Search

After the end of World War I, Eastern Europe entered a period of upheaval. The continental empires dissolved and new nation-states emerged. Following the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, democratization became the dominant political concept. But the meaning of “democracy” was unclear, and many different political groups claimed sovereignty over its interpretation. In this article, we want to take a closer look at the border regions between the newly emerg-ing nation-states of Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, which were characterized by a high degree of ethnic, religious, and social diversity. These border regions were also charac-terized by different experiences with politics, especially with voting rights and political parties. Despite their relative geographic proximity, Upper Silesia, Teschen Silesia, and Orava had very different political histories, being part of Prussia, the Austrian Crown Lands, andthe Kingdom of Hungary. While voting rights in the Kingdom of Hungary were severely restricted, the Austrian Crown Lands had universal male suffrage since 1907. In many cases, the concept of national belonging was very different from the political centersand often had a strong regional connotation—with regionalist movements claiming the idea of “self-deter-mination” for themselves. Thus, the regional conceptions of democracy and nationality that emerged in the brief period of 1918/19 are often unique and overlooked.

After the end of World War I, Eastern Europe entered a period of upheaval. The continental empires dissolved and new nation-states emerged. Following the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, democratization became the dominant political concept. But the meaning of "democracy" was unclear, and many different political groups claimed sovereignty over its interpretation. In this article, we want to take a closer look at the border regions between the newly emerging nation-states of Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, which were characterized by a high degree of ethnic, religious, and social diversity. These border regions were also characterized by different experiences with politics, especially with voting rights and political parties. Despite their relative geographic proximity, Upper Silesia, Teschen Silesia, and Orava had very different political histories, being part of Prussia, the Austrian Crown Lands, and the Kingdom of Hungary. While voting rights in the Kingdom of Hungary were severely restricted, the Austrian Crown Lands had universal male suffrage since 1907. In many cases, the concept of national belonging was very different from the political centers and often had a strong regional connotation with regionalist movements claiming the idea of "self-determination" for themselves. Thus, the regional conceptions of democracy and nationality that emerged in the brief period of 1918/19 are often unique and overlooked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the uncertainties of transitional periods, particularly in East Central Europe between 1918 and 1923, highlighting the intertwined processes of democratization and nationalism. It explores how the end of World War I led to a significant political and social upheaval, resulting in the emergence of new states and democratic forms of governance alongside challenges and conflicts at regional and local levels.

The article focuses on digital networking considerations regardless of location working teams and deal with the three border regions of Cieszyn Silesia, Orava and Upper Silesia in the period of upheaval after the First World War. It mentions First World War and the collapse of empires changed the border regions finally become a "shatter zone of empires" and language and denomination and led to new ideas of homogeneity in the nation states to an inevitable conflict.

This article deals with the region of Subcarpathian Rus (Uhors'ka Rus'/Podkarpatská Rus/Zakarpattja), a contact zone which belonged to the Habsburg-ruled Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and to the Czechoslovak Republic up until 1938/39, before returning to Hungary during the Second World War. Since then, it has been part of Ukraine. Special emphasis is given to the year 1918 as a caesura in the production of knowledge about the region. Looking closely at the groups of historical actors involved, the author shows how this was a contact zone in which the interests of internationally active scientists encountered one another, as well as those of non-scientific publicists. In line with their respective political orientations, they wrote works directly opposed to one another or wilfully ignored each other's findings. In effect, they also interpreted the region over the heads of the local population through the fact that the knowledge they generated was increasingly politicized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dialectologia et Geolinguistica is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)