Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:44:24.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Richard Plaschka
Richard Plaschka
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In commenting on the papers presented in this session on the Czechs and the Poles, I would like to discuss Professor S. Harrison Thomson's approach to the interpretation of Czech history and Professor Piotr Wandycz's concept of divide et impera. In addition, although the main emphasis of this conference is on the nations within the monarchy, I believe that some remarks about the relationship of the individual to the empire might also prove useful.

Information

Type
Comments
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , January 1967 , pp. 314 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See ante, p. 204.Google Scholar

2 See ante, p. 205.Google Scholar

3 See ante, p. 264.Google Scholar

4 See Lemberg, Eugen, Nationalismus (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1964)Google Scholar. For supplementary information, see Hertz, Friedrich, Staatstradition und Nationalismus (Zürich: Europa Verlag, 1937)Google Scholar; Schramm, Percy Ernst, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1956)Google Scholar; and Brunner, Otto, Land und Herrschaft (5th ed., Vienna: Rohrer, 1965).Google Scholar

5 See his The Idea of Nationalism (New York: Macmillan, 1945). pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar

6 See his Nationalismus, pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar

7 Kramář, Karel, “Das böhmische Staatsrecht.” Reprint from Die Zeit. Wiener Wochenschrift für Politik, 1896, p. 13.Google Scholar

8 See especially Hafner, Stanislav, Das geistige Leben Österreichs im 19. Jahrhundert (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar

9 Gindely, to Chlumecký, , 11 29, 1862Google Scholar; and April 18, 1862, as quoted in a reprint of Krofta, Kamil, “Antonín Gindely,” Zprávy zemského Archivu [Reports of the Bohemian Archive], Vol. IV (1916), pp. 229 ff.Google Scholar

10 See Vol. XX (1880), p. 12.

11 Krofta, , “Antonín Gindely,” p. 140.Google Scholar

12 Jaroslav Werstadt, review of Krofta, 's “Antonín Gindely” in Český časopis historický, Vol. XXIV (1918), p. 329.Google Scholar

13 See the statistical material in Winkler, Wilhelm, Der Anteil der nichtdeutschen Volksstämme an der österreichisch-ungarischen Wehrmacht (Vienna: Seidel, 1919).Google Scholar