Treaty of Trianon

The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was prepared at the Paris Peace Conference and was signed in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles on June 4, 1920. It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I[1] and the Kingdom of Hungary.[2][3][4][5] French diplomats played the major role in designing the treaty, with a mind to establishing French-led coalition of the newly formed nations. It regulated the status of the independent Hungarian state and defined its borders generally within the ceasefire lines established in November–December 1918 and left Hungary as a landlocked state that included 93,073 square kilometres (35,936 sq mi), 28% of the 325,411 square kilometres (125,642 sq mi) that had constituted the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary (the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy). The new Kingdom had a population of 7.6 million, 36% compared to the pre-war kingdom's population of 20.9 million.[6] Though the areas that were allocated to neighbouring countries had a majority of non-Hungarians, in them lived 3.3 million Hungarians – 31% – who were now in a minority status.[7][8][9][10] The treaty limited Hungary's army to 35,000 officers and men, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy ceased to exist. These decisions and their consequences has been the cause of deep resentment in Hungary ever since.[11]

Treaty of Trianon
Arrival of the two signatories, Ágost Benárd and Alfréd Drasche-Lázár, on 4 June 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles
Signed4 June 1920
LocationVersailles, France
Effective31 July 1921
Signatories1. Principal Allied and Associated Powers
2. Central Powers
 Hungary
DepositaryFrench Government
LanguagesFrench, English, Italian
Treaty of Trianon at Wikisource
Paris Peace Conference
Events leading to World War II
  1. Treaty of Versailles 1919
  2. Polish-Soviet War 1919
  3. Treaty of Trianon 1920
  4. Treaty of Rapallo 1920
  5. Franco-Polish alliance 1921
  6. March on Rome 1922
  7. Corfu incident 1923
  8. Occupation of the Ruhr 1923–1925
  9. Mein Kampf 1925
  10. Pacification of Libya 1923–1932
  11. Dawes Plan 1924
  12. Locarno Treaties 1925
  13. Young Plan 1929
  14. Great Depression 1929–1941
  15. Japanese invasion of Manchuria 1931
  16. Pacification of Manchukuo 1931–1942
  17. January 28 Incident 1932
  18. World Disarmament Conference 1932–1934
  19. Defense of the Great Wall 1933
  20. Battle of Rehe 1933
  21. Nazis' rise to power in Germany 1933
  22. Tanggu Truce 1933
  23. Italo-Soviet Pact 1933
  24. Inner Mongolian Campaign 1933–1936
  25. German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact 1934
  26. Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance 1935
  27. Soviet–Czechoslovakia Treaty of Mutual Assistance 1935
  28. He–Umezu Agreement 1935
  29. Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935
  30. December 9th Movement
  31. Second Italo-Ethiopian War 1935–1936
  32. Remilitarization of the Rhineland 1936
  33. Spanish Civil War 1936–1939
  34. Anti-Comintern Pact 1936
  35. Suiyuan Campaign 1936
  36. Xi'an Incident 1936
  37. Second Sino-Japanese War 1937–1945
  38. USS Panay incident 1937
  39. Anschluss Mar. 1938
  40. May crisis May 1938
  41. Battle of Lake Khasan July–Aug. 1938
  42. Bled Agreement Aug. 1938
  43. Undeclared German-Czechoslovak War Sep. 1938
  44. Munich Agreement Sep. 1938
  45. First Vienna Award Nov. 1938
  46. German occupation of Czechoslovakia Mar. 1939
  47. Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine Mar. 1939
  48. German ultimatum to Lithuania Mar. 1939
  49. Slovak–Hungarian War Mar. 1939
  50. Final offensive of the Spanish Civil War Mar.–Apr. 1939
  51. Danzig Crisis Mar.–Aug. 1939
  52. British guarantee to Poland Mar. 1939
  53. Italian invasion of Albania Apr. 1939
  54. Soviet–British–French Moscow negotiations Apr.–Aug. 1939
  55. Pact of Steel May 1939
  56. Battles of Khalkhin Gol May–Sep. 1939
  57. Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact Aug. 1939
  58. Invasion of Poland Sep. 1939

The principal beneficiaries were the Kingdom of Romania, the Czechoslovak Republic, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and the First Austrian Republic. One of the main elements of the treaty was the doctrine of "self-determination of peoples", and it was an attempt to give the non-Hungarians their own national states.[12] In addition, Hungary had to pay war reparations to its neighbours. The treaty was dictated by the Allies rather than negotiated, and the Hungarians had no option but to accept its terms.[12] The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest, and agitation for its revision began immediately.[8][13]

The current boundaries of Hungary are the same as those defined by the Treaty of Trianon, with some minor modifications until 1924 regarding the Hungarian-Austrian border and the notable exception of three villages that were transferred to Czechoslovakia in 1947.[14][15]

Only one plebiscite was allowed about the disputed borders on the former territory of Kingdom of Hungary after World War I. It settled a small border dispute between Austria and Hungary in 1921, that was later known as the Sopron plebiscite. During the Sopron area plebiscite, the polling stations were supervised by army officers belonging to the Allied powers.[16]

Background

First World War
Main articles: World War I, American entry into World War I, and Fourteen Points

On 28 June 1914, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist.[17] This caused a rapidly escalating July Crisis resulting in Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, followed quickly by the entry of most European powers into the First World War.[18] Two alliances faced off, the Central Powers (led by Germany) and the Triple Entente (led by Britain, France and Russia). In 1918 Germany tried to overwhelm the Allies on the Western Front; it failed. Instead the Allies began a successful counteroffensive and forced the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that resembled a surrender by the Central Powers.[19] Irredentism--that is the demand for reunification of Hungarian peoples became a central theme of Hungarian politics and diplomacy.[20]

On 6 April 1917, the United States entered the war against Germany, and in December 1917 against Austria-Hungary. The American war aim was end aggressive militarism as shown by Berlin and Vienna. The United States never formally joined the Allies. President Woodrow Wilson acted as an independent force and his Fourteen Points was accepted by Germany as a basis for the armistice of November 1918. It outlined a policy of free trade, open agreements, and democracy. While the term was not used self-determination was assumed. It called for a negotiated end to the war, international disarmament, the withdrawal of the Central Powers from occupied territories, the creation of a Polish state, the redrawing of Europe's borders along ethnic lines, and the formation of a League of Nations to guarantee the political independence and territorial integrity of all states.[21][22] It called for a just and democratic peace uncompromised by territorial annexation. Point ten announced Wilson's “wish” that the peoples of the Austria-Hungary be given autonomy—a point that Vienna rejected.[23]

Austro-Hungarian Armistice, Aster Revolution and the First Hungarian Republic
Main articles: Armistice of Villa Giusti, Aster Revolution, and First Hungarian Republic

Germany, the major ally of Austria-Hungary in World War I, suffered numerous losses during Hundred Days Offensive between August and November 1918 and was in negotiation of armistice with Allied Powers from beginning of October 1918. Between 15 and 29 September 1918, Franchet d'Espèrey, in command of a large army of Greeks (9 divisions), French (6 divisions), Serbs (6 divisions), British (4 divisions) and Italians (1 division), staged a successful Vardar Offensive in Vardar Macedonia that ended by taking Bulgaria out of the war.[24] General Franchet d'Espèrey followed up the victory by overrunning much of the Balkans and by the war's end, his troops had penetrated well into Hungary. That collapse of the Southern Front was one of several developments that effectively triggered the November 1918 Armistice.[25] The political collapse of Austria-Hungary itself was now only a matter of days away. By the end of October 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Army was so fatigued that its commanders were forced to seek a ceasefire. Czechoslovakia and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs were proclaimed and troops started deserting, disobeying orders and retreating. Many Czechoslovak troops, in fact, started working for the Allied Cause, and in September 1918, five Czechoslovak Regiments were formed in the Italian Army. The troops of Austria-Hungary started a chaotic withdrawal in Battle of Vittorio Veneto and Austria-Hungary began to negotiate a truce on 28 October.

