Chapter II: Introduction

The downfall of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has resulted in a redistribution of territory among the States of Europe. The old Kingdom of Bohemia has been united with the Slovak districts of the former Hungary to form the Czechoslovak Republic, Serbia has absorbed the territories of her Yugoslav kindred, Italy has regained the Italian districts of the former Austria, Poland has been re-united after a partition lasting more than a hundred years, Rumania has been awarded the care of her Transylvanian brethren. As a consequence of this redistribution, Austria and Hungary, the partners of the former Dual Monarchy, have shrunk to a fraction of their former size.

In these circumstances it is inevitable that complaints as to the justice of the new frontiers should be heard. To the casual observer it might seem that Austria and Hungary have suffered for their defeat in the war by the dismemberment of their territories, the usual fate of vanquished nations. Hungary to-day covers an area of approximately 33,000 square miles, and has a population of about seven and a half millions. The Kingdom of Hungary before the war covered an area of about 125,000 square miles, and had a population of about twenty millions. The disparity seems enormous, and at first glance would seem to display the savage vengeance of her enemies, an act of far greater ruthlessness than the tearing of Alsace-Lorraine from France in 1871. Had Hungary been a homogeneous nation, this would indeed be the truth. But, in fact, the former Hungary was never homogeneous, and was inhabited by races of widely divergent aims and culture. It was no policy of vengeance that inspired the partition of Hungary, but the operation of the principles of self-determination in the interests of the component races of the former Kingdom.

Present-day Hungary is that part of the former kingdom in which the Magyars are in the majority. Before the War the Magyars laid claim to the whole of the territory ruled by them, regardless of the fact that their yoke was bitterly resented by the non-Magyar nationalities. It is perhaps natural that they should protest against the dismemberment of this territory, and should make every endeavour to present a case for the restitution to them of their former frontiers. Attempts are being made throughout Europe and America to represent the Magyar race as the victims of injustice, with the ultimate object of influencing some future readjustment of the Peace Treaties in their favour. With this end in view the Magyars have embarked upon an intensive campaign of propaganda, the methods of which vary with the section of the community it is desired to influence. This propaganda starts from the assumption that Hungary is and always has been a democratic country. Upon these premises the argument is built up that Hungary, the traditional friend of the Allies, has been unjustly treated, that her division was contrary to the principles of self-determination, and that her continued existence within her present boundaries is impossible. The only rightful and expedient course is therefore to restore her to her former state.

The object of the present book is to adduce the facts necessary for a dispassionate examination of the arguments of the Magyar propagandists. It is, of course, impossible to reply to each of the Magyar contentions in detail; the most that can be done is to give some idea of the form in which they are presented. A single instance must suffice. A periodical entitled _Chains_ is published at Oxford, and describes itself as “The Organ of the Oxford League for Hungarian Self-Determination.” The following is an extract from the Editorial in its issue of March 16, 1922: “_It is fundamentally wrong to suppose that the accident which placed Hungary by the side of our enemies is sufficient to warrant our silent acquiescence in the destruction of the economic and political stability of a country whose ideals have so nearly approximated to our own for centuries past._” In the same issue Lord Newton contributes an article on “Hungary under the Trianon Treaty.” Extracts from this article are as follows: “Why was Hungary treated with such vindictive ferocity?” “_The rewards of the Succession States were, except in the case of Serbia, out of all proportion to their services during the War, and unfortunately for the Hungarians were made chiefly at their expense._” “It is customary to exact territory from a conquered enemy; there was, therefore, nothing surprising in the fact that Hungary was forced to surrender territory to States against which she had fought.”

Now let us examine the above dispassionately. In the first place the editors speak of the “accident” which placed Hungary by the side of our enemies. What was this accident? The clamour for war in July 1914 was nowhere louder than in Hungary; it was no accident which precipitated the Magyars into war with France and Russia, but hatred of those countries on account of their support of Serbia. The contemporary Magyar Press is sufficient proof of this. “_What have the French, the English and the Russians in common except spiritual decadence and moral infamy, the only ties which bind them? Their ideal is the brutal force of superior numbers.... Light struggles against darkness, human dignity against slavery, the inspiration of the soul against the brutishness of masses, idealism against barbarity and against a perversity which wears the mask of a false culture_” (_Pester Lloyd_, September 19, 1914). “In the true sense of the word we are confronted with an alliance of ruffians; Russia wishes to steal territories from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy both on her own account and on that of Serbia; France wishes to steal from Germany Alsace-Lorraine and more besides; as for England, she wishes to steal from Germany her economic powers and her commerce” (_Az Ujsag_, February 4, 1915). During the whole period of the War the Magyar Press poured out a torrent of abuse against the nations at war with Hungary. There is no trace among its pages of any accidental participation on Hungary’s part.

