Jump to content

Treaty of Trianon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K. Lastochka (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 20 May 2009 (→Political consequences: two years later and you STILL have no citation for that quote? Cite a source within a week or it goes!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Treaty of Trianon
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary
Signing the Treaty on 4 June 1920 .
Signed4 June 1920
LocationVersailles, France
Effective16 July 1920
Signatories1. Principal Allied Powers (Entente)

France France
Italy Italy
Japan Japan
United Kingdom United Kingdom


2. Hungary Kingdom of Hungary, successor of the former Austria-Hungary, the latter was a member of the Central Powers
DepositaryFrench Government
LanguagesFrench, English, Italian
Full text
Treaty of Trianon at Wikisource

The Treaty of Trianon is the peace treaty concluded at the end of World War I by the Allies of World War I, on one side, and Hungary, seen as a successor of Austria-Hungary, on the other.[1][2][3][4] It established the borders of Hungary and regulated its international situation. Hungary was shorn of over 72% of the territory it had previously controlled, which left 64% of the inhabitants including 3.3 out of 10.7 million (31%) ethnic Hungarians living outside of Hungary under the treaty.[5][6] Her territory shrank from 325,111 km2 to 93,000 km2 and her population from 20.9 million to 7.6 million.[7] The principal beneficiaries of territorial adjustment were Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest[8] on 4 June 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles, France. Hungary recovered part of its lost territories in 1939–40, but was later reduced to boundaries approximating those of 1920 by the peace treaties signed after the 2nd World War at Paris, 1947.[8]

New borders of Hungary

The Hungarian government terminated the real 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 former Kingdom of Hungary, these temporary borders did not include:

After the Romanian Army advanced beyond this cease-fire line, the Entente powers asked Hungary (Vix note) to acknowledge the new Romanian territory 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 (see Slovak Soviet Republic) due to having been implicitly aided with food[11] and weapons by Italy[12]; which made it possible for Hungary to reach nearly the former Galitian (Polish) border, thus separating the Czechoslovak and Romanian troops from each other.

Part of a series on the
History of Hungary
Early history
Early medieval
Kingdom of the Gepids454–567
Ostrogothic Kingdom469–553
Avar Khaganate567–822
Hungarian invasions of Europe~800–970
Hungarian conquest862–895
Medieval
Principality of Hungary895–1000
Kingdom of Hungary1000–1301
Personal union with Croatia1102–1918
Golden Bull1222
Mongol invasion of Hungary1241–1242
Kingdom of Hungary1301–1526
Ottoman Wars1366–1526
Early modern
Reformation1520
Ottoman Wars1526–1699
Eastern Hungarian Kingdom1526–1570
Royal Hungary1526–1699
Ottoman Hungary1541–1699
Principality of Transylvania1570–1711
Bocskai uprising1604–1606
Wesselényi conspiracy1664–1671
Principality of Upper Hungary1682–1685
Kingdom of Hungary1699–1867
Late modern
Rákóczi's War of Independence1703–1711
Principality of Transylvania1711–1867
Hungarian Reform Era1825–1848
Revolution of 18481848–1849
Hungarian State1849
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy1867–1918
Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen1867–1918
World War I1914–1918
Interwar period1918–1941
Hungarian People's Republic1918–1919
Hungarian Soviet Republic1919
Hungarian Republic1919–1920
Treaty of Trianon1920
Kingdom of Hungary1920–1946
First Vienna Award1938
Governorate of Subcarpathia1939–1945
Second Vienna Award1940
Revisions of Délvidék1941
World War II1941–1945
Contemporary
Second Hungarian Republic1946–1949
Hungarian People's Republic1949–1989
Revolution of 1956 1956
Goulash Communism1956–1989
Third Hungarian Republic1989–2012
Hungarysince 2012
Topics
flag Hungary portal

