Paris Peace Conf.185.212/5
Memorandum by Professor A. C. Coolidge
The New Frontiers in Former Austria-Hungary
general principles
In the difficult and complicated series of questions involved in the problem of determining the frontiers of the new countries formed out [Page 272] of what was once Austria-Hungary, I believe that the guiding principle to be observed is that of self determination or the wish of the people immediately concerned. Usually though not always, this depends upon the nationality to which they belong. The principle, it is true, is not everywhere applicable. There are communities too small and too unfavorably situated to claim its advantages except by such laws as may be made for the protection of minorities. Its application also may involve disproportionate injury to others and concessions must be made to geographical, economic, and historical considerations, even if so-called strategic ones do not deserve much regard. I admit too that recent events must be taken into account. For instance, the Germans and the Magyars have not at the present moment the same claims as the Czechs to the benevolence of the Allies and of the United States. Likewise it seems hardly fair to overlook a long record of ill-treatment on one side and of suffering on the other. Nevertheless the nearer we can come to forgetting the past and to applying equal treatment to all, the better it will be and the firmer the foundation for the future.
Even the idea of compensation need not always be rejected. The fact that Bohemia and Jugoslavia will include unwilling Germans, and Rumania unwilling Hungarians is not in itself a reason for handing over unwilling Czechs and Slovenes to Austrian and Rumanians to Magyar domination. Nevertheless the fact that such regions as Briinn and Iglau will come under the Czechs, Gottochee and Cilli under the Slovenes, and the Székler region under the Rumanians makes it less unfair if in the fixing of certain disputed boundaries a number of Slavs and Rumanians are left under Austrian and Hungarian rule.
It is well known that the official statistics of population at our disposition are partisan and not to be trusted implicitly, nor are the estimates made by the rival nationalities worthy of confidence any more than are their readings of history. It must be remembered too that certain elements in a region, such as day laborers, may be only transient. Others under changed circumstances will disappear quickly. The German and Magyar colonies of officials, teachers, etc., and their families scattered throughout Slav and Rumanian districts have no longer any reason for existence. All these things have to be taken into account, but they are seldom important enough to modify materially the main decisions.
The opinions which I shall now venture to submit represent in many cases ideas of long standing confirmed or modified by unusual opportunities of observation in the last few months. I shall merely state my conclusions with but a few words of explanation, as it would take far too long to attempt anything like adequate treatment of the various questions.
[Page 273]i. czechoslovakia
The clearest cases of conflict between the rights of nationality and those of history and geography come up in connection with the boundaries demanded by the Czechoslovaks who in inconsistent but human fashion base their claims to the two halves of their territory on opposite principles. In Bohemia they demand their “historic frontiers” regardless of the protests of the large number of Germans who do not wish to be taken over in this way. In Slovakia they insist on the rights of nationality and pay no heed to the ancient and well marked “historic frontiers” of Hungary. I believe that here the national claim is the stronger, though we cannot push it to an extreme, that is to say, I think that a large part of German Bohemia should not be incorporated into the Czechoslovak state even if the historical and geographical unity of Bohemia (including Moravia and Austrian Silesia) will suffer from the amputation, while Slovakia should be taken away from Hungary even though Hungary will thereby suffer still more. As a wrong must be done in both instances to legitimate claims, the decision in details should tend to favor the side being injured, that is the Czechs in Bohemia and the Magyars in Hungary.
To grant to the Czechoslovaks all the territory they demand would be not only an injustice to millions of people unwilling to come under Czech rule, but it would also be dangerous and perhaps fatal to the future of the new state. In Bohemia the relations between the Czechs and the Germans have been growing steadily worse during the last three months. The hostility between them is now intense and there is no reason to expect that it will soon disappear. The blood shed on March 3d when Czech soldiers in several towns fired on German crowds, though but a drop compared with the human sacrifices the world has been witnessing, was shed in a manner that is not easily forgiven. Whatever German sentiment there may have been last November favorable to the maintenance of political union with the Czechs for economic reasons is reaching the vanishing point.
