The new borders as local economic possibility? The case of post-1920 Hungary

ABSTRACT

Hungary lost large parts of its historical territory as a consequence of the 1920 Trianon Peace Treaty. Although the new borders in general followed ethnic boundaries, neighbouring states had clear strategic and economic interests even in areas where Hungarians constituted the majority among local people. Taking these interests into consideration, the peace treaty deprived Hungary of most of its economic resources. The new borders also meant new customs frontiers. Railway lines were cut, and most economic connections were broken. Passport obligations and customs formalities were introduced overnight in the middle of the old kingdom, separating families and cutting estates in two. Once prosperous regional centres now became peripheries in their own country. However, local communities were able to take advantage of the new possibilities – both legal and illegal – arising from the borderland situation. This paper provides examples of such cross-border economic activities in the 1920s. For instance, dual landowners could cultivate their land on both sides of the border, and thus had the possibility to cross the border legally anywhere within the territory of their estates during daylight. Others traversed the border without a passport or the necessary documentation, mostly to engage in contraband activities. Smuggling was also common among dual landowners. The paper focuses mostly on these illegal acts. Since contraband was not confined to cross-border transportation (illicit domestic transport was also deemed smuggling), the author gives an overview of legal regulations on contraband and shows how these rules were enforced. He examines what kind of goods were smuggled, what the motives of the contrabandists were (both in time and space), and compares the contraband activities of the lower and upper classes. The presented case studies show that illegal border crossings and even contraband offences were treated rather differently by local authorities.

KEYWORDS:

• Hungary
• small border traffic
• dual landowners
• contraband
• smugglers
• post-Trianon economy
• agriculture

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Momentum-Trianon 100 Research Group  of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and also in the framework of the History of Globalization Research Group, University of Szeged, Eötvös Loránd University and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. I thank Gábor Egry, Machteld Venken, Steen Bo Frandsen, Biljana Šimunović-Bešlin, Dragica Koljanin and Paulina Čović for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Special thanks to Ádám Erdész and Miklós Melega for their generous help in the Békés and Vas county archives. I am grateful to Mark Trafford for his thorough proofreading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The best source for the claims of the neighbours is the presentations of their delegations in front of the

Council of Ten. See United States Department of State, Papers, vol. III. 822–34 (Problem of the Banat); vol. III. 845–7 (Transylvania); vol. III. 883–6 (Slovakia and Subcarpathia); vol. IV. 47–53 (Yugoslav claims). On the role of the railways in drawing the borderline see Majdán, “A vasút szerepe,” 100–15.

2. Romsics (2001), A trianoni békeszerződés, 169–76. See also (in Hungarian): On the Geographic Unity of Hungary (Annex to Apponyi’s note titled On the New Borders of Hungary, February 12, 1920), in: Ádám and Cholnoky, Trianon. A magyar békeküldöttség, 394–455.

3. This view originated from John Maynard Keynes, whose book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, argued similarly in the case of the Versailles peace treaty signed with Germany. For a historiographic analysis of this topic, see Tomka, “Az első világháború és a trianoni béke,” 47–54.

4. Gunst, Magyarország gazdaságtörténete, 34–40; Honvári, Magyarország gazdaságtörténete a honfoglalástól, 337–49. The hardships of agriculture are best depicted by Ormos, “Trianon és a magyar gazdaság,” 47–58.

5. Janos, East Central Europe, 127–8. The density of population and urbanization was also higher after Trianon.

6. Tomka, “Az első világháború és a trianoni béke,” 54–75, especially 68–75.

7. Honvári, Magyarország gazdaságtörténete a honfoglalástól, 326–7, 347–8.

8. Bódy, “Élelmiszer-ellátás,” 151–94. A kilogramme of flour cost 2 crowns in Hungary while in Yugoslavia it was 47 crowns and 10 to 60 crowns in Austria (depending on the social status of the customer), ibid., 187.

