Paris Peace Conf.184.01102/110

Professor A. C. Coolidge to the Commission to Negotiate Peace

No. 89

Sirs: I have the honor to inclose herewith a report (with annexes) of Professor Robert J. Kerner on the subject of “Deutsch-Böhmen with especial reference to the Brüx-Teplitz Coal Region”. I am making some comment on this report, and I should like to refer back for another point of view to my own Dispatch No. 10 of January 12th48 on the feelings of the Austrians on the subject of German Bohemia.

My first criticism of Professor Kerner’s report is his title and the way that he tends to confound two separate things. That is to say “German Bohemia”, a queer mis-shapen geographic entity which as he says has no basis in history or in law, and “German Bohemia” in the sense of the parts of Bohemia inhabited by the Germans, which has very distinct and in some ways well founded claims. While the Austrian Empire was a single state with a centralized administration and no internal customs barriers, it is comprehensible that the German population of Bohemia, especially of late years has demanded with increasing insistence a division of the country into separate Czech and German “circles” (Kreiseinteilung) and, violently as the Czechs opposed this plan for national reasons, it was economically and administratively feasible, not to say defensible. Today it is easy to point out that German Bohemia by itself looks contrary to all laws of geography and economics and that even joined as a unit to Austria it would form a [Page 335] distorted appendage, but these are not the only alternatives. Many, if not most, German Bohemians care little about maintaining a difficult and artificial unity between the separate portions of their territory provided only they can be parts of the same general whole, and even if it is impossible, provided they can be united with brethren of their own nationality. All this Professor Kerner barely suggests.

From a geographical point of view there are no difficulties to a union of the German speaking regions of Southern Bohemia and Moravia to the adjacent territories of Upper and Lower Austria with which they have always been closely connected and where the present boundaries are for the most part the result of historical accident. In the northwest, the Eger Territory, which was not part of the original Bohemian State, could go without difficulty to Bavaria. The Sudeten-land in the east would fit in well with Prussian Silesia, and its loss would not seriously impair the natural geographic frontiers of Bohemia. By far the most difficult and important question is that of Northern Bohemia. Here is where the largest and most important block of German speaking territory is to be found. It might conceivably be annexed to Saxony or made a separate state in the new German Republic, but, owing to its barrier of mountains, it would seem to belong by clear geographic law to Bohemia and not to Saxony. Without it Bohemia would lose her obvious natural frontiers as much as Hungary would without Slovakia—a parallel, by the way, which the Czechs do not like to admit but which is continually being thrown in their faces. Northern Bohemia is also the seat of the recent great development of industry. It is economically the most valuable part of the country. We can understand the Czech determination not to let go of it under any circumstances. I should like, in this connection, to call particular attention to Annex No. 2349 to Professor Kerner’s report.

It is in this region of Northern Bohemia that for economic reasons there has been in recent years the greatest increase of the Czech population, especially in the Brüx-Teplitz district to which Professor Kerner makes special reference in his report, thereby, it seems to me, tending slightly to confuse still further the general issue. No one questions the right of the Czechs to go there in as large numbers as they want, but to call the coming of the Germans “a later infiltration” and that of the Czechs “re-immigration” is an unjustified play on words. We might just as well term the coming of the Germans in the 13th century a “re-immigration” because, as Professor Kerner himself states, there were Germans in Bohemia seven hundred years earlier. In point of fact, the much disputed question as to the antiquity of various Germanic or Slavic settlements in the country is not a matter that need be taken seriously except by the conscientious [Page 336] historian. Both peoples have been there centuries enough to have well established claims, and their opposing claims must be decided on other grounds. Professor Kerner points out, as do other writers on the Czech side, the interdependence of the different parts of Bohemia, and he uses the familiar and obvious arguments in that connection. Among the replies made to those arguments are that they fail to take into account changed political conditions and the larger factors of the world situation. It is by no means certain that in future the industries of Northern Bohemia, if included in Germany, could not compete with those of other parts, though doubtless some of the manufacturers will suffer in the process. Nor is it sure that German laborers could not be found to take the place of Czechs. The real answer to that should be “What are the desires of the people themselves?” What do they think best, and not what do others think best for them; and here Professor Kerner frankly admits that they would vote for separation. There are strong arguments for the thesis that the possession of German Northern Bohemia is “vitally necessary” for the prosperity of the future Czecho-Slovakia. It only weakens the case to insist that it would be for the good of the Germans themselves. Such arguments have been used against every discontented people.

