 | Vitafórum Új hozzászólás írása Elkerülendő, hogy gyáva senkiháziak más nevével visszaélve provokálják a fórum résztvevőit, minden hozzászóláshoz kiírásra kerül az elküldéskor használt gép címe. Így azonnal látható, ha valakinek a nevében a provokátor lázít! | Arthur Lloyd-Smith - Oxford | 2000.09.30. 01:52:20 | Válasz erre | | | | Dear Attila,
Concerning the principle of revision, I think the opinion expressed by the English historian, Professor C. K. Webster, is irrefutable: "No territorial settlement in Europe has ever been permanent for very long. Clearly, then, if war is to be averted, something must be devised to do in the future what war has done in the past." It is apparent that the making of wise and durable peace treaties is absolutely necessary if this is to be accomplished. The revisionism I found in Hungary was a curious myth rather than a clear program. National disasters are just as conducive to psychological derangements as national triumphs. The main symptom, in both cases, is the growth of legends. In Hungary, people spoke with religious fervor of the restoration of the thousand-year-old realm, quite oblivious of the fact that in King Stephen's time, Hungary did not have the frontier which she lost in 1919. As I became better acquainted, I found that the camp of revisionism was somewhat divided against itself. Some people wanted restitution of the borders of 1914, others claimed all regions inhabited by Magyars, even if it meant the reincorporation of other elements. Others, very modestly, wanted but the inclusion of all Magyar regions directly adjacent to the new frontiers. Almost all the revisionists had two things in common: a desire for a common frontier with Poland and the return of Transylvania to Hungary. A common frontier with Poland meant the taking over of Ruthenia. Eastern Hungary around the Tisza River area suffered greatly from droughts because all the water conservation projects, etc., were in Ruthenia and Transylvania. When these provinces were taken away, the whole flood protection system was destroyed and great hardship was caused in the eastern part of Hungary. As a result... well, just think of the great floods in this very year.
Not to mention the cyanid pollution of river Tisza by Rumania. Hungary also wanted a common frontier with Poland because the Poles and Magyars had much in common and she longed for friendly neighbors. Hungary felt herself completely encircled by enemy countries, with the exception of Austria, which was weak politically and economically. Further, the Polish-Hungarian frontier had always been like the Canadian-American border: there had never been a war between Poland and Hungary, and each had confidence in the good intentions of the other. After World War I, France, the dominating power in Europe and the protector of the Little Entente, pursued a shortsighted, vindictive and narrow-minded policy, apparently confused by fear (typical French manner). In the Danubian Basin, her policy was purely militaristic, dominated by the idea that Hungary and Austria, being non-Slavic and therefore perhaps amenable to German allurements, should be kept down by the Little Entente. To be sure, some Frenchmen, for instance Prime Minister André Tardieu, advocated Danubian collaboration and solidarity, but these blessings could never materialize without a foundation of equality. Neither England nor France seemed to realize that to fill the vacuum created by the dissection of old Austria-Hungary and to set up a counterpoise to both Germany and Russia, it was imperative that the little countries, formerly part of Austria-Hungary, should co-operate closely and form a united front. France seemed to have an unchangeable policy which took nothing into consideration that happened after the Treaty of Trianon. England did not seem to care one way or the other what happened. Neither apparently foresaw the danger to central and southeastern Europe of a defenseless Austria and Hungary, and Hitler later must have wondered at their stupidity. The empire had kept any one of these races from chaining the others. All of this may sound like past history, outrun by events of incomparable magnitude. In reality it is living history. The same habitual hatreds and fondnesses are still alive and have already begun to shackle us and to make us blind to our own interests. I am speaking of the eastern half of Europe which includes one half of central Europe. Events to come may compel us to accept such an about-face in self-interest. But the less emotionally we act, the better we shall fare. Many people think that it is useless to protest if one is face to face with accomplished facts that cannot be changed without another world war. My reply is that facts are really accomplished only when recognized as permanent, and that to consider another world war as the only remedy is to put into practice a defeatism which is not yet warranted. Oh. One more thing. Where I and You live, England and France, is Western Europe. Where Hungary lies that's is CENTRAL EUROPE, not Eastern. As a Hungarian You should really know this fact shouldn't You?
-ALS(Előzmény: Attila - Franciaorszag, 2000.09.30. 01:49:41) |
| |
