Trianon és a brit földrajz II.

{"title":"Trianon és a brit földrajz II.","authors":"","doi":"10.32643/fk.144.3.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effect of the Treaty of Trianon (1920) upon Hungary’s boundaries is well understood. Surprisingly, however, almost no attention has been paid to the work of the various national geographical delegations which helped advise politicians as the boundaries of Europe were re-cast after World War I. This paper examines the work of the British geographical delegation in Paris as it advised upon Trianon. Particular attention is paid to the work of Alan Ogilvie, and to Ogilvie’s relationships with Isaiah Bowman, effective head of the American delegation. The paper examines Ogilvie’s diaries and correspondence to provide detailed insight into how ethnic identity, linguistic difference and other criteria were used (or not) to define and map the new Hungary and the new Europe. The paper shows how questions to do with the complexity of Hungary’s ethnic diversity were known to British geographers and map makers as early as 1915. It shows, too, that no single view was held over how to map boundaries: some British geographers favoured delimitation based upon physiographic divides, such as river and drainage basins. Others favoured ethnic difference based on use of the mother tongue. For yet others, attention was paid to lines of communication and to economic market area. Because such differences were apparent in the British geographical community during World War One, notably between prominent members of the Royal Geographical Society, British geographers offered no consistent view upon Hungary’s delimitation and ‘dismemberment’ following Trianon. British geographers turned to the meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in order to debate these differences and to review Hungary’s position in the new Europe after 1920.","PeriodicalId":305418,"journal":{"name":"Földrajzi Közlemények","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Földrajzi Közlemények","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32643/fk.144.3.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effect of the Treaty of Trianon (1920) upon Hungary’s boundaries is well understood. Surprisingly, however, almost no attention has been paid to the work of the various national geographical delegations which helped advise politicians as the boundaries of Europe were re-cast after World War I. This paper examines the work of the British geographical delegation in Paris as it advised upon Trianon. Particular attention is paid to the work of Alan Ogilvie, and to Ogilvie’s relationships with Isaiah Bowman, effective head of the American delegation. The paper examines Ogilvie’s diaries and correspondence to provide detailed insight into how ethnic identity, linguistic difference and other criteria were used (or not) to define and map the new Hungary and the new Europe. The paper shows how questions to do with the complexity of Hungary’s ethnic diversity were known to British geographers and map makers as early as 1915. It shows, too, that no single view was held over how to map boundaries: some British geographers favoured delimitation based upon physiographic divides, such as river and drainage basins. Others favoured ethnic difference based on use of the mother tongue. For yet others, attention was paid to lines of communication and to economic market area. Because such differences were apparent in the British geographical community during World War One, notably between prominent members of the Royal Geographical Society, British geographers offered no consistent view upon Hungary’s delimitation and ‘dismemberment’ following Trianon. British geographers turned to the meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in order to debate these differences and to review Hungary’s position in the new Europe after 1920.
特里亚农条约(1920年)对匈牙利边界的影响是众所周知的。然而,令人惊讶的是,几乎没有人注意到各种国家地理代表团的工作,这些代表团在第一次世界大战后为欧洲的边界重新划分提供了建议。本文考察了英国地理代表团在巴黎为特里亚农提供建议时的工作。书中特别关注了艾伦·奥格尔维的工作,以及奥格尔维与美国代表团实际团长以赛亚·鲍曼的关系。本文考察了Ogilvie的日记和信件,以提供关于如何使用(或不使用)种族认同、语言差异和其他标准来定义和绘制新匈牙利和新欧洲的详细见解。这篇论文表明,早在1915年,英国地理学家和地图绘制者就知道了匈牙利种族多样性的复杂性。它还表明,在如何绘制边界的问题上,没有单一的观点:一些英国地理学家倾向于根据地理分界线来划分,比如河流和流域。另一些人则赞成基于使用母语的种族差异。对另外一些人来说,注意的是通讯线路和经济市场领域。因为在第一次世界大战期间,这种差异在英国地理学界很明显,特别是在皇家地理学会的杰出成员之间,英国地理学家对匈牙利的划界和特里亚农之后的“肢解”没有提供一致的观点。英国地理学家转而参加英国科学促进会的会议,以讨论这些差异,并回顾匈牙利在1920年之后在新欧洲的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信