Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:14:00.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dilemmas of Security: The State, Local Agency, and the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Boundary Commission, 1921–25

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2018

Peter Haslinger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a memorandum presented to the Hungarian-Czechoslovak Boundary Commission on 23 February 1922 by the inhabitants of the southern Slovak town of Viškovce (Hungarian: Ipolyvisk), the twenty-five signatories requested “humbly for consideration and well-meaning settlement of the following concern.” The municipality was bordered on three sides by the Ipeľ (Hungarian: Ipoly) River, but had been cut off from the only usable road by the border, making communication extremely difficult. In winter and at high water in the spring and autumn, the place was “completely cut off from the outside world.” For three years, they had observed how provisional boundaries were continuously redrawn, and bore the brunt of these changes. The inhabitants said that all alternative routes had become inaccessible during that time and the center of Šahy (Hungarian: Ipolyság), which was just ten kilometers away, had become extremely difficult to reach even in urgent cases. Thus, they requested that the only existing road “be opened to us as quickly as possible and our traffic given back to us.”

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 49 , April 2018 , pp. 187 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was translated from German by Kate Sotejeff-Wilson. This article was written within the scope of the “Dynamics of Security” collaborative research center and the LOEWE Focus “Regions of Conflict in Eastern Europe.” I would like to take this opportunity to especially thank Thorsten Bonacker, Andrea Gawrich, Heidi Hein-Kircher, Andreas Langenohl, and Anna Veronika Wendland very much for all their helpful comments. I also proffer my thanks to the translator and anonymous readers for the Austrian History Yearbook.

References

1 Archív ministerstva zahraničních věci Praha [Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Prague] (AZV), Ministerstvo zahraničnich věci R. Č.-S. [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czechoslovak Republic] (MZV), právní sekce [legal department] VI, Box 40, Appendix E, Č.j. 209-1922-del. kom., Ipolyvisk 23 Feb. 1922.

2 Stritzel, Holger, Security in Transition: Securitization Theory and the Localization of Threat (Basingstoke, 2014), 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Balzacq, Thierry, Léonhard, Sarah, and Ruzicka, Jan, “‘Securitization’ revisited: theory and cases,” International Relations 30, no. 4 (2015): 1–38Google Scholar; see also Balzacq, Thierry, ed., Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London, 2011)Google Scholar; Bourbeau, Philippe, ed., Security: Dialogue across Disciplines (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole, and Wilde, Jaap de, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, 1998)Google Scholar; Wæver, Ole, “Securitization and Desecuritization,” in On Security, ed. D., Ronnie Lipschutz (New York, 1995), 46–86Google Scholar.

4 Gaufman, Elizaveta, Security Threats and Public Perceptions: Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis (Basingstoke, 2016), 17Google Scholar.

5 Daase, Christopher, “Sicherheitskultur. Ein Konzept zur interdisziplinären Erforschung politischen und sozialen Wandels,” Security and Peace 29 (2011): 59–65Google Scholar.

6 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Can the Subaltern Speak? Postkolonialität und subalterne Artikulation (Vienna, 2008)Google Scholar.

