What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival
This classic book offers the most comprehensive and up-to-date history of Slovakia, from its establishment on the Danubian Plain to the present. While paying tribute to Slovakia's resilience and struggle for survival, it describes contributions to European civilization in the Middle Ages; the development of Slovak consciousness in response to Magyarization; its struggle for autonomy in Czechoslovakia after the Treaty of Versailles; its resistance, as the first Slovak Republic, to a Nazi-controlled Europe; its reaction to Communism; and the path that led to the creation of the second Slovak Republic. Now fully updated to the present day, the book examines the vagaries of Slovak post-Communist politics that led to Slovakia's membership in NATO and the European Union.
411 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 1995
53 people are currently reading
283 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
November 24, 2017
This is a book that may only be of interest to those with Slovak ancestry. Wanting to know more about my heritage is what made me search out and read this book.
The book can be heavy and dry at times, and doesn't have much to say about the culture, so if that's what you're looking for, this is not the book for that. But it is thorough in relating the history and politics of the Slovak peoples. And how they finally have achieved an independent state. Which I give them a lot of credit for, since it took a very, very long time and generations for that to happen. May they be successful in that endeavor.
Having read this book makes me understand why my grandparents left and came to the United States to achieve a better life. For many of their generation there was not much hope if they stayed in their villages. I was interested to learn that the renowned Slovak poet and translator, Jan Holly, was for a time, the priest in my ancestors' village.
While the book is long and not an easy read, I have a much greater understanding of the country and the relations between the Slovaks and others in that area of Europe. And it enabled me to have a better understanding of the situations of people like my ancestors.
The book can be heavy and dry at times, and doesn't have much to say about the culture, so if that's what you're looking for, this is not the book for that. But it is thorough in relating the history and politics of the Slovak peoples. And how they finally have achieved an independent state. Which I give them a lot of credit for, since it took a very, very long time and generations for that to happen. May they be successful in that endeavor.
Having read this book makes me understand why my grandparents left and came to the United States to achieve a better life. For many of their generation there was not much hope if they stayed in their villages. I was interested to learn that the renowned Slovak poet and translator, Jan Holly, was for a time, the priest in my ancestors' village.
While the book is long and not an easy read, I have a much greater understanding of the country and the relations between the Slovaks and others in that area of Europe. And it enabled me to have a better understanding of the situations of people like my ancestors.
January 1, 2018
Thick growth of trees, no forest
Over the last century or so, a large number of nations have become sovereign entities, recognized by others, members of the United Nations, with flag, airline, World Cup football team, and anthem. These range from Tuvalu and St. Lucia to Nigeria, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan. Everyone knows that there are others, equally deserving of such recognition, that don't achieve it. Kurdistan is a prime example; Tibet, Chechnya, Euskadi, Catalunya, Scotland, and national states for Native Americans come to mind too. It is interesting to ponder on the historical currents or maybe even accidents that determine whether or not a nation comes into existence. Slovakia's history could serve as a prime example. Never really a nation on its own, the Slovak people endured a millennium of Hungarian rule, only---on coming close to national recognition---to be subsumed for another seven decades into Czechoslovakia, in which country they played perpetual second fiddle. This history could have been written around such a question---why some and not others ? It was not.
Nineteenth century nationalism may have led to the creation of many national states, particularly in Europe, it led to the demise of colonialism, but it has played a negative role in the world also. The "us against the world" mentality, atavistic tribalism, and xenophobia have all been encouraged and used by nationalistic forces. Nationalistic history thus can play either positive or negative roles . I would say that THE HISTORY OF SLOVAKIA is such a nationalistic book, though to be fair, a few attempts are made to show more balance. Granted, if you want to know the history of that small Central European country (people) in English, I think you will have to read Kirschbaum's name and date-studded work. But beware. By calling the book "history of Slovakia", the author may be `creating' an entity that never really existed until the late 19th century.
