NATIONALISM VS. INTERNATIONALISM

On March 14, 1939, the Slovak State came into existence, with the Hlinka Slovak People's Party at its head. When the Slovaks acquired independence, issues of nationality, statehood in general, and Slovak statehood in particular entered into the limelight. These issues were studied almost exclusively by Catholic philosophers and theologians. In the complicated situation of the times, these theologians sought historical, political, and social ideas that would motivate, justify and explain the need for the rise of an independent state. The problems they had to consider were quite varied and contradictory.

On the one hand, they came under the pressure of German Nazism. Its expansive and aggressive nationalism was accepted by none of them--with but one exception. Nazism did not respect Christianity; it even turned against it. Pope Pius XI call it "neopaganism" in his encyclical, With Burning Concern, in 1937. It was racist in raising the German nation above others, and chauvinist in launching World War II into which the Slovak State was dragged.

The main ideologist and president of that State, Joseph Tiso, a Catholic theologian, was the one exception. He tried to justify and explain it in a Christian manner, without admitting it to be chauvinistic. He called Slovak National Socialism "Christian," a term taken over from the German. Tiso's follower, tefan Polakovi, developed Tiso's ideas, but did not join in his consent to German expansionism.

On the other hand, there was the equally dangerous influence of Communist internationalism. Its philosophy was materialistic and, consequently, atheistic. It professed the superiority of the socio-political interests of the international proletariat over national interests, for nationalism was considered a barrier to the unification of the proletariat and was suppressed. It is not surprising that Communism was rejected by Slovak Catholic writers.

They also rejected the wider cosmopolitanism which, according to them, was professed primarily by freemasons. Freemasonry was as unacceptable to Catholic authors as were the foregoing systems because it professed deism as well as cosmopolitanism, and rejected Christian beliefs.

There were, however, additional unacceptable systems. Liberalism was considered by most authors to be the main cause of modern evils. Catholicism rejected it above all for moral reasons, because it atomized society, was unscrupulously egoistic and exploitive, defined the function of a state unacceptably, and gave birth to ravenous capitalism. This estimation was accepted by Slovak authors, but Tiso and Polakovi added a national point of view as well. In their opinion, liberalism and democracy entailed a split of national unity into political parties, associations and interest groups, setting them one against each other. Thus liberalism weakened the nation, denationalized it, and placed it at the mercy of various external and internal enemies.

Internal problems pertaining to the Christian solution of the national question emerged as well. Catholicism accentuated its religious originality, authenticity, universality, and hence supranationality, while nationalism was a national and particular phenomenon.

How could these two antitheses tolerate each other? Is love of one's own nation Christian at all? Is nationalism admissible, possible, or even useful in a Christian manner? How can it be justified? Where does the Bible speak of it? What does it result from? Such were the basic questions our authors asked themselves. Even if nationalism could be justified, they continued, there is no justification for chauvinism, i.e., exaggerated love of one's own nation that degenerated into hatred of other nations. This contradicts the commandment of love of one's neighbor, who is every man.

Further, is the love of one's own nation a definitive state, or will it evolve and direct itself towards all mankind? What is the relation of nation to state? Does the state stand above the nation as professed by Italian Fascism of the time, or does the nation stand above the state, as professed by Nazism, but also by Catholicism? And what is the correct relation of the nation towards nationalities in a primarily Slavic state? Is it possible to defend the nation against invaders, even with arms? How does one understand the Christian principle of non-resistance while confronting evil with force?

There were many questions of this kind which were dealt with at the religious theological, and philosophic levels. Such inquiries arose almost coincidentally with the rise of the Slovak State. Polakovi published his main work, The Foundations of the Slovak State as early as 1939. In 1940 he launched and at first edited The Philosophic Miscellany, the very first pages of which were devoted to national questions. The third issue, published in 1943, contained a long discussion, "Nationalism as Ideology," previously held in Nitra. And even before that, in 1941, there appeared another important work dedicated to these problems--Love of Nation by Maximilián Chladný-Hano. While Polakovi began from the philosophy of life of the contemporary French Catholic philosopher Maurice Blondel in dealing with national questions, Chladný-Hano based his on neo-Thomism. Although both directions in Catholic philosophy differed little from each other in the theological and philosophic justification of the nation, they differed in political ideology. While Polakovi advocated Slovak National Socialism and with it, ideas of nationalism, politics, and dictatorship, Chladný-Hano retained the position of Catholic universalism to which he subjected Slovak nationalism; he did not speak of national socialism and did not seem to accept it. These two authors represented the two main views in examining the national question during the Slovak State. Chladný-Hano' orientation prevailed with the possible exception of some authors who were closer to the Slovak neo-Thomism.

