Magyar külpolitika, 1930 (11. évfolyam, 1-7. szám)

1930 / 7. szám - The Question of Revision

22 HUNGÁRIA LLOYD December 1930 Hungary förmed any part of a Czech State or that the Present Rumanians are decendents of the Romans who concquered Dacia. Nevertheless, in spite of the very vague plea of re-union they succeeded in tearing away two thirds of the Hungárián mother country. Moreover the treaties were distinguished by the fact that just as the French Government was aílowed without any objection to repatriate Germán nationals settled in Alsace-Lorrain since 1871, alsó the Governments who benefitted from the partition of Hungárián territory were silently endowod with the right to compel undor the title of repatriation the Hungárián population which for a thousand -years had lived in two thirds of Hungary, either to remove to trunkated Hungary or to emigrate. I think we do not exaggerate if we state that there is a considerable difference in this regard between Francé and the annexing Governments which were helped to victory by Francé. I think that a demand for a plebiscite on the Hungárián territories which it was proposed to detach, made by Count Albert Apponyi, president of the Hungárián peace delegation, sliould ha ve been strong enough anti-dote to the unjustified demands of the annexing Governments, and it is quite obvious that it was not their absolute confidence in the results of a plebiscite that induced these Governments to frustrate the endeavours of the Hungárián peace delegation. Otherwise they themselves would have agreed to a plebiscite, in order to prove their statement as to the falsity of the Hungárián official statistics. Instead of which they did everything in their power to prevent a plebiscite, and were even prepared to use armed force, if necessary, thereby proving the integrity of these statistics, their faith in which is moreover demonstrated by the fact that on the distribution of the Bánság district the Serbians and Rumanians quoted Hungárián statistical data to defend their claims against one another. That the omission of a plebiscite with all the sad consequences arising from this omission is a constructional fault of the Parisian peace treaties, was admitted by the Allied Powers themselves when, in the interest of the millions of people who were subjected to foreign rule by armed force, without being consulted, they did not issue the peace treaties before having concluded the contracts for the protection of the minorities or before these had been signed by the Governments who participated in the annexation of Hungárián territories. The powers regarded the peace treaties without the minority contracts as incomplete documents and forced the interested Goverments to sign these contracts, partly before the conclusion of the peace treaties, partly by ultimatums. Moreover on August lOth 1920 in the Treaty of Sévres, the importance of which is, as a rule, reduced by deep silence, the Associated and Allied Powers solemnly declared and made alsó the interested Governments subscribe to andadmit that the territories in question were passed into the possession of the annexing Governments and their States not by virtue of the Parisian treaties, alone, but alsó on the basis of the agreements and declarations connected therewith. The minority agreements are, however, not only sine qua non of the valiclity of the peace treaties, but the only documents which endeavour to justify the proceclure of the Powers pacifying their conscienqe by implying that the complex of the peace treaties are not to be regarded as one-sided legal documents only. If, therefore, the annexing Governments wisű to rid themselves of the obligations undertaken in the minority agreements they compel the Great Powers to vindicate these obligations or else to make suitable changes in the peace treaties. In addition to the difference which we have shown to exist between the annexations carried out by the Danube States, and that of Francé, we perceive another difference in the fact that the latter declared the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy non-existent at a time when in fact it was still intact. The Associated and Allied Powers by having concluded with the Monarchy on the 3rd November 1918 an armistic agreement in accordance with the requirements of international law, give an obvious proof that they themselves regarded it as existing. When, in contradiction to the above the French Government in November 1918, after the signing of the armistice stated in a memorandum that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy had ceased to exist and proposed the exclusion of the representatives of Austria and Hungary from the peace conference and at the same time suggested the invitation of the Czech, Serbian and Rumanian Governments interested in the division of the Monarchy, the American Government persisted on the presence of the Central Powers. At the same time the American Government declared that they demanded the observation of Wilson's fourteen points, published on January 8th 1918, which had been accepted by the Central Powers, and they refused to consider the peace conditions of the Associated and Allied Powers laid down on the lOth January 1918, in the creation of which America had not participated, and on the basis of which the French Government demanded the cancellation of Wilson's fourteen points. If therefore, after the conclusion of a legal armistice with the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the occupation of Hungárián territories could have been put into effect in a manner contrary to the armistice agreement, then alsó in this case we face a divergence, which we point out, in the form of a onesided cancellation of the armistice agreement. This may further be seen in the fact that, although the occupation of the territories in question was carried out by Czech, Serbian and Rumanian troops, the anxiety of the Hungárián Government was relieved by tho statement of the Associated and Allied Powers that the troops might be regarded as Entente troops. When however, the Parisian conference made Bratianu, the Rumanian Prime Minister, responsible for the advance of Rumanian troops on Hungárián territory, Bratianu expressed his aslonishment that the Associated and Allied Powers still regarded the armistice agreement as being in force, although in practice no one had considered it thus. In calling attention to the study of this question, we cannot fail to mention that Berthelot, the French generál, gave written statement that Kolozsvár would be occupied by Rumanian troops only until the French troops should arrive. We do not know whether he would have been able to exchange the Rumanian troops with French and the troops of the other annexing States for the Entente-troops mentionét! in the armistice agreement, because they never