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 ...

hungarianhistory.com
from hungarianhistory.com More from this publisher
04.04.2013 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!