Page:The New Europe (The Slav standpoint), 1918.pdf/32

 part of his income and earnings to the administration of the state. All countries are not equally rich and fertile, do not possess equally favourable geographical locations or equally good neighbours—so it is natural that the smaller, less rich states and nations (whether by nature or by their degree of economic and cultural development) cannot afford to their citizens all the advantages which may be found in the richer and larger states. But where is it written that all nations must be equally rich or that they must be equal in general?

A small nation may intensify all its work and thereby make up to a large extent its lack of numbers; a large nation proceeds in all its activities rather extensively. One may compare it to the economic exertions as between the owner of a small piece of land and one who is the owner of a great estate. Therefore in the large states individual parts claim various forms of autonomy against centralisation.

The adversaries of small nations and states emphasise that small states do not prosper, not merely from the economic and military point of view, but also in the matter of culture—the small nation is said to have small and stunted ideas and ideals. This claim must be settled by carefully ascertaining the facts and clearing up the concepts. Let us, for example, take the Czechs; a nation far smaller than the Germans (the figures now are about 10 to 80) managed to hold its own against the strong German pressure for centuries and continues to do so down to this day, although the Slavs who settled further west and north have been Germanised. Politically Bohemia occupied an important place in the family of nations and played for a time even imperialistic politics, having incorporated German-Austria with Vienna and even Brandenburg, where Berlin lies to-day. In culture Bohemia was eminent as early as the 14th century; and the Czechs were the first to break the authority of the mediæval theocracy and to open the new era by their reformation; the names of Zizka, Hus, Chelcicky and Comenius are among the greatest. When they had been beaten by the united effort of all Europe, the Czechs, after merely existing for 200 years, roused themselves at the end of the 18th century to new cultural life—the renaissance of the Czecho-Slovak nation is proof of strong national vitality. Why, therefore, and by what right do the Pangermanists deny the Czechs and Slovaks independence? The present-day great nations have laid the foundation of their culture at a time when they were smaller or as small; and it is especially significant that in the former days there did not exist the modern methods of communication, industry, and the like, which are said to be necessary for the development of the up-to-date culture, but these conditions now are just as accessible to the small nations as to the great. Dante, Shakespeare, Moliere, and others lived in the days of small things. And Jesus and His followers grew up in a small remote Asian region. Just like the Czech nation, so grew the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, and their like, constituting the proof that cultural accomplishments cannot be measured merely by square miles of territory or statistical figures.

A more exact analysis and comparison of great and small nations would have to take into account the natural endowment and capacity of the various nations; in that respect the intensive effort of many small nations is evidence of a considerable natural endowment. A small nation, defending itself against a large nation, thinks far more intensively than its great neighbor, who relies more on his numerical superiority. The current opinion of the cultural degree and accomplishment of nations is very inexact and unscientific. (According to measurements of even German anthropologists, the Czechs, and I believe the Croatians, show the highest skull and brain index.)

18. The opponents of small states and nations point to Austria as the classic demonstration that small nations must unite themselves into larger federated bodies, and as a proof that they cannot maintain their independence.