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 ...
Chapter 2: The annexing of the western parts of Moson, Sopron and Vas counties to Austria Saint-Germain-en-Laye, October, 1918 – September 10, 1919 The Austrian forces attacking Western Hungary, especially around Sopron, were defeated and the Heanzenland Republic, in existence for all of one day, was abolished in early December of 1918. The main reason was Austria’s weak military position. In spite of it, aspirations for secession / detachment from Hungary continued to grow, primarily inflamed by Austrian circles embracing the idea of Greater Germany. Since October, the civic officials in the counties of Moson, Sopron and Vas saw its prevention as their most important task. It is a fact, though, that separation from Hungary was fuelled by serious economic difficulties. As an example, confidential reports sent to the High Constable of Vas County in the latter half of 1918 reported, among other things, that due to lack of food, the German-speaking population was becoming insolent towards the Hungarian authorities. For some time, it was impossible to obtain basic necessities in the villages, such as petroleum for lighting, along with salt and sugar. Hence, the people of some border villages threatened that, if the Hungarian government did not provide adequate supplies, then they would join Austria. At the November 25, 1918 meeting of the Vas County Municipal Committee declared that “the Austrian annexation attempt was an attack fuelled by greed and categorically rejected it.” The minutes of the same meeting went on to record: “The municipality is open to the populace of the named areas exercising their unique national culture. (…) It is not opposed to the idea that the population receives education and public administration in their language.” The administrators of Vas County, in effect, laid out a third option as a solution to the German question: secession/annexation, or autonomy. The German demands could be satisfied by increasing their linguistic and cultural rights, within the framework of existing administrative constraints. 56 56 Soós, Katalin. A nyugat-magyarországi kérdés 1918–1919 [The question of Western Hungary]. Budapest, 1962, p. 10. Regarding sources: For two decades following the March 1938 annexation of Austria by Germany (Anschluss), no Hungarian-language publication was published treating the territorial change of Őrvidék / Burgenland. At the beginning of WWII, several pamphlets were published: Követeljük Burgenlandot [We demand Burgenland]. (Egyesült Magyar Nemzeti Szocialista Párt, Budapest, 1938.); Pálosy, I.: Nem sértjük a magyar–német barátságot. Követeljük Burgenlandot a magyar haza szent testéhez [We will not violate the Hungarian-German friendship. We demand Burgenland as part of the nation’s sacred body.]. Budapest, around 1939. After the 1956 Revolution and Freedom Fight, the quoted author was among the first to address the question under the name G. Soós, Katalin: Adalékok a Magyar Tanácsköztársaság és az Osztrák Köztársaság kapcsolatainak történetéhez. A nyugatmagyarországi kérdés 1919. március–augusztus [Addenda to the history of relations between the Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Austrian Republic. The Western Hungarian question, March-August, 1919]. In: Soproni Szemle, 1959, issue 4, pp. 289– 28
The tacit support by the Austrian government for western Hungarian secessionist aspirations and the officially declared claims of the Vienna government for the territory of Western Hungary significantly contributed to the December 3 semi-official announcement of the Károlyi government: it supported the autonomy petition expressed by the Germans of Hungary. The idea of self-government found support primarily in the city of Sopron and its surroundings. A German National Council was organized in the city by Géza Zsombor, which claimed the right to represent the interests of all the Germans in Western Hungary. Géza Zsombor published a 70 page German-language pamphlet in the second half of the following year (Sopron, Corvina publishing) titled Western-Hungary. With Hungary or Austria? 