Page Title

Essays on Liberty an Human Rights

Essays on Liberty and Human Rights

                        By Karl Hausner

           Human Rights Essays II

          PART ONE

   (Continued from Human Rights Essays I)

                              3.2. The Moravian Compromise

Horst Glassl, from whose dissertation (Der Maehrische Ausgleich,
Muenchen 1967) I cite here, says: "It cannot be said that the
"Moravian Compromise" offered the final solution to national
problems in the Danubian monarchy in general of for Czech-German
relationships in particular. Nevertheless, the "Moravian
Compromise" of 1905 showed that it was possible for national
discord to be replaced by a partnership agreed to by treaty to
ensure peace among neighboring nations. Although, this admirable
experiment failed due to strong national contrasts and because, seen
historically, it came too late, nothing can change its fundamental
importance." (P.7)

The realization of the Moravian Compromise was made possible by
four laws: the law on Public Order of the margravate Moravia, the
State Parliament electoral regulations, the Education Law and the law
of regulating national languages.

Glassl describes the difficulties which arose due to the overlapping
of the various languages and also due to the preferences of political
parties. Social and economic problems arose too, with the setting up
of electoral districts, appointing the members of committees, the
organizations of school districts and with the appointment of
high-ranking officials and so forth. Despite all these problems, the
Compromise showed that it was functioning after a few years. It is
due to this Compromise that in Moravia (and in Silesia) the
confrontation between Czechs and Germans never developed as
fanatically as it did in Bohemia, where there had never been a
similar Compromise.

3.3. The Bukovina Compromise of 1910

The following description is based on the paper "Der
Parlamentarismus und nationale Ausgleich in der ehemals
oesterreichischen Bukowina' by Rudolf Wagner, published in Munich
in 1984.

The starting point was Article 19 of the Austrian Constitution, as it
was for the Moravian Compromise. Again and again, the Bukovina
parliamentary debates referred to the regulations of the Moravian
Compromise. With the latter, discussion was about two languages in
contrast to the former, where at least six languages had to be dealt
with: Ukrainian, Romanian, German, Yiddish, Polish and Magyar.

According to a census of 1910, the religions were as manifold as the
spoken languages.

These statistics show the interesting fact that almost all of the Jews
spoke German, since Yiddish did not count as a spoken language in
state statistics. In addition, the Jews were not conceded their own
Curia in the electoral regulations.

Both, the Moravian and the Bukovina Compromise were not allowed
to prove their effectiveness for very long. Nevertheless, while they
were valid, they were successful.

After World War I, the question of tolerance and balance between the
nations no longer existed. The victory of the Allies was connected
with the victory of the French idea of what a nation was, which was
readily accepted by the Romanian state. After 1919 in the Bukovina,
there was only one people, the Romanians. During the period
between the wars, the rights of the minorities were reduced more
and more. The CSR proved unable to convince their minorities to
accept the new state.

Governments still rely on the Bukovina and Moravian Compromises
when dealing with ethnic conflicts. Parts of the Compromise were
adopted in the Cyprus Constitution. While the South Tyrol ethnic
problems were being solved, the principles of both Compromises
were discussed again and again.

In conclusion, an anecdote: we were on an excursion in Israel with
students of the University of Augsburg. There we met Teddy Kollek,
the Mayor of Jerusalem and discussed with him the possibility of
adopting the Bukovina Compromise - which he knew very well - for
the Palestine problem. His answer was: "But it needs the Bukovina
mentality, too.

Bibliography:

Bernatzki, Edmund: Die oesterreichischen Verfassungsgesetze mit
Erlaeuerungen. Wien 1911.

Bornemann, Irma/Wagner Rudolf (Hrsg.): Mit Fluchtgepaeck die
Heimat verlassen.. 50 Jahre seit der Unsiedlung der
Buchenlanddeutschen. Stuttgart/Muenchen 1990.

Franzos, Karl Emil: Aus Halb-Asien. Culturbilder aus Galizien, der
Bukowina, Suedrussland und Rumaenien 1. und 2. Band. Stuttgart
1878.

Glassl, Horst: Der Maehrische Ausgleich. Muenchen 1967.

Glassl, Horst:   Nationale Autonomie im Vielvoelkerstaat. Der
Maehrische Ausgleich, Muenchen 1977.

