Revolutions and Political Crises in the Interwar Period: Hungary from the Aster Revolution to the Horthy Regency
Following the First World War, Europe was engulfed in revolutions, counter-revolutions, wars of independence, ethnic conflicts, civil wars and internal violence that profoundly changed the political landscape of the old continent. An important aspect of all these conflicts was paramilitary violence, which should be understood as military or quasi-military organizations and practices that either complemented or replaced the actions of traditional military structures [2].
The 1905th century became an era of wars, political crises and revolutions of unprecedented scale. In fact, the era of revolutions began at the beginning of the century – in 1911-1905 with the First Russian Revolution of 1907 and the peasant uprising in Romania in 1917. The revolutionary/counterrevolutionary civil wars of the 1918th century began in Finland and Russia in XNUMX-XNUMX and eventually spread to most of the globe.
As historian Stanley Payne notes, World War I gave rise to a cultural revolution of nihilism and challenged the belief in a unified Western civilization. Although the 1920s saw a temporary stabilization, it was not enough to restore what had been lost, and historians such as Eric Hobsbawm, François Furet, Ernst Nolte, and Enzo Traverso have used the concept of an “international civil war” (or “European civil war”) to describe the era spanning the period from 1914 to 1945 [1].
The war destroyed part of the foundations of European culture, seriously undermining faith in common values and faith in progress, and caused serious social upheavals in Eastern and Central Europe. The consequences of the war were extremely destabilizing, but not at all what the Bolsheviks, who dreamed of a world communist revolution, expected. One of the main consequences of the war was an even greater strengthening of nationalism in Europe. This is why, as a result of the post-war crisis, nationalist and fascist movements came to power in many countries [1].
During the interwar period, the crisis of democracy was widespread and the outcome was the same in many cases – in Italy, the fascists came to power in 1922, in Poland, the dictator Pilsudski was established, in Hungary, the dictatorship of Miklos Horthy was established, in Bulgaria, the dictatorship of Petkov, in Portugal, the dictatorship of Antonio Salazar, in Spain, the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. With the exception of the Bolshevik dictatorship in Russia, all of the above regimes were either right-wing authoritarian or fascist (Italy).
In some countries – notably Germany, Hungary and Italy – the communists tried to come to power through revolution, but failed. In Hungary, the communists and social democrats even managed to come to power temporarily and proclaim the Hungarian Soviet Republic, which, however, lasted only 4 months.
From the "Aster Revolution" to the rise of the socialists to power
The victory of the Entente countries and the United States in World War I, the revolutionary events of 1917-1919 in Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary radically changed the political map of Central and Eastern Europe. On the ruins of the Habsburg Monarchy, an independent Czechoslovakia was formed; Romania was established within new borders; as a result of the unification of Serbia and Montenegro with the lands that had previously been part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the multinational Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created; after almost a century and a half of non-existence, an independent Polish state was reborn [4].
For the Hungarian nation, the consequences of global upheavals were no less tangible. The defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I and the subsequent collapse of not only the monarchy as a whole, but also Hungary in its entirety, historical borders, was not only the loss by the Hungarian state of more than two-thirds of its pre-war territories, but also a strong compromise in the eyes of public opinion of the left and left-liberal ideas that were held responsible for the humiliation suffered as a result of Trianon [3].
The reason for this is simple: the revolution of late October 1918 (the so-called "Aster Revolution"), having overthrown the Habsburg power in Hungary, was unable to direct the country's development into the channel of progressive democratic reforms. The objective situation did not create the slightest conditions for this in the country, which found itself facing the challenge of powerful centrifugal forces.
The head of the Hungarian Republic, Count Mihály Károlyi (a consistent left-wing liberal in his convictions), showed himself throughout the war to be an “Ententeophile” and a supporter of a break with Germany. However, despite his inclination to compromise with the victorious powers, the new government was unable to secure their support in the territorial disputes between Hungary and its neighbors [1918].
It should also be taken into account that the defeat of Austria-Hungary in the First World War resulted in profound economic devastation. Difficulties in normalizing economic life were aggravated by the economic blockade imposed by the Entente powers and the disruption of trade due to the occupation of a significant part of the country by the armies of neighboring states. All this weakened the position of the democratic government, which was sharply criticized from the right for its inability to preserve Hungarian statehood within its 1000-year-old historical borders, and from the left for the insufficient radicalism of social reforms [3].
Faced with new demands from the military command of the Entente, which were even less acceptable to Hungarian public opinion, regarding the demarcation of lines of demarcation with the armies of neighboring states, Karolyi resigned on March 21, 1919, ceding power to radical left forces, who, following the example of the Russian revolution, attempted to establish government in Hungary in the form of Soviets.
Communists in power in Hungary
How did the communists come to power? To answer this question, we must first understand what the socialist movements in Hungary were like.
The Hungarian socialist organizations were modeled on the Austrian ones and initially followed a fairly moderate policy, but the situation quickly changed when it became clear that the victorious Allies intended to wipe most of the Hungarian Kingdom off the map. Such an outcome would have completely discredited both the conservatives and the ruling liberals, giving them a chance. [1]
However, being much weaker than their Austrian and German counterparts, the Hungarian socialists were wary of taking over the country's government and so decided to unite with the newly formed Hungarian Communist Party. The latter had been created two weeks after the end of the war, when Lenin sent a group of newly recruited Hungarian prisoners of war led by Béla Kun to Budapest. After an unsuccessful attempt to stage an uprising, the new communist leaders were imprisoned, but their party quickly gained strength, and in March 1919 they suddenly found themselves in government rather than in prison [1].
In effect, the Hungarian socialists meekly handed over power to a small, completely unrepresentative group of communists. The Austrian socialists called it a "dictatorship of despair." As a result, in June, a new political association was officially founded: the Socialist Party of Hungary.
On March 21, 1919, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed and lasted 133 days. The communists and socialists who came to power tried to nationalize everything: education, cultural life, industry, mines, transport, shops, hotels, services, urban housing, and almost all agricultural land. There were not enough state resources to manage all these sectors, but the government found time to issue decrees on how to make lemonade in nationalized theaters [1].
A de facto dictatorship was established in Hungary, with only one party list allowed to participate in the national elections of April 1919. The new authorities banned the old flag and national anthem, abolished all traditional ceremonies, and attempted to subjugate the churches. Kun announced a new system of autonomous federation for the former national minorities – a kind of Hungarian equivalent of the Soviet Union.
The government sought to create a Hungarian Red Army to defend its borders from the occupying forces in the north, south and southwest. In a wave of patriotism, it even defeated the Czechs in the north and, hoping to quickly establish contact with the revolutionary workers in Prague and also to establish a geographical link with Soviet Russia, helped to establish the Slovak Soviet Republic in June. However, the revolutionary regime in Slovakia did not last long and soon fell after the Czech army resumed its offensive [1].
Meanwhile, Kuhn quickly alienated most of the population with his thoughtless radicalism. His despotic statism trampled on the interests of almost all social groups. The overwhelming majority of the population, consisting of small farmers and farm laborers, opposed the confiscation of small property.
In addition, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was threatened by the advance of the Romanian army – with the blessing of the Western Allies – into what was left of southern Hungary. The communists were unable to resist the vastly superior forces of the Romanians, and so on August 1 they resigned and fled by train to Vienna [1].
At this time, a volunteer White Army began to form in the south of Hungary. When the Romanians left Budapest in November, they handed over power to counterrevolutionaries, who established a regency council that governed Hungary for the next 25 years under Admiral Miklós Horthy.
The rise to power of Miklos Horthy
Miklós Horthy was a native of Eastern Hungary and came from a not very noble family. His biography initially differed little from the biographies of many officers who in their youth swore allegiance to the imperial power for long and faithful service. By no means lacking in ability, but not endowed with it to an outstanding degree, Horthy was unable to make a brilliant career in the years when the Habsburg monarchy, although it had somewhat lost its former position as one of the great European powers, still occupied vast territories - from Bosnia to Silesia, from Tyrol to Bukovina. In the era of dualism, Horthy was little known in political circles. The main years of the future regent's service were spent in the navy navy The Habsburg Empire, which had extensive access to the Adriatic [4].
