OBSAH / CONTENTS
A diplomat in the service of the Kings of Hungary.
The activity of the Bishop of Nitra Antony of Šankovce at the end of the Middle Ages
The ecclesiastical dignitary Antony of Šankovce (de Sankfalwa) started his diplomatic career as a canon at Oradea (Magnum Varadinum, Nagyvárad, Veľký Varadín, Gross-Wardein). The king entrusted him with ever more demanding diplomatic tasks. Together with the Archbishop of Esztergom Vitéz, he secured the return of the Crown of St. Stephen to Hungary in 1463. He was also sent to the courts of Italian rulers and to France, Poland and Germany. In 1486, King Matthias Corvinus appointed him Provost of Bratislava, and in 1490 Vladislav II made him Bishop of Nitra. Antony of Šankovce fully applied his education in canon law, gained at the University of Padua, in the field of marriage law. In Rome, he had to prove the invalidity of Vladislav’s marriage, not only with Beatrix of Aragon, but also with Barbara of Brandenburg. Evidence of Antony’s activities survives from the period of his work in Bratislava and Nitra. He was involved in canon law, organizational and pastoral activities. He held a diocesan synod at Nitra in 1494. Its conclusions provide information about the problems of the Catholic Church at the end of the 15th century. He founded an altar of St. Antony in Nitra Cathedral and gave his house in Buda and vineyard on Zobor to support it. Bishop Antony made his last diplomatic journey in 1499 to the Imperial Diet at Worms.
Middle Ages. Diplomacy. Provost of Bratislava. Bishop of Nitra. Matthias Corvinus. Beatrix of Aragon. Vladislav II Jagielo. Diocesan synod at Nitra.
Trianon rituals or considerations of some features of Hungarian historiography
The study connected with the approaching anniversary of the conclusion of the Treaty of Trianon examines the instrumentalization of this event in part of Hungarian historiography. Biased arguments, the so-called national viewpoint, double standards for the same phenomena, absence of context, lack of perception of preceding developments, demonization of particular personalities and phenomena, uncritical argumentation from the 1910 nationality statistics, which used unreliable methods, accompany this instrumentalization. All this is only part of a rich repertoire. The study comments on the character of the most recent Trianon publications and generalizes about some common features of Hungarian historiography, especially the absence of self-reflection and problems with the analysis of their own historical failures, as well as the tendency of the main stream of Hungarian historiography to ignore these negative trends. They are tacitly accepted without comment or the necessary critical detachment, which gives the impression of agreement. There are more than enough similar negative phenomena in Slovakia, but here they evoke polemics and the majority of professional historians distance themselves from them. Only those, who can express their position and not be silent at home, have the right to look beyond the frontiers and express critical views of the situation in neighbouring countries.
Hungarian historiography. Trianon and its instrumentalization. Absence of self-reflection and distortion of history. Comparison with Slovak historiography.
The Czechoslovak National Democratic Party in the Politics of the Slovak National Party, 1919 – 1932
In inter-war Czechoslovakia, the relationship of the Slovaks to the Czech political scene reached a qualitatively new level. An example was the relationship of the autonomist Slovak National Party (Slovenská národná strana) with the Czechoslovak National Democratic Party (Československá národnodemokratická strana), which played the role of a potential ally in its politics, during the period 1919 – 1932. In questions of programme, they were united by the declared need to define Slovakia as a territorial unit, which was associated with the demand for autonomy and the need to solve the Slovak question. However, they were divided by their views on the national charakter of the Slovaks. The Slovak side spoke of the national individuality of the Slovaks, while the Czech side supported the idea of a united Czechoslovak nation. Their efforts to cooperate culminated in joint participation in the 1929 parliamentary elections and the inclusion of a member from the Slovak National Party in the parliamentary club of the Czech party, which disintegrated in 1932 under the influence of deepening disputes.
Slovak National Party – Slovenská národná strana. Czechoslovak National Democratic Party – Československá národnodemokratická strana. Nationalism. Czechoslovak mutuality. Czechoslovak national unity. The autonomy of Slovakia. National individuality of the Slovaks. Cooperation between Czech and Slovak political groups.
The military intervention of the central government in Slovakia, 9-11 March 1939
The military intervention of the Prague central government in Slovakia during the days from 9 to 11 March 1939 was intended to prevent the internal disintegration of Czecho-Slovakia. It would achieve this by replacing the autonomous government of J. Tiso and limiting the separatist tendencies of the radical members of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party and the para-military Hlinka Guard. However, the military coup was not thoroughly prepared from the military, political or propaganda points of view. After the initial successes of the Czech gendarmes, who penetrated into Slovakia on the evening of 9 March, the Hlinka Guard began to organize resis-tance and present the coup as an attempt to reverse the results of the Act on the Autonomy of the Slovak Region from 2 November 1938 and return to the centralist regime in Slovakia. In the struggle for public opinion, the Prague government could not convince the public about its intentions, and pressure from the People’s Party and Hlinka Guard forced it to hand over power to the political representatives of the Slovak region on the afternoon of 11 March. During the evening of 11 March President E. Hácha appointed K. Sidor as the new premier of the autonomous government. Sidor began the work of political consolidation. He enforced the release of imprisoned members of the Hlinka Guard and representatives of the People’s Party. He also forced the government in Prague to make various political concessions, which increased the legal powers of the autonomous government in Bratislava. The military intervention in Slovakia worsened relations between the Czechs and Slovaks. Adolf Hitler used the situation to achieve the internal break up of the republic. Berlin unambiguously supported the demand for the creation of a Slovak state. The Parliament of the Slovak Region declared an independent state on 14 March 1939. This began the process of internal disintegration of Czecho-Slovakia, which led to the occupation of Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia by Hungary and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia by Nazi Germany on 15 March.
Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party. Hlinka Guard. Central government in Prague. Autonomous government in Bratislava. Military intervention of Czech gendarme and army units in Slovakia. Origin of the Slovak state. Occupation of the Bohemia and Moravia by Nazi Germany.
The discussions of Nazi Germany on the deportation of Jews in 1942 – the examples of Slovakia, Rumania and Hungary
The study is an attempt to compare the discussions and resulting deportations of Jews in individual states. Nazi Germany asked more or less the same questions in these discussions, but the three states reacted differently to the possibility to deport their Jews, in spite of their home-grown policies of anti-Semitism. The rejection of deportation at this time by Rumania and Hungary did not result in the political elites of these countries losing power. Quiet collaboration of the individual countries, economic cooperation, especially in the armaments industry, and sending of military units to the Eastern Front, were much more important for Nazi Germany than the deportation of Jews.
The Holocaust. Deportation. Slovakia. Hungary. Rumania.
RECENZIE / REVIEWS
ŠTEFÁNIK Martin – LUKAČKA Ján et al., A Lexicon of Medieval Towns in Slovakia (Mária Grófová) S. 137
VÖRÖS László, Analytical historiography versus national history: the „nation“ as social representantion (Miroslava Michela) S. 138
SEGEŠ Vladimír et al., Slovakia – Military Chronicle (Matej Hanula) S. 140
ŠUCHOVÁ Xénia, The Idea of the Czechoslovak State in Slovakia 1918 – 1939. Protagonists, bearers, opponents (Bohumila Ferenčuhová) S. 144
FERENČUHOVÁ Bohumila, France and the slovak question 1789 – 1989 (Pavol Petruf) S. 148
KRITIK – GLOSSEN – BIBLIOGRAPHIE – CHRONIK