Magyar News, 2004. szeptember-2005. augusztus (15. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2005-07-01 / 11-12. szám

The Shameful Trianon

This is what we hear from non Hungarian politicians about the Trianon Treaty that did damage to Hungary and exposed three million Hungarians discrimination under unfriendly foreign rules

Roland E. L. Vaughan Williams K. C. writes:

This collection of speeches made in the House of Lords and the House of Commons at various times between 1919 and 1930 concerning Hungary has been delivered, and was published, with the object of helping public opinion to come to a just conclusion as to the Treaty of Trianon and its consequences.

No one will today seriously deny that the Treaty of Trianon violated the principle of self-determination. Three and a half million Hungarians were left outside Treaty Hungary, forming in several instances solid "blocks" immediately adjoining the new frontier. In recent years the principle of self-determination has fallen into some discredit, but it was the principle which the Allies invoked during the war and on which the peace treaties were avowedly based. It was applied rigorously whenever it told against Hungary, but subordinated to other considerations whenever it told inconveniently in favor of Hungary. Can it be said that the course actually taken has created a satisfactory state of things? As a palliative to this violation of the doctrine of self-determination, the Minority Treaties were insisted on by the Great Powers at the Peace Conference. They were a condition of the transfer of territory to the Succession States. In the case of the territories detached from Hungary the racial "minorities" included not only Magyars but also Saxons and Swabians. All these races are today united in protesting that the Minority Treaties have failed to secure for them elementary justice. I do not think any fair-minded person who has gone at all into the merits of the question will today deny that some revision of the Trianon Treaty is imperative, not only in the interest of peace and justice but also for the safety of Europe.

Lord Newton, House of Lords, February 25th, 1920:

I cannot refrain from pointing out that in some respects Hungary seems to have suffered more than any other country that participated in the War. It is proposed by the Treaty to diminish her territory by twothirds; it is proposed to take away most of the big towns; the population will be reduced from something between 17 millions and 18 millions to little more than 7 millions. Hungary will lose nearly all its minerals and its ores, more than half its com and maize-producing districts; it will lose a greatportion of the horse and cattle- Page 2

breeding districts; and worse than all, between 3 millions and 4 millions genuine Hungarian Magyars will be transferred to alien countries without having any chance whatever of pronouncing an opinion on the subject. I venture to think that of all the belligerent against whom we contended, Hungary is the one which should make the greatest appeal to our sympathy. Hungary never wanted war. ..

Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, House of Commons, April 1921:

If the framers of this Peace Treaty are so satisfied with its boundaries, it seems to me to be a very great mistake that they did not agree to adopt the plebiscite for its determination. If it is right to hold a plebiscite for Schleswig-Holstein or for the determination of the frontiers of Upper Silesia, it is equally right to hold one for the frontiers of Hungary.

I wish to point out to the House that this Peace Treaty which we are asked to pass this afternoon creates some halfdozen Alsace-Lorraines on the frontiers of Hungary, if the information we get is correct. If it is incorrect it could have been proved by a plebiscite, and I say one should have been held.

I wish particularly to draw the attention of hon. Members to one or two of the areas where real injustice has been done, and may I in doing so say that I share my hon. and gallant Friend's indignation at the action of the present Hungarian Government? All my sympathies are with the subject races emancipated from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. But in drawing the frontiers we must not allow our prejudices and our sentiments, our likes for this people, our sympathy for that people or our dislike of other people to in any way mould our actions in laying down these new frontiers. I will first draw the attention of hon. Members to the case of the district of Pressburg (as Bratislava became capital of Slovakia) on the Danube and of Érsekújvár. This, as hon. Members may be aware, is territory predominantly inhabited by Magyars. It has been handed over to the new Czecho-Slovak State in order that it should have a riparian frontier on the Danube... I trust, too, that this historic State of Pressburg, with its normal Magyar population and old associations with Hungary, will not be handed over to alien rule. ...

There is another very bad irredenta in the Kassa — part of the northern frontier, partly composed of Magyars and partially of Slovaks. There is a solid block of 300,000 or 400,000 Magyars with a little interspersion of other races, who are mostly German. I think the Slovak frontier has been drawn too much in favor of the Czecho-Slovakian States, and I contend

that a plebiscite should have been taken there. ...

The hon. Gentleman did admit that there seemed to be hardship to the Szeklers (Transylvanian Hungarians) in this matter. There you have an island with a Magyar population which has been incorporated in Rumania. I admit that the difficulties there are very great. There seem to me, however, to have been two alternatives which might have been followed. One was to run a corridor from Kolozsvár area and the other was to allow the Szeklers to remain in the Hungarian Kingdom. I admit there would have been great economic difficult-ies in doing that, but I think it would have been better if these unfortunate Szeklers could have been given autonomy. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, these unfortunate people have been most harshly treated by the Rumanians. The University of Kolozsvár has been closed up, the professors driven away, and the students dispersed. ...

I think that a much larger measure of autonomy might have been given to the Magyar-inhabited regions in Transylvania. The district of Szatmár has been handed over, although I believe it is predominantly Hungarian.

I do not want to spend any more time on these irredenta, except that I think a real case has been made out for a plebiscite. If a plebiscite is not taken, the Magyar people will always be discontented, and many thousands of people -I have seen the figure put at 3 million Magyars— will be groaning under the sense of injustice at being bartered away like so many cattle to alien rulers. ... There is one further objection which I must take to the Treaty in justifying my vote against it. To realize these facts fully it is necessary to take a map of Hungary showing the railways, and to put on it a tracing showing the new boundaries; and also to take other maps showing the waterways and the roads and other communications, and put similar tracings on them, and, if possible, on other maps showing the physical features of the country — the mountains and so on.

It will then be seen that the new frontiers completely cut across the whole economic life of the former Hungary... At these new frontiers there is all the paraphernalia of customs, prohibitions, antidumping regulations, and fiscal measures of all sorts, and trade is absolutely stopped. It was not sufficient to allow these people in their new territories complete fiscal freedom and to give them carte blanche to cut off the trade of their neighbors. They are injuring themselves and each other. I feel that those who drew up this Treaty paid too much attention to the political aspect and too little to the economic aspect: and this is not the only Treaty in which that difficulty is visible. ...

(Excerpts)The Hungarian Question in the British Parliament around 1919