57 The question, or territorial affiliation, would drag on until the end of 1921. Initially, the German National Council only asked for ending the mandatory use of the Hungarian language in public administration and educational matters. However, shortly after, it proposed to the government the creation of a German autonomous region. Following this, adherents of autonomy held meeting after meeting until the representatives of the German-speaking population of Pozsony, Moson, Sopron and Vas counties formed, in Sopron on December 23, 1918, the Western-Hungary German People’s Council (Deutscher Volksrat für Westungarn), which declared the autonomy of Western Hungary. 58 It is important to note that the emerging German national movement of Hungary wanted to remain within the borders of the country and did not wish to secede from Hungary, as opposed to the Slovaks, Romanians, Croatians, Vends (Slovenians) and Serbs. Two directions emerged: one, led by Jacob Bleyer (1874-1933), literary historian, linguist and politician, and two, led by Rudolph Brandsch. The difference between the two views consisted of the measure of minority rights Germans living in various parts of Hungary were to enjoy. The chief supporters of the creation of the self-administered municipality were those who did not want to join Austria. Among them were the sizeable strata of manufacturer and commercial middle class, possessing various amounts of influence, who would be shorn of their customers and markets. A sector of the press trumpeted in its articles that mainly Hungarian populated towns and county seats within the autonomous region would slowly become Germanized. At the turn of 1918-1919, the influencing of public opinion was in full swing in Western Hungary, the campaign to popularize Austria. The chief magistrates of the districts directed the notaries working in the villages to try their utmost and prevent the agitation among the populace for the secession of the territory. It was not by accident that at the same time, the regular visits to the German 304. Also, Soós, Katalin, G.: Magyar–bajor–osztrák titkos tárgyalások és együttműködés 1920–1921 [Hungarian-Bavarian-Austrian secret talks and collaboration]. In: Acta Historica, vol. XXVII. Szeged, 1967, pp. 3–43. 57 Zsombor, Géza: Westungarn. Zu Ungarn oder zu Oesterreich [Western Hungary. In Hungary or Austria]? Corvina Verlag, Oedenburg [Sopron], 1919. 58 Kővágó, László: A Magyarországi Tanácsköztársaság és a nemzeti kérdés [The Hungarian Soviet Republic and the national question]. Budapest, 1989, p. 78. 29
- Page 1 and 2: The Fate of Western Hungary 1918-19
- Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Foreword………………
- Page 5 and 6: contemplate - no matter how the cra
- Page 7 and 8: declaration.” 3 The basis for the
- Page 9 and 10: 1918, in its second edition. 8 ) Ge
- Page 11 and 12: of President Woodrow Wilson’s 14
- Page 13 and 14: assessed from this perspective.”
- Page 15 and 16: agreement regarding the delivery of
- Page 17 and 18: goal was to organize, in advance, t
- Page 19 and 20: accompanied by an Austrian military
- Page 21 and 22: The reasons for the minuscule milit
- Page 23 and 24: statements, among other things, is
- Page 25 and 26: counties. The Romanian Army advanci
- Page 27: were made up of about 20,000 armed
- Page 31 and 32: addressed a memorandum 63 to Prime
- Page 33 and 34: county directorates published their
- Page 35 and 36: with its seat in Sopron. It brought
- Page 37 and 38: The later name of ‘Burgenland,’
- Page 39 and 40: the representatives of Romania, Cze
- Page 41 and 42: Romanians, in like manner, wanted t
- Page 43 and 44: 191,000 (13.5%) Slavs would have be
- Page 45 and 46: committee of the Peace Conference u
- Page 47 and 48: to a rejection of the Anschluss (un
- Page 49 and 50: Pozsony County and, in the Paris Pe
- Page 51 and 52: István Széchenyi (1791-1860) and
- Page 53 and 54: and consultation of the affected po
- Page 55 and 56: Also significant was the trade in p
- Page 57 and 58: Austria,” and Zoltán Palotás,
- Page 59 and 60: August 16, stating that every armed
- Page 61 and 62: Finally, and once more, we must fir
- Page 63 and 64: The center of the Vend region, 143
- Page 65 and 66: Szombathely travelled to the Vend r
- Page 67 and 68: his co-nationals in the Vend region
- Page 69 and 70: force - 7 battalions, 8 mounted com
- Page 71 and 72: Incidentally, to bolster their clai
- Page 73 and 74: two Szekler battalions and an artil
- Page 75 and 76: odies and contact with foreign enti
- Page 77 and 78: large volumes of maps and statistic