The history of the Great Moravian Empire of the 9th century is highly speculative---at such a remote distance in time, how can we be sure that it had anything to do with modern Slovaks ? Slavs, yes. It plays the role of that "original root" which every nation tends to find, whether it actually existed or not. Kirschbaum himself questions some of the Slovak historiography, for instance, a claim that Matthew Cak, in the 14th century, was a Slovak ruler or hero. Perhaps he was just another powerful Hungarian landlord. We read about the Slovak national awakening in the 19th century, the separation of the Slovak lands from Hungary and joining with Bohemia and Moravia to form the first Czechoslovak republic (to 1938), the subsequent re-amalgamation from 1948 to 1989, and the ultimate "Velvet Divorce" in 1993, after which Slovakia finally achieved nationhood. It is the section on the period 1939-1945, when Slovakia was a German puppet state in Central Europe, that seemed ambiguous and dubious. It is a whitewash of collaborators with the Nazis. The mantra is "The regime may not have been palatable to everybody, but it protected the country and provided the conditions for the expression of national aspirations." At the same time, over two-thirds of the Jewish citizens were exterminated. National aspirations indeed ! "Slovaks proved that they were able to govern themselves." (p.211) A spurious claim as Slovakia lay under the German thumb. Slovaks never attacked anyone--just a `symbolic' two divisions sent into the Soviet Union along with the Wehrmacht. This is nationalistic history. It is written to "identify all the trees", but we don't see the forest. I'm sorry. I'd like to read a more balanced view.
Over the last century or so, a large number of nations have become sovereign entities, recognized by others, members of the United Nations, with flag, airline, World Cup football team, and anthem. These range from Tuvalu and St. Lucia to Nigeria, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan. Everyone knows that there are others, equally deserving of such recognition, that don't achieve it. Kurdistan is a prime example; Tibet, Chechnya, Euskadi, Catalunya, Scotland, and national states for Native Americans come to mind too. It is interesting to ponder on the historical currents or maybe even accidents that determine whether or not a nation comes into existence. Slovakia's history could serve as a prime example. Never really a nation on its own, the Slovak people endured a millennium of Hungarian rule, only---on coming close to national recognition---to be subsumed for another seven decades into Czechoslovakia, in which country they played perpetual second fiddle. This history could have been written around such a question---why some and not others ? It was not.
Nineteenth century nationalism may have led to the creation of many national states, particularly in Europe, it led to the demise of colonialism, but it has played a negative role in the world also. The "us against the world" mentality, atavistic tribalism, and xenophobia have all been encouraged and used by nationalistic forces. Nationalistic history thus can play either positive or negative roles . I would say that THE HISTORY OF SLOVAKIA is such a nationalistic book, though to be fair, a few attempts are made to show more balance. Granted, if you want to know the history of that small Central European country (people) in English, I think you will have to read Kirschbaum's name and date-studded work. But beware. By calling the book "history of Slovakia", the author may be `creating' an entity that never really existed until the late 19th century.
The history of the Great Moravian Empire of the 9th century is highly speculative---at such a remote distance in time, how can we be sure that it had anything to do with modern Slovaks ? Slavs, yes. It plays the role of that "original root" which every nation tends to find, whether it actually existed or not. Kirschbaum himself questions some of the Slovak historiography, for instance, a claim that Matthew Cak, in the 14th century, was a Slovak ruler or hero. Perhaps he was just another powerful Hungarian landlord. We read about the Slovak national awakening in the 19th century, the separation of the Slovak lands from Hungary and joining with Bohemia and Moravia to form the first Czechoslovak republic (to 1938), the subsequent re-amalgamation from 1948 to 1989, and the ultimate "Velvet Divorce" in 1993, after which Slovakia finally achieved nationhood. It is the section on the period 1939-1945, when Slovakia was a German puppet state in Central Europe, that seemed ambiguous and dubious. It is a whitewash of collaborators with the Nazis. The mantra is "The regime may not have been palatable to everybody, but it protected the country and provided the conditions for the expression of national aspirations." At the same time, over two-thirds of the Jewish citizens were exterminated. National aspirations indeed ! "Slovaks proved that they were able to govern themselves." (p.211) A spurious claim as Slovakia lay under the German thumb. Slovaks never attacked anyone--just a `symbolic' two divisions sent into the Soviet Union along with the Wehrmacht. This is nationalistic history. It is written to "identify all the trees", but we don't see the forest. I'm sorry. I'd like to read a more balanced view.
March 22, 2020
Bardzo trudno mi oceniać książkę o obcym kraju. Tzn. o wielu by się zapewne dało, ale historia Słowacji jest dla mnie pewną nowością. To i owo się z historii zna, zna się zarys -- Wielkie Morawy, Koronę św. Stefana, nawet coś się słyszało o buntach Węgrów przeciwko Habsburgom, o Czechosłowacji, Masaryku i Tisie nie wspominając. Ale jednak to ciągle spojrzenie z innego punktu widzenia, gdzie Słowacy są przedmiotem, a nie podmiotem.
