Alabb a magyar erdek kifejtve angolul.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Romania MUST Return Hungarian Transylvania to Hungary Peacefully
Kalman Toth, New York October 28, 2000
Since the infamous Peace Treaty of Trianon in 1920, 2.6 million Hungarians
live under brutal Romanian oppression and terror on their thousand-year-old
homeland. TRIANON was the result of French excesses at the Peace Treaty
after WWI, which also resulted in severe punishment to Germany with
predictable results. President Wilson called TRIANON "absurd". The United
States refused to sign it!
There was no justification at that time to give Hungarian inhabited areas to
Romania, and there is no justification today! The Hungarian nation has the
right for peaceful reunification just like the German nation had ten years
ago.
What we demand from Romania is peaceful border change based on ethnic
distribution. What we demand from Romania is the peaceful return of around
1/3 of Transylvania with its Hungarian population to Hungary.
We want to build good neighbourly relations with Romania, that is, however,
can only based on just borders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hungarian population map within the Kingdom of Hungary and the borders of
petite-Hungary as defined in TRIANON:
http://www.egroups.com/files/hungary-2000/Thatar.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE UNMAKEING OF PEACE
THE FRAGMENTATION AND SUBSEQUENT DESTRUCTION
OF CENTRAL EUROPE AFTER WORLD WAR ONE BY THE
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
THE PEACE TREATY OF TRIANON
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Compiled by
ZOLTÁN BODOLAI, Ph.D.
author, historian and
ENDRE CSAPÓ
journalist
SECOND EDITION
Árpád Publishing Company
Cleveland, Ohio
1984
CONTENTS
Preface by Dr. John B. Nadas 1
Chapter One: Europe's Marchland at the Crossroads of
History...............................................3
Hungary, the Country on the Crossroads
............................................................................
.........4
Chapter Two: Reflections on the History of Central Europe
.....................................................6
The South 6
The North 10
Chapter Three: The Road to the Great European Civil War, Called "First World
War"....... 11
Nationalism As a Destructive Force
............................................................................
.................12
Panslavism As an Empire-Building
Force.......................................................................
............. 13
Chapter Four: The First World War
............................................................................
................14
The War 1
The War after the War......................
............................................................................
.................17
Chapter Five: Peace not
Negotiable..................................................................
........................ 18
Chapter Six: Trianon, a Peace without
Honour......................................................................
. 23
Forced to
Sign........................................................................
........................................................ 23
Partition of the Territory of Hungary.....
............................................................................
........24
The
Losses......................................................................
................................................................25
Partition of Hungary's Population........
............................................................................
..........25
The Treaty of Trianon and the "Liberation" of
Nationalities................................................ 26
Chapter Seven: A Short Demographic History of Hungary
.................................................27
Chapter Eight: The Aftermath
............................................................................
.....................29
The Wake of Trianon.........................
............................................................................
............29
Trianon - the Source of Central-Europe Is Problems
............................................................30
CHAPTER ONE
EUROPE'S MARCH LAND AT THE
CROSSROADS OF H ISTO RY
The term Marchland was used by a group of American professors of geography
to indicate the region in Europe which is now by and large the
Russian-occupied East-Central and South Eastern Europe. It is also
frequently, but erroneously called Eastern Europe. We suggest that it should
be referred to by its correct name: Central Europe.
The shaded area on Map No. 1. follows the present-day political borders and
indi cates the area which is now controlled by Moscow in addition to
Yugoslavia and Austria. Historical and cultural considerati-ons suggest the
inclusion of more westerly
The shaded areas ( as shown by the square frame on Map 1.), follows the
present-day political borders and indicates the area which is now controlled
by Moscow in addition to Yugoslavia and Austria. Historical and cultural
considerations suggest the inclusion of more westerly areas ( as shown by
the square frame on Map 1.), but for the sake of geopolitical realism we
delineate the Central-European region within the present political
frontiers.
Few areas in the world show such great contrasts of physical and cultural
features and such ethnic and social diversities as this "Marchland". The
varied and rugged relief often hinders interregional and even local
communication. This condition encourages, especially on the Balkan
highlands, isolationism and particularism, making it difficult to establish
national cores, preventing unification and generally contributing to the
inner fragmentation of the region.
(Map 2.)
CENTRAL EUROPE, A MARCHLAND
BETWEEN EAST AND WEST
(MAP)
MAP (page 4)
Mountains fragmenting Central Europe thus preventing unification
The straight lines indicate the historic segmentation of Europe
Far the most important geographical feature is the chain of the Carpathian
Mountains forming an almost complete circle in the heart of Central Europe.
This rugged mountain chain is eminently suited to the role of a lasting
state border - which it was until 1919. The area encompassed by the
Carpathian Mountains is the hub of Central Europe, the meeting point of
cultures and ideologies, the crossroads of movements from East to West,
South to North.
Hungary, the country on the crossroads
On the following pages six simplified diagrams illustrate the distribution
of various geopolitical segments around the Carpathian Basin.
The first one is divided by a horizontal line only. To the South of this
line emerged To the South of this line emerged the civilization of Ancient
Europe. For our purpose the reference to Ancient History is
MAP
NEW (Indoeuropean) HISTORY
=============
BASIN
ANCIENT HISTORY
Page4
<6>
a reference to the Roman Empire. The line, indicated on our diagram, was
reached by the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus. For the next 900 years
the territory to the North of our horizontal line was subject to constant
changes caused by the "barbarian migrations".
The next diagram is divided by a vertical line only. To the West of it we
have written the words: PROGRESSIVE CIVILIZATION, to the East: PRIMITIVE
ORTHODOXY. The historical reference of this diagram is directed to the next
period of the progress of European civilization.
By the end of the first millenium A.D. the Holy Roman Empire became the
framework of the new Germanic-Christian civilization of the continent. It
gave to a large part of Europe an effective spiritual unity in the form of a
chain of Christian kingdoms. However, the eastern branch of Christianity
detached itself from the main body around 1000 A.D. A few centuries later
this Byzantine or Eastern Church collapsed and its fragments survived only
as a series of orthodox state-religions, adding to the spiritual
fragmentation of the region. Thus Europe was divided into Progressive
Civilization and Primitive Orthodoxy:
Fig. 2.Race and language are the greatest dividing factors of mankind,
especially in Europe where national characteristics are rooted in
millenia-long history. Fig. No.3. shows the Carpathian Basin as the
cross-roads of races and languages.
Fig. 3.
