A Case Study on Trianon

The objective of the present study is to provide a capsule presentation, an overview, of the fate of the Hungarians in Transylvania since the Treaty of Trianon. The fate of the Hungarians in Transylvania deserves our attention since their fate is closely intertwined with the rest of East Central Europe. Ethnic animosities in this area have been the cause of a number of major conflicts. Because the Hungarians compose the largest minority population in the area, their treatment affects the international relations of most states in Eastern Europe, but particularly that of the USSR, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.¹

Transylvania includes the territory that lies east of present-day Hungary and Yugoslavia and west and north of the former provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia (the latter is divided into Muntenia and Oltenia today) which had composed the "old" kingdom of Romania prior to World War I. (See maps for the geographic location and limits of Transylvania.) Transylvania (including the Crisana, Maramures and part of the Banat) is 39,903 square miles (102,787 square kilometers) in size. In the present study all of the above area will be referred to as Transylvania, since in the popular mind "historical Transylvania" has been grouped together with the Crisana (Partium) the Banat and the Maramures (Maramaros) by the Hungarians as the territory lost to Romania through the Treaty of Trianon following World War I and by the Romanians as the new areas acquired on the "other" (i.e., western and northern) side of the Carpathian mountain range. The name Transylvania itself means "land beyond the forest." This is the name by which the area is known internationally, while the Hungarians call it "Erdely" (wooded land), the Romanians call it "Ardeal" and the Transylvanian Saxons refer to it as "Siebenburgen." (In the future, when reference is made to specific areas in Transylvania, the present

The paper was presented at the twelfth national convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, in Philadelphia, on November 8, 1980.

Romanian name will be given first, followed by the Hungarian name enclosed in parentheses.)

The treatment of ethnic minorities in Transylvania has a long and varied history. To understand the present Communist Romanian approach to this problem, it will be necessary to examine this background. We will do just that by tracing the development of nationality conflicts to the eve of Communist ascendancy.

The area of Transylvania has been settled since time immemorial. We cannot determine the ethnic or linguistic affiliations of these earliest inhabitants, but we do have archaeological evidence which points to human habitation in this area at least by 150,000 B.C. Archaeological evidence also points to a number of succeeding forms of human existence from the stone age, through the bronze age and iron age, right down to the present computer age.

The earliest archaeologically identifiable peoples who inhabit this area are the Scythians, the Celts, and the Thracians, in roughly this order. The control of any of these peoples over the area must have been somewhat tenuous. At any rate, the emergence of a rudimentary Dacian political system extended its sway over the area of present-day Transylvania in the 1st century B.C. A Dacian political community continued to exist until the Roman empire conquered the area in 106 A.D. Roman rule over it collapsed under the pressure of the Volkerwanderung in 271 A.D. What followed was a succession of conquering peoples, none of which held sway over the area for too long. Goths, Vandals, Huns, Gepids, Longobards and Avars followed one another as overlords. Only the Avars seemed to hold the region for a significant length of time. After their defeat by Charlemagne, the area fell under Bulgarian control, until the Hungarians appeared on the scene in 896 A.D.

From 896 A.D. Transylvania's destiny was linked to the medieval Hungarian state until a little after the battle of Mohacs, more specifically, until the fall of Buda in 1541. Then Ottoman Turkish (1541-1594, 1610-1698) and Austrian Habsburg (1594-1610, 1699-1867 forces invaded the Carpathian Basin. Under their respective dominance Transylvania led a more or less independent existence, under Hungarian leaders, who acknowledged the 'guardianship," alternately, of the Ottoman Empire and that of the Habsburgs.² Between 1867 and 1918 Hungary regained control over the region. However, in 1918, the Romanians obtained it with Entente support, and ruled it until 1940. Then Hungary regained the northern two-

fifths of Transylvania briefly until the end of the war. After the collapse of Hungary in the war, Romania gained, through Allied intercession, possession of all of Transylvania.

During Transylvania's long and colorful past, its demography underwent great changes.³ In particular, the Turkish occupation of Hungary, followed by Austrian hegemony, drastically altered its ethnic composition. While at the end of the 15th century the Carpathian Basin was overwhelmingly Hungarian (75-80 percent), by the end of the 18th, the Hungarians composed less than 50 percent of the population.⁴ This radical change was a result of the phenomenal decimation of the Hungarian population during the struggle against the Turks, as well as of the subsequent Habsburg policy of colonizing the depopulated and war-devastated areas with non-Hungarians.⁵ The non-Hungarian composition of certain areas of the country was also enhanced by a less systematic and artificial process: the great influx of refugees from Turkish oppression. Most of these refugees settled in Transylvania and Southern Hungary (i.e., the present Vojvodina).

Following the Turkish retreat from East Central Europe, the most far-reaching changes in demographic structure were to be found in Transylvania and Southern Hungary.⁶ In Transylvania the Romanians now composed a greater segment of the population than all three of the historic "nations" combined.⁷ To this day the Romanians have maintained and increased their numerical majority in the area. Yet, this is only part of the story. For while Romanians compose the overall majority, many geographic subdivisions of Transylvania are in turn overwhelmingly or significantly Hungarian or German. This is the case in the border strip adjacent to present-day Hungary and the Szekely districts in the eastern corner of the province.⁸

For the evaluation of the recent ethnic composition of Transylvania, a number of census results are available. While each one of these statistical sources is biased in one way or another, it is possible to get a fairly good idea of the present ethnic composition of Transylvania by referring to all of them. Table I presents the population of Romania and Transylvania according to the census results of the last 70 years.

What the data of Table I fails to show is the geographical distribution of the various nationalities. To find out where the Hungarians or Germans are strongest, it is necessary to examine the area's population statistics on the regional, or county level. An examination

TABLE I.* The population of Romania and Transylvania According to Nationality (in thousands)

Transylvania

———————————————————————————————————————————

Romania

———————————————————————————————————————————

of this sort reveals that the western parts of the Crisana, Banat, and Maramures have a heavy Hungarian population. As has already been noted, this makes the Romanian border strip adjacent to Hungary, predominantly Hungarian in population.⁹

Other areas where the non-Romanian elements are strong are the cities, the old "Saxon" and the more recent Swabian settlements, and the compact Hungarian Szekely area in the eastern corner of Transylvania. Until recently, the Jewish settlements in the Maramures were also significant. But there are numerous other settlements of Jews, Germans and Hungarians scattered throughout the whole of Transylvania. In the western Banat, besides Germans and Hungarians there are also many Serbs. In general, the Hungarians and Germans inhabit the river valleys and the lowlands, while the Romanians compose the bulk of the population in the mountainous areas, and the Jews form an important segment of some urban populations.¹⁰

Since World War II, some changes have taken place in the ranks of the non-Romanian ethnic groups, particularly among the Germans and the Jews.¹¹ These changes were due to the dislocations of the war, including deportations, territorial transfers and exterminations. The net result of these changes has been that only the Hungarians remain as a strong minority (although they too have been weakened), and the predominant role of the Romanians further increased.

The Hungarians of Transylvania did not suffer deportation, extermination or encouraged emigration; the stagnation of their population figures requires some other explanation. Is it due to forced or voluntary assimilation, to low birthrate or to falsification of census results? The aggressive nationalism of most Romanian administrations since 1918-20 would seem to suggest that all of the above have been contributing factors. At least one significant study on the population profile of Transylvania has made the claim that the Hungarians are not reported accurately in the Romanian census. According to Satmarescu's study of 1975,¹² the actual number of Hungarians in Transylvania is definitely over two million, and is perhaps closer to 2.3 million than to the 1.6 million indicated in the official statistics. Whatever the case may be, the present study will focus on this minority, and reflect on nationalities policies as they have emerged under the Romanian version of "proletarian internationalism."

On the basis of the foregoing, we can give the following profile of

the Hungarians of Transylvania. They are first of all a large minority of over two million, who constitute 25-38 percent of the population in Transylvania and anywhere from 7-9.5 percent of Romania's total population. They live throughout Transylvania and constitute the major part of the population along the Western border strip and in the Szekely counties. They differ from the Romanian majority not only linguistically (Uralic vs. Latin-Slavic) but also culturally and religiously (they are Roman Catholic, Calvinist or Unitarian as opposed to Romanian Orthodox). More recently social-economic differentiation has become more and more apparent, with Hungarians occupying the lower strata in the Transylvanian class system. This is a complete reversal of roles, since prior to 1918 the Hungarians were in a more advantageous position economically. This reversal of roles is also apparent when one considers the nationality of persons in significant policy-making positions both in the CPR and in government administration on both the local and national levels.

Recent history and the communist ascendancy in Romania can, in part, explain the present fate of this significant European minority. The rise of nationalism in the early part of the 19th century is probably the source of the conflicts that are again becoming all too apparent. In the early 19th century, the Hungarians felt threatened by the large number of non-Hungarians in their domain and they began to sponsor programs that would make Transylvania, as well as all of Hungary, more Hungarian. The South Slavs and the Romanians reacted violently to this policy. When the Hungarians sought to throw off the yoke of Habsburg absolutism in 1848-49, most Serbs, Croats and Romanians sided with the latter. This confirmed Magyarizers' belief that Vienna had been successful in playing the game of divide and conquer.¹³ It inspired them to redouble their effort to assimilate the national minorities. What many of these individuals failed to realize was that the minorities by this time also had a taste of the nationalism inspired by the French Revolution.¹⁴ This was particularly true for the Serbs of southern Hungary and the Romanians of Transylvania.¹⁵

Since Hungary was unsuccessful in its war for independence, it was placed under direct Austrian administration in 1849. However, in 1867 Austria and Hungary buried their differences and the nationalities had to seek a modus vivendi with the Hungarians.¹⁶ This paved the way to Magyarization. Among some nationality groups it met with little or no resistance.¹⁷ But among the Romanians, Serbs

and Croats, the policy provoked resistance.¹⁸ The national consciousness of these ethnic groups had already "crossed the Rubicon." Many of them could no longer look on themselves as "Hungarians of Romanian or Slavic ancestry." At any rate, the First World War interfered with the realization of the dream of a Hungarian nation-state within historic boundaries. The Austro-Hungarian defeat brought about the collapse and disintegration of the empire.¹⁹ The disintegration, supposedly a consequence of putting into practice the principles of self-determination, actually resulted in the emergence of a totally fragmented East Central Europe. The Treaty of Trianon legalized the subsequent political chaos.²⁰ The fragments, the new nation-states, provided the setting for the next twenty years of Europe's confused and heated political history.

Transylvania became the object of dispute between Romanians and Hungarians. This phase of European and Romanian-Hungarian history reflects best the bourgeois nationalism so frequently denounced by today's Communist ideologues. According to them, this was the age when nationalism pushed into the background all ideas of social reform, and diverted the attention of all to narrow and nationalist aims.

The ensuing twenty years did, indeed, see a no-holds-barred struggle of nationalisms. The foreign policy of Hungary was carried on in direct response to the injustice of the Treaty of Trianon.²¹ All Hungarians hoped for the day when this detested treaty would be revised. Revisionism became, in effect, the heartfelt desire of a nation.²² This was opposed by no less fervently held Romanian policies, which had as their guiding star the rigid preservation of the status quo.²³ The formation of the Little and the Balkan Entente are but two manifestations attesting to the attempts of Romania and other satisfied powers to perpetuate the existing state of affairs.²⁴

In the greatly enlarged post-World War I Romania, the position of the Hungarians underwent a drastic change. From a position of most favored they were pushed into the position of least favored. Their treatment was, of course, tied directly to both domestic and foreign policy developments.

As part of France's defense structure of the status quo, the enlarged Romania was placed in direct opposition to Hungary and Bulgaria. This opposition did not have to be encouraged since Romania had gained territories at the expense of both Hungary and Bulgaria. The latter countries desired a revision of these gains. In the face of

such desires Romania looked to France and other satisfied countries, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, for assistance.

Events in Transylvania became entangled with world events as Europe moved into World War II. As power relationships altered, political changes gained momentum in East Central Europe. Hungary saw in these changes an opportunity to regain Transylvania. With the collapse of the Little Entente, Romania found itself isolated between unfriendly Bulgaria, Hungary and the USSR. From each of these countries it had gained extensive territories after World War I. These countries demanded a restoration of their territories by Romania. Following the outbreak of World War II the USSR confronted it with a demand for the Bukovina and Bessarabia, while Bulgaria demanded Dobruja, and Hungary wanted the return of Transylvania.²⁵ The cessions of Bukovina, Bessarabia and Dobruja went relatively smoothly.²⁶ The cession of the former two to the USSR, however, drove Romania into the arms of Germany.²⁷ It sought German support against the demands for Transylvania. By 1940, war was threatening between Hungary and Romania over this question.²⁸ This, Hitler wanted to prevent at all cost, since he was just preparing to launch the attack on the USSR. Moreover, for this attack he needed access to the Romanian oil fields as well as peace between his lesser allies. He asked Romania and Hungary to solve their problems peacefully by negotiating their differences.²⁹ When these talks broke down, Hungary threatened military action in spite of Hitler. At this point, King Carol II of Romania asked for an arbitral decision from the Axis powers.³⁰ The result of that decision was the Second Vienna Award.

