Verhovayak Lapja, 1944 (27. évfolyam, 1-52. szám)
1944 / Verhovay Journal
Page 2 Verhov ay Journal December 27, 1944 Truths Versus Half-Truths Beware of false prophets from Central Europe who pervert facts to their own secret ends By STEPHEN HUZIANYI From the Danubian Basin a secret weapon is being launched against Americans that may decide the war long after the weapons have been silenced and armies have, ceased to deploy. This secret bűt by' no means new device is PROPAGANDA and may well destroy again, as in 1919, the structure of peace in Central Europe by an arbitrary reshuffling of boundaries based on lies and falsification of history. The sly agents who direct Central European propaganda against us are here in our midst. They wear the disguise and protective coloring of allies and friends of the United States but machinate against the long-term welfare of Americans and the world at large. They spread propaganda for a new and powerful world state, a Slav empire, in a cunning and innocent manner by filling columns and pages of ostensibly disinterested and respectable magazines and periodicals with seemingly ‘'impartial” and “analytical” essays and articles. I will use excerpts from these articles to show samples of the lies and distortions of the truth with which we are being bombarded. We hope that Americans will learn to recognize these hifalutin and documented “analyses,” “editorials,” “criticisms,” etc., no matter in which high-sounding magazine or periodical they find .them, as just so- much sophisticated baloney and plain hooey. POINT 3 — INSTALMENT VII “Twelve years later, in his exile, Kossuth implored his 'Slav and Rumanian brethren to throw a veil over the past and to rise, hand in hand for their common freedom.’ ” Apparently for reasons of his own, Mr. Vambery declines to even mention the beginning of Kossuth’s work. One would infer, from what Mr. Vambery has to say, that it was only after 12 years had elapsed since the Magyar War for Independence in. 1848-49 that Kossuth then, and ojjly belatedly, begged the non-Magyars in Hungary, negotiated with Serbia and the Wallachs and Moldavians (mcdern Rumanian.) tc come to some understanding with the Magyars. And thus to give the flavor of “impartiality” to his “line,” Vambery quotes Kosuth in a clever, distorted fashion. Mr. Vambery is rather anxious to give Hungary to the non- Magyar settlers, refugees from famine and Turkish persecutions, and colonists—all these who sought a new home in Hungary, founded by the Magyars. Most of these non-Magyar citizens of Hungary were good citizens, for alter they had once migrated and settled in Hungary, you -would naturally expect them to accept the way of life in the new land—and not give them sucli rights as would break-up the country. They would integrate themselves with the Magyar population and not seek to destroy their new country. Mr. Vambery, however, is spokesman for the non-Magyars, since he endeavors at every step to play up the Magyars as villains and the non-Magyars as leading characters. He deprecates Kosuth. However, Vambery cught to know that Kossuth carried on negotiations throughout the entire period that the Magyar struggle for independence lasted, and even in exile he attempted to reconcile the different views and the too extremist Serb and Rumanian thoughts. What Kossuth said 12 years after the struggle seems to have been his very last appeal to the nationalities in the Danubian Basin to form a united front. The Magyar leader knew that the Serbs wanted to get possession of southern Hungary, in order to serve the Greater Serbia scheme; and that the Wallachs desired the Magyar province of Transylvania for purposes of their own expansion. Kossuth, viewing the entire situation, made very liberal reforms in Hungary and at the same time negotiated with leading Serbs and Rumanians. Now, for the record, let me tell just what happened during the Magyar War for Independence, as far as Kossuth’s negotiations with the non-Magyars are concerned. Kossuth knew that England wanted to have Austria a bulwark against Russia. Nevertheless, influential circles in England dispatched an English officer, Capt. Henningsen, to Kossuth and to the neighboring countries. (Lord Palmerston himself was more active for the cause of a free Hungary, at the beginning of the Magyar struggle.) Henningsen‘s mission was to give encouragement to Kossuth in his plan to create an alliance of nationalities in the Danube Valley, to act as a front against the Russian Czar. Kossuth had plans for such an alliance for he knew that the peoples on Hungary’s southern border, and under Turkish rule, would welcome a change to the better and unite for the common cause. Why not unite the Magyars and Hungarians of the Danube Basin with