英文を訳して下さい。

質問

Officially the treaty was intended to be a confirmation of the right of self-determination for nations and of the concept of nation-states replacing the old multinational Austro-Hungarian empire. Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked some new ones.
The minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom were the major beneficiaries. The Allies had explicitly committed themselves to the causes of the minority peoples of Austria-Hungary late in World War I. For all intents and purposes, the death knell of the Austro-Hungarian empire sounded on 14 October 1918, when United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing informed Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister István Burián that autonomy for the nationalities was no longer enough. Accordingly, the Allies assumed without question that the minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom wanted to leave Hungary. The Romanians joined their ethnic brethren in Romania, while the Slovaks, Serbs and Croats helped establish nation-states of their own (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). However, these new or enlarged countries also absorbed large slices of territory with a majority of ethnic Hungarians or Hungarian speaking population. As a result, as many as a third of Hungarian language-speakers found themselves outside the borders of the post-Trianon Hungary.
While the territories that were now outside Hungary's borders had non-Hungarian majorities overall, there also existed some sizeable areas with a majority of Hungarians, largely near the newly defined borders. Over the last century, concerns have occasionally been raised about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighbouring states. Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian–Hungarian border (Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina. The Allies rejected the idea of plebiscites in the disputed areas with the exception of the city of Sopron, which voted in favour of Hungary. The Allies were indifferent as to the exact line of the newly defined border between Austria and Hungary. Furthermore, ethnically diverse Transylvania, with an overall Romanian majority (53.8% – 1910 census data or 57.1% – 1919 census data or 57.3% – 1920 census data), was treated as a single entity at the peace negotiations and was assigned in its entirety to Romania. The option of partition along ethnic lines as an alternative was rejected.

回答No.1

Nakay702 · ベストアンサー

＞Officially the treaty was intended to be a confirmation of the right of self-determination for nations and of the concept of nation-states replacing the old multinational Austro-Hungarian empire. Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked some new ones.
⇒この条約は、公式には旧多国籍のオーストリア‐ハンガリー帝国に置き換えるべき国家の自決権と国家概念の確認を意図していた。この条約はいくつかの国籍問題に取り組んだが、いくつかの新しい問題も引き起こした。

＞　The minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom were the major beneficiaries. The Allies had explicitly committed themselves to the causes of the minority peoples of Austria-Hungary late in World War I. For all intents and purposes, the death knell of the Austro-Hungarian empire sounded on 14 October 1918, when United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing informed Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister István Burián that autonomy for the nationalities was no longer enough. Accordingly, the Allies assumed without question that the minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom wanted to leave Hungary.
⇒戦前の王国の少数民族が主要な受益者であった。連合国は、第一次世界大戦の末期、オーストリア‐ハンガリーの少数民族の諸原因に積極的に関っていた。オーストリア‐ハンガリー帝国の終末が告げられたのは1918年10月14日で、そのとき米国の国務長官ロバート・ランシングがオーストリア‐ハンガリーの外相イスツバン・ブリアンに、諸国籍者の自治はもはや十分ではないと伝えた。したがって、連合国は、戦前の王国の少数民族は疑いなくハンガリーから離れることを望んでいると推測した。

＞The Romanians joined their ethnic brethren in Romania, while the Slovaks, Serbs and Croats helped establish nation-states of their own (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). However, these new or enlarged countries also absorbed large slices of territory with a majority of ethnic Hungarians or Hungarian speaking population. As a result, as many as a third of Hungarian language-speakers found themselves outside the borders of the post-Trianon Hungary.
⇒ルーマニア人はルーマニア国の同胞と合流し、スロバキア人、セルビア人、クロアチア人は彼ら自身の国家（チェコスロバキアとユーゴスラビア）を設立する手助けをした。しかし、これらの新規または拡大された国々は、過半数のハンガリー人やハンガリー語を話す人々の領土の大部分を吸収した。その結果、ハンガリー語話者の3分の1もが、「トリアノン」後のハンガリー国境の外側に居住する結果となった。

＞While the territories that were now outside Hungary's borders had non-Hungarian majorities overall, there also existed some sizeable areas with a majority of Hungarians, largely near the newly defined borders. Over the last century, concerns have occasionally been raised about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighbouring states.
⇒ハンガリー国境の外側の地域は全体的に非ハンガリー人の大多数を擁したが、同時に新しく定義された国境の近くに、多くのハンガリー人が住むかなり大きい地域があった。前世紀中にわたって、時折隣国のハンガリー人共同体の扱いについて懸念が募ってきている。

＞Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian–Hungarian border (Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina. The Allies rejected the idea of plebiscites in the disputed areas with the exception of the city of Sopron, which voted in favour of Hungary.
⇒ハンガリー人口の重要な集中地域には、東部トランシルバニアのツェケリーランド、新たに定義されたルーマニア‐ハンガリー国境沿いの地域（アラド市、オラデア市）、同じく新たに定義されたチェコスロバキア‐ハンガリー国境沿いの北部地域（コマルノ、チャロケズ）、下カルパチャ南部とボイボヂナ北部が含まれていた。連合国は、ハンガリーに有利な投票をしたソプロン市を除いて、紛争地域における市民投票の考え方を拒絶した。

＞The Allies were indifferent as to the exact line of the newly defined border between Austria and Hungary. Furthermore, ethnically diverse Transylvania, with an overall Romanian majority (53.8% – 1910 census data or 57.1% – 1919 census data or 57.3% – 1920 census data), was treated as a single entity at the peace negotiations and was assigned in its entirety to Romania. The option of partition along ethnic lines as an alternative was rejected.
⇒新たに定義されたオーストリアとハンガリーの国境の正確な分割線に関して、連合国は無関心であった。さらに、民族的に多様なトランシルバニアを全体として見て、ルーマニア人が多数（1910年の国勢調査データでは53.8％－1919年の国勢調査データでは57.1％－1920人の国勢調査データでは57.3％）いる地域を平和交渉で単一の団体として扱い、まとめてルーマニアに割り当てた。選択肢としての、民族線に沿った分割という代替案は拒絶された。

お礼

回答ありがとうございました。