THE RUMANIAN POLICY OF ETHNIC ERADICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRANSYLVANIAN AND MOLDAVIAN HUNGARIANS

The objective of this study is the analysis of the factors determining the present Rumanian regime's discriminatory treatment of the approximatively 2.5 million Hungarians of Transylvania. Although the Hungarian territories annexed by Rumania are generally designated under the name of Transylvania, the historical principality of Transylvania comprises only about half of those annexed territories. In the present study however, the generally accepted use of the name Transylvania will be kept, that is all the Hungarian territories annexed by Rumania after the two World Wars will be included under this designation. It should also be noted that there are other Hungarians living in parts of Rumania, outside of Transylvania, who are subject to treatment similar to that of the Transylvanian Hungarians.

The present Rumanian regime promotes a nationalistic Rumanian historical version in order to justify its discriminatory nationality policy towards the Transylvanian Hungarians, thus seeking legitimation through nationalism based on a biased historical interpretation and directed against the Hungarians in particular. The problem of the repressive treatment of the Transylvanian Hungarians by Rumania raises a relatively little examined question: the falsification and distortion of historical facts for ideological or political purposes. This phenomenon is not unique to the Transylvanian Problem. It is a characteristic of many cases where one group ( nation, race, religious sect, political organization, etc...) seeks to dominate, exploit, or even exterminate another group, proclaiming its own superiority and the other's inferiority, attempting to impose its culture, religion, or political system on others, often resorting to propaganda using pseudo-historical or pseudo-scientific arguments to justify such imperialistic policies. The Transylvanian Problem represents therefore an aspect of a much larger and complex question which overlaps and combines the fields of history and politics, and which may not have received the attention it deserves, due to the artificial separation of these two disciplines.

The problem presently under study centers upon what is often referred to as the Transylvanian Problem, which is the source of conflict and tension between Hungary and Rumania. The history of Transylvania is an integral part of Hungarian history until the end of the First World War. However, since the end of the XVIIIth c., the history of Transylvania is increasingly dominated by the conflict between the Hungarians and the Rumanians.

The two most important aspects of Transylvanian history from the point of view of the present study are, firstly, the chronological order of settlement in that region by various ethnic groups, and secondly, the evolution of the relationship between the Hungarians and the Rumanians. The importance of the first aspect lies in the fact that the Hungarians and Rumanians have conflicting historical claims to Transylvania, and the Rumanian regime uses its historical interpretation as justification for its policy of forced assimilation against the Transylvanian Hungarians. The second aspect is also important since the conflictual Hungarian-Rumanian relationship is a contributing factor in Rumania's policy towards the Transylvanian Hungarians.

The repressive Rumanian policy of political, legal, educational, and economic discrimination, of forced cultural assimilation, of deportation, and propaganda campaigns against the Hungarians is directly related to the official Rumanian historical version which seeks to project a distorted and falsified image of the Hungarians. They are portrayed as invading barbarians who are the enemies of the Rumanian people. They are labeled as undesirable alien latecomers who threaten the security of Rumania and who are also culturally inferior to the Rumanians. It is therefore assumed that it is in the interest of the security of the Rumanian state to eliminate this dangerous foreign element, assimilation being one option which, according to the official Rumanian historical interpretation, is also beneficial for the Hungarians since it raises their culture to a ‘higher (Rumanian) level'.

A typical illustration of how the official Rumanian historical interpretation serves to justify the policy of assimilation towards the Hungarian population is provided by the case of the Székelys and the Csángós. Both are Hungarian ethnic groups, the former inhabiting Transylvania, and the latter, Moldavia. According to the official Rumanian historical version, these ethnic groups would be ‘Hungarianized' Rumanians which must therefore be ‘de-Hungarianized' and ‘re-Rumanianized'. Any opposition to or criticism of this policy from the part of Hungarians is branded as ‘fascist' and ‘chauvinistic' by the Rumanian regime.

The Rumanian regime exploits the fear of the possibility of territorial revision in favour of Hungary, for which there is a historical precedent since Hungary recovered temporarily part of Transylvania as a result of the 1940 Vienna Arbitration, this threat being referred to as Hungarian ‘revanchism' and ‘revisionism’ by the Rumanian regime. According to this interpretation, the presumed Hungarian territorial claims against Rumania, which the latter considers to be unjustified, would be further weakened if the Hungarian population of the territories bordering on Hungary would be eliminated, either through assimilation or deportation. Thus the Rumanianization of Transylvania is seen and promoted as an essential policy aiming to secure Romania's hold on and claim of historical right to those territories, while simultaneously undermining the basis for any Hungarian claims to Transylvania.

The Hungarian state and the Hungarians of Transylvania are therefore seen as posing a threat to the security and the territorial integrity of the Rumanian state. Although the Rumanian regime uses the threat of Hungarian revisionism as justification for its nationality policy, this threat seems fictitious under the present conditions since there is no irredentist movement in Transylvania and the post-WWII Hungarian regimes renounced all former territorial claims.

