Kidnapped Souls: National Indifference and the Battle for Children in the Bohemian Lands, 1900-1948

"I included this because I think it is the most innovative and conceptually daring book on the Habsburg monarchy and its successors to emerge in the last few years. It investigates nationalism , not through its dreams and plans, or within a national narrative of eventual independence, but by looking at on-the-ground, specific, concrete instances. How did it work within the Empire, and then subsequently in the interwar period and then during World War II? The first 100 pages are on the monarchy and how nationalism functioned, not necessarily in politics, but in reality with everyday people. She outlines a tripartite structure of the state administration for schools and education, the national activists who wanted their language in the schools, and then the people and how the people reacted. “It investigates nationalism, not through its dreams and plans, or within a national narrative of eventual independence, but by looking at on-the-ground, specific, concrete instances” Her book demonstrates a number of points. First, the state tried to be a neutral arbiter. Second, the national activists were sometimes despairing at the indifference of the general people. Third, among the general public, many were actually quite flexible about nationalism. They were not fundamentalist or essentialist. For example, there are many instances of Czech families who for pragmatic, careerist, opportunistic reasons sent their kids to the local German-speaking school. The attitude was basically: the children already have Czech so it would be good if they were totally fluent in German, too. Of course, the Czech activists said, ‘You can’t do that, the children are Czechs, they should go to the Czech school.’ This stance often provoked considerable pressure from activists because, according to law, if a Czech school existed for a number of years—thus showing a demand and need—the municipality had to take over funding of that school. So the book reveals the interaction of activists, the state and the people. In the older historiography nationalism was dealt with in more general terms, whereas Zahra’s book delves into the actual details and case studies of its operation. It was a difficulty because of the imperial structure of Austro-Hungarian dualism. There was a sense that the Czechs felt aggrieved by the fact that Hungary was granted autonomy and had its particular traditions recognized when the monarchy became Austria-Hungary in 1867. The Czechs believed that they deserved autonomy because of their historical rights associated with the Kingdom of Bohemia. Recent books have emphasized that nationalism is contingent and contextual. It’s different for almost everybody. It’s also different for almost every locality. It’s different over time. There are people who are not particularly concerned about national matters. I think this is one of the big movements in the historiography—not to essentialise nationalism, but to look at the specific context with the specific actors. In addition, historians need to acknowledge if there are non-national factors involved, such as religion, or maybe even personal motivations—careers, for example. For the Czechs, there were some difficulties that are fundamental in relation to governing from Vienna. One is that the proportion of Czech speakers to German speakers in Bohemia was, I think, about 2:1 – 62% to 38%, depending on the particular census. Moravia was similar—about 70% to 30%. So you have a lot of German speakers in these regions, who had traditionally been extremely powerful in the administration, in the military, in the economy, in the intellectual world. In sum, there was a very strong, very powerful, motivated German minority, which looked to Vienna for protection. “Recent books have emphasized that nationalism is contingent and contextual. It’s different for almost everybody” The second point is that in the time of Maria Theresa and Joseph II, Bohemia had been incorporated more within the overarching state of Austria than Hungary. Hungary was always difficult to control for the Habsburgs. It had a history of rebellions and was very protective of its local autonomy. It could be argued that Bohemia was incorporated within the structures of the monarchy much more than Hungary. A third factor is that the emperor and the elites of the centre were very reluctant to change the 1867 dualist system after it had functioned for a long time. Around the turn of the century, there were fears of excessive demands from the Czechs, violence in the streets, and Germans in Bohemia who would not accept any concessions. So after a few decades there was a certain reluctance to upset the system and reopen questions about the basic structure of the monarchy. It should be kept in mind, though, that there were many attempts at administrative reform and reconciliation such as the 1905 Moravian Compromise."