Agrarianism in Central and Eastern Europe in the 19Th and 20Th Centuries

Agrarianism in Central and Eastern Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Centre of Central European Studies, Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and of the CEVRO Institute, School of political studies, 23.10.2013-25.10.2013.

Reviewed by Rudolf Kucera

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (December, 2013)

The international conference „Agrarianism in tions. Rychlík studied thoroughly the process of Central and Eastern Europe in the 19th and 20th emancipation of the parties, their position in the Centuries“ carried on in a line of conferences or‐ political spectrum in the given countries with re‐ ganised by the Centre of Central European Studies gards to political and economic circumstances. - the joint research centre of Masaryk Institute EVA BROKLOVÁ (Prague) focused on the personal‐ and Archives of the Academy of Sciences of the ity of one of the grounding members and a lead‐ Czech Republic and of the CEVRO Institute, School ing fgure of the Czech and later Czechoslovak of political studies. The organisation of the confer‐ agrarian movement Antonín Švehla. She tried to ence was also considerably supported by the Of‐ show not only the political face of the long-time fce of the government of the Czech Republic. The Czechoslovak prime minister, his position within Prime Minister Jiří Rusnok accepted to hold the the party and relations to other major political fg‐ auspices over the conference and his ofce not ures, but also his family and private life. JOSEF only provided a representative venue for the of‐ HARNA (Prague) centred his presentation on the cial opening, but also supported the organisation historiography about the agrarian movements. In team from the technical point of view. the following debate the discussants asked about The conference was opened in Hrzánský the political aspect of the agrarian movement and palace in Prague-Hradčany by the Chief of Staf suggested other possible interpretations of this from the Ofce of the Government, Radek Au‐ phenomenon. gustin, the scholarly part started the following The second panel centred on the very begin‐ day in CEVRO Institute in Jungmannova Street in nings of the movement in the Czech lands. The Prague. agrarianism in its political form succeeded in be‐ There were altogether eleven panels that coming a very powerful political force although gathered the presenters both chronologically and Bohemia was considered to be one of the most in‐ thematically and focused on diferent eras and dustrial parts of Austria-Hungary. LUBOŠ VELEK places in the agrarian movement. The frst panel (Prague) analysed the rather complicated genesis was intended to give an overview of the agrarian of the movement from the factions inside the movement in individual countries and of the up- Czech national parties and various agricultural to-date research. The frst presenter JAN RYCHLÍK societies to the important political party. PAVEL (Prague) introduced the agrarian parties and FABINI (Prague) provided a detailed study into movements and looked into their mutual rela‐ one of the agrarian factions within the Old Czech H-Net Reviews

