Istvan Tisza

Istvan Tisza


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Istvan Tisza, the son of Kalman Tiszla, the premier of Hungary (1875-1890), was born in 1861. Like his father he became leader of the Liberal Party and became premier in 1903. He lost office in 1905 but returned to power in 1913.

Tisza's main concern was with Hungary's dispute with Rumania and along with Leopold von Berchtold, argued against an immediate invasion of Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. However, Tiszla and Berchtold were over-ruled by Franz Josef and Conrad von Hotzendorf, and war was declared on 28th July, 1914.

During the First World War Tiszla was accused of putting the interests of Hungary before those of the whole Austro-Hungarian Empire. His policy of supplying home needs before releasing surpluses for imperial use made him unpopular in Vienna.

In May 1917 Tiszla was dismissed by Emperor Karl I. Istvan Tisza was assassinated by communists in Budapest on 31st October 1918.


There are 173 census records available for the last name Tisza. Like a window into their day-to-day life, Tisza census records can tell you where and how your ancestors worked, their level of education, veteran status, and more.

There are 227 immigration records available for the last name Tisza. Passenger lists are your ticket to knowing when your ancestors arrived in the USA, and how they made the journey - from the ship name to ports of arrival and departure.

There are 167 military records available for the last name Tisza. For the veterans among your Tisza ancestors, military collections provide insights into where and when they served, and even physical descriptions.

There are 173 census records available for the last name Tisza. Like a window into their day-to-day life, Tisza census records can tell you where and how your ancestors worked, their level of education, veteran status, and more.

There are 227 immigration records available for the last name Tisza. Passenger lists are your ticket to knowing when your ancestors arrived in the USA, and how they made the journey - from the ship name to ports of arrival and departure.

There are 167 military records available for the last name Tisza. For the veterans among your Tisza ancestors, military collections provide insights into where and when they served, and even physical descriptions.


István Tisza -->

István Tisza (22. huhtikuuta 1861 Budapest – 31. lokakuuta 1918 Budapest) [1] oli unkarilainen kreivi ja valtiomies, joka toimi Unkarin pääministerinä vuosina 1903� ja 1913�. Hänet tunnettiin Itävalta-Unkarin kaksoismonarkian voimakkaana puolustajana. Tisza surmattiin krysanteemivallankumouksen käynnistyessä.

István Tiszan isä oli Unkarin liberaalipuolueen johtaja Kálmán Tisza. Tisza opiskeli Budapestissa, Berliinissä ja Heidelbergissa, ja hänestä tuli asiantuntija maatalouskysymyksissä. Hän aloitti uransa virkamiehenä Unkarin sisäministeriössä. [2] Tisza valittiin Unkarin parlamenttiin ensi kerran vuonna 1886 ja hän kohosi isänsä tavoin liberaalipuolueen johtoon. Hänestä tuli kaksoismonarkian ja perinteisen suurmaanomistuksen puolustaja. [1] Tiszalle tarjottiin hallituksenmuodostajan tehtäviä ensi kerran kesäkuussa 1903 Kálmán Széllin hallituksen kaaduttua, mutta hän ei saanut enemmistöhallitusta kasaan. Károly Khuen-Hrváryn lyhytikäisen hallituksen jälkeen Tiszasta tuli kuitenkin Unkarin pääministeri 31. lokakuuta 1903, ja hän otti itselleen samalla myös sisäministerin salkun. [2]

