Intermodality however remained an unfamiliar term until nowadays, even though, of course, it had actually existed long before the Interbellum. The concrete realisation of intermodal structures in interwar Czechoslovakia remained an empirical affair rather than a truly political programme.

The international conferences which proliferated between the wars, and which had been convened to address the crisis in which European transport found itself (especially in the new countries of Central Europe), were very useful. They were particularly helpful in making known the results of national experiences and were a melting pot for new ideas and for new concepts, permitting a better co-ordination at supranational level. The subject was brought up at the international conference in Lisbon in 1921 by Georges de Leener, professor at Brussels University, who dealt with the question of combined transports by rail and water in the framework of negotiations on the subject of international transport regulations. The co-operation between different modes of transport seemed in his eyes to be self-evident at this period of shortage and increased cost of combustibles. Since it needed far less coal to move a ton of merchandise by water rather than by rail, it would be advantageous to reduce rail freight in favour of water traffic. The conference expressed the wish that combined tariffs, with direct expedition by rail and water, should be developed in international relations. It recommended that railway and navigation companies should cooperate. The conference also decided to "discuss at its next session at the Congress of Rome in 1922, the questions of unification and simplification of administrative formalities, especially those of customs..."[1]

I have been engaged for four years in economic and social history research, specializing in the history of transport in Czech countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. After my degree, of which the dissertation dealt with the development of Czech railways in the 19th century[2] and my Master's degree, covering the period from 1918 to the present and exploring the whole spectrum of transports[3], I have wished to devote my PhD. to the question of transport in Central Europe. After the first 18 months of research I have been able to take stock of the availability of sources, material, their location and quality. I have also carried out my first scientific missions in Prague, mainly at the National Archives (Národní archiv former Státní ústřední archiv) and the National Library (Národní knihovna) located in the historical complex of Klementinum. After this first period, I have been able to present some partial results in form of papers. Presently, I'm writing the first chapters of the thesis, to be presented in autumn/winter 2007.

The time scale fixed for the research of the thesis - the period between the wars - represents a typically classic framework for historical studies. As far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, this period is particularly interesting, because it deals with one of the new states in Central Europe, born from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and, therefore, of its first years of autonomous existence. This country, during the period I am studying, established its own political, territorial and (a "second" draft oft its) national identity. Officially proclaimed the 28th of October 1918, the new state belonged politically and militarily to the victors of the First World War. This rather paradoxical situation can be explained by the fact that during the war some political expatriates were able to convince the allies, of the legitimacy of the wishes of the Slavs, in this case, Czechs and Slovaks, to obtain an autonomous state at the end of hostilities. The progressive recognition at international level was militarily reinforced by the formation of Czechoslovakian forces abroad, who were later able to fight side by the side with the allies.

The new state, (of which the western part - Czech countries, North Moravia and Silesia - was already industrially developed and traditionally the exporter at the heart of the "common market" of the Monarchy) suddenly found itself at the end of the war in a critical economic situation. At the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire its factories had catered for the vast rural regions of the Monarchy and its two capitals, Vienna and Budapest, by using the rail network which had been expressly designed for this purpose. The Austro-Hungarian economy functioned mainly as a closed market. As for trade from abroad, the Monarchy used ports on the Adriatic coast (of which the most important was Trieste) thus ensuring the exchange of merchandise without crossing foreign countries. This advantage disappeared at the end of the Great War abd Czechoslovakia became a land-locked country, far from coastal ports (the distance between Prague and Trieste is approximatively 830 km, Stettin about 530 km and Hamburg about 700 km). This handicap was diminished when the Peace Treaty fixed the internationalisation of waterways in Central Europe (Elbe, Oder, Danube) giving Czechoslovakia the right to a maritime fleet and to free port zones at Hamburg and Stettin and guaranteed special treatment using the international rail network.

Czechoslovakia's central geographical situation in Europe and its longitudinal form offered however a strategic advantage and politicians and economists hoped that the country would become an important corridor for international trade. Prague, the Czechoslovak capital, because of its geographical situation and backed by the political wish of the allies, requested to be considered as an important international railway hub, like Vienna, Budapest or Warsaw. Secondary hubs, until then almost non-existent, appeared on the map, such as Bratislava (Presssburg) in Slovakia and Brno (Brünn) in South Moravia.

The Czechoslovakian transport network and particularly the railway as it existed in 1918 had not actually suffered direct material damage due to military action, but its general state was nevertheless deplorable because of the lack of maintenance and the extreme wear and tear resulting from the war. Its structure and its isolation were scarcely adapted to the needs of the new state. Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ukraine especially had numerous inaccessible and under-developed enclaves. The exceptional geographical length of the country (more than 1000 km from West to East as opposed to 200/300 km from North to South) presented a major inconvenience for the creation of a coherent transport network.

This handicap was analysed and resoleved thanks to a general tendency in post-war Czechoslovakia towards a monopolisation of transport. This policy had been introduced even before the official birth of the state by the edicts of the National Council in exile and had been followed by a general consensus of public opinion expressed in the press and in Parliament. This policy primarily concerned the railways because of their economic and strategic importance, but also because of their social significance. Through its nationalisation policy, transport by rail progressively became a state monopoly. On the other hand, road transport remained a domain shared between both private and public sectors. Actually, with the exception of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications[4], the State became only gradually interested in the possibilities offered by motorised vehicles and it was much later, (due to the pressure of a growing number of demands for concessions for the bus and truck lines) that the State began to legislate in this field and to create its own bus lines, first via the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and not until after 1928 via the Ministry of Railways.

