Referendum in Ödenburg

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The referendum in Ödenburg and the surrounding area took place in December 1921. It was one of the referendums following the Treaty of Saint-Germain . They decided that the city of Ödenburg ( Hungarian Sopron ) and the surrounding villages would remain with Hungary . Austria's intention to make Ödenburg the capital of its new federal state Burgenland was thus obsolete .

prehistory

The first proposals for the administrative unification of the predominantly German-speaking West Hungary with the neighboring Austrian crown lands appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, for example in the debates of the Reichsrat in March 1905 , on June 17, 1906 in the Alldeutsche Tagblatt, on September 1, 1906 in the Reichspost , 1906 in Aurel Popovici's book The United States of Greater Austria and in October 1907 in the Lower Austrian Landtag .

These initiatives had hardly any consequences, as there was hardly any response in the region itself. There can therefore only be assumptions about the attitude of the population, which can only be shaped by a retrospective legitimation and ethnicization of the current constitution of Burgenland. The mood also evidently changed again and again during the crucial period. It essentially depended on the political constellation: on whether the Soviet republic - which granted Western Hungary autonomy - was in power or a conservative course prevailed or which government in Vienna was at the helm. The Austrian envoy in Budapest, Hans von Cnobloch , formulated in a 1919 report:

“Above all, there seems to be no doubt to me that the enthusiasm of even the purely German population of western Hungary is not as deep as we are often inclined to assume. The numerous rallies for the connection seem at least partly artificially created. "

Planned territory of the Republic of German Austria according to the state declaration of November 22, 1918

One can hardly speak of a consistent ethnic awareness among the population. The question of state affiliation was derived by small farmers, citizens and aristocratic large landowners alike from the possible political-economic alternatives: holding land and estates together, securing sales and transhipment markets.

The state declaration on the extent, borders and relations of the national territory of German Austria of November 22, 1918 raised Austria's claim to German West Hungary after a referendum to be held. Demands for the immediate annexation of the area failed in the debates of the National Assembly , not least because Hungary threatened to stop the food deliveries, which are vital for Vienna.

In December 1918 there were several pro-Austrian demonstrations in western Hungary: On December 6, the Republic of Heinzenland was proclaimed in Nagymarton (today Mattersburg) , and on December 15, 1918, forty communities in Heiligenkreuz demanded the connection to Styria . Here, too, the focus was not so much on national or ethnic reasons, but rather on the question of economic ties with the markets in Graz, Fürstenfeld and Feldbach. In Sankt Margarethen and some other localities, there were also votes held under unexplored conditions, which resulted in, for example, in Klingenbach in favor of remaining with Hungary. Overall, however, such or similar actions were very quickly suppressed by the Hungarian executive, under whose sovereignty the area still stood.

St. Germain: Austria is awarded German-West Hungary

Although the first draft of the peace terms of the Entente had provided still retaining the historic border between Austria and Hungary, in were the Treaty of Saint Germain by the Allies in September 1919 Austria parts of the majority German-speaking counties of western Hungary ( Moson County , Sopron County and Vas County ) including the city of Ödenburg itself.

This change in attitude in the Entente is generally attributed to the pressure of Italy, the realization of the Czechoslovakia required Slavic area corridor between Czechoslovakia and the new state of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia (1929 Kingdom Yugoslavia ) prevent by Western Hungary therethrough, and also that Hungary should be punished for its Soviet Republican experiment between March and August 1919, when troops of the Hungarian Red Army tried to recapture some fallen parts of old Hungary and were temporarily successful.

The right-wing authoritarian Horthy regime , which came to power after the fall of the Soviet republic, refused to evacuate German-West Hungary before the Hungarian peace treaty was signed - in the hope of being able to change the peace conditions.

The Austrian State Chancellor Karl Renner concluded an agreement with Czechoslovakia in January 1920 in which Austria assured itself of Prague's support in the Burgenland question. The "Inter-Allied Military Commission", which was set up in Ödenburg at the request of the Austrian government in the same month and was supposed to control the surrender of the city, demanded in August 1920, ultimately but in vain, that Hungary should evacuate the city.

The Hungarian government was in contact with right-wing extremist circles in Austria in order to overthrow the Renner III state government , a coalition government, and to replace it with a more cooperative government on the Burgenland question. In addition, one financed the Austrian Home Guard . The plans, in which conservative Austrian politicians such as Carl Vaugoin and Ignaz Seipel were also involved, became obsolete with the victory of the Christian Socials in the National Council election in Austria in 1920 in autumn 1920.

The following conservative Austrian cabinets ( Federal Government Mayr II and Schober I ) acted, not least out of sympathy for Horthy, for the time being, even if there were constant voices in Austria from different sides for the immediate military occupation of the new state territory.

Trianon: The conflict over Burgenland is coming to a head

Up until the signing of the Trianon peace treaty on June 4, 1920 or its ratification by Hungary in July 1921, intense haggling over Burgenland ensued: there were ongoing direct, but not always official, talks between the two states, in the framework of which Hungary tried several times to persuade Austria to renounce at least parts of German West Hungary, including Ödenburg. Hungary also negotiated with France about possible support in revision issues.

The Hungarian Government István Bethlen and aristocratic landowners began in April 1921 in German-West Hungary irregulars , among others, led by Pál Prónay and Gyula Castle East to fund opposition to Austria. The invasion of the Austrian gendarmerie met with fierce resistance from Hungarian right-wing extremists. The heaviest fighting took place at Kirchschlag and Agendorf ; a total of a few dozen people died on both sides.

Overall, after many successes, Austrian foreign policy was on the defensive in autumn 1921, partly because the Entente had lost its immediate interest in Hungary's withdrawal from German West Hungary. In the aftermath of the military struggles for Burgenland, Czechoslovakia and Italy offered themselves as mediators. Chancellor Johann Schober finally accepted the mediation of Italy.

Venice Protocols

On October 4, 1921, the short-lived Lajtabánság Republic (German: Leitha-Banat) was proclaimed in Oberwart / Felsőőr , the declared aim of which was to keep all of Burgenland in Hungary after a referendum.

The Venice Protocols were signed on October 13, 1921 : the Hungarian government undertook to ensure the withdrawal of the armed units within three weeks and to hand over the area properly to the Austrian authorities. Austria in turn agreed to hold a referendum in Ödenburg and in eight surrounding towns that are important for the city's water supply. As a result, the Hungarian government lost control of the irregulars, who only gave up on Horthy's express orders. After the occupation by the Austrian Armed Forces, the "Leitha-Banat" was officially handed over from Hungary to Austria on December 5, 1921.

Propaganda poster for the referendum

The diplomatic possibilities of Austria around the protocols were evaluated differently by the historiography: Eduard Hochenbichler formulated the - also according to himself - daring thesis that Schober had turned down the mediation offer of the ČSR because he did not want to accept the offer of the "monarchy killer" Edvard Beneš : If the Czechoslovak mediator had played the role of mediator, the whole Burgenland question would have found a different solution that was undoubtedly more favorable to Austria .

Irmtraut Pozza-Lindeck, on the other hand, took the view that leaving Burgenland to the irregulars would have led to the loss of the entire Burgenland, a conquest led to war, and the Ödenburg price was therefore to a certain extent mandatory for the rest of Burgenland. Norbert Leser also brought the possibility of getting closer to the Little Entente into play. However, the Austrian historians agree that the outcome of the vote was certain from the outset and that only the concrete modalities were negotiated in Venice.

Referendum

Preparation and course

Despite the explicit prohibition of any form of agitation in the Venice Protocols, a real propaganda battle broke out on both sides in the run-up to the vote. The "Ödenburger Heimatdienst", which was set up based on the model of the Carinthian defensive struggle , agitated for the connection of the city to Austria, which carried out propaganda by means of flight and scatter slips, rumors, threats, deception, polemics and humor.

Contrary to the wishes of the Hungarian side, a secret ballot was finally arranged by the Italian referees. All citizens who were twenty years old on January 1, 1921, were born in the city or were responsible, or who either lived in the voting area before January 1, 1919 or after January 1, 1921, were entitled to vote.

Ballot for Hungary

The Austrian government withdrew its representatives in the election commissions at short notice because it did not see the impartial course of the election assured. The referendum was held on December 14, 1921 in Ödenburg and on December 16, 1921 in eight surrounding villages. There was an orange-yellow ballot paper for Austria and a blue one for Hungary, on both of which the country names were given in German, Hungarian and Croatian. The ballot for the country that was not voted for had to be torn up. Both ballot papers - the torn one and the whole one - then had to be put in an envelope.

Of the 27,069 eligible persons according to the Hungarian electoral lists, 24,063 exercised their right to vote, 502 votes were invalid: 15,338 had voted for Hungary and 8,223 for Austria. In the city itself, 72.8% voted for Hungary, in the villages around only 45.4%. Although Fertőrákos / Kroisbach, Ágfalva / Agendorf, Balf / Wolfs, Harka / Harkau and Sopronbánfalva / Wandorf had voted against Hungary, they still stayed with Hungary with Ödenburg.

circle Population
1910		 Languages ​​1910 (number of speakers) voting
justified		 Votes cast Votes in percent
German Hungarian Croatian Other All in all for
Austria		 for
Hungary		 invalid for
Austria		 for
Hungary
Ödenburg / Brennberg 033,932 017,318 015,022 0781 0811 018,994 017,298 04,620 012,327 0351 027.2 072.8
Agendorf 01,922 01,830 085 02 05 01,148 0848 0682 0148 018th 082.2 017.8
Harkau 01,062 01,031 026th 05 00 0668 0581 0517 055 09 090.4 09.6
Holling 0518 0490 026th 02 00 0349 0342 074 0257 011 022.3 077.7
Kohlnhof 01,855 038 044 01,773 00 0948 0813 0243 0550 030th 030.0 070.0
Kroisbach 02,980 02,766 0150 04th 060 01,525 01,370 0812 0525 033 060.7 039.3
Wandorf 02,789 02,570 0205 05 09 01,538 01,177 0925 0217 035 081.0 019.0
Wolfs 01,393 01,161 0208 04th 020th 0668 0595 0349 0229 017th 060.4 039.6
Großzinkendorf 01,740 097 01,625 07th 011 01,041 01,039 05 01,026 08th 00.5 099.5
All in all 48.191 27.301 17,391 2,583 916 26,879 24,063 8,227 15,334 512 34.9% 65.1%

Historical assessments

Austrian representations unanimously described the process of the referendum as fraud and forgery. As a rule, they referred to the book by Viktor Miltschinsky, written immediately after the plebiscite. According to this, the voter lists were falsified by the Hungarian authorities, 2000 refugees could not take part in the election, around 2800 German speakers were prevented from voting, the "college students, the eighth grade students at the Lyceum and a large number of young girls" would have voted wrong.

A memorandum to the Austrian government stated:

"A random check of the lists showed that the entries consistently lacked an objective record of all those entitled to vote and that people residing there were not entered in every house, while people included in the lists were partly completely unknown there, partly had not lived there for years and in many cases even died. "

Cover of the confidential report by Frigyes Villani

Contemporary Hungarian representations saw the circumstances of the referendum differently. But academic contributions by Hungarian historians also contradicted the Austrian point of view and expressed their skepticism, citing Hungarian source material (which is usually not used in Austrian accounts).

A confidential report by the Hungarian representative in the electoral commission, Frigyes Villani, confirmed many allegations on the Austrian side. Three hundred students from the Forestry and Mining Academy and forty state police officers were activated for measures in the context of the elections. They intercepted Austrian agitation material at the train station and harassed pro-Austrian activists. In addition, voters from the interior of the country were mobilized - whether or not they were eligible to vote is not mentioned in the report. Villani does not report any direct fraud or forgery. There is no official Austrian report on the elections as Austria withdrew its observers shortly before the elections.

Austrian representations generally assumed - regardless of the plausibility of the allegations - the absolute ethnic division of the city. However, many Germans advocated that the city should remain with Hungary or were advocates of autonomy:

"If one part of our Germans is drawn to German Austria, the other part has a legitimate interest in staying with Hungary, and every pros and cons in this regard must be carefully considered"

wrote the Ödenburg bi-monthly publication “Die Lupe” in its editorial in January 1919.

During the referendum it became evident how divided the Germans of Ödenburg were at that time and were by no means politically uniform. More recent studies on the choice are not available: whereas the voting records have since disappeared, it is doubtful if the degree of inaccuracy in the balloting can ever be proven, it said in the 1974 but still current work by Jon D. Berlin on the Burgenland question 1918–1920.

Establishing the border in 1922/23

In the two peace treaties, the Entente only specified the actual course of the border in rough topographical fixed points - the precise definition should be made by a border regulation committee, which could undertake minor revisions. In the summer of 1920, the Allies asked the two states to fix the course of the new border bilaterally and with as little deviation as possible from the line of the peace treaties. Negotiations on this were started in February 1921: Since Hungary, citing the so-called Millerandsche Mantelnote of May 6, 1920, which Hungary had promised French support for border inspections, very large border corrections in Seewinkel , Ödenburg and in the lower Pinkatal (under Inclusion of the Hungarian language island in the Wart ) proposed, these negotiations were unsuccessful.

As a result, the border regulation committee established in July 1921 took over this task. He was supposed to put forward proposals that would ultimately be decided by the League Council . In the autumn of 1921, German West Hungary was handed over to Austria. With representatives from Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Austria and Hungary, the committee held several hearings in the disputed areas in the spring of 1922. Hungary had already reduced its original demands considerably. The mood was very emotional on the occasion of the inspections: Both sides tried again and again to motivate the population with pressure and intimidation for their own cause. In the petitions and memoranda of the individual villages to the League of Nations, the focus was not so much on linguistic or ethnic considerations, but primarily on economic considerations: questions of how fields, arable land and large estates should be kept together, and the accessibility of markets.

The committee, too, was ultimately guided by economic, water law and transport priorities. Pornóapáti / Pernau should z. B. stay with Hungary because it was home to a locally important electrical works. In March 1922, the border regulation committee formulated its definitive proposal and submitted the disputed questions - Pamhagen / Pomogy im Seewinkel , some villages in the lower Pinkatal and two suburbs of Güns / Kőszeg - to the League Council for decision. This (he) finally found a third line that neither of the two parties to the dispute agreed with and therefore - as the Austrian Commission representative Stefan Neugebauer put it - in a certain sense should also be viewed as objective. The following towns came back to Hungary: Felsőcsatár (then Alsócsatár and Felsőcsatár), Horvátlövő , Narda (then Kisnarda and Nagynarda), Ólmod , Pornóapáti and Vaskeresztes (then Németkeresztes and Magyarkeresztes).

By decision of the Inter-Allied Border Commission, Luising / Lovászad returned to Austria on January 10, 1923 .

At the suggestion of the Burgenland provincial government, the German-speaking towns of Liebing / Rendek and Rattersdorf / Rőtfalva, which today belong to Mannersdorf , were exchanged (in Austria) for the Croatian -speaking towns of Szentpéterfa / Postrum and Ólmod / Bleigraben (in Hungary) in January and March 1923 .

Technically and topographically, the new border was marked until July 1924, the border regulation commission held its last meeting on August 2, 1924 in Ödenburg. The documentation detailed description and plan of the state border between the Republic of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary with a map in a total of eighteen booklets and with 180 maps was created about the work .

Résumé

The loss of Ödenburg to Austria and Sopron's stay with Hungary initiated a very important process of pacification on the Austro-Hungarian border, which essentially continues to this day: Austria came to terms with the result, and the recovery of Burgenland was later not a serious matter the revisionist goals of Hungary. The Hungarians were able to come to terms with the separation of Burgenland because - as the Hungarian political scientist István Bibó writes:

“Found a calming in the whereabouts of the city with so many and significant Hungarian historical reminiscences in Hungary. This led to the fact that - although Sopron / Ödenburg would be the 'natural' capital of Burgenland from all economic and reasonable points of view - the Austro-Hungarian border became one of the borders of the years 1918 and 1919, along which psychological calm and balance developed. "