After a Hungarian-Czechoslovak cease-fire signed on 1 July 1919, the Hungarian Red Army left Upper Hungary by 4 July, as the Entente powers promised Hungary to invite a Hungarian delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference. In the end, this invitation was not issued. Kun then turned the Hungarian Red Army on the Romanian Army and attacked at the Tisza river on 20 July 1919. After intense 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 new borders of Hungary were nearly finalized without the presence of the Hungarians[13]. During prior negotiations, the Hungarian party, along with the Austrian, advocated the American principal of self-determination and that the disputed territories should themselves decide by free plebiscite to which country they wished to belong[13][14]. However, this view did not prevail long, the reason being that it was primarily overlooked by the decisive French and British delegates[15]. The outline of the new frontiers were drafted by the Allies[16] with little or no regard to the historical, cultural, ethnic, geographic, economic and strategic aspects of the region[13][16][17]. Although the countries who were the main beneficiaries of the treaty just partially noted the issues, the Hungarian delegates tried to draw attention to them, but were left unnoticed by the Allied representatives. As a result, these problems also contributed to destabilization and the outbreak of World War II.

The 3.3 million Hungarians who ended up in foreign countries as a result of the treaty were subject to discrimination and assimilation.[citation needed] Most Hungarian settlements, consisting of more than 2 million Magyars, were situated in a typically 20-50 km wide strip along the new borders in foreign territory. More concentrated groups could be found in Czechoslovakia (Felvidék), Serbia (Vojvodina or Vajdaság), and Romania (Transylvania). See more here.

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

Drafted borders of Austria-Hungary in the treaty of Trianon and Saint Germain.

By the Treaty of Trianon, the cities of Pécs, Mohács, Baja and Szigetvár, which were under Yugoslav 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 it had had directly through the Rijeka coastline and indirectly through the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (within the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen).

With the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Hungary expanded its borders towards neighboring countries at the outset of World War II, under the Munich Agreement (1938), the two Vienna Awards (1938 and 1940), following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia (occupation of northern Carpathian Ruthenia and eastern Slovakia) and following German aggression against Yugoslavia. This territorial expansion was short-lived, since the post-war boundaries agreed on at the Treaty of Paris in 1947 were nearly identical to those of 1920 (with three villages – Jarovce, Rusovce, and Čunovo – transferred to Czechoslovakia). Template:Regions which belonged to Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon

Consequences of the treaty

Demographic consequences

The Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, site of the signing.
Difference between the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary within Austria-Hungary and independent Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon. Based on the 1910 census. Administrative: Hungary in green, autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in grey.
Ethnic groups of the Hungarian Kingdom according to the 1880-census (based on mother tongue interpreted as the language one was most comfortable using[18][19])
  Hungarians
  Germans
  Slovaks
  Rusyns
  Romanians
  Croats-Serbs
  Slovenes
The Red Map[20][21]. Ethnic map of the Kingdom of Hungary (wihtout Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia) publicized by the Hungarian delegation. Regions with population density below a certain limit are left blank and the corresponding population is represented in the nearest region with population density above that limit.
  Hungarians
  Germans
  Slovaks
  Rusyns
  Romanians
  Croats and Serbs
  low population density

According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were the Hungarians, who were approximately 48% of the entire population (or 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e., excluding Croatia-Slavonia). The Kingdom of Hungary was not a nation-state as were many Western European nations.

Some demographers[who?] believe that the 1910 census overstated the percentage of the Hungarian population, pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the number of Hungarians and the decrease of other nationalities in the kingdom in the late 19th century.[22] They also argue that there were different results in previous censuses of the Kingdom and subsequent censuses in the new states. Another problem with interpreting the census results is that the 1910 census did not record the respondents' ethnicity, but only language (whether it was "native language" or "most frequently spoken language") and the religion, thus the presented census numbers of ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary are actually the numbers of speakers of various languages, which may not correspond exactly to the ethnic composition.[23]

Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total. After the treaty, the percentage and the absolute number of all Hungarian nationalities decreased in the next decades. The main reasons of this process were spontaneous assimilation and Slovakization, Romanianization, Serbianisation policy of the states. After WWII, the Czechoslovak government with the Beneš decrees granted the forcible "population transfer" (deportation) in 1945-47 of about 2.6 million former Czechoslovak citizens of German and Hungarian ethnicity to Germany, Austria and Hungary.

