Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Mary Heimann`s Czechoslovakia - A Book Full of Excellent New Insights But With Even More Weaknesses, February 28, 2010
This review is from: Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed (Hardcover)
If one thing is definite about Heimann's book on Czechoslovakia it is that it is not the definitive history of that country its publishers claim it to be. That is a pity, as it does contain some very valuable and thought-provoking insights that make it a worthy read in spite of its many obvious weaknesses.
What are these insights? The book attacks right on a central part of Czech national self- perception, viz., the notion that the Czech nation, while always dedicated to such high ideals as liberty and democracy has - no less regularly - been prevented from living these ideals out either by the illegitimate intervention by its various powerful neighbours or by the - just as illegitimate (as the Czechs have it) - lack of such intervention. In this, the intervention bit is primarily reserved for the Germans (first, as the Habsburgs, later, the Nazis) and, subsequently, for the Soviets resp. the Russians. The lack of such intervention, on the other hand, is blamed on the "Western powers", in particular during the Munich crisis and the Prague spring on both of which occasions the Czechs felt "betrayed" by their erstwhile Western "friends". This tragedy is alleged to have started with the so-called "battle of the white mountain" in 1620, with regard to which the Czechs, for reasons obvious only to themselves, have chosen to identify with the losing party. Since then, so public Czech consensus has it, the - high-minded - Czechs have always been the victims of history - morally superior to everybody else, to be sure, in particular in comparison with their much detested German neighbours. Simultaneously, they never were the evil perpetrators of anything!
Not so, Heimann`s book clearly shows! She very ably and convincingly proves from the original sources that this self-perception is what it is: a lie or, to put it more politely, a national myth. In reality, so her conclusion, the Czechs were no better (and, sometimes, indeed, even far worse!) than their counterparts elsewhere. Surprisingly, this holds true, in particular, even vis-à-vis the Germans. To this add a sometimes almost incredible Czech opportunism coupled with an almost non-existing readiness to admit any of these faults for good mixture.
All of these points are highly interesting, well researched and - at least from a German point of view - highly welcome new appraisals. In theory, at least, they might eventually lead to a more realistic view, on the part of the Czechs, of their own history and the evil parts they themselves have - among others, no doubt - played in that history. It might thus constitute a welcome first step on the long road to a sincere (re-?) conciliation between them and their neighbours (especially, but not only, with the Germans).
However, unfortunately, the value of these welcome insights is greatly compromised by several massive weaknesses of the book:
First, the author, almost throughout her entire book, employs a sloppy and derisive tone towards everything Czech that is simply misplaced. A good example is the passage on Dvorak on p. 16, but it runs throughout the book.
Second, although such heavy-weight critics as "The Economist" in its review (Nov. 21st, 2009) have certified the author an "exemplary" attention to detail, it contains a surprising abundance of factual mistakes that concern the general background of her story. One example for this is where she talks about Hitler who she says "had served in the Habsburg army in the First World War" (p. 119)(false, Hitler never did, but, even though he was then indeed an Austrian, served as a volunteer in the German army instead), another one is her description of Poland in 1939 being divided - like ancient Gaul - into three parts, one "German controlled Western part", one "Soviet controlled Eastern part" and in the middle the so-called "General Government" (p. 123). While it is left unexplained who was in control of this "third part", this wording implies that at least it was not under the exclusive control of either Germany or the Soviet Union (as such exclusivity is pointed out as a distinct and defining feature of the other two zones). So, maybe this area, at least, enjoyed some kind of autonomy? Or was it administered jointly by the two occupying powers? This is at least suggested by the explanation of the function of this zone as a "dumping ground for Jews, intellectuals and other enemies of the two ... totalitarian regimes". However, both these possibilities are clearly wrong. Instead, the "General Government" was that subdivision of the part of Poland that had, by the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939, been attributed to exclusive German control which was not outright annexed by Germany but whose ultimate destiny, instead, remained reserved for some later decision (the part assigned by that pact to the Soviet Union, in contrast, was annexed by that country in toto immediately upon its occupation). Thus, not only was this area clearly and exclusively under German control (until its ultimate liberation by the Red Army in 1944) it accordingly was never destined as a dumping ground for the enemies of both totalitarian regimes, but, at best, for those of the German regime alone.
No less mistaken is the statement immediately following, viz., that this "General Government" became "the site of "the" largest and most infamous ... concentration camps". First, not all large concentration camps were situated there. Second, this applies, in particular, to Auschwitz, the most prominent of all such camps which the author - obviously for this prominence - wrongly cites as an example - indeed her only example - for her claim to the contrary. Rather, Auschwitz was safely located in such part of Poland as had been outright annexed to Germany. Third, Auschwitz could for various more reasons not have been destined as a "dumping ground" for enemies of the Soviet regime, but, if anything, as a "dumping ground" for its supporters, viz., for soldiers of the Red Army, having been built originally as a camp for Soviet POWs, and operating as an extermination camp only when the war against the Soviet Union was already in full swing and Germany no longer had any interest in propping up the regime of its erstwhile ally by persecuting its enemies.