Finally, it may be admitted that the Austrian statistics of nationality for 1910 are neither fair nor exact, and I think we may expect quite different results when the Czechs have made, as they are doing in some cases, a census of their own. All those who are unfairly counted by prejudiced or dishonest authorities, those who were afraid to confess their true nationality, and those who did not care were formerly reckoned as Germans. They will now appear as Czechs. But whether the census will be more impartially conducted than before and will give a fairer idea of the proportion of the two nationalities, is perhaps open to question. All we can say is that the errors will be on the other side. Even Professor Kerner’s statement about the extraordinary increase of Czech children in the schools, his statement I have heard confirmed by President Masaryk himself, loses some of its force in view of the rumors one hears of the closing or transfer of German schools, as well as other measures of Czechisation which are now going on.

The above remarks are not meant as a wholesale condemnation of Professor Kerner’s point of view. Especially on the question of the treatment of minorities he is most liberal, but I have been asked to criticize his reports with particular care and in consequence I am doing so.

I have [etc.]

Archibald Cart Coolidge
[Page 337]
[Enclosure]

Professor R. J. Kerner to Professor A. C. Coolidge

Subject: Deutsch-Böhmen with especial reference to the Brüx-Teplitz coal region.

Explanatory Note.

Within the space usually allotted to reports such as this it is possible only to outline general ideas and to support them here and there by references to special detail included in the appendix.50 To discuss the problem in detail or to exhaust the material in the appendix would require several reports like the one which follows.

In this report the writer hopes to convey the impressions which he has received as a result of the study of the problem in the field and through its contemporary literature, as well as through conferences with various German and Czech political and business leaders.

I Historical Basis.

Deutsch-Böhmen, as a separate political entity, has no basis in history or in law.

It was demanded by some German leaders in 1848, but it was opposed by others who belonged to the Pan-German party. The idea was not taken up again until the late eighties and nineties of the last century when it became certain that the Germans could no longer obtain a majority of the Bohemian Diet.

Until the present war, it remained a movement which aspired to divide Bohemia into a German and a Czech Bohemia purely for administrative matters. In other words, it was not a movement to’ divide Bohemia politically into two crown lands. This movement was opposed by two powerful forces: first, the natural geographic and economic unity of Bohemia; and second, the determined resistance of some Germans and most of the Czechs who stood on the basis of historic boundaries and refused to allow Bohemia to be divided even administratively.

Pacher incorrectly maintains that the electoral law of 1907 (for the Austrian Parliament) laid the legal basis for Deutsch-Böhmen. This law was never intended for such a purpose, and it is not so considered by the acknowledged leaders of the movement, Lodgman and Seliger.

In short, Deutsch-Böhmen, taken as a whole, has no historic rights, nor can it assert them against the acknowledged historic rights of the Bohemian crown i. e. Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia. The former duchy of Eger alone may lay some claim to recognition in this way.

[Page 338]

II Ethnographic Basis.

If Deutsch-Böhmen has no historic rights, it may be truthfully asserted that it has ethnic rights. It includes, with perhaps one exception (the Brüx-Teplitz region), the territory which the official Austrian census recognizes as preponderantly German. The Czechs contest the basis of the statistics i. e. language of intercourse (Um-gangssprache) and point out that this basis does not properly record the Czech minorities in Deutsch-Böhmen. In the case of the coal region of Brüx-Teplitz the Czechs claim about 50%, the Germans, who live there, and the official census give them about 25%.