Distribution of the Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary

The number of Hungarians in the different areas based on census data of 1910.

Distribution of the non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary

Slovaks, Romanians, Croats, Ruthenians, Serbs and Germans, who represented the majority of the populations of the above-mentioned territories based on 1910 census data:

  • In Upper Hungary (Slovakia, Czechoslovakia): 1,687,977 Slovaks and 1,233,454 others (mostly Hungarians - 886,044, Germans, Ruthenians and Roma) [according to the 1921 census, however, there were 1,941,942 Slovaks and 1,058,928 others]
  • In Carpathian Ruthenia (Czechoslovakia): 330,010 Ruthenians and 275,932 others (mostly Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Slovaks)
  • In Transylvania (Romania): 2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%) and 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 greater percentage of Romanians (57.1%/57.3%) and a smaller Hungarian minority (26.5%/25.5%)[24]
  • In Vojvodina and Croatia-Slavonia (Yugoslavia): 2,756,000 Croats and Serbs, and 1,366,000 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans)
  • In Burgenland (Austria): 217,072 Germans and 69,858 others (mainly Croatian and Hungarian)

Minorities in post-Trianon Hungary

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

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

  • 551,211 German (6.9%)
  • 141,882 Slovak (1.8%)
  • 23,760 Romanian (0.3%)
  • 36,858 Croatian (0.5%)
  • 23,228 Bunjevac and Šokac(0.3%)
  • 17,131 Serb (0.2%)

The number of bilingual people was much higher, for example 1,398,729 people spoke German (17%), 399,176 people spoke Slovak (5%), 179,928 people spoke Croatian (2.2%) and 88,828 people spoke Romanian (1.1%). Hungarian was spoken by 96% of the total population and was the mother language of 89%.

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 spontaneous assimilation and the 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 WWII about 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. After these population movements Hungary became an ethnically almost homogeneous country except the rapidly growing number of Roma people in the second half of the 20th century.

Political consequences

Bordermark on the Hungarian-Romanian border near Csenger.

The Treaty and its consequences are debated in Central European politics to this day. One of the main controversies about the Treaty of Trianon concerns the borders of Hungary.

Officially for the public, the treaty was intended to be a confirmation of the concept of the right for self-determination of nations and of the concept of nation-states replacing old multinational empires. Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked new ones at the same time. While formal minorities of the Kingdom of Hungary, such as Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, Croats, etc., established or joined to their nation-state; as much as one-third of the Hungarian population lived in the annexed territories beside these nationals, too. As a result, it was now a significant portion of Hungarian people, who were forced to go under foreign rule.

From the point of view of most non-Hungarians[who?] that lived in the former Kingdom of Hungary, after centuries of foreign rule, the minorities of former Austria-Hungary (often called a 'dungeon of nations' by them[citation needed]) would finally achieve a right for self-determination and independence, and be united with other members of their nation. On the other hand, after the new borders had been established, majority of the 3.3 million Hungarians who lived in now-foreign lands were situated just outside the new border lines and were not given the option of self-determination. In addition, beside scattered Hungarian settlements, various extensive areas were composed of concentrated Hungarians too.[25][26]

Therefore, while the majority of the areas that had been part of the Kingdom of Hungary but were not part of the independent country after the Treaty were inhabited by non-Hungarian nationalities, there were also many areas inhabited mainly by Hungarians which were not located within the borders of Hungary after the Treaty, and there have periodically been concerns about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighboring states.[27][28][29]. Areas with significant Hungarian populations include the Székely Land[30] in Eastern Transylvania and some areas along the new Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Temesvar), southern parts of Slovakia (see: Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Carpatho-Ukraine, northern parts of Vojvodina (see: Ethnic groups of Vojvodina), etc.

