We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
In its final phases, World War I was a revolutionary war. When it ended, several of the belligerents, on both sides of the front lines, had been swept or were about to be swept by revolutions. Among them was the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. When the Allied Powers signed an armistice with Austria-Hungary in the Villa Giusti near Padua on November 3, 1918, the empire was in the process of dissolution. National committees, councils, and assemblies had sprung up all over the multinational Habsburg empire and declared the independence of the peoples whom they claimed to represent. Encountering little resistance from the imperial bureaucracy, they formed nuclei governments of the Successor States.
1 The literature on the dissolution of Austria-Hungary is very extensive. Here suffice it to cite Nowak, Karl F., The Collapse of Central Europe (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1924); von Horstenau, Edmund Glaise, The Collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (London: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1930); and Opočensky, Jan, The Collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Rise of the Czechoslovak State (Prague: Orbis, 1928). For a fresher view, see Zeman, Z. A. B., The Break-up of the Habsburg Empire, 1914–1918 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961); and Plaschka, Richard G., Cattaro-Prag: Revolte und Revolution (Graz: H. Böhlau, 1963).
2 Scott, James Brown (ed.), Official Statements of War Aims and Peace Proposals, December 1916 to November 1918 (Washington, D. C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1921), p. 472.
3 Károlyi, Michael, Memoirs: Faith without Illusion (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1957), pp. 130–137.
4 Scott, Official Statements of War Aims and Peace Proposals, pp. 488–490; Deák, Francis, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), Doc. No. 2, pp. 359–361.
5 Marstbn, Frank Swain, The Peace Conference of 1919: Organization and Procedure (London: Oxford University Press, 1944), pp. 54–68.
6 Baker, Ray Stannard, Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters (8 vols., Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, Page, 1927–39), Vol. VIII, pp. 541–542 and 547–548.
7 U. S. Department of State, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (13 vols., Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1942–1947)(hereafter cited as “U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference”), Vol. III, pp. 469–542.
8 Marston, The Paris Conference of 1919, pp. 163–164.
9 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 773–779 and 780–782; Komarnicki, Titus, Rebirth of the Polish Republic, 1914–1920 (London: W. Heinemann, 1957), p. 326.
10 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 782–784; Komarnicki, Rebirth of the Polish Republic, pp. 355–361; Perman, Dagmar, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 1914–1920 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), pp. 97–120; Wandycz, Piotr S., France and her Eastern Allies, 1919–1925 (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1962), pp. 75–86.
11 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 822–829; Spector, David Sherman, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Bookman Associates, 1962), pp. 86–89; Lederer, Ivo J., Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 143–144.
12 von Triepel, Heinrich (ed.), Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3rd ser. (19 vols., Leipzig: Dietrich, 1909–1929), Vol. X, pp. 342–345. Apart from President Wilson's refusal to recognize any of the Allied secret treaties, the validity of Rumania's secret treaty with the Allies, concluded at Bucharest on August 17, 1916, was put in doubt by the fact that Rumania concluded a separate peace with the Central Powers at Bucharest on May 7, 1918, despite a specific provision (Article 5) in the Treaty of Bucharest of 1916 against such a contingency. Brătianu countered this argument by pointing out that Rumania had reentered the war on the Allied side on November 10, 1918; that the Allied Powers had declared the Peace of Bucharest of 1918 null and void; that the Rumanian parliament had never ratified this peace treaty; and that, consequently, this treaty had never existed from a legal point of view. At the peace conference the Allied Powers never ruled on the validity of the Treaty of Bucharest, but, ostrich-fashion, pretended not to know anything about it.
13 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 840–855; Spector, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 90–94.
14 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 877–887; Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, pp. 125–131.
15 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 45–53; Lederer, Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 157–158.
16 Albrecht-Carrié, René, Italy at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938), Doc. No. 3, pp. 334–349.
17 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 321–325; Albrecht-Carrié, Italy at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 116–117.
18 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, p. 321.
19 Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 862.
20 Nicolson, Harold, Peacemaking 1919 (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1965), pp. 32–33.
21 Mantoux, Paul, Les déliberations du Conseil des Quatre, 24 mars-28 juin 1919 (2 vols., Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1955), Vol. II, p. 351.
22 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 413–419.
23 Ibid., pp. 543–547 and 679; Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, pp. 153–154.
24 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 672–675 and 679–684; Spector, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 120–129; Lederer, Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 172–182.
25 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. VI, pp. 303–304.
26 Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 610–611.
27 Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 476–477.
28 Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 679.
29 Ibid., pp. 672–674.
30 As early as November 23, 1918, President Wilson indicated in a conversation with Count Macchi di Cellere, the Italian ambassador in Washington, that he would not oppose the Italian demand for a frontier with Austria at the Brenner Pass. See Mamatey, Victor S., The United States and East Central Europe, 1914–1918: a Study in Wilsonian Diplomacy and Propaganda (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 369–371. He confirmed this promise in a conversation with Premier Orlando on January 31, 1919 (see Albrecht-Carrié, Italy at the Paris Peace Conference, p. 104) and formally agreed to it in a meeting of the Council of Four on May 29, 1919 (see U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. VI, pp. 105–106).
31 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. VI, pp. 675–676.
32 Ibid, Vol. V, pp. 392–393.
33 Nicolson, Peacemaking, p. 327.
34 Nina, Almond and Lutz, Ralph H. (eds.), The Treaty of St. Germain (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1935), pp. 157–165.
35 Strong, David F., Austria, October 1918-March 1919: Transition from Empire to Republic (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), p. 117.
36 Almond and Lutz, The Treaty of St. Germain, pp. 61–64.
37 Ibid., pp. 204–209.
38 Ibid., pp. 165–177.
39 Ibid., pp. 215–221.
40 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. VI, pp. 585–586.
41 Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 97–100.
42 Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 504–505 and 674–675.
43 For a text of the Treaty of St. Germain, see Temperley, H. W. V. (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (6 vols., London: H. Frowde and Hodder & Stoughton, 1920–1924), Vol. V, pp. 173–304.
44 For the texts of the minorities treaties, see Ibid., pp. 437–470.
45 Low, Alfred D., The Soviet Hungarian Republic and the Paris Peace Conference. In Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new ser., Vol. LIII, Pt. 10 (Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society, 1963), pp. 52–55; Deák, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 61–63.
46 Low, The Soviet Hungarian Republic and the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 46–47 and 73–82.
47 U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. VI, pp. 412–413; Deák, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, Doc. No. 19, pp. 461–466.
48 Low, The Soviet Hungarian Republic and the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 70–71; Szepal, Arpad, Les 1SS jours de Béla Kun (Paris: A. Payard, 1959), p. 222; Tökes, Rudolf L., Béla Kun and the Hungarian Soviet Republic (New York: Praeger, 1967), pp. 189–192.
49 Spector, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference, p. 157.
50 Low, The Soviet Hungarian Republic and the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 82–83; Szepal, Les 133 jours de Béla Kun, p. 242.
51 Spector, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 159–196.
52 Deá, , Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 112–134; Admiral Nicholas Horthy, Memoirs (New York: R. Speller, 1957), pp. 99–103.
53 Horthy, Memoirs, pp. 104–108; Deák, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 165–166.
54 Deák, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, Doc. No. 44, pp. 539–549.
55 Ibid., pp. 253–264.
56 Ibid., Doc. No. 46, pp. 551–554. On newer evidence, Perman (see her The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, p. 263 n.), however, attributes the covering letter to Italian, not French, influence.
57 The Allied Powers had awarded Burgenland to Austria outright. But irregular Hungarian forces, officially repudiated by the Hungarian government, refused to clear the territory around Sopron (Odenburg). On October 27, 1921, the Allied Powers yielded to the Hungarians, and under Italian mediation a plebiscite was arranged for the city of Sopron and a number of adjoining villages. On December 14–15, 1921, the plebiscite was held under international supervision. The Hungarians were in control, and the vote went in their favor. They retained Sopron, while the rest of Burgenland went to Austria. See Macartney, C. A., Hungary and her Successors: the Treaty of Trianon and its Consequences (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), pp. 54–60; and Wambaugh, Sarah, Plebiscites since the World War (2 vols., Washington, D. C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1933), Vol. II, pp. 261–268.
58 For the text of the Treaty of Trianon, see Temperley, , A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Vol. V, pp. 174–304.
59 Albrecht-Carrie, Italy at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 298–309; Lederer, Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference, pp. 276–312. For the text of the Treaty of Rapallo, see Temperley, , A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Vol. V, pp. 428–432. In contrast to the Allied inability to solve the Italo-Yugoslav dispute, they successfully settled the Austro-Yugoslav boundary dispute. The Allied Powers had decided to hold a plebiscite in the Klagenfurt area. They divided the district into two parts: Zone A, the larger and more southern section, which was inhabited mostly by Slovenes; and Zone B, which contained the city of Klagenfurt, inhabited mainly by Germans. The plebiscite was to be held first in Zone A. If it went in favor of Yugoslavia, a plebiscite would follow in Zone B. If, on the other hand, the plebiscite in Zone A went in favor of Austria, none would be held in Zone B. Although preceded by much disorder, the plebiscite in Zone A was held in an orderly fashion on October 10, 1920. It went in favor of Austria. As a consequence, no plebiscite was held in Zone B. See Wambaugh, , Plebiscites since the World War, Vol. II, pp. 124–162.
60 On September 11, 1919, after the failure of Polish-Czechoslovak bilateral negotiations over Teschen, the Allied Powers decided to hold a plebiscite not only in Teschen but also in Orava and Spiš. It was, however, never held. Instead, on July 28, 1920, during the height of the Polish-Soviet War, the Allied Powers decided to partition each of the areas. Czechoslovakia was given most of the mines and an important railroad in Teschen, while the Poles received the town of Teschen and mainly undeveloped coal deposits. Portions of Orava and Spiš were awarded to Poland, although the final delimitation of the boundary did not take place until 1924. See Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, pp. 244–257 and 270–272; and Komarnicki, Rebirth of the Polish Republic, pp. 365–366.
61 For the text of the Allied treaty with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia on the cost of liberation, see U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XIII, pp. 822–828.
62 For the Allied agreement with Italy on the cost of liberation, see Ibid., pp. 831–838.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Loading metrics...
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
Loading metrics...
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.