No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A disputed land: Italy, the military inter-allied commission and the plebiscite of Sopron
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
Abstract
In the fall of 1918, after over four years of war, the cohesion of Austria-Hungary collapsed. In the aftermath of the Great War, Burgenland (Western Hungary) was part of a pattern of complex territorial issues, though it was actually the smallest disputed territory between Hungary and her successor states. The region became a disputed land after the Allied Supreme Council recommended the transfer of most of it to Austria. The internal crisis in Budapest, the Habsburg restoration attempts and the activities of many militia on the ground led to an extremely dangerous situation. Diplomatic and direct military involvement of the Powers eventually resolved the issue with an agreement providing for a plebiscite on the fate of Sopron and the other smaller towns of the region. At least until 1921 Western Hungary represented an element of destabilization in Europe, while its partition was a significant event in the evolution of relations between the two new states of Hungary and Austria, and a testing ground for European diplomacy. The purpose of this article is to highlight the role of Italy in these complex events and to elucidate the contribution of its military in the formulation of clearer political strategy.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2014 Association for the Study of Nationalities
References
Ádám, Magda, Cholnoky, Győző, and Pomogáts, Béla, eds. 2000. Trianon. A Magyar békeküldöttség tevékenysége 1920-ban. Budapest: Lucidus.Google Scholar
Bodó, Béla. 2004. “Paramilitary Violence in Hungary After the First World War.” East European Quarterly
2 (38): 129–172.Google Scholar
Borsanyi, György. 1993. The Life of a Communist Revolutionary, Béla Kun. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
British and Foreign State Papers, 1812–1934. 1921. Vol. 114. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Carsten, Francis L.
1972. Revolution in Central Europe 1918–1919. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1918–1939 (DBFP). 1946. First Series, Vol. XXII. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Fornaro, Pasquale. 1980. Béla Kun, professione rivoluzionario: scritti e discorsi scelti, 1918–1936. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
Fornaro, Pasquale. 1987. Crisi postbellica e rivoluzione: l'Ungheria dei consigli e l'Europa danubiana nel primo dopoguerra. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Hétes, Tibor. 1969. A Magyarországi forradalmak krónikája 1918–1919. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó.Google Scholar
Imre, Magda, and Szücs, László. 1986. A Forradalmi Kormányzótánács jegyzőkönyvei 1919. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
János, Andrew C., and Slottman, William B., eds. 1972. Revolution in Perspective: Essays on the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jelavich, Barbara. 1987. Modern Austria: Empire and Republic, 1815–1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Király, Béla K., Pástor, Peter, and Sanders, Ivan, eds. 1982. Essays on World War I: Total War and Peacemaking. A Case Study on Trianon. New York: Brooklyn College Press – Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lehár, Anton. 1973. Erinnerungen: Gegenrevolution und Restaurationsversuche in Ungarn 1918–1921. Vienna: Verlag für Geshichte und Politik.Google Scholar
Low, Alfred D.
1963. The Hungarian Soviet Republic and Paris Peace Conference. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Macartney, Carlile A.
1937. Hungary and Her Successors. The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences 1919–1937. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Martens, Georg F.
1939. Nouveau recueil general de traités. Series III, Vol. 19. Leipzig: Librarie Hans Buske.Google Scholar
Niederhauser, Emil. 1981. The Rise of Nationality in Eastern Europe. Budapest: Corvina Books.Google Scholar
Romanelli, Guido. 2002. Nell'Ungheria di Béla Kun e durante l'occupazione militare romena. La mia missione (maggio-novembre 1919). Edited by Biagini Antonello. Roma: SME-Ufficio Storico.Google Scholar
Romsics, Ignáz.
2002. The Dismantling of Historic Hungary. The Peace Treaty of Trianon, 1920. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Seton-Watson, Robert W.
1969. The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy. New York: Constable.Google Scholar
Sugar, Peter F.
1997. Nationality and Society in Habsburg and Ottoman Europe. Aldershot: Variorum.Google Scholar
Trattati e Convenzioni fra il Regno d'Italia e gli altri Stati. Vol. XXVI. Torino: Tipografia del Regio Ministero degli Affari Esteri, 140.Google Scholar
Treaty of Peace Between Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary and Protocol and Declaration Signed at Trianon. June 4 1920. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Vares, Mari. 2008. The Question of Western Hungary/Burgenland, 1918–1923. A Territorial Question in the Contest of National and International Policy. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities.Google Scholar