Optimal minority policies of CEE countries in the Interbellum

BigBlueBox

Banned
World War 1 resulted in the (re-)creation of some countries and the enlargement of others. While the main reason for the creation of these states and their enlargement was to create ethnic homogeneity and fulfill the right of self-determination, in the end it proved impossible to create borders that would leave countries completely homogeneous but still defensible and economically viable, and historical claims and geo-strategic concerns would also conflict with the principle of self-determination. This meant that some of the countries - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia in particular - had significant minority populations. These countries had difficulties with their minority populations - some minorities were openly rebellious, others were fifth columns. Some of these minorities might have only resisted the government ruling over them due to resentment over discrimination or assimilation attempts - others might have resisted regardless. If you were hired as an adviser to one of these governments to counsel them on how to deal with minorities, what advice would you give that government?

There are some constraints to the actions that these governments can take.
  1. No genocide. Conducting population exchanges with a neighboring country is acceptable, but only if the neighboring country agrees.
  2. No cessation of territory. You cannot grant independence to any part of the country or cede any territory to a foreign country. Limited autonomy or federalism is acceptable.
There are also drawbacks to various policies that can be taken of course. For example, recognizing multiple languages and providing education and public services in each of them could satisfy minorities, but it also requires expending more resources, and it hampers the ability of the armed forces and other state organizations to function as a cohesive whole. Recognizing multiple languages will also prevent assimilation and ensure that identity politics will always be a significant part of national politics. Conversely, recognizing only a single language and encouraging assimilation could spark considerable anger and resistance, but it is also more efficient and in the long run it could potentially assist in the creation of a common national identity for all citizens of the state. Likewise, granting (limited) autonomy to certain regions or switching to federalism could also appease minorities, but it might hamper the functioning of the state, and if the minorities are still intent on seceding then autonomy or federalism would make it harder to quash secession movements before they get out of control. So if you could give advice to the government of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, or Yugoslavia on how to handle minorities, what advice would you give?
 
The Yugoslav government came close to negotiating an autonomous Banovina for Croatia in '39, and the Slovaks and Rusyns (Carpathian Ukraine) gained autonomy from Prague in '38 as a side effect of Munich. If you can prevent WW2, the Sudeten population might join a pro-autonomy bloc with the other minorities and make the Czechs (51% of Czechoslovakia's population) equal partners in a federation.
The Jewish Labor Bund in Poland provides some great PODs for non-territorial forms of autonomy. They were Jewish nationalist, but opposed zionists to Jewish nationalist that wanted to move Palestine and revive Hebrew. The Bund advocated a combination of Marxist socialism, extreme secularism, and a Yiddish-speaking Jewish culture. Their biggest concept was do'ikayt (hereness), the idea that eastern Europe where Yiddish culture evolved was the Jews' home, and they should improve their home countries rather than emigrate to Palestine. The Bund was a state within a state in interwar Poland, with Yiddish language daycare, youth groups, newspapers, and education from kindergarten up through secondary school.
 
Top