This kind of inaccuracy, however, is by no means relegated to facts concerning the general historical background of the book's story but also continues with regard to the gist of its subject: This applies, e.g., to the author's statement that Masaryk's mother was "a German cook" (p. 21). According to Wikipedia, at least, she was a Moravian Slav, even though it is true that her mother tongue - as it so often happened in those times - was indeed German!
While none of these mistakes has an immediate bearing upon the validity or non-validity of her main theses, they strongly convey the feeling that the author simply isn't sufficiently familiar with the complexities of European history of the time to claim the authority to be the first one to write "the definitive" history about Czechoslovakia (or anything else European, for that matter).
This impression is further corroborated by the discovery that nowhere does the book take recourse to even a single source written in either the German or the Russian languages. This is amazing, to say the least. After all, this part of central Europe had for centuries been dominated by German culture, language and administration and was inhabited by a one third-minority of German speakers during the first half of the period covered by this book (i.e., until after WW II) - among them such world-renowned personalities as the car-engineer Ferdinand Porsche, the logician Kurt Goedel and the writers Franz Kafka, Franz Werfel and Rainer Maria Rilke! A country, furthermore, that, during what was probably its most formative period, was occupied by Nazi Germany, i.e., by German speakers once again! A definitive - or rather: - "the" - definitive history of this area without the use of even one original German-language source? Sorry! Similar qualms exist with regard to Russian language sources or, rather, the complete lack of them, concerning the developments after 1945! Surely the events constituting the communist take-over in 1948 as well as those surrounding the "Prague spring" and the "velvet revolution" of 1989 cannot with any authority be fully appreciated without taking recourse to Russian-language sources?
Very likely the same reason - a certain narrowness of outlook - that manifests itself here, must also be blamed for another surprising feature of the book: its often undue readiness to explain certain supranational phenomena of the time that also occurred in Czechoslovakia out of their international context in purely domestic terms. (This aspect was brought to my attention by the very able commentary of David Vaughan in Prague TV of Jan. 13th, 2010). This sometimes runs counter-intuitive, to say the least. Take Czech anti-semitism during the - short-lived - second republic (i.e., between the fall of 1938 and the spring of 1939). Can it - with any claim to plausibility - really be maintained (see p. 87 ff.) that this phenomenon developed entirely independently of the massive anti-semitic policies of much more powerful neighbouring Germany during the same period? To be sure: maybe it can! After all, why shouldn't the same reasons that were responsible for a certain phenomenon in one country simultaneously have been at work in another country without there being a relationship of causation between them? However, in order to prove this alleged independence, surely much more discussion and corroboration by factual evidence would be required than the author is prepared to devote to it respectively to provide. Virtually the same applies, e.g., to her contention that Czechoslovakia's decision, after WW II, to become a Soviet satellite...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting but flawed book, January 3, 2010
This review is from: Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed (Hardcover)
This book in very well researched and written.Author is not afraid to subject established history of Central Europe to different look,challenge old myths and bring original perspective on historical events.
Unfortunately author is unable to supress her biased personal views(there is no doubt that she doesn't have much respect for Czech culture and Czech national character).For example to describe great composer Antonin Dvorak as:"Austrian Slav Antonin Dvorak who might otherwise have been condemned forever to playing polkas,mazurkas and marches in his village band,built his career by writing a mixture of Czech nationalist pieces" is not just false but deeply biased (maybe next time author can listen to such polka or mazurka like Symphony No.9"From the New World" to change her mind).Author also blames everything on Czech nationalism omitting the fact that nationalism was an integral part of every European nation.Some nations(like Germans) dealt with this part of their history in a thorough and constructive way,some(like Russians or Poles) never did.
Author routinely describes some legitimate and spontaneous resistence(like student protests in November 1938,some events in 1968) as"provocation" leaving no doubt who she blames for the outcome.
One of the main theories of the book is to attribute creation of Czechoslovakia to Masaryk and Benes manipulation rather than to disastrous Treaty of Versailles that produced states like Yugoslavia and Iraq and set the stage for inevitable conflicts that followed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Understanding How Czecho-Slovakia Chose To Fail, February 6, 2010
This review is from: Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed (Hardcover)
An exceptionally well researched and incisive history of a state born in the turmoil of a world war, strangled in another, reborn in its aftermath and then withered away in the first few years under a true democracy. This book is a must for any student of history of the region! We enjoyed reading and discussing it and learned a lot from it. We now have a much better understanding of the events that transpired. Truly, a masterpiece! However, we should add that some might validly be critical of the author for a touch of bias regarding Czechs and Moravians, who simply could not do anything without some evil motives and self-interest. To be sure, they simply acted in the same fashion as other nations who had for centuries been under the yoke of imperial powers. (We wish Mary Heimann would write books about the other nations in the region to disprove our perception of bias.) Additionally, we would have liked to see some statistics showing where under Masaryk, Benes and later Communist Czechoslovakia ranked compared to its neighbors and the developed nations in such areas as production, living standards, education as well as notable achievements in culture and science contributing to our civilization.
Steven & Julius
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Ivan Margolius
by Chad Bryant