JOSEPH TISO

Many ideas professed in Christian nationalism by J. Tiso, himself a neo-Thomist, were adopted by Polakovi and Chladný-Hano. Tiso was studying the national question as early as the first republic. He became vice-chairman of the Hlinka's Slovak People's Party in 1930, and after Hlinka's death became chairman and president of the Slovak State. As such, he was its main ideologist and the most prominent person in the effort to solve its national question.

In Tiso's opinion, nations have been created by God. Tiso mentioned "Christ's nationalism" hinting at the idea later elaborated by other authors that Christian nationalism could be deduced from Christ's love of his own nation. But in his opinion, the love of one's own nation arises partly from the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself" and is primary. Love of other nations arises from this commandment, too. It is a duty, and he who does not fulfill it is a traitor, says Tiso; what is more, he who loves only his nation and not others is a chauvinist, un-Christian nationalist. Internationalism is un-Christian since it does not include love for any nation. Christian nationalism is pacifistic as well, "It must not clash with the interests of other people, nor infringe upon the rights of other nations."⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ In the end, it creates a coexistence of various nationalities in one State.

Although all nations are equal, Tiso considered that they were then living in bondage and slavery; this is not natural, but an historical phenomenon. Nations have a natural right not only to life, but also to freedom and independence: God did not create man a slave. The apostle Paul fought against slavery, and, if freedom is an essential characteristic of individuals, this is true also of a nation. A nation becomes free in a state of its own which is also a creation of God. As the nation is prior to the state, however, the state must serve the nation, not vice versa. In this way, Tiso and others fought étatism, i.e., the "cult" of the state, found, e. g., in Italian Fascism.

God, however, stands above the nation. His will on the Earth is expressed by religion and the Church. God delineated the natural rights of individuals and nations as recognized by conscience and reason. Through the intermediary of the Church, religion and especially morality speak on state and national affairs. In Tiso's opinion, only Catholicism is primary; other religions are sects lapsed from the Church. Consequently, God is the creator of both nationalist particularism and Catholic universalism, which for that reason, cannot contradict but complement each other. A genuine nationalism develops finally towards universalism, and thus Tiso came to accept "humanism" or love of all mankind, as later authors expressed it. Here secular and religious universalisms join.

The term "Christian" or "Catholic universalism," was used often in the period of the Slovak state. The neo-Thomist, Ladislav Hanus, spoke even of "Catholic pluralism" and "integral humanism." These things were discussed earlier by Tiso. God, he said, created a varied world of nations and races. But one must not lose sight of the whole in attending to its parts, indeed universalism intensifies interest in the particulars. Universalism is represented first of all by Catholicism as the original, universal religion given to man by God himself. It does not exclude nationalism because it does not destroy individualities, but connects them. Universalism is reflected in the fact that Christ's original teaching penetrates all sciences, even those that are secular, for all that is good in them stems from Him. This penetrated into the motto of the French Revolution: "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" and into the Marxist call for social equity. It penetrated even into some ideas of Hitler's national socialism, such as the idea of gathering members of a certain nation into one territory. Medieval Europe was a Catholic-universalism, and he interpreted contemporary developments as pointing toward such a pattern for Europe in the future. Liberalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism will fall and Catholic universalism will rule in a new Europe. Socially, it should be set up in accordance with the encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. Catholicism stands upon the eternal laws of the world, the moral laws in man which are comprehended through conscience and formulated by reason as morality. Because of this, the Church must rule over politics and nations.