Chapter 2: <strong>The</strong> annexing <strong>of</strong> the western parts <strong>of</strong><br />
Moson, Sopron and Vas counties to Austria<br />
Saint-Germain-en-Laye, October, <strong>1918</strong> – September 10, 1919<br />
<strong>The</strong> Austrian forces attacking <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>, especially around Sopron,<br />
were defeated and the Heanzenland Republic, in existence for all <strong>of</strong> one day,<br />
was abolished in early December <strong>of</strong> <strong>1918</strong>. <strong>The</strong> main reason was Austria’s weak<br />
military position. In spite <strong>of</strong> it, aspirations for secession / detachment from<br />
<strong>Hungary</strong> continued to grow, primarily inflamed by Austrian circles embracing<br />
the idea <strong>of</strong> Greater Germany. Since October, the civic <strong>of</strong>ficials in the counties<br />
<strong>of</strong> Moson, Sopron and Vas saw its prevention as their most important task. It is<br />
a fact, though, that separation from <strong>Hungary</strong> was fuelled by serious economic<br />
difficulties. As an example, confidential reports sent to the High Constable <strong>of</strong><br />
Vas County in the latter half <strong>of</strong> <strong>1918</strong> reported, among other things, that due to<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> food, the German-speaking population was becoming insolent towards<br />
the Hungarian authorities. For some time, it was impossible to obtain basic<br />
necessities in the villages, such as petroleum for lighting, along with salt and<br />
sugar. Hence, the people <strong>of</strong> some border villages threatened that, if the<br />
Hungarian government did not provide adequate supplies, then they would join<br />
Austria.<br />
At the November 25, <strong>1918</strong> meeting <strong>of</strong> the Vas County Municipal Committee<br />
declared that “the Austrian annexation attempt was an attack fuelled by greed<br />
and categorically rejected it.” <strong>The</strong> minutes <strong>of</strong> the same meeting went on to<br />
record: “<strong>The</strong> municipality is open to the populace <strong>of</strong> the named areas exercising<br />
their unique national culture. (…) It is not opposed to the idea that the<br />
population receives education and public administration in their language.” <strong>The</strong><br />
administrators <strong>of</strong> Vas County, in effect, laid out a third option as a solution to<br />
the German question: secession/annexation, or autonomy. <strong>The</strong> German<br />
demands could be satisfied by increasing their linguistic and cultural rights,<br />
within the framework <strong>of</strong> existing administrative constraints. 56<br />
56 Soós, Katalin. A nyugat-magyarországi kérdés <strong>1918</strong>–1919 [<strong>The</strong> question <strong>of</strong> <strong>Western</strong><br />
<strong>Hungary</strong>]. Budapest, 1962, p. 10. Regarding sources: For two decades following the<br />
March 1938 annexation <strong>of</strong> Austria by Germany (Anschluss), no Hungarian-language<br />
publication was published treating the territorial change <strong>of</strong> Őrvidék / Burgenland. At<br />
the beginning <strong>of</strong> WWII, several pamphlets were published: Követeljük Burgenlandot<br />
[We demand Burgenland]. (Egyesült Magyar Nemzeti Szocialista Párt, Budapest,<br />
1938.); Pálosy, I.: Nem sértjük a magyar–német barátságot. Követeljük Burgenlandot a<br />
magyar haza szent testéhez [We will not violate the Hungarian-German friendship. We<br />
demand Burgenland as part <strong>of</strong> the nation’s sacred body.]. Budapest, around 1939.<br />
After the 1956 Revolution and Freedom Fight, the quoted author was among the first to<br />
address the question under the name G. Soós, Katalin: Adalékok a Magyar<br />
Tanácsköztársaság és az Osztrák Köztársaság kapcsolatainak történetéhez. A nyugatmagyarországi<br />
kérdés 1919. március–augusztus [Addenda to the history <strong>of</strong> relations<br />
between the Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Austrian Republic. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Western</strong><br />
Hungarian question, March-August, 1919]. In: Soproni Szemle, 1959, issue 4, pp. 289–<br />
28