Fig-No.4. repeats the pattern of fourpanelled segmentation by the other
great dividing factor, religion, which coincides almost exactly with the
frontiers of language and race-areas.
PROTESTANTS ORTHODOX
CHR STLANS
CARPATHIA
CATHOLICISM
(Romanism) MOHAMMEDANS
Fig. 4.
Towards the end of the ninth century A.D. a state was formed in the centre
of this region, in the Carpathian Basin: Hungary. This was the first - and
so far only successful attempt to establish a lasting state-structure in
this area. The preceding sketches illustrate graphically why the Hungarians
(or "Magyars" as they call themselves) had such a turbulent history in this
focal point of races and ideologies. The next diagram gives a very brief
idea of the most important struggles during the thousand years old history
of the Hungarian state. (.Fig. 5).
5
This is why we find that present-day Central Europe possesses a very
peculiar ethnographic map, quite distinct from any other part of the
continent. The intermingling pattern of numerous ethnic entities represents
the sad heritage of the eventful history of the region (Map 3)
DIRECTION OF ATTACKS, TREATS, INVASIONS AND FOREIGN
DOMINATION BETWEEN THE NINTH AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURIES
Fig. 5.
Tr
CHAPTER TWO
REFLECTIONS ON THE
HISTORY OF CENTRAL EUROPE
The South
Europe is inhabited by Indo-European peoples, except for the Carpathian
Basin. The question of the origin of the Hungarians ( Magyars), inhabiting
the Basin, is beyond the scope of this essay. History tells us that the bulk
of this nation moved into the Basin from the East and established a kingdom
there in 896 A.D. in concert with the scattered population of the area most
of them their kinsmen who had settled there much earlier.
The new state proved its viability and soon obtained admission on equal
terms into the company of Christian kingdoms by the coronation of
King(Saint) Stephen:
"The coronation and unction took place on Christmas day, A.D. 1000. It is
impossible to overemphasise the importance of these ceremonies. By them both
Stephen's (the first Christian king of Hungary) own status and that of his
people transformed. The act of conversion changed the Hunga-
page 6
rian people from an outlaw horde"against whom a Christian Prince was not
only free, but bound by duty, to take up arms, into a member of the
Christian family of nations, and their prince into one of those rulers by
the Grace of God whose legitimate rights his fellow-princes could not
infringe without sin. The royal crown made its wearer a true sovereign, not
indeed the Emperor's equal in status, but in no respect subject to his
overlordship, while the Apostolic insignia made the Hungarian church free of
any other authority save that of Rome alone - an enormous reinforcement of
the country's real independence". (1)
The tenth century was the time for nation and state formation in Central and
Eastern Europe. Beside Hungary, the kingdom of Poland was established in a
very similar manner. Both countries become independent as a state as well as
a Church Province. Bohemia, the third country bom at the time in Central
Europe, was not so fortunate: it became a' Province of the German Holy Roman
Empire.
Eastern Europe followed this trend. From the South up new states came into
existence: Servia, Bulgaria, Russia, Lithuania, Esthonia. The first three of
these became the missionary territory of the East Roman Empire, the Greek
type of Christianity, which became the pravoslav religion.
This development established the Eastern border of Europe alongside the
Eastem borders of Poland and Hungary. This border is not just a dividing
line of religions, it is the frontier of almost everything which implies the
meaning and essence of Europe for all times until today. The real border of
Europe indeed.
Map 4.
1. European history began in the Mediterranean.
2. Civilization spread northwards and north-westwards to the islands and
7up@h peninsulas of the Atlantic coastline and to the great northern inland
sea.
3. In this central region the tenth century was the time for state
formation.
-------- European defence frontier.
page 8
The Eastern border of Europe was not only the religious, cultural or
political border of the Continent, it was also its defence frontier, first
against the Mongol invasion, later against the Islamic expansion, recently
against the Russian invasion.
Map Fig 6
Ever since the establishment of Hungary, Asiatic hordes of various
denominations have carried out military raids over the Carpathian Mountains.
In 1241 Mongols or Tartars invaded Europe under Ghengis Khan's grandson,
Batu. After having crushed the Polish and German armies, the Tartars ravaged
Hungary in 1241-42. Though they vacated the country in 1242, they left total
devastation behind them and annihilated half of the country's total
population.
The 14th century brought another threat to Europe' Christian civilization:
the onslaught of the fanatic Ottoman empire of the Turks. After 150 years of
defensive battles, the Hungarian resistance collapsed at the battle of
Mohacs (1526). This was the beginning of the most disastrous period of
Hungarian history: almost two centuries of Turkish agression, occupation and
oppression in the centre of the country with the Gerrnan-Habsburg empire
holding the western fringe under a rule almost as brutal as that of the
Turks. The flickering light of Hungarian independence barely survived in
semi-independent Transylvania.
At the end of the 175 years of Turkish occupation the population of Hungary
was a mere 2.5 million - compared to the 4.5 million in the 15th century (
the same as the population of 15th century England.)
.Map Fig 5
page 9
Weakness is a punishable crime in history. Hungary's heavy losses during the
Turkish wars were not all caused by the Turks and did not end with their
departure.
The Habsburg domination, based on the western strip of the country during
the Turkish wars,was extended over the rest of the country after its
"liberation" from the Turks (in 1699). The Habsburgs' final aim was to
incorporate "liberated" Hungary into their family empire.
The losses inflicted by the Turks ( and often by the "liberating" German
armies) resulted in a radical alteration of the demographic conditions of
Hungary. Vast regions had been depopulated. The Habsburgs promoted their
Germanization policy by repopulating these areas with German settlers and
immigrants from neighbouring countries, thus creating foreign islands and
belts inside Hungary. No Hungarians were permitted to settle in the southern
area of the Great Plain - the German administration settled these formerly
pure Magyar territories with Serbs from the Balkans. They also allowed
Transylvania to be invaded by nomadic Rumanian shepherds coming from the
Balkans.
HUNGARY DIVIDED -
Map 6..
The North
There are hardly any two neighbouring nations in Europe with such similar
history as Hungary and Poland. There is also no instance of any discord
between the two countries during their thousand years of European history.
