Alternatives to a Takeover of Power. Košice 1918–1919*

Attila Simon, Fórum Minority Research Institute in Šamorín (Somorja in Hungarian), Selye János University in Komárno (Komárom in Hungarian) 

In the last year of World War I, there were several conflicting national scenarios for the transformation of the Central European region. In the space where eventually the Czecho-Slovak state was to be established, there were at least three such visions, namely the Czech, the German-Austrian, and the Hungarian, in addition to the Slovak (which was not in complete harmony with the Prague plans), and various additional ideas for smaller regions. Of the rival schemes, the winner was clearly T. G. Masaryk’s Czech scenario, which basically aimed at restoring Czech statehood in a larger than earlier territory. One of the most significant elements of this idea was guaranteeing the historic Czech borders, which was such an important goal that, according to the renowned Czech historian Jan Galandauer, the Czechs would have been ready to give up their sovereignty for it.1

Another vital pillar of the Masaryk scenario was obtaining the northern parts of historic Hungary inhabited by Slovaks, Hungarians, and Germans. For the Czech elites, that were dreading German dominance, this held the simultaneous promise of breaking out of being encircled by Germans and building a bridge towards the big Slavic brother, Russia. Not only was the Czech scheme in stark contrast to the German and Hungarian plans but to some extent it also disregarded the local ideas of the Slovak movement based in Turčiansky sv, Martin (Turócszentmárton in Hungarian, Turz-Sankt Martin in German) and of the Upper Hungarian regions that were later to become Slovakia.  

This paper examines the conflicts the Prague scenarios generated in the case of the town of Košice (in Hungarian Kassa) and introduces the alternative visions emerging in late 1918 and early 1919 concerning the future role and operation of this major regional centre. 

Debates about Košice’s character 

In the Slovak-Hungarian historical and public discourse, Košice has always borne symbolic significance, as both parties have considered it their own.2 This is partly because in the apparently contradictory series of data in 19th and 20th century censuses, both the Hungarian and the Slovak parties can find evidence to support their argument.   

HungariansSlovaks (Czecho-Slovaks) Germans 
Table 1: Percentages of the three main ethnic communities in Košice over the past two centuries3

As Table 1 demonstrates, Košice, that had a considerable German majority in the Middle Ages, repeatedly went through major ethnic changes between 1851 and 1950, or at least this is what census data suggest. It is to be noted, however, that statistics do not necessarily mirror the actual changes in the town’s ethnic composition. As confirmed by Ondrej Ficerinek’s so-called situational identity research, whenever a census was taken, Košice citizens’ language competences enabled them to adjust their declared national identity to the current state law.4

In this situation, it was the post-1945 forced transformation that led to a noticeable shift in the ethnic character of the region within Czechoslovakia that intended to build a purely Slavic nation state: not only was the decisive majority of Germans forced to leave, but every effort was taken to eliminate the Hungarian population in Slovakia by a population exchange imposed on Hungary, by deporting to Czechia Hungarians living in Slovakia, and also by their “Reslovakization”.5 Although this drive was not fully successful, the ethnic composition of Southern Slovakia underwent a major transformation, and the formerly multilingual town of Košice became primarily monolingual.6

Contemporary memoirs, diaries, and archival sources about Košice offer a more plastic image of the impact of the 1918-1920 state transformation than statistics, witnessing a town with strong Hungarian dominance. The man in the street would mostly speak Hungarian, and the larger part of citizens identified with the idea of Hungarian statehood. This image is confirmed by a Czechoslovak security report dating back to the time following the state formation: “Slovaks in Košice, whose mentality is completely Magyarised and have no national identity, are indifferent to the events of historic significance and do not at all understand their importance.”7 Looking back, Anton Granatier, one of the leaders of the Slovak League, that in the interwar period supported the Slovakizaton of the territories inhabited by Hungarians, wrote in 1947: “thirty years ago Košice appeared to be as Hungarian as Budapest.”8 Naturally, this image is confirmed by Hungarian sources as well, but it needs to be added that while Hungarians talk of a completely Hungarian town, according to Slovak views, under the Hungarian surface there was a genuine Slovak core hidden. When minister Vavro Šrobár visited Košice in July 1919, the first County Sheriff of Slovakia, Ján Sekáč, greeted him as follows:  

