Abstract
The aims of the Polish, Slovak, and Czech liberation movements towards the end of World War I converged. The early formative stages of Czecho-Slovakia1 and Poland in the immediate aftermath of the war brought forward issues, which introduced the first cacophonous tones into otherwise harmonious relations. The situation in Orava and Spiš in late 1918 and early 1919, and particularly the unfolding of events in Tešín Silesia, where fighting broke out on 23 January 1919, altered the attitudes on both sides. The confrontation in Tešín Silesia created a major obstacle to normal relations and cast a shadow over the border delimitation in Spiš and Orava. The negotiations between CzechoSlovakia and Poland in Cracow in 1919, in fact the Czech—Polish negotiations, merely confirmed irreconcilability of the differences and brought Orava and Spiš into the company of Tešín Silesia. Early contacts between Slovak, Czech, and Polish independence activists, imbued with a spirit of support, were seen as a promising sign of future cooperation and friendship between Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. Two states with a projected Slavic majority were perceived as natural allies against Germany and as part of a “New Europe.” Their leaders planned postwar cooperation in order to demonstrate their ability to assume geopolitical responsibilities and to dissipate views of Central Europe as a source of instability and quarrels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Ferdinand Peroutka, Budování státu: Československá politika v letech popřevratových, 1918 [The Building of the State: Czecho-Slovak Politics after the Revolution] (Praha: Fr. Borový, 1933), 229, 236, 469–70. Robert William Seton-Watson and Thomas Garrigue Masaryk had founded The New Europe in October 1916 mainly to promote the cause of the independence of CzechoSlovakia. It was published in London through October 1920.
Paul Mantoux, The Deliberations of the Council of Four (March 24–June 28, 1919), vol. 1, trans. and ed. A. S. Link, with the assistance of M. F. Boemeke (Princeton University Press, 1992), 301. Thomas Garrigue Masaryk argued, “Without a free Poland there will be no free Bohemia — without a free Bohemia there will be no free Poland.”
T. G. Masaryk, The New Europe (the Slav Standpoint) (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 155. Czecho-Slovakia and Poland played a vital role in the French anti-German bloc in Central Europe. The Czech-Polish conflict over Tešín Silesia ran contrary to the tenets of Slav solidarity and Peroutka criticized the Poles, suggesting that, in 1918 they tried to expand in each direction. Peroutka, Budování státu, 1918, 229, 236. For the first outlines of Czecho-Slovakia, see Perman, “First Outlines of the Czechoslovak State,” chap. in The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 8–27.
Zbigniew Kazimierz Cesarz, Polska a Liga Narodów. Kwestie terytorialne w latach 1920–1925. Studium prawno-polityczne [Poland and the League of Nations. Territorial Questions in 1920–1925. A Legal-political Study] (Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego, 1993), 100–1;
A. Szklarska-Lohmannowa, Polsko-czechosłowackie stosunki dyplomatyczne w latach 1918–1925 [Polish-Czecho-Slovak Diplomatic Relations in 1918–1925] (Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Zakł. nar. im. Ossolinskich, 1967), 14–15;
Masaryk’s memorandum to US Secretary of State Lansing from 31 August 1918 in E. Beneš, Světová válka a naše revoluce, vol. 3 [World War and Our Revolution] (Praha: Orbis, 1928), 421; Beneš’s memoranda to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon from 3 June 1918 and from September 1918 (Beneš’s request of the recognition of the historical borders of the lands of the Czech Crown), ibid., vol. 2, 227; vol. 3, 401, 433. The Polish National Committee (Komitet Narodowy Polski – hereafter KNP) was created in August 1917 and during autumn 1917 was recognized by the Allies and the United States as representing Polish interests in exile. Its territorial program reflected Wilson’s Point XIII (Fourteen Points of 8 January 1918): “An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations.” The 1910 Austrian statistics for Teschen Silesia showed: 2,282 km² territory, 430,000 inhabitants, of which 54.85% were Poles, 27.11% Czechs and 18.04% Germans. Mantoux, Deliberations, vol. 2, 284.
