Boundaries and Identity of Central Europe: Changing Concepts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Oslo-Lemberg.Stand: 16.06.2000, 14:26 • c:\programfiler\adobe\acrobat 4.0\acrobat\plug_ins\openall\transform\temp\s15_4_2l_paper.doc • 1 Boundaries and Identity of Central Europe: Changing Concepts. by Hans Lemberg Half a century ago the prominent Polish Historian Oskar Halecki discussed in his landmark study the “limits and divisions of European History”.1 What he really did was to define the boundaries between Central Europe and the Eastern, orthodox part of Europe. In doing so he stood at the cross road between a discussion of the twenties and early thirties of our century on the meaning of East European History and a se- ries of future make ups of this dispute, which is alive until our days, when on the pages of the Journal “Osteuropa” historians mostly of the younger generation discuss the significance of academic study of East European History in its German tradition and connotation. Halecki’s book is, moreover, a document of his time, written in the era of beginning Cold War between what was called “East and West” of Europe, and his fatherland being embedded in the Eastern, Soviet hemisphere instead of - where it belonged to by all its historical roots: to Old Europe, if not to East Central Europe, a term which Halecki himself used in his book and, by the way, defended it against the indeed dubious term of Central Eastern Europe (Europe Centro-Orientale, Mittel- osteuropa),2 which alas, fifty years later, had to become a common place in the offi- cial jargon of European Union. Already in 1923 young Halecki had opened the discussion on “Eastern Europe” at the fifth International Congress of Historical Sciences with a communication on “L’histoire de l’Europe Orientale. Sa division en époques, son milieu géographique et ses problèmes fondamentaux”.3 It was in this paper that Halecki presented his ob- servation, that Eastern Europe was divided in two parts: Poland belonged as now as in history to the Western part, whereas Soviet Russia - which was at that time in a catastrophic state - was the Eastern part of this region. This perception was discussed and modified during the VII. International Congress of Historical Sciences in War- saw in 1934, where the 15th section was dedicated to the definition of East European history. By the way this was the same section number under which we are discussing 1 OSKAR HALECKI: The Limits and Divisions of European History. London–New York 1950 (German translation: Darmstadt 1957). 2 Ibid, German edition, p. 113. 3 OSKAR HALECKI: L’histoire de l’Europe Orientale. Sa division en époques, son milieu géographique et ses problèmes fondamentaux. In: La Pologne au Ve Congrès International des Sci- ences Historiques à Bruxelles 1923. Varsovie 1924, pp. 73–94. Oslo-Lemberg.Stand: 16.06.2000, 14:26 • c:\programfiler\adobe\acrobat 4.0\acrobat\plug_ins\openall\transform\temp\s15_4_2l_paper.doc • 2 now at the XIX. congress, 67 years later, the quite similar topic of Central Europe, although in the Warsaw discussion of 1933 the term Central Europe has not explic- itly been mentioned.4 I do not intend to define anew the meaning of what is to be understood by Central or Eastern Europe, even if this discussion is alive to-day again; this dispute has been revitalised after the revolutions of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe. The purpose of this paper is as well not to continue deliberating about what might be or not be „Mitteleuropa“. The history of this notion has been pointed out many times, and es- pecially what regards this notion seen by e.g. German Geographers during the last two centuries the diagnosis is rather deterrent.5 The sober definitions by the historians Klaus Zernack6 or Rudolf Jaworski7 are more down to earth: The one putting “Ostmitteleuropa” as region of a specific and relative long lasting domiation of estates in modern history, the other one more in pursuing the historical development and the political implications of „Mitteleuropa“. This paper will concentrate mainly on 20th century, but not without looking back to the predispositions and changes of the centuries before; and I will ask, which specific functions might have had boundaries for Central Europe and its identity.8 In this communication the interest may leave aside the outer “limits” of Central or East Central Europe, which may be understood as the region of pre-modern estate system with its liberties9 (that is above all Poland, the Bohemian Lands and Hun- 4 HANS LEMBERG: Mitteleuropa und Osteuropa. Politische Konzeptionen im Spiegel der Histo- rikerdiskussion der Zwischenkriegszeit. In: Mitteleuropa-Konzeptionen in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ed. R.G. PLASCHKA et al., Wien 1995 (= Zentraleuropa-Studien. 1), pp. 213-220. 5 HANS-DIETRICH SCHULTZ: Deutschlands „natürliche“ Grenzen. „Mittellage“ und „Mitteleu- ropa“ in der Diskussion der Geographen seit dem Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 15 (1989), pp. 248-281. 6 KLAUS ZERNACK: Osteuropa. Eine Einführung in seine Geschichte. München 1977, passim. 