Papers and Documents relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary, Volume 1, 1919–1920 (Budapest, 1939)
Appendix III. Parliamentary debates
9 58 still be compelled to abide by their original stand, contrary to the Hungarian viewpoint. Thus the boundaries which were originally planned are completely eliminated, leaving a choice between two extremes: our position and the imperialistic ambitions of our neighbours. These are not enlarged upon and are to be found only between the lines. Some explanation may be found in the address of Lord Balfour in the British House of Commons, I think at the beginning of March, when he expressed the opinion that the new boundary between Rumania and Hungary is just about the best that could have been found, although this boundary may well be characterized as a wicked compromise between atrocious injustice and insatiable imperialistic ambitions, Balfour admitted that these questions are very difficult, much more difficult indeed than was believed at first when they were presented without taking into account all the interests involved. He continued by saying that although ethnic principles were preponderant in drawing the boundaries, railway communications, economic and even strategic interests could not be neglected. Here we can see that other factors also influenced t he treaty, and I should like to emphasize that among them were such ephemeral considerations as railway connections which, after all, could be changed according to necessity, if not in days, surely in years. This is how the originally contenplated boundary was altered in favour of a boundary promoting economic imperialism. I should like to refer to two other points in the Accompanying Letter. These I must mention because of the influence which they are bound to exercise on public opinion and on every individual and about which the world should also know. (Hear ! Hear !) According to the published version of the Accompanying Letter, one paragraph sounds as if our thousand year old possession of the country were illegal. (Commotion.) The authentic version does not read like that. The authentic text reads (quoting): „A state of affairs, even when millennial, is not on that account bound to exist when it has been recognized as contrary to justice." (Commotion.) Thus there is a difference in emphasis but even in this form I must from this place reject such reasoning. (General approval and applause.) I must reject it and in doing so I am supported by Reclus, the great French geographer, and by Michelet, the distinguished French historian. Another passage in the Accompanying Letter to which I must refer is the argument that a plebiscite is unnecessary. (Hear! Hear!) According to this reasoning, the people in the detached territories had already made their decisions in October