France recognized the KNP on 10 November 1917, Great Britain on 15 October 1917, Italy on 30 October 1917, and the United States on 10 November 1917. B. E. Schmitt, “The Polish Question during the World War: (B) The Polish Problem in International Politics,” in The Cambridge History of Poland: From Augustus II to Pilsudski (1697–1935), 486. T. G. Masaryk had praised the first recognition of the “Czecho-Slovaks” in the Entente statement of 10 January 1917 in his letter of 24 February 1917 to E. Beneš: “It is a huge success for us and especially for the Slovaks, which they would never have achieved without our work.” Frank Hadler, ed., Weg von Österreich! Das Weltkriegsexil von Masaryk und Beneš im Spiegel ihrer Briefe und Aufzeichnungen aus den Jahren 1914–1918. Eine Quellensammlung [Away from Austria! The World War Exile of Masaryk and Beneš Reflected in Their Letters and Notes from 1914–1918] (Berlin: Akademie Verlag GmbH, 1995), 428. Recognition as a de facto government, though important, did not constitute in itself an automatic recognition of respective territorial claims.
See Perman , “The Quest for Recognition,” chap. in The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 28–47. (hereafter PPC) (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1942–47), 11, 366–7. The US delegation at the Conference advocated an ethnic boundary for Czecho-Slovakia until 4 April 1919, when it gave in to the French demand for the retention of the historical boundary of Bohemia and Moravia.
Victor S. Mamatey, The United States and East Central Europe, 1914–1918: A Study in Wilsonian Diplomacy and Propaganda (Princeton University Press, 1957; reprint, Port Washington, NY and London: Kennikat Press, 1972), 310.
Henryk Wereszycki, “Beck and the Cieszyn Question,” in History of Poland, 538; Davies, God’s Playground, vol. 2, 390; Lukowski and Zawadzki, A Concise History of Poland, 221; Titus Komarnicki, Rebirth of the Polish Republic: A Study in the Diplomatic History of Europe, 1914–1920 (Melbourne: William Heinemann, 1957), 238. The Polish National Council of the Duchy of Teschen was constituted on 19 October 1918. It declared independence and its intention of joining the (yet non-existent) Polish Republic on 28 October 1918 and signed an agreement ceding the western part of the Duchy to the local Czech National Council on 5 November 1918 (ibid.).
Davies, God’s Playground, vol. 2, 393; Lukowski and Zawadzki, A Concise History of Poland, 223; Headlam-Morley, A Memoir of the Paris Peace Conference 1919, 10; Komarnicki, Rebirth of the Polish Republic, 239; Anita Prazmowska, Ignacy Paderewski (London: Haus Publishing, 2009), 88–9;
Waldemar Michowicz, “Organizacja polskiego aparatu dyplomatycznego w latach 1918–1939” [“Organization of the Polish Diplomatic Apparatus in 1918–1939”], in Historia dyplomacji polskiej, vol. 4 (1918–39), ed. Piotr Łossowski (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1995), 11;
Arthur S. Link et al., eds, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (hereafter PWW) (Princeton University Press, 1966–), vol. 45, 195.The elections to the Legislative Sejm were conducted only in certain areas of Poland. No elections took place in Tešín Silesia due to the fighting between the Poles and Czechs that broke out 23 January 1919.
Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 318; Marián Hronský, The Struggle for Slovakia and the Treaty of Trianon, 1918–1920 (Bratislava: Veda, 2001), 109; Heimann, Czechoslovakia, The State That Failed, 40; Machay, Moja droga do Polski, 125–7, 149. Machay argued that the Poles in Orava were entitled to join Poland if the Slovaks decided to join with the Czechs. Dr. Bednarski, head of the National Council in the Podhale region, sent a congratulatory telegram to Matúš Dula, Chair of the Slovak National Council, expressing his hope to find an agreement on the delimitation of the Polish regions. Dula did not reply (ibid.). For detailed background on the situation in the fall of 1918, see Hronský, The Struggle for Slovakia and the Treaty of Trianon, 1918–1920, 222–31.
Hronský, The Struggle for Slovakia and the Treaty of Trianon, 1918–1920, 143–5; Marek Kazimierz Kamiński, Konflikt polsko-czeski 1918–1921 [The Polish-Czech Conflict 1918–1921] (Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN, 2001), 15; “Polish Foreign Policy regarding the Question of Tešín Silesia, Spiš and Orava (1918–1921),” 153–4; Vojenský historický archív [Military Historical Archives] (hereafter VHA) Prague, Fond VS-Schöbl 1918. Carton 1, No.S-353–21/a; quoted in Hronský, The Struggle for Slovakia and the Treaty of Trianon, 1918–1920, 145.