Zresztą, czy są podmiotem w tej książce? Bardzo ciekawy jest kontrast między historią polską, a słowacką. Bo tyle słyszymy, że walka o niepodległość, że powstania, że gdyby nie to, czy tamto, to Polska by nie przetrwała, albo się nie odrodziła.
Słowacy tego, praktycznie, nie mają. Bunty szlachty były antyhabsburskie, więc czy pro, czy antysłowackie trudno powiedzieć. (Nawiasem mówiąc, największym bohaterem narodowym jest Janosik, "odprysk" takiego buntu właśnie.) W czasie "rewolucji węgierskiej" Słowacy walczyli po obu stronach (choć ci, przebudzeni narodowo, po stronie Habsburgów jednak, notując pierwszy militarny sukcesik Słowacji, jako Słowacji, w dziejach). W Czechosłowacji wciąż czuli się marginalizowani, bo nie było łącznika w nazwie (aż go wywalczyli od Havla, choć tylko do stosowania na Słowacji...), bo za mało budowano autostrad, bo nadmiernie industrializowano jednocześnie lokując za mało przemysłu...
(Przepraszam, ale dla autora wciąż mamy "struggle for survival": rządzą Habsburgowie -- naród słowacki walczy o przetrwanie; rządzą Węgrzy -- naród węgierskie tym bardziej walczy o przetrwanie; powstaje Czechosłowacja, ojej, naród musi jeszcze bardziej walczyć o przetrwanie, bo jak tu istnieć z demokracją i partiami; nadchodzi Hitler -- wreszcie ktoś walczy za niego o przetrwanie, można spocząć i wysłać wojska na podbój Polski; ale oto zwyciężają Alianci i wpychają w "łapy Benesza" i znowu walka o przetrwanie; komunizm -- walka o przetrwanie; niepodległość -- tym bardziej walka o przetrwanie, bo się trzeba nauczyć rządzić... Ech...)
Nie chcę nadmiernie iroznizować -- szukam jakiegoś obiektywnego spojrzenia, a autor wciąż patrzy na Słowaków jako na zmarginalizowaną i prześladowaną mniejszość. Tymczasem Polacy czuli się zawsze większością. My możemy sobie narzekać, że jesteśmy małym narodem w porównaniu do wielkich Niemiec, czy Rosji, ale w porównaniu ze Słowacją, czy Rumunią, wychodzi zupełnie inne oblicze Polski -- państwa i narodu dużego i pewnego siebie, swojej mocy i pozycji. Nawet pod zaborami mieli poczucie pewnej Polski, w której byli większością. A Słowacy prawie całą swoją historię czuli się mniejszością. (I, z drugiej strony, jak to w tej Europie Środkowej bywa, wydobywający sie na niepodległość nie znajdują empatii dla słabszych od siebie walczących o niepodległość; a mniejszości dla mniejszości wśród siebie -- tak Słowacy mają problem z odnoszeniem się do Węgrów, czy Romów.)
A człowiek potrzebuje punktu odniesienia. Historia Słowacji może być więc pouczająca dla Polaka, bo pokazuje, że można przetrwać bez instytucji politycznych, koncentrując się wokół języka i kultury (i to chłopskich, bo szlachta się zmadziaryzowała); walcząc o edukację we własnym języku i tworząc literaturę.
Sympatyzuję ze Słowakami w wielu sprawach, ale jest coś takiego, co i w Polsce widać -- że pewne postawy nacjonalistyczne utożsamia się z patriotyzmem. Bo właściwie cały opór Słowaków przeciwko Czechosłowacji, to trochę jak protesty naszych nacjonalistów przeciwko UE, czy "liberalnym elitom": prawa są równe, możliwości awansu też (autor narzeka co prawda, że próby odgórnej "czechizacji" Słowacji przez wysyłanie urzędników; ale jak przychodzi co do czego, to wygląda na to, że więcej Słowaków wraca z urzędów w Pradze na Słowację; niż Czechów ze Słowacji); z jednej strony jest poczucie wspólnoty, nawet jeśli część tej wspólnoty czuje się lepsza (bardziej zaawansowana, powiedzmy); z drugiej strony opór konserwatystów przed modernizacją (w końcu opór nacjonalistów słowackich przeciwko Czechosłowacji Masaryka, to głównie kwestia szkół katolickich i sprzeciwu wobec prawa do rozwodów...) i poczucie, że jest się gorzej traktowanym i pogardzanym.
