Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume XII
Paris Peace Conf. 184.01102/208
Professor A. C. Coolidge to the Commission to Negotiate Peace
[Received March 15.]
Sirs: I have the honor to enclose herewith a series of reports by Captain Nicholas Roosevelt,92 who has recently made a visit to Bucharest to complete certain studies in connection with Transylvania and the relations between the Hungarians and Roumanians. While not endorsing all of Captain Roosevelt’s opinions, some of which seem to me too sweeping, I beg to call attention to them and to the information contained in the report.
I have [etc.]
Captain Nicholas Roosevelt to Professor A. C. Coolidge
Subject: Transylvania.
- 1.
- In compliance with your instructions I proceeded to Budapest and thence to Bucharest to complete the investigations of the Transylvanian question undertaken by Mr. Storey and Lieut. Goodwin.
- 2.
- While at Budapest I talked with the president, the prime minister, the former minister of nationalities Jaszy, Count Apponyi, Count Teleki, and a number of others. A summary of the Hungarian view as presented by these gentlemen is included in the general report (enclosure No. I)93 herewith. By way of comment I wish to remark that Count Apponyi in particular, and to a much lesser degree Count Karolyi, held out the threat that if Hungary was dismembered she would never cease to make herself a thorn of irritation to her neighbors, and that in consequence the peace of Europe would be constantly endangered. It is my personal opinion that this attitude is fostered primarily by Apponyi and the band of stiff-necked conservatives surrounding him. I consider it a pernicious attitude, to be classed with the worst imperialistic point of view of the Pan-Germans. If this band decides upon a policy of sowing discord between the different nationalities in the territories of the former kingdom, as it appears they are already attempting to do (see the report on this subject, Enclosure No. 2),94 it will be impossible to prevent outbreaks of hostilities. But such meddling is only comparable to the attempts of the imperial German government to rouse anti-American feelings among the Germans of America. The only apparent solution is the complete democratization of Hungary and the putting out of power once and for all of the Pan-Hungarians.
- 3.
- At Bucharest the American Minister and the Military Attaché95 put me in relations with the leading Rumanians familiar with the situation. Among others I saw the acting prime minister Constantinescu, the minister of war Vaitoianu, the chief of staff General Prezan, his chief of staff Colonel Antonescu, Professor Jorga, and the Transylvanian commissioners Popp and Popovici. I also saw General Berthelot and several officers of the French Mission. The general impression which I got of the Rumanian attitude was that it was extravagant. They were more anxious to talk about atrocities committed by the Hungarians than to give reasons for their claims. And their claims were not modest. Perhaps the most significant hint as to [Page 406] the true state of affairs can be found in their universal disapproval of Storey’s interest in the Hungarians in Transylvania, and their complaints that he ought to have seen more of the Rumanians and Saxons. When I pointed out that no one seemed to question the attitude of the Rumanians and Saxons, whereas the point of view of the Hungarians was much more dubious, and when I asked why therefore he should see so much of the Rumanians and of the Saxons, the objectors ceased talking.
- 4.
- Perhaps the most significant thing brought out by the French was the fact that of all the complaints they had received there were none from the Szeklers, though many from the Hungarians nearer Hungary. They confirmed the impression of Storey that the Saxons were willing to take a chance on the Rumanian regime. But General Berthelot said he considered a neutral zone indispensable, anyway for a while.
- 5.
- Mr. Vopicka and Colonel Yates both considered that it was Rumania’s due to receive Transylvania, on account of ethnic grounds and because it had been promised her by the Allies. They, as well as the French and Rumanians, were of the opinion that once the line was decided the Hungarians would cease to agitate.
- 6.
- It is my personal opinion that whatever the final decision may be it must include a clause guaranteeing the redistricting of the region in such a manner as to create as few local minorities as possible; to grant local autonomy in these districts guaranteeing full liberty of education, press and religion, although obliging the study of the government language along with that of the race. It might even be highly advantageous to create, besides, an autonomous state of Transylvania under the general supervision of Rumania. It seems essential that a sort of international police system be established along the border, and it is possible that both in this connection and in connection with the guarantee of autonomy a league of nations might find constructive service.
- 7.
- As far as the drawing of a boundary line is concerned, if the ethnic basis is to be accepted it would seem best to have an American ethnologist construct an ideal line based on the various available sources, and to have later on a commission of experts completely under American control proceed on the ground to check up and to lay down the accepted line, making whatever minor modifications might be necessary or advisable after a study of local geographical and economic features.
Captain Nicholas Roosevelt to Professor A. C. Coolidge
Subject: Report on Transylvania.
1. Reduced to the fewest possible words, the question of Transylvania centers about the proposition that if it belongs to Hungary there will be a Rumania irredenta, and if it belongs to Rumania there will be a Hungary irredenta.
2. The Rumanian and Hungarian claims may be summarized as follows:
| Rumania | Hungary |
| 1) Majority of population. | 1) Superiority of Hungarian over Rumanian “Kultur”. |
| 2) Majority of area. | 2) Economic affiliations with Hungary. |
| 3) Misgovernment of former Hungarian Kingdom. | 3) Inefficiency of present Rumanian government. |
| 4) Revindication of historical tradition. | 4) Dismemberment of a historical unit. |
| 5) Promise of the Allies. | 5) Probable disruption of peace of Europe. |
3. The Rumanians claim the majority of the population in Transylvania. The Hungarian statistics for the Transylvanian Banat region, as given in Hungarian publications, are as follows:
| Rumanians | 43.% |
| Hungarians | 35.5% |
| Germans | 10.8% |
| Others | 9.7% |
The Rumanians in a publication just issued by the Rumanian General Staff, comment on the validity of the Hungarian statistics as follows:
“In order to increase the number of Hungarians to the prejudice of the Rumanians, the Hungarians have employed the following means: (a) They count as Hungarians all persons speaking the language. Now it is well known that the Rumanians were obliged to learn Hungarian because otherwise they had no access to the authorities. (b) Furthermore they have counted as Hungarians all those who have Hungarian Christian names. It is equally well known that the authorities forced the population to give Hungarian names to children.”
This same publication adds that out of the 1,085,679 Magyars residing in the total territory claimed by the Rumanians 195,000 are Jews and 240,000 are Hungarian officials who will return to Hungary once peace is signed. The Rumanians give as the true proportion of Rumanians in Transylvania 57.6% and of Hungarians 29.2%.
[Page 408]4. The Rumanians add that the block of territory claimed by them is a solid mass inhabited almost exclusively by Rumanians with the exception of the Szekler Region and of the towns. To contravert this claim the Hungarians have published a skillfully made map by Count Teleki, which spreads large uninhabited regions throughout the Rumanian block. In as much as many of the Rumanians here lead a pastoral life, the validity of the claims of Count Teleki would bear thorough examination by an expert on ethnic and geographic questions.
5. It is generally acceded even by the Hungarians themselves, including such men as the former Minister of Nationalities, Jaszy, that the regime of the old Hungarian authorities left much to be desired, and that there was a tendency to oppress persons of non-Magyar origin. The Rumanians therefore claim that it is their duty to liberate their fellow nationalists in Transylvania from the yoke of the Hungarians.
6. Transylvania, according to history as presented by Rumanians, is the home of the Rumanian race. Whatever claims the Magyars may put forth to dispute this it appears to be a well established fact that it has been one of the principal centers of development of the Rumanian people in the last six or eight centuries; and it is probable that owing to their isolation the people are of purer Rumanian stock than the people of Rumania proper. These facts are advanced by the Rumanians as the historical bases for their claims.
7. Having been promised Transylvania as well as the Banat by the Allies in 1916, the Rumanians assume that the Allies will make good this promise, and this has lent a moral support to the Rumanian claims for national unity.
8. The Hungarians, on the other hand, bring forward two main arguments in favor of their keeping Transylvania. The first is that the Hungarians as a people have reached a higher stage of civilization than the Rumanians, and that their government is more capable of handling the problem to the best general interest of all nationalities concerned. They lay special emphasis on the fact that the new form of Government is very liberal and that complete autonomy has been granted within the last few months to other nationalities within the territory of the former Hungarian Kingdom.
9. The second of their main arguments is that the region is economically and geographically bound to Hungary and that to sever the two regions will result disastrously to both. They claim that Transylvania furnishes the rest of Hungary with timber and mineral products which are essential to the economic existence of the country, and that Transylvania in turn receives many things from Hungary which she cannot do without. They add that the control of the rivers of the Hungarian plains is essential for the prosperity of the country and that inasmuch as this control has to be exercised to a great extent [Page 409] in the regions near the sources, it will be disastrous to the agricultural life of the Hungarian plains if these territories fall into the hands of other nations.
