AFnewsCelebrations and commemorations are part of the daily life of civilized peoples. We also think of defeats, just as we think of victories, we bring them all back, from time to time, in our memory, because we have to learn from them. There are political regimes and peoples that accentuate tragedies, as well as others that glorify accomplishments. The Hungarian state has found a way to make the great defeats throughout its history important events or even national holidays: the modern era of Hungary begins in 1526, with the “catastrophe” of Mohács; March 15, 1848 (when it was decided, among other things, “the union of Transylvania with Hungary) marks the glory of a lost revolution; October 23, 1956 is the day of another revolution treaded out in blood by Soviet tanks; June 4, 1920 is the day of the “disaster” at Trianon, etc. This fact is of great importance for the psychology of the Hungarian people, a fierce fatalistic fighter. I hear that some organizations demand that the bells ring firmly, for 100 seconds, on June 4, 2020, in all the churches in the Carpathian Basin (i.e. in Transylvania, Banat, Crișana, Maramureș), to mark the deep mourning of Hungarian souls.
The Treaty of Trianon is presented by Hungarian propaganda as “the greatest historical injustice committed by the great Western powers to eternal Hungary, the mistress of the Carpathian Basin.” Therefore, many Hungarians see in the Treaty of Trianon the moment of the disintegration of Hungary, following the “kidnapping” by the great powers of “its historical provinces”, namely Transylvania, Slovakia, Croatia, etc. I leave aside the fact that Hungary was no longer, from the end of the Middle Ages (i.e. from 1541 until after the First World War), an independent country, but was part of the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire (which became, from 1867, for 51 years, the Austro-Hungarian Empire).
For Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Polish, Croats, etc., Trianon is only of secondary importance, because, in the view of these peoples, not the great powers created the Great Romania, Czechoslovakia, Croatia (within the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovaks), reborn Poland , but the respective peoples, through their elites, following the national emancipation movements. For these peoples, it was not Trianon which decided to dismantle the multinational empires, but the nations that no longer wanted to live in those “prisons of the peoples.”
For Romanians, overbidding the importance of the Treaty of Trianon is counterproductive, for several reasons. The union of the Romanian provinces or only of Transylvania with Romania was not made following the Treaty of Trianon, but following the national emancipation movement, culminating in the decisions taken in Chișinău, Cernăuți and Alba Iulia. The Treaty of Trianon did not decide the union of Transylvania with Romania, but only enshrined internationally the act committed by the Romanians in 1918. The borders of the Great Romania were recognized not only at Trianon, but also at Saint-Germain (our northeastern border, with Poland), Neuilly-sur-Seine (southeastern border, with Bulgaria; thus, for Romanians, the Trianon is only a legal episode, related to our western border (it is right, extremely important), from the epic of the Great Union: The Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Polish and others do not give the Treaty of Trianon the importance that the Hungarians give, in other words, the Romanians have allies who share the same vision about the deeds from the end of the First World War.
Consequently, the actions organized by Romania in the one hundred years since the signing of the Treaty of Trianon must be correlated with those of the countries and peoples liberated in 1918 from the Austro-Hungarian domination. It is good that these actions refer to the international recognition of the decisions of the peoples, to the new European architecture after the Great War, which is not the decision of the Great Powers; the great powers did nothing but acknowledge the deeds of the liberated peoples. These peoples in the vicinity of Romania learned not to be on the trail of the Hungarian offensive, not to always respond punctually to the challenges coming from Budapest. The Hungarian side is trying to make this happen, and unfortunately many Romanians fall into this trap.
Hungary’s main arguments against Trianon are based on historical law, the law of the sword, the “civilizing mission of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin.” Arguments of Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, etc. focuse on the ethnicity of the majority of the population, on the decision of the majority of the population, on the right of peoples to decide their own destiny (the right of peoples to self-determination, supported and imposed by US President Woodrow Wilson). Therefore, these are two completely different visions. In international law, neither in 1919-1920 nor now, Hungary’s arguments have no validity, are not part of the arsenal of democracy and have not been recognized by the international community. Hungary’s position is unique, isolated, while Romania’s position is shared by several actors in the international configuration.
The decisions to recognize the new states and those reformed in 1918 were revalidated (largely) after World War II, then at the Helsinki Conference (1975) and then after the fall of the Iron Curtain. For us, for Romanians, it is painful that the consequences of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (concluded on August 23, 1939) remained in force, which, although it was denounced, still produces effects. But this serious fact has nothing to do with Trianon. Romania’s western border with Hungary, except for the 1940-1944 episode (occurred during a totalitarian fascist regime, condemned by all international courts), has remained unchanged for a century, being considered the expression of democratic relations and international principles of peaceful coexistence.
The union of Transylvania with Romania was not the act of an elite (although the elite voted for it), but a democratic act with a plebiscite character: 1228 delegates, elected and appointed by the administrative-territorial units, political parties, churches, professional associations, women, students etc., voted on December 1, 1918 not only in their name, but also for millions of Romanians who delegated their right to vote, through entrustment documents, called “credentials” (recently published in the eight volumes of the paper called “Building the Great Union”, prepared by the University “Babeș-Bolyai”). Therefore, a vote cast in Alba Iulia is the vote of tens and hundreds of Romanians. According to the Austro-Hungarian censuses, the Romanians represented the absolute majority in Transylvania (with Banat, Crișana and Maramureș).
After any war, anywhere and anytime in the world, they were the defeated and the victorious. The defeated have always been punished, and the victorious have decided the fate of the countries in their area of action. But for the first time in history, the victors of the First World War were forced to take into account, overwhelmingly, the will of the peoples involved. The defeated, as always, had their frustrations and sufferings, but, in the special case of the Hungarian people, a part of the elite (that of noble origin) cultivated the mentality of a victim forced to take revenge. Consequently, everything that Romania does related to the centenary of the Trianon must be detached from the contingent, must be treated without ferocity and framed in the general context of recognition of the new architecture of Europe through the system of treaties in Paris (Versailles, Saint Germain, Neuilly- sur-Seine, Trianon and Sèvres) from 1919-1920. Romania of 1918 has legitimized itself in the world, and the legitimacy has been made by the international courts since then and have always been repeated by those that followed, until today. That we, the epigones, are not worthy of this legacy, left not by the great powers, but by the worthy Romanians of that time, is another matter. It is, however, good to think about it and not ask ourselves so much – to paraphrase a great conscience of the world – what our country has given us, what we have given to the country.
Ioan-Aurel Pop
Adaugă un comentariu