¹ The official Hungarian census of 1920 of the region subsequently transferred to Austria listed a total population of 294,849, of whom 221,185 (75.1 percent) were German-speaking by mother tongue; 44,753 (15.2 percent), Croat-speaking; and 24,867 (8.4 percent), Magyar-speaking. Hungary, A Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények [Hungarian Statistical Publications], Vol. LXIX: Az 1920. Évi Népszámlálás [Census of 1920] (Budapest: Pesti Könyvnyomda, 1924, pp. 42 and 296–297.Google Scholar The official Austrian census of March 7, 1923, gave a total population of 286,925, of whom 227,435 (79.3 percent) were German-speaking by mother tongue; 42,013 (14.6 percent), Croat-speaking; and 15,554 (5.4 percent), Magyar-speaking. See Austria, Bundesamt fur Statistik, Statistische Nachrichten, Year II, No. 3 (March, 1924), p. 74. The decrease in Magyars by the years 1920–1923 has been attributed to emigration after the transfer of the region to Austria.

For accounts of the Burgenland problem during the years 1918–1921, see Burghardt, Andrew F., Borderland (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Macartney, Carlyle A., Hungary and Her Successors (Oxford: University Press, 1937), pp. 41–72.Google Scholar An excellent and detailed bibliography of the history of the Burgenland during these years can be found in Litschauer, Gottfried F. (ed.), Allgemeine Bibliographie des Burgenlandes, Pt. 4: Geschichte (Eisenstadt: Selbstverlag des Amtes der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, 1959), pp. 357–425.Google Scholar

² Haus der Abgeordneten, Austria, Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Houses der Abgeordneten dee österreichisehen Reichsrates im Jahre 1918 (Vienna: Staatsdruckerei, 1918)Google Scholar, 22nd session, 92nd sitting, October 22, 1918, Vol. IV, pp. 4659–4667.

³ Ibid., October 25, 1918, pp. 4693–4694.

⁴ Austria, Provisorische Nationalversammlung, Beilagen zu den stenographischen Protokollen der provisorischen Nationalversammlung für Deutschösterreich 1918 und 1919 (Vienna: Deutschösterreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1919), Vol. I, Annex 21, p. 2.Google Scholar When the bill was first proposed on November 14th, the Hungarian government regarded the act as “an assassination of the integrity of Hungary.” Pester Lloyd (Budapest), Morgenblatt, 11 15, 1918, p. 8.Google Scholar Within a few days, however, the Hungarian government realized that the law amounted only to a declaration of feelings. Wilhelm Böhm, Hungarian minister of war in the Mihdly Karolyi government, regarded Austria's claims not as an actual annexation but as an expression of self-determination. Böhm, Wilhelm, Im Kreuzfeuer zweier Revolutionen (Munich: Verlag für Kulturpolitik, 1924), p. 110.Google Scholar

⁵ Coolidge to the [American] Commission to Negotiate Peace, Vienna, January 29, 1919, United States Department of State, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference 1919 (13 vols., Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1942–1947)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as “U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference”), Vol. XII, pp. 387–388. Throughout the controversy over the Burgenland the Hungarians continually protested that most of the food provisions sent to Austria came not from the German-inhabited regions of West Hungary but from areas farther to the east. György Lukacs, “A trianoni szerződés igazságtalanságai” [Injustices of the Treaty of Trianon], in Count Apponyi, Albert et al. , Igazságot Magyarországnak [Justice for Hungary] (Budapest: Magyar Külügyi Társaság Kiadása, 1928), p. 145Google Scholar; Lipthay, Béla, “Burgenland, Magyarorszag osztrák megszállás alatt levő része” [Burgenland, Existing Part of Hungary under Austrian Occupation], in Thirring, Gusztáv (ed.), Sopron: Civitas Fidelissima (Sopron: Székely és Társa, 1925), p. 29Google Scholar; Hungary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hungarian Peace Negotiations; An Account of the Work of the Hungarian Peace Delegation at Neuilly s/S, from January to March 1920 (3 vols., Budapest: Victor Hornyánszky, 1920–1922), Vol. I, pp. 520–521, n. 15Google Scholar; and Vol. II, p. 30, n. 22.

