My War Memoirs/Chapter 6
VI
THE PROPAGANDIST ACTIVITY OF OUR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT
(a) The Organization of our Propaganda and its Centres in France
32
After the publication of the manifesto on November 14, 1915, our work continued to be mainly propagandist, because, for the time being, this was the kind of work of which we stood most in need. Not only the public, but also official circles had so imperfect a knowledge of us that it was necessary to begin from the very ABC of the subject.
The official reception of Masaryk by Briand, however, the establishment and organization of our political headquarters and official national body in Paris, as well as the precise formulation of our programme, provided us with at least a hint of the direction which our further activities should take. The outward indication of this was only a gradual process. On the whole, we continued our work on the same lines as before, but nevertheless from political propagandists we were developing more and more into military organizers and, later on, into diplomats.
Our activity thus begins to assume the following aspects:
(a) Propaganda.
(b) Work connected with prisoners of war and troops.
(c) Political and diplomatic work.
It will perhaps give a clearer idea of our work if I deal with each of these separately.
The development of our movement from propaganda to politics, especially in France, took place in the first half of 1916. In the second half of that year there began an intensive and well-organized activity in connection with prisoners of war and troops generally. From August 1916 onwards I deliberately modified what I had hitherto been doing in my capacity as General Secretary of the National Council. I now more and more emphasized the official and responsible character of my activity, as a contrast to my previous work as a political émigré who had been free to undertake anything which he considered in the interests of his country. For all that, our propagandist work still continued to be one of the fundamental elements in our activity until the end of 1918. It was inseparable from the politico-diplomatic and military aspect of our movement.
Work in connection with the prisoners of war occupied the National Council most of all in 1917, the year when we made our general preparations for organizing our military resources. It was in 1918 that this organization reached its culminating point. In that year our troops were engaged in the Western and Eastern seats of war. It was also the year of our Siberian enterprise, and of our decisive political and diplomatic action, which resulted in our recognition and the proclamation of our Government and our independence.
Having established contact with a number of journalists, I supplied them with the news which I received from home by way of Switzerland, or obtained from our papers. The Viennese and Magyar papers with which I was supplied by Eisenmann and the French Ministry of War, my communications with Dr. Sychrava and, through his agency, with Prague, furnished me with so much information that every day I was able to satisfy the requirements of the French authorities, as well as of my journalist friends.
Thus, from October 1915 onwards, my work in connection with propaganda and news was fairly regular. On the one hand there was my systematic activity for La Nation Tchèque, on the other hand I was helping the French Ministry of War and several daily papers. At the same time I began to write for Czech papers in America to eke out my resources, for I was afraid that the long war would use up the small supply of money which I had brought with me.
In this way I gradually succeeded in penetrating into official circles and also into the world of journalism in France. My connection with a number of influential journalists (Gauvain; de Quirielle; de Nalèche, of the Journal des Débats; Duboscq, of the Temps; Bertrand, of Paris Midi; Bienaimé, of La Victoire; Chéradame, and others) enabled us bit by bit to bring our case before the public. At that period I was satisfied if we managed two or three times a week to get a few lines about our affairs into one of the papers I have mentioned. At first this was difficult, but as time went on we gained more confidence and influence, so that now and then we were able to publish whole articles or essays of considerable length.
I lived in the Rue Léopold Robert, on the left bank of the Seine, in student style, as I had done during my first residence in Paris ten years previously. I lunched and had supper for one and a half francs in a small restaurant in the same street. I prepared my own breakfast. When Masaryk was in Paris he often used to go there too, so that we could talk during the meal and decide upon our aims, plans, and further measures. I had no breathing-space, except for the time spent in the restaurant at lunch and supper. This went on throughout the war, except that later I obtained a somewhat better lodging, with somewhat better surroundings, on the premises occupied by the National Council in the Rue Bonaparte. But I never really had any intervals for rest, never any holidays or Sundays.
When Štefánik arrived in Paris in December, laborious propaganda of another kind was added. As I have mentioned, Štefánik had a number of acquaintances in Paris from former days. Prominent among these was the Parliamentary deputy de Monzie. As he was now a lieutenant in the Air Force, Štefánik, at the beginning of 1916, with de Monzie’s help, established contact with a number of other persons, chiefly in society, such as Deputy Lemery, Mme. de Jouvenel, the Weiss family, and others. As a result of his military activity this circle became wider, just as my new acquaintances gradually introduced me to further connections.
