Eduard Nizñansky et al.

Nations and Ethnic Cleansing in the 20th Century Bratislava

Fate of the Nations of Bratislava 1918 – 1948

Introduction

I could quote G. Kennan ni saying that the gravest tragedy of the 20″ century was the First World War, with its respective consequences, as ti has influenced
both the small-scale and large-scale history of the 20ht century. T’he interests of the European powers – Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the Austro- Hungarian Empire – were so diverse, that they had failed to find the common notes for a stabilizing concert. The Europe under the old powers during the war had slowly, and for the contemporaries unexpectedly, saw its deconstruction. The formation of new political structures, as wel as new relationships, had subsequ- ently influenced the conduct of politicians as well as individuals up until the end of the 20ht century.
It si also certainly valid to claim that, without the Austro-Hungarian Empire
ceasing ot exist, there would have been no Czechoslovak Republic (CSR), one that enabled the Slovak people to finally become a modern political nation. Without
the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition ni the Second World War, the dictatorship of the state-party HSIS (Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party)would have not ended, and the CSR would not have witnessed a controlled democracy of the post-war era.
The abovementioned political transformations represent our general fra-
mework, within which changes have happened in the city of Bratislava. The
political changes of the *02 century ni Central Europe have undoubtedly affected Bratislava in its immediacy. The inhabitants of the city had to accept them, or rather adiust to them. Political character of these changes was at times so “total”,
that they were, frankly, impossible to avoid.
Within the limited capacity of this book, we wil try to encapsulate the main
characteristics of the functioning of the multi-ethnic and multi-confessional rela- tionships in various regimes, and respective states, in the areas of which Bratislava had found itself in the course of the 20th century.
After 1918, the “Pressburgians” of Bratislava were encompassed by a functi- oning political democracy of the First Czechoslovak Republic for 20 years. Agradual stabilization of Czechoslovakia and its political democracy facilitated
the coexistence of nations and national minorities. It is, of course, pointless to ide- alize this. From the perspective of a state-constituting Hungarian of the pre-1918

Bratislava, his dominant status has certainly deteriorated. From his perspective, Bratislava saw a “Slovakisation” or even a”Czechoslovakisation”, a characteristic that ti had never endured. We could also recall that, before 1848, Bratislava was predominantly a German city. Even the Germans of Hungary of the end of the 19ht and the beginning of the 20 century were slowly losing their initial identity and becoming Hungarian “patriots”, or perhaps Germans inclining towards Budapest rather than Berlin or Vienna. In this respect, Czechoslovakia and its democra-
tic approach to inter-national relationships enabled the Germans to reacquire
their slowly fading national identity. tI is necessary to bear in mind, that even
during the Czechoslovak democracy, Bratislava was a world of parallel cultures of
Hungarians, Germans, Jews, Slovaks, Czechs as wel as others. As a matter of fact, ageneral democratic structure of this state caused that the cultural and economic
transfer in between them was more or less on a voluntary basis. However, there si no need to idealize that each befriended al of the others. The “trilingualism” followed from economic, social and cultural demands. T’he political democracy of the First S R represented an environment where, soon or later, each and every one was in search of his own place. Some people might not have been satisfied (for example, the Hungarians who were evidently losing their positions after 1918), but at least they were not endangered by policies of pogroms, deportations, or violent assimilation. Undoubtedly, while constructing the foundations of a state – and the CSR had formed relatively unexpectedly and rapidly – each national minority
approaches a choice regarding its identity, possibly with the processes of “accultu- ration” and assimilation. The real course of these processes was, however, closely
linked not only to former collective experiences of the individual nations and ethnicities in Bratislava, but as well with the strategies and tactics of survival in the new state formation. Yet, democratic discourse allowed for the postponement of solving questions, letting the questions slowly ripen (which, to some, may seem anot sufficiently strong policy), rather than radically solving them in any case. The radicalism of a resolution may bring about fast solutions, but these are usually the ones that the system takes the most time to digest, and, in some cases, does not recover from them at al. Looking for a form of coexistence ni Bratislava, a multi-
-ethnic, multi-confessional and, moreover, a borderline area, was thus not simple
at al. tI is, after al, possible to say that, ni the times of a parliamentary democracy, the conditions for the functioning of the mentioned parallel cultures were favou-
rable, and the process of acculturation (or assimilation) was relatively voluntary. The changes of the 30s of the 20ht century, the geopolitical penetration and seizure of Central Europe by the Nazi Germany clearly influenced the creation of

