Papers and Documents relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary, Volume 1, 1919–1920 (Budapest, 1939)

Appendix III. Parliamentary debates

g6o The second memorandum to which I wish to refer was annexed to our note regarding Northern Hungary. This described the methods used by the Czechs in the recently conducted census -— which even had it been done with all impartiality, could hardly have been perfect under the conditions existing in that territory. The third and most important of these memoranda was annexed to our introductory note and marshalled ample evidence to prove the correctness of our statistics. It is true that we submitted thirty-seven annexes with this note and perhaps that is how they may have escaped the attention of some readers. From these documents I only wish to mention the most salient facts. A comparison between religious and nationality statistics makes clear, not only to experts, but also to any impartial layman that there are no more mistakes in these statistics than in the statistics of any civilized country. It happens that there are slight errors in figures counting in the millions but such errors are found in the statistics of every other country. (Approval.) I think it should be pointed out also — forgive me for spending so much time on this matter (Hear! Hear!) — that we also proved that in 1900, half, and in 1910 more than half, of the census takers were teachers. Among these, naturally, were teachers of parochial and religious schools who, in turn, comprised a substantial number of teachers belonging to national minorities. (Approval.) To show, however, the tendencious slant in which our figures were presented, it will be sufficient for me to mention but one instance. Ossucky, the Czech representative in London, alleged in an interview that the Hungarians talk first of 3,600,000, then of 1,800,000 of their kin as being lost, adding that this proves the reliability of the Hungarians. The answer is very simple to any one who reads any one of our memoranda. It is true that both figures are used; to be exact, the larger figure is not 3,600,000 but 3,400,000. This figure indicates the number of all Hungarians torn away, while the lower figure refers to those who live in solid blocks in the detached territories contiguous to the present frontiers. I wished to bring this up as an example of the malice with which these things are interpreted; a malice against which there is no other weapon than time. I shall now turn to those few passages in the Accompanying Letter which make slight concessions, quite apart from its general tone, which, as I said, is relatively mild. The Accompanying Letter states that as at present it cannot any longer change the frontiers (which expression means, I believe