The Allies discarded the idea of plebiscites in any of the disputed areas with the exception of the city of Sopron, which voted to remain in Hungary (the Allies were indifferent as to the exact line of the new 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 entirety to Romania. The option of partition along ethnic lines as an alternative was rejected.

Hence, the principle of self-determination was applied with double standards to different people by the Allies.

The Trianon cross at Kőszeg is pointing onto the lost territories.

Another reason why the victorious Allies decided to dissolve the Central-European superpower, Austria-Hungary, a strong German supporter and fast developing region, was to prevent Germany from acquiring substantial influence in the future[31]. 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[citation needed], each of which would be bigger than either Austria or Hungary.[32] Compared with the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, post-Trianon Hungary had 60% less population and its political and economical footprint in the region were significantly reduced: Hungary lost 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 used to rely on other parts of the Kingdom.(See Economic consequences) Also, the country lost access to the Mediterranean Sea, fallen short of the important sea port of Rijeka(Fiume), and became landlocked, which had a negative effect on sea trading and strategic naval operations. Besides, many trading routes from various parts of the kingdom had been abandoned that went through the new borders.

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 core areas of the "new" nation-states of Hungary and Austria, although they assumed that the problem would solve itself over time [citation needed] as they expected that those ethnic Hungarians who were unhappy would gradually sell up and go to live in Hungary [citation needed], which did not turn out to be the case. The Romanian delegation to Versailles feared in 1919 that the Allies were beginning to favor the partition of Transylvania along ethnic lines in order to reduce the potential exodus [citation needed] and Prime Minister Ion I. C. Brătianu even summoned British-born Queen Marie to France to strengthen their case. The Romanians argued[citation needed] that they had suffered a higher relative casualty rate in the war than either Britain[33][34][35] or France[36][34][35] and that the Western powers had a moral debt to repay. In absolute terms, Romanian troops had considerably less casualties than either Britain or France, however.[35] The underlying reason of the decision was a secret pact between The Entente and Romania[37]. In the Treaty of Bucharest (1916) Romania was promised Transylvania and territories to the east of river Tisza, provided that she attacked Austria-Hungary from south-east, where defense was scarce. However, after the Central Powers had noticed the military maneuver, the attempt was quickly choked off and Bucharest fell in the same year.

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 of the nature of the Hungarian presence in the disputed territories. For the Hungarians the whole of the Carpathian Basin was seen as "home" (including its parts mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians who saw this area as their own "home" as well)[citation needed]. The western powers and the American press in particular (as well as most non-Hungarians that lived in the Carpathian Basin)[citation needed] saw the Hungarians as colonial-style rulers who had oppressed the Slavs and Romanians since 1000 AD, the foundation year of the Kingdom of Hungary.[citation needed] There was therefore no difference between the Turks giving up Serbia in the late nineteenth century and Hungarians giving up Transylvania or Ruthenia.[38][dubious – discuss] For most non-Hungarians from the Carpathian Basin[who?] it was a process of decolonisation rather than a punitive dismemberment (as Hungarians saw it).[38] The Hungarians saw it so, because, the borders where not ethnically correct,[25][26] and territories with Hungarian majority[25][26] were put outside the "mock borders". The British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George was in favor of Irish independence from Britain and saw the claims of the "subject peoples" of the former Habsburg Empire in the same light.[citation needed] The French naturally sided with their "Latin brothers", the Romanians,[citation needed] although Clemenceau personally detested Bratianu.[38] President Wilson initially supported the outline of a more ethnically correct border line based on the Coolidge Report, led by Harvard Professor A. C. Coolidge[39], but later gave in, due to changing international politics and as a courtesy to other allies[40].

