June 4, 1920. Treaty of Trianon

On this day in 1920 the Treaty of Trianon was signed in Paris, reducing Hungary enormously in size although much of that reduction was already an established fact at this time.

The treaty formally ended the Kingdom of Hungary's status as a defeated belligerant in World War One.

The treaty read:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY and JAPAN, These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, BELGIUM, CHINA, CUBA, GREECE, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, and CZECHO-SLOVAKIA,
These Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers,
of the one part;
And HUNGARY,
of the other part;
Whereas on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government an Armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, I918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13, 1918, in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded, and
Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers are equally desirous that the war in which certain among them were successively involved, directly or indirectly, against Austria-Hungary, and which originated in the declaration of war by the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government on July 28, I914, against Serbia, and in the hostilities conducted by Germany in alliance with Austria-Hungary, should be replaced by a firm, just, and durable Peace, and
Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government:
For this purpose the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mr. Hugh Campbell WALLACE, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at Paris;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED STATES OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH OOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA: The Right Honourable Edward George VILLIERS, Earl of DERBY, K.G., P.C., K.C. V.O., C. B., Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at Paris; And
for the DOMINION of CANADA: The Honourable Sir George Halsey PERLEY, K. C. M. G., High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom;
for the COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA. The Right Honourable Andrew FISHER, High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom;
for the DOMINION of NEW ZEALAND: The Honourable Sir Thomas MACKENZIE, K.C.M.G., High Commissioner for New Zealand in the United Kingdom;
for the UNION of SOUTH AFRICA: Mr. Reginald Andrew BLANKENBERG, O.B.E., Acting High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in the United Kingdom;
for INDIA: The Right Honourable Edward George VILLIERS, Earl of DERBY, K.G., P.C., K.C.V.O., C.B., Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at Paris;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC: Mr. Alexandre MILLERAND, President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Mr. Frédéric FRANCOIS-MARSAL, Minister of Finance; Mr. Auguste Paul-Louis ISAAC, Minister of Commerce and Industry; Mr. Jules CAMBON, Ambassador of France; Mr. George Maurice PALÉOLOGUE, Ambassador of France, Secretary-General of the Minister for Foreign Affairs;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY: Count Lelio BONIN LONGARE, Senator of the Kingdom, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H.M. the King of Italy at Paris Rear Admiral Mario GRASSI;
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN: Mr. K. MATSUI, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H.M. the Emperor of Japan at Paris;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS: Mr. Jules VAN DEN HEUVEL, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Minister of State; Mr. Rolin JACQUEMYNS, Member of the Institute of Private International Law, Secretary-General of the Belgian Delegation;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHINESE REPUBLIC: Mr. Vikyuin Wellington Koo; Mr. Sao-Ke Alfred SZE;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CUBAN REPUBLIC: Dr. Rafael Martinez ORTIZ, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Cuban Republic at Paris;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES: Mr. Athos ROMANOS, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of H.M. the King of the Hellenes at Paris; THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA: Mr. Carlos A. VILLANUEVA, Charg‚ d'Affaires of the Republic of Nicaragua at Paris;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA: Mr. Raoul A. AMADOR, Chargé d'Affaires of the Republic of Panama at Paris;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC: Prince Eustache SAPIEHA, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic at London; Mr. Erasme PILTZ, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic at Prague;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC: Dr. Affonso da COSTA, formerly President of the Council of Ministers; Mr. Joao CHAGAS, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Portuguese Republic at Paris;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROUMANIA: Dr. Jon CANTACUZINO, Minister of State; Mr. Nicolae TITULESCU, formerly Minister Secretary of State;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE SERBS, THE CROATS AND THE SLOVENES: Mr. Nicolas P. PACHITCH, formerly President of the Council of Ministers; Mr. Ante TRUMBIC, Minister for Foreigri Affairs; Mr. Ivan ZOLGER, Doctor of Law;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SIAM: His Highness Prince CHAROON, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of H.M. the King of Siam at Paris;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAK REPUBLIC: Mr. Edward BENES, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Mr. Stephen OSUSKY, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Czecho-Slovak Republic at London;
HUNGARY: Mr. Gaston de BÉNARD, Minister of Labour and Public Welfare; Mr. Alfred DRASCHE-LAZAR de Thorda, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary;
WHO, having communicated their full powers found in good and due form, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
From the coming into force of the present Treaty the state of war will terminate.
From that moment and subject to the provisions of the present Treaty official relations will exist between the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary. 

PART I. THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ARTICLES I TO 26 AND ANNEX 

See Part 1, Treaty of Versailles, Pages 5-23 

PART II. FRONTIERS OF HUNGARY. ARTICLE 27.