Through being in touch with the circles which I have mentioned, Štefánik had an opportunity of spreading the news with which I supplied him every day from the Czech and Austrian newspapers. He was often asked for written statements, memoranda, comments, and articles on these subjects. I therefore used to visit Štefánik every morning at his lodging, and supply him regularly with material of this kind. Here we acted in a psychologically sound manner, for there were many people who would never read a newspaper article on a given subject, although they would study it eagerly if the information was given to them in the form of a confidential memorandum for their use only. And such people became the propagators of ideas and reports which they regarded as having been reserved solely for them. For whole months at a time I would compile daily memoranda and informative articles in various guises, which Štefánik then placed in various quarters. This increased my work considerably, for my own connections with journalists and politicians were beginning to extend, and La Nation Tchèque also involved more and more work.
Our propagandist activity entered upon a new phase when Dr. Sychrava moved to Paris on April 18, 1916. He had had trouble with the Swiss Government on account of his political activities, and in the end, as the result of pressure on the part of the Austro-Hungarian Government, he had been compelled to leave Geneva. He had then settled for a short time at Annemasse, a French village on the Franco-Swiss frontier, where he continued to edit the Československá Samostatnost, and to communicate with Switzerland and Prague. The technical difficulties which this caused induced us to transfer the Československá Samostatnost to Paris. Thus arose a new centre of activity there in the form of an editorial office which demanded a new technical and propagandist organization.
In the first place we had to set up a printing office for the Czech paper. This was later extended so as to include the printing of our French publications, especially La Nation Tchèque and our second periodical Le Monde Slave, as well as all our pamphlets, books, maps, etc. This widened the scope of our propagandist activity. Dr. Sychrava began to work on the same lines and in conjunction with the same persons as I myself. When we had set up our more elaborate centre in the Rue Bonaparte for the National Council and its secretariat, for the editorial office of the Československá Samostatnost (later on for La Nation Tchèque as well), and also for the managing departments of our papers and publications, we were able to carry on our propaganda in surroundings, the more dignified character of which increased our chances of success. Our headquarters developed into a widespread and well-organized political undertaking, the strength and efficiency of which showed up very strikingly in comparison with similar undertakings on the part of other nations.
In June 1916 Štefan Osuský arrived in Paris from Chicago. I should like to say a few words here about his work. He had travelled by way of London, where he had met Masaryk. He had been sent from America by the Slovak organizations there in order to examine the situation in Europe and then, if the circumstances warranted it, to remain and co-operate with the National Council as a Slovak representative. He was accompanied by Gustav Košík, another Slovak delegate, who shortly afterwards proceeded to Russia and then returned to America.
Osuský, unlike Košík and others of his fellow-countrymen in America, soon gained an accurate idea of the situation in Europe, and realized what could and could not be done in a political respect. In spite of certain differences of opinion with regard to the co-operation between the Czechs and Slovaks and the organization of our whole movement, which we discovered at the very beginning, we worked together uninterruptedly and successfully. Osuský was capable, persevering and industrious. Being a Slovak, he devoted his attention mainly to Magyar affairs, and his knowledge of Magyar was of the utmost help to us in following events in Hungary during the war, and obtaining information which other people missed. He was able to proceed decisively and independently in important questions, and gained many acquaintances and friends. His abilities were soon recognized by those who were sharing his work.
Thus we gradually distributed the spheres of our activity and carried on systematic work for the ministries, for the Press, for our own papers, for a number of politicians, journalists, and various friends who needed special statements, memoranda, and commentaries on what was happening. We soon began to elaborate such memoranda, articles, and reports for London and Italy as well.
33
In order to give a general idea of our propaganda I should like to mention a few typical instances of the political propagandist work which we carried on in our Parisian surroundings. They throw an instructive light upon the democratic character of our work.
From the middle of 1916 to the end of 1918 I concentrated my propagandist activity on certain influential quarters in Paris. A part of the success of our propagandist work was due to the fact that we prepared material consisting of isolated news-items, reports, and whole articles for our journalistic and political friends, but ourselves remained in the background and allowed them to be the advocates of our claims, requirements, and ideas. If our demands were championed in England, France, and Italy by natives of those countries, this carried much more political weight under certain circumstances than if we ourselves had taken such action. Hence the political importance of what was done on our behalf by such people as Denis and Gauvain, Steed and Seton Watson, Milyukov, the people connected with the Corriere della Sera, etc., was considerable. One of the effective devices in politics is to know how to be at the right place in a discreet and unobtrusive manner.
