Karel Kramář reported from Geneva to Prague: "If you saw our Dr. Beneš and his mastery of global questions...you would take off your hat and say it was truly marvelous!"[14] His international stature was such that he held the post through 10 successive governments, one of which that he headed himself from 1921 to 1922. In 1919, his decision to pull demoralized Czechoslovak Legions out of the Russian Civil War was denounced by Kramář as a betrayal.[15] He represented Czechoslovakia at the 1919 peace conference in Paris, which led to the Versailles Treaty. A committed Czechoslovakist, Beneš did not consider Czechs and Slovaks to be separate ethnicities. He served in the National Assembly from 1920 to 1925 and again from 1929 to 1935, representing the Czechoslovak National Social Party (called the Czechoslovak Social Party until 1925). He briefly returned to the academic world as a professor, in 1921. After Jan Černý's first stint as prime minister, Beneš formed a government (cs) for a little over a year from 1921 to 1922. In the early 1920s, Beneš and his mentor President Masaryk viewed Kramář as the principal threat to Czechoslovak democracy, seeing him as a "reactionary" Czech chauvinist who was opposed to their plans for Czechoslovakia as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state.[15] Masaryk and Beneš were openly doubtful of Kramář's commitment to "Western values" that they were committed to such as democracy, enlightenment, rationality and tolerance, seeing him as a romantic Pan-Slavist who looked towards the east rather than the west for ideas.[15] Kramář very much resented the way in which Masaryk openly groomed Beneš as his successor, noting that Masaryk put articles into the Constitution that set 45 as the age limit for senators, but 35 as the age limit for the presidency, which conveniently made Beneš eligible for the presidency.[15] The charge of Czech chauvinism against Kramář had some substance as he openly proclaimed his belief that the Czechs should be the dominant people in Czechoslovakia, denounced Masaryk and Beneš for their belief that the Sudeten Germans should be equal to the Czechs, and made clear his opposition to having German as one of the official languages of Czechoslovakia, views that made him abhorrent to Beneš.[16] Between 1923 and 1927, Beneš was a member of the League of Nations Council, serving as president of its committee from 1927 to 1928. He was a renowned and influential figure at international conferences, such as those at Genoa in 1922, Locarno in 1925, The Hague in 1930 and Lausanne in 1932. First presidency President Beneš visiting a police station in Brno, 1938.When President Tomáš Masaryk retired in 1935, Beneš succeeded him. Under Masaryk, the Hrad ("the castle", as the Czechs called the presidency) had built up into a major extra-constitutional institution enjoying considerably more informal power than the plain language of the Constitution indicated.[17] The framers of the Constitution had intended to create a parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister would be the country's leading political figure. However, due to a complex system of proportional representation, no party even approached the 151 seats needed for a majority; as mentioned above, there were ten cabinets during Masaryk's presidency. The Czech historian Igor Lukeš (cs) wrote about the power of the Hrad under Beneš: "By the spring of 1938, the Czechoslovak parliament, the prime minister, and the cabinet had been pushed aside by Beneš. During the dramatic summer months he was – for better or worse – the sole decision-maker in the country".[17] Sudeten CrisisMain article: Munich AgreementEdvard Beneš opposed Nazi Germany's claim to the German-speaking Sudetenland in 1938. The crisis began on 24 April 1938 when Konrad Henlein at the party congress of the Sudeten German Party in Karlsbad (modern Karlovy Vary) announced the 8-point "Karlsbad programme" demanding autonomy for the Sudetenland.[18] Beneš rejected the Karlsbad programme, but in May 1938 offered the "Third Plan" which would have created 20 cantons in the Sudetenland with substantial autonomy, which in turn was rejected by Henlein.[19] Beneš was keen to go to war with Germany provided that one or more of the Great Powers fought alongside Czechoslovakia, but was unwilling to fight Germany alone.[20] Sergei Aleksandrovsky, the Soviet minister in Prague, reported to Moscow after talking to Beneš that he was hoping to fight a "war against the whole world" provided the Soviet Union was willing to come in.[20] In London in May 1938, Beneš came under very intense British pressure to accede to the Karlsbad programme, which he initially refused. The British viewed the Sudetenland crisis as a domestic Czechoslovak crisis with international ramifications whereas Beneš saw the crisis as a matter between Czechoslovakia vs. Germany. In July 1938, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax offered the services of a British mediator Lord Runciman, to resolve the crisis, with the promise that Britain would support Czechoslovakia if Beneš was willing to accept the conclusions of Runciman's findings.[21] Seeing a chance to enlist British support, Beneš accepted the Runciman Mission.[21] The British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote: "Beneš, whatever his other defects, was an incomparable negotiator; and the talents which had been a match for Lloyd George in 1919, soon took Runciman's measure in 1938...Instead, Runciman found that he was being maneuvered into a position where he had to endorse the Czech offers as reasonable, and to condemn the obstinacy of the Sudetens, not of Beneš. An appalling consequence [for Britain] loomed ever nearer; if Beneš did all that Runciman asked of him, and more, Great Britain would be saddled with the moral obligation to support Czechoslovakia in the ensuring crisis. To avert this consequence, Runciman, far from urging Beneš on, had to preach delay. Beneš did not allow him to escape".[22] On 4 September 1938, Beneš presented the "Fourth Plan", which, had it happened, would have come very close to turning Czechoslovakia into a federation, and would have given the Sudetenland widespread autonomy. Henlein rejected the Fourth Plan and instead launched a revolt in the Sudetenland, which soon failed. On 12 September 1938, in his keynote speech at the Nuremberg party rally, Adolf Hitler demanded the Sudetenland join Germany. On 30 September 1938, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom signed the Munich Agreement, which allowed for the annexation and military occupation of the Sudetenland by Germany. Czechoslovakia was not consulted. Beneš agreed, despite opposition from within his country, after France and the United Kingdom warned that they would remain neutral, despite their previous promises, in a war between Germany and Czechoslovakia.[23] Beneš was forced to resign on 5 October 1938, under German pressure,[23] and was replaced by Emil Hácha. In March 1939, German troops marched into what remained of Czechoslovakia, which they declared a protectorate of Nazi Germany and detached Slovakia as a puppet state, thereby completing the German occupation of Czechoslovakia which would last until 1945. Wartime exile in BritainSee also: German occupation of Czechoslovakia and United Kingdom home front during World War II Beneš posing with members of the Czechoslovak Air Force, recently returned to the United Kingdom from the Middle East.On 22 October 1938, Beneš went into exile in Putney, London. Czechoslovakia's intelligence service headed by František Moravec was still loyal to Beneš, which gave him a valuable bargaining chip in his dealings with the British as Paul Thümmel, a highly ranking officer of the Abwehr, Germany's military intelligence, was still selling information to Moravec's group.[24] In July 1939, Beneš realising that "information is power", started to share with the British some of the intelligence provided by "Agent A-54" as Thümmel was code-named.[24] As the British lacked any spies in Germany comparable to Agent A-54, the British were intensely interested in the intelligence provided by him, which Beneš used to bargain with in dealings with the British.[24] By July 1939, the Danzig crisis had pushed Britain to the brink of war with Germany, and British decision-makers were keenly interested in any high-level intelligence about Germany.[24] In the summer of 1939, Beneš hoped that the Danzig crisis would end in war, seeing a war with Germany as his only hope of restoring Czechoslovakia.[24] At the same time, Beneš started to have regular lunches with Winston Churchill, at the time only a backbench Conservative MP, and Harold Nicolson, a backbencher National Labour MP who was likewise opposed to the Munich Agreement.[24] Besides his new British friends like Churchill and Nicolson, Beneš also resumed contact with old British friends from World War I such as the historian Robert Seton-Watson and the journalist Henry Wickham Steed, who wrote articles urging the restoration of Czechoslovakia to its pre-Munich Agreement borders.[24] On 23 August 1939, Beneš met Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador to the Court of St. James, to ask for Soviet support. According to Maisky's diary, Beneš told him that he wanted a common frontier between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.[25] Furthermore, Maisky's diary had Beneš saying that if Czechoslovakia were restored, he would cede Ruthenia, whose people Beneš noted were mostly Ukrainian, to the Soviet Union to bring about a common frontier.[25] On the same day, Beneš learned of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. When he confronted Maisky, he was told that war would break out "in two weeks' time", causing Beneš to write: "My overall impression is that the Soviets want war, they have prepared for it conscientiously and they maintain that the war will take place – and that they have reserved some freedom of action for themselves... [The pact was] a rather rough tactic to drive Hitler into war... the Soviets are convinced that the time has come for a final struggle between capitalism, fascism and Nazism and that there will be a world revolution, which they will trigger at an opportune moment when others are exhausted by war ".[26] Maisky would be proven right on 1 September, when Germany invaded Poland, and the British and French both declared war on Germany two days later. Organizing the government-in-exileMain article: Czechoslovak government-in-exileIn October 1939, Beneš organised the Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee, which immediately declared itself the Provisional Government of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France withheld full recognition, though unofficial contacts were permitted.[27] A major issue in wartime Anglo-Czechoslovak relations was the Munich Agreement, which the British still stood by, and which Beneš wanted the British to abrogate.[28] The issue was important because as long the British continued to view the Munich Agreement as being in effect, they recognized the Sudetenland as part of Germany, a British war aim that Beneš naturally objected to. A problem for Beneš during the Phoney War in the winter of 1939–40 was the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain attached much hope to the idea that anti-Nazi conservatives in Germany would persuade the Wehrmacht to overthrow Hitler, and as the anti-Nazi conservatives were adamant that the Sudetenland remain part of Germany, Chamberlain made it clear that Britain was not at war to undo the Munich Agreement.[29] On 22 February 1940 during a secret meeting in Switzerland between Ulrich von Hassell representing the German conservatives and James Lonsdale-Bryans representing Great Britain, the former told the latter there was no possibility of a post-Nazi Germany ever agreeing to return the Sudetenland.[30] In 1939 and 1940, Chamberlain repeatedly made public statements that Britain was willing to make an "honorable peace" with a post-Nazi Germany, which meant the Sudetenland would remain within the Reich.[29] Beneš with his insistence on restoring Czechoslovakia to its pre-Munich borders was seen by Chamberlain as an obstacle that was standing in the way of his hope that the Wehrmacht would depose Hitler. After the Dunkirk evacuation, Britain was faced with a German invasion while the British Army had lost most of its equipment, which it had to abandon at Dunkirk. At the same time, 500 Czechoslovak airmen had arrived in Britain together with half of a division, which Beneš called his "last and most impressive argument" for diplomatic recognition.[27] On 21 July 1940, the United Kingdom recognised the National Liberation Committee as being the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, with Jan Šrámek as prime minister and Beneš as president.[27] In reclaiming the presidency, Beneš took the line that his 1938 resignation had been under duress and so was void. The intelligence provided by Agent A-54 was greatly valued by MI6, the British intelligence service, and Beneš used it to improve his bargaining position, telling the British he would share more intelligence from Agent A-54 in return for concessions to his government-in-exile.[31] As part of his efforts to improve his bargaining position, Beneš often exaggerated to the British the efficiency of Moravec's group, the Czechoslovak army in exile and the underground UVOD resistance group.[31] Besides Agent A-54, the Prime Minister of the Czech government under the Protectorate, General Alois Eliáš, was in contact with Moravec's agents. Beneš's efforts paid off as he was invited to lunch, first at 10 Downing Street by Churchill (who was now Prime Minister), and then by King George VI at Buckingham Palace.[31] In September 1940, MI6 set up a communications center in Surrey for Czechoslovak intelligence and in October 1940 a Victorian mansion at Leamington Spa was given to the Czechoslovak brigade under General Miroslav.[31] At the same time, Moravec's group began to work with the Special Operations Executive (SOE) to plan resistance in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, through the distance between Britain and the Protectorate made it difficult for the SOE to parachute in agents.[31] In November 1940, in the wake of the London Blitz, Beneš, his wife, their nieces and his household staff moved to The Abbey at Aston Abbotts, near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. The staff of his private office, including his secretary, Eduard Táborský (cs), and his chief of staff, Jaromír Smutný (cs), moved to the Old Manor House in the neighbouring village of Wingrave, and his military intelligence staff, headed by František Moravec, was stationed in the nearby village of Addington. Operation Barbarossa beginsBeneš's relations with the Polish government-in-exile headed by General Władysław Sikorski were difficult due to the Teschen dispute, as General Sikorski insisted on claiming the region for Poland, while Beneš argued that it should return to Czechoslovakia when the war was over.[32] However, Beneš felt a Polish-Czechoslovak alliance was needed to counter Germany in the post-war world, and came around to the idea of a Polish-Czechoslovak federation as the best way of squaring the circle caused by the Teschen dispute.[32] In November 1940, Beneš and Sikorski signed an agreement in principle calling for federation, through Beneš's insistence that the Slovaks were not a nation and Slovakia would not be a full member of the federation caused much tension between himself and Slovak members of the government-in-exile.[32] However, after Operation Barbarossa brought the Soviet Union into the war in June 1941, Beneš started to lose interest in the project, through a detailed agreement for the proposed federation was worked out and signed in January 1942.[32] The Russophile Beneš always felt more comfortable with dealing with Russians rather than the Poles, whose behavior in September 1938 was a source of much resentment to Beneš.[32] The promise from the Narkomindel that the Soviet Union supported returning Teschen to Czechoslovakia negated the whole purpose of the proposed federation for Beneš.[32] On 22 June 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union. President Emil Hacha of the puppet government serving under the Protectorate praised Hitler in a statement for launching the "crusade against Bolshevism" and urged Czech workers to work even harder for a German victory, observing that much of the material used by the Wehrmacht was manufactured in the Protectorate.[33] Through Moravec, Beneš sent word to both General Eliáš and Hacha that they should resign rather than give comfort to the enemy, stating his belief that the Soviet Union would inevitably defeat Germany and thus would have a decisive role in the affairs of Eastern Europe after the war.[33] Moreover, Beneš charged that if the most of the resistance work in the Protectorate were done by the Czech communists that would give them "a pretext to take over power on the basis of the justified reproach that we helped Hitler".[33] During the war Beneš told Ehrenburg, the Soviet writer: “The only salvation lies in a close alliance with your country. The Czechs may have different political opinions, but on one point we can be sure. The Soviet Union will not only liberate us from the Germans. It will also allow us to live without constant fear of the future.”[34][35] On 18 July 1941, the Soviet Union recognized Beneš's government-in-exile, promised non-interference in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia, allowed the government-in-exile to raise an army to fight alongside the Red Army on the Eastern Front; and recognized the borders of Czechoslovakia as those before the Munich Agreement.[33] The last was the most important to Beneš, as the British government still maintained that the Munich Agreement was in effect and regarded the Sudetenland as part of Germany.[33] Even the United States (which was neutral) very tentatively regarded the government-in-exile as only a "provisional" government and rather vaguely stated the borders of Czechoslovakia were to be determined after the war, implying the Sudetenland might remain part of Germany.[33] Working with the Czech resistanceSee also: Resistance in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and Operation AnthropoidDuring the summer and fall of 1941, Beneš came under increasing pressure from the Allies to have the Czechs play a greater role in resistance work.[36] The Narkomindel informed Beneš that the Soviets were disappointed that there was so little sabotage going on in the factories of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which were such an important source of arms and other material for the Wehrmacht.[36] Likewise, the British started to demand that the Czechs do more resistance work.[36] Moravec after meeting the MI6's Director, Stewart Menzies, told Beneš that the British viewpoint was that when the United Kingdom was fighting for its life that "placing violets at the grave of the unknown soldier was simply not good enough".[36] Making matters worse for Beneš was in late September 1941 that Reinhard Heydrich, who effectively taken over the Protectorate, launched a major crackdown on resistance.[37] The Prime Minister, General Eliáš, was arrested on 27 September 1941 on Heydrich's orders; martial law was proclaimed in the Protectorate; thousands were arrested and executed including two prominent leaders of the UVOD resistance group, Josef Bílý (cs) and Hugo Vojta (cs) who were arrested and shot without trial.[37] On 5 October 1941, the lines of communication between the UVOD group and London were severed when the Gestapo, during the course of its raids, seized various radios and the codes for communicating with London.[37] At the same time, the Gestapo also learned of the existence of Agent A-54 and after an investigation arrested Thümmel, depriving Beneš of one of his most valuable bargaining chips.[37] Faced with this situation when the Allies were demanding more Czech resistance at the same time that Heydrich had launching a crackdown that was weakening the resistance, Beneš decided in October 1941 on a spectacular act of resistance that would prove to the world that the Czechs were still resisting.[38] Edvard Beneš (right) gives medals to soldiers, including the later Operation Anthropoid assassins Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš, 1940.In 1941, Beneš and František Moravec planned Operation Anthropoid to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich,[39] a high-ranking German official who was responsible for suppressing Czech culture, and for deporting and executing members of the Czech resistance. Beneš felt his dealings with the Allies, especially his campaign to persuade the British to nullify the Munich Agreement, was being weakened by the lack of any visible resistance in the Protectorate.[40] Beneš decided that assassinating Heydrich was the best way to improve his bargaining position, and it was largely he who pressed for Operation Anthropoid.[41] Upon learning of the nature of the mission, resistance leaders begged the Czechoslovak government-in-exile to call off the attack, saying that "An attempt against Heydrich's life... would be of no use to the Allies and its consequences for our people would be immeasurable."[42] Beneš personally broadcast a message insisting that the attack go forwards,[42] although he denied any involvement after the war.[43] Historian Vojtěch Mastný argues that he "clung to the scheme as the last resort to dramatize Czech resistance."[43] The 1942 assassination resulted in brutal German reprisals such as the execution of thousands of Czechs and the eradication of two villages: Lidice and Ležáky. Britain rejects the Munich AgreementIn 1942, Beneš finally persuaded the Foreign Office to issue a statement saying Britain had revoked the Munich Agreement and supported the return of the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia.[28] Beneš saw the statement by the Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, to the House of Commons on 5 August 1942 revoking the Munich Agreement as a diplomatic triumph for himself.[27] Beneš had been greatly embittered by the behavior of the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland in 1938, which he viewed as treasonous, and during his exile in London had decided that when Czechoslovakia was reestablished, he was going to expel all of the Sudeten Germans into Germany.[28] During his exile, Beneš had come to obsessively brood over the behavior of the Sudetenlanders and had reached the conclusion that they were all collectively guilty of treason.[32] In 1942, he stated the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1922–23 was his model for solving the problem of the Sudetenland, though unlike the Greek-Turkish population exchange, he proposed financial compensation to be paid to the Sudeten Germans expelled into Germany.[44] Although not a Communist, Beneš was also on friendly terms with Joseph Stalin. Believing that Czechoslovakia had more to gain from an alliance with the Soviet Union than one with Poland, he torpedoed plans for a Polish–Czechoslovak confederation and in 1943, he signed an entente with the Soviets.[45][46][47] During his visit to Moscow to sign the alliance, Beneš complained about the "feudal" systems existing in Poland and Hungary, charging that unlike Czechoslovakia, which after World War I had broken up the estates owned mostly by ethnic Germans and Hungarians, the majority of the land in Poland and Hungary was still owned by the nobility, which he claimed was the source of political and economic backwardness in both nations.[48] Speaking of Hungary, Beneš told Stalin: "The British and Americans are beginning to understand it. But they are afraid that the revolution in Hungary might be like the one after the last war-Bela Kun and all that. That's why the occupation of Hungary is so important. I think that it is important also that you, not only the British and the Americans share in it. I can imagine what would happen if the British alone were there. The Hungarian aristocrats take them out for weekends and for hunting, tell them stories about how their democracy is the oldest in Europe about their parliament. All that is lies, but the British would be impressed".