Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed

by Mary Heimann

This book, the most thoroughly researched and accurate history of Czechoslovakia to appear in English, tells the story of the country from its founding in 1918 to partition in 1992—from fledgling democracy through Nazi occupation, Communist rule, and invasion by the Soviet Union to, at last, democracy again. The common Western view of Czechoslovakia has been that of a small nation that was sacrificed at Munich in 1938 and betrayed to the Soviets in 1948, and which rebelled heroically against the repression of the Soviet Union during the Prague Spring of 1968. Mary Heimann dispels these myths and shows how intolerant nationalism and an unhelpful sense of victimhood led Czech and Slovak authorities to discriminate against minorities, compete with the Nazis to persecute Jews and Gypsies, and pave the way for the Communist police state. She also reveals Alexander Dubcek, held to be a national hero and standard-bearer for democracy, to be an unprincipled apparatchik . Well written, revisionist, and accessible, this groundbreaking book should become the standard history of Czechoslovakia for years to come.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, Czech Literature

432 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

An "edgy", one-sided interpretation of Czechoslovak history in which the author completely disregards the work of Czech and Slovak historians (and even of international Anglophone historians!) in order to discredit what she calls the "Whig interpretation of Czechoslovak history", factual errors, oversimplifications, and extreme, unsubstantiated statements abound. Interestingly enough, her bibliography refers to many works by Anglophone scholars that had previously examined the myths of Czechoslovak history.

I just have such a hard time believing that a trained historian wrote this book.

[Samuel Škoda · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book primarily promises to develop a narrative of interwar Czechoslovakia that was far less inclusive and democratic as commonly portrayed. Demythticizing the period is surely laudable, but the book falls short of its aim. The insanely high amount of factual errors and twisted details makes the book unreadable and destroys the possibility to build a more nuanced, critical viewpoint on interwar Czechoslovak democracy. Some of the errors are just laughable: at one point the author claims that women's suffrage was introduced only to double the Czech vote as if it did not double the vote of non-Czechs too. I especially do not recommend this book to readers with little or no prior knowledge of Czechoslovak history as the risk of passing less obvious untrue statements for facts is almost granted without confronting them with other sources.

[Eliška · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't understand how historian could write such a book. Not only is it full of factual errors, but also the author distorted events, as it suited her. I don't even mention that she absolutely missed the work of Czech and Slovak historians - and trying to give the impression of a new perspective on Czechoslovak history although doesn't offer anything new.

If you want to know something about Czechoslovak history, please read another book. 

[Martin Hassman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Snad nejdůležitější kniha, která byla o historii Československa kdy napsána. Díky moc za její sepsání i za to, že nakonec po desetiletém boji o vydání překladu je k dostání i česky.

Jedná se o revizionistický přístup k historii. Autorka se záměrně soustředí na zdůraznění toho, co vidí jinak, než jak to popisoval dosavadní většinový pohled. A připravte se, že to čtení je znepokojivé a opravdu bolí. Ale zvládnout tu bolest je nutné, pokud se jako národ i stát chceme poučit a posunout dál.

V historii každého národa se čas od času objeví momenty, kdy dá přednost lžím před pravdou. Ty zdravé národy, se ale časem takových lží zbavují. U těch druhých národů se lži kumulují a jednoho dne vyústí v nějaký extrém (diktaturu, válku...). Není těžké najít příklady v nedávné historii.

V české historii si jedno takové období lží pamatujeme. Stály za ním Rukopis zelenohorský a Rukopis královédvorský. Dnes to můžeme brát jako srandovní příběh, ale přesvědčit celý národ, že po několik desetiletí jeho přední osobnosti, vědce a umělce ovliňuje prokazatelná lež, bylo tehdy těžké a dost bolestné.

Kniha Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed nám umožňuje zbavit se hned několika československých lží. Netvrdím a nevím, zda vše, co autorka napsala, je pravda. To posoudí historici. Zatím se zdá, že někteří se s obsahem knihy nesmířili, ale jiní se jím naopak inspirovali a navazují na knihu svými vlastními zdroji a interpretacemi. A já se již chystám na jejich čtení.