The frontiers of Hungary shall be fixed as follows:
1. With Austria: From the point common to the three frontiers of Austria, Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia, this point to be selected on the ground about I kilometre west of Antonienhof (east of Kittsee), southwards to point 115 situated about 8 kilometres south-west of St. Johann, a line to be fixed on the ground, leaving entirely in Hungarian territory the Karlburg-Csorna railway and passing west of Kr. Jahrndorf and Wust-Sommerein, and east of Kittsee, D. Jahrndorf, Nickelsdorf and Andau; thence westwards to a point to be selected on the southern shore of Neusiedler See between Holling and Hidegseg, a line to be fixed on the ground passing south of Pamhagen, leaving in Hungarian territory the entire Einser canal as well as the branch railway running north-westwards from the station of Mexiko, and then crossing Neusiedler See keeping to the south of the island containing point 117; thence southwards to point 265 (Kamenje) about 2 kilometres south-east of Nikitsch, a line to be fixed on the ground passing east of Zenkendorf and Nikitsch and west of Nemet Pereszteg and Kovesd; thence south-westwards to point 883 (Trott Ko) about 9 kilometres south-west of Koszeg, a line to be fixed on the ground passing south-east of Locsmand Olmod and Liebing, and north-west of Koszeg and the roads from Koszeg to Salamonfa; thence southwards to point 234 about 7 kilometres north-northeast of Pinkamindszent, a line to be fixed on the ground passing east of Rohoncz and Nagynarda and west of Butsching and Dozmat, then through points 273, 260 and 241; thence in a general south-westerly direction to point 353 about 6 kilometres north-north-east of Szt Gotthard, a line to be fixed on the ground passing between Nagysaroslak and Pinkamindszent, then south of Karacsfa, Nemetbukkos and Zsamand and through point 323 (Hochkogel); thence south-westwards to a point to be selected on the watershed between the basins of the Raba (Raab) and the Mur about 2 kilometres east of Toka, this point being the point common to the three frontiers of Austria, Hungary and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, a line to be fixed on the ground passing east of Rabakeresztur, Nemetlak and Nagyfalva, west of the Radkersburg-Szt Gotthard road and through point 353 (Janke B.).
2 With the Serb-Croat-Slovene State:
From the point defined above in an easterly direction to point 313 about I0 kilometres south of Szt Gotthard, a line to be fixed on the ground following generally the watershed between the basins of the Raba on the north and of the Mur on the south
thence in a southerly direction to point 295 about 16 kilometres north-east of Muraszombat, a line to be fixed on the ground passing east of Nagydolany, Orihodos with its railway station, Kapornak, Domonkosfa and Kisszerdahely, and west of Kotormany and Szomorocz, and through points 319 and 29I; thence in a south-easterly direction to ,ooint 209 about 3 kilometres west of Nemesnep, a line to be fixed on the ground following generally the watershed between the Nemesnepi on the north and the Kebele on the south; thence in a south-south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the Lendva south of point 265, a line to be fixed on the ground passing to the east of Kebeleszentrnarton, Zsitkocz, Gonterhaza, Hidveg, Csente, Pincze and to the west of Lendva-jakabfa, Bodehaza, Gaborjanhaza, Dedes, Lendva-Ujfalu; thence in a south-easterly direction, the course of the Lendva downstream; then the course of the Mur downstream; then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia, about I 1/2 kilometres above the Gyekenyes-Koproncza railway bridge, the course of the Drau (Drave) downstream; thence south-eastwards to a point to be chosen about 9 kilometres east of Miholjacdolnji, the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia, modified, however, so as to leave the Gyekenyes-Barcs railway, together with the station of Gola, entirely in Hungarian territory; thence in an easterly direction to point 93 about 3 kilometres south-west of Baranyavar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Torjancz, Locs and Benge and south of Kassad, Beremend with its railway station and Illocska; thence in a north-easterly direction to a point to be chosen in the course of the Danube about 8 kilometres north of point 169 (Kiskoszeg), a line to be fixed on the ground passing to the west of Baranyavar, Foherczeglak (leaving to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State the railway joining these two places at the junction immediately to the north of Baranyavar) and Dalyok, and to the east of Ivan-Darda, Sarok, Udvar and Izabellafold (with its railway); thence east-north-eastwards to a point in the course of the Kigyos about 3 kilometres east-south-east of Bacsmadaras Station, a line to be fixed on the ground passing between Herczegszanto and Bereg, and then approximately following the course of the Ekigyos, but curving to the north of Rigyicza; thence east-north-eastwards to a point to be selected on the backwater of the Tisza (Theiss) about 5 1/2 kilometres east-north-east of Horgos Station, a line to be fixed on the ground passing south of Kun-Baja, cutting the Szabadka-Bacsalmas railway about 1 1/2 kilometres east of Csikeria Station, cutting the Szabadka-Kiskunhalas railway about 3 kilometres south of Kelebia Station, and passing north of Horgos and its station, and south of Roszkeszentmihalytelek; thence in a south-easterly direction to the Tisza, the median line of the backwater; thence to a point to be selected about 5 kilometres upstream the course of the Tisza;
thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be selected on the ground about 4 kilometres south-west of Kiszombor Station, approximztely east-south-east of point 84 and south-south-west of point 83, this point being the point common to the three frontiers of Roumania, Hungary, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State a line to be fixed on the ground passing between Gyala and Oszentivan and between Obeb and Kubekhaza.
3. With Roumania:
From the point defined above east-north-eastwards to a point to be selected on the Maros about 3 1/2 kilometres upstream from the railway bridge between Mako and Szeged, a line to be fixed on the ground; thence south-eastwards, and then north-eastwards to a point to be selected about I kilometre south of Nagylak Station, the course of the river Maros upstream; thence north-eastwards to the salient of the administrative boundary between the comitats of Csanad and Arad north-north-west of Nemetpereg, a line to be fixed on the ground passing between Nagylak and the railway station; thence east-north-eastwards to a point to be selected on the ground between Battonya and Tornya, this administrative boundary, passing north of Nemetpereg and Kispereg; thence to point 123 (about 1.2 kilometres east of Magosliget), the point common to the three frontiers of Hungary, Roumania and Czecho-Slovakia (Ruthenian territory), a line to be fixed on the ground passing west of Nagyvarjas, Kisvarjas and Nagyiratos, east of Dombegyhaz, Kevermes and Elek, west of Ottlaka, Nagy-Pel, Gyula-Varsand, Ant and Illye, east of Gyula, Gyula-Vari and Kotegyan, cutting the Nagysza-lonta-Gyula railway about 12 kilometres south-west of Nagysza-lonta and between the two bifurcations formed by the crossing of this line and the Szeghalom-Erdogyarak railway; passing east of Mehkerek, west of Nagyszalonta and Marczihaza, east of Geszt, west of Atyas, Olah-Szt-Miklos and Rojt, east of Ugra and Harsany, west of Korosszeg and Koros-Tarjan, east of Szakal arld Berek-Boszormeny, west of Bors, east of Artand, west of Nagy-Szanto, east of Nagy-Kereki, west of Pelbarthida and Bihardioszeg, east of Kis-Marja, west of Csokaly, east of Nagyleta and Almosd, west of Er-Selind, east of Bagamer, west of Er-Kenez and Ermilhalyfalva east of Szt-Gyorgy-Abrany and Peneszlek, west of Szaniszlo, Bere-Csomakoz, Feny, Csanalos, Borvely and Domahida, east of Vallaj, west of Csenger-Bagos and Ovari, east of Csenger-Ujfalu, west of Dara, east of Csenger and Komlod-Totfalu, west of Pete, east of Nagy-Gecz, west of Szaraz-Berek, east of Mehtelek, Garbolcz and Nagy-Hodos, west of Fertos-Almas, east of Kis-Hodos, west of Nagy-Palad, east of Ki-Palad and Magosliget.
4. With Czecho-Slovakia:
From point 123 described above north-westwards to a point to be selected on the course of the Batar about 1 kilometre east of Magosliget, a line to be fixed on the ground; thence the course of the Batar downstream; then to a point to be selected on it below Badalo and near this village, the course of the Tisza downstream; thence north-north-westwards to a point to be selected on the ground northeast at Darocz, a line to be fixed on the ground leaving in the Ruthenian territory of Czecho-Slovakia Badalo, Csoma, Macsola, Asztely and Deda, and in Hungarian territory Bereg-Surany and Darocz; thence north-westwards to the confluence of the Fekete-Viz anal the Csaronda, a line to be fixed on the ground passing through point 179, leaving in Ruthenian territory Mezo Kaszony, Lonyay Tn., Degenfeld Tn., Hetyen, Horvathi Tn., Komjathy Tn., and in Hungarian territory Kerek Gorond Tn., Berki Tn. and Barabas; thence to a point to be selected in its course above the administrative boundary between the comitats of Szabolcs and Bereg, the course of the Csaronda downstream; thence westwards to the point where the above-mentioned boundary coming from the right bank cuts the course of the Tisza, a line to be fixed on the ground; thence to a point to be selected on the ground east-south-east of Tarkany, the course of the 'I'isza downstream; thence approximately westwards to a point in the Ronyva about 3.7 kilometres north of the bridge between the town and the station of Satoralja-Ujhely, a line to be fixed on the ground leaving to Czecho-Slovakia Tarkany, Perbenyik, Oros, Kis-Kovesd, Bodrog-Szerdahely, Bodrog-Szog, and Borsi, and to Hungary Damoc, Laca, Rozvagy, Pacin, Karos, Felso-Berecki, crossing the Bodrog and cutting the railway triangle south-east of Satoralja-Ujhely, passing east of this town so as to leave the Kassa-Csap railway entirely in Czecho-Slovak territory; thence to a point near point 125 about 1 l/2 kilometres south of Alsomihalyi, the course of the Ronyva upstream; thence north-westwards to a point on the Hernad opposite point I67 on the right bank south-west of Abaujnadasd, a line to be fixed on the ground following approximately the watershed between the basins of the Ronyva on the east and the Bozsva on the west, but passing about 2 kilometres east of Pusztafalu, turning south-westwards at point 896, cutting at point 424 the Kassa-Satoralja road and passing south of Abaujnadasd; thence to a point to be selected on the ground about 1 1/2 kilometres south-west of Abaujvar, the course of the Hernad downstream; thence westwards to point 330 about 1 1/2 kilometres south-south-west of Pereny, a line to be fixed on the ground leaving to Czecho-Slovakia the villages of Miglecznemeti and Pereny, and to Hungary the village of Tornyosnemeti; thence westwards to point 291 about 35 kilometres south-east of Janok, the watershed between the basins of the Bodva on the north and the Rakacza on the south, but leaving in Hungarian territory the road on the crest south-east of Buzita; thence west-north-westwards to point 431 about 3 kilometres south-west of Torna, a line to be fixed on the ground leaving to Czecho-Slovakia Janok, Tornahorvati and Bodvavendegi, and to Hungary Tornaszentjakab and Hidvegardo; thence south-westwards to point 365 about 12 kilometres south-south-east of Pelsocz, a line to be fixed on the ground passing through points 601, 381 (on the Rozsnyo-Edeleny road), 557 and 502; thence south-south-westwards to point 305 about 7 kilometres north-west of Putnok, the watershed between the basins of the Sajo on the west and the Szuha and Kelemeri on the east; thence south-south-westwards to point 278 south of the confluence of the Sajo and the Rima, a line to be fixed on the ground, leaving Banreve station to Hungary while permitting, if required, the construction in Czecho-Slovak territory of a connection between the Pelsocz and Losoncz railway lines; thence south-westwards to point 485 about 10 kilometres east-north-east of Salgotarjan, a line to be fixed on the ground following approximately the watershed between the basins of the Rima to the north and the Hangony and Tarna rivers to the south; thence west-north-westwards to point 727, a line to be fixed on the ground leaving to Hungary the villages and mines of Zagyva-Rona and Salgo, and passing south of Somos-Ujfalu Station; thence north-westwards to point 391 about 7 kilometres east of Litke, a line following approximately the crest bounding on the northeast the basin of the Dobroda and passing through point 446; thence north-westwards to a point to be selected on the course of the Eipel (Ipoly) about 1 1/2 kilometres north-east of Tarnocz, a line to be fixed on the ground passing through point 312 and between Tarnocz and Kalonda; thence south-westwards to a point to be selected in the bend of the Eipel about 1 kilometre south of Tesmag, the course of the Eipel downstream; thence westwards to a point to be selected on the course of the Eipel about 1 kilometre west of Tesa, a line to be fixed on the ground so as to pass south of the station of Ipolysag and to leave entirely in Czecho-Slovak territory the railway from Ipolysag to Csata together with the branch line to Korpona (Karpfen), but leaving Bernecze and Tesa to Hungary; then southwards to its confluence with the Danube, the course of the Eipel downstream; thence to a point to be selected about 2 kilometres east of Antonienhof (east of Kittsee), the principai channel of navigation of the Danube upstream; thence westwards to a point to be selected on the ground about I kilometre west of Antonienhof (east of Kittsee), this point being the point common to the three frontiers of Austria, Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia, a line to be fixed on the ground. 