Poland, in the North, suffered more from the Mongols (1241, 1259 and 1287)
but less from the Turks because of her geographical situation. On the other
hand, Poland's open eastern and westem frontiers invited aggression by her
two powerful neighbours, Germany and Russia. Thus German colonization in the
12th-13th centuries deprived Poland of considerable territories. Lithuanian
aggression only ceased when, in the 14th century a Polish queen of Hungarian
birth united the two countries. Friendly cooperation between
page 10
Hungary and Poland thrived in the 14th century when the Poles invited the
Hungarian king, Louis to their throne (1370-82) and again, in the 16th
century, when Hungarian Stephen Batori became Poland's king and successful
defender against Germans and Russians. During the period of the
Hungarian-Polish union (14th century) the dual empire represented a giant
zone of peace and prosperity in Central Europe. And indeed, whenever both
Hungary and Poland prospered, peace prevailed in Central Europe.
Poland's problems with feudalism were also similar to Hungary's and her
approach to the problem was also similar to the Hungarian solution: the
establishment of a strong, centralized state-structure. Still, the country's
defenceless eastern and western borders were too much of a temptation for
her aggressive neighbours and so the country lost its statehood on two
occasions in the 18 th century and did not regain her independence until
1919 -- only to become the target of German and Russian expansionism again.
It can be said that threats of aggression against either country generally
implied similar dangers against the other. This has been the case of the
Tartar, Mongol, Turkish, German and Russian menaces against both countries.
Each aggressor was common enemy to Poland and Hungary.
We may therefore state that the geopolitical equilibrum of the Marchland
should be based on a strong Hungary and a strong Poland. Only these two are
able to defend the region against both the East and the West.
(1.) C.A. Macartney: Hungary, A Short History, The Edinburgh University
Press, 1962.
11
CHAPTER THREE
THE ROAD TO THE GREAT EUROPEAN
CIVIL WAR, CALLED
"FIRST WORLD WAR"
Revolutions
The 19th Century may be called the Century of Revolutions - upheavals which
paved the road to the World Wars and global changes of the 20th century.
The "Marchland" of Central Europe was particularly affected by this
phenomenon of "preparation and change". The middle of the century witnessed
here fresh waves of liberal revolutions which interpreted the ideals of
political revolution by laying emphasis on national aspirations and the
establishment of national parliamentary govemments. The model was the
independent nation-state. In Hungary this was envisaged under the moderate
rule of the constitutional monarchy. In Poland, which as a state did not
exist at that time, these expectations fomented the unsuccessful revolutions
of 1830, 1846 and 1863. The great year of revolutions in the other states
was 1848.
The bloodless Hungarian revolution of March 1848 was apparently successful:
the Emperor granted Hungary a new, liberal constitution and a responsible
ministry was formed in Buda-Pest. However, the Vienna "Camarilla", (the
conservative rulers of the Austrian empire) sought to nullify the imperial
assent and roused the nationalities against the Hungarian government. These
ethnic minorities of Hungary were the descendants of the immigrants and
refugees who had fled their original Turkish or
page 11
Russian dominated homelands for political or social reasons and had sought
(and received) asylum in hospitable Hungary. Confused by the half-understood
ideas of the French Revolution, these nationalities were easily manipulated
by Vienna, especially the Rumanians and Serbs, former refugees from
Turkish-dominated Balkan lands. The Vienna Cabinet declared the March
constitution null and void and replaced the ageing emperor by young Francis
Joseph, a ready tool in their hands. The Hungarians decided to defend their
constitutional freedom and for one year withstood the concentrated assaults
of the Austrian imperial forces and the nationalities. Eventually, the new
emperor appealed to the Russian Czar for help who - mindful of the threats
of revolution in his own empire - dispatched his elite troops which then
crushed the stubborn Hungarian resistance.
After a twenty-year period of revenge and oppression, an agreement was
reached between the Monarch and the Hungarian nation (the "Compromise" of
1867) which re-established the dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary on the basis
of equality of the two nations under one (Habsburg) ruler. The Monarchy thus
constituted proved a very successful economic unit and a guardian of peace
in the region until the coming of World War I.
Nationalism as a destructive force
Among the forces of history, nationalism could become the most effective and
most important vehicle of political manipulations. This dynamic force has
indeed been used - especially since the 19th century to erode the loyalty of
large groups of subjects - nationalities - against monarchs and governments,
especially within the multinational state-structures of Central and Eastem
Europe, causing the fragmentation of these comprehensive systems.
The effects of nationalism on state-structures were different in various
regions of Europe. In the west, nationalism strengthened the large
state-units into centralised states, whereas in the East the result was just
the opposite: nationalism greatly con tributed to the dissolution of the
existing state-structures.
Today Western Europe lives in a period of post-nationalism, in a climate of
continental cooperation and healthy interaction among well-defined
nationalistic states. In the eastern part of Europe however the present
situation is not the product of organic economical and political
developments and mutual interaction but the result of planned systematic
destruction of formerly existing composite state-structures. After World War
11 the fragments of the former federal structures were re-assembled into a
new, monolithic state-structure, the Sovietdominated satellite bloc.
This triumph of Russian nationalism had been prepared to a great extent - by
the movement known as Panslavism.
Panslavism as an empire-building force
The 19th century was not only a period of political revolutions but it also
brought forth the second phase of the 18th century industrial revolution, by
reducing the economic disparity between the maritime states and the mainland
countries of Europe. With the advent of train transport the interior of
Europe, hitherto handicapped by lack of access to sea-transport, progressed
dramatically. This aroused the jealousy of the maritime powers and created
their alliance with the Panslav movement in Eastern Europe against the
so-called Central Powers of the continent's interior.
The Panslav movement operated in two main channels: the Russian, or Eastern
Panslavism and the Western Panslavism.
The main centre of Western Panslavism was Bohemia, the land of the Czechs,
part of the Habsburg Estate, before the First World War. The sacred duty of
the Czech Tomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes was to organize Panslav actions
within the Monarchy's Slav populations, and at the same time to create
sympathy among the Western Powers for the establishment of independent Slav
states in Central Europe, a purely nationalistic aim.
Panslav nationalism discarded any solution, other than the dissolution of
the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy. The heir to the Austrian throne, the
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, promoted a plan to convert the dualist (
Austrian-Hungarian) state into a trialistone(Austria4Hungary4SIavs) with a
constitutional government. The response to his friendly but naive approach
was the assassination of the Archduke and his wife in 1914 by Serb (Panslav)
terrorists.
page 13
CHAPTER FOUR
This chapter deals with the First World War, and a separate war against
Hungary These events are fairly well known and commented. For the purpose of
this summary some reflections are appropriate and a selected list of
quotations by noted historians will serve the purpose the best.