Tiszan hallitus esitti kiistoja herättänyttä armeijan uudistusta, joka olisi toisaalta vahvistanut Unkarin omien asevoimien kansallista luonnetta arvomerkkien ja upseerikunnan osalta, mutta toisaalta jättänyt Itävallan keisarille oikeuden määrätä koko valtakunnan asevoimille yhteinen komentokieli. Tämän seurauksena Albert Apponyin johtama kansallismielinen ryhmä erosi liberaalipuolueesta. Marraskuussa 1903 Tisza ajoi läpi lain, joka rajoitti mahdollisuutta jarrutuskeskusteluun, mikä käänsi myös Gyula Andrássyn tukijoineen häntä vastaan. Lisäksi oppositio onnistui kaikesta huolimatta estämään armeijauudistuksen käsittelyn ja hyväksymisen. Huhtikuussa 1904 Tiszan hallitus tukahdutti suuren rautatietyöläisten lakon. Kun parlamentin työjärjestyksen muuttamisesta seurannut hallituksen ja opposition suhteiden kiristyminen johti syksyllä 1904 häiriköintiin parlamentissa, Tisza järjesti tammikuussa 1905 hajotusvaalit. Hän ei saanut niissä kuitenkaan enemmistöä, ja jätti helmikuun alussa hallituksensa eron pyynnön. Uusi Géza Fejérváryn johtama hallitus saatiin kuitenkin nimitettyä vasta 19. kesäkuuta. [2]

Ensimmäisen pääministerikautensa jälkeen Tisza oli useita vuosia sivussa politiikasta. Vuonna 1910 hän perusti ”Kansallisen työn puolueen”, joka ilmoitti tavoitteekseen paluun käytännölliseen asioiden hoitamiseen useita vuosia kestäneiden perustuslakikiistojen jälkeen. Muun muassa Andrássy sekä János Zichy liittyivät uuteen puolueeseen, joka saavutti pian myös suuren vaalivoiton. Toimiessaan parlamentin alahuoneen puhemiehenä vuonna 1912 Tisza sääti jälleen uusia vihattuja rajoituksia jarrutuspuheenvuoroille, minkä seurauksena hän joutui jopa kaksintaisteluun oppositiojohtaja Mihály Károlyin kanssa tammikuussa 1913. Tisza palasi pääministeriksi 8. kesäkuuta 1913. [2]

Tisza oli huolissaan slaavilaisen v๎stön suuresta määrästä monikansallisessa Itävalta-Unkarissa ja sen unkarilaisessa puoliskossa. Heinäkuun kriisin aikana vuonna 1914 hän vastustikin sodan aloittamista Serbiaa vastaan, sillä hänen mielestään uusien slaavilaisten alueiden liittäminen valtakuntaan Balkanin suunnalla olisi horjuttanut kaksoismonarkiaa muuttamalla liikaa v๎störyhmien suhteita. Lisäksi se olisi voinut johtaa autonomian myöntämiseen slaavilaisille vähemmistökansallisuuksille Unkarin kustannuksella. Niinpä Tisza jarrutteli Itävallan hallituksen ja sotilasjohdon suunnitelmia hyökätä välittömästi Serbiaan heinäkuussa 1914, ja vaati diplomatian keinoihin turvatumista. [3] Kun ensimmäinen maailmansota kaikesta huolimatta syttyi, Tisza tuki lojaalisti Itävallan liittoa Saksan kanssa. [1] Hän takasi Unkarin täyden tuen kaksoismonarkian sotaponnistuksille, mutta odotti vastineeksi Unkarin intressien tunnustamista. Tiszan kannatus Unkarissa laski sodan pitkittyessä ja hänen asemansa vaikeutui Kaarle I:n tultua keisariksi joulukuussa 1916. [3] Eritysesti Tisza vastusti uuden keisarin innokkaasti ajamaa äänioikeuden laajentamista. Tiszan hallitus valmisteli vastentahtoisesti mahdollisimman varovaisen esityksen äänioikeuden muuttamisesta Unkarissa. Asiasta seurannut kiista keisarin kanssa johti Tiszan eroon 23. toukokuuta 1917. Hän palveli sen jälkeen everstinä Unkarin asevoimissa, mutta palasi vielä syksyllä 1918 osallistumaan neuvotteluihin Unkarin tulevaisuudesta. [2]

