Kisebbségvédelem, XII. (2025)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14834/12137

Browse

Browsing Kisebbségvédelem, XII. (2025) by Subject "magyar történelem"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Kísérletek a magyarországi nemzetiségi kérdés rendezésére, 1848-1918
    (Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, 2025) Jeszenszky Géza; Corvinus Egyetem
    This study investigates whether earlier and more substantive political compromise between Hungary and its non-Hungarian nationalities could have prevented the disintegration of the historic kingdom by 1918. It asks how successive attempts at accommodation, from 1848 to the 1868 Nationalities Law, addressed the demands of emerging national movements and why they ultimately failed. Methodologically, the analysis relies on a close reading of primary legal and parliamentary documents (1848, 1861, 1868), contemporary political writings (Eötvös, Kemény, Kossuth, Teleki), and later historiography, particularly the syntheses of Katus László and Szarka László, which draw on archival sources and parliamentary records. These materials facilitate a comparative assessment of constitutional proposals, nationality programs, and the political constraints that shape them. The findings show that meaningful compromise was repeatedly conceivable, most clearly in 1861, yet systematically derailed by conflicting territorial claims, the mixed ethnic geography of the Carpathian Basin, and the Hungarian political elite’s insistence on a unitary political nation. Although the 1868 law represented a liberal milestone in individual rights, it lacked mechanisms for enforcing collective protections and was inconsistently implemented, accelerating political estrangement. The study’s value lies in reframing Hungary’s nationality policy as a series of missed historic openings rather than a linear path to the Treaty of Trianon. Understanding these aborted settlements sheds light on why constructive minority accommodation failed in a region where linguistic, territorial, and political claims overlapped, providing insights that remain relevant for contemporary Central European minority governance.