7 Hansen, Lene, “The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (2000): 287Google Scholar.

8 The memoranda of the Hungarian delegation were published shortly after the peace negotiations: A magyar béketárgyalások [The Hungarian peace negotiations], 4 vols. (Budapest, 1920–21). See also Király, Béla K. and Veszprémy, László, eds. Trianon and East Central Europe: Antecedents and Repercussions (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; Litván, György, ed., Trianon felé. A győztes nagyhatalmak tárgyalásai Magyarországról [Towards Trianon: The negotiations of the victorious great powers about Hungary] (Budapest, 1998)Google Scholar; Romsics, Ignác, Dismantling of Historic Hungary: The Peace Treaty of Trianon, 1920 (Boulder, 2002)Google Scholar; Gecsényi, Lajos and Máthé, Gábor, eds., Sub clausula 1920–1947 (Budapest, 2008)Google Scholar; Irmanová, Eva, “Nepřátelé Trianonu. Mad'arská zahraniční politika ve 20. letech” [The enemies of Trianon: Hungarian foreign policy in the 1920s], Zrod nové Evropy. Versailles, St.-Germain, Trianon a dotváření poválečného mírového systému [The birth of a new Europe: Versailles, Saint Germain, Trianon, and the formation of the postwar world system], ed. Dejmek, Jindřich (Praha, 2011), 321–56Google Scholar; Dérer, Ivan, Slovensko v prevrate a po nom [Slovakia in and after the revolution] (Bratislava, 1924)Google Scholar; Klíma, Stanislav, Osvobozené Slovensko [The liberated Slovakia] (Prague, 1926)Google Scholar; Houdek, Fedor, Osvobodenie Slovenska [The liberation of Slovakia] (Bratislava, 1929)Google Scholar; Chaloupecký, Václav, Zápas o Slovensko [Struggle for Slovakia] (Prague, 1930)Google Scholar; Šrobár, Vavro, Osvobodené Slovensko [The liberated Slovakia] (Prague, 2008)Google Scholar. For southern Slovakia in particular, see also Popély, Gyula, Felvidék 1914–1920 [Upper Hungary, 1914–1920] (Budapest, 2010)Google Scholar; Hronský, Marián, Boj o Slovensko a Trianon 1918–1920 [Struggle for Slovakia and Trianon] (Bratislava, 1998)Google Scholar. On political mobilization see also: Zeidler, Miklós, Trianon (Budapest, 2003)Google Scholar; Zeidler, Miklós, Ideas on Territorial Revisionism in Hungary, 1920–1945, trans. J., Thomas DeKornfeld and Helen DeKornfeld (New York, 2007)Google Scholar; Kovács-Bertrand, Anikó, Der ungarische Revisionismus nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Der publizistische Kampf gegen den Friedensvertrag von Trianon (1918–1931) (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar; Haslinger, Peter, Der ungarische Revisionismus und das Burgenland 1922–1932 (Frankfurt, 1994)Google Scholar; Michela, Miroslav and Vörös, László, eds., Rozpad Uhorska a Trianonská mierová zmluva. K politikám pamäti na Slovensku a Maďarsku [The dissolution of Hungary and the peace treaty of Trianon: On memory politics in Slovakia and Hungary] (Bratislava, 2013)Google Scholar.

9 The work of the Hungarian-Czechoslovak Boundary Commission has been analyzed by Fedor Houdek, who was personally involved in the activities. The former minister of food then acted as an expert on Slovakia and was fluent in Hungarian, because he had attended a Hungarian school. Even if the information on technical aspects is precise in his work, the presentation is consistently marked by Czechoslovak security interests. Houdek, Fedor, Vznik hraníc Slovenska [The emergence of the borders of Slovakia] (Bratislava, 1931), 369–95Google Scholar. This is complemented by János Suba's study, in which, however, the complex interaction between different groups of actors and the local population is not a concern. Suba, János, “A magyar-csehszlovák határ helyszini megállapítása és kitűzése 1921–1925 között.” [The on-spot delimination and demarcation of the Hungarian-Czechoslovak border between 1921 and 1925], Limes. Komárom-Esztergom megyei tudományos szemle [Limes: The scientific journal of the county of Komárom-Esztergom] 10 (1997): 29–41Google Scholar. The brief overview in Hronský, Marián, Trianon. Vznik hraníc Slovenska a problémy jeho bezpečnosti (1918–1920) [Trianon: The emergence of the borders of Slovakia and the problem of their security (1918–1920)] (Bratislava, 2011), 542–47Google Scholar, also refers to Houdek. Otherwise the work of the commission is only very briefly mentioned, or not at all—the latter in Horna, Richard, Hranice Republiky Československé ve světle historie [The borders of the Czechoslovak Republic in the light of history] (Bratislava, 1924), 24–34Google Scholar; Miller, Daniel E., “Colonizing the Hungarian and German Border Areas during the Czechoslovak Land Reform, 1918–1938,” Austrian History Yearbook 34 (2003): 303–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Hronský, Trianon, 544.

11 Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 369–71.

12 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921.

13 Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 373.

14 AZV, MZV, politická sekce [political department] II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921.

15 Hadtörténelmi Levéltár Budapest [Military-historical archive Budapest] (HTL), Magyar-csehszlovák határmegallapító bizottság, Magyar delegáció iratai [The Czechoslovak-Hungarian Boundary Commission, documents of the Hungarian delegation] (I 49), Box 1, Procès verbal No. 7, Vácz 14 Feb. 1922.