Although human rights, including those which provide for the preservation of an individual's ethnic identity, are recognized and stated in the peace treaties ending the two World Wars, the UN charter, and the Helsinki accord, which have been signed by Rumania, as well as in the Rumanian constitution itself, the Transylvanian Hungarians are subjected to considerable discrimination by the Rumanian authorities, in violation of their clearly stated and supposedly garanteed human rights. The treatment of the Hungarian ethnic group by the Rumanian regime has increased the tensions between Hungary and Romania. Most major Western states as well as the former Soviet Union have also criticized Rumania's nationality policy. Nevertheless, the program of forced assimilation of the Transylvanian and Moldavian Hungarians has been further intensified by the various Rumanian regimes, despite their claims to the contrary in official publications and declarations. There is a considerable discrepancy between claims and statements made for foreign consumption, and actual implemented domestic policies. The actual policies, which differ from official statements, indicate the real objective of forced assimilation (cultural genocide, or ethnocide), and the methods (cultural, political, economic, administrative) of Rumania's nationality policy towards the Hungarians.

The situation of the Transylvanian and Moldavian Hungarians seems to be continuously deteriorating under the present Rumanian regime:
- closing of Hungarian schools and universities
- restrictions on Hungarian language publications, press, and media
- banning of the use of the Hungarian language in public and in the administration
- banning of the use of Hungarian place names
- destruction of Hungarian villages and forced relocation
- socio-economic discrimination and political under-representation of the Hungarians
- restrictions on the Hungarians' freedom of movement and contact with friends and relatives living abroad
- harassment, arbitrary detention, torture, and assassination of important members of the Hungarian community by the state security services
- intimidation of Hungarians who do not declare themselves as Rumanians in the national census, and falsification of official statistics

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine the factors which have determined Rumanian policies towards ethnic Hungarians since Rumania took over Transylvania at the end of the First World War. The principal thesis which is to be demonstrated is that various Rumanian regimes, particularly the communist regime (especially under Ceaucescu), sought legitimacy and justification for their policies, thereby prompting the official exploitation and promotion of Rumanian nationalism and generating a discriminatory policy of forced assimilation, or ethnocide, directed against the ethnic minorities in Rumania, including those of Hungarian nationality. The Rumanian nationality policy therefore served to legitimize the regime in power and this policy was justified by a nationalistic official version of history which also depicted the Hungarians as a threat to Rumanian national security and territorial integrity. The objective of the nationality policy of the "unitary national Rumanian State" was therefore:

“to "Roumanize Transylvania" - that is to secure for the

Roumanian element a position of unquestioned superiority

... the political enemy in chief consists of the Magyar

minority, whose power, influence, and numbers must be

weakened by all possible means.” (1)

The primary factors, both internal and external to Rumania, which will be examined are of historical, political, and ideological nature. The various nationality policy implementation methods employed by the Rumanian authorities will be used as indicators in order to establish a chronological trend and to correlate Rumanian nationality policy with internal and external factors. In this manner, the fundamental causes and consequences of this problem will be determined.

The problem of the treatment of ethnic Hungarians in Rumania is the result of a complex set of factors with wide-ranging historical and political ramifications. This problem, otherwise referred to as the Transylvanian Question, is therefore part of a wider geopolitical context of interrelated problems of similar nature. The Transylvanian Question is the central issue of Hungarian-Rumanian relations. It is a seemingly irreconcilable and highly controversial territorial and ethnic dispute with deep historical roots, both sides claiming exclusive rights for the possession of Transylvania, accusing each other of having oppressed their co-nationals living there, and denying each other's accusations. Thus, with each side blaming the other for causing this problem, no solution has yet been reached.

The Transylvanian Question, or more specifically the issue of the Hungarian minority's situation, is itself part of the Hungarian Question which refers to the problem of the Hungarian minorities living in the states surrounding Hungary. At present, there are an estimated 4-5 million ethnic Hungarians (official censuses recognize approximately 3 million only)(2), representing approximately one third of all ethnic Hungarians inhabiting the Carpathian Basin, living outside of Hungary in the neighboring states as a result of the border changes which have taken place following the two world wars.

The estimated 2.4 to 3 million Hungarians in Rumania (3) constitute the largest Hungarian minority and have also been subjected to extremely harsh conditions as a result of Rumanian nationality policy which was reported as being the most oppressive compared to the other states neighboring Hungary, although these states are also engaged, to varying degrees, in discriminatory policies towards ethnic Hungarians. The Hungarian Question thus involves Hungary with Slovakia, Ukraine, Rumania, the former Yugoslav states, and Austria, and each of these states is also involved in other domestic ethnic problems and/or territorial disputes with other states.

The Hungarian Question is the product of historical ethnic conflicts, otherwise known as the Nationality Question, which centered upon the clashing national aspirations of the Hungarian and non-Hungarian ethnic groups of the Middle Danubian Basin. To a considerable extent, this nationality problem has been generated by intervening major external powers seeking to dominate the region by exploiting the potential antagonisms among its nationalities. This problem has been perpetuated and exacerbated by the conflicting interpretations of the history of these nationalities. The mutually contradicting and often politically influenced historical versions tend to distort the view these nationalities have of each other, thus sowing discord among them and preventing the resolution of their conflicts.