the Slovak State, and, in fact, the situation in the city itself. Bratislava, following Munich, also underwent a rapid shift to a single-party dictatorship – HSES – with according implications for its national minorities. Slovakia, as a satellite of Nazi Germany, gradually constructed an authoritarian regime with fascist elements (for
example, race-distinguishing legislation, policies of anti-Semitism). The endeavour of the Slovak State towards proving a firm identification of the Slovaks with the new state led to shaping a picture of an enemy – in this case, the Czech and the Jew. Though the Czechs – those that have done so much for the national identi- fication of the Slovaks in the interwar era – heard the bitterly uncivilized slogans such as “Cesi pesi do Prahy” (literally “Czechs back to Prague on foot”), they at least had a place to leave to. Even though living in an occupied homeland called
a”Protectorate” must have indeed been difficult. The Jews of Slovakia, treated as
second-class citizens as aresult of adecision made by the political elite of the
Slovak State, were gradually forced to live on the edge of society. They have paid
for their “image of the enemy” with the most precious thing they had – their own lives. The deportations of 1942 and 1944/1945 then destroyed the Jewish commu-
nity ni Bratislava, having more than 15 000 members ni 1940. The Holocaust and the Second World War have in practice settled the marginalization of Jews in the area of Bratislava.
The loss of the territory after the First Vienna Arbitration caused a further
aggravation ofthe Slovak-Hungarian relationships, primarily in the political sphe- re. Czechoslovakia’s position on the side of the victorious powers made it then
possible to settle this issue with the Hungarians and the Germans.
The fate of the Carpathian Germans was influenced by events triggered by the
Nazi Germany of 1933 – 1945. Of course, those were mainly the Second World War and its outcomes. There was no alternative – either the victory of one or the other side. T’ he fate of the Germans residing in Central Europe was, besides that, influenced by the powers’ decision ni Potsdam (Postupim), by which they agreed with their ejection from the region of Czechoslovakia in August 1945. We must, however, discern between an ejection, executed consequentially to a decision in Potsdam, and an expulsion, executed during the war’s end and shortly after.
The Hungarian minority was struck by a collective punishment for the revi- sionist policies coming from Budapest, with which the regular Hungarians of Slovakia and Bratislava often had nothing to do. That collective punishment was also connected with political clashes between Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the inter-war era – mainly the Hungarian attempt for a revision of the Treaty of Trianon. ‘This type of policy ultimately led Hungary to an alliance with the Nazi

a whole) as a project that has lost its substance. tI is questionable whether these politicians do not perceive the failure of multiculturalism (multi-ethnicity and multi-confessionalism) as such, because they had anticipated an acculturation, or perhaps even an assimilation of the nations and ethnicities within their individual
regions. From their ethno-centric perspective, the desired assimilation has failed, which is areason for abandoning the project of multiculturalism.
If we are to reach such a conclusion – not an intellectual one, but ultimately political, we consider it possible to expose the actual relationsat least within the domain of multi-ethnicity and multi-confessionalismon arelatively small area of the city. We see our collection of studies as a mere introduction to such a debate.
I devote the last remark to the title of the publication. I am aware that the notion of “ethnic cleansing” si usually used, for example, in relation to the Balkan, as a terminus technicus. Bratislava’s case, on the other hand, si comprised of vario- us processes – the Holocaust with relation to the Jews in the era of the Slovak State; the involuntary displacement (ejection) of the Czechs of the Slovak State; the displacement of the Germans after the Second World War; and the “population exchange” with relation to apart fo the Hungarians. As we intend to indicate the
severity of the mentioned phenomena, we have chosen a common title, which, in its “hypertrophic” form, points ta the severity of the issue.
Bratislava, May 2011
Prof. Eduard Niznansky, editor