masters of it, and of ourselves. We could do what we liked—but did we always do as we should have wished and were we always on the alert? When things went badly, we were certainly weak. On the other hand, I have often heard thoughtful soldiers say that our men were most up to the mark under enemy pressure. How far is this true?
It may be argued that we once lost our independence and failed to preserve our State; further, that our Hussitism, our Bohemian Brotherliness, our whole Reformation—and a Reformation reveals what is inmost in moral and national character—were crude, ill-starred politically, and ended in defeat and subjugation; and that, in its political aspects, the Lutheran Reformation was more constructive. Again and again, as I thought of these things and of our national humanitarianism, I concluded that care for humanity does not proceed from any inborn passiveness but that it forms the true basis for a successful practical policy. This is proved by our re-conquest of independence, the re-establishment of our State. To me, the controversy upon our revolution of October 28 seems in reality a question of our State-creative capacity, our power of political construction, our activity in political leadership and ability to lead—a question whether we can be and, in the long run, remain, our own masters and the masters of our State.
To-day, as in the time of Hus, it behoves us to understand the whole position in Europe and in the world as well as at home. Our geographical situation and our history alike enjoin upon us a European and a world policy, despite the smallness of our nation and precisely because we are small. In the world as it is to-day can we keep permanently the independence we have won? Are we capable, intelligent, prudent, determined and tenacious enough to keep it? This is the kernel of the dispute about October 28.
Before and after the outbreak of war I, for my part, answered this question in the affirmative. I went abroad to begin revolutionary work in the conviction that the nation and its leaders at home would know how to put an Allied victory to good purpose, and that we should all work to realize our maximum political aims. The excellent way in which our revolution was carried through is a pledge of the future success. And my answer to the definite question whether we owe our freedom mainly to the work abroad or to the work at home, is that there was originally no difference of opinion about it. Dr. Rašín, in his manifesto of October 28; in the utterances of Dr. Kramář, the leader of the Geneva Delegation and chairman