Tahle kniha bolí a budete ji nenávidět. Ale pokud nám pomůže uvědomit si, co z naší historie jsme museli zapomenout a co překroutit, dospějeme a budeme zas o něco vyzrálejším a sebevědomějším národem. A co víc, z československé historie, která se dlouho mohla zdát jasná, možná až nudně jasná, vzniklo napínavé téma, kde se téměř bojíte, kam šlápnete, abyste nespustili lavinu a pod ní neobjevili hromadu zubících se kostlivců. Výklad dějin Československa budeme jednou dělit na dobu před Heimannovou a po ní. Antidepresiva k ruce a vzhůru do čtení.

[Claudi · Rating 1 out of 5]

I fail to take seriously a work undertaken by a religious historian who fails to consider a single Slovak, Czech, Hungarian, Romani, Jewish, or Rusyn historian. Whilst there is some engagement with primary sources in Czech, her sole reliance on English (and the occasional German) secondary resources make this a pure exercise in western revisionism with orientalising tendencies. Annoying.

[Hristo Kanchev · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's plenty of value in the overall message of this book, showing that Czechoslovakia (or either of the two states if you will) is not just a victim of, but it also self-induced or at least provoked, its fate, and this messages seems to be ever more relevant in our recent times. The book goes to great lengths in getting this message across and does so entirely plausibly, albeit with a somewhat condescending tone at times, and using scores of data, but this is also probably its only flaw: at times it can get rather petty and interpretative - or fall into plain contradictions - with the data it uses.

Some examples.

Of Hacha's meeting with Hitler, it says "Contrary to the impression given in most accounts that the meeting was intended solely to belittle and humiliate Hacha (rather as if he had been a second Benes instead of an already compliant ally of Nazi Germany), the president was received with full honours. Even Hacha's daughter, who accompanied him on the trip, was presented with a bouquet of flowers from Ribbentrop and with a box of chocolates from Hitler", only to state, in the very next sentence that the Czech delegation "had to endure hours of suspense while Hitler and his entourage watched a film", and were "finally admitted into the Fuhrer's presence at about midnight". What is this, even if the author rightly quotes it to be "entirely characteristic of Hitler's unorthodox behaviour", if not belittling and humiliation? Are the chocolates and flowers presented to Hacha's daughter more indicative of the German diplomatic posture than the fact that their statesmen guests had to wait while they watched a film?

Of the Czech resistance during WWII the book says "it was not until Hitler was safely dead, Slovakia had been completely liberated by the Red Army and US troops were crossing into Bohemia from the west that there was any sign of rebellion in the Protectorate", apparently forgetting that 10-20 or so pages earlier it had been describing the "effective Czech boycott of all public transportation in Prague" from Sep 30 1939 together with the following clashes between demonstrators and K.H. Frank's security forces on Oct 28, which led to the death of Jan Opletal. In between, it goes on to somewhat dismiss the Heydrich assasination since it was apparently planned abroad by Benes, Moravec, and the SOE as a political act to rid Czechoslovakia of its collaborationist image.

Of the Czech "people's courts" post-WWII the author first quotes that they "convicted an astonishing 97 per cent of those who were brought before them", yet on the next page, when figures are provided for context in discussing the Slovak people's courts instead, the quoted figures are different:" ... as compared with about 168000 tried, and 69000 convicted, in the equivalent Czech courts".

I would have loved some more constructive analysis of what the potential alternatives to the criticized policies the author would consider viable in the different historical contexts, or what she considers an acceptable basis of national self-determination, and when, but this was probably not intended to be the subject of this book.

[Lysergius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely interesting and detailed study of the rise and fall of the Czechoslovak state. The section on the Prague Spring was most illuminating. Well worth a read.

The second reading revealed more nuance as always, and the description of the second republic and the events post Munich caught my attention this time.