The Austro-Hungarian monarchy politically collapsed and disintegrated as a result of a defeat in the Italian Front (World War I). On 31 October 1918, in mid of armistice negotiations, the Aster Revolution in Budapest brought liberal Hungarian aristocrat Count Mihály Károlyi, a supporter of the Allied Powers, to power. King Charles had no other option than the appointment of Mihály Károlyi as prime minister of Hungary. During the war, Károlyi led a small but very active pacifist anti-war maverick faction in the Hungarian parliament.[26] He even organized covert contacts with British and French diplomats in Switzerland during the war.[27]. Károlyi yielded to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's demand for pacifism by ordering the disarmament of the Hungarian army. This happened under the direction of Béla Linder, (minister of war) on 2 November, 1918[28][29] The Hungarian Royal Honvéd army still had more than 1,400,000 soldiers[30][31] when Mihály Károlyi was announced as prime minister of Hungary. Due to the full disarmament of its army, Hungary was to remain without a national defence at a time of particular vulnerability. The Hungarian self-disarmament made the occupation of Hungary directly possible for the relatively small armies of Romania, the Franco-Serbian army and the armed forces of the newly established Czechoslovakia. During the rule of Károlyi's pacifist cabinet, Hungary lost the control over approx. 75% of its former pre-WWI territories (325,411 km2 (125,642 sq mi)) without a fight and was subject to foreign occupation.[32]

On the request of the Austro-Hungarian Government, an armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918 by the Allies[33]. Military and political events changed rapidly and drastically thereafter:

  • on 5 November 1918, the Serbian army, with the help of the French army, crossed southern borders,
  • on 8 November, the Czechoslovak Army crossed the northern borders,
  • on 10 November d'Espérey's army crossed the Danube river and was poised to enter the Hungarian heartland,
  • on 11 November Germany signed an armistice with Allies, under which they had to immediately withdraw all German troops in Romania and in the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire back to German territory and Allies to have access to these countries.[34] and
  • on 13 November, the Romanian army crossed the eastern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary.

The Armistice of November 3 signed with Austria-Hungary was completed as regards Hungary on 13 November, when Károlyi signed an armistice with the Allied nations in Belgrade, in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded.[35][36]. It limited the size of the Hungarian army to six infantry and two cavalry divisions.[37] Demarcation lines defining the territory to remain under Hungarian control were made. The lines would apply until definitive borders could be established. Under the terms of the armistice, Serbian and French troops advanced from the south, taking control of the Banat and Croatia. Czechoslovakia took control of Upper Hungary and Carpathian Ruthenia. Romanian forces were permitted to advance to the River Maros (Mureș). However, on 14 November, Serbia occupied Pécs.[38][39]

After King Charles's withdrawal from government on 16 November 1918 made Károlyi proclaim the First Hungarian Republic, with himself as provisional president of the republic.

Fall of the Hungarian liberal regime and communist coup d'état
Main article: Hungarian Soviet Republic

The Károlyi government failed to manage both domestic and military issues and lost popular support. On 20 March 1919, Béla Kun, who had been imprisoned in the Markó Street prison, was released.[40] On 21 March, he led a successful communist coup d'état; Károlyi was deposed and arrested.[41] Kun formed a social democratic, communist coalition government and proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Days later the Communists purged the Social Democrats from the government.[42][43] The Hungarian Soviet Republic was a small communist rump state.[44] When the Republic of Councils in Hungary was established, it controlled only approximately 23 percent of the Hungary's historic territory.

The Communists remained bitterly unpopular[45] in the Hungarian countryside, where the authority of that government was often nonexistent.[46] The communist party and communist policies only had real popular support among the proletarian masses of large industrial centers – especially in Budapest – where the working class represented a high proportion of the inhabitants. The communist government followed the Soviet model: the party established its terror groups (like the infamous Lenin Boys) to "overcome the obstacles" in the Hungarian countryside. This was later known as the Red Terror in Hungary.

In late May, after the Entente military representative demanded more territorial concessions from Hungary, Kun attempted to "fulfill" his promise to adhere to Hungary's historical borders. The men of the Hungarian Red Army were recruited mainly from the volunteers of the Budapest proletariat.[47] On 20 May 1919, a force under Colonel Aurél Stromfeld attacked and routed Czechoslovak troops from Miskolc. The Romanian Army attacked the Hungarian flank with troops from the 16th Infantry Division and the Second Vânători Division, aiming to maintain contact with the Czechoslovak Army. Hungarian troops prevailed and the Romanian Army retreated to its bridgehead at Tokaj. There, between 25–30 May, Romanian forces were required to defend their position against Hungarian attacks. On 3 June, Romania was forced into further retreat but extended its line of defence along the Tisza River and reinforced its position with the 8th Division, which had been moving forward from Bukovina since 22 May. Hungary then controlled the territory to its old borders; regained control of industrial areas around Miskolc, Salgótarján, Selmecbánya, Kassa.

In June, the Hungarian Red Army invaded the eastern part of Upper Hungary, claimed by the newly forming Czechoslovak state. The Hungarian Red Army achieved some military success early on: under the leadership of Colonel Aurél Stromfeld, it ousted Czechoslovak troops from the north and planned to march against the Romanian Army in the east. Kun ordered the preparation of an offensive against Czechoslovakia, which would increase his domestic support by making good on his promise to restore Hungary's borders. The Hungarian Red Army recruited men between 19–25 years of age. Industrial workers from Budapest volunteered. Many former Austro-Hungarian officers re-enlisted for patriotic reasons. The Hungarian Red Army moved its 1st and 5th artillery divisions—40 battalions—to Upper Hungary.

Despite promises for the restoration of the former borders of Hungary, the communists declared the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic in Prešov (Eperjes) on 16 June 1919.[48] After the proclamation of the Slovak Soviet Republic, the Hungarian nationalists and patriots soon realized that the new communist government had no intentions to recapture the lost territories, only to spread communist ideology and establish other communist states in Europe, thus sacrificing Hungarian national interests.[49] The Hungarian patriots and professional military officers in the Red Army saw the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic as a betrayal, and their support for the government began to erode (the communists and their government supported the establishment of the Slovak Communist state, while the Hungarian patriots wanted to keep the reoccupied territories for Hungary). Despite a series of military victories against the Czechoslovak army, the Hungarian Red Army started to disintegrate due to tension between nationalists and communists during the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic. The concession eroded support of the communist government among professional military officers and nationalists in the Hungarian Red Army; even the chief of the general staff Aurél Stromfeld, resigned his post in protest.[50]

When the French promised the Hungarian government that Romanian forces would withdraw from the Tiszántúl, Kun withdrew his remaining military units who had remained loyal after the political fiasco in Upper Hungary. Kun then unsuccessfully tried to turn the remaining units of the demoralized Hungarian Red Army on the Romanians.

Treaty preparation

The Hungarian “Conditions of Peace” were dated January 15, 1920, and their “Observations” handed in on February 20. French diplomats played the major role in the drafting, and Hungarians were kept in the dark. Their long-term goal was to build a coalition of small new nations led by France and capable of standing up to Russia or Germany. This led to the "Little Entente" of Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (since 1929 Yugoslavia).[51] The lengthy negotiation process was recorded on a daily basis by János Wettstein, deputy first secretary of the Hungarian delegation[52]. The treaty of peace in final form was submitted to the Hungarians on May 6 and signed by them in Grand Trianon[53] on June 4, 1920, entering into force on July 26, 1921.[54] The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Trianon. Instead it negotiated a separate peace treaty with Hungary in 1921 that did not contradict the terms of the Trianon treaty.[55]

Borders of Hungary
Drafted borders of Austria-Hungary in the treaties of Trianon and Saint Germain
The Hungarian delegation leaving Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, after the treaty was signed, 1920.
Part of a series on the
History of Hungary
 Hungary portal

The Hungarian government terminated its union with Austria on 31 October 1918, officially dissolving the Austro-Hungarian state. The de facto temporary borders of independent Hungary were defined by the ceasefire lines in November–December 1918. Compared with the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, these temporary borders did not include:

  • Part of Transylvania south of the Mureș River and east of the Someș River, which came under the control of Romania (cease-fire agreement of Belgrade signed on 13 November 1918). On 1 December 1918, the National Assembly of Romanians in Transylvania declared union with the Kingdom of Romania.[56]
  • Slovakia was proclaimed as part of Czechoslovakia (status quo set by the Czechoslovak legions and accepted by the Entente on 25 November 1918). Afterwards, the Slovak politician Milan Hodža discussed with the Hungarian Minister of Defence, Albert Bartha, a temporary demarcation line that had not followed the Slovak-Hungarian linguistic border, and left more than 900,000 Hungarians in the newly formed Czechoslovakia. That was signed on 6 December 1918.
  • South Slavic lands, which, after the war, were organised into two political formations – the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and Banat, Bačka and Baranja, which both came under control of South Slavs, according to the ceasefire agreement of Belgrade signed on 13 November 1918. Previously, on 29 October 1918, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia parliament, an autonomous kingdom within the Transleithania, terminated[57] the union[58] with the Kingdom of Hungary and on 30 October 1918 the Hungarian diet adopted a motion declaring that the constitutional relations between the two states had ended.[59] Croatia-Slavonia was included in a newly formed State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (which also included some other South Slavic territories, formerly administered by Austria-Hungary) on 29 October 1918. This state and the Kingdom of Serbia formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on 1 December 1918.