Glassl, Horst: Der Maehrische Ausgleich als Modell fuer Koexistenz
zwischen Voelkern und Volksgruppen. In: Akademie fuer
Lehrerfortbildung (Hrsg.): Die Deutschen und ihre oestlichen
Nachbarn 1. Deutsche und Tschechen. Akademiebericht Nr. 139.
Dillingen 1988, S. 169- 184.

Hampel, Johannes/Kotzian, Ortfried (Hsrg.): Der Bukowina-Institut in
Augsburg. Augsburg 1990.

Hampel, Johannes/Kotzian, Ortfried (Hrsg.): Spurensuche in die
Zykunft, Augsburg 1992.

Herder-Lexikon: Politik, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1974.

Hugelmann, Karl Gottfried: Das Nationalitaetenrecht der alten
Oesterreich. Leipzig 1934.

Kotzian, Ortfried: Das Schulwesen der Deutschen in Rumaenien im
Spanmangsfeld zwischen Volksgruppe und Staat. Diss. 1983.
Augsburg 1984.

Kotzian, Ortfried: Vom "Europa im kleinen" zum nationalistischen
Wahnsinn. In: Vollmen, Johannes/Zuelch, Tilmann (Hrsg.): Aufstand
der Iofer. Verratene Voesker zwischen Hitler und Stalin. Goettingen-
Wien-Bern 1989, S. 132- 136.

Petersen, Carl/Scheel, Otto/Ruth, Paul Hermann/Schwalm, Hans
(Hrsg.): Handwoerterbuch des Grenz- und Auslanddeutschtums.
Gand 1. Stichwort Bukowina. Breslau 1933, S. 611 -633.

Renan, Ernst: Qu'est ce qu'une nation? Paris 1882.

Riedl, Franz: Kanzler Seipel. Ein Vorkaempfer volksdeutschen
Denkens. Saabruecken 1935.

Wagner, Rudolf: Der Parlamentarismus und nationale Ausgleich in
der ehemals oesterreichischen Bukowina, Muenchen 1984.

Wagner, Rudolf (Hsrg.): Die Reisetagebuecher des oeserreichischen
Kaisers Franz I. in die Bukowina (1817 und 1823). Muenchen 1979.

Wagner, Rudolf: Die Revolutionsjahr 1848/49 im Koenigreich Galizien
Lodomerien (einschliesslich Bukowina). Dokumente aus
oesterreichischer Zeit. Muenchen 1983.

Wagner, Rudolf (Hrsg.): Spuren der deutschen Einwanderung in die
Bukowina vor 200 Jahren - Grenzschutz und Adel in oesterreichischer
Zeit. Muebchen 1983.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essays on Liberty and Human Rights

                            By Karl Hausner

              Human Rights Essays III

     PART TWO

Patriotism, Nationalism, Militarism, Fanaticism,
      Totalitarianism and Barbarianism:
                  A Chain of Events
                    By Karl Hausner

At the close of the Twentieth Century there was, as Nietsche
predicted, a lot of bloodshed, more bloodshed than in all of the
previous eras of recorded history. He said, one hundred years ago:
"During the Nineteenth Century God died, because we killed Him and
thus the Twentieth Century will be the bloodiest in the history of
man".

The United States, we are told, is a peace-loving nation. During the
Twentieth Century, our leaders claimed to use our wealth and
manpower to bring about peace and freedom in the war-ridden world.
Was it true, or was it propaganda? Or is this what Jesus Christ
experienced when he was preaching love and peace among those in
the temple whom he had to call Pharisees and hypocrites? I
personally believe there is a mixture between both. There is great
idealism. Underlying is financial interest by various groups, such as
the industrial, military and educational complexes. Big money can
be made by conflicts and wars, by producing war material and
sending troops into battle, all in the name of peace.

May I ask this question: What would have happened and what would
be different today if our Founding Fathers had not declared
independence and we had remained part of the British Empire, like
Canada or Australia, for example?

In spite of the bloodshed and sacrifices of 1776 and thereafter,
American youngsters were sent, on behalf of Great Britain, into
World War I and into World War II, and since that time we have
acqujired an arrogant, imperialistic attitude. We claim to be the
nation of the free, the only country of the free, but is it really true?

Let us compare it with Switzerland. They have had seven hundred
years of freedom, independence, neutrality, and nobody outside of
Switzerland even knows the name of their President. Why is that?
Because, in Switzerland the President, and the Federal Government
have very, very little power.

It is well known, the Bible teaches it, that power can and will corrupt
man. Just think if it would practice what our Founding Fathers
planned.

Now let us look back to Canada and Australia. They got their
independence without a revolutionary war. They had to help
England, as we did, in both large conflicts, whereby neither Canada,
Australia nor the United States had any interest except that we
needed the economic boost, which wars bring to certain industries.

Public education is an ideal tool to brainwash young people,
especially if the idea is to send them into war. The public school was
invented by King Frederick II, some call him the Great. His empire
was relatively poor and he fell in love with the Province of Silesia,
which was part of the Habsburg Monarchy. Most people in Prussia
and Silesia were German. In order to capture the land, he had to train
his young men to know why they had to fight to conquer the
prosperous land, the Province of Silesia. This success was quickly
understood by many other monarchs, especially Britain, France and
eventually worldwide.

The United States, in contrast, did not have a public school system.
It was not intended to be that way and yet, we now have what we call
public schools which, in effect, are nothing but state operated
schools. There we indoctrinate our youngsters. We tell them when
and how to fight. We tell them whether or not there is a God. Of
course, we decided there is no such thing as God. That is why
Christianity was banned from the American public schools and all
this in the name of freedom, in the name of the Bill of Rights, in the
name of the Constitution.

Paul Harvey, in an essay about the brutalities performed by the
Union troops in Missouri stated: "History is written by the mighty".
Thus, the government can mold our knowledge of history and
events. They decide whether it is necessary to send troops to
far-reaching parts of the world. The majority of young people are
conditioned to do so. These youngsters grwo up in that spirit. Now
in 1998, after President Clinton was exposed as unethical and
immoral, we have a nation in which seventy percent of the people
accept him and believe he is doing and has done a fine job. Once
you replace the Almighty God with the almighty dollar, anything
goes, as long as it is profitable. And profitable it is to go to war and
claim we have to do it in the name of liberty.   This is patriotism.

Let us look back to the Civil War. At the time the American
Constitution was established, the new government accepted slavery.
As a matter of fact, as late as 1850, the Federal Government enacted
a law which was known as the "Fugitive Return Act", whereby the
Federal Government would subsidize the capture and return of the
slaves to their original owners. This was only a few years before the
Civil War and it was just about the time when ten thousand
Revolutionaries came from Germany after the ill-fated revolution for
freedom there. They could not believe that for what they had fought,
abolishment of slavery was legal in the United States and was even
protected and subsidized by the government. The United States
Supreme Court had ruled that Native Americans and Negroes were
subhumans and not entitled to the definition outlined in the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

So, let us assume there would have been no Civil War, and let us
assume the states would have separated, the South from the North,
as Canada is separated from us. Who would have suffered? Slavery
would have been given up, because it was outdated and not even
profitable anymore. In an era of technology, slavery is totally
useless.

To return to patriotism, let us look at a case history: Two immigrant
brothers came to Missouri and bought farms. One had a farm, let us
call him John, which came under Union jurisdiction and Frank had
the farm, which was in the area of the Confederacy. Neither one
wanted to go to war, but were forced to do so. Both were wounded.
After the war, John received a lavish pension from the newly created
Veteran's Administraton, while Frank received nothing. John was
considered a patriot and Frank was considered a traitor or guilty of
treason. Were they?

This is what brings me to the question of patriotism. What is a
patrot? What is a terriorist? What is a traitor or someone guilty of
treason? That depends strictly on who decides.

When these thousands of Braunschweigers and Hessians were sent
by the British to fight the Revolutionary troops, they were legal
soldiers in the eyes of the British. Since many of them deserted and
joined the Revolutionary forces, they were, in the eyes of the British,
traitors and deserters. In the eyes of Washington they were freedom
fighters and were compensated, because the war was won by the
revolution. However, if the British would have won the war, these
Hessians would have been executed as deserters and traitors.

During and after World War I, and even more so after World War II,
the German soldiers who had to fight were called criminals. It took
General Eisenhower a few years after World War II, when Germany
was supposed to rearm again against the Soviet Union, to return to
the German soldiers the honor of having been soldiers. Now, who
took the honor away and who gave it back?

Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was an outstanding military man in
World War I and even more so in World War II. Since he knew about
the assassination attempt on Hitler, he was forced to commit suicide,
otherwise the Nazis would have executed him, as well as his entire
family, associates, friends, etc. (The Nazis did execute 5,000 family
members, friends, associates, of those Generals and Officers that
were involved in the failed plot.) Was Rommel a patriot or was he a
traitor? You see, it is not that easy if you eliminate the brainwashing
under the auspices of patriotism.