[48] Beneš believed in the ideal of "convergence" between the Soviet Union and the western nations, arguing that based on what he was seeing in wartime Britain that the western nations would become more socialist after the war while at same time that wartime liberalising reforms in the Soviet Union meant the Soviet system would be more "western" after the war.[32] Beneš hoped and believed that the wartime alliance of the "Big Three" of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States would continue after the war, with the "Big Three" co-operating in an international system that would hold Germany in check.[32] Through Beneš did not attend the Tehran Conference himself, the news of the mood of harmony that prevailed among the American, Soviet and British delegations at Tehran certainly gave him hope that the Big Three alliance would continue after the war.[49] Beneš saw the role of Czechoslovakia and his own role as being that of a mediator between the Big Three.[50] The fact that his old friend Churchill took him into his confidence concerning the post-war borders of Poland boosted Beneš's own perception of himself as an important diplomat, settling the disputes of Eastern Europe.[51] After talking to Beneš for four hours on 4 January 1944 about Poland's post-war borders, Churchill cabled to American President Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Beneš may be most useful in trying to make the Poles see reason and in reconciling them to the Russians, whose confidence he has long possessed".[51] Second presidency Beneš returning to Prague after the Prague uprising, 16 May 1945.In April 1945, Beneš flew from London to Košice in eastern Slovakia, which had been taken by the Red Army and which became the temporary capital of Czechoslovakia.[52] Upon arriving, Beneš announced a coalition government had been formed called the National Front, with the Communist Party leader Klement Gottwald as prime minister.[53] Besides Gottwald, communists were named as ministers of defence, the interior, education, information, and agriculture.[53] The most important non-Communist minister was the foreign minister, Jan Masaryk, the long-term Czechoslovak minister in London.[53] Besides the Communists, the other parties in the National Front government were the Social Democratic Party, Beneš own National Socialist Party (no relation to Hitler's National Socialists), the People's Party and the Slovak Democratic Party.[53] Beneš also announced the Košice programme, which declared that Czechoslovakia was now to be a state of Czechs and Slovaks with the German minority in the Sudetenland and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia to be expelled; there was to be a degree of decentralization with the Slovaks to have their own National Council, but no federation; capitalism was to continue, but the "commanding heights" of the economy were to be controlled by the state; and finally Czechoslovakia was to pursue a pro-Soviet foreign policy.[54] Role in the Prague uprisingMain article: Prague uprisingDuring the Prague uprising, which started on 5 May 1945, the city was surrounded by Wehrmacht and SS units, the latter in a vengeful mood. The Czech resistance appealed to the First Division of the German-sponsored Russian Liberation Army commanded by General Sergei Bunyachenko to switch sides, promising them that they be granted asylum in Czechoslovakia and would not be repatriated to the Soviet Union, where they faced execution for treason for fighting for Germany.[55] As the Czech resistance lacked heavy arms such as tanks and artillery, the 1st Division was badly needed to help hold Prague. General Buynachenko and his 1st Division defected to the Allied side, where it played a key role in holding off the German forces intent on retaking Prague and prevented the SS from massacring the people of Prague.[55] However, when General Buyachenko learned on 7 May that he and his men would not be offered asylum after all, the 1st Division abandoned Prague in order to surrender to the American 3rd Army. Despite the promise that the men of 1st Division would be granted asylum, Beneš instead repatriated the 1st Division, and the rest of the ROA men in Czechoslovakia who were captured by his government, to the Soviet Union.[55] Return to PragueAfter the Prague uprising at the end of World War II, Beneš returned home and resumed his former position as President. Article 58.5 of the Constitution said, "The former president shall stay in his or her function till the new president shall be elected". He was unanimously confirmed in office by the Interim National Assembly on 28 October 1945. In December 1945, all of the Red Army forces left Czechoslovakia.[52] On 19 June 1946, Beneš was formally elected to his second term as President.[56] Beneš presided over a coalition government, the National Front, from 1946 headed by Communist Party leader Klement Gottwald as prime minister. In the elections of May 1946, the Communists won 38% of the vote with the Czech National Socialists winning 18%, the People's Party 16%, the Slovak Democrats 14% and the Social Democrats 13%.[53] Until the summer of 1947, Czechoslovakia had what the British historian Richard J. Crampton called "a period of relative tranquility" with democracy reestablished, and institutions such as the media, opposition parties, the churches, the Sokols, and the Legionnaire veteran associations all existing outside of state control.[53] In July 1947, both Beneš and Gottwald had decided to accept Marshall Plan aid, only for the Kremlin to inform Gottwald to do an U-turn on the question of accepting the Marshall Plan.[57] When Beneš visited Moscow, the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov quite brutally informed him that the Kremlin regarded accepting Marshall Plan aid as a violation of the 1943 alliance, causing Beneš on his return to Prague to speak of a "second Munich", saying it was not acceptable for the Soviet Union to veto decisions made by Czechoslovakia.[57] The volte-face on the issue of the Marshall Plan did much damage to the image of the Czechoslovak Communists, and public opinion started to turn against them.[58] A public opinion poll showed that only 25% of the voters planned to vote Communist after the rejection of the Marshall Plan.[58] In September 1947, the Communist-dominated police in Slovakia announced the discovery of an alleged separatist plot led by the followers of Father Tiso who were allegedly infiltrating the Slovak Democrats, but by November 1947, the supposed plot was revealed as a canard, with the media exposing the evidence for it as being manufactured by the police.[58] The scandal in Slovakia led to demands by the other parties of the National Front that the police be depoliticised.[58] During this time, Beneš had become increasingly disillusioned with the Communists, telling his ambassador in Belgrade to report to him personally as there were so many Communist agents both in the Czechoslovak embassy in Belgrade and in his own office that there it was the only way of ensuring secrecy.[59] Expulsion of the Sudeten GermansMain article: Expulsion of Germans from CzechoslovakiaBeneš was strongly opposed to the presence of Germans in the liberated republic[citation needed]. Believing that vigilante justice would be less divisive than trials, upon his arrival in Prague on May 10, he called for the "liquidation of Germans and Hungarians"[citation needed] in the "interest of a united national state of Czechs and Slovaks."[60] As part of the Košice programme, Germans in the Sudetenland and Hungarians in Slovakia were to be expelled[citation needed]. The Beneš decrees (officially called "Decrees of the President of the Republic"), among other things, expropriated the property of citizens of German and Hungarian ethnicity and facilitated Article 12 of the Potsdam Agreement by laying down a national legal framework for the loss of citizenship[citation needed] and the expropriation of about three million Germans and Hungarians. However, Beneš's plans for expelling the Hungarian minority from Slovakia caused tensions with Hungary, whose coalition government was likewise leaning towards the Soviet Union, and ultimately objections from Moscow ended the expulsion of the Hungarians shortly after it had begun. [52] In contrast, the Soviets had no objections to the expulsions of the Sudeten Germans, and the Czechoslovak authorities continued to expel the Sudeten Germans pursuant to the Potsdam Agreement until the Sudetenland had no more Germans.[52] On 15 March 1946, SS Obergruppenführer Karl Hermann Frank went on trial in Prague for war crimes.[61] Beneš ensured that Frank's trial received maximum publicity[citation needed], being broadcast live on state radio, and statements from Frank's interrogations being leaked to the press.[61] On the stand, Frank remained a defiant Nazi, snarling insults at his Czech prosecutors, saying the Czechs were still Untermenschen ("sub-humans") as far he was concerned, and only expressing regret that he did not kill more Czechs when he had the chance. After Frank's conviction, he was publicly hanged before thousands of cheering people outside of Pankrác Prison on 22 May 1946.[61] As Frank was a Sudeten German, the political purpose of his trial was to symbolize to the world what Beneš called the "collective criminality" of the Sudeten Germans[citation needed], which thus justified their expulsions.[61] The historian Mary Heimann wrote that though Frank was indeed guilty of war crimes and treason, his trial was used for a political purpose[citation needed], namely to illustrate the collective criminality of the Sudeten Germans to the world.[61] Communist coup of 1948Main article: 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état Communist Party leader Klement Gottwald, whose coup ousted Beneš for the second time.On 12 February 1948, the non-Communist ministers threatened to resign unless the "packing" of the police by the Communist interior minister, Václav Nosek (cs), stopped at once.[58] The Communists set up "action committees", whom Nosek ordered the civil servants to take their orders from.[59] Nosek also illegally had arms issued to the action committees.[59] On 20 February, the Communists formed the "people's militia" of 15,000.[59] On 21 February 1948, 12 non-Communist ministers resigned to protest Gottwald's refusal to stop the packing of the police with Communists despite the majority of the Cabinet having ordered it to end.[58] The non-Communists believed that Beneš would side with them to allow them to stay in office as a caretaker government until new elections. Beneš initially refused to accept their resignations and insisted that no government could be formed without the non-Communist parties. However, Gottwald had by this time dropped all pretense of working within the system. He threatened a general strike unless Beneš appointed a Communist-dominated government. The Communists also occupied the offices of the non-Communists who had resigned. Faced with the crisis, Beneš hesitated and sought more time.[59] On 22 February, a large parade by the Communist action committees took place in Prague, and ended with the people's militia attacking the offices of opposition parties and the Sokols.[59] Amid fears that civil war was imminent and rumours that the Red Army would sweep in to back Gottwald, Beneš gave way. On 25 February, he accepted the resignations of the non-Communist ministers and appointed a new Communist-dominated government in accordance with Gottwald's specifications.[59] The non-Communist parties were still nominally represented, so the government was still technically a coalition. However, with the exception of Masaryk, the non-Communist ministers were fellow travelers. In effect, Beneš had given legal sanction to a Communist coup. During the crisis, Beneš failed to rally support as he could have done from the Sokols, the Legionnaire veterans' associations, the churches and many of the university students.[59] Crampton wrote:"In February 1948, Beneš still commanded enormous respect and authority", and if he used his moral prestige, he could have rallied public opinion against the Communists.[62] However, Beneš still saw Germany as the main danger to Czechoslovakia and ultimately believed that Czechoslovakia needed the alliance with the Soviet Union more than the other way around, and as such Prague could never afford a lasting rift with Moscow.[59] Finally, Beneš was a deeply ill man in February 1948, suffering from high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis and spinal tuberculosis, and his poor health contributed to the lack of fight in him.[62] Shortly afterward, elections were held in which voters were presented with a single list from the National Front, now a Communist-dominated organization. On 12 March 1948, professor Václav Černý visited Beneš at his villa at Sezimovo Usti, where the president spoke in such violent and vulgar language against Stalin, whom he accused of using him, that Černý did not bother writing down what he was saying under the grounds that it was unpublishable.[63] The newly elected National Assembly approved the Ninth-of-May Constitution shortly after it had been sworn in. Although it was not a completely Communist document, it was close enough to the Soviet Constitution that Beneš refused to sign it. He resigned as President on 7 June 1948, and Gottwald took over most presidential functions until being elected his successor a week later.[62] On 14 August 1948, the Soviet and Czechoslovak media launched a campaign of vilification against Beneš, accusing him of being an enemy of the Soviet Union and claimed that he refused a Soviet offer of unilateral military assistance in September 1938 because he wanted the Munich Agreement imposed on Czechoslovakia.[64] On his deathbed, Beneš became furious about the claim the Soviet Union had offered to help unilaterally in 1938 with the former presidential chancellor Jaromír Smutný (cs) writing: "He would like to know when, by whom and to whom was the offer made".[64] During the Communist era in Czechoslovakia, Beneš was vilified as a traitor who refused an alleged offer by Stalin to assist Czechoslovakia unilaterally in 1938 because he supposedly wanted the Munich Agreement to be imposed on his country.[65] DeathAlready in poor health after suffering two strokes in 1947, Beneš was an even more broken man after seeing the undoing of his life's work. He died of natural causes at his villa in Sezimovo Ústí on 3 September 1948, just seven months after the end of the liberal democratic government he helped create.[3] He is interred in the garden of his villa, and his bust is part of the gravestone. His wife Hana, who lived until 2 December 1974, is interred next to him. Statue of Beneš in front of the headquarters of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague Edvard Benes blue plaque, 26 Gwendolen Avenue, Putney 26 Gwendolen Avenue, Putney LegacyMuch controversy remains on his character and policy.[66] According to SVR, Beneš had closely co-operated with the Soviet intelligence before the war especially with Soviet agent Pyotr Zubov.[67] Beneš's friend, the British historian A. J. P. Taylor, wrote in 1945: "Beck, Stojadinović, Antonescu, and Bonnet despised Beneš's integrity and prided themselves on their cunning; but their countries, too, fell before the German aggressor, and every step they took has made the resurrection of their countries more difficult. In contrast, the foreign policy of Dr. Beneš during the present war has won Czechoslovakia a secure future".[68] The leaders to whom Taylor were referred were Colonel Jozef Beck, the Polish foreign minister 1932–39 and a leading figure in the Sanation military dictatorship, who at times was willing to flirt with the Third Reich to achieve his goals; Milan Stojadinović, who served as the prime minister of Yugoslavia 1935–39 and who followed a pro-German foreign policy; General Ion Antonescu, the Conducător (dictator) of Romania 1940–44; and Georges Bonnet, the French foreign minister 1938–39, who favored abandoning Eastern Europe to Nazi Germany. Taylor's assessment that Beneš was a man of integrity (unlike Bonnet, Antonescu, Beck and Stojadinović) and that he was leading Czechoslovakia in the right direction was widely shared in 1945.[68] In fictionIn 1933, H. G. Wells wrote The Shape of Things to Come, a prediction of World War II. In Wells' depiction, the war starts in 1940 and drags on until 1950, and Czechoslovakia avoids being occupied by Germany, with Beneš remaining its president throughout the war. Wells assigns to Beneš the role of initiating a ceasefire, and the book, supposedly written in the 22nd century, remarks, "The Beneš Suspension of Hostilities remains in force to this day". In Prague Counterpoint, the second volume of Bodie and Brock Thoene's Zion Covenant Series, Hitler plots to kill Beneš by an assassin, but the assassin is tackled by an American journalist and captured by Beneš's bodyguards. Hitler later uses the execution of the Sudeten assassin to proclaim him a martyr, as a continuing fuse to the Sudeten Crisis.Czechoslovakia, or Czecho-Slovakia[2] (/?t??ko?slo??væki?, -k?-, -sl?-, -?v??-/;[3][4] Czech and Slovak: ?eskoslovensko, ?esko-Slovensko),[5][6] was a sovereign state in Central Europe that existed from October 1918, when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, until its peaceful dissolution into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993. From 1939 to 1945, following its forced division and partial incorporation into Nazi Germany, the state did not de facto exist but its government-in-exile continued to operate. From 1948 to 1990, Czechoslovakia was part of the Eastern Bloc with a command economy. Its economic status was formalized in membership of Comecon from 1949 and its defense status in the Warsaw Pact of May 1955. A period of political liberalization in 1968, known as the Prague Spring, was forcibly ended when the Soviet Union, assisted by several other Warsaw Pact countries, invaded Czechoslovakia. In 1989, as Marxist–Leninist governments and communism were ending all over Europe, Czechoslovaks peacefully deposed their government in the Velvet Revolution; state price controls were removed after a period of preparation. In 1993, Czechoslovakia split into the two sovereign states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Contents1Characteristics2Names3History3.1Origins3.2First Czechoslovak Republic3.2.1Formation3.2.2Ethnicity3.2.3Interwar period3.3Munich Agreement, and Two-Step German Occupation3.4Socialist Czechoslovakia3.5After 19894Government and politics4.1Constitutional development4.2Heads of state and government4.3Foreign policy4.3.1International agreements and membership4.4Administrative divisions5Population and ethnic groups6Economy7Resource base8Transport and communications9Society10Education11Religion12Health, social welfare and housing13Mass media14Sports15Culture16Postage stamps17See also18Notes19References20Sources21Further reading22External linksCharacteristicsForm of state1918–1938: A democratic republic championed by Tomáš Masaryk.1938–1939: After annexation of Sudetenland by Nazi Germany in 1938, the region gradually turned into a state with loosened connections among the Czech, Slovak, and Ruthenian parts. A large strip of southern Slovakia and Carpatho-Ukraine was annexed by Hungary, and the Zaolzie region was annexed by Poland.1939–1945: The region was split into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Slovak Republic. A government-in-exile continued to exist in London, supported by the United Kingdom, United States and their Allies; after the German invasion of Soviet Union, it was also recognized by the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia adhered to the Declaration by United Nations and was a founding member of the United Nations.1946–1948: The country was governed by a coalition government with communist ministers, including the prime minister and the minister of interior. Carpathian Ruthenia was ceded to the Soviet Union.1948–1989: The country became a Marxist-Leninist state under Soviet domination with a command economy. In 1960, the country officially became a socialist republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. It was a satellite state of the Soviet Union.1969–1990: Czechoslovakia formally became a federal republic comprising the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak Socialist Republic. In late 1989, the communist rule came to an end during the Velvet Revolution followed by the re-establishment of a democratic parliamentary republic.1990–1992: Shortly after the Velvet Revolution, the state was renamed the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, consisting of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic (Slovakia) until the peaceful dissolution on January 1, 1993.NeighboursAustria 1918 – 1938, 1945 – 1992Germany (Both predecessors, West Germany and East Germany, were neighbors between 1949 and 1990.)HungaryPolandRomania 1918 – 1938Soviet Union 1945 – 1991Ukraine 1991 – 1992 (Soviet Union member until 1991)TopographyThe country was of generally irregular terrain. The western area was part of the north-central European uplands. The eastern region was composed of the northern reaches of the Carpathian Mountains and lands of the Danube River basin. ClimateThe weather is mild winters and mild summers. Influenced by the Atlantic Ocean from the west, Baltic Sea from the north, and Mediterranean Sea from the south. There is no continental weather. NamesSee also: Hyphen War and Name of the Czech Republic1918–1938: Czechoslovak Republic (abbreviated ?SR), or Czechoslovakia, before the formalization of the name in 1920, also known as Czecho-Slovakia or the Czecho-Slovak state[7]1938–1939: Czecho-Slovak Republic, or Czecho-Slovakia1945–1960: Czechoslovak Republic (?SR), or Czechoslovakia1960–1990: Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (?SSR), or Czechoslovakia1990–1992: Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (?SFR), or CzechoslovakiaHistoryMain articles: History of Czechoslovakia, History of the Czech lands, and History of SlovakiaOriginsMain article: Origins of Czechoslovakia Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, founder and first president Czechoslovak troops in Vladivostok (1918) Czechoslovak declaration of independence rally in Prague on Wenceslas Square, 28 October 1918The area was long a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until the empire collapsed at the end of World War I. The new state was founded by Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk[8] (1850–1937), who served as its first president from 14 November 1918 to 14 December 1935. He was succeeded by his close ally, Edvard Beneš (1884–1948). The roots of Czech nationalism go back to the 19th century, when philologists and educators, influenced by Romanticism, promoted the Czech language and pride in the Czech people. Nationalism became a mass movement in the second half of the 19th century. Taking advantage of the limited opportunities for participation in political life under Austrian rule, Czech leaders such as historian František Palacký (1798–1876) founded many patriotic, self-help organizations which provided a chance for many of their compatriots to participate in communal life prior to independence. Palacký supported Austro-Slavism and worked for a reorganized and federal Austrian Empire, which would protect the Slavic speaking peoples of Central Europe against Russian and German threats. An advocate of democratic reform and Czech autonomy within Austria-Hungary, Masaryk was elected twice to the Reichsrat (Austrian Parliament), first from 1891 to 1893 for the Young Czech Party, and again from 1907 to 1914 for the Czech Realist Party, which he had founded in 1889 with Karel Kramá? and Josef Kaizl. During World War I small numbers of Czechs and Slovaks, the Czechoslovak Legions, fought with the Allies in France and Italy, while large numbers deserted to Russia in exchange for its support for the independence of Czechoslovakia from the Austrian Empire.[9] With the outbreak of World War I, Masaryk began working for Czech independence in a union with Slovakia. With Edvard Beneš and Milan Rastislav Štefánik, Masaryk visited several Western countries and won support from influential publicists.