Maailmansodan lähetessä loppuaan ja Itävalta-Unkarin tappion tultua selväksi monet unkarilaiset katsoivat Tiszan olevan syyllinen sodan syttymiseen ja Unkarin kärsimyksiin sodassa, sillä hän oli saanut maineen sotapolitiikan jyrkkänä kannattajana. Vallankumouksen puhjetessa Unkarissa joukko sotilaita hyökkäsi 31. lokakuuta Tiszan kotiin ja ampui hänet. [1] [3] [2]


A historical debate on the Tisza trial, 1920-1921

I arrived at today’s topic in a circuitous way. I had already decided to pick a historical topic, but first I thought I would say a few words about Ervin Szabó (1877-1918). He was an early adherent of anarcho-syndicalism but is best known as the chief librarian of the Budapest public library that is named after him. Shortly after István Tarlós (Fidesz) became lord mayor of the city, he was confronted with demands that Szabó’s name be removed from the Ervin Szabó Library and the square where the central library stands. Tarlós, who is easily swayed when it comes to changing street names which he finds politically objectionable, this time had the good sense to resist.

Árpád Szakács, the man who led the campaign against Ervin Szabó in 2010, is still at it, six years later. The only difference is that instead of writing in Magyar Nemzet he now writes in Magyar Idők. Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis. Back in 2010 I checked out Szakács’s academic qualifications to be a historian and found none.

Reading Szakács’s renewed attacks on Szabó as an extreme left-wing thinker, I thought I should acquaint readers with Szabó’s work and his importance in Hungarian intellectual history. But then I found something that was much more intriguing. Szakács correctly noted that Szabó and other members of the Galilei Circle were involved in planning the assassination of Prime Minister István Tisza (1861-1918). His resignation as prime minister, however, made their plan obsolete. But then, Szakács continues, “the fourth successful assassination attempt on October 31, 1918 was also connected to the Galilei Circle.”

The original official investigation of the assassination didn’t get very far because of the turbulent times, but the case was eventually reopened in 1920-1921. There were two separate trials, one military and another civilian. At the military trial dozens and dozens of witnesses were called, but most of them knew practically nothing first-hand about the case. Yet two of the accused received death sentences while a third faced a fifteen-year jail sentence. The civilian court sentenced Pál Kéri (1882-1961), a renowned journalist, to death and Marcell Gaertner, a chemical engineer, to 14 years. István Friedrich, former prime minister of Hungary, and László Fényes, former member of parliament, were acquitted.

I have a special interest in this trial because I spent a lot of time trying to make sense of the very confusing domestic political scene in the fall of 1919 when István Friedrich was prime minister. Friedrich had a lot of enemies, on both the right and the left. When I first learned that he was accused of aiding and abetting in the assassination of István Tisza, I immediately thought of a trial Hungarians call “koncepciós per.” The Hungarian term is a more precise description of a show trial because in such cases the “concept” that dictates the direction of the trial has already been determined.

I had microfilm copies of contemporary newspapers which daily described the details of the Tisza trial. I must admit that my head was spinning after reading some of the testimony. Although dozens of witnesses were called to testify, the prosecutor’s case was based on the testimony of only two witnesses: Sándor Hüttner, a first lieutenant, and László Sztanykovszky, an ensign. As Miklós Komjáthy, a legal historian, noted, their testimony, which changed several times, “had the stamp of obvious coaching.” Hüttner admitted that “by now I can’t separate what I know for a fact from what I heard from others.” The charges against Pál Kéri were outright fabrications. Yet he was condemned to death.

Both trials were a travesty, and the suicide of the investigation judge, which happened between the end of the military and the beginning of civilian trial, added to the suspicion that all was not well with the Tisza case. Before his suicide the judge complained that “he wasn’t allowed to do his job and his superiors were not satisfied with his investigating methods.”

Kéri’s speech before sentencing was moving. He told the court that he knows as much about Tisza’s assassination as what he read in the newspapers. With special pride he recalled that his engraver grandfather, who produced the Hungarian government’s first bills, the so-called “Kossuth bankók,” also ended up in jail after the failure of the 1848-1849 revolution and war of independence.