On the other hand, the State was from the very beginning interested in navigation and aviation. One could say, as far as aviation is concerned, that in the first years of the Republic the "ideological" base, (influenced by the military use of aircraft during the fighting in the Great War and then in the conflicts between Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary) was established and its future development assured. Navigation had expected more immediately favourable treatment. The question of water transport was essential to the economic and political considerations of the Republic from its inception, but mainly on an international level (Elbe, Danube). The most visible proof of this can be seen in how important the question of the internationalisation of waterways was at the Peace Treaty conference held in France. One could also cite the report of the parliamentary technical commission[5] published in 1919: "Transport is one of the most important actors in our development. Food, goods and industrial products, whether imported or exported, must be carried from their place of production to their place of consumption. Access to the sea is of vital concern for our landlocked state. Most of the transport in our country is carried out by rail, waterways and road. Transport by air should not yet be taken into practical consideration. Railways are at the moment a means of transport which is not adapted to our needs. They are in such a poor state of wear and tear due to the war, that they will be obliged to raise their tariffs. In addition, there is such a lack of carriages and rolling stock that it is impossible to get available wagons. Seaports are only connected through foreign railway companies, which are not under our tariff control and freedom of transit is not within our power. Road transport can only be considered for local needs and is even then limited and expensive because of the poor state of our roads and the shortage of carts and automobiles. That is why we must pay more serious attention to waterways with access to the sea..."

Between 1918 and 1923 the individual modes of transport had not received equal treatment, due to their varying degrees of technological development. There was still no plan for a global transport network. The railways played a major role on a national level, but the waterways were expected to have a great potential for the future, especially in international traffic, thanks to the international regime of waterways. Czechoslovak politicians and economists expected shipping to become a kind of extension of the national railways abroad. That is why new river ports were built and old ports renovated to become the first Czechoslovak intermodal points. Inland navigation and the dream of developing its own sea trade made it clear that Czechoslovak economy and policy felt squeezed in the middle of Europe and was trying to overcome this handicap of a small and young state by opening up its borders.

The thesis will examine: 1)the territorial changes in Central Europe after the Great War and their consequences on the Czechoslovak transport networks, 2)the demands of the Czechoslovak delegation sent to negotiate the Peace Treaties and their realisation, 3)the principle aims of transport policies (for example: the continuation and the ruptures in relation to the previous regime; the reforms, oppositions and relations between private and public transport), 4) the evolution of transport networks during the interbellum, 5) the concept of intermodality, 6) competition and cooperation between transport means, 7) and, to a lesser degree, the influence from abroad on the national policy of transport (international treaties, commercial flow, international competition, transport corridors). This historical, multimodal approach to the transport problem in Czechoslovakia between the wars will permit us to understand the stakes involved and to reveal the original solutions put to the test in this field by this little country of Central Europe. The evaluation of these facts enables the historian not only to describe the pas situation, and eventually to explain that of the present, but also to put forward certain hypotheses and even to give some guidance for choice in the future. A study of the Czechoslovak transport networks will in this way contribute, within the comparative international perspective, to the decoding and understanding of a fragment of the European network.

[1] In L'avenir, 11th June 1921.
[2] 2001 "Maîtrise" Master's degree in History, at the Michel de Montaigne University, Bordeaux III, France; research director Christophe Bouneau; subject: The concept of the network in the history of Czech railways in the 19th century; (awarded a grant by AHICF).
[3] 2002: D.E.A. (Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies) Master's degree in History at the Michel de Montaigne University, Bordeaux III, France; research director Christophe Bouneau; subject Le concept de réseau dans l'histoire des chemins de fer tchèques : du concept de réseau aux systèmes d'exploitation ferroviaires (depuis la genèse du réseau ferré juqu'en 1989) [The concept of a network in the history of Czech railways : from its theoretical concept to the running of the railway system (since the beginning of the railway network until 1989)].
[4] The first bus line reopened after the armistice was that of Pardubice to Bohdaneč in the autumn of 1918. It was historically the first Post-bus line in Austria-Hungary, dating from 1906.
[5] Ing. Nekvasil, In: 67 réunion parlementaire, du 23 juillet 1919. „Doprava jest jedním z nejdůležitějších činitelů našeho státního rozvoje. Potraviny, zboží a výrobky průmyslové nutno z místa výroby dopraviti v pravý čas do místa potřeby, nebo vyvézti neb přivézti přes hranice. Dosíci spojení s mořem jest jednou z nejpřednějších potřeb našeho vnitrozemského státu. Celková doprava děje se u nás hlavně po železnici, po vodě a po nápravě. Dopravu vzduchem není možno prozatím vzíti pro praktickou úvahu. Železnice je prostředek dopravní, který nemůže vyhovovati alespoň v této době potřebě. Železnice jsou známými poměry válečnými vykořistěny tak, že musí trvale zdražiti svůj provoz. Mimo to je nedostatek vagonů, nedostatek lokomotiv, takže ani není možno tonáž sehnati. Do přístavů námořních vedou pak železnice cizích států, které nemohou býti naším státem tarifárně ovládány, a volnost průvozu není v naší moci. O dopravě po nápravě může býti uvažováno jen pro lokální potřebu, a i tu jednak nedostatkem potahů a automobilů, jednak nedostatkem dobrých cest a silnic doprava tato je na nejmenší míru omezována a zdražována. Nutno tedy tím větší pozornost věnovati dopravě po vodě a po vodních cestách vnitrozemských, spějících k mořím. .... ».