Krónika, 1945 (2. évfolyam, 2-11. szám)

1945-09-15 / 9. szám

2-IK OLDAL

“KRÓNIK A’

1945 szeptember 15.

From the point of view of the European balance of powers, the Central-Danubian valley has undoubtedly the greatest importance. The Danube is the principal European river and, if dominated either by pangermanist or panslav forces, it leads to the destruction of the European balance of powers and of European peace. The most endangered on the other hand are the northern states — they have for the time being already disappeared — because they have no natural borders east or west. The Central-Danubian area has the magnificent defenses of the Carpathian and the Sudeten mountains and partly the Alps. As long as these natural fortifications stand, the Balkan group is more or less defended against foreign interference- But as sooir as the Central Danubian area is partly occupied, the peace of the Balkans is gone.

The problem of the Central Danubian Valley.

Before the world war, the Central Danubian valley was under the unified leadership of Austria-Hungary. During this time, history, politics and economy had made of this area a complete body, which from every point of view in international life, foreign policy, economy and defense was self sufficient and was therefore a guaranty of the European balance, able to stop German and Russian imperalism. In this area lived six major nationalities, german-speaking Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Croats, Slovens and Slovaks, and quite a number of other minor nationalities. These nationalities were so mixed up that it was physically impossible to separate them; each separation would have created new minorities. Austria-Hungary was for a long time a true League of Nations of this area, with the improvement that this organization was developed through history, and was therefore internally equilibrated, capable off further development, and had the real power to carry through its decisions on its territory. It granted to the nationalities a western civilization, freedom, order and the advantages of the position as a big power.

Its main weakness was that, although built on a super-national federative idea, it fell into the mistakes of Centralism to counteract the rising nationalism, instead of going forward in the federal idea.

The basic mistake of the peace-treaties in the Central-Danubian area was not to have created national states on the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but instead to have destroyed the whole Danubian unity system, which had proved its advantage in many respects, thus leaving in the area a number of states incapable of living normally because not united, and therefore unsatisfied. These states were utterly unable of resisting the re-awakened historic Russian and German forces and therefore unable to watch over the European balance and the European peace.

Reorganization of the Central-Danubian Valley.

Besides the main error of shattering the natural unity of the Central-Danubian Valley, there was another mistake which proved to be fatal in the moment when the force of the German Reich appeared in the Danubian area. This was the half-hearted application of the national principle. The principle of nationalities being pfficially announced as the basic idea of the peace-treaties, the peace-makers soon realized, that the consequent territorial application of the principle of nationalities, as it was visualized, would lead to such an atomisation of the Danubian area, that it would make any. sort of living absolutely unbearable.

So first they decided to build up national states, but they artificially reduced the number of these nationalities by creating, besides the two existing national states — Austria and Hungary — three more national states, — Czecho-Slovakia, Jugoslavia and Rumania. Of these, two, Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia, were built on a mere fiction the existence of the Czecho-Slovak and Jugoslav nation. It would have been more logical to call the one the Czeh and the other the Serb state, because in both cases these nations were the very state-nations, although they represented only roughly 50% of the whole population of their area. —• As for Rumania, its realm was nearly doubled by the incorporation of Transylvania, — a western mixed territory — into that centralized Balkan state. By so reducing artificially the number of nationalities, and by the fiction of giving these nationalities their own centralized state, the national idea was awakened in all nationalities — which, as we must emphasize, was not theoretically wrong, — without giving those national aspirations the possibility of fully satisfying their aims.

Realizing that these newly created national states had within their boundaries a very great number of elements which did not belong to the nationality, or the fictious nationality, which would dominate the centralized national state and thus would feel unhappy, the peacetreaties made their second great mistake in introducing into the Danubian area the hitherto unknown notion of minorities and protection of minorities. It made willingly-unwillingly a distinction between the citizens of the same state, leaving the feeling between the members of the minorities, that they wre considered as citizens of lesser degree then the members of the state-nation. Now. one can not ask of a citizen of second degree absolute Ioyality to a state, in which he is dominated

by a state-nation and in which he has not the same absolutely equal possibilities as the members of the majority, specially if this citizen is attracted by another state, in which his nationality has the dominating role.

To this criticism, the answer was that it would be impossible to create as many national states as there are nationalities. But even if they were to be created, it would be impossible to disentangle the nationalities even by making large exchanges of populations. On the other hand it was stated that in a democratic state, by the mere strength of votes, there would be always national majorities and minorities in the mixed territories.

Both arguments are wrong.

» To take the second argument first: it is obvious that the essential basis of democracy is the equality of rights. This equality of rights must not be applied only to individuals, but also to natural unities, as are for example the nationalities. We have for that a very good example in the the world’s greatest democracy, the United States. In this country each state, be it small or large, sends two senators to Washington, because the constitution considers these states as being natural unities and thus entitled to a democratic equality of rights with the other natural unities. Now the questions of nationalities interests are limited to cultural, administrative and all sort of language questions. Why not apply the democratic principle of equality of rights between nationalities to these questions?

As for the first argument, that is to say that it would be impossible to create enough national states, because the nationalities are too numerous and too much entangled, it is equally wrong, because it opposes an idea which no sensible man could represent. The reasonable solution and the whole hearted application of the principle of nationalities would be, to allot to each nationality, whatever her number may be, within the boundary at a non-national state, considered as a purely political and administrative unity, the full equality of rights in that sense, that all laws concerning questions of culture, education or language could be only passed after the consent of the interested nationalities through their freely elected representatives. In this way, by the creation of national autonomies which are not territorially bound, a federative state could be realized, in which democracy would not be a mere word. The membership to a nationality must be left to the free decision of each individual, after the personal principle, as it is for example today practised in the question of religion

To summarize this point, it would seem wise:

a) to declare that each Danubian state is a super-national organization with political, economical and administrative aims:

b) that each nationality living within the boundaries of this state has the same right in all cultural, educational and linguistic matters;

c) that for this purpose each nationality has the right to be represented by the same number of representatives as the others in the governmental body, which has to decide on those matters:

d) that each individual should be free to declare his nationality.

In this way it would seem possible to apply integrally the

national principle and to eliminate the malefic notion of minority, thus increasing the inner strength of each state.

Principles of security.

The consequent application of the democratic and national principle is without any doubt the most important duty in the Danubian area of the future. Its application could reasonably mean the progressive disappearance of the national quarrels, in the same way as the application of the personal principle put an end to the religious fights. It could thus lead to a definite inner strengthening of the Danubian area.

But we must not forget that the Central Danubian valley is on watch for Europe, is the last and supreme guardian of the European balance of powers- Therefore another important principle is the maintenance of the security from all outward aggression.

The knowledge of European history teaches us, that the geographical border is normally stronger than ethnographical one. Although from time to time, conquerors could trespass the natural borders, in the current of history, and very often within a short time, the geographical border was re-established. The rivers, even the greater ones, connect the territories on their borders, at least in Central Europe. The geographical border which separates the states is always the mountain, the watershed.

The Central Danubian valley is protected by such natural borders: Westwards are the Sudeten-Mountains, protecting Bohemia and Moravia, and the Austrian Alps, to protect this area from the German Reich; North and Eastwards is the range of the Carpatian mountains.

The national life of the Danubin states must therefore be adapted so as not to disturb the unified system of defense of the Danubian nations. That means first, that every right or possibility d>? influence of a great power in that organization must be radically eli-