The problem of the Transylvanian and Moldavian Hungarians raises the conflicting issues of nationalism and of minority rights with which international relations have been increasingly preoccupied since the 19th c. Nationalism and nationality problems have been at the root of most major wars and revolutions which have fundamentally altered the political configuration of Europe during the past two hundred years, opposing the concept of the unitary nation-state to the concept of cultural, territorial, and administrative autonomy for ethnic minorities. The principle of state sovereignty is also in contradiction with the declared universality of human rights, which are assumed to include minority rights as well, hence the ineffectiveness of international agreements and guarantees for the protection of national minorities in a system of sovereign states.

The present study is a multi-disciplinary approach to the issue of the Transylvanian Hungarians. The historical, political, legal, socio-economic, demographic, cultural, and ideological aspects of this problem will be examined in order to provide as comprehensive a view as possible, which is essential for the accuracy of this type of analysis.

Due to the nature of the problem which is to be analyzed, the historical dimension seems to occupy a preponderant role among the determining factors of the Transylvanian Question. Thus, the historical background is of great importance for the understanding of this problem and will examine the roots of the

Transylvanian Question, focusing on Hungary's loss of Transylvania to Rumania, as this event provides a unique insight into the origins of this problem and the factors determining Rumanian nationality policy towards ethnic Hungarians.

Following the historical background, the present study will then proceed with the analysis of Rumanian nationality policy towards ethnic Hungarians. This analysis will determine the objective and examine the methods of implementation of Rumanian nationality policy in the cultural, socio-economic, political, and legal fields, leading to the analysis of the factors determining this policy.

The international and domestic legal status of the Transylvanian Hungarians will also be examined, giving an account of the attempts to solve this problem through formal legal measures, and of the reasons for their lack of success.

A demographic section will also present statistical data in order to provide a picture of the changing ethnic composition and distribution of Transylvania's population. This change itself is an indicator of the historical roots of the Transylvanian minority problem and of the Rumanian nationality policy.

By examining the various aspects of the Transylvanian Hungarian minority problem, this thesis will present a synthesis of the different positions relative to this problem. Two main difficulties confront this task: the relative inaccessibility of primary sources and of original documents (most of which are undisclosed official records, and some may even have been destroyed) as well as the difficulty in finding truly impartial expert opinions on the subject matter, be they Hungarian, Rumanian, or "neutral" third party. Therefore, another “obstacle to a fully documented study of minority problems in Transylvania is the absence of sufficient reliable data.” (4)

With respect to the question of source reliability, it should be pointed out that documents published in Hungary or Rumania cannot be attributed with the same level of objectivity and accuracy as some independent Western scholarly sources, due to political and ideological factors. This seems to be particularly the case of documents originating from Rumania, as they are characterized by

“a lack of credible statistical information as well as

an overabundance of biased propaganda.” (5)

Certain designations used in this research paper require some clarification. The geographical name of Transylvania, as it is most commonly understood today, refers to all the territories annexed by Rumania from Hungary after W.W. I (103 903 km2)(6). These territories include historical Transylvania itself (57 804 km2)(7), and in addition, parts of other former Hungarian territories known as Máramaros (Maramures), Szatmár (Satu Mare), Kőrös Vidék (Crisana), and the Bánság (Banat). Transylvania will therefore be referred to in its present wider geographical extent, unless otherwise specified. The name "Transylvania" is the Latin translation of the original Hungarian name "Erdély" from which the Rumanian name "Ardeal" is also derived (8).

The name of "Rumania" and the term "Rumanian" will be used rather than "Romania" and "Romanian", except in direct quotations where it is spelled with an "o" or "ou" instead of a "u". Both "Rumania" and "Romania" are presently in use, although "Rumania" represents the original version which has been gradually displaced by the official "Romania" version. Prior to the creation of the Rumanian state in 1859, the Rumanians referred to themselves as "Rumini" (9).

Two divergent historical conceptions underly the two different spellings. The name "Romania" is based on the Daco-Roman theory of the origin of the Rumanians (10), whereas "Rumania" is based on the more widely accepted view that the Rumanians originate from the Balkans, "Rum" being the designation given by the Turks to the Balkans (11). The "Rumanian" designation itself has only been used since the 19th c., prior to that, the Rumanians were known as "Vlachs" or "Wallachians" ("Oláh" in Hungarian)(12).

The origin and the relationship of the "Hungarian" and "Magyar" designations should also be clarified in order to avoid certain confusions. The term "Hungar", from which the "Hungarian" designation is derived, is a collective ethnic name meaning Hun people or tribe (13). Each Hunnic tribe and tribal federation had a specific name: Kuman, Pecheneg, Magyar, Bulgar, Avar, Khazar, etc... These names became more widely known after the breakup of the political unity of the Huns, following Atilla's death in 453 A.D. Thus, the Székelys of Eastern Transylvania (who were there before the Magyars)(14) and the Moldavian Csángós are also Hungarian ethnic groups, as well as the Magyars themselves, although Rumanian historiography has claimed that the Székelys and Csángós were "Hungarianized" Rumanians, as a justification for the policy of forced assimilation (15).