For the Bohemia of the future to contain within its limits great numbers of deeply discontented inhabitants who will have behind them across the border tens of millions of sympathizers of their own race will be a perilous experiment and one which can hardly promise success in the long run. If the minority continues, as it is likely to, both large and profoundly disloyal, one cannot imagine that a League of Nations will force it to remain indefinitely under a hated alien rule. Such a league is not intended to perpetuate the existence of Alsace-Lorraines. Many Germans will have to be citizens of the new Bohemia in any event, but the number should be cut down wherever this can be done without subtracting a considerable number of Czechs from the population. Some weight may be attached to economic considerations, [Page 274] but the argument one hears so often these days that a state “cannot exist without” this that or the other bit of territory that it covets should be acceptable only after the closest scrutiny. Even if the “historic frontiers of Bohemia” have been promised to the Czechs by the Allies, modifications can and should be made in the details.
Taking up the frontiers of Bohemia and Moravia one after another, I believe that
- a)
- in the south, Lower and Upper Austria should be extended as nearly as possible to the existing ethnic line, as studied out by our experts in Paris. There are no serious geographic objections to this.
- b)
- The Eger District which is not part of the original Bohemia should be allowed to go to Bavaria if it wants to.
- c)
- The question is much more difficult in the case of the large rich territory of Northern Bohemia. It is separated from Saxony by natural obstacles, it is of great economic value and its loss would be a very serious blow to the Czechoslovaks. At the same time if it demands, as to all appearances it does, by an overwhelming majority to be separated from Bohemia, it will be hard to deny the justice of its claims. If they are admitted, the Czechs should be given the preference in doubtful districts. If they are not admitted, the territory of Eger should be extended and wherever it is feasible, other modifications should be made.
- d)
- The so-called Sudetenland can be easily cut off from Bohemia and Moravia. Unfortunately it has no connection with either Austria or the rest of German Bohemia. It might exist as a small state in the new German republic or be united to Prussian Silesia.
- e)
- Austrian Silesia has recently been the subject of special investigation on the spot by an international commission.18 Its attribution or division may be safely left to their judgment, corrected, if need be, by the knowledge of our own people who have studied the question. The only suggestion I have to make is that the Czechs and the Poles are not the only people to be considered, but that the Germans have some rights, and that much of this territory forms a natural portion of the Sudetenland mentioned above.
In the small districts in the Carpathians of Spiz (Zips) and Orava, the population is largely German. The Slavs are mountaineers who are more or less half way between Poles and Czechs. If there were any way of consulting their preferences, these might be decisive. If not, I should favor the Poles, who have historical claims to Spiz.
Slovakia, in accordance with the principle of nationalities but doing great violence to those of history and geography, should be given to the Czechs and taken away from the Magyars. Such a decision will, I think, be in accordance with the desires of the majority of the population, although the Hungarians vehemently deny this and I should be surer of the fact if President Masaryk had not for lame reasons refused to hold a plebiscite there. The Czechs, indeed, [Page 275] do not seem sure of their ground, as is shown by such measures as putting the region under martial law. The boundary between Slovakia and Hungary should be made to correspond with the best ascertainable ethnic line, but as the loss to Hungary will in any case be as great as the loss of Northern Bohemia would be to the Czechs, doubtful points should as a rule be decided in her favor. The loss of Pressburg, a city famous throughout Hungarian history, the place of coronation of the Hungarian kings, will be deeply felt by the Magyars, even if they are but a small element in the population, which is chiefly German. But though there are few Slovaks in the place itself, there are many in the vicinity, and the possession of the town giving the Czechoslovaks access to the Danube will be of much commercial value to them. On the other hand, I see no reason or justice in allowing them to extend their dominion as they do at present for a considerable distance along the northern edge of the Danube in predominantly Hungarian country. As I have said above, the smaller the number of discontented people that they have in their new state, the easier it will be to govern and the greater the chances of its permanence. Hungary will suffer terribly in any case and should be left as many as possible of her former sources of wealth.
The Ruthenian districts of Northern Hungary should not be taken away from her. The geographical reasons are particularly strong against it, for the region is almost entirely mountainous and in the valleys the lines of life and of communication run not east and west but north and south to the Hungarian plains below. The Czechs maintain that the Ruthenians desire to be united to them by at least a confederation. I doubt whether the desire on their part is either spontaneous, widespread or deep-seated. The autonomy granted them by a recent Hungarian law respects their individuality and will be much more profitable economically. The wish of the Czechs to extend their own frontier until they are in touch with Rumania and the Ukraine and to cut off direct communication between Poland and Hungary, although not unnatural, is a bit of imperialism of no particular moral value. It is not, however, as immoral as the suggested corridor through German and Magyar lands to connect Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia.
ii. galicia
I have made no close study of this question. In general I should favor as a boundary between Poland and Ukrainia something like the line of the Bug and the Stryi or the temporary demarcation fixed by the international commission recently in Lemberg and rejected by the Ukrainians.
