AUSTRIA, HUNGARY AND THE SLAVS
proved disloyal, and part of their troops have joined the enemy. As there is no Czech army to enforce their claims by conquering Hungary they could only attain their aims in one way, by revolution; “and to admit openly such a policy is only calculated to weaken them and strengthen us. They think that with the Amnesty a political course was ushered in, such as justifies them in putting forward such claims. I believe them to be radically mistaken!” Meanwhile, from the standpoint of the Monarchy as a whole, “it is undoubtedly most harmful that the Slavs follow so revolutionary a policy. That can only lead to the collapse of Austria! It is to our interest that side by side with a strong Hungary there should be a strong Austria.” Hence every possible step must be taken to suppress such tendencies. “It is quite certain that we can reckon in every way upon the support of His Majesty, both on account of his whole outlook (Denkart), of his interests of self-preservation and of the oath which he has taken to oppose every effort to violate Hungary’s integrity. At first I, too, was hurt that the President of the Austrian Parliament did not find one word to repel the attacks against us, and that the Austrian Premier was also silent. If this meant that all the elements in the Austrian Parliament approve these attacks, then the Monarchy would really be faced by a grave crisis. In that case a further common life between these two States of the Monarchy would be impossible. Happily this is not yet proved. In the same sitting other invectives were uttered, which neither President nor Premier can have approved, but which were not reproved. An Ukrainian deputy declared that Austria and the dynasty were hostile to the Ukrainians, and that the Poles were hangman’s assistants; but he was not called to order. . . . Another deputy asked whether the Foreign Minister was a gentleman; but was not called to order. Another speaker spoke of the self-determination of nations as the sole foundation of peace. Even this remark could be made without its authors being called to order.” This sequence of crime throws a highly significant light upon the Magyar attitude towards national questions.
Count Andrássy ended by declaring that Hungary should not follow an anti-Slav policy. “But, on the other hand, we must act with the greatest energy against these excesses, and use all our influence to prevent Dualism being replaced by Federalism, which would make these small nations independent of Austria and render it possible for them, as equals, to place us in a minority over important common questions. . . . To give these forces the right to interfere in our common affairs as special autonomous States would be equivalent to consciously destroying the power of the Monarchy.”
Dr. Wekerle denounces federalism.
The Premier, Dr. Wekerle, in his reply, dealt at some length with “the grave and shameless attacks” levelled against Hungary, and paraded the stock phrase re-echoed by three whole generations of Magyar Jingoes, that “nowhere in the world is there so much individual liberty as in Hungary.” He assured the House that every
314