Minister, I would like to offer you a very warm welcome to Košice, a town which has always been ours and will continue to be ours. This town, which is of utmost importance not only for Eastern Slovensko, but for the entire Slovensko, is of Slovak origins; the core, the roots are Slovak, and only the surface plastering is foreign. However, we hope that following a fertilizing Slovak shower, this plastering will fall off by itself.9

 Naturally, it must be remembered that the monochromatic exterior was not due exclusively to the higher number of citizens with Hungarian sympathies. It was a spinoff of socio-political relations: up to 1918, accepting the Hungarian state ideology was a basic precondition to acquiring social positions. Thus, Hungarians or those living as Hungarians were the leaders of the town, occupied important offices, managed educational institutions, and were in charge of the press. Thus, they were much more visible than the Slovak craftsmen on the town’s outskirts or the Slovak-speaking market women.  

Alternative to double control: December 1918  

Although Košice had no special significance in the Slovak national life, from the very beginning Czechoslovakia insisted that the town should be under their control, and they spoke of it as a future centre of Slovak culture because, without it, governing eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathia would have been impossible. Nevertheless, Košice citizens took little notice of this aspiration, not connecting the declaration of the Czechoslovak state with their own fate. They still saw their future in Hungary. The agreement over the temporary demarcation lines signed on 6th December, 1918 by the Budapest deputy of the Czechoslovak government Milan Hodža and minister of war Albert Bartha confirmed their conviction, as it left the town under Hungary’s control.10 This demarcation line suggested an alternative that would have based Hungarian-Slovak separation on ethnic principles and – mostly in line with its ethnic composition – would have left Košice to Hungary. Considering the support in Paris for the demands of the Czechoslovak political elite headed by foreign minister Edvard Beneš, this option was not realistic. 

When Košice citizens were still hopeful, for the Hungarian National Council that had controlled the town from the Aster Revolution in October 1918 and for its government commissioner Miklós Molnár, by mid-December the Czechoslovak intentions were transparent. Although initially people in Košice seemed to be ready for the armed defence of their town, when it turned out that the Budapest government refused to help, they abandoned the idea.11

Modifying the original plan, they spent their energy on ensuring that if the occupation was unavoidable, there should be as few conflicts and sacrifices as possible. This is why on 21st December Molnár started negotiations with the Czechoslovak government’s envoy Milan Hodža, who was staying in Budapest, on the practicalities of the occupation. Although they managed to conclude the agreement the same, Hodža requested that only the following day should they put their signatures on it, but then with reference to the change of circumstances, the Slovak politician refused to sign it.  

In this context, two questions arise. Firstly: Why did Hodža’s view change in one day? And more importantly: If it had been signed, what would the agreement have meant for Košice? The answer to the first query is to be found in the constantly changing situation: on 21st December Hodža launched negotiations with Molnár believing that the demarcation line he had bargained for on 6th December was still in force, leaving Košice under Hungary’s control.12 In other words, agreement on the way of occupation seemed favourable to him even if he had to make compromises with the town’s leadership. Meanwhile, however, a new demarcation line was drawn in Paris, according to which Košice could be taken under Czechoslovak control. Hodža must have received notification of the new demarcation line sometime in the evening of 21st December, i.e., not much after he had talked to Miklós Molnár.13 In possession of this information, Hodža was no longer interested in signing an agreement that would have tied the Czechoslovak party’s hands. 

The main content of the ten-point agreement, whose text was later made public by Miklós Molnár,14 can be summarized in three important messages. According to the first, led by French officers, the Czechoslovak occupation would happen on 2nd January 1919 in the way planned ahead. According to the second, following the occupation, the town would be jointly controlled by the Hungarian and the Czechoslovak government commissioners, relying on the Hungarian legal system. The third vital point was that the occupiers would ensure that citizens could exercise their fundamental human and nationality rights.  

The content of the agreement was in essence built on the view adopted by the Hungarian party and originating from the Belgrade Convention that the eventual occupation of Košice would be temporary and that, before the final decision of the peace conference, the town should be legally regarded as part of Hungary. This reflected the intentions of Miklós Molnár, who resigned himself to the occupation, but saw it as a temporary solution and wished to diminish its weight.   