The third reading underlines what a miserable idea "czechoslovakia" was to begin with, just a pity the Slovaks could not have been got rid of like the German and Hungarian minorities. Oh wait, the is what the "velvet divorce" was about or? Goodbye Slovakia!

[Zuzka Jakúbková · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kontroverzná kniha! Hneď v úvode treba podotknúť, že autorka berie historické fakty a aktérov trocha hopom a nenecháva veľa priestoru na čitateľský nadhľad nad dejinnými udalosťami. Jej zbraňou proti monotónii prezidentov a politikov je presvedčivý jednoliaty príbeh a vďaka tomu prečítate hrubiznú knižku o storočí československých dejín na jeden šup.

Sú tie fakty, ktoré v knihe uvádza, správne? Je ich asi milión, takže neviem a veľká časť z nich je odcitovaná z medzinárodnej literatúry, takže povedzme, že niekto ich za pravdivé považuje. Vybrala autorka také fakty, aby sa zavďačila nášmu pohľadu na vlastnú minulosť? Veľmi nie, ale to je aj pointa.

Určite neodporúčam ako prvú a poslednú literatúru o dejinách posledného storočia, lebo autorka vystupuje naozaj veľmi autoritatívne, ale je to veľmi zaujímavé doplnkové čítanie.

[Jaroslav · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thrilling read that only becomes a little shallow in the final chapter.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were many times during the book when being a protestant Slovak, I felt outraged. Professor Heimann gives a rather crude and 'surgical' assessment of various cornerstone national symbols and myths of Czech, Slovak and Czechoslovak history, which would be alright if she were to develop a coherent and well-structured argument about what was so wrong about the nature of the Czechoslovak state and its population, that it failed, repeatedly. Yet, she fails in that regard herself, as the argument becomes too simplistic, black-and-white, and without adequate support for her very bold claims.

The book also feels unbalanced between the first and second halves (before and after 1948), when for instance a space of about one short paragraph is given to the Slovak National Uprising, while Prague Spring and the various deliberations of KSČ Central Committee and its documents are given almost direct retelling in tens of pages in two chapters (and for someone primed for the pointlessness of that Communist language quite tedious).

In general, a Slovak, or a Czech reader will likely feel for the first 200ish pages that the author genuinely does not like Czechs and to a lesser degree Slovaks. If one can think of the least generous perspective on events, it will be in the book. And while at times, as her general take on the dominance of Czech nationalism during the First Czechoslovak Republic, it makes sense for the argument that she is developing, at other times, like presenting the Munich crisis as a result of the "unprovoked mobilisation" that threatened Nazi Germany, it just does not make sense.

Karol Sidor's refusal to promulgate the creation of the Slovak state on 13th March 1939 is completely omitted, as is Imrich Karvaš, wartime governor of the National Bank of Slovakia who helped finance the Slovak National Uprising. In other aspects, like not mentioning the contributions of Milan Rastislav Štefánik during the founding of Czechoslovakia during the war until three-fourths of the chapter, the choices what to focus on just do not make any sense.

Even the language of the title feels unfair, at least, as it would suggest something unique about the state of Czechoslovakia, as it is "the" state that failed, rather than "a" state that failed. When asked in one interview on a Czech online television (DVTV) about it, the author provided a rather funny answer, referring to a ‘better sounding in English’ and a reference to 1955 satirical novel "The Mouse that Roared" by Leonard Wibberley. There is no mention of that anywhere in the book or, frankly, any sarcasm similar to Wibberley's account of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. It is also quite notable that the Czech translation of the title is not literal ("Stát který zlyhal"), but rather a less harsh form ("Stát který zklamal" - A state that disappointed).

The core of the author's argument is the malignant nature of Czech (or Bohemiam) nationalism - with the brief exception of the afterwar period where it is jointly Czech and Slovak nationalism, creating the Beneš decree-enabled deportation of Germans and Hungarians from the border regions of Sudetenland and southern Slovakia.

