0, 595.1922.VII. Translation. LEAGUE 0? NATIONS. Geneva, August 28th,1922. Austro-Hungarian Frontier Question. Report by M. Hymans. Articles 27 of the Treaties of St. Germain and Trianon indicate a certain number of points through which the frontier line to be drawn between A ustria and Hungary is to pass. The Venice Protocol of October 13th, 1921 provided for a plebiscite in the district of the tom of SOPRON (Oedenburg). As a result of this plebiscite the town and neighbourhood were defin­ itely incorporated into Hungary. With regard to the remainder of the frontier between Austria (Burgenland) and Hungary, a Delimitation Commission ap­ pointed by the Conference of Ambassadors and consisting of British, French, Italian and Japanese representatives, together with Austrian and Hungarian Commissioners, made a study on the ground, and, after considering the proposals of the two States concerned, decided to submit to the Council of the league of Nations three Reports relating to certain proposed modifica­ tions (documents circulated to the Council: C.410,419,420). The portions of these Reports giving the proposed modifications, with the Commission's reasons for reoommending them, are repro­ duced later in this document. It need only be mentioned here that they relate to three districts: those of PAMHAGEN, LIEBING and the PINKA VALLEY, which it is proposed to include within the Hungarian f r o n tie r . Note: An explanatory map is annexed to this memorandum (Annex 6). The regions affected by the decisions of the Commission are coloured red, but the boundaries marked must not be taken as definite. The reports actually propose to change certain points mentioned in the Treaty, without precisely defining the detail of the frontier. 2 — The legal foundation of the Council's action is indicated iatlie S ecreta ry -G e n e ral' s memorandum, C.423, dated June 29th 1922, which has "been circulated to the Members of the Council. its meeting on July 19th, the Council agreed to give a decision on the proposals of the Delimitation Commission, and the two Governments have agreed to accept its decision- In signing the Venice Protocol and agreeing to a plebiscite at Oedenburg. Austria male a sacrifice, the general object of which was to defer to the wishes of the Powers and help to restore good neighbourly relations with Hungary, but at the same time to retain intact the remainder of the territory assigned to her by the Peace Treaty, Austria has freely accepted in advance the decision of the Council of the Lea m s of Nations as to the re­ mainder of the Burgenland frontier; she has confidence in the Council's impartiality and is convinced that it will recognise the spirit of conciliation of which ehe has already given proof, to the advantage of Hungary, seeing that the latter is now in pos­ session of the Oedencurg territory* In other cases, modifications in the frontiers fixed by the Treaty, according to the procedure laid down in the covering l e t t e r of May 1920, can be ju s tif ie d ; but in th is case due wiight should be given to the Iwavy sacrifice to which ■Austria lias already agreed, thereby showing a singular spirit of conciliation, particularly as the dangerous situation which tos relieved by this sacrifice had been created by the threatening attitude of Hungary, who refused to submit to the pro­ visions of the Treaty, Austria did not ask the Delimitation Commission for any modification of the demarcation in her favour, although the matter leaves in Hungarian territory a considerable number of communes which are German by speech and Austrian by sentiment, for gho wished above all that the provisions of the Treaty should be m aintained and respected» The Peace Conference, in assigning the Burgenland to Austria, wishud not only to grpup populations of the same origin together, hut also to give to Austria an agricultural region which might help to supply Vienna. The value of the Burgenland has already "been conniderably reduced by the loss of its capital, Oederiburg, which is also the centre of its system of communications» The removal of this town not only diminishes the economic yield of the Burgenland, but renders its government more difficult. The proposed modifications would multiply these difficulties bj: cutting the vital communications of the region at three points, particularly at Lookenhaus, (Leka). The Treaty has alread 3r b'on put into force in this region, and the Austrian administration has been working since the beginning of 1922» The population voted at the elections for the Austrian National Assembly and the local Diet, and the members sen t to vote have made no p r o te s t. I t has q u ie tly resumed its work, which is of great value to Austria, These are new and very forcible arguments against the proposed changes. By the transfer to Hungary of the districts covered by the Commission’s Reports, the population would incur more serious losses than those which the Commission has s fought to remedy in accordance with the spirit of its instructions* Certain places, both in the Burgenland ûnd in Hungary, might perhaps profit by these frontier ohangae, but at the expense of the Burgenland as a whole. 