Hubbry Logo
Czech CorridorCzech CorridorMain
Open search
Czech Corridor
Community hub
Czech Corridor
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Czech Corridor
Czech Corridor
Czech Corridor
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
  Proposed corridor
Dashed line – Burgenland today

The Czech Corridor (Czech: Český koridor; Slovak: Český koridor) or Czechoslovak Corridor (Czech: Československý koridor; Slovak: Československý koridor) was a failed proposal during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 in the aftermath of World War I and the breakup of Austria-Hungary. The proposal would have carved out a strip of land between Austria and Hungary to serve as a corridor between two newly formed Slavic countries with shared interests, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) and Czechoslovakia. A different name often given is Czech–Yugoslav Territorial Corridor. It is primarily referred to as "the Czech Corridor" today, because representatives of Yugoslavia at the Peace Conference stated that they would prefer it if the corridor were to be controlled solely by Czechoslovaks. The proposal was ultimately rejected by the conference and never again suggested.

Territory

[edit]

The corridor would have consisted of Burgenland and neighboring areas that would be found along the future border of Austria and Hungary. The area is sometimes called Western Transdanubia. In a February 1916 memorandum to the French government, Tomáš Masaryk stated that the corridor would correct "the division of the Czechoslovaks and Yugoslavs" (i.e. West Slavs and South Slavs),[1] arising from the 9th century Hungarian invasion.

The planned corridor would have been some 200 kilometers long and at most 80 kilometers wide. It would have cut through four Hungarian counties (Moson, Sopron, Vas and Zala). However, there exist variant proposals that would have made the area significantly larger.

History

[edit]

Czechoslovak delegates used the principle of self-determination, which was used as legitimate basis for creation of many nation states in Europe after World War I, as an argument for the creation of the corridor; however it is unlikely that the proposal would have been accepted on that principle, since of the 1.17 million people that lived in the area at the time, some 662,000 were ethnic Germans, 220,000 were Slavs (mostly Croats and Slovenes) and 289,000 belonged to other ethnolinguistic groups (mostly Hungarians). They further argued that the corridor would by virtue also connect the Germans in Southeastern Europe (Danube Swabians) with Central Europe. They also mentioned that this would benefit France's influence in the region. Today, however, European historians speculate that it was planned to give Czechoslovakia a larger share of land along the Danube in order to turn Pozsony/Pressburg/Prešporok (shortly thereafter renamed to modern Bratislava) into a major Danube harbor; this would have marginalized Hungary even more than it already was following the collapse of Austria-Hungary. The Czechoslovak delegates claimed that the city was the ancient capital, omitting the fact that the very multicultural city was also the royal capital of the Kingdom of Hungary for two and a half centuries and had a large German and Hungarian populace.

The proposal was backed by supporters of pan-Slavic ideologies as it would have created a joint border between two states that represented Slavic unity (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) – an idea that was also defended by Croatian nationalists who wanted the Burgenland Croats to be part of the Yugoslav state.[2] They argued that since Austria-Hungary no longer existed, there was no reason for Austria and Hungary to share a border and the creation of such a corridor would discourage both countries from harboring any thoughts of future alliance.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Czech Corridor

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Czech Corridor (Czech: Český koridor; Slovak: Český koridor) was a territorial proposal considered during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, aimed at creating a narrow strip of land connecting the newly independent Czechoslovakia to the Adriatic Sea via linkage with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. This corridor would have traversed ethnically Hungarian-inhabited regions in what is now southern Slovakia and northern Hungary, facilitating direct overland access for the landlocked state to Yugoslav Adriatic ports and strengthening Slavic alliances against potential revanchist threats from Hungary and Germany. The scheme, advocated by Czechoslovak diplomats including Edvard Beneš to secure economic and strategic outlets, was ultimately rejected by the Allied powers due to Italian opposition—fearing enhanced South Slavic influence—and logistical challenges posed by the corridor's ethnic composition and impact on Hungarian territorial integrity. Though unrealized, the proposal underscored early interwar efforts to reconfigure Central European borders for geopolitical stability and reflected broader ambitions for pan-Slavic connectivity amid the dissolution of Austria-Hungary.

