Andrew BAJCSY-ZSILINSZKY Member of the Hungarian Parliament TRANSYLVANIA Past and Future KUNDIG - GENEVA 1944 Tous droits réservés. FOREWORD Mr. Andrew Bajcsy-Zsilinszky, the author of this publication, is one of the most striking personalities in the limelight of present-day Hungarian politics. He was born in 1886. His vigorous talent as a writer and orator in support of his political ideas soon attracted public attention. During the World War (1914-1918) his outstanding bravery on the battlefields won for him one of the highest military awards. From 1919 onwards, we find him in the forefront of the national forward movement which was then coming into being thanks to the generous impulse imparted to it by Admiral Horthy. In 1930, breaking away from his quondam political friends, Mr. Bajcsy-Zsilinszky founded the National Radical Party, subsequently thro- wing in his lot with the small peasant independent party of which, at the time of writing, he is a most influential member and spokesman in matters of foreign politics. He is rightly considered as one of the artisans of the whole-hearted policy of complete co-operation between the small peasant party and the social-democratic party which represent the two major sections, viz. the working and democratic classes of Hungary. Being of an outspoken character, Mr. Bajcsy- Zsilinszky belongs to that category of political leaders who prefer to combat rather than to bow the knee. Like all other politicians he has been obliged on more than 8 one occasion to change colour and to modify his views in matters political. But in the course of an already lengthy career, he never gave ground on essentials. Thus it may be said without fear of contradiction that he has never ceased to militate, on the one hand, in favour of a serious agrarian reform and of the respect due to democratic liberties within the framework of the ancient and venerable Hungarian constitution, and, on the other hand, in favour of the safeguarding of Hungary's independence allowing the country to fulfil its destiny in keeping with its own traditions and aspirations. In this relentless struggle for the indepen- dence of his country he allowed himself to be guided by the spiritual inheritance of that great Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth, whose personality embodies to this day the ever-living symbol of a free and democratic Hungary. This ardent desire for independence could not but come into direct conflict with certain tendencies which aim at looking upon the peoples of South-Eastern Europe as being of minor importance called upon to evolve in the wake of a foreign power whose interests are diametrically opposed to her own. Moreover, the democratic sentiments which he had at heart could not fail to be disturbed by the national-socialist agitation kindled by extraneous elements. Thus, from the very outset, Mr. Bajcsy-Zsilinszky has striven with indom- itable energy and courage to prevent Hungary from becoming a pawn on the political chequer-board of Nazi Germany. Thus it was that he took sides against the adhesion of Hungary to the Three Power Pact and repudiated as anticonstitutional the declaration of war on the U.S.A. and Soviet Russia. The question treated by Mr. Bajcsy-Zsilinszky in this work is one of the most delicate and complex ones. As a Hungarian subject, he belongs to a nation which is one of the parties vitally interested in the matter. 9 But the author is especially qualified to treat with a certain chance of success this thorny problem. As a matter of fact, he has always proved himself anxious to favour a mutual understanding between his own com- patriots and the other Danubian Valley nations and has often taken up cudgels in defence of the latter at the risk of displeasing erroneously-informed public opinion. In various circumstances, more especially in his speeches and writings as well as in the course of the numerous contacts he has had with the Rumanian elements on Hungarian soil, he has shown his active sympathy for the Rumanian people. If, in the course of this study, he never loses sight of Hungarian interests, he simultane- ously makes a serious effort to reconcile them with those of the other inhabitants of Transylvania. His ideas may give rise to discussion but the wealth of information which is his, the entire good faith of his arguments and his desire for complete conciliation cannot be denied. The conclusion reached in his work expressed his own personal views, but they are the opinions of a political exponent with a long experience and to whom the ins-and-outs of the problem under examination hold no secrets. He is, moreover, a faithful interpreter of Hungarian democracy. He has more than one claim to the attention of all those who anxiously bend over the map of Europe with the object of endowing it with a territorial status based on justice and political and economical necessities which alone would be able to make it a lasting one. INTRODUCTION The problem of the political alignment — and therefore of the future destiny — of Transylvania is evidently still unsolved. Transylvania was simply split in two by the 1941 