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 ...
ecompensed by Hungarian territory (Baranya County and the Vend region/ Medžimurje). This was confirmed when the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference decided to consider Austria as a new country on May 28-29, whose current official name of German-Austria (Deutschösterreich) was changed to the Republic of Austria. The official documents of the Supreme Council refer to it in French and English as République d’Autriche or Republic of Austria. The heads of the Peace Conference also decided henceforth to treat Austria differently from Germany. The terms of the peace treaty were handed to the Austrian delegation on June 2, 1919, which was sharply protested by the Austrian National Assembly at its extraordinary meeting of June 7. 108 Next, numerous notes, submissions and memoranda were written by Austria regarding the matter of Westungarn – not yet called by its new name, Burgenland. Most pointed out the dangers threatening the Austrian capital, Vienna, from “Bolshevik Hungary.” Austria’s position was further improved by the resignation of the most Anschluss-leaning Austrian politician, Foreign Minister Otto Bauer. The Chancellor, Renner, then announced a new, Entente friendly, foreign policy. Austria’s image was further enhanced when a large demonstration was put down in Vienna on June 15, preventing an attempted revolt by the Communists. 109 By the date of the Peace Conference, the demands of the representatives of the transitional Austrian National Assembly who sided with the Greater Germany concepts have substantially modified their territorial demands first introduced in October of 1918, i.e.- all of Pozsony, Sopron, Moson and Vas counties and a western strip of Zala County. By the Spring of 1919, the official land claim shrank to 5,055 km 2 with a population of 392,000. This claim was, by now, only one-third of the unofficially claimed 16,000 km 2 with 1,300 settlements and a population of 1.2 million. The Austrian government demanded to have, first of all, Sopron, as well as the district around Hegyeshalom–Moson–Magyaróvár, and Kőszeg and Szentgotthárd awarded to it, on top of the actual award that later became Burgenland. The one-time ally of Hungary, co-founder of the Dual Monarchy and equal loser of the war, turned out not to be any less predatory than the Czechs, Romanians or Serbs. 110 Some Austrian sources mentioned a slightly larger claim of 5,379 km 2 . 111 Due to changes in the foreign policy environment, Austria later gave up any claim to 108 Pozsonyi, Márta: A saint-germaini osztrák békedelegáció és a területi kérdés [The Austrian peace delegation at Saint-Germain and the territorial question]. In: Történelem és nemzet. Tanulmánykötet Galántai József professzor tiszteletére. Szerk/ed.: Kiss, Károly – Lovas, Krisztina. Budapest, 1996, pp. 295–332; Romhányi, Zsófia: A saintgermaini békekötés és az osztrák sajtó [The peace treaty of Saint-Germain and the Austrian press]. Ibid, pp. 277–293. 109 Ormos, 1983, op. cit., pp. 286–287. 110 Lőkkös, op. cit., pp. 123, 124. (map) 111 Zsiga, Tibor: Communitas Fidelissima Szentpéterfa. A magyar–osztrák határmegállapítás 1922–23 [Most loyal town, Szentpéterfa. The Hungarian-Austrian border settlement 1922-1923]. Szombathely, 1993, p. 10. 48
Pozsony County and, in the Paris Peace Conference, in 1920, only asked for a plebiscite in the city of Pozsony, with the reasoning that if it was not Hungarian, then it is more German than Slovak. 112 The Entente Powers rejected Austria’s request. What justification did Austria, also a loser of the war with Hungary, have to claim Western Hungary? In their memorandum, the Austrian delegation to Paris presented arguments based on historic ‘rights,’ the food supply of Vienna, military-defensive reasons and the wish of the local population to separate as the basis for the annexation of Western Hungary. The Hungarian delegation replied to the Austrian demands, which we will cover next. The extract below, from an undated Hungarian submission, 113 is in response to the points raised in the June 16, 1919 Austrian memorandum. 114 “Historical rights are claimed, based on the ancient Germanic settlers of the area and certain pledges, which Austrian princes were granted on certain castles or estates in later centuries by the Hungarian kings. The majority of ancient settlers of the area were Slavs, the sparse Germanics among them being Goths, and in the same manner, Avars too, but the population was sparse and there was no country-like formation in this region. No one laid claim to it, as there were not even border clashes here for three hundred years after the Conquest, only in the 13 th c. with the buildup of population. Beginning then, Austrian princes and nobles began to grasp for the Hungarian border castles and large estates. This ambition strengthened with the ascension to the throne by the Habsburgs but their aspiration was not specifically toward Western Hungary but focused on the Hungarian throne. The collateral rights the Habsburgs acquired through their pledges, the largest among them from the eternally fiscally pinched King Sigismund, covering many castles and large lands, were always of a personal nature. The peace treaty of 1463 codified the matter of rights over estate collateral given in exchange for a loan in which Frederick III agreed, verbatim, that he enters into possession of the collateral-held properties as a Hungarian nobleman, and that they lie within the boundary of Hungary. The peace treaty also clarified Frederick’s claim to the Hungarian throne. Hence, Austria cannot create a historical right from the collateral nature of these estates, as they were granted to the Habsburgs as rulers-in-waiting of the Hungarian throne, or from the nonrepayment of the loan underlying the collateral because that was nullified when the Habsburgs ascended to the Hungarian throne. In fact, Hungary could lay a 112 Halmosy, Dénes: Nemzetközi szerződések 1918–1945 [International agreements 1918-1945]. Budapest, 1983, p. 95. 113 Title: Ad XV. jegyzék. A Nyugat-Magyarországról szóló jegyzék kivonata [Note XV. Synopsis of the note regarding Western Hungary]. In: A magyar béketárgyalások. Jelentés a magyar békeküldöttség működéséről Neuilly s /S.-ben [-sur-Seineben] 1920. januárius–március havában. I. köt. Kiadja a Magyar Kir. Külügyminisztérium. Budapest, 1920, p. 458. 114 The historical background, from a legal history perspective that is still noteworthy today, is suitably analyzed by Nagy, Iván: Nyugatmagyarország Ausztriában [Western Hungary in Austria]. Pécs, 1937, pp. 12-17. 49