16 Magyar nemzeti levéltár Budapest [Hungarian National Archive Budapest] (MNL), A határmegállapító Központi Iroda általános iratai [General documents of the Central Office for Border Demarcation], K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921.

17 Suba, “A magyar-csehszlovák határ.”

18 Archiv ústavu T. G. Masaryk [Archive of the T. G. Masaryk Institute] (AÚTGM), Fond Masaryk-Republika, Box 502, Dossier 31 “Úvahy o politicko-geografické situaci ČSR” [Reflections on the political-geographical situation of the Czechoslovak Republic], 21.020 pres. voj. dův., Praha 19 July 1920. On the role of the Czechoslovak experts in the Paris peace negotiations, see Haslinger, Peter, Nation und Territorium im tschechischen politischen Diskurs 1880–1938 (Munich, 2010), 252–67Google Scholar.

19 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 932/C/1922, Pozsony 19 May 1922; MNL, K 478-1921, Levelezés a Magyar-Csehszlovák Határmegállapító Bizottság magyar delegációval [Correspondence with the Hungarian delegation of the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Boundary Commission], Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921.

20 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 1132/c/1922, Pozsony 22 Aug. 1922.

21 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921. These included Bratislava, Trnava (Hungarian: Nagyszombat), Zvolen (Hungarian: Zólyom), Košice (Hungarian: Kassa), Michaľovce (Hungarian: Nagymihály), Užgorod (Hungarian: Ungvár), Munkačevo (Hungarian: Munkács), and Gust (Hungarian: Huszt).

22 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 1/a/1921, Budapest 2 Aug. 1921.

23 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 42/c/1921, Budapest 9 Aug. 1921.

24 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 14/A/1921, Vácz 10 Oct. 1921.

25 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921; MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 42/c/1921, Brno 9 Aug. 1921.

26 These places included the development of the rail network on the right bank of the Ipeľ, in the new border area of the former Hungarian counties of Szabolcz and Bereg. AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921.

27 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921.

28 Baer, Josette, A Life Dedicated to the Republic: Vavro Šrobár's Slovak Czechoslovakism (Stuttgart, 2014), 87Google Scholar.

29 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921.

30 Both subcommissions were to include two members of both neighboring countries, respectively; the central section of the boundary from Szob to Plešivec (Hungarian: Pelsőc) was led by Carey with Ando as the other Allied representative, while the subcommission on the eastern portion between Plešivec and the Romanian border was directed by Uffler, who inspected the border from Košice with Pellocelli. While Tánczos represented the Hungarian side for the central section, the eastern section was taken on by István Csáky, the head of the Central Office for Border Demarcation. Czechoslovakia was represented by Roubik in the eastern and Houdek in the central section. MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 177/c/1921, Vácz 25 Sept. 1921.

31 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921.

32 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 56/c/1921, Budapest 4 Oct. 1921; MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921. Such a situation arose, for example, in the municipality of Astei (Hungarian: Asztély), which was located at Berehove (Hungarian: Beregszász) on the Czechoslovak side, right on the boundary. A large crowd of several hundred people had gathered there, whereupon Pellicelli made straight for the car and agreed with Uffler to terminate the inspection. HTL, Határmegállapító központi katonai meghalmazott iratai [Documents of the military representative to the Central Office for Border Demarcation] (I 48), Box 1, 623/HMK-1922, Kassa 3 Oct. 1921; Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 379.

33 Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 379.

34 Národní archiv České republiky Praha [National Archive of the Czech Republic Prague] (NAČR). Ministerstvo vnitra. Hraniční spisy [Ministry of the Interior: Boundary-related documents] (MVHS), Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix C to the minutes of 5 Sept. 1923, Nekijy 1 Sept. 1923.

35 HTL, I 48, Box 1, 200/c/1921, Vácz 25 Sept. 1921.

36 See for example the agreement written in Hungarian between the border administrations located in Dregélypalánk, Hungary, and the neighboring Ipeľské Predmostie (Hungarian: Hidvég) from 10 February 1920. Slovenský národný archív Bratislava [Slovak National Archive Bratislava] (SNA), Minister s plnou mocou pre správu Slovanska [Plenipotentiary Ministry for the Administration of Slovakia] (MPMS), Box 642, 630/20, Dregélypálánk 10 Feb. 1920.

37 Bourbeau, Philippe, The Securitization of Migration: A Study of Movement and Order (New York, 2011), 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Cf. e.g., Slovenský denník [Slovak daily] 5 Oct. 1922, and Slovenská politika [Slovak politics] 14 Dec. 1921 and 29 Aug. 1922.

39 SNA, MPMS, Box 642, 2195/20, 3915/21, Bratislava 8 May 1921.

40 SNA, MPMS, Box 642, 1293/22, o.D.

41 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 3 Oct. 1921; HTL, I 48, Box 1, 200/c/1921, Vácz 25 Sept. 1921.

42 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921. According to Houdek, “[T]he behavior of the Hungarian delegates, who exploited Czechoslovak hospitality, astonished the French and Italian commissioners.” Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 379.

43 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 52.428/XI H 1921, Praha 10 Oct. 1921.

44 Roubik noted: “The style of a large number of memoranda proves that they originate from the same source, general references dominate, concrete economic indications are very rare, usually we find the phrase ‘from an economic point of view we gravitate towards Hungary.’” MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 297/M., Praha 15 Nov. 1921.

45 AZV, MZV, politická sekce II, 53.513/XI H 1921, Praha 19 Oct. 1921. Carey had originally agreed to address the incidents at the next plenary session. Now he was startled by this report and demanded that Roubik refrain from making an official complaint, because otherwise he would have to involve the ambassadors conference. After Carey assured that such a thing would not happen again, Roubik withdrew his complaint. Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 379.

46 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 3 Oct. 1921.

47 Mannová, Elena, “‘… aber jetzt ist er ein guter Slowake’. Varianten nationaler Identität im Vereinswesen zweier südslowakischer Kleinstädte 1918–1938,” in Regionale und nationale Identitäten, ed. Haslinger, Peter (Würzburg, 2000), 218Google Scholar; see also Mannová, Elena, “Southern Slovakia as an Imagined Territory,” in Frontiers, Regions and Identities in Europe, eds. Ellis, Steven G. and Esser, Raingard (Pisa, 2009), 185–204Google Scholar.

48 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 18/a/1921, Losoncz 1 Oct. 1921.

49 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 1921, Lučenec 1 Oct. 1921.

50 Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 378f.

51 HTL, I 48, Box 1, 591/1921, Budapest 5 Oct. 1921. On the so-called magyarone card, see Bakke, Elisabeth, Doomed to Failure? The Czechoslovak Nation Project and the Slovak Autonomist Reaction 1918–38 (Oslo, 1998), 295–97Google Scholar, 504–7.

52 SNA, MPMS, Box 642, 17724/21, Bratislava 7 Dec. 1921.

53 For the central border section, there is a list of all the memoranda locally submitted to the subcommission between 28 September and 2 October. Of the forty-nine memoranda listed, only three spoke in favor of belonging to Czechoslovakia; the rest expressed a more or less explicit desire to belong to Hungary. HTL, I 48, Box 1, 214/c/1921, Vácz 9 Oct. 1921.

54 Ibid.

55 The Allied representatives evaluated the Košice-Nove Mesto-Čop railway line in the eastern border section as essential for Czechoslovakia. According to Tánczos's estimate, in the central border section “the Czechs” were much more prepared to make greater border adjustments. MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 226/c/1921, Kassa 2 Oct. 1921.

56 Ibid.

57 The Czechoslovak delegation alone composed seven memoranda in Nov. 1921, some of which were comprehensive, eliciting a Hungarian reply. “Conditions éthnographiques en Slovaquie et en Carpaterussie”; “Quelques remarques éthniques et économiques relatives aux conditions de la Russie Subcarpatique”; “Argumentation du maintien de la ligne-frontiére décrite dans le Traité de Paix de Trianon”; “Exposé économique”; “Réponse tchéchoslovaque au Mémoire No. 27/A. de la Délégation de la Hongrie concernant les objections contre la ligne-frontiére de Trianon”; “Réponse de la Délégation tchéchoslovaque á la proposition hongroise concernant la ligne Košice-Királyháza”; and “Maintien de la ligne-frontiére de Trianon.” HTL, I 48, Box 1, 1894/c/-1922, Vácz 15 Feb. 1922.

