Post by henerte on Jun 10, 2005 13:52:50 GMT -5
The proper term should be Central-Eastern Europe (CE Europe). It consists of Poland, The Czech Rep, Slovakia and Hungary - that's to say, the countries that belong to the Vysehrad group and are mostly West Slavs as ethnicities. This term doesn't appear too often in the western media - I've seen it only once or twice in the Economist.
As Eastern Europe, we describe Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I don't think that this name i.e. "CE Europe" was created because of a particular resentment toward Russia or any other country but simply because the term Eastern Europe is too broad to be used in any comparisons or analyses. After all, it theoritically stretches from Albania to Estonia.
Nevertheless, whether somebody likes it or not, all these countries are grouped together, and so are named in the western media. Maybe, because from the outside, people have a bigger distance and see more similarities than differences. Or maybe, because since all slavic countries form one ethno-linguistic family, people feel a need to stretch out this affilation to culture, mentality etc. Besides that, the iron curtain was separating both parts of Europe for almost 50 years so Kundera should not be surprised that one side is a bit "ignorant" about the other one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kundera presents his very own (czech) view and says:
The Slav world doesn't exist. It comprises two "worlds" i.e. 1) Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) and 2) Central Europe (West Slavs, South Slavs, Hungary, Romania)
If we be base this division on communism, this is true (but only for the last 50 years). If we base this division on a "big nation"-"small nation" distinction, this is also true with a different time period for different nationalities. So in a sense, Kundera is right.
It's naive to think that for the past 50 years the Soviet Union and the rest of communist countries felt any kind of strong "togetherness". On the contrary, the opposition toward Russia and communism on general was quite strong. "Solidarity" and other pro-democratic movements didn't pop out out of nowhere. (you have to remember though, that for many centuries most of these nations were not independent and mostly had totalitarian governments that were sometimes as oppresive towards their own citizens as towards conquered foreigners so the indentification with the state was not so strong and didn't really affect interpersonal relations as much as one could expect)
He is also right when he says that a common characteristic of the region is an almost neverending feeling of a threatened national identity. Czechs were dominated by Germans, Balkans by Turks, and Poles by Germans and Russians.
The split between these two "worlds" doesn't already make one "Western" and the other one "Eastern". It just shows that the group was not uniform in it's attitude towards communism and it's historical experience or mentality that was largely shaped by the struggle for independence or lack of it
He says:
The history of the Czechs as of the Poles, Slovaks, Croats or Slovenes...is purely western; Gothic; Renaissance; Baroque; close contact with the Germanic world; struggle of the Catholicism against the Reformation. Nothing to share with Russia, who was far, as another world. Only the Poles lived with Russia in a neighbouring relationship, but similar to a fight to the death...
He is wrong when he says that pre-soviet history of all his Central European countries is purely Western (it's not even true in case of West Slavs). He is also wrong when he says that these Central European countries (or Western Slavic countries) share strong cultural and historical similarities and at the same time Russia is completely alien to them. As I said before, they are united by the past 50 years, by long tradition of struggle for independence (common to all of them since XVIII century) and above all common ethnolinguistic heritage, with languages very similar to each other. But if you went deeper in the history you would find many differences (that seem to be erased from memory by more recent historical events)
If we assume that Russia and Turkey is "the East" and Western Europe is "the West" then most of what Kundera calls Central Europe, is with a variable degree a mix of these two spheres. Czechs and Hungarians (maybe also Slovenians) are the most westernized nations in almost all fields. Poland and probably Slovakia and also Croatia to lesser extend (yet still "western")...and so on. That would partly reflect the borders of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Saying that Western Slavic countries are simply Western countries kidnapped by Eastern Europe is wrong though. The border line probably goes somewhere through former Yugoslavia and north somewhere in Eastern Poland.
Actually, there was even quite a hectic debate here whether Poland was joining Europe (meaning the West) or just the European Union. Most publicists used to say that although culturally, historically and religiously Poland should be generally ascribed to the West, for the past 50 years was in the East (understood as communism). I like Vaclav Klaus' opinion, that is, it should be said that CE Europe is joining the EU and not Europe, because otherwise it gives a impression that without EU there would be no Europe, that the EU (with Franco-German alliance at steer) tries to monopolize Europe and imposes it’s own vision on others.