The Hungarians did not regard the outer parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary as colonial territories, but rather part of the core national territory[41]. For Hungarian public opinion, the realisation of losing much of the country's territories and ethnic Hungarians was followed by a lingering bitterness; because they would have preferred to maintain the integrity of the territory for mainly economic and strategic reasons, and claimed that they were ready to give the minorities a great deal of autonomy[42] The outcome of the Treaty of Trianon is to this day remembered in Hungary as the Trianon trauma[30]. 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. All official flags in Hungary were lowered until 1938[citation needed] when they were raised by one third after southern Slovakia, with 84% Hungarian population, that is to say 550.000 Hungarians[43] was "recovered" following the Munich Conference. For Hungarian pupils in the 1930s each school-day began with a prayer calling for the reversal of the treaty.[citation needed]. The Hungarian irredentism fueled not only the revisionist inter-war Hungarian foreign policy[41] but became a source of regional tension after the Cold War too.[44][unreliable source?][41]

Economic consequences

Trianon memorial, Kiskunhalas.

To understand the economic consequences of the treaty and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, one must apprehend the way the economy of Austria-Hungary functioned.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was one economic unit with autarkic characteristics[45][46] during its golden age and therefore achieved rapid growth, especially in the early 20th century when GNP grew by 1.76%.[47] There was also a division of labour present throughout the empire: that is, in the Austrian Empire manufacturing industries were highly advanced, while in the Kingdom of Hungary an agri-industrial 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 specialization of each region in fields that they were best.

Hungary was the main supplier of wheat, rye, barley and other various goods in the empire and that made up a large portion of the empire's export, too.[48] Meanwhile, the Czech Republic (Kingdom of Bohemia) owned 75% of the whole industrial capacity of formal Austria-Hungary[49]. This clearly shows that the various parts of the formal monarchy were economically interdependent. To further illustrate this point, post-Trianon Hungary produced 500% more agricultural goods than it needed for itself[50] and mills around Budapest were one of the largest ones in Europe at the time; now forced to operate at 20% level. As a consequence of the treaty, all the competitive industries of the formal empire were compelled to close doors, as great capacity was met by negligible demand owing to economic barriers presented in the form of the new borders.

Furthermore, post-Trianon Hungary possessed 90% of the engineering and printing industry of the Kingdom, while only 11% of timber and 16% iron was retained. In addition, 61% of arable land, 74% of public road, 65% of canals, 62% of railroads, 64% of hard surface roads, 83% of pig iron output, 55% of industrial plants, 100% of gold, silver, copper, mercury and salt mines, and most of all, 67% of credit and banking institutions of the former Kingdom of Hungary lay within the territory of Hungary's neighbors.[51][52][53] 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 new 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 paralyzed.[54] These factors all combined created staggering unbalances in the artificially separated, core economic regions of the formal Monarchy.

File:A.C.Coolidge.jpg
Professor A. C. Coolidge

The disseminating economic chaos had been also noted in the Coolidge Report, as a very serious potential aftermath of the treaty[39][15]. In spite of this fact, the warning was not taken into account during the negotiations. Thus, the resulting uneasiness and despondency 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%.[55] 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.[56]

The disintegration of the multi-national state conversely impacted neighboring 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 favorable position among the victors, thus greater access to international rehabilitation resources.[57]

With the creation of customs barriers and fragmented protective economies, the economic growth and outlook in the region sharply declined[58]; which in the end culminated in a deep recession. It proved to be immensely challenging for the successor states to successfully transform their economies in order 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 put down to the introduction of aggressive nationalistic policies by local political leaders.[59]

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 subsidized the mill, sugar and brewing industries, Hungary attempted to increase the efficiency of iron, steel, glass and chemical industries[60][45]. The stated objective was that all countries should become self sufficient. This tendency, however, lead to uniform economies and competitive economic advantage of long well-established industries and research fields evaporated. The lack of specialization adversely affected the whole Danube-Carpathian region caused a distinct setback of growth and development compared to the West as well as high financial vulnerability and instability.[61][62]

Other consequences

Memorial

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 territory under their sovereignty.

Military considerations diverted the Treaty from the Wilson principles [citation needed], making economic cooperation within the Carpathian Basin even more difficult. Conditions were similar to those imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. After the war, the Hungarian navy, air force and army was disbanded. The army was to be restricted to 35,000 men and there was to be no conscription. Heavy artillery, tanks and air force were prohibited to maintain.[53] Further provisions stated that in Hungary, no railway would be built with more than one track (even going so far as to remove one of the two tracks on one of the lines[citation needed]), due to the fact that at that time railways held a substantial strategical importance economically as well as military[63].

Hungary also renounced all privileges in territories outside Europe that belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

Articles 54–60 of the Treaty required Hungary to recognize various rights of national minorities within its borders.[64]

Articles 61-66 stated that all former citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary living outside the new frontiers of Hungary were to ipso facto lose their Hungarian nationality in one year.[65]

See also

References

  1. ^ Craig, G.A. (1966). Europe since 1914. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Grenville, J.A.S. (1974). The Major International Treaties 1914-1973. A history and guides with texts. Methnen London. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Lichtheim, G. (1974). Europe in the Twentieth Century. Praeger, New York. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Text of the Treaty
  5. ^ Macartney, C.A. (1937). Hungary and her successors - The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences 1919-1937. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ "East on the Danube: Hungary's Tragic Century". The New York Times. 2003-08-09. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Open-Site:Hungary
  8. ^ a b "Trianon, Treaty of". The Columbia Encyclopedia. 2009.
  9. ^ Croatian parliament decision about end of union
  10. ^ Constitution of Union between Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary
  11. ^ "Die Ereignisse in der Slovakei," Der Demokrat (morning edition), 4 June 1919.
  12. ^ Die italienisch-ungarische Freundschaft," Bohemia, 29 June 1919.
  13. ^ a b c d Arno J. Mayer, Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking. Containment and Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918-1919 (New York, 1967), 369
  14. ^ David Hunter Miller, XVIII, 496.
  15. ^ a b Francis Deak, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference. The Diplomatic History of the Treaty of Trianon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 45.
  16. ^ a b 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."
  17. ^ Miller. IV. 234., 245.
  18. ^ Rogers Brubaker (2006). Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town. Princeton University Press. p. 65. ISBN 9780691128344.
  19. ^ Eagle Glassheim (2005). Noble Nationalists: The Transformation of the Bohemian Aristocracy. Harvard University Press. p. 25. ISBN 9780674018891.
  20. ^ "Teleki Pál – egy ellentmondásos életút" (in Hungarian). National Geographic Hungary. 2004-02-18. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  21. ^ "A kartográfia története" (in Hungarian). Babits Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  22. ^ Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  23. ^ Rozenblit, Marsha L. Reconstructing A National Identity - The Jews of Habsburg Austria During WWWI. p. 14-38.
  24. ^ Árpád Varga. "Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995".
  25. ^ a b c Ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary
  26. ^ a b c Ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary without Croatia-Slavonia
  27. ^ "Assaults on Minorities in Vojvodina". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2008-04-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  28. ^ "Official Letter from Tom Lantos to Robert Fico" (PDF). Congress of the United States, Committee on Foreign affairs. 2007-10-17. Retrieved 2008-04-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  29. ^ "U.S. lawmaker blames Slovak government for ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians". International Herald Tribune. 2006-09-05. Retrieved 2008-04-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  30. ^ a b "Kosovo's Actions Hearten a Hungarian Enclave". The New York Times. 2008-04-07. Retrieved 2008-04-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  31. ^ Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, From Wilson to Roosevelt
  32. ^ Macmillan, Margaret (2003). Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. Random House. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  33. ^ Britain census 1911
  34. ^ a b Present Day Romania census 1912 - population of Transylvania
  35. ^ a b c World War I casualties
  36. ^ France census 1911
  37. ^ Wilfried Fest, Peace or Partition, The Habsburg Monarchy and British Policy, 1914-1918 (New York: St. Martin's 1978). p.37
  38. ^ a b c Gelardi, Julia. Born to Rule: Granddaughters of Victoria, Queens of Europe. ISBN 0755313925 page?
  39. ^ a b Professor Coolidge was the head of the so-called Coolidge Mission, which was "appointed by the American Delegation on 27 December and set up headquarters in Vienna."[13]. Secretary of State Lansing informed Professor A. C. Coolidge in a telegram dated 26 December 1918, that "You are hereby assigned to the American Commission to observe political conditions in Austria-Hungary and neighboring countries." See Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. 1919, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. II. 218.
  40. ^ Laurence Emerson Gelfand, The Inquiry; American Preparation for Peace, 1917-1919 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), 332.
  41. ^ a b c White, George W. Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. p. 67-109.
  42. ^ Coolidge, 20.
  43. ^ Miller, 231.
  44. ^ Ambrosio, Thomas. "Vanquishing the Ghost of Trianon:Preventing Hungarian Irredentism through Western Integration" (PDF). Retrieved 09-02-2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  45. ^ a b Britannica 1911: Hungary/Commerce
  46. ^ Vide for the controversy of the role of the state: T. I. 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
  47. ^ Good, David. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire
  48. ^ Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.
  49. ^ 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).
  50. ^ Ivan Berend and Gyorgy Ranki, Magyarorszag gazdasaga 1919-1929 [Hungary's economy] (Budapest, 1965).
  51. ^ 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 Nov 13, 2008 p. 114
  52. ^ 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 Jun 19, 2008 p. 222
  53. ^ a b The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia By Spencer Tucker, Laura Matysek Wood, Justin D. Murphy Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1996 ISBN 0815303998, 9780815303992 p.697 [1]
  54. ^ Deak, 436.
  55. ^ G. Gratz and R. Schuller, Die Wirtschaftliche Zusammenbruch Oesterreich Ungarns (Vienna. 1930); K. Rotschild, Austria's Economic Development Between the Two Wars (London, 1946).
  56. ^ N. Layton and Ch. Rist, The Economic Situation of Austria (Geneva, 1923).
  57. ^ T. Faltus, Povojnova hospodarska kriza v rokoch 1912-1923 v Ceskoslovensku [Postwar Depression in Czechoslovakia] (Bratislava, 1966).
  58. ^ Deak 16.
  59. ^ A. Basch, European Economic Nationalism (Washington, 1943); L. Pasvolsky, Economic Nationalism of the Danubian States (New York, 1929).
  60. ^ Britannica 1911:Bohemia/Manufactures and Commerce
  61. ^ I. Svennilson, Growth and Stagnation in the European Economy (Geneva, 1954)
  62. ^ Ivan Berend and G. Ranki, Economic Development of East Central Europe (New York, 1974).
  63. ^ By Edwin A. Pratt, The Rise of Rail-Power in War and Conquest
  64. ^ Wikisource: Protection of minorities
  65. ^ Wikisource: Nationality

Further reading

For lingering effects of the Treaty on the geo-politics of Hungary and the successor states:

  • Ernest A. Rockwell: Trianon Politics, 1994-1995, thesis, Central Missouri State University, 1995.

For minorities in post-Trianon Hungary:

  • József Kovacsics: Magyarország történeti demográfiája : Magyarország népessége a honfoglalástól 1949-ig, Budapest : Közgazd. és Jogi Kiadó ; 1963 Budapest Kossuth Ny.
  • Lajos Thirring: Az 1869-1980. évi népszámlálások története és jellemzői [kész. a Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népesedésstatisztikai Főosztályán], Bp. : SKV, 1983

For events preceding the Treaty and for minorities in the post-Trianon successor states:

  • Ernő Raffay: Magyar tragédia: Trianon 75 éve. Püski kiadó (1996)
  • Vitéz Károly Kollányi: Kárpáti trilógia. Kráter Műhely Egyesület (2002)
  • Juhász Gyula: Magyarország Külpolitikája 1919-1945. Kossuth Könyvkiado, Budapest (1969).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&oldid=291113486"