4 - The serious consequences of such alterations would affect the Austrian State itself. The Federal Government wished Ur gently t6 ditew the attention of the Council to the political and economic effects of a decision which would add onj more difficulty to the problem cf the reconstruction of Austria. It considers that no further stress need "be laid upon this aspect of the question, the gravity of which the Council understands. The Austrian Government, which has never ceased to show its respect for the frontier fixed by th Treaty, ventures to hope that the Council will refuse its approval to any further modifications of that frontier, which would compromise the vital interests of Austria and of her unfortunate people. The considerations ur^ed by the Hun arian Dele rate in favour of the Report of the Delimitation Commission .ill b~ found later in this report, but in reply to the general considerations submitted by the Austrian Government the Hungarian Representative wishes to make the following statement: - 5 - By the Treaty of Trianon Hungary lost two-thirds of her former population and three-quarters of her territory. In signing this Treaty, the most crushing treaty of modern times, the Government was convinced that the solemn promises contained in the Covering Letter cf May 6th, 1980 - signed by M. Miller and and addressed to the Hungarian Delegation with a view to rendering the signature of the Treaty less onerous - would he kept in fu ll0 Unhappily, these hopes* which the Hungarian Government and people were justified in entertaining, were disappointed. The provisions of the Covering Letter were not respected by the Delimitation Commissions, which rejected all, even the best-founded Hungarian claimst It was only in the Austro-Hungarian and 3erho-Hungarian frontiers that the Commissions thought fit to make slight modi­ fications in the lines fixed by the Treaties, modifications ¥/hich were based on economic reasons which it was impossible to question. If the Council of the League of Hâtions refuses its appro­ val to these p ro p o sa ls, which rep resen t ihe minimum of the Hun­ garian claims, the Hungarian Government will be faced by a most serious situation, inasmuch as the National Assembly and public opinion fully cxpect that the territories a signed to us by the Commission w ill be re sto re d to Hungary» The political situation which would be created in Austria by the adopting of the conclusions of the Delimitation Commission could not be so giave, in view of the fact that public opinion in the neighbouring Republic is completely absorbed in the economic and f in a n c ia l c r i s i s and in the p o l i t i c a l problem of union with Germany, and shows very little serious interest in -6- the question of the boundaries of a newly-acquired province. Moreover, the Austrian Government has had to reckon with the possibility of losing territory in the Burgenland, considering that the Venico Protocol does not refer solely to the plebis­ cite, but, also, quite explicitly, to the question of de­ limitation between the tv/o neighbouring States. In assuming, by this Protocol, the obligation of submitting to the décisions of the Delimitation Commission or of the Council of the League of Nations, Austria has admitted that modifications in the frontier may be decreed; it also appears, from the unilateral character of this obligation that only frontier rectifications in favour of Hungary were contemplated at Venice; for, if the pos ibility of modifications in favour of Austria had beon considered, a similar obligation should logically have been innosed upon Hungary. Finally, it mv.st be pointed out that the agricultural pro­ duce of the districts which should be restored to Hungary is insufficient tor the needs of their own inhabitants, so that transfer of these districts could in no way affect the Austrian food supply. - 7- 11a Proposals of the DeIf m ltatio n Commission. The Commission pro os os three rectifications (see C 418, C 419, 0 480.} A, PAM HAG BN -, The Commission desires to be relieved of the obligation of allocating to Austria the village of pamhagen (mentioned by name in Article 87 of the Treaty of Trianon ), Reasons. In order to lessen the difficult!es due to the inevitable partition of the flood area of the RAÀ33 and of the organisation of the hydraulic system in that region» RESULTS OF1 THE COMLIISCION1 S 3NQUIRY, It, The ontire region described as tho "flood area of the Raab" is covered by an immense hydraulic system intended : to protect the cultivated lands against floods : to drain off the standing waters in the district to the east of the southern part of Lake Neusiedl; and on the other hand to irrigate the -oeaty lands of the Han sag vhen they are completely dried up in mid-summer; and to continue the draining of Lake Neusiedl.