[10] First Czechoslovak RepublicMain article: First Czechoslovak RepublicFormation Czechoslovakia in 1928The Bohemian Kingdom ceased to exist in 1918 when it was incorporated into Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was founded in October 1918, as one of the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I and as part of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. It consisted of the present day territories of Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. Its territory included some of the most industrialized regions of the former Austria-Hungary. EthnicitySee also: Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia Linguistic map of Czechoslovakia in 1930The new country was a multi-ethnic state, with Czechs and Slovaks as constituent peoples. The population consisted of Czechs (51%), Slovaks (16%), Germans (22%), Hungarians (5%) and Rusyns (4%).[11] Many of the Germans, Hungarians, Ruthenians and Poles[12] and some Slovaks, felt oppressed because the political elite did not generally allow political autonomy for minority ethnic groups.[citation needed] This policy led to unrest among the non-Czech population, particularly in German-speaking Sudetenland, which initially had proclaimed itself part of the Republic of German-Austria in accordance with the self-determination principle. The state proclaimed the official ideology that there were no separate Czech and Slovak nations, but only one nation of Czechoslovaks (see Czechoslovakism), to the disagreement of Slovaks and other ethnic groups. Once a unified Czechoslovakia was restored after World War II (after the country had been divided during the war), the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks surfaced again. The governments of Czechoslovakia and other eastern European nations deported ethnic Germans to the West, reducing the presence of minorities in the nation. Most of the Jews had been killed during the war by the Nazis and their allies. Ethnicities of Czechoslovakia in 1921[13] Czechoslovaks8,759,70164.37%Germans3,123,30522.95%Hungarians744,6215.47%Ruthenians461,4493.39%Jews180,5341.33%Poles75,8520.56%Others23,1390.17%Foreigners238,7841.75%Total population13,607,385Ethnicities of Czechoslovakia in 1930[14] Czechoslovaks10,066,00068.35%Germans3,229,00021.93%Ruthenians745,0005.06%Hungarians653,0004.43%Jews*354,0002.40%Poles76,0000.52%Romanians14,0000.10%Foreigners239,0001.62%Total population14,726,158*Jews identified themselves as Germans or Hungarians (and Jews only by religion not ethnicity), the sum is, therefore, more than 100%. Interwar periodDuring the period between the two world wars, democracy thrived in Czechoslovakia. Of all the new states established in central Europe after 1918, only Czechoslovakia preserved a democratic government until the war broke out. Thus, despite regional disparities, its level of development was much higher than that of neighboring states.[citation needed] The population was generally literate, and contained fewer alienated groups. The influence of these conditions was augmented by the political values of Czechoslovakia's leaders and the policies they adopted. Under Tomas Masaryk, Czech and Slovak politicians promoted progressive social and economic conditions that served to defuse discontent. Foreign minister Beneš became the prime architect of the Czechoslovak-Romanian-Yugoslav alliance (the "Little Entente", 1921–38) directed against Hungarian attempts to reclaim lost areas. Beneš worked closely with France. Far more dangerous was the German element, which after 1933 became allied with the Nazis in Germany. The increasing feeling of inferiority among the Slovaks,[15] who were hostile to the more numerous Czechs, weakened the country in the late 1930s. Many Slovaks supported an extreme nationalist movement and welcomed the puppet Slovak state set up under Hitler's control in 1939.[citation needed] After 1933, Czechoslovakia remained the only democracy in central and eastern Europe.[16] Munich Agreement, and Two-Step German OccupationMain article: German occupation of Czechoslovakia The partition of Czechoslovakia after Munich Agreement The car in which Reinhard Heydrich was killed Territory of the Second Czechoslovak Republic (1938–1939)In September 1938, Adolf Hitler demanded control of the Sudetenland. On 29 September 1938, Britain and France ceded control in the Appeasement at the Munich Conference; France ignored the military alliance it had with Czechoslovakia. During October 1938, Nazi Germany occupied and annexed the Sudetenland border region, effectively crippling Czechoslovak defences. On 15 March 1939, the remainder ("rump") of Czechoslovakia was invaded and divided into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the puppet Slovak State. Much of Slovakia and all of Carpathian Ruthenia were annexed by Hungary. Poland occupied Zaolzie, an area whose population was majority Polish, in October 1938. The eventual goal of the German state under Nazi leadership was to eradicate Czech nationality through assimilation, deportation, and extermination of the Czech intelligentsia; the intellectual elites and middle class made up a considerable number of the 200,000 people who passed through concentration camps and the 250,000 who died during German occupation.[17] Under Generalplan Ost, it was assumed that around 50% Czechs would be fit for Germanization. The Czech intellectual elites were to be removed not only from Czech territories but from Europe completely. The authors of Generalplan Ost believed it would be best if they emigrated overseas, as even in Siberia they were considered a threat to German rule. Just like Jews, Poles, Serbs, and several other nations, Czechs were considered to be untermenschen by the Nazi state.[18] In 1940, in a secret Nazi plan for the Germanization of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia it was declared that those considered to be of racially Mongoloid origin and the Czech intelligentsia were not to be Germanized.[19] The deportation of Jews to concentration camps was organized under the direction of Reinhard Heydrich, and the fortress town of Terezín was made into a ghetto way station for Jewish families. On 4 June 1942 Heydrich died after being wounded by an assassin in Operation Anthropoid. Heydrich's successor, Colonel General Kurt Daluege, ordered mass arrests and executions and the destruction of the villages of Lidice and Ležáky. In 1943 the German war effort was accelerated. Under the authority of Karl Hermann Frank, German minister of state for Bohemia and Moravia, some 350,000 Czech laborers were dispatched to the Reich. Within the protectorate, all non-war-related industry was prohibited. Most of the Czech population obeyed quiescently up until the final months preceding the end of the war, while thousands were involved in the resistance movement. For the Czechs of the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, German occupation was a period of brutal oppression. Czech losses resulting from political persecution and deaths in concentration camps totaled between 36,000 and 55,000. The Jewish population of Bohemia and Moravia (118,000 according to the 1930 census) was virtually annihilated. Many Jews emigrated after 1939; more than 70,000 were killed; 8,000 survived at Terezín. Several thousand Jews managed to live in freedom or in hiding throughout the occupation. Despite the estimated 136,000 deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime, the population in the Reichsprotektorate saw a net increase during the war years of approximately 250,000 in line with an increased birth rate.[20] On 6 May 1945, the third US Army of General Patton entered Pilsen from the south west. On 9 May 1945, Soviet Red Army troops entered Prague. Socialist CzechoslovakiaMain articles: History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Socialist coat of arms in 1960–1990After World War II, pre-war Czechoslovakia was re-established, with the exception of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, which was annexed by the Soviet Union and incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Beneš decrees were promulgated concerning ethnic Germans (see Potsdam Agreement) and ethnic Hungarians. Under the decrees, citizenship was abrogated for people of German and Hungarian ethnic origin who had accepted German or Hungarian citizenship during the occupations. In 1948, this provision was cancelled for the Hungarians, but only partially for the Germans. The government then confiscated the property of the Germans and expelled about 90% of the ethnic German population, over 2 million people. Those who remained were collectively accused of supporting the Nazis after the Munich Agreement, as 97.32% of Sudeten Germans had voted for the NSDAP in the December 1938 elections. Almost every decree explicitly stated that the sanctions did not apply to antifascists. Some 250,000 Germans, many married to Czechs, some antifascists, and also those required for the post-war reconstruction of the country, remained in Czechoslovakia. The Beneš Decrees still cause controversy among nationalist groups in the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria and Hungary.[21] Spartakiad in 1960Carpathian Ruthenia (Podkarpatská Rus) was occupied by (and in June 1945 formally ceded to) the Soviet Union. In the 1946 parliamentary election, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was the winner in the Czech lands, and the Democratic Party won in Slovakia. In February 1948 the Communists seized power. Although they would maintain the fiction of political pluralism through the existence of the National Front, except for a short period in the late 1960s (the Prague Spring) the country had no liberal democracy. Since citizens lacked significant electoral methods of registering protest against government policies, periodically there were street protests that became violent. For example, there were riots in the town of Plze? in 1953, reflecting economic discontent. Police and army units put down the rebellion, and hundreds were injured but no one was killed. While its economy remained more advanced than those of its neighbors in Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia grew increasingly economically weak relative to Western Europe. The currency reform of 1953 caused dissatisfaction among Czechoslovak laborers. Prior to World War II, the Czech purchasing power surpassed that of the Soviet Union by 115-144%. This disparity was noted after Czechoslovakia came under the Soviet Bloc. To equalize the wage rate, Czechoslovaks had to turn in their old money for new at a decreased value. This lowered the real value of wages by about 11%.[22] The banks also confiscated savings and bank deposits to control the amount of money in circulation. The economy continued to suffer as production achievements of bituminous coal was less than anticipated. Bituminous coal powered 85% of Czechoslovakia's economy. Because of low production, coal was utilized in industry only. Pre-war years, consumers used both coal and lignite for fuel, however due to low production, coal was for industrial use only which meant the consumer was only able to utilize lignite. In 1929, a typical family of four consumed approximately 2.34 tons of lignite, but by 1953 it was allowed to use only 1.6-1.8 tons per year.[22] Czechoslovakia after 1969In 1968, when the reformer Alexander Dub?ek was appointed to the key post of First Secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, there was a brief period of liberalization known as the Prague Spring. In response, after failing to persuade the Czechoslovak leaders to change course, five other members of the Warsaw Pact invaded. Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia on the night of 20–21 August 1968.[23] Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev viewed this intervention as vital for the preservation of the Soviet, socialist system and vowed to intervene in any state that sought to replace Marxism-Leninism with capitalism.[24] In the week after the invasion there was a spontaneous campaign of civil resistance against the occupation. This resistance involved a wide range of acts of non-cooperation and defiance: this was followed by a period in which the Czechoslovak Communist Party leadership, having been forced in Moscow to make concessions to the Soviet Union, gradually put the brakes on their earlier liberal policies.[25] In April 1969 Dub?ek was finally dismissed from the First Secretaryship of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. Meanwhile, one plank of the reform program had been carried out: in 1968–69, Czechoslovakia was turned into a federation of the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic. The theory was that under the federation, social and economic inequities between the Czech and Slovak halves of the state would be largely eliminated. A number of ministries, such as education, now became two formally equal bodies in the two formally equal republics. However, the centralized political control by the Czechoslovak Communist Party severely limited the effects of federalization. The 1970s saw the rise of the dissident movement in Czechoslovakia, represented among others by Václav Havel. The movement sought greater political participation and expression in the face of official disapproval, manifested in limitations on work activities, which went as far as a ban on professional employment, the refusal of higher education for the dissidents' children, police harassment and prison. After 1989Main article: History of Czechoslovakia (1989–1992) The Visegrád Group signing ceremony in February 1991In 1989, the Velvet Revolution restored democracy. This occurred at around the same time as the fall of communism in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland. The word "socialist" was removed from the country's full name on 29 March 1990 and replaced by "federal". In 1992, because of growing nationalist tensions in the government, Czechoslovakia was peacefully dissolved by parliament. On 1 January 1993 it formally separated into two independent countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Government and politicsMain articles: History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) and Politics of Communist CzechoslovakiaAfter World War II, a political monopoly was held by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KS?). Gustáv Husák was elected first secretary of the KS? in 1969 (changed to general secretary in 1971) and president of Czechoslovakia in 1975. Other parties and organizations existed but functioned in subordinate roles to the KS?. All political parties, as well as numerous mass organizations, were grouped under umbrella of the National Front. Human rights activists and religious activists were severely repressed. Constitutional developmentMain article: Constitutional Court of Czechoslovakia Federative coat of arms in 1990–1992Czechoslovakia had the following constitutions during its history (1918–1992): Temporary constitution of 14 November 1918 (democratic): see History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938)The 1920 constitution (The Constitutional Document of the Czechoslovak Republic), democratic, in force until 1948, several amendmentsThe Communist 1948 Ninth-of-May ConstitutionThe Communist 1960 Constitution of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic with major amendments in 1968 (Constitutional Law of Federation), 1971, 1975, 1978, and 1989 (at which point the leading role of the Communist Party was abolished). It was amended several more times during 1990–1992 (for example, 1990, name change to Czecho-Slovakia, 1991 incorporation of the human rights charter)Heads of state and governmentSee also: Leaders of the Communist Party of CzechoslovakiaList of presidents of CzechoslovakiaList of Prime Ministers of CzechoslovakiaForeign policyInternational agreements and membershipIn the 1930s, the nation formed a military alliance with France, which collapsed in the Munich Agreement of 1938. After World War II, active participant in Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), Warsaw Pact, United Nations and its specialized agencies; signatory of conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.[26] Administrative divisionsMain article: Administrative divisions of Czechoslovakia1918–1923: Different systems in former Austrian territory (Bohemia, Moravia, a small part of Silesia) compared to former Hungarian territory (Slovakia and Ruthenia): three lands (zem?) (also called district units (kraje)): Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, plus 21 counties (župy) in today's Slovakia and three counties in today's Ruthenia; both lands and counties were divided into districts (okresy).1923–1927: As above, except that the Slovak and Ruthenian counties were replaced by six (grand) counties ((ve?)župy) in Slovakia and one (grand) county in Ruthenia, and the numbers and boundaries of the okresy were changed in those two territories.1928–1938: Four lands (Czech: zem?, Slovak: krajiny): Bohemia, Moravia-Silesia, Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, divided into districts (okresy).Late 1938 – March 1939: As above, but Slovakia and Ruthenia gained the status of "autonomous lands". Slovakia was called Slovenský štát, with its own currency and government.1945–1948: As in 1928–1938, except that Ruthenia became part of the Soviet Union.1949–1960: 19 regions (kraje) divided into 270 okresy.1960–1992: 10 kraje, Prague, and (from 1970) Bratislava (capital of Slovakia); these were divided into 109–114 okresy; the kraje were abolished temporarily in Slovakia in 1969–1970 and for many purposes from 1991 in Czechoslovakia; in addition, the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak Socialist Republic were established in 1969 (without the word Socialist from 1990).Population and ethnic groupsMain article: Demographics of CzechoslovakiaEconomyMain article: Economy of CzechoslovakiaBefore World War II, the economy was about the fourth in all industrial states in Europe. The state was based on strong economy, manufacturing cars (Škoda, Tatra), trams, aircraft (Aero, Avia), ships, ship engines (Škoda), canons, shoes (Ba?a), turbines, guns (Zbrojovka Brno). It was the industrial workshop for Austro-Hungarian empire. The Slovak lands were more in agriculture. After World War II, the economy was centrally planned, with command links controlled by the communist party, similarly to the Soviet Union. The large metallurgical industry was dependent on imports of iron and non-ferrous ores. Industry: Extractive industry and manufacturing dominated the sector, including machinery, chemicals, food processing, metallurgy, and textiles. The sector was wasteful in its use of energy, materials, and labor and was slow to upgrade technology, but the country was a major supplier of high-quality machinery, instruments, electronics, aircraft, airplane engines and arms to other socialist countries.Agriculture: Agriculture was a minor sector, but collectivized farms of large acreage and relatively efficient mode of production enabled the country to be relatively self-sufficient in food supply. The country depended on imports of grains (mainly for livestock feed) in years of adverse weather. Meat production was constrained by shortage of feed, but the country still recorded high per capita consumption of meat.Foreign trade: Exports were estimated at US$17.8 billion in 1985. Exports were machinery (55%), fuel and materials (14%), and manufactured consumer goods (16%). Imports stood at estimated US$17.9 billion in 1985, including fuel and materials (41%), machinery (33%), and agricultural and forestry products (12%). In 1986, about 80% of foreign trade was with other socialist countries.Exchange rate: Official, or commercial, rate was crowns (K?s) 5.4 per US$1 in 1987. Tourist, or non-commercial, rate was K?s 10.5 per US$1. Neither rate reflected purchasing power. The exchange rate on the black market was around K?s 30 per US$1, which became the official rate once the currency became convertible in the early 1990s.Fiscal year: Calendar year.Fiscal policy: The state was the exclusive owner of means of production in most cases. Revenue from state enterprises was the primary source of revenues followed by turnover tax. The government spent heavily on social programs, subsidies, and investment. Budget was usually balanced or left small surplus.Resource baseMain article: Resource base of Communist CzechoslovakiaAfter World War II, the country was short of energy, relying on imported crude oil and natural gas from Soviet Union, domestic brown coal, and nuclear and hydroelectric energy. Energy constraints were a major factor in the 1980s. Transport and communicationsMain article: Transport in Czechoslovakia[icon]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2016)Slightly after the foundation of Czechoslovakia in 1918, there was a lack of needful infrastructure in many areas – paved roads, railways, bridges etc. Massive improvement in the following years enabled Czechoslovakia to develop its industry. Prague's civil airport in Ruzyn? became one of the most modern terminals in the world, when it was finished in 1937. Tomáš Ba?a, Czech entrepreneur and visionary outlined his ideas in the publication "Budujme stát pro 40 milion? lidí", where he described the future motorway system. Construction of the first motorways in Czechoslovakia begun in 1939, nevertheless, they were stopped after Nazi occupation during the World War II. SocietyMain article: Society of Communist CzechoslovakiaEducationMain article: Education in CzechoslovakiaEducation was free at all levels and compulsory from age 6 to 15. The vast majority of the population was literate. There was a highly developed system of apprenticeship training and vocational schools supplemented general secondary schools and institutions of higher education. ReligionMain article: Religion in CzechoslovakiaIn 1991: Roman Catholics 46%, Evangelical Lutheran 5.3%, Atheist 30%, n/a 17%, but there were huge differences in religious practices between the two constituent republics; see Czech Republic and Slovakia. Health, social welfare and housingMain article: Health and social welfare in Communist CzechoslovakiaAfter World War II, free health care was available to all citizens. National health planning emphasised preventive medicine; factory and local health care centres supplemented hospitals and other inpatient institutions. There was substantial improvement in rural health care during the 1960s and 1970s. Mass mediaMain article: Mass media in Communist CzechoslovakiaDuring the era between the World Wars, Czechoslovak democracy and liberalism facilitated conditions for free publication. The most significant daily newspapers in these times were Lidové noviny, Národní listy, ?eský deník and ?eskoslovenská republika. During Communist rule, the mass media in Czechoslovakia were controlled by the Communist Party. Private ownership of any publication or agency of the mass media was generally forbidden, although churches and other organizations published small periodicals and newspapers. Even with this information monopoly in the hands of organizations under KS? control, all publications were reviewed by the government's Office for Press and Information. SportsSee also: Czechoslovakia at the OlympicsThe Czechoslovakia national football team was a consistent performer on the international scene, with eight appearances in the FIFA World Cup Finals, finishing in second place in 1934 and 1962. The team also won the European Football Championship in 1976, came in third in 1980 and won the Olympic gold in 1980. Well-known football players such as Pavel Nedv?d, Antonín Panenka, Milan Baroš, Tomáš Rosický, Vladimír Šmicer or Petr ?ech were all born in Czechoslovakia. The International Olympic Committee code for Czechoslovakia is TCH, which is still used in historical listings of results. The Czechoslovak national ice hockey team won many medals from the world championships and Olympic Games. Peter Š?astný, Jaromír Jágr, Dominik Hašek, Peter Bondra, Petr Klíma, Marián Gáborík, Marián Hossa, Miroslav Šatan and Pavol Demitra all come from Czechoslovakia. Emil Zátopek, winner of four Olympic gold medals in athletics, is considered one of the top athletes in Czechoslovak history. V?ra ?áslavská was an Olympic gold medallist in gymnastics, winning seven gold medals and four silver medals. She represented Czechoslovakia in three consecutive Olympics. Several accomplished professional tennis players including Ivan Lendl, Jan Kodeš, Miloslav Me?