To put things in context, Masaryk, born in 1850, caught the tail end of the progression of nationalism. Growing up in a time of Mass Nationalism, where the idea was gaining popular support amongst all classes of people, Masaryk had his eyes trained on the future rather than adopting Palacky’s flair for harping on the past. Rather than idealizing the historically secularly and politically splintered principality that was Bohemia, he chose to introduce the idea of self-determination, citing that a small but “an enlightened and culturally progressing nation” should be treated the same as any previous kingdom (Masaryk 27). He goes on even to highlight the importance of the extremely progressive idea of globalization on page 28, recognizing that “Europe and humanity are becoming more unified” and that “between nationality and internationality there is no antagonism, but on the contrary, agreement”. Instead of idealizing a fallen kingdom like Palacky was keen on, Masaryk embodied the characteristics of a mass nationalist.
Although they did differ on their vantage points, Palacky and Masaryk did agree on many facets of Czech nationalism. They did so especially in regards to the Austrian Empire and protecting they agreed to be an important power. In Palacky’s 1848 letter, his second reason for turning down the invitation to meet with a Diet of German elites was that he recognized that it was Germany’s “irrevocable desire and purpose to undermine Austria as an independent empire and indeed make her impossible for all time to come”. He goes on to explain the importance of Austria’s unified presence as one of the only things preventing the “Power”, or the Russian Empire, from expanding