The territories of Banat, Bačka and Baranja (which included most of the pre-war Hungarian counties of Baranya, Bács-Bodrog, Torontál, and Temes) came under military control by the Kingdom of Serbia and political control by local South Slavs. The Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci, and other Slavs from Banat, Bácska and Baranya declared union of this region with Serbia on 25 November 1918. The ceasefire line had the character of a temporary international border until the treaty. The central parts of Banat were later assigned to Romania, respecting the wishes of Romanians from this area, which, on 1 December 1918, were present in the National Assembly of Romanians in Alba Iulia, which voted for union with the Kingdom of Romania.

  • The city of Fiume (Rijeka) was occupied by the Italian nationalists group. Its affiliation was a matter of international dispute between the Kingdom of Italy and Yugoslavia.
  • Croatian-populated territories in modern Međimurje remained under Hungarian control after the ceasefire agreement of Belgrade from 13 November 1918. After the military victory of Croatian forces led by Slavko Kvaternik in Međimurje against Hungarian forces, this region voted in the Great Assembly of 9 January 1919 for separation from Hungary and entry into Yugoslavia.[60]

After the Romanian Army advanced beyond this cease-fire line, the Entente powers asked Hungary (Vix Note) to acknowledge the new Romanian territorial gains by a new line set along the Tisza river. Unable to reject these terms and unwilling to accept them, the leaders of the Hungarian Democratic Republic resigned and the Communists seized power. In spite of the country being under Allied blockade, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was formed and the Hungarian Red Army was rapidly set up. This army was initially successful against the Czechoslovak Legions, due to covert food[61] and arms aid from Italy.[62] This made it possible for Hungary to reach nearly the former Galician (Polish) border, thus separating the Czechoslovak and Romanian troops from each other.

After a Hungarian-Czechoslovak cease-fire signed on 1 July 1919, the Hungarian Red Army left parts of Slovakia by 4 July, as the Entente powers promised to invite a Hungarian delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference. In the end, this particular invitation was not issued. Béla Kun, leader of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, then turned the Hungarian Red Army on the Romanian Army and attacked at the Tisza river on 20 July 1919. After fierce fighting that lasted some five days, the Hungarian Red Army collapsed. The Royal Romanian Army marched into Budapest on 4 August 1919.

The Hungarian state was restored by the Entente powers, helping Admiral Horthy into power in November 1919. On 1 December 1919, the Hungarian delegation was officially invited to the Versailles Peace Conference; however, the newly defined borders of Hungary were nearly concluded without the presence of the Hungarians.[63] During prior negotiations, the Hungarian party, along with the Austrian, advocated the American principle of self-determination: that the population of disputed territories should decide by free plebiscite to which country they wished to belong.[63][64] This view did not prevail for long, as it was disregarded by the decisive French and British delegates.[65] According to some opinions, the Allies drafted the outline of the new frontiers[66] with little or no regard to the historical, cultural, ethnic, geographic, economic and strategic aspects of the region.[63][66][67] The Allies assigned territories that were mostly populated by non-Hungarian ethnicities to successor states, but also allowed these states to absorb sizeable territories that were mainly inhabited by Hungarian-speaking populations. For instance, Romania gained all of Transylvania, which was home to 2,800,000 Romanians, but also contained a significant minority of 1,600,000 Hungarians and about 250,000 Germans.[68] The intent of the Allies was principally to strengthen these successor states at the expense of Hungary. Although the countries that were the main beneficiaries of the treaty partially noted the issues, the Hungarian delegates tried to draw attention to them. Their views were disregarded by the Allied representatives.

Some predominantly Hungarian settlements, consisting of more than two million people, were situated in a typically 20–50 km (12–31 mi) wide strip along the new borders in foreign territory. More concentrated groups were found in Czechoslovakia (parts of southern Slovakia), Yugoslavia (parts of northern Délvidék), and Romania (parts of Transylvania).

The final borders of Hungary were defined by the Treaty of Trianon signed on 4 June 1920. Beside exclusion of the previously mentioned territories, they did not include:

  • the rest of Transylvania, which together with some additional parts of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary became part of Romania;
  • Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia, pursuant to the Treaty of Saint-Germain in 1919;[69]
  • most of Burgenland, which became part of Austria, also pursuant to the Treaty of Saint-Germain (the district of Sopron opted to remain within Hungary after a plebiscite held in December 1921, the only place where a plebiscite was held and factored in the decision);
  • Međimurje and the 2/3 of the Slovene March or Vendvidék (now Prekmurje), which became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

By the Treaty of Trianon, the cities of Pécs, Mohács, Baja and Szigetvár, which were under Serb-Croat-Slovene administration after November 1918, were assigned to Hungary. An arbitration committee in 1920 assigned small northern parts of the former Árva and Szepes counties of the Kingdom of Hungary with Polish majority population to Poland. After 1918, Hungary did not have access to the sea, which pre-war Hungary formerly had directly through the Rijeka coastline and indirectly through Croatia-Slavonia.

1885 ethnographic map of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, i.e. Kingdom of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia according to the 1880 census

Representatives of small nations living in the former Austria-Hungary and active in the Congress of Oppressed Nations regarded the treaty of Trianon for being an act of historical righteousness[70] because a better future for their nations was "to be founded and durably assured on the firm basis of world democracy, real and sovereign government by the people, and a universal alliance of the nations vested with the authority of arbitration" while at the same time making a call for putting an end to "the existing unbearable domination of one nation over the other" and making it possible "for nations to organize their relations to each other on the basis of equal rights and free conventions". Furthermore, they believed the treaty would help toward a new era of dependence on international law, the fraternity of nations, equal rights, and human liberty as well as aid civilisation in the effort to free humanity from international violence.[71]

Results and consequences
The Red Map,[72][73] an ethnographic map of the Hungary proper publicised by the Hungarian delegation. Regions with population density below 20 persons/km2 (51.8 persons/sq. mi.)[74] are left blank and the corresponding population is represented in the nearest region with population density above that limit. The vibrant, dominant red color was deliberately chosen to mark Hungarians while the light purple color of the Romanians, who were already the majority in the whole of Transylvania back then, is shadow-like.[75]
  Hungarian
  German
  Slovak
  Ruthenians
  Romanian
  Serbian
  Regions with fewer than 20 persons/sq km

1910 census
Ethnographic map of the Kingdom of Hungary according to the 1910 census

The last census before the Treaty of Trianon was held in 1910. This census recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity. However, it is generally accepted that the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary in this time were the Hungarians. According to the 1910 census, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the kingdom, and 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e. excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Within the borders of "Hungary proper" numerous ethnic minorities were present: 16.1% Romanians, 10.5% Slovaks, 10.4% Germans, 2.5% Ruthenians, 2.5% Serbs and 8% others.[76] 5% of the population of "Hungary proper" were Jews, who were included in speakers of the Hungarian language.[77] The population of the autonomous Croatia-Slavonia was mostly composed of Croats and Serbs (who together counted 87% of population).

Criticism of the 1910 census

The census of 1910 classified the residents of the Kingdom of Hungary by their native languages[78] and religions, so it presents the preferred language of the individual, which may or may not correspond to the individual's ethnic identity. To make the situation even more complex, in the multilingual kingdom there were territories with ethnically mixed populations where people spoke two or even three languages natively. For example, in the territory what is today Slovakia (then part of Upper Hungary) 18% of the Slovaks, 33% of the Hungarians and 65% of the Germans were bilingual. In addition, 21% of the Germans spoke both Slovak and Hungarian beside German.[79] These reasons are ground for debate about the accuracy of the census.

While several demographers (David W. Paul,[80] Peter Hanak, László Katus[81]) state that the outcome of the census is reasonably accurate (assuming that it is also properly interpreted), others believe that the 1910 census was manipulated[82][83] by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian, pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the kingdom in the late 19th century.[84]

For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia,[85] compared to 30% based on 1910 census.

Some Slovak demographers (such as Ján Svetoň and Julius Mesaros) dispute the result of every pre-war census.[80] Owen Johnson, an American historian, accepts the numbers of the earlier censuses up to the one in 1900, according to which the proportion of the Hungarians was 51.4%,[76] but he neglects the 1910 census as he thinks the changes since the last census are too big.[80] It is also argued that there were different results in previous censuses in the Kingdom of Hungary and subsequent censuses in the new states. Considering the size of discrepancies, some demographers are on the opinion that these censuses were somewhat biased in the favour of the respective ruling nation.[86]

Distribution of the non-Hungarian and Hungarian populations

The number of non-Hungarian and Hungarian communities in the different areas based on the census data of 1910 (in this, people were not directly asked about their ethnicity, but about their native language). The present day location of each area is given in parenthesis.

Region
Main spoken language
Hungarian language
Other languages
Transylvania and parts of Partium, Banat (Romania) Romanian – 2,819,467 (54%) 1,658,045 (31.7%) German – 550,964 (10.5%)
Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) Slovak – 1,688,413 (57.9%) 881,320 (30.2%) German – 198,405 (6.8%)
Délvidék (Vojvodina, Serbia) Serbo-Croatian – 601,770 (39.8%)
* Serbian – 510,754 (33.8%)
* Croatian, Bunjevac and Šokac – 91,016 (6%)		 425,672 (28.1%) German – 324,017 (21.4%)
Kárpátalja (Ukraine) Ruthenian – 330,010 (54.5%) 185,433 (30.6%) German – 64,257 (10.6%)
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Muraköz and part of Baranya (Croatia) Croatian – 1,638,350 (62.3%) 121,000 (3.5%) Serbian – 644,955 (24.6%)
German – 134,078 (5.1%)
Fiume (Croatia) Italian – 24,212 (48.6%) 6,493 (13%) Croatian and Serbian – 13,351 (26.8%)
Slovene – 2,336 (4.7%)
German – 2,315 (4.6%)
Őrvidék (Burgenland, Austria) German – 217,072 (74.4%) 26,225 (9%) Croatian – 43,633 (15%)
Muravidék (Prekmurje, Slovenia) Slovene – 74,199 (80.4%) – in 1921 14,065 (15.2%) – in 1921 German – 2,540 (2.8%) – in 1921

According to another source, population distribution in 1910 looked as follows:

Region
Main ethnicity
Others
Transylvania and parts of Partium, Banat (Romania) 2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a greater percentage of Romanians (57.1% / 57.3%)[87] 2,431,273 "others" (mostly Hungarians – 1,662,948 (31.6%) and Germans – 563,087 (10.7%)). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a smaller Hungarian minority (26.5% / 25.5%).[87]
Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) 1,687,977 Slovaks [according to the 1921 census: 1,941,942 Slovaks] 1,233,454 "others" (mostly Hungarians – 886,044, Germans, Ruthenians and Roma) [according to the 1921 census: 1,058,928 of "others"]
Croatia-Slavonia, Délvidék (today in Croatia, Serbia) 2,756,000 Croats and Serbs 1,366,000 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans)
Kárpátalja (Ukraine) 330,010 Ruthenians 275,932 "others" (mostly Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Slovaks)
Őrvidék (Burgenland, Austria) 217,072 Germans 69,858 "others" (mainly Croatian and Hungarian)

Hungarians outside the newly defined borders
Difference between the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary within Austria-Hungary and independent Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon. Based on the 1910 Hungarian census with the Administrative Kingdom of Hungary in green and autonomous Croatia-Slavonia in grey

The territories of the former Hungarian Kingdom that were ceded by the treaty to neighbouring countries in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarian nationals; however, the Hungarian ethnic area was much larger than the newly established territory of Hungary,[88] therefore 30 percent of the ethnic Hungarians were under foreign authority.[89]

After the treaty, the percentage and the absolute number of all Hungarian populations outside of Hungary decreased in the next decades (although, some of these populations also recorded temporary increase of the absolute population number). There are several reasons for this population decrease, some of which were spontaneous assimilation and certain state policies, like Slovakization, Romanianization, Serbianisation. Other important factors were the Hungarian migration from the neighbouring states to Hungary or to some western countries as well as decreased birth rate of Hungarian populations. According to the National Office for Refugees, the number of Hungarians who immigrated to Hungary from neighbouring countries was about 350,000 between 1918 and 1924.[90]

Minorities in post-Trianon Hungary

On the other hand, a considerable number of other nationalities remained within the frontiers of the independent Hungary:

According to the 1920 census 10.4% of the population spoke one of the minority languages as mother language:

  • 551,212 German (6.9%)
  • 141,882 Slovak (1.8%)
  • 36,858 Croatian (0.5%)
  • 23,760 Romanian (0.3%)
  • 23,228 Bunjevac and Šokac (0.3%)
  • 17,131 Serbian (0.2%)
  • 7,000 Slovene (0.08%)

The percentage and the absolute number of all non-Hungarian nationalities decreased in the next decades, although the total population of the country increased. Bilingualism was also disappearing. The main reasons of this process were both spontaneous assimilation and the deliberate Magyarization policy of the state. Minorities made up 8% of the total population in 1930 and 7% in 1941 (on the post-Trianon territory).

After World War II approximately 200,000 Germans were deported to Germany, according to the decree of the Potsdam Conference. Under the forced exchange of population between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, approximately 73,000 Slovaks left Hungary and according to different estimations 120,500[91][92] or 45,000[93] Hungarians moved to present day Hungarian territory from Czechoslovakia. After these population movements, Hungary became a nearly ethnically homogeneous country.

Political consequences
Bordermark on the Hungarian-Romanian border near Csenger
The National Assembly in Alba Iulia (1 December 1918) – Union of Transylvania with Romania, seen as an act of national liberation by the Transylvanian Romanians
A statue of King Peter I, Karađorđević of Serbia at Freedom Square in Zrenjanin (Vojvodina, Serbia). The inscription on the monument says: "To the King Peter I, gratious people, to its liberator". Separation from the Kingdom of Hungary and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia was seen as an act of national liberation by the Vojvodinian Serbs.

Officially the treaty was intended to be a confirmation of the right of self-determination for nations and of the concept of nation-states replacing the old multinational Austro-Hungarian empire. Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked some new ones.[94]

The minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom were the major beneficiaries. The Allies had explicitly committed themselves to the causes of the minority peoples of Austria-Hungary late in World War I. For all intents and purposes, the death knell of the Austro-Hungarian empire sounded on 14 October 1918, when United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing informed Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister István Burián that autonomy for the nationalities was no longer enough. Accordingly, the Allies assumed without question that the minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom wanted to leave Hungary. The Romanians joined their ethnic brethren in Romania, while the Slovaks, Serbs and Croats helped establish nation-states of their own (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). However, these new or enlarged countries also absorbed large slices of territory with a majority of ethnic Hungarians or Hungarian speaking population. As a result, as many as a third of Hungarian language-speakers found themselves outside the borders of the post-Trianon Hungary.[95]

While the territories that were now outside Hungary's borders had non-Hungarian majorities overall, there also existed some sizeable areas with a majority of Hungarians, largely near the newly defined borders. Over the last century, concerns have occasionally been raised about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighbouring states.[96][97][98] Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land[99] in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian–Hungarian border (Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina.

The Allies rejected the idea of plebiscites in the disputed areas with the exception of the city of Sopron, which voted in favour of Hungary. The Allies were indifferent as to the exact line of the newly defined border between Austria and Hungary. Furthermore, ethnically diverse Transylvania, with an overall Romanian majority (53.8% – 1910 census data or 57.1% – 1919 census data or 57.3% – 1920 census data), was treated as a single entity at the peace negotiations and was assigned in its entirety to Romania. The option of partition along ethnic lines as an alternative was rejected.[100]

Another reason why the victorious Allies decided to dissolve the Central-European great power, Austria-Hungary, a strong German supporter and fast developing region, was to prevent Germany from acquiring substantial influence in the future.[101] The Western powers' main priority was to prevent a resurgence of the German Reich and they therefore decided that her allies in the region, Austria and Hungary, should be "contained" by a ring of states friendly to the Allies, each of which would be bigger than either Austria or Hungary.[102] Compared to the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, post-Trianon Hungary had 60% less population and its political and economic footprint in the region was significantly reduced. Hungary lost connection to strategic military and economic infrastructure due to the concentric layout of the railway and road network, which the borders bisected. In addition, the structure of its economy collapsed, because it had relied on other parts of the pre-war Kingdom. The country also lost access to the Mediterranean and to the important sea port of Rijeka (Fiume), and became landlocked, which had a negative effect on sea trading and strategic naval operations. Furthermore, many trading routes that went through the newly defined borders from various parts of the pre-war kingdom were abandoned.

With regard to the ethnic issues, the Western powers were aware of the problem posed by the presence of so many Hungarians (and Germans) living outside the new nation-states of Hungary and Austria. The Romanian delegation to Versailles feared in 1919 that the Allies were beginning to favour the partition of Transylvania along ethnic lines to reduce the potential exodus and Prime Minister Ion I. C. Brătianu even summoned British-born Queen Marie to France to strengthen their case. The Romanians had suffered a higher relative casualty rate in the war than either Britain[103][104][105] or France[104][105][106] so it was considered that the Western powers had a moral debt to repay. In absolute terms, Romanian troops had considerably fewer casualties than either Britain or France, however.[105] The underlying reason for the decision was a secret pact between The Entente and Romania.[107] In the Treaty of Bucharest (1916) Romania was promised Transylvania and some other territories to the east of river Tisza, provided that she attacked Austria-Hungary from the south-east, where defences were weak. However, after the Central Powers had noticed the military manoeuvre, the attempt was quickly choked off and Bucharest fell in the same year.

The Trianon cross at Kőszeg is pointing onto the former territories of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary that were not assigned to post-Trianon Hungary.
Trianon memorial, Békéscsaba

By the time the victorious Allies arrived in France, the treaty was already settled, which made the outcome inevitable. At the heart of the dispute lay fundamentally different views on the nature of the Hungarian presence in the disputed territories. For Hungarians, the outer territories were not seen as colonial territories, but rather part of the core national territory.[108] The non-Hungarians that lived in the Pannonian Basin saw the Hungarians as colonial-style rulers who had oppressed the Slavs and Romanians since 1848, when they introduced laws that the language used in education and in local offices was to be Hungarian.[109] For non-Hungarians from the Pannonian Basin it was a process of decolonisation instead of a punitive dismemberment (as was seen by the Hungarians).[110] The Hungarians did not see it this way because the newly defined borders did not fully respect territorial distribution of ethnic groups,[111] with areas where there were Hungarian majorities[111] outside the new borders. The French sided with their allies the Romanians who had a long policy of cultural ties to France since the country broke from the Ottoman Empire (due in part to the relative ease at which Romanians could learn French)[112] although Clemenceau personally detested Bratianu.[110] President Wilson initially supported the outline of a border that would have more respect to ethnic distribution of population based on the Coolidge Report, led by A. C. Coolidge, a Harvard professor, but later gave in, due to changing international politics and as a courtesy to other allies.[113]

For Hungarian public opinion, the fact that almost three-fourths of the pre-war kingdom's territory and a significant number of ethnic Hungarians were assigned to neighbouring countries triggered considerable bitterness. Most Hungarians preferred to maintain the territorial integrity of the pre-war kingdom. The Hungarian politicians claimed that they were ready to give the non-Hungarian ethnicities a great deal of autonomy.[114] Most Hungarians regarded the treaty as an insult to the nation's honour. The Hungarian political attitude towards Trianon was summed up in the phrases Nem, nem, soha! ("No, no, never!") and Mindent vissza! ("Return everything!" or "Everything back!").[115] The perceived humiliation of the treaty became a dominant theme in inter-war Hungarian politics, analogous with the German reaction to the Treaty of Versailles.

By the arbitrations of Germany and Italy, Hungary expanded its borders towards neighbouring countries before and during World War II. This started by the First Vienna Award, then was continued with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1939 (annexation of the remainder of Carpathian Ruthenia and a small strip from eastern Slovakia), aftrwards by the Second Vienna Award in 1940, and finally by the annexations of territories after the breakup of Yugoslavia. This territorial expansion was short-lived, since the post-war Hungarian boundaries in the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 were nearly identical to those of 1920 (with three villages – Horvátjárfalu, Oroszvár, and Dunacsún – transferred to Czechoslovakia).[116]

Memories

The outcome of the Treaty of Trianon is to this day remembered in Hungary as the Trianon trauma.[99] According to a study, two-thirds of Hungarians agreed in 2020 that parts of neighbouring countries should belong to them, the highest percentage of all NATO countries.[117]

Hungary's bitter memory was also a source of regional tension after the Cold War ended in 1989.[108] Hungary attracted international media attention in 1999 for passing the "status law" concerning estimated three-million ethnic Hungarian minorities in neighbouring Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia and Ukraine. The law aimed to provide education, health benefits and employment rights to those, and was said to heal the negative effects of the disastrous 1920 Trianon Treaty.[118][119]

Economic consequences
Trianon memorial, Kiskunhalas

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was one economic unit with autarkic characteristics[120][121] during its golden age and therefore achieved rapid growth, especially in the early 20th century when GNP grew by 1.76%.[122] (That level of growth compared very favourably to that of other European nations such as Britain (1.00%), France (1.06%), and Germany (1.51%).) There was also a division of labour present throughout the empire: that is, in the Austrian part of the Monarchy manufacturing industries were highly advanced, while in the Kingdom of Hungary an agroindustrial economy had emerged. By the late 19th century, economic growth of the eastern regions consistently surpassed that of western, thus discrepancies eventually began to diminish. The key success of fast development was specialisation of each region in fields that they were best.

The Kingdom of Hungary was the main supplier of wheat, rye, barley and other various goods in the empire and these comprised a large portion of the empire's exports.[123] Meanwhile, the territory of present-day Czech Republic (Kingdom of Bohemia) owned 75% of the whole industrial capacity of former Austria-Hungary.[124] This shows that the various parts of the former monarchy were economically interdependent. As a further illustration of this issue, post-Trianon Hungary produced 500% more agricultural goods than it needed for itself[125] and mills around Budapest (some of the largest ones in Europe at the time) operated at 20% level. As a consequence of the treaty, all the competitive industries of the former empire were compelled to close doors, as great capacity was met by negligible demand owing to economic barriers presented in the form of the newly defined borders.

Post-Trianon Hungary possessed 90% of the engineering and printing industry of the pre-war Kingdom, while only 11% of timber and 16% of iron was retained. In addition, 61% of arable land, 74% of public roads, 65% of canals, 62% of railroads, 64% of hard surface roads, 83% of pig iron output, 55% of industrial plants, and 67% of credit and banking institutions of the former Kingdom of Hungary lay within the territory of Hungary's neighbours.[126][127][128] New borders also bisected transport links – in the Kingdom of Hungary the road and railway network had a radial structure, with Budapest in the centre. Many roads and railways, running along the newly defined borders and interlinking radial transport lines, ended up in different, highly introvert countries. Hence, much of the rail cargo traffic of the emergent states was virtually paralysed.[129] These factors all combined created some imbalances in the now separated economic regions of the former Monarchy.

