Justice for Europe! – 2^nd Attachment

VII. Hungarian World Congress

Budapest, August 16-20, 2008

Conference for the Re-examination of Trianon

Within the frame of the VII. Hungarian World Congress, which represents all Hungarians, including those who live outside the borders, the Conference for the Re-examination of Trianon accepts the following

P r o p o s a l

We respectfully ask that, based on International Law and the decisions of the International Court of Justice in Nuremburg, the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, on the basis of equality before the law, exonerate the Hungarian People from the collective punishment imposed upon them as a result of their participation in World War I., and the consequences thereof.

We propose the re-examination, from a legal point of view, of the Peace Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920 and the Treaty of Paris of February 10, 1947. As a result of the re-examination, we ask that there be a decision that the afore-mentioned treaties be declared null and void and we ask that that they be invalidated.

J u s t i f i c a t i o n :

1./ It is a historical fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was not responsible for the outbreak of World War I. Even so, the delegates to the Peace Conference of 1920 placed the blame for the outbreak of the War solely on Hungary – not even on Austria – and punished Hungary for this. [i]

2./ Historically, from the time of King Mátyás (1458-1490) the Hungarian people had lived under foreign oppressors. First they were destroyed by the Tatars, then they were under Turkish rule for 150 years and finally the purposeful settlement politics of the Hapsburg House divided the nation. (Divide and rule) Thus Hungary became an international state.

3./ Two-thirds of the territory of Hungary were taken away, areas that were inhabited entirely by Hungarians and those where Hungarians were in the majority, rather than those territories that were inhabited by a majority of ethnic minorities.

4./ The Hungarian delegates at the Versailles Peace Conference, in the name of the Hungarian people, denied the accusations and requested that the people living in the territories that were to be annexed be given a plebiscite and – referring to the Doctrine of Human Rights – that they not consider the people as “animals” and force their will on them without asking their opinion. Austria also supported this request but the decision-makers denied it.

The signature, which was made under duress, is invalid both under International Law and the Practice of law.

5./ The Peace Treaty of Trianon did not make the leaders of Hungary at that time responsible; however, the Hungarian people were punished with the accusation of collective guilt, which is illegal.

This also violated the concept of equal justice, because the International Court at Nuremberg on October 2, 1946, made the German leaders responsible for the outbreak of World War II and did not place the responsibility on the German people.

6./ The Trianon Peace Treaty, eighty-eight years after its signing, is legally and practically untenable.

7./ The adherence to the conditions in the Attachments to the Peace Treaty, regarding the treatment of the minorities, has never been examined, and in the countries bordering Hungary, these conditions have never been kept. One of the results of the anti-Hungarian atrocities – among many others – is that more than 100,000 Hungarians have disappeared from the annexed territories. This fact could be considered to be a war-crime and these states should be made responsible for this. Marshal Josip Broz Tito’s terrorists massacred more than 40,000 Hungarians in Délvidék, Yugoslavia. Regrettably, these anti-Hungarian atrocities and many other violations of human rights still occur today, in the neighboring states. A comparison of the demographics in the contemporary and present-day encyclopediae are proof of this.

Since the two World Wars, many nations have received reparations for their losses and suffering, some several times. At the same time, the Hungarians have not even been allowed to mention the atrocities that they have suffered because if they do so, they are immediately branded as „nationalists” and „chauvinists”.

Budapest, August 18, 2008

Botos László

Co-President of the Conference for the Re-examination of Trianon

and Conference Facilitator

President of the Institute for Hungarian Studies (Magyarságtudományi Intézet)

Dr. Gyárfás Ágnes

President of the Philosophical Institute of Miskolc and

Proposer of the Petition

---

[i] On July 8, 1914, Count István Tisza, taking public opinion into account, informed the Emperor that he opposed the War. (Raffay, Ernõ: A magyar tragédia, Trianon 75 éve, [The Hungarian Tragedy] p. 220) Later, he wrote in a circular telegram that if Austria were to win the War, Hungary would not take away territories from Serbia. (Pozzi, Henri: A háború visszatér, [War will return] p.200-201)

Sazanov too, in July 1914, in the name of Czar Nicholas II., in a circular telegram, informed the governments: “Russia rejects in advance every intervention that comes to the knowledge of St. Petersburg, which attempts to prevent the war.” At this point the Hungarians had no other option. Necessity forced them to go along with Austria – along with Germany – along with everyone – who was able to help them in the defence of their territory against the threatening Russian invasion. (Pozzi, Henri: A háború visszatér, [War will return] p. 200)

At the Peace Conference, the Hungarians were accused of oppressing the minorities but the reverse is true. They gave them every opportunity to develop. Prince György Rákoczi in Transylvania can be credited with establishing the Romanian language. In 1643, he made a law that, in the Wallachian (Romanian) churches, the priests were not allowed to preach in any language except Wallachian. However, this law could not be enforced until the Bible was translated into the Wallachian language. Therefore in 1648, the catechism was translated into Wallachian by István Fogarassy (a Hungarian) according to the Heidelberg catechism and published in the Wallachian language. In the same year, Fogarassy translated the New Testament into Wallachian and three years later the Psalms of David.

On December, 1, 1918, at the Rumanian National Assembly at Gyulafehérvár, the leaders of the Transylvanian Rumanians declared that they wanted to join the Rumanian kingdom forever. On December 13, this decision was seconded by the Consiliul Dirigent (Cabinet). This was a breach of international law. There were approximately 100,000 Transylvanian Rumanians, who took part in the Rumanian National Assembly. The rest of the populace of this territory, Serbs, Saxons and Hungarians were not allowed to take part in this assembly. Therefore this decision was illegal. Later, it came to public knowledge that this National Assembly was arranged by the Royal Rumanian Government, together with the Transylvanian Rumanian leaders. It is obvious that, in this way, the Rumanians intended to influence the decisions of the Peace Treaty.

In 1913, 5 days before the assassination in Sarajevo, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sazanov, asked Prime Minister Bratianu what conditions the Rumanians would ask for declaring war against Austria-Hungary. He answered that they would demand the whole of Transylvania, the Hungarian territory of the Bánát and half of Bukovina. They also demanded that Russia guarantee the territorial integrity of Rumania and pay the cost of the war preparations. (Pozzi, Henri, Századunk bűnösei. [Sinners of our century] p. 189; Sazonov: Sechs Schwere Jahre, Berlin, 1927, Memorandum to the Czar, June 24, 1914, Russian Diplomatic Archives)

The Corfu Agreement which the Serb government effected on July 27, 1917, supposedly states that the south Slav minorities desired to join with Serbia. Here it was not the people who made the decision but three foreigners, Wickham Steed, the foreign correspondent for The Times, Seton Watson, the leader of the Slav propaganda committee in London and Doctor Trumbic, the former mayor of the Dalmatian city of Zara. (Pozzi, Henri, Századunk bűnösei. [Sinners of our century] p. 228.)

In Felvidék, which is now Slovakia, and the surrounding territory, in the counties where Slovaks lived, there was a large number of Slovak representatives in the county administration. For example, in the County of Trencsén they were 40%; in Túróc County, 43%; in Zolyom County, 36%; in Liptó County, 37.5%; in Bars County, 26%; in Nógrád County, 23%; in Gömör County, 24%; in Szepes County, 29%. These county representatives were on good terms with their Hungarian and German speaking colleagues. (Dr. Gyula Varsányi: Regionalism in Practice. – The Ethnoprotective role of the semi-autonomous County System of Historic Hungary, which appeared in the January-March, 1985 issue of the Revue de Droit International in Geneva.)

On October 28, 1918, the Czech National Council and the leaders of the four Czech parties, declared the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic. On October 30, at the meeting of the Slovak Nationality Council at Túrócszentmárton, 90 Protestant and 15 Roman Catholic Slovak delegates declared Felvidék (Slovensko) to be annexed from Hungary. This Slovak Declaration of Independence was acknowledged in 1920 as a „decision by plebiscite.” (Kostya, Sándor: A Felvidék, p. 105.) How can this be accepted as plebiscite when only the Slovaks could vote and the Hungarians who lived there could not?

The Czech Revolutionary Organisation had already divided Hungary in 1917. This plan was supported by Lord Northcliffe. The propaganda committee met regularly in London at the house of the Marquis of Crewe from 1918 until the decision at Trianon. These were the people who influenced the decision at Trianon. The members of the committee were the Count of Denbigh; Robert Donald, the editor of the Daily Chronicle; Sir Roderick Jones, the Director of Reuter News Agency; Sir Sidney Low; Sir Charles Nicholson, Member of Parliament; Sir James O’Grady; Wickham Steed, foreign correspondent of The Times; Seton Watson, editor and historian, and H.G. Wells, the writer. (Pozzi, Henri: A háború visszatér, [War will return] p. 186)

We know from the Soviet information, how much the Pan-Slavists paid to bribe the French press. In 1904, the press received 935,785 francs; in 1905, 2,014,161 francs; between 1905 and 1911, 7,894,360 francs; in 1912, 882,140 francs; in 1913, 1,102,500 francs; of this the sum of 374,000 francs was personally handed over in an envelope by Izwolsky. In 1914, they received 1,025,000 francs; in 1915, 931,000 francs; in 1916, 1,153,225 francs; of this 100,000 went to the Agence des Balkans. Between 1909 and 1912, Serbia gave France 275,000 francs from the money that she received from Russia. Of this money, Le Journal des Débats and Le Temps together received 150,000 francs. In 1913, the bribe of 700,000 francs was received of which 230,000 francs was given to Le Temps and l’Agence des Balkans. In 1914, of the 760,000 francs which were received, 437,000 were given to Le Temps and l’Agence des Balkans; 45,000 francs were given to Le Figaro; 15,000 to Le Radical; 50,000 francs to Charles Humbert, the director of Le Journal and 60,000 francs to Le Journal des Débats. (Pozzi Henri, Századunk bűnösei. [Sinners of our century] p. 140-141)

2./ The Embassies of the states that signed the Peace Treaty of Trianon on June 4. 1920:

The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, China, Cuba, Greece, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam, Czech and Slovak States.