¹ For a review of Hungarian diplomacy before the Munich Agreement, see Roman, Eric, “Munich and Hungary: An Overview of Hungarian Diplomacy during the Sudeten Crisis,” East European Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 1 (03, 1974), pp. 71–97.Google Scholar

² Macartney, C.A. and Palmer, A.V., Independent Eastern Europe (London: MacMillan and Co., 1962), p. 388.Google Scholar

³ There are entirely too many secondary works dealing with the topic to list them in this article. Interested persons should consult the bibliographies in the following works: Boris Celowsky, Mönchener Abkommen von 1938 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1958);Google ScholarEdward, Chaszar, Decision in Vienna (Astor, Fla.: Danubian Press, 1978);Google ScholarKeith, Eubank, Munich (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963);Google ScholarFrancis, Loewenheim (ed.), Peace or Appeasement (Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin, 1965);Google ScholarRadomír, Luza, The Transfer of the Sudeten-Germans: A Study of Czech-German Relations, 1933–1962 (New York: New York University Press, 1964);Google ScholarRonnefarth, Helmut K.G., Die Sudeten Krise in der Internationalen Politik (2 vols., Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1961);Google Scholar and Wheeler-Bennet, John W., Munich, Prologue to Tragedy (2nd ed., New York: Viking Press, 1963).Google Scholar

⁴ Jain, Macleod, Neville Chamberlain (London: Atheneum, 1961).Google Scholar

⁵ Charles, Webster, “Munich Reconsidered: A Survey of British Foreign Policy,” International Affairs, Vol. XXXVII (04, 1961), pp. 137–153.Google Scholar

⁶ Such as, for example, Taylor, A.J.P., in his The Origins of the Second World War (2nd ed., Greenwich, Conn: Fawcet Publisher, Inc., 1961).Google Scholar

⁷ Loewenheim, Peace or Appeasement, p. 198.

⁸ On August 8, 1942, Great Britain and the Soviet Union declared that the “Award” was null and void. Behind this declaration was the skillful diplomatic work of President Eduard Beneš while in exile in London. See Macartney, C.A., October Fifteenth (2nd ed., 2 vols., Edinburgh: University Press, 1961), Vol. I, pp. 237–248.Google Scholar

⁹ The Treaty of St. Germain (September 10, 1919) demarcated the borders between Austria and Czechoslovakia, while the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920) drew the lines between Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

¹⁰ As quoted in Mayer, Arno F., Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), p. 193.Google Scholar

¹¹ “Kertesz, Stephen D., Diplomacy in a Whirlpool (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1953), p. 21.Google Scholar

¹² Harold, Nicolson, Peacemaking (Rev'd., ed., London: Constable & Co., 1945), p. 104.Google Scholar

¹³ René, Albrecht-Carrié, A Diplomatic History of Europe since the Congress of Vienna (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p. 521.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thomson, S. Harrison, Czechoslovakia in European History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 11.Google Scholar

¹⁵ “See Hugh, Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 1918–1941 (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1967), p. 414.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ “Eduard, Beneš, Munich (Paris: Stock Edition, 1968), p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Golo, Mann, The History of Germany since 1789 (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968), p. 454.Google Scholar

¹⁹ “As quoted in George, Bonnet, Quai D'Orsay (London: Times Press, 1965), p. 185.Google Scholar

²⁰ Although references to college textbooks are usually not made in scholarly studies, it is necessary to do so in this case since for the great majority of Americans college textbooks provide the only historical information they ever obtain. If textbooks are not accurate, our adult population will forever believe that falsifications are the truth.

²¹ It should be noted that an agreement within the framework of the League of Nations was impossible since Germany had not been a member of the League since October, 1933.

²² Albrecht-Carrié, A Diplomatic History of Europe, p. 526

²³ Taylor, A.J.P., “Munich Twenty Years After,” Manchester Guardian Weekly, October 2, 1958, p. 7.Google Scholar

²⁴ Dálnoki-Veress, Colonel-General Lajos (ed.), Magyaroszág honvédelme a II. világháboru előtt és alatt [Hungary's National Defenses before and during World War II] (3 vols., Munich: Danubia Druckerei, 1972), Vol. I, p. 62.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid

²⁶ Ibid, p. 66.

²⁷ “See, for instance, the negotiations at Sinaia (1934) and at Bled (1937–1938).