9. Macmillan, Paris 1919, 248–9.

10. Weigl, “Demographic Transitions Accelerated,” 147–9.

11. NA, f. 1075/1, box 64, inv. č. 507, sign. V/K10, V/K27, V/K31, V/K39 and V/K41.

12. For more details, see Bencsik, “(Re)establishment of Small Border Traffic.”

13. Law no. XV. of 1920. Magyar Törvénytár 1920. (Budapest: Franklin, 1921), 47–50.

14. Law no. LXIII. of 1912. Magyar Törvénytár 1912. (Budapest: Franklin, 1913), 691–710.

15. Order of the government no. 2.490/1918. M.E. (June 15, 1918), Rendeletek Tára 52 (1918): 647–83.

16. Order of the government no. 5.571/1918. M.E. (February 22, 1919), Rendeletek Tára 53 (1919): 143–53.

17. Order of the government no. 5.510/1919. M.E. (October 15, 1919), Rendeletek Tára 53 (1919): 830–41. However, import was eased two months later; see order no. 6.855/1919. M.E. (Dec. 23. 1919), ibid., 959–61.

18. Order of the government no. 4.160/1920. M.E. (May 17, 1920), Rendeletek Tára 54 (1920): 210–1.

19. Orders of the Ministry of Agriculture no. 22.419/1920. F.M. (May 28, 1920) and no. 105.100/1920. F.M. (August 6, 1920), Rendeletek Tára 54 (1920): 820–2 and 822–6.

20. Order of the government no. 4.787/1920. M.E. (June 17, 1920), Rendeletek Tára 54 (1920): 268–81.

21. Order of the government no. 8.289/1920. M.E. (September 29, 1920), Rendeletek Tára 54 (1920): 465–6.

22. Order of the government no. 8.790/1920. M.E. (October 13, 1920), Rendeletek Tára 54 (1920): 521–7. Stricter punishment was based on regulations of the law no. XV. of 1920. Magyar Törvénytár 1920. (Budapest: Franklin, 1921), 47–50.

23. Order of the government no. 4.220/1921. M.E. (June 11, 1921), Budapesti Közlöny 55 (1921), no. 136. 1–4.

24. Due to high prices in Austria, this wheat transport started in the summer of 1919. Bódy, “Élelmiszer-ellátás,” 176.

25. Order of the Szombathely regional commissioner no. 215/1922. Kb. (January 16, 1922), Vasvármegye Hivatalos Lapja, January 26, 1922.

26. “A sóbehozatalt a pénzügyminiszter betiltotta,” Nemzeti Újság, April 23, 1921; Order of the Minister of Finance no. 5.628/1921. P.M. (April 18, 1921) Belügyi Közlöny 26 (1921), no. 18. 579–80; for tobacco, see Order of the Minister of Finance no. 26.848/1921. P.M. (April 14, 1921), Belügyi Közlöny 26 (1921), no. 17. 558–9.

27. Order of the government no. 6.200/1921. M.E. (August 25, 1921), Rendeletek Tára 55 (1921): 223–32.

28. These works mostly analyse human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling and other serious organized cross-border crimes. See, inter alia, van Schendel and Abraham, Illicit Flows and Criminal Things; Thachuk, Transnational Threats; Shelley, Human Trafficking; Wylie, The International Politics of Human Trafficking; for petty illegal business, see Bruns and Miggelbrink, Subverting Borders.

29. Some examples: Blumenthal, Bootleg; Heyman, States and Illegal Practices; Smith, Borderland Smuggling; Sáenz Rovner, The Cuban Connection; Karras, Smuggling; Andreas, Smuggler Nation.

30. Holub, Stůj! Finanční stráž!; Marek, Smrt v celním pásmu; Toungoussov, “Fenomén pašeráctví”; Dohnalová, “Pašeráctví na československo–polských hranicích”; Mach, Střípky z minulosti Podorlicka.