That would be an interesting perspective to the debate if such strong claims, for instance, the ones about Masaryk were actually substantiated.
"As the single most important figure behind the creation of the state, and its only well-known politician abroad, Masaryk commanded more influence than was healthy for a democratic republic. Masaryk, and Masaryk alone, appeared as the dignified face of Czechoslovak statehood, a statesman who seemed to rise above the political fray and quickly became the prime symbol of Czech standing in the world. This was in part a consequence of his gentlemanly bearing, good connections and professorial gravitas; but also of his political savvy, use of the secret police and wartime training in the arts of subterfuge and propaganda." How was this so bad, in times when Czechoslovakia had the most free and fair elections in the region until 1939?

Similarly, professor Heimann's argument, that the Bohemian Lands and Slovakia were becoming fascist and undemocratic on their own (based on the extent and developments of the anti-Jewish legislation) completely omits the geopolitical situation the countries were in at that moment. Her portrayal of the actions of Czechs and Slovaks moulds them into almost inherently chauvinistic and anti-German caricatures.

Heimann argues that "Czech historiography has been too gentle on Czechoslovakia" and the aim of the book is to rebalance the image, by giving perspective to voices of other nationalities within the former Czechoslovak state. I am not sure how is that helped by limiting the retelling of the Slovak National Uprising to a space of about a single paragraph, with the main idea that General Golian was disappointed by armament supplies from the Allies and the uprising collapsed quickly.

The chapters about Communist Czechoslovakia feel much kinder - while there is still a lot of agency given to the actions of Czechs and Slovaks, there is an understanding that a lot was done in response to the decisions made in Moscow (chiefly Gotwald, Zápotocký and Novotný being swept by events and people around them). And unlike in more recent works being published in Czech and Slovak, there is much less vilification of Viliam Široký and Vasil Biľak.

And while Alexander Dubček is presented as a relatively power-hungry manipulator (which to be fair, feels accurate), the book flips into an almost overly sympathetic tone in the chapter(s) concerning the Prague Spring, although omitting the substances of the reforms beyond the easing of censorship. Here the author, for the first time in the book, relies on archival and Czech and Slovak language sources - unlike in the first half of the book, which depends on works published in English.

And finally, the chapter about the dissolution of Czechoslovakia skips over so much of the discussions, especially the impact of the individual personalities of Václav Klaus and Vladimír Mečiar.

I really wanted this book to be an engaging part of the conversation into our history, to provide a counter-narrative against the simplistic perspectives of the domestic intellectuals. But it is just so limited and unbalanced, that it asks for itself to be disregarded in Czech and Slovak public discussions. That is a pity, however, as I really believe we would benefit from a more critical understanding of our history.

[Santiago · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hay pocos países para los que sea tan fácil certificar su fecha exacta de nacimiento y defunción. En este caso, además, se trata de un país que tuvo una duración equivalente a la de una vida humana, algo más bien insólito. Lo cierto es que Checoslovaquia estuvo de una manera o de otra en el centro de los principales acontecimientos de la historia de Europa del siglo XX, y por ello nos puede ayudar a comprenderla. Desde las primeras páginas de este libro, uno tiene la impresión de que la autora padece un agudo prejuicio anti-checoslovaco, y principalmente anti-checo. La autora considera, en resumen, que la benevolencia de que gozaba Checoslovaquia en los países occidentales estaba, en gran medida, injustificada. Su imagen casi virginal de país joven, predestinado de forma natural a la democracia, ocultaba un profundo nacionalismo de naturaleza excluyente que, según la autora, impregnó todos los regímenes que se fueron sucediendo hasta la disolución del país.

Aunque sus tesis tal vez sean discutibles en algunos aspectos, lo cierto es que el libro está muy bien documentado.

