The Fate of Western Hungary 1918-1921 - Corvinus Library ...
The Fate of Western Hungary 1918-1921 - Corvinus Library ... The Fate of Western Hungary 1918-1921 - Corvinus Library ...
Law XLVII on November 6, 1921. 483 Thus, legally, the 400-year reign of the House of Habsburg came to an end in Hungary. Against those active in the attempted royal coup, the National Assembly began proceedings to strip their parliamentary immunity or started court proceedings. The immunity committee’s report of November 22, 1921 (Report #379 484 ) in the cases of Count Gyula Andrássy, István Rakovszky, Count Antal Sigray and representative Ödön Beniczky was heard by Parliament on December 16. The submission proposed to the House that “having noted with concurrence the government steps taken in this matter and granting the lifting of immunity for the government’s action in regard to the same, the National Assembly ratify it”; the four representatives’ “right to immunity was not impaired by their arrest, and furthermore recommends to the National Assembly that the parliamentary immunity of representatives Andrássy, Rakovszky, Sigray and Beniczky be lifted in regard to this matter.” 485 Governor Horthy, however, had already granted an amnesty to the participants of the royal coup attempt on November 3, and to the organizers on December 31, 1921. While these events were unfolding, the Entente generals headquartered in Sopron notified Austria on November 10, 1921 of the evacuation of the territory and called on it to take control of Western Hungary. The occupation intentionally proceeded slowly because the Austrian government did not really believe the rebel pullback. The slow progress was also an attempt to draw attention to their dissatisfaction with the Venice Protocol and that they did not deem it as final. Austria primarily wanted to compel the withdrawal of Hungarian troops from Sopron for the duration of the plebiscite. In the end, the Austrian occupation of Western Hungary took three phases. The military units of Austria took an unjustified, draw-out 23 days to take control of the western area of Vas, Sopron and Moson counties awarded to them by the Trianon Decree. The Entente Military Mission scheduled two days in August for its accomplishment. The obvious reason for the Austrian behavior, the intentional impediment to the terms of the Venice Protocol, to wit, the holding of the plebiscite eight days after the occupation. Three units of the Bundesheer, each with 100 gendarme administrators attached, occupied the area around Lake Fertő on November 13 (Nezsider, Kismarton and Nagymarton). A similar sized detachment marched into the central portion of the Borderland on November 25 (Felsőőr, Németújvár és Gyanafalva). 486 The population of the northern 483 In: IV. Károly visszatérési kísérletei. II. füzet. A trónfosztással kapcsolatos külpolitikai anyag ismertetése 1921. október 22-től november 13-ig. Kiadja: Magyar Kir. Minisztérium. Budapest, 1921. Budapesti Hírlap nyomdája, p. 32. 484 Nemzetgyűlés Irományai. XII. kötet. 1922, pp. 109–120. 485 Ibid, pp. 119–120. The immunity committee’s vote was a narrow 9:8. A minority opinion was filed to report #379 by representative István Somogyi. In it, he recommended that the four representatives “had their immunity infringed and the National Assembly order their immediate release from arrest.” Ibid, p. 121. It was rejected. 486 Jelentés a soproni népszavazásról és a magyar–osztrák határ megállapításáról 188
Borderland, although not openly welcoming towards the Austrian soldiers, did not offer them any resistance, either. It was at this time that the Austrian Postal Service’s directive 127, dated August 27, 1921 took effect. According to it, Hungarian postage stamps were to stay in circulation in the annexed Western Hungary territory for 14 days after the originally planned occupation date of August 28-29, until September 4. After the outbreak of the insurrection – since Austrian forces were forced to withdraw – the Austrian directive was not in effect. Later, after the actual handover in November and the second Austrian occupation, the terms of the directive permitted the usage of Hungarian stamps until December 11. Those, however, were not the stamps of the Royal Hungarian Mail but the overprinted stamps issued by an independent Lajta-Banate. The reason was that part of the inventory of Hungarian stamps was withdrawn from the area at the end of August and most of what remained was overprinted by the rebels. After the end of Lajta-Banate, the rebel forces sold the remaining inventory (78,000 Korona) to a Viennese firm. They authorized a person from Budapest, Lipót Schwartz, to ship it to Austria. Schwartz, however, was detained by the authorities in Sopron and, lacking an export permit, confiscated the stamps. In the name of the former Governing Council of Lajta-Banate, György Hir petitioned the Finance Minister for their return because, at the time, they paid cash for the inventory before being overprinted. 