31. Nagy, “Vendégmunka és csempészet,” 182–203; Farkas, “Csempészet a magyar–csehszlovák határon,” 49–53.

32. These include several works on tobacco smuggling, which was common even in the nineteenth century and most often had nothing to do with border crossing. So, it was not contraband but only trafficking. See Takács, A dohánytermesztés, 398–402; Dobrossy, Dohánytermesztés a Nyírségben, 65–8; Kiss, A szegény emberek élete, 332–45. (See also later notes for other ethnographic works on smuggling across the borders.)

33. These newspapers are scanned and fully searchable; see https://adtplus.arcanum.hu/hu/(accessed December 28, 2018).

34. The situation was different in the Czech provinces, where saccharine was also smuggled (together with tobacco) even before the First World War. Marek, Smrt v celním pásmu, 42–4.

35. CSML, IV.B.1407.b, no. 1642/1920.

36. Bódy, “Élelmiszer-ellátás,” 184.

37. “A csempészet mint szükséglet,” Esztergom és Vidéke, January 11, 1920.

38. “A csempész-ügy,” Esztergom és Vidéke, March 23, 1924; “Csempészek,” Nyírvidék, March 22, 1924.

39. “Ló- és arany-csempészés Csonka-Magyarországon át,” Új Barázda, March 9, 1921.

40. “Tudnivalók a keleti marhavészről,” Békésmegyei Közlöny, December 19, 1920 (appeared also in other newspapers, e.g. Egri Népújság, December 28, 1920).

41. Marek, Smrt v celním pásmu, 39; Toungoussov, “Fenomén pašeráctví,” 14–5, 55, 59, 62–4. For example, a cow cost 2200 crowns in Czechoslovakia and 600 crowns in Romania. The price of pure alcohol was five times higher (45 and 9 crowns per litre). See also Dohnalová, “Pašeráctví na československo–polských hranicích,” 34–44.

42. Public supply and controlled economy ended in Hungary gradually from 1921 to 1924. Bódy, “Élelmiszer-ellátás,” 192–3.

43. This analysis is based on my calculations from approximately 250 newspaper articles. For the list of newspapers used, see Bibliography.

44. Pántya, “A kettősbirtokosság,” 85–6; Vajda, Álmosd, 69–70. For gold smuggling, see “Három kiló aranyat és brilliánsot találtak Nyírtasson egy ökör gyomrában,” Nyírvidék, March 12, 1924; “Hogy csempészik a külföldre a magyar aranyat,” Szeged, February 20, 1921.

45. Boross, “A csempészés a Medvesalján,” 179–83; Dobossy, “A gömörszőllősi emberek,” 115–21; Nagy, “Karcsa cserekereskedelme,” 138–44; Viga, Árucsere és migráció, 162–3; Viga, Hármas határon, 52, 148–9.

46. SML, IV. 414, box 316. nos. 72/1920, 116/1920; box 327. no. 387/1922; box 331. no. 117/1923; “Szegeden megfogyatkoztak a csempészek,” Délmagyarország, May 9, 1920; “Elfogott csempészek,” Szeged, November 11, 1920.

47. CSML, IV.B.455.c, box 1. nos. 156/1924, 184/1924, 355/1924; CSML, IV.B.463.b, several cases in boxes 17–8; BéML, IV.B.434.d, box 387. nos. 105/1922, 126/1922, 183/1922, 191/1922.

48. Bálint, A szegedi paprika, 30–6.

49. “A paprika-árak nagy emelkedése,” Magyarország, July 30, 1923.

50. “Figyelő,” Pápa és Vidéke, August 11, 1920; there are several articles regarding eggs, e.g.: “Budapestre koncentrálják a tojásforgalmat,” Az Est, September 24, 1920; “Nagy tojáscsempészés,” Új Barázda, February 27, 1921; “A tojáscsempészek garázdálkodása,” Népszava, September 15, 1923; for butter, see: Horváth, Narda, 88–9. See also in archival sources, especially from Szentgotthárd district: VaML, IV.428.g, pile 6.

51. “Nyugat-Magyarország gazdasági helyzete és a csempészet oka,” Pápa és Vidéke, September 29, 1921.