[Page 276]iii. bukowina
The greater part, including Czernowitz, should be given to Rumania, cutting off the western portion for the benefit of the Ukrainians who should also receive the northern tip of Bessarabia.
iv. transylvania
Transylvania should be alloted to Rumania, but unusual care should be taken to guarantee the rights of the Székler population, indeed it would be desirable if in any way possible geographically that their union with Hungary should be maintained. I have not studied this question sufficiently to have a fixed opinion about it, but looking at it superficially the plan hardly appears feasible. In any event the western frontier of Rumania should be drawn to the eastward of the territory occupied by the Rumanian forces. Some sort of a dividing line should be sought that shall be tolerable economically and that shall correspond as well as may be with the ethnic situation. Here again in view of the great loss to the Magyars and great gains to the Rumanians, doubtful cases should usually be decided in favor of Hungary.
[v. the banat]
The Banat should be divided. The arguments in favor of its unity are weak. The Rumanians should be given the eastern portion, the Serbs a block in the south, and the rest be left to the Hungarians. A boundary established on these principles will satisfy nobody, but will represent an approximation to justice. In such a settlement, the scattered German population can hardly be taken into account, except insofar as its preferences are thrown in on one side or the other. These preferences are difficult to ascertain. Meetings of the so-called representatives of such populations at the present time usually represent little more than political moves of some outside agency. My belief is that in spite of the natural tendency to side with the winning parties, the Germans in this part of the world would prefer to belong to a Magyar rather than to a Slav or a Rumanian state, although there are doubtless exceptions among them, particularly among the Saxons of Southern Transylvania. The Backa Region should go to Jugoslavia.
vi. west hungary south of the danube
This territory seems to belong with Austria rather than with Hungary, though it would be a particularly good case to have the matter settled by a popular vote, if it were possible to have a fair one, which I greatly doubt. Neither the Austrians nor the Hungarians, although both have expressed their willingness to abide by the results of such [Page 277] a test, could be trusted to carry it out fairly, if they were in control and a mixed regime would probably lead to endless friction and ill feeling with charges and countercharges difficult to prove or to disprove. I should favor annexation to Austria with the boundaries as fixed by Major Lawrence Martin in his report to me, accompanying my dispatch No. 122, March 3, 1919.19
vii. jugoslavia
The boundary between Austria and Jugoslavia should be drawn along the mountains according to the lines laid down by Lieutenant-Colonel Sherman Miles, Lieutenant LeRoy King and Major Lawrence Martin in their report to me accompanying my dispatch No. 80, February 14, 1919.20 We have here the advantage of possessing competent and impartial studies by our own men.
viii. south tyrol
The German speaking South Tyrol should be given to Austria, not to Italy. All the arguments except perhaps those arising from the political necessities of the present international situation demand that these Tyrolese should remain united with their brethren in the north and not be put under a hated alien rule. History, economic interest and the feelings of the inhabitants are on the same side in this instance. I have been surprised by how widespread and deep is the feeling throughout Austria and I believe throughout Germany in regard to this small section of land with a scanty population and of no great economic value. The feeling is chiefly sentimental, but it is strong, and the loss of this beautiful and poetic territory would never be forgiven. The Ladin portion of the Tyrol, although I think that for commercial reasons it would prefer its present affiliation, might be handed over to Italy with less injustice.
ix. vorarlberg
This little district resembles one of the Swiss mountain cantons. Economically it is more closely united with Switzerland than with Austria. If it be true, as I have recently heard from an Austrian source, that in a private vote of the population, 65% expressed themselves in favor of union with the Swiss republic, we may feel sure that a considerably larger number would have done so if the vote could have been public and the voters had had no fear of unpleasant consequences. If Switzerland is willing to accept the union, which is doubtful, it should be made. In this case Liechtenstein would probably go with Vorarlberg.
[Page 278]In conclusion let me add that I am aware that political and other considerations at the present time may make it impossible for our commission to support all of the solutions I have advocated. Nevertheless, I am presenting them as those which seem to me best in themselves.