Therefore, Rumanian nationality policy towards ethnic Hungarians has been determined essentially by the need for legitimization of the Rumanian state. This need for legitimization was generated by historical, political, ideological, and economic factors, which will be analyzed in the following chapters. In the conclusions drawn from the analysis of these factors, a fundamental long-term solution seems to be the revision of the distorted and mutually antagonistic national historical perceptions of the peoples in question in order to help resolve nationalistic rivalries. This would require decisions made at the political level and the freedom for unbiased scientific historical research. A possible key to the resolution of nationality problems seems to lie in the newly emerging (or re-emerging) historical data which contradict the established versions upon which the present ideologically biased national identities and perceptions are based.

The position taken in this study is that a defense of the case of the Transylvanian and Moldavian Hungarians is required in order to counterbalance the wide dissemination of anti-Hungarian propaganda in the West by Rumanians and others, in which serious accusations are directed against the Hungarians. The defense of this case will therefore strive for an objective analysis of factual evidence and for the avoidance of ideological bias.

NOTES

(1) MaCartney, C. A., Hungary and her Successors, Oxford U. P., London, 1937, p. 285.

(2) David, Z., "Statistics: The Hungarians and their Neighbors", in Borsody, S.,ed., The Hungarians: A Divided Nation, Yale Center for International and Area Studies, New Haven, 1988, p. 345.

(3) Amnesty International, Romania, Amnesty International USA Publications, 1978, p. 35.

(4) International Commission of Jurists, "The Hungarian Minority Problem in Rumania", in Wagner, F. S., ed., Toward a New Central Europe, Danubian Press, Astor, Fla., 1970, p. 327.

(5) Keefe, K. E., et al, Romania - A Country Study, The American University, Washington D. C., 1979, p. v.

(6) Haraszti, E., The Ethnic History of Transylvania, Danubian Press, Astor, Fla., 1971, p. 1.

(7) Ibid., p. 1.

(8) Ibid., p. 1.

(9) Cadzow, J. F., et al, eds., Transylvania: The Roots of Ethnic Conflict, Kent State U. P., Kent, Ohio, 1983, p. 4.

(10) Ibid., p. 4.

(11) Ibid., p. 5.

(12) Ibid., p. 5.

(13) Badiny, F. J., ed., The Sumerian Wonder, School of Oriental Studies, University of Salvador, Buenos Aires, 1974, p. 223.

Knatchbull, H., The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, Arno Press, New York, 1971, p. 4.

(14) Haraszti, op. cit., pp. 35, 48.

Kopeczi, B., ed., Erdély Torténete, Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest, 1986, p. 292.

(15) MaCartney, op. cit., p. 286.

Pascu, S., and Stefanescu, S., eds., Un jeu dangereux: la falsification de l'histoire, Éditions scientifiques et encyclopédiques, Bucarest, 1987, p. 244.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The importance of the study of the Transylvanian Question's historical background lies in that it demonstrates the origin and the role of the key factors which have determined Rumanian nationality policy: the concern over the legitimacy and the permanence of Rumanian territorial possessions, the interests and policies of major powers relative to the area concerned, and the dissemination of anti-Hungarian propaganda, which had a definite impact on the situation of the Hungarian minorities.

The problem of the Hungarian minorities was created by the Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920, just as numerous other minority problems were created by the post-W. W. I settlements imposed by the victorious Entente Powers. One of the critical factors contributing to the plight of the ethnic minorities was that the implementation of the minority rights protection clauses of the Peace Treaties was inadequately guaranteed by the Entente Powers. As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary lost 72% of its territory and 64% of its population (1), and one third of the entire Magyar population was forced under foreign rule (2). Therefore, the conditions imposed upon Hungary after W. W. I were by far harsher in both relative and absolute terms than those imposed upon any other state (3).

The terms of the Treaty of Trianon were, however, largely determined by diplomatic events leading up to and during the war, as well as by military events following it. There is conclusive evidence that plans for the annexation of Hungarian territories were envisaged well before the outbreak of the First World War by the states which benefited from the partition of Hungary (4). The expansionist aims of the Czechs, Serbia, and Rumania were manifested by the promotion of separatist movements among the nationalities of Hungary (5) and by conducting a highly publicized propaganda campaign in the West, with the collaboration of certain influential personalities such as R. W. Seton-Watson (6), in order to popularize their cause and to gain acceptance and support for their territorial claims against Austria-Hungary:

“[Wickham] Steed, as the foreign policy editor of the

Times, and Seton-Watson as the editor of New Europe...

used the press as weapons, often arbitrarily and with

biased arguments, on behalf of the imperialist objec-

tives of the Entente: the maximum territorial claims

of the Slavs and the Romanians... Steed, Seton-Watson,

and the officials and specialists, including journalists

and politicians... contributed a great deal to the pro-

cess of dissolution, to the fermentation within the Mo-

narchy. The new order in Central Europe, and the new

boundaries can be regarded largely as the fruits of their

work before and after 1914.” (7)

Thus, the propaganda campaign before and during the war had a definite impact upon the political restructuring of the Danubian region (8).