⁶ Coolidge to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Vienna, February 17, 1919, Records of the Department of State relating to World War I and its Termination, 1914–1929 (hereafter cited as “Records of the U. S. Department of State”), Microcopy M-367, Roll 403, Frames 0042–0044 (No. 763.72119/4520). The dispatch neither identified the three men nor indicated which part of western Hungary they were from.

⁷ Martin to Coolidge, Vienna, February 28, 1919, Ibid., Frames 0941–0951 (No. 763.72119/4623); U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, pp. 264–271.Google Scholar In a memorandum drafted after Martin's report, Coolidge expressed his agreement with the major's proposed new frontier. See memorandum by A. C. Coolidge, March 10, 1919, Ibid., pp. 276–277. While the Coolidge Mission was recommending a temporary transfer to alleviate Vienna's food problems, Austria sent a special delegation to Paris to discuss the food situation with the Allied Powers. Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), Morgenblatt, 03 5, 1919, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁸ In January, 1919, the Károlyi government passed a law (Law VI of 1919) conferring upon the Germans in Hungary the right to territorial autonomy and the use of German in education, worship, and government. For a copy of the law, see de Hevesy, André, Nationalities in Hungary (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1919), pp. 231–237.Google Scholar Similar measures were passed by the Hungarian Soviet Republic and its conservative successor.

⁹ Martin to Coolidge, Vienna, March 14, 1919, Records of the U. S. State Department, Microcopy M-367, Roll 404, Frames 0181–0186 (No. 763.72119/4653).

¹⁰ Miller, David Hunter, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (21 vols., New York: Appeal Printing Company, n. d.), Vol. IV, Doc. No. 246, p. 243.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., Vol. XVII, pp. 134–135. This action negated an appeal by Anton David, Alterspräsident of the Austrian Constituent Assembly, expressing the hope that by the right of self-determination West Hungary would be united with Austria. Austria, Konstituierende Nationalversammlung, Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen der konstituierenden Nationalversammlung der Republik Österreich, 1919 (Vienna: Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1919), first session, 03 4, 1919, Vol. I, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹² Secretary's notes of a meeting of foreign ministers, Paris, May 8, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 674–675Google Scholar; Miller, , My Diary at the Conference of Paris, Vol. XVI, pp. 227–229.Google Scholar

¹³ Secretary's notes of a conversation held in M. Pichon's room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, May 12, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. IV, pp. 504–505Google Scholar; Miller, , My Diary at the Peace Conference, Vol. XVI, pp. 272–273.Google Scholar During the meeting President Wilson stated that he had been informed that Austria would raise the issue, but he did not reveal the source of this information.

¹⁴ Austria, Konstituierende Nationalversammlung, Bericht über die Tätigkeit der deutschösterreichischen Friedensdelegation in St. Germain-en-Laye (2 vols., Vienna: Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1919)Google Scholar (here-after cited as “Bericht über die Tätigkeit der deutschösterreichischen Friedensdelegation”), Vol. I, Annex 18, p. 47Google Scholar; Almond, Nina and Lutz, Ralph H. (eds.), The Treaty of St. Germain (Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1935), Doc. No. 60, p. 159.Google Scholar The Austrian peace delegation had arrived in Paris on May 14, 1919. Hungary, governed by the communist regime of Bela Kun since March 21st, was not invited to send delegates, since the Allied Powers feared that such a move would imply recognition of the Bolshevist regime. For the relations between Austria and Soviet Hungary, see Low, Alfred D., “The First Austrian Republic and Soviet Hungary,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 2 (07, 1960), pp. 174–203.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Arbeiter Zeitung, 06 3, 1919, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Neue Freie Presse, Morgenblatt, 06 3, 1919, p. 1.Google Scholar Most of the criticism of the proposed frontiers during the next few days, however, was directed at the new borders with Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Jugoslavia; West Hungary was given only cursory attention.