487 (Further outcome of the case is not recorded.) On November 22, Foreign Minister Bánffy and the Austrian ambassador in Budapest signed the document worked out, by the Entente generals in Sopron, after a great deal of dispute, covering the details of the plebiscite. In the end, the recording of the referendum was not based on this document but on the decision of the Council of Ambassadors, which was brought to Sopron from Paris by French Gen. Hamelin and contained the final conditions of the plebiscite. (1) Persons eligible for the referendum in the plebiscite territory must have been born in the territory or over 20 years of age who have been permanently domiciled in the territory after January 1, 1919 and January 1, 1921. The roll of voters is based on the National Assembly election rolls of 1920, which must be used as the basis for necessary adjustments. (2) Voting is to take place in separate booths, where the ballot must be torn in half of the choice the voter does not wish to support, but both ballots must be replaced in the envelope, etc. 488 Events speeded up after that. The Austrian parliament debated, then accepted, the Venice Protocol. During the session, Chancellor [Report on the Sopron plebiscite and the Hungarian-Austrian border determination]. Szerk/ed.: Baron Frigyes Villani. Sopron, 1923, pp. 19–20. The ‘Confidential’, in fact ‘Secret’, report was only printed in 20 (perhaps 30) copies for internal use only. Also see, Missuray-Krúg, 1935, op. cit., p. 132. 487 Király, 1982, op. cit., pp. 149–150. The plates used for the overprinting were destroyed by the Austrian authorities. 488 Villani, 1923, op. cit., pp. 16–18. 189
- Page 137 and 138: Zárány was taken into custody by
- Page 139 and 140: enemy incursion into Hungarian terr
- Page 141 and 142: The second battle of Ágfalva - as
- Page 143 and 144: Mayor Mihály Thurner of Sopron and
- Page 145 and 146: On September 12, the prime minister
- Page 147 and 148: insurrection was the already mentio
- Page 149 and 150: the Hungarian government for financ
- Page 151 and 152: police bodyguards, which he might n
- Page 153 and 154: [Entente] generals’ mission deman
- Page 155 and 156: well, they kept the pressure on the
- Page 157 and 158: proclamation of the state of Lajta-
- Page 159 and 160: They also burned the stamp inventor
- Page 161 and 162: our principles from the flood of th
- Page 163 and 164: The post of overall commander of th
- Page 165 and 166: peace, attempting to bring down pub
- Page 167 and 168: Kismarton and Ruszt). According to
- Page 169 and 170: handling of issues, as decreed by t
- Page 171 and 172: pensions, as well as stipulating a
- Page 173 and 174: Banate was declared to be Hungarian
- Page 175 and 176: expected. Thus, he asked Bethlen to
- Page 177 and 178: Thus, it is clearly evident that th
- Page 179 and 180: face, rather it carried four lines
- Page 181 and 182: newspapers of the ‘20s and ‘30s
- Page 183 and 184: Paris Peace Conference rejected it
- Page 185 and 186: Aladár Boroviczény - Charles Habs
- Page 187: prerogatives, although they must ha
- Page 191 and 192: Sopron and János Ambroschitz, colu
- Page 193 and 194: Austria - who were ineligible to vo
- Page 195 and 196: the voting stations, while attempti
- Page 197 and 198: the Hungarians that they must submi
- Page 199 and 200: inventoried the entire house and co
- Page 201 and 202: planted by the bridge over the cree
- Page 203 and 204: territory and 16.1% of the populati
- Page 205 and 206: Bibliography 525 Chapter 1: From al
- Page 207 and 208: Sopronyi-Thurner, Mihály: A magyar
- Page 209 and 210: Romhányi, Zsófia: A saint-germain
- Page 211 and 212: Fogarassy, László: Háború hadü
- Page 213 and 214: Sopron, 1925.) Német nyelven: Trä