Major powers, such as Russia, seized the opportunities presented by the emergence of new nationalistic small states such as Rumania, and exploited the latter's territorial ambitions in order to serve their own hegemonistic objectives (9). As a result, the Entente Powers recognized and supported territorial claims by Balkan states against Austria-Hungary even before W. W. I (10). Serbia and Rumania also realized that the territories they sought could only be obtained through the intervention of major powers. Thus, the Balkan states were not merely the pawns of the major powers, but they also exploited the latter's imperialistic rivalries:

“each national disturbance presented some of the Great

powers with an opportunity to further their own interests

at the expense of others. Each nationality that succeeded

in its struggle for independence did so with at least

the tacit support if not open assistance of one of the

Great powers. Those like the Poles and Hungarians, who

lacked a powerful patron were unsuccessful.” (11)

During the war itself, through secret agreements, Hungarian territories were promised by the Entente Powers to their Balkan allies. On August 17, 1916, the secret Treaty of Bucharest was signed between the Entente and Rumania (12). The treaty promised the Hungarian territories East of the Tisza river to Rumania, which, in exchange, could not conclude a separate peace treaty with the Central Powers, as this would invalidate the Bucharest Treaty (13). Consequently, the Rumanians turned against their former ally, Austria-Hungary, and on August 27 proceeded to invade Transylvania, declaring war upon the Dual Monarchy only after the attack had begun (14). The Rumanians based their declaration of war on the claim that Hungary was oppressing its Rumanian minority (15). Nevertheless, the Central Powers mounted a successful counter-offensive as a result of which Rumania was forced to sign the Peace Treaty of Bucharest on May 7, 1918, thereby invalidating the 1916 Bucharest Treaty with the Entente (16).

On November 3, 1918, Austria-Hungary concluded an Armistice at Padua with Italy which had received the mandate and authorization to act on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers (17). On that day, there were no Allied forces on Hungarian territory (18). The Armistice designated the existent frontiers of Austria-Hungary as the demarcation lines for the Balkan and Eastern fronts. This Armistice was thus valid for all Austro-Hungarian fronts and officially put an end to all hostilities between Austria-Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers (19). However, on November 4, 1918, the Supreme War Council of the Allies unilaterally cancelled the Padua Armistice without the knowledge and consent of the Austro-Hungarian authorities on the grounds that one of the contracting parties to the Armistice, Austria-Hungary, had ceased to exist. However, this argument had no validity since the new Hungarian government had also accepted the terms of the Padua Armistice (20).

Because at that time Germany was still at war, the presence of German troops in Hungary prompted the Allies to invade (21). These circumstances proved favorable for the territorial claims of the Czechs, Serbians, and Rumanians. On November 13, 1918, the Allies concluded the Belgrade Military Convention with Hungary in order to occupy certain Southern and Eastern parts of that country (22). This was meant only as a temporary measure which was not supposed to change the Hungarian administration in the occupied regions (23). However, the Czechs, Serbians, and Rumanians violated the Belgrade Convention by occupying more territory than they were authorized to and by replacing the local Hungarian administration by their own (24). Hungarian sovereignty and territorial integrity were thus violated after that state had concluded a legal agreement for the termination of the war. In this respect, it is interesting to note that on January 24, 1919, the Supreme Allied Council declared that its members were

“deeply disturbed by the news which comes to them of

the many instances in which armed force is being made

use of, in many parts of Europe to gain possession of

territory, the rightful claim to which the Peace Con-

ference is to be asked to determine. They deem it their

duty to utter a solemn warning that possession gained

by force will seriously prejudice the claims of those

who use such means. It will create the presumption

that those who employ force doubt the justice and va-

lidity of their claim and purpose to substitute pos-

session for proof of right and set up sovereignty by

coercion rather than by racial or national preference

and natural historical association.” (25)

Nevertheless, as a result of the violation of the Padua Armistice by the Allies, large parts of Hungary's territory remained under foreign occupation, and those territories were subsequently annexed by the successor states - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania.

Several factors contributed to the extent of Hungary's losses after the war. Having fought on Germany's side, Hungary was considered and treated as a defeated enemy power by the Allies (26). Consequently, the successor states were given preferential treatment regarding their claims against Hungary. The foreign invasion of Hungary precipitated the economic and political collapse of that country which had also demobilized its army following the Armistice, thereby facilitating the advance of enemy troops into Hungarian territory. As a result of the ensuing chaotic conditions, a coup installed the communist regime of Béla Kun, a turn of events which prompted further Allied intervention in Hungary, resulting in the occupation of Budapest by Rumanian troops (27), and causing losses estimated at 6.5 billion Swiss Francs (28).

