Customer Reviews

A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

One has to hand it to Stanislav Kirschbaum; He has successfully written the first all-encompassing history of Slovakia in the post- communist era, no small task when Slovak history is as complex and multi-faceted as it is. The scope of his research and factual grounding is impressive, and his writing stlye is entertaining enough, for a history text. However, it is very easy to tell that Mr. Kirschbaum has an extremely biased pro-Slovak view of the nations history, especially as regards Slovakia's involvement in World War II and the Holocaust. Astute readers will pick up references to a Jozef Kirschbaum who was, for a short time during the war, a government official in Slovakia; This Jozef Kirschbaum is presumably a close relative of the author's, due to the fact that the author has edited a book in memory of Jozef Kirschbaum. Still, all in all, an indispensable book for students of Slovak history.

I am a Slovak-American and a Rusyn-American. As such, I have stongly mixed feelings about this book.

It is the only currently available attempt to chronicle the complete history of the Slovak people. In many parts, it is superb. It exudes a sense of pride for a culture that has often been ignored or undervalued, even by the Slovaks themselves and their children and grandchildren.

This made it even harder for me to accept the anti-Czech bias of this book and its efforts to justify and lionize Tiso, who was the pro-Nazi dictator of Slovakia during World War II.

Certainly, the Czechs have looked down on their "little brothers" in Slovakia from time to time. Had the Slovaks not joined with the Czechs after WWI to form Czechoslovakia, however, they would undoubted have remained as part of Hungary, and their culture might have disappeared entirely. Kirschbaum considers Czechoslovakia as a Czech attempt to dominate the Slovaks, and the goal of a completely independent Slovakia as the only acceptable outcome of Slovak history. It is still far from clear that Slovakia is better off on its own, rather than as part of a democratic Czechoslovakia.

Most troubling of all for me was Kirschbaum's defense of Father Josef Tiso, who took power in Slovakia with Hitler's blessing after Germany created the "Protectorate" of Bohemia and Moravia. Under Tiso, Slovakia colaborated with the Nazis to keep the appearance of being an independent state. This was justified, according to the author, because it meant that the Catholic Slovak majority could have control of their own country for the first time in history. While he admits that Tiso helped ship Slovakia's Jews off to the concentration camps, Kirschbaum claims he did so more slowly than the Nazis desired. Tiso also repressed the country's other minorities, including Hungarians, Gypsies, Poles, Rusyns and non-Catholics. Germans were treated well, of course, so as not to displease the Nazis. Meanwhile, the Czechs were stiking back at the Nazis, and enduring the devastation of the town of Lidice.

Slovakia's second chance at an independent nation, in 1993, also started off badly, although democracy seems to have grown stronger in the past year or so. It is still too early to tell whether Slovakia can survive as an independent economic entity, and whether it can create a tolerant society. The book's attitudes of "Czechs bad, Slovaks good," and "complete independence is worth any price" taint an otherwise well told and researched work.

My desire to learn about this obscure Central European country over-rode my hesitancy ... a hesitancy which stemmed from potentially being over-whelmed with names, dates, and historical events of which I knew litte. Not being a historical buff yet wanting to learn, I forged ahead. Fortunately, the writing style of the author allayed my concerns with the first few chapters which set the pace for a comfortable reading experience.

Starting at the beginning, Greater Moravia was the region's name in the 900s (A.D) which was a vassal of the German Frankish empire. The Slavic nobles and people resented this relationship from which territorial disputes arose along with new winners. The area was called Pannonia under the Roman Empire. In 907 A.D. the Magyar tribes conquered the ruling German Franks. The Magyars settled in the region, having an intimate relationship with the Slovaks until the 20th century. Of note, the Slovaks maintained their Slavic language and culture despite this apparent and at times very real domination by another people. Under the Magyars, there was a form of autonomy allowing the separate culture to propigate. Numerous monarchs rose to power and forged political alliances adding to the volatility of the region. The future survival of both Hungary and Slovakia were placed constantly at risk. The author does a superb job of describing political decisions and alliances which affected the direction of the future -- which form the basis of current events. During the Middle Ages, various wars with the Germans and Mongolian invaders eventually brought the reigning Hungarian monarchs to the forefront of both countries. The Ottoman victory in Mohacs, Hungary in 1526 led to the partition of Hungary. Under conditions of this defeat, the Hapsburg monarchy with its absolutist policies, rose to rule over the Hungarians and Slovaks. Catholicism attempted to limit effects of the Reformation and its open ideas toward religion and education which spread despite opposition. While the Slovak political history mirrored that of the Hungarians, the differences in language and culture developed side by side rather peacefully for approximately 800 - 900 years. However, the revolutionary years of the late 1840s changed that. When the Magyars became more nationalistic, the Slovaks became marginalized which forced them to yearn for and develop a foundation for a country of their own. The book does a highly credible job in describing the creation of Czechoslovakia and the international milieu in which this major world event occured. The social, economic, and political policies of the 1930s and 1940s up until World War II are well discussed. The rise of Communism post World War II mimics that of the other defeated nations in Central and Eastern Europe. Kirschbaum states it best, "they became trapped in the bipolar struggle between the Western liberal democratic world and the eastern proletarian Communist one." [p.231] The defeat of Communism, from the ashes of which arose ... a separate country, called Slovakia ... is one of the major success stories of modern times in Europe.