THE WAR
"The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy was created
in order to avert the threatening danger of Panslavism, the menace of
Russia. For Hungary, this alliance was a purely defensive measure and no
expansion of territory was contemplated. This policy was a natural
continuation of a many centuries old tradition in Hungarian history: an
alliance with the West against invasions coming from the East. The outbreak
of the Great War gave sufficient proof that the preventive measures had not
been taken against a mere chimera. It is well known that the murder of
Sarajevo, which gave the signal for the outbreak of the great fight was the
work of Servian disciples of the great Russian Panslav ideals". (1)
"The Austrian Government made it clear that it intended to take stem
measures against Serbia for fomenting Francis Ferdinand's assassination. At
the Crown Council, Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister, desperately
protested against any measures which might lead to war. . . In vain did
Tisza point to the danger of Russian intervention. . . "(2)
"We must not forget that the catastrophe of Sarajevo was the seventh attempt
in four years directed against the representatives of the monarchy by
exalted young men. This revolutionary type united within itself, in a
strange and awful way, the national idealism of a Mazzini with the violence
of a Bakunin and a nebulous ideology of Communism. Many members of this
revolutionary generation studied in the West and some were in direct
connection with Trotsky and the Russian emigres". (3)
"There was no longer a chance to stop the fast moving events. Russia, which
considered Serbia an advanced base for its imperialistic plans, mobilized.
One fateful step led to the next. The first world war broke out... In the
era of European imperialism, when every foreign office cherished dreams that
might be realized in war, Russia wanted Constatinople, and Serbia and
Rumania schemed to gain huge slices of the Monarchy. Hungary alone did not
want to enlarge its territory ". (4)
"On the initiative of Charles IV, the last emperor-king of the Dual
Monarchy, the Central Powers ( Germany, the Monarchy, Bulgaria and Turkey)
sent the Allied (Entente) powers a detailed peace offer in December 1916,
suggesting the restoration of the 1914 status quo. The Entente rejected the
offer, insisting on the "liberation of the Slav and Rumanian minorities".
This rejection (costing another two years of war and another ten million
dead) was the result of the successful propaganda campaign conducted by
Czech intellectuals ( Masaryk, Benes) and their Rumanian, Serb and other
emigre colleagues in France and Britain. They managed to convince the
Western Allies that the creation of Slav and Rumanian national states would
stop German and Russian expansion in Central Europe. Tisza, the Hungarian
Prime Minister, pointed out to the U.S. Ambassador that the breaking up of
the Monarchy would result in the creation of several weak, multi-national
states unable to resist imperialist pressure. ( We know today who was
right... (2)
"Two weeks after America's entry into the war, on April 18, 1917, a Rumanian
delegation headed by Vasile Lucacius left for Washington. During their trip
through
page 14
Russia, they stopped at the Damitza prisoner-of-war camp and asked the
leaders of the Rumanian captives to issue a proclamation in which they
demanded the unification of Transylvania with their occupied homeland. The
declaration was printed later in American newspapers, copies of which were
dropped by American airplanes over the trenches of the Austro-Hungarian
army. The members of the delegation organized mass meetings in Washington,
Cleveland, New York and other cities, issued the bilingual periodical
"ROMANIA", and cooperated with Masaryk and with leaders of other Slav
organizations in the United States. The Rumanian campaign was successful.
Following the cabinet meeting of November 4, 1918, Secretary of State
Lansing issued a declaration promising support for Rumanian political and
territorial rights at the Peace Conference... A National Committee of
Rumanian Unity was formed in Paris on October 3, under the chairmanship of
Take Jonescu. Similar organizations were set up in England and Italy. The
Unity Committee was officially recognized by the Allied governments during
the period of October 12 - November 22, and Rumanian aspirations got the
backing of the leading Entente powers. " (5)
"The Germans came very near to victory and establishment of an imperial
basis reaching from the English Channel to the Black Sea and the Persian
Gulf. Between 1916 and 1918 Germany, and not Russia, controlled directly or
indirectly all Slav lands with the sole exception of the Great Russian
homeland - the whole of Poland, most of the Ukraine, the Austro-Hungarian
Slavs, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria."(6)
"One should not lose from sight the astonishing fact that at no time during
the war did Austria-Hungary show signs of breaking up from inside, as its
enemies had hoped: on the contrary, its various ethnic groups remained on
the whole perfectly loyal, a large majority fighting gallantly under the
common flag, despite all allied, and particularlyrussian appeals to
desertion... Up till the beginning of 1918, neither President Wilson, nor
the Allied and Associated Powers as such had yet officially proclaimed their
intention to carve up Austria-Hungary. In the end, of course, Wilson's
famous 14 points and the ethnic principle became a more than precious tool
in the hands of the Allied and associated Powers with which to obtain the
moral disarmament of the Central Empires". (7)
"The about-turn of Allied policy in favor of breaking up the entire pattern
of Danubian Europe took place only in the spring of 1918, when the French
Premier Georges Cle'menceau revealed his secret negotiations with Vienna: a
fact which compelled Austria-Hungary to sever all contacts with the Allies
and the EmperorKing Charles to humble himself into making amends at the
German General Staff Headquarters in Spa... The intention was to bring about
the collapse of the Dual Monarchy, at a very critical moment for the Western
Allies, by promising national independence to its peoples... Only six months
before the end of the first world war, under the threat of a military defeat
and much against its grain did the Entente accept the idea of carving up the
Monarchy". (8)
Wartime diplomacy is always short sightany immediate measure of tactical
vais adopted, irrespective of its consequences. War propaganda is not based
on truth, it is based on interest. Western Europe, and to that extent
America, learned their first lessons about Central Europe from the
mushrooming propagandists of the Slav cause. These propagandists offered
everything the Western Allies wanted: to bring about the collapse of the
Monarchy on the ethnic minority issue, to build up a barrier against German
expansion in Central Europe, and to establish democratic states. The
structure of decision-making in wartime is different from that of
peace-time. Speed makes it necessary to put the decision into the hands of
one man or very few men, not necessarily wise statesmen.
And this was exactly the situation with the decision making in regards to
the sug-
15
(Map)
FRONT LINES OF WAR 1914-1918
gestion of Masaryk and his fellow propagandists: the idea of the dissolution
of the Monarchy in general and the dissolution of historical Hungary in
particular.
When Emperor-king Charles made a last attempt for separate peace by sending
Prince Lajos Windischgraets to Switzerland to negotiate with the diplomatic
representatives of France, Great Britain and the United States of America, a
French note was handed to him:
In view of the fact that the peoples of the hitherto Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy have resolved on the dissolution of the Danubian State, the
Government of the Republic of France regards itself as being in no position
to continue negotiations with the Government of His Imperial and Royal
Apostolic Majesty". . .