The other major concern of the Allies, besides Germany, was the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the resulting threat of the spread of Communism:

“The Allied decision to embrace officially the "New

Europe" plan had a great deal to do with the loss of

Russia as an ally following the Bolshevik Revolution

in October 1917... exiles from Austria-Hungary sudden-

ly became more precious than ever before in the propa-

ganda war agaist the Central Powers.”(29)

Hungary was thus in a particularly unfavorable set of circumstances where its interests were subordinated to the intervening interests of major powers, especially those of France, which was taking an increasingly hegemonic role in East Central Europe. It was under such circumstances that Rumania took over the Eastern part of Hungary, including historical Transylvania, as a reward for Rumanian assistance against the Russian Red Army (30).

Another factor which determined the extent of Hungarian territorial losses to neighboring states such as Rumania, was the general lack of knowledge or interest among Western statesmen concerning facts pertaining to Central and Eastern Europe, combined with the particularly unfavorable image of Hungary created by the propaganda campaigns of the successor states:

“reminiscing over Hungary's punishment at the Paris

Peace Conference, the British diplomat Harold Nicolson

noted: "I confess that I regarded, and still regard,

that Turanian tribe with acute distaste. Like their

cousins the Turks, they had destroyed much and created

nothing." This Allied participant at the Paris Peace

Conference did more than just express his unflattering

opinion of the Hungarian people. He captured the biased

political atmosphere of the international setting in

which the historical Hungarian state met its death.” (31)

It is therefore a fact that the anti-Hungarian propaganda campaign

had a considerable impact in terms of major power policy towards

Hungary. This has also been a determining factor in the subsequent

treatment of the Hungarian minorities.

The Treaty of Trianon was not negotiated but merely imposed upon Hungary by force:

“what Trianon effected in actual fact was quite simply

to endorse and legalize the occupations by conquest,

achieved after the cessation of hostilities, by the

armed forces of the so-called successor states, in

stark violation of the armistice agreements concluded

with the Allied and Associated Powers.” (32)

The new borders of Hungary were determined on the basis of claims and information presented by the parties interested in the territorial dismemberment of Hungary. Hungary's objections and demands for plebiscites were not taken into consideration at the Peace Conference (33). In this manner, all ethnic, historical, geographical, strategic, and economic considerations were applied discriminatorily in favor of the successor states and to the detriment of Hungary in the determination of the new frontiers (34).

The Hungarians reluctantly agreed to sign the Treaty of Trianon, but only with the understanding that the possibility of future revision was open (the so-called Millerand letter) and that the acquisition of Hungarian territories by the successor states was conditional upon the latter's compliance with the treaties for the protection of national minorities (35). However, neither of these guarantees were respected by the Allies and the successor states (36).

All this was accomplished under the claim of serving justice and of realizing the ideals proclaimed by the Allies (President W. Wilson's 14 Points for the self-determination of the nationalities of Central and Eastern Europe). However, the terms and the methods of implementation of the Treaty of Trianon were in contradiction with the principles in the name of which the Allies claimed to have fought:

“According to those principles "peoples and provinces

are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sove-

reignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a

game", but "every territorial settlement involved must

be made in the interest and for the benefit of the po-

pulation concerned", and also "upon the basis of free

acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately

concerned".” (37)

As a result, 3.5 million Hungarians were placed against their will in a minority status in the successor states (38). With only one exception where the outcome proved favorable to Hungary (the

Sopron plebiscite), the populations of the transferred territories were not consulted as to which state they wished to belong to:

“The Treaty of Trianon violated the principle of self-

determination... The peoples living on the territories

severed from Hungary did not constitute themselves

separate political units. No action on the part of

these peoples can be regarded as representing a wish

either to break away from Hungary, or to form indepen-

dent units. The so-called Rumanian, Slovak and Serb

"National Councils" which were set up in certain towns

had no justification whatever to consider themselves

representative of the whole population in the sense

that they had the right to decide anything in the name

of that population. They had never been elected; they

were self-constituted bodies.” (39)

The arguments used in order to justify the Treaty of Trianon were that Hungary was responsible for W. W. I. and that the millenial existence of the Hungarian state represented in itself an injustice (40).

In the Dual Monarchy, decisions relating to diplomatic and military matters were taken in Vienna (41). In July 1914, the Hungarian government was firmly opposed to the aggressive Habsburg policy towards Serbia (42). However, the Hungarian objections were overruled by the Austrians, and Hungary was forced to accept the decisions taken by the Habsburg government. The accusation that Hungary was responsible for the war is therefore questionable:

“When the Crown Council decided for war, Hungary had no

other course than to stand by her obligations as an ally.

But if there is any nation whose responsible leaders

were against the war, it is Hungary, and the guilt of

engineering the war can certainly not be laid to her

charge.” (43)

The responsibility for W. W. I lies, in varying degrees, with the Habsburgs, Russia, Germany, France, as well as Serbia, all of which pursued expansionist or revanchist policies. Unlike such states as Rumania, Hungary had no territorial ambitions. Territorial and hegemonic expansionism were among the main causes of the war.