Autor bardzo cieszy się z wejścia do UE, co sugeruje jego raczej niekonserwatywne podejście (nawet potrafi bez złośliwości skomentować spacyfikowanie Maticy slovenskej -- ostoi nacjonalizmu -- w związku z wchodzeniem do UE i NATO; mimo jej zasług dla obrony tożsamości przed madziaryzacją); niemniej nie potrafi tych postaw odróżnić od słowackiej racji narodowej i patriotyzmu, co jest szczególnie rażące w przypadku epizodu Słowacji ks. Tiso, gdzie przymyka oko na wszystkie grzechy władzy, bo to wreszcie "niepodległa Słowacja". (Co może też -- bez riserczu, ale zbieżność nazwisk to sugeruje -- być kwestią rodzinnych związków z urzędnikiem rządu ks. Tiso.)
Co nie znaczy, że książka nie jest wartościowa. Jest, bo wiele rzeczy uświadamia; pokazuje też pewne ciekawostki (choćby znaczenie luteran -- mniejszości na Słowacji -- dla przebudzenia narodowego; początki idei "czechosłowackości" na przełomie XVIII i XIX wieku itp.); ale chciałbym czegoś więcej.
Zresztą, czy są podmiotem w tej książce? Bardzo ciekawy jest kontrast między historią polską, a słowacką. Bo tyle słyszymy, że walka o niepodległość, że powstania, że gdyby nie to, czy tamto, to Polska by nie przetrwała, albo się nie odrodziła.
Słowacy tego, praktycznie, nie mają. Bunty szlachty były antyhabsburskie, więc czy pro, czy antysłowackie trudno powiedzieć. (Nawiasem mówiąc, największym bohaterem narodowym jest Janosik, "odprysk" takiego buntu właśnie.) W czasie "rewolucji węgierskiej" Słowacy walczyli po obu stronach (choć ci, przebudzeni narodowo, po stronie Habsburgów jednak, notując pierwszy militarny sukcesik Słowacji, jako Słowacji, w dziejach). W Czechosłowacji wciąż czuli się marginalizowani, bo nie było łącznika w nazwie (aż go wywalczyli od Havla, choć tylko do stosowania na Słowacji...), bo za mało budowano autostrad, bo nadmiernie industrializowano jednocześnie lokując za mało przemysłu...
(Przepraszam, ale dla autora wciąż mamy "struggle for survival": rządzą Habsburgowie -- naród słowacki walczy o przetrwanie; rządzą Węgrzy -- naród węgierskie tym bardziej walczy o przetrwanie; powstaje Czechosłowacja, ojej, naród musi jeszcze bardziej walczyć o przetrwanie, bo jak tu istnieć z demokracją i partiami; nadchodzi Hitler -- wreszcie ktoś walczy za niego o przetrwanie, można spocząć i wysłać wojska na podbój Polski; ale oto zwyciężają Alianci i wpychają w "łapy Benesza" i znowu walka o przetrwanie; komunizm -- walka o przetrwanie; niepodległość -- tym bardziej walka o przetrwanie, bo się trzeba nauczyć rządzić... Ech...)
Nie chcę nadmiernie iroznizować -- szukam jakiegoś obiektywnego spojrzenia, a autor wciąż patrzy na Słowaków jako na zmarginalizowaną i prześladowaną mniejszość. Tymczasem Polacy czuli się zawsze większością. My możemy sobie narzekać, że jesteśmy małym narodem w porównaniu do wielkich Niemiec, czy Rosji, ale w porównaniu ze Słowacją, czy Rumunią, wychodzi zupełnie inne oblicze Polski -- państwa i narodu dużego i pewnego siebie, swojej mocy i pozycji. Nawet pod zaborami mieli poczucie pewnej Polski, w której byli większością. A Słowacy prawie całą swoją historię czuli się mniejszością. (I, z drugiej strony, jak to w tej Europie Środkowej bywa, wydobywający sie na niepodległość nie znajdują empatii dla słabszych od siebie walczących o niepodległość; a mniejszości dla mniejszości wśród siebie -- tak Słowacy mają problem z odnoszeniem się do Węgrów, czy Romów.)