Tiso went even further to emphasize the need for Slovak unity during the First Republic. In his opinion, all political, economic, and other dividing lines split and weakened this unity, introducing political parties and social classes. These ideas were directed against liberalism, democracy and communism, which were criticized by Catholicism for moral and social reasons. Tiso, however, saw also there danger for Slovak national unity, though Catholicism did not speak of it because, being universalist, it implicitly was against a particularistic nationalist alternative.

Here Tiso succumbed to the influence of the German national-socialist ideology and admitted that this had been followed by Hlinka's Slovak People's Party (HSLS) as early as the First Republic. For national reasons the German national socialist ideology condemned liberalism, democracy, communism and other movements, and placed the unity of the German nation above all else. It condemned Catholicism, as well, for its non-nationalist universalism and introduced a cult of old German gods. Tiso seemed not to take this into consideration. When, as leader of the party-state, he came under the direct influence of German ideology, dissonant chords began to sound in his Christian nationalism. Where he had previously declared "Slovaks belong together," he now began to extol Hitler as a "world actor."⁽¹¹⁰⁾ He claimed that, through his invasions, Hitler tried to unite dispersed European nations and unknowingly followed the Christian principle of natural law that all that belonged together should be put together. Tiso then made a statement on "ethnic unification" which would transfer inhabitants of a whole territory to a "trunk nation."⁽¹¹¹⁾ In this way, he approved Hitler's nationalist invasions, being unwilling to recognize Hitler's real goals.

In accordance with the German model, the Slovak State became a dictatorship with one ideology, one party and one leader. This state preferred its Germans, though it tolerated Hungarians and Ruthenians; but it displaced Czechs to the Protectorate and deported Jews to concentration camps. It is possible that Tiso did this for reasons of "ethnic consolidation," which he frankly admitted. However, this was against several humanistic principles of Christian nationalism and betrayed the Catholic universalism and internationalism he had so often proclaimed. The historical sense of the Slovak State was in his opinion "a new assertion and organization of the nationality principle,"⁽¹¹²⁾ and was based upon the fact that "there must not be any division between nationally-based socialism and Christianity".⁽¹¹³⁾ He did not see, or was not willing to see, that the new assertion of the nationality principle was rough, rude, chauvinistic, Nazistic, and unchristian. It is upon just this point that the Slovak State during the Second World War has gone down so badly in history.

TEFAN POLAKOVI

. Polakovi took up and philosophically systematized Jozef Tiso's opinions, in deference to Tiso, publishing selections of his works in Tiso's Teaching and Tiso's Struggle in 1941. Although he built a "Slovak state philosophy" upon Tiso's positions,⁽¹¹⁴⁾ he did not follow Tiso in glorifying Hitler, and in characterizing him as fighting for a Christian ethnic unification of European nations and in claiming that he definitively and equitably was changing the conditions of nationality in Europe. On the contrary, towards the end of the war in 1944, he published a pamphlet "Warum Eine Freie Slowakei?" (Why a Free Slovakia?) where he defended the principle of Christian nationalism and condemned the theory of a mission by one nation to rule over the others due to its physical superiority, the substitution of the right by power, and other opinions advocated by Nazism.

Polakovi continued to follow Tiso on many other matters on which others were silent. In fact, Polakovi expressed Tiso's idea of national totalitarianism, party unitarianism and other anti-democratic stances with more force than did Tiso himself. In Polakovi's opinion, ideology is a summary of directives regarding the sense of human life. It is created though philosophy which observes life and directs it from its point of departure to the final destiny of all existence, i.e., to a transcendent God. This form of human life holds true only if it is directed by the right ideology corresponding to life and respecting the natural rights of man given by God. Polakovi saw the causes of the crises in democracy, liberalism, communism and other systems as due to their lifeless ideology. In his opinion, this applied to the First Republic, which had to disintegrate.