Maybe in the middle ages, Poland was a purely western country. However after the union between Poland and Lithuania most of the military and political effort was aimed at the East. The battle at Grunwald (1410) was portrayed as a clash between the East (mainly Poles but also other eastern european nationalities) and the West (Teutonic Knights). During that battle, the polish army was commanded in an eastern style (the King didn't directly participate in the battle but commanded from a hill - tactics borrowed from Tatars). From the XV to XVII century Poland was an empire in Europe and occupied today's Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia. We even conquered Moscow and stayed there for a few years. The son of our king was proposed the russian crown in Moscow but he was a catholic bigot from Sweden and refused as one of the conditions was convertion to East Orthodox Church. So somewhere from the XV century Poland was more involved in the East and Russian domination started only somewhere in the XVIII century when Poland became the sick man of Europe. Poland's involvement in the so-called East was not only limited to politics but also involved culture and language (that has many eastern slavic borrowings). As Poland was at that time superior culturally to Russia it was more like Russians copying things from us, not the opposite. Nevertheless, Polish aristocracy was fascinated by the Orient which found it's reflection in e.g. clothing. When polish king, Jan III Sobieski, entered Vienna in 1683 he was taken for a Turk. After the partition of Poland, only a part of the country was ruled by Austrians or by Prussians. The rest fell under Russian rule. So Russia was not another world and our history is not purely western.
Czechs were almost always culturally dominated by Germans. If not politically or militarily. And are the best example of a fully occidentalized slavic nation (Mickiewicz, polish poet involved in the panslavism, used to say that they are Germans who speak Polish). After the battle at Bela Hora (1620) the country was in a big cultural, linguistic etc. decline (with language close to extinction). To the point that in the XIX century, in era of panslavism, Czech rebirth was modelled on polish one, and language was restored with a great help from polish linguists.
Anyway, Czech struggle for independence is not even comparable with Poland. With all due respect, it's like comparing a puddle to an ocean. Modern czech state is just a fad dreamt up by a group of Prague intellectuals who read somewhere that "the slavic bell tolls"...The fact that Czechs survived as a nation is even more surprising than Poles survived.
There are some historical events that shed a different light on Kundera's unity. At the conference in Versaille (1919) Czech diplomacy was fiercely anti-polish, which is even less comprehensible if you take into account the fact that both countries had to struggle with German diplomacy. Edvard Benes lied to the French and somehow convinced them that Slask Cieszynski was always Czech (which was not, it was polish and mainly inhabited by Poles). Czech delegation was to that point anti-polish that opposed any kind of alliance with Poland against Germany and supported Bolsheviks when they attacked Poland in 1920. Czechs broke all international agreements and conquered parts of southern Poland. As I said, such events are not remembered anymore, but show that such unity didn't always exist.
Anyway, Czechs were always described here as a "bunch of communists" and tied their hopes for independence with Russians, so I don't know why this sudden surge of anti-russian feelings in Kundera....They got what they wanted, after all...or the biggest monument of Stalin in Prague, erected when even Russians were abondoning the cult of the Father of Nations. They have even a communist party that has a quite considerable popularity (something that is unthinkable in Poland)
To continue...there used to be significant social and cultural differences between Poles and Czechs before the WWII (they were minimalized during communism). This is the stereotypical description of these nations
Czechs:
Rich and Industrialized before the war, Bourgeoisie, Pragmatic, Beer, Sceptical, Rational, Cowardly, Always ready to surrender - epitome of Jozef Svejk
Poles:
Poor and Rural before the war, Landed-gentry, Rebellous, Romantic, Vodka, Brave, Always ready to fight (or to commit mass suicide as the history has shown) - epitome of that polish horseman charging against german tanks
The polish word for state i.e. "panstwo" in Czech means simply "nobility" and perfectly reflected differences between both societies in the past.