[Jan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jako historická práce diletantské a místy až nebezpečně účelové, jako polemická publicistika přinejmenším inspirativní kniha hodná přečtení. Kontroverznost nespočívá v silné německé a slovenské perspektivě, která si stále zaslouží zdůraznění, jako v nekritické dikci a práci s prameny. Tam kde se snaží být Heimannová revizionistická buď vykopává otevřené dveře (úmyslně nepoužívá nekanonickou českou historiografii a zastoupení sekundárních pramenů je obecně slabé) nebo se pouští za hranu metodologické plausibility. Její odstup a pohled cizinky je každopádně přínosný pro jinak malou historickou obec s malým zastoupením zahraničních historiků, ačkoli třeba brát v úvahu, že cílovou skupinou jsou nečeši a laici. Jestliže v lecčem křivdí předválečnému Československu, dokáže to vyrovnat sžíravě přesnými postřehy o třetí republice nebo pražském jaru, i když to ani tak nelze považovat za nějaké novum. Celkem s povděkem lze přijmout autorčin hlavní cíl, totiž varovat před strašidlem nacionalismu, které Evropu obcházet nepřestalo a nám se rozhodně nevyhýbalo.

[Jindřich Čermák · Rating 4 out of 5]

Práce britské historičky vyvolala debatu už když před deseti lety vyšla v originále, nyní se můžeme těšit z českého překladu.

Čtení je zajímavé a často hladící proti srsti. Už samotným názvem, který je,dle mého, vtipným překladem originálního The State that Failed.

Výtka českých čtenářů (a některých politiků) směřuje zejména na část o První republice. Zde je Heimannová poměrně kritická. Po hříchu se dopouští zásadní chyby, že pohlíží na situaci roku 1918 dnešním pohledem a politickými zvyklostmi, který by jí v mnohém dal za pravdu. Ale rok 2020 není rok 1918.

Přesto si hloubavý čtenář pokládá otázky. Nejen nad konceptem nacionalismu ve střední Evropě, který byl zřetelně jazykový, ale také nad tuhým centralismem mladého Československa, i když pochopitelným, přesto na problémy si zadělávajícím zejména směrem ke Slovákům.

I když s výsledky práce nemusíte vždy souhlasit, pro kritické myšlení a otevření debaty je to velmi přínosná kniha!

[Maria · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too bad there's no option for 0 stars. What on Earth is this book? Why does somebody write a book about a country and the people they so obviously despise?

The author says that she studied the history and ok, she obviously knows names and dates, but it is obvious that she misses so much of historical and cultural context, I doubt that she spoke to anyone from our own experts. She doesn't even seem to understand the language, she makes the very beginner mistake of confusing "Čechy" (Bohemia) and "Česko" (Czechia), for example.

Her contempt for our nations is obvious from every historical period she touches. She disregards any of our democratic achievements during First Republic era, then basically says that the betrayal of Munich agreement was our own fault, she belittles the assassination of Heydrich which was a very important victory during WW2 and the occupation. Then again, she very arrogantly writes about the events of Prague Spring and the attempts at reforms and the resulting invasion and era of normalisation. Also, her putting words like invasion into quotation marks is insulting. She never mentions many of the important cultural figures that represented the resistance against the regime, which means that she failed to understand how culture and politics were intertwined and the entire cultural context.

Honestly, I don't remember being this angry at a book before. It's like it was written by some teenager who has to write a paper to school, but wants it to be edgy and different from everyone else. Well, that doesn't work well for history, because you can't make your own opinion about actual facts.

Who knows, maybe one day I will understand why she despises us so much. Until then, I will console myself with our motto: "The truth prevails!"

Edit: I wanted to add, in case it wasn't clear from my review: If you don't know about the history of Czechoslovakia and want to learn, please, don't buy this book. It's not history, it is a take full of half-truths and misinterpretations by somebody who has her own agenda, whatever the reason may be.

[Michał Lech · Rating 2 out of 5]

Echoing what many others have said: The author seems to dislike her subject. She is hostile to the Czechs, and, in the instances when they are self-ruling or close to it, to the Slovaks.

The tone matches what one finds with certain Central European historians seeking to emulate their self-loathing Western colleagues: Maybe we didn't have colonies, but we should feel guilt too; maybe we were among the victims in World War II, but we deserve to feel shame too. Except Heimann is not Czech or Slovak, but an American based in the UK. So, ultimately, she is just hostile to these peoples.