Polakovi made every effort to give Slovaks a true ideology for life. Its basis was the idea of an independent Slovak nation and of a restored Slovak State of Prince Svätopluk. First of all, a nation is a spiritual organism kept alive by a rich cultural tradition, as is the case with the Slovaks, and which must be cultivated. He accepted too a love of nation motivated by Christianity which teaches one to love everything that is natural. He condemned chauvinism and advocated the need to love other nations. All of them were created by God; each of them was given something great and beautiful; and love of them is a love of the whole of mankind. Man is to be loved by virtue of being a man. Therefore, when modern nationalism develops appropriately, nations surely will create larger wholes. Polakovi condemned racism as well. As present nations already have been highly mixed genetically, it is no longer possible to speak of a "pure race." "All races and all nations are equal, and this on the basis of natural law."⁽¹¹⁵⁾

Polakovi rejected liberalism, which he saw as the contemporary evil conception which gave birth to egoism, individualism, democracy, and "at root, corrupted the true love of nation."⁽¹¹⁶⁾ Further, he rejected communism and cosmopolitanism which consider the existence of nations to be an evil, while constituting an étatism themselves, a cult of the state originating in Hegel. Finally, he rejected liberal democracy as spawning "party pools"⁽¹¹⁷⁾ and the "poison of partyship"⁽¹¹⁸⁾ that splits nations. Such democratic freedoms as freedom of thought he saw as able to cause much evil in the uneducated masses and in the nation in general. Democracy as a false, lifeless ideology weakened the Czechs and the French; in contrast, Polakovi turns to the totalitarian states of modern Germany and Italy, and to Ancient Sparta. He made these contrasts seeing in the totalitarian position the only salvation from the democratic diversification of the day and the degeneration of nations. He held that a genuine democracy can rise only when man has deprived himself of his passions.

That is why Polakovi, too, wanted a one-party system for the Slovak State. In his opinion, a small nation cannot afford the luxury of multi parties as in the great and rich democracies of the West, and consequently should strive to be homogeneous, to have one ideology and one aim. It has to form a "very solid whole";⁽¹¹⁹⁾ it is to be led by one party representing its will and be headed by its highest leader, who at the time was J. Tiso. He should be simultaneously head of state, premier and chairman of the Party.

In Polakovi's opinion, members of a nation are not quite uniform, but they are persons in the Catholic sense of the word. They exercise natural rights to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means for life, to grow freely in God, to associate and to own private property. Basically, they have equal views and equal will. Freedom of thought is to be admitted in a nation only when it is in harmony with conscience and religious convictions, and promotes constructive thoughts. Otherwise, life will sweep it away and kill the deviate. In very hard words indeed, Polakovi acknowledged such freedom and called this a "Christian totalitarianism."

Both Polakovi and Tiso recognized a so-called democracy of quality, selection, and confidence only within this framework. They called the system they were promoting an authoritarian and directive political system and excluded any system in which the uneducated masses would have a big say in parliamentary democracy and be able to misuse its freedom. Indeed, besides party functionaries the whole nation was to be excluded from government. If a nation is to be led by one party, with one leader whose hands hold "the most concentrated and unlimited power to perform the highest good",⁽¹²⁰⁾ then there is no democracy to speak of.

Finally, Polakovi considered that the mission of Slovak statehood was to create a model of Christian nationalism and "prove that Christianity and nationalism complement each other."⁽¹²¹⁾ However, the Slovak State proved a failure at just this point; Polakovi himself failed as well at this point because he betrayed his own Christian principles.

His proclaimed love of other nations, love of people because they are people in general, stopped short of the Czechs and Jews in the Slovak State. He considered them to be an estranged element, hostile to Slovaks, and destructive. The Jews he considered to be even a pernicious and thievish element. He rightly proclaimed that "Love does not exclude punishment,"⁽¹²²⁾ but the punishment had been changed into vengeance when the Slovak State expelled the Czechs and Jews shortly after its emergence. In the case of the Jews it infringed especially upon all the natural rights proclaimed by Polakovi, not only for the Slovaks, but for people in general. Not only did Polakovi not protest, he even justified the anti-Jewish policy of the Slovak State ironically on the basis of natural rights doctrine.⁽¹²³⁾