¹⁶ Renner to Clemenceau. June 16, 1919, Bericht über die Tätigkeit der deutschösterreichischen Friedensdelegation, Vol. I, Annex 28, pp. 130–131.Google Scholar The list of districts, towns, and villages suggested for the plebiscite is given on pp. 143–144. See also Almond, and Lutz, , The Treaty of St. Germain, Doc. No. 94, pp. 278–279.Google Scholar One of the press reports stressing the economic importance of the Burgenland for Austria was issued by Dr. Ernst Priedrich Beer, the Austrian delegation's authority on West Hungary, and published in the Neue Freie Presse, Nachmittagsblatt, June 10, 1919, p. 2. Beer himself was a Transylvanian Saxon and a leader of the Society for the Preservation of Germandom in Hungary (Verein zur Erhaltung des Deutschtums in Ungarn). Guglia, Otto, “Das Werden des Burgenlandes,” Burgenländische Forachunyen, No. 44 (1961), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Coolidge to the Commission to Negotiate Peace, Vienna, May 11, 1919, Records of the U. S. State Department, Microcopy M-367, Roll 413, Frames 0400–0413 (No. 763.72119/5190); U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, pp. 310–311.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Minutes of the daily meetings of the American Commissioners, May 26, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XI, pp. 187–188.Google Scholar

¹⁹ During May and June several individuals and delegations arrived in Vienna from West Hungary. They usually appeared before the Constituent Assembly to complain about atrocities by Red Guards and to request Allied occupation of the Burgenland, Arbeiter Zeitung, 05 8, 1919, p. 3Google Scholar; Neue Freie Presse, Abendblatt, 05 3, 1919, p. 3Google ScholarPubMed; June 6, 1919, p. 3; and July 29, 1919, p. 5. Reports of anti-communist uprisings in West Hungary can be found in the Arbeiter Zeitung, 06 6, 1919, p. 3Google Scholar; June 8, 1919, pp. 6–7; and June 25, 1919, p. 4; The New York Times, 06 9, 1919, p. 1Google Scholar; and June 16, 1919, p. 5; The Times (London), 06 13, 1919, p. 11Google ScholarPubMed; and the Neue Freie Presse, Morgenblatt, 06 28, 1919, p. 5.Google Scholar

²⁰ Notes of a meeting of the American Commissioners, June 21, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XI, p. 243.Google Scholar

²¹ Comité de Réponse aux Notes Autrichiennes concernant les Clauses Territoriales, Procès-Verbal No. 1, meeting of July 3, 1919, Records of the U. S. State Department, Microcopy M-367, Roll 459, Frames 0093–0095 (No. 763.72119/8792 3/4). Representing the five principal Allied Powers were Coolidge (the United States), Nicolson (Great Britain), Tardieu (France), Stranieri (Italy), and Ijuin (Japan).

²² Since 1919 various persons, however, have implied that military and anti-Bolshevist considerations played a leading role in the transfer. Otto Bauer, for instance, has contended that the transfer was made to compensate Austria for her losses and also because she had resisted Bolshevism. See his Die österreichische Revolution (Vienna: Wiener Volks-buchhandlung, 1923), pp. 155–156.Google Scholar Nicholas Horthy expressed the opinion that the frontier was moved to create a bone of contention between Austria and Hungary. von Horthy, Nikolaus, Ein Leben für Ungarn (Bonn: Athenäum-Verlag, 1953), pp. 156–157.Google Scholar

²³ It was probably not out of a feeling of compassion that the Italians were reluctant to weaken Hungary further but because they wanted to strengthen their economic influence in both Austria and Hungary and because they needed a sympathetic ally in their conflict with Jugoslavia over the headwaters of the Adriatic Sea.

²⁴ Annexe au Procès-Verbal No. 2, Projet de Rapport au Conseil Suprême, meeting of July 5, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 459, Frames 0103–0104 (No. 763.72119/8792 3/4).

²⁵ Rapport de la Commission chargée de préparer la Réponse aux Notes Autrichiennes sur les Clauses Territoriales, July 9, 1919, Ibid., Frames 0119–0120 (No. 763.72119/8792 3/4); and notes of a meeting of the Heads of the Delegations of the Five Great Powers, Paris, July 10, 1919, Great Britain, Foreign Office, Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919–1939 (1st ser., 16 vols., London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1947–1968), Vol. I, Doc. No. 8, p. 65.Google Scholar In a subsequent confidential report to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, July 17, 1919, the American Commission stated that the frontier had “been modified so as to follow more closely the ethnic frontier rather than the frontier of 1867.…The above alterations were made subsequent to the receipt and examination of notes from the Austrian delegation on the territorial clauses of the partial treaty handed them on June 2nd.” Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 422, Frames 0222–0225 (No. 763.72119/5667).