The fact is that we still don’t know who killed István Tisza. Perhaps we never will, but one thing is certain: it was not Pál Kéri who organized the plot, if there was a plot at all. Kéri escaped death by being rescued by Soviet Russia in a prisoner-of-war swap. Kéri, not being a communist, left Russia and settled in Vienna, where he became the editor of Bécsi Magyar Újság and later wrote for Austrian left-wing publications. After the rise of Hitler, he came to the United States via Spain and Portugal. He died in 1961 in New York.

Historians who studied the documents of the trial, Tibor Hajdu and Ferenc Pölöskei, are certain that it was the first “koncepciós per” (show trial) in the history of the country. Komjáthy is convinced that the real target was the October 1918 revolution and the democratic republic it established. Kéri was just its symbol.

On the other side are people like Gábor Vincze, editor of Nagy Magyarország (Greater Hungary), a historical magazine, which is described as conservative and Hungaro-centric. (One cannot help wondering who finances the so-called scientific workshop that produces this very expensive-looking magazine.) Another historian who holds that the trial was fair is Zoltán Maruzsa, president of the Association of Friends of István Tisza.

Árpád Szakács and Gábor Vincze, two of the revisionist historians

Árpád Szakács, whose work inspired me to write this post, is the editor-in-chief of a far-right historical internet site called tortenelemportal.hu. He gave an interview to Magyar Demokrata, a far-right publication, in which he claimed that Hungarian historiography needs a total change of direction, something like Orbán’s revolution in the voting booths. He made no secret of his low opinion of those “older historians” who are not as well prepared as his generation. The work of these historians no longer serves the present and so should be discarded.

It would be fine if these people seriously investigated, for example, the Tisza trial and offered a credible argument against the earlier view that the trial was a sham. But no, Gábor Vincze offers as evidence the fact that “István Friedrich was acquitted.” Moreover, in order to label it a show trial, the court should have declared Mihály Károlyi, the president of the national council at the time of István Tisza’s assassination, guilty of aiding and abetting “when nothing of the sort happened.” Of course, these so-called arguments prove nothing. And Zoltán Mazsura contends that “after all, nobody was sentenced who was not guilty,” conveniently forgetting about Pál Kéri, who could have ended up in the gallows if not rescued by the Soviets.

Historical debates are healthy and necessary, but I wish that the “revisionists” would be slightly better prepared and not motivated by political considerations.


István Tisza

Count István Imre Lajos Pál Tisza de Borosjenő et Szeged (archaically English: Stephen Emery Louis Paul Tisza, or in short simple form Stephen Tisza 22 April 1861 – 31 October 1918) was a Hungarian politician, prime minister, political scientist, international lawyer, macroeconomist, member of Hungarian Academy of Sciences and champion duelist. The prominent event in his life was Austria-Hungary's entry into the First World War when he was prime minister for the second time. He was later assassinated during the Aster Revolution on 31 October 1918 - the same day that Hungary terminated its real union with Austria. Tisza supported the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary and was representative of the then liberal-conservative consent.

He had been a Member of Parliament since 1887 and had had abundant opportunities to see how the unyielding temper of the Emperor on the one hand, and the revolutionary spirit of the extremists on the other, were leading to a complete impasse. He himself supported the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of�. A social reactionary to the end, Tisza stubbornly opposed on principle the break-up of the large landed estates as well as even the most modest reform proposals that would have granted the suffrage to soldiers fighting at the front [1] (before 1918 only 10% of the Hungarian population could vote and hold office). However, in economic affairs, he tended to be a modernizer who encouraged and supported industrialization and, in that respect, he was an opponent of anti-Semitism, which he feared could jeopardize Hungary's economic development. Among the Hungarian political leaders, Tisza was the most zealous adherent of Dualism and the partnership with Austria. [2] The Austro-Hungarian Compromise, the Liberal party and István Tisza remained bitterly unpopular [3] among ethnic Hungarian voters. Thus - similarly to his father Kálmán Tisza - he could rely mostly on the political support of ethnic minorities during the parliamentary elections. [4]

