Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:47:05.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hungarians in the Successor States: From World War I to World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Pál Péter Tóth
Pál Péter Tóth*
Affiliation:
Institute of Demography, Budapest
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A direct consequence of World War I was the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the establishment of new states in its place. This has had far-reaching consequences for both regional and world politics. The existing balance of power as well as social, economic and political problems within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, including the nationality conflicts, led to this result. In spite of the unavoidable collapse, the successors, the new states, were not the result of a natural evolution, but were the creations of the major powers—France, Great Britain, the United States and Italy—who through the creation of their new post-war order ignored the long-term interests of the region and the actual ethnic composition of the land.

Type
I The Historical Background
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 425 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe and ex-USSR, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Országos Levéltár Minisztertanácsi Jegyzökönyvek (National Archives, Proceedings of the Council of Ministers), 13 November, 1918.Google Scholar

2. Magyarország története [History of Hungary] 1918-1945, Vol. 8 (Budapest, 1976), pp. 360–387.Google Scholar

3. Erdély története [History of Transylvania], Vol. III (Budapest, 1986), p. 1731; Mitrovic, A., Razgranicenje Jugoslavie sa Madjarskomi Rumunijom, 1919-1920 (Novi Sad, 1975).Google Scholar

4. Popély, Gyula, “Népfogyatkozás: A csehszlovákia magyarság a népszámlálások tükrében 1918-1945” [Population Decline: Hungarians in Czechoslovakia as Reflected by Censuses], Regio (Budapest, 1991), p. 195; E. Arpád Varga, Népszámlálások a jelenkori Erdély területén [Censuses on the Present Territory of Transylvania] (Budapest, 1992), p. 212.Google Scholar

5. See Summary in Magyar Statisztikai Zsebkönyv [Hungarian Statistical Handbook] (Budapest, 1940); Elekes, Dezsö, “Trianon Mérlege” [Trianon on the Scales of Justice], Magyar Statisztikai Szemle [Hungarian Statistical Review] No. 4, 1938, pp. 358–367.Google Scholar

6. Balogh, Sándor and Jakab, Sándor, The History of Hungary After the Second World War 1944-1980 (Budapest, 1986), p. 270.Google Scholar

7. Magocsi, Paul, The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus' 1848-1948 (Cambridge, Mass., 1978); Erdély története, pp. 611, 612-1185, 1186-1945; Stephen Fischer-Galati, Twentieth Century Rumania (New York-London, 1970), p. 248; Elemér Illyés, National Minorities in Romania: Change in Transylvania (New York, 1982); Sándor Mészáros, Polozaj Madara u Vojvodini 1919-1929 (Novi Sad, 1981), p. 280.Google Scholar

8. In the analysis of data related to the Hungarian and other minorities in the region, it is important to keep in mind that the data is either inaccessible or distorted. In reference to Subcarpathia, for example, Hungarians numbered 183,623 according to the 1910 census (Hungarian), 116,441 according to the 1930 census (Czechoslovak), 259,032 according to the 1941 census (Hungarian), 160,509 according to the 1981 census (Soviet), and 155,711 according to the 1991 census (Ukrainian). The data is also problematical because the categories and the designations have changed with each census. Comparison is difficult also because the studies on the Hungarian minority and its institutions have been sporadic and ad hoc in nature. Furthermore, archival materials have been and partly remain inaccessible to systematic study.Google Scholar

9. Macartney, C. A., Hungary and Her Successors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937), p. 193.Google Scholar

10. Because of the national composition of the Dual Monarchy, the new states acquired large numbers of Germans as well as Hungarians. In Czechoslovakia there were three times as many Germans as Hungarians. In Romania there were 850,000 Germans in 1922, while in Yugoslavia they numbered more than 550,000 in 1921.Google Scholar

11. The literature on minorities does not devote separate attention to those peoples who became minorities in their own homelands due to border changes. They cannot be put into neat categories by concepts related to emigration or migration.Google Scholar

