Search

In commenting on the papers presented in this session on the Czechs and the Poles, I would like to discuss Professor S. Harrison Thomson's approach to the interpretation of Czech history and Professor Piotr Wandycz's concept of divide et impera. In addition, although the main emphasis of this conference is on the nations within the monarchy, I believe that some remarks about the relationship of the individual to the empire might also prove useful.

In the fall of 1918, when the colossal empire of the Habsburgs collapsed and a new Czechoslovak state took its place among the Successor States, the birth of the new republic tempted scholars to speculate about how this event would influence the future work of Czech and Slovak historians. Yielding to this temptation, Josef Pekař, a leading Czech historian and co-editor of Český časopis historický (Czech Historical Journal), in the preface of the 1918 volume of the journal jubilantly welcomed the new state on behalf of Czech historians, described the role that Czech history and Czech historiography had played in the past, and suggested what role it would play in the future fortunes of Czech people. His words aptly expressed the views of the large majority of Czech historians at that time