Slovaks Held Back by Hungarians?
Johanne L. Tournier
Haliho, Listmembers!
I recently purchased the new Sixth Edition of the *National Geographic Atlas
of the World,* Washington, D.C., 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996. While casually
perusing the thumbnail sketches in the "Nations of the World" section, I
noticed the description of the state of Slovakia. I shall quote it verbatim
for the benefit of the Listmembers:
*************
This new country's split from the more affluent, industrialized Czech
Republic was prompted by Slovak nationalism and grievances over rapid
economic reforms intstituted by the former government in Prague - reforms
that left many Slovaks without jobs. Unlike their Czech neighbors, who
industrialized under the Austrian Habsburgs, the Slovaks were held back
economically by the Hungarians, who ruled them for a millennium. In 1918
they united with the Czechs to create Czechoslovakia. A puppet state of Nazi
Germany during World War II, Slovakia rejoined the Czech region at war's
end. Czechosolovakia was soon subjected to decades of a repressive communist
regime, which collapsed in 1989.
Slovakia's high rate of unemployment - four times that of the czech Republic
- is due in part to meager foreign investment and to the decline of its
controversial arms industry. Mountains cover much of the nation's central
and northern sections; the agricultural southern lowlands yield a variety of
grain crops, as well as sugar beets.
Slovak Republic area: 49006 sq km (18921 sq mi.). Population: 5,370,000.
Capital: Bratislava, pop. 446,700. Religion: Roman Catholic. Language:
Slovak, Hungarian. Literacy: 99%. Life expectancy: 71 years. Economy:
Industry, textiles, machinery, munitions. Export crops: forest products.
Food crops: grains, potatoes, sugar beets, livestock. PCI: $1900.
*************
Are those fair characterizations - namely, that the Hungarians ruled the
Slovaks for a milennium (there never was an established Slovak state, was
there?) - and that the Slovaks were held back economically by the
Hungarians? It seems to me that this is another case of reading the past
based on the perceived morality of the present. Any thoughts on this would
be appreciated.
Tisztlettel,
Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - tour...@atcon.com
Doug Holmes
At 08:32 08-02-1997 -0400, you wrote:
>Haliho, Listmembers!
>
Atlas
>of the World,* Washington, D.C., 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996. While casually
>perusing the thumbnail sketches in the "Nations of the World" section, I
>noticed the description of the state of Slovakia. I shall quote it verbatim
>for the benefit of the Listmembers:
>
>*************
>This new country's split from the more affluent, industrialized Czech
>Republic was prompted by Slovak nationalism and grievances over rapid
>economic reforms intstituted by the former government in Prague - reforms
>that left many Slovaks without jobs. Unlike their Czech neighbors, who
>industrialized under the Austrian Habsburgs, the Slovaks were held back
>economically by the Hungarians, who ruled them for a millennium. In 1918
Nazi
>Germany during World War II, Slovakia rejoined the Czech region at war's
communist
>regime, which collapsed in 1989.
>
Republic
>- is due in part to meager foreign investment and to the decline of its
>controversial arms industry. Mountains cover much of the nation's central
of
>grain crops, as well as sugar beets.
>
>Slovak Republic area: 49006 sq km (18921 sq mi.). Population: 5,370,000.
>Capital: Bratislava, pop. 446,700. Religion: Roman Catholic. Language:
>Slovak, Hungarian. Literacy: 99%. Life expectancy: 71 years. Economy:
>Industry, textiles, machinery, munitions. Export crops: forest products.
>Food crops: grains, potatoes, sugar beets, livestock. PCI: $1900.
>
>*************
>
>Are those fair characterizations - namely, that the Hungarians ruled the
>Slovaks for a milennium (there never was an established Slovak state, was
>there?) - and that the Slovaks were held back economically by the
>Hungarians? It seems to me that this is another case of reading the past
>based on the perceived morality of the present. Any thoughts on this would
>be appreciated.
>
>Tisztlettel,
>
>Johanne/Janka
>
>Johanne L. Tournier
>e-mail - tour...@atcon.com
My grandmother was born in Mezobereny, Bekes megye in 1890. She had mixed
Slovak and Hungarian ancestry: LISKA (fox in Slovak) and BALLA. So perhaps I
am in a unique position to feel a relationship to both the Slovaks and the
Hungarians. I knew nothing of my heritage when growing up, so the things I
say are not based on any prejudice learned from parents when I was a child.
The statements in the National Geographic are accurate and are commonly
voiced by Slovaks. Things sited by Slovaks are the forced Magyarization and
outlawing of their native language. Inability to rise in status except by
becoming more Magyar.
All this is part and parcel of the ethnic unrest of the Slovaks now living
in Hungary (a major percentage live still in Bekes megye). In recent times
things have improved and they allow Slovak language schools there. I have a
cousin in the Slovak school in Szarvas, Bekes m.