The first of such spheres of our activity was around Professor Denis, and it comprised a number of professors from the Sorbonne, several of his personal friends, including some French Slavists and journalists. Among the members of this circle were, in addition to Denis himself, Meillet, Boyer, Haumant, Eisenmann, Moysset, Fournol, Gauvain, Robert de Caix, Victor Berard, and after a certain time Chéradame, Franklin-Bouillon, Albert Thomas. There were a number of other foreigners besides ourselves who frequented this circle. Thus, there were such Jugoslavs as Trumbić, Hinković, Vošnjak, Meštrovic, and De Giuli, while the Poles, who owing to the Russophil tendency of the whole group showed a certain reserve, were represented by Potocki. There were rarely any Russians, the most noteworthy being Maklakov, who was occasionally there from the end of 1917 onwards. After a certain time, especially in 1918, the Rumanians (Draghicescu, Florescu) made their appearance. Of the Czechs, the most frequent visitor beside myself was Dr. Sychrava.
Masaryk and myself, being professors, always sought to get into touch with scholars in France, Italy, England, and Russia, for reasons of principle, even when they were not politically influential, or took no direct share in practical politics. And although in diplomatic and political circles scholars and professors were often treated with caution and reserve, we always regarded them as skilful helpers, particularly for conveying definite and reliable knowledge about our affairs. This was the basis of what I may call our small-scale work, which began modestly enough, but which produced great results. The war awakened an interest in politics among all classes of the people, and it was therefore necessary to win their sympathies through all channels, and not merely to apply to ministers for an audience. Each of our academic fellow-workers had either influential political friends of his own, or else he himself was active as a writer and could introduce or recommend us to the more influential political circles.
All the members of Denis’s circle were active either as writers or lecturers. Moreover, they were all closely in touch with various Slavonic questions—Russian, Polish, Jugoslav, or our own—and by disseminating information about these subjects publicly they also produced an indirect effect upon responsible circles. They took a direct share in our propagandist work by writing for La Nation Tchèque, and later on for our review Le Monde Slave. As university professors and scholars they helped to establish our credentials with the French public, especially at the start, by showing that our movement was a serious one, and that it would have to be taken into account as a political factor.
It is not possible to enumerate all that was done by the members of this French group. Here it will be enough to say that the most active of them was Professor E. Denis, who, by his propaganda and his moral influence, rendered great services to us in certain French circles. He joined us at the very beginning, before we had any central organization, and he remained our friend during the most critical period of our efforts.
After the outbreak of the Russian revolution this group endeavoured to found an association for studying and propagating Slavonic matters. This was successfully organized by E. Fournol. In 1917 and 1918 the association arranged a number of public debates which exerted an influence on public opinion, and gained many friends for the Slavonic cause and the oppressed nations of Austria-Hungary. It was this which, in the spring of 1918, gave rise to the idea of holding a congress of the oppressed nations in Rome in April 1918, and then another in Paris. The second congress, however, did not take place.
Another such centre, which in the spring of 1916 promoted our cause in the early stages of our work, was the special committee for foreign affairs connected with the French Senate and directed by Senator d’Aunay. This committee was specially interested in the oppressed nations of Austria-Hungary, and under its auspices lectures were held in the Senate on the Czechoslovak question. It was there that I got into touch with senatorial circles, and on several occasions spoke about our affairs. This was a further step towards strengthening our position in the political circles of Paris.
There were two other centres of a similar character, both of which were important from a political and propagandist point of view. These were the “Société de Sociologie” and the “Comité National d’Études.” The former organization, at the head of which was the sociologist Professor Worms, was applying itself to the study of the war, and every fortnight held public meetings devoted to the various nations engaged in the war, their demands and aims forming the subject of discussion. All the Austro-Hungarian questions had been publicly examined in detail, and by this process further sections of the French public had been won over.
The “Comité National d’Études” was also influential. It is a society of prominent French intellectuals who meet every week to discuss some important problem in public life. The subject is first dealt with by an expert, a discussion is then held, and if any practical steps are considered necessary they are often taken by individual members who occupy an important position in public affairs. The lectures and discussions are issued in a limited edition as memoranda, and are placed at the disposal of persons in public and political life who are interested in the respective subjects. The Society carried out much admirable work, both during and after the war.