There is too little material on this subject in English, so it is worth comparing this to other accounts if you're particularly interested in the region. To Heimann's credit, she does not relegate the Slovaks to a secondary role. A few paragraphs are highlighter-worthy, and the reader will find the expected number of fascinating anecdotes for a book of this length.

This is a book about politics/government. Don't expect any content about daily life in the various iterations of Slovakia/Czechia/Czechoslovakia. No mention, for example, that daily life in Slovakia was generally (yes, I said generally) an oasis of calm in the middle of a continent at total war during World War II. The period is just written off as a blight, and then the narrative fast-forwards to the overglorified "Uprising" and Soviet "liberation."

Worth comparing to other accounts, but don't make this your only source on Czechoslovakia.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

On face value, I found this book to be a stimulating and interesting one but note the controversy it has caused, not least in the reviews elsewhere on this site. It's an attempt to provide a less misty eyed view of the pre-war Czechoslovak state of Edvard Beneš and Tomáš Masaryk with a world of democracy, luscious pastries and humanistic theatre replaced by one that was just as nastily nationalist as everywhere else in Central and Eastern Europe. Needless to say, many have objected to this.

I also found it to be a prime exemplar of a book that treads a fine line between the trade and academic market. For this layperson, I did find it be dense at times: the Prague Spring and Velvet Revolution are covered in perhaps too exhaustive detail with too many footnotes while I was wanting to know more about daily life in the 1970s and 1980s in particular.

Sport, contrary to most academic texts, is not glossed over - there is mention of a couple of ice hockey victories over the Soviets and Emil Zátopek does feature - but on the other hand, the state sponsored doping programme receives no coverage at all and neither does the Czechoslovak victory in the 1976 European football Championships - it would have been fascinating to see how such things impinged on national unity, for the better or worse.

So it's a stronger book in its earlier chapters on the pre-war period but unlikely to be the only volume you should wish to read on the subject.

[Sue Pit · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book by Mary Heimann gives a very full covering of Czechoslovakia...its creation and its demise/ split into two countries. I found it a very interesting read and gleaned much from it. I do understand there are concerns about certain accuracies and there is one that I personally found as to her reference to the author Ivan Klima as an "heretofore impeccably Stalinist writer" (page 222) as of 1965. Having read his autobiography "This Crazy Century" and having met him in person at an interview he gave, I find this too broadly stated and misleading especially as there was a notable evolution that commenced once Khrushchev revealed the sins of Stalin in 1956. So I did know to take certain things with a grain of salt..especially when the use of "heretofore impeccably Stalinist" (arguably too broad a stroke as reality was oft more nuanced) as well as certain other facts..but over all I found the book very enlightening...as to how a country dealt with events...including its reaction from the Nazi invasion/ loss of faith in the West as a factor of initial acceptance to the communism/being a part of the Soviet block and adopting its ways and then simply "trying to get along" afterwards and how the softening of restrictions backfired in the 1960s resulting in the Russian invasion followed by attempted normalization which largely existed on the surface if not in all personal lives/ perceptions. A worthy read.

[Doug Cornelius · Rating 2 out of 5]

All you want to know about the political history pf Czechoslovakia. It was born from WWI, was part of the genesis of WWII, hosted the first concentration camps, fell under communism, colonized by the USSR and splintered apart at the end of the Cold War. That a lot of action over 75 years.

This academic treatise has been sitting on my shelf to read for many years. Item 9 on BookRiot's Read Harder Challenge 2019 was a book published prior to 2019 with fewer than 100 reviews on GoodReads. This one fit the item. My review is number 55.

It was a slog to read. The author seem delighted to pound out complex, compound sentences that then lose track of the points she is trying to make.

[Jeremy Mueller · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting counter to the dominant narrative typically told of Czechoslovak history. There is much merit to the arguments Heimann makes, yet at times she overstate certain facts, or makes errors. She also fails to interact with Czech and Slovak historians. The views set forth in this history are necessary and important, but the topic requires a more balanced treatment that engages with more essential sources.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I believe that this should have been formatted more as a textbook, rather than a regular novel. As well as the author imported her opinion at the beginning of the book, which colors your opinion on the events she later describes. I didn't care for that, I believe the facts should have been presented so that the reader could make their own opinions on the events.