A człowiek potrzebuje punktu odniesienia. Historia Słowacji może być więc pouczająca dla Polaka, bo pokazuje, że można przetrwać bez instytucji politycznych, koncentrując się wokół języka i kultury (i to chłopskich, bo szlachta się zmadziaryzowała); walcząc o edukację we własnym języku i tworząc literaturę.
Sympatyzuję ze Słowakami w wielu sprawach, ale jest coś takiego, co i w Polsce widać -- że pewne postawy nacjonalistyczne utożsamia się z patriotyzmem. Bo właściwie cały opór Słowaków przeciwko Czechosłowacji, to trochę jak protesty naszych nacjonalistów przeciwko UE, czy "liberalnym elitom": prawa są równe, możliwości awansu też (autor narzeka co prawda, że próby odgórnej "czechizacji" Słowacji przez wysyłanie urzędników; ale jak przychodzi co do czego, to wygląda na to, że więcej Słowaków wraca z urzędów w Pradze na Słowację; niż Czechów ze Słowacji); z jednej strony jest poczucie wspólnoty, nawet jeśli część tej wspólnoty czuje się lepsza (bardziej zaawansowana, powiedzmy); z drugiej strony opór konserwatystów przed modernizacją (w końcu opór nacjonalistów słowackich przeciwko Czechosłowacji Masaryka, to głównie kwestia szkół katolickich i sprzeciwu wobec prawa do rozwodów...) i poczucie, że jest się gorzej traktowanym i pogardzanym.
Autor bardzo cieszy się z wejścia do UE, co sugeruje jego raczej niekonserwatywne podejście (nawet potrafi bez złośliwości skomentować spacyfikowanie Maticy slovenskej -- ostoi nacjonalizmu -- w związku z wchodzeniem do UE i NATO; mimo jej zasług dla obrony tożsamości przed madziaryzacją); niemniej nie potrafi tych postaw odróżnić od słowackiej racji narodowej i patriotyzmu, co jest szczególnie rażące w przypadku epizodu Słowacji ks. Tiso, gdzie przymyka oko na wszystkie grzechy władzy, bo to wreszcie "niepodległa Słowacja". (Co może też -- bez riserczu, ale zbieżność nazwisk to sugeruje -- być kwestią rodzinnych związków z urzędnikiem rządu ks. Tiso.)
Co nie znaczy, że książka nie jest wartościowa. Jest, bo wiele rzeczy uświadamia; pokazuje też pewne ciekawostki (choćby znaczenie luteran -- mniejszości na Słowacji -- dla przebudzenia narodowego; początki idei "czechosłowackości" na przełomie XVIII i XIX wieku itp.); ale chciałbym czegoś więcej.
March 18, 2018
I scanned through a few other reviews yesterday - a wide range of opinions, fine I suppose. I agree with one who wrote that probably only those with a strong interest in/roots in Slovakia would find it interesting.
My mother's side of the family is Slovak, my grandfather having emigrated from Slovakia or Hungary, depending on - Ellis Island calls it Hungary, a place named Krasnocz. That name now goes by another - it's all very confusing. My grandfather was not much help, as whenever I asked him were he was from he'd pause and say, "You don't want to know." I'd replay that I really did want to know, and he'd laugh it off.
The history of Slovakia is a mess, a country that was not recognized as a country (except for a very few brief spates) until1 993. Kirschbaum tries to make sense of it, and succeeds for the most part. He writes well too, though it would be rather academic for some. Even with my interest in the subject I found it tedious and had to re-read short sections to remind myself what was going on. Still, it is better than another history of the country I read some years ago. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact title or the author, but I came away from that one not thinking much of the place that is my "roots."
One of the most tedious parts of the book was the last, but ironically I also found it the most interesting. He goes into great detail on post-1989 Slovakia, its struggle with the Czechs to break free, the difficulties with Meciar, a popular leader in the 90s who seemed to not really want the country to join NATO or the EU, a man who had fairly strong ties to Russia. The book was originally written in the mid-90s, and I'm glad the author chose to offer a second edition, which takes the reader up to about 2005, as at the very end of the book Slovakia had gained entry into both organizations mentioned above and seemed on an steady, upward course. After all the struggles it certainly deserves to.