52. The situation was similar at the Czechoslovak border; see Viga, Árucsere és migráció, 162.

53. “Kettős kordon a határ-csempészet ellen,” Az Est, January 25, 1920.

54. Order of the government no. 1210/1920. ME. r. (February 8), Budapesti Közlöny 54 no. 32 February 10, 1920.

55. There is another, albeit indirect, proof in archival sources. Infraction papers make up two piles both in Szombathely and Szentgotthárd counties in 1919, and there are several contraband cases among them. The number of all infraction cases in the archives is much less in the following years and smuggling is very rare among them. See VaML, IV.428.g, pile 6 (1919), pile 7 (1919), pile 8 (1920–24) and VaML, IV.430.g, pile 2 (1919), pile 3 (1919) and pile 4 (1920–22).

56. “Az elzárt határon,” 8 Órai Újság, July 4, 1920.

57. Marek, Smrt v celním pásmu, 40; Toungoussov, “Fenomén pašeráctví,” 40–1, 51–2, 58–65; Mach, Střípky z minulosti Podorlicka, 150–3.

58. Dohnalová, “Pašeráctví na československo–polských hranicích,” 34–44.

59. “Drótakadályokkal és spanyol lovasokkal akarják megvédeni a határi a csempészektől,” Pesti Napló, December 25, 1924.

60. “Óriási arányú csempészés folyik a szobi határon,” Az Est, August 20, 1924.

61. Emil Nagy, “A csempészcukor,” Budapesti Hírlap, December 4, 1925.

62. Pántya, “A kettősbirtokosság,” 85–6.

63. “Púpos dohány csempészek,” Körösvidék, July 31, 1921.

64. Even a police captain wrote that ‘smuggling is the most sympathetic crime in the eyes of the public’. Dániel Schreiber: “A nemzetközi csempészek trükkjei,” Pesti Napló, June 28, 1925.

65. Boross, “A csempészés a Medvesalján,” 180–1; “Cseh bélyegzővel csempésztek magyar lovakat Csehszlovákiába,” Magyarország, May 20, 1925.

66. “Milyen egy román határőrtiszt?,” Békésmegyei Közlöny, July 27, 1924.

67. Toungoussov, “Fenomén pašeráctví,” 82–4. For smuggling by women and Jews: ibid., 32–9.

68. “Munkában a csempészek. Lövöldözés a stájer határon,” Körösvidék, June 24, 1920.

69. “Csendőrök harca a csempészekkel,” Egri Népújság, January 11, 1921; “Lelőttek egy csempészt a határon,” Nyírvidék, October 10, 1922; “Csempésztragédia,” Friss Újság, June 11, 1925; “Agyonlőtt cukorcsempész,” Új Barázda, September 11, 1925.

70. “Három gyilkosság Sopron körül,” Prágai Magyar Hírlap, July 28, 1922.

71. Lethal casualties: “Véres küzdelem a cseh csendőrökkel,” Egri Népújság, Februrary 25, 1922 (Czechoslovak border); “Csempészek fegyveres összeütközése a Vámőrséggel,” Békés, May 16, 1923 (Romanian border). At the Yugoslav border I also found such incidents (but no one died): “Izgalmas csempészüldözés,” Szeged, April 13, 1924.

72. “A csempészek agyonvertek egy pénzügyőrt,” Prágai Magyar Hírlap, March 18, 1924. Most Czechoslovak financial guards were murdered in the first half of the 1920s; see Holub, Stůj! Finanční stráž!, 27–30. Most casualties took place in Slovakia, mainly at the Hungarian border; see Marek, Smrt v celním pásmu, 23, 28–31.

73. “Vígan folyik országszerte a csempészet,” Pesti Napló, June 28, 1925.