See also J. Valenta, “Polská politika a Slovensko v roce 1919” [“Polish Policy and Slovakia in 1919”], Historický časopis 8.3 (1965), 403–22. Polish troops re-entered Spiš on 11 December 1918. Machay, Moja droga do Polski, 168.
Bogdan Cybulski, Rada Narodowa Księstwa Cieszyńskiego (1918–1920) [The National Council of the Duchy of Tešín (1918–1920)] (Opole: Instytut Słaski, 1980), 43, 154; Peroutka, Budování státu, 1918, 236; Cesarz, Polska a Liga Narodów, 102.
Kamiński, Konflikt polsko-czeski 1918–1921, 9, 13, 30–1; “Radio de Varsovie No. 184,” 23 January 1919, Berthelot pour Comité National Polonais Paris, AD/MAE, Z-Europe 1918–29, Tchéco-Slovaquie, vol. 50, 81–2; “Memorjal Rzadu czecho-slowackiego w sprawie Slaska,” MSZ, D.1893/19/111. Odpis. CAW Warsaw, TB, I.476.1.102, Polska polityka zagraniczna w sprawie Slaska Cieszynskiego, Spisza i Orawy; “Stanowisko Rzadu polskiego przez memorjal [Memorjal Rzadu czecho-slowackiego w sprawie Slaska],” Warsaw, 4 February 1919, CAW Warsaw, TB, I.476.1.102, Polska polityka zagraniczna w sprawie Slaska Cieszynskiego, Spisza i Orawy; “Memorial rzadu czechoslowackiego do rzadu polskiego w sprawe sytuacji na Slasku Cieszynskim,” Prague, 21 January 1919, SPCS 18–39, Doc. No. 3, 10–15. Prague argued that the population in Tešín Silesia, which confirmed the Czech and Polish ethnographers, was not nationally conscious, that this population spoke a transitional dialect, and that the population was so mixed, even in the smallest districts, that any demarcation was impossible (ibid.). For more on the “Seven-Day War,” see Kamiński, Konflikt polsko-czeski 1918–1921, 9–42; Perman, “The Teschen Incident,” chap. in The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 97–120; Piotr S. Wandycz, French-Czechoslovak-Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to Locarno (Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press, 1962), 75–89.
Kamiński, Konflikt polsko-czeski 1918–1921, 9, 13, 30–1; “Radio de Varsovie No. 184,” 23 January 1919, Berthelot pour Comité National Polonais Paris, AD/MAE, Z-Europe 1918–29, Tchéco-Slovaquie, vol. 50, 81–2; “Memorjal Rzadu czecho-slowackiego w sprawie Slaska,” MSZ, D.1893/19/111. Odpis. CAW Warsaw, TB, I.476.1.102, Polska polityka zagraniczna w sprawie Slaska Cieszynskiego, Spisza i Orawy; “Stanowisko Rzadu polskiego przez memorjal [Memorjal Rzadu czecho-slowackiego w sprawie Slaska],” Warsaw, 4 February 1919, CAW Warsaw, TB, I.476.1.102, Polska polityka zagraniczna w sprawie Slaska Cieszynskiego, Spisza i Orawy; “Memorial rzadu czechoslowackiego do rzadu polskiego w sprawe sytuacji na Slasku Cieszynskim,” Prague, 21 January 1919, SPCS 18–39, Doc. No. 3, 10–15. Prague argued that the population in Tešín Silesia, which confirmed the Czech and Polish ethnographers, was not nationally conscious, that this population spoke a transitional dialect, and that the population was so mixed, even in the smallest districts, that any demarcation was impossible (ibid.). For more on the “Seven-Day War,” see Kamiński, Konflikt polsko-czeski 1918–1921, 9–42; Perman, “The Teschen Incident,” chap. in The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 97–120; Piotr S. Wandycz, French-Czechoslovak-Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to Locarno (Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press, 1962), 75–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Marcel Jesenský
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jesenský, M. (2014). Two States and Three Disputes. In: The Slovak-Polish Border, 1918–1947. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449641_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449641_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49686-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44964-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)