I regularly attended the meetings of the Society, and on several occasions I lectured there on Czechoslovak matters, and on the Austro-Hungarian problem in general. Those present on these occasions comprised such important and influential persons as Léon Bourgeois, Bergson, Appel (the rector of the Sorbonne), Professor Aulard, Gabriel Séailles, Professor Gide, Professor Bouglé, Albert Thomas, Professor Brunhes, Dubreuilh (the Socialist deputy), Professor Durkheim, Denis, Gauvain, Moysset, Eisenmann, as well as a number of senators, deputies, and journalists. The “Comité National d’Études” paid special attention to the problems of oppressed nations in the spring of 1918, and through its influential members intervened with the Government for the adoption of a point of view against Austria-Hungary. After the congress at Rome I lectured to the committee under the chairmanship of Léon Bourgeois, and this led to an intervention with the Government for promoting our recognition.
Besides these groups, there were three important organizations amongst which I made acquaintances. These were the Freemasons, the League for the Rights of Mankind and Citizenship, and finally the French Socialist Party. The latter party was a source of danger from 1917 because of the endeavours of certain of its influential members (notably Jean Longuet), who began to exert a strong pressure with a view to ending the war quickly. As regards the Freemasons, I established contact with them through the help of our fellow-countrymen in Paris, and with the support of the Jugoslav members of the Freemasons’ Lodge there, I had an opportunity of lecturing to the Lodge on our affairs, and gained the sympathies of Freemasons in Paris.
I often attended the meetings of the well-known League for the Rights of Mankind and Citizenship, and on several occasions I gave lectures there on the Austro-Hungarian problem. By its very character this was an excellent centre for our propaganda. By coming into contact with the members of the Socialist Party there, especially Albert Thomas, Dubreuilh, and Longuet, I endeavoured to counteract the tendencies unfavourable to us, for at first, under the influence of the International, there were many in the Socialist Party who were emphatically opposed to the policy of destroying Austria-Hungary, which they regarded as involving an unnecessary prolongation of the war.
I add one remark in connection with the policy of the French Socialist Party. From the summer of 1917 a group of Socialists was formed in Paris, around Albert Thomas, to deal with the war aims of the belligerents. They endeavoured to lead the Allied Socialist parties towards a policy favourable to the oppressed nations and the destruction of the Habsburg Empire.
On his return from Russia, after the revolution there, Albert Thomas organized a special committee for the protection of oppressed nations, its members comprising Socialist representatives of the Czechoslovaks, Poles, Rumanians, Jugoslavs, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and the Italians from Austro-Hungarian territories. After a certain time this committee carried out an important propaganda, taking part in a number of Socialist demonstrations, and exerting an influence upon the policy of the French Socialist Party and the English Labour Party. Together with Albert Thomas I had a share in this work throughout the period during which this committee existed. By this activity Albert Thomas rendered valuable services to our cause.
We used all these centres deliberately and systematically for our political purposes. From time to time I succeeded also in approaching a number of Catholic circles (e.g. Mgr. Baudrillart, and later on Mgr. Ceretti, now a Cardinal and an important political personage at the Vatican). I pursued my activities among them and they always granted me a benevolent hearing. Our propaganda met with considerable success in all these various circles. Those who took part in it were sincerely devoted to our cause. They all contributed an important share to our work, and in justice this should be emphasized.