In the autumn of 1918, Vice-Admiral Horthy had all the naval forces of the empire under his command. The dualistic monarchy, however, was living out its last days. In the autumn of 1918, the Adriatic coast of Dalmatia passed to the Yugoslav state, under whose jurisdiction the Austro-Hungarian fleet also fell. Finding himself out of work, the Vice-Admiral retired to his family estate to survive the hard times [4].
However, Horthy's seclusion was short-lived - when an alternative Hungarian government was formed in Szeged with the assistance of the Entente powers, Horthy was offered the post of Minister of Defense. Support from military formations allowed Horthy to separate himself from the Szeged government; the military command headquarters subordinate to him eventually turned into one of the independent centers of power in a country engulfed in the most acute conflicts [4].
Possessing real armed force, Horthy secured the support of English, French and American emissaries who periodically visited Hungary. At the head of the army on November 16, 1919, M. Horthy entered Budapest on a white horse in the uniform of an admiral and criticized the city's residents, accusing them of forgiving the "sinful capital" that had desecrated the Motherland [5].
In February 1920, the Hungarian National Assembly declared the restoration of royal power, but due to the intervention of the Entente countries, which were against the revival of the Habsburg dynasty, a temporary post of regent was established, to which Horthy was elected by vote (131 out of 141 deputies voted "for"). Horthy had a unique position, being simultaneously the regent of a kingdom without a king and an admiral without a navy [5].
The official ideology of the Horthy regime in the 1920s (the so-called Christian-national ideology) was of a distinctly conservative nature. It emphasized its continuity with the conservative ideological currents of the period of Austro-Hungarian dualism (1867–1918), while distancing itself from the liberal political and ideological traditions of that era. As a fundamentally conservative doctrine, it had little in common with later right-wing radical ideas [3].
The peculiarity of M. Horthy's policy was that he did not associate himself with any political force, relying only on order, stability and, in particular, on patriotism for the country.
The foreign policy framework for any Hungarian government was established by the Trianon Peace Treaty, signed on June 4, 1920, which defined Hungary's status in the emerging Versailles system. According to the treaty, Hungary was deprived of a significant part of its historical lands, its territory in comparison with the territory of the Hungarian half of the Habsburg Monarchy was reduced by approximately three and a half times, and its population decreased by almost three times.
The signing of the Treaty of Trianon was perceived in Hungary as a national tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Budapest; three days of mourning were declared in the country, and national flags were lowered.
The Treaty of Trianon, signed in the Grand Trianon Palace near Versailles in 1920 and ratified by Hungary, planted a time bomb under the building of the so-called “peace settlement” in the eastern part of the continent: it is quite obvious that in post-Trianon Hungary, revanchism and irredentism could not help but become the leitmotif of state policy, which enjoyed broad public support [6].
References
[1]. Stanley G. Payne. Civil war in Europe 1905-1949. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[2]. For more on this, see War in Time of Peace: Militarized Conflicts after World War I. 1917–1923 / Collection of articles; ed. R. Gerwarth and D. Horn. — Moscow: New Literary Review, 2014.
[3]. Stykalin A.S. Hungarian right-wing radicalism of the 1930s–1940s and some trends in the historical policy of the V. Orban government // Visegrad Europe. Moscow, 2020. No. 4 (VIII). P. 38-49.
[4]. Stykalin A.S. (1994). The Horthyist regime and the idea of the revival of Hungary in the 1920s–1930s // Slavic Studies. No. 6. P. 19–31.
[5]. Maksareva A.V., Lezina E.P. Hungary during the reign of Miklos Horthy. Ogarev-Online, 2014.
[6]. Filonenko, N.V. Horthyist Hungary on the way to World War II: first steps // Scientific bulletin of Belgorod State University = Belgorod state university scientific bulletin. – Belgorod, 2017. – No. 8 (257), issue. 42. – P. 83-86.
Information