I don't know, maybe I'm to harsh on them. There also many examples of bilateral support - miliary, political, economical and a great cultural exchange...plus all these nations seem to feel close to each other, also because of awareness of a common background - today in era of globalization ; like to spend time in a smiliar manner...
As Eastern Europe, we describe Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I don't think that this name i.e. "CE Europe" was created because of a particular resentment toward Russia or any other country but simply because the term Eastern Europe is too broad to be used in any comparisons or analyses. After all, it theoritically stretches from Albania to Estonia.
Nevertheless, whether somebody likes it or not, all these countries are grouped together, and so are named in the western media. Maybe, because from the outside, people have a bigger distance and see more similarities than differences. Or maybe, because since all slavic countries form one ethno-linguistic family, people feel a need to stretch out this affilation to culture, mentality etc. Besides that, the iron curtain was separating both parts of Europe for almost 50 years so Kundera should not be surprised that one side is a bit "ignorant" about the other one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kundera presents his very own (czech) view and says:
The Slav world doesn't exist. It comprises two "worlds" i.e. 1) Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) and 2) Central Europe (West Slavs, South Slavs, Hungary, Romania)
If we be base this division on communism, this is true (but only for the last 50 years). If we base this division on a "big nation"-"small nation" distinction, this is also true with a different time period for different nationalities. So in a sense, Kundera is right.
It's naive to think that for the past 50 years the Soviet Union and the rest of communist countries felt any kind of strong "togetherness". On the contrary, the opposition toward Russia and communism on general was quite strong. "Solidarity" and other pro-democratic movements didn't pop out out of nowhere. (you have to remember though, that for many centuries most of these nations were not independent and mostly had totalitarian governments that were sometimes as oppresive towards their own citizens as towards conquered foreigners so the indentification with the state was not so strong and didn't really affect interpersonal relations as much as one could expect)
He is also right when he says that a common characteristic of the region is an almost neverending feeling of a threatened national identity. Czechs were dominated by Germans, Balkans by Turks, and Poles by Germans and Russians.
The split between these two "worlds" doesn't already make one "Western" and the other one "Eastern". It just shows that the group was not uniform in it's attitude towards communism and it's historical experience or mentality that was largely shaped by the struggle for independence or lack of it
He says:
The history of the Czechs as of the Poles, Slovaks, Croats or Slovenes...is purely western; Gothic; Renaissance; Baroque; close contact with the Germanic world; struggle of the Catholicism against the Reformation. Nothing to share with Russia, who was far, as another world. Only the Poles lived with Russia in a neighbouring relationship, but similar to a fight to the death...
He is wrong when he says that pre-soviet history of all his Central European countries is purely Western (it's not even true in case of West Slavs). He is also wrong when he says that these Central European countries (or Western Slavic countries) share strong cultural and historical similarities and at the same time Russia is completely alien to them. As I said before, they are united by the past 50 years, by long tradition of struggle for independence (common to all of them since XVIII century) and above all common ethnolinguistic heritage, with languages very similar to each other. But if you went deeper in the history you would find many differences (that seem to be erased from memory by more recent historical events)
If we assume that Russia and Turkey is "the East" and Western Europe is "the West" then most of what Kundera calls Central Europe, is with a variable degree a mix of these two spheres. Czechs and Hungarians (maybe also Slovenians) are the most westernized nations in almost all fields. Poland and probably Slovakia and also Croatia to lesser extend (yet still "western")...and so on. That would partly reflect the borders of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Saying that Western Slavic countries are simply Western countries kidnapped by Eastern Europe is wrong though. The border line probably goes somewhere through former Yugoslavia and north somewhere in Eastern Poland.
Actually, there was even quite a hectic debate here whether Poland was joining Europe (meaning the West) or just the European Union. Most publicists used to say that although culturally, historically and religiously Poland should be generally ascribed to the West, for the past 50 years was in the East (understood as communism). I like Vaclav Klaus' opinion, that is, it should be said that CE Europe is joining the EU and not Europe, because otherwise it gives a impression that without EU there would be no Europe, that the EU (with Franco-German alliance at steer) tries to monopolize Europe and imposes it’s own vision on others.