The text of the British and American notes were identical. Thus, the
governments of the Western Allies declared that there was no such state as
Austria-Hungary. Instead they gave recognition to those emigré groups Czech,
Serbo-Croat and Rumanian National Committees as quasi-governments of
would-be countries or states.
"These National Committees managed to be the only "experts" on the problems
of the Monarchy, they were successful in making an impression on the public
opinion and governments of the Allied Powers. Their nationalistic
aspirations were presented in a form which seemed to suit the political
interests and way of thinking of the Western Powers. This was served,
primarily, by the argument that only through the fulfilment of these very
aspirations could democracy be established in Carpathian Europe. Simplified,
this sound rather naive now, i.e. while the nationalism of certain people
is, a priori, in its very nature, "democratic", another nationalism, that of
the Hungarians, for instance, was, a priori, "feudal" But those English
experts who for a number of years had looked upon the social problems of
Carpathian Europe from a certain angle, were of the opinion that their task
was an easy one, namely that of choosing between good and evil." (4)
page 16
THE WAR AFTER THE WAR
"The Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command successfully conducted an Armistice in
Padua on November 3, 1918, with Italian General Diaz as representative of
the Entente Powers. Terms of this armistice defined a line of occupation
only on the west, leaving the existing political frontiers of the country
untouched in any other part." (4)
"On November 2, 1918, the eve of the Padua Armistice, Count Michael Ka'rolyi
(the notorius franco- and anglophile, and leader of the wartime opposition,
a pacifist radical and immensely rich grandseigneur, who grabbed leadership
in the confusion of defeat and invasion) with inexcusable ingenuousness and
full of illusions concerning Allied good intentions towards Hungary, issued
the following proclamation addressed "to the peoples of the world" : - The
Hungarian people have just achieved their peaceful, victorious revolution.
They have broken the yoke which had enslaved them for centuries. Hungary now
is a democratic and totally independent country. The Hungarian people
energetically refuse to accept any responsibility whatever for the world
war. Listening only to the voice of their conscience they lay down arms and
call for peace. By acceding to the League of Nations they declare the
fraternal equality of the peoples inhabiting Hungary. At this solemn moment
let it be recalled that Hungary has a thousand-years-old history, it having
been for centuries the bulwark of Europe and its civilization. The Hungarian
people confidently believe that they may
(Map)
The unshaded area shows the extent of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
Arrows indicate the armed attacks against Hungary after the armistice.
17
entrust the existence and territorial integrity of their country to the
sense of justice of all the free nations of the world. -
"The gravest error on the part of Kirolyi and his team had been the honest
but extremely stupid belief that one could renounce the use of force either
in international or in domestic governmental politics. Without even waiting
for the outcome of the armistice negotiations with General Diaz, the
plenipotentiary of the Allies, the Minister for War of Kirolyi's Government
ordered all Hungarian troops, on November 1, to lay down an-ns "on the basis
of President Wilson's terms - disarmament, League of Nations, international
arbitration."
"Let it be underlined, that with the Padua Armistice, Hungary left the first
world war in the fullness of its territorial integrity by that date not one
enemy soldier had yet set foot on its soil. Unfortunately Ka'rolyi assumed,
wrongly, that the Allies'signature constituted a sufficient guarantee for
Hungary. Hence, through his War Minister, Wla Linder, he made the fatal
mistake of thoughtlessly disbanding the then still intact Hungarian army,
thus leaving the country defenceless overnight, exposed to the greed of its
neighbours." (7)
Thus a new war started after the Great War, a war against Hungary, by
Rumania,
and two non-existent, only planned "nations", Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
All of them of course "democratic", and their invading forces obtained the
status of victorious Allied Forces, under the protection of General Franchet
d'Esp6rey of the Southem Allied Forces.
This war after the war was full of tragic events, including 133 days of
bolshevic terror, Rumanian occupation of Budapest, looting of the whole
country and occupation of two-thirds of the thousand year old Hungary.
(1) Hungary, Rotary International, Budapest, 1931.
(2) Z. Bodolai: The Timeless Nation, Sydney 1977.
(3) 0. Jiszi: The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1929.
(4) S.B. Virdy: History of the Hungarian Nation, U.S.A. 1969.
(5) S. Szilassy: Revolutionary Hungary 1918-1921, U.S.A. 1971.
(6) Hans Kohn: Panslavism, its History and Ideology, U.S.A. 1960.
(7) Yves de Daruvar: The Tragic Fate of Hungary, Paris, 1970.
(8) J. Lukaszewszki: L' Historiographie de I' Autriche-Hongrie, Paris, 1968.
CHAPTER FIVE
PEACE NOT NEGOTIABLE
By the end of World War 1, Poland had gained her independence as a result of
the successful offensive of the Central Powers. It is true that both Germany
and Russia had other plans for Poland - but fortunately both powers
collapsed and eventually an independent Poland was reborn with the consent
of the Allied Powers.
In the South, however, the peace Treaty of Trianon put an end to a
thousand-year old order in the Carpathian Basin. On January 16th, 1920, the
Allies presented the peace conditions to the Hungarian delegation in Paris.
The Peace Conference approved the Treaty on February 26, 1919, but it was
delivered to the Hungarian peace delegation almost one year later, when the
war- and revolution-ridden country was more apathetic and ready to accept
it.
The new Hungarian government, formed with the consent of the Allies after
the
collapse of the terrorist bolshevik regime, replied on February 10th. It
denied that the Slovaks, Rumanians, Croatians and smaller nationalities
intended to join the newly created states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia
and the state of enlarged Rumania. It also disputed the claims that the
nationalities constituted a majority in all the areas to be detached, and
asked for plebiscites.
Count Apponyi and the members of the Hungarian delegation, arrived in Paris
on January 7, 1920. They were practically imprisoned in the suburb of
Neuilly, guarded by policemen, who would not allow anyone to leave. The
delegation was denied an opportunity to present the maps and memoranda
prepared by the experts, and to submit their views to the Conference.
It is worth remembering that the War had been caused by great-power rivalry.