In the diplomacy, Tisza's role model was Otto von Bismarck. As an economist, he followed the concepts of the English historical school of economics, as a lawyer and political scientist, Tisza favored the social and political development of England, which he considered as the "ideal way of development". [5]


Viktor Orbán’s latest historical idol, the controversial wartime prime minister István Tisza

For years the Orbán regime has been looking for political idols. The search for appropriate forerunners was initially confined to the interwar period, but there the pickings were slim. Fidesz eventually settled for István Bethlen, prime minister between 1921 and 1931, and his minister of education, Kuno Klebelsberg (1922-1931). Recently, the search was extended to the period between 1867 and 1918. Instead of opting for such attractive historical figures as Ferenc Deák, who negotiated Hungary’s home rule in 1867, or József Eötvös, the enlightened liberal minister of education whose education law, if it had been adhered to by later politicians, could have served as a model for a multi-national state, Fidesz politicians settled for István Tisza, prime minister of Hungary between 1903 and 1905 and again between 1910 and 1917.

István Tisza, who was assassinated exactly 100 years ago by unidentified soldiers returning from the front after four years of brutal fighting, was the Horthy era’s number one hero and martyr. An enormous statue was erected on Kossuth Square in 1933, and a year later his portrait was chosen to appear on a stamp in a well-known series, alongside Ferenc Deák, Lajos Kossuth, and István Széchenyi. The memorial in front of the parliament was damaged during the war and was subsequently destroyed. Today, a replica is again standing in the square as part of the Orbán government’s effort to recreate the square as it existed before 1945. Moreover, since 1990 Tisza statues have been erected all over the country.

In the next year and a half we can expect to see many books as well as scholarly and journalistic articles about the momentous events that took place between the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in October 1918 and the signing of the Treaty of Trianon in June 1920. Actually, several interesting articles have already appeared about the 1918 October Revolution and its aftermath, which reveal that even within the Fidesz camp there is no consensus as far as the events of 1918-1919 are concerned. Highlighting the confusion that exists in far-right circles are two articles that appeared in Origo. In one, Sándor Szakály, director-general of the pro-government Veritas Historical Institute, states that Mihály Károlyi had nothing to do with István Tisza’s murder, while another, published on the same day, insists that plans to kill Tisza were hatched in the Hotel Astoria, at the headquarters of the National Council, headed by Károlyi.

István Tisza had many enemies. All told, four attempts were made on his life. In 1912 an opposition politician tried to shoot him in parliament but missed. The second attempt occurred in the middle of the war. The third attempt came on October 16, 1918, when a communist anti-military group tried to kill him, but he again survived unscathed. The fourth assassination attempt, commemorated today, succeeded.

Endre Ady, the poet who was recently maligned in Magyar Idők, called him “the savage madman of Geszt,” the Tisza family’s ancestral home. I don’t have time to dwell on Tisza’s political views and career, but I should note at least two important facts. In 1910 only 6.4% of the population had the vote, and Tisza fought tooth and nail against any extension of voting rights for at least two reasons. He was afraid of the votes of the non-Hungarians within the country, and he also mistrusted the uneducated and the poor who might overthrow the small power elite on top. As far as women’s suffrage was concerned, he believed that “the party that implements the right of women to vote will lose the esteem of the Hungarian people.” As for the war, Tisza was very hesitant about an attack on Serbia because he was afraid of the outbreak of a war that Austria-Hungary might not survive. However, once he agreed, he never wavered in support of the war effort.

So, let’s see what Viktor Orbán had to say about István Tisza in his speech in front of the newly restored memorial. The theme of the speech, not surprisingly, was sovereignty. Hungary ended up in the war because the country was “chained to a multi-ethnic empire, a rock on its way to being shattered, which four years later reached the ground and broke into smithereens.” Viktor Orbán conveniently forgets that his much touted sovereignty would have meant the disintegration of the Kingdom of Hungary not in 1918-1919 but much earlier. Multi-national Hungary managed to receive shelter in that much cursed multi-ethnic empire. Orbán, in blaming Vienna for the attack on Serbia, seems to forget that it was in fact the Hungarian half of the Dual Monarchy that felt threatened by Serbian nationalism.