58 In a letter to Carey from 3 November 1921, Tánczos spoke about how the Little Hungarian Plain that would be bisected by the new Danube border had constituted a cohesive area from a regional, economic, administrative, and spiritual point of view “for a thousand years.” The population therefore found itself in an impossible situation, “caused by the brutal division of both parts, which had previously constituted one whole.” In lengthy response notes dated 10 and 15 November, Roubik countered that in Central Europe, due to the ethnographic conditions, it was impossible to align a political border with a linguistic one. In addition, Czechoslovakia “would be deprived without the Danube border a basis that is essential for its future position in Central Europe. The Danube is one of the pillars supporting the whole political and economic structure of the Czechoslovak Republic … The Czechoslovak state must become a true Danube state.” HTL, I 49, Box 1, 29/A/1921, Vácz 3 Nov. 1921; MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 36/A, Praha 10 Nov. 1921; MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 297/M., Praha 15 Nov. 1921; MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 36/A, Praha 10 Nov. 1921; HTL, I 49, Box 1, zu 37/A-1921, Praha 17 Nov. 1921.

59 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 356/C/1921, Vácz 1 Dec. 1921.

60 The memorandum covered a total of seventeen pages. HTL, I 48, Box 1, 40/A/1921, Vácz 12 Dec. 1921.

61 HTL, I 49, Box 1, Procès verbal No. 5, Vácz 19 Dec. 1921.

62 Ibid. At the Boundary Commission's request, they agreed to establish a fixed point near Salgótarján to the north on 23 April 1923. Hronský, Trianon, 546.

63 HTL, I 49, Box 1, Procès verbal No. 5, Vácz 19 Dec. 1921.

64 HTL, I 49, Box 1, Procès verbal No. 7, Vácz 14.2.1922; HTL, I 49, Box 1, 1122/1922, Bratislava 8 May 1922.

65 HTL, I 49, Box 1, 932/C/1922, Pozsony 19 May 1922; Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovanska, 380–81.

66 HTL, I 48, Box 1, 2515/HMK, Budapest 8 Apr. 1922. This concerned the municipalities of Abaujvár, Chym (Hungarian: Hym), and Perin (Hungarian: Perény), which had already been assigned to a specific territory in the Treaty of Trianon.

67 HTL, I 48, Box 1, 2992 res/1922, Budapest 1 Aug. 1922.

68 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix 3 to the minutes of 7 Sept. 1923, Balassagyarmat 7 Sept. 1923.

69 HTL, I 48, Box 1, 2788 res. HMK-1921, Szikszó 26 Apr. 1922.

70 MNL, K 478-1922, Box 6, Procès verbal No. 7, Budapest 16 Sept. 1922.

71 SNA, MPMS, Box 90, 20/90, 13299-D-22 prez. adm., Bratislava 24 Apr. 1922. On this compare Klíma, Stanislav, Maďarská propaganda. Jak pracuje k odstranění trianonského míru [Hungarian propaganda: How it works for the elimination of the peace of Trianon] (Praha, 1923)Google Scholar.

72 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 117/1922, Vácz 9 Dec. 1921.

73 Hronský, Trianon, 546; Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 393. On the individual technical steps, see Suba, “A magyar-csehszlovák hattár,” 34–37.

74 When it emerged around June 1922 that a geographical point designated in the peace treaty as a “barren tree” was situated at different locations in the maps in use, the working group passed the issue on to the commission, which decided to precisely determine the location with the greatest urgency so that the work would not be delayed further. HTL, I 49, Box 1, Bratislava 10 June 1922.

75 MNL, K 478-23, 2001/C/1924, Budapest 11 Jan. 1924.

76 MNL, K 478-1921, Fascicle 7, 117/1922, Vácz 9 Dec. 1921.

77 This formulation can be found, for example, in the statement by the municipality of Hont dated 1 September 1923. NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from the first minutes of 1 Sept. 1923, Hont 1 Sept. 1923.

78 A memorandum from a sugar factory reported problems with transferring machines across the border, which was already having an unfavorable impact on the local economy. For operations to continue unimpeded, a separate border pass for machinery was needed, and it should also be possible to bring fodder across the border without restriction. NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix E to the minutes of 1 Sept. 1923. One of the coal mines even planned to build its own cable car crossing Czechoslovak territory to ensure better commuting conditions for their workers. MNL, K 478-23, 2001/C/1924, Budapest 11 Jan. 1924.

