Endre Csapó : Peace to end Peace

Paramount with the Allies during the Great War was the desire that when peace came, it should be permanent. Whatever else victory might bring, the men and women of the Allied nations wanted to ensure that there should be no more Alsace-Lorraines to keep the war-spirit smouldering.

It was the professed aim of the Peace Conference, when it gathered in Paris in 1919, to rearrange the map of Europe on a basis of self-determination. But as its work went on, this principle faded from sight. The result has been that Central Europe today is piled high with the materials of a new conflagration. The primary cause of this is the partitioning of the Hungarian nation among its neighbours by the Treaty of Trianon, imposed upon Hungary in June 1920, which trans-ferred --in compact masses contiguous with the main body of the Hungarian people-- 600,000 Hungarians to Rumania (out of a total of 1,750,000, most of whom are intermingled with the Rumanians), 1,000,000 to Czecho-Slovakia, and 400,000 to Jugo-Slavia.

In the Peace Treaty made with Germany the principle of self-determination was so thoroughly applied that a plebiscite was even held in Schleswig to revive the frontier which the Prussians had imposed upon the Danes in 1864. But with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles the principal Allied states-men relaxed their efforts. The task of settling with their chief enemy had been a prodigious one. Their powers of personal application were exhausted. The affairs of their own countries urgently claimed their attention. The drafting of peace terms with Germany's minor allies seemed to them a secondary matter which they might well leave to the subordinate mem-bers of their delegations.

For similar reasons the world's interest in peacemaking evaporated, and the light of publicity which had been concent-rated on the work of the Conference was withdrawn. In reality only half the work of restoring a lasting peace to Europe had been performed. But the importance of what yet remained to be done was overshadowed by the achievement already accomplished, and the remaining treaties were left to be drafted behind closed doors and signed amid general indifference many months later in various suburbs in Paris.

This negligent procedure suited very well the intrigues of various minor nationalities which had come to be associated with the Allied cause, and which stood to profit considerably from the settlements thus obscurely made.

Representatives of these new-fangled nationalities immediately began to arrive in large numbers in Paris, where, with the aid of certain doctrinaire pamphleteers of Allied nationality, they set themselves to pull every available string to ensure that the particular peace treaty affecting their own small State should be as profitable as possible to their public and private interests. This was how grave abuses, containing the sure seed of future wars, crept into the Central European peace settlement.

These abuses were committed in the name of self-deter-mination. If that principle had been strictly observed all round, there would have been no cause for complaint.

What I claim for Hungary is no more than elementary justice. The idea of a return to her pre-war frontiers is out of the question. Hungary must pay the penalty of defeat. But that is no reason for inflicting upon her such wrongs as the war was expressly waged to abolish. She has a perfectly righteous and reasonable claim to recover the territories preponderantly inhabited by Hungarians which, as a result of the Treaty of Trianon, are cut off from all intercourse with her by every device that the malevolence of her neighbours can invent.

This state of things is an outrage to an ancient and splendid people with a history of high endeavour extending over a thousand years. It is fundamentally wrong, and it cannot endure. There is time now to right it peaceably and effectively. If we continue to close our eyes to the evil it will keep alive the spirit of hatred and hostility in Central Europe, with the inevitable result of a disastrous war.

Are we so blind as to let the elements of another terrible conflict accumulate unchecked? It is the duty of Britain, France and Italy, as the members of the League of Nations primarily responsible for the present situation, to take steps to give Hungary the relief to which she is entitled. Their generosity in this matter will not be abused. They will be dealing with a nation which, though small, has a character and traditions second to none. I repeat that Hungary is the natural ally of Britain, France and Italy in Central Europe. Even during the war she showed her natural good feeling towards Britain and the United States by refusing to intern her British and Ameri-can residents, who were allowed to continue their usual occupations. She was hardly more than a technical enemy of these two countries and she will make a loyal and reliable friend of whatever nation extends to her a helping hand in her day of emergency and distress.

On March 26th, 1929:

No observant man can travel through Central Europe to-day, or even study its incoherent political divisions on the map, without realising the recklessness with which real and vital interests were trampled underfoot in making that arbitrary and ill-informed re-distribution of territory.

All natural principles of frontier delimitation were rejected. The new boundaries had no justification, whether ethnographic or economic. They set up in Central Europe a permanent con-dition of inconvenience, friction and discontent which, if it is not remedied, must inevitably lead to another war.

*

Rothermere refers to this in his book - "Warnings and Pre-dictions" published in 1939 as follows:

It was between 1930 and 1936 well within the competence of the British Government, acting through Geneva, to force upon Europe a revision of the unjust treaties of Versailles, Trianon and St. Germain. If an abstract love of justice had not prompted it, the motive of self-preservation might have provoked such a course

Nothing was done!

*

One nation in eight states

In our days the accepted definition of "national minority" usually refers to a group of people, who migrated into the established country of another nation and failed to assimilate.

This is why immigration states, which accept migrants to increase their population fail to understand that there are some minority groups who want to keep their own language, culture, and demand their own institutions, they want to maintain the character of their villages and towns, and want to administer the land they are inhabiting in the form of autonomy.There are no immigration states in Central Europe, consequently no migrant minorities. The minority problem does not originate from movement of people but from movement of country's borders. In Central Europe, mainly in the Carpathian Basin the concept of national minority means a group of people who were born where they live, whose ancestors established the villages, towns and civilization. In view of this fact they should not really be called "minority" but probably fellow-nationality. Not "minority rights" should be demanded by them, but at least the status of co-dominionship with local-, personal- and collective autonomy. They should be considered as a companion-nation of the particular state.