As years went by, it became necessary to offer to the war-weary public of
the Allies more plausible war-aims. So the convenient slogan "liberation of
the oppressed nations" was launched. This pious dictum was particularly
welcome in America. President Wilson, who thought of himself as the saviour
of mankind and the prophet of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
promptly assumed the role of the "Protector of Oppressed Minorities" and
thus managed to bring America into the European war on the basis of his
Fourteen Points. To Wilson all this was only theory and naive belief, but to
the Central European panslav propagandists (Masaryk and his circle) Wilson's
attitude became a most welcome political tool which enabled them to climb
aboard the Allied bandwagon of "liberation". They were accepted as the sole
experts in Central European matters and eventually they claimed the status
of official representatives of states and governments which only existed at
that time in the wishful thinking of a few panslav agents. They held no
authority from the socalled "oppressed nationalities". Apart from physical
separation, there was an unmistakable difference of attitudes between the
Slav emigrés (Masaryk and others) and the Slav "minorities" within the
AustrianHungarian Monarchy. The attitude of the autochtonous Slav population
of the dual Monarchy is best illustrated by the fact that many of the
leaders of the Austrian war effort were of Czech, Serbian or Croatian
origin - more aggressively " Austrian" and pro-Gerrnan than the Hungarian
politicians and generals. The armament industry of the Monarchy was entirely
in the hands of the Czechs who faithfully and without protest or sabotage
produced the weapons to defend their alleged "oppressors".
"The fixing of the peace terms, as well as the final decision, rested,
formally at last, with the Allied Powers. In reality, however, their
decisions in the matter were strongly influenced beforehand by the
propaganda waged, without competition by the leaders of the Succession
States, and several of their influential friends who served as experts at
the peace conference and influenced the peacemakers in favor of their
prot,6g6s. The Allies had by then accepted the idea of the Monarchy's
dissection, though some of their leading statesmen were worried about the
consequences of the elimination of this major state which had served as an
important factor in the European balance of power. This propaganda had an
easy task against a Hungary which was in the worst imaginable situation.
Hungary was in the camp of the vanquished enemy, as the ally of Germany. Her
enemies accused her, without any foundation, of responsibility for the Great
War. The revolutionary chaos, into which the nation was driven by despair,
turned, for a while, the enemies of Bolshevism against Hungary, too. The
liquidation of the reign of terror and the restoration of law and order was,
on the other hand, represented by anti-Hungarian propaganda as mere reaction
and vengeance.
Members of the Supreme Council considered the Hungarian question of minor
importance beside the German one, and besides, had a very meagre knowledge
of the political, economic and nationality problems of the region, as may be
ascertained
from the historic sources at hand. Thus, in most cases, they rather
accepted, after little or no resistance, those "solutions" proposed by the
Czechs, Rumanians and Serbs, and the ever-popular "experts" supporting their
case. These latter were, apparently fully convinced that they were doing the
right thing by backing exclusively the inte-
(MAP 12)
New states and acquisitions by the reshaping of Central Europe after World
War One.
21
rest of their old friends, the leaders of the national minorities, who were
bent on the destruction of Hungary.
It was also presumed that for the sake of the great and general interest one
had to overlook certain obvious injustices, such as the placing of millions
of ethnic Hungarians under foreign and hostile rule. Of course the three
neighbours of Hungary were out to build up their own exclusive national
regimes, but were smart enough to present their aims in such a form, and
equipped with such arguments and promises, to the Allied Powers that the
latter saw in them the victory and the very incarnation of their own
ideals". (1)
In fact, the victim eventually slaughtered at Trianon, had been selected for
that role well in advance. As we have seen, Panslavism had conspired, even
before the 1914-1918 war, to pluck Hungary to pieces and share out the
spoils". (2)
"When the Hungarian delegates were at last told about the fate that had been
prepared for their country so great was their soffow that they almost felt
paralysed. They set to work immediately, nevertheless, and for four months
running they applied themselves to showing up the historic effors, the
geographical monstrosities and the economic absurdities which Edouard Benes
had termed the decisions of the Peace Conference. And as if those decisions
amounting to arbitrary confiscation had anything to do with law or justice,
the Hungarian delegation continued with scrupulous industry turning out
submission upon submission, note upon note". (3)
"Unfortunately, all their efforts proved to be a total waste. While confined
to the Chiteau de Madrid ( their hotel-prison) like a colony of lepers, the
victors never communicated with them orally, only in writing. The
considerable mass of documents, maps and statistics which they had brought
with them was never consulted, the same as nobody ever read the notes they
produced on the spot. Never at any moment did the Hungarian delegates have a
chance of discussing matters bilaterally with the victors". ( 2)
"The sincere wish of the population in question could have been best
determined through plebiscite, to be held under fair conditions in the
different districts affect-
page 22
missing page
page 23
requirements, and that local investigation might demonstrate the necessity
of shifting the present border-line here and there. Modifications judged
desirable by a Delimitation Commission were therefore allowed to be reported
to the Council of the League of Nations which would offer its services for
an amiable rectification of the frontier. In conclusion, the Letter declared
that the Allied Powers expected a Declaration from the Hungarian Delegation
within ten days giving them to understand that they were authorized to sign
the Treaty as it stood.
A note from Count Apponyi, the next day, to Mr. Millerand, expressed the
Hungarian Delegation's "most painful surprise" at the Allied Powers' refusal
to apply in Hungary's case the principle they had proclaimed. Unable to
accept the responsibility for an affirmative answer, Apponyi announced the
entire Delegation's demission. On May 17, 1920, the Hungarian Government
reiterated Apponyi's protest "against the manifest breach of principle of
the right of a free self-determination" for the people of Hungary and stated
that it was "precisely by virtue of this principle that the Government
thought it possible to abstain from insisting on incontestable historic
rights". The foundation for a future Hungarian policy aimed at the revision
of "Trianon" was therewith established. Then, battered into helplessness,
and with reference to Millerand's Covering Letter seeming to contain "formal
promises of a nature to allow some softening of the stipulations of the
Peace Treaty in the near future", the Hungarian Government declared: "Led by
this supposition and fully conscious of the grave situation of the country,
the Hungarian Government do not consider themselves able to refuse signing
the Treaty of Peace". This act was perfected on June 4, 1920, in the palace
of the "Grand Trianon", located in the park of Versailles. On the same day
the dejected Hungarian Government resigned". (1)
Partition of the territory of Hungary. (3)
The Peace Treaty of Hungary has deprived Hungary of 72 per cent of its
Territory.
24
The losses "The final result was that of the 325,411 sq. km.which had
comprised the area of the Lands of the Holy Crown, Hungary was left with
only 92,963. Rumania alone had received 103, 093; Czechoslovakia 61,633;
Yugoslavia the 42,541 sq. km. of Croatia Slavonia and 20,551 of Inner
Hungary, Austria 4,020; and even Poland and Italy small fragments".