Maybe in the middle ages, Poland was a purely western country. However after the union between Poland and Lithuania most of the military and political effort was aimed at the East. The battle at Grunwald (1410) was portrayed as a clash between the East (mainly Poles but also other eastern european nationalities) and the West (Teutonic Knights). During that battle, the polish army was commanded in an eastern style (the King didn't directly participate in the battle but commanded from a hill - tactics borrowed from Tatars). From the XV to XVII century Poland was an empire in Europe and occupied today's Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia. We even conquered Moscow and stayed there for a few years. The son of our king was proposed the russian crown in Moscow but he was a catholic bigot from Sweden and refused as one of the conditions was convertion to East Orthodox Church. So somewhere from the XV century Poland was more involved in the East and Russian domination started only somewhere in the XVIII century when Poland became the sick man of Europe. Poland's involvement in the so-called East was not only limited to politics but also involved culture and language (that has many eastern slavic borrowings). As Poland was at that time superior culturally to Russia it was more like Russians copying things from us, not the opposite. Nevertheless, Polish aristocracy was fascinated by the Orient which found it's reflection in e.g. clothing. When polish king, Jan III Sobieski, entered Vienna in 1683 he was taken for a Turk. After the partition of Poland, only a part of the country was ruled by Austrians or by Prussians. The rest fell under Russian rule. So Russia was not another world and our history is not purely western.
Czechs were almost always culturally dominated by Germans. If not politically or militarily. And are the best example of a fully occidentalized slavic nation (Mickiewicz, polish poet involved in the panslavism, used to say that they are Germans who speak Polish). After the battle at Bela Hora (1620) the country was in a big cultural, linguistic etc. decline (with language close to extinction). To the point that in the XIX century, in era of panslavism, Czech rebirth was modelled on polish one, and language was restored with a great help from polish linguists.
Anyway, Czech struggle for independence is not even comparable with Poland. With all due respect, it's like comparing a puddle to an ocean. Modern czech state is just a fad dreamt up by a group of Prague intellectuals who read somewhere that "the slavic bell tolls"...The fact that Czechs survived as a nation is even more surprising than Poles survived.
There are some historical events that shed a different light on Kundera's unity. At the conference in Versaille (1919) Czech diplomacy was fiercely anti-polish, which is even less comprehensible if you take into account the fact that both countries had to struggle with German diplomacy. Edvard Benes lied to the French and somehow convinced them that Slask Cieszynski was always Czech (which was not, it was polish and mainly inhabited by Poles). Czech delegation was to that point anti-polish that opposed any kind of alliance with Poland against Germany and supported Bolsheviks when they attacked Poland in 1920. Czechs broke all international agreements and conquered parts of southern Poland. As I said, such events are not remembered anymore, but show that such unity didn't always exist.
Anyway, Czechs were always described here as a "bunch of communists" and tied their hopes for independence with Russians, so I don't know why this sudden surge of anti-russian feelings in Kundera....They got what they wanted, after all...or the biggest monument of Stalin in Prague, erected when even Russians were abondoning the cult of the Father of Nations. They have even a communist party that has a quite considerable popularity (something that is unthinkable in Poland)
To continue...there used to be significant social and cultural differences between Poles and Czechs before the WWII (they were minimalized during communism). This is the stereotypical description of these nations
Czechs:
Rich and Industrialized before the war, Bourgeoisie, Pragmatic, Beer, Sceptical, Rational, Cowardly, Always ready to surrender - epitome of Jozef Svejk
Poles:
Poor and Rural before the war, Landed-gentry, Rebellous, Romantic, Vodka, Brave, Always ready to fight (or to commit mass suicide as the history has shown) - epitome of that polish horseman charging against german tanks
The polish word for state i.e. "panstwo" in Czech means simply "nobility" and perfectly reflected differences between both societies in the past.
I don't know, maybe I'm to harsh on them. There also many examples of bilateral support - miliary, political, economical and a great cultural exchange...plus all these nations seem to feel close to each other, also because of awareness of a common background - today in era of globalization ; like to spend time in a smiliar manner...