Party and explained its difcult position inside an changing the concept of Czechoslovak foreign pol‐ all-nation embracing political force. The clash of icy, which did not work out anyway. identities was demonstrated on the example of While the leading party fgure of Antonín Josef Dürich. Another example of the feld where Švehla was presented at the beginning of the con‐ agrarian politicians were trying to gain political ference, the fourth panel focused on other impor‐ infuence was sugar beet production. FRANTIŠEK tant personalities decisive for the evolution of the ČAPKA (Brno) explained the importance of this agrarian movement and of the party. L’UBICA domain at end of the 19th century and focused on KÁZMEROVÁ (Bratislava) looked at the life and the relation between the sugar beet producers work of Anton Štefánek who is widely believed to and sugar manufacturers. be a founder of the modern national Slovak edu‐ The afternoon session began with the look at cation system. ILONA BAŽANTOVÁ (Prague) pur‐ the interwar Czechoslovak agrarianism. Chaired sued in her paper the work of Cyril Horáček, the by Jaroslav Rokoský the presenters analysed vari‐ second minister of fnance in Czechoslovakia. ous aspects of the political movement. The frst Since A. Švehla had to do without high education paper by ANTONIE DOLEŽALOVÁ (Prague) pur‐ and relied mostly on his common sense and politi‐ sued an interesting topic of corruption and clien‐ cal experience, the agrarian party was in a need telism within the agrarian party, which was sub‐ of theoretical basis for its program. The theoreti‐ sequently given as one of the reasons for dissolu‐ cal works of Horáček and his academic career tion of the party after World War II. Examples of seemed to ofer such opportunity. The panel was several high-ranking state ofcials with connec‐ concluded by LUKÁŠ KOPECKÝ (Ústí nad Labem). tion to the party shed some light on the complexi‐ His presentation introduced Karel Viškovský, one ty of relation between the state and the political of the most important politicians within the party party. MICHAL PEHR (Prague) dedicated his talk who is usually connected to the agrarian land re‐ to the relation between the political agrarianism form since he became the frst president of the and political Catholicism in Czechoslovakia repre‐ Land Reform Authority. Kopecký made clear his sented by the agrarian party and Czechoslovak involvement in the reform and also explained People’s Party with A. Švehla and J. Šrámek as reasons that led Viškovský to quit his ofce. their respective chairmen. Pehr provided interest‐ The last panel on Thursday revolved around ing information about the background of political the state of political agrarianism in today Europe. negotiations that had stood behind many compro‐ LADISLAV MRKLAS (Prague) frst made a general mises and deals sealed by both parties in the in‐ overview of the agrarian movement in the nowa‐ terwar era. MAREK ŠMÍD (České Budějovice) fo‐ days European political spectrum, drafted a politi‐ cused on the attitude of the Holy See towards the cal family scheme with the current (explicitly or agrarian party. Relying on the reports of the papal implicitly) agrarian parties, and explained two nuntio, he documented the changes of the Vatican diferent evolutionary paths of the movement approach to the young state, including the percep‐ during the last several decades, one resulting into tion of A. Švehla personality. MIROSLAV ŠEPTÁK a “catch-all” party, the other remaining focused (Prague) dealt with the topic of the agrarian for‐ on its original agricultural electorate. His col‐ eign policy, which has been generally considered leagues from the CEVRO Institute then presented a weak spot of the party. Mostly devoted to the in‐ two case studies. MIROSLAV NOVÁK (Prague) ternal business of the state, the party lacked capa‐ made a knowledgeable outline of the Swiss Peo‐ ble personalities that would engage in the sover‐ ple’s Party and its position in the Swiss political eign domain of Edvard Beneš. It was only in the system while providing necessary insight into its 1930s when Milan Hodža came up with a plan for