ARTICLE 28. 

The frontiers described by the present Treaty are traced, for such parts as are defined, on the one-in-a-million map attached to the present Treaty. In case of differences between the text and the map, the text will prevail. [See Preface.] 

ARTICLE 29.

Boundary Commissions, whose composition is or will be fixed in the present Treaty or in any other Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the, or any, interested States, will have to trace these frontiers on the ground. They shall have the power, not only of fixing those portions which are defined as "a line to be fixed on the ground," but also, where a request to that effect is made by one of the States concerned, and the Commission is satisfied that it is desirable to do so, of revising portions defined by administrative boundaries; this shall not, however, apply in the case of international frontiers existing in August, 1914, where the task of the Commission will confine itself to the re-establishment of signposts and boundary marks. They shall endeavour in both cases to follow as nearly as possible the descriptions given in the Treaties, taking into account as far as possible administrative boundaries and local economic interests.
The decisions of the Commissions will be taken by a majority, and shall be binding on the parties concerned.
The expenses of the Boundary Cornmissions will be borne in equal shares by the two States concerned. 

ARTICLE 30. 

In so far as frontiers defined by a waterway are concerned, the phrases acourse" or "channel" used in the descriptions of the present Treaty signify, as regards non-navigable rivers, the median line of the waterway or of its principal branch, and as regards navigable rivers, the median line of the principai channel of navigation. lt will rest with the Boundary Commissions provided for by the present Treaty to specify whether the frontier line shall follow any changes of the course or channel which may take place, or whether it shall be definitely fixed by the position of the course or channel at the time when the present Treaty comes into force. 

ARTICLE 31. 

The various States interested undertake to furnish to the Commissions all documents necessary for their tasks, especially authentic copies of agreements fixing existing or old frontiers, all large scale maps in existence, geodetic data, surveys completed but unpublished, and information concerning the changes of frontier watercourses.
They also undertake to instruct the local authorities to communicate to the Commissions all documents, especially plans, cadastral and land books, and to furnish on demand all details regarding property, existing economic conditions, and other necessary information. 

ARTICLE 32. 

The various States interested undertake to give every assistance to the Boundary Commissions, whether directly or through local authorities, in everything that concerns transport, accommodation, labour, material (signposts, boundary pillars) necessary for the accomplishment of their mission. 

ARTICLE 33. 

The various States interested undertake to safeguard the trigonometrical points, signals, posts or frontier marks erected by the Commission. 

ARTICLE 34. 

The pillars will be placed so as to be intervisible; they will be numbered, and their position and their number will be noted on a cartographic document. 

ARTICLE 35. 

The protocols defining the boundary and the maps and documents attached thereto will be made out in triplicate, of which two copies will be forwarded to the Governments of the limitrophe States and the third to the Government of the French Republic, which will deliver authentic copies to the Powers who sign the present Treaty. 

PART III. POLITICAL CLAUSES FOR EUROPE SECTION I. ITALY. 

ARTICLE 36. 

Hungary renounces so far as she is concerned in favour of Italy all rights and title which she could claim over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy recognized as forming part of Italy in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace concluded on September l0, 1919, between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria. 

ARTICLE 37. 

No sum shall be due by Italy on the ground of her entry into possession of the Palazzo Venezia at Rome. 

ARTICLE 38. 

Hungary shall restore to Italy within a period of three months all the wagons belonging to the Italian railways which before the outbreak of war had passed into Austria and are now in Hungary. 

ARTICLE 39. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 252, Part X (Economic Clauses), persons having their usual residence in the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy transferred to Italy in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria who, during the war, have been outside the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or have been imprisoned, interned or evacuated, shall enjoy the full benefit of the provisions of Articles 235 and 236, Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty. 

ARTICLE 40. 

Judgments rendered since August 4, 1914, by the courts in the territory transferred to Italy in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, in civil and commercial cases between the inhabitants of such territory and other nationals of the former Kingdom of Hungary, shall not be carried into effect until after endorsement by the corresponding new court in such territory.
All decisions rendered for political crimes or offences since August 4, 1914, by the judicial authorities of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy against Italian nationals, or against persons who acquire Italian nationality in accordance with the Treaty of Peace with Austria, shall be annulled. 

SECTION II . SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE. 

ARTICLE 41. 

Hungary, in conformity with the action already taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, recognises the complete independence of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. 

ARTICLE 42. 

Hungary renounces so far as she is concerned in favour of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated outside the frontiers of Hungary as laid down in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary) and recognised by the present Treaty, or by any Treaties concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement, as forming part of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. 

ARTICLE 43. 

A Commission consisting of seven members, five nominated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, one by the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and one by Hungary, shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line described in Article 27 (2), Part II (Frontiers of Hungary). 

ARTICLE 44 

The Serb-Croat Slovene State recognises and confirms in relation to Hungary its obligation to accept the embodiment in a Treaty with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by these Powers to protect the interests of inhabitants of that State who differ from the majority of the population in race, language or religion, as well as to protect freedorn of transit and equitable treatment of the commerce of other nations.
The proportion and nature of the financial obligations of Hungary which the Serb-Croat-Slovene State will have to assume on account of the territory placed under its sovereignty will be determined in accordance with Artide 186, Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the present Treaty.
Subsequent agreements will decide all questions which are not decided by the present Treaty and which may arise in consequence of the cession of the said territory. 

SECTION I I I . ROUMANIA. 

ARTICLE 45. 

Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated outside the frontiers of Hungary as laid down in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary) and recognised by the present Treaty, or by any Treaties concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement, as forming part of Roumania. 

ARTICLE 46. 

A Commission composed of seven members, five nominated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, one by Roumania, and one by Hungary, will be appointed within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line provided for in Article 27 (3), Part II (Frontiers of Hungary). 

ARTICLE 47. 

Roumania recognises and confirms in relation to Hungary her obligation to accept the embodiment in a Treaty with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by these Powers to protect the interests of inhabitants of that State who differ from the majority of the population in race, language or religion, as well as to protect freedom of transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of other nations.
The proportion and nature of the financial obligations of Hungary which Roumania will have to assume on account of the territory placed under her sovereignty will be determined in accordance with Article 186, Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the present Treaty.
Subsequent agreements will decide all questions which are not decided by the present Treaty and which may arise in consequence of the cession of the said territory. 

SECTION IV. CZECHO-SLOVAK STATE. 

ARTICLE 48. 

Hungary, in conformity with the action already taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, recognises the complete independence of the Czecho-Slovak State, which will include the autonomous territory of the Ruthenians to the south of the Carpathians. 

ARTICLE 49. 

Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of the Czecho-Slovak State all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated outside the frontiers of Hungary as laid down in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary) and recognised by the present Treaty, or by any Treaties concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement, as forming part of the Czecho-Slovak State. 

ARTICLE 50. 

A Commission composed of seven members, five nominated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, one by the CzechoSlovak State, and one by Hungary, will be appointed within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line provided for in Article 27 (4), Part 11 (Frontiers of Hungary). 

ARTICLE 51. 

The Czecho-Slovak State undertakes not to erect any military works in that portion of its territory which lies on the right bank of the Danube to the south of Bratislava (Pressburg). 

ARTICLE 52. 

The proportion and nature of the financial obligations of Hungary which the Czecho-Slovak State will have to assume on account of the territory placed under its sovereignty will be determined in accordance with Article 186, Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the present Treaty.
Subsequent agreements will decide all questions w-hich are not decided by the present Treaty and which may arise in consequence of the cession of the said territory. 

SECTION V. FIUME. 

ARTICLE 53 

Hungary renounces all rights and title over Fiume and the adjoining territories which belonged to the former Kingdom of Hungary and which lie within the boundaries which may subsequently be fixed.
Hungary undertakes to accept the dispositions made in regard to these territories, particularly in so far as concerns the nationality of the inhabitants, in the treaties concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement. 

SECTION VI. PROTECTION OF MINORITIES. 

ARTICLE 54. Hungary undertakes that the stipulations contained in this Section shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, regulation or official action shall connict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.
ARTICLE 55. Hungary undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Hungary without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Hungary shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals.
ARTICLE 56. Hungary admits and declares to be Hungarian nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality all persons possessing at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty rights of citizenship (pertinenza) within Hungarian territory who are not nationals of any other State.
ARTICLE 57 All persons born in Hungarian territory who are not born nationals of another State shall ipso facto become Hungarian nationals.
ARTICLE 58. All Hungarian nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion. Difference of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Hungarian national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for instance admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Hungarian national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.
Notwithstanding any establishment by the Hungarian Government of an official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Hungarian nationals of non-Magyar speech for the use of their language, either orally or in writing before the Courts.
Hungarian nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Hungarian nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.
ARTICLE 59. Hungary will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Hungarian nationals of other than Magyar speech are resident adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Hungarian nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Hungarian Government from making the teaching of the Magyar language obligatory in the said schools.
In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Hungarian nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.
ARTICLE 60. Hungary agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles of this Section, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The Allied and Associated Powers represented on the Council severally agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.
Hungary agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.
Hungary further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Hungarian Government and any one of the Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Hungarian Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant. 

SECTION VII. CLAUSES RELATING TO NATIONALITY. 

ARTICLE 61. Every person possessing rights of citizenship (pertinenza) in territory which formed part of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall obtain ipso facto to the exclusion of Hungarian nationality the nationality of the State exercising sovereignty over such territory.
ARTICLE 62. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 61, persons who acquired rights of citizenship after January I, 1910, in territory transferred under the present Treaty to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, or to the Czecho-Slovak State, will not acquire Serb-Croat-Slovene or Czecho-Slovak nationality without a permit from the Serb-Croat-Slovene State or the Czecho-Slovak State respectively. If the permit referred to in the preceding paragraph is not applied for, or is refused, the persons concerned will obtain ipso facto the nationality of the State exercising sovereignty over the territory in which they previously possessed rights of citizenship.
ARTICLE 63. Persons over 18 years of age losing their Hungarian nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 61 shall be entitled within a period of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for the nationality of the State in which they possessed rights of citizenship before acquiring such rights in the territory-transferred.
Option by a husband will cover his wife and option by parents will cover their children under 18 years of age.
Persons who have exercised the above right to opt must within the succeeding twelve months transfer their place of residence to the State for which they have opted.
They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in the territory of the other State where they had their place of residence before exercising their right to opt.
They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export or import duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.
ARTICLE 64. Persons possessing rights of citizenship in territory forming part of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and differing in race and language from the majority of the population of such territory, shall within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty severally be entitled to opt for Austria, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, or the Czecho-Slovak State, if the majority of the population of the State selected is of the same race and language as the person exercising the right to opt. The provisions of Article 63 as to the exercise of the right of option shall apply to the right of option given by this Article.
ARTICLE 65. The High Contracting Parties undertake to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have under the present Treaty, or under treaties concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with Germany, Austria or Russia, or between any of the Allied and Associated Powers themselves, to choose any other nationality which may be open to them.
ARTICLE 66. For the purposes of the provisions of this Section, the status of a married woman will be governed by that of her husband, and the status of children under 18 years of age by that of their parents. 

SECTION VIII. POLITICAL CLAUSES RELATING TO CERTAIN EUROPEAN STATES. 

1. Belgium. ARTICLE 67. Hungary, recognising that the Treaties of April 19, 1839, which established the status of Belgium before the war, no longer conform to the requirements of the situation, consents, so far as she is concerned, to the abrogation of the said treaties and undertakes immediately to recognise and to observe whatever conventions may be entered into by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or by any of them, in concert with the Governments of Belgium and of the Netherlands, to replace the said Treaties of I839. If her formal adhesion should be required to such conventions or to any of their stipulations, Hungary undertakes immediately to give it.
2. Luxemburg. ARTICLE 68. Hungary agrees, so far as she is concerned, to the termination of the régime of neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and accepts in advance all international arrangements which may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers relating to the Grand Duchy.
3. Schieswig ARTICLE 69. Hungary hereby accepts, so far as she is concerned, all arrangements made by the Allied and Associated Powers with Germany concerning the territories whose abandonment was imposed upon Denmark by the Treaty of October 30, 1864.
4. Turkey and Bulgaria. ARTICLE 70. Hungary undertakes to recognise and accept, so far as she is concerned, all arrangements which the Allied and Associated Powers may make or have made with Turkey and Bulgaria with reference to any rights, interests and privileges whatever which might be claimed by Hungary or her nationals in Turkey or Bulgaria and which are not dealt with in the provisions of the present Treaty.
5. Austria. ARTICLE 71. Hungary renounces in favour of Austria all rights and title over the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary situated outside the frontiers of Hungary as laid down in Article 27 (I), Part II (Frontiers of Hungary).
A Commission composed of seven members, five nominated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, one by Hungary and one by Austria, shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line referred to above.
The nationality of the inhabitants of the territories referred to in the present Article shall be regulated in conformity with the dispositions of Articles 6I and 63 to 66.
6. Russia and Russian States. ARTICLE 72. (I) Hungary acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the independence of all the territories which were part of the former Russian Empire on August I, 1914.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 193, Part IX (Financial Clauses) and Article 227, Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty, Hungary definitively accepts, so far as she is concerned, the abrogation of the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and of all other treaties, conventions and agreements entered into by the former Austro-Hungarian Government with the Maximalist Government in Russia.
The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the rights of Russia to obtain from Hungary restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty.
(2) Hungary undertakes to recognise the full force of all treaties or agreements which may be entered into by the Allied and Associated Powers with States now existing or coming into existence in future in the whole or part of the former Empire of Russia as it existed on August I, 1914, and to recognise the frontiers of any such States as determined therein. 

