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 ...
a very sizable piece of Hungarian territory, even without these few square kilometers.” 504 From the quoted referendum results, it is apparent that a portion of the German-speaking citizens of Sopron voted for Hungary. A reason was that nobody clearly defined in the city: who is Austrian and who is German? The German-speakers held themselves to be Schwabians and were convinced, based on centuries old traditions that their ancestors emigrated from various parts of Germany to Sopron or Western Hungary. [They settled along the western border for the immediate opening their German language gave them in selling their products in Vienna-ed.] A Hungarian citizen, whose ancestors came from a distant German province [or state-ed.], most certainly harbors some fraternal feelings towards Germans but the same cannot necessarily be said towards Austrians. It was also not coincidental that, at the Sopron victory celebrations the following day, Mayor Mihály Thurner said: 70 million Germans can be proud of the Sopron Germans because they are “good Germans and not scoundrels, Germans who did not betray their country.” It must be noted here that, precisely during the Sopron plebiscite, a Czechoslovak-Austria agreement was signed on December 16, 1921 in the castle of Lány near Prague, the residence of Czechoslovak President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. The first article of the Treaty of Lány, 505 named for the signing location, stipulated that the signing parties undertake to defend the status quo as defined by the Saint-Germain and Trianon peace treaties. Article two: “The two countries mutually guarantee each other’s territory. (…) in the interest of maintaining peace and the guarantee of the integrity of the noted territories, they further oblige themselves to extend mutual support in the political and diplomatic arenas.” Article three: “Both countries undertake the responsibility that, in the instance that one is attacked, and is forced to defend itself, will declare itself neutral.” The treaty was signed by President Masaryk and Foreign Minister Beneš for Czechoslovakia and President Hainisch and Chancellor Schober for Austria. The latter two signed as if the two month old Venice Treaty did not exist. They, however, had an inkling that, with the plebiscite under way, Sopron was already irretrievably lost for Austria. Thus, as a last attempt to create confusion among the Great Powers, they brought up the Treaty of Lány, after unsuccessfully petitioning the Council of Ambassadors for a delay in the referendum date. The Treaty of Lány was greeted with great delight by Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs-Croats-Slovenes because, with its signing, Beneš was able to encircle and isolate Hungary, i.e., to force his neighbor, who was unwilling to accept the modifications, to its knees. “The ratification of the Trianon peace, the creation of the Little Entente, the unsuccessful attempt of Charles convinced 504 Ormos, 1990, op. cit., pp. 196–198. 505 For the text of the Czechoslovak-Austrian political agreement, see: Halmosy, 1983, op. cit., pp. 186-188. The agreement lapsed on March 15, 1927. It was not renewed. 196
the Hungarians that they must submit to our political direction,” wrote the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister in his notes. 506 Austria, in the meantime, could not come to terms with the referendum results. Between December 19 and 23, it sent a memorandum of objection to the Paris Council of Ambassadors, to the French government and the Entente ambassadors in Vienna, in which it lodged a protest against the referendum and the December 26 scheduled handover of the plebiscite area. As a complaint after the fact, Austria proclaimed loudly that certain abuses were committed when the rolls of the eligible voters was compiled and, thus, demands a repeat of the voting. By this time, the futile charges of the Austrian government greatly annoyed the Entente generals in Sopron. They sent a note to Paris on December 23 to the effect that, if the Council of Ambassadors does not send a note to Hungary by noon the following day, regarding the handover of Sopron and vicinity, then they will do it. The Hungarian government received, in the meanwhile, assurances of support from Italy and Great Britain. In light of the referendum results, the reports of the Entente ambassadors in Budapest and the generals in Sopron, the meeting of the Council of Ambassadors on December 23 – after a long debate – formed the opinion a repeat of the plebiscite would not bring a different outcome and decided to accept the validity of the referendum result. Subsequently, the Council informed the Hungarian government that the handover of Sopron and vicinity was to take place on New Year’s day, 1922, instead of the planned December 26. Finally, on December 28 – after the Council rejected Austria’s newest, and final, objection – President Hainisch signed, thus ratifying, the Venice Agreement. 