79 AZV, MZV, právní sekce VI, Box 40, extract from Appendix D to the minutes of 7 Nov. 1923, Helemba 28 Oct. 1923.

80 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix A to the minutes of 1 Sept. 1923, Ipolské Šahy 1 Sept. 1923.

81 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix E to the minutes of 5 Sept. 1923, Ipolykeszi 5 Sept. 1923.

82 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from the minutes of 4 Oct. 1923, Tachty 4 Oct. 1923.

83 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, copy of a memorandum of the population of Haraszpuszta, Haraszpuszta 22 Feb. 1922.

84 Richard Horna, in his 1924 study, decided that the Ipeľ could only be described as a river in the summer months and therefore could not be seen as a natural border or strategic barrier for Slovakia. Horna, Hranice Republiky Československé, 29.

85 This concerned five iron, twelve wooden, and one stone bridge. The maintenance costs were distributed 50:50 only in rare cases (as in the case of the railway bridge between Szob and Helemba), but were shared, for example, in a ratio of 15:85 (at the expense of Czechoslovakia) for the wooden bridge at Pastovce (Hungarian: Ipolypásztó) or 35:65 for the ferry based at Helemba. MNL, K 478-23, 2001/C/1924, Budapest 11 Jan. 1924, Tánczos's printed report about the “political border inspection” 1–15 Sept., 1–15 Oct., and 5–7 Nov. 1923.

86 AZV, MZV, právní sekce VI, Box 40, extract from Appendix D to the minutes of 6 Nov. 1923, Ipolyszalka-Szob 6–7 Nov. 1923.

87 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix E to the minutes of 7 Nov. 1923.

88 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix F to the minutes of 5 Oct. 1923, Ipolykeszi 5 Sept. 1923.

89 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix 5 to the minutes of 6 Nov. 1923, Letkés 1 Nov. 1923.

90 Thus, municipal and district notaries of the county of Nógrád demanded the dissolution of the Rákóczi boarding school, which had been previously financed by the entire county was now across the new border in Lučenec, as well as the proportionate transfer of the assets. MNL, K 478-23, 2001/C/1924, Budapest 11 Jan. 1924.

91 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix 10 to the minutes of 1 Oct. 1923, Balassagyarmat 1 Sept. 1923.

92 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix 4 to the minutes of 6 Nov. 1923, Ipolytölgyes 6 Nov. 1923.

93 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from Appendix B to the minutes of 5 Nov. 1923, Ipolybel 5 Nov. 1923.

94 SNA, MPMS, Box 642, 1293/22, Bratislava 6 May 1922.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 SNA, MPMS, Box 642, 1293/22, Bratislava 23 Mar. 1922.

98 Ibid. In Czechoslovakia, the fee for issuing or renewing was ten crowns, from which persons in need could be exempt.

99 NAČR, MVHS, Box 6, 2/147/19, extract from the 14th minutes of 1 Sept. 1923, Ipeľský Visk 1 Sept. 1923.

100 Houdek, Vznik hraníc Slovenska, 380, 374.

101 Seven of them were to the exclusive benefit of Czechoslovakia, eight in favor of Hungary. In thirteen cases, areas were exchanged (four with a relative territorial gain for Czechoslovakia, nine in favor of Hungary). The biggest adjustment in terms of surface area was made at Salgótarján with 22.61 km² (an area of 21.41 km² in favor of Hungary and 1.17 km² for Czechoslovakia), the smallest adjustment covered 0.2 km². Ibid., 393.

102 Ibid.

103 Noxolo, Particia and Huymans, Jef, “Introduction: Community, Citizenship, and the ‘War on Terror’: Security and Insecurity,” in Community, Citizenship, and the “War on Terror”: Security and Insecurity, eds. Noxolo, Particia and Huymans, Jef (Basingstoke, 2009), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Zwierlein, Cornel, “Sicherheitsgeschichte. Ein neues Feld der Geschichtswissenschaften,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 38 (2012): 365–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conze, Eckart, “Securitization. Gegenwartsdiagnose oder historischer Analyseansatz?,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 38 (2012): 453–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.