SECTION IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

ARTICLE 73. The independence of Hungary is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations. Consequently, Hungary undertakes in the absence of the consent of the said Council to abstain from any act which might directly or indirectly or by any means whatever compromise her independence, particularly, and until her admission to membership of the League of Nations, by participation in the affairs of another Power.
ARTICLE 74. Hungary hereby recognises and accepts the frontiers of Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Czecho-Slovak State as these frontiers may be determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Hungary undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional conventions which have been or may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and to recognise whatever dispositions have been or may be made concerning the territories of the former German Empire, of Austria, of the Kingdom of Bulgaria and of the Ottoman Empire, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.
ARTICLE 75 Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title over the territories which previously belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and which, being situated outside the new frontiers of Hungary as described in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary), have not at present been otherwise disposed of.
Hungary undertakes to accept the settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these territories, particularly in so far as concerns the nationality of the inhabitants.
ARTICLE 76. No inhabitant of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall be disturbed or molested on account either of his political attitude between July 28, 1914, and the definitive settlement of the sovereignty over these territories, or of the determination of his nationality effected by the present Treaty. ARTICLE 77. Hungary will hand over without delay to the Allied and Associated Governments concerned archives, registers, plans, titledeeds and documents of every kind belonging to the civil, military, financial, judicial or other forms of administration in the ceded territories. If any one of these documents, archives, registers, title-deeds or plans is missing, it shall be restored by Hungary upon the demand of the Allied or Associated Government concerned.
In case the archives, registers, plans, title-deeds or documents referred to in the preceding paragraph, exclusive of those of a military character, concern equally the administrations in Hungary, and cannot therefore be handed over without inconvenience to such administrations, Hungary undertakes, subject to reciprocity, to give access thereto to the Allied and Associated Governments concerned.
ARTICLE 78. Separate conventions between Hungary and each of the States to which territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary is transferred, and each of the States arising from the dismemberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, will provide for the interests of the inhabitants, especially in connection with their civil rights, their commerce and the exercise of their professions. 

PART IV. HUNGARIAN INTERESTS OUTSIDE EUROPE. 

ARTICLE 79. In territory outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, all rights, titles and privileges in or over territory outside Europe which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, or to its allies, and all rights, titles and privileges whatever their origin which it held as against the Allied and Associated Powers.
Hungary undertakes immediately to recognise and to conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect. 

SECTION I. MOROCCO. 

ARTICLE 80. Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, all rights, titles and privileges conferred on her by the General Act of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, and by the Franco-German Agreements of February 9, I909, and November 4, I911. All treaties, agreements, arrangements and contracts concluded by the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy with the Sherifian Empire are regarded as abrogated as from August 12, 1914. In no case can Hungary avail herself of these acts and she undertakes not to intervene in any way in negotiations relating to Morocco which may take place between France and the other Powers.
ARTICLE 8I. Hungary hereby accepts all the consequences of the establishment of the French Protectorate in Morocco, which had been recognised by the Government of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and she renounces, so far as she is concerned, the régime of the capitulations in Morocco.
This renunciation shall take effect as from August 12, 1914.
ARTICLE 82. The Sherifian Government shall have complete liberty of action in regulating the status of Hungarian nationals in Morocco and the conditions in which they can establish themselves there.
Hungarian-protected persons, semsars and aassociés agricoles" shall be considered to have ceased, as from August 12, 1914, to enjoy the privileges attached to their status, and shall be subject to the ordinary law.
ARTICLE 83. All movable and immovable property in the Sherifian Empire belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy passes ipso facto to the Maghzen without compensation.
For this purpose, the property and possessions of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall be deemed to include all the property of the Crown, and the private property of members of the former Royal Family of Austria-Hungary.
All movable and immovable property in the Sherifian Empire belonging to Hungarian nationals shall be dealt with in accordance with Sections III and IV of Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty.
Mining rights which may be recognised as belonging to Hungarian nationals by the Court of Arbitration set up under the Moroccan Mining Regulations shall be treated in the same way as property in Morocco belonging to Hungarian nationals.
ARTICLE 84. The Hungarian Government shall ensure the transfer to the person nominated by the French Government of the shares representing Hungary's portion of the capital of the State Bank of Morocco. This person will repay to the persons entitled thereto the value of these shares, which shall be indicated by the State Bank.
This transfer will take place without prejudice to the repayment of debts which Hungarian nationals may have contracted towards the State Bank of Morocco. ARTICLE 85. Moroccan goods entering Hungary shall enjoy the treatment accorded to French goods. 

SECTION II. EGYPT. 

ARTICLE 86. Hungary declares that she recognises the Protectorate proclaimed over Egypt by Great Britain on December 18, 1914, and that she renounces, so far as she is concerned, the régime of the capitulations in Egypt
This renunciation shall take effect as from August 12, 1914.
ARTICLE 87. All treaties, agreements, arrangements and contracts concluded by the Government of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy with Egypt are regarded as abrogated as from August 12, 1914.
In no case can Hungary avail herself of these instruments, and she undertakes not to intervene in any way in negotiations relating to Egypt which may take place between Great Britain and the other Powers.
ARTICLE 88. Until an Egyptian law of judicial organization establishing courts with universal jurisdiction comes into force, provision shall be made, by means of decrees issued by His Highness the Sultan, for the exercise of jurisdiction over Hungarian nationals and property by the British Consular Tribunals.
ARTICLE 89. The Egyptian Government shall have complete liberty of action in regulating the status of Hungarian nationals and the conditions under which they may establish themselves in Egypt.
ARTICLE 90. Hungary consents, so far as she is concerned, to the abrogation of the decree issued by His Highness the Khedive on November 28, 1904, relating to the Commission of the Egyptian Public Debt, or to such changes as the Egyptian Government may think it desirable to make therein.
ARTICLE 91. Hungary consents, so far as she is concerned, to the transfer to His Britannic Majesty's Government of the powers conferred on His Imperial Majesty the Sultan by the Convention signed at Constantinople on October 29, 1888, relating to the free navigation of the Suez Canal.
She renounces all participation in the Sanitary, Maritime and Quarantine Board of Egypt and consents, so far as she is concerned, to the transfer to the Egyptian Authorities of the powers of that Board.
ARTICLE 92. All property and possessions in Egypt of the former AustroHungarian Monarchy pass to the Egyptian Government without payment.
For this purpose, the property and possessions of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall be deemed to include all the property of the Crown, and the private property of members of the former Royal Family of Austria-Hungary.
All movable and immovable property in Egypt belonging to Hungarian nationals shall be dealt with in accordance with Sections III and IV of Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 93. Egyptian goods entering Hungary shall enjoy the treatment accorded to British goods. 

SECTION III. SIAM. 

ARTICLE 94. Hungary recognises, so far as she is concerned, that all treaties, conventions and agreements between the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and Siam, and all rights, title and privileges derived therefrom, including all rights of extra-territorial jurisdiction, terminated as from July 22, 1917.
ARTICLE 95. Hungary, so far as she is concerned, cedes to Siam all her rights over the goods and property in Siam which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, with the exception of premises used as diplomatic or consular residences or offices as well as the effects and furniture which they contain. These goods and property pass ipso facto and without compensation to the Siamese Government.
The goods, property and private rights of Hungarian nationals in Siam shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Palt X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty. ARTICLE 96. Hungary waives all claims against the Siamese Government on behalf of herself or her nationals arising out of the liquidation of Hungarian property or the internment of Hungarian nationals in Siam. This provision shall not affect the rights of the parties interested in the proceeds of any such liquidation, which shall be governed by the provisions of Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty. 

SECTION IV. CHINA. 

ARTICLE 97. Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of China all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901, and from all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto. She likewise renounces in favour of China any claim to indemnities accruing thereunder subsequent to August 14, 1917.
ARTICLE 98. From the coming into force of the present Treaty the High Contracting Parties shall apply, in so far as concerns them respectively:
(1) the Arrangement of August 29, 1902, regarding the new Chinese customs tariff;
(2) the Arrangement of September 27, 1905, regarding Whang Poo, and the provisional supplementary Arrangement of April 4, 1912.
China, however, will not be bound to grant to Hungary the advantages or privileges which she allowed to the former AustroHungarian Monarchy under these Arrangements. ARTICLE 99. Hungary, so far as she is concerned, cedes to China all her rights over the buildings, wharves and pontoons, barracks, forts, arms and munitions of war, vessels of all kinds, wireless telegraphy installations and other public property which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and which are situated or may be in the Austro-Hungarian Concession at Tientsin or elsewhere in Chinese territory.
It is understood, however, that premises used as diplomatic or consular residences or offices, as well as the effects and furniture contained therein, are not included in the above cession, and, furthermore, that no steps shall be taken by the Chinese Government to dispose of the public and private property belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated within the so-called Legation Quarter at Peking without the consent of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Powers which, on the coming into force of the present Treaty, remain parties to the Final Protocol of September 7, 190I.
ARTICLE I00. Hungary agrees, so far as she is concerned, to the abrogation of the leases from the Chinese Government under which the AustroHungarian Concession at Tientsin is now held.
China, restored to the full exercise of her sovereign rights in the above area, declares her intention of opening it to international residence and trade. She further declares that the abrogation of the leases under which the said concession is now held sh:lll not affect the property rights of nationals of Allied and Associated Powers who are holders of lots in this concession.
ARTICLE 101 Hungary waives all claims against the Chinese Government or against any Allied or Associated Government arising out of the internment of Hungarian nationals in China and their repatriation. She equally renounces, so far as she is concerned, all claims arising out of the capture and condemnation of Austro-Hungarian ships in China, or the liquidation, sequestration or control oE Hungarian properties, rights and interests in that country since August 14, 1917. This provision, however, shall not affect the rights of the parties interested in the proceeds of any such liquidation, which shall be governed by the provisions of Part X (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty.

The results of the treaty, which left large numbers of ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries, have never been accepted by Hungarians.  The treaty was designed to attempt to allow various ethnicities that had lived within the Austro Hungarian Empire to have their own states, but the high degree of ethnic diaspora in the Kingdom of Hungary meant that there was no way to do this that didn't leave many Magyars in other new countries.  The resulting territory loss is referred to as the Trianon Trauma in Hungary.

At the time flags in Hungary were lowered in protest of losing 2/3s of the kingdom's territory. They were raised 1/3 when Hungary benefited from the German dismantling of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and then raised further ad Hungary temporarily regained territory as a German ally in early in Nazi Germany's rise during World War Two. The treaty directly lead to the Hungarians participating on the German side in World War Two, and even after the disastrous results of that war for Hungary, the majority of Hungarians feel that their country should include territory lost to the treaty in 1920.

Mid Week At Work: The shipbuilders.

We ran this photograph yesterday:

Lex Anteinternet: June 2, 1920. Ships and faraway places.:

June 2, 1920. Ships and faraway places.

Workmen posing before the launch of the USS Neches, Boston Navy Yard, June 2, 1920.  The ship was an oiler that would serve for 22 years until sunk by the Japanese submarine I-72 on January 23, 1942.

This photo is a truly remarkable photograph of the men associated with the building of a ship.  Highly detailed, and capturing them in their everyday clothes.

June 3, 1920. Matters military.

The USS Tennessee.

On this day in 1920, the USS Tennessee was launched.  She was at Pearl Harbor in 1941 but was not sunk as the bombs that hit her failed to perform correctly.  She was damaged and pinned in her moring, but was released from being pinned on December 9 when repairs and updating commenced. She served through the war and was decommissioned in 1947.

The Navy was receiving a fair number of new ships, which wasn't surprising given that ships started during World War One were still being completed. But it was the situation south of the border that was drawing attention of the type that would involve the Army, if something was to really occur.  There was in effort in that vein to place Mexico's conduct towards foreign nationals in the Republican platform for 1920, an act that would require military intervention as part of a political platform if the perception of Mexican recalcitrance remained.  

Days of Rage*

Sidewalk in Houston, Texas.

Ostensibly it started with the death of George Floyd on May 25.

The New York Times has put together a really excellent synopsis of what occured resulting in Floyd's death from the security camera of a Chinese restaurant.

Floyd was arrested by police officers for allegedly using a counterfeit $20.00 bill for the purchase of a pack of cigarettes.  The encounter started off when store clerks, two very young men, one African American and one Asian American (I think) discovered what they thought was an illegal use of counterfeit cash and walked across the street to confront Floyd and a companion, who remained parked across the street. They wanted the cigarettes back but had no luck, so they went back to the store and called it in as a theft.  They also reported Floyd as trunk and not in control of himself.  Floyd, originally from Houston, Texas, was a very large man who at age 46 was a recently laid off bouncer. 

Police shortly arrived and when they did, one of them pulled his sidearm for some reason and ordered Floyd to place his hands on the steering wheel of his car.  He shortly re-holstered the sidearm but then pulled Floyd from the car, which was filmed by a man who was sitting in his car immediately behind Floyd's (something that frankly would have entailed some risk to that person under the circumstances).  That person soon left, or was made to move.

At that point, however things seemed to be in control. Footage of Floyd shows that he probably was drunk and was very distressed.  Officers had no problem in leading the stumbling Floyd up to the wall of the Chinese restaurant where they sat him down without incident. They then moved him to their police car across the street where he stumbled and fell right as a second police car arrived.  By that time, Floyd was complaining of being claustrophobic and not wanting to enter the police car.

As this occurred, the third police vehicle arrived. That one was carrying officer Derek Chauvin and officer Tou Thao.

Before we move on, we should say something about these officers as this entire matter has descended into a type of racial confrontation.  Thoa is obviously Asian American.  More particularly, however, his is Hmong by ethnicity, although American born.  The Hmong are an Asian people who began a southward migration after the Battle of Zhuolu in 2500 BC. They kept moving south into Southeast Asia up into modern times when, as a result of the Vietnam War, they entered the United States as refugees.  They've located, as refugees, in the upper Midwest where, like is typical for many immigrant groups in the first generation of migration, they've been associated with gang activity.**   Thao had six complaints that had been previously been lodged against him and one lawsuit for brutality.  I'm not making any assumptions on any of this, as I really know nothing other than what I've read.  Mostly, because the Hmong are on an American integration track that African Americans have been slow to benefit from, its interesting for that reason.  We'll discuss that more below.

The focus of so much attention, Derek Chauvin, had previously been involved in seventeen complaints and three shootings, one of which was fatal. Again, I don't know anything about any of this, so I'm not commenting on it.

Chauvin became involved in the effort to get Floyd into the car and, for some reason, ended up pulling him out of the car while Thao watched.  Three officers actually held Floyd down, who was obviously completed incapacitated at this time.  Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, and Chauvin was also a large man.  Floyd begins to complain he can't breath and this goes on for a long time.  At least one woman from the gathering crowed attempts to intervene, with another warning her that hte policemen have mace.

The whole thing is shocking.

I just watched this for the first time when I started to type this out, which is June 1, 2020.  Living a long way from Minneapolis, and coming at a time when I was largely absent from the news, it wasn't something I was up on at the time.

Rioting has followed.

We should be frankly, the rioting is basically of three characters, one is an expression of rage, one is an expression of virtue signaling, and the third is opportunism.  Protesting, as opposed to rioting, is likewise of three characters, those being rage, support, and virtue signaling.  I suppose there may been an opportunistic element to it as well.

We'll deal with rage.

We're not going to attempt to condone rioting violence as some have done.  Violence is violence and we don't condone it.  We don't condone violence of any kind except in self defense, although on that we take a broad view.  Not so broad of view, however, that we license the use of it in some ways that a lot of Americans typically do.  The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, receive no sanction here. They were murders.  They were murders that have nothing to do with this story, but we note that as we want to make clear where we're coming from.

And with that, we'll now skip the riots themselves in terms of what's occurring, for the time being.

The rage expressed is a latent rage over the American failure to deal with the byproducts of a unique form of racism that commenced 400 years ago last year with the introduction of slavery into the New World.

Slavery wasn't new, of course, as some like to point out, but quite frankly race based slavery was new and in1619 when it was introduced into the New World it was a reintroduction of it.  Slavery had gone away in the intervening years following the collapse of the Roman Empire.  It hadn't gone way all at once.  The Saxons, for example, still held slaves when the Normans invaded England in 1066, something the Normans were horrified by.  But by and large, and well prior to 1066, slavery had left Europe.

It had left due to Christianity, contrary to the snarky "the Bible sanctions slavery" comments sometimes made by the historically and religiously ignorant.  In fact, the Bible never sanctioned slavery and the mentions of it with specificity in the Old Testament were restraints on it, with slavery having been a nearly universally practiced "institution" in the world at that time.  Unlike other peoples, the Jews were strictly enjoined on what they could and could not do with slaves in an era in which slaves and servants were so synonymous that the word for them was the same.  As that would indicate, most slaves at that time fit into a fine distinction between being really bonded and being held as servants and were of the same ethnicity, usually, in the case of the Jews, as those who held them.  This wasn't always the case, of course.  Hagar, for example, was Egyptian.