[David Fojtik · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very long and difficult read... looking at Czecho-Slovak history from a different angle as compared to local historians. Some things/facts are hard to digest for me as a Czech. Anyway, eye-opening read.

[Petr Čerbák · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paní Heimann si očividně ráda vymýšlí, az je smutno při tom množství literatury a pramenů, které musela prostudovat. Často vás kvůli tomu naštve, pohled to je tendenční , ale take neotřelý a provokativní, tak tomu stojí dat šanci...

[Robert Ball · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and educational account of a part of history that not a lot of people know about. But very long winded

[Alessandro Manuel Rustanto Sitompul · Rating 4 out of 5]

A prime example of being a small nation in the midst of big powers with different ethnicities and interests.

[George Fairhurst · Rating 3 out of 5]

Factually well researched but narrative really struggled to keep a flow

[Manish · Rating 3 out of 5]

https://manishmohandas.com/2025/06/22...

[Peter Hammer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is presented as a history of the state of Czechoslovakia, from before it's foundation in 1918 until it's dissolution into two states at the end of 1992. It is also an attempt to destroy the reputation of it's founding fathers, Eduard Benes and Tomas Masaryk. They are presented as propagandists, who were allowed to establish a new state because it suited the great powers at the time. Most accounts presents them as humanists and democrats, and the first czechoslovak republic from 1918-1938 as totally democratic, but Mary Heimann stresses that the minorities (German, Hungarian, Polish and others) had no real influence, and that the Slovak's were forced into believing that they were "czechoslovaks". This may be so, but still Czechoslovakia was much more democratic than other states in Central Europe. According to this book the Czechs had only themselves to blame for being dismembered in 1938 end occupied in 1939 - and for going Communist in 1948 - because they were too nationalistic. The closing sentence in this book sums it up.: "It is time to abandon the Whig interpretation of Czechoslovak history". A lot of names are mentioned without explanation as to who they were and what role they played - and sometimes even without being mentioned in the Index. Still, it is worth reading as a supplement to other accounts of Czechoslovavak history.

[Christoph Fischer · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly thoroughly researched account of the country and its history. The hours that Heimann spent in local archives certainly have paid off to clear up some misunderstandings about the history of the country as far as the wider English speaking readership is concerned. Other literature on Czechoslovakia in English language pales in comparison. However, I have learned since reading the book that there is some controversy around some of the research that suggests that there may be some errors and misunderstandings in her work. If you are looking for attention to detail and want more than mere generalisations or vague information then this is a good place to start but be warned that Czech historians do not agree with Heimann full-heartedly.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heimann provides one of the most comprehensive history of Czechoslovakia in print; and she challenges the previously-held notion that the country was merely a victim of international machinations; she illuminates the contradictions and unsavoury elements in Czechoslovak history. Particularly interesting are the chapters on the wartime persecution of Jews, the post-war expulsion of Germans and Hungarian, and the extensive writing on the Prague Spring.

This book is excellent for those with a serious interest in Czech history, but also for those interested in modern European history, Communism, and socio-political influences on nation states. For one not familiar with Czechoslovak history, this book will come away with a clear picture of it.

[Stephen Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suppose I'm slowly making my way through Central Europe in the 20th century, having read histories of Austria, Hungary, Italy and now Czechoslovakia. This work does have the advantage of covering the entire history of the nation, from its antecedents to a brief glimpse of its successor states. Heimann's heart was largely in the Communist era, which did last longer than the earlier states and thus merits more coverage. I would have liked more coverage of the First Republic (1918-38). There's a lot on the formation of the state and on the crisis of the 1930s, but relatively little on the 1920s. I feel very satisfied now with my understanding of the events of the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s and why the state disintegrated as it did.