12. Hetven év: A romániai magyarság története [Seventy Years: The History of Hungarians in Romania], Institute for Hungarian Studies (Budapest, 1988), pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

13. Pál Péter Tóth, “Magyarok kisebbségben” [Hungarians as Minorities], Info-Társadalomtudomány [Social Science] (Budapest, 1989), No. 10, p. 25.Google Scholar

14. Magyar Nemzet [Hungarian Nation], 13 February, 1993, p. 7.Google Scholar

15. The objective of these policies is already evident in the efforts of the new states to artificially reduce the numerical count of the Hungarians on their territories. For example, the 1910 Hungarian census counted 896,271 Hungarians on the territories that were attached to Czechoslovakia. However, the 1919 Czechoslovak census reported only 689,565 Hungarians on these territories. Then two years later the 1921 census reported 744,621 Hungarians. This was again reduced ten years later when the census only reported 571,988 Hungarians in Slovakia and 109,472 in Subcarpathia. This would have meant that between the two census counts the Hungarian population was reduced by 53,000.Google Scholar

16. Pál Péter Tóth, “Kreativitás és stressz a kisebbségben élö magyarság körében” [Creativity and Stress Amongst Hungarians Living as Minorities], Regio , No. 1, 1991, pp. 156–167.Google Scholar

17. Koca Jončić, Nationalities in Yugoslavia (Beograd, 1982).Google Scholar

18. Glatz, Ferenc, “A kisebbségi kérdés Közép-Európában tegnap és ma” [The Minority Question in Central Europe Yesterday and Today], Historia, Special Edition, 1992, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

19. Janics, Kálmán, A hontalanság évei [Years Without a Country] (Bern, 1989), p. 322; Imre Molnár and Kálmán Varga, Hazahúzott a Szülöföld [The Motherland Brought Me Home] (Budapest, 1992).Google Scholar

20. Boldizsár, Iván, Megbünhödte már e nép… [This Nation Has Already Atoned…] (Budapest, 1946), pp. 62–76.Google Scholar

21. István Csatár and János Ölvedi, eds, A visszatért felvidék adattára [Reference Book on the Re-acquired Upper Hungary] 1918-1938 (Budapest, 1939), p. 154.Google Scholar

22. Ibid. Google Scholar

23. Mikó, Imre, Huszonkét év: az erdélyi magyarság története, December 1, 1918 to August 30, 1940 [Twenty-Two Years: The History of Hungarians in Transylvania] (Budapest, 1941), pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

24. , Glatz, “A Kisebbségi Kérdés,” pp. 37, 48.Google Scholar

25. , Macartney, Hungary and Her Successors, p. 174.Google Scholar

26. Csatár and Ölvedi, A Visszatért Felvidék, p. 160.Google Scholar

27. , Macartney, Hungary and Her Successors, p. 133.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., p. 134.Google Scholar

29. Nagy, Zsuzsa L., Peacemaking After World War I: The Western Democracies and the Hungarian Question, pp. 33–47; Bennett Kovrig, Peacemaking After World War II: The End of the Myth of National Self-Determination, pp. 69–88; Stephen Borsody, ed., The Hungarians: A Divided Nation (New Haven, 1988).Google Scholar

30. In 1990 Vaclav Havel, President of Czechoslovakia (along with some others) spoke of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia not as a “national minority,” but as a part of the Hungarian nation annexed to Czechoslovakia.Google Scholar

31. Hódi, Sándor, “Táj és lélek” [Landscape and Soul], Uj Simposion, No. 9, 1989, p. 3.Google Scholar

32. Mimics, Károly, “Az asszimiláció hatása a magyar népmozgásra” [The Effect of Assimilation on Mobility in the Hungarian Population], Regio, No. 3, 1991.Google Scholar

33. , Hodi, “Táj és lélek,” p. 3.Google Scholar

34. Hetven év, pp. 74–88.Google Scholar

35. Csatár and Ölvedi, A visszatért felvidék, p. 156.Google Scholar

36. Macartney, C. A., Problems of the Danube Basin (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar