¹ Quote by Hugo Metzger, the head of the Austrian Boundary Commission for the borders with Czechoslovakia. Národní archiv (NA), NAD 1580, f. Václav Roubík (VR), k. 7, “Au Sujet d’un Incident grave survenu près de Gmünd” (ca. September 1920).

² NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, č.j. 193, Czechoslovak Commissar for the Czech-Austrian Border Commission (23 September 1920).

³ Austrian State Archives/ Archive of the Republic (OeStA/AdR), f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “An die Bezirkshauptmannschaft in Gmünd” (24 September 1920).

⁴ After the fact, the young man claimed the crowd pushed him and he fell into the window of the car. OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “An die Bezirkshauptmannschaft in Gmünd” and “Bericht über die Sitzung am 24. September 1920” (Nr. 133) (24 September 1920).

⁵ For instance, the border between Czechoslovakia and Poland experienced a short-lived war over Teschen (Těšín/Cieszyn) that also led to a raid on the border commission office (“K současným poměrům na Těšínsku” (19 November 1920) Lidové Noviny, 1; Masarykův ústav a Archiv Akademie věd České republiky (MÚA AV ČR), NAD 282, f. Viktor Dvorský, k. 1, inv. č. 5., ka. 1, sig. Ic, “Životopis” (1956).

⁶ See, for instance: Haslinger, Peter, Nation und Territorium im tschechischen politischen Diskurs 1880–1938 (Munich, 2010), 257 Google Scholar. Dagmar Perman covers the diplomatic discussions around the establishment of the Czechoslovak-German border in detail in her book. Perman, Dagmar, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State: Diplomatic History of the Boundaries of Czechoslovakia, 1914–1920 (Leiden, 1962), 156–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Instructions for the Boundary Commissions also defined international and administrative borders as those existing in August 1914. MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, “Instructions Relatives aux Commissions de Délimitation” (6 October 1919).

⁷ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - 5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Staatsbahnwerkstätten Gmünd” (ca. June 1920).

⁸ See, for instance: Chester, Lucy, “Boundary commissions as tools to safeguard British interests at the end of empire,” Journal of Historical Geography 34 (2008): 494–515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donaldson, John W., “Politics and scale in boundary-making: the work of boundary commissions,” Journal of Historical Geography 34 (2008): 393–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; García-Alvarez, Jacobo and Puente-Lozano, Paloma, “Bridging central state and local communities’ territorial visions: boundary commissions and the making of Iberian borders, 1750–1900,” Journal of Historical Geography 57 (2017): 52–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haslinger, Peter, “Dilemmas of Security: The State, Local Agency, and the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Boundary Commission, 1921–25,” Austrian History Yearbook 49 (2018): 187–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Carvalho, Francismar Alex Lopes, “Mapmaking and Sovereignty Building: Francisco Requena and the Late Eighteenth-Century Boundary Demarcation Commissions,” Hispanic American Historical Review 102, no. 2 (2022): 191–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Donaldson, “Politics and scale in boundary-making,” 396.

¹⁰ García-Alvarez and Puente-Lozano, “Bridging central state and local communities’ territorial visions,” 53.

¹¹ Central European politicians and legal thinkers had discussed the idea of self-determination broadly in the Habsburg lands even before World War I. Despite its lack of uniform definition and legal weight, as Natasha Wheatley has argued, self-determination concretely influenced the minds of Europe’s inhabitants, and it was able to work itself into the “preexisting legal world” of Europe. With this idea of self-determination as a rhetorical resource for sovereignty claims for small states, the process from writing borders in Paris to legitimizing borders in public space implied not just proposals from claim makers and decision-makers in Paris, but also consultation with locals living along the border. As Wheatley has argued, the concept of self-determination was an “important intellectual resource” but it lacked a legal definition. Wheatley, Natasha, The Life and Death of States: Central Europe and the Transformation of Modern Sovereignty (Princeton, 2023), 133, 184–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This was not just the case in Czechoslovakia or Austria, but across central and eastern Europe. Moving further east, Catherine Gibson has shown how farmers sent petitions with maps over the Estonian-Latvian border, discussing the ways in which countermapping occurred along this border. See chapter 5 “Post-War Ethnic Boundary Mapping from Above and Below” in Catherine Gibson, Geographies of Nationhood: Cartography, Science, and Society in the Russian Imperial Baltic (Oxford, 2022).

¹² Burri, Michael, “Peacekeeping after Paris: The Interallied Commission for the Delimitation of the Boundary between Austria and Hungary,” Administory: Journal for the History of Public Administration / Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsgeschichte 7 (2022): 36–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Haslinger, “Dilemmas of Security,” 193.