While Molnár’s intentions are easy to understand, Hodža’s motivation is harder to decipher.  This is because the interpretation following from the agreement’s wording, namely that Košice should be regarded as part of Hungary up to the signing of the peace contract, was in stark contrast to the Czechoslovak view that the territory they referred to as Slovakia had already belonged to the new state since 28th October. This means that Hodža wanted the agreement only in order to gain time and to speed up the occupation of Košice, while he must have assumed that the agreement he had signed did not tie Prague’s hand and freedom of action. 

Another major issue is how realistic the enforcement of the agreement was. The text Molnár presented suggested the possibility of a takeover built on a balance of the old and the new power, thereby, resulting in a type of double control up to the peace conference. No matter how attractive this solution might seem, the idea that the town should be controlled jointly by commissioners representing two different governments was rather irrealistic.  

The town’s first occupation: the period of parallel power structure

The occupation of Košice, which the Czechoslovak party was entitled to carry out according to the new demarcation line marked out by the Entente, finally happened on 29th December, 1918. The occupation had been preceded by an agreement between the town’s representatives and the commander of the occupying forces, which unlike the agreement between Molnár and Hodža, merely specified the way of occupation without carrying any political content. It is partly due to this agreement that, defying citizens‘ earlier fears,15 the occupying troops marched into the town in an orderly manner, under Czech and Slovak banners, and “singing joyfully all the way,” as reported by the local newspaper.16 There was no fighting or bloodshed.  

When the Czechoslovaks occupied the town on 29th December, 1918, they took over directly from its former power holders. This meant that although public order was weakened, there was no power vacuum in the sense of leaving the town without administration for a shorter or longer period. Even in the days of the occupation, most offices and institutions worked without interruption, and continued in the days following the occupation. Therefore, the days and even weeks following 29th December are best described with the term “parallel power”. In the first weeks of the occupation, besides the new state structures, the old ones were still in operation. Even though officially Prague denied the fact, they had to share their authority with Budapest.  

The causes of “parallel power” are to be found primarily in the insecure constitutional status, as the peace conference had not even started yet, and for Prague it was vitally important that Paris should be receiving news of consolidation thanks to the Czechoslovak occupation, rather than of armed conflict and a violent takeover in Košice.  

It was this constitutional insecurity that forced the new power holders (i.e., the Czechoslovak side) to compromise, while strengthening the resolution of the old power holders (i.e., the Hungarian side) not to accept the new system as legitimate. Compromise was additionally necessitated by a shortage of the Czechoslovak state’s human resources required for the town’s full takeover. For this reason, while they took over the main positions in a few days and appointed their own cadres (mayor, county sheriff, chief of police, and attorney general), people at lower levels of urban institutions and public administration were allowed to stay. Symbolic completion of the takeover process happened on 7th January, when the new government-appointed Slovak Mayor Vladimír Mutňanský had the Czechoslovak flag planted on the town hall.17 Members of the old guard did not even have to take the oath of allegiance (as earlier planned); they were only expected to conscientiously perform their duties and not to openly turn against the new state. Stressing the incomplete nature of the power takeover, one Czechoslovak report notes that although a Czech had been appointed head of the urban police, members of the police force were so unreliable that “during more serious events, their guns had to be taken from them.”18

In other words, while the new mayor and police chief derived their power from decisions taken by the Prague administration, most officers derived theirs from the Hungarian constitution. Inevitably, this led to numerous conflicts, but at this point the new power did not always come out victorious. Thus, when Mayor Mutňanský ruled in a decree of 18th January, 1919 that all state offices and institutions should have the Slovak and Czech flags flying and that signs on public buildings should be displayed in Slovak in addition to Hungarian,19 most institutions refused to obey. In turn, after consultations with the central government in Bratislava (Pozsony in Hungarian), the local mayor backed down.  

Although already in the first weeks of the occupation there were certain conflicts between the new regime on the one hand, and the citizens and the old elite on the other, they did not take the form of violent clashes, which is owed to both parties. Public sentiment in Košice was characterised by a ‘wait and see’ approach and a belief that the situation was only temporary, while the Czechoslovak power showed a type of reserved determination. The recollections of the Košice theatre director Ödön Faragó also portray a disciplined and polite but determined opponent:  

On the last day of the year, two Czechoslovak army officers came to see me. Their visit, conduct, and voice took on the politest forms. They showed the respect due to a host, but they tactfully informed me that this was no longer Hungary… “a lost war and everything belongs to the Czechoslovaks.”20

The realities of dictatorial power 

From mid-February, a growing number of cracks were tangible under the peaceful surface, eventually leading to open clashes between the two sides. The turning point came with a general strike in mid-February, crippling the town for five days from 14th February.21 Although the strike was prompted by social and economic issues, it was a type of silent but determined sign that most of the population rejected Czechoslovakia.    

Bratislava and Prague labelled the strike an irredentist action organised from Hungary22 and, in return, started applying aggressive methods. The pace of nationalizing education and public spaces was increased, and 17th March saw the first fatal fusillade that required casualties.23 Coupled with the state of emergency measures (early evening curfew and closing of bars and restaurants, and increasing numbers of internments)24 introduced after the declaration of the Hungarian Council Republic on 21st March 1919, this further deepened the animosity between the Czech state and Košice’s citizens. In the meantime, because of the armed conflict that erupted between Czechoslovakia and Bolshevik-led Hungary, from 24th May, martial law tightened: a total ban was imposed on freedom of association, and a curfew was set from 9 p.m. At the same time, rounding up hostages on a massive scale was started, putting some sixty citizens (mostly honest craftsmen) in custody. As County Sheriff Sekáč’s poster informed the public on 25th May, the hostages had their life and property at stake: in case law and order was not maintained, members of the Czechoslovak army were attacked, or a rebellion broke out, they were to be immediately executed by a firing squad.25

With the growing possibility that, due to the changing military situation, the Czechoslovak army might have to give up the town, the local population’s resistance against the authority was on the rise. In the first days of June, the Czechoslovak army started to withdraw while, almost unnoticeably, the town was reassuming its old image, and the abandoned offices were repossessed by representatives of local Hungarians. When on 6th June the troops of the Hungarian Red Army appeared on the outskirts of the town, local citizens welcomed them as liberators.26 This time, the Hungarian rule lasted for only a month and, on 5th July, the Czechoslovak troops invaded and permanently occupied Košice.  

Compared to the first occupation of Košice, the Czechoslovaks’ second invasion was planned as the town’s conquest and humiliation. This is indicated by the fact that already on 5th July the envoys of the Czechoslovak troops had given the town’s Hungarian police chief, Béla Cselényi, the scenario for the occupying army staff’s march into town on 7th July. It was requested that the Czechoslovak corps of officers, led by French General Hennocque, should be greeted in Košice’s main street, the Fő utca, by the entire former city management, including the entire Civil Guard and the Red Guard, as well as a large turnout of local citizens expressing their reverence. It was also specified that the town should be decorated with Czechoslovak and French flags, and while the General was marching in across a ceremonial gate erected at the end of the Fő utca, all the bells in town had to be ringing loud.27 With young girls in white showering his feet with flowers, the General was met by the Town’s Council followed by Mayor Béla Blanár handing over the town’s keys.28

This ceremony was another indication that, in July 1919, the Czechoslovak troops were arriving much more confidently than in the last days of 1918 and wanted the population to sense their power. At the time of the first occupation, they were more cautious because the terrain was unfamiliar; moreover, it was a period when not only was there no decision on the new state borders, but the peace conference had not even been convened yet. In July 1919, they already knew who they were facing, namely the town and its inhabitants; more importantly, the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference had also confirmed their possession of Košice. 

Compared to the former situation, the new occupation was a complete takeover of power. Not only at the highest levels of public administration did they start changes but also in offices and state-run companies. At the same time, the nationalisation of public spaces, public life, and education was gaining momentum. In the autumn of 1919, the question was no longer whether Slovak signs could be placed on facades of institutions, but whether Hungarian signs could be kept at all next to the Slovak ones. 