í?, Hana Mandlíková, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, Jana Novotna, Petra Kvitová and Daniela Hantuchová were born in Czechoslovakia. World economic crisis and its effects on Beneš’ foreign policyThe October 24, 1929 New York stock market crash began the worldwide economic crisis. The crisis affected the Danube basin particularlydeeply. In 1919-1920, the economic and political unit that the Monarchrepresented became seven small countries, all jealously guarding theireconomic and political independence. These countries managed to achievea measure of stability by the mid-20s, organizing their economies aroundhuge foreign loans of short and long term. The economic crisis had a verypowerful fiscal aspect – the fiscal equilibrium was disrupted and theinternational credit system collapsed – putting the newly created countriesin a tight economic position. The foreign banks – themselves in trouble –began to recall their loans made in Eastern Europe. From an economicperspective, these years seemed to validate those who thought it a mistaketo break up the market equilibrium of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.889 The economic crisis also had an impact on international relations.Lack of space prevents us from discussing here each proposal and thereaction to it. Instead, we will sketch the more important plans proposed tosolve the economic problems, from which – as appropriate to our topic –we will discuss their effect on Benes’ plan of integration. The proposedplans, in chronological order, for the solution to the economic crisiswere:890Aristide Briand puts forward a pan-European memorandum (May 1,1930), in which he proposes the organization of a ‘United States ofEurope’. In its original concept, the idea was to unite the countries ofEurope, excluding the Soviet Union, in a customs union. The plan wasrejected by the majority of European politicians; hence, no definitive stepswere taken. In an effort to counterbalance France, Germany made a proposal inthe late 1930s for preferential treatment. It made an offer to all theDanubian countries – with the exception of Czechoslovakia – that eachundertake to accept an agreed amount of agricultural products at aspecified price. The proposal found favor with the agricultural countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe, and Germany began bilateral talks with them.The third significant proposal was for a German-Austrian customsunion (March 19, 1931). The intent of the plan was to erase the customs 888 Romportlová: A kereskedelmi politika … op. cit., p. 38.889 Ormos: Franciaország és … op. cit., p. 27.890 Ibid, pp. 43-80. 202barrier between Germany and Austria, as well as to harmonize externaltariffs. This was to have been the ‘cold Anschluss.’891 The emergence ofthis alternative created a large international difficulty. In response tointernational pressure organized by the France and, for once, supported bythe England, Johann Schober (Austrian Vice-Chancellor) and JuliusCurtius (German Foreign Minister) were forced to announce thecancellation of the customs union plan.Italy put forward the Brocchi Plan (April 1931). The Italians, like theFrench, wanted to remove German influence, proposed an Italian-AustrianHungarian economic cooperation. Inginio Brocchi, Italy’s ForeignMinister, envisioned the union to be based on bilateral preferential exportsubsidies.The British Foreign Office proposed (January 17, 1932) that the sixDanubian countries – Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania,Yugoslavia and Bulgaria – for a customs union. Essentially, the Britishplan was for a (sort of) economic reconstitution of the Monarchy.892 Berlinand Rome immediately rejected the plan, while Paris, initially in support,also decided to reject it. Berlin deemed this customs union as beingcontrary to German interests; Italy saw it as endangering the ItalianAustrian-Hungarian plan; Paris worried about an emerging area of Britishinfluence, creating imbalance.André Tardieu’s plan (March 2, 1932) proposed that Austria,Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia create a system ofpreferential tariffs. This plan was supported enthusiastically by Benes butfailed due to German and Italian resistance.893 The plan revealed thatFrance made an attempt to organize a Danubian-basin economic union –under French influence. The French government felt that the regional crisiswas primarily an agricultural crisis, hence, the best solution was thecreation of a term of reference for the agricultural countries.894The number of plans put forward clearly shows that the Great Powers(France, England, Italy and a gradually recovering Germany) recognizedthat the one which can secure decisive influence over central and southeastern Europe is the one which can cooperate in effecting a solution to theeconomic crisis.If we examine the proposed plans from the point of view of the Benesled Czechoslovak foreign policy, it is obvious that – with the exception ofthe French plan – they all posed serious hazards to Czechoslovakia. TheBrocchi plan meant that Austria will become distanced from the Lanyagreement and for a strong Central European block with Italy andHungary.895 The German-Austrian plan raised the specter of Anschluss and 891 Herceg: A szarajevói merénylett?l … op. cit., p. 192.892 Diószegi, László: A nagyhatalmak és a Duna-medence az 1930-as években [TheGreat Powers and the Danubian basin in the 1930s]. In: Magyarország és anagyhatalmak a 20 században [Hungary and the Great Powers in the 20thcentury]. Teleki László Alapítvány, Budapest, 1995, pp. 100-101.893 Ibid, pp. 101-106.894 Ormos: Franciaország és … op. cit., p. 52.895 Vondracek: The foreign policy … op. cit., pp. 318-326. 203the emergence of German economic and political power in the Danubianvalley.896 The German plan for preferential treatment seriously endangeredthe existence of the Little Entente. Benes rightly felt that, in response to theeconomic advantages offered by Germany to Yugoslavia and Romania, –especially the absorption of their grain surpluses by the German market –they will value it more than the Little Entente and become more amenabletoward German plans. To Benes, German ambitions, in the long term,raised the fear of a German influenced Danubian-basin.897 Czechoslovakia found itself in grave trouble as a result of theinternational economic situation, as the carefully erected system of alliesand security was seriously compromised. Austria tended more and moretoward the position that “For Austria, there is no solution withoutGermany,” which would break the circle woven around Hungary by Benes.The circle was also showing other weak points: Romania and Yugoslaviawere conducting trade negotiations with Germany,898 raising the realpossibility of the disintegration of the Little Entente. Benes could onlycontinue to rely on his earlier supporter, France, for all practical purposes aFrench-Czechoslovak affiliation. It is then not surprising that when theGerman-Austrian plan surfaced, Czechoslovakia joined France in vocalobjection in Vienna on the very first day. The seriousness of the FrenchCzechoslovak situation is indicated in that, in the interest of breaking offtrade talks with Germany, Yugoslavia was granted a loan of 8 millionpound sterling by the French, and Romania 10 million. As was, Benes hadto make full use of his diplomatic skills to convince Romania andYugoslavia to commit to the French-Czechoslovak policy at the LittleEntente conference in Bucharest in May.899The united French-Czechoslovak direction finally deflected the perilas Romania and Yugoslavia suspended their talks with Germany after theLittle Entente conference, dealing a defeat to the German government in1931. It had to relinquish its plans for the creation of a central and eastEuropean economic block. This German setback was only temporary, as itattained successes in this direction is subsequent years.The German-Austrian customs union raised fears mainly in Franceand Czechoslovakia,900 but its sinking by the French created an excellent 896 John R. Lampe – Marvin J. Jackson: Balkan economic history, 1505-1950.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976, pp. 179-194.897 The foreign policy views of Benes in the early 1930s is well summarized inEdouard Beneš: The problem of Central-Europe. Minister for Foreing Affairsof Czehoslovakia. Speech delivered March 21, 1934, before the Foreign AffairsCommittee of the Czehoslovak Parlament and Senate. In: The MontevideoConference. New York, 1934, pp. 159-172.898 Hans-Paul Höpfner: Deutsche Südosteuropapolitik in der Weimarer Republik.Frankfurt-Bern, 1983, pp. 94-95; Ránki, György: A Duna-völgyi kis országok anemzetközi gazdaság és politika rendszerében [The small danubian stateswithin the international economic and political system]. In: Ránki, György(ed.): A Harmadik Birodalom árnyékában [In the shadow of the Third Reich].Budapest, 1988.899 Vondracek: The foreign policy … op. cit., pp. 312-326.900 Beneš: The problem of … op. cit., pp. 160-164. The following article is to be understood as a case study of political idealism.But what kind of idealism? Here, idealism is neither a philosophical positionof the priority of self-consciousness in the Hegelian sense, nor any kind oftrivial idealism of political naïveté or optimism. What we mean by idealismis the standpoint of a practical politician, a philosopher on the throne, whostrives to actualise ideas in social life. The first Czechoslovak Republic wascreated in this idealistic manner as the philosophical project of the philosophers on the throne. I shall deal with the case of the lesser known memberof the Masaryk and Beneš duo. I shall focus on how Beneš’s political thinkingbuilds on his understanding of individualism as freedom, as the self-actualisation of man as an autonomous and harmonious being, self-determined byreason.As far as an assessment of Beneš’s political activity is concerned, thisstudy concentrates only on Beneš’s views and stances: it is not for me to judgehis particular political decisions. The analysis that follows offers evidenceof the coherency of Beneš’s political thinking, or rather it presents Beneš’sown reflections upon his political activity. However, the study does not dealwith how and in what sense these stances can be grasped as interpretivecontexts, or even the reasons for Beneš’s political standpoints. Due to spaceconstraints, we will only focus on the period of the First Republic, prior tothe Munich agreement.Firstly, we shall study how the idea of a crisis of European humanityserved as a point of departure for the political and philosophical thought ofboth Czechoslovak philosophers on the throne, Masaryk and Beneš. Second-* The text is part of the Czech Science Foundation grant project (GA ČR) Individualism in theCzechoslovak Philosophy 1918–1948, No. 19-14180S.188 Jakub Marekly, we will focus on Edvard Beneš’s understanding of the crisis. Thirdly, I shallshow that Beneš, at least in some cardinal aspects, had formed his interpretive position and worldview already before the First World War and that theopinions of later Beneš, the politician and stateman, can be traced back to hisdissertation of 1909, The Origin and Development of Modern Political Individualism (Původ a vývoj moderního politického individualismu).1 Finally, I shallconclude the study with a reflection upon the relationship between philosophy and politics, an idealistic relationship, in which a philosopher reallyshould be on the throne, since, for Beneš, the crisis of European humanity isa crisis of ideals, and its solution thus lies in the actualisation of humanisticideals, the implementation of moral education and, most of all, in workingtowards a new type of man, a harmonious individual.A key role in the whole study is played by the thesis that Beneš’s opinions,and even his philosophical stances, are consistent. Beneš the politician is determined by Beneš the philosopher, the sociologist. And as for his philosophical opinions, Beneš’s dissertation of 1909 is of essential significance. In theinterwar period, these principles of his thinking, which are the principles ofhis politics, are consistent. After all, Beneš himself declares this consistencypublicly:“In such tremendously grave and deeply revolutionary circumstance,throughout my thirty years in public life I have proceeded steadfastlyand without compromise and in accordance with my philosophical andmoral attitude towards and belief in law and justice, spiritual progressand social good; never did I betray this […]”2It remains to be seen whether his philosophical-political thinking really wasconsequential, maintaining a steady course; whether Beneš’s political beliefsremain consistent throughout the period studied. Beneš’s manuscripts fromthe Masaryk Archive were used to support this thesis.1 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism in the History of Modern Philosophy (until French Revolution) – (Vznik a vývoj politického individualismu v dějinách modernífilosofie /až do francouzské revoluce/), dissertation thesis, manuscript, 1909 (in the archives ofthe Masaryk Institute: EB IV/1, 123 R 10A/3 [R43], folder No. 12). Pagination taken from the manuscript in the Masaryk Institute Archive.2 Beneš, E., The World Crisis, Continuity of the Law and a New Revolutionary Law (Světová krise,kontinuita práva a nové právo revoluční). Praha, V. Linhart 1946, p. 7. This is the speech Benešgave at the official ceremony of accepting doctor honoris causa he was granted by Prague’sFaculty of Law.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 1891. Patočka, Masaryk, Beneš and the European crisisWe begin with Patočka’s early Masarykean studies. In them, Patočka highlights the idea of a deep European crisis as being in the centre of Masaryk’sthinking. After all, Patočka himself, as well as his teacher Husserl and also, aswe shall see, Edvard Beneš, to whom this paper is dedicated, are all diagnosticians of the European crisis. According to Patočka, the crisis is of historicalorigin, it is a crisis of the European man of the late Modern era. Masaryk’sstudy of suicide is nothing else than his attempt at analysis of a critical condition, a symptom of which is suicidality.So where does this crisis originate? Patočka claims that“Both Masaryk’s sociology and his philosophy of history are mainly ananalysis of the potential and real effect of ideas and beliefs on the individual and on society.”3What ideas and effects are we talking about in terms of the crisis? In Patočka’sinterpretation, Masaryk thinks that the origins of the crisis lie in secularism,rationalism – and a naïve faith in progress – of the 19th century. In otherwords, the methodism of the natural sciences and secularist thinking aresymptoms of the critical condition. It logically follows that Masaryk’s philosophical and political praxis will necessarily consist of efforts to put a renewed emphasis on the Christian foundations of Europeanhood and on theconcept of providence and its role in history. In this way, Masaryk strives tomotivate towards action, and rid people of scepsis and subjectivism. Becausewhat man needs most is supraindividual support.“… [Masaryk] saw the crisis of modern man in scepsis and nihilism, i.e.in a malaise of a metaphysical character.”4And, to repeat Patočka’s thesis, what is at question here is the effect of ideason the individual.We shall devote more attention to the theme of political idealism understood in this way in the second half of this paper. We begin with a closer look3 Patočka, J., Masaryk’s and Husserl’s View of the Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity (Masarykovo a Husserlovo pojetí duševní krize evropského lidstva). See The Czechs I. Complete worksof Jan Patočka, Vol. 12 (Češi I. Sebrané spisy 12). Praha, Oikoymenh 2006, p. 23.4 Patočka, J., Masaryk Yesterday and Today (Masaryk včera a dnes). See The Czechs I. Completeworks of Jan Patočka, Vol. 12, p. 98.190 Jakub Marekat how Beneš approaches the crisis of Europeanhood, or the crisis of modernman. First of all, it is beyond doubt that the second Czechoslovak presidentoccupies himself with the problem of deep crisis explicitly and repeatedlythroughout the interwar period. We cannot claim that Beneš, unlike Masaryk, analysed the crisis in the pre-war period, on the other hand, however,we have evidence for his long-held standpoint that the crisis is “a world crisis of contemporary humanity in general”.5 Let us have a closer look at howBeneš specifies the nature of the crisis. He notices that it concerns the particular predominant worldviews of the time:On the one hand, it is a crisis of nationalism. Beneš considers the nationalist movements proliferating in the interwar period to be ideological currents offering identity and an identification effect, similar to that previouslyprovided by religion. What nationalism suppresses, however, is individuality.Yet, Beneš assigns a positive meaning to nationalism, too, insofar as nationalculture is in accordance with the ideals of humanity. Beneš is a supporter ofcultural relativism, respect for other cultures, where no culture is superiorto another.Secondly, it is a crisis of democracy. Beneš notes that democracy wasworking as a destructive power, since it challenged the certainties of theold regime. Democracy will continue to retain this disintegrating effect unless we realise that “democracy is first of all a moral problem, and especiallya problem of moral education guided by the philosophy of humanness.”6Therefore “democracy essentially is, or at least should be, a regime of a truespiritual and moral nobility.”7Thirdly, it is a crisis of scientific socialism, i.e. a crisis of Marxism. Benešrefuses the simplifying Marxist interpretation of the antagonism of twoclasses, refuses the idea of the inevitable road to revolution, and, conversely,emphasizes the plurality of various social groups and classes, and the consolidation of the state.8Fourthly, it is a crisis of science. What is meant here by crisis – and we canjuxtapose Beneš’s stance in this matter, for instance, to Husserl’s famous account of the late 1930’s – is a diminishing faith in reason. For Beneš, this is5 Beneš, E., Moral Crisis of the Afterwar World (Mravní krise poválečného světa), manuscript,1928, p. 9 (in the archives of the Masaryk Institute, EB IV/1; R 48/5A, 252 R 48/5a [R 67, R 68],folder No. 78). Pagination taken from the manuscript.6 Ibid., p. 23.7 Ibid., p. 25.8 Here as well as in other instances of Beneš’ comments and reflections of political movementsor authors, we do not occupy ourselves with evaluation of adequacy of Beneš’ interpretation.It is not the goal of the study to give an account of Beneš’ qualities as a philosopher.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 191caused by the cold rationalism of positivism which, in his opinion, inevitablyleads to materialism, moral neutrality or indifference, and utilitarianism.Science, as he says, should be “moralised”, it should adopt“a new feature, an intuitive and emotional feature. This is what is atstake now. This is where the crisis of today’s scientific worldview lies;this is the crisis of the same ideology that turned science into a fetish.”9The crisis of science leads to resorting to occultism, mysticism, but also toworldviews founded on nationalism and will.“Should [modern man] be an aristocrat of spirit, he must possess firmness, decisiveness and clarity of reason just as he should possess empathy, openness and tenderness of heart.”10Finally, it is the crisis of religion in the sense that – as Beneš says – instead ofsincere and true religious sentiment we have a rash of sectarianism, mysticism and occultism.It appears that the starting point of all these particular crises is the individual’s relationship towards collective pillars, be it a nation, Church or political system.“… In all great social crises [we can see] the primordial struggle between two huge tendencies that exist within society, between an individual’s analytical desire for freedom, and an effort to maintain theunity of society by exercising a certain degree of authority and collective discipline…”11Due to the world war, Europe found itself at a crossroads. Beneš is not indifferent to this crisis, but he is a politician who practically implements hisprinciples in political life. The crisis that we are discussing is the result of political and social development and at its core there lies, as I have said above,a conflict between two tendencies, individualist and collectivist. Beneš believes that he understands the crisis, for he studied the historical prerequisites for individualism as well as its relationship to the collectivities that9 Ibid., p. 44.10 Ibid., p. 47.11 Ibid., p. 11.192 Jakub Marekform social cohesion. Therefore, his political activity can find support in thistheoretical base.Although Beneš assesses the crisis of modern man only in the interwarperiod, he builds on his basic opinions in his dissertation thesis on the originand development of political individualism, to which we shall now turn ourattention. Our aim here is not to discuss the problem of the development ofpolitical (or philosophical) individualism as such, but to focus solely on theemphasis that Beneš places on certain themes, through which he reveals hisown standpoint.2. Beneš’s Dissertation on The Origin and Development of ModernPolitical IndividualismThe interpretation Beneš offers in his dissertation thesis is historical, limitedsolely to a period of the European Modern Age of less than three hundredyears, beginning with the Reformation and ending with the French Revolution. Beneš therefore speaks of the origin and development of individualismbecause, in his opinion, an individualist concept of humanity played no roleat the beginning of the late Medieval Period. Beneš sees Christianity critically, as a denial of the Ancient Greek and Roman view of life, which wasstrongly individualistic. In his opinion, Christian morality is indeed “stronglyanti-individualistic”,12 and indifferent towards injustice (render to Caesar thethings that are Caesar’s, render unto God the things that are God’s). It is evena type of mysticism, dogmatism, a monopoly on explanation of the phenomena of the world, i.e. an esoteric interpretation that must be relied on.As I have said, here is the beginning of development culminating in practical implementation of individualism in political space. The starting point,according to Beneš, is in the development of science that furnishes man withreasons, explains the world around him, and thus founds in him a feelingof self-respect. This is the first turning point. The second is reformationalschism within Christianity and the demand for freedom of religion, freedomof expression, and a right to criticism, which are all raised by Protestantism.The next step of his interpretation deals with the concept of naturalrights. He believes that natural rights are, to begin with, a result of theoretical thinking, and so their theoretical background comes years before theiractual implementation in political space.Beneš centres his analysis around the classic (and quite simplistically understood) Modern Age idea of the social contract that can be found in all12 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 5.