This book is highly recommended reading for anyone who has an interest in the politics of Central Europe and how struggles for domination affected the region. It would also be of interest to anyone who has roots and family ties to the area. The book is a well written scholarly document that includes a detailed and lengthy bibliography for each chapter. Anyone wanting to verify facts, delve deeper into the subject or pursue their own research is given a map to reach their destination. Erika Borsos (erikab93)

This is a relatively easy-to-read book, as Kirschbaum largely avoids the oblique and dry writing style that characterizes so much of contemporary historiography. "A History of Slovakia" provides a something of a good summary of Slovak history (from a decidedly Slovak point of view), with reference to the major historical events and personalities considered important by the Slovaks. But that's about as far as it goes. Kirschbaum is a political scientist, not a historian - this means that he depends almost exclusively on the works of other mainly Slovak historians, with little critical analysis of primary sources. The latter is particularly true of everything preceding the 20th century. Therefore, in the chapters dealing with the Middle Ages and the Great Moravian state, Kirschbaum very uncritically and rather naively states that a "Slovak national consciousness" had already developed by the 10th century. Most historians, sociologists, etc. tend to agree that it's generally questionable to speak of anything resembling the modern notion of national consciousness before the late 18th century. This sets the tone for the entire book, as Kirschbaum views Slovak history as having a theme, i.e. the Slovak nation's "struggle for survival" (the book's subtitle) and everything is viewed through this prism. This is an almost exclusively political history, and a rather middling one at that. When dealing with the last 70 or so years of Slovak history, when the country was a part of Czechoslovakia, Kirschbaum dwells on Slovakia's inferior political (and economic) position and the (often exaggerated) hegemony exercised by the central government in Prague. Also a bit disturbing is his treatment of the independent Slovak state that existed from 1939 to 1944 as an Axis ally. Kirschbaum does try to provide honest treatment of the persecution and deportation of the Slovak Jews, but at the same time he tries to downplay the responsibility of the Slovak regime, especially its president Jozef Tiso, in this tragedy (perhaps not much more could be expected from a Slovak emigre scholar, whose father was a low-level official in that same Slovak state). When dealing with the post-WW2 period, much emphasis is placed on some of the major political struggles of the period and the general lack of democracy, but Kirschbaum only touches on the importance of economic developments during this period - even though he does mention at one point that the Slovaks were generally less inclined than the Czechs to discard elements of the command economy because the communist period was one of unprecedented economic growth for Slovakia. Economic developments as well as social and even cultural issues are only touched upon here, even though further exploration of these areas would probably help explain many aspects of Slovak history more clearly than Kirschbaum's "politics only" approach.

Frankly, this is one of the worst-written books I have read in a long time. The author assumes that we know eastern european history, and has a style that can best be described as opaque. In spite of that, Kirschbaum has written the only extant history of slovakia that I have found, and does communicate the history, albeit in an elliptic and difficult prose style. If you are interested in Slovak history, this is a reasonable survey if you can slog through the prose.

I enjoyed reading about the history of Slovakia as I have had too few reference points in the past. Starting from 200,000BC! It lacks extra maps to show towns spoken about in the body of text. A breakdown of major cities and their importance would help as well.
I liked the fact that Kirschbaum did not rewrite the past but added substancial references and quotes[in the back of the book]. As another reviewer noted, the writer assumes the reader knows of east european history. A brief mention fo the terms of Treaties, Acts & Pacts would have been better. The 1968 Soviet Prague Invasion is hardly mentioned and it's impact on Slovakia.
I'm assuming that availabilty of public documents hindered many conclusions. Also, it's written so soon after the independant state of 1993 that there would be more insights found in a 2nd edition.

well, I too, liked this book. I happen to be a Slovak-American who has recently tried to research his roots. I bought this book through Amazon.com and I have to say that I carry this book around with me wherever I go. (to read a little bit at a time.) I particularly reccomend one little part in there that mentioned a Slovak version of Robin Hood. His name was Juro Janosik. The author told the story of Slovakia in what I think, a College textbook form. Great Read!!

Stan Kirschbaum has written the first really comprehensive and relatively unbiased history of Slovakia in this century. Almost all previous histories have attempted to prove a point -- that Slovaks really wanted to remain with Hungary, that Slovaks really wanted to remain with Slovakia, that Slovakia never really existed as a nation, etc.-- and Kirschbaum thankfully just recites the history as it was. His treatment is more even-handed than anyone else's. That should not be surprising, as he is a Canadian and had access to Western viewpoints and sources as well as Central European ones. Central European historians until recently have had access mainly to Marxist and to CZech or Hungarian sources. There is room for a more thorough and complete history of Slovakia, by a future generation of Slovak historians brought up in an atmosphere of independence and modern historical ideas, but until then this is the most useful book available.
Kirschbaum persuasively makes the point that a Slovak national consciousness existed long before there was any thought of a Slovak political entity or a nation state and establishes a continuity with the past which other historians have tended to ignore or to deny. His use of sources is excellent and well documented. I found this the landmark book of Slovak history until now.