"Of the population of 20,886.487 (1910 census), Hungary was left with
7,615.117. Rumania received 5,257,467; Czecho-Slovakia 3,517,568; Yugoslavia
4,131,249 (2,621,954 + 1,509,295), and Austria 291,618". (2)
Partition of Hungary's population. (3)
The Peace Treaty of Hungary his forced 64 per cent of HLinqlt-y's Population
Linder Foreign Rule.
(MAP Fig. 9)
This mutilation was carried out under the pretextof the "Liberation of
nationalities". However, those nationalities were never asked whether they
want to be "liberated" from their country of birth into the newly formed
Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia or in the case of Rumanians in Transylvania to
the backward Balkan state of Rumania.
But even if we suppose, that all the Slovaks wanted to be subjects of the
Czech's State, all the Croatians and Bdcska-Serbs agreed to be transferred
into the newly formed South-Slav Kingdom, and suppose all the Transylvanian
Rumanians were keen to be subjected to the Balkan-despotism, the number of
non-Slovaks, non-Rumanians and non-Serbians living on the ripped-off
territories outnumber those who supposedly wanted to depart from the
thousand year old state.
1,702,000 Slovaks were"liberated" by placing them under Czech rule and
together with them 1,874,000 persons of other nationalities.
2,800,000 Rumanians were "liberated/by subjecting 2,465,000 people of other
nationalities to Rumanian rule 1,029,000 Serbians wereliberated"so as to put
1,727,000,Croatians and 1,366,000 inhabitants of other nationalities under
Serbian rule.
232,000 Germans were'liberated"by placing them together with 126,000 persons
of
25
The Treaty of Trianon and the ,liberation" of nationalities. (3)
other nationalities under Austrian rule.
Without counting Croatia , which was an independent unit of the Crown land
of Hungary, more than ten millions of population were taken away from
Hungary. Of these ten million people only 47 percent are in racial relation
with the States by which they have been annexed, whereas 53 per cent are
foreign to the Succession States and more than 30 percent, i.e. 3,424,000
are pure Magyars. The Magyar population living on the territory of
historical Hungary
(Map 14)
was in round figures ten millions. Of these only 6,600,000 remained in
dismembered Hungary, i.e. not more than 66.5 per cent of the Magyars, whilst
33.5 percent were forced by the Treaty of Trianon against their own desire
or volition to become subjects of a foreign State.
Such conditions are the more flagrantly unjust, because more than one and a
half million of the Magyars annexed by the Succession States live unmixed
with any considerable number of foreign elements, adjacent to the frontiers
of present Hungary.
Map 14 showing the transferred but predominantly Hungarian populated areas
contiguous with the territory of mutilated Hungary.
The frontier lines of the treaty of Trianon all the way cut their burning
wound in, to the flesh of the Magyar ethnic block.
(1) Tibor Eckhardt: Regicide at Marseille, Recollections, New York 1964.
(2) C.A. Macartney: Hungary , A short History, The Edinburgh Univ. Press,
1962
(3) 0. Lcfgridy: Justice for Hungary, The Cruel Errors of Trianon, Budapest.
CHAPTER SEVEN
A SHORT DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF HUNGARY
(The settlement of the various nationalities and the changes of the
demographic map of the area bounded by the Carpathian Mountains in the
north-east and south-east, by the rivers Danube and Sava in the south and
the foothills of the Alps in-the west: i.e. the territory of historic
Hungary, the frontiers of which remained more or less unchanged from 896 to
1919).
(MAP 15)
page 27page 28
The breakdown by nationalities was the following:
Magyar (Hungarians): 9,950.000 (54%)
Rumanians: (Vlachs): 2,950.000 (16%)
Slovaks: 1,950.000 (10.4%)
Serbs: 460.000 (2.5%)
Other South Slavs: 150.000 (1.1%)
Others: ( Germans, Ruthenes etc)
2,840.000 (16%)
By the Treaty of Trianon 58% of this population (10,700,000) was transferred
to other states. The area transferred to Rumania had a Rumanian population
of only 55%, the Czechoslovak area a Slovak population of 60% and the
Yugoslav area a Serb population of 33% only.
The above data do not consider Croatia
which was an independent, self-governing state in union with the Hungarian
Crown. (Fig.E.)
It is also important to note that demographic maps can not adequately
indicate the density of population. When, for instance nomadic shepherds are
sparsely settled in a mountain region, this territory should not be shown as
having a compact population of that nationality. On the other hand, cities
and towns were largely Hungarian-populated even in areas where the rural
population was of a different nationality. The large town population often
more than equalled the numbers of the more sparsely settled rural minority -
but the map shows the rural area obviously as a larger territory.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE AFTERMATH
The wake of Trianon
The savage mutilation of Hungary caused by the dispositions of the Trianon
Peace Treaty endangered the very survival of the country as a viable
state-structure. The ravages of the war, the post-war revolutions and
foreign occupations culminating in the geographical dismemberment of
Hungary's territory and the savage reparation payments left Trianon Hungary
a disaster area with virtually unsurpassable social, economical and
political problems. The human and material losses were so enormous that
reconstruction would have been difficult even within the original frontiers.
But the country had been deprived of most of its material resources, mines,
forests, sources of energy and access to the sea. The great international
market and balanced economy of the Danubian Basin had been destroyed and its
place was taken by a patchwork of states with rashly erected, economically
irrational and geographically impossible frontiers.
The peoples of the region - comradesin-arms for centuries - suddenly became
mortal enemies, their emotions roused by panslav chauvinism and the
arbitrary measures of the Trianon arrangements. Under these circumstances it
was obviously futile to expect cooperation among the fragmented states.
Whilst Germany managed to survive the war at the. cost of only moderate
territorial and demographic losses and Soviet Russia succeeded in
consolidating both her territory and new social order, the small states of
Central Europe were unable to unite in the face of German or Russian
expansion.