²⁸ For a more detailed analysis of Hungary's strategic position, see my book entitled The Crisis of France's East Central European Diplomacy 1933–1938 (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly, 1976), pp. 112–120.Google Scholar

²⁹ Rudnay (the Hungarian ambassador in Vienna) to Kánya, Vienna, April 10, 1937, in Magyar Tdomanyos Akademia Törtenettudomanyi Intezete, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához 1935–1945 [Diplomatic Documents on the Foreign Policy of Hungary, 1935–1945] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadé, 1962), Vol. I, Doc. No. 230, pp. 389–390.Google Scholar

³⁰ Kánya to Sztojay, Budapest, April 5, 1938, Ibid. Vol. II, Doc. No. 146, p. 317.

³¹ Hóry to Kánya, Warsaw, May 11, 1938, Ibid. Doc. No. 192, p. 375; Mackensen to Ribbentrop, Rome, July 18, 1938, in Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918–1945, ser. D (13 vols., Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949–1964), Vol. II, Doc. No. 296, pp. 492–493.Google Scholar

³² Kánya to Hóry, Budapest, , 05 15, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához. Vol. II, Doc. No. 200, pp. 383–384.Google Scholar

³³ Plessen to Neurath, Rome, 07 26, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. I, Doc. No. 795, pp. 1,161–1,163.Google Scholar

³⁴ “Macartney, October Fifteenth, Vol. I, p. 242.

³⁵ “Montgomery, John Flournoy, Hungary the Unwilling Satellite (New York: The Devin-AdairCo., 1947), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mackensen to Ribbentrop, Rome, 07 18, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. II, Doc. No. 296, pp. 492–493.Google Scholar

³⁷ Barcza, (Hungarian ambassador to London) to Kanya, London, 08 3, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, No. 272, pp. 517–518.Google Scholar

³⁸ For a detailed discussion of Horthy's visit in Kiel, see Macartney, October Fifteenth, Vol. I, pp. 237–248.

³⁹ Admiral, Horthy, Memories (New York: Robert Speller & Sons, 1957), p. 162.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Minutes taken by Weizsacker on board the Patricia on 08 23, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. II, Doc. No. 383, pp. 609–611.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Romania and Yugoslavia recognized Hungary's right to rearm, while the Hungarian government expressed its firm will to refrain from using any kind of force in its relations with the contracting parties. The agreement did not modify the obligations of the contracting parties that had already been stipulated in existing treaties. For the full text of the Little Entente treaties and the Rome Protocol, see Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. Nos. 294a, 301a, and 301b, on pp. 548–549–and 556–557.

⁴² Marosy to Kánya, London, August 31, 1938, Ibid. Doc. No. 308, pp. 562–563.

⁴³ Kánya to Vörnle, September 1, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 309, pp. 567–568.

⁴⁴ For the text of the agreement, see Ibid., Doc. No. 320, p. 577.

⁴⁵ Kánya to Villáni, Budapest, September 16, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 352, p. 610.

⁴⁶ "Hóry to Kanya, Warsaw, September 17, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 354, pp. 611–612.

⁴⁷ Kánya to Hóry, Budapest, September 17, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 358, p. 615. The italics are mine. Stressing the word “Ruthenia,” the Hungarian note indicated that the Hungarian government feared a possible clash with the Great Powers over Slovakia.

⁴⁸ Horthy to Hitler, Budapest, n. d., Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 359, pp. 616–617.

⁴⁹ Sztójay to Kánya, London, September 17, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 361, p. 619.

⁵⁰ Barcza to Kánya, London, September 19, 1938, Ibid., Doc. No. 365, p. 624.

⁵¹ Kánya to Barcza, Budapest, September 20, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 371, p. 632.

⁵² Kánya to Villáni, Budapest, September 21, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 374, p. 632.

⁵³ Hóry to Kánya, Warsaw, September 22, 1938, ibid. Doc. No. 381, p. 638.

⁵⁴ Hóry to Kánya, Warsaw, September 26, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 400, p. 662.

⁵⁵ Sztójay to Kánya, Berlin, September 27, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 401, pp. 662–663.

⁵⁶ Sztójay to Kánya, Berlin, September 29, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 422, p. 679.

⁵⁷ Csáky to Barcza, Budapest, September 29, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 428, pp. 684–685.