The four million Hungarians who live outside the borders of the Hungarian state are considered as part of the Hungarian nation, only they are prevented from living together by state borders and by many lawful and unlawful means. To retain national identity is a just demand.

The Hungarian nation today lives in eight states: Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Rumania, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. Before the Treaty of Trianon, these eight parts of the nation lived in one state and even today live on contiguous territory. Naturally they constitute a "minority" in the successor states, but the definition above does not apply, because they are natives of that particular land, they didn't migrate from their motherland. They were torn away together with their birthplace, and forced under the domination of alien states. Accordingly they cannot be considered as ethnic minorities but as part of the Hungarian nation and at the same time they are one of the nationalities of the particular state into which they have been forced to live. Of the 14 million Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin only 10 million live together, 4 million were forced apart under hostile conditions. As the state borders moved across the nation's body very few opportunities were available to various Hungarians to liaise with each other during the last 75 years.

The Hungarians on both sides of the borders are one nation, ethnographically they are part of the majority nation inhabiting the Carpathian Basin for eleven hundred years. Here they held established statehood for the same eleven hundred years, building this complete geographical unit in Central Europe into a lasting and functioning economic, political and cultural entity long before the Vlach immigrants, forefathers of the Rumanians, began to migrate into the Eastern part of their country. On the ethnographical map of the Carpathian Basin this Hungarian majority still constitutes an almost uninterrupted unity.

In the course of history, over the past centuries, large numbers of foreigners, in other words other national groups, immigrated and settled in historic Hungary, and in compliance with this the state rearranged itself accordingly. In modern terms Hungary has always been a multinational state. This is discussed in the next chapter.

What History proves

The year 1996 marks the 1100th anniversary of the estab-lishment of the Hungarian State. What was the situation at the time when the Hungarian State was founded in the area now called Central Europe? Count Julius Andrássy describes it in his book "The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty" (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd. London, 1908) as follows:

"The new state was not in the way of the expanding European powers which were then dominant.

The establishment of the Hungarians in their new home was not therefore opposed to the tendencies of the age. On the contrary, in the long run it actually furthered those tendencies. It was to this fortunate circumstance that the Hungarian nation owed the possibility of its development. But this development was brought about not merely by a lucky chance, but also by the exercise of great political sagacity. The Hungarians had the good sense to be content with the territory they had acquired, and to refrain from attempting any further conquests. The policy of conquest never became a national policy in Hungary. There was, in fact, a somewhat exaggerated tendency in the opposite direction.

One of the most difficult problems of statecraft is to harmonise liberty with order. How many great nations are still struggling with this problem, and how many nations in the past have come to grief because of their inability to solve it.

It is to the lasting credit of the Hungarians that as early as the thirteenth century they were careful of this twofold interest, and that even in the moment of victory the nobles did not forget the interest of the State, but endeavoured to strengthen the monarchy.

The Golden Bull (1222) was an expression of these different needs. It was designed to strengthen the king's power as well as to assure to the priviliged classes their rights. It determined the rights of the nation in accordance with tradition in respect to military service, taxation, inheritance and the administration of justice. All the nobles had equal rights and every noble was entitled to attend the King's Council, which had to be convened every year. Everyone present had the right to speak concerning any injury he had suffered, and although the chief purpose of the Council was the administration of justice, yet it furnished opportunities for the discussion of political questions as well. The nobles were all alike subject to the jurisdiction of the king and the palatine, and there was no trace of the feudal lawcourts. In short, no member of the class of nobles had more rights than another. All had equal right to own land, and to have a share in political power, and were liable to the same military service.

The Golden Bull established first of all the rights of the Hungarian nobility, but its protection was extended to their retainers, and also to foreign settlers."

(End of quotations from Count J. Andrássy' book).

When the Magyars established the Hungarian state in the Carpathian Basin there was a state of interregnum there: the Avar Empire had already collapsed, and the area was waiting for a new state founder.

Hungary didn't have any ethnic problems till the 19th century, although, during the foundation of the Hungarian state in 896 A. D. several tribes, ethnic groups, did dwell in the Carpathian Basin. These people, accepted the rule of the Hungarian state, because it meant protection for them. Most of these people were related to the state-creating Magyars, like for instance the Avars. They also found small fragments of various Slavic ethnic groups who settled into the country during the centuries of the the Avar Empire, but never were able to establish a state.

Therefore, Hungary from the very beginning, using today's expression, was a multinational state. This didn't cause any problems, not even when after 150 years of Turkish occupation half of the inhabitants were of different national-ities due to immigration of refugees and new settlers.

These settlers quite naturally accepted to become loyal sub-jects of the Hungarian Crown. The only exception was Croatia, a codominion of the Holy Crown for 800 years enjoying the protection of a larger unit. Non-Magyars have become members of the rather numerous Hungarian nobility quite easily and without any restriction of racial consideration. So they have become part of the nation, equal subjects of the Hungarian Crown. This is how the man-made constitution served and satisfied the nature-made economic, geographic, strategic unit: the Carpathian Basin.

The doctrine of the Holy Crown successfully safeguarded the unity of the Carpathian Basin for ten centuries, but was unable to have an answer to the historical challenge which originated from the shady side of the French Revolution, namely nationalism.

The First World War on the part of the World Powers was waged against Germany, but at the end, they smashed the very country which developed and practiced the idea of a common state for many races and maintained for them an atmosphere of harmonious life. Those nations lost everything that this econo-mic and cultural unit offered and received in exchange hatred, misery, misunderstanding, war, devastation, insecurity, instability and a hopeless future.

This should be contemplated now and anew by people living in this area.

Endre Csapó : Peace to end Peace