(b) Our Propaganda in the Other Allied Countries
34
From what I saw of the situation as a whole, I should say that our propaganda in France was the most systematic and comprehensive. At the same time, a great deal was accomplished in England and Italy. As regards England, in addition to the important political and journalistic work carried on by Masaryk in the form of articles and interviews, a reference should be made to the Czech Press Bureau, already mentioned, which performed unobtrusive but thoroughly good services. The purposes of propaganda were admirably served by a well-appointed shop, the windows of which looked out on to Piccadilly Circus, and by means of maps, diagrams, statistics, pictures, and photographs gave the thousands of passers-by day by day a graphic idea of the Czechoslovaks and their aims. Here I again find it necessary to emphasize the great services rendered in London to our cause by our faithful friends and fellow-workers, Mr. H. Wickham Steed, Mme. Rose, and Dr. R. W. Seton Watson. Mr. Steed’s important position as Foreign Editor of The Times gave him access to all influential circles, and throughout the period of the war a large number of sympathizers met at his house for tea every Saturday afternoon. Here they conferred, debated, made plans and exchanged items of information. On these occasions I used to meet not only prominent Englishmen, but also Frenchmen, Italians, Japanese and Americans, Jugoslavs, Rumanians and Poles. It was here that I made the acquaintance of my present colleagues on the League of Nations—Avenol, Manthoux, and Comert. Through them I was introduced to members of the French Embassy, such as de Fleuriau, and later to Paul Cambon himself. Steed was a devoted adviser and friend to our people. He has, and always will have, a place of honour in the history of our liberation.
The same applies to Dr. Seton Watson, who had done valuable work on behalf of the Slovaks before the war, and to this now added his extensive activities on our behalf during the war. In October 1916, after consulting with Masaryk and Steed, he founded the New Europe, a monthly review which championed our programme and, in fact, the programme for liberating all the oppressed nations of Central Europe. Seton Watson gathered round him a group of collaborators, such as A. F. Whyte, M.P., Sir Arthur Evans, the brothers Leeper, Sir Bernard Pares, R. F. Young, L. B. Namier, and others, who wrote on Central European matters. A number of others were associated with this work on our behalf, and of them I should refer in particular to the late H. M. Hyndman, with his paper Justice; the late Ronald Burrows, Principal of King’s College; Lord Bryce; Dr. Harold Williams; Professor Sarolea, who at that time was editing the paper Everyman; the late Dr. Dillon; Mrs. Rosa Newmarch; and the Rev. Hunter Boyd. With the assistance of this group, and in co-operation with the Jugoslavs, Poles, Rumanians, Lithuanians, etc., public demonstrations and lectures were arranged.
Very valuable services were rendered to our cause later on by a new institution which came into existence at the initiative of Steed and Lord Northcliffe, and was located at Crewe House. This was a well-organized office for collecting detailed information about the political, economic, and military position of the Central Powers. This information was then used for propaganda, and for the assistance of both official and unofficial circles. Its work was carried on not only in England, but also in France, and from the spring of 1918 very widely in Italy as well. It operated by means of the distribution of pamphlets at the front among the Slav troops in the Austro-Hungarian armies. At first it was an institution for propaganda pure and simple, but under the influence of Northcliffe and Steed it became a powerful political factor, and played an important part in the movement for the destruction of Austria-Hungary. There is no doubt that in this respect it did much to change the orientation of British policy. I shall say more about this later on. Here I will only add that our Press Bureau and I myself actively co-operated with this institution, especially as regards its work in Italy.
Besides these various activities must be mentioned the wide contact established by Masaryk, more particularly in academic circles but also among journalists and writers. It was not until 1917 and 1918 that our propaganda in Italy began to assume extensive proportions, when a Ministry of Propaganda was set up and directed by Deputy Commandini. The Minister himself, together with his secretary Gino Scarpa, paid close attention to Austrian affairs and keenly co-operated with us.
A favourable centre for us was established in the entourage of the Deputy Torre, who from the outset promoted our interests. He was gradually joined by a number of other workers, amongst whom I would mention particularly G. Amendola, a gifted and accomplished politician who was then one of the hopes of Italy and who later became Minister for the Colonies. This group comprised a number of contributors to the Corriere della Sera—Senator Albertini, Professor Borghese, Ugo Ojetti, Emanuele Campolunghi, and others. To these must be added a number of irredentists and nationalists of that period, some of whom, such as Dadone, were also in our army.
In the spring of 1918, before our army had come into existence, our propaganda made excellent progress. We were assisted by a number of Parliamentary deputies, such as Arca, Canepa, Calenga, Senators Ruffini and Scialoja, with whom the Congress of Oppressed Nations was arranged at Rome in April 1918. At that period the first suggestions were made for establishing the “Lega italo-czecoslovacca,” which did much to spread a knowledge of our affairs in Italy and to cultivate cordial relations between the two peoples. Excellent work for the common cause was done especially by the Minister Lanza di Scalea, who afterwards served in our army. The co-operation of these sympathizers enabled us, notably after our army had come into being, to achieve much popularity in Italy, where our political aims and our military achievements were greatly appreciated.