²⁶ “The one notable territorial change in Austria's favor granted by the Peace Conference was in the case of the Burgenland. In this affair Coolidge played a very considerable part.…From the moment that this question began to be discussed in the Austrian newspapers…Coolidge had been interested in it.…At Paris, indeed, the Americans were the only delegation that was familiar with the subject, and the evidence they presented proved decisive.” Coolidge, Harold Jefferson and Lord, Robert Howard, Archibald Gary Coolidge, Life and Letters (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1932), pp. 225–226.Google Scholar Harold Coolidge was a younger brother of Archibald.

²⁷ Both Chancellor Renner and Foreign Minister Bauer repeatedly requested a plebiscite before the transfer of the Burgenland to Austria was finalized. Arbeiter Zeitung, 07 22, 1919, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar The Hungarian Soviet Republic was outraged at the decision, which it interpreted as a deliberate attempt to pit Austria against Hungary. Pester Lloyd, Morgenblatt, 07 23, 1919, p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁸ Renner to Clemenceau, August 6, 1919, Bericht über die Tätigkeit der deutschösterreichischen Friedensdelegation, Vol. II, Annex 68, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar This communication was followed five days later with a formal note from the Austrian delegation, which requested possession of the eastern part of Moson County because of its importance to Vienna for its food and grain supplies. Note No. 996 of the Austrian Delegation, August 11, 1919, Almond, and Lutz, , The Treaty of St. Germain, Doc. No. 151, pp. 421–422.Google Scholar

²⁹ “Extrait des Observations presentées par la Délégation Autrichienne Allemande sur l'Ensemble des Conditions de Paix avec l'Autriche Allemande,” Annexe au Procès-Verbal No. 6, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 459, Frame 0135 (No. 763.72119/8792 3/4).

³⁰ Procès-Verbal No. 6, August 12, 1919, Ibid., Frames 0131–0132.

³¹ Procès-Verbal No. 8, August 14, 1919, and Annexe II au Procès-Verbal No. 8, Ibid., Frames 0144, 0147–0148, and 0154 (No. 763.72119/8792 3/4). Czechoslovakia's territorial claims were presented to the Peace Conference in February, 1919. See secretary's notes of a conversation held in M. Pichon's room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, February 5, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. III, pp. 886–887Google Scholar; and Czechoslovakia, Delegation to the Peace Conference, Memorandum No. 2, The Territorial Claims of the Czecho-Slovak Republic (Paris: n. p., 1919), pp. 25–26 and 30.Google Scholar The Committee on Czechoslovak Affairs dismissed the idea of a land corridor between Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia as untenable, but the Committee on Ports, Waterways, and Railways granted Czechoslovakia the right to run trains over two inter-nationalized railways to the Adriatic. To insure access to the sea, one line was located in Austria and the other in Hungary. Had Austria's request for the eastern part of Moson County been granted, the Hungarian line would have passed for a short distance through Austrian territory. The committee did not wish to see both lines controlled by a single state.

³² Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, August 19, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 430, Frames 0300–0303 (No. 763.72119/6587); memorandum from Mennteufel, Vienna, August 19, 1919, Ibid., Frames 0305–0306.

³³ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, August 26, 1919, U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, pp. 630–631Google Scholar; Sigray to Halstead, August 28, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 433, Frames 0083–0085 (No. 763.72119/6791).

³⁴ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, August 28, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 433, Frames 0081–0082 (No. 763.72119/6791); U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, pp. 562–563.Google Scholar Theodore Ippen, acting chief of the Austrian foreign ministry, subsequently denied that Austria was directly or indirectly responsible for the agitation in West Hungary. See Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, August 29, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 433, Frames 0089–0090 (No. 763.72119/6792); and U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, p. 633.Google Scholar Citing a British report, Halstead dispatched a similar account two months later: “Reports of Hungarian harshness and some atrocities including the arrest of many people, reached this mission, and at the time appeared to be accurate, but after several weeks of investigations made by Captain Barber of the British Military Mission in Vienna … it appeared that the reports of dissatisfaction in West Hungary were very much exaggerated.” Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, November 29, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 453, Frames 0252–0255 (No. 763.72119/8414). Nine months later he repeated the same assessment. Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, August 24, 1920, United States Department of State, Records of the Department of State relating to the Internal Affairs of Austria-Hungary and Austria, 1919–1929, Microcopy M-695, Roll 6, Frames 0500–0510 (No. 863.00/372).

³⁵ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, September 13, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 438, Frames 0324–0326 (No. 763.72119/7097); Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, September 14, 1919, Ibid., Frames 0328–0330 (No. 763.72119/7098).

³⁶ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, September 5, 1919, Records of the Department of State relating to the Internal Affairs of Austria-Hungary and Austria, Microcopy M-695, Roll 5, Frames 0457–0460 (No. 863.00/182). In late November Halstead again commented on the financial aspect. He wrote: It “is reported to this Mission that the general situation in Austria, especially the high taxation and the uncertainty of the future combined with the rapidity with which order was restored in Hungary, have influenced many of the peasants who thought their future would be better if they would remain Austrian to believe that they would be happier even under the Hungarian rule.” Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, November 29, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 453, Frames 0252–0255 (No. 763.72119/8414).

³⁷ After examining various telegrams and reports on West Hungary, Sir Percy Loraine, of Great Britain, made the following interpretation of the apparent indecision of the inhabitants: “It is not at all unlikely that at the moment when the correspondence on this subject was being exchanged with the Austrian Delegation in Paris there may have been a current of opinion in the German districts of West Hungary in favor of incorporation with Austria, but due more to terror of the Bolshevist regime…than to any inherent desire for Austrian citizenship. Now, however,…Hungary has shaken off the Bolshevik microbe, whereas Vienna shows symptoms of sickening into a perfect receptive state for the red disease. In these circumstances it is easily possible that the current which I postulate, if it ever actually existed, has now set in the other direction.” Loraine to Leeper, Budapest, November 12, 1919, Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VI, Doc. No. 274, pp. 367–369.Google Scholar The same general opinion was also expressed by another British official. See Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, November 27, 1919, Ibid., Doc. No. 314, p. 421.

³⁸ Memorandum by A. W. DuBois, Vienna, December 1, 1919, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 453, Frames 0257–0261 (No. 763.72119/8416); U. S. Department of State, The Paris Peace Conference, Vol. XII, pp. 594–598.Google Scholar DuBois's journey through northern Burgenland took him through the villages of Pecsenyed (Pötsching), Tormafalu (Krensdorf), Zemenye (Zemendorf), Fertőszéleskut (Breiten-brunn), Pándorfalu (Parndorf), Köpcsény (Kittsee), and the city of Sopron (Ödenburg). The 1920 Hungarian census listed 18,511 Magyars, 23,657 Germans, and 3,799 Croats living in these towns, of whom 17, 166 Magyars, 16,911 Germans, and 733 Croats lived in the city of Sopron. Az 1920. Évi Népszámlálás, Pt. 1, pp. 39, 287, and 289. With the population of these towns nearly evenly divided by nationality, the economic situation would be a major factor if a plebiscite were held.

³⁹ Rapport du Colonel Vigna, résident du comité interallié pour la Hongrie occidentals à la mission militaire interalliée à Budapest, Sopron, January 26, 1920, Great Britain, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, 404/1, pp. 46–49.Google Scholar The Interallied Military Mission went to West Hungary in accord with a decision made by the Heads of Delegations on October 2, 1919. The members of the original commission were Major Michael (French), Lieutenant Atkins (British), and Colonel Vigna (Italian). There was no American officer on it because Secretary of War Newton D. Baker felt that the United States had no military interest in the matter. When a plebiscite was held in Sopron and surrounding villages in December, 1921, Hungary obtained 65.1 percent of the vote. Wambaugh, Sarah, Plebiscites since the World War (2 vols., Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1933), Vol. I, p. 292.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The Hungarian Peace Delegation, led by Count Albert Apponyi, arrived in Paris on January 7, 1920. Following the Senate's failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the United States had withdrawn from the Conference before the Hungarian Delegation armed but was unofficially represented at the Conference by an observer, Hugh C. Wallace, the United States ambassador to Paris.

⁴¹ Note XV and four annexes, Hungary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hungarian Peace Negotiations, Vol. I, pp. 516–537.Google Scholar For accounts of Hungary and the Peace Conference, see Deak, Francis, Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942)Google Scholar; Low, Alfred D., The Soviet Hungarian Republic and the Paris Peace Conference.Google Scholar In Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new ser., Vol. LIII, Pt. 10 (Philadelphia, Pa.: The American Philosophical Society, 1963)Google Scholar; and Nagy, Zsuzsa L., A párizsi békekonferencia és Magyarország 1918–1919 [The Paris Peace Conference and Hungary 1918–1919] (Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1965).Google Scholar During the negotiations with Hungary, Austria continued to protest Hungarian control of the region. See Papers and Documents relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary (2 vols., Budapest: Royal Hungarian University Press, 1939 and 1946), Vol. I, Doc. No. 120, p. 145Google Scholar; and Doc. No. 124, pp. 147–148.

⁴² See especially Grant-Smith to the Secretary of State, Budapest, February 5, 1920, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 467, Frames 0459–0460 (No. 763.72119/8942).

⁴³ Grant-Smith to the Secretary of State, Budapest, February 18, 1920, Ibid., Roll 474, Frames 0265–0272 (No. 763.72119/9467).

⁴⁴ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, February 28, 1920, ibid., Roll 475, Frames 0056–0059 (No. 763.72119/9486). The Hungarians continually insisted that because of the population density of the Burgenland the region did not produce crop surpluses, as the Austrians had maintained. For an example of this Hungarian argument, see Wallner, Ernő, “A burgenlandi kérdés” [The Burgenland Question], Földrajzi Közlemények [Geographical Publications], Vol. LVIII, No. 9–10 (1930), pp. 145–150.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, March 4, 1920, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 475, Frames 0454–0457 (No. 763.72119/9526). A British representative also reported a similar finding. See British High Command to Lord Curzon, Budapest, June 28, 1920, Great Britain, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Carton CCCLXXI, No. 4645. The Hungarian government had long complained that many of the alleged West Hungarian delegations advocating union with Austria were comprised of persons no longer residing in the region.

⁴⁶ Note XXII and Annex 1 of the same note, Hungary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hungarian Peace Negotiations, Vol. II, pp. 29–30, 36, 40, and 72–73.Google Scholar In early February Gustav Gratz, the Hungarian minister to Vienna, had also proposed to the Austrian government that a plebiscite be held in West Hungary. If Hungary won, Austria was to obtain a preferential customs agreement, while the Germans in West Hungary would be granted autonomy. Gratz to Somssich, February 1, 1920, Papers and Documents relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary, Vol. I, Doc. No. 113, p. 139.Google Scholar Chancellor Renner refused, stating that Austria felt obligated to carry out the terms of the Treaty of St. Germain. Halstead to the Secretary of State, Vienna, February 21, 1920, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 470, Frame 0130 (No. 763.72119/9214).

⁴⁷ Under Secretary of State [Polk] to the President, Washington, D. C., February 24, 1920, Records of the U. S. Department of State, Microcopy M-367, Roll 475, Frames 0151–0153 (No. 763.72119/9507). On the other hand, despite agreeing not to hold plebiscites in all areas to be ceded by Hungary, the United States maintained the conviction that Hungary could not support herself within her newly-delimited frontiers. See Department of State to the Secretary of the American Embassy at Paris, Washington, D. C., March 25, 1920, Ibid., Frames 0158–0159 (No. 763.72119/9508).

⁴⁸ The Conference of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers, at its meeting in London on March 8, 1920, concluded that it would be impossible to consider treaty modifications at so late a stage in the negotiations. Lord Curzon, of Great Britain, proposed an alternative—the frontier commissions appointed to delimit the Hungarian frontiers were to be given power to refer injustices to the League of Nations for debate upon the request of either party concerned. Notes of a Conference of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers, London, March 8, 1920, Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VII, Doc. No. 54, pp. 440–449.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In addition to the sources cited in the previous footnotes, a short selected bibliography of publications concerning the Burgenland question during the years 1918–1921 should include the following works: “An Austrian Conservative Voice on Western Hungary,” The New Europe, Vol. XVI, No. 199 (08 5, 1920), pp. 94–96Google Scholar; Bodo, Fritz (ed.), Burgenland (Vienna: Kommissions-Verlag, 1941)Google Scholar; E. D., , “Le plébiscite d'Oedenburg,” La vie des peuples, Vol. VI (1922), pp. 700–707Google Scholar; Deutschwestungarn nach dem Friedensvertrag (2nd rev'd. ed., Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1919)Google Scholar; de Weiss, Elizabeth, “Dispute for the Burgenland in 1919,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. III, No. 2 (07, 1943), pp. 147–166Google Scholar; Disagio, , “The Economic Relations between German-Austria and Hungary,” The New Europe, Vol. XII, No. 152 (09 11, 1919), pp. 206–209Google Scholar; Dujmovits, Walter, “Der Beitrag der in Wien lebenden Burgenländer zur Angliederung ihrer Heimat an Österreich,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1961), pp. 108–117Google Scholar; Dujmovits, Walter, “Die Haltung der westungarischen Bevölkerung zur Frage des Anschlußes des Burgenlandes an Österreich,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXVII, No. 1–2 (1965), pp. 57–69Google Scholar; Falk, Emmerich, Das Burgenland im Blickfeld tschechischer Grossherrschaftspläne (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938)Google Scholar; Ferrario, Carlo Antonio, Italie e Ungheria (Milan: n. p., 1926)Google Scholar; Gagyi, Jenő, A nyugatmagyarországi kéréls [The West Hungarian Question] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1921)Google Scholar; Goldinger, Walter, “Die Burgenlandfrage als Internationales Problem,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1961), pp. 99–107Google Scholar; Hochenbichler, Eduard, Republik im Schatten der Monarchic. Das Burgenland, ein europäisches Problem (Vienna: Europa Verlog, 1971)Google Scholar; Jedlicka, Ludwig, “Die Entstehung des heutigen Burgenlandes,” Südostdeutsches Arehiv, Vol. VII (1964), pp. 172–183Google Scholar; Jedlicka, Ludwig, “Die militärische Landnahme des Burgenlandes und deren innerpolitische Bedeutung,” Burgenländisehe Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1961), pp. 117–123Google Scholar; Gulya, Katalin, “Die westungarische Frage nach dem ersten Weltkrieg,” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. III, No. 2 (03, 1966), pp. 89–100Google Scholar; Lindeck-Pozza, Irmtraut, “Zur Vorgeschichte des Venediger Protokolls,” in 50 Jahre Burgenland. In Burgenländische Forschungen, special issue No. 3 (Eisenstadt, 1971), pp. 15–44Google Scholar; Miltschinsky, Viktor, Das Verbrechen von Ödenburg (Vienna: Kommissions Verlag “Literaria,” 1922)Google Scholar; Missuray-Krúg, Lajos, A nyugatmagyarországi felkelés [The West Hungarian Uprising] (Sopron: Röttig-Romwalter Nyomda, 1935)Google Scholar; Nagy, Iván, Nyugatmagyarország Ausztriában [West Hungary, in Austria] (2nd ed., Pécs: Taizs József Könyvnyomda, 1937)Google Scholar; Patry, Josef, Westungarn zu Deutschösterreich (Vienna: Selbstverlag, 1918)Google Scholar; von Pfaundler, Richard, Die Zukunft der Deutschen in Westungarn (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1919)Google Scholar; La question de la Hongrie oecidentale, résultat de la propaganda pan-germaniste (n. p.: n. p., 1921)Google Scholar; Rausnitz, Alfred, “Die Gendarmerie im Burgenlande,” in Neubauer, Franz (ed.), Die Gendarmerie in Österreich 1849–1924 (Vienna: Im Verlage des Gendarmerie-Jubi-läumsfonds, 1925)Google Scholar; Schlag, Gerald, “Zur Burgenlandfrage von Saint-Germain bis Venedig,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXXII, No. 3 (1970), pp. 97–125Google Scholar; Schlereth, Ludmilla, Die politische Entwicklung des ungarländischen Deutschtums während der Revolution 1918–19 (Munich: Verlag Max Schick, 1939)Google Scholar; von Schwarz, Alfred, Die Zukunft der Deutschen in Ungarn. Epilog zur Ödenburger Volksabstimmung (Ödenburg: Röttig-Romwalter, 1922)Google Scholar; Sinowatz, Fred, “Zur Geschichte des Landesnamens,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1961), pp. 123–130Google Scholar; Stepan, Eduard, Burgenland (Vienna: Verlag Zeitschrift “Deutsches Vaterland,” 1920)Google Scholar; Szmudits, Friedrich, “Geschichte der Angliederung des Burgenlandes an Österreich” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Vienna, 1937)Google Scholar; Teleki, Paul and Domanovszky, Alexandre, La Hongrie occidentale (Budapest: Ferdinand Pfeifer, 1920)Google Scholar; Thirring, Gustav, West-Hungary (Budapest: Ferdinand Pfeifer, 1920)Google Scholar; Thirring, Gusztávné and Waisbecker, Irén, A nyugatmagyarországi németek és a nemzetiségi Kérdések [The West Hungarian Germans and the Nationality Questions] (Budapest: Ferdinand Pfeifer, 1920)Google Scholar; and Winterstetten, R., Heinzenland. Deutsches “Neuland im Osten (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1919).Google Scholar

The following works can also be consulted with profit: Agotha, Tivadar, “De Kwestie Burgenland (1918–1921) in het Licht van de Publieke Opinie” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Leuven, 1966)Google Scholar; Brockhausen, Carl, “The Germans of West Hungary,” The New Europe, Vol. XIV, No. 178 (03 11, 1920), pp. 213–215Google Scholar; Dujmovits, Walter, “Die burgenländische Frage,” Öaterreichische Osthefte, Vol. VI, No. 4 (1964), pp. 289–301Google Scholar; Guglia, Otto, “Die Angliederung des Burgenlandes an Österreich,”Google Scholar in 50. Jahre Burgenland. In Burgenländische Forschungen, special issue No. 3 (Eisenstadt, 1971), pp. 3–14Google Scholar; Miltschinsky, Viktor, “Der Ödenburger Heimatdienst,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIV (1962), pp. 237–239Google Scholar; [Müller-Guttenbrunn, Adam], Wohin gehört Westungarn? (Vienna: Verein zur Erhaltung des Deutschtums in Ungarn, 1919)Google Scholar; Schlag, Gerald, “Die Angliederung des Burgenlandes an Österreich,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. XV, No. 8 (1971), pp. 433–453Google Scholar; Soós, Katalin G., A nyugatmagyarországi kérdés (1918–1919) [The West Hungarian Question (1918–1919)] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1962)Google Scholar; Soós, Katalin G., Burgenland az európa: politi-kában 1918–1921 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971)Google Scholar; Stadler, Karl R., “Das Werden des Burgenlandes—ein Teil der österreichischen und europäischen Nachkriegsgeschichte,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1 (1971), pp. 1–17Google Scholar; Hans Steinacher, “Zur Frage der Ödenburger Volksabstimmung (1921),” Ibid., Vol. XXIII, No. 4 (1961), pp. 195–202; Vukovics, Josef, Denkschrift über die Neueinrichtung des Burgenlandes (Vienna: Österreichische Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft, 1921)Google Scholar; Liga, Westungarische, Westungarns Schicksalsstunde. Ein aufrichtiges Wort an die Deutschen Westungarns (Ödenburg: Röttig-Rom-walter Druckerei, 1920)Google Scholar; and Zsombor, Géza, Westungarn. Zu Ungarn oder zu Österreich? (Ödenburg: Corvina, 1919).Google Scholar