I must go back to my claim that this book will probably appeal only to those with strong ties to the country, though if you're interested in that part of Europe it will add layers to your understanding of that confusing area. Cheers, and happy reading!
My mother's side of the family is Slovak, my grandfather having emigrated from Slovakia or Hungary, depending on - Ellis Island calls it Hungary, a place named Krasnocz. That name now goes by another - it's all very confusing. My grandfather was not much help, as whenever I asked him were he was from he'd pause and say, "You don't want to know." I'd replay that I really did want to know, and he'd laugh it off.
The history of Slovakia is a mess, a country that was not recognized as a country (except for a very few brief spates) until1 993. Kirschbaum tries to make sense of it, and succeeds for the most part. He writes well too, though it would be rather academic for some. Even with my interest in the subject I found it tedious and had to re-read short sections to remind myself what was going on. Still, it is better than another history of the country I read some years ago. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact title or the author, but I came away from that one not thinking much of the place that is my "roots."
One of the most tedious parts of the book was the last, but ironically I also found it the most interesting. He goes into great detail on post-1989 Slovakia, its struggle with the Czechs to break free, the difficulties with Meciar, a popular leader in the 90s who seemed to not really want the country to join NATO or the EU, a man who had fairly strong ties to Russia. The book was originally written in the mid-90s, and I'm glad the author chose to offer a second edition, which takes the reader up to about 2005, as at the very end of the book Slovakia had gained entry into both organizations mentioned above and seemed on an steady, upward course. After all the struggles it certainly deserves to.
I must go back to my claim that this book will probably appeal only to those with strong ties to the country, though if you're interested in that part of Europe it will add layers to your understanding of that confusing area. Cheers, and happy reading!
April 11, 2021
The book suffers from a dry recitation, heavy on tracking political trends with very little social or human context. On the other hand, this is a nation whose history which has received very little documentation in English, which makes it invaluable for research.
July 9, 2020
Another Nationalist discourse or why people must die so that kings and presidents would be able to tax the population living on a certain stretch of land.
December 22, 2024
Shelled out like 24 euros because I've been living in Bratislava and wanted to get a deeper sense of the history and culture. Took me a while to realise how nationalistic and ahistorical the account is here, not to mention extremely dry. Repeatedly mentions Slovakia as a solidly established nation and a distinct people in the middle ages, centuries before any such entity or ethnicity could be clearly defined. Last straw was the apologist tone in the account of the first Slovak Republic during the Second World War, implying that in the interests of survival the leadership had no choice but to comply with Nazi demands, deporting two-thirds of the Jewish population. Way too much emphasis on this nationalistic narrative of 'survival' and hardship – while it undoubtedly contains a kernel of truth and gave me some insight into the national psyche, imo such stories encourage dangerous monoethnic versions of what a nation-state's community is or should be, and foster a sense of righteous grievance among a population that can be used to justify hate (extreme example but I'm thinking of the Zionist entity in Palestine). No surprise that this country is extremely racist (but then show me one that isn't). Such mythical accounts of the past should be interrogated, no matter how much truth they contain. Sad I wasted my time and money on this one, didn't end up getting past WWII.
August 14, 2021
Mostly seems to be a justification for Slovakia’s separation from the Czech Republic in 1993. The Slovak people had been ruled by other people groups over the centuries, including a thousand years under Hungary and most of the 20th c dominated by the Czechs in what the author considers an artificial linking of the two in one political entity. Slovak identity seems to have centered around their language enhanced by the use of vernacular in worship since the 16th c. Evidently at least some dialects are similar enough to Czech that there was a time when changes were considered that would make it one language. As someone who prefers working together, I was not convinced of the need for separation, but then I am not Slovak.
The book included more detail than I thought was needed, as if the purpose were documentation rather than analysis. The book designer put narrow margins in the gutter, making the print version unnecessarily difficult to read. This book appeared on the recommended reading list for a European trip I am planning to make. I did appreciate the glimpse of local history in the midst of the broad strokes that were all this American knew of European history.
The book included more detail than I thought was needed, as if the purpose were documentation rather than analysis. The book designer put narrow margins in the gutter, making the print version unnecessarily difficult to read. This book appeared on the recommended reading list for a European trip I am planning to make. I did appreciate the glimpse of local history in the midst of the broad strokes that were all this American knew of European history.