The other type of slavery was around at the time to be sure, and the Jews were of course taken into slavery en masse more than once. That sort of slavery, however, was pretty much enjoined by the Bible in regards to the Jews.  An exception can be found in the instance of the wives of enemy warriors killed in battle, but the example proves the rule.  The taking of enemy women was the norm in the world at the time, but in the Jewish instance those taken had to be married to their captor who was subject to such a set of requirements as to the widow that only the most smitten would every have bothered to attempt it, including allowing the unfortunate woman to mourn for the loss of her first husband.

In early Christian times, therefore, the institution was clearly on the way out, something that is probably exemplified by the examples you can find of early Christian saints in which you can find two members of the same household, one bound and one free, both going into martyrdom together, with in one instance three such people going to their deaths, a woman, her slave, and an infant, all together.  Those instances indicate the evolution of slaves into servants, which is not to say that slaves resulting from wars and put to hard labor were also not common at the time. By the Middle Ages, however, it was very uncommon in Christendom.  Indeed, by that time it was the province of the Vikings, who took slaves in raids, which was one of the reasons they were regarded with horror, and of the Islamic Arabs, who developed slave raiding into an economic enterprise.

It's there that we circle back around to the horror story of American racism, as the Islamic Arabs were distinctly different than Christians in this regard.  Christians looked down on bondage in general and in the case of sex regarded, and still regard, sex between unmarried couples as completely illicit.  Indeed, Christians regarded from the very first instance that marriage required the full consent of both parties, man and woman, or no valid marriage existed.  Muslims, however, didn't regard this to be the case in the same way.  Marriage, in Islam, required consent, but Mohammed had licensed forced sex with slave women during his rise and this resulted in a slave industry in Muslim lands that was based on labor, as slavery was sanctioned, and on sex.  By Christian terms this involved, of course, rape, but in Muslim terms, it did not.

The Arabs therefore developed an extensive slave trading enterprise based on the capture of slaves, for labor and forced sex.  It spread throughout northern Africa but it also spread to the Mediterranean and even the Atlantic as Arab raiders took human prizes for those purposes. The only real requirement was that they couldn't take Muslim prisoners and Arab men, and of course it was limited to men, couldn't hold Muslim women as sex slaves.  Holding Irish women, for example, or holding black African women who were not Muslim, was perfectly allowable.

By the time the Portuguese started colonizing the West African coast an extensive slave trade, based on a person's religious affiliation, was going on, and fueled in part by the evil of war.  Slaves were often captured locally and, and often in war, and then traded to Arab slave traders, who sold them on in other places, often in their own domains. The Portuguese stepped into this evil and joined right in, in spite of their Christian background.  Hence the exportation of slaves to the New World commenced.  

The reintroduction of slavery was notably concentrated by Europeans in their new domains, although it was not actually limited to it. Still, the avoidance of reintroducing the evil in their native lands was no doubt in part because it was an obvious evil that would have called into question the fundamental nature of those societies and what they claimed to be about.

By that time Europeans were involved in a wholescale global colonial effort.  We're not going to go into that in depth and we're not going to get preachy about that, as is so often the case on this topic. Yes, Europeans were attempting to extend their rule over foreign people's everywhere, but in fact everyone everywhere was also attempting to do that. While nationalism as we understand it, contrary to the common historical assertion, has always existed, in the 17th Century it was also commonly accepted that one sovereign could rule over a wide group of peoples and no nation thought much about extending its power over the weaker nations, including for economic reasons.  Nothing in that excuses slavery, but if we are going to step back and also condemn colonialism in the period we'll be in the position of condemning people for something that they would not have grasped as wrong.  Indeed, one feature of European colonial extension into other areas of the globe is that their colonial enterprises sometimes ended up smacking up against those of the people they were attempting to colonize, making their contests ones of one empire against another.

If people, globally, of the day would not have thought of colonialism as being wrong, they knew better about slavery.  Indeed, in order to engage in it, they had to rationalize it.

That hadn't been the case with slavery of antiquity.  This is not to say that such slavery was nice in any fashion, but the thin resources of the day gave it an economic nature that was distinctly different from later eras.  As noted above, the distinction between conventional slaves and servants had been slight, and as an important feature of that, they were usually of the same culture.  The exception was for what essentially amounted to prisoners of war, for whom there was no other easy way to hold them.  It's important to note, however that there were exceptions that were ethnicity based, as when entire peoples were carried into slavery.

That hadn't occurred for millenai in European terms and therefore the reintroduction of slavery was not only new, it was uniquely malignant.  It was based on ethnicity, which came to be seen rapidly as based on "race". The thin excuse was a gradient from African slaves being very primitive people in the eyes of Europeans who would somehow benefit from their captivity to their just being inferior or even sort of subhuman.

It's that categorization that lives on with us today in the form of a racism and economic legacy that has kept African Americans from sharing the story of other immigrants to North America.  Only Indians somewhat otherwise share that story, although theirs is uniquely different in some ways.

Racism justified keeping blacks as slaves and economics fueled it, making it a doubly sinful enterprise based on failing to love your neighbor and loving money over all else.  That evil was recognized as such well before the American Revolution and in fact slavery was passing away in the north by that time. At the time of the country declaring its independence from England it was expected that slavery would pass away in the south as well, but economics kept that from occurring, placing the overwhelming bulk of American blacks in unending bondage.  A growing realization of the evil of slavery resulted in the Civil War (there was no other cause but that in spite of what Confederate apologist may maintain today), and to the nation's credit thousands died to free the slaves. Thousands also died in a disreputable and evil effort to keep their fellow men slaves as well, of course.

Following the Civil War economics eventually triumphed over justice and an early effort to appropriate lands from slaveholders and issue them back out to former slaves on a 40 acre standard American farming model failed.  Soon the nation turned its back on the former slaves figuring it had done enough just to free them.  In the early 20th Century blacks began to abandon the south in the Great Migration and spread throughout the country in an effort to improve their lot, but the south remained the locality where the black population was the highest and most deprived.  It wasn't until World War One when there were serious efforts to address the ongoing discrimination and poverty of African Americans and blacks enlisting in the US armed forces at the time thought of their services as a full step into equality, which it proved not to be.  It was the introduction, however that even the Red Summer of 1919 couldn't reverse.  It would have been logical if World War Two would have built on what came before in the 1910s and 1920s, and it did in some ways, but it wasn't until the Truman Administration that the ongoing legal institutions that kept blacks impoverished and separate began to come rapidly down.

From 1948 through the early 1970s the Federal Government worked diligently to dismantle the laws that burdened blacks, aided by a United States Supreme Court that made use of Reconstruction Era laws for the first time in a century.  But, significant to our story here, it's important to realize that blacks in the south did not achieve legal equality until well within the lifetimes of the current President and his Democratic contender.  For that matter, slavery's passing was not even a century old at the time of their births.  Put another way, more time has passed between World War One and today than between the births of Joe Biden and Donald Trump and the end of slavery.  There were men and women still alive who had been born into slavery when they were born (and when I was born).

The burden of slavery would be hard to overcome in just a century's time but the legal institutions that were erected in the south after the failure of Reconstruction created a near slavery sort of economic status for blacks, dooming them to certain types of work and poor educations. Those conditions fueled the Great Migration but they also meant that the majority of blacks lived their entire lives in deprived conditions. This only began to change for those remaining in the south in the 1940s and it really got rolling in the 1960s.    This means that most of the improvement in the economic lives of blacks has only come since World War Two, and the strong prejudices that allowed that to be the case lived on openly well into the 1970s.  That's not long ago.  It effectively means that George Floyd was born in an era when expressing prejudice of that type was acceptable in the region in which he was born.

The Civil Rights era of the 1960s is looked back as the golden era, in some ways of civil rights efforts for African Americans.  It's easy to forget that there was widespread opposition to the efforts and openly opposing them was not socially unacceptable.  Lyndon Johnson went to the dedication of Stone Mountain in 1970, for example, an event honoring Confederate leadership in a fashion that would never be condoned today.  The situation for blacks has improved massively since 1970.

