America in the Struggle for Czechoslovak Independence/Appendix
APPENDIX
WAR PREFERRED TO PEACE OF THE
GRAVEYARD
(Slav Press Bureau)
New York, May 28, 1917.—Charles Pergler, of Iowa, now Director General of the Slav Press Bureau and Vice-President of the Bohemian Alliance, declining to participate in the First Conference for Democracy and Terms of Peace, addressed today to the Conference the following letter:
“Your invitation to participate in your conference, sent me to my home in Iowa, reached me only the other day. I am sorry to say that I cannot participate in your gathering because of the nature of the tentative program of discussion, substantial approval of which seems to be required in order to entitle one to participation. Indeed, when you make the demand that those in attendance be in substantial accord with this tentative program, you make your conference merely a ratification meeting, and not at all representative of the various shades of democratic opinions and ideas of future permanent peace. Also, that such a restriction is hardly consistent with the spirit of real liberalism and democracy needs hardly to be pointed out.
“What does your opposition to forcible annexation of territory mean? It certainly is not a disputed question that the purely Italian provinces of Austria should be joined to Italy, that there should be a united Jugoslavia and that the Roumanians should be freed from Magyar oppression. Pro-Austrians might call this forcible annexation, yet as a matter of fact it would be merely a simple measure of justice, just as the creation of a Bohemian-Slovak state is a necessity if justice is to be done to the Bohemians and Slovaks. This, of course, postulates the dissolution of Austria-Hungary.
“I doubt very much that you can find in this country a thoughtful Bohemian or Slovak who can and will sign your tentative program without reservations. This very likely means that the Austrian problem will not be discussed at your conference. At least, not from the Bohemian and Slovak point of view. But, without a thorough going discussion of the Austrian problem, which just now is beginning to attract more attention than ever, a complete program for terms of permanent peace cannot be formulated.
“I am not a militarist, and yet I believe in universal military training and universal military service. Most of the social democracies of the various nations have this demand in their platforms. Militarism is domination by a military caste; preparation for defense is not necessarily militarism. If a nation defends itself against aggression, it does not become militaristic any more than a man who defends himself against burglary becomes a burglar.
“I am utterly opposed to any separate peace on the part of this country, just as I would view as a calamity to the cause of real democracy a separate peace of Russia with Germany. This world can be made a tolerable place to live in only by a concert of the democratic peoples of the world. Separate peace on the part of any of the allied countries would preclude such a concert, and would be a fatal blow to the hopes for such an organization of the world's democracies as would insure permanent peace.
“It is to be very much regretted that the several demands that can be approved by those of us who believe themselves democratic, and yet are not for peace at any price, you have so interwoven in your program with unacceptable propositions that an acceptance of your invitation is impossible without self-stultification on the part of those who think as I do. The result, of course, unavoidably is that your conference cannot be and will not be representative.
“I know many of those who have signed the call to your conference, and I know that the purity of their motives cannot be questioned for a single minute. Yet it cannot be denied that the result of many of the peace moves recently made has been to assist German imperialism in its struggle to maintain its grip, at least on Central Europe. If the war ends without a decisive victory, and especially without permanently solving the Austrian problem, the peace concluded will be simply a truce. If the Central Powers are permitted to retain any fruit of their aggression, or if they are permitted to oppress in the future any of the nationalities now under their domination, the peace so concluded will be one of the cemetery. If I must make a choice, I prefer war for democracy to the peace of the graveyard. These are some of the things that make many of us pause before we can even think of any co-operation with the pacifist movement. Such co-operation is certainly out of question where one of the participants is Victor L. Berger, who is pronouncedly pro-German and who, in his Milwaukee papers sometime ago, did not hesitate to oppose the just Bohemian-Slovak claims to independence.”
THE ENEMIES WITHIN
GERMAN LANGUAGE PRESS ASSAILS THE
CZECHOSLOVAKS FOR ADHERENCE
TO ALLIED CAUSE
(Slav Press Bureau)
New York City.—Various indeed are the ways and methods adopted by the German language press of the country in their endeavor to discredit in the present struggle the cause of the Allies and consequently America. In its morning edition for September 8th the New York Herald reprints an article from the California Demokrat, another German publication, under the glaring headlines, “How the Czechs wrought harm (Wie Czechen schadeten); made unusually difficult conduct of war for Austria.” These headlines indicate sufficiently how indignant the German-American press is that the Czechs did not make lighter Berlin’s and Vienna’s quest for world dominion. But the article itself is even more bitter. It recites the conduct of Czech troops during the war, their desertions to the Allies, and speaks of them with contempt as traitors and men without honor because of their refusal to fight under the black and yellow banner of the Hapsburgs. Since such a large percentage of the Czechs in this country voluntarily joined the American army, evidently they, too, are objects of contempt to the German American press.