2 H-Net Reviews workings. MILOŠ BRUNCLÍK (Prague) shifted his tion founded in interwar Czechoslovakia. RÓBERT attention to the Scandinavian agrarian parties. ARPÁŠ (Nitra) addressed the questionable concept Not only did he explain the particularities of the of Czechoslovakism that was promoted by the historical development of each state and their im‐ Czechoslovak agrarian party, but came under pact on its political system, but, in the latter part, harsh criticism from Slovak People’s Party in the he also provided the answer the various parties 1930s. The clash between the young agrarian gen‐ gave to diferent challenges they had been pre‐ eration infuenced by the Slovakian nationalists sented with. and the Prague centre seemed to be inevitable. The last day of the conference opened with MATEJ HANULA (Bratislava) focused on the role the panel dedicated to the international form of of the subsidiary agrarian organisation to raise the agrarian movement. The frst comparative public awareness and explained the essential role study by MILOSLAV SZABÓ (Prague) and KLAUS of the subsidiary organisations to attach the con‐ RICHTER (Birmingham) analysed the anti-Semitic stituents to their party. aspect in the agrarian movement where Jewish The following panel took up for its task to ex‐ merchants and loan sharks were generally under‐ plore the role of agrarianism in south-eastern Eu‐ stood as enemies of independent peasants. These rope under difcult political and economic cir‐ processes were examined on the example of Up‐ cumstances. MIHAI-DAN CIRJAN (Budapest) per Hungary and Baltic countries in the frst looked at the Romanian agrarian movement in decades of the 20th century in the context of the the interwar period and analysed its limits given agrarian movement trying to get to power. UWE by the rural character of the state, the role of the MÜLLER (Leipzig) took up an important topic of movement within the Romanian politics and land reform that was proper to most agrarian par‐ availability of foreign loans to Romania. SUZANA ties and analysed its possibilities and impact in LEČEK (Zagreb) showed the development of the Germany before World War I. STANISŁAV STĘPKA Croatian Peasant Party in the Kingdom of Yu‐ (Warsaw) shifted the conference attention to the goslavia between the wars where the periods of post-war era after 1945 when agrarian movement passive resistance alternated with the period of was disqualifed from the political competition. parliamentary participation and times when the His paper concentrated on the activities of the In‐ party was forbidden by the state. Leček cast some ternational Peasant Union as a possible tool for light on non-parliamentary activities of the party subversion of the communist regimes in the East‐ that managed to keep it the most popular move‐ ern Europe. PIOTR SWACHA (Warsaw) followed ment among the Croatian inhabitants. This paper up with his paper on European integration con‐ was followed by the presentation of IVICA ŠUTE cepts in the International Peasant Union plans. In (Zagreb) who explored the career of Josip Predav‐ the debate that ensued, the topic of the Interna‐ ec and Rudolf Bićanić, two major economic ex‐ tional Agrarian Bureau from the interwar period perts of the Croatian Peasant Party with strong was mentioned and the possible ideological link bonds to the Czech lands. to the Polish exile Peasant Union was discussed. The last panel focused on the agrarian move‐ The seventh panel looked into the role of ment after World War II. TOMASZ SKRZYŃSKI agrarianism in Slovakia. ROMAN HOLEC (Bratisla‐ (Nowy Sacz) studied the progressive subjugation va) basically took up the theme from the preced‐ and absorption of the peasant party by the com‐ ing panel and examined the creation and role of munists in Poland. Although the party tried hard the Union of the Slavonic Agrarian Youth as one of to keep its organisation in 1947, they were fnally the forms of the international agrarian coopera‐ merged with the communist party two years later.

3 H-Net Reviews

ÉVA CSESZKA (Budapest) provided a detailed in‐ Jan Rychlík (Prague): Agrarian parties and sight into the communist methods of taking over movements in Central and Eastern Europe and the ministry of agriculture which had been a cen‐ their relations tre of agrarian experts. The opposition in the min‐ Eva Broklová (Prague): Antonín Švehla istry against the land reform compelled the com‐ Josef Harna (Prague): Historiography of Czech munist party to purge the ministry and ensure its and Slovak agrarian movement: results and blank cooperation. VASIL PARASKEVOV (Shumen) exam‐ spaces ined the gradual suppression of agrarian activities in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. He tried to Czech Agrarianism before World War I identify the various patterns and forms of com‐ (chaired by Martin Klečacký) munists’ campaigns to eventually remove their Luboš Velek (Prague): Origins and develop‐ political competitors by dividing the agrarian re‐ ment of agrarian party till 1914 sistance into several phases and analysing them. Pavel Fabini (Prague): Josef Dürich and The last paper of JAROSLAV ROKOSKÝ (Ústí nad „agrarians within old Czechs‘ party“. Clash of Labem) dealt with post-war destiny of the agrari‐ identities in the National party at the end of the an party in Czechoslovakia. The once powerful 19th century political movement was banned and its represen‐ František Čapka (Brno): Eforts of agrarian tatives were, under various pretexts, sentenced to party to gain political infuence among sugar beet jail. When the communist party took over the producers before WWI in the Czech lands (with state, agrarianism became doomed political ideol‐ special attention to Moravia) ogy, victim of ill-founded convictions, ideological distortions and misinterpretations for the next Antonín Švehla and Interwar Agrarianism in four decades. Czechoslovakia (chaired by Jaroslav Rokoský) The two-day conference on agrarianism of‐ Antonie Doležalová (Prague): Agrarianism: fered a wide ranging feld of themes and topics. It source of clientelism and corruption? explored the beginnings of the movement, looked Michal Pehr (Prague): Agrarian party and po‐ at its “golden years” between the wars, studied litical Catholicism in the interwar Czechoslovakia various agricultural phenomena, international co‐ Marek Šmíd (České Budějovice): Agrarian par‐ operation and fnally its abrupt end after 1945. ty and its representatives in the concepts and Despite the complexity, it was possible to retain a plans of the Holy See in the interwar Czechoslova‐ unifying theme for each panel. The conference kia thus presented a unique possibility of compara‐ Miroslav Šepták (Prague): An option against tive approach to diverse aspects of agrarianism as the Prague Castle? Foreign policy concepts of an ideology, political movement or economic doc‐ Czech and Slovak agrarians in the 30’s of the 20th trine. It showed similarities in the movements, century and once again tried to give an answer to the per‐ manent question why agrarianism seems to be an Agrarian Leaders and Theorists (chaired by unparalleled phenomenon of Central and Eva Broklová) (South-)Eastern Europe. L‘ubica Kázmerová (Bratislava): Anton Šte‐ Conference overview: fánek, an important representative of agrarian‐ ism in Slovakia Agrarianism and its historiography (chaired by Luboš Velek) Ilona Bažantová (Prague): National economist Cyril Horáček (1862–1943)