Professor A. C. Coolidge

The disseminating economic problems had been also noted in the Coolidge Report as a serious potential aftermath of the treaty.[65] This opinion was not taken into account during the negotiations. Thus, the resulting uneasiness and despondency of one part of the concerned population was later one of the main antecedents of World War II. Unemployment levels in Austria, as well as in Hungary, were dangerously high, and industrial output dropped by 65%. What happened to Austria in industry happened to Hungary in agriculture where production of grain declined by more than 70%.[130] Austria, especially the imperial capital Vienna, was a leading investor of development projects throughout the empire with more than 2.2 billion crown capital. This sum sunk to a mere 8.6 million crowns after the treaty took effect and resulted in a starving of capital in other regions of the former empire.[131]

The disintegration of the multi-national state conversely impacted neighbouring countries, too: In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria a fifth to a third of the rural population could find no work, and industry was in no position to absorb them.

In comparison, by 1921 the new Czechoslovak state reached 75% of its pre-war production owing to their favourable position among the victors, and greater associated access to international rehabilitation resources.[132]

With the creation of customs barriers and fragmented protective economies, the economic growth and outlook in the region sharply declined,[133] ultimately culminating in a deep recession. It proved to be immensely challenging for the successor states to successfully transform their economies to adapt to the new circumstances. All the formal districts of Austria-Hungary used to rely on each other's exports for growth and welfare; by contrast, 5 years after the treaty, traffic of goods between the countries dropped to less than 5% of its former value. This could be attributed to the introduction of aggressive nationalistic policies by local political leaders.[134]

The drastic shift in economic climate forced the countries to re-evaluate their situation and to promote industries where they had fallen short. Austria and Czechoslovakia subsidised the mill, sugar and brewing industries, while Hungary attempted to increase the efficiency of iron, steel, glass and chemical industries.[120][135] The stated objective was that all countries should become self-sufficient. This tendency, however, led to uniform economies and competitive economic advantage of long well-established industries and research fields evaporated. The lack of specialisation adversely affected the whole Danube-Carpathian region and caused a distinct setback of growth and development compared to the West as well as high financial vulnerability and instability.[136][137]

Miscellaneous consequences
Memorial in Csátalja

Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia had to assume part of the financial obligations of the former Kingdom of Hungary on account of the parts of its former territory that were assigned under their sovereignty.

Some conditions of the Treaty were similar to those imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. After the war, the Austro-Hungarian navy, air force and army were disbanded. The army of post-Trianon Hungary was to be restricted to 35,000 men and there was to be no conscription. Heavy artillery, tanks and air force were prohibited.[128] Further provisions stated that in Hungary, no railway would be built with more than one track, because at that time railways held substantial strategic importance economically and militarily.[138]

Hungary also renounced all privileges in territories outside Europe that were administered by the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

Articles 54–60 of the Treaty required Hungary to recognise various rights of national minorities within its borders.[139]

Articles 61–66 stated that all former citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary living outside the newly defined frontiers of Hungary were to ipso facto lose their Hungarian nationality in one year.[140]

gollark: Perhaps we should just talk textually.
gollark: Oh, and because of the whole inefficient SVG format it would be an overly large SVG.
gollark: Most of the high-power stuff like that is task-specific and only really usable for multiplying big matrices by vectors, and such.
gollark: It would be nontrivial to make something render SVGs on so much computing power without ridiculous overhead/waste.
gollark: Well, according to estimates, my brain would require about an exaflop/s of computing power to run.