But as is often the case, the law of unintended consequences has plagued them as well.  The elimination of legal barriers raised the fortunes of all African Americans but it improved the lives of middle class and nearly middle class blacks the most, who migrated out of the ghettos where they had been previously concentrated. That pattern followed that laid out by all prior American immigrant minorities.  It had the accidental consequence of concentrating poverty in those same areas, whereas prior to that there had been a range of economic classes in them.  Farming policies of the Great Depression wiped out black farming in the south duringthe 1930s, eliminating a long standing black class there.  Experimental liberal social policies in the 1960s and 1970s foreshadowed efforts towards a Universal Basic Income and had predictable and disastrous effects of the African American poor whose social structures were weak due to the legacy of slavery.***This had the impact of concentrating poverty further.  

It also meant that blacks didn't universally follow the path of prior immigrant groups, something that was further the case due to ongoing racism.  Prior groups had generally reached a day in which wholescale migration over to the middle class occured and the ethnic character of the group started to dissolve.  

People may claim to be Irish Americans or Italian Americans today, for example, without even grasping what that meant a century ago.  In 1920, if a person was an Irish American, nearly everything about them culturally and economically was made obvious just by stating that status. Today it may mean nothing more than a person having corned beef on St. Patrick's Day.  As that status changed in the country it meant not only that people moved economically up, but it also meant that they moved into other groups, regions, and ethnicities.  People claiming, for example, to be Italian Americans today are nearly as likely to be descended from English immigrants than Italian ones, due to marriages outside of the declared ethnicity.

All of this is much less true for African Americans.  The absurd "one drop" rule means that children of mixed unions are regarded as black, which is nothing more than pigmentation in biological terms.  Mix marriages and other unions have only become common very, very recently.

They have now become common, however, which is a signal that, in spite of what we're now enduring, we may actually be at that moment at which African Americans finally cross over to just being Americans.  Within the last few years advertising, a mirror reflected back on American beliefs, has gone from introducing black actors in advertisements to mixed couples.  This is now common and hardly anyone notices. As recently as a decade ago this would have sparked some controversy and in the 1970s it would have cost the advertiser revenue. The fact that television viewers think nothing of a white husband and a black wife, or vice versa, is really revolutionary.

As is, of course, the fact that we've had a black President.

The Civil Rights effort of the 1960s was reflected back on the country in strife in the 1970s.  If we think of the south resisting integration in the 1960s we're recalling that correctly, but we're also forgetting that Dixiecrats and the like were really a thing of the 1970s.  Southern Rock bands started flying the Stars and Bars in that decade, not before, and when Lynrd Skynrd sang about Wallace in Sweet Home Alabama, it was 1974.  That song remains popular today without anyone seemingly pausing to think that it was a "we'll get around to it" reaction to Southern Man.  Given that, the massive reaction to Barack Obama during his presidency is perhaps not too surprising, as for some there was a racist element to that reaction (but certainly not one on the party of everyone who disliked him as President).  That some of that remains during the Presidency of Donald Trump is accordingly not surprising.

None of which means that the nation should just sit on its hands as everything is going to be okay.  There remain real problems for black Americans, and Indian Americans, that other people don't face.  Part of that is racism, but part of that is poverty which in turn allows the racism to continue. Racist find support for their racism in the fact that blacks remain poor and their social institutions were so badly damaged by well-meaning but poorly thought out programs form the 1960s.  And that's a problem the nation can't ignore.

Much of that problem is simply economic, and curing the economic problem would cure a lot of ills.  But the nation has not only failed to address the economic problems of African Americans, and Indians, its worked to make them much worse.  Entering into the work place and rising up remains a problem for poor blacks who are concentrated by location, and who face stout competition from high immigrant populations that have strong social cohesion and who face less prejudice.  They are well aware of that.

And they're also likely to know that these problems are deeply ingrained and are going to be ignored.  The Democratic Party, which claims the support of most blacks, is unlikely to do anything in real terms to aid them and has turned its attention instead to new immigrant populations which it feels are more likely to provide its base, rightly or wrongly, in the future.  To say that the Democrats have no interest in rural blacks would be an understatement, but it also has little interest in doing anything concrete for urban blacks either.  Indeed, since the 2000s the Democratic Party has often taken positions that are offensive to the views of the majority of African Americans and taken the view that blacks had to support them as blacks have nowhere else to go. And they do largely have nowhere else to go as the GOP has had no concrete position towards blacks since the 1980s.

And so the rage is understandable.

Unfortunately, it is not likely to be helpful to anyone.  Riots of the 1960s gave rise to the "law and order" campaign of Richard Nixon, something not regarded as a bright spot in the nation's history now.  And the co-opting of genuine movements in the 1960s by the hardcore left brought them disrepute in later years.  Indeed, it can be argued that hardcore left insertion in the movements of the left, something that has never really stopped, doomed their effectiveness and further brought to an end the active Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Put another way, while the difference between Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abby Hoffman are obvious to anyone who is paying attention, a lot of people just aren't paying attention.

And that seems to be sort of rapidly playing out now.  A lot of the protesters we see at events now are likely not really motivated by the plight of African Americans so much as they are something else, somethings innocent, somethings opportunistic, and somethings radical.  And amazingly at the same time we have a President who seems to be fanning the flames by his statements.

And so we can wonder what will occur.  What probably won't occur, no matter what, is a Richard Stroud like program designed to specifically aid the economic progress of African Americans, nor any attention to repairing the damage to black social institutions that were destroyed by the programs of the 1960s and 1970s.  Democrats have no real interest in taking that on, and Republicans aren't likely to be specifically focused on doing so.

________________________________________________________________________

*This refers to a series of 1969 protests, but the title seemed applicable here.

**The movie Gran Torino may have brought the urban American Hmong into familiarity with Americans as a group.

On gang activity, almost every post mid-19th Century American immigrant ethnicity has had gang activity in its early stages. An exception may exist for Japanese and Korean immigrants, but that would be pretty much it.  After the cultures begin to rise, with police work a typical early introduction into the middle class, this almost always fades away.  Irish, Italian, Jewish, among other, ethnicities have all been associated with criminal gangs at one point.

***African American social structures were deeply impacted by the fact that for the first 300 years of their presence in North America a black slave could be sold at any time.  Therefore, much of what other people regard as permanent was not equally the case for blacks in spite of often heroic measures to make it so.  Black couples would sometimes seek  and gain permission to travel long distances simply to visit each other, for example.  Nonetheless, with spouses and children libel to be traded away by slave holders at any time, everything was tenuous and that had to be accepted by the people so afflicted in order to endure it.

June 2, 1920. Ships and faraway places.

Workmen posing before the launch of the USS Neches, Boston Navy Yard, June 2, 1920.  The ship was an oiler that would serve for 22 years until sunk by the Japanese submarine I-72 on January 23, 1942.

On the same day a Shia revolt commenced in Iraq.  Known as the Great Iraqi Revolt, the revolution would run its course for months before the British were able to put it down.  The British would deploy aircraft using air delivered poisonous gas during the war and at least 8,000 Iraqi lives were lost during the conflict, as well as 500 British lives.

The United States Congress rejected the proposal that the country engage in a League of Nations mandate over Armenia.

COVID-19 prompts ABA to urge limited practice for law grads, or how to make a bad situation for the public and the practice of law worse in one easy step.

Yes, the pandemic is bad.

But, broadening admission to the law, which has already gotten pretty broad in general, doesn't make long term sense.

Strife

Denver put a curfew in place and the Colorado National Guard has been called out to address riots in the Centennial State's capitol city.

National Guardsmen of the 40th Armored Division, California National Guard, August, 1965.

The riots stem from several recent incidents of violent deaths of African Americans, the most recent at the hands of a policeman in Minneapolis Minnesota.

Those riots have spread all across the urban United States.  It's hard, from a distance, to grasp why hundreds of miles away from the scene of the offense riots take place against a community that didn't participate in the offense.  It points to something underlying, and the pundits will be full of analysis over it over the next several weeks.

But on the topic in general, distant riots aren't calculated to achieve anything and end up punishing the communities that were affiliated by them.  Businesses move, employment drops, and those who were deprived to start with are more deprived.  It's a compounding tragedy.

And its one that, in this context, we should be well past.  And yet we're not.

May 31, 1920. Memorial Day for 1920