Why do you think the treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye is not nearly as talked about as Trianon despite austria suffering nearly the same amount of lost territory?

8 comments

1. Cisleithania was perceived less as a single unit, more like a collection of states under one sovereign.

   In contrast, Hungary had just one specific subunit, Croatia.

2. Because “Austria” didn’t have a national identity which relied on the Habsburg monarchy. The people in Austria saw themselves as Germans and most wished to “finally” join the German nation state after being rid of all the other non German territories.
   Hungary on the other hand has had centuries of national identity being built on the kingdom itself, which incorporated many territories which were lost in 1919.

3. the statement packed into your question is not the case in austria for apparent reasons.

4. Nah, I think Trianon should be talked about less instead. 50% of “hungarians” werent hungarians. Yes they lost land. But mostly land wich didnt belong tp them tightfully anyways. They lost a war and got punished.

   Then they started another war and lost it aggain, so they got doubely punished. (1919)

   Also they sabotaged the double empire constantly, and then they complain abiut loosing the war. From me, there is 0 symphathy.

5. Because post-1918 Austrian nationalism is not built upon crying about lost territories but rather on being the better catholic Germans pre-1938 after St. Germain forbade them merging with the German republican government and then not being Germans at all after Nazism.

   Hungarian nationalism centred the myth of its origin as a nation state with the pre-Trianon borders as national borders while Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia as well as Poland invented national narratives centred around them emerging after centuries of foreign oppression.

   Basically these are narratives to explain why the state looks like it does and when they include “lost territories” those “lost territories” become a reoccuring theme and wound point. Same with Argentinia and the supposedly Argentinian Falklands, France and their “natural borders” on the Rhine in the 19th century and many more.

6. Showing Ödenburg and Raab being “ceded” to Hungary when they were in fact part of Hungary to begin with shosw absolutely clueless you are on this subject.

7. Because except the upper half of South Tyrol and the small city of Ödenburg in the East, none of these territorial losses felt unnatural, like they were meant to be part of a contiguous, mono-ethnic austria

8. Why should anyone care about decisions, made more than 100 years ago?