the neighboring Rumanians to the East and the Serbians to the South? Kossuth, Batthanyi, and Henningsen discussed this matter in December of 1849. Henningsen, it was agreed, was to be liaison officer with the Serbs and get them to agree for a plan for a Danubian Federation—thus uniting Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and the principalities then under the Turkish rule, Moldavia and Wallachia. The Turks were favorably disposed to Louis Kossuth and so agreed to give protection to such a confederation during its inception. But the Serbs wanted territory at the expense of Hungary. Kossuth rightfully would not concede to them any portions of Magyarland. A compromise was then effected, the liaison officer being the Polish Count Zamojski. Croatia-Slavonia would be surrendered if Croatia became a member of this plan. Fiume would remain a Magyar city—for it was the only access for Hungary to the Adriatic Sea. (Kossuth evolved this plan even, before early 1848 when the Magyar revolution broke out.) Henningsen with these details returned to Lord Palmerston to get official English approval to the plan. Kossuth, meanwhile, remained in the Balkans (for he was an exile from Hungary), engaged in plans to federate the Danubian peoples. In January 1850 Kossuth had Carosini, a Piedmontese agent in Belgrade, Serbia, present the Magyar plan to Garashanin, the Serbian Prime Minister. Substantially it was as follows: In the proposed creation of the Danubian Confederation, Hungary naturally was to have the chief role, while Hungarian citizens of Serbian descent were to be given every light compatible with the Hungarian national life. Croatia and Slavonia would be joined to Serbia, thus expanding her if she desired, the only stipulation being that the only Magyar seaport, Flume on the Adriatic, would remain Hungarian. The Serbs could not rightfully look to any portion, of the Banat or the Bacska regions, since these are Magyar areas and to surrender them would mean the surrendering of Hungarian national sovereignty if these were handed over to Serbia. It was for these territories, however, that the Serbs agitated so long, which agitation finally culminated in their obtaining them cleverly in 1919. At the time, in 1850, however, Garashanin realized that such terms were impossible if he really wanted the creation of a confederation of states and if his Serbian people were to receive their independence from the Turks. The Habsburgs intervened and the Serbs promptly shelved the plan, and did not negotiate with the Magyars on this matter until after the Italian war for liberation had commenced. Now' we come to some facts concerning the negotiations that Kossuth had with the Rumanian leaders, done at the same time that he carried on, with the Serbs. Kossuth personally discussed the plan of confederation with the Goleseu brothers, the Rumanian leaders, who came to him at Sumla in August 1850. The Rumanians had conceived their own scheme, somewhat similar to that espoused by Kossuth. The only thing paramount in their plan was that the states were to be organized on a national basis. The Goleseu leaders also wanted Hungary to hand the Magyar province of Transylvania to the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which eventually were made into Rumania. This meant as much as the dismemberment of Hungarian territory and it would have meant national suicide if Kossuth would have acceded to the plan which the Rumanian leaders entertained. The representatives of the Magyar ■ Provisional Government in Paris, László Teleki and George Klapka, made various agreements with the Rumanians there. They conceded the principle of national states to the Rumanians, and decided that the question of the Magyar province of Erdély (Transylvania) was to be left to a plebiscite. (The Rumanian leaders then seemed to be more consistent witn the principle of self-determination than the Rumanians of our day!) Kossuth did not seem to favor such an idea too strongly, for he insisted, in May 1851, in writing to Teleki, that it would be to the benefit of the Wallaehians and Moldavians if Hungary were independent, for she would then help them against the Russians, who would not be able to control Constantinople. In early 1851 Kossuth drafted a Nationalities Bill, which he sent to Hungarians in various capitals of Europe, and also to the Serbians and Rumanians. The Hungarian citizens of whatever origin would have linguistic rights. It would lead only to dissolution if there were independent territorial entities within Hungary. Kosuth’s chief aim was that each state in the Danubian Confederation would control its. internal affairs, and would not be impeded by any of the other members in the confederation; there would Ije a common administration