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 193Modern Age political thinkers, almost without exception. A political community is founded only by a social contract and in this respect – as most ofthese thinkers believe – political rights are the result of a contractual stateand are therefore positive, i.e. based solely on a shared agreement.However, Beneš does not agree with this way of thinking about societyand refuses the idea that one can just as easily be stripped of one’s rightswithin the social space as one can be granted them. This is why Beneš appreciates Locke as the most thorough thinker as far as a clear formulationof natural human rights as something preceding the social contract is concerned. People enter these contractual relations13 free and equal. Therefore, the contract cannot deny people their original and fundamental freedom and equality. Locke is certainly not the first thinker to address naturalrights, but his elaboration is the most successful one in Beneš’s eyes. He considers Locke’s position to be one of “pure individualism”, because Locke creates a basic spectrum of natural rights, such as the right to possession, sincehe defines property as the result of life-sustaining work and sustaining one’slife is a natural right. Similarly, Locke ascribes individual rights also to children and the wife to combat domestic tyranny.Civil society was created as a means of protection against the iniquity ofstrong individuals, and so society is, in fact, a third party in intersubjectivity.This third party is delegated with the resolution of conflicts. In this sense,the point of civil society is the defence of natural rights. The field of jurisdiction of natural law is delineated by the bounds of irrevocable natural rights.We are dedicating such an amount of space to Locke (in Beneš’s rendition,of course!) intentionally, because Beneš links his version of Locke with classical individualist liberalism while, at the same time, distinguishing it fromthe rejected and criticised liberalism of the 19th century.Two things hold true for Beneš’s interpretation of later individualism ofthe 18th century:Beneš claims that this position is better than the liberalism of the 19thcentury. First of all, the thinkers of the period prior to the French Revolutionbelieved that, paradoxically enough, it is impossible to safeguard individualrights without the power of the state. The moment that there comes a demand for complete emancipation and equality of individuals with respect toone another, the uncontrollable and exploitative liberalism of the 19th century will follow. The state is required as a guarantor of individual rights.1413 Here contract is understood in analytical terms, not historical ones.14 Such is the case with, for example, Adam Smith or Montesquieu. See Beneš, E., The Origin andDevelopment of Political Individualism, p. 100.194 Jakub MarekSecondly, he shows, in the cases of the two most important politicalthinkers of the 18th century, how such a conflict leads to a situation where,for the sake of defending individual rights, an almost socialist conception ofthe state can emerge. Beneš considers Rousseau to be a socialist, because ifthe state is a political body that answers to the people, represents the people, then such a state is denying individuals of their rights. Instead of “I amthe state” there is “the state is everybody and nobody” – after all, how couldone protest against the government of the people that one is a part of? “InRousseau, we can best see how close a practically absolutist idea of the statecomes close to the idea of socialism.”15 Beneš passes a similar judgement onKant as well.The result is that “a society cannot be understood solely in socialist or individualist terms”16 and Beneš’s own position is somewhere around the moderate centre. It is an attempt at maintaining a balance and mutual co-dependence between the subjective and the supraindividual, collective aspects.Now to ask the question more specifically: what, in the end, is individualism for Beneš?3. The Concept of Individualism in E. BenešNow we are able to formulate Beneš’s understanding of individuality andindividualism more accurately. It is important to note that individuality isnot understood here as an extreme position, but rather as a happy mediumbetween two extreme alternatives. The first extreme is collectivism, i.e. allegiance to a group and its shared identity and to its system of values. The second extreme alternative is subjectivism in the sense of an emphasis on theindividual’s own self-determination, regardless of shared values. Collectivism is the absence of individuality, whereas the standpoint of subjectivismpromotes formal, negative individualism in an almost Hegelian sense. Therefore, Beneš rejects them both and gives preference to his happy medium:Beneš criticises the extreme of the absence of individuality, where oneis a member of a collectivity within which it is unclear what the reasons forone’s actions are. These reasons are mystical in the sense that they are givento the individual simply to believe in, and one then acts in accordance withthis belief without actually (individually) participating in the decision-making. One is not free, as one has no control over the reasons for one’s actions15 Ibid.16 Ibid., p. 115.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 195and is thus acting at the behest of somebody else’s conviction. In this sense,one is not an individuality. Such is the case of the aforementioned religiousor nationalist collectivities.At the other end of the scale we have extreme individuality which Benešlinks to Nietzsche and Stirner. To be more precise, Beneš talks of the “will topower” as a characteristic trait of modern man which expresses the desireof such man to be the sole ruler of his own free self-determination. However,such will has at its source simply individual wanting driven to its extreme,which means nothing more than “that’s mine”. In this sense, this extremeis subjectivism.Nevertheless, Beneš avoids both extremes. Beneš himself establishes hisown position in the centre as he strives for harmonious individuality, i.e.a rational, moderate, self-controlled individuality. What Beneš means by thisis neither a dogmatic and, “obscurantist” person as this type of person isgoverned by irrationality, nor a purely individualistic, subjectivist person,whose only principle of action is his own particularity. Rational action issomewhere in between these two – on the one hand, it means submittingto rational reason, but it also means personal identification with the public,common reason. The key to the individual is will, i.e. freedom in the sensethat man is to be the source of his own determination, man is to rid himselfof obscure reasons and accept rational reasons that will help one to be themaster of his own will and purpose.17Thus, individualism for Beneš is the ideal of moderation, of “nothing in excess”, as both extremes lead to repression of the individual, either by force orpower, as is the case with extreme individuality, or by suppression and dissolution in the ideology to which that individual adheres.Yet, individualism is not merely a negative position, a sort of “neither-nor”.On the contrary, Beneš takes it to be the completion of man, his perfection17 Beneš’s vision of man’s possibilities of self-determination is somehow “moderate” in the sensethat, on the one hand, one should be the originator of one’s own destiny, but such possibility atthe same time reaches the external boundaries of global history that restrict the formability ofindividuality. He speaks of a “fatalism of historical development”: “Thus, I do not preach a blindfatalism of unleashed social forces; after all, I did reject theories of Marxist historical materialism. On the contrary, I believe there is a certain logic in history, which is determined by humanwill, emotions, and endeavour. That is why I see leading individualities as significant agents thatgovern and deeply influence the direction of social development. However, the moment thatsocial forces reach a certain intensity – a single individual’s will ceases to be capable of controlling them. And it is in this individual action and free influence of individuals and masses that thelogic of history unveils and often takes shape of historical justice, reward, and historical judgement…” Beneš, E., The World War and Our Revolution: A Selection of Texts (Světová válka a našerevoluce: výbor z díla). Praha, Společnost Edvarda Beneše 1994, p. 61.196 Jakub Marekand finalisation. What is man supposed to be? Beneš’s advice to the membersof the YMCA is:“…to transform oneself into a harmonious, even-tempered man, intoa modern man of synthesis of both heart and reason.”18Let us name a couple of similar instances in other works and manuscriptswritten by Beneš. In his preliminary notes to a lecture on moral crisis, whichwe cited from above, Beneš drafts a version of new morality in points:“A calm, even-tempered man – the goal of today’s struggle – the struggle for individuality in times of regimentation of the state and implementation of mass democracy and collectivism.”19In the same lecture, he speaks of a new, harmonious man, a new humanitythat is “underpinned by metaphysics and religion.” And finally: “what makeseach great individuality great [?],” is the question Beneš raises in his lecturetitled Personality, Worldview, Politics (Osobnost, světový názor, politika).“A great figure is great due to his distinctiveness of feeling and reason,a sophisticated harmony of both rational and emotional qualities, anindefatigable energy of will, and a fineness of intuitive knowledge ofpeople and life’s realities.”20I believe that it is on the basis of such formulations that Patočka claims Benešwas influenced by Herder.21 Individuality is a singular, qualitatively uniqueactualisation of the rational and emotional basis of man. Although this basisis common to all humanity, its actualisation and harmonious completion isnot. However, becoming a person is a human task and in this sense it is a taskfor humanity. Beneš’s humanism, Patočka says,18 Beneš, E., The Conditions for a Successful Life (Podmínky úspěšného života). Praha, Vydavatelskéoddělení YMCA 1929, p. 12–13.19 Passage 7. “The consequence is: new morality.” („7. Důsledkem bude: nová morálka.“), point b)and c) of the manuscript notes to the lecture on moral crisis, in the Masaryk Institute ArchivesEB IV/1, 265 R 66–69 (R 57, 70), folder No. 102.20 Lecture Personality, Worldview, Politics (Osobnost, světový názor, politika) delivered in Vinohrady theatre on December 15, 1929. In the Masaryk Institute Archives EB IV/1 247 R 48/3/1,folder No. 75.21 Patočka, J., Philosophical Prerequisities of Practical Activity (Filosofické předpoklady praktickéčinnosti). See The Czechs I. Complete works of Jan Patočka, Vol. 12, p. 81.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 197“lies in the original, fundamental decision to achieve a specific, therefore irrational, content of life, whereas the Enlightenment retreats fromit and hides behind abstract rational axioms and moral principles.”224. A Philosopher on the Throne. On the Philosophical Prerequisitesof Practical ActivityThe goal of politics is to help actualise humanity. In this last step of my paperI will focus shortly on the problem of an idealistic understanding of historythat was implied in Masaryk’s case at the beginning of this paper, but thatplays an equally important role in Beneš’s thinking. It is the notion that ideasare the driving force behind history. The owl of Beneš spreads its wings atdaybreak: “… public political and social institutions always lag behind the development of ideas…”23 For instance, the Declaration of the Rights of Man andCitizen has been theoretically influencing political space for five centuries. Itis the philosophers, the theoreticians who are the driving force of history. Incase of the French Revolution, they even become actively involved: “All thosephilosophers are preachers, announcers of new life…”24The shortcoming or one-sidedness of the aforementioned origin of individualist politics is that philosophers cared, first of all, for intellectual freedom – let’s take Kant’s “An answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”which locates freedom of the individual in the freedom of public scholarlyspeech, of rational criticism in the society of scholars. It is the following19th century that brings with it the problem of material conditions of life.In the end, it is the philosopher’s job to make sure that humanity in theform of the “modern harmonious man who seeks his individuality in the synthesis of both reason and heart”25 is actualised in political space. In Beneš’sopinion, a politician must also be a philosopher, as well as an artist and sci22 For Beneš, the ideal of actualising a really great personality also entails the attainment of “objectivity and the state of not taking things personally at every step of one’s activity…” (emphasisby JM). The quotation is from Five Stages of Masaryk’s Life (Pět fází Masarykova života), a lecturethat is part of a larger text titled Masaryk’s Struggle for Liberation. The Concept of Nation andIts Role (Masarykův boj o osvobození. Pojetí národa a jeho poslání). In the Masaryk InstituteArchives EB IV/1 259 R 57–61/a (R 66, R 67, R 69, R 70, R 91), folder No. 92–97.23 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 17–18. With allusion to Hegel’sfamous definition of philosophy that reflects the reality ex post, see Hegel, G. W. F., The Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Transl. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press2003, p. 23.24 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 129.25 Beneš, E., Rede an die Deutschen in der ČSR 1935. In: Werner, A. (ed.), Edvard Beneš, Geist undWerk, manuscript, 1935 (in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 678 R 227B/7, folder No. 154).198 Jakub Marekentist, but first and foremost a philosopher, since after all his standpoint, i.e.that which serves as a foundation for his politics, is the ideality mediated tohim by philosophy.Beneš, the humanist, understands his task as a struggle for democracy,yet not a democracy reduced to liberal parliamentarism. Democracy is nospecific “institutionalism, [but] a philosophical and moral attitude, [democracy] strives for actualisation of freedom, equality of rights, law, justice, andbrotherhood…”26 To be more precise, democracy involves the “problem ofmoral education of the masses and leaders”,27 democracy raises the question“how, by what political means and methods is it possible to maintainthe highest level of individual freedom, and, at the same time, reconcile it with the collectivist tendencies of modern societies, states, andnations?”28To conclude: Firstly, I claim that Beneš is a politician-philosopher in the sensethat he declares his philosophical standpoints to be the ultimate motives ofhis practical activity. This means, most importantly, that Beneš respects theconcept of individualism as a happy medium between two extremes, collectivism and subjectivism, and that this concept remains the fundamentalconviction he keeps throughout the whole period of our focus. Secondly,I also claim that Beneš is convinced of the significant influence of ideas onhistory and therefore that ideas are the real battleground of politics, sincethey form human society. Finally, I claim that Beneš maintained his positionconstantly ever since writing his dissertation thesis on the origin and development of political individualism. In this respect, it is necessary to takeinto consideration his ideas drafted already in 1909 to be able to assess theprinciples and standpoints that form the context of Beneš’s political work.In 1923, then Minister of foreign affairs and recently elected Prime ministerof Czechoslovak government, Dr. Edvard Beneš said:“…humanist philosophy, which builds on the natural rights of man, issomething absolute. Every other philosophy that gives different rea26 In an interview titled Minister Beneš on Dynamics of Democracy (Ministr Beneš o dynamičnostidemokracie). Manuscript, 1935 (in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 259 R 57–61/a [66,R 67, R 69, R 70, R 91], folder No. 92–97).27 From the already quoted manuscript notes in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 265R 66–69 (R 57, 70), folder No. 102 (The Moral Crisis of the Afterwar World).28 From Beneš’s opening speech at Prague’s Philosophical congress, September 2, 1934. Manuscript in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 258 R 55–56 (R 65, R 66, R 62, R 70).Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 199sons for national rights is relative. I shall hold on to the philosophywhich has absolute value for me.”29His politics were guided by philosophy, it was a diagnosis of and a therapyfor a deep philosophical-moral crisis30 of the period. To end this study, I shallyield the floor to Beneš himself:“Everything I have said about the crisis of democracy is, in fact, thestruggle for a new Europe, a new European, a new person. Therefore,the Czechoslovak ideal is the ideal of a new Europe.”31Edvard Beneš was a popular stateman and respected diplomat. After World War Two the communistscame into power. It was a critical time for Edvard Beneš. He was seriously ill and political progress wasdifferent from his political opinion.The aim of this work is to find out how the contemporery press delt with the person of Edvard Beneš inthe years 1945 and 1948. I've chosen lour important terms of his life. I've also chosen two daily papers:Rudé právo, which was the newspaper of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and Svobodné slovo,which was the newspaper of the National Social Party of Czechoslovakia. I was also interested in theactivites of the censorship, which was controlled by the Communist Party.In the first chapter I describe the way the two contemporary dailies looked like. At the same time Ifocused on the influence of censorship. The second chapter deals with the person of Edvard Beneš, hislife and his political work. The third chapter is divided into two parts. The first part speaks about EdvardBeneš's return home. The second part describes three terms in the year 1948. The communist's putch inFebruary 1948, the position of Edvard Beneš and his reaction to the putch. June 1948, when Benešabdicated and September 1948 when he died. In every part I describe historical data and the waypresident Beneš was resented in both the dailies.The conclusion is that Svobodné slovo actually provided more space to Edvard Beneš in that - in theperiod I focused on- it published approximately twice as many articles mentioning Beneš as Rudé právo;as well as honoured president Beneš to a large extent. Although the censorship was under communistcontrol at the time, the media image of Edvard Bend was significantly different in Svobodne slovo fromthe one in Rudé pravo. The following article is to be understood as a case study of political idealism.But what kind of idealism? Here, idealism is neither a philosophical positionof the priority of self-consciousness in the Hegelian sense, nor any kind oftrivial idealism of political naïveté or optimism. What we mean by idealismis the standpoint of a practical politician, a philosopher on the throne, whostrives to actualise ideas in social life. The first Czechoslovak Republic wascreated in this idealistic manner as the philosophical project of the philosophers on the throne. I shall deal with the case of the lesser known memberof the Masaryk and Beneš duo. I shall focus on how Beneš’s political thinkingbuilds on his understanding of individualism as freedom, as the self-actualisation of man as an autonomous and harmonious being, self-determined byreason.As far as an assessment of Beneš’s political activity is concerned, thisstudy concentrates only on Beneš’s views and stances: it is not for me to judgehis particular political decisions. The analysis that follows offers evidenceof the coherency of Beneš’s political thinking, or rather it presents Beneš’sown reflections upon his political activity. However, the study does not dealwith how and in what sense these stances can be grasped as interpretivecontexts, or even the reasons for Beneš’s political standpoints. Due to spaceconstraints, we will only focus on the period of the First Republic, prior tothe Munich agreement.Firstly, we shall study how the idea of a crisis of European humanityserved as a point of departure for the political and philosophical thought ofboth Czechoslovak philosophers on the throne, Masaryk and Beneš. Second-* The text is part of the Czech Science Foundation grant project (GA ČR) Individualism in theCzechoslovak Philosophy 1918–1948, No. 19-14180S.188 Jakub Marekly, we will focus on Edvard Beneš’s understanding of the crisis. Thirdly, I shallshow that Beneš, at least in some cardinal aspects, had formed his interpretive position and worldview already before the First World War and that theopinions of later Beneš, the politician and stateman, can be traced back to hisdissertation of 1909, The Origin and Development of Modern Political Individualism (Původ a vývoj moderního politického individualismu).1 Finally, I shallconclude the study with a reflection upon the relationship between philosophy and politics, an idealistic relationship, in which a philosopher reallyshould be on the throne, since, for Beneš, the crisis of European humanity isa crisis of ideals, and its solution thus lies in the actualisation of humanisticideals, the implementation of moral education and, most of all, in workingtowards a new type of man, a harmonious individual.A key role in the whole study is played by the thesis that Beneš’s opinions,and even his philosophical stances, are consistent. Beneš the politician is determined by Beneš the philosopher, the sociologist. And as for his philosophical opinions, Beneš’s dissertation of 1909 is of essential significance. In theinterwar period, these principles of his thinking, which are the principles ofhis politics, are consistent. After all, Beneš himself declares this consistencypublicly:“In such tremendously grave and deeply revolutionary circumstance,throughout my thirty years in public life I have proceeded steadfastlyand without compromise and in accordance with my philosophical andmoral attitude towards and belief in law and justice, spiritual progressand social good; never did I betray this […]”2It remains to be seen whether his philosophical-political thinking really wasconsequential, maintaining a steady course; whether Beneš’s political beliefsremain consistent throughout the period studied. Beneš’s manuscripts fromthe Masaryk Archive were used to support this thesis.1 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism in the History of Modern Philosophy (until French Revolution) – (Vznik a vývoj politického individualismu v dějinách modernífilosofie /až do francouzské revoluce/), dissertation thesis, manuscript, 1909 (in the archives ofthe Masaryk Institute: EB IV/1, 123 R 10A/3 [R43], folder No. 12). Pagination taken from the manuscript in the Masaryk Institute Archive.2 Beneš, E., The World Crisis, Continuity of the Law and a New Revolutionary Law (Světová krise,kontinuita práva a nové právo revoluční). Praha, V. Linhart 1946, p. 7. This is the speech Benešgave at the official ceremony of accepting doctor honoris causa he was granted by Prague’sFaculty of Law.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 1891. Patočka, Masaryk, Beneš and the European crisisWe begin with Patočka’s early Masarykean studies. In them, Patočka highlights the idea of a deep European crisis as being in the centre of Masaryk’sthinking. After all, Patočka himself, as well as his teacher Husserl and also, aswe shall see, Edvard Beneš, to whom this paper is dedicated, are all diagnosticians of the European crisis. According to Patočka, the crisis is of historicalorigin, it is a crisis of the European man of the late Modern era. Masaryk’sstudy of suicide is nothing else than his attempt at analysis of a critical condition, a symptom of which is suicidality.So where does this crisis originate? Patočka claims that“Both Masaryk’s sociology and his philosophy of history are mainly ananalysis of the potential and real effect of ideas and beliefs on the individual and on society.”3What ideas and effects are we talking about in terms of the crisis? In Patočka’sinterpretation, Masaryk thinks that the origins of the crisis lie in secularism,rationalism – and a naïve faith in progress – of the 19th century. In otherwords, the methodism of the natural sciences and secularist thinking aresymptoms of the critical condition. It logically follows that Masaryk’s philosophical and political praxis will necessarily consist of efforts to put a renewed emphasis on the Christian foundations of Europeanhood and on theconcept of providence and its role in history. In this way, Masaryk strives tomotivate towards action, and rid people of scepsis and subjectivism. Becausewhat man needs most is supraindividual support.