MAXIMILIÁN CHLADNÝ-HANO

Tiso and Polakovi were the leading theologians during the time of the Slovak State. They began from the principles of Christian nationalism, but slid to positions of socialist and nationalistic chauvinism, and consequently contradicted themselves. Other authors examining national problems at the time supported a more consistent line of Christian nationalism in a less contradictory manner. They did not forget Catholic universalism, and for that reason, they did not accept national socialism. They could not be deluded by any superficial parallels between it and Catholicism. With the exception of a few laymen, they were theologians and like the others, all were neo-Thomists. Mostly they were orientated to the past, to the Catholic and universalist Middle Ages that had not yet known national problems. Nevertheless, they welcomed the Slovak State and were actively interested in Slovak national questions. But they did not promote this interest in any extraordinary way, nor did they deal with political, economic, or social problems in Slovakia from its point of view. They were not engaged in politics and saw Nazism and Communism as manifesting the deepest degradation resulting from the moral laxity of the modern age which had estranged itself from Christianity. They criticized this as chauvinist and totalitarian nationalism, and rejected its Nietzschean morality and superman theories. In general, they moved on a more abstract level than Tiso and Polakovi. They spoke evasively regarding Czechs and Jews, although most of them, in the spirit of the times, had ideological reservations in their regard.

The orientation of these authors was best expressed in the book of M. Chladný-Hano, Love of Nation, whose point of view is explicitly confessional. He tries to find out what can be said of national problems from the standpoint of orthodox Catholicism, invoking Catholic authorities, from the New Testament up to the theologians. He scrupulously classifies what they said of nations and patriotism, emphasizing that his orientation is "even apologetic, i.e., aiming at the defence of our Christian world view."⁽¹²⁴⁾ Above all, he wanted to defend Christian nationalism against the current of opinions at the time and there is question of whether he did not defend it even against domestic deviates.

He suggests a definition of nation as "a human community that expresses the will to be explicitly considered an individual nation on the basis of cultural unity."⁽¹²⁵⁾ Nations are created by God, who expresses his infinite internal wealth by creating an infinite quantity of various things and beings. The "principium indiscernibilium" applies to them; there are not even two that could not be distinguished one from another. Thus there exists a number of nations differing from one another, not only physically, but also by their cultural characteristics. Since no individual can live without a nation today, the nation gives him all he needs for developing as a cultural man. It does not, however, give him eternal moral values which originate from God through religion. As man was created by God and returns to him, universal religion extends beyond a single nation.

Chladný-Hano deduced all the values of Catholic nationalism from this point of view. A nation, as originating with God, is natural and holy, the same is true of love of the nation and endeavors to improve it. On the other hand, national indifference, rebellion, or denationalization of other nations is unnatural and deserving of condemnation; it is necessary to protest against the move, even with arms in hand. Since nations are creations and children of God and each of them is different, specific and divine in origin, all are equal and their diversity is desirable for several reasons, for culture and spirit are more alive in a multinational state, which stimulates progress. That is why it is necessary to respect nations inside and outside one's own state.

Love of nation can devolve into a detrimental passion and become chauvinism, an exaggerated nationalism that is neither Christian nor human, as was the case in Germany, where "love of nation . . . is very high",⁽¹²⁶⁾ notes Chladný-Hano quoting the encyclical of Pope Pius XI against Nazism. Love as a feeling can be lost and replaced by cool intellect, to which patriotism is a stranger. Intellectualization gives up such feelings due to various "reasonable" ideas, as is the case with communistic internationalism, the freemasons, and other cosmopolitan movements. On this point, Chladný-Hano turns against liberalism and other such ideas, not only as enemies of Catholicism, but above all because of their stances toward nations.

He does not speak of democracy, parties, unions, and their splitting nations because he does not emphasize the need for unity. On the contrary, national diversity better corresponds with his standpoint in this respect. He refers to fascism and Nazism only marginally as contemporary national movements. He does not speak of Slovak national socialism at all and does not emphasize the need of Slovak national unity with one party and one leader. The mission of each nation (including the Slovak nation) is to manifest divine wisdom and richness and to transform itself in accordance with the ideal of the good, not, as emphasized by Polakovi and Tiso, to give the world a model of Christian nationalism.

Chladný-Hano also reflected on the nature of statehood. While man is internally enriched by his nation, his state protects the whole society externally. It looks after public welfare and builds up civil life. But ultimately a nation does not need the state because its mission is cultural and not political. Slovaks did not have a state for thousands of years, yet they created a specific culture. True, a nation with its own state fulfills its cultural mission more rapidly, but it is only more useful, not absolutely necessary, to have one's own state.

