Page:The New Europe (The Slav standpoint), 1918.pdf/69

 many Germans themselves declare to-day that not Russia but England is their principal rival and foe.

Pangermanism and Panslavism differ substantially. That the various Slav nations feel with one another is natural, for they are close to each other in language and ideas; it is equally natural that small nations expected assistance against the Germans, Magyars and Turks from Russia; but there has never been an elaborate, aggressively organised Panslavism, or rather Panrussianism, of the type of Pangermanism. We would not reproach the Germans, if they sympathised with the Teutons and preached and worked for Pangermanism in the sense of unifying the Teuton race; but the Germans interpret and practise Pangermanism in a directly contrary sense, namely, of having non-German and non-Teuton nations serve the Germans.

Panslavism, preached by Slav philosophers, historians and statesmen, was, as a rule, satisfied with literary and cultural reciprocity; and if we Czechs have been particularly charged with Panslavism in the sense of Panrussianism, then I must state here the fact that while we have always been decided Russophiles, our greatest political leaders, Palacký and Havliček, took a most determined stand against Panslavism under the tsarist absolutism. Tsarism itself rejected Panslavism for reasons of legitimacy (Tsar Nicholas I.) and for ecclesiastical reasons (it was opposed to Catholics and Liberal Westerners). There is no comparison between political Pangermanism and Panslavism—the latter limited itself, in all its principal exponents, to Slav nations.

France also is Russophile, and England, too, turned to Russia and the Slavs, although it had long been opposed to Russia and paid little attention to the other Slavs; and why are the Japanese aiding Russia, their enemy of yesterday? Why is the majority of the neutrals on the side of the Allies, among then even Teuton peoples (Danes, Norwegians, Flemings, and lately even the Dutch)? Is that Panslavism?

The Pangermans raised nationalism to an almost mystical chauvinism and they impressed upon their nation, intoxicated by frequent military victories, the idea of an elect Herrenvolk; against this German danger, heightened by a clever and almost scientific exploitation of the centralised strength of Germany and Austria-Hungary, not only the Slavs but all the other nations made common cause. Their aim, therefore, is not and cannot be only national; it is democratic, being national only in so far as nationality is democratic and social.

For the same reason it is not proper to speak of the struggle of Germanism with Latinism in the West; all nations, and even parts of the same nation, have been until now in opposition and hostility toward each other.

In general it is not sufficient to explain the history and the development of the single nations by the antagonism between neighbours; all nations develop not merely through opposition to their neighbours but also by their own internal forces, and this positive development must also be understood, as it gives to the various nations their individual character. History as the world’s court does not pass judgment merely on mutual fights, but also on the internal quality of nations; history that does not go beyond wars between nations, hardly gets beyond quantity, material force and its temporary success.

2em