Paris Peace Conf. 184.01102/41
I do not think the historical question is fairly stated. No mention
is made of the fact that Silesia was one of the main divisions of
Poland before the year 1000. Its connection with Poland thus not
only antedated but lasted longer than its connection with Bohemia.
Its population may be regarded as wholly Polish until the period of
German colonization. That Frederick the Great, in order to make his
title more clear, required the sanction of the Bohemian Diet to the
cession to him does not seem to me a serious argument.
Professor Kerner’s ethnographical argument also does not appear to me
to be sound. A generation ago, before the Polish population of
German Silesia had wakened up to a sense of their nationality,
Germans often declared that they were not to be regarded as Poles
but only as Silesians, or “Wasserpolacken” as they contemptuously
termed them. Since that time they have in great part awakened, and
no one today seriously attempts to deny that they are Poles. The
Poles of Austrian Silesia seem to be less awakened, but they are
merely a detached fragment of the others. I grant, however, that the
closeness of the Polish and the Czech languages, especially the
dialects of the border districts, makes it likely that the Silesian
Poles could be absorbed by the Czechs without very great difficulty.
On the other hand, Professor Kerner states further on that the
employers intend to use Slovac labor in place of Polish, which
indicates an intention to displace rather than to assimilate. If the
German Austrians get Northern Bohemia they may intend to replace the
Czech mining population there by Germans, but this does not
strengthen their claim to [Page 313]
the district. It may be noted too that, though it is not unlikely
that the Germans in Silesia would prefer Czech to Polish rule, this
sort of statement is not easy to control and, as far as my
observation goes, is put forward by both sides regarding any third
element in every nationality dispute.
I shall not try to enter into the economic argument. This is a
complicated question and can be dealt with by specialists much
better than by myself. They will know how much weight should be
attached to such considerations as the political union of a given
mineral region. If the Czechs offer the prospect of a more orderly
and efficient administration than do the Poles, it is natural that
they should have the support of the capitalists and the employers of
labor.
The geographical considerations may also be referred to specialists
on the subject.
[Enclosure]
Professor R. J.
Kerner to Professor A. C.
Coolidge
Subject: Report on the Czecho-Slovak-Polish
boundary question (Mährisch Ostrau-Teschen)
The report presented here is the result of a trip of observation
taken by Captain John Karmazin and the writer to the
Mahrisch-Ostrau-Karwin coal region, i. e., the area under
dispute between the Czechs and the Poles and commonly known as
the “fight for Teschen”. The places visited by the writer were
Mährisch Ostrau, Witkowitz and Teschen. Captain Karmazin will
report later in special reference to the economic features of
the question and their relation to Bolshevism. He will also make
a more extended trip of observation.
The essential features of the question discussed here may be most
conveniently summed up under five headings:
-
a.
- Historical.
-
b.
- Ethnographical.
-
c.
- Economic.
-
d.
- Geographical.
-
e.
- Cultural.
a) Historical:
This argument is wholly on the side of the Czechs. In the 14th
century Silesia became a “Crown Land of Bohemia” and remained so
until today. When Frederick II seized Silesia he required not
only Maria Theresia’s signature of cession but likewise a
special act of the Diet of Bohemia (1743) which his lawyers
clearly recognized possessed the sovereign rights to dispose of
a crown land. Hence today, so far as legal theory is concerned,
the parliament which possesses the sovereign [Page 314] rights of the Bohemian crown
has the legal jurisdiction over this province.
b) Ethnographical:
If the official census be taken as the basis of ethnic
delimitation, the ethnographical argument would be decidedly in
favor of the Poles. This includes the Silesians (Slazaky) as Poles. They speak a dialect
“after their own” and make up the bulk of the population east of
the political district of Friedek. The observer asked hundreds
of these inhabitants whether they were Poles. They answered
invariably “No! We are Silesians.” The official census which is
based on the Umgangssprache
* is most favorable to the Germans.
By including the “Silesians” as Poles it gives that doubtful
linguistic area to them. As a matter of fact the region east of
Friedek and to Bielitz is a miniature Macedonia, in which over
half of the mass of population consists of an undeveloped Slavic
dialect group. The rest of the common people is undoubtedly
Polish. The upper classes are Czech, German and Polish, the
latter being by far the weaker in the hotly contested district
of Teschen.
Thus, by official statistics, (see Appendix: Special Ortsrepertorium für Schlesien 1917)35 the Political
District of Teschen shows a total population of 102,552 (1910),
of which by the Umgangssprache basis,
77,147 are Poles, 17,045 Germans, 6,204 Czechs. It is asserted
by the Czechs, many Germans (who prefer the Czechs to the
Poles), and by many “Silesians” that if a neutral commission
took a plebiscite it would result favorably to inclusion in the
Czecho-Slovak Republic.
If the official census is taken as the basis of the ethnic line,
then the boundary usually designated and which corresponds in
general to the eastern boundary of the Political District of
Friedek would be used—of course, this is looking at it wholly
from the ethnic point of view and takes the official statistics
as a basis, calling the “Silesians” Poles against their will. If
some regard is shown for the “Silesians” of this district a line
running north and south from Bielitz would perhaps delimit the
Czecho-“Silesian” area (See Appendix I Map of Moravia and
Silesia).