7 For the Discussion of the last two decades cf. RUDOLF JAWORSKI, Die aktuelle Mitteleuropa- Diskussion in historischer Perspektive, in: Historische Zeitschrift 247 (1988), pp. 529-550; TIMOTHY GARTON ASH: Mitteleuropa, aber wo liegt es? In: Transit 16 (1998/99), pp. 133 ff.; JÜRGEN ELVERT: Mitteleuropa! Deutsche Pläne zur europäischen Neuordnung 1918-1995. (Historische Mitteilungen. Beiheft 35), Stuttgart 1999. 8 Cf. HANS LEMBERG: Grenzen und Minderheiten im östlichen Mitteleuropa - Genese und Wechselwirkungen. In: Grenzen in Ostmitteleuropa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Aktuelle Forschungs- probleme, ed HANS LEMBERG. (Tagungen zur Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung. 10), Marburg 2000, pp. 159-181. For further literature cf. IDEM: Arbeitsbibliographie, ibid., pp. 247 ff. 9 KLAUS ZERNACK: Osteuropa (see above, note 6); such is the delimitation of “Geisteswissen- schaftliches Zentrum Kultur und Geschichte Ostmitteleuropas” in Leipzig. Oslo-Lemberg.Stand: 16.06.2000, 14:26 • c:\programfiler\adobe\acrobat 4.0\acrobat\plug_ins\openall\transform\temp\s15_4_2l_paper.doc • 3 gary), or without Hungary, but inclusively the Baltic Lands.10 The content of these concepts may also change depending on the topic of the research or of the time dealt with. The interest of this paper is on the political boundaries and on their function; their changing concepts through the centuries accompany the development of the societies from a pre-modern to the concept of a homogeneous national state of our century, and, possibly, on the question what is specific in them for Central Europe. It may just shortly be mentioned, that even the notion of boundary, in German “Grenze”, goes back to Slavonic origins. The word “granica” is to be found for the first time in documents of Germania Slavica as special term for a linear boundary. From there the word and the conception of linear border has penetrated to nearly the whole extension of German language, superseding also the older concept of “Mark”, that is of broader or narrower frontier zones.11 The modern concept of Grenze, of linear boundary, has been implemented in the 16th and 17th centuries in the context of coming into existence of the modern territorial state, of superioritas territorialis. By then, states have been defined by the triplicity of state people, state authority, and state territory. There is no doubt, that state territo- ries are surrounded and defined in their proper sense by the state frontier. These frontiers or borders have been shifted, territories have been divided or united, or parts of state territories have been annexed by other states, in most cases on the real or pretended grounds that there are historical-legal foundations for these shifts.12 It was then only in the age of enlightenment, that a new, presumably rational princi- ple for boundary definition came into existence: The “natural borders”. It was Mon- tesquieu, who taught that every state has its “limites naturelles” which were to be the real measures for state boundaries - and not their delimitation by old and dusty privileges.13 The state may expand until these natural limits - trespassing these would be a breaking of this natural law. In a way this idea was tailor-made for France, and 10 As in the Herder-Institut, Marburg. 11 HANS-WERNER NICKLIS: Von der „Grenitze“ zur Grenze. Die Grenzidee des lateinischen Mittelalters (6.–15. Jh), in: Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 123 (1992), pp. 1–30. 12 DIETMAR WILLOWEIT: Rechtsgrundlagen der Territorialgewalt. Landesobrigkeit, Herrschafts- rechte und Territorium in der Rechtswissenschaft der Neuzeit. Köln-Wien 1975 (Forschungen zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte. 11),esp. pp. 274 ff.; see also: HANS MEDICK: Grenzziehung und die Her- stellung des politisch-sozialen Raumes. Zur Begriffsgeschichte und politischen Sozialgeschichte der Grenzen in der Frühen Neuzeit, in: Grenzland. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutsch-deutschen Grenze, ed. B. Weisbrod. Hannover 1993, pp. 195-211. 13 N.J.G. POUNDS,: The origin of the idea of natural frontiers in France, in: Annals. Association of American Geographers 41 (1951), pp. 146-57; IDEM: France and "Les limites naturelles" from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries, in: Ibid. 44 (1954), pp. 51-62. Oslo-Lemberg.Stand: 16.06.2000, 14:26 • c:\programfiler\adobe\acrobat 4.0\acrobat\plug_ins\openall\transform\temp\s15_4_2l_paper.doc • 4 indeed in Napoleonic times the attaining of the natural boundaries of Ocean and Py- renees, of Alps and Rhine-Maas seemed to fulfil the vision. The definition of natural borders whatsoever in Central and Eastern Europe made considerable difficulties. With only rare exceptions as the Düna in 18th, the Oder- Neiße in 20th century or the “natural” ranges from the Sudetens to the Carpathians or in South Europe some parts of Save or Danube, the Balkan range or the Drina, the argument of natural boundaries could only play a minor part. Albeit for this Region of Europe there has been another element than ranges or rivers which could function as “natural borders”: the ethnicity (Volkstum), defined above all by unity of language.