507 When Hungarian citizens Dénes Kollár and Roland Lex arrived at Németújvár, on the territory annexed to Austria, to visit relatives over the Christmas holidays, Austrian authorities arrested and jailed him for no stated reason. This was clearly in contravention of the Venice Agreement. On their behalf, Albin Lingauer posed a question in the National Assembly, asking what the government intended to do so that “these transgressions will not poison the relations between the two countries and aggravate the mood of the people living along the border?” Foreign Minister Bánffy rose and replied: “When we received the news, we immediately contacted Austria – these sorts of abuses have been perpetrated by the lower echelons of authority – and the Austrian government complied with our wishes. The unjustly arrested pair was immediately released on December 26. According to the Venice Agreement, no one can be persecuted for their political activities. The Austrian government has completely accepted this position, and we have, to date, offered protection to all in every instance where local authorities have acted improperly by abusing their power.” 508 506 Ádám M., 1989, op. cit., p. 152. 507 Ormos, 1990, op. cit., pp. 198–202. 508 Nemzetgyűlési Napló, XVII. kötet. 1922. P. 98. 197
- 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 and 188: prerogatives, although they must ha
- Page 189 and 190: Borderland, although not openly wel
- Page 191 and 192: Sopron and János Ambroschitz, colu
- Page 193 and 194: Austria - who were ineligible to vo
- Page 195: the voting stations, while attempti
- 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
a very sizable piece <strong>of</strong> Hungarian territory, even without these few square<br />
kilometers.” 504<br />
From the quoted referendum results, it is apparent that a portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
German-speaking citizens <strong>of</strong> Sopron voted for <strong>Hungary</strong>. A reason was that<br />
nobody clearly defined in the city: who is Austrian and who is German? <strong>The</strong><br />
German-speakers held themselves to be Schwabians and were convinced, based<br />
on centuries old traditions that their ancestors emigrated from various parts <strong>of</strong><br />
Germany to Sopron or <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>. [<strong>The</strong>y settled along the western<br />
border for the immediate opening their German language gave them in selling<br />
their products in Vienna-ed.] A Hungarian citizen, whose ancestors came from<br />
a distant German province [or state-ed.], most certainly harbors some fraternal<br />
feelings towards Germans but the same cannot necessarily be said towards<br />
Austrians. It was also not coincidental that, at the Sopron victory celebrations<br />
the following day, Mayor Mihály Thurner said: 70 million Germans can be<br />
proud <strong>of</strong> the Sopron Germans because they are “good Germans and not<br />
scoundrels, Germans who did not betray their country.”<br />
It must be noted here that, precisely during the Sopron plebiscite, a<br />
Czechoslovak-Austria agreement was signed on December 16, <strong>1921</strong> in the<br />
castle <strong>of</strong> Lány near Prague, the residence <strong>of</strong> Czechoslovak President Tomáš<br />
Garrigue Masaryk. <strong>The</strong> first article <strong>of</strong> the Treaty <strong>of</strong> Lány, 505 named for the<br />
signing location, stipulated that the signing parties undertake to defend the<br />
status quo as defined by the Saint-Germain and Trianon peace treaties. Article<br />
two: “<strong>The</strong> two countries mutually guarantee each other’s territory. (…) in the<br />
interest <strong>of</strong> maintaining peace and the guarantee <strong>of</strong> the integrity <strong>of</strong> the noted<br />
territories, they further oblige themselves to extend mutual support in the<br />
political and diplomatic arenas.” Article three: “Both countries undertake the<br />
responsibility that, in the instance that one is attacked, and is forced to defend<br />
itself, will declare itself neutral.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> treaty was signed by President Masaryk and Foreign Minister Beneš for<br />
Czechoslovakia and President Hainisch and Chancellor Schober for Austria.<br />
<strong>The</strong> latter two signed as if the two month old Venice Treaty did not exist. <strong>The</strong>y,<br />
however, had an inkling that, with the plebiscite under way, Sopron was<br />
already irretrievably lost for Austria. Thus, as a last attempt to create confusion<br />
among the Great Powers, they brought up the Treaty <strong>of</strong> Lány, after<br />
unsuccessfully petitioning the Council <strong>of</strong> Ambassadors for a delay in the<br />
referendum date.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong> Lány was greeted with great delight by Romania and the<br />
Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Serbs-Croats-Slovenes because, with its signing, Beneš was able to<br />
encircle and isolate <strong>Hungary</strong>, i.e., to force his neighbor, who was unwilling to<br />
accept the modifications, to its knees. “<strong>The</strong> ratification <strong>of</strong> the Trianon peace,<br />
the creation <strong>of</strong> the Little Entente, the unsuccessful attempt <strong>of</strong> Charles convinced<br />
504 Ormos, 1990, op. cit., pp. 196–198.<br />
505 For the text <strong>of</strong> the Czechoslovak-Austrian political agreement, see: Halmosy, 1983,<br />
op. cit., pp. 186-188. <strong>The</strong> agreement lapsed on March 15, 1927. It was not renewed.<br />
196