But can there be even the shadow of an excuse for charging Czechs with treason even to Austria? Waiving for the time being the question that Austria-Hungary declared war without consulting her own parliament, such as it is, and that she entered upon the struggle against the wishes of her own people, except the minority consisting of Germans and Magyars, it still remains a fact that even from a legalistic standpoint the Czechs are not traitors. Legally, the ancient Bohemian state still exists. Its rights were and are suppressed by force, but theoretically they have been repeatedly acknowledged by the emperors of Austria themselves. The Czech diet, the convocation of which has been prevented by the Austrian government for years, did not declare the war, and as a matter of constitutional law the Czechs were not bound by the Austrian Government’s declaration of war. In fact, again as a matter of constitutional law, the present Austrian emperor to the Czechs is nothing but a usurper, as was his predecessor, the late Francis Joseph, because neither of them constitutionally became King of Bohemia, did not submit to the ceremony of coronation, and because otherwise they did not comply with the ancient Bohemian constitutional usages. Apart from this, the whole world now knows that Austria brought about the war not only to subjugate Serbia, but also to enable her to suppress her own non-German and non-Magyar nationalities. Any Czechs who might have fought for Austria would have been guilty of treason to their own nationality, treason both morally and legally.
In any event, these invectives against the Czechs afford an interesting illustration how our German language press never misses an opportunity to support the Hohenzollern and Hapsburg cause.
HOW KORNILOFF ESCAPED FROM
AUSTRIAN CAPTIVITY
Romantic Adventure of Hero of Galicia
(Slav Press Bureau)
New York City: It is not generally known that at one time during the present war Lieutenant-General L. C. Korniloff, whose victories in Galicia have so astonished the world, was an Austrian prisoner of war and that he escaped from Austrian captivity with the aid of a Czech soldier, who himself forfeited his life for the help extended to his distinguished Slav brother.
During the retreat of the Russian army from the Carpathians in the spring of 1915, General Korniloff, then commanding the rear guard, was captured by the Austrians and interned in Bohemia. In the summer of 1916 he managed to escape with the help of a Czech soldier, Frank Mrnak. For several weeks the two fugitives were making their way stealthily toward the Roumanian frontier, hiding by day and traveling by night. But one day in August they were surprised by gendarmes; the General got away and finally reached Russia, where he commanded the Petrograd garrison during the revolution. Mrnak was hit and captured and later sentenced by the court-martial in Pressburg to be shot.
It had been the Czech soldier’s intention to enter as a volunteer into the ranks of the Czecho-Slovak Brigade, which has by this time grown into two divisions and has so distinguished itself in the present Russian offensive around Halicz. That his name and his heroic deed should not be forgotten, the commander of the brigade issued an order to have Mrnak’s name inscribed on the roll of Company A of the first regiment of the Czecho-Slovak Brigade of sharpshooters. It was further ordered that at every roll call, when Mrnak’s name is called, the sergeant of the first squad should answer: “Shot by Hungarian court martial in Pressburg for saving General Korniloff.”
PRESIDENT WILSON TO THE CZECHOSLOVAK LEGIONNARIES
(July 18, 1919, in Washington, D. C.)
“Major Vladimir Jirsa, officers and men of the detachment of the Czechoslovak Army:
“It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to review this detachment of your valiant army and to extend to you, its officers, and the brave men associated with you, a most cordial welcome. Though we have been far away, we have watched your actions, and have been moved by admiration of the services you have rendered under the most adverse circumstances. Having been subjected to an alien control, you were fired by a love of your former independence and for the institutions of your native land, and gallantly aligned yourselves with those who fought in opposition to all despotism and military autocracy. At the moment when adversity came to the armies with which you were fighting, and when darkness and discouragement cast a shadow upon your cause, you declined to be daunted by circumstance and retained your gallant hope. Your steadfastness in purpose, your unshaking belief in high ideals, your valor of mind, of body and of heart evoked the admiration of the world. In the midst of a disorganized people and subject to influence which worked for ruin, you constantly maintained order within your ranks, and by your example helped those with whom you came in contact to re-establish their lives. I cannot say too much in praise of the demeanor of your brave army in these trying circumstances. Future generations will happily record the influence for good which you were privileged to exercise upon a large part of the population of the world, and will accord you the place which you have so courageously won. There is perhaps nowhere recorded a more brilliant record than the with drawal of your forces in opposition to the armies of Germany and Austria, through a population at first hostile, or the march of your armies for thousands of miles across the great stretches of Siberia, all the while keeping in mind the necessity for order and organization.
“You are returning to your native land, which is today, we all rejoice to say, again a free and independent country. May you contribute to her life that stamina which you so conspicuously manifested through all your trying experiences in Russia and Siberia, and may you keep in mind after your return, as you had kept in mind heretofore, that the laws of God, the laws of man, and the laws of nature require systematic order and cool counsel for their proper application and development, and for the welfare and happiness of the human race.”
A COMMUNICATION TO SENATOR STONE
Hon. William Stone,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, D. C.