It is even more frustrating ehen prominent Christian leaders such as
Dr. Dobson, Gary Bauer, Chuck Colson and many others who have
influence on millions of Christians and many others, are so
brainwashed that they are blinded from World War I, World War II and
even post-world war politics by our government. Yet, the New
Testament, for which they seem to stand, speaks of forgiveness and
even loving your enemy. This is one of the reasons why Christian
Churches have lost the confidence and the impact on the Western
World. Too many, especially young people have turned away from
Christianity, because they see whom Jesus Christ called Pharisees
and hypocrites. Maybe these leaders are not even hypocrites or
Pharisees. They may just be blinded by the propaganda of
patriotism.

Let us look at World War I. A Serbian radical, supported by the
country of Serbia, assassinated the Crown Prince and his wife in
Sarejevo, Bosnia. This triggered the war between Habsburg and
Serbia. Britain and France quickly declared war on Austria, and
Germany got involved due to a treaty. Now, after World War I, Serbia
was compensated by the Alles, Britain, France and the United States,
with the creation of Yugoslavia. All the other independent countries
or provinces such as Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro and so
on, were given to Serbia to dominate. Again, these nations
compensated criminal acts of terrorism and what do we have now?
In the early 1990's, we had bloodshed in Croatia and Bosnia and in
1998 in Kosovo. There is no solution in sight.

Let us look at another case. Bohemia and Moravia were part of the
Austrian Monarchy.   The terrorists Mazaryk and Benes fled the
country, came to France, later to the United States and with their
support, were romised an independent country. Independent from
whom? However they had to influence the Czech troops to desert
to Russia and fight the Austrians. After that, the Allies gave Mazaryk
and Benes the Czechoslovak Republic. All minorities,Sudeten
Germans, Hungarians, Poles, even the Slovaks and Ukranians, had to
accept the dictates of the Prague government. What was the result
of this type of activity? It brought about the 1938 Munich Accord, the
partitioning of the Sudetenland and World War II. After the war, the
expulsion and confiscation of German property and that of the
Hungarians, Communism and fifty years later, the collapse and
separation between the Czech Republic and Slovakia for the second
time.

A similar situation was created during and after World War I with
Poland. For the disloyalty of some Poles, they received part of the
Ukraine and part of Germany. This triggered World War II and after
the war, the expulsion of millions of East German people.

In 1998, both Poland and the Czech Republic want to join the
European Union, which actually existed pretty much so in 1914 and
hundreds of years before. So, when President Clinton claims that we
have to fight terrorism, we should look in the mirror and see that we
have cultivated terrorism more than any other nation. Even today,
the CIA is training terrorist groups which have to go into their
homeland to overthrow governments who do not agree with us here
in the United States.

Switzerland has never trained rebels. They have been known for
good banking, safe banking and neutrality.

Look at the patriotic situation which France created for themselves.
During World War II, Franceand the Allies trained and subsidized
guerilla forces in Algeria to fight the German and Italian troops. After
the war, these very same guerillas delivered bloodshed to the
French until France had to give up the region.

Will we learn a lesson? Not until education is objective and does not
cultivate patriotism, nationalism, militarism which always leads to
fanaticism, aned of course, totalitarianism and barbarianism.

Let us look at Russia and the Soviet Union. Marxism had not been
successful in Central Europe and thus, moved to Russia. At the time
World War I broke out, the Czar had hoped to divert the pressure of
Marxism by entering the war. If it was not the Czar, it was the
leadership of Russia which decided. Actually the opposite
happened. World War I gave Lenin, Trotsky and all te other
Bolsheviks the green light to start the Bolshevik Revolution. The
Czar was murdered on Lenin's order, as were hundreds of thousands
of officers, officials and the clergy.

It is interesting that, after the Bolshevik Revolution and the fall of the
Russian Empire, most Western countries did not recognize the Lenin
and Stalin Government. As soon as Franklin D. Roosevelt became
President, he recognized the Soviet Union as a legal government,
which continued to slaughter millions of innocent people. At the
time when Roosevelt was elecdted, Stalin had starved six million
Ukrainian peasants to death. Yet, Roosevelt admired the biggest
terrorist in this century. Yet, we are told by our Media and by
President Clinton and others, that we always stood fosr freedom in
the world. Who will believe us? Especially when a President of the
United States lies under oath and keeps on lying.

(Continued in Part Two - Human Rights Essays III - A Chain of Events)