- Page 215 and 216: Gévay-Wolff, Lajos: Csoda történ
- Page 217 and 218: Gecsényi, Lajos: Iratok Magyarorsz
- Page 219: 219
Law XLVII on November 6, <strong>1921</strong>. 483 Thus, legally, the 400-year reign <strong>of</strong> the<br />
House <strong>of</strong> Habsburg came to an end in <strong>Hungary</strong>. Against those active in the<br />
attempted royal coup, the National Assembly began proceedings to strip their<br />
parliamentary immunity or started court proceedings. <strong>The</strong> immunity<br />
committee’s report <strong>of</strong> November 22, <strong>1921</strong> (Report #379 484 ) in the cases <strong>of</strong><br />
Count Gyula Andrássy, István Rakovszky, Count Antal Sigray and<br />
representative Ödön Beniczky was heard by Parliament on December 16. <strong>The</strong><br />
submission proposed to the House that “having noted with concurrence the<br />
government steps taken in this matter and granting the lifting <strong>of</strong> immunity for<br />
the government’s action in regard to the same, the National Assembly ratify it”;<br />
the four representatives’ “right to immunity was not impaired by their arrest,<br />
and furthermore recommends to the National Assembly that the parliamentary<br />
immunity <strong>of</strong> representatives Andrássy, Rakovszky, Sigray and Beniczky be<br />
lifted in regard to this matter.” 485 Governor Horthy, however, had already<br />
granted an amnesty to the participants <strong>of</strong> the royal coup attempt on November<br />
3, and to the organizers on December 31, <strong>1921</strong>.<br />
While these events were unfolding, the Entente generals headquartered in<br />
Sopron notified Austria on November 10, <strong>1921</strong> <strong>of</strong> the evacuation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
territory and called on it to take control <strong>of</strong> <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>. <strong>The</strong> occupation<br />
intentionally proceeded slowly because the Austrian government did not really<br />
believe the rebel pullback. <strong>The</strong> slow progress was also an attempt to draw<br />
attention to their dissatisfaction with the Venice Protocol and that they did not<br />
deem it as final. Austria primarily wanted to compel the withdrawal <strong>of</strong><br />
Hungarian troops from Sopron for the duration <strong>of</strong> the plebiscite. In the end, the<br />
Austrian occupation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong> took three phases. <strong>The</strong> military units<br />
<strong>of</strong> Austria took an unjustified, draw-out 23 days to take control <strong>of</strong> the western<br />
area <strong>of</strong> Vas, Sopron and Moson counties awarded to them by the Trianon<br />
Decree. <strong>The</strong> Entente Military Mission scheduled two days in August for its<br />
accomplishment. <strong>The</strong> obvious reason for the Austrian behavior, the intentional<br />
impediment to the terms <strong>of</strong> the Venice Protocol, to wit, the holding <strong>of</strong> the<br />
plebiscite eight days after the occupation. Three units <strong>of</strong> the Bundesheer, each<br />
with 100 gendarme administrators attached, occupied the area around Lake<br />
Fertő on November 13 (Nezsider, Kismarton and Nagymarton). A similar sized<br />
detachment marched into the central portion <strong>of</strong> the Borderland on November 25<br />
(Felsőőr, Németújvár és Gyanafalva). 486 <strong>The</strong> population <strong>of</strong> the northern<br />
483 In: IV. Károly visszatérési kísérletei. II. füzet. A trónfosztással kapcsolatos<br />
külpolitikai anyag ismertetése <strong>1921</strong>. október 22-től november 13-ig. Kiadja: Magyar<br />
Kir. Minisztérium. Budapest, <strong>1921</strong>. Budapesti Hírlap nyomdája, p. 32.<br />
484 Nemzetgyűlés Irományai. XII. kötet. 1922, pp. 109–120.<br />
485 Ibid, pp. 119–120. <strong>The</strong> immunity committee’s vote was a narrow 9:8. A minority<br />
opinion was filed to report #379 by representative István Somogyi. In it, he<br />
recommended that the four representatives “had their immunity infringed and the<br />
National Assembly order their immediate release from arrest.” Ibid, p. 121. It was<br />
rejected.<br />
486 Jelentés a soproni népszavazásról és a magyar–osztrák határ megállapításáról<br />
188