See also

Notes
  1. The United States ended the war with the U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty (1921)
  2. Craig, G. A. (1966). Europe since 1914. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  3. Grenville, J. A. S. (1974). The Major International Treaties 1914–1973. A history and guides with texts. Methnen London.
  4. Lichtheim, G. (1974). Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Praeger.
  5. "Text of the Treaty, Treaty of Peace Between The Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary And Protocol and Declaration, Signed at Trianon June 4, 1920". Retrieved 10 June 2009.
  6. "Open-Site:Hungary".
  7. Richard C. Frucht (31 December 2004). Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture. ABC-CLIO. p. 360. ISBN 978-1-57607-800-6.
  8. "Trianon, Treaty of". The Columbia Encyclopedia. 2009.
  9. Macartney, C. A. (1937). Hungary and her successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences 1919–1937. Oxford University Press.
  10. Bernstein, Richard (9 August 2003). "East on the Danube: Hungary's Tragic Century". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2008.
  11. Michael Toomey, "History, nationalism and democracy: myth and narrative in Viktor Orbán’s ‘illiberal Hungary’." New Perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of Central & East European Politics and International Relations 26.1 (2018): 87–108.
  12. Martin P. van den Heuvel, Jan Geert Siccama: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia, Yearbook of European Studies, 1992
  13. Tucker, Spencer; Priscilla Mary Roberts (2005). Encyclopedia of World War I (1 ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 1183. ISBN 978-1-85109-420-2. Virtually the entire population of what remained of Hungary regarded the Treaty of Trianon as manifestly unfair, and agitation for revision began immediately.
  14. Botlik, József (June 2008). "AZ ŐRVIDÉKI (BURGENLANDI) MAGYARSÁG SORSA". vasiszemle.hu. VASI SZEMLE.
  15. http://adatbank.sk/lexikon/pozsonyi-hidfo/
  16. Irredentist and National Questions in Central Europe, 1913–1939: Hungary, 2v, Volume 5, Part 1 of Irredentist and National Questions in Central Europe, 1913–1939 Seeds of conflict. Kraus Reprint. 1973. p. 69.
  17. Tucker & Roberts 2005, pp. xxv, 9.
  18. Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 1078.
  19. Andrew Wiest, The Western Front 1917–1918: From Vimy Ridge to Amiens and the Armistice (2012) pp 126, 168, 200.
  20. Anna Menyhért, "The Image of the “Maimed Hungary” in 20th Century Cultural Memory and the 21st Century Consequences of an Unresolved Collective Trauma: The Impact of the Treaty of Trianon." Environment, Space, Place 8.2 (2016): 69–97. online
  21. Tucker & Roberts 2005a, pp. 429.
  22. Fourteen Points Speech
  23. Peter Pastor, "The United States' Role in the Shaping of the Peace Treaty of Trianon." The Historian 76.3 (2014): 550–566.
  24. Sondhaus 2011, p. 416.
  25. Keegan, John. The First World War. p. 442. ISBN 0-09-180178-8.
  26. Robert Paxton; Julie Hessler (2011). Europe in the Twentieth Century. CEngage Learning. p. 129. ISBN 9780495913191.
  27. Deborah S. Cornelius (2011). Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron. Fordham University Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780823233434.
  28. Dixon J. C. Defeat and Disarmament, Allied Diplomacy and Politics of Military Affairs in Austria, 1918–1922. Associated University Presses 1986. p. 34.
  29. Sharp A. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking after the First World War, 1919–1923. Palgrave Macmillan 2008. p. 156. ISBN 9781137069689.
  30. Martin Kitchen (2014). Europe Between the Wars. Routledge. p. 190. ISBN 9781317867531.
  31. Ignác Romsics (2002). Dismantling of Historic Hungary: The Peace Treaty of Trianon, 1920 Issue 3 of CHSP Hungarian authors series East European monographs. Social Science Monographs. p. 62. ISBN 9780880335058.
  32. Agárdy, Csaba (6 June 2016). "Trianon volt az utolsó csepp – A Magyar Királyság sorsa már jóval a békeszerződés aláírása előtt eldőlt". veol.hu. Mediaworks Hungary Zrt.
  33. "ARMISTICE WITH AUSTRIA-HUNGARY" (PDF). Library of Congress. US Congress. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
  34. Convention (PDF), 11 November 1918, archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2018, retrieved 17 November 2017
  35. "MILITARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH HUNGARY" (PDF). Library of Congress. US Congress. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
  36. Naval War College (U.S.) (1922). International Law Studies. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 187. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  37. Krizman B. The Belgrade Armistice of 13 November 1918 Archived 26 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine in The Slavonic and East European Review January 1970, 48:110.
  38. Roberts, P. M. (1929). World War I: A Student Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 1824. ISBN 9781851098798.
  39. Breit J. Hungarian Revolutionary Movements of 1918–19 and the History of the Red War in Main Events of the Károlyi Era Budapest 1929. pp. 115–116.
  40. Sachar H. M. Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War. Knopf Doubleday 2007. p. 409. ISBN 9780307425676.
  41. Tucker S. World War I: the Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection ABC-CLIO 2014. p. 867. ISBN 9781851099658.
  42. Dowling T.C. Russia at War: From the Mongol Conquest to Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Beyond. ABC-CLIO 2014 p. 447 ISBN 9781598849486.
  43. Andelman D. A. A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today. John Wiley and Sons 2009. p. 193 ISBN 9780470564721.
  44. John C. Swanson (2017). Tangible Belonging: Negotiating Germanness in Twentieth-Century Hungary. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 80. ISBN 9780822981992.
  45. Robin Okey (2003). Eastern Europe 1740–1985: Feudalism to Communism. Routledge. p. 162. ISBN 9781134886876.
  46. John Lukacs (1990). Budapest 1900: A Historical Portrait of a City and Its Culture. Grove Press. p. 2012. ISBN 9780802132505.
  47. Eötvös Loránd University (1979). Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio philosophica et sociologica. 13–15. Universita. p. 141.
  48. Jack A. Goldstone (2015). The Encyclopedia of Political Revolutions. Routledge. p. 227. ISBN 9781135937584.
  49. Peter Pastor (1988). Revolutions and Interventions in Hungary and Its Neighbor States, 1918–1919. 20. Social Science Monographs. p. 441. ISBN 9780880331371.
  50. Peter F. Sugar; Péter Hanák; Tibor Frank (1994). A History of Hungary. Indiana University Press. p. 308. ISBN 9780253208675.
  51. Peter Hanák, "Hungary on a fixed course: An outline of Hungarian history, 1918–1945." in Joseph Held, ed., Columbia history of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century (1992) p 168.
  52. Zeidler, Miklós (2018). A Magyar Békeküldöttség naplója [Diary of the Hungarian Peace Delegation] (in Hungarian). Budapest, MTA: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet (Historical Sciences Institute, Social Sciences Research Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences).
  53. "Grand Trianon in Versailles Palace. Facts". Paris Digest. 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  54. "The Paris Peace Conference, 1919". Office of the Historian. US Department of State. Retrieved 23 May 2020. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  55. Peter Pastor, "The United States' Role in the Shaping of the Peace Treaty of Trianon." Historian 76.3 (2014) p 566.
  56. Laszlo Kurti, The Remote Borderland: Transylvania in the Hungarian Imagination (SUNY Press, 2014).
  57. "Povijest saborovanja" [History of parliamentarism] (in Croatian). Sabor. Archived from the original on 10 June 2007. Retrieved 18 October 2010.
  58. "Constitution of Union between Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary". H-net.org. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  59. "Wide anarchy in Austria" (PDF). New York Times. 1 November 1918. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  60. "Hrvatski sabor". Sabor.hr. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  61. "Die Ereignisse in der Slovakei", Der Demokrat (morning edition), 4 June 1919.
  62. "Die italienisch-ungarische Freundschaft", Bohemia, 29 June 1919.
  63. Arno J. Mayer. Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking. Containment and Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919. New York, 1967. p. 369
  64. David Hunter Miller, XVIII, 496.
  65. Francis Deak, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference. The Diplomatic History of the Treaty of Trianon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 45.
  66. Miller, Vol. IV, 209. Document 246. "Outline of Tentative Report and Recommendations Prepared by the Intelligence Section, in Accordance with Instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries 21 January 1919."
  67. Miller. IV. 234., 245.
  68. Történelmi világatlasz [World Atlas of History] (in Hungarian). Cartographia. 1998. ISBN 963-352-519-5.
  69. Peter Pastor, "Hungarian and Soviet Efforts to Possess Ruthenia" Historian (2019) 81#3 pp 398–425.
  70. Michálek, Slavomír (1999). Diplomat Štefan Osuský (in Slovak). Bratislava: Veda. ISBN 80-224-0565-5.
  71. "Prague Congress of Oppressed nations, Details that Austrian censor suppressed – Text of revolutionary proclamation". The New York Times. 23 August 1918. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  72. "Teleki Pál – egy ellentmondásos életút". National Geographic Hungary (in Hungarian). 18 February 2004. Retrieved 30 January 2008.
  73. "A kartográfia története" (in Hungarian). Babits Publishing Company. Retrieved 30 January 2008.
  74. Spatiul istoric si etnic romanesc, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1992
  75. "Browse Hungary's detailed ethnographic map made for the Treaty of Trianon online". dailynewshungary.com. 9 May 2017.
  76. Frucht, p. 356.
  77. A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918, 1948.
  78. Károly Kocsis, Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi: Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin, EXEN, 1998
  79. Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, p. 57.
  80. Brass, p. 156.
  81. Brass, p. 132.
  82. Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (3 February 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  83. Murad, Anatol (1968). Franz Joseph I of Austria and his Empire. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  84. Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. doi:10.2307/2603603.
  85. Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932.
  86. Kirk, Dudley (1 January 1969). Europe's Population in the Interwar Years. New York: Gordon and Bleach, Science Publishers. p. 226. ISBN 0-677-01560-7.
  87. Árpád Varga. "Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995".
  88. Piotr Eberhardt, Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: History, Data, and Analysis, M.E. Sharpe, 2003, pp. 290–299
  89. Uri Ra'anan, State and Nation in Multi-Ethnic Societies: The Breakup of Multinational States, Manchester University Press, 1991, p. 106
  90. Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi, p. 19.
  91. Károly Kocsis; Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi (1 December 1998). Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minority on the Carpathian Basin. Simon Publications LLC. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-931313-75-9.
  92. Gustavo Corni; Tamás Stark (15 September 2008). Peoples on the Move: Population Transfers and Ethnic Cleansing Policies during World War II and its Aftermath. Berg. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-84520-480-8.
  93. Prof. PaedDr. Štefan Šutaj, DrSc. (2007). "The Czechoslovak government policy and population exchange (A csehszlovák kormánypolitika és a lakosságcsere)". Slovak Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 10 January 2010.
  94. Anna Menyhért, "The Image of the “Maimed Hungary” in 20th Century Cultural Memory and the 21st Century Consequences of an Unresolved Collective Trauma: The Impact of the Treaty of Trianon." Environment, Space, Place 8.2 (2016): 69–97. online
  95. Orsolya Putz, Metaphor and National Identity: Alternative conceptualization of the Treaty of Trianon (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2019).
  96. "Assaults on Minorities in Vojvodina". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 15 April 2008.
  97. "Official Letter from Tom Lantos to Robert Fico" (PDF). Congress of the United States, Committee on Foreign affairs. 17 October 2007. Retrieved 15 April 2008.
  98. "U.S. lawmaker blames Slovak government for ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians". International Herald Tribune. 5 September 2006. Retrieved 15 April 2008.
  99. Kulish, Nicholas (7 April 2008). "Kosovo's Actions Hearten a Hungarian Enclave". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 April 2008.
  100. Róbert Győri, and Charles WJ Withers, "Trianon and its aftermath: British geography and the ‘dismemberment’of Hungary, c. 1915-c. 1922." Scottish Geographical Journal 135.1–2 (2019): 68–97.
  101. Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, From Wilson to Roosevelt
  102. Macmillan, Margaret (2003). Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. Random House.
  103. "Britain census 1911". Genealogy.about.com. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  104. Present Day Romania census 1912 – population of Transylvania
  105. "World War I casualties". Kilidavid.com. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  106. Clarey, Christopher. "France census 1911". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  107. Wilfried Fest, Peace or Partition, The Habsburg Monarchy and British Policy, 1914–1918 (New York: St. Martin's 1978). p.37
  108. White, George W. (2000). Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 67–109. ISBN 978-0-8476-9809-7.
  109. Száray, Miklós. (2006). Történelem III. Műszaki Kiadó. p. 132.
  110. Julia P. Gelardi (2006). Born to rule: granddaughters of Victoria, queens of Europe : Maud of Norway, Sophie of Greece, Alexandra of Russia, Marie of Romania, Victoria Eugenie of Spain. ISBN 978-0-7553-1392-1.
  111. Ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary without Croatia-Slavonia
  112. Variously mentioned throughout Glenny, Misha. The Balkans
  113. Laurence Emerson Gelfand, The Inquiry; American Preparation for Peace, 1917–1919 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), p. 332.
  114. Coolidge, 20.
  115. Dent, Peter. Trianon tribulations. Budapest Times, 26 May 2010.
  116. Peter Pastor, "Hungarian and Soviet Efforts to Possess Ruthenia" Historian (2019) 81#3 pp 398–425.
  117. "NATO Seen Favorably Across Member States". pewresearch.org. Retrieved 24 April 2020.
  118. Toomey, "History, nationalism and democracy: myth and narrative in Viktor Orbán’s ‘illiberal Hungary’." (2018)
  119. Rudolf Chmel, "Syndrom of Trianon in Hungarian Foreign Policy and Act on Hungarians Living in Neighboring Countries." Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs 3.01 (2002): 93–106.
  120. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hungary § Commerce" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 899.
  121. Vide for the controversy of the role of the state: Iván T. Berend and Gy. Ranki, "Az allam szerepe az europai 'periferia' XIX. szazadi gazdasagi fejlodesben." The Role of the State in the 19th Century Economic Development of the European "periphery." Valosag 21, no.3 (Budapest, 1978), pp. 1–11; L. Lengyel, "Kolcsonos tarsadalmi fuggoseg a XIX szazadi europai gazdasagi fejlodesben." (Socio-Economic Interdependence in the European Economic Development of the 19th Century.) Valosag 21, no.9 (Budapest, 1978), pp. 100–106
  122. Good, David. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire
  123. Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.
  124. Alice Teichova, An Economic Background to Munich International Business and Czechoslovakia 1918–1938 (Cambridge, 1978); R. Olsovsky, V. Prucha, et al., Prehled gospodursveho vyvoje Ceskoslovehska v letech 1918–1945 [Survey of the economic development of Czechoslovakia] (Prague, 1961).
  125. Iván T. Berend and Gyorgy Ranki, Magyarorszag gazdasaga 1919–1929 [Hungary's economy] (Budapest, 1965).
  126. Flood-light on Europe: a guide to the next war By Felix Wittmer Published by C. Scribner's sons, 1937 Item notes: pt. 443 Original from Indiana University Digitized 13 November 2008 p. 114
  127. History of the Hungarian Nation By Domokos G. Kosáry, Steven Béla Várdy, Danubian Research Center Published by Danubian Press, 1969 Original from the University of California Digitized 19 June 2008 p. 222
  128. Spencer C. Tucker; Laura M. Wood (1996). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. Garland Pub. p. 698. ISBN 978-0-8153-0399-2.
  129. Deak, 436.
  130. G. Gratz and R. Schuller, Die Wirtschaftliche Zusammenbruch Oesterreich Ungarns (Vienna. 1930); K. Rotschild, Austria's Economic Development Between the Two Wars (London, 1946).
  131. N. Layton and Ch. Rist, The Economic Situation of Austria (Geneva, 1923).
  132. T. Faltus, Povojnova hospodarska kriza v rokoch 1912–1923 v Ceskoslovensku [Postwar Depression in Czechoslovakia] (Bratislava, 1966).
  133. Deak 16.
  134. A. Basch, European Economic Nationalism (Washington, 1943); L. Pasvolsky, Economic Nationalism of the Danubian States (New York, 1929).
  135. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Bohemia § Manufactures and Commerce" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 4 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 123.
  136. I. Svennilson, Growth and Stagnation in the European Economy (Geneva, 1954)
  137. Iván T. Berend and G. Ranki, Economic Development of East Central Europe (New York, 1974).
  138. By Edwin A. Pratt, The Rise of Rail-Power in War and Conquest
  139. Wikisource: Protection of minorities
  140. Wikisource: Nationality