10. The Hungarians say that the present form of Rumanian Government is inefficient and add that they consider there is little likelihood of the government improving to a great extent in the near future. This point of view was shared by the Americans and French with whom I spoke in Bucharest.
11. The Hungarians say, furthermore, that to break up a historical unity such as was the former Hungarian Kingdom can only entail disastrous consequences.
12. They claim finally that if Hungary is dismembered they will never cease to agitate and to be a source of irritation for their neighbors. This point of view is most vehemently expressed by members of the old regime, such as Count Apponyi, but is also encouraged by people of more liberal views, Karolyi himself having intimated the same thing.
13. I made a special point to try to get precise information on the form of autonomy which the Rumanian Government proposed to give the Hungarians and Germans in Transylvania. No one could specify anything further than the expression “complete autonomy”. Cross-questioning elicited nothing more precise, and I was informed that the question has not yet been settled. In the meantime the Transylvania Rumanians have set up a semi-independent government under the direction of Dr. Maniu, and have a commission of three members in Bucharest who keep in touch with the Bucharest government. I talked at length with two of these men, who likewise could give me no specific information, and were more interested in telling me about atrocities which they said the Hungarians were committing against the Rumanians. The general impression that I gathered from talking with these two men was that the idea of the Bucharest government was to make a complete unit of Greater Rumania, whereas many of the Transylvanians favor some form of government by which they would have a greater hand in the directing of their own affairs. It was, of course, impossible to get from these men, or for that matter from anyone else in Bucharest, a reliable estimate as to the real feelings of the different persons in Transylvania. Nearly everyone with whom I spoke, however, agreed that the opinion there could be summed up roughly as follows: That the Rumanians and Saxons were not averse to a union with Rumania, and that the Hungarians were divided into three groups, the first group composed principally of officials and large landowners being strongly against separation from Hungary; the second group favoring an independent Transylvania; and the third group willing to try the experiment of Rumanian rule. Owing to [Page 410] the strongly prejudiced views of the Rumanians it would probably be impossible to ascertain accurately the sentiments of the Transylvanians except by a commission having as interpreters real Americans speaking Rumanian and Hungarian, and operating with complete freedom of action so as to allow neither the Rumanians nor the Hungarians a chance to influence temporarily the opinions of the inhabitants.
14. The map96 attached to this report was given to me by the Rumanian Chief of Staff, General Prezan. Its ethnic claims are pretentious. On it he has drawn four lines: The green line represents the area promised to Rumania by the Allies in 1916. The red and blue line represents the line of occupation agreed to in the armistice between Franchet d’Esperey and Karolyi. The blue line represents the region occupied by Rumanian troops under orders from the French (so General Prezan stated) until the first week in March. The red line from Arad to Oradea Mare and Satmar represents the line to which the Rumanian troops of occupation are advancing in accordance with instructions which General Prezan told me he had received from Paris. The second red line from Seghedin to Vasaros Nemeni is the line to which the Hungarian troops have been obliged to withdraw. General Prezan said that French troops would occupy Arad, Oradea Mare and any other important points on the new frontier. He as well as the Minister of War, General Vaitoianu said that they took this as an indication that the Allies were going to grant them their full claims.
15. The Rumanians were much disturbed about propaganda which they claimed the Hungarians had been spreading throughout Transylvania. Much of this propaganda they said was of a Bolshevik nature, and its object was to create hard feeling between the different nationalities. Judging from Mr. Storey’s reports this is a fact, and even though he recognized some of the literature as coming from Bela Kuhn it is not at all unlikely, in view of the attitude of the Hungarians and especially of the ultra-conservative set, that they would use this or any other means which might in any way assist their efforts to retain Transylvania. The Rumanians claimed that in the Banat the Hungarians were working hand in hand with the Serbians to oppress the Rumanians, and considered that this was merely another manifestation of the same desire on the part of the Hungarians to set one race against the other.
16. As long as any one race encourages hostility towards other races occupying the same territory, such as in Transylvania and in the Banat, it will be extremely difficult to maintain peace.