Origins and Conceptual Development

Intellectual Foundations During World War I

The intellectual foundations of the Czech Corridor emerged amid 's upheaval, as Czech and Slovak exiles sought to redefine Central Europe's geopolitical landscape through Slavic solidarity. Influenced by longstanding panslavic currents that emphasized ethnic kinship and resistance to Austro-German hegemony, wartime thinkers prioritized territorial linkages to enable defensive alliances among successor states. This conceptual shift accelerated after 1916, when Czech leaders like Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and , operating from exile in and , coordinated with Allied powers to dismantle and forge independent Slavic polities. Their advocacy framed a contiguous Slavic bloc as a bulwark against revanchist threats, with early discussions envisioning connections between and South Slavic territories to facilitate military and economic cooperation. A pivotal influence was Karel Kramář, a Czech nationalist politician imprisoned by Austrian authorities in 1916 for alleged treasonous activities. Kramář's prewar and wartime visions promoted a Slavic federation integrating , Poles, , and under a loose confederative structure, positing that physical adjacency would strengthen post-Habsburg collapse. His ideas, articulated in manifestos and correspondence during the war, underscored as a pragmatic evolution of ethnic , influencing exile circles debating border adjustments. While Kramář initially favored Austro-Hungarian federalization, the war's progression radicalized his stance toward outright independence intertwined with pan-Slavic connectivity, laying groundwork for corridor proposals as symbolic and functional bridges. These foundations crystallized in 1917–1918 through the Czechoslovak National Council's diplomatic efforts, recognized by the Entente on August 7, 1918, which implicitly endorsed Slavic-oriented territorial claims. Proponents argued that severing German-Magyar contiguity via a narrow strip—potentially 20–50 kilometers wide—would isolate revisionist powers while affirming ethnic self-rule principles enshrined in Woodrow Wilson's . However, the concepts remained embryonic, blending idealistic unity with realist strategy, and lacked precise delineation until Paris Conference deliberations; Masaryk's group, for instance, linked corridor advocacy to broader Serbian alliances for Entente-aligned stability. Critics within Czech ranks, including Masaryk himself, tempered pure with democratic realism, viewing federation as aspirational rather than immediate.

Strategic Motivations for Slavic Unity

The proposal for the emerged from pan-Slavic intellectual currents during , aiming to forge a physical link between the newly independent and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes as a manifestation of broader Slavic solidarity against historical oppressors such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Advocates argued that geographic contiguity would symbolize the unity of northern (West Slavic) and southern (South Slavic) peoples, countering the fragmentation imposed by non-Slavic states like and , and fostering cultural and political cohesion in post-war . This ideological drive was articulated in Czechoslovak diplomatic memoranda, such as the February 1919 document Le voisinage des Tchécoslovaques et des Yougoslaves, which emphasized the corridor's role in binding Slavic successor states. Strategically, the corridor sought to enhance mutual defense capabilities by eliminating the buffer of non-Slavic territories, allowing for rapid military coordination against potential revanchist threats from or . Proponents, including Czechoslovak leaders like , viewed the connection as a bulwark to isolate German and Magyar ethnic enclaves, thereby weakening irredentist claims and stabilizing borders in the Basin. By creating a contiguous Slavic bloc, it would facilitate alliances akin to the later , deterring aggression through collective strength rather than isolated vulnerabilities. Economically, the linkage promised Czechoslovakia direct overland access to the via Yugoslav ports, bypassing reliance on adversarial neighbors for trade routes and reducing transport costs for industrial exports from Bohemian lands. This was particularly vital given Czechoslovakia's landlocked status and the need to integrate into Balkan markets, where Slavic unity could promote preferential economic ties over fragmented customs barriers. Such motivations reflected a pragmatic calculus: unity not merely as cultural affinity but as a hedge against encirclement by economically dominant non-Slavic powers, ensuring long-term viability for both states amid the Versailles order's uncertainties.