February 9, 2019
Good. I know more about Slovakia now, not as much as the book explains, but more.
Essentially, the Slovaks have been getting the shit beat out of them for thousands of years. Whether that be through empires, competing nationalism, or ideology. Then on January 1, 1993 they became independent.
More recently, they joined the EU and NATO. Thus cementing their place in the homogeneity of "Western Civilization." They also still struggle to understand their turbulent past and therefore what future they want.
All in all, I feel like the history was a fascinating and enjoyable read, but I am nagged by whether this subtle inclination to conform (at times it seems almost direct bullying by western powers) to the "democratic, liberal" homogeneity is best for the people's humanity?
Yep.
Essentially, the Slovaks have been getting the shit beat out of them for thousands of years. Whether that be through empires, competing nationalism, or ideology. Then on January 1, 1993 they became independent.
More recently, they joined the EU and NATO. Thus cementing their place in the homogeneity of "Western Civilization." They also still struggle to understand their turbulent past and therefore what future they want.
All in all, I feel like the history was a fascinating and enjoyable read, but I am nagged by whether this subtle inclination to conform (at times it seems almost direct bullying by western powers) to the "democratic, liberal" homogeneity is best for the people's humanity?
Yep.
October 19, 2022
Basic history of the people and historical lands that make up Slovakia. Early history is pretty light. Early modern chapters often seemed like a list of early authors/religious figures were little more than a paragraph for each person consisting of birth, where they lived, what they were known for, and when they died. The book became more interesting when covering the 19th-20th century portions, when the history and peoples were more fleshed out.
September 23, 2025
Kirschbaum's history of Slovakia is strongest in the earliest periods; perhaps a much longer perspective (it starts in pre-history) helps to wash away the less important historical events. Once the book reaches the middle of the Twentieth Century, the narrative becomes more journalistic, reciting events, numbers, and figures much as one might read in a newspaper, without always being clear about how their significance extends beyond a few years.
August 2, 2020
Interessant om te lezen hoe een Slowaak tegen de geschiedenis aankijkt van een volk dat bijna 1000 jaar onder Hongaars gezag leefde. Maar af en toe erg gedetailleerd, en het werd me uiteindelijk toch niet helemaal duidelijk wat nu het verschil is tussen Tsjechen en Slowaken, behalve dat duidelijk wordt dat de meeste Slowaken zichzelf als anders zien.
September 14, 2025
"I have not lost hope in my country, for it is only a child, sounding its third cry."
Slovakia is an infant compared to other democracies and EU nations and this book nicely explain why. A barely 32 years old, to abondon such country would be like leaving a child in desert. There are still better years to come.
Slovakia is an infant compared to other democracies and EU nations and this book nicely explain why. A barely 32 years old, to abondon such country would be like leaving a child in desert. There are still better years to come.
December 25, 2022
Somewhere there is a readable book on Slovakia’s history but regrettably this isn’t it. Dense and academic. I also felt it minimized the culpability of the state in supporting Nazi Germany and most importantly, the Holocaust and the deportation and murder of most of Slovakia’s Jews.
November 1, 2024
Just awful history. Biased in an ethnocentric way. Poorly researched, argued, and from what I can tell, he regularly quotes his father. If you have an alternative, read that. Also, it seems to argue an apologist position re: the collaboration with the Nazis.
September 12, 2022
3.5 stars
July 22, 2014
This is a long running argument for the historical reality of the Slovak people / Slovak nation even though one did not exist as a political entity until the 20th century. Although, the author claims that the Great Moravian Empire was essentially Slovak but from the way he framed his argument, this might be a controversial claim. Which brings up a difficulty I had with this book - it's arguing with a historiography about Slovaks/Slovakia that I don't even know exists. It's assumed I know this historiography and large portions of Eastern European history, which I do not.
The argument for Slovak survival is laid out, how the Slovaks had to fight to remain Slovak first from Hungarian influence in the Hapsburg lands and the Austro-Hungarian empire and then in against Czech influence before and after WWII. The author's arguments are much more interested in establishing how the Slovak state achieved autonomy during WWII, while somewhat disconcertingly hand-waving Slovakia alliance with Nazi Germany and what part Slovakia played in the Holocaust. The Slovak uprising against the Nazis in 1944 is framed as something that might not have been worth it because the Allies were going to go back a Czech-centric Czechoslovakia. The chapter on Slovaks under communism was completely baffling to me because it seemed to assume I would be familiar with USSR's program in Eastern Europe. (Also, the Prague Spring is a throw away PHRASE in a sentence - I would imagine the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia would affect Slovaks as well as Czechs.)