The state changes following World War I in the region of present-day Slovakia are usually described as a struggle between clearly distinct forces, whereby the semi-feudal Hungarian Kingdom was replaced by a democratic Czechoslovak state. However, as evidenced by the case of Košice, this is not what the local inhabitants sensed, neither was the dividing line between the two worlds as sharp as we earlier thought. Admittedly, the Czechoslovak troops’ march into Košice marked a new era in the town’s life, but it did not mean the end of the former era. In the weeks and months following the occupation, a type of double authority was developed in Košice (as well as in other southern Slovak regions) in which the old and the new state’s institutions of power were both present. While the new mayor would follow Prague’s orders, at lower administrative levels and in local institutions, Budapest was still regarded as the legitimate centre of power. This duality was manifest in the economy (for weeks, the town had two catering offices, one of which was trying to acquire food from Prague, the other one from Budapest), in language use (while the town would communicate with Prague and Bratislava in Czech and Slovak, in the various urban fora everything was still done in Hungarian for several months to come), but most of all, in the attitude of local citizens, who felt that events could be reversed and were reluctant to adjust to the Czechoslovak state structure.  The Hungarian Council Republic’s conquest of about a month in June 1919 confirmed citizens’ conviction that a return was possible.  

The breaking down of Hungarian state structures and the town’s administration was accelerated only after the Czechoslovaks’ July takeover of Košice. By this time, the final state borders had been established, and Košice citizens had to face the Czechoslovak state’s reality. However, there were several factors that eased this process. One was the return of a sense of security. The second occupation of Košice and the finalization of state borders gave people the feeling that the First World War was over, and that violence and uncertainty were no longer part of their life. In addition, integration into the Czechoslovak state was eased by the democratisation of public life and politics, a process that led to the adoption of a democratic Constitution in February 1920 and the first parliamentary elections. The events starting in the autumn of 1919 demonstrated that the authorities had to resign themselves to the fact that the town administration was impossible without the local community’s involvement. At the same time, Hungarians in Košice also saw the inevitability of coming to terms with the state law and adjusting to it. The development characterising Košice in the interwar period would have been impossible without this compromise. 

Simon Attila is director of the Fórum Minority Research Institute in Šamorín (Somorja in Hungarian), and associate professor at Selye János University in Komárno (Komárom in Hungarian) in Slovakia. His professional interests are centered on the history of Hungarians in Slovakia between the two world wars. He is the author of about a hundred academic works, including eight monographs. 

