Conclusion
Conclusion

Author(s): Author Not Specified
Subject(s): Cultural history, Political history, Recent History (1900 till today), 19th Century, Identity of Collectives
Published by: Historický ústav SAV
Summary/Abstract: Czech historian Michal Kopeček began one of his lectures on the historical memory with a quote which fits very well into the conclusion of this book: “Someone once said that happier nations do not have to worry so much about history, and, therefore, their national culture can be based on philosophy and art. Less fortunate nations, meaning those who lose more often, must pay more attention to their history. As a result, basis for their national culture and often also national obsession is the history.” Being obsessed with history and its interpretation is typical of all the countries in Central Europe. Since the 19th century, close links were established in this region between the historiography and the political developments of the nations, which led not only to “politisation of history” but also to “historisation of the politics”. How else could the situation have developed in the area where the borders, forms of government and state configurations changed every few years? A joke about a man who was a citizen four different states without leaving Mukacheve, in fact accurately describes the tragic absurdity of the Central European historical developments. However, it did not concern individuals only, but whole groups. As Michal Schvarc writes in his study: “Who would have predicted it at the beginning of 1918 that the city of Bratislava would become a part of four different state establishments, that in such a relatively short time it would go through six different regimes, and that just a torso would be left of the 30-thousand German community by early 1949 which will fear to claim allegiance to its roots?”

• Details
• Contents