the nationality of all inhabitants of the czech provinces and ...

Czechs and Germans in a Democratic
Czechoslovakia, 1918-1938
their rights at home and at the
international level (the German
minorities tended to be best at that),
and the actual political situation in the
given country. The most favourable
status was achieved by those minorities
that managed to reach a consensus with
the state. In certain countries the
situation of minorities was literally
tragic. There were mass expulsions of
populations at the beginning of the
1920s, particularly in Greece and
Turkey, involving huge massacres. The
West was unable make Turkey honour
international obligations even
subsequently. Turkey even tried to force
its minorities to “voluntarily” forego the
guarantees afforded them under the
minorities treaty.
The most frequent problems of the
minorities can be summarised under
several main headings:
1. failure to introduce regulations to
enforce the laws protecting
minorities, and general violations of
those laws,
2. political attempts at national unity,
3. restrictions on the influence of
minorities,
4. extremism and chauvinism on both
sides that were an obstacle to
compromise
5. inadequate or no representation of
minorities within official bodies,
6. restricted or non-existent scope to use
their language in official
communications,
7. inadequate or non-existent education
for minorities,
8. land reform that penalised the
wealthier groups, and economic
pressure.
It would be possible to list other,
more detailed factors. It is interesting to
take a look at the situation of minorities
in those countries that were not bound
by any international treaty to protect
their minorities, i.e. USA, Great
Britain, France and Italy. Sometimes
that protection was not even required of
them de facto – although they
themselves imposed minorities treaties
on other countries and interfered in
their internal affairs. Even though Italy
77
Chapter III
acquired minorities numbering almost a
million as a result of the war, it was
never made to accept international
obligations, because its status as a world
power wielded more influence than the
force of noble ideas. On the contrary,
the government introduced changes in
the administration of its new territories
that led to greater centralisation at the
expense of local government. This also
undermined the position of the
Germans in South Tyrol. Particularly
harsh treatment was meted out to the
Slovenes in the form of violence during
elections or the imprisonment of
activists. “Italianisation” was particularly
stepped up after the establishment of
the fascist regime, which brought with it
the terror of the mob, increased activity
by the fascist militia and campaigns
against the minorities by various
associations and in the press, as well as
official pressure and anti-minority
legislation. France, the acclaimed model
of many of the newly emergent states,
simply refused to recognise the existence
of its minorities (e.g. 1,200,000 Bretons
and the same number of Germanspeaking
Alsatians), because since the
French Revolution it had recognised
only individual, not collective rights.
Minority languages could not be used
before the courts or in the
administration, and the same applied to
education, where French was the sole
language of instruction. This so-called
“direct method” ensured that from their
very first year in school, children were
taught only in the official language and
never heard a single word in their
mother tongue. That approach was
adopted not only in France, but also in
the Netherlands and Spain, and usually
in Germany, Hungary, Greece, etc.
Great Britain did not give legal
recognition to any national minorities
and therefore there existed no
legislation to cover the situation of
minorities. Minority issues existed, but
in a situation quite distinct from that of
continental Europe; whereas the
language issue elsewhere, such as in
Czechoslovakia, was crucial, there it was
often insignificant (the Irish mostly