On the reverse side of the coin is the complaints of Magyars in modern SK
and their desire to speak their own native language. Of course they should
be able to, so if you agree to that, why wouldn't Slovaks be able to in
times past?
About a Slovak state, before Magyars conquered the Carpathian basin around
the last millinium, Slovaks were united in what people call the "Great
Moravian Empire" under Sv=E4topluk, their leader. They fairly quickly were
conquered and remained as peons for the next 1000 years.
It's a very old problem and there are far more specifics to it and
complaints from both sides than I've attempted to state here. Anyone
tackling this subject is very likely to be flamed no matter what they say.
There are extremists on both sides. Just be glad if you're an American and
are considered "equal" under the law. People in times past had no such=
luxury.
As a side note, did you know that the often revered "Magyar" Kossuth Lajos,
is of Slovak ancestry?
Tisztettel,
Doug Holmes
do...@dholmes.com
Director of the Hungarian/American Friendship Society. A group specializing
in Hungarian and Slovak genealogy. Visit our home page at:
www.dholmes.com/hafs.html
Eva S. Balogh
At 08:32 AM 2/8/97 -0400, Johanna wrote, quoting the new Sixth Edition of
the *National Geographic Atlas:
Let me go line by line:
>Unlike their Czech neighbors, who
>industrialized under the Austrian Habsburgs, the Slovaks were held back
>economically by the Hungarians, who ruled them for a millennium.
This is not so. In fact, after the Compromise the central government
made serious efforts at industrializing the Felvide'k (Upper Hungary), the
name of the northern areas of Greater Hungary. Tax breaks were given to
entrepreneurs who would set up industrial complexes in these areas. In fact,
Slovak industry--much weaker still than in the Czech parts of the new
Czechoslovakia--suffered greatly after the establishment of the new
republic. They couldn't compete with the much more advanced Czech industry.
Even if the economic exploitation is untrue, the Slovaks had serious
grievances when it came to higher education in their own mother tongue. At
the time of the Compromise there were several Slovak-language gymnasiums but
one after the other was closed because the central authorities found some
"seditious acts" connected to them. In any case, eventually there was not
even one Slovak-language high school for Slovaks. Thus, if Slovak parents
wanted to give an education to their children they had to attend
Hungarian-language schools. By the time they finished gymnasium, especially
if they attended university, they became completely Magyarized. Thus the
Slovaks rapidly assimilated especially because the Felvide'k was a poor
region with few job opportunities and about 300,000 Slovaks moved to the
capital. Needless to say that their children living in Budapest felt
completely Hungarian. Also, larger towns in the Felvide'k--even some with
only 20-30,000 people--were mostly Hungarian-speaking by the turn of the
century.
>In 1918
>they united with the Czechs to create Czechoslovakia.
Yes, yes, they united but no one really asked them whether they
wanted to be united or not. Slovak emigrants living in the United States
"voted" for joining the Czechs in a new Czechoslovak state. Originally the
Slovaks thought that it would be a federated republic where Slovakia would
have home-rule, the kind the Hungarians had in the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy. But the Czechs, like so many other people in this area, could
think only in terms of a centralized state. The Slovak political leader, a
Catholic priest called Hlinka, immediately protested but he was arrested by
the French police in Paris at the request of Edvard Benes. Thus, the Slovaks
were never really truly satisfied with their lot within Czechoslovakia.
>A puppet state of Nazi
>Germany during World War II, Slovakia rejoined the Czech region at war's
>end.
Given Slovak dissatisfaction it is not surprising that Slovakia
gladly accepted independent status after the collapse of Czechoslovakia. The
Slovak government was pretty subservient to the Germans. However, at the end
there was an uprising against the Germans and the Tiso government.
Then Johanna adds:
>Are those fair characterizations - namely, that the Hungarians ruled the
>Slovaks for a milennium (there never was an established Slovak state, was
>there?)
This part is true. The "Great Moravian Empire" Doug mentioned wasn't
as grant as the name would indicate. Moreover, we know darn little about it.
Perhaps Liviu and Jeliko could come up with something in that department.
Although the Slovak nationalists were hard at creating national heroes
ruling in those days, they were shadowy figures. (It is interesting to look
at the stamps issued by the puppet Tiso government during the war! I
recommend it highly!)
And by the way, the main problem between the Czechs and the Slovaks
was that they had entirely different historical experiences and as the
result entirely different outlooks. They speak very closely related
languages but they think and act very differently. The Czechs are mostly
free-thinkers, while the Slovaks are fairly devoted Catholics, for example.
Somewhat similar situation to the differences between Serbs and Croats:
different history, different religion, different ways of thinking.