Switzerland, of course, also came within the scope of our propaganda. Assistance was here given to our representatives by a number of friends of the Allied cause, of whom I should like to mention at least A. Bonnard, a contributor of many years’ standing to the Journal de Genève, E. Chapuisat, A. François, and Maurice Muret, on the staff of the Gazette de Lausanne. The names of all these should be placed on record at a moment when, as a result of their support also, we have attained our national aims.
35
The propaganda for the Czechoslovak cause in Russia had many features in common with that which was carried on in the other Allied countries, but there were a number of details in which it was markedly divergent.
The leading members of the Czechoslovak organizations at Petrograd, Kiev, and Moscow endeavoured, at the very beginning, to draw the attention of the Russian public to the importance of the Czechoslovak question, partly by manifestos and meetings, partly by communications to the daily Press. To a certain extent their task was easier than elsewhere, for it was natural that the Czechoslovak question should be more familiar to the Russians than to the public in Western Europe. Thus, the papers often discussed it without external prompting. Matters were made somewhat easier also by the existence of enthusiastic sentiments for the Slavonic races, which was manifested notably in the Right Wing circles near the Government. This explains why, in the early months of the war, the Russian newspapers published articles demonstrating the vital necessity of dismembering Austria-Hungary and liberating the Slavonic nations.
The propaganda of the Czech cause was not overlooked by those who were managing the League at Kiev. Thanks to the personal relations which they possessed they succeeded in gaining a very useful medium in the newspaper Kievlanin, and also in a number of other papers at Moscow and Odessa. At the end of 1916 work on similar lines was started also by a number of former prisoners of war who were working for the League. Propagandist activities of the most varied kind (Sokol exercises, theatrical performances, lectures, etc.) were carried on also in the large camps for Czech prisoners of war at Tashkent, Tyumen, Bobruisk, and elsewhere.
The Russian revolution considerably modified the tendency of Czech propaganda. After the short rule of the first interim Government new people from Socialist circles took charge of affairs. It was therefore necessary to begin the propaganda of the Czechoslovak cause almost afresh. A special propaganda commission was set up at the branch of the National Council, and Masaryk himself attended to questions of propaganda above all else. Immediately upon his arrival in Russia he renewed contact with his acquaintances and began to extend their circle. He succeeded in securing for the Czechoslovak idea the Press organs of three political groups. These comprised Ryetch and Ruskiya vyedomosti, the daily papers of the Cadet Party; Yedinstvo, the organ of Plekhanov’s group; and finally Volya naroda, the organ of the Right Wing of the Russian Revolutionary Socialists. Masaryk also lectured as the need arose, and took part in what were known as concert meetings which were then in vogue. At that time, too, numerous interviews which he granted to representatives of the Russian Press were used for the purpose of informing the Russian public about us.
At the end of the spring of 1917 Masaryk made an attempt in Russia to bring out a paper on similar lines to the New Europe in England. This attempt did not lead to any tangible result. At Masaryk’s initiative a group of Czech Social Democrats in Moscow then issued a special memorandum for the information of Socialist circles. The State Conference at Moscow in 1917 was also used for propaganda purposes, and on this occasion the Czechs in Russia were represented by Dr. Girsa, who was also one of the speakers.
The Bolshevik Revolution naturally thrust the propaganda of the Czechoslovak cause into the background. The Russian public was too much occupied with its own affairs. Nevertheless, as far as the disturbances in the early months of the revolution permitted, the Soviet circles were kept informed about the Czechoslovak programme. The Czechoslovak Army Corps, on its journey from Russia to France, also endeavoured to make the essentials of the Czechoslovak movement known to the Russians by distributing leaflets in the localities through which it passed.
The conflict between the Czechoslovak Army and the Soviet Government naturally put an end to these efforts. The actual achievement of our troops was of such a character that no further propaganda of our cause was needed.
36
The propaganda of our aims and endeavours in the United States of America was somewhat different from that carried on elsewhere, chiefly because the United States did not enter the war until 1917, and the whole character of our propaganda at the beginning of the war thus had to be adapted to the conditions in a neutral country. Moreover, the American public, to whom European and, still more, Central European conditions were extremely remote, knew little about us. The methods, however, which were adopted for our propaganda in America were similar to those elsewhere. They included a supply of news to the Press, personal relationships, memoranda, deputations, public lectures, etc.