Although this Award was a compromise, neither Romania nor Hungary was completely satisfied. Hitler used these dissatisfactions to urge the two countries on to greater efforts in the war against the USSR. He dangled before their eyes the prospect of the loss or gain of more territory according to their performance in the war.³¹ This tactic was by no means used only by Hitler. Stalin, in particular, had approached the Hungarians on more than one occasion before and during the war, to convince them that cooperation would mean territorial gains later.³² The Allies, too, were aware of the bargaining importance of Transylvania's future. They succeeded in approaching Romania with the promise of this territory.³³

Romania did, in fact, switch sides as the armies of Germany were pressed back on every front. The defection came on August 23, 1944,

after the Allies promised to give Transylvania "or the greater part thereof" to the Romanians.³⁴ However, this also required that they join the Allies in expanding the war against the still active German and Hungarian forces. This, too, was done. Thus, Romania gained the support of the Allies, which was to mean so much at the Conference table following World War II.

In the immediate post-war period, the Hungarians in Transylvania fared much better than their co-nationals in Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. This was due, in large part, to post-war Soviet policies. To be more specific, the Soviet occupation had different consequences for the various countries within its expanded empire. Two factors, in particular, determined the varying nature of the Soviet occupation. These were the former enemy status of conquered Hungary and occupied Romania, and their non-Slavic ethnic composition. It's true that the Peace Treaties transferred Transylvania in toto to Romania in return for its belated support of the Allies,³⁵ but the Soviet Union did not give something for nothing. Besides the reward for past defection, which was now past history and useless to the Soviets, Stalin seemed to have seen the transfer of northern Transylvania as an avenue toward the rapid communization of Romania.

The attitude of Soviet occupation authorities in Transylvania seemed to support the contention that the transfer was more than mere gratitude for Romania's defection. For one thing, the Red Army held on to northern Transylvania and administered it until the spring of 1945, when the Groza government came to power.³⁶ This reduced the number of atrocities that took place, since the Soviet troops defended the Hungarian inhabitants of the area against the revenge-seeking Romanians. The Soviets were motivated not so much by compassion as by their desire to utilize the Hungarian ethnic element to hasten the incorporation of Romania into the Soviet sphere.³⁷ The Hungarians had little choice but to acquiesce to such Soviet pressures.³⁵

Thus, the national minorities were skillfully utilized by Stalin to weaken the anti-Communist forces in Romania and to enable his puppets to seize power.³⁹ Using the policy of divide et impera, playing nationality against nationality, Stalin attained his aim. His success was due in no small measure to the nearsighted and narrow revenge-seeking attitude of some democratic Romanian leaders. It was their hate and intolerance that drove the Hungarians in desperation to support Groza, whose "proletarian internationalism," they

believed, would defend them against the excesses of "bourgeois nationalism."

Communist ascendancy in Romania resulted in a complete reformulation of the nationalities question on the basis of Marxist-Leninist nationalities theory.⁴⁰ This changed ideological context provided Romania with new guidelines for the treatment of its Hungarian and other minorities. Henceforth, the ethnic minorities of Romania were guaranteed an existence which was national in form, but socialist in content.

Until Stalin's death, satellite leaders simply mimicked Soviet nationalities policies as well as constitutional forms.⁴¹ However, as de-Stalinization unfolded within the bloc, the Soviet pattern was remolded to fit the national peculiarities of each state. This process affected both the ideological and the constitutional context of nationality policies in Romania.

The Communists in Romania immediately applied the national form and socialist content of Soviet nationality policy. As in the Soviet Union, the reason for adopting this policy in Romania was closely tied to considerations of power seizure and power consolidation. The policy attempted to popularize the Communist Party among the country's national minorities. It entailed the guaranteed right to use their language in public discourse, in education and in their relations with the government. It also guaranteed equality with the Romanians in political, social and economic relations. In fact, in the Sacuesc (Szekely) districts it even provided for autonomy in line with the Soviet example.⁴²

The development of the national cultures of the respective minorities is also guaranteed. This right of nationality groups is sanctioned as long as it is provided with a socialist content. To this end, the constitution provides the national minorities with the guarantee of "the free use of their own language, tuition of all categories in their own language, and books, newspapers, and theaters in their own language."⁴³ It also obligates the Romanian state to ensure "the development of the culture of the Romanian people and of ... the national minorities. ..."⁴⁴ While these guarantees are supposed to apply throughout Transylvania (throughout Romania for that matter), they have been applied in practice mainly in the Mures-Hungarian Autonomous Region (prior to 1960 called Hungarian Autonomous Region and since January 1968 called Harghita and Covasna counties).⁴⁵ See map at the end of the book.

A Case Study on Trianon