74. MNL OL, K70, pile 271. item 4/a. (Austria) and K70, piles 233–6, item 2/a. (Czechoslovakia).

75. SML, IV.B.414, box 327. no. 387/1922.

76. Urbanics was arrested by communists in 1919 and remained in custody during the Romanian occupation.

77. Law no. VI. of 1903. on passports, article 15. Magyar Törvénytár 1903 (Budapest: Franklin, 1904), 83–4.

78. CSML, IV.B.463.b, box 17. nos. 152/1920, 155/1920, 156/1920, 158/1920, 159/1920, 167/1920, 177/1920, 178/1920, 189/1920, 190/1920. Later on, however, other (high) sheriffs (Kálmán Urbanics and Endre Páll) treated such cases a little bit more rigorously.

79. VaML, IV.430.g, pile 2. nos. 21/1919, 27/1919, 100/1919, 101/1919, 125/1919; pile 3. nos. 128/1919, 145/1919, 149/1919.

80. VaML, IV.430.g, pile 4. no. 5/1920.

81. “Letartóztatták a soproni Közélelmezési Kirendeltség vezetőit,” 8 Órai Újság, April 30, 1920; “A soproni Kirendeltség nagyarányú gabonacsempészete,” 8 Órai Újság, May 1, 1920.

82. “Egy úri banda harminc milliót keresett szesz-csempészéssel,” 8 Órai Újság, January 22, 1921.

83. “Újabb fordulat az újhelyi szeszcsempészés ügyében,” Új Nemzedék, January 27, 1921.

84. “Milliós árucsempészést leplezett le a szegedi államrendőrség,” Szeged, November 10, 1921; “Másfélmillió jövedéki bírságot róttak ki Lusztig Ernőre,” Szeged, November 11, 1921; “Fogházbüntetésre ítélte az uzsorabíróság Lusztig Ernőt,” Szeged, January 21, 1922.

85. “Külföldre csempészik a trafikot,” Magyarország, September 21, 1921; “Trafikosok és dohánycsempészek az uzsorabíróság előtt,” Szegedi Híradó, September 10, 1922; “Nagyarányú dohánycsempészetet lepleztek le Miskolcon,” Népszava, February 1, 1923.

86. “Félmilliárd értékű egyiptomi cigarettát csempészett egy volt vámtiszt Budapestre,” Esti Kurír, April 22, 1925; “Megszervezett nagytőkés csoportok csempészik a külföldi cigarettát az országba,” Az Est, July 21, 1925; “Háromszázezer csempészett külföldi cigarettát foglaltak le a napokban az ellenőrző hatóságok,” Újság, February 21, 1926.

87. “Nagyarányú textilcsempészés a Futáránál,” Világ, November 24, 1923.

88. Jenő Lévay, “Érdekes adatok a textilbehozatal dzsungeljéből,” Magyarország, February 17, 1924.

89. “A szombathelyi vámcsalás ügyében letartóztatták a vámhivatal vezetőjét,” Az Est, February 10, 1924; “A szombathelyi textilcsempészés ügye,” Körösvidék, June 12, 1924.

90. “Ma délelőtt hirdették ki az ítéletet a szombathelyi textilcsempészek és vámcsalók bűnpörében,” Nyírvidék, October 22, 1924.

91. See, inter alia, Blumenthal, Bootleg.

92. Toungoussov, “Fenomén pašeráctví,” 83–4.

93. Bencsik, Kelet és Nyugat között, 104–7, 126, 228–32, 279–85.

94. Farkas, “Csempészet a magyar–csehszlovák határon,” 49–53.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Péter Bencsik

Péter Bencsik holds an MA in History and Geography from the University of Szeged and a PhD in History from the University of Pécs. He habilitated at the University of Pécs in 2019. Currently, he is an assistant professor at the University of Szeged. He is the author of, among others, A magyar úti okmányok története 1867–1945 (Tipico, 2003) and Kelet és Nyugat között: Államhatárok, úti okmányok, határátlépés Magyarországon és Csehszlovákiában (1945–1989) (MTA BTK, 2019). He is among the editors of The History of the Soviet Bloc 1945–1991: A Chronology (Cold War History Research Center, 2013 and 2016). He is member of the editorial board of Aetas, a journal of history and related disciplines.