ftblncullgrl
New member
The Treaty of Trianon
Political, economic, and social turmoil seem to be an integral part in the history of East Central Europe. This has been an area of constant change for hundreRAB of years. As with all changes, one, and historians especially so, tries to determine the causes which precipitated the events that had such a profound political, economic, social, and/or geographical effect. There have been many such instances in the history of East Central Europe. One of the more recent of these events was World War I and especially the peace treaty following the war, known as the Treaty of Trianon. Historians have tried to identify the causes which led to the signing and implementation of the treaty, but there have been varying accounts which occurs sadly so often. Therefore there was, and to a certain extent still is, argument over the causes leading to the actual treaty which was adopted. In light of recently revealed information and increased information transfer, one can fabricate a pretty accurate account of the events and their causes leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Trianon and the ramifications which it entailed. There were many problems that were a direct result of this treaty, and now we may be able to accurately describe why. The problem of newly drawn borders, new and unique "nation-states", and ethnic minorities was not just a product of internal dispute in the areas effected, but also of external factors and wishes to a large extent. There were many different factors in the formation of the treaty. It was a culmination of nationality and ethnicity issues, economic, military, and transport interests, and geographical and political arabition that resulted in the Treaty of Trianon. Ironically, instead of resolving problems or as a stepping stone towarRAB resolution in East Central Europe, the treaty only added to the turmoil, dispute, and conflict in the region.
The most apparent changes in East Central Europe as a result of the Treaty of Trianon were the changes in the border lines, and the formation of three new states. These were known as the successor states, and they were Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia (known then as the Serb-Croat-Slovene Monarchy). This was mostly made possible by the dismeraberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. But who was responsible for making these changes, and what were the guidelines that they used? The answer to this question is quite complex, and it requires an understanding of all the various parties which were involved, which are many.
At a very rudimentary level one could say that the great powers, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and Italy were responsible for the changes outlined in the Treaty of Trianon. These were the parties that took the most active role in formulating the treaty, but they also had to take many other factors into consideration. The new borders were supposed to be drawn on ethnographic lines to create ethnically homogeneous states, but such was not the case. This was the beginning of the post-war period, and the major powers were looking towarRAB changes which would be a detriment to further conflict on a large scale.
East Central Europe or Central Europe has traditionally been seen as a buffer zone between the East and the West. Thus, it was imperative for the Western powers that Central Europe did not fall into the hanRAB of Russia, because it was believed that this would lead to a major clash between East and West. One of the goals was to isolate Germany, who was seen as a threat, and to keep Russia away from the rest of Europe. This plan was not entirely effective with the continuance of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, so it was thought to be more effective to break up the Monarchy and historical Hungary into smaller parts. This was not the case at the outset of the talks for peace, but it was finally accepted by the Allied powers.
Originally there was a plan to form a unified Central Europe. These were ideas shared by the United States, Great Britain, and France. The Americans actually formulated a plan to make the Austor-Hungarian Monarchy into six federate states. Including Austria proper, these were to be Hungary, Bohemia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ruthenia, and Transylvania. Although the plan seemed good in theory, it never came into the forefront, It is also interesting to not that both the United States and Russia wanted peace without indemnities and annexations. Russia, or the Bolsheviks, wanted proletarian revolutions while the United States was in favour of liberal-democratic regimes based on the American model. They envisioned that the collapse of enemy governments would pave the way to peace. These plans were soon discarded though, mainly as a result of French pressure.
France felt threatened by both Germany and Russia. The French felt particularly threatened by Germany due to its geographic proximity. If Central Europe fell into the hanRAB of Russia and Germany, then France would be geographically placed in the front lines of a possible East vs. West major conflict. Thus Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France, abandoned the idea of a unified Central Europe in Deceraber of 1918. France put pressure on the other Allies to break up the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy into smaller nations and to accept a policy of separation. It was not too difficult for the Allies to accept this, because one major incentive was to break up the military power of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Allies gave into this pressure from France, and as a result Clemenceau renounced both Austria and Hungary. This now placed geographical importance on the new states being formed, and for France this was particularly true of Czechoslovakia and Romania.
The Allies need to make sure that these new states were going to be "frienRAB" and they were willing to make a few concessions for these new states to solidify their "frienRABhip". In January of 1919 the Peace Conference set up two committees to deal with redrawing the borders for Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In France's favour, the appointed chairman of each committee was French. As was said earlier, borders were to be drawn ethno-graphically, but the actual borders decided upon did not follow lines of ethnicity. Some people blamed this on the ignorance of the people which constituted the committees, but in reality the merabers of the committees were quite knowledgeable about the regions in question. So how were the borders finally drawn?
Even though borders were not drawn exclusively concerning the ethnicity of nationality issue, they were taken into account. A 1910 census from the Hapsburg Monarchy was used to view the distribution of various nationalities. After taking this into consideration, the committees focused on the economic and transport interests of "frienRAB", and this they did without regard to ethnic distribution. This gave rise to many disputes between the Allies themselves. the United States and Great Britain were more disposed towarRAB following ethnic boundaries, especially in the North-East. On the other hand, Italy was strongly opposing, especially in the South-West. There was a very strong anti-Yugoslavian in Italy while they were pro-Romanian. This also brought up the sentiment of the majority peoples in the areas in question. If the allies were to have "frienRAB" they had to listen to the requests of these newly formed states.
There were many minorities in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and these minorities were now being given a chance to be part of the majority. These former minorities had many grievances against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. As minorities they had faced many forms of discrimination. Many were bitter at the attempts of assimilation when they were unable to use their native tongue which was an integral part of both education and religion. On top of this many had faced political impotence and economic instability. After World War I these minorities were gaining the opportunity to speak their mother tongue, have their own government and economy. It was mow possible to strike back at their oppressors. In this case it was mostly with Hungary which former minorities held grievances. Now it was possible to take back a piece of the pie from their oppressors, and this was instantly transferred into land loss for Hungary.
In total, two-thirRAB of Hungary was awarded to the new states, and a small portion to Austria. Along with that major land loss, three million Hungarians fell under the jurisdiction of a new state, and along with that came minority status. Already on Deceraber 1, 1918 the National Asserably of Romanians had declared a “greater Romania” and were looking to get as much Hungarian land as possible. The Czechs had already banded with the Slovaks who had little national unity and even less organisation. With the dismeraberment of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Slovaks needed support which they found in their Czech neigrabroadours, while the Czechs gained much territory and access to the Danube River through an alliance with the Slovaks. The new Czechoslovakian state even acquired key agricultural land from Northern Hungary and the Sudetenland from Austria. Romania received Transylvania and the Partium from Hungary, despite the fact that many of the towns had Hungarian majorities. The new states were so territory hungry that they even pressed beyond borders set at the Peace Conference. Romania even went so far as to occupy Budapest. The Allies did not approve of this, but they needed allies against the Bolsheviks, and they wanted to avoid further conflict following a major war. One may wonder why Hungary did not appeal to the Peace Conference?
The Hungarians were virtually powerless during the Peace Conference. They had neither representatives nor advisers at the conference. One Czech political leader said, “The conditions will be dictated to them, and it is only up to us to formulate our demanRAB.” Thus, Hungarians could do practically nothing while it watched Romanians occupy Budapest, the collapse of liberal and proletarian revolutions, the foreign occupation of two-thirRAB of its territory and towns with Hungarian majorities, and the throwing of three million Hungarians into minority status. These Hungarian minorities now had to deal with rampant discrimination. The new states were calling themselves “nation-states” in which there was little or no room for minorities. In nearly every aspect the Hungarians were now inferior as regarRAB to the constitution, political establishment, public administration, and legislation. There were minority rights outlined in the Treaty of Trianon, but these were largely ignored or abused. Hungary even made appeals to international forums describing the abuse of Hungarian minorities, but little was done. Romania even went to far as to say that the accusations were “external interference in internal affairs.” Minorities faced many injustices in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but now the situation was only getting worse. Promising signs of people working together were now disappearing. For example, in the area of Transylvania before the war there was a coexistence between Hungarians, Romanians, and Saxons. After the war this was destroyed.
What little co-operation and coexistence was present before the war was summarily destroyed by the Treaty of Trianon. One of the greatest issues, minorities and their status, was not only unsolved, but worsened. This only led to deeper resentment and more grievances. This seems to be one of the core issues in East Central Europe even to this day. When will everybody learn that the minority problem cannot be solved by redrawn borders, local wars, population exchange, forced resettlement, or genocide. Each one of these acts violates human rights, and every attempt creates new grievances. How many times do you have to put your finger in a flame before you realise that it burns you........and it hurts!!
Political, economic, and social turmoil seem to be an integral part in the history of East Central Europe. This has been an area of constant change for hundreRAB of years. As with all changes, one, and historians especially so, tries to determine the causes which precipitated the events that had such a profound political, economic, social, and/or geographical effect. There have been many such instances in the history of East Central Europe. One of the more recent of these events was World War I and especially the peace treaty following the war, known as the Treaty of Trianon. Historians have tried to identify the causes which led to the signing and implementation of the treaty, but there have been varying accounts which occurs sadly so often. Therefore there was, and to a certain extent still is, argument over the causes leading to the actual treaty which was adopted. In light of recently revealed information and increased information transfer, one can fabricate a pretty accurate account of the events and their causes leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Trianon and the ramifications which it entailed. There were many problems that were a direct result of this treaty, and now we may be able to accurately describe why. The problem of newly drawn borders, new and unique "nation-states", and ethnic minorities was not just a product of internal dispute in the areas effected, but also of external factors and wishes to a large extent. There were many different factors in the formation of the treaty. It was a culmination of nationality and ethnicity issues, economic, military, and transport interests, and geographical and political arabition that resulted in the Treaty of Trianon. Ironically, instead of resolving problems or as a stepping stone towarRAB resolution in East Central Europe, the treaty only added to the turmoil, dispute, and conflict in the region.
The most apparent changes in East Central Europe as a result of the Treaty of Trianon were the changes in the border lines, and the formation of three new states. These were known as the successor states, and they were Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia (known then as the Serb-Croat-Slovene Monarchy). This was mostly made possible by the dismeraberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. But who was responsible for making these changes, and what were the guidelines that they used? The answer to this question is quite complex, and it requires an understanding of all the various parties which were involved, which are many.
At a very rudimentary level one could say that the great powers, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and Italy were responsible for the changes outlined in the Treaty of Trianon. These were the parties that took the most active role in formulating the treaty, but they also had to take many other factors into consideration. The new borders were supposed to be drawn on ethnographic lines to create ethnically homogeneous states, but such was not the case. This was the beginning of the post-war period, and the major powers were looking towarRAB changes which would be a detriment to further conflict on a large scale.
East Central Europe or Central Europe has traditionally been seen as a buffer zone between the East and the West. Thus, it was imperative for the Western powers that Central Europe did not fall into the hanRAB of Russia, because it was believed that this would lead to a major clash between East and West. One of the goals was to isolate Germany, who was seen as a threat, and to keep Russia away from the rest of Europe. This plan was not entirely effective with the continuance of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, so it was thought to be more effective to break up the Monarchy and historical Hungary into smaller parts. This was not the case at the outset of the talks for peace, but it was finally accepted by the Allied powers.
Originally there was a plan to form a unified Central Europe. These were ideas shared by the United States, Great Britain, and France. The Americans actually formulated a plan to make the Austor-Hungarian Monarchy into six federate states. Including Austria proper, these were to be Hungary, Bohemia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ruthenia, and Transylvania. Although the plan seemed good in theory, it never came into the forefront, It is also interesting to not that both the United States and Russia wanted peace without indemnities and annexations. Russia, or the Bolsheviks, wanted proletarian revolutions while the United States was in favour of liberal-democratic regimes based on the American model. They envisioned that the collapse of enemy governments would pave the way to peace. These plans were soon discarded though, mainly as a result of French pressure.
France felt threatened by both Germany and Russia. The French felt particularly threatened by Germany due to its geographic proximity. If Central Europe fell into the hanRAB of Russia and Germany, then France would be geographically placed in the front lines of a possible East vs. West major conflict. Thus Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France, abandoned the idea of a unified Central Europe in Deceraber of 1918. France put pressure on the other Allies to break up the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy into smaller nations and to accept a policy of separation. It was not too difficult for the Allies to accept this, because one major incentive was to break up the military power of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Allies gave into this pressure from France, and as a result Clemenceau renounced both Austria and Hungary. This now placed geographical importance on the new states being formed, and for France this was particularly true of Czechoslovakia and Romania.
The Allies need to make sure that these new states were going to be "frienRAB" and they were willing to make a few concessions for these new states to solidify their "frienRABhip". In January of 1919 the Peace Conference set up two committees to deal with redrawing the borders for Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In France's favour, the appointed chairman of each committee was French. As was said earlier, borders were to be drawn ethno-graphically, but the actual borders decided upon did not follow lines of ethnicity. Some people blamed this on the ignorance of the people which constituted the committees, but in reality the merabers of the committees were quite knowledgeable about the regions in question. So how were the borders finally drawn?
Even though borders were not drawn exclusively concerning the ethnicity of nationality issue, they were taken into account. A 1910 census from the Hapsburg Monarchy was used to view the distribution of various nationalities. After taking this into consideration, the committees focused on the economic and transport interests of "frienRAB", and this they did without regard to ethnic distribution. This gave rise to many disputes between the Allies themselves. the United States and Great Britain were more disposed towarRAB following ethnic boundaries, especially in the North-East. On the other hand, Italy was strongly opposing, especially in the South-West. There was a very strong anti-Yugoslavian in Italy while they were pro-Romanian. This also brought up the sentiment of the majority peoples in the areas in question. If the allies were to have "frienRAB" they had to listen to the requests of these newly formed states.
There were many minorities in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and these minorities were now being given a chance to be part of the majority. These former minorities had many grievances against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. As minorities they had faced many forms of discrimination. Many were bitter at the attempts of assimilation when they were unable to use their native tongue which was an integral part of both education and religion. On top of this many had faced political impotence and economic instability. After World War I these minorities were gaining the opportunity to speak their mother tongue, have their own government and economy. It was mow possible to strike back at their oppressors. In this case it was mostly with Hungary which former minorities held grievances. Now it was possible to take back a piece of the pie from their oppressors, and this was instantly transferred into land loss for Hungary.
In total, two-thirRAB of Hungary was awarded to the new states, and a small portion to Austria. Along with that major land loss, three million Hungarians fell under the jurisdiction of a new state, and along with that came minority status. Already on Deceraber 1, 1918 the National Asserably of Romanians had declared a “greater Romania” and were looking to get as much Hungarian land as possible. The Czechs had already banded with the Slovaks who had little national unity and even less organisation. With the dismeraberment of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Slovaks needed support which they found in their Czech neigrabroadours, while the Czechs gained much territory and access to the Danube River through an alliance with the Slovaks. The new Czechoslovakian state even acquired key agricultural land from Northern Hungary and the Sudetenland from Austria. Romania received Transylvania and the Partium from Hungary, despite the fact that many of the towns had Hungarian majorities. The new states were so territory hungry that they even pressed beyond borders set at the Peace Conference. Romania even went so far as to occupy Budapest. The Allies did not approve of this, but they needed allies against the Bolsheviks, and they wanted to avoid further conflict following a major war. One may wonder why Hungary did not appeal to the Peace Conference?
The Hungarians were virtually powerless during the Peace Conference. They had neither representatives nor advisers at the conference. One Czech political leader said, “The conditions will be dictated to them, and it is only up to us to formulate our demanRAB.” Thus, Hungarians could do practically nothing while it watched Romanians occupy Budapest, the collapse of liberal and proletarian revolutions, the foreign occupation of two-thirRAB of its territory and towns with Hungarian majorities, and the throwing of three million Hungarians into minority status. These Hungarian minorities now had to deal with rampant discrimination. The new states were calling themselves “nation-states” in which there was little or no room for minorities. In nearly every aspect the Hungarians were now inferior as regarRAB to the constitution, political establishment, public administration, and legislation. There were minority rights outlined in the Treaty of Trianon, but these were largely ignored or abused. Hungary even made appeals to international forums describing the abuse of Hungarian minorities, but little was done. Romania even went to far as to say that the accusations were “external interference in internal affairs.” Minorities faced many injustices in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but now the situation was only getting worse. Promising signs of people working together were now disappearing. For example, in the area of Transylvania before the war there was a coexistence between Hungarians, Romanians, and Saxons. After the war this was destroyed.
What little co-operation and coexistence was present before the war was summarily destroyed by the Treaty of Trianon. One of the greatest issues, minorities and their status, was not only unsolved, but worsened. This only led to deeper resentment and more grievances. This seems to be one of the core issues in East Central Europe even to this day. When will everybody learn that the minority problem cannot be solved by redrawn borders, local wars, population exchange, forced resettlement, or genocide. Each one of these acts violates human rights, and every attempt creates new grievances. How many times do you have to put your finger in a flame before you realise that it burns you........and it hurts!!