“… [Masaryk] saw the crisis of modern man in scepsis and nihilism, i.e.in a malaise of a metaphysical character.”4And, to repeat Patočka’s thesis, what is at question here is the effect of ideason the individual.We shall devote more attention to the theme of political idealism understood in this way in the second half of this paper. We begin with a closer look3 Patočka, J., Masaryk’s and Husserl’s View of the Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity (Masarykovo a Husserlovo pojetí duševní krize evropského lidstva). See The Czechs I. Complete worksof Jan Patočka, Vol. 12 (Češi I. Sebrané spisy 12). Praha, Oikoymenh 2006, p. 23.4 Patočka, J., Masaryk Yesterday and Today (Masaryk včera a dnes). See The Czechs I. Completeworks of Jan Patočka, Vol. 12, p. 98.190 Jakub Marekat how Beneš approaches the crisis of Europeanhood, or the crisis of modernman. First of all, it is beyond doubt that the second Czechoslovak presidentoccupies himself with the problem of deep crisis explicitly and repeatedlythroughout the interwar period. We cannot claim that Beneš, unlike Masaryk, analysed the crisis in the pre-war period, on the other hand, however,we have evidence for his long-held standpoint that the crisis is “a world crisis of contemporary humanity in general”.5 Let us have a closer look at howBeneš specifies the nature of the crisis. He notices that it concerns the particular predominant worldviews of the time:On the one hand, it is a crisis of nationalism. Beneš considers the nationalist movements proliferating in the interwar period to be ideological currents offering identity and an identification effect, similar to that previouslyprovided by religion. What nationalism suppresses, however, is individuality.Yet, Beneš assigns a positive meaning to nationalism, too, insofar as nationalculture is in accordance with the ideals of humanity. Beneš is a supporter ofcultural relativism, respect for other cultures, where no culture is superiorto another.Secondly, it is a crisis of democracy. Beneš notes that democracy wasworking as a destructive power, since it challenged the certainties of theold regime. Democracy will continue to retain this disintegrating effect unless we realise that “democracy is first of all a moral problem, and especiallya problem of moral education guided by the philosophy of humanness.”6Therefore “democracy essentially is, or at least should be, a regime of a truespiritual and moral nobility.”7Thirdly, it is a crisis of scientific socialism, i.e. a crisis of Marxism. Benešrefuses the simplifying Marxist interpretation of the antagonism of twoclasses, refuses the idea of the inevitable road to revolution, and, conversely,emphasizes the plurality of various social groups and classes, and the consolidation of the state.8Fourthly, it is a crisis of science. What is meant here by crisis – and we canjuxtapose Beneš’s stance in this matter, for instance, to Husserl’s famous account of the late 1930’s – is a diminishing faith in reason. For Beneš, this is5 Beneš, E., Moral Crisis of the Afterwar World (Mravní krise poválečného světa), manuscript,1928, p. 9 (in the archives of the Masaryk Institute, EB IV/1; R 48/5A, 252 R 48/5a [R 67, R 68],folder No. 78). Pagination taken from the manuscript.6 Ibid., p. 23.7 Ibid., p. 25.8 Here as well as in other instances of Beneš’ comments and reflections of political movementsor authors, we do not occupy ourselves with evaluation of adequacy of Beneš’ interpretation.It is not the goal of the study to give an account of Beneš’ qualities as a philosopher.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 191caused by the cold rationalism of positivism which, in his opinion, inevitablyleads to materialism, moral neutrality or indifference, and utilitarianism.Science, as he says, should be “moralised”, it should adopt“a new feature, an intuitive and emotional feature. This is what is atstake now. This is where the crisis of today’s scientific worldview lies;this is the crisis of the same ideology that turned science into a fetish.”9The crisis of science leads to resorting to occultism, mysticism, but also toworldviews founded on nationalism and will.“Should [modern man] be an aristocrat of spirit, he must possess firmness, decisiveness and clarity of reason just as he should possess empathy, openness and tenderness of heart.”10Finally, it is the crisis of religion in the sense that – as Beneš says – instead ofsincere and true religious sentiment we have a rash of sectarianism, mysticism and occultism.It appears that the starting point of all these particular crises is the individual’s relationship towards collective pillars, be it a nation, Church or political system.“… In all great social crises [we can see] the primordial struggle between two huge tendencies that exist within society, between an individual’s analytical desire for freedom, and an effort to maintain theunity of society by exercising a certain degree of authority and collective discipline…”11Due to the world war, Europe found itself at a crossroads. Beneš is not indifferent to this crisis, but he is a politician who practically implements hisprinciples in political life. The crisis that we are discussing is the result of political and social development and at its core there lies, as I have said above,a conflict between two tendencies, individualist and collectivist. Beneš believes that he understands the crisis, for he studied the historical prerequisites for individualism as well as its relationship to the collectivities that9 Ibid., p. 44.10 Ibid., p. 47.11 Ibid., p. 11.192 Jakub Marekform social cohesion. Therefore, his political activity can find support in thistheoretical base.Although Beneš assesses the crisis of modern man only in the interwarperiod, he builds on his basic opinions in his dissertation thesis on the originand development of political individualism, to which we shall now turn ourattention. Our aim here is not to discuss the problem of the development ofpolitical (or philosophical) individualism as such, but to focus solely on theemphasis that Beneš places on certain themes, through which he reveals hisown standpoint.2. Beneš’s Dissertation on The Origin and Development of ModernPolitical IndividualismThe interpretation Beneš offers in his dissertation thesis is historical, limitedsolely to a period of the European Modern Age of less than three hundredyears, beginning with the Reformation and ending with the French Revolution. Beneš therefore speaks of the origin and development of individualismbecause, in his opinion, an individualist concept of humanity played no roleat the beginning of the late Medieval Period. Beneš sees Christianity critically, as a denial of the Ancient Greek and Roman view of life, which wasstrongly individualistic. In his opinion, Christian morality is indeed “stronglyanti-individualistic”,12 and indifferent towards injustice (render to Caesar thethings that are Caesar’s, render unto God the things that are God’s). It is evena type of mysticism, dogmatism, a monopoly on explanation of the phenomena of the world, i.e. an esoteric interpretation that must be relied on.As I have said, here is the beginning of development culminating in practical implementation of individualism in political space. The starting point,according to Beneš, is in the development of science that furnishes man withreasons, explains the world around him, and thus founds in him a feelingof self-respect. This is the first turning point. The second is reformationalschism within Christianity and the demand for freedom of religion, freedomof expression, and a right to criticism, which are all raised by Protestantism.The next step of his interpretation deals with the concept of naturalrights. He believes that natural rights are, to begin with, a result of theoretical thinking, and so their theoretical background comes years before theiractual implementation in political space.Beneš centres his analysis around the classic (and quite simplistically understood) Modern Age idea of the social contract that can be found in all12 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 5.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 193Modern Age political thinkers, almost without exception. A political community is founded only by a social contract and in this respect – as most ofthese thinkers believe – political rights are the result of a contractual stateand are therefore positive, i.e. based solely on a shared agreement.However, Beneš does not agree with this way of thinking about societyand refuses the idea that one can just as easily be stripped of one’s rightswithin the social space as one can be granted them. This is why Beneš appreciates Locke as the most thorough thinker as far as a clear formulationof natural human rights as something preceding the social contract is concerned. People enter these contractual relations13 free and equal. Therefore, the contract cannot deny people their original and fundamental freedom and equality. Locke is certainly not the first thinker to address naturalrights, but his elaboration is the most successful one in Beneš’s eyes. He considers Locke’s position to be one of “pure individualism”, because Locke creates a basic spectrum of natural rights, such as the right to possession, sincehe defines property as the result of life-sustaining work and sustaining one’slife is a natural right. Similarly, Locke ascribes individual rights also to children and the wife to combat domestic tyranny.Civil society was created as a means of protection against the iniquity ofstrong individuals, and so society is, in fact, a third party in intersubjectivity.This third party is delegated with the resolution of conflicts. In this sense,the point of civil society is the defence of natural rights. The field of jurisdiction of natural law is delineated by the bounds of irrevocable natural rights.We are dedicating such an amount of space to Locke (in Beneš’s rendition,of course!) intentionally, because Beneš links his version of Locke with classical individualist liberalism while, at the same time, distinguishing it fromthe rejected and criticised liberalism of the 19th century.Two things hold true for Beneš’s interpretation of later individualism ofthe 18th century:Beneš claims that this position is better than the liberalism of the 19thcentury. First of all, the thinkers of the period prior to the French Revolutionbelieved that, paradoxically enough, it is impossible to safeguard individualrights without the power of the state. The moment that there comes a demand for complete emancipation and equality of individuals with respect toone another, the uncontrollable and exploitative liberalism of the 19th century will follow. The state is required as a guarantor of individual rights.1413 Here contract is understood in analytical terms, not historical ones.14 Such is the case with, for example, Adam Smith or Montesquieu. See Beneš, E., The Origin andDevelopment of Political Individualism, p. 100.194 Jakub MarekSecondly, he shows, in the cases of the two most important politicalthinkers of the 18th century, how such a conflict leads to a situation where,for the sake of defending individual rights, an almost socialist conception ofthe state can emerge. Beneš considers Rousseau to be a socialist, because ifthe state is a political body that answers to the people, represents the people, then such a state is denying individuals of their rights. Instead of “I amthe state” there is “the state is everybody and nobody” – after all, how couldone protest against the government of the people that one is a part of? “InRousseau, we can best see how close a practically absolutist idea of the statecomes close to the idea of socialism.”15 Beneš passes a similar judgement onKant as well.The result is that “a society cannot be understood solely in socialist or individualist terms”16 and Beneš’s own position is somewhere around the moderate centre. It is an attempt at maintaining a balance and mutual co-dependence between the subjective and the supraindividual, collective aspects.Now to ask the question more specifically: what, in the end, is individualism for Beneš?3. The Concept of Individualism in E. BenešNow we are able to formulate Beneš’s understanding of individuality andindividualism more accurately. It is important to note that individuality isnot understood here as an extreme position, but rather as a happy mediumbetween two extreme alternatives. The first extreme is collectivism, i.e. allegiance to a group and its shared identity and to its system of values. The second extreme alternative is subjectivism in the sense of an emphasis on theindividual’s own self-determination, regardless of shared values. Collectivism is the absence of individuality, whereas the standpoint of subjectivismpromotes formal, negative individualism in an almost Hegelian sense. Therefore, Beneš rejects them both and gives preference to his happy medium:Beneš criticises the extreme of the absence of individuality, where oneis a member of a collectivity within which it is unclear what the reasons forone’s actions are. These reasons are mystical in the sense that they are givento the individual simply to believe in, and one then acts in accordance withthis belief without actually (individually) participating in the decision-making. One is not free, as one has no control over the reasons for one’s actions15 Ibid.16 Ibid., p. 115.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 195and is thus acting at the behest of somebody else’s conviction. In this sense,one is not an individuality. Such is the case of the aforementioned religiousor nationalist collectivities.At the other end of the scale we have extreme individuality which Benešlinks to Nietzsche and Stirner. To be more precise, Beneš talks of the “will topower” as a characteristic trait of modern man which expresses the desireof such man to be the sole ruler of his own free self-determination. However,such will has at its source simply individual wanting driven to its extreme,which means nothing more than “that’s mine”. In this sense, this extremeis subjectivism.Nevertheless, Beneš avoids both extremes. Beneš himself establishes hisown position in the centre as he strives for harmonious individuality, i.e.a rational, moderate, self-controlled individuality. What Beneš means by thisis neither a dogmatic and, “obscurantist” person as this type of person isgoverned by irrationality, nor a purely individualistic, subjectivist person,whose only principle of action is his own particularity. Rational action issomewhere in between these two – on the one hand, it means submittingto rational reason, but it also means personal identification with the public,common reason. The key to the individual is will, i.e. freedom in the sensethat man is to be the source of his own determination, man is to rid himselfof obscure reasons and accept rational reasons that will help one to be themaster of his own will and purpose.17Thus, individualism for Beneš is the ideal of moderation, of “nothing in excess”, as both extremes lead to repression of the individual, either by force orpower, as is the case with extreme individuality, or by suppression and dissolution in the ideology to which that individual adheres.Yet, individualism is not merely a negative position, a sort of “neither-nor”.On the contrary, Beneš takes it to be the completion of man, his perfection17 Beneš’s vision of man’s possibilities of self-determination is somehow “moderate” in the sensethat, on the one hand, one should be the originator of one’s own destiny, but such possibility atthe same time reaches the external boundaries of global history that restrict the formability ofindividuality. He speaks of a “fatalism of historical development”: “Thus, I do not preach a blindfatalism of unleashed social forces; after all, I did reject theories of Marxist historical materialism. On the contrary, I believe there is a certain logic in history, which is determined by humanwill, emotions, and endeavour. That is why I see leading individualities as significant agents thatgovern and deeply influence the direction of social development. However, the moment thatsocial forces reach a certain intensity – a single individual’s will ceases to be capable of controlling them. And it is in this individual action and free influence of individuals and masses that thelogic of history unveils and often takes shape of historical justice, reward, and historical judgement…” Beneš, E., The World War and Our Revolution: A Selection of Texts (Světová válka a našerevoluce: výbor z díla). Praha, Společnost Edvarda Beneše 1994, p. 61.196 Jakub Marekand finalisation. What is man supposed to be? Beneš’s advice to the membersof the YMCA is:“…to transform oneself into a harmonious, even-tempered man, intoa modern man of synthesis of both heart and reason.”18Let us name a couple of similar instances in other works and manuscriptswritten by Beneš. In his preliminary notes to a lecture on moral crisis, whichwe cited from above, Beneš drafts a version of new morality in points:“A calm, even-tempered man – the goal of today’s struggle – the struggle for individuality in times of regimentation of the state and implementation of mass democracy and collectivism.”19In the same lecture, he speaks of a new, harmonious man, a new humanitythat is “underpinned by metaphysics and religion.” And finally: “what makeseach great individuality great [?],” is the question Beneš raises in his lecturetitled Personality, Worldview, Politics (Osobnost, světový názor, politika).“A great figure is great due to his distinctiveness of feeling and reason,a sophisticated harmony of both rational and emotional qualities, anindefatigable energy of will, and a fineness of intuitive knowledge ofpeople and life’s realities.”20I believe that it is on the basis of such formulations that Patočka claims Benešwas influenced by Herder.21 Individuality is a singular, qualitatively uniqueactualisation of the rational and emotional basis of man. Although this basisis common to all humanity, its actualisation and harmonious completion isnot. However, becoming a person is a human task and in this sense it is a taskfor humanity. Beneš’s humanism, Patočka says,18 Beneš, E., The Conditions for a Successful Life (Podmínky úspěšného života). Praha, Vydavatelskéoddělení YMCA 1929, p. 12–13.19 Passage 7. “The consequence is: new morality.” („7. Důsledkem bude: nová morálka.“), point b)and c) of the manuscript notes to the lecture on moral crisis, in the Masaryk Institute ArchivesEB IV/1, 265 R 66–69 (R 57, 70), folder No. 102.20 Lecture Personality, Worldview, Politics (Osobnost, světový názor, politika) delivered in Vinohrady theatre on December 15, 1929. In the Masaryk Institute Archives EB IV/1 247 R 48/3/1,folder No. 75.21 Patočka, J., Philosophical Prerequisities of Practical Activity (Filosofické předpoklady praktickéčinnosti). See The Czechs I. Complete works of Jan Patočka, Vol. 12, p. 81.Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 197“lies in the original, fundamental decision to achieve a specific, therefore irrational, content of life, whereas the Enlightenment retreats fromit and hides behind abstract rational axioms and moral principles.”224. A Philosopher on the Throne. On the Philosophical Prerequisitesof Practical ActivityThe goal of politics is to help actualise humanity. In this last step of my paperI will focus shortly on the problem of an idealistic understanding of historythat was implied in Masaryk’s case at the beginning of this paper, but thatplays an equally important role in Beneš’s thinking. It is the notion that ideasare the driving force behind history. The owl of Beneš spreads its wings atdaybreak: “… public political and social institutions always lag behind the development of ideas…”23 For instance, the Declaration of the Rights of Man andCitizen has been theoretically influencing political space for five centuries. Itis the philosophers, the theoreticians who are the driving force of history. Incase of the French Revolution, they even become actively involved: “All thosephilosophers are preachers, announcers of new life…”24The shortcoming or one-sidedness of the aforementioned origin of individualist politics is that philosophers cared, first of all, for intellectual freedom – let’s take Kant’s “An answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”which locates freedom of the individual in the freedom of public scholarlyspeech, of rational criticism in the society of scholars. It is the following19th century that brings with it the problem of material conditions of life.In the end, it is the philosopher’s job to make sure that humanity in theform of the “modern harmonious man who seeks his individuality in the synthesis of both reason and heart”25 is actualised in political space. In Beneš’sopinion, a politician must also be a philosopher, as well as an artist and sci22 For Beneš, the ideal of actualising a really great personality also entails the attainment of “objectivity and the state of not taking things personally at every step of one’s activity…” (emphasisby JM). The quotation is from Five Stages of Masaryk’s Life (Pět fází Masarykova života), a lecturethat is part of a larger text titled Masaryk’s Struggle for Liberation. The Concept of Nation andIts Role (Masarykův boj o osvobození. Pojetí národa a jeho poslání). In the Masaryk InstituteArchives EB IV/1 259 R 57–61/a (R 66, R 67, R 69, R 70, R 91), folder No. 92–97.23 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 17–18. With allusion to Hegel’sfamous definition of philosophy that reflects the reality ex post, see Hegel, G. W. F., The Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Transl. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press2003, p. 23.24 Beneš, E., The Origin and Development of Political Individualism, p. 129.25 Beneš, E., Rede an die Deutschen in der ČSR 1935. In: Werner, A. (ed.), Edvard Beneš, Geist undWerk, manuscript, 1935 (in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 678 R 227B/7, folder No. 154).198 Jakub Marekentist, but first and foremost a philosopher, since after all his standpoint, i.e.that which serves as a foundation for his politics, is the ideality mediated tohim by philosophy.Beneš, the humanist, understands his task as a struggle for democracy,yet not a democracy reduced to liberal parliamentarism. Democracy is nospecific “institutionalism, [but] a philosophical and moral attitude, [democracy] strives for actualisation of freedom, equality of rights, law, justice, andbrotherhood…”26 To be more precise, democracy involves the “problem ofmoral education of the masses and leaders”,27 democracy raises the question“how, by what political means and methods is it possible to maintainthe highest level of individual freedom, and, at the same time, reconcile it with the collectivist tendencies of modern societies, states, andnations?”28To conclude: Firstly, I claim that Beneš is a politician-philosopher in the sensethat he declares his philosophical standpoints to be the ultimate motives ofhis practical activity. This means, most importantly, that Beneš respects theconcept of individualism as a happy medium between two extremes, collectivism and subjectivism, and that this concept remains the fundamentalconviction he keeps throughout the whole period of our focus. Secondly,I also claim that Beneš is convinced of the significant influence of ideas onhistory and therefore that ideas are the real battleground of politics, sincethey form human society. Finally, I claim that Beneš maintained his positionconstantly ever since writing his dissertation thesis on the origin and development of political individualism. In this respect, it is necessary to takeinto consideration his ideas drafted already in 1909 to be able to assess theprinciples and standpoints that form the context of Beneš’s political work.In 1923, then Minister of foreign affairs and recently elected Prime ministerof Czechoslovak government, Dr. Edvard Beneš said:“…humanist philosophy, which builds on the natural rights of man, issomething absolute. Every other philosophy that gives different rea26 In an interview titled Minister Beneš on Dynamics of Democracy (Ministr Beneš o dynamičnostidemokracie). Manuscript, 1935 (in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 259 R 57–61/a [66,R 67, R 69, R 70, R 91], folder No. 92–97).27 From the already quoted manuscript notes in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 265R 66–69 (R 57, 70), folder No. 102 (The Moral Crisis of the Afterwar World).28 From Beneš’s opening speech at Prague’s Philosophical congress, September 2, 1934. Manuscript in the Masaryk Institute Archives, EB IV/1, 258 R 55–56 (R 65, R 66, R 62, R 70).Philosopher on the Throne. Edvard Beneš 199sons for national rights is relative. I shall hold on to the philosophywhich has absolute value for me.”29His politics were guided by philosophy, it was a diagnosis of and a therapyfor a deep philosophical-moral crisis30 of the period. To end this study, I shallyield the floor to Beneš himself:“Everything I have said about the crisis of democracy is, in fact, thestruggle for a new Europe, a new European, a new person. Therefore,the Czechoslovak ideal is the ideal of a new Europe.”31 (1884--1948), President of Czechoslovakia from 1935 and head of theLondon-based Czechoslovak government-in-exile during WORLD WAR II. Benescondemned the annihilation of European Jewry and supported Jewishaspirations for a Jewish state in Palestine. Edvard Benes (1884-1948), the second and fourth president of Czechoslovakia(1935-8, 1945-8), was considered - despite the trauma of Munich he carriedThis article is based on new archival materials in several languages, published and unpublished,which I have scrutinized while editing the first critical and reconstructed edition of Edvard Benes'Memoirs, Pamëti 1938-45, vols I- III (Prague 2007) [hereafter Benes, Pamëti (2007)]. This particular article attempts to bring the controversial personality of Benes into the broader contextof the War in the East: especially Benes' relationship with Soviet Russia, its dictator Stalin andthe new geopolitical emplacement of Czechoslovakia. I am grateful to the Institute of IntegratedInternational Studies at Trinity College for having invited me to Dublin in April 2006 to presentan earlier draft of this article.1 For the origins of this quotation see note 32.