As far as his assessment of the events of the period as a whole is concerned, on the basis of this speech Viktor Orbán must be placed in the group of extreme right-wing interpreters of Hungarian history. He insists that the revolution that brought Mihály Károlyi to power was actually a coup and that the period between the end of October 1918 and March 1919 was nothing more than “a socialist operetta republic,” whose leaders “hated the old historic Hungary because it was proud and strong.” Neither Tisza nor the country wanted to become what “the red count and his friends wanted to see.”

Orbán extolled the virtues of Tisza, the martyred prime minister whose death allegedly “shook Hungary as did Miklós Zrínyi’s and István Széchenyi’s.” Well, I’m pretty sure that there was a small segment of Hungarian society that was shaken, but I’m certain that, given the mood of the country after four years of incredible suffering, most people looked upon his death with relief. Soldiers shot at the windows of the train that took his body to Geszt to be buried, and there were hundreds of people at the railroad stations who wanted to tie his body to the train to be dragged along. József Vass, a Christian socialist priest who became minister of education between 1920 and 1922, wrote at the time: “There was a funeral in Geszt not only István Tisza was buried but a whole political system with all its retainers.”


Fall from and Return to Power, 1906–1913 ↑

After the defeat at the polls, Tisza participated in the daily operations of the Upper House of Parliament between 1906 and 1910, but refrained from governmental politics. (His Liberal Party had also been dissolved). On 19 February 1910, Tisza founded the National Party of Work, which won the elections in June. His party opposed universal suffrage, but the number of voters still expanded significantly in 1913. Tisza was the leading figure in the governing party - one of the "strongmen" of Hungarian politics. Finally, on 22 May 1912, Tisza was elected speaker of the House, and he became Prime Minister for the second time on 7 June 1913.


History

The history of Debrecen&rsquos higher education dates back to the 16th century. The Reformed College of Debrecen, established in 1538, played a central role in education, teaching in native language and spreading Hungarian culture in the region, as well as in the whole country. The College soon became the most important cultural center in the whole country, where a great number of writers, scientists and politicians were educated at.


In the 18th century, the schools of Law and Theology were founded, and although no separate School of Medicine existed at that time, physicians were also trained within the walls of the College.

In 1908, the Calvinist Academy of Humanities was created, and in 1912, the Hungarian Royal University was founded. The College was a sound base for the Royal University, thus making the University of Debrecen a higher education institute with the longest continuous history in Hungary.

The university incorporated the Theology, Law, and Arts faculties of the College and also added a medical school. Teaching began in 1914, in the old Calvinist College buildings. The University was officially inaugurated on October 23, 1918.

In 1921, the university took the name of István Tisza, former prime minister of Hungary. In 1932, the university's main building, designed in eclectic and neo-baroque style, was completed making it one of the largest buildings in the city.

In 1949/1950, the University was restructured under communist control. The primary goal of the &ldquoreorganization&rdquo was to split the university into smaller, less influential institutions, and also to weaken or even dissolve units which did not fit the political agenda of the day.

The Faculty of Medicine became an independent university under the supervision of the Ministry of Health in 1951 (until 2000), the Faculty of Theology was returned to the Calvinist College, the Faculty of Law was discontinued, and members of the teaching staff were expelled from the University. The departments of English, French, Italian, German, and Classical Philology were closed down, while the Department of Russian expanded dramatically. The teaching of western languages only resumed after 1956, with the exception of Italian which was not offered again until the 1990s.


The Faculty of Natural Sciences became an independent faculty in 1949, and moved into the new Chemistry Building in 1970. In 1952 the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Natural Sciences changed their name to Lajos Kossuth University, which they retained until 2000.