It may therefore be concluded that should this area or that part
of it east of the Oderberg–Kaschau Railroad be given to the
Czechoslovak Republic no crying injustice would be done to the
Poles. The bulk of the population is “Silesian” and not Polish,
and has no definite antipathy toward such a solution. But it
should be noticed [Page 315] that
the arguments for this solution are not as strong
ethnographically as they are on historical and economic
grounds.
c) Economic:
The Friedek-Teschen Political Districts form one economic unit.
They form the rich coal region known as the Ostrau-Karwin
Coal-Area. The center of this manufacturing and mining district
is Mahrisch Ostrau (in Moravia, at the very boundary line of
Silesia). The cities of Bohumin, Oderberg, Teschen, Karwin,
Friedek, and Freistadt all drain economically into Mährisch
Ostrau. Under the Austrian administration the office of the
inspector of mines for the whole district was located at
Mährisch Ostrau and this city was not only economically but
administratively (through no pressure on the part of the Czechs)
the head and heart of the coal area. It is connected with the
mines and factories by a complicated network of railways which
center there. The whole region from Teschen to Bielitz therefore
is likewise turned economically to the west and not to the
east.
The coal area has been divided provisionally by the local
national councils (Czech and Polish). This may be traced by
reference to the local treaty and supplements thereto included
in the appendix to this report (See Appendix No. 9). It was,
however, the understanding of the Czechs that like conditions
(wages, hours, etc.) should exist in all parts of the area. It
was impossible to investigate the truth or falsity of these
statements or whether the treaty has been lived up to by both
sides. It is nevertheless a fact that since historically,
economically, and administratively the region has been a unit
the backing which that argument can secure is overwhelming. So
far as it is known, only one of the mine owners is opposed to
his property becoming a part of Czecho-Slovakia—i. e., Count
Larisch, whose concessions lie at the extreme end of the Karwin
coal region. Business men and capitalists are in favor of
keeping the region as one unit because the division into two
will mean dual state ownership and their concessions would thus
be scattered in the two states, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia.
Please see the letter by Gunther (Appendix No. 7) in which he
advocates this. Sonnenschein who directs the steel works and
mines in Witkowitz is of the same opinion. Their argument is a
capitalist argument—they do not want two legislations, different
wages, and varied conditions to obtain in the same coal region.
They point to Bolshevism and declare that the only way to stop
it is the inclusion of the coal area, now being exploited, in
the Czecho-Slovak republic. They make much of the fact that the
Poles have a vast field north of the Oderberg-Kaschau railroad
which is still undeveloped and that there they will have plenty
of coal in a state which is, without Silesia, one of the richest
in coal resources in Europe.
[Page 316]
The Poles point out that not only ethnically but economically
they need the region. The Oderberg–Kaschau railroad is not only
the connecting link between Moravia and Slovakland, but between
Polish Upper Prussian Silesia and Galicia. In general, they
admit the weight of the remaining economic arguments, but wish a
precise ethnic delimitation nevertheless.
Dr. Michejda of Teschen, long a member of the Austrian Parliament
and a member of the Polish National Council of Teschen,
advocated the internationalization of the Oderberg–Kaschau
railroad and the granting of the territory west of the railroad
to the Czechs, east of it to the Poles. On the whole this
appears to be a reasonable division. But the bulk of the Polish
intellectuals who have been imported into Silesia in the last
generation are not with him in this.
The report which Captain Karmazin will make on the economic
aspects of this question in relation to Bolshevism should be
read in connection with this section. The best maps of the whole
coal area are to be found in the appendix (Appendices Nos. 2–4.
No. 2 was especially corrected up to date for the American Peace
Commission by the Chief Mining Inspector).
It appears to the observer that the solution which would treat
the whole area as one unit would have the greater weight. The
already Czech part of the coal region could not justly be taken
from the Czechs in view of their lack of coal and their absolute
domination of the region through Mährisch Ostrau. Hence that
part of the field west of the Oderberg–Kaschau railroad should
undoubtedly be given to the Czechs. Teschen is German, not
Polish. If the railroad is not neutralized, it should be given
to the Czechs.
d) Geographical:
In general this part of Silesia is geographically a part of Upper
Prussian Silesia and is inclined geographically more to the
north and west than the east. The boundary line between the
Czecho-Slovak state might from geographical grounds be drawn
along the Vistula or along the Olsa rivers or the divide east of
Teschen. There appears to be no good geographical boundary west
of Teschen. The Oderberg-Kaschau railroad, while forming a good
boundary from ethnic, economic and strategic reasons is hardly
to be recommended on grounds of geography.
e) Cultural:
At present the part of Silesia east of a line north and south of
Teschen is undoubtedly under the influence of Polish culture.
Down to the eighteenth century it was under the influence of
Czech culture and would become a Czech region in a generation,
as the Czechs and German employers of labor intend to use Slovak
labor in place of the Poles.
[Page 317]
Conclusion:
The best solution would appear to be one of a strict ethnic
division. In this case the problem is not only complicated by
economic, geographical, and administrative obstacles, but by the
ethnic character of the district between Friedek and Bielitz.
The observer is of the opinion that the inclusion of all the
territory west of the railroad (Oderberg–Kaschau) in
Czecho-Slovakia and all east of it to Poland and the
neutralization of the railroad would be a just decision. It is a
compromise between the historic rights of the Czechs and the
ethnic rights of the Poles (counting the Silesians as Poles). It
is likely that a plebiscite would be in favor of the Czechs in
the district of Teschen.
Respectfully submitted,