The discussion of "Nationalism as Ideology", in the Philosophical Miscellany, 1943, was born out of the spirit of Chladný-Hano' opinions. Anton Jurovský considered nationalism to be an ideology, seeing Christianity, national conscience, character, and love of nation primarily as mental experiences. Anton Ján urjanský called attention to the fact that the word "nationalism" had a pejorative meaning in that time because many people thought it synonymous with national egoism and the haughtiness of one nation over the other. He called it totalitarian nationalism, too, and refused to discuss it because it is at variance with reason and humaneness. Thus he replaced the term "nationalism" with that of "patriotism" which he termed "the active love of the Slovak nation,"⁽¹²⁷⁾ and deemed both useful and Christian.

The psychologist Jurovský, the sociologist Alexander Hirner, and the philosopher Jozef Dieka also took part in this discussion. As a layman Dieka brought new themes to the rather monotone theologians. Hirner had asserted a year earlier that religion was not superior to patriotism, bur they joined each other in calling attention to the fact that nationalism was a sort of egoism, and that stressing one's own nation prompted feelings of estrangement towards all that was incongruous with the nation. If a moderate nationalism is acceptable for Christianity, a certain socialism is also acceptable--a Christian socialism or even Communism, but only as social movements and not as worldviews.

Dieka also pointed out that due to totalitarian or exclusive nationalism, the national question has shifted to the fore even in Slovakia, to the extent that everything was being judged sub specie nationalitatis. Slovakia came under the influence of foreign ideologies which improperly understood what it meant to be a nation. Totalitarian nationalism puts state and nation in the place where God alone rightfully stands, and this is dangerous. In Slovakia too, the slogan "All for the Nation" could often be heard. The idea of totalitarian nationalism contains a fundamental hostility toward the Christian world view, and every attempt at compromising with it is vain. Dieka wrote, "I see difficulties in conjuring up conceptions of Slovak national socialism."⁽¹²⁸⁾ This was a clear rejection of the Tiso-Polakovi line of Slovak nationalism for the Slovak State. Dieka recommended emphasis upon the ideas of humanity, i.e., of mankind in general, and placing them higher than nationalism and Christianity. He ended by noting, "in the past, nationalism and humanity were propagated in our country by Kollár, afárik, and túr."

Other authors expressed their opinions on this theme only marginally in treating other topics. Jan Rybár condemned "egoistic nationalism" that becomes a curse when a nation is elevated as an idol above other nations; he condemns racism as well. In his opinion, there are no pure races in Europe any more than the so-called Nordic race is superior to others. The members of this race form a dwindling minority among the Germans. In Cyril Dudá' opinion, racism is "practical Darwinism," along the lines of tefan Nahála's opinion that race and class are "small stained glasses" deforming one's perception of reality. In his postwar work, Struggle against War, Alexander Spesz points out that democracy is Christian in its substance in that it has "reverence for freedom and the dignity of others,"⁽¹²⁹⁾ which results form the commandment to love your neighbor. The Church does not refuse democracy; quite the contrary, it would see it perfected.

This discussion could continue, but it is apparent that only the work of Chladný-Hano on Slovak nationalism during the Slovak State reflects "the golden mean". It recognized the reality of the Slovak nation, which it avowed and wanted to perfect. Yet, it did not emphasize Slovak unity to the detriment of the natural differentiation of all the components of life. It did not succumb to the nationalistic ideology of the HSLS which it had taken over from Nazism. Chladný-Hano recognized that the party only tried to cover this with the cloak of Christianity, which it thereby compromised. Because the Chladný-Hano line did not succumb to any political ideology it was able to preserve the character of Christian nationalism.

On the other hand, the Tiso-Polakovi line, attempting to promote a Christian nationalism by stressing the unity of nation from the very beginning, put that above all else. By emphasizing a unified will and preferring one party, it restricted freedom and curtailed the natural diversity of life. This provoked nationalism and chauvinism and led the nation astray. Consequently, the nation struggled against it in the Slovak National Insurrection. Thus, the genuine values of Christian nationalism were created only by the Chladný-Hano line, along which alone one can build even today.

The Institute of Philosophy, Slovak Academy of Sciences,

Bratislava