Two of the Papers Deal with Provocative Figures at the Prague Congress

Two of the papers deal with provocative figures at the Prague congress. Lech Trzeciakowski examines Karol Libelt's idea of Slav federalism, and Detlef Jena looks at the role played by Mikhail Bakunin. Both supported a broader idea of Slav unity, beyond the narrower conception of Austro-Slavism. Libelt was a primary author of one of the documents developed at the Congress, "The European Manifesto". Accord- ing to Trzeciakowski, it is there that Libelt raises for the first time the notion of na- tional rights as distinct from individual rights. The striving for Slavic identity raised the thorny issue of Russia. Jena examines Bakunin's efforts to reconcile his revolu- tionary vision with all-Slav unity; either goal required creation of a new Russia. His ideas had personal consequences, and much of the paper is an analysis of Bakunin's Confession. Two other papers examine the positions of smaller Slavic peoples relative to the Congress. Peter Kunze looks at the Lausation Sorbs and why they did not accept the invitation to Prague. They had already taken several steps to preserve their identity and did not want to jeopardize their efforts by what could be perceived by the Ger- mans as overt engagement with Panslavism. Andreas Moritsch turns to the Slovenes and analyzes why they seemed to have little benefit from the Slav Congress. Among the reasons he develops was the decision to join with the South Slav section, the fragmentation of the Illyrian movement and their miniscule representation. The re- maining two papers are really peripheral to the Slav Congress. In her paper "Giuseppe Mazzini's Ceopolitics of Liberty and Italian Democrats' Foreign Policy Attitudes with Regard to Slavic Europe," Bianca Valota examines the diverse perceptions of the Slavs, particularly Poles and Russians with whom Italians were most familiar, and the common concerns of unification and Austrian power within the framework of a revo- lutionary Europe. Edward Thaden, after a brief summary of the Congress, focuses on the Commission Internationale des Etudes Historiques Slaves (CIEHS) and-its role in Slavic studies through the end of the twentieth century. Susan Mikula Benedictine University Peter Toma and DuÅ¡an KovaÄ�. Slovakia: From Samo to Dzurinda. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2001. xxxii, 432 pp. $24.95 (paper). When Stanislav Kirschbaum's A History of Slovakia appeared in 1996, expecta- tions were high that the history of the Slovak people and the two Slovak states (i939- 44 and since 1993) would finally find a broader English-speaking audience. Unfortu- nately, Kirschbaum's book, while worthy in some areas, was badly flawed, especially with respect to the author's handling of the first Slovak state. Given the significant problems with Kirschbaum's work, hopes rose yet again when the Hoover Press an- nounced that its Studies of Nationalities series would include a volume on Slovakia and the Slovaks. Unfortunately, this book is only a marginal improvement over its predecessor. i. When the book first appeared, specialists in the field (including this reviewer) were warned to be wary of it, because one of the two authors, Oušan Kova�, until re- cently Director of the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Brati- slava, made public a letter to the Hoover Press in which he asked that his name be re- moved from the project. In this letter Kova� wrote that the text he submitted to the Press was substantially altered without his knowledge prior to publication and that numerous historical errors were inserted which he was given no opportunity to cor- rect. That controversy over the text had broken out even before publication is evi- denced by the bitter Preface written by Toma, in which he accuses Kova� of unprofes- sional conduct and includes a broad hint that Kova�'s historical credentials are some- how tainted by his having been educated in Czechoslovakia under the Communist re- gime. Such hints are nonsense, given that Kova� is one of the two most prominent and well-respected Slovak historians (along with Ivan Kamenec) now living. Because there were clearly significant problems with the book even before it was published, it is a mystery how the Hoover Press could have gone ahead with the project before these problems were resolved. If pne sets aside the emotional debate between the authors and the Press and treats the book on its merits, the most positive thing one can say for this work is that its treatment of the Holocaust in Slovakia is the most forthright and detailed available in English. Nowhere does one find euphemistic language that seeks to minimize the tragedies of the war years. Instead, this book is very critical of the Slovak state and its leadership, who stand accused not of simply sending Slovak Jews to their deaths to placate the Germans, but of promoting anti-Semitism as intrinsic to the totalitarian so- ciety Father Tiso and his associates were trying to create. The honesty of this account of the war years in Slovakia is commendable and, at least for the present, offers readers the most useful account of the war years in English. If only the rest of the book were so good. First among the problems readers will encounter is the exceedingly unbalanced nature of the narrative. Although the title promises a history from Samo to Dzurinda, fewer than 50 of the 450 pages in this work deal with events before 1918. Second, this book is almost entirely a political and military history of the Slovak people. No reader will come away from his or her encounter with the text with any sense of Slovak culture, traditions, social development or even what the Slovak people are like. Instead, political parties, their ideologies and their leaders, elections, the occasional military battle, and political commentaries are paraded past the reader in a numbing procession. Only the most devoted student of politics will find this approach entertaining or even useful. The author - and from a close reading it appears that Toma is essentially the author of this book - displays no awareness of social or cultural history and also seems unaware of more current schol- arship on significant events such as the Prague Spring. Because the book lacks a bib- »»graphy, it is impossible to determine what, if any, sources on these subjects he con- sulhd. In addition to these problems, there are many factual errors in the text - far too many tut, enumerate in detail. None of these errors is so egregious as to be fatal, but they are worrisome nonetheless. For example, the text contains a series of incorrect dates, such asthe assertion that the Hungarian King Stephen was proclaimed a saint in 1001. (the actualdate was 1083), and the armistice that ended the First World War for Austria-Hungarywas signed on November 3, 1918, not November 6. Although Toma .

Load more