The other accusation levelled against Hungary, that of the injustice of that state's millenial existence, referred to the alleged thousand years of Hungarian oppression of the national minorities. The implication of this accusation was that the Carpathian Basin was already occupied by non-Hungarian populations before the arrival of the Magyars, in 895 AD, who then supposedly subjugated the previously settled inhabitants of the region. These claims of the successor states represented the principal justifications of their territorial acquisitions from Hungary.

These accusations raise the Nationalities Question of pre-war Hungary, referring to the problems between the Hungarian and non-Hungarian ethnic groups living in Hungary. The origins of this problem are of particular importance to this study due to the fact that this problem is still present under the form of the Hungarian minorities in the states surrounding Hungary. It is therefore important to examine the roots of these ethnic conflicts which, to a considerable extent, have determined, among others, the Transylvanian Question, and have thus been influential factors in Rumanian nationality policy.

Hungary's neighbors claimed that they had inhabited the Carpathian Basin before the Hungarians, and that therefore they had the historical right of possession of its territories (44). The Rumanians, for their part, based their historical claims on the so-called Daco-Roman continuity theory. This highly controversial theory is still the subject of extremely divided opinions (45). While the Hungarians maintain that the theory of Daco-Roman continuity is not substantiated by any conclusive evidence (46),

“The Roumanians claim with passion that their ancestors

have, on the contrary, inhabited Transylvania, in un-

broken continuity, since its days of Roman greatness,

having been merely ousted from their heritage by the

barbaric, Asiatic Magyar intruders... We do not know

for certain that Roumanians were in Transylvania in the

year A.D. 1000... they cannot have been either numerous

or important, neither can they have possessed any orde-

red social or political society... nor do we find any

record even of isolated groups...” (47)

In fact, the historical claims of the successor states appear to be questionable:

“Up to the sixteenth century there is no historical evi-

dence that alien races in any considerable strength lived

next to the Magyars in the territory of pre-war Hungary.

Apart from a moderate immigration of German and Slovak

settlers and Wallach (Rumanian) herdsmen, which began

slowly about the thirteenth century, the population of

the country was overwhelmingly Magyar.

The change in the ethnographical composition of the

country from the original homogeneous Magyar into a

heterogeneous one is... chiefly the result of quite

recent immigration.” (48)

With respect to the question of historical rights for territorial possession based on priority of settlement, it is interesting to note that some of the most recent researches into the ancient history of Europe have arrived to the conclusion that before the appearance of the Indo-European peoples in Europe, non-Indo-European peoples had already laid the foundations of European civilization (49). These conclusions are supported by archeological finds, such as that made in Transylvania in 1961 which indicates that the earliest civilized settlements in the Carpathian Basin were of Mesopotamian Sumerian origin (50).

During the 19th c., British, French, and German researchers discovered the most ancient civilization, that of the Sumerians, in Mesopotamia, and deciphered their language, coming to the conclusion that the Sumerians were neither Semitic, nor Indo-European (51). Comparative linguistic analysis has shown that the language closest to Sumerian is Hungarian (52).

The evidence therefore suggests that the ancestors of the present-day Hungarians had established themselves in the Carpathian Basin as early as the Neolithic period, well before the arrival of the Magyars in 895 AD, who represented the last major link in the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar continuity of Turanian peoples which amalgamated with their ethno-linguistic relatives of Near Eastern origin previously settled in the Danubian region. It should also be mentioned, in connection with the Daco-Roman theory, that according to Roman sources, the Dacians, who inhabited today's Transylvania, belonged to the family of Scythian peoples, which also included the Huns, Avars, and Magyars (53).

However, during the centuries of warfare and foreign occupation, starting with the Turkish invasion and division of Hungary, a considerable shift in the ethnic distribution of the population of the Carpathian Basin took place. While the Hungarian population suffered comparatively greater losses, other ethnic groups from the Balkans and Eastern Europe sought refuge or were settled by foreign rulers in the depopulated areas of Hungary (54), thus considerably reducing the proportion of Hungarians in Hungary, while the non-Hungarian population grew more rapidly due to immigration and due to the fact that the areas they inhabited were less exposed to devastation than those inhabited by Hungarians (55). Transylvania was also affected by these trends as an increasing influx of Rumanians took place, starting in the 13th c., as a result of the Mongol and Turkish invasions of Eastern Europe and the Balkans (56).

The various nationalities of the Carpathian Basin coexisted

peacefully until the Habsburgs introduced their policy of inciting the various nationalities settled in Hungary against the Hungarians:

“the policy of the Imperial Government in Vienna,

which, in order to check Magyar ambitions towards

freedom and independence, stirred up the subject

nationalities and used them as a weapon against

the Hungarians.” (57)

The Habsburgs pursued a policy of divide and rule in Hungary since their take-over of that country (58), starting with the partition of Hungary between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans in the 16th c. This policy consisted essentially in settling large numbers of foreigners in Hungary, in order to economically exploit and politically divide Hungary to the Austrian Habsburgs's advantage:

“It is estimated that in the course of the XVIIIth c.,

the Habsburgs installed or introduced in Hungary some

400 000 Serbs, 1 200 000 Germans, and 1 500 000 Ruma-

nians and thus lowered the proportion of Magyars in

the historic Kingdom, that had totalled 80 per cent

before the Turkish conquest, to less than 40% by 1780.” (59)

In order to incite the foreign nationalities against the Hungarians when the latter repeatedly revolted against Austrian rule, the Habsburgs fostered the development of the national self-consciousness of the non-Hungarian nationalities and directed them against the Hungarians (60).