Translated from Hungarian into English by Eszter Tímár 

  1. * The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the project APVV-20-0336 Transformations of the Community of Hungarians in Slovakia over the Last Hundred Years, with Special Emphasis on Their Everyday Culture 
    1 Jan Galandauer: Vznik Československé republiky 1918. Programy, projekty, perspektivy [The Birth of the Czechoslovak Republic 1918. Programs, plans, perspectives]. Prague 1988, p. 157 ↩︎
  2. Most recently, the well-known Slovak historian Roman Holec has contributed to the debate about Košice’s ethnic character: Trianonské rituály alebo úvahy nad niektorými javmi v maďarskej historiografii. In: Historický časopis [Historical Journal] 58 (2010) 2, pp. 191–208. The English translation of Roman Holec’s study is published as: Trianon Rituals or Considerations of Some Features of Hungarian Historiography. In: Ibid., 59 (2011) suppl. pp. 25-48. From the Hungarian side, Csaba Zahorán reacted to Holec’s somewhat one-sided perspective: Csaba Zahorán: Válasz Roman Holec cikkére [Answer to Roman Holec’s article], Történelmi Szemle [Histrical Review] 53 (2011) 4, pp. 591–613. For details, see Ondrej Ficeri: Potrianonské Košice. Premeny etnických identít obyvaťeľov Košíc v medzivojnovom Československu. Etnické identity obyvateľov Košíc v medzivojnovom Československu [Košice in the Post-Trianon Era. Transformations of the Ethnic Identities of the Košice Population in Interwar Czechoslovakia]. Bratislava 2019; Veronika Szeghy-Gayer: A szlovák–magyar–zsidó–cseh Kassa a 20. század első felében [Slovak-Hungarian-Jewish-Czech Košice in the First Half of the 20th Century], Korall [Coral], 18 (2017) 68, pp. 99–121.  ↩︎
  3.  Data source: Ficeri: Potrianonské Košice [Košice in the Post-Trianon Era], p. 25.; Forum Minority Research Institute. Szlovákiai Magyar Adatbank. A szlovákiai települések adatbázisa. <> [Hungarian Databank for Slovakia. Database of Settlements in Slovakia], 1 March 2017.  ↩︎
  4. At the time of the 1910 census, 41.7 percent of those regarding themselves Hungarian spoke Slovak as well, while 28.8 percent also spoke German. 70.7 percent of those regarding themselves German spoke Hungarian, and 42.8 percent spoke Slovak as well. 56.5 percent of those regarding themselves Slovak spoke Hungarian, and 5.8 percent spoke German as well. Source of data Ficeri: Potrianonské Košice [Košice in the Post-Trianon Era], pp. 103–104.; For the multilingualism of Košice citizens, see Frank Henschel: Das Fluidum der Stadt …”: Urbane Lebenswelten in Kassa /Košice/Kaschau zwischen Sprachenvieltfalt und Magyarisierung 1867–1918. Munich 2017, pp. 52–54; Juliane Brandt: Mehrsprachigkeit – ein Weg, verkehrsfähig zu sein. Die Stadtbevölkerung von Kaschau/Kassa/Košice und ihre Sprachen um 1900, In: Spiegelungen, 8/1 (2013), pp. 52–67.  ↩︎
  5. For the elimination of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, see László Szarka: Significance of Czechoslovakian-Hungarian Population Exchange in the History of Intended Elimination of Hungarian Minority in Czechoslovakia. In: Minorities Research 10 (2008), pp. 5165; Imre Molnár, László Szarka (eds): Memories and Reflections of the Dispossessed: A Collection of Memoirs for the 60th Anniversary of the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Population Exchange. Komárom 2010.  ↩︎
  6. Bálint Varga: Multilingualism in Urban Hungary 18801910, In: Nationalities Papers, 42/6 (2014), pp. 965–980, here: p. 972. ↩︎
  7. Národní archív České republiky [National Archives of the Czech Republic], Praha (NA ČR), fond Presídium ministerstva vnitra [Presidency of the Ministry of the Interior], AMV 225 (AMV-PMV 225), card 1455, č. 225-1455-3b.  ↩︎
  8. Slovenský národný archív, Bratislava [Slovak National Archives] (SNA), fond A. Granatier, card 2, Národnostný vývoj Košíc a ich okolia [National Development of Košice and its Surroundings], s. 2. Ficeri: Potrianonské Košice [Košice in the Post-Trianon Era], p. 114.  ↩︎
  9. Návšteva ministra dra Šrobára [Visit of Minister Dr. Šrobár]. In: Slovenský východ, 24 July 1919, p. 1 (without author). ↩︎
  10. The agreement on the demarcation line that Hodža had concluded as temporary but that the Hungarian party wished to be final was based mainly on ethnic considerations.   ↩︎
  11. First, Molnár sent a cable to request help, then travelled to Budapest with the same agenda, but both times his efforts failed. Molnár Miklós: Kassától Košicéig. Történelmi adatgyűjtemény az 1918–19 évi forradalom, vörösuralom és a csehszlovák köztársaság megalakulása idejéből. II. [From Kassa to Košice. Historical Data Collection from the Period of the 1918-1919 Revolution, the Red Rule, and the Establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic. II] 1942, p. 343 and pp. 399–402. ↩︎