Hungary's indefensible frontiers were ringed by a circle of hatred formed by
the three succession states, allied under the name "The Little Entente"
(Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Yugoslavia). Their alliance was motivated solely
by their common hate of the Hungarians and their anxiety to prevent a
revision of the frontiers. They gave
29
vent to their pathological hatred against the 3.5 millions of Magyars
transferred to their rule under the dispositions of the Treaty. The
succession states considered the territories given to them as conquered
provinces, a glorious aggrandizement of their national territories in which
the non-nationals, such as the Hungarians, constitued an undesirable foreign
element. Indeed the presence of the autochthonous Hungarians in these newly
constituted "national" states was an unpleasant memento of the composite
character of Central Europe's demography and a possible danger to their
shaky state-structures. Whilst the much publicized Hungarian "revisionism"
was little more than emotional wishful thinking, there existed for the
Little Entente states a real danger of an eventual destruction of their
unnatural state-structures by internal or external tensions. This caused a
constantly nagging state of anxiety in the minds of the Czechs, Rumanians
and Serbs. Under the thin pretence of "countering Hungarian revisionism"
they developed a frighteningly chauvinistic nationalism, more fanatical than
Hitler's nazism. From the very first day of their occupation of the former
Hungarian territories, the new rulers proceeded with the systematic
destruction of the Hungarian ethnic minority, especially in the compact
Magyar-inhabited areas contiguous with the Magyar area of Hungary along the
entire Trianon frontier. They coerced many Magyars to leave their ancestral
land and take refuge in Hungary, causing there an influx of 350.000 refugees
thus increasing the immense burden upon Hungary's economy. The number of the
remaining Hungarians was reduced by deportations, discrimination and
economic starvation, harassment of all kinds culminating in actual
massacres.
This ethnocide - occasionally degenerating into genocide - has been going on
since 1919 when the first "Little Entente" troops began to move ( illegally)
onto Hungarian territory. This systematic extermination campaign remained
relatively unknown, obscured by the skilful propaganda of the succession
states and by the
30
more conspicuous and turbulent events of the last decades.
During World War I the Allies proclaimed the "liberation of the
nationalities" as their principal aim. The Trianon Treaty caused the
worsening of the fate of some of these nationalities. Whilst the
AustrianHungarian Monarchy was structured as a multi-racial confederation
where each nationality had its righful place, the states created by Trianon
were built on the chauvinistic principle of single-nation systems though
they too included large segments of national minorities. In consequence, the
succession states denied the right to exist to anyone not belonging to the
ruling nationality in the state. Hence the systematic campaign against the
national minorities, especially against the Hungarians.
Neither the Hungarians' frequent offers of cooperation, nor the legitimate
complaints made at the League of Nations resulted in any amelioration of the
situation. Occasional warning words by thinking statesmen - Allied as well
as neutrals - fell on deaf ears. The 2 0 th century has been an era of
tension, aggression and conflicts of increasing magnitude in Central Europe.
The darkening clouds of the gathering storm obscured the vision of the
outside observers and the plight of the oppressed Magyars in the succession
states remained largely ignored. Nor was it possible to create an atmosphere
in which Hungary and her neighbours could discuss the peaceful rectification
of the Trianon frontiers - an idea rejected in principle by the Little
Entente. Thus the injust conditions persist and the question of the 3.5
million Magyars in the succession states remains a permanent problem,
unsolved till the present day. The new states created in 1920 under the
pretext of "self-determination of the peoples of the Austrian-Hungarian
Monarchy" have become a vale of tears for some of the "peoples" whose fate
had been cruelly determined for them.
Trianon-the source of
Central-Europe's problems
The Hungarians were not the only victims of Trianon. This ill-advised
rearrange-
ment of the frontiers has, paradoxically, harmed the very nations too who
were meant to benefit by it.
The destruction of Central Europe's political unity has created a power
vacuum in this "Marchland" region. The fragmentation of the states has
prevented the fonnation of a strong buffer-zone between the rival eastern
and western powers and there is little chance today that the present states
of the region will ever reach a state of sincere cooperation.
For centuries the domination of these Marchlands has been the key to
European supremacy. This is why the first World War was followed by the
second one: frustrated in their attempts to extend their influence over the
region, both Russia and Germany used the between-wars period to extend their
influence over the countries of Central Europe. Both powers had suffered
defeat at the end of World War I. It would have been opportune therefore to
establish a strong independent zone here to hold both powers at bay.
Unfortunately, the Trianon Treaty had fragmented the area and had set the
nations against each other, instead of uniting them. Hitler's Germany was
the first to move. Gradually Germany coerced the small nations into her
camp: Austria(1938), Czechoslovakia (1939), Rumania (1940),
Yugoslavia/Croatia (1941), Hungary (1941) whilst the only state to resist,
Poland was conquered in 1939. The other rival power, Soviet Russia, began
its conquests by the occupation of eastern Poland in 1939 ( in concert with
Germany), followed by the annexation of the Baltic states (1940) and the
attack on Finland (1939-40). When, after the initial German successes, the
German-Russian conflict turned into a Russian advance, the Soviet extended
its domination over most of Central Europe.
During World War II the western Allies renounced their original war aim: the
protection of the small Central-European states and so it happened that, by
the conc-
31
lusion of the war, the Soviet Union was able to complete the conquest of
this region with the very help of the western powers who had so strongly
condemned Germany for her aspirations of a similar nature. If it was in
Europe's interest to refrain Germany in Central Europe, the same should
apply to the Russian aspirations. The possession of Central Europe by either
power upsets the delicate geopolitical balance of Europe. At the present,
for instance, Western Europe cannot be defended any more without outside
help. The possession of Central Europe has also enabled Russia to double her
industrial potential. Furthermore, allowing the Soviet domination of the
small nations has created a dangerous precendent: no small nation will ever
feel secure again in the vicinity of a great power.
CONCLUSION.
The publication of this booklet has, as its principal aim, the dissemination
of true information. Objective studies of Central European problems are
rare, especially those which discuss the complexities of the geopolitical
role of these countries.
We hope that the reader will realise that small nations relate to
international politics according to their geopolitical situations. No nation
is "reactionary" or 'democratic" by nature: their attitudes depend
32
greatly on the political atmosphere in their region. It is senseless
therefore to punish small nations for having tried to find survival in a
temporary alliance with one or the other great power. Small nations cannot
pursue policies independent from or contrary to the dominant powers of the
region - especially at time of war. Still more senseless is to punish
innocent members of the nation who had no power to influence their country's
policy. This happened in Hungary in 1920 - and again in 1947: the country
was found guilty of having been coerced into two wars in which no Hungarian
had any interest. What is more, 3.5 million Hungarians were punished for the
"sins" of their government - which had no other way to act anyhow.
Equal human rights have been - in theory -- the birthright of every human
being bom on this planet. Still millions of human beings are denied equal
human rights in Central Europe, only because their govemments happened to
fight on the losing side in the previous war. Their plight is not as well
publicized as some other denials of human rights elsewhere. This is the
second aiin of this writing: to ask for understanding and compassion for the
plight of the oppressed minorities in Central Europe and to hope that truth
and justice will one day apply to the victors and the defeated alike.