Sir:
Now that the Senate of the United States is about to take up the question of peace terms, I believe it to be not only a privilege, but my duty as well to present to you , and through you to the honorable members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, the position of the Czechoslovaks in the present struggle, and as regards the Austro-Hungarian problem:
1. In 1526 the Czech (Bohemian) nation of its own volition elected the Hapsburgs to the throne of Bohemia, and had nothing in common with the other Hapsburg lands except the dynasty, and the Hapsburgs at that time, by solemn oaths and pledges, bound themselves to maintain and protect the independence of the Czech state.
2. The Czechs never ceased to fight for independence, and never waived, directly or indirectly, their right to such happiness, as is evidenced by the President, who in his work on The State declares, “That no lapse of time, no defeat of hopes, seems sufficient to reconcile the Czechs of Bohemia to incorporation with Austria.”
3. The Czechoslovaks throughout the present war have opposed Austria-Hungary to the utmost of their ability, and immediately upon the outbreak thereof formulated and adopted a program asking for the reconstruction of a sovereign, completely independent, Czechoslovak State, as is evidenced by a solemn manifesto issued in Paris on November 15, 1915, by declarations of Czech deputies in the Austrian Parliament, manifestos of Czech authors and pronouncements of Czech workingmen’s organizations, as well as by the bitter persecution and wholesale executions by the Austrian Government perpetrated upon the Czechs throughout the duration of the war.
4. The legal existence of the Bohemian State is further attested by the existence of a Czechoslovak Army in France and Russia, under the leadership of the Czechoslovak National Council, headed by Prof. T. C. Masaryk. This army in Russia recently declared in public proclamation that the Hapsburgs are deprived of the Bohemian Crown and of Slovakia; that it is conducting a defensive war on Austria-Hungary; that the Czechoslovak Army, led by the Czechoslovak National Council, is a regular army and should be recognized as such under international law.
5. Emperor Charles of Austria-Hungary, as far as the Bohemians are concerned, and even from the legal point of view, is nothing but a usurper, never having been crowned King of Bohemia, and thus not having performed the ceremony which would give him the legal sanction to govern Bohemia, and the throne of Bohemia is therefore vacated.
6. The Czechs demand now an independent republic. As substantiating this, I append hereto as Exhibit “A” a dispatch appearing in the London Morning Post, of January 19, 1918.
7. Slovaks and Czechs are members of the same nation, the only difference being that the Slovaks are suffering under Magyar domination in Hungary, while the Czechs are suffering under German domination in Austria.
8. It appears, therefore, that the Czechoslovaks ask the right of development in an independent state. Mere autonomy would mean that they would have to submit, at least temporarily, to a sovereignty to which they are opposed.
9. The Hapsburg dynasty has never kept its pledges: it has made of Austria-Hungary its family estate. It cannot be expected that the Czechoslovak and Jugoslav movements will abate with anything short of an independent Bohemia and a united, independent Jugoslavia. Should these revolutionary movements be continued after final conclusion of peace, as I believe they would, the world’s peace would still be jeopardized.
10. In a federated Austria, foreign policy would have to remain in the hands of a central authority, just as with us it is not a matter for the various states of the Union. Such control would necessarily remain in the hands of the Magyar and Austrian Germans, the present and future tools of Berlin, who would continue to be at the command of Berlin. This Austro-German-Magyar foreign policy would still menace the peace of the world.
11. Assuming a complete Allied victory, it is easier to meet the desires of the various Austro-Hungarian nationalities than to force upon Austria-Hungary a federal constitution. As soon as the peace conference adjourned, and Allied armies disbanded, what would there be to force Austria-Hungary to carry out a peace treaty demanding federalization? Nothing! The world would not go to war for this purpose again at once, and thus the germ of a future catastrophe would be kept alive.
I shall hold myself in readiness to answer such questions as the Committee may see fit to ask, and to supplement the information herein before given personally.
Respectfully,
(Signed)Charles Pergler,
Vice- President,
EXHIBIT “A”
CZECHOSLOVAK AGITATION
Revolutinary Meeting at Prague
From a Czech source Reuter’s Agency has received further details about the important Congress of Czech deputies from Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia which took place in Prague on the 5th inst.
The meeting was opened by the President of the Bohemian Union, Mr. Stanek, who welcomed those Czech deputies who had come out of prison, and pointed out that the Czechs, being unable to speak freely in the Reichsrath, the existence of which still depended on Austrian absolutism, had assembled in order to make the whole world know that the Czechoslovak Nation, who had suffered such great sacrifices during the war, demanded not mere autonomy, but an independent state of their own, according to the right of self-determination.
Deputy Tusar (Czech Socialist), the Secretary of the Czech Executive Committee, then read the resolution, the whole of which has been suppressed by the Censor. The resolution was carried unanimously amid the singing of the Czech National Anthem by the whole assembly. In his concluding remarks the President expressed his joy at the complete unanimity of all Czechs in their desire for independence.
THE END