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions620 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4with him - to be one of the most accomplished and resourceful Europeanstatesmen among those exiled in England during the second world war. Becausethe last decade of his life was marred by substantial contradictions in his political behaviour, the Foreign Office considered him a politicaliability, thoughit recognized his formidable negotiating abilities,2 while his Czech contemporaries saw in Benes a really outstanding but also controversial Czechoslovakstatesman.At least four serious charges have since been levelled against Benes: the firstconcerns his surrender to the Munich Diktat. The second charge maintainsthat he, first among European statesmen during the war, sold the countryto Stalin. The third, voiced by the Slovaks, accuses Benes of being the mainguardian of the artificial 'Czechoslovak' union, thereby effectively blockingthroughout his lifetime Slovak aspirations towards full autonomy. Finally, themost serious charge, from the human rights perspective, has come from theGermans, who have maintained that Benes was the chief architect of the expulsion of three million Sudeten Germans, mostly old men, women and children,of whom a quarter of a million are said to have died.3 Thus the same man whoin 1939, upon his arrival in the United States, was hailed as 'Europe's mostdistinguished democrat',4 whose country had been sacrificed by the westernappeasers to Hitler in Munich in 1938, ended up after the war being brandedas a genocidal culprit.5 And if we add his unwavering acceptance of the Sovietversion of the Katyn massacre, Benes seems to have carried a moral burdenheavier than the average democratic statesman.In this article, I would like to confront one of these charges, namely Benes'alleged surrender to Stalin, which was to bring about dire consequences forhis country and Eastern Europe under Soviet domination.6 Most commenta2 Martin D. Brown, Dealing with Democrats: The British Foreign Office and the CzechoslovakÉmigrés in Great Britain, 1939 to 1945 (Frankfurt 2006), 59; Vit Smetana, In the Shadow ofMunich: British Policy towards Czechoslovakia from the Endorsement tothe Renunciation of theMunich Agreement, 1938-1942 (Prague 2008).3 German figures, calculated on overall population losses of the Sudeten German civilian population 1945-7. See Theodor Schieder et al. (eds), Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen ausOst-Mitteleuropa, vol. 4, Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus der Tschechoslowakei(Bonn 1957-61). A critical Czech study by Jaroslav Kucera suggests figures ten times lower: seeOdsunové ztráty sudetonëmeckého obyvatelstva (Prague 1992), 32, also quoted in J. Hoenschand H. Lemberg (eds), Begegnung und Konflikt (Essen 2001), 231-44. The Joint Czech-GermanCommission of Historians agreed in 1996 on Sudeten German population losses in 1945 atan undetermined level of between 24,000 and 30,000. See Konfliktni spolecenstvt, katastrofa,uvolneni (Prague 1996), 29-30. See also the more recent treatment in N. Naimark, Fires of Hatred:Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth -Century Europe (Cambridge, MA, and London 2001), 108-38.4 The University ofChicago Magazine, November 1938, 17-18.5 This appears to be the single most important reason why Benes' candidature for the NobelPeace Prize was thwarted in 1947 by numerous protests, coming especially from German SocialDemocrats who had been exiled in Sweden during the war (author's correspondence with theNobel Institute in Oslo, July 1998).6 Unsubstantiated and quite silly charges have been made by a former NKVD senior officer thathis organization paid Benes $10,000 and helped him to escape to England via France in 1938. Benesin fact flew to England quite overtly, via the Netherlands, in mid-October 1938. His journey wasThis content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHaunen The Challenges and Dilemmas of President Benes after Munich 62 1tors observed that it was either at the end of 1943, as a result of Benes' fatefulpilgrimage to Moscow, or even later, in February 1948 during the communistseizure of power in Prague, that the Czechoslovak statesman had surrenderedto Stalin. Benes' declining health, and hence the growing margin of humanerror in his judgments, have been often mentioned as contributing factors.7Did he err in putting his trust in Stalin? When Benes negotiated with the Sovietdictator, did he succumb to Stalin's satanic charm, as did his successor EmilHácha, when he faced Hitler during the night of 14-15 March 1939? What ifBenes embraced the pro-Soviet option purely pragmatically, or with a streak ofvengeance, to overcome his humiliation resulting from the betrayal of Franceand Hitler's beastly verbal attacks?8To find the answer, we may draw on several helpful testimonies. JaromirSmutny, head of Benes' presidential chancellery and one of his closest associates, has offered in his diaries a rare insight into his master's Machiavellianmind, while recognizing at the same time Benes' unrivalled experience in international affairs.9 Eduard Táborsky, who served his master during the war aspersonal secretary and legal adviser, and who, like Smutny, was also present inMoscow when Benes met Stalin, has provided a comprehensive dscription ofthe pluses and minuses of Benes as statesman and diplomat. With special reference to the enigmatic Benes-Stalin relationship, Táborsky enumerates severalpossible factors, such as Benes' early love affair with socialism, his insistenceon speaking Russian with Soviet leaders (notwithstanding his barely adequateknowledge of that language), his exaggerated loquacity, his belief in the 'theoryof convergence', his late embracing of neo-Slavism, and other points, addingfor good measure the 'Munich complex', which led to Benes' notorious distrustof the British. However, Táborsky 's long catalogue of Benes' virtues and vicesreported in the international press, including German papers! See Pavel and Anatoli j Sudoplatov,Special Tasks, the Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness - a Soviet Spymaster (Boston 1994), 62-3.The Russian version of the Sudoplatovs' book carries a different, more plausible story about Benes,but still implies collaboration between the Czechoslovak president and the NKVD, for which nodata are offered: Spetsoperatsii-Lubianka i Kreml, 1930-1950 gody (Moscow 1997), 99.7 One of the first political analysts who convincingly argued that Benes' failure was caused notby physical exhaustion, but by his entrenched belief that Stalinism and democracy could converge, was Curt F. Beck in his brilliant article, 'Can Communism and Democracy Coexist? Benes'sAnswer', American Slavic and East European Review 11(3) (October 1952), 189-206. See Benes'own writing: Democracy Today and Tomorrow (London 1939), especially the expanded Czecheditions published in 1942 and 1946 (Demokracie dnes a ztira), 247ff. In the last chapter of hisMemoirs he repeats the question: is a transformation of postwar democracy actually possible, andis it possible for it to coexist and co-operate with the system of Soviet socialism? See: E. Benes,Parneti (Prague 1948), 426-30; E. Benes: Memoirs (London 1954), 182-6; Parneti II (2007),281-5.8 Attacks such as Hitler's Nuremberg speech of 12 September and the Sportpalast speech of 26September 1938. As for the sarcasticomments on Benes' trip to Moscow in 1943, see, amongothers, The Times, 20 December 1943; Newsweek, 27 December 1943; New Leader, 15 January1944.9 Smutny's diaries were published as Dokumenty ζ historie ceskoslovenské politiky 1939-1943(Prague 1966), eds L. Otáhalová and M. Cervinková [hereafter Smutny Diaries] (Prague 1966),here vol. I, nos 69 and 288.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions622 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4tends to exaggerate the role of ideology and minimize the decisive role whichgeopolitics played in Benes' thinking.10I am proposing a different approach. The study of Benes' writings and thetestimonies of direct witnesses has led me to a different hypothesis. Benes' decision to turn to Russia in order to establish a common border to receive militaryassistance must have occurred earlier, as a direct consequence of the Munichtragedy, when France and Britain refused to defend Czechoslovakia againstnazi Germany. Benes believed he had found the answer to Czechoslovakia'svulnerable strategic placement, which was so nakedly exposed under the dramatic circumstances ofthe Sudeten crisis. Although one cannot exclude Benes'deep emotional involvement, given the highly traumatic impact of the MunichDiktat, his decision to turn to Russia at this nerve-racking moment was nevertheless deeply rational. It was based on a perfectly logical but at the sametime desperate analysis of Central European geopolitics of survival. Duringthe Sudeten crisis, President Benes was confronted with the ominous perspective that Czechoslovakia, whose borders he had literally helped to create atthe Peace Conference in 1919, and which he tried to protect against fascistencirclement as the last surviving bastion of democracy in Central Europe,was abandoned by the West and sold down the river to Hitler. Hence Benes'traumatic determination, born in the immediate aftermath of Munich at themost humiliating moment of his political career, to provide Czechoslovakia inthe future with a permanent strategic guarantee of Russian assistance, whichwould be activated in the event of a German threat.Already in 1935, following a belated French response to German rearmament, Benes, in his capacity as foreign minister, went to Moscow to sign a treatyof friendship and mutual assistance, which, however, could be set in motiononly in the event of German invasion and if the French intervened first.11 InSeptember 1938, while German divisions were massed along Czechoslovakia'svulnerable border, the Red Army was about 1000 miles away, separated byhostile Poland and hesitating Romania, whose governments refused to givepermission for it to pass through.12It was, therefore, not surprising that during the agonizing days following10 Edward Taborsky, President Edvard Benes Between East and West 1938-1948 (Stanford,CA, 1981), 1-29; see also an earlier document, Taborsky's letter to the editor of the ManchesterGuardian of 10 January 1949, entitled 'Dr Benes and the Russians', and his 'Benes and the Soviets'in Foreign Affairs (January 1949). The popular polemic books by Toman Brod, Ceskoslovensko aSovëtsky svaz 1939-1945 (Prague 1992) and Osudny omyl Edvarda Benese (Prague 2002), fit thesame category. Benes' systematic study of socialist literature has recently been well documentedin the new political biography by Jindfich Dejmek, Edvard Benes, vol. 1, Revolutionary andDiplomat 1884-1935 (Prague 2006), 58-88.11 Text of the treaty published in Izvestiiand Pravda, 18 May 1935.12 For further details see: M. Hauner, 'The Quest for the Romanian Corridor: The SovietUnion, Romania and Czechoslovakia during the Sudeten Crisis of 1938', in Fritz Taubert (ed.),Mythos München (Munich 2002), 39-77; Hugh Ragsdale, The Soviets, the Munich Crisis andthe Coming of World War Π (Cambridge 2004); Marian Zgórniak, Wojskowe aspekty kryzysuczech oslowackiego 1938 roku (Cracow 1966); Marian Zgórniak, Sytuacja militarna Europy wokresie kryzysu politycznego 1938 roku (Warsaw 1979).This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHaunen The Challenges and Dilemmas of President Benes after Munich 623Munich,13 Benes was primarily thinking about how to bring about a majorgeopolitical change by radically correcting the desperate strategic balance inCentral Europe in favour of Czechoslovakia. Such radical change could notbe achieved without redrawing the existing borders in Eastern Europe, including those of Poland and Romania, so as to allow the Soviet Union to have acommon border with the Czechoslovak Republic and to facilitate the transitof Soviet troops westwards against German invaders. A simple glance at themap will tell us that the easternmost province of Czechoslovakia, which wasto serve as the platsdarm of Russian troops, was Subcarpathian Ruthenia,which until 1919, when the Peace Conference decided so, had for centuriesbeen part of the Hungarian Kingdom and never connected with historic Czechterritory.14The second strategic lesson that followed the traumatic Munich settlementwas to prevent the Poles and Hungarians from assisting Germany in carving upCzechoslovak territory. Benes did not pretend to hide that his third aim was tokeep the disaffected Slovak subjects in submission through the deterrent of theRed Army stationed in Ruthenia. Finally, regarding the Sudeten Germans, thelargest 'minority' in the country and hostile to the entire Czechoslovak project,apart from a vague intention substantially to reduce their numbers by internal and external transfers, Benes had to think hard about how much SudetenGerman-inhabited territory of unique strategic significance he was prepared tosacrifice for good. And we shall see, unpredictably, that he would.Czechoslovakia, however, did not disintegrate solely because of externalthreats posed by German, Polish and Hungarian revisionism. Benes had toadmit that the multiethnic republic had been even more vulnerable to internaldisruptions. He would use the analogy of two revolvers: the one held againstthe Czechs by the Sudeten Germans, the other by the Slovaks. 'When werefused to give in, the former threatened us they would join Germany andthe latter that they would separate; we must get rid of these two revolvers.'15Much as he hesitated at first to invite the Soviet air force during the Septembercrisis,16 after Munich Benes did not seem to care that, as a consequence of the13 The best testimony for Benes' mental and physical exhaustion following Munich and hisresignation on 5 October 1938 are the preserved diary entries by his wife Hana, in The NationalMuseum Archives Prague, Hana Benesová private papers, Box 1.14 The Russians, understandably, prefer the term Transcarpathian Ukraine {ZakarpatskaiaUkraina). Peter Svorc, Zakletá zem. Podkarpatská Rus 1918-1946 (Prague 2007); A.I. Pushkash,Tsivilizatsiia Hi Varvarstvo. Zakarpatie 1918-45 (Moscow 2006); V.V. Marjina, ZakarpatskaiaUkraina ν politike Benesa i Stalina 1939-194Sgg. Dokumentalnyi ocherk (Moscow 2003);Piotr and Sergei Godmash, Podkarpatskaia Rus i Ukraina (Uzhgorod 2003); Vincent Shandor,Carp atbo-Ukr aine in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1997).15 Benes' conversation with Jaroslav Stránsky, recorded by Jaromir Smutny, 11 April 1941,Aston Abbotts: in Smutny Diaries, no. 153.16 Apart from the lack of logistical preparations and inadequate airfields ready to receive theSoviet air force in September 1938, Benes' main reason not to appeal for Soviet military assistancewas political. He did not wish to be accused by France and Britain of having been instrumentalin the 'Sovietization' of Eastern Europe by starting what he called 'the second Spanish Civil War'.(See Benes' key letter of November 1938 to Ladislav Rasin; English translation in M. Hauner,This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions624 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4Soviet advance, Poland and Romania might become targets of Sovietization- as long as this could weaken German influence. Moreover, if communismwas to come with the Red Army to Central Europe, it should be considered asthe right punishment for the West's betrayal. It would also result in the necessary social purge of the reactionary and backward elements in Eastern Europe.Benes believed in the inevitability of a social revolution in Central Europe,which, as he predicted many times, would accompany the new European war,and thus repeat in substance the experience of the Great War of 1914-18.To him, as a social thinker and practitioner of power politics, the comingwar appeared as a powerful catalyst expediting the solution of many socialproblems, which would otherwise have taken centuries to solve.17 Benes mustbe regarded as one of the earliest exponents of the concept referred to as the'Thirty Years' European Civil War', whose interpreters maintained that bothworld wars must be linked together in one giant social conflict. Benes hadembraced it considerably earlier, before the concept caught the attention ofpolitical scientists.18There is no other alternative policy than the one I pursued . . . and I am not going to give ineven if I become an outcast for the rest of my life. Either my policy will prevail or fascism willspread. Do not worry; I shall take care of myself while in America. I shall neither give up norretreat from my ideas. Will act as I used to with Masaryk.19Thus spoke Edvard Benes at the end of January 1939 - until four monthsearlier the President of the Czechoslovak Republic. He was now a private person, living with his wife Hana in political exile in the London suburb of Putney,'Edvard Benes' Undoing of Munich: A Message to a Czechoslovak Politician in Prague', Journalof Cotemporary History 38(4) (October 2003), 563-77.) Two historians of Czech descent: IvanPfaff, Die Sowjetunion und die Verteidigung der Tschechoslowakei 1934-1938 (Cologne 1996),320, 363; and, to a lesser extent, Igor Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler (Oxford1996), 191, 198-201, have built their case on the intended Sovietization of Czechoslovakia in1938, using as their main argument a conjured speech by Stalin's chief propagandist AndreiZhdanov, allegedly delivered in Prague on 21 August 1938, and other fabricated evidence. Myown critical analysis appeared in: 'Zrada, sovëtizace, nebo historicky lapsus?' Soudobé dëjiny 4(1999), 545-71; and 'Could Czechoslovakia have been Saved in September 1938 and the Mythsof Munich: New Research and Old Problems', Kosmas (Czechoslovak and Central EuropeanJournal) (Fall 2004), 46-63.On Red Army operational deployment and Soviet railway capacity I am most grateful toProfessor Bruce W. Menning (US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth,Kansas) for allowing me to quote from his conference papers: 'Soviet Railroads and War Planning1927-1939' (1996); 'Soviet Railroads and War Planning 194Γ (1995); and 'The Munich Crisis inLight of Soviet War Planning and Military Readiness' (2000).17 See E. Benes, Fall and Rise of a Nation: Czechoslovakia 1 938-1 941 , ed. and intro. M. Hauner(New York 2004), especially ch. VIII; Pamëti (1948), 199, 218; Memoirs (1954), 136, 144; ParnetiII (2007), 145, 154.18 E.g. Ernst Nolte, Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945: Nationalsozialismus undBolschewismus (Frankfurt 1987).19 T.G. Masaryk (1850-1937), together with Benes the co-founder of Czechoslovakia and itsfirst president, from 1918 to 1935. For the source of this quotation see note 31 below.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHaunen The Challenges and Dilemmas of President Benes after Munich 625not even in his own apartment, but sharing a few rooms in a modest houserented by his nephew, Bonus Benes, a junior diplomat with the Czechoslovaklegation.20 Benes had left Czechoslovakiafter his resignation three monthsearlier and was preparing himselfor his first visit to the United States as avisiting professor at the University of Chicago.21 The person who took downthese notes was Jaroslav Drábek, a young lawyer from Prague on a legal business trip to London. He served at the same time as a messenger for one of thefirst resistance groups.22Benes was still convalescing from the Munich trauma, which must haveparalysed him both physically and mentally for a while.23 The European crisiswas not moving fast enough in the direction he would have favoured: that is,towards the formation of a 'Great Alliance' of democratic powers, includingthe United States and, above all, the Soviet Union - which of course was nota democracy but a totalitarian dictatorship. Benes, however, like Churchill atthe time, was convinced that without engaging the mighty human and industrial resources of Russia and America the fascist coalition of three revisionistpowers, Germany, Italy and Japan, later to be known as the Axis, could notbe defeated.Benes' mind was constantly preoccupied with the future of Czechoslovakia,whose final borders he had helped to determine at the Peace Conference of1919. While his senior colleague and co-founder of Czechoslovakia, ThomasGarrigue Masaryk, received the honorary title President-Liberator, EdvardBenes became known as the President-State Builder (Budovatel). Hence hisobsession with the optimal configuration of the next Czechoslovak State thatwas to be reassembled after the war, which he regarded as inevitable.After the Anschluss of Austria by nazi Germany in mid-March 1938, Benesappeared to be trying to cut a deal with Konrad Henlein's Sudeten GermanParty, the largest and most militant political party in the country. The negotiations between the Sudeten German Party and the Czechoslovak Governmentwent through several stages - without any chance of succeeding. Henleinappeared to want autonomy; in reality he aimed to destroy Czechoslovakia.24The collapse of the so-called Fourth Plan in early September 1938 was20 Author's interviews in 1992 with Bonus Benes's widow, Mrs Emilie Benes, McLeane,Virginia.21 The account of Benes' stay in the USA between February and July 1939 had been originallydrafted by his archivist Jan Opocensky. However, the chapter - with the exception of a fewepisodes such as Benes' secret meeting with F.D. Roosevelt - was never incorporated in Benes'Memoirs, published in 1947. Opocensky's manuscript is available in the critical edition: Formováníceskoslovenského zahranicního odboje 1938-1939, ed. and intro. by M. Hauner (Prague 2000)[hereafter cited as Formation].22 Author's interview with Jaroslav Drábek in Washington, DC, in 1992. For his book, seefurther note 3 1 .23 According to the diaries of his wife Hana, preserved in the National Museum Archives inPrague (Hana Benesová, private papers, diaries, Box 1), the physically and mentally exhaustedpresident spent most of October 1938 resting in bed.24 Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, series D/I, no. 107 [hereafter cited asDGFPorADAP].This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions626 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4followed in quick succession by a series of political explosions of varyingintensity: Hitler's speech in Nuremberg; the uprising in the Sudeten districts;the sudden departure of Lord Runciman and his mission from Prague; PrimeMinister Chamberlain's first visit to Germany to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden;the Anglo-French ultimatum to the Czechoslovak Government to surrenderto Germany all border districts with a German majority; the Czechoslovakgeneral mobilization and Allied partial mobilizations in response to Hitler'sexcessive demands at the second meeting between Hitler and the British primeminister in Bad Godesberg; and, finally, Chamberlain's third flight to Germanyto meet Hitler, Daladier and Mussolini at the crucial Munich Conference.It was in response