A recent article in a Hungarian newspaper has ignited a wave of discussions and controversies in the Czech Republic due to its provocative claims. The article proposes that Hungary should have capitalized on the 1968 situation and annexed regions of southern Czechoslovakia, citing the presence of a significant Hungarian population. The piece’s assertions have been met with skepticism and critique, with Czech historian Michal Stehlík condemning it for spreading historical distortions and nationalist rhetoric.

One of the central contentions in the article is that the Hungarian soldiers occupying Czechoslovakia in 1968 were not invaders but liberators welcomed by the local Hungarian population. Stehlík rebuts this assertion, emphasizing that no substantial evidence supports the notion that the Hungarian soldiers were hailed as liberators. Their presence, instead, was viewed as a manifestation of external occupation.

Stehlík takes further issue with the article’s use of the term “Upper Hungary,” asserting that it is an attempt to insinuate that this region is an inseparable part of Hungary’s historical crown, often referred to as Greater Hungary.

The article also proposes that a revision of borders based on ethnic identity could have been executed justly in 1968. Stehlík contests this notion, asserting that the primary aim of the occupation was to quell Czechoslovakia’s reforms and establish a cooperative regime. No territorial claims were made during that period, as such demands would likely have exacerbated an already delicate situation.

The controversy doesn’t end with these claims. The article asserts that the Beneš decrees, which sanctioned property confiscations from individuals identified as Nazi collaborators, are still effective today. It further contends that the Slovak state continues to expropriate land and forests from Hungarian landowners. Stehlík dismisses these claims as manipulative and false, emphasizing that the Hungarian minority in Slovakia currently enjoys comprehensive national rights. Additionally, no substantive political party representing the Hungarian community exists in the Slovak parliament.

While the article has triggered extensive debates, it underscores the imperative of discerning historical accuracy from manipulation. Stehlík underscores that the article perpetuates historical distortions and nationalist rhetoric, and that the circumstances in 1968 did not present an opportunity for Hungary to annex Czechoslovakian territories. Rather, the occupation sought to stifle reforms and establish a subservient regime. Objective and accurate interpretations of historical events are pivotal, devoid of political agenda-driven manipulation.

Article by Prague Forum