DEÁK, FRANCIS. Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference. Pp. xxii, 594. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942. $5.50

• Date: 01 November 1942
• DOI: 10.1177/000271624222400138
• Published date: 01 November 1942
• Author: Josef Hanč
• Subject Matter: Articles

202

organized.

But

that

is

not

the

author’s

problem.

Her

task

was

abundantly

per-

formed

in

her

revelation

of

the

irreconcila-

bility

of

nationalism

with

peace.

LOUIS

MARTIN

SEARS

Purdue

University

DEÁK,

FRANCIS.

Hungary

at

the

Paris

Peace

Conference.

Pp.

xxii,

594.

New

York:

Columbia

University

Press,

1942.

$5.50.

A

considerable

portion

of

the

material

contained

in

this

large

volume

appeared

in

print

in

the

Papers

and

Documents

Relat-

ing

to

the

Foreign

Relations

of

Hungary,

Volume

I,

1919-1920,

published

in

1939,

of

which

Francis

Deak

was

co-editor.

This

applies

especially

to

what

the

author

calls

&dquo;the

most

interesting

phase

of

the

diplo-

matic

history

of

the

peace

treaty

with

Hun-

gary,&dquo;

namely,

the

Franco-Hungarian

secret

negotiations

in

1920.

Interesting

though

the

eighty-five

pages

given

to

these

negotia-

tions

may

be,

more

ground

must

yet

be

covered

before

the

real

import

of

this

phase

can

be

established

in

its

final

historical

perspective.

The

volume

is

part

of

the

series

of

works

on

the

Paris

Peace

Conference

published

for

the

Division

of

Economics

and

History

of

the

Carnegie

Endowment

for

Interna-

tional

Peace.

James

T.

Shotwell

introduces

it

by

a

five-page

foreword

dispelling

the

still

existing

popular

idea

that

the

Peace

Conference

was

responsible

for

the

dissolu-

tion

of

the

Hapsburg

monarchy

instead

of

simply

recognizing

its

collapse

from

the

inside.

More

than

half

of

the

book

contains

the

author’s

own

&dquo;narrative,

analysis,

and

con-

clusions.&dquo;

The

author

has

taken

much

pains

in

dealing

with

the various

more

or

less

important

diplomatic

documents

and

interventions.

The

value

of

this

analysis

would

have

been

much

increased

had

he

searched

more

penetratingly

behind

the

diplomatic

fa~ade

and

stressed

the

social,

cultural,

and

economic

forces

which

led

the

common

man

of

the

subject

nationalities

to

stand

up

against

the

Magyar

and

Haps-

burg

feudalists

and

reactionaries.

Count

Apponyi

himself

unwittingly

admitted

one

aspect

of

it

when

in

his

speech

to

the

Su-

preme

Council

in

Paris

he

complained,

&dquo;from

the

point

of

view

of

the

broad

in-

terests

of

mankind,&dquo;

that

there

were

only

33

per

cent

literates

among

the

Rumanians

of

pre-World

War

I

Hungary,

compared

with

80

per

cent

of

literate

Magyars.

In-

cidentally,

the

volume

does

not

contain

Lloyd

George’s

answer

to

this

point,

in

which

the

British

Prime

Minister

made

the

ruling

Magyar

class

directly

responsible

for

Rumanian

illiteracy.

The

lesser

half

includes

forty-nine

docu-

ments,

starting

with

the

terms

of

the

armi-

stice

between

the

Entente

and

Austria-

Hungary,

and

ending

with

a

quotation

from

Jacques

Bainville’s

book

Les

Consequences

politiques

de

la

paix.

One

cannot

help

wondering

why

a

quotation

from

this

book

of

controversial

views

should

be

included

among

the

ofhcial

documents.

With

all

due

respect

to

the

French

historian,

he

is

his-

torically

wrong

when

he

asserts

that

had

not

&dquo;the

Slovaks

been

included

into

the

Czech

state

by

command,

they

would

not

have

joined

it

on

their

own

accord.&dquo;

It

would,

indeed,

be

equally

easy

to

quote

from

a

score

of

other

eminent

historians

whose

work

would

support

quite

a

contrary

view.

In

several

places

in

the

volume

there

is

a

tendency,

whether

intentional

or

not,

to

stress

disproportionately

the

Hungarian

side

of

the

story

and

to

treat

with

quite

un-

necessary

harshness

those

who

might

see

things

differently.

This

tendency

is

also

betrayed

in

several

annotated

bibliographi-

cal

footnotes.

For

instance,

Oscar

jiszi’s

scholarly

work

The

Dissolution

of

the

Hapsburg

Monarchy

is

referred

to

as

&dquo;fla-

vored

by

the

personal

prejudices

of

the

author,&dquo;

although

no

evidence

is

brought

out

to

substantiate

the

charge.

Hermann

Raschhofer’s

book

Die

Tschechoslovak-

ischen

Denkschriften

für

die

Friedenskon-

ferenz

von

Paris,

is

called

by

Deák

&dquo;a

devastating

criticism

of

the

Czechoslovak

memoranda.&dquo;

The

book

appeared

in

1937

as

part

of

the

Nazi

propaganda

campaign

against

Czechoslovakia.

Much

of

its

&dquo;dev-

astating&dquo;

character

was

put

in

its

place

in

the

little

volume

not

mentioned

in

DeAk’s

work,

Germany

and

Czechoslovakia,

pub-

lished

in

Prague

the

same

year.

Dedk’s

work

should

serve

the

purpose

of

stimulating

the

interest

of

all

the other

at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on December 4, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from