In Hungarian historiography, public life has conditioned the theme of Trianon Treaty and this is still the case. Although for contemporaries, the sense of loss has determined the tone, that is, the way one was supposed to speak about the peace treaty, there were contemporary academic works that we may see as the first steps towards professional interpretation. Such examples are the publication of documents edited by Dezső Újváry and Francis Deák (Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary I-II, Budapest, 1939–1946) or the publication of papers about the working of the Hungarian delegation (A magyar béketárgyalások. Jelentés a magyar békeküldöttség működéséről Neuilly s/S.-ben 1920 januárius–március havában. I–III/B kötet. [The Hungarian peace treaty negotiations. Report on the working of the Hungarian delegation at Neully s/S. January-March 1920] Budapest, 1920–1921.). Moreover, a number of books that the statistician László Buday wrote lay the foundations for the work that Jenő Horváth, a historian of diplomatic relations (A trianoni békeszerződés megalkotása és a revízió útja. [The creation of the Trianon Treaty and the way of revision] Budapest, 1939), and the historian, journalist and diplomat, Gusztáv Gratz (Forradalmak kora. [The age of revolutions] Budapest, 1935) carried out. Surely, the spirit of times and their own preconceptions influenced them, too. 1945 was a cesure in the way the theme was treated, but it was not only because the topic was uncomfortable for the occupying power or for the Communist party that was about to launch its project of homogenization (although unease was a factor). It was the second Trianon in the making, the Paris treaty of 1947 that took the energy and will of the Hungarian academic elite. 

There was a nearly 15 years long break in academic interpretation of the treaty closing World War I. Zsuzsa L. Nagy’s A párizsi békekonferencia és Magyarország 1918–1919 [The Paris Peace Conference and Hungary 1918–1919] published in 1965 presented he debates about the Hungarian issue within the limits of that the epoch constituted. Although there had been works on post-World War I settlement (discussing the Little Entente and France and its Eastern security policy), Mária Ormos’s volume published in 1983 (Padovától Trianonig [From Padova to Trianon]) gave full weight of he issue in the light of documents of French diplomacy, and opened the way for different problematizations and points of views as well. In his dissertation Géza Jeszenszky presented the shift of British public opinion and opinion leaders. His work was subsequently published as a book. (Az elveszett presztízs [Reputation lost], 1986) Lajos Arday highlighted priorities of British politics vis-a-vis Hungary during the peace treaty negotiations.  (Térkép csata után [Map after battle], 1990), Ernő Raffay focussed on the collapse of the country internally. (Erdély 1918-19-ben [Transylvania in 1918-19], 1987). At the same time, there began the large scale exploration of archival sources that placed the peace treaty in wider context of the history of diplomacy. (Magda Ádám (ed.): Documents diplomatiques français sur l’histoire du bassin des Carpates 1918-1932, I-V., 1993- ). This venture became a major one covering nearly two decades. Volumes published in Hungarian constitute a very important albeit insufficiently exploited input for knowing the epoch. Miklós Lojkó’s works were similarly important for the British context (British Policy on Hungary 1918-1919, London, 1995, ill. Meddling in Middle Europe Britain and the 'Lands Between' 1919-1925, Budapest, 2005).

The opportunities that emerged with the changeover in 1990 significantly expanded the scope of historiography. However, paradoxically, these restricted history to academic space: as freedom of opinion became a reality and, subsequently, with the opportunities that internet provides, historians lost their monopoly for discussing the topic. Acts and artefacts of memory politics is at least as prominent in public opinion. Among the latter we may include journals such as Trianoni Szemle (Trianon Review) and Nagymagyarország (Greater Hungary), the foundation of Trianon Research Institute and the Trianon Museum at the town of Várpalota, thousands of blogs and vlogs. The part of this restructuring is the introduction of the Day of National Unity in 2010. However, we shall highlight some remarkable academic works such as Ignác Romsics’s book on the Trianon treaty (2001), Mikós Zeidler’s volume on the idea of revising the treaty. (A revíziós gondolat [Ideas on Territorial Revision in Hungary], 2009), the selected material he edited Trianon as part of the series called Nation and memory in 2003, and the sources that György Litván published on the four major rounds of negotiations. (Trianon felé [Towards Trianon]. Budapest, 1998). We might also include the book that the author of this summary wrote under the title Trianon-legendák [Legends of Trianon] (2010). Moreover, Géza Boros (on memorial monuments of Trianon), Éva Kovács (on discourses of memory), Lajos Pallos (on propaganda about territorial integrity), Gergely Romsics (on political discourse about Trianon in Hungary after the changeover) and others have contributed studies to exploring the problems.

Regarding international historiography it is remarkable that the Hungarian peace treaty almost never appears as an event in itself. This was partly the motive for launching our current project. If we disregard works published by émigré Hungarians that are not academic in nature, the Hungarian peace treaty appears as a part of a larger process. It was presented either as a problem related to redesigning Central- and Eastern Europe, the end of the Habsburg Empire and the birth of successor states. The attitude that we may call ’extra Hungariam’ and that was prevalent in public discourse had little space in this literature. Early pieces of international historiography, such as, C. A. Macartney (Hungary and Her Successors, 1937), Francis Deák (Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference, 1942) showcase this feature. This tradition continued in the mass production of historical works during the 1960s and 1970s: John C. Swanson (The Remnants of the Habsburg Monarchy: The Shaping of Modern Austria and Hungary, 1918–1922, 2001), Mark Cornwall (The Undermining of Austria-Hungary. The Battle for Hearts and Minds, 2000). They could rely on volumes such as the important work of Bela Kiraly, Peter Pastor and Ivan Sanders (Total War and Peacemaking, A Case Study on Trianon, 1982). Paul Gradvohl and Anikó Kovács-Bertrand could also make use of that collection. In the academic discourse of neighbouring countries Trianon was either missing (since the story of fulfilled national destiny and the birth of independent states did not make it necessary to analyse the peace treaty in detail) or the discussion adopted the schemes of nationalist historiography (one of the best examples for the latter is: Marián Hronský: Vznik hraníc Slovenska a problémy jeho bezpečnosti (1918 - 1920), 2011), However, in Bratislava and Bucharest there emerged a new generation, or older generation turned open minded, of historians who are receptive of regional and transnational approaches . (Roman Holec, Miroslav Michela, László Vörös and others).