- 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 and 28: were made up of about 20,000 armed
- Page 29 and 30: The tacit support by the Austrian g
- 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: to a rejection of the Anschluss (un
- 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
- Page 79 and 80: agenda.” Lansing: “Perhaps it w
- Page 81 and 82: the subject matter and content of t
- Page 83 and 84: consideration the existing western
- Page 85 and 86: external political education, raisi
- Page 87 and 88: Proclamation: “Our historical iss
- Page 89 and 90: amount).” 210 French Prime Minist
- Page 91 and 92: 31, 1920. 215 French forces pulled
- Page 93 and 94: supported by the Styrian government
- Page 95 and 96: stronger stance with regard to West
- Page 97 and 98: continue talks with Hungary. Howeve
Pozsony County and, in the Paris Peace Conference, in 1920, only asked for a<br />
plebiscite in the city <strong>of</strong> Pozsony, with the reasoning that if it was not<br />
Hungarian, then it is more German than Slovak. 112 <strong>The</strong> Entente Powers rejected<br />
Austria’s request.<br />
What justification did Austria, also a loser <strong>of</strong> the war with <strong>Hungary</strong>, have to<br />
claim <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>? In their memorandum, the Austrian delegation to<br />
Paris presented arguments based on historic ‘rights,’ the food supply <strong>of</strong> Vienna,<br />
military-defensive reasons and the wish <strong>of</strong> the local population to separate as<br />
the basis for the annexation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Hungarian delegation<br />
replied to the Austrian demands, which we will cover next. <strong>The</strong> extract below,<br />
from an undated Hungarian submission, 113 is in response to the points raised in<br />
the June 16, 1919 Austrian memorandum. 114 “Historical rights are claimed,<br />
based on the ancient Germanic settlers <strong>of</strong> the area and certain pledges, which<br />
Austrian princes were granted on certain castles or estates in later centuries by<br />
the Hungarian kings. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> ancient settlers <strong>of</strong> the area were Slavs,<br />
the sparse Germanics among them being Goths, and in the same manner, Avars<br />
too, but the population was sparse and there was no country-like formation in<br />
this region. No one laid claim to it, as there were not even border clashes here<br />
for three hundred years after the Conquest, only in the 13 th c. with the buildup<br />
<strong>of</strong> population. Beginning then, Austrian princes and nobles began to grasp for<br />
the Hungarian border castles and large estates. This ambition strengthened<br />
with the ascension to the throne by the Habsburgs but their aspiration was not<br />
specifically toward <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong> but focused on the Hungarian throne. <strong>The</strong><br />
collateral rights the Habsburgs acquired through their pledges, the largest<br />
among them from the eternally fiscally pinched King Sigismund, covering many<br />
castles and large lands, were always <strong>of</strong> a personal nature. <strong>The</strong> peace treaty <strong>of</strong><br />
1463 codified the matter <strong>of</strong> rights over estate collateral given in exchange for a<br />
loan in which Frederick III agreed, verbatim, that he enters into possession <strong>of</strong><br />
the collateral-held properties as a Hungarian nobleman, and that they lie<br />
within the boundary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>. <strong>The</strong> peace treaty also clarified Frederick’s<br />
claim to the Hungarian throne. Hence, Austria cannot create a historical right<br />
from the collateral nature <strong>of</strong> these estates, as they were granted to the<br />
Habsburgs as rulers-in-waiting <strong>of</strong> the Hungarian throne, or from the nonrepayment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the loan underlying the collateral because that was nullified when<br />
the Habsburgs ascended to the Hungarian throne. In fact, <strong>Hungary</strong> could lay a<br />
112<br />
Halmosy, Dénes: Nemzetközi szerződések <strong>1918</strong>–1945 [International agreements<br />
<strong>1918</strong>-1945]. Budapest, 1983, p. 95.<br />
113<br />
Title: Ad XV. jegyzék. A Nyugat-Magyarországról szóló jegyzék kivonata [Note<br />
XV. Synopsis <strong>of</strong> the note regarding <strong>Western</strong> <strong>Hungary</strong>]. In: A magyar béketárgyalások.<br />
Jelentés a magyar békeküldöttség működéséről Neuilly s /S.-ben [-sur-Seineben] 1920.<br />
januárius–március havában. I. köt. Kiadja a Magyar Kir. Külügyminisztérium.<br />
Budapest, 1920, p. 458.<br />
114<br />
<strong>The</strong> historical background, from a legal history perspective that is still noteworthy<br />
today, is suitably analyzed by Nagy, Iván: Nyugatmagyarország Ausztriában [<strong>Western</strong><br />
<strong>Hungary</strong> in Austria]. Pécs, 1937, pp. 12-17.<br />
49