⁵⁸ Wettstein to Kánya, Budapest, October 1, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 432, p. 689.

⁵⁹ For the text of the Polish ultimatum, see Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919– 1939 (3rd ser, 10 vols., London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1947–60), Vol. III, Doc. No. 101, pp. 70–72.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Krofta to Kazimierz, Prague, October 1, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 101, Pt. 3, pp. 72–73.

⁶¹ Halifax to Newton, London, October 2, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 105, pp. 74–75.

⁶² Wettstein to Kánya, Prague, October 2, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 445, pp. 698–699.Google Scholar

⁶³ The correspondence with these governments can be found in ibid., Doc. Nos. 451 and 452, pp. 709–711.

⁶⁴ Villáni to Kánya, Rome, October 5, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 462, pp. 720–721.

⁶⁵ Truman Smith to the U. S. war department, Berlin, October 5, 1938, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938 (5 vols., Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1954–56), Vol. l, p. 717.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Montgomery, Hungary the Unwilling Satellite, p. 120.

⁶⁷ Mackensen to Ribbentrop, Rome, October 6, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 37, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Chief of the general staff to the foreign ministry, Berlin, October 6, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 39, p. 40.

⁶⁹ Truman Smith to the U. S. war department, Berlin, October 5, 1938, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, Vol. I, p. 718.Google Scholar The italics are mine.

⁷⁰ Villáni to Kánya, Rome, October 3, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Kü;lpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 456, p. 714.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Montgomery, Hungary the Unwilling Satellite, pp. 121–122.

⁷² Kenard to Halifax, Warsaw, October 5, 1938, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 117, p. 82.Google Scholar

⁷³ Khuen-H'derváry to Kánya, Paris, October, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 481, pp. 734–735.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Truman Smith to the U. S. war department, Berlin, October 5, 1938, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, Vol. I, p. 717.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ German consulate to Ribbentrop, Pressburg, October 6, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 40, p. 40.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Kánya to Wettstein, Budapest, October 3, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 449, p. 707.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Montgomery, Hungary the Unwilling Satellite, p. 120.

⁷⁸ Kánya to Sztójay, Budapest, October 9, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 494, p. 772.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ For the official text of the Hungarian note, see ibid., Doc. No. 525, pp. 792–794.

⁸⁰ Hóry to Kánya, Warsaw, October 14, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 527, pp. 794–795.

⁸¹ Csáky to Kánya, Rome, October 14, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 529, pp. 796–797.

⁸² Conversation of Hitler with Chvalkovský, Berlin, October 14, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 61, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar

⁸³ Conversation of Hitler with Darányi, Munich, October 14, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 62, pp. 73–77.

⁸⁴ Conversation of Csáky with Mussolini, Rome, October 14, 1938, Diplomáciai lratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 529, pp. 796–797.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Diplomáciai lratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 530, pp. 797–798.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Villáni to Kánya, Rome, October 15, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 533, pp. 799–800.

⁸⁷ Ibid., Pt. 2, p. 800.

⁸⁸ Csáky to Kánya, Rome, October 15, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 533, Pt. 3, pp. 800–801.

⁸⁹ Wilson, Hugh (ed.), The Ciano Diaries (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1946), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Sztójay to Kánya, Berlin, October 17, 1938, Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarország Külpolitikájához. Vol. II, Doc. Nos. 549 and 549a, pp. 817–818.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Villáni to Kánya, Rome, October 17, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 551, p. 819.

⁹² Sztójay to Kánya, Berlin, October 19, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 560, pp. 825–827.

⁹³ The members of the Slovak delegation were Josef Tiso, the prime minister of Slovakia, Ferdinand Durčansky, the deputy prime minister; and Edmund Bacinsky, the Ruthenian minister. Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 72, pp. 86–92.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid. This document illustrates either the very limited knowledge or else the very biased attitude of The New York Times, which voiced the opinion in the October 16, 1938, issue that the Hungarian demand “for the cession of Slovakian and Ruthenian areas with a non-Hungarian majority” contradicted “the principle of self-determination” and “was unjust.” See p. I. The italics are mine. It was in the interest of the Slovaks to avoid plebiscites and to deny the right of self-determination to “Communists and Jews.”