¹⁴ Ibid., 194.

¹⁵ Ibid., 205.

¹⁶ MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918 – 1921, k. 72, č. 6959, “Československý stat” (ca. 1920).

¹⁷ Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 196.

¹⁸ Archiv Ministerstva zahraničních věcí (MZV), f. Pařížský archiv 1918–1921, k. 56, “Dobrozdání strategické k návrhům předneseným v zasedáni dne 2. prosince 1918” (2 December 1918).

¹⁹ “186. Staatssekretär für Äußeres Bauer an alle Missionen der neutralen Staaten” (13 March 1919) in Außenpolitische Dokumente der Republik Österreich 1 21. Oktober 1918 bis 14. März 1919, ed. Koch et. al. (Vienna, 1993), 508–12. In addition to arguing for the security of the state, the ethnographic makeup of the region became a large part of the Czechoslovak delegation’s argument for securing certain areas and towns along the border between Lower Austria and Bohemia and arguing that the border should be moved east. The delegation argued that the region had been an integral part of Bohemia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but was slowly “Germanized” from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.

²⁰ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Allgemeine Bemerkungen über die im Staatsvertrag von St. Germain vorgesehenen Grenze gegenüber dem tschechoslovakischen Staat” (ca. July 1920).

²¹ See, for instance: MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918–1921, k. 56, “Hranice Čech a Německa se stanoviska strategického.” (13 January 1919).

²² Haslinger, “Dilemmas of Security.”

²³ Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 199–203.

²⁴ Piotr S. Wandycz, France and her eastern allies, 1919–1925 (Minneapolis, 1962), 62.

²⁵ MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918 – 1921, k. 56, “Summerau, Cmuntské nádraží Břeclavské předmostí, Moravské pole.” (ca. January 1919).

²⁶ MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, “Instructions Relatives aux Commissions de Délimitation” (6 October 1919).

²⁷ MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 52, Secretary General of the Czechoslovak Delegation to Lieutenant Colonel Uffler (20 January 1920); MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 52, č.j. 562, (21 January 1920).

²⁸ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - 5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Geschäftsordnung der österreichischen Zentralgrenzkommission.” (31 October 1919).

OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - 5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Auszug aus dem Protokoll Nr. 31 über die Sitzung der Zentralgrenzgrenzkommission [sic] am 8. Juli 1920” (8 July 1920).

²⁹ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - 5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Telegraphische Mitteilung des Staatsamts für Aeusseres” (7 June 1920).

³⁰ MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 180, “Zápis o poradě zástupců vlády rakouské a vlády československé konané dne 10. ledna 1920” (10 January 1920).

³¹ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Zpráva o jednání hraniční komise ze dne 10. A 11. ledna 1920” (11 January 1920).

³² OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “La gare de Cmunt” (ca. 1920).

³³ The treaty had given the railway station in Gmünd to Czechoslovakia, and Austria would have to build their new station and rail lines at their own expense. OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8110, “Skizze für die notwendigen Linienumlegungen bei Gmünd” (ca. 1920).

³⁴ The Czechoslovak Commission requested control of Dolní Velenice, which they claimed was Czech-majority. The Austrian Commission requested that the border pass through Josefschlag/Josefsko in the direction of Zuggers/Krabonoš to keep communication lines open. The Austrian proposal actually complemented the Czechoslovak one, as it meant that Dolní Velenice would end up on Czechoslovak territory.

³⁵ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Zprava o jednaní hraniční komise dne 10. a 11. ledna 1920” (11 January 1920).

³⁶ MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, “Instructions Relatives aux Commissions de Délimitation” (1 May 1920).

³⁷ Dvorský was comparing the upcoming situation with Austria to working with the Polish boundary commission in Hlučínsko. MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 52, Viktor Dvorský to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (21 May 1920).

³⁸ MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 52, Viktor Dvorský to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department for the Peace Treaties (21 May 1920); MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 51, “Zpráva čsl. komisaře v mezinárodních rozhraničovacích komisích čsl.-polské o úsilí po urychlení prací a řádné oekonomii [sic]” (27 June 1921).

³⁹ This was a significant and calculated move by the commission, since the Instructions for the Boundary Commissions detailed how the commission members should hold military rank and also wear military uniform while conducting work. Czechoslovak officials were able to negotiate this point, putting civilians in decision-making roles on the commission. MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, “Instructions Relatives aux Commissions de Délimitation” (6 October 1919). Michael Burri analyzes how these commissions were intended to have an outward military appearance in his article on the demarcation Austrian-Hungarian boundary. Burri, “Peacekeeping after Paris,” 37.

⁴⁰ Státní oblastní archiv v Třeboni (SOA), f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 5, Josef Šírek, Antonín Kalbáč, and Antonín Soukup to Národní Jednota Pošumavská v Praze (23 July 1920).

⁴¹ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 38, “Wittingau” (ca. July 1920).

⁴² MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918–1921, k. 56, “Resoluce” (27 March 1919).

⁴³ Jan Kapras and Jan Hocke, “Germanisation de Vitorazsko,” 1919. Viktor Dvorský was another proponent of the negative consequences of the “Germanization” of certain regions of Czechoslovakia. He discusses Germans arriving and “colonizing” Slavic lands throughout his book Území českého národa [The Territory of the Czech Nation]. See, for instance: Dvorský, Území českého národa, 12, 28–32.

⁴⁴ MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918 – 1921, k. 56, “Protokol se zástupci menšinového národního výboru v Dolních Velenicích” (4 March 1919). Regardless of whether these accusations of discrimination occurred, they are important examples of how the Czechoslovak delegation constructed a narrative of national oppression in the region, and thus how the Czechoslovak delegation argued that Czechoslovakia should gain control of the region. Czech-language newspapers also frequently cited the Germanization of the region. See, for instance: SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 21, “Dozvuky obecních voleb župy vitorazské” (ca. May 1919).

⁴⁵ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 22, Mayor to the Minister of the Presidium (19 May 1919).

⁴⁶ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Allgemeine Bemerkungen über die im Staatsvertrag von St. Germain vorgesehenen Grenze gegenüber dem tschechoslovakischen Staat” (ca. July 1920).

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Weisungen für den österr. Kommissar in der internationalen Abgrenzungskommission für die Grenze gegenüber dem tschechoslovakischen Staat” (ca. June or July 1920).

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ There are many reasons for why a plebiscite did not occur in the region, but there is not one stated in the documents consulted. One potential reason is that the decision-makers at the Paris Peace Conference were quick to accept and adopt the Czechoslovak delegation’s rhetoric (Haslinger, Nation und Territorium, 256)—in this case, the need for a military annexation of Gmünd. Furthermore, the Czechoslovak boundary commission was against the plebiscite, considering that their delegation had received the majority of their territorial requests. The Czechoslovak delegation, however, did consider the situation in Gmünd similar to areas considered for plebiscites, as Gmünd was included on a Czech map prepared for the Paris Peace Conference also showing the plebiscite area for Orava and Spiš. “Plebiscitní pásmo na Oravě a Spiši.” Praha: Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí, ca. 1919–1920. Another reason is that the Allied Powers were not eager for plebiscites, and they required a large amount of money and resources. Dagmar Perman sums this concern up in her book: “To satisfy the Austrian demands would have imposed additional obligations and responsibilities upon the Allies which they were not only unwilling but actually unable to undertake. To satisfy the demand for a fair plebiscite in all the areas stipulated in the memorandums [sic] would have meant, in practice, that the Allies would have to take over the administration of half of Bohemia and Moravia, and establish numerous commissions whose task of maintaining order and supervising voting could not be accomplished without the support of Allied troops.” Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State, 201.

⁵¹ According to statistics supplied by the Czechoslovak delegation, the 179 km² area of Vitorazsko had a population of 13,753 people, with a density of 77 people per km² and contained 2,134 Czechs and 11,566 Germans. The closest in population to Vitorazsko would have been Sopron, which had approximately 26,000 registered voters. MZV, f. Pařížský archiv 1918 – 1921, k. 72, doc. 6959, Československý stát. Hlavní data přehledná (ca. 1919).

⁵² MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, Zpráva o schůzi delimitační komise českorakouské dne 30. července 1920 v Praze-II na Albertově č. 6 (30 July 1920). When the Austrian boundary commission representatives voiced their discontent with the border and the drawing of it according to the Treaty of Saint-Germain at the meeting of the commissions, Pellicelli responded by lecturing the Austrian representatives for not attending an earlier meeting in Paris, where he said some of their concerns could have been addressed. MZV, f. Mírová konference v Paříži a reparace 1918–1939, k. 211, Zpráva o schůzi delimitační komise českorakouské dne 29. července 1920 v Praze-II na Albertově č. 6 (29 July 1920). The meeting was attended by Uffler (France), Carey (England), Pellicelli (Italy), Touchiya (Japan), Metzger (Austria), and Roubík, Dvorský, and Secretary Burger (Czechoslovakia).

⁵³ Original: “Wer hätte das vor 6 Jahren gedacht!”

⁵⁴ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 34, “Z našeho Vitorazska” (12 August 1920).

⁵⁵ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8110, “BERICHT über die Tätigkeit vom 17. Bis 19./ 8.” (19 August 1920). While not the focus of this article, infrastructure issues such as this were present in other divided cities in Europe during and after border demarcation. Zora Piskačová has done important research on this issue on the Czechoslovak-Polish border by examining the city of Teschen: Zora Piskačová, “A ‘Common Enterprise?’ The Role of Utility Infrastructure in the Divided City of Teschen, 1920–1938,” Slavic Review 82, no. 4 (Winter 2023): 926–48.

⁵⁶ The border between Bohemia and Lower Austria would be divided into five sections: I. Plešný to Wurmbrand; II. Wurmbrand to Zulissen; III. Zulissen to Puchéř; IV. Puchéř to Nové Hrady; and V. Nové Hrady to Nová Ves (Kosselsdorf), which included Gmünd. NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, “Rozděleni pracovních skupin” (ca. 1920).

⁵⁷ The factory for the construction of the boundary stones was located directly next to the railway station. OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Beschaffung der Grenzsteine” (24 August 1920). The factory in Gmünd, while better set up than other areas along the border, still needed supplies from contractors in Vienna. The main concern with the construction of the boundary stones was the price of real versus artificial materials, and the durability of these stones. OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, To the Central Border Commission (4 September 1920).

⁵⁸ Ibid. As a rule, these stones would be placed no more than 750 meters apart along the land border. NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, “Trace sur Carte de la Ligne-Frontière” (ca. 1920).

⁵⁹ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - 5a. Internationale Grenzregelungsausschüsse, Gemeinsame exklusive Organisation, k. 8051, “Staatsbahnwerkstätten Gmünd” (ca. June 1920).

⁶⁰ NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, “Detailní úprava hranic na Vitorazsku a Valčicku dle potřeb čsl. Statni správy železniční” (12 July 1920).

⁶¹ “Die endgültige Grenze im Gmünder Gebiet” (1 October 1920), Arbeiter Zeitung.

⁶² Numbers were assigned to specific towns and points along the Lower Austrian and Bohemian border in Article 27.6 of the treaty, which people often referenced in their letters of protest. For instance, “Furthermore, it should be noted that the red line runs along the bordering plots, while the yellow line, on the first route, shares the plots of land nos. 758, 765, 789, 797, and 829 and the route of hill 681 passes across parcels of land nos. 837, 871, 873, 904, 902, 903.” OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, Municipal official, International Commission for the Border between Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Commission for Delimiting the Border between Austria and Czechoslovakia (3 September 1920).

⁶³ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8110, “Bericht über die Sitzung” (24 September 1920).

⁶⁴ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, International Commission for the Border between Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Commission for Delimiting the Border between Austria and Czechoslovakia (3 September 1920).

⁶⁵ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Commune de Weissenbach” (24 August 1920).

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Ibid.

⁶⁸ “Aus Nah und Fern – Gmünd” (25 September 1920), Der Bote aus dem Waldviertel.

⁶⁹ “Die endgültige Grenze im Gmünder Gebiet” (1 October 1920), Arbeiter Zeitung.

⁷⁰ García-Alvarez and Puente-Lozano, “Bridging central state and local communities’ territorial visions,” 60.

⁷¹ See, for instance, OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Relation über die Vorgänge in der Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd am 23. September 1920.” Ing. Feuchtinger, who witnessed the events during the day, also brings this up at the beginning of his interview, stating that the foreign delegates had always taken a “strongly negative stance against any consultation with the population.” OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Protokoll aufgenommen mit Hernn Oberbaurat Feuchtinger, als Ergänzung über die Begebenheiten in Gmünd am 23. September 1920.”

⁷² OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Protocole adressé avec Monsieur l’Ingenieur Feuchtinger concernant certains détails des événements, survenus à Gmund le 23 Septembre 1920.”

⁷³ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Protokoll aufgenommen mit Hernn Oberbaurat Feuchtinger, als Ergänzung über die Begebenheiten in Gmünd am 23. September 1920.”

⁷⁴ NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, Czechoslovak Commissar for the Czech-Austrian Border Commission (23 September 1920).

⁷⁵ See, for instance: “Ein Zwischenfall in Gmünd” (29 September 1920) in both Neues Wiener Tagblatt and Salzburger Volksblatt and “Die endgültige Grenze im Gmünder Gebiet” (1 October 1920), Arbeiter Zeitung.

⁷⁶ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, International Border Commission to the Commission for Delimiting the Frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia (25 September 1920).

⁷⁷ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “An die Bezirkshauptmannschaft in Gmünd” (24 September 1920).

⁷⁸ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Bericht über die Sitzung” (24 September 1920). Dr. Roubík vehemently denied these accusations, stating he did not wish to exact revenge against the demonstrators or the Austrian boundary commission. NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, “Au sujet de la démonstration de Gmünd” (ca. 23 September 1920).

⁷⁹ NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7; OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107 and k. 8110.

⁸⁰ Haslinger, “Dilemmas of Security,” 193.

⁸¹ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 4, “Denní zprávy” (ca. 1920).

⁸² OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, Commission for the Delimitation of the Austrian-Czechoslovak Border (6 December 1920).

⁸³ Ibid. The documents consulted do not mention whether this local excavation of the border took place.

⁸⁴ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8108, “Gesamtabrechnung” (17 January 1921).

⁸⁵ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8108, “Betrifft Lieferung von Grenzsteinen” (13 June 1921). Boundary stone shipment delays continued throughout the year. OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission— Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8108, “To the Austrian Boundary Commission” (1 December 1921).

⁸⁶ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission—Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8108, December 1, 1921. Josefwidy-Schrems Granit-und Syenit-Werke to Intern. Abgrenzungskommission (1 December 1921).

⁸⁷ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 53, “Zvěsti ze smutného kraje …” (15 November 1921).

⁸⁸ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8109 “An die Tschechoslovakische Delegation des internationalen Grenzregelungs – Ausschusses” (29 July 1922).

⁸⁹ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8109, “Rakouské delegaci delimitační v Brně” and 29 July 1922. “To the Czechoslovak Delegation of the International Border Regulation Committee” (18 July 1922).

⁹⁰ NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, “TRACE SUR CARTE DE LA LIGNE-FRONTIERE” (ca. 1920). Library and Archives Canada (LAC), “Smuggling of cocaine from Czechoslovakia to Austria: information forwarded by the government of Czechoslovakia” (Geneva, 1926).

⁹¹ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8110 “Protokoll aufgenommen am 30. Oktober 1920 für die Grenzkommission” (30 October 1920).

⁹² Densford, Kathryn E., “Feldsberg/Valtice and the Lower Austrian Towns That Became Czech, 1918–1920,” in Postwar continuity and new challenges in Central Europe, 1918–1923, ed. Pudłocki, Tomasz and Ruszała, Kamil (New York, 2022), 306 Google Scholar.

⁹³ OeStA/AdR, f. Zentralgrenzkommission - Österreichische Delegation für die tschechoslowakische Grenze, k. 8107, “Lokalbahnhof Gmünd” (ca. 1920).

⁹⁴ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 48, “Oslava I. výročí připojeni Vitorazska k Čsl. Republice” (6 August 1921) and doc. 47 “Vitorazsko” (6 September 1921). SOA v Třeboni, “Vitorazsko.”

⁹⁵ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 55, “Z Vitorazska.” (23 March 1923).

⁹⁶ SOA, f. Vitorazsko, k. 8, III D 3, doc. 49, “Farář, jenž provozuje rakouskou iredentu” (8 July 1921) and doc. 50, “Podřízení Vitorazska českobudějovickému biskupství a jeho odpůrci” (18 July 1921).

⁹⁷ Haslinger, “Dilemmas of Security,” 196.

⁹⁸ Ibid., 198.

⁹⁹ Burri, “Peacekeeping after Paris,” 41.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid.

¹⁰¹ NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, Commission for the Delimitation of the Austrian-Czechoslovak Frontier to the Secretary General of the Conference of Ambassadors (20 March 1923).

¹⁰² NA, NAD 1580, f. VR, k. 7, Commission for the Delimitation of the Austrian-Czechoslovak Frontier to the Czechoslovak Commissar in the Dissolved Austrian-Czechoslovak Commission (14 January 1925).

¹⁰³ Dvorský, Viktor, Základy politické geografie a Československý stát (Prague, 1923), 9–10 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Ironically, Dvorský had actually resigned from the Czechoslovak boundary commission with Austria in August 1920 because he believed the border issue to be settled. He felt he was needed along the Polish border, which he considered more unstable. NM, NAD 203, f. Kapras, k. 26, “Viktor Dvorský to Jan Kapras” (2 September 1920).