Eva Balogh
Martin Votruba
Thanks to Eva Balogh for her succint review of the atlas entry.
>made serious efforts at industrializing the Felvide'k (Upper Hungary), the
>name of the northern areas of Greater Hungary. Tax breaks were given to
This is just a technicality: a true translation of _Felvidek_
is either the "Upper Country", or possibly the "Upper Land(s)", should
we worry that a reader will misunderstand _country_ as a "body
politic" instead of "countryside".
But if readers are expected to be confused by this, then
_Northern (Kingdom of) Hungary_ is a better reference to that region
(starting from about the 11th century), since "north" (as opposed to
"upper") is readily identifiable by anyone. _Upper Hungary_ is
neither a translation of _Felvidek_, nor a clear reference to the
geographic area in question (just like "Northern Scandinavia" is not
a translation of _Lappland_ or _Nordkalotten_, but an understandable
reference to that region).
>Catholic priest called Hlinka, immediately protested but he was arrested by
>the French police in Paris at the request of Edvard Benes. Thus, the Slovaks
>were never really truly satisfied with their lot within Czechoslovakia.
This was probably true of many Slovaks, but not necessarily of
"the" Slovaks; or if it was, it didn't influence everyone's political
vote. In 1935, even after 12 years of Czechoslovakia, the two Slovak
autonomist parties won 30.1% of the votes and the five Czechoslovakian
centralist parties 37%. A fear of Horthy's Hungary may have played a
role in some of the pro-centralist vote then.
> This part is true. The "Great Moravian Empire" Doug mentioned wasn't
>as grant as the name would indicate. Moreover, we know darn little about it.
>Although the Slovak nationalists were hard at creating national heroes
>ruling in those days, they were shadowy figures. (It is interesting to look
To a varying degree, these figures were also worked into
Czech, Czechoslovakian, Polish and even Sorbian histories. We would
probably know darn more about ancient Great Moravia's shades of gray
if the dozens of papers and books on this period published in the past
three decades by Slovak, Czech and Polish archeologists and historians
were available in English. Many may not have been written with a goal
to create heroes for those nations.
> And by the way, the main problem between the Czechs and the Slovaks
>was that they had entirely different historical experiences and as the
>result entirely different outlooks. They speak very closely related
>languages but they think and act very differently. The Czechs are mostly
>free-thinkers, while the Slovaks are fairly devoted Catholics, for example.
As Eva says, Slovakia was just a province in pre-WW2
Czechoslovakia and not even that in the former Kingdom. As a result,
there's less information about it than about whole countries, and some
popular assumptions about its past are rather anecdotal.
Contrary to what Western (and even Visegrad) media often said
before Czechoslovakia's recent split, the Czech lands were
traditionally more Roman Catholic than Slovakia.
According to the 1921 census, only 70.9% people in Slovakia
were Roman Catholic, while 78.2% were Catholic in Bohemia and as many
as 89.5% in Moravia-Silesia.
17.7% people in Slovakia were Protestant (12.8 Slovak Lutheran,
4.8% Calvinist and 0.1% German Lutheran). Only 3.7% of the people in
Bohemia were Protestants. Moreover, most of the Slovak anti-centralist
activists in the 19th century were Lutheran while the Czech ones were
mostly Catholic (albeit perhaps not devout).
Sociological research and opinion polls have not not focused on the kind
of Slovak--Czech differences that Eva hints at. Whatever there is
shows similarities and differences that go with the level of
urbanization rather than with anything else. The same applies to the
limited research into any differences between the Slovaks and the
Hungarians in Slovakia. The few post-communist parallel polls in the
ex-Comecon countries do not capture that, either: they they do not
automatically place the Slovaks with the Czechs or the Hungarians.
It seems reasonable to expect that various aspects of Slovak
culture should show a closer link with the Hungarians than with the
Czechs. Apparently, Hungarian, Slovak and Czech sociologists,
anthropologists and political scientists don't go after it.
Martin
Eva S. Balogh
Isn't it wonderful when three people with different ethnic
backgrounds can agree? This seems to be the case in this case when Martin
Votruba, Hugh Agnew and I pretty well agree on the situation of Slovaks
within historic Hungary.
At 01:03 AM 2/9/97 -0500, Martin Votruba wrote:
> This is just a technicality: a true translation of _Felvidek_
>is either the "Upper Country", or possibly the "Upper Land(s)", should
>we worry that a reader will misunderstand _country_ as a "body
>politic" instead of "countryside".
Yes, Martin is quite right but in the literature it is normally
translated as Upper Hungary. And, by the way, I was using the word Felvide'k
rather carefully because talking about Slovakia before 1919 is inaccurate.