⁹⁵ Memorandum by Hewel (an official of the German foreign minister's personal staff), Munich, October 19, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 73, pp. 92–93.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid., pp. 86–92.

⁹⁷ Ibid., pp. 92–93.

⁹⁸ Kánya to Villáni, Budapest, October 20, 1938, Diplomáciai lratok Magyarország Küpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 566, p. 832.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Kánya to Sztójay, Budapest, October 23, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 578, pp. 843–844.

¹⁰⁰ Note of the Czech government, Prague, October 26, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 585, pp. 853–854.

¹⁰¹ Kánya to Sztójay, Budapest, October 27, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 590, pp. 857–858.

¹⁰² The New York Times, October 13, 1938, p. 1.

¹⁰³ Ibid., October 15, 1938, p. 2.

¹⁰⁴ For the full text, see Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 227, pp. 202–203.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Khuen-Hidérváry to Kánya, Paris, October 27, 1938, Diplomáciai lratok Magyarorsiág Külpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 592, pp. 858–859.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, Le Livre Jaune François (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1939), Doc. No. 18, p. 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Gaus memorandum, Berlin, October 22, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, ser. D, Vol. IV, Doc. No. 341, pp. 439–440.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Note of the German government, October 30, 1938, Diplomáciai lratok Magyarország Kölpolitikájához, Vol. II, Doc. No. 616, pp. 879–880;Google Scholar note of the Italian government, October 30, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 617, p. 880.

¹⁰⁹ As reported in Troutbeck to Halifax, Prague, November 8, 1938, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 255, pp. 225–226.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ The Jews were always reported as a separate nationality group in Czechoslovak statistics in order to reduce the number of Magyars and Germans. Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, p. 414.

¹¹¹ Troutbeck to Halifax, November 8, 1938, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 255, pp. 225–226.Google Scholar

¹¹² Calculated on the basis of Troutbeck's report to Halifax on November 8, 1938, ibid.

¹¹³ Halifax to Ogilivie-Forbes, London, October 26, 1938, ibid., Doc. No. 226, pp. 200–202.

¹¹⁴ Biddle to U. S. secretary of state, Warsaw, November 5, 1938, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, Vol. I, p. 731.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Kennard to Halifax, Warsaw, November 14, 1938, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 258, pp. 227–228.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Jedrzejewicz, Waclaw (ed.), Papers and Memoirs of Józef Lipski, Ambassador of Poland, Diplomat in Berlin 1933–1939 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), Doc. No. 124, pp. 455–458.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Carr to secretary of state, Prague, December 29, 1938, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, Vol. I, pp. 736–739.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Ermannsdorff to Ribbentrop, Budapest, November 15, 1938, in Ránki, György et al. (eds.), A Wilhelmslrasse és Magyarország [Wilhelmstrasse and Hungary] (Budapest: Academia, 1968), Doc. No. 160, p. 325.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ The Times (London), 11 3, 1938, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ The New York Times, October 16, 1938, p. 1.

¹²¹ Ibid., p. 16.

¹²² Ibid., October 29, 1938, p. 2.

¹²³ lbid., November 5, 1938, p. 3.

¹²⁴ lbid., November 6, 1938, p. 1.

¹²⁵ Halifax to Palairet, London, November 17, 1938, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, 3rd ser., Vol. III, Doc. No. 262, pp. 231–233.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ No similar telegrams were sent to the British and French governments.

¹²⁷ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, Vol. I, p. 732.

¹²⁸ Csáky announced that his policy was “quite simply that of the Rome-Berlin Axis all along the line.” As quoted in Macartney, C.A., Hungary, A Short History (Chicago, III.: Aldine, 1962), p. 229.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Hungarian troops reoccupied Ruthenia in March, 1939, and restored a common Polish-Hungarian frontier. Also, a “Second Vienna Award” on August 30, 1940, gave parts of Transylvania back to Hungary.

¹³⁰ Count Teleki, the Hungarian prime minister between February 6, 1939, and April 3,1941, committed suicide to protest Hungarian participation in German military operations against Yugoslavia in flagrant violation of the “Eternal Treaty of Friendship” signed with Yugoslavia only a few months earlier.

¹³¹ Their appeasement policy was unrealistic, unintelligible, and puzzling even to Stalin. See Halle, Louis F., The Cold War as History (New York: Harper & Row, 1971),Google Scholar Chapters VII–IX.