References
  • Károly Kocsis; Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi (1998). Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. ISBN 978-963-7395-84-0.
  • Piotr Eberhardt (2003). Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-Century Central-Eastern Europe: History, Data, Analysis. M E Sharpe Inc. ISBN 978-0-7656-0665-5.
  • Paul R. Brass (1985). Ethnic Groups and the State. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-7099-3272-7.
  • Eastern Europe. 2005. ISBN 978-1-57607-800-6.

Further reading
  • Badescu, Ilie. "Peacebuilding in an Era of State-Nations: The Europe of Trianon." Romanian Journal Of Sociological Studies 2 (2018): 87–100. online
  • Balogh, Eva S. "Peaceful Revision: The Diplomatic Road to War." Hungarian Studies Review 10.1 (1983): 43- 51. online
  • Bandholtz, H.H. An Undiplomatic Diary by the American Member of the Inter-Allied Military Mission to Hungary: 1919–1920. (1933) online
  • Bartha, Dezso. "Trianon And The Predestination Of Hungarian Politics: A Historiography Of Hungarian Revisionism, 1918–1944." (Thesis, University of Central Florida, 2006) online
  • Bihari, Peter. "Images of defeat: Hungary after the lost war, the revolutions and the Peace Treaty of Trianon." Crossroads of European histories: multiple outlooks on five key moments in the history of Europe (2006) pp: 165–171.
  • Deák, Francis. Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference: The Diplomatic History of the Treaty of Trianon (Howard Fertig, 1942).
  • Győri, Róbert, and Charles WJ Withers. "Trianon and its aftermath: British geography and the ‘dismemberment’of Hungary, c. 1915-c. 1922." Scottish Geographical Journal 135.1–2 (2019): 68–97. online
  • Hanák, Peter. "Hungary on a fixed course: An outline of Hungarian history, 1918–1945." in Joseph Held, ed., Columbia history of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century (1992) pp: 164–204.
  • Jeszenszky, Géza. "The Afterlife of the Treaty of Trianon." The Hungarian Quarterly 184 (2006): 101–111.
  • Király, Béla K. and László Veszprémy, eds. Trianon and East Central Europe: Antecedents and Repercussions (Columbia University Press, 1995).
  • Kurti, Laszlo. The Remote Borderland: Transylvania in the Hungarian Imagination (SUNY Press, 2014).
  • Macartney, Carlile Aylmer Hungary and Her Successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences 1919–1937 (1937)
  • Macartney, Carlile Aylmer October Fifteenth – A History of Modern Hungary 1929–1945. Edinburgh University Press (1956)
  • Menyhért, Anna. "The Image of the “Maimed Hungary” in 20th Century Cultural Memory and the 21st Century Consequences of an Unresolved Collective Trauma: The Impact of the Treaty of Trianon." Environment, Space, Place 8.2 (2016): 69–97. online
  • Pastor, Peter. "Major trends in Hungarian foreign policy from the collapse of the monarchy to the peace treaty of Trianon." Hungarian Studies. A Journal of the International Association for Hungarian Studies and Balassi Institute 17.1 (2003): 3–12.
  • Pastor, Peter. "The United States' Role in the Shaping of the Peace Treaty of Trianon." Historian 76.3 (2014) pp 550–566.
  • Pastor, Peter. "Hungarian and Soviet Efforts to Possess Ruthenia" Historian (2019) 81#3 pp 398–425.
  • Putz, Orsolya. Metaphor and National Identity: Alternative conceptualization of the Treaty of Trianon (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2019).
  • Romsics, Ignác. The Dismantling of Historic Hungary: The Peace Treaty of Trianon, 1920 (Boulder, CO: Social Science Monographs, 2002).
  • Romsics, Ignác. "The Trianon Peace Treaty in Hungarian Historiography and Political Thinking." East European Monographs (2000): 89–105.
  • Romsics, Ignác. "Hungarian Revisionism in Thought and Action, 1920–1941: Plans, Expectations, Reality" in Marina Cattaruzza ed., Territorial Revisionism and the Allies of Germany in the Second World War: Goals, Expectations, Practices (2013) pp. 92–101 online
  • Steiner, Zara S. The lights that failed: European international history, 1919–1933 (2007) Trianon in relation to powers and nearby countries.
    • Steiner, Zara. The triumph of the dark: European international history 1933–1939 (2011), continued,
  • Várdy, Steven Béla. "The Impact of Trianon upon Hungary and the Hungarian Mind: The Nature of Interwar Hungarian Irredentism." Hungarian Studies Review 10.1 (1983): 21+. online
  • Wojatsek, Charles. From Trianon to the First Vienna Arbitral Award: The Hungarian Minority in the First Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938 (Montreal: Institute of Comparative Civilizations, 1980).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.