Carpathian Ruthenia As an Imagined Colonial Space
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE CZECHOSLOVAK ORIENT: CARPATHIAN RUTHENIA AS AN IMAGINED COLONIAL SPACE BY GEOFFREY BROWN A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Victoria University of Wellington 2016 Figure 0.1 – “Let’s Get To Know the People and Beauty of Subcarpathian Ruthenia!” Czech Tourist Guidebook Cover (1937) “Poznejte lid a krásy Podkarpatské Rusi!” (Uzhhorod: Národohospodářský sbor pro zemi Podkarpatoruskou, 1937). ii Abstract In 1919 the territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia joined the new state of Czechoslovakia under the terms set by the Treaty of Saint Germain. During the following twenty years a relationship developed between Czechs and Ruthenia’s Rusyn inhabitants which this study considers as an example of imperialism and colonialism. The Czech media applied a colonial framework in its portrayals of Ruthenia, encouraging the Czech public to see the poor and undeveloped territory as a colony ruled from Prague. Rusyns also used colonial terminology as a means of criticizing the Czech officials who ruled them. The colonial discourse occurred despite a shared Slavic ethnic background and even as representatives of both nations expressed brotherhood and solidarity towards one another. Some Czech officials sent to Ruthenia adopted imperialist attitudes and practices in an environment of minimal bureaucratic oversight, leading to friction with the Rusyn intelligentsia. Faced with the threat of Czechization, Rusyns struggled to achieve autonomy and an anti-imperialist movement supporting Rusyn rights developed among Czech Communists. The Prague government sought to defend its actions in Ruthenia against accusations of mistreatment by the Hungarian revisionist movement. The existing Anglophone and Czech-language historiography on interwar Ruthenia generally portrays Czech rule as kindly and beneficial for the Rusyn population, focusing on Slavic kinship. Aiming to provide a fresh and detailed analysis of the Czechoslovak administration and the cultural forces at work in forming a colonial discourse, this study draws on an extensive range of government documents, newspapers and archival materials collected in Prague and Brno. By applying the theories of Edward Said, Jürgen Osterhammel, Maria Todorova and Kristin Kopp, the relationship is assessed through the terminology of discursive and material colonialism, together with Orientalism, liberal imperialism and internal colonialism. Three different areas of scholarly interest are the focus of this study: symbolic geography and colonial discourses in European contexts, political and social developments in Ruthenia, and treatment of national minorities in interwar Czechoslovakia. The study includes eight chapters which alternate between viewing the relationship from the Czech perspective and the Rusyn perspective. The opening chapter analyzes the Czech role as Slavic leaders and benefactors in the new republic and how a Czech humanitarian mission iii became a mission civilisatrice. The second chapter focuses on the shift in thinking among Rusyns from jubilation after joining the republic to growing disillusionment over denial of political autonomy. Chapters three and four describe the formation of a discursive colonial relationship; the third chapter presents how Czechs imagined Rusyns in the mold of colonial stereotypes, while the fourth chapter analyzes how Czechs and Rusyns imagined their relationship through comparisons to other colonial regions such as Africa, the Orient and Siberia. Chapter five focuses on the experiences of Czech officials working in Ruthenia, highlighting the shift in Rusyn perceptions of these administrators from Slavic brothers to imperialists. The role played by Czech official and publisher František Svojše as a symbol of Czech chauvinism receives special attention in the analysis. The sixth chapter covers the Czech anti-colonial movement among Communists and left-wing authors such as Ivan Olbracht who condemned the imperialist character of the Czech administration in Ruthenia. Chapter seven outlines the Rusyn struggle for autonomy and resistance of Czechization until the achievement of an independent parliament in 1938. The final chapter describes the Czech fear of imperial loss, analyzing how Czech media and politicians defended Czechoslovak rule in Ruthenia against international criticism and the Hungarian revisionist movement. iv Acknowledgements Many people have offered advice and assistance during the preparation of this project, first and foremost my supervisors Dr. Alexander Maxwell and Dr. Adrian Muckle, who read and commented on innumerable chapter drafts. Dr. Alexander Maxwell has been particularly generous in offering his time and knowledge whenever