Perché pensi che il trattato di Saint-Germain-en-Laye non sia tanto discusso quanto quello di Trianon, nonostante l’Austria soffra quasi della stessa quantità di territorio perduto?

Cisleithania was perceived less as a single unit, more like a collection of states under one sovereign.

In contrast, Hungary had just one specific subunit, Croatia.

the statement packed into your question is not the case in austria for apparent reasons.

Because post-1918 Austrian nationalism is not built upon crying about lost territories but rather on being the better catholic Germans pre-1938 after St. Germain forbade them merging with the German republican government and then not being Germans at all after Nazism.

Hungarian nationalism centred the myth of its origin as a nation state with the pre-Trianon borders as national borders while Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia as well as Poland invented national narratives centred around them emerging after centuries of foreign oppression.

Basically these are narratives to explain why the state looks like it does and when they include “lost territories” those “lost territories” become a reoccuring theme and wound point. Same with Argentinia and the supposedly Argentinian Falklands, France and their “natural borders” on the Rhine in the 19th century and many more.

Because except the upper half of South Tyrol and the small city of Ödenburg in the East, none of these territorial losses felt unnatural, like they were meant to be part of a contiguous, mono-ethnic austria

Austria never had that much of a nationalist upcoming. People cared more about their region/village than about Austria, while Hungary rebelled almost all the time.

Hungarian here. Nowadays people don’t “cry” about it, we have come to terms with it. The tragedy was more about families being torn apart (one side of the family stayed in hungary other went to romania or so).
People mostly care about transilvania and upper hungary (modern slovakia), because those regions had the most hungarian population, and major cities that were historically and culturally a big part of our identity (temesvár, marosvasarhely, kolozsvár etc in transilvania dunaszerdahely, komárom, etc in slovakia)

I personally don’t care anymore, as I think it’s more important to have good relations with our neighbouring countries so we can visit family unbothered and don’t get picked on by border police when crossing the romanian border.
And this is a trend among younger people in my experience, i know a lot of people from temesvár and they said on day to day basis they are goof friends with romanians, and hostility mainly exists between older people (50+ year olds)

Because Austrians are richer and smarter than the rest of Austria Hungary and were the main part to get into Western Europe and west of the iron curtain while the rest of us were stuck behind it. Hungary wasn’t so they focus more on nationalism, why would Austria want for example Galicia back? Even Czech after the Cold War, we’re still poorer than Austria.

Sopron never was part of Austria.

There was, but it’s just forgotten about these days, pan German revisionism mostly died in Austria after WW2 to distance oneself from the crimes committed by Germany during WW2 (of which Austria and most Austrians were very much willing participants).

Pan Germanism in Austria was even stronger than in Germany during the inter war period and many people cried and wanted to fight for the majority German speaking territories of the old monarchy. There were serious efforts, first for all German speaking territories and later for just the ones forming one continuous area, which can be seen with the short lived republic of German Austria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_German-Austria

So yeah, while Austrian pan-German revisionism is basically dead, in Hungary Trianon is still very well known and seems as the biggest national tragedy.

There was no centralized “Austria” when these territories got annexed. And the local identity in these lost territories was never “Austrian” (except for maybe Südtirol).

On the contrary, the territories Hungary lost belonged to Hungary from the get-go with Hungarians living there. The dismemberment of Austria would look absolutely atrocious if it were the same as for Hungary.

For Hungarians this peace treaty is a pain point because: (1) They got dragged into a war they did not start, (2) they were actively against it, (3) The allied forces wanted to destroy the AH empire but not punishing Austria at all, due to the fear of German-Austrian union.

For Austrians the peace treaty is kinda neutral, because: (1) They started the war but German-speaking people did not get punished severely. Austria just lost non-core territories. Ofc, could have been a much more advantageous deal, but also a much more punishing one.

someon who was robbed has more to cry than someone who got killed and looted…