On January 1, 2000, the colleges and universities of Hajdú-Bihar county, the University of Agriculture, Lajos Kossuth University, and the Medical University, were combined. The resulting University of Debrecen had five university and three college level faculties with 20,000 students. The Conservatory of Debrecen and University campuses in Hajdúböszörmény and Nyíregyháza joined later.

With a student body of about 28 thousand, over 6,900 of which are international students, the University of Debrecen is one of the largest institutions of higher education in Hungary and the whole region today. The cooperation of 14 faculties ensures the multidisciplinary background guaranteeing the University a leading role as a research and education institution, and the intellectual center of Eastern Hungary.


István Tisza

István Tisza (22. huhtikuuta 1861 Budapest – 31. lokakuuta 1918 Budapest) [1] oli unkarilainen kreivi ja valtiomies, joka toimi Unkarin pääministerinä vuosina 1903–1905 ja 1913–1917. Hänet tunnettiin Itävalta-Unkarin kaksoismonarkian voimakkaana puolustajana. Tisza surmattiin krysanteemivallankumouksen käynnistyessä.

István Tiszan isä oli Unkarin liberaalipuolueen johtaja Kálmán Tisza. Tisza opiskeli Budapestissa, Berliinissä ja Heidelbergissa, ja hänestä tuli asiantuntija maatalouskysymyksissä. Hän aloitti uransa virkamiehenä Unkarin sisäministeriössä. [2] Tisza valittiin Unkarin parlamenttiin ensi kerran vuonna 1886 ja hän kohosi isänsä tavoin liberaalipuolueen johtoon. Hänestä tuli kaksoismonarkian ja perinteisen suurmaanomistuksen puolustaja. [1] Tiszalle tarjottiin hallituksenmuodostajan tehtäviä ensi kerran kesäkuussa 1903 Kálmán Széllin hallituksen kaaduttua, mutta hän ei saanut enemmistöhallitusta kasaan. Károly Khuen-Héderváryn lyhytikäisen hallituksen jälkeen Tiszasta tuli kuitenkin Unkarin pääministeri 31. lokakuuta 1903, ja hän otti itselleen samalla myös sisäministerin salkun. [2]

Tiszan hallitus esitti kiistoja herättänyttä armeijan uudistusta, joka olisi toisaalta vahvistanut Unkarin omien asevoimien kansallista luonnetta arvomerkkien ja upseerikunnan osalta, mutta toisaalta jättänyt Itävallan keisarille oikeuden määrätä koko valtakunnan asevoimille yhteinen komentokieli. Tämän seurauksena Albert Apponyin johtama kansallismielinen ryhmä erosi liberaalipuolueesta. Marraskuussa 1903 Tisza ajoi läpi lain, joka rajoitti mahdollisuutta jarrutuskeskusteluun, mikä käänsi myös Gyula Andrássyn tukijoineen häntä vastaan. Lisäksi oppositio onnistui kaikesta huolimatta estämään armeijauudistuksen käsittelyn ja hyväksymisen. Huhtikuussa 1904 Tiszan hallitus tukahdutti suuren rautatietyöläisten lakon. Kun parlamentin työjärjestyksen muuttamisesta seurannut hallituksen ja opposition suhteiden kiristyminen johti syksyllä 1904 häiriköintiin parlamentissa, Tisza järjesti tammikuussa 1905 hajotusvaalit. Hän ei saanut niissä kuitenkaan enemmistöä, ja jätti helmikuun alussa hallituksensa eron pyynnön. Uusi Géza Fejérváryn johtama hallitus saatiin kuitenkin nimitettyä vasta 19. kesäkuuta. [2]