In regard to the very fundamental difference of opinion about the census, the reader is referred to a memorandum which the writer prepared for the Inquiry. It will suffice to state here that both the official census and the private census as well as the census about to be taken should be carefully compared. The German leaders in the Brüx-Teplitz region admit that the official figures of the number of Czechs should be raised—some say “4 to 5%”, others say “somewhat”. It was the impression of the writer, who visited the region, that there were many more Czechs in the Brüx-Teplitz region than could be found in the census. Since the revolution (October, 1918), the pupils in the Czech schools have increased from 10 to 30 even 40% above their average for the year 1918. These were children of people who for the most part were economically dependent upon the Germans for a livelihood and who under pressure (explained in memorandum already referred to) allowed themselves to be recorded as Germans. In other words, the conclusion which the writer reached in the mentioned memorandum has been substantiated by field work and the admission of German leaders themselves.

The real question at issue is, how large is the percentage of error which the Umgangssprache basis causes? This can only be determined by a new census which would aim to investigate nationality, and not the language of intercourse (Umgangssprache). In the opinion of the writer such a census would reveal a larger number of Czechs—perhaps not as high as the Czechs themselves claim—, but still high enough to threaten the German majority in the Brüx-Teplitz region. In other words, the Brüx-Teplitz region is a debatable territory. And should this region prove to have Czechs to the number of 50% it would cleave Deutsch-Böhmen in two.

There are other regions which have strong Czech minorities as for instance the Reichenberg region and the Hohenelbe District. But these are clearly minorities and do not assume the proportion of possible majorities as does that in the Brüx-Teplitz region.

The present German population of Deutsch-Böhmen is for the most part, undoubtedly a later infiltration. Down to the sixth century German [Page 339] and Celtic tribes occupied Bohemia. From the sixth to the twelfth Bohemia was completely Czech. Such Germans as remained were insignificant in numbers. The present German population in some cases goes back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but for the most part to the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth century and represents pretty much the different kinds of Germans who live around the border of Bohemia from the Prussians on the east to the Bavarians on the west.

On the other hand a great proportion of the Czech minorities in Deutsch-Böhmen represent a recent “reimmigration” on the part of the Czechs who were drawn there by the industrialization of Deutsch-Böhmen, which occurred before that of the rest of Bohemia.

Summing up then, it may be said that the present German population in Deutsch-Böhmen represents in general a later infiltration, but that the Czech minorities there are for the most part a recent Czech “reimmigration”; that Deutsch-Böhmen is threatened with a partition by the very strong Czech minority (or even Czech majority according to their claims) in the Brüx-Teplitz coal area; and that Deutsch-Böhmen, as viewed from ethnographic conditions, is a reality which must be reckoned with even if it can be proved that the Brüx-Teplitz region has a Czech majority or a powerful minority of, let us say, 40%. In the latter case it is certain that the Czechs would not give up the region should the Peace Conference decide to lop off parts of German Bohemia.

III Economic Basis.

It is the opinion of some German and Jewish capitalists, as well as of the Czechs, that Deutsch-Böhmen cannot exist independent economically and that it cannot compete with the industry in the German empire. We leave aside the question of Deutsch-Böhmen forming a part of Deutsch-Österreich. This is a political impossibility. On the other hand, German politicians maintain that they can find a way to exist in the German empire, or, if need be, even as an independent state.

It can be proved statistically that Deutsch-Böhmen cannot feed itself. It can also be shown that Deutsch-Böhmen is largely dependent (except in one or two cases) on exporting its industrial products to the south and southeast and that it cannot compete (except in a few cases) with the powerful industry of the German empire. German leaders have admitted to the writer that they expect to be independent, or to be a part of Germany, or even to be a part of Deutsch-Österreich and yet maintain their free Czecho-Slovak market! It goes without saying that should they be excluded from the Czechoslovak republic that the latter state will have to resort to a fairly high [Page 340] protective tariff. They will likewise be unable to secure Czech labor without which they cannot run their factories.

Viewed from the other angle, the Czecho-Slovak Republic would be crippled economically although helped politically, by the exclusion of all or part of Deutsch-Böhmen. Not only does this part of Bohemia represent great wealth and hence income, but it contains mineral resources vitally necessary to the Czechs in their steadily growing industry. Under no circumstances would they give up the Brüx-Teplitz region which would not only retain for them a large Czech population, but likewise the richest part of the Northwestern coal area.