In this context, the theory of Daco-Roman continuity was therefore a useful means of mobilizing the Rumanians against the Hungarians:

“The principal center of this ["Dacian"] idea lay

across the Carpathians in Austrian territory, where

Roman Catholic propaganda made considerable progress

among Rumanian-speaking populations. Official Austrian

support of Catholicism helped to forward the movement...” (61)

“The aims of this ["Transylvanian School"] movement

were not primarily scientific. The study of Rumanian

history and language... was to support a distinctly

Rumanian political struggle...” (62)

The objective of this struggle was to re-establish the Rumanian nation "in the position of pre-eminence" (63) which it was believed to have occupied in ancient times. As a result, during the 18th and 19th c. Hungarian uprisings against the Habsburgs, Rumanians settled in Hungary slaughtered entire Hungarian villages, thereby contributing to the depopulation of Hungarian-inhabited areas and increasing the Rumanian population's proportion in Transylvania and other parts of Hungary (64). Due to the Rumanians's siding with the Habsburgs against the Hungarians (65), the relations between these two nationalities deteriorated considerably during the course of the 19th c.

The nationality problem which was thus created had serious repercussions in the origins and aftermath of the First World War. As a consequence of the nationality problem in Hungary, certain non-Hungarians advanced the claim, mostly under foreign influence (66), that the Hungarians have been oppressing the nationalities which have supposedly inhabited the Carpathian Basin before the Hungarians who subjugated them. These claims have been widely propagated since the latter part of the 19th c., essentially in order to justify the territorial partition of Hungary.

However, the evidence seems to contradict these politically motivated historical claims:

“The administrative and political organizations of

the Hungarian statehood, based on autonomy and self-

government, was also the inherited legal system of

the nomadic tribal life... Thus the nomadic empires

were built on autonomy and self-government, and the

concept of discrimination against different racial

or language groups was unknown.

This principle of self-government and tolerance to-

ward foreign groups, together with the respect for the

liberty of others, prevailed in the same way within the

Christian Hungarian Kingdom.” (67)

As a matter of fact, it was in Transylvania that religious freedom was legalized for the first time in Europe, in the 16th c. (68) Furthermore the Hungarian state not only allowed the various ethnic groups settled in Hungary to preserve their language and culture, but actually contributed to their cultural and economic development:

“the Magyars lived for centuries in complete harmony

with their co-nationals of other races and always fos-

tered their national and cultural development. Of this,

no better proof can be given than the fact that all

the minorities of pre-war Hungary not only maintained

their national characteristics, but developed them and

grew in strength and wealth to an incomparably greater

extent than did their kinsfolk in Serbia, Wallachia, and

Moldavia.” (69)

Rumanian historians have interpreted the peasant rebellions against the Hungarian feudal regime as Rumanian national uprisings against Hungarian tyranny. This is a misinterpretation since the Hungarian nobility was not exclusively of Hungarian origin (70) and ethnic Hungarians constituted the bulk of the exploited peasantry. It was therefore a case of feudal socio-economic conflict and not a manifestation of conscious ethno-linguistic discrimination (71).

The Rumanians and other nationalities have also claimed that they have been the victims of a systematic campaign of forced Magyarization, or Hungarianization. In relation to this claim, it should be noted that the so-called "Magyar Chauvinism" for which Hungary was criticized was a manifestation characterizing a small and unrepresentative minority of the Hungarian population, namely the upper and middle classes which, to a considerable extent, were composed of elements of non-Hungarian origin (72). This important fact seems to have been overlooked by Hungary's critics, such as R.W. Seton-Watson (Racial Problems in Hungary), who made the mistake of accusing the Hungarian nation as a whole for the policies of the reactionary oligarchy in power at the time. Hungary's ruling classes exploited Hungarian nationalism for similar political reasons as later Rumanian governments exploited Rumanian nationalism. It is also a fact that “the Hungarian policy towards the racial minorities within pre-war Hungary was far from being such as has been alleged in anti-Hungarian propaganda.” (73)

The evidence seems to suggest that Hungarianization occurred essentially as a natural and gradual assimilation of the immigrants into the more developed Hungarian society, just as most immigrants from Europe tend to assimilate into the dominant North American Anglo-Saxon culture:

“Moreover, some nations... do possess an active power

of attraction which enables them easily to absorb

alien elements, while others are passive, yielding

readily to assimilation... few, if any nations in

THE RUMANIAN POLICY OF ETHNIC ERADICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRANSYLVANIAN AND MOLDAVIAN HUNGARIANS © HUNMAGYAR.ORG

THE RUMANIAN POLICY OF ETHNIC ERADICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRANSYLVANIAN AND MOLDAVIAN HUNGARIANS
© HUNMAGYAR.ORG