The author while providing minimal details on somethings, would flood you with statistics and percentages at other points.
I wish there was a better comprehensive history of the Slovak people in English, but sadly there is not a large amount of scholarship on them and even less in English.
The argument for Slovak survival is laid out, how the Slovaks had to fight to remain Slovak first from Hungarian influence in the Hapsburg lands and the Austro-Hungarian empire and then in against Czech influence before and after WWII. The author's arguments are much more interested in establishing how the Slovak state achieved autonomy during WWII, while somewhat disconcertingly hand-waving Slovakia alliance with Nazi Germany and what part Slovakia played in the Holocaust. The Slovak uprising against the Nazis in 1944 is framed as something that might not have been worth it because the Allies were going to go back a Czech-centric Czechoslovakia. The chapter on Slovaks under communism was completely baffling to me because it seemed to assume I would be familiar with USSR's program in Eastern Europe. (Also, the Prague Spring is a throw away PHRASE in a sentence - I would imagine the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia would affect Slovaks as well as Czechs.)
The author while providing minimal details on somethings, would flood you with statistics and percentages at other points.
I wish there was a better comprehensive history of the Slovak people in English, but sadly there is not a large amount of scholarship on them and even less in English.
June 24, 2019
As the author, Kirschbaum, is a political scientist by training, it should not come as a surprise that the book is heavy on the political affairs of the history of Slovakia. This doesn't help in regards to reading the book, as it is heavy on the political nature of the country, especially the modern era. He provides a lot of names, dates, numbers and abbreviations in quick succession, which can bog down the reading. However it is one of the few histories of Slovakia in English, so is good in that regard. Just a shame that he glosses over several key events, such as the entire Second World War, while going into heavy detail of the post-1939 political dealings of leading Slovak politicians.
June 10, 2010
Very accessible for non-Slavic American ignoramuses like me. It's historical survey and cultural boosterism that encounters the occasional rough patch, and nasty facts see pride yield to more complex emotions (e.g., Tiso and the Jews and Everybody and the Gypsies).
At my job (kill me), the workforce is comprised of three groups: Brooklyn Indigenous, Malaysian Ladies Auxiliary, and the Slovak Syndicate. Generally, knowledge breeds comity; however, here it's more like actionable intelligence research.
At my job (kill me), the workforce is comprised of three groups: Brooklyn Indigenous, Malaysian Ladies Auxiliary, and the Slovak Syndicate. Generally, knowledge breeds comity; however, here it's more like actionable intelligence research.
April 8, 2007
I read this book for personal reasons. Was shocked to learn the Slovak people had more or less been governed by other countries for 700 years. Then in 1989 the former unified state of Czechoslovakia partinioned itself peacefully into 2 nations in what is known as the Velvet Revolution.
Imagine, your culture survives 700 years of mostly second class citizenship from Austria, Hungary, Germany, Czech(Moravia), Soviet Union, et al.
Imagine, your culture survives 700 years of mostly second class citizenship from Austria, Hungary, Germany, Czech(Moravia), Soviet Union, et al.
June 30, 2015
well, I too, liked this book. I happen to be a Slovak-American who has recently tried to research his roots. I bought this book through Amazon.com and I have to say that I carry this book around with me wherever I go. (to read a little bit at a time.) I particularly recommend one little part in there that mentioned a Slovak version of Robin Hood. His name was Juraj Jánošík. The author told the story of Slovakia in what I think, a College textbook form. Great Read!!
July 5, 2010
Some interesting info and good overview- totally lacks any kind of experience of the people though- very much a long list of dates and political figures with the substance sort of filling the gaps between these. Definitely left me curious for more reading.
September 12, 2011
I bought this back in fall 2001 while going to college in Pittsburgh, and have been meaning to read it forever, as it is the history of hte country my family is from. It was very good, though dated (it covers up to 1993, no further.
February 24, 2008
shallow. didn't get much out of this one. So Meciar was a bad guy? Ok, I guess I have to read more books on this topic to find out why.
Currently reading
November 25, 2009I HATE SLOVAKIA
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews