The political meaning of the idea of central and eastern europe

The work is not an attempt to answer the question „what is Central Europe?“. The aim of this work is to find out how the best-known and most influential intellectuals of the region – Czesław Miłosz, György (George) Konrád and Miland Kundera understood the political meaning of this region and to find the main differences between their interpretations. Why is it of any importance to examine the thought of these three intellectuals? First of all, these authors come from different parts of Central Europe and their different perspectives allow us to see the understanding of the identity of the region from three unique points of view. Secondly, the writings of these three intellectuals have played a major role in shaping the understanding of Central Europe among the Western readers. The term Central Europe (Mitteleuropa) came into broad usage on the initiative of Germans the culminating point of the hegemony of German culture in the region. During the First World War, the leaders of German and Austro – Hungarian Empires thought that the victory in the war would ensure the realizations of the visions of German cultural domination in the region. The president of the newly independent of Czechoslovakia Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk put forward a new and influential vision of the region, which was based on liberal and democratic principles. However, the infamous Munich Agreement marked the beginning of the end to Masaryk‘s vision of Central Europe. After the Second World War German culture can no longer be the unifying basis of the identity of Central Europe. The conception of Central Europe which was discredited by the Nazi Germany would undergo fundamental changes. The wish to introduce the Western readers to Central and Eastern Europe marked the beginings of a new stage of discussions about the identity of this region. The one theme common to the political thought of Miłosz, Kundera and Konrád is their distrust of Western politics. Kundera and Miłosz make a distinction between culture and politics, they both see culture as being superior to politics. Konrád‘s liberal idea of antipolitics should be understood in the context of his disillusionment with the political realities of the 80‘s. For him political romanticism becomes the way by which political realism is opposed – this leads him to look for aesthetic and emotional political arguments. The creation of the space of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the rejection of modern political ideologies and skeptical stance towards progressivist view of history are the most important themes of Miłosz‘s political writings. His conception of Central and Eastern Europe is based on the historical experiences of the cultural diversity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Miłosz sees the idea of the region as a task of fostering the common cultural experiences of Central and Eastern Europe. He sees culture as a unifying element in the region, which can become an antidote to the dangers of nationalism, which is the divisive element in the region. Konrád‘s disillusionment with contemporary political reality leads him back into the past, into the „golden age“. For him Austro – Hungarian Empire becomes an equivavalent of Central Europe. This leads him to disregard the political realities of Austro – Hungarian Empire, which he tends to idealize and romanticize. During the years of Cold War Konrád used the term Mitteleuropa, which is historically connected with the idea of German hegemony in the region. After the collapse of Soviet bloc, he began to see the region through the perspective of the so-called small nations. Even before the article „The Tragedy of Central Europe“, which marked the beginning of intense discussions about the identity of Central and Eastern Europe, Kundera was developing his vision of the fate of small nations. The fate of the small nations of Central Europe is determined by their unfavorable geopolitical situation