Vienna Award, in a manner irrational and unjust in every respect, the smaller half being re-annexed to Hungary and the larger half being left within the framework of the Rumanian State. Now, from 896 A.D. to 1918 Transylvania had always been a single unit forming an organic part of historical Hungary; and from 1920 to 1941 too it was incorpor- ated — though by no means organically — as a single unit in Greater Rumania. It is an easy matter to describe briefly, by the aid of dates, the past of Transylvania as a Member of the State subject to the sovereignty of the Holy Crown of Hungary. From 896 — the year in which the Magyars occupied Hungary — until the disaster on the field of Mohács in 1526 that province existed as the Voivodeship of Transylvania enjoying a rapidly devel- oping form of autonomy. Then, after a few decades of transitional conditions — after the Osmanli conquest had detached the central part of the country together with Buda, the Capital — , Transylvania assumed the status of an independent State ruled by Magyar princes, while retaining its ideal, political and cultural connections with the Western half of the Hungarian 12 Kingdom which had remained exempt from Turkish occupation. After the expulsion of the Turks, from 1691 to 1848, Transylvania lived under the central- ists absolutism of Vienna (i. e. of the German-Roman and subsequently of the Austrian Emperors), which permitted a certain modicum of constitutionalism, figuring first as a " gubernium " (province subject to the jurisdiction of a governor) and later as a Grand Principality. Politically, its situation was uncertain, seeing that it was not re-incorporated in the realm of the Holy Crown; nevertheless, it maintained organic ties of spiritual unity and symbiosis with Hungary proper brought into being forcibly by the natural virility of Magyardom and occasional insurrections. In 1848 the Union of Transylvania and Hungary incorporated in law by the Hungarian Diet which had adopted the parliamentary system was realized de facto by the war of independence launched by Louis Kossuth. After the overthrow of this latest insurrec- tion due to the intervention of Russia, the Austrian imperial absolutism which again came into power again separated Transylvania from Hungary, in respect both of political government and of public administration. This state of things lasted 17 years. The 1867 Compromise between Hungary and Austria, however, which once more put the great majority of the 1848 laws into force, re-incorporated Transylvania in Hungary. This union lasted until 1918, in inter- national law until June 4th, 1920, the day on which the Peace Edict of Trianon was signed. From that date until August 30th, 1940 — the day on which the Vienna Award was published — ,Transylvania (with the addition of a considerable area of more westerly Hungarian territory) was an integral part of Rumania. During by far the greater part of this long period Transylvania enjoyed an extensive autonomy which 13 during the century and a half of its existence as a principality ruled by native princes developed into political independence; its extensive autonomy re- mained — though in a form permeated with a foreign spirit — also during the following 150 years (1691-1848), the period of Vienna absolutism, and in the transi- tional period of absolutism that ensued after the over- throw of the struggle for independence (until 1867), — the extensive autonomy of this province having therefore lasted for a period of exactly 969years!! It ceased to be autonomous in 1848/49, during the war of independence, becoming a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and remaining without autonomy also during the period of existence of the Dual Monarchy (1867-1918); the whole period during which its autonomy was suspended being therefore exactly 52 years. Then for 22 years Transylvania was an integral part of the Rumanian State not enjoying autonomy. We see, then, that historically, as against 969 years of full autonomy within the framework of a single State, Transylvania has passed through two episodes of existence without autonomy lasting for 52 and 20 years respectively within the frameworks of two States. As we see, the answer of history to the question whether Transylvania needs autonomy or not is un- equivocal and unmistakable. The present work endeavours also to answer another question — using the arguments of history, economics, reason and general European interests — , the question, namely, whether this Transylvanian autonomy can be realized better, more organically and more satisfactorily within the framework of the Hungarian or of the Rumanian State, whether the former or the latter solution is more in keeping with Hungarian and Rumanian interests alike, with general 14 European interests, and with the postulates of human justice? Geography — the orographical and hydrographical map of Central Europe — offers very cogen arguments in favour of Hungary: the mountain chain of the Carpathians is almost as strong dividing line between Transylvania and " historical " Rumania as the English Channel between Great Britain and France.