  12. This is supported by the fact that in answer to Vix’s note sent to Milan Hodža on 19th December, in which the French officer representing the Entente powers reproaches Hodža for the Czechoslovak steps taken to occupy Košice, the Slovak politician answers two days later, on 21st December, implying that the Czechoslovak party has no intention of violating the agreement of 6th December. Cf. Archiv Ministerstva zahraničních věcí České republiky (AMZV) [The Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic], f. Parížsky archív (PA) [Paris archives], card 23, č. 2557.  ↩︎
  13. This is suggested by the fact that while on the 21st he is still promising Vix to observe the 6th December agreement, the following day he is asking the French officer to acknowledge the new demarcation line. Magda Ádám, Mária Ormos, József Barabás: Francia diplomáciai iratok 1. 1918-1919 [Documents on French Policy 1. 1918-1919]. <>, 6 July 2017.  ↩︎
  14. Molnár: Kassától Košicéig [From Kassa to Košice], pp. 402–404. ↩︎
  15. In the days before the occupation, there were regular stories circulating about looting and violence by the “Czech” army allegedly made up of irregular bands and mobs, but in most cases, they proved to be false. Ibid, p. 406. ↩︎
  16. A város a megszállás első órái alatt [In the First Hours of the Town’s Occupation]. In: Kassai Újság [Košice Newspaper], 31 December 1918, p. 2 (without author). ↩︎
  17. Kassai Hírlap [Košice Gazette], 9 January 1919, p. 1 (without author and title). ↩︎
  18. NA ČR, fond AMV-PMV 225, card 1455, č. 225-1455-3b. ↩︎
  19. Molnár: Kassától Košicéig [From Kassa to Košice], p. 185. ↩︎
  20. Ödön FaragóA szlovenszkói és ruszinszkói magyar színészet 25 éves története. 1918 évtől a szovjet felszabadítási harcokig. p. 26 [Twenty-five Years of Hungarian Theatre in Slovensko and Rusinsko from 1918 to the Russian Liberation Fights] (Manuscript, National Széchényi Library, Theatre and Music Collection, boxes no. 47–48). ↩︎
  21. For details of the strike, see Harc az életért és szabadságért [Fighting for Life and Freedom]. In: Kassai Munkás. 22 February 1919, pp. 1–4 (without author). ↩︎
  22. The Czechoslovak party’s position on the strike is well represented by the town’s chief police officer. Jozef V. Kohout: Obsadenie Košíc československým vojskom 29. decembra 1918. – Udalosti v januári a februári 1919 [Košice’s Occupation by the Czechoslovak Army on 29th December, 1918. – Events of January and February 1919]. In: Karol A. Medvecký (ed.): Slovenský prevrat IV [Slovak State Change IV]. Bratislava 1931, pp. 288–299, here: p. 297. ↩︎
  23. Two people were shot dead by soldiers when the crowd protesting against the defeat of the 1848 war of liberation was attacked by Czechoslovak soldiers.  ↩︎
  24. No research has been done yet on issues of internment. Most internees were transported to the internment camp in Ilava in Slovakia and Terezin in Czechia. For conditions there, see Todd Huebner: The Internment Camp at Terezín, 1919. In: Austrian History Yearbook. 27 (1996), pp. 199–211; Attila Simon: Internácie z južného Slovenska v roku 1919. Dodatok k charakteru dobového Československého štátu [Internment of People from Southern Slovakia in 1919. A Supplement to the Character of the Emerging Czechoslovak State] In: Historický časopis 68 (2020) pp. 271–290.  ↩︎
  25.  Molnár: Kassától Košicéig [From Kassa to Košice], pp. 450–455.  ↩︎
  26.  Kassai Hírlap commented on the return of Hungarian rule as follows: “The long- awaited day has arrived. The hour of liberation has struck. The sky has cleared up over the town of Košice, and, on 6th June, we have the sun of freedom beaming on us. Its shining crown radiates peace on us. Alas, the old virtue of Hungarians is not dead. They are ready to shed their last drop of blood for the homeland, a gem of which has been repossessed today.” Kassa felszabadult [Košice is Liberated]. In: Kassai Hírlap, June 7, 1919, p. 2 (without author).   ↩︎
  27. Police Captain Kohout claims that the pompous reception of the occupiers’ staff was a part of Košice Hungarians’ two-faced strategy to win Hennocque’s sympathies. This interpretation, however, does not seem realistic. SNA, fond Jozef Kohout, card 11, Panu ministrovi plnou mocou pre správu Slovenska [To the Minister for the Administration of Slovakia] 9 July 1919. ↩︎
  28. Molnár: Kassától Košicéig [From Kassa to Košice], pp. 12–20. ↩︎