4 H-Net Reviews

Lukáš Kopecký (Ústí nad Labem): Karel Suzana Leček (Zagreb): „To use all opportuni‐ Viškovský (1868–1932). ties“: Alternative political strategies of the Croat‐ Political Agrarianism Today (chaired by An‐ ian Peasant Party (1918–1941) tonie Doležalová) Ivica Šute (Zagreb): The economic leaders of Ladislav Mrklas (Prague): A family of agrari‐ Croatian Peasant Movement in interwar period an political parties then and now (1918–1939/41) Miroslav Novák (Prague): Swiss People’s Party Agrarianism in the Aftermath of World War II (chaired by Klaus Richter) Miloš Brunclík (Prague): Scandinavian agrari‐ an parties Tomasz Skrzyński (Nowy Sacz): The Polish Peasant Party after the departure of Stanisław Agrarianism transnationalized (chaired by Mikołajczyk (its place on the political stage, the Ivan Šedivý) structures) 11. 1947 – 11. 1949 Miloslav Szabó (Prague) – Klaus Richter Éva Cseszka (Budapest): Theoretical and polit‐ (Birmingham): Agrarianism and agrarian anti- ical struggles between agrarian experts and the Semitism in the East Central Europe (1900–1938) communist party in Hungary (1945–1948) Uwe Müller (Leipzig): German concepts and Vasil Paraskevov (Shumen): The Last Struggle: experience of the Land Reform and its impact on The Suppression of Agrarian Parties in Bulgaria, the agrarianism in the East Central Europe Hungary and Romania, 1944–1948 Stanisław Stępka (Warsaw): Attitude of the In‐ Jaroslav Rokoský (Ústí nad Labem): A prison‐ ternational Peasant Union to Communism (1947– er’s lot of agrarian politicians in Czechoslovakia 1989) after WW II Piotr Swacha (Warsaw): European integration in the International Peasant Union concepts Agrarianism in Slovakia (chaired by Michal Pehr) Roman Holec (Bratislava): Union of Slavonic Agrarian Youth Róbert Arpáš (Nitra): Congress of young agrarian generation 1933 Matej Hanula (Bratislava): Raising of peas‐ ants‘ public awareness and its role in propagation of education and infuence of agrarian party in the interwar Slovakia Facing the Challenges of the Interwar Eco‐ nomic Crisis and World War II (chaired by Jan Rychlík) Mihai-Dan Cirjan (Budapest): The External Limits of the Peasantist State: The Romanian Agrarian Movement and the Financial Crisis of an Eastern European State

5 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Rudolf Kucera. Review of Agrarianism in Central and Eastern Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. December, 2013.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=40721

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.