As for your suggestion of giving a better name to Felvide'k, I am thinking
of "Upland," especially in its meaning of "ground elevated above the
lowlands along rivers or between hills." What do you think?
>>Catholic priest called Hlinka, immediately protested but he was arrested by
>>the French police in Paris at the request of Edvard Benes. Thus, the Slovaks
>>were never really truly satisfied with their lot within Czechoslovakia.
>
> This was probably true of many Slovaks, but not necessarily of
>"the" Slovaks; or if it was, it didn't influence everyone's political
>vote. In 1935, even after 12 years of Czechoslovakia, the two Slovak
>autonomist parties won 30.1% of the votes and the five Czechoslovakian
>centralist parties 37%. A fear of Horthy's Hungary may have played a
>role in some of the pro-centralist vote then.
Yes, I remember these figures myself but I always wondered how
accurate they were of the true sentiment of the Slovak electorate. I was
always a little skeptical. But I think you are right, the fear of Horthy's
Hungary was a factor.
> Contrary to what Western (and even Visegrad) media often said
>before Czechoslovakia's recent split, the Czech lands were
>traditionally more Roman Catholic than Slovakia.
> According to the 1921 census, only 70.9% people in Slovakia
>were Roman Catholic, while 78.2% were Catholic in Bohemia and as many
>as 89.5% in Moravia-Silesia.
> 17.7% people in Slovakia were Protestant (12.8 Slovak Lutheran,
>4.8% Calvinist and 0.1% German Lutheran). Only 3.7% of the people in
>Bohemia were Protestants. Moreover, most of the Slovak anti-centralist
>activists in the 19th century were Lutheran while the Czech ones were
>mostly Catholic (albeit perhaps not devout).
Yes. I didn't express myself properly. The Czechs were more Catholic
than the Slovaks as far as percentages go but they had a much more casual
attitude toward religion (that is what I called free-thinkers) while the
Slovak Catholics were more devout. And yes, I agree with Martin that this
was mostly the result of the predominance of agriculture in Slovakia.
As for the Protestants being in the forefront of national
activities, I am not at all surprised about that. Look at the situation
among the Hungarians: the Protestants were always more fiercely against
Vienna than the Catholics.
> It seems reasonable to expect that various aspects of Slovak
>culture should show a closer link with the Hungarians than with the
>Czechs. Apparently, Hungarian, Slovak and Czech sociologists,
>anthropologists and political scientists don't go after it.
I purposely didn't want to go into that because "national
characteristics" is such a controversial issue. But I agree with Martin, the
Slovaks, for better or worse, resemble the Hungarians (or vica versa) while
the Czech character shows remarkable similarities to that of the Germans. At
the moment I wish that both the Slovaks and the Hungarians would be somewhat
more like the Czechs whom the Hungarians always found very dull. But their
temperament seems to me much more suitable to the kind of challenges these
three countries face than the that of the Slovaks or the Hungarians.
And that remind me of something which happened more than 30 years
ago. I was on a trip--fairly long drive. I was looking for an acceptable
radio station when to my great surprise I found one which--as far as I was
concerned--was broadcasting Hungarian folksongs. There I was, singing along
merrily when I became aware that the lyrics were--how shall I say--not quite
familiar. It turned out to be an ethnic Slovak broadcast. All the best known
Hungarian folksongs also exist in Slovak. Which came from where? I assume
you would have to be a musicologist to figure it out.
And here is another personal experience which I found very moving.
(Unfortunately such things happen only rarely!). I happened to be in Hungary
during the Prague Spring events although the news of the final outcome
reached me in the United States. One evening I was in a restaurant and at
the next table there was a bunch of Slovak tourists. There was such a
sympathy in Hungary toward Czechoslovakia at that time that a group of
Hungarians at another table called the Gypsy and paid him to go to the
Slovak table and play some typical Slovak songs.
Eva Balogh
Doug Holmes
At 10:22 09-02-1997 -0500, Eva wrote:
> Yes, Martin is quite right but in the literature it is normally
>translated as Upper Hungary. And, by the way, I was using the word Felvide'k
>rather carefully because talking about Slovakia before 1919 is inaccurate.
>As for your suggestion of giving a better name to Felvide'k, I am thinking
>of "Upland," especially in its meaning of "ground elevated above the
>lowlands along rivers or between hills." What do you think?
>
>
How 'bout "Highlands" like in Scotland?
Doug Holmes
Eva S. Balogh
At 06:10 AM 2/9/97 -0800, Doug wrote:
>How 'bout "Highlands" like in Scotland?
Meaning as a translation of "Felvide'k." Actually, this is quite
accurate except when you hear "Highlands," you immediately think of Scotland
and not today's Slovakia. But, I think as far as equivalents go it is perfect.
Eva Balogh
esba...@iconn.net