Proposal Details

Territorial Specifications

The Czech Corridor proposal specified a land strip connecting the southern Slovakian borders of to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, traversing western Hungarian territories to establish direct Slavic territorial continuity and sever the connection between and . This route primarily followed the Transdanubian region (Dunántúl), incorporating about one-third of its area from the Austrian frontier eastward to the Bakony Mountains, including districts with mixed Hungarian, German, and scattered South Slav populations. The corridor's path exploited highland terrain in western , featuring transverse railway lines but challenged by deep valleys that hindered longitudinal transport development, as noted in ethnographic assessments of Serbo-Croat linguistic islands (Sprachenarchipelago). Proposed dimensions varied across drafts, generally envisioning a width of 50 to 80 kilometers to support infrastructure like roads and rails, with a total length approximating 200 to 220 kilometers to reach Yugoslav territory near potential Adriatic access points. The affected Hungarian counties included western ones such as Vas, Zala, and parts of Győr-Moson, encompassing lands later contested in the plebiscites. This configuration aimed to grant landlocked an overland outlet to the sea via Yugoslav ports like those in , bypassing reliance on Danubian navigation or foreign concessions. Territorial control was debated, with suggestions for joint Czechoslovak-Yugoslav administration or Czechoslovak sovereignty over the northern segments, reflecting the proposal's emphasis on strategic unification over ethnic homogeneity in the corridor zone.

Key Proponents and Diplomatic Advocacy

The Czech Corridor proposal originated with Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, who envisioned it as a strategic link between and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes to promote pan-Slavic unity and secure access routes against potential revanchist threats from and . Masaryk, as a key architect of Czechoslovak independence, integrated the corridor into broader demands for territorial integrity presented during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, arguing it would prevent the isolation of Slavic states in . Edvard Beneš, serving as Czechoslovakia's foreign minister and chief delegate at the conference, provided diplomatic advocacy by formally advancing claims for the corridor's territory, which would traverse Hungarian lands in , including parts of Vas, Zala, and Somogy counties. Beneš coordinated with Allied powers, emphasizing the corridor's role in stabilizing the post-Habsburg order, though his efforts focused on integrating it with other border adjustments like those in . On the Yugoslav side, while pan-Slavic intellectuals and some South Slavic nationalists supported the concept for fostering ethnic solidarity, Prime Minister Nikola Pašić adopted a more pragmatic stance at Paris, deprioritizing the corridor to prioritize maximalist territorial gains elsewhere, such as in the Banat and Croatia-Slavonia. This reluctance stemmed from Pašić's focus on consolidating Serbian dominance within the new kingdom, limiting joint advocacy despite shared Slavic interests. The proposal thus relied heavily on Czechoslovak initiative, with limited reciprocal Yugoslav diplomatic push, reflecting divergent national priorities amid the conference's ethnic patchwork negotiations.

Negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference

Presentation and Entente Response

The Czechoslovak delegation, led by Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Vlastimil K. Kramář, presented territorial demands including the Czech Corridor proposal during their formal exposé to the Peace Conference on February 5, 1919. The corridor aimed to establish a direct territorial connection between Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and (), traversing areas in western with mixed German and Hungarian populations to foster Slavic strategic unity and mutual defense. Proponents argued it would encircle , preventing , and align with broader goals of regional stability post-Austria-Hungary dissolution. The Entente powers received the proposal with limited enthusiasm. American President prioritized ethnic self-determination under his , objecting to reallocating non-Slavic majority territories without plebiscites, which undermined the corridor's viability. British Prime Minister and other delegates viewed it as disruptive to equitable border settlements, favoring stability over artificial linkages. France, while supportive of anti-German alliances like the future , did not advocate forcefully for the corridor amid competing priorities such as Italian claims and Hungarian concerns. The idea was ultimately rejected, with the Conference opting for borders more reflective of ethnographic realities, paving the way for Burgenland's assignment to in the 1920 Treaty of Saint-Germain.

Opposition from Affected Parties

Italy vehemently opposed the Czech Corridor proposal, perceiving it as a threat to its strategic interests in the Adriatic and by fostering a powerful Slavic confederation that could isolate Italy economically and politically from . Italian diplomats, including Giuseppe Salvago Raggi and , argued during the Peace Conference's Commission for Czechoslovak Affairs (February–March 1919) that the corridor would undermine Trieste's commercial viability and contravene the principle of self-determination, given the predominance of non-Slavic populations— and Magyars—in the affected territories. On 25 March 1919, the Central Committee for Territorial Questions echoed this stance, drafting a rejection that emphasized alternative trade routes over territorial reconfiguration. Hungary, facing direct territorial losses in its western districts proposed for the corridor, resisted on grounds of national integrity and ethnic homogeneity, as these areas contained substantial Magyar majorities whose separation would fragment the state further after the negotiations. Hungarian representatives at the conference highlighted the corridor's incompatibility with plebiscitary , a principle inconsistently applied but invoked to preserve Hungarian lands amid broader post-war border disputes. The provisional Hungarian government under , emerging in late 1919, continued to protest such encroachments, viewing them as extensions of Czechoslovak expansionism already contested in northern . Austria likewise objected to variants of the proposal routing through southern Styria or Burgenland, regions with German-speaking majorities integral to the nascent of German-Austria's viability. Austrian delegates contended that yielding these territories would exacerbate economic isolation and demographic vulnerabilities, especially as the area overlapped with Hungarian claims in Burgenland, complicating tripartite objections. The corridor's estimated 220-kilometer span through Burgenland and western was seen as indefensible strategically and demographically unjust, with local German and Hungarian communities opposing incorporation into Slavic states. Local populations in the proposed corridor zones, predominantly German-Austrians and (comprising around 60% of inhabitants in key segments), mobilized against the plan through petitions and protests, arguing it violated Woodrow Wilson's on ethnic . This grassroots resistance, coupled with great-power reluctance to enforce unpopular borders, underscored the proposal's impracticality amid the ethnic mosaics of the former Habsburg lands.

Rejection and Immediate Aftermath

Primary Reasons for Failure

The Czech Corridor proposal failed primarily due to vehement Italian opposition at the Paris Peace Conference, where prioritized its expansive claims to the Adriatic coast, including Dalmatian territories from the former , viewing the corridor as a direct threat to its strategic dominance in the Mediterranean. Italian diplomats, led by , argued that facilitating a land link between Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and would empower a pan-Slavic bloc capable of challenging Italian naval and territorial interests, especially amid the unresolved Adriatic question that stalled broader conference agreements. This stance aligned with 's wartime expectations of compensation for joining the Allies in 1915, despite its armies' focus on the Alpine front rather than decisive contributions against . Compounding Italian resistance was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's insistence on ethnic as outlined in his of January 8, 1918, which the corridor violated by necessitating a narrow strip through predominantly South Slavic, German, and Hungarian-inhabited regions without majority Czechoslovak populations. The proposed route, spanning approximately 400 kilometers from southern through to the Dalmatian coast near Split, would have incorporated areas with complex ethnic compositions—Slovenes (about 1.3 million in the region), Croats, and minorities—raising risks of and instability contrary to the conference's aim of stable nation-states based on plebiscites and ethnographic lines. American delegates, including Wilson, pressured for northward border adjustments to avoid such artificial constructs, ultimately deeming the corridor inconsistent with post-war principles of national viability. Practical and strategic infeasibility further eroded support, as the terrain—encompassing the and plateaus—presented formidable engineering challenges for rail and road infrastructure, with elevations exceeding 1,000 meters and limited flatland for viable transport corridors. Economically, Czechoslovakia's existing riverine access via the and , coupled with port arrangements at and (pre-war), diminished the urgency of an overland sea link that would require massive investment amid post-war reconstruction; military analysts noted the corridor's vulnerability to or due to its slim width (estimated 20-50 km in proposals) and exposure to flanking attacks from residual Hungarian or Austrian forces. Lack of unified backing within the nascent Yugoslav state, fractured by Serb-Croat tensions and Pašić's centralist policies, also weakened advocacy, as ceding coastal access risked exacerbating internal divisions without reciprocal gains. These factors culminated in the proposal's abandonment by mid-1919, paving the way for the 1920 Treaty of , which conceded Italian demands and fragmented Yugoslav Adriatic holdings.

Short-Term Geopolitical Consequences

The rejection of the Czech Corridor at the Paris Peace Conference prevented the further dismemberment of beyond the provisions of the , signed on June 4, 1920, thereby maintaining Hungarian territorial continuity and avoiding the creation of non-contiguous Hungarian enclaves separated by Slavic territory. This outcome spared an estimated additional loss of approximately 50 kilometers-wide strip encompassing cities such as , , , and , which would have intensified Hungarian revisionist sentiments immediately following the treaty. In response to the lack of geographic linkage, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes formalized a defensive alliance on August 14, 1920, directed primarily against potential over lost territories. This bilateral pact laid the groundwork for the , expanded to include with a signed on April 23, 1921, establishing a regional security framework to preserve the post-war borders amid fears of revisionism from the mutilated states like and . The decision underscored the prioritization of ethnic over strategic Slavic unification, contributing to fragmented alliances in rather than a contiguous pan-Slavic bloc, which in turn heightened reliance on French diplomatic guarantees for the successor states' stability through the early 1920s. Persistent ethnic Hungarian minorities in southern , unaddressed by the corridor, fueled low-level cross-border tensions and propaganda efforts by Hungarian nationalists, exacerbating regional insecurity until the stabilization provided by the Little Entente's joint military consultations in 1921.

Historical Analysis and Legacy

Potential Alternate Outcomes

Had the Czech Corridor been implemented at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Czechoslovakia would have acquired a territorial strip approximately 80 kilometers wide traversing southern Austria and northern Hungary, linking its borders directly to those of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) and providing access to the Adriatic Sea near ports like Trieste or Fiume (Rijeka). Proponents, including Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš, contended that this would secure vital maritime outlets, mitigating the economic drawbacks of landlocked status by enabling independent port development and reducing transit costs through potentially hostile neighbors such as Germany or Austria. Interwar Czechoslovakia, as Europe's most industrialized state outside Germany with exports comprising over 40% of its GNP by 1928, faced heightened vulnerability from reliance on foreign ports like Hamburg, where tariffs and political pressures inflated logistics expenses by up to 20-30% compared to coastal peers. Geopolitically, the corridor would have severed territorial contiguity between Austria and Hungary, impeding potential Anschluss or Danubian confederations that could revive Habsburg influence or facilitate German penetration into the Balkans. Beneš and Czech intellectuals viewed it as a strategic bulwark, isolating German-speaking populations in Austria from eastern expansion and reinforcing the Little Entente's defensive pact with Yugoslavia and Romania against revisionist claims from Hungary and Germany. This linkage might have bolstered Slavic solidarity, potentially deterring Hungarian irredentism in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, where ethnic tensions fueled border skirmishes into 1920, and complicating Nazi Germany's 1938-1939 dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by creating a southern flank alliance with Yugoslav forces numbering over 1 million by 1938. However, implementation could have provoked immediate resistance, exacerbating ethnic conflicts in the corridor zone—predominantly German and Hungarian areas with Slavic minorities comprising less than 25%—possibly mirroring the 1918-1920 border wars that claimed thousands of lives. A fortified corridor might have strained relations with the Western Allies, who prioritized stabilizing as a buffer against , and could have accelerated Yugoslav internal fractures by integrating heterogeneous territories, foreshadowing the kingdom's 1929 centralization crisis. Long-term, enhanced Czech-Yugoslav ties might have altered alignments, with a sea-accessible Czechoslovakia potentially sustaining longer resistance to German occupation through diversified supply lines, though this assumes no compensatory Allied concessions elsewhere at Versailles.

