CZECHOSLOVAKIA, YUGOSLAVIA: A LETTER TO THE ECONOMIST (November 23, 2009)
Your review of Mary Heimann’s Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2009) cannot but remind me of another country that failed at roughly the same time: Yugoslavia (“A Chequered History,” November 21, 2009). There are many things that connect the two countries’ histories. Both owed their existence to Woodrow Wilson, who pushed for federal solutions after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the wake of World War I. The ethnic groups that suffered most in both arrangements were, not surprisingly, German and Hungarian speakers. Both countries survived World War II under similar regimes allied with the Soviet Union. And both were let to fall apart when the cordon sanitaire that buffered the rest of Europe from the Soviet Union lost its geopolitical usefulness to the west. Of course, Czechs and Slovaks split up without any bloodshed, for which they should be praised. And the breakup of Yugoslavia shows very well how badly states can fail: one-hundred and forty-thousand dead. By comparison with Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia’s history is hardly chequered at all.
Addendum (December 11, 2009)
This letter has appeared in the current edition of the mighty newspaper, which bears tomorrow’s date, but in the online edition only. This is my second letter to suffer such an indignity. The first one was “Taxpayers’ Largesse: A Letter to The Economist” (September 15, 2009), which appeared in the edition of September 26, 2009. This is a rather new policy regarding the publication of letters to the editor, and I will have to get used to it. Even though I am an ardent fan of the World Wide Web, I am much more impressed by the printed word. Old-fashioned, or what?