Leading members of the American colony in America, notably E. Voska, T. Čapek, K. Pergler, and J. Tvrzický, got into touch with Allied official representatives there, and also with a number of prominent American politicians and journalists. Thus Voska had an opportunity of making the acquaintance of Colonel House. It was Voska’s counter-espionage work, too, which materially assisted our fellow-countrymen in their propaganda among American official circles. Voska, with the help of Consul Kopecký and others, drew the attention of the American authorities to the German and Austro-Hungarian diplomatic representatives’ agents, who were systematically impeding the supply of foodstuffs and war material to the Allied Powers, and were provoking disorder and strikes in American factories. They even went so far as to arrange for a conflict between the United States and Mexico. It was through Voska’s activity that the intrigues of Ambassador Dumba and of the German diplomats von Pappen and Boy-Ed were exposed.
In 1915 preparations were begun for carrying on a more extensive Press campaign. The American Bi-monthly Review, which was established in 1914 under the editorship of Professor Zmrhal for the purpose of informing the American public about our affairs, was soon discontinued; but a number of informative pamphlets, written by Dr. Smetánka, and Thomas Čapek’s Bohemia under Habsburg Rule, the first extensive propagandist publication, were issued. We also succeeded in interesting a number of daily papers, notably those of Chicago, in our cause. From the end of 1916 this propagandist activity was intensified and began to exert a strong influence, particularly from the moment when the United States entered the war. Of the more important items of our activity during this period should be mentioned the manifesto of the Czech National Alliance at the American elections and the memorandum sent by the Czech Socialists in America to the Socialist parties throughout the world. Reference should also be made to the campaign against American pacifism, the culminating point of which was the open letter addressed by the National League to Miss Jane Addams.
In 1916 numerous lectures were delivered by Pergler, Professor Šimek, Šárka Hrbková, Dr. Smetánka, and others at universities and university clubs. At the beginning of the same year Meyer London, a member of Congress, was induced to bring forward a resolution calling upon the President to convene a conference of neutral nations on the subject of peace terms, and to include the principle of the self-determination of small nations among those terms. A public meeting of those interested in this matter was held on February 25 and 26, 1916, and K. Pergler, the representative of the National Alliance, took this opportunity of acquainting several prominent Americans with our cause. Similar action was taken by Pergler during the session of the legislative committees of the States of Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Massachusetts, at the anniversary congress of the Alliance of Iowa State lawyers, and on other occasions. Special reference should here be made to Congressman Sabath, who did valuable work on our behalf.
Among the important steps taken in 1917 should be mentioned the activities in connection with the congress of small and oppressed nationalities, and the congress of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences at Philadelphia. The speeches delivered on these occasions were nearly all issued in pamphlet form and then distributed among universities, libraries, members of Congress, and other prominent public men.
An important stage in the development of our propaganda was the foundation of the Slav Press Bureau, which formed the beginning of an organized and concentrated Press activity. The bulletins of this bureau were distributed among about five hundred daily American papers, which gradually began to print the reports contained in them. At the same time the Slav Press Bureau became a centre for all who wished to obtain information about Czechoslovakia and Central Europe.
Soon after America entered the war the effects of this propaganda began to manifest themselves. As early as May 1917 Senator Kenyon, of Iowa, brought forward a resolution in the Senate advocating the independence of the Czechoslovak nation.
Parallel with the activities of the Slav Press Bureau there was a continuance of the lectures held at various American clubs, organizations and universities during 1917 and later. Thus, the Czechoslovak question formed the subject of speeches at the Labour Congress in Minneapolis under the chairmanship of the late Samuel Gompers, and also at the conference on international relations. Tvrzický and Dr. Smetánka, too, founded The Bohemian Review, which was later known as The Czechoslovak Review, and continued to appear after the war. This propaganda attained its maximum proportions after Masaryk’s arrival in the United States. His visit to Chicago was, in itself, an important propagandist event. He was welcomed by an assembly of about one hundred thousand persons, and this attracted general attention. The undertakings which were planned, and the methods of work which were adopted at that period, have been recorded by Masaryk himself in his Making of a State.
I should here like to emphasize the fact that the greatest propaganda in the United States during 1918 consisted of the achievements of our Siberian Army, which, by reason of its romantic aspects, particularly appealed to the American Press.