Being curious about Central European history, I went ahead and read this book despite the mixed reviews on Amazon. After reading it, I do tend to agree with some of the reviewers and feel a bit disappointed. It being written by a non-historian does detract from its value. In addition, a troublesome aspect is that the book's underlying theme is the Slovaks' survival. In other words the ancestors of modern Slovaks were guided by striving toward achieving independence of "Slovakia / Slovensko" since the arrival of the Hungarians in the 10th century. This idea projects 19th century sensibilities of national identity or nationalism onto the early Middle Ages. As Kirschbaum's specialty is politics, this supposed book of Slovak history works on trying to relate past political events to Slovak nationalism and the creation of Slovakia.

In the end I found Kirschbaum's underlying messages of "pity the Slovaks" and "the Slovaks had to fight for their right to live from the beginning" (that dubious projection of 19th century sensibilities onto the distant past) to be tiresome after a while. For a supposed history book, his apologist's stance and whitewashing when discussing the Slovak puppet state in World War Two was also disappointing and a sign that his ancestry / national allegiance was affecting his analysis of historical events. He would have done better if he had followed the approach used by Ivo Goldstein in his book on Croatian history (Unlike Kirschbaum, Goldstein had no problem with describing and analyzing unsavory or less attractive events in his people's history. Then again, Goldstein is a historian whereas Kirschbaum is not).

I give two stars because it isn't a complete disaster but adjust your expectations when reading this one. It could have been much better if it had provided more comprehensive treatment of events on Slovak territory regardless of whether they suited Kirschbaum's pet theories / theses on Slovak nation-building.

Over the last century or so, a large number of nations have become sovereign entities, recognized by others, members of the United Nations, with flag, airline, World Cup football team, and anthem. These range from Tuvalu and St. Lucia to Nigeria, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan. Everyone knows that there are others, equally deserving of such recognition, that don't achieve it. Kurdistan is a prime example; Tibet, Chechnya, Euskadi, and national states for Native Americans come to mind too. It is interesting to ponder on the historical currents or maybe even accidents that determine whether or not a nation comes into existence. Slovakia's history could serve as a prime example. Never really a nation on its own, the Slovak people endured a millennium of Hungarian rule, only---on coming close to national recognition---to be subsumed for another seven decades into Czechoslovakia, in which country they played perpetual second fiddle. This history could have been written around such a question---why some and not others ? It was not.

Nineteenth century nationalism may have led to the creation of many national states, particularly in Europe, it led to the demise of colonialism, but it has played a negative role in the world also. The "us against the world" mentality, atavistic tribalism, and xenophobia have all been encouraged and used by nationalistic forces. Nationalistic history thus can play either positive or negative roles . I would say that THE HISTORY OF SLOVAKIA is such a nationalistic book, though to be fair, a few attempts are made to show more balance. Granted, if you want to know the history of that small Central European country (people) in English, I think you will have to read Kirschbaum's name and date-studded work. But beware. By calling the book "history of Slovakia", the author may be `creating' an entity that never really existed until the late 19th century.

The history of the Great Moravian Empire of the 9th century is highly speculative---at such a remote distance in time, how can we be sure that it had anything to do with modern Slovaks ? Slavs, yes. It plays the role of that "original root" which every nation tends to find, whether it actually existed or not. Kirschbaum himself questions some of the Slovak historiography, for instance, a claim that Matthew Cak, in the 14th century, was a Slovak ruler or hero. Perhaps he was just another powerful Hungarian landlord. We read about the Slovak national awakening in the 19th century, the separation of the Slovak lands from Hungary and joining with Bohemia and Moravia to form the first Czechoslovak republic (to 1938), the subsequent re-amalgamation from 1948 to 1989, and the ultimate "Velvet Divorce" in 1993, after which Slovakia finally achieved nationhood. It is the section on the period 1939-1945, when Slovakia was a German puppet state in Central Europe, that seemed ambiguous and dubious. It is a whitewash of collaborators with the Nazis. The mantra is "The regime may not have been palatable to everybody, but it protected the country and provided the conditions for the expression of national aspirations." At the same time, over two-thirds of the Jewish citizens were exterminated. National aspirations indeed ! "Slovaks proved that they were able to govern themselves." (p.211) A spurious claim as Slovakia lay under the German thumb. Slovaks never attacked anyone--just a `symbolic' two divisions sent into the Soviet Union along with the Wehrmacht. This is nationalistic history. It is written to "identify all the trees", but we don't see the forest. I'm sorry. I'd like to read a more balanced view.