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Norbert readers: From the meaning of Burgenland history. In: Richard Berczeller, Norbert Leser: ... connected with Austria. Burgenland fate 1918-1945. Jugend und Volk, Vienna / Munich 1975, p. 15.
  2. ^ Klaus Koch, Walter Rauscher , Arnold Suppan (ed.): Foreign policy documents of the Republic of Austria . Volume 2: In the Shadow of St. Germain. March 15 to September 10, 1919. Vienna / Munich 1994, Document 349.
  3. ↑ StGBl. No. 41/1918
  4. ^ Stenographic minutes of the meetings of the Provisional National Assembly for German Austria. 1918 and 1919. Vol. I., November 14, 1918, p. 95
  5. ↑ Soós G. Katalin: Magyar-bajor-osztrák titkos tárgyalások és együttműködés 1920–1921. [= Hungarian-Bavarian-Austrian secret negotiations and cooperation 1920–1921]. Szeged 1967, p. 12
  6. ↑ Norbert readers: From the meaning of Burgenland history. In: Richard Berczeller, Norbert Leser: ... connected with Austria. Burgenland fate 1918-1945. Jugend und Volk, Vienna / Munich 1975, p. 18
  7. ^ Eduard Hochenbichler: Republic in the shadow of the monarchy. Burgenland, a European problem. Europaverlag, Vienna / Frankfurt / Zurich 1971, p. 50.
  8. ↑ Numbers after: Oskar Helmer: 40 years of Burgenland. A country chooses freedom . Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, Vienna 1961, p. 50.
  9. ↑ Viktor Miltschinsky: The crime of Ödenburg. Commission publisher Literaria, Vienna 1922, p. 99 ( digitized versionhttp: //vorlage_digitalisat.test/1%3D~GB%3D~IA%3Dbub_gb_FUg5AQAAIAAJ~MDZ%3D%0A~SZ%3D~ double-sided%3D~LT%3D~PUR%3D ).
  10. ^ Klaus Koch, Walter Rauscher , Arnold Suppan (ed.): Foreign policy documents of the Republic of Austria . Volume 4: Between national bankruptcy and Geneva restructuring. June 11, 1921 to November 6, 1922. Vienna / Munich 1998, Document 625: Memorandum to Government , December 19, 1921, p. 205.
  11. ^ Jon Dale Berlin: The Burgenland Question 1918-1920: From the collapse of Austria-Hungary to the treaty of Trianon. Madison (phil. Diss.) 1974, p. 352.
  12. ^ Gerald Schlag: The drawing of the border between Austria and Hungary in 1922/23. In: Burgenland in its Pannonian environment. Commemoration for August Ernst. Eisenstadt 1984, p. 343.
  13. ↑ István Bibó: The misery of the Eastern European small states. new criticism, Frankfurt am Main 1992, p. 85.

literature

  • Klaus Koch, Walter Rauscher , Arnold Suppan (eds.): Foreign policy documents of the Republic of Austria.
    • Volume 1: Self-Determination of the Republic. October 21, 1918 to March 14, 1919 ,. Vienna / Munich 1993 [= ADÖ. Part 1]
    • Volume 2: In the Shadow of St. Germain. March 15 to September 10, 1919. Vienna / Munich 1994 [= ADÖ. Volume 2]
    • Volume 4: Between national bankruptcy and Geneva restructuring. June 11, 1921 to November 6, 1922. Vienna / Munich 1998, Document 625: Memorandum to Government , December 19, 1921 [= ADÖ. Volume 4]
  • László Fogarassy: The referendum in Ödenburg (Sopron) and the establishment of the Austro-Hungarian border in the light of Hungarian sources and literature. In: Südostforschungen. International magazine for the history, culture and regional studies of Southeast Europe. 35: 150-182 (1976).
  • Eduard Hochenbichler: Republic in the shadow of the monarchy. Burgenland, a European problem. Europaverlag, Vienna / Frankfurt / Zurich 1971.
  • Norbert Leser: The Meaning of Burgenland History. In: Richard Berczeller, Norbert Leser: ... connected with Austria. Burgenland fate 1918-1945. Jugend und Volk, Vienna / Munich 1975, pp. 11–71.
  • Irmtraut Lindeck-Pozza: On the prehistory of the Venice protocols. In: 50 years of Burgenland. Burgenland research. Special issue III. Rötzer, Eisenstadt 1971, pp. 15–44.
  • Béla Rásky: On sharpening the blurring. The border between Austria and Hungary 1918 to 1924 . In: Helmut Konrad, Wolfgang Maderthaner (ed.): ... the rest is Austria. Becoming the First Republic. Volume 1, Gerold, Vienna 2008, ISBN 978-3950263107 , pp. 139–158.
  • Gerald Schlag: The drawing of the border between Austria and Hungary 1922/23. In: Burgenland in its Pannonian environment. Commemoration for August Ernst . (= Burgenland research , special volume 7), Eisenstadt 1984, pp. 333–346.

Web links