WesWorld

24 March 1928, given in Debrecen

"„...in 1924 [...] I signed a protocol together with the leaders of neighbouring states, which
would have been suitable for creating a normal atmosphere between Hungary and its
neighbours. I was confident that this would be attainable on the basis of diligence and a
modicum of inventiveness and indeed it would have been attainable if the actions organised in contravention of even those few provisions of the peace treaty, which are to our benefit, had ceased. If the war of extermination being waged against the Hungarian minorities, whose lot is guaranteed by the existence of treaties on the minorities, had stopped; if enforced repatriations, the confiscation of property belonging to Hungarians and the sequestration of their estates and their nationalisation had been discontinued; if the eradication of Hungarian culture had ended and if the campaigns aimed at undermining the good international reputation of the maimed country had been broken off; if those operations, which from time to time caused difficulties purely as an end in themselves even in relation to matters where the interests of our neighbours were really not at stake had stopped; if the undertakings assisting émigrés who had fled abroad by lending them moral support and encouragement in activities directed against Hungary’s domestic policy and sovereignty had been ended. If all of these had been consigned to the past then we would have seen results long ago and we would have the improved atmosphere, which is something we are not alone in wishing for, but that the leading statesmen of Europe also desire. Fair enough, but they say that this is rendered impossible by the Hungarian irredentist and peace treaty revisionist movements. Let us dwell on this issue for a moment. What is this irredentism, which they were only to happy to avail themselves of before the war when it was wielded against us and which they did not then remotely deem to constitute unseemly behaviour on international scene? What is this irredentism, on the basis of which Hungary was broken up and which is quoted as the moral foundation for them to keep hold of the territories awarded to them in the peace treaties?
Is every manifestation of patriotism irredentist? Is it irredentism for someone today in the
territory annexed from us to declare himself a Hungarian when he speaks Hungarian, if he wants to send his child to a Hungarian school and resists his being compelled to attend a school where another language is used for teaching or if someone in the territory annexed from us stands up against his property and estates being nationalised or sequestered? Or are we irredentists for addressing these situations and debating these issues in assemblies and the Parliament? Does this make us irredentists? Because the supplementary protocol to the treaty, the minority treaties made the minorities issue into an international issue and placed the League of Nations in the position of adjudicating forum to which anyone, including ourselves, has a right to lodge a complain with concerning the type of circumstances I made reference to a moment ago. If therefore we have a right to complain then we also have a right to examine these issues. Our public opinion constantly does so as it has a historical vocation to monitor whether the Hungarian government is doing its duty in this area.
Or is it irredentism for us to demand a revision of the peace treaty? We actually have two legal claims to justify it. One is clause 19 of the League of Nations Pact contained in the Treaty of Trianon itself, which provides the opportunity for any state to bring the issue of the revision of one or other treaty before the League of Nations. The other is the accompanying letter with which the treaty was handed over and which recognises that if injustices were committed from a national point of view when the frontiers were determined then these would be corrected. We therefore have two claims - and what is more two international claims – to broach these issues and therefore broaching them cannot be construed as irredentism. We certainly preclude any actions, hazardous adventures and conspiracies, but we cannot muzzle the Hungarian public and if the response is that this renders the development of a better atmosphere impossible because we are neglecting to provide a remedy to it, then my reply is to say that there is indeed a remedy to the problem of a better atmosphere, but it not to be found in gagging Hungarian public opinion, but in these circumstances coming to an end!”


*OOC - Prime Minister Bethlen actually gave this speech in 1928 in Debrecen. I have been unable to find a date. But it appears that Hungarian-Romanian relations were not good at the time.