Again, the editors of Chains speak of Hungary as a country “_whose ideals have so nearly approximated to our own for centuries past_.” I leave my readers to judge by the light of the facts adduced in the following chapters how far this assumption is justified. To those who wish to pursue the subject further, I recommend Dr. Seton-Watson’s _Racial Problems in Hungary_, published in 1908 (now, unfortunately, out of print).

Lord Newton, as will be seen from the quotations from his article given above, bases his arguments upon the assumption that Hungary was dismembered solely to reward her enemies. This is the first and principal contention of the discontented Magyars of to-day. Their second contention is that the transfer of the nationalities to the jurisdiction of other States was contrary to their own wishes, and that those States are not capable of governing their new subjects with the same justice and impartiality as they enjoyed under Magyar rule. In order to examine the truth of this contention it will be necessary to investigate the conditions under which the new nationalities existed before the transfer and their position at the present day. Finally, the Magyars complain that their racial minorities in the States surrounding Hungary are oppressed and denied adequate representation in the Government of those States, while the national minorities still remaining in Hungary are treated with the greatest consideration. The status of these various minorities will therefore require investigation.

In the past the Magyars have regarded the non-Magyar nationalities within their borders as of inferior culture. In the article already quoted, Lord Newton treats the superiority of the Magyars as a fact established beyond question. “Millions of Hungarians have been transferred,” he says, “without any opportunity of expressing their wishes, to alien States of an inferior civilisation.” This is in exact accordance with the public utterances of the most prominent Magyar statesmen in the past.

The present book is in no way inspired by hostility towards the Magyar race, nor is it intended to create a prejudice against that race among its readers. It is merely an attempt to supply the necessary data for a fair examination of the arguments of the Magyars, and incidentally to trace the relations between present-day Hungary and democracy in the true sense of the word. If the Magyars can prove their case, there are adequate grounds for their appeal for a revision of the Treaty of Trianon. If the partition of Hungary was inspired by motives of revenge; if the nationalities of the former Hungarian Kingdom are indeed misgoverned and oppressed by States to which they yield a reluctant obedience, while in those States the Magyar minorities suffer political persecution, it would undoubtedly be in the interests of the world at large that Hungary should be restored to her former frontiers. But, on the other hand, if it appears that all these contentions on behalf of the Magyars are inspired by the imperialism of a reactionary and oligarchic people, which has for centuries been accustomed to treat non-Magyar nationalities within its borders as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and whose pride is wounded by the emancipation of those nationalities, the reactionary tendencies of Magyar aims will be exposed and the motives of their complaints revealed.

The Magyar attitude at the present day may be exemplified by a quotation from an interview accorded by Admiral Horthy to a representative of the _Chicago Tribune_ on October 19, 1922. “Admiral Horthy received me in the colossal castle formerly occupied by Emperor Francis Joseph at the top of the ridge overlooking the Danube,” reports the interviewer. “When I asked the possibility of Hungary paying £300,000,000 (as reparations), he snapped back, ‘We cannot pay £3. You cannot change Nature and make rivers run uphill over mountains just by shifting frontiers,’ said the Regent, his eyes glancing at the map of Transylvania. ‘That territory drains Hungary economically, commercially, morally.’”

It is impossible within the compass of such a book as this to give more than a bare summary of events and facts, but I have endeavoured throughout to give references to sources whence fuller information may be obtained. In general it may be remarked that an excellent summary of Hungarian history is contained in Professor Alison Phillips’s article in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and that Dr. Seton-Watson’s _Racial Problems in Hungary_ is a mine of information on the subject of the Magyar treatment of the nationalities up to the year 1908.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE