1. The Ruthenians have historically been known by many different names: Rusyns, Uhro-Rusyns, Carpatho-Russians, Carpatho-Ukrainians, and so forth. At the suggestion of the editor, the name Ruthenian is used here as an English equivalent for Rusyn, the term employed most often by the inhabitants and their cultural leaders. The present-day official designation, Ukrainian, has only recently come to have widespread use among the population.

2. The term Subcarpathian Ruthenia is meant to describe all territory inhabited by Ruthenians living south of the Carpathians—regions which today comprise the northern half of the Transcarpathian Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR and the Presov Region (Priashevshchyna) in northeastern Czechoslovakia. Subcarpathian (below the Carpathi ans) suggests geographical location, and Ruthenia—the English rendering of Rus1—the national and religious affiliation of the people.

3. The names of pre-1918 counties are given in the official language of the time, Hungarian; names of towns and cities in Ukrainian or Slovak, depending on present location. (The former Hungarian form is given in parenthesis.) As for persons, the version of the name will reflect the form favored by that person himself in his writings; hence the Russian form for the Russophile Beskid; the Ukrainian for the Ukrainophile Komarnytskyi; the Hungarian for the Magyarone Stefan. Names of Rusyn-American leaders follow the form used in Latin-alphabet emigre publications. The adjective rus'kix is rendered as Ruthenian, russkii as Russian. Transliteration of Ruthenian dialectal publications follows the Library of Congress pattern for Ukrainian with the following addition: i = i.

4. Initially, Slovak leaders represented the Ruthenians in Vienna, but the latter sent their own delegation on October 18, 1849, and petitioned the government to create administrative districts according to nationality, to introduce the Ruthenian language in schools, and to appoint Ruthenian officials. Union with the Galician Ruthenians would be postponed until a more opportune time. In 1861 Slovaks and Ruthenians again cooperated closely and presented a joint petition to Vienna. The documents are found in Daniel Rapant, Slovenske povstanie roku 1848-49, 5 vols, in 12 (Bratislava, 1937-68), 4, pt. 3: 173-74. A solid discussion of these and other nineteenth-century Ruthenian developments is given by Ivan, Zeguc, Die nationalpolitischen Bestrebungen der Karpato-Ruthenen, 1848-1914 (Wiesbaden, 1965), pp. 32 ffGoogle Scholar. For a survey of the extensive literature on this problem see Paul R. Magocsi, “An Historiographical Guide to Subcarpathian Rus', “ Austrian History Yearbook, vol. 9-10 (1974).

5. Oleksandr, Dukhnovych, “Avtobiohrafiia,” cited in his Tvory, 2 vols. (Presov and Bratislava, 1967-68), 1: 106–7 Google Scholar. See also the praiseworthy account of encounters between Ruthenian peasants and Russian soldiers in Sil'vai, Ivan A., “Avtobiografiia” (1898), in his Isbrannye proisvedeniia (Bratislava, 1987), p. 103 Google Scholar.

6. Russophiles, or Muscophiles, were those persons in Galicia, Bukovina, and Subcarpathian Ruthenia (a territorial unit they called Carpathian Russia) who claimed that the local inhabitants were of Russian nationality and who favored the adoption of the Russian literary language and Russian cultural patterns. Similarly, Ukrainophiles were natives of these territories who considered Ruthenians to be Ukrainians. They formed a Ukrainian literary language based on local dialects and propagated the use of this medium, not Russian, for educational and cultural affairs.

7. Ukrainian writers (both Soviet and non-Soviet) suggest that these contacts with Galicia are indicative of Ukrainian national feeling in Subcarpathian Ruthenia. This was hardly the case. Indeed, Dukhnovych did believe that “those on the other side of the mountains are not foreign,” yet at the same time he made clear: “Excuse me, brothers, if I am insulting someone, but I must truthfully say that your Ukrainian stories are not in good taste… . I don't understand by what means you could so quickly change the pure Ruthenian language to Ukrainian.” From an article in Viestnik … Rusinov avstriiskoi dershavy, no. 11 (Vienna, 1863), cited in Kyrylo Studyns'kyi, “Aleksander Dukhnovych i Halychyna: Studiia,” Naukovyi Zbornyk tovarystva ‘Prosvita, ’ 3 (1924): 92.

8. Among the early journals, all published in Uzhhorod, were Sviet (1867-71), Novyi Sviet (1871-72), Karpat (1873-86), and Listok (1885-1903).

9. Among the more influential Ukrainians were Volodymyr Hnatiuk, who wrote six volumes on Subcarpathian Ruthenian ethnography, and Mykhailo Drahomaniv, the national leader from the Russian Ukraine. Subcarpathian Ruthenians responded with respect to the interest expressed by their eastern brethren, but they clearly indicated displeasure with the idea of Ukrainian nationalism. For several explicitly anti-Ukrainian statements by the Subcarpathian intelligentsia see Nedziel'sky, Evgenii, Ocherk karpatorusskoi literature (Uzhhorod, 1932), pp. 256–57 Google Scholar.

10. The Greek Catholic or Uniat Church was established in 1595 for Ruthenians living in Poland and in 1642 for those in Subcarpathian Ruthenia. The Roman hierarchical system was adopted, although most of the eastern (Orthodox) traditions were maintained. A “return to Orthodoxy movement,” financed by Russian rubles and Ruthenian-American immigrant dollars, began in Subcarpathian Ruthenia in the late nineteenth century, but was restricted in size because of persecution by the Hungarian government, which in the years before 1914 had come to equate conversion to Orthodoxy with state treason.

11. Oszkar, Jaszi, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Hungary (London, 1924), p. 38 Google Scholar.

12. Avhustyn Shtefan, a Subcarpathian Ukrainophile, should not be confused with Dr. Agoston Stefan, the local Magyarone who served as governor of Rus'ka Kraina in 1919.

13. Petro, Stercho, Karpato-Ukrains'ka dershava (Toronto, 1965), pp. 112–14 Google Scholar; Avhustyn, Shtefan, Ukrains'ke viis'ko v Zakarpatti (Toronto and New York, 1969), p. 9 Google Scholar.

14. Cited in Ortoskop [Tvorydlo, Mykhailo], Derzhavni zmahamna Prykarpats'koi Ukrainy (Vienna, 1924), pp. 9–10 Google Scholar. For the text of another Luboviia declaration see Petr K., Smiian, Zhovtneva revoliutsiia i Zakarpattia: 1917-1919 rr. (Lviv, 1972), p. 31 Google Scholar

15. Reprinted in Peska, Zdenek and Markov, Josef, “Pfispevek k ustavnim dejinam Podkarpatske Rusi,” Bratislava, 5 (1931): 526–27Google Scholar.

16. M. Tvorydlo analyzed fifty-five completed questionnaires which he had in hand. As for remaining with Hungary, fifty-one were opposed, two were for it, and two abstained. In response to whether union with Rus’ (Ukraine) was desired, twenty-eight were favorable, twenty wanted complete independence, two were for Hungary, five were for the Ukraine—but, if not possible, for Czechoslovakia. These figures are only a sample, since it is not known how many questionnaires were completed and returned to Nevytskyi. Ortoskop, Dershavni zmahannia, pp. 11-12.

17. Speech quoted in I. V. Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” published during 1933 in the Uzhhorod newspaper, Karpatorusskii golos, no. 26, and in Ortoskop, Dershavni zmahannia, p. 22. On the Uzhhorod Council, see Avhustyn, Voloshyn, Spomyny (Uzhhorod, 1923), pp. 89–90 Google Scholar; Alois Rauser, “Pfipojeni Podkarpatske Rusi k ceskoslovenske republice, “ in J., Zatloukal, ed., Podkarpatska Rus (Bratislava, 1936), pp. 66–67 Google Scholar; Mel'nikova, I. N., “Kak byla vkliuchena Zakarpatskaia Ukraina v sostav Chekhoslovakii v 1919 g.,” Uchenye Zapysky Instituta slavianovedeniia, 3 (1951): 111–12Google Scholar; Stercho, , Karpato-Ukrains'ka derzhava, pp. 114–15Google Scholar; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 36–41Google Scholar.

18. Gabor, Daras, A Rutenfold elszakitasanak elomenyei, 1890-1920 (Budapest, 1936), pp. 98–99 Google Scholar.

19. The memorandum is reprinted in Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 30. The program of the Uhro-Ruthenian political party appears in Proklamatsiia do uhro-rus'koho naroda (Budapest, 1919), pp. 25-26. See also Karpato-Rus'kii Vistnyk (Uzhhorod), Dec. 23, 1918; Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” nos. 27-28; Daras, , A Rutenfold, pp. 99–103Google Scholar.

20. Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 30.

21. “Narodnyi zakon chysla 10 pro samoupravu rus'koho narodu zhyvushchoho na Uhorshchyni,” reprinted in Ortoskop, Derzhavni smahannia, pp. 32-33. An English translation is available in Peter G. Stercho, , Diplomacy of Double Morality: Europe's Crossroads in Carpatho-Ukrainc, 1919-1939 (New York, 1971), pp. 399–400 Google Scholar.

22. The occurrence of anti-Hungarian activity prompted Antonii Papp, the progovernment Bishop of Uzhhorod, to send to all his priests a circular which requested that they aid in controlling the “secret agitation for union with the Ukraine or Czechoslovakia “ as well as the “anti-Christian Social-Democratic radical agitation.” The appeal was dated Uzhhorod, November 28, 1918, and is reprinted in Ortoskop, Derzhavni smahannia, pp. 22-23, and in an edited version in Taiemne staie iavnym ﹛Dokwnenty pro antynarodmi diial'nisf tserkovnykiv na Zakarpatti v period okupatsii) (Uzhhorod, 1965), doc. 51.

23. Reprinted in Peska and Markov, “Prispevek,” pp. 524-26.

24. Ortoskop, Dershavni smahannia, pp. 13-14; Mykola, Andrusiak, “Istoriia Karpats'koi Ukrainy,” in Karpats'ka Ukraina (Lviv, 1939), p. 98 Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the resolutions of these smaller councils have never been published or summarized in any of the existing literature.

25. The Slovaks also promised “full autonomy” in ecclesiastical and educational affairs as well as the establishment of a university in the near future. “Proclamation of the Slovak National Council, Turciansky Sv. Martin, November 30, 1918,” reprinted in Peska and Markov, “Prispevek,” pp. 527-28. See also Medvecky, Karol A., Slovensky Prevrat, 4 vols. (Trnava, 1930-31), 1: 60–61 Google Scholar. The failure to fulfill these promises was to be a source of constant friction between Ruthenian leaders and the Czechoslovak government.

26. Ortoskop, Dershavni smahannia, pp. 13-17.

27. Rauser, “PHpojeni Podkarpatske Rusi,” p. 66; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 34–35Google Scholar; Daras, , A Rutenfold, p. 103 Google Scholar.

28. “Protokol Narodn'oho Zibrannia v Svaliavi, December 8, 1918,” reprinted in Ortoskop, Dershavni zmahannia, pp. 18-19. See also Augustin, Stefan, From Carpatho- Ruthenia to Carpatho-Ukraine (New York, 1954), p. 1954 Google Scholar, and Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 35–36Google Scholar.

29. “Maramarosh-Sihotskii sbor,” Karpato-Rus'kii Vistnyk, Dec. 23, 1918; “Protokol Maramoroshs'ka Rus'koi (Ukrains'koi) Narodnoi Rady, December 18, 1918,” reprinted in Ortoskop, Dershavni zmahannia, pp. 20-21.

30. “Memorandum Narodnago Sovieta Russkago Prikarpat'ia,” Sanok, Dec. 13, 1918, reprinted in Peska and Markov, “Prispevek,” pp. 528-31. Ukrainian writers have confused the geographical term Rus’ (Ukraine) with Ukrainian nationalism and have erroneously considered Nevytskyi and the Lubovria Council to be Ukrainophile. See Ortoskop, Derzhavni smahcumia, pp. 8-17; Stefan, , From Carpatho-Ruthenia, pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Stercho, , Karpato-Ukrains'ka dershava, p. 117 Google Scholar; Vasyl Hryvna, “Vplyv Zhovtnia na natsional'novyzvol'nyi rukh ukraintsiv Chekhoslovachchyny,” in Zhovten’ i ukrains'ka kul'tura (Presov, 1968), pp. 127-30; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 30–34Google Scholar.

31. Ukrainian leaders claim that at the October 19 meeting of the National Council in Lviv a letter from Subcarpathian leaders (unnamed) was read; it concluded with the request: “You, our brethren, must stand behind us and unite with us. Our people demand such salvation so that finally we can be liberated from the yoke of another people.” Cited in a work by the Chairman of the Lviv National Council, Kost Levyts'kyi, Velykyi sryv: Do istorii ukrains'koi derzhavnosty vid beresnia do lystopada 1918 r. na pidstavi spomyniv ta dokumentiv (Lviv, 1931), p. 118. See also Lozyns'kyi, Mykhailo, Halychyna v rr. 1918-1920 (Vienna, 1922), p. 29 Google Scholar. No work by a Subcarpathian author, however, has mentioned the sending of a letter to Lviv as early as October 1918.

32. The Kiev universal is cited in Lozyns'kyi, Halychyna, pp. 68-69. For the complicated circumstances under which this so-called Fourth Universal was issued see Reshetar, John S., The Ukrainian Revolution (Princeton, 1952), pp. 110–13 Google Scholar.

33. Jaszi, Revolution, p. 37. “Young soldiers returning from Russia have in particular brought the irresistible Bolshevik propaganda. They are causing an uproar against priests. “ From an article entitled “Bolshevism in Maramaros,” Gorog-Katholikus Sscmle (Uzhhorod), Dec. 15, 1918. On the impact of soldiers returning from the Russian front see also Shliakhom Zhovtnia: Zbimyk dokumentiv, 6 vols. (Uzhhorod, 1957), vol. 1, docs. 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 29.

34. Cited in Stefan, , From Carpatho-Ruthenia, p. 20 Google Scholar; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revolmtsiia, p. 36 Google Scholar; V. I. Netochaiev, “Vplyv Velykoi Zhovtnevoi sotsialistychnoi revoliutsii na Zakarpattia i rozhortannia borot'by trudiashchykh za vozz'iednannia z usim ukrains'kym narodom v 1918-1919 rr.,” Naukovi Zapysky, 30 (1957): 53.

35. Gorog-Katholikus Ssemie, Nov. 24, 1918. For examples of village petitions that called for union with the Ukraine in late 1918 see Netochaiev, “Vplyv,” pp. 52-53, and Shliakhom Zhovtnia, vol. 1, docs. 38-41, 49-51.

36. Cited in Fedor Vico, “Ohlas mad'arskej republiky Rad v Ukrajinskych obciach Zakarpatska,” Nove Obsory, 1 (1959): 48.

37. Despite aid from the West Ukrainian Republic, leaders like Vasyl Klempush emphasized that the “Hutsuls [term used by the local Ruthenians] themselves created the uprising and not the Galicians. Our Hutsul National Council decided to break away from Hungary and unite with the Ukraine.” See Shtefan, , Ukrains'ke pits'ko, pp. 11–21Google Scholar; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 55–59Google Scholar; “Hutsulska Republyka,” Nedilia Rusyna, 1 (1923): 54-55, 59-60.

38. The protocol of the Presov meeting is included as an annex to the Czechoslovak Delegation's “Memoire no. 6,” reprinted in La Paix de Versailles, vol. 9: Questions territoriales, pt. 1 (Paris, 1939), pp. 99-100, and in Stercho, , Diplomacy, pp. 404–5Google Scholar.

39. Manifesto reprinted in Peska and Markov, “Prispevek,” pp. 531-32. The anti- Ukrainianism of Beskid and his Galician allies was emphasized: “We consider the separatism of Ukrainian politicians a temporary phenomenon—anti-Slavic, anticultural, and antisocial—a product of Austro-German imperialism.” The decision of the Presov Council was opposed by former chairman Nevytskyi, who issued proclamations the same day calling for union with the Ukraine. Reprinted in Ortoskop, Derzhavni smahannia, pp. 14-16. Despite Nevytskyi's rhetoric calling for the Ukraine, his discontent was not motivated by displeasure with the Russophile attitude of the Presov Manifesto, but rather with the usurpation of the Council's leadership by Beskid and his supporters.

40. Voloshyn, , Spomyny, p. 92 Google Scholar, and his Dvi polytychni rozmovy (Uzhhorod, 1923), pp. 6-7.

41. Report of Hodza to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague, Dec. 19, 1918: Slovensky roschod s Mad'armi roku 1918: Dokumentarny vyklad o jednaniach dra Milana Hodzu ako csl. plnomocnika s Karolyiho mad'arskou vlddu v listopade a prosince 1918 (Bratislava, 1929), pp. 68-69.

42. Annexe no. 1, dated Dec. 18, 1918, attached to “Memoire no. 6 “—reprinted in La Paix de Versailles, vol. 9, pt. 1, pp. 98-99, and Stercho, , Diplomacy, pp. 403–4Google Scholar.

43. Report of Milan Hodza, representative of the Czechoslovak Republic in Budapest, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague, Jan. 3, 1919, in A. Kocman et al., eds., Boj o smer vyvoje ceskoslovenskeho statu, 2 vols. (Prague, 1965), vol. 1, doc. 28.

44. Ibid. According to Ortoskop, Dershavni zmahannia, p. 9, and Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia, “ no. 49, Komarnytskyi never signed any memorandum requesting union with Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, the latter did sign the December 18, 1918, proces verbalc and later, the May 8, 1919, formal declaration of union with Czechoslovakia.

45. The activity of Ruthenian-American immigrants is analyzed by Victor S. Mamatey, “The Slovaks and Carpatho-Ruthenians,” in Joseph P. O' Grady, , ed., The Immigrant's Influence on Wilson's Peace Policies (Lexington, 1967), pp. 224–49 Google Scholar; Joseph Danko, “Plebiscite of Carpatho-Ruthenians in the United States Recommending Union of Carpatho- Ruthenia with the Czechoslovak Republic,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences, 11, nos. 1-2 (1964-68): 184-207; and Hanak, Walter K., The Subcarpathian- Ruthenian Question: 1918-1945 (Munhall, Pa., 1962), pp. 7–13 Google Scholar.

46. Voloshyn, , Dvi polytychni, p. 7 Google Scholar, and his “Interv'iu” in Rusyn (Uzhhorod), Mar. 21-23, 1923.

47. As late as February 9-10, 1919, the Uzhhorod Council under Sabov and Voloshyn submitted a memorandum to Rus'ka Kraina's Minister Szabo demanding implementation of Law 10. See Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 42.

48. Lozyns'kyi, Halychyna, p. 60. The letter of invitation to Brashchaiko, dated December 25, 1918, is reprinted in Shliakhom Zhovtnia, 1: 496, n. 34. The Subcarpathian delegates to the Stanyslaviv meeting were the Hutsul leaders, Stepan Klochurak and Dmytro Klempush. See Shtefan, , Ukrains'ke viis'ko, p. 9 Google Scholar; I., Nahayewsky, History of the Modern Ukrainian State, 1917-1923 (Munich, 1966), p. 135 Google Scholar.

49. Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 35. See also Rauser, “Pfipojeni,” p. 66; Stefan, , From Carpatho-Ruthenia, p. 21 Google Scholar; Netochaiev, “Vplyv,” pp. 56-61; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 61–70Google Scholar.

50. The resolution is reprinted in Stercho, , Diplomacy, p. 401 Google Scholar, and partly in Ortoskop, Derzhavni smahannia, pp. 21-22.

51. “Ukaz pravytel'stva Uhorski Narodni Republyky chysla 928/1919 v dili orhanyzatsii Rus'koho Pravytel'stvennoho Sovitu” (dated Budapest, Feb. 5, 1919), Karpato- Rus'kii Vistnyk, Feb. 3, 1919.

52. Budapesti Hirlap, Jan. 6, 1919, cited in Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, p. 47 Google Scholar.

53. Budapesti Hirlap, Feb. 2, 1919, ibid., p. 51.

54. Mel'nikova, “Kak byla vkliuchena,” pp. 123-24; Usenko, V. V., Vplyv Velykoi Zhovtnevoi sotsialistychnoi revoliutsii na rozvytok revoliutsiinoho rukhu v Zakarpatti v 1917-1919 rr. (Kiev, 1955), pp. 131–35 Google Scholar; Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 33; Eva S. Balogh, “Nationality Problems of the Hungarian Soviet Republic,” in I., Volgyes, ed., Hungary in Revolution, 1918-19 (Lincoln, 1971), pp. 101–3 Google Scholar; Mykhailo, Troian, Uhors'ka komuna 1919 r. (Lviv, 1970), pp. 129–31 Google Scholar; Smiian, , Zhovtneva revoliutsiia, pp. 95–109Google Scholar.

55. “Konstytutsiia Rus'koi Kraini,” Rus'ka Pravda (Mukachevo), Apr. 12, 1919. Also reprinted in Shliakhom Zhovtnia, vol. 1, doc. 125.

56. Usenko, , Vplyv, pp. 150–51Google Scholar; Troian, , Uhors'ka komuna, pp. 136–38Google Scholar; Balogh, “Nationality Problems,” pp. 103-4; Iavorsky, Iuliian A., “Literaturnyi otgoloski ‘rus'kokrainskago' perioda v Zakarpatskoi Rusi 1919 goda,” in Karpatorusskii Sbornik (Uzhhorod, 1930), pp. 79–87 Google Scholar.

57. Usenko, , Vplyv, pp. 136–54Google Scholar; Troian, , Uhors'ka komuna, pp. 131–35Google Scholar; Shliakhom Zhovtnia, vol. 1, docs. 78-153.

58. “Despite the relatively short period of existence of Soviet rule in the Mukachevo area … its importance was very great… . [Soviet rule] was an important moral and political victory for Bolshevik ideas… . The age-long struggle of the workers of Transcarpathia against the internal exploiters and external counterrevolutionaries came to a close in late October 1944 with the liberation of Transcarpathia from fascist occupation by the heroic Red Army and the union with the Soviet Ukraine.” See M. V., Troian, “Borot'ba trudiashchykh Mukachivshchyny za Radians'ku vladu v 1918-1919 rr.,” Naukovi Zapysky, 30 (1957): 83-84Google Scholar.

59. Ibid., p. 76. There is no indication in Soviet or other sources that the decrees were greeted with favor by the local populace, and it is quite likely that the forced acquisition of foodstuffs (Shliakhom Zhovtnia, vol. 1, docs. 89-91, 109, 112, 128) was opposed by the peasantry.

60. Kaminsky, I. V., quoted in “Postupova abo konservativna polytyka?,” Rusyn, Feb. 6, 1923 Google Scholar. See also his “Nasha avtonomiia (samouprava),” Russkii ZcmledWskii Kalendar (Uzhhorod, 1922), pp. 69-70.

61. Usenko, , Vplyv, pp. 159–77Google Scholar; Balogh, “Nationality Problems,” pp. 104-5.

62. Iaroslav Kmitsikevych, “1919-i rik na Zakarpatti (spohad),” Naukovyi zbirnyk inuzeiu ukrains'koi kul'tury v Svydnyku, 4, pt. 1 (1969): 381-384; G. I. 2atkovic, Otkrytie- Expose byvsoho gubernatora Podkarpatskoj Rusi, o Podkarpatskoj Rusi (Homestead, Pa., 1921), pp. 10-15, and his “Polnoe spravozdanie h'na H. Y. Zhatkovycha,” Amierykanskii Russkii Vistnyk (Homestead, Pa.), June 5, 1919; Kaminsky, “Vospominaniia,” no. 64.

63. Protokoly obshchago sobraniia podkarpatskikh russkikh rod « … Tsentral'noi Russkoi Narodnoi Rady, reprinted in Karpatorusskije Novosti (New York), May 15, 1944.

64. Kmitsikevych claims that Beskid was present on May 8, but this is not borne out by the protocols or by another participant, Zsatkovich, who reported that Beskid remained in Presov awaiting (in vain) to be called by the government to Prague. See “Uriadovyi report Amerykanskoi Komyssii Rusynov,” Amierykanskii Russkii Vistnyk, July 3, 1919.

65. Protocol of May 8 in Karpatorusskije Novosti, May 15, 1944. The pro-Czechoslovak Presov National Council had all along demanded union with the non-Ukrainophile Galician Ruthenians (or Lemkians as they were called). See the Presov Council resolutions of January 7 and 31, 1919, and memorandum of May 1, 1919, addressed to President Wilson: reprinted in Peska and Markov, “PHspevek,” pp. 531-34. Similar demands were formulated by Beskid in a memorandum dated March 12, 1919, to the Czechoslovak government (reprinted in Boj o smer, vol. 1, doc. 54) and one dated April 20, 1919, to the Entente powers: Anthony Beskid and Dimitry Sobin, The Origin of the Lems, Slavs of Danubtan Provenance: Memorandum to the Peace Conference Concerning Their National Claims (no date or place of publication). The second document clearly defined territorial demands which did not include all of Galicia but only the lands of the non-Ukrainian “Russes des Carpathes (Lemki) “—an area north of the Carpathians stretching roughly from Lubovna in the west to Uzhhorod in the east. The farthest northern extent included the Galician towns of Dukla and Sanok.

66. Protocols of May 14 and 15, Karpatorusskije Novosti, May 15, 1944; Amierykanskii Russkii Vistnyk, July 3, 1919; Beskid, N. A., Karpatskaia Rus1 (Presov, 1920), pp. 105–6 Google Scholar.

67. Protocol of May 16 in Karpatorusskije Novosti, May 15, 1944.

68. Voloshyn, , Spomyny, p. 94 Google Scholar.

69. The best account of these developments is found in D., Perman, The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State (Leiden, 1962), pp. 213 ffGoogle Scholar., and Stercho, , Diplomacy, pp. 29–38Google Scholar.

70. Masaryk originally expected the area would be part of a united Russia. He claimed that only in 1917, during his stay in Kiev, was the problem “discussed many times” with Ukrainian leaders. Supposedly the latter “had no objection to the unification of Subcarpathian Ruthenia with us.” See Masaryk, Tomas G., Svetovd revoluce sa vdlky a ve valce, 1914-1918 (Prague, 1938), p. 290 Google Scholar. Curiously, none of the Ukrainian leaders (D. Doroshenko, P. Khrystiuk, A. Margolin, I. Mazepa, V. Petriv, V. Vynnychenko) mention in their memoirs any conversation with Masaryk about Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Nor does O. I. Bochkovs'kyi in his informative account of Masaryk in Kiev, T. G. Masaryk: Natsional'na problema ta ukrains'ka pytannia (Podebrady, 1930), pp. 135-53, say anything about discussions regarding the Subcarpathian problem. The silence is intriguing, since subsequently the West Ukrainian and Ukrainian National Republics claimed sovereignty over all “Ukrainians” living south of the Carpathians.

71. Czechoslovak Delegation, Memoire No. 6: The Ruthenes of Hungary (Paris, 1919).

72. Memoire sur ﹛'independence de I'Ukraine presente a la Conference de la Paix par la delegation de la Republique ukrainienne (Paris, 1919) ; Aide-memoire adresse aux puissances alliies et associees (Vienna, 1919)—actually a declaration by Magyarone Ruthenians living in Budapest, reprinted in The Hungarian Peace Negotiations, 4 vols. (Budapest, 1921), 1: 483-89; “Memorandum of the Russian Political Conference,” May 10, 1919, reprinted in Thompson, John M., Russia, Bolshevism and the Versailles Peace (Princeton, 1966), p. 399 Google Scholar; Dmitrij, Markoff, Memoire sur les aspirations nationales des Petits-Russiens de I'ancien empire austro-hongrois (Paris, 1919)Google Scholar. For Rumania's claim to Subcarpathian Ruthenia and its rejection by the Entente see Sherman D. Spector, Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference: A Study of the Diplomacy of loan I. C. Bratianu (New York, 1962), pp. 127-28. The Polish government demanded only a small part of territory inhabited by Subcarpathian Ruthenians near Lubovna: Commission Polonaise des Travaux Preparatoires au Congres de la Paix, Le Spis2, I'Orawa et le district de Czaca (Warsaw, 1919) and Territoires polonais en Hongrie septentrionale (Paris, 1919).