Krónika, 1945 (2. évfolyam, 2-11. szám)
1945-09-15 / 9. szám
12-IK OLDAL “KRÓNIKA” 1945 szeptember 15. AMERICAN HUNGARIAN MONTHLY KRÓNIKA AMERIKAI MAGYAR HAVILAP Editor — SÁNDOR TARCZ — szerkesztő Published every month by “KRÓNIKA” Hungarian Press 307-5TH AVENUE NEW YORK 16, N. Y. SUBSCRIPTION: U. S. of AMERICA and CANADA $1.00 PER YEAR ELŐFIZETÉSI DIJ: az Egyesült Államokban és Canadában $1.00 EGY ÉVRE PRICE PER COPY — 10c — EGY PÉLDÁNY ÁRa The Road the Peace countries and the Soviets be reconciled and how? This is the crucial question facing the Council of Foreign Ministers. It is evident that only by finding a solution to this question can the road be opened for a true and lasting peace. The first practical task of the Council of Foreign Ministers is to plan the peace treaty with Italy. Russia does not like the Italian set-up- Her views on the future of Italy and her colonies differ from that of Great Britain. One need not be a prophet to foretell that the first big diplomatic battle between the Western democracies and Russia will be fought on Italy. Russia tries to get a foothold on the Medditerranean and England is determined to keep her out as the Meddi terranean is the life line of Brtish Empire. While Winston Churchill, in order to keep Russia out from Britain’s sphere of interest was willing at a time to concede to Russia that Southeastern Europe, except Greese as her sphere of influence, it is a question whether Britain’s new Labor Government will be willing to make such a bargain. We know for sure that the Government of the United States is not willing to be a partner to such agreement. President Truman in his report to the American nation on the Potsdam conference stated emphatically: HUNGARY AND THE LONDON CONFERENCE Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors and their aids, experts on international politics, economics, geography, history and military affairs gathered together in London for the first meeting of the Big Five’s Foreign Ministers. At Potsdam it was decided to charge the Council of Foreign Ministers with the task of preparing peace treaties with Italy, Finnland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary. “The conclusion of peace treaties with recognized democratic governments in these states will also enable the three governments to support applications from them for membership of the United Nations” —• said the official communique issued in Potsdam. Thus the Council of Foreign Ministers was charged with opening the road to a lasting peace on the European continent. It is not surprising, however," that the conference, called together to usher in a new era of peace, started in a very war-like atmosphere. Competent observers, like Herbert L. Mathews, correspondent of the New York Times, now in London to cover the proceedings, could not help noticing that the first meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers was preceeded by "a war of nerves over the Russian and Balkan radios as those countries defend their ideas of democracy and berate Britain and the Unied States for denying the validity of the Bulgarian and Rumanian (and Hungarian) governments and their proposed elections.” Secretary of State Byrnes’ statement on the proposed Bulgarian elections and Ernest Bevin’s speech in the British House of Commons expressing- the views of Britain’s new Labor Government on developement in Southeastern Europe brought the differences between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union to the fore front. What are these differences? In plain and simple language: the British and the American governments do not regard developements in countries liberated by the Russian arimies as forerunners of a democratic system. On the other hand the Soviet government and the regimes established by them in liberated countries, insist that only they know what true democracy is. Articles in Soviet newspapers give further proofs of the increasingly obvious fact, that Russia’s use of the word “democracy” is not identical with its use by the Western democracies. Brooks Atkinson, another correspondent of the New York Times, now in Moscow reports that for some time he has requested the proper Soviet authorities for a definition of “democracy” as the Russians understand the word, but so far he met no success. The basic difference between the western and the Russian conception of “democracy” seems to be the following: We in this country and the people in England believe that democracy means the rule of the people. It means free and unfettered elections, free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, jury by trial- It means that no one can be deprived from his freedom, or his property without due process of law. On the other hand advocates of the so-called eastern democracy believe in the one party system and in consequence, that people can only vote for candidates of the party in power. Although seemingly