comparisons between the Hungarian “island of liberty” and the real liberty, as it is known in America, and they had no use any longer for a Magyar count, even though he called himself a democrat.
Too long have the Magyars been fooling the world with their talk of liberty and constitutional regime. The tradition connected with the name of Kossuth who led a rebellion against the Hapsburgs in order to establish more firmly the rule of Magyar landholders over the entire kingdom of Hungary misled the democratic masses of Western Europe and the United States as to the real conditions prevailing in Hungary. But every Czech, and every Slovak even more so, knew but too well that the unjust and oppressive rule of the Germans in Austria was mildness itself—compared with the Asiatic barbarity practised by the Magyar rulers of Hungary. And they also knew that the ruling clicque was playing a double game—one-half pretended to be loyal subjects of their Hapsburg kings, the other half played the role of patriots desiring liberation from the hated Hapsburg yoke. Count Michael Karolyi was assigned the role of the leader of the so-called in dependence party.
Karolyi is descended of a family who became of importance in the 18th century through their denunciation of the Hungarian rebel Rakoczy. They received from the emperor the confiscated estates of the Rakoczy family and became one of the wealthiest families among the rich Magyar magnates. Michael Karolyi inherited from his uncle a fortune, estimated at one hundred million crowns, as well as distinguished position in the society of Budapest and all the capitals of Europe. But the young count had ambitions in the political field; in fact one ought to speak rather of Karolyi’s passion for notoriety rather than ambition.
Karolyi opened his political career by a high-flown appeal addressed to the “knightly Polish nation.” He called upon the Polish white eagle to tear to pieces the double-headed Austrian eagle with the help of the Magyar phoenix. Immediately after he sent a similar appeal to Prague full of equally noble and silly talk, merely substituting the Bohemian lion for the Polish eagle. The Czechs answered him promptly: Certainly, we are opposed to the rule of Hapsburgs and Germans in Austria, but we cannot make a pact with Magyars who refuse to concede universal suffrage to the peoples of Hungary and are trying to make Magyars by force out of Slovaks, Uhro-Rusins, Jugoslavs and Rumanians.
During the war Count Karolyi posed as a friend to the Allies. All along he was scheduled to take the leading part, if by any chance the nicely laid plans of Tisza and Burian should miscarry and it should prove advisable to change sides. Now Karolyi calls himself president of the Magyar national council and claims the presidency of the Hungarian government as the representative of the Magyar people. He is the son-in-law of Count Julius Andrassy who at the time of this writing is minister of foreign affairs of what was once Ausstria-Hungary. The son of the man who signed the treaty of 1879 binding the Dual Monarchy to Germany has been chosen to liquidate the affairs of the bankrupt empire Both Andrassy and Karolyi have the same aim—to save as much for the Magyars, to save as much of the Magyar noblemen’s estates as possible. And so Andrassy extends recognition to the Czecho-slovaks and Karolyi offers to cede some parts of Slovakia to the new state.
The Czechoslovaks will have nothing in common with the “democratic” counts of Budapest. It is not easy to forget the barbaric treatment which has been the lot of the Slovaks under the countless generations of Magyar feudal noblemen; neither will the Czechoslovaks forget in a hurry the cruelties perpetrated by Magyar Red Guards on the wounded Czechoslovak soldiers in Siberia. But regardless of such things the Magyars are entitled to rule themeselves, and no one else. And that the Magyarorszag (Magyar realm) shall in the future include only nine million people instead of twenty four.