Long-Term Implications for Central European Borders

The rejection of the proposal at the Paris Peace Conference preserved the interwar borders between and the truncated as delineated in the (signed , ) and the (signed June 4, 1920), avoiding the transfer of approximately 80 kilometers of territory in western —primarily in the region—to . This outcome maintained Hungarian territorial continuity in the area, preventing further fragmentation beyond Trianon's already severe losses, which reduced Hungary's population from 21 million to about 7.5 million and its territory by two-thirds. By forgoing the corridor, the Conference sidestepped integrating predominantly non-Slavic (German and Hungarian) populations into a Slavic connective strip, potentially averting localized ethnic grievances akin to those in the , which fueled German . In the , the absence of a direct land link between and constrained practical military and economic integration, compelling reliance on the diplomatic framework of the (formed 1920–1921 between , , and ) to safeguard the post-Versailles status quo against Hungarian revisionism. Without territorial contiguity, cooperation remained limited to mutual defense pacts and economic accords, such as preferential tariffs and joint infrastructure projects, but lacked the strategic depth of a unified bloc; this vulnerability manifested in Czechoslovakia's isolation during the 1938 , where territorial cessions ( to ) and subsequent Vienna Awards (southern to in November 1938) dismantled its borders piecemeal. Historians attribute part of this fragility to the corridor's failure, as it reinforced Czechoslovakia's encirclement by revisionist neighbors (, , ) and , which opposed the proposal to curb Slavic Adriatic ambitions and prioritize ethnic-based delimitations for regional balance. Post-World War II border restorations, enacted via the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, largely reverted to interwar lines in (with population transfers to homogenize demographics), underscoring the corridor rejection's role in entrenching a fragmented that prioritized ethnographic principles over geopolitical —yet one prone to , as evidenced by and the 1993 Velvet Divorce splitting . The preserved Austria-Hungary frontier in , settled via 1921 arbitration and plebiscites (e.g., to ), has endured without major contestation, contrasting with volatile shifts elsewhere, such as Yugoslavia's dissolution into seven states. This stability in the western sector highlights how rejecting the corridor mitigated one vector of ethnic tension, though broader Central European borders remained susceptible to great-power realignments until integration eroded their salience after 1989.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43737573
  2. https://historyofthetwentiethcentury.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/176-1919-Austria-Hungary-I.pdf
  3. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/czechoslovak-hungarian-border-conflict-1-1/
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311698848_On_the_history_of_the_Czechoslovakian-Yugoslav_corridor_the_Czech-Slovene_point_of_view
  5. https://journals.muni.cz/cphpjournal/article/download/15121/12080
  6. https://www.forumhistoriae.sk/sites/default/files/forhist.2021.15.1.2.pdf
  7. https://www.academia.edu/38161809/War_after_the_War_The_Role_of_the_Czechoslovak_Legionaries_in_the_New_Europe
  8. https://www.academia.edu/121563854/THE_INQUIRY_AND_THE_PARIS_PEACE_CONFERENCE_AMERICAN_PREPARATIONS_FOR_PEACE_AND_THE_FUTURE_OF_HUNGARY
  9. https://www.magtudin.org/The%20_road_to_the_trianon_peace_treaty.htm
  10. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv12/d86
  11. https://americanaejournal.hu/index.php/americanaejournal/article/view/45451/44106
  12. https://erenow.org/modern/paris1919/22.php
  13. https://www.magtudin.org/Trianon.htm
  14. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/famines-in-europe-us-relief/
  15. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cz-history-republic-5.htm
  16. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/the-paris-peace-conference-and-its-consequences-1-1/
  17. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv12/d87
  18. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:128513/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  19. https://academic-journals.eu/pl/download?path=%252Fuploads%252FZm9sZGVycHVibWVkaWE2MA%253D%253D%252Fdocuments%252Ftrimarium-2-2.pdf
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oskar-Krejci/publication/272814898_Geopolitics_of_the_Central_European_Region_The_View_from_Prague_and_Bratislava/links/54ef32070cf25f74d721ba88/Geopolitics-of-the-Central-European-Region-The-View-from-Prague-and-Bratislava.pdf
  21. https://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr/bitstreams/0be45858-84ec-4536-83b9-cf57b61c1d24/download
  22. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1145521.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.