there are several political parties functioning in countries, liberated by the Russian armies, in reality in each and every such country there is a popular front and only parties belonging to this front can participate in the political life of the country. A fair idea of what eastern democracy has brought to Yugoslavia was given by Hal Lehrman, correspondent of the “Nation” well known liberal weekly. According to Lehrman, who sent his article to the “Nation” by cable from Belgrad, capitol of Yugoslavia, the first paragraph of the law on press provides for freedom of press, but other paragraphs of this same law make the first paragraph absolutely meaningless, thus in Yugoslavia today among hundred newspapers there is not a single one which would voice opposition to the government. The advocates of the socalled eastern democracy do not condemn the practice of interning people into concentration camps, without trial, if those interned are suspected of opposing the system. Can these opposing views on democracy, between the western “At Yalta it was agreed, you will recall, that the three Governments would assume a common responsibility in helping to reestablish in the liberated and satellite nations of Europe governments broadly representative of the democratic elements in the population. That responsibility still stands. We all recognize it as a joint responsibility of the three Governments. It was reaffirmed in the Berlin declarations on Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary- These nations are not to be spheres of influence of any one power. They are now governed by Allied control commissions composed of representatives of the three Governments which met at Yalta and Berlin. These control commissions, it is true, have not been functioning completely to our satisfaction; but improved procedures were agreed upon at Berlin.- Until these states are re-established as members of the international family, they are the joint concern of all of us. Thus the American government is bound by the promise given by President Truman to protest against any arrangement which would make a mockery of the independence of nations just liberated from under the Nazi yoke. This promise is the best hope of all the peoples of Europe that the Council of the Foreign Ministers must arrive at solutions which will be just to them as well as to the great powers whose task is to keep the peace. This promise is the best hope of the long suffering people of Hungary, who are anxiously watching the proceedings in London. The Hungarian peace treaty is not in preparation as yet. It seems that the Hungarian treaty will be the last prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers. But from the pattern which will be molded now the people of Hungary will be able to foresee their own fate, too- They hope and pray that this pattern will be the pattern of a true peace of historic rights and national selfdetermination. We Americans of Hungarian origin join them in this prayer. Amerikai és angol vélemények Trianonról. (Folytatás) A pesti Ritz-szállóban isznak és táncolnak a világ uj rablói, a nemzetközi pénzemberek. A dögkeselyűk csoportosan jelennek ott, ahol hulla hever, de sehol sem telepedtek meg oly sűrű csoportban, mint Magyarországon a háború után. Az utódállamok ügynökei kapzsiak, kihívók, fennhéjázok és gyávák. A történelem vad iróniája nyilvánul meg abban, hogy Széchenyi István tekintete tezekre a jelenetekre esik. A békeszerződések területi rendelkezései tekintetében az iró a legélesebben Nyugat-Magyarország elszakitását ócsárolja, morális szempontból. Azt, hogy a többi szövetséges megkapta jutalmul a .maga részét Magyarország testéből, még legalább meg lehet okolni. Románia a háború legválságosabb pillanatában jelentkezett úgy szólván az árverésre és neki Ígérték Erdélyt. Ronánia hadsereget állított csatasorba, amely azonnal megfutamodott ugyan de az árát meg kellett fizetni. A csehek a szövetségeseknek többé-kevésbbé értékes szolgálatokat tettek azzal, .hogy elárulták saját táborukat s ezért meg kellett őket jutalmazni. Miért kellett azonban Ausztriának uj területeket kapni? E különös területi rendelkezés mögött bizonyára valami speciális gondolat rejtőzik. Politikailag Erdély és a Kárpátok területe magyar, úgy szellemben, mint a lakosság tekintetében. Ezt statisztikai adatok bizonyítják. Kolozsvárott 50,704 magyar ,volt és csak 5676 román. A demokrácia elvei igazolják azt, hogy egy ilyen várost Romániának szolgáltattak ki? Az angolok és a franciák, akik Kolozsvárt a románoknak szolgáltatták ki, azt állítják, hogy a demokráciát nagyrabecsülik s ezért a többség uralmát abszolút szentségnek tekintik. ,Nem szabad továbbá elfelejteni, hogy Magyarország gazdasági szempontból egészséges és egyöntetű egységet alkotott. A gazdaságilag konszolidált egység lehetősége adva volt, mégpedig a jólét minden kilátásával. Az uj Magyarország azonban pusztán síkságból áll. (Folytatjuk.)