of foreign affairs; a common administration for war, as well as for international trade. Some Magyar leaders wanted . to sacrifice evén the territorial integrity of Hungary in order to formulate such a Danubian Confederation with the peoples living in the upper Balkan states— Hungary’s southern neighbors. However, there were other Magyar leaders who, hot desiring to secede any Hungarian territories, saw that by such a squeeze play the Serbians and Rumanians in the not too distant future would have the upper edge with respect to the common interests of such a confederation. These two thoughts of conflict provoked an argument among the Magyar leaders while Kossuth was still in Asia Minor, so that he left in the autumn of 1851—when the United States had dispatched a naval ship to bring Kossuth to the land of freedom, and away from tiie clutches of the Habsburgs who were trying to bring pressure .on the Turks to have Kossuth delivered to them. I see the marks of God in the heavens and the earth. But how much more in a liberal intellect', in magnanimity, in unconquerable rectitude, in a philanthropy which forgives every wrong, and which never despairs of the cause of Christ and human virtue.------W. ELERY CHANNING * * * What do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult to each other? —GEORGE ELIOT * * * I take it to be a principal rule of life, not to be too much addicted to any one thing. —TERENCE TO THE CONTRIBUTORS The next issue of the Journal will be published on Wednesday, January 10. Contributions for that issue should be in not later than January 3, Wednesday. Contributions should be typewritten, on one side of the paper only, double-spaced, and not exceed 1200 words, or 8,000 letters. Address contributions to VERHOVAY JOURNAL, ENGLISH SECTION, 345 Fourth Ave., Pittsburgh 22, Pa. THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE From an address of Hon. Gregg L. Neel, Insurance Commissioner. (Hon. Gregg L. Neel, Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, addressed the Pennsylvania Fraternal Congress at its annual meeting which was held cn November 14th, ,1944, at the Benjamin Franklin Hotel in Philadelphia, Pa. Speaking of the responsibilities of fraternal organizations in the preservation of the American way of life, Hon. Gregg L. Neel expressed thoughts that should (receive attention by all fratemalists. Quoting the paragraphs pertaining to this subject, we urge our readers to give these thoughts earnest consideration.) * * * 'Tt is great to be an American. There is no system of measurement which can be applied to the profound passion for liberty such as we here in the United States have. The minds, the hearts, the sculs, the aspirations of peoples are brought nearer together in their Fraternal associations. You and the groups you represent are performing a needed and a real service here in our grand country. I feel that fraternals have as good an understanding of this desire within the hearts and sculs of mankind as any group of people. You have proven this by the grand fraternals and lodge systems which you have built in free America.” # * * “We are in the middle of a fight for our very existence. It must not be short-circuited by any narrow or selfish viewpoints. It is only by keeping our thinking on the level of what is to be for the most good to the most people—to the insuring public— that we can hope for permanent good and lasting peace for the business of insurance which means so much to us all.” ^ *5* H* “Our ancestors came to this country to enjoy the freedom of Democracy, the right to freedom of speech, of religion, of education and of self-government. The formation of fraternal societies was a very natural development because normal man wants to enjoy his freedoms in association with his fellow man. It is the absence of freedom which drives then apart. Moreover, there was educational and other social values to be had in and through the fellowship in societies. These values gave fraternal societies a natural start and many real reasons for steady development. I thus briefly rehearse the past of Frate: nalism because any consideration of the future must he based on the present which is the Inheritance of the past.” & ❖ ❖ “The plan for the Post War Period is one which rightfully must be made by YOU, your members and the people of this great country of ours. The job is one in which every man, woman, and child must participate. Therefore, a means must he found FOR PRODUCING MASS INTEREST, MASS STUDY IN THIS PROBLEM, in this tremendous job which faces us so that the decision—when made shall be the decision of the majority of our citizenry. We should remember now that if whatever course we pursue fails of its purpose, we will he ^-(Continued on Page 3)