to the shocking news that Chamberlain took a plane tofly to Germany to meet Hitler that Benes concocted ahighly secret plan, laterreferred toas the 'Fifth Plan', in which he was prepared to offer Hitler territorialconcessions - but only through French mediation.25 Minister Jaromir Necas,a Social Democrat, took this highly contentious and secret plan, summed upin a dozen points in the president's characteristic handwriting, to Paris on 15September, the same day as Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich.26 Benes' planwas to prevent the anticipated Anglo-German deal calling for an amputationof Czechoslovakia. According to Benes' highly secret counterproposal, around6000 sq. km. of Sudeten territory would be offered to Hitler, but with the obligation to absorb into the Reich between 1.5 and 2 million Sudeten Germansfrom other districts. When Daladier brought the Benes terms to London on 17September, Chamberlain dismissed them as belated and inadequate, for he hadalready made a more generous offer to Hitler two days earlier.27In January 1939, however, when Benes spoke to Drábek, he went beyond thelimits of the earlier Fifth Plan. As his finger wandered over the map, he nowconsidered giving up to Germany a territory larger than he had suggested in theinstructions to Necas four months earlier. Benes was now 'offering' up to two25 J. Kren, V emigraci (Prague 1969), 460; J.W. Brügel, Tschechen und Deutsche 1939-46(Munich 1974), 239-40; V. Kural, Misto spolecenství konflikt. Cesi a Nëmci ve velkonëmeckéfísi a cesta k odsunu 1938-45 (Prague 1994), 106; V. Kural, Vlastenci proti okupaci. Ústfednívedení odboje domácího 1940-1943 (Prague 1997), 37; D. Brandes, Der Weg zur Vertreibung1938-1945. Pläne und Entscheidungen zum Transfer der Deutschen aus der Tschechoslowakeiund aus Polen (Munich 2001), 5-7.26 Although Benes ordered Necas to destroy his handwritten instructions, they survived the warand were published by two communist historians in 1957. Their authenticity has never been challenged. For the Czech version: Mnichov ν dokumentech II. Zrada ceské a slovenské burzoasie naceskoslovenském lidu [Munich in Documents, vol. II] (Prague 1958), 209-10. A verified Frenchtranslation is printed in: Documents diplomatiques français 1932-1939, 2nd series, vol. XI (Paris1977), no. 192. See also the analysis of Jonathan Zorach, 'The Necas Mission during the MunichCrisis', East Central Europe 1-2 (1989), 53-70. Benes himself never admitted the existence of the'Fifth Plan', assuming until 1943 that Necas had destroyed his instructions. The document hasbeen included in the recently published critical edition of Benes' memoirs: Parneti I (2007), 21-3;Parneti III (2007), no. 52.27 As confirmed by the Munich Settlement of29(30) September 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded toGermany 29,000 sq. km. - a five times larger piece of territory than Benes proposed - with 3.4million inhabitants (of whom around half-a-million were Czech-speaking).This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHauner The Challenges and Dilemmas of President Benes after Munich 627million Sudeten Germans with about 10,000 to 15,000 sq. km. of territory.Starting in the west from Cheb (Eger), running through Karlsbad, Ústí (Aussig),Dëcin (Tetschen), Libérée (Reichenberg); in Moravia the new map of transferred territories included Sumperk (Mährisch Schönberg), Krnov (Jägerndorf),together with five major salients, plus three or four German-language pockets,containing altogether 1.4 million German-speaking inhabitants. The rest ofthe quota was to be provided through compensation transfers and by horsetrading the additional half-a-million Sudeten Germans in exchange for territories in Prussian Silesia, such as Glatz (Kladsko) and Ratibor, where Czech usedto be spoken in earlier generations.'The Republic's borders must be pushed eastwards,' Benes kept repeating infront of his flabbergasted Prague visitor.That's no panslavism, but a law of geography. We must become [Russia's] neighbours. Thatwill make us stronger vis-à-vis Germany and help to zip up Slovakia definitively with us.There is too much rabble over there and they remain politically immature ... the Slovaks willdefinitively fall in our arms when they see the great brethren marching from the east.The last sentence was added rather mischievously. The bond between theCzechs and Slovaks was to be re-cemented by the dominant ideology of'Czechoslovakism', of which Benes was the most single-minded champion.(The bond, however, was completely broken in less than two months. Underdirect German pressure, Slovak separatists proclaimed on 14 March their first'independent' state in history; on the following day Hitler occupied Prague.)Benes' further fantasy reconstruction to achieve a more homogeneous andgeopolitically viable Czechoslovakia was to be crowned by the creation of anew capital near Velehrad in southern Moravia. Regarding the prospects ofthe Hungarian (750,000) and Polish minorities (70-100,000) in the futureCzechoslovak state, Benes said nothing. He made, nevertheless, a few extremely negative comments about Poland. He could not forget the humiliating Polishultimatum announcing the military occupation of the Tesin pocket (Zaolzie),with terms attached that sounded more arrogant than those demanded by HerrHitler. In his thoughts Benes had already punished the Poles. He wished theirstate to be reduced to 20 million inhabitants. His main target was the Polisharistocracy, a parasitic class that should be put away and cease to play the roleof the nation's élite. A family friend, who visited him in Chicago in the summerof 1939, noticed that Benes's aversion against the Poles was visibly strongerthan against the Germans:I don't believe in an agreement with the Poles. They will always betray us. We cannot linkup with them against the Germans. It is useless. They will betray us! This is a law of nature!That does not mean that we should plot with the Germans against the Poles. They must settleit among themselves. It is Hitler who will help us to achieve [direct] neighbourhood withRussia!2828 Speaking to Frank Munk, who visited him in Chicago in July 1939, Benes said that 'Polandmust be beaten just as we have been . . . The Poles supported Munich and carry, therefore, 50This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions628 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4Germany was on the upswing and Benes, abandoned by his former alliesand by the League, was a realist who had to develop new ideas around acertain modus vivendi with his overwhelming, aggressive neighbour. Evenafter the annexation of the Sudetenland, the reduced rump-Czechoslovakia,among all 10 neighbours of Hitler's Reich, still had the longest frontier withGermany. The fragile new state, which had officially changed its title fromCzechoslovakia to 'Czecho-Slovakia', was constricted from three sides by apython-like Germany. The German border was now less than 50 kilometresfrom Prague. All rail connections between Prague and the republic's majorcities ran across German territory. Since the annexed Sudetenland containedmost of Czechoslovakia's border fortifications, the new country was in ahopeless strategic position. Benes' mind, therefore, seemed to be constantlypreoccupied with designing the optimal shape of the future Czechoslovakia inresponse to the following challenges:(1) The contemporary Slovak trend towards autonomy and eventual separation had to be stopped through reinforcing the Czecho-Slovak link and bypushing the country's centre of gravity to the East. In Benes' thinking, thefuture Czechoslovak Republic, paradoxically, with its core Czech population of 7 million, could survive without most of its original 3.5 millionGermans; but would have lost its raison d'être if 2 million Slovaks wereleft out.(2) The transfer of the Sudeten Germans, together with substantial piecesof territory, would have to be accepted as inevitable. Benes was ready totrim around 10,000 sq. km. of historic Czech and Moravian territories,provided Germany would also take 2 million Sudeten Germans: almosttwo-thirds of the total. He calculated that the future Czechoslovakia, witha solid Slavic majority of 10 million Czechs and Slovaks, could handlean extra 1 million loyal German-speaking citizens, composed mostly ofSocial Democrats, Communists and Jews, who should further be subjected to internal transfer and redistribution, so that in every constituency'Czechoslovaks' would always outvote German-speakers.(3) The easternmost province, Subcarpathian Ruthenia (TranscarpathianUkraine), was to be offered to the Soviet Union in exchange for a commonborder and guarantee of permanent military assistance. The purpose ofthis pragmatic transaction, concocted, needless to say, without the consentof its inhabitants, was perfectly rational from Benes' point of view. It wasmeant to repair Czechoslovakia's catastrophic strategic deficiency, whichhad been so alarmingly exposed during the Sudeten crisis. By acquiring adirect border with Russia, the mighty Red Army would in future fulfil adouble function: preventing German aggression and scaring off separatistSlovaks.In summing up Benes' thinking on reconstructed Czechoslovakia in earlypercent responsibility for Munich': Record of the Munk-Benes conversation in Formation^ no. 60;Parneti III (2007), no. 114.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHauner The Challenges and Dilemmas of President Benes after Munich 6291939, one can assume, on the basis of the available evidence, that being arealist he accepted for the time being the annexation of the Sudetenland byGermany, enforced by at least three verdicts: the Lord Runciman Mission(Report of 21 September 1938), the Anglo-French Plan of 19 September1938, and the Munich Settlement of 30 September 1938.29 Not surprisingly,Benes' geopolitical ideas for a sweeping reconstruction of Czechoslovakia werefounded on the ultra-secret 'Fifth Plan', originally designed to deal exclusivelywith the Sudeten German Question. After Munich, however, Benes becamepreoccupied with another radical concept: to 'push the republic eastwards',for the sake of establishing a common border with Russia and thereby gainingoptimal security against future German attack. It would cost him Ruthenia- which in denial of international law and the promise of full autonomy wasruled during the 20 interwar years directly from Prague. Slovakia, on the otherhand, was to be re-attached with a stronger bond to the Bohemian core.The 'grand design' of Benes - the President-State Builder - contained,nevertheless, additional flaws affecting Czechoslovakia's direct neighbours.If the Soviet Union was to gain direct access to Czechoslovakia throughRuthenia, those areas of Romania and Poland that blocked access to Rutheniafrom the east would have to be occupied by the Red Army before it could enterRuthenia. While Benes was using the slogan 'Push the Republic Eastwards', itwas in fact the Soviets who, in real geopolitical terms, were pushing westwards.Moreover, Benes indicated that he was ready to cede to Russia not only theentire Subcarpathian Ruthenia up to the town of Uzhorod, but also a portionof eastern Slovakia with mixed Slovak and Ukrainian (and Hungarian!) settlements, as far as Presov.The 'Ides of March' in 1939 - the day Hitler marched into Prague and dissolved rump-Czechoslovakia - shocked and surprised Benes, who was thenin Chicago. But he immediately seized the new opportunity offered by Hitler'soutrageous breach of the Munich Settlement. A new stage of planning thefuture of Czechoslovakia would begin for Benes, whose underlying purposewas to be the 'Undoing' of Munich.30 The first portion of his three-tier plan,the solution of the German Problem, territorially and ethnographically, wouldundergo the most controversial changes until mid- 1942, when the idea of aglobal transfer with as few territorial concessions as possible would win theupper hand in Benes' thinking. The second point of his overall plan of reconstruction, the Slovak Question, would remain fundamentally the same - withthe added proviso concerning the transfer of the Hungarian minority (whichhad to be abandoned in 1945 because Stalin opposed it for practical reasons).Regarding the third point, the sacrifice of Ruthenia for the sake of having acommon border with the USSR, Benes would use as an enticement, wheneverhe could win Soviet support. And also because he had nothing else with whichto bargain with Stalin.29 Benes, Pamëti III (2007), no. 54, no. 61, no. 62, no. 75.3U M. Hauner, hdvard Benes Undoing or Munich: A Message to a Czechoslovak Politician inPrague', Journal of Contemporary History 38(4), 563-77.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions630 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4As for the messenger Jaroslav Drábek, after his return to Prague he paiddearly for his underground activities under the German occupation. Arrestedand transferred to Auschwitz, he survived by a miracle. Drábek himself published a volume of memoirs in which he recounted this memorable story.31Don't be afraid of Germany. She cannot win. She is going to succeed in the beginning but inthe end victory will come through the United States and through Russia.32Was Benes aware what his pursuit of a common border with the Soviet Unionwould entail for the geopolitical balance in Central Europe? Like the sorcerer'sapprentice in Goethe's poem, did Benes not realize early enough the risk thatby providing direct assistance to the Red Army through a common border, hewould also open the floodgates to communist infiltrationf Central Europe?He did, of course, realize that. This is why he hoped that Soviet militaryassistance in September 1938 would follow a French intervention that wassupposed to come first. Since the latter failed to materialize, Benes consideredit too risky to make an exclusive appeal for Soviet help, for fear that the Westwould then regard Czechoslovakia, according to the current nazi slogan, asthe 'Soviet aircraft carrier' anchored in the centre of Europe. This is why, asBenes passionately argued in his Memoirs and later before Stalin and Molotov,he refused to issue orders to resist German aggression and call to Moscow inSeptember 1938, despite appeals from his military commanders and radicalpoliticians.33 The shock and the subsequent trauma of Munich, however, madesuch an impact on Benes that he refused to absolve the West from its betrayal.He was now prepared to bank the future of Czechoslovakia on exclusive Sovietassistance against the German Drang nach Osten.Benes' overall relationship with Russia thus appeared to be fairly complex,for it contained elements of his early socialist idealism as well as his recentpragmatism. Although Benes had never visited Russia prior to 1935, as a fellow socialist he was in touch with Russian exiles from the 1905 revolution andtaught himself Russian. During the first world war Benes did not go to Russia31 I had the good fortune to meet Jaroslav Drábek in his retirement home in Washington in1992, shortly before he died. He told me about this episode, since I knew that his report had survived and had been cited by several historians: see Jaroslav Drábek, Ζ casù dobrych i zlych (Prague1992), 31-45. In addition, I am much indebted to his son, Jan Drábek, for letting me see the fulltext of his father's original manuscript. See also Stanislav Kokoska, Ζ druhé republiky, vol. II, ed.Antonin Klimek et al. (Prague 1993), 365-75.32 Jaroslav Drábek, Ζ casù dobrych i zlych, op. cit.33 Benes, Pamëti I(2007), ch. 1.5.6. J. Smutny's notes taken in Moscow on December 11, 1943,after the Stalin-Benes argument over Munich, are revealing: Ceskoslovensko-sovëtské vztahy νdiplomatickych jednáních 1939-1945, vol. II (Prague 1999) [hereafter cited as CSV II], 129-32;original in the Smutny Collection, No. 4894, Columbia University, Bahkmeteff Archives. AlthoughStalin blamed Benes for failing to appeal for Soviet assistance, he never revealedetails of how theRed Army and Air Force would have reached Czechoslovakia in September 1938, and whetherthe Soviet Union was then ready to start alone war against Poland and Germany. For military andlogistic aspects, see the detailed studies by Hauner and Ragsdale in note 12 above.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHaunen The Challenges and Dilemmos of President Benes after Munich 63 Ilike his mentor T.G. Masaryk, who had spent a year there from 1917 to 1918during the dramatic period of two revolutions. Masaryk's chief task was toorganize the Czech Legion from prisoners-of-war to fight along the Ententefor the establishment of an independent Czech state. When the war endedwith the foundation of Czechoslovakia, one of Benes' major tasks as the firstforeign minister was to pull out the Czech Legion from Siberia, where it hadbeen since May 1918, entangled in fighting the Bolsheviks. This was the mainreason why diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakiawere not initiated until the nazis came to power in neighbouring Germany andCzechoslovakia began eagerly to look for new allies.Although Benes would usually stress geography first, history was equallyimportant to him. He was well aware of the long tradition of Russo-Prussianmilitary partnership, stretching back to the Tauroggen Convention of 1812.Benes himself witnessed in 1922 the Rapallo Agreement and the ensuingcollaboration between the Reichswehr and the Red Army. In 1935 he wentto Moscow to sign the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Two years later, Benesfeared that pro-German elements in the Soviet armed forces were allegedlyplotting to overthrow Stalin. Without asecond thought, he accepted MarshalTukhachevsky's liquidation as the victory of the anti-German faction led byStalin, thereby preventing a 'second Rapallo': 'No executions . . . can shakethis [Soviet-Czechoslovak] friendship,' he told the Soviet ambassador.34 But italso meant that Benes was thereby directly consenting to the continuation ofStalin's bloody purges for the sake of his Raison d'Etat.Thus, when the Czechoslovak crisis reached its climax in the second half ofSeptember 1938, Benes' view of the Soviet Union reflected, paradoxically, twocontrasting attitudes. On the one hand, he needed the Soviets against the nakedGerman threat. On the other, when it became obvious that building a democratic alliance including Bolshevik Russia was a delusion, and that the Germandictator would not be deterred from attacking Czechoslovakia, Benes hesitatedto avail himself of an unilateral Russian offer withouthe backing of France- for fear of starting a civil (i.e., another 'Spanish') war in Central Europe.35Even if it became clear that Britain would not fight to keep the Sudeten34 AVP SSSR [Foreign Policy Archives of the USSR], f.48, op.43, p.252, d.37, L.35-42. TheBenes-Alexandrovsky meeting took place on 3 July 1937. Alexandrovsky's diaries are cited in:N. Abramov, 'Delo Tukhachevskogo - novaia versiia', Novoe Vremia 13 (1989), 37-9; V.A.Lebedev, 'M.Tukhachevskii i voenno-fashistskii zagovor', Voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv, 1 (1993),3-82. An inaccurate translation appeared in Yurii L. Dyakov and Tatyana S. Bushueva, How theSoviets Militarized Germany 1 922-1 933, and Paved the Way to Fascism: From the Secret Archivesof the Former Soviet Union (Moscow 1994), 322-5. Although Benes boasted to Churchill that hehad received German evidence on the Tukhachevsky conspiracy earlier, which he had passed on toStalin, a senior NKVD officer categorically denied this, insisting that there was no so-called Benesdossier to be found in the Soviet archives and that no information reported by Benes was includedin the indictment ofTukhachevsky and his group. See Benes, Parneti II (2007), 162; W. Churchill,The Second World War, vol. I (London 1948), 225; cf. note 6 above: P. and A. Sudoplatov (1994),op. cit., 90-3; (1997), op. cit., 136-41.35 S.S. Alexandrovskn, Miunkhen. Sviditelstvo ochevidtsa , Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn 11 (1988),128-42.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:45:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions632 Journal of Contemporary History Vol 44 No 4Germans inside Czechoslovakia, Benes still needed to convince the world thatdefending the Czechoslovak Cause - which, oddly enough, also meant keeping the Sudeten Germans within Czechoslovakia - should be identified withthe defence of democracy at large.36Furthermore, it remains to be conclusively proved that the 80 Red Army divisions deployed in the Belorussian and Kiev military districts during September1938 were meant for a war against Germany, rather than as a deterrent againstPoland.37 In spite of Litvinov's pressing, Stalin would not take a tougher line visà-vis Hitler;38 nor was there any serious indication that the Soviets would repeatin Eastern Europe the Komintern performance in Spain.39 The morale of theofficer corps was badly shaken by the continued purges, which at the time of theCzechoslovak Crisis reached another high point in the persecution of the SovietFar Eastern Army, involved in early August in the fighting against the Japanesenear Lake Khasan. A cease-fire was negotiated soon afterwards, because Moscowhad to avoid fighting simultaneous wars in Europe and in Asia.Political geography was decisive. Benes understood that neither the RedArmy nor the Soviet Air Force could have reached Czechoslovakia to protecther from a direct German assault. He would, nevertheless, allow the legendof plausible Soviet assistance to spread in order to castigate the West for theMunich betrayal.40 Yet Benes remained a 'Westerner' at heart, in spite of theagony of Munich. After his resignation in early October 1938, he preferred togo into exile to England and the United States. If he occasionally threatenedthat he might go to Moscow in the event of an early outbreak of war, he knewvery well that as a fugitive western statesman he could not function in Stalin'sRussia.41 During a secret meeting with the American president on 28 May36 As explained by Benes himself in Pamëti I (2007), 352.37 This may be difficult to prove, because the Soviet mobilization plans had since 1935 considered Germany and Poland together as the main adversaries in the West: correspondence with Prof.Bruce W. Menning (US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas)concerning Soviet mobilization plans in 1938 and 1939. See note 16.38 Zara Steiner, 'The Soviet Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and the Czechoslovak Crisis in1938: New Material from the Soviet Archives', The Historical Journal 42(3) (1999), 751-79.39 Regarding the larger question of Komintern activities within the context of Soviet foreignpolicy and war preparations, see F.I. Firsov, 'Arkhivy Kominterna i vneshniaia politika SSSR ν1939-1941 gg.', Novata i noveishaia istoria 6 (1992), 12-35; Ν. S. Lebedeva and M. M. Narinskii(eds), Komintern i vtoraia mirovaia voina, 2 vols (Moscow 1994 and 1998); V.V. Marjina,'Komintern: Likvidatsiia ili modifikatsiia 1 939-1 943gg.', Slavianovedenie 5 (1994), 14-28; N.S.Lebedeva, 'The Comintern and Poland 1939-1943', International Affairs 8 (1993), 83-94.40 Erica Mann, writer and daughter of Thomas Mann, published an interview with Benes in theChicago Daily News, 18 April 1939, which was reprinted in The New Republic on 3 May 1939.Its most conspicuous headings were: 'Russia Faithful Till Last', and 'Willing to Act Alone.'41 In the summer of 1939 Benes indicated in his message to supporters at home that he mightgo to Moscow first, in the event of war. See Formation, no. 62 of 22 June 1939. In October 1939Benes was approached by the communist deputy Jan Sverma to move to Soviet Russia, so as toorganize from there the movement for the liberation of Czechoslovakia under the banner of thesocialist world revolution. Benes declined, with an argument that he saw his role precisely in bringing West and East together in the fight against fascism. See also Benes, Memoirs (1954), 140-3;Pamëti II (2007), 150.This content downloaded from 147.231.205.92 on Tue, 2 Apr 201
Price: 281.38 USD
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
End Time: 2024-12-17T17:53:07.000Z
Shipping Cost: 0 USD
Product Images
Item Specifics
Return shipping will be paid by: Seller
All returns accepted: Returns Accepted
Item must be returned within: 30 Days
Refund will be given as: Money Back
Type: Photograph
Subject: Presidents
Original/Licensed Reprint: Original