it was required. PhDr. Jiří Vykoukal of Charles University in Prague provided early encouragement for this topic while supervising my Master's thesis. Thanks also to Milena Běličová of the Czech National Museum Archives and Jakub Doležal of the Czech Presidential Office Archives who both went above and beyond the call of duty to make materials available to me. The staff of the Slavonic Library, National Library and T.G. Masaryk Institute Archive in Prague and the Moravian Library in Brno helped with countless queries and requests. A special thanks also to Martina Hyklová, Ján Jencík and Ľubomír Rudohradský who provided a sounding board for ideas and kindly offered accommodation during the research process. Thank you also to Victoria University of Wellington for providing a PhD scholarship and research travel funding which made this project possible. v Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements v List of Figures vii A Note on Terminology: Place Names, Spelling and Transliteration viii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Slavic Benefactors for a Poor Nation 21 Chapter 2 From Euphoria to Disillusionment: Rusyn Responses to Czech Rule 45 Chapter 3 Constructing a Czech Civilizing Mission: Stereotyping Rusyns as a Primitive “Other” 65 Chapter 4 Colonial Fantasies: Ruthenia Imagined as African and Oriental 85 Chapter 5 From Humanitarianism to Imperialism: Rusyn Views of František Svojše and Czech Officials in Ruthenia 105 Chapter 6 Ivan Olbracht and the Czech Anti-Imperialist Movement 131 Chapter 7 The Rusyn Struggle for Autonomy 153 Chapter 8 Defending Czech Rule: The International Campaign against Charges of Imperialism 171 Conclusion 197 Bibliography 205 vi List of Figures 0.1 “Let’s Get To Know the People and Beauty of Subcarpathian Ruthenia!” Czech Tourist Guidebook cover, 1937 ii 0.2 Map “Czechoslovakia 1919-1938” 2 0.3 Map “Carpathian Ruthenia” 3 2.1 “Carpatho-Rusyn Labour Party Campaign Poster,” Russkaia zemlia, 1925 63 3.1 Cartoon “Rusyn with Pig,” Podkarpatské hlasy, 1925 77 3.2 Cartoon “Election Speech,” Podkarpatské hlasy, 1925 78 3.3 Cartoon “On the Antalovtsi/Antalovec Railway line,” Podkarpatské hlasy, 1925 79 4.1 Headline and Photographs from Polední list Article “Subcarpathian Ruthenia – Our Future Colony,” 1937 86 5.1 František Svojše Endorsing an Uzhhorod Suitcase Retailer, Podkarpatské hlasy, 1926 119 5.2 “The Idea of Slavic Reciprocity in Practice in Ruthenia,” Podkarpatské hlasy, 1926 123 6.1 Cover of Vašek Káňa’s Book Transcarpathia (1932) 135 8.1 Cartoon “We Are a Peace-Loving Nation,” Humoristecké listy, 1927 186 vii A Note on Terminology: Place Names, Spelling and Transliteration The territory known today as Zakarpattia oblast in Ukraine has amassed an astonishing number of names throughout its history. In English the territory has been referred to in different time periods as “Ruthenia,” “Subcarpathian Ruthenia,” “Subcarpathia,” “Subcarpathian Rus’,” “Transcarpathia,” “Transcarpathian Ruthenia,” “Transcarpathian Ukraine,” “Carpathian Rus’,” and “Carpatho-Ukraine.” All names carry historical and political baggage, and therefore no single name has come to form a universally accepted standard. In Czech the territory has generally been referred to as “Podkarpatská Rus” [Subcarpathian Rus’/Ruthenia] since the 1920s, though alternate historical names have included “Uherská Rus,” “Karpatská Rus,” “Země Podkarpatoruská,” “Rusinsko,” “Zakarpatsko,” and “Podkarpatsko.” During the interwar period Rusyns referred to their territory as “Karpatska Rus” or “Podkarpatska Rus” and in 1938-1939 also as “Karpats'ka Ukraina.” Choosing the appropriate toponym for the territory thus presents many problems for scholars of East-Central Europe. Numerous names have appeared in English scholarship, including Transcarpathian Ukraine and Carpathian Rus’. However, the use of “Rus’” and “Ukraine” in these names may suggest preference for Russian or Ukrainian particularist views of the territory’s national loyalty. Even the geographical terms “Subcarpathian” and “Transcarpathian” are subject to political interpretation, as they imply viewpoints from opposing sides of the Carpathian Mountains. Subcarpathian (“Podkarpatská” in Czech) describes the territory as if viewed from the Bohemian Lands to the west, placing it below or beneath the Carpathian mountains. Meanwhile Transcarpathia (“Zakarpattia” in Ukrainian) views the territory from Kyiv and the Ukrainian steppe to the east, placing it behind or beyond the mountain range. All options are politically sensitive, but this study will use the term “Carpathian Ruthenia,” shortened in most instances to “Ruthenia,” instead of the adjectives “Subcarpathian” and “Transcarpathian” and nouns “Rus’” and “Ukraine” in an effort to limit connotations. The author is aware that some scholars may