Ensimmäisen pääministerikautensa jälkeen Tisza oli useita vuosia sivussa politiikasta. Vuonna 1910 hän perusti ”Kansallisen työn puolueen”, joka ilmoitti tavoitteekseen paluun käytännölliseen asioiden hoitamiseen useita vuosia kestäneiden perustuslakikiistojen jälkeen. Muun muassa Andrássy sekä János Zichy liittyivät uuteen puolueeseen, joka saavutti pian myös suuren vaalivoiton. Toimiessaan parlamentin alahuoneen puhemiehenä vuonna 1912 Tisza sääti jälleen uusia vihattuja rajoituksia jarrutuspuheenvuoroille, minkä seurauksena hän joutui jopa kaksintaisteluun oppositiojohtaja Mihály Károlyin kanssa tammikuussa 1913. Tisza palasi pääministeriksi 8. kesäkuuta 1913. [2]

Tisza oli huolissaan slaavilaisen väestön suuresta määrästä monikansallisessa Itävalta-Unkarissa ja sen unkarilaisessa puoliskossa. Heinäkuun kriisin aikana vuonna 1914 hän vastustikin sodan aloittamista Serbiaa vastaan, sillä hänen mielestään uusien slaavilaisten alueiden liittäminen valtakuntaan Balkanin suunnalla olisi horjuttanut kaksoismonarkiaa muuttamalla liikaa väestöryhmien suhteita. Lisäksi se olisi voinut johtaa autonomian myöntämiseen slaavilaisille vähemmistökansallisuuksille Unkarin kustannuksella. Niinpä Tisza jarrutteli Itävallan hallituksen ja sotilasjohdon suunnitelmia hyökätä välittömästi Serbiaan heinäkuussa 1914, ja vaati diplomatian keinoihin turvatumista. [3] Kun ensimmäinen maailmansota kaikesta huolimatta syttyi, Tisza tuki lojaalisti Itävallan liittoa Saksan kanssa. [1] Hän takasi Unkarin täyden tuen kaksoismonarkian sotaponnistuksille, mutta odotti vastineeksi Unkarin intressien tunnustamista. Tiszan kannatus Unkarissa laski sodan pitkittyessä ja hänen asemansa vaikeutui Kaarle I:n tultua keisariksi joulukuussa 1916. [3] Eritysesti Tisza vastusti uuden keisarin innokkaasti ajamaa äänioikeuden laajentamista. Tiszan hallitus valmisteli vastentahtoisesti mahdollisimman varovaisen esityksen äänioikeuden muuttamisesta Unkarissa. Asiasta seurannut kiista keisarin kanssa johti Tiszan eroon 23. toukokuuta 1917. Hän palveli sen jälkeen everstinä Unkarin asevoimissa, mutta palasi vielä syksyllä 1918 osallistumaan neuvotteluihin Unkarin tulevaisuudesta. [2]

Maailmansodan lähetessä loppuaan ja Itävalta-Unkarin tappion tultua selväksi monet unkarilaiset katsoivat Tiszan olevan syyllinen sodan syttymiseen ja Unkarin kärsimyksiin sodassa, sillä hän oli saanut maineen sotapolitiikan jyrkkänä kannattajana. Vallankumouksen puhjetessa Unkarissa joukko sotilaita hyökkäsi 31. lokakuuta Tiszan kotiin ja ampui hänet. [1] [3] [2]


Första världskriget [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Hösten 1918 framträdde han ånyo i de politiska händelsernas förgrund och sökte, sedan centralmakternas nederlag allmänt insågs vara oundvikligt, verka för nationell samling kring programmet bästa möjliga fred för Ungern på grundvalen av presidenten Wilsons principer under upplösning av unionen med Österrike och bevarande av vänskapen med Tyskland. Då revolutionen bröt ut i Ungern 1918, blev Tisza ett av dess första offer och han mördades i sitt hem av en grupp soldater den 31 oktober.


Watch the video: Remembering Count István Tisza


Comments:

  1. Bart

    I apologize, but in my opinion you are wrong. Write to me in PM, we will handle it.

  2. Akinolrajas

    Smart things, speak)

  3. Whitlaw

    Something new, write esche very much.

  4. Cyrus

    It is a pity, that now I can not express - there is no free time. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion.

  5. Luigi

    Willingly I accept. In my opinion, it is an interesting question, I will take part in discussion.



Write a message