The truth is that from an economic point of view Bohemia cannot be divided without serious damage to both parts. This is the point of view of certain German and Jewish capitalists, of newspapers like the Prager Tagblatt, and virtually all Czech bankers and business men. The Prager Tagblatt very ably points out now, as it did when the question of dividing Bohemia came up before, that even if this division were carried through, two German taxpayers of Pilsen (which would be Czech) would pay more than three purely German districts of Deutsch-Böhmen and that the Germans of Prague would be delivering to the Czech government one-half as much as the total tax payment in Deutsch-Böhmen. Such men see the inclusion of Deutsch-Böhmen in the Czecho-Slovak Republic as necessary, not only from the economic point of view, but likewise from the national point of view. If there are three millions of Germans in the republic, it will not necessarily mean that they will be assimilated. Otherwise, the Germans of Prague, as well as the German islands elsewhere in the republic, will soon be assimilated.

Deutsch-Böhmen cannot exist as an independent economic unit nor can it obtain the favorable economic conditions on which it now subsists if it is either independent or becomes a part of Germany. In order to get the same favorable conditions which caused the industry to spring up and which gave it its physical supply (Czech labor), it must be a part of the Czecho-Slovak republic. Should Deutsch-Böhmen be given to Germany the Czechs will undoubtedly demand the Brüx-Teplitz region and certain areas including Reichenberg and Hohenelbe. The best condition which the Germans of Bohemia might obtain is autonomy in the Czech republic. But the Czechs will insist on giving full protection to German minorities on some such basis as the Moravian Nation-Register system.

In other words, the Germans cannot have national independence and economic prosperity at one and the same time, nor can the Czechs have a purely national state and economic prosperity at the same time. [Page 341] Each must concede to the other, if they wish to continue the wonderful economic evolution of the lands of the Bohemian crown. The Germans will have to give up their claims to national independence or exclusion from Bohemia. The Czechs will have to make concessions on that basis either in the form of autonomy or a liberal Moravian National-Register system and Anglo-Saxon local government. Otherwise both will suffer.

IV The Political Solution.

The political solution of the problem of Deutsch-Böhmen naturally depends upon the fundamental principles which the Peace Conference will adopt.

If ethnic rights are to be given the predominant place in the calculations then the problem of Deutsch-Böhmen resolves itself into the calling of a plebiscite. This would favor, without a doubt, annexation or “connection” (Anschluss) with Germany, because the course of events in Deutsch-Österreich points very strongly in that direction. If the Czechs succeeded in getting the Brüx-Teplitz region, Deutsch-Böhmen would go in two sections, otherwise as one, although it is to be doubted whether it would remain one province or state in the empire very long. There is very little geographic, economic, or even ethnic cohesion in Deutsch-Böhmen. For that reason it would perhaps be partitioned between the various states which border Bohemia and to which ethnically and dialectically the different kinds of Germans in Bohemia belong. For Deutsch-Böhmen to remain a part of Deutsch-Österreich and then enter the German empire does not seem likely (except in legal fiction) because the thin strip with [which?] joins both through the mountains west of Klattau will in all likelihood be given to the Czecho-Slovak republic. This strip (the Judicial Districts of Taus and Neugedein) according to official statistics contained in 1910 a German population of 17.5% and a Czech population of 82.3%. The strip to the south and east of this might go to Deutsch-Österreich.

If historic rights and geographical, strategic, and economic conditions be given the predominant place in the solution of the problem, then Deutsch-Böhmen will be included in the Czecho-Slovak republic. The remaining problem will concern itself with the manner of its inclusion. The Germans will insist on autonomy, using the right of self-determination to bargain for it; the Czechs will be willing to give the Germans what the latter had given the Czechs in Moravia on the basis of the National-Register law of 1905, as well as equal civil and political rights and full protection to minorities. It is to be hoped that an international law for the protection of minorities will be one of the results of the Peace Conference.

  1. Vol. ii, p. 233.
  2. Not attached to file copy of this document.
  3. Not printed; footnote references in this report to material contained in the appendix have been omitted.