Hungary’s Occupation Policy in Transcarpathia in 1939-1944 and the Relevance of Its Consequences for the Present

Abstract

The article reveals the national liberation struggle in Subcarpathian Rus in the first half of the twentieth century, the role of the local elite in achieving the autonomy and statehood of Carpathian Ukraine, and the decisive infiuence of international relations on its fate. The author analyzes the main factors that contributed to the development and victory of Ukrainian state-building processes in all their ethnic territories. These include the fall of the Russian Empire and the Central Powers under the military burden due to their active participation in the First World War, and their collapse, in particular Austria-Hungary, the rise of the national liberation struggles of the peoples of this monarchy, its dismemberment and the formation of six new states in its place, favorable international conditions for the realization of the right to self-determination only for certain enslaved peoples, which were beneficial to the Entente countries. Much attention is paid in the article to the state-building processes in Subcarpathian Rus in the interwar period. These include: autonomy on December 21, 1918 as part of the Hungarian People’s Republic and on April 2, 1919 as part of the Hungarian Soviet Republic; autonomy on October 11, 1938 as part of the Czechoslovak Republic (Czechoslovakia), statehood of Carpathian Ukraine on March 15, 1939, and the reunification of Transcarpathian Ukraine on November 27, 1945 with the Ukrainian SSR as part of the Soviet Union. It is emphasized that the last two events rise above all others, since they became fateful in the life of Ukrainians in Transcarpathia on the thorny path of formation of a united and independent Ukrainian state at the end of the twentieth century. It is concluded that the exponents of the political face of Transcarpathia in the twentieth century as part of the Czech Republic were local figures, descended from Ukrainian-Hungarian families, whose actions were in line with general democratic values and served the interests of these two ethnic groups that dominated the region. It is emphasized that the basis of the liberation struggle in the Czech period was the ideology of Ukrainophilia, which was realized due to favorable international factors, such as federalization and the collapse of the Czechoslovak Republic. When Transcarpathia was part of Hungary, political forces that advocated territorial autonomy and denied pro-Ukrainian and pro- Soviet policies prevailed in the region. Their activities were dominated by the Ugro-Rusyn ideology aimed at uniting all Rusyn lands (Transcarpathia, Presov, Maromorosia) within Hungary, as it was before the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy. They helped to strengthen the dominance of the unitary Hungarian state, became the implementers of the Ugro-Ruthenian policy, and formed an independent Ruthenian nation out of the Ukrainians of this region, as the fourth full-fiedged East Slavic nation among the «Russian,» Belarusian, and Ukrainian. It is noted in the article that the consequences of Hungary’s activities in Transcarpathia in 1939-1944 showed a significant retreat in the political, legal and democratic development of the region compared to the Czech period. These conclusions are based on the following factors. An important reason for this was the war and the unfavorable international situation. The totalitarian form of government in Hungary, the military gendarmerie order, the unitary administration of Transcarpathia, the failure to hold parliamentary elections, Hungary’s failure to grant autonomy to the predominant Ukrainian Rusyns of the Carpathian territory, the introduction of monolingualism instead of the proclaimed Hungarian- Ruthenian bilingualism in all spheres of administrative and everyday life, the annulment of land, educational and administrative reforms during the Czechoslovak Republic, the ban on pro-Ukrainian organizations and the use of the native language, unsuccessful attempts to create a Rusyn nation out of the human and material resources of Transcarpathia became a source of meeting Hungary’s needs in the German-Soviet war. The leading ethnic groups of Transcarpathia (Ukrainian Rusyns, Hungarians, Germans, Jews, and Gypsies) suffered greatly. 20% of the inhabitants of Transcarpathia died during World War II and in the first postwar years, which is the highest rate of human and material losses among the countries participating in that war. It is confirmed in the article that the Ukrainian national idea and the Ukrainian language in Transcarpathia, despite the oppression and ban in 1939-1944, remained indestructible. The local intelligentsia and members of the Scientific Society of Transcarpathia (STZ) themselves used Ukrainian literature and language, the norms of which formed the basis of various projects of the Ruthenian language, which found support among the local population and students. The activities of the Hungarian authorities in Transcarpathia aimed at forming a separate Ruthenian nation and its language proved to be unproductive. A separate Ruthenian language was never created, and the local language, as a dialect of Ukrainian, continued to dominate the Ruthenian population of Transcarpathia as a spoken language. It is noted in the article that Rusyns in Hungary are legally recognized as a separate minority among 13 national minorities with significant cultural and educational rights. A whole group of modern specialists in Hungary and Transcarpathia, as well as in other countries, continue the course of their colleagues of the interwar period and are increasingly insistent that the existence of a separate Ruthenian nation and its language be recognized at the international level as the fourth among the East Slavic peoples – «Russians,» Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Ruthenians. At present, they: continue to argue that the majority of Rusyns live in Transcarpathia, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Croatia; classify the majority of Ukrainians in Transcarpathia and other countries as Rusyns, which is a political fraud; avoid reporting the number of Ukrainians living in these countries, and that Ukrainians/ Rusyns have no autonomy in any of these countries of residence. It is emphasized that the assessment of the Act of Reunification of Ukrainian Rusyns of Transcarpathia with Soviet Ukraine on November 27, 1945, as a fateful event in their thousand-year history was fully confirmed only after Ukraine gained independence with the collapse of the USSR. Without such a perspective, the obstacles to periodizing the era of barbarism and civilization in the history of Transcarpathia would have been insurmountable, and the main conclusions drawn from the analysis of the stay of Subcarpathian Rus within Hungary in 1939-1944 would have remained unproven.