The Origins of Hungarian Populism

—From the viewpoint of Jewish history—

Nobuaki TERAOEmail: nttk@krb.biglobe.ne.jp

1

Contents

Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………3

1. Modernization of Hungary and the Jews …………………………………………………5Migration in the Empire (5), Eastern Jews (5), Industrialization and the Jews (7), Why the alliance with the Jews? (9), Cityscape of Budapest (10), Entrepreneur spirit and education (11)

2. Gentry State and Neo-Conservatism ………………...…...………………………………13

Gentry state (13), The Alliance of Landowners (14), The Catholic People's Party (17), The Christian Socialist Party (18), The Independence (Károlyi) Party (19), Mihály Károlyi and the postwar revolution (20)

3. Civic Radicalism ………………………………...…………………………………………22

The Social Science Society (22), Freemasons (23), The Civic Radical Party (24), Efflux of rural population (25), Linguistic assimilationism (26) Criticism of the forcible assimilation policy (27), Land reform and nationality question (28), Eastern Switzerland (28), Count Tisza's

criticism of Civic Radicals (29), Count Bethlen's criticism of Civic Radicals (31), Szekfű-Jászi controversy (31), Responsibility of intellectuals (32)

4. Arguments on the Jews in the early 20th Century ………………………………………35

Ágoston's book in 1917 (35), Radicalism of the refugees (37), Cécile Tormay (39), Neolog'sview on the Jews (41)

5. Három Nemzedék of Szekfű …………………………………...…………………………43Trauma of 1913 incident (43), Motive of Három Nemzedék (44), Liberalism and the influx of

Eastern Jews (45), Liberal illusion (46), Gentry's decay (48), Judaization of metropolitanculture (49), Rehabilitation of Szekfű (49), Dissimilation proposal (51)

6. The Bethlen System ………………………………………..………………………………53Conflicts between Count Bethlen and right radicals (54), The Numerus Clausus Law (54),

Count Klebelsberg's neo-nationalism (55), Folk writers (57)

7. The Holocaust ……………………...………………………………………………………60

2

Anti-Jewish laws (60), German occupation (62), Szekfű in the Count Bethlen group (63),

Looting of the Jewish assets (64), Bibó's argument on the Jews (66) Looting under the Communist regime (68)

8. Populism of the early 21st Century ………………………………………………………70Political map after the regime change (70), Right leaning of Fidesz (71), Csoóri's argument on

the nation (73), An essay on Jobbik (75), Schiff-Bayer controversy (84), Conclusion (84)

Notes …………………………………………...………………………………………………88

Biographical Index ………………………………………………………………………… 114

3

Preface

The influential German theorist of nationalism J. G. Herder predicted at the end of 18th

century that the isolated language of Hungarians surrounded by the Slavic language speakers might disappear in a hundred years or so.(1) In other words, he assumed that as Slavic nations

would be the real power in Europe, Hungarians would be assimilated by the Slavs. In fact, they say that the Hungarian speakers reduced to two millions as a result of the centuries-long wars against the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburgs. Consequently, the ethnic composition of

historical Hungary was turned drastically; according to the first census of the population (1784), the ruling Hungarians comprised only 40 per cent of the total population, and

excluding the Croatia-Slavonia region, 48 per cent at most. Hungarian language was enacted as a state language in the parliament of 1844; thence the

immigration and assimilation policies were promoted by the successive governments. Jews

responded to this policy actively. They closely identified with the Hungarian state which offered them huge opportunities for economic and social progress. The modernizing Neolog

Jews accepted Hungarian as their mother tongue, abandoned the traditional manners and customs including Yiddish-speaking, and often intermarried. Since the Reception law of 1895 granted the legal equality to the Judaism, the case of intermarriage was steadily growing; until

1938 (the year of the first Jewish law) it reached 23.9 per cent of the Jewry.(2) Besides Jews, Swabians (ethnic German) immigrated in the 18th century, Zipsers (ethnic German) settled in

Slovakia since the 12th-13th centuries, and the Slovakian lower noblemen received this assimilation policy positively.

Swabians and Jews were, borrowing the phrase of Viktor Karády, the "last foreign language speakers" who immigrated into historical Hungary.(3) At the end of the 19th century,

Hungary was ushered into the economic take-off stage with the help of German and Jewish citizens. However, around this time, new type agrarianism, or Chriatian nationalism (neo-conservatism in the Hungarian historiography)(4) emerged against the immigration policy

and industrialism of the Liberal governments. This monograph verified the incitement politics to create "hidden enemy" (populism) in Hungary, and found its origins in the neo-conservatism

around the turn of the century.The persons in this monograph referred to the two categories of middle class in Hungary:

one is medium landowners and bureaucratized noblemen (gentry) who had lost their lands, the

other is industrial bourgeois mainly from German and Jewish elements. The socio-political cleavage was pretty huge between the declining gentry and rising bourgeoisie. The Alliance of

Landowners which belonged to the neo-conservatism around the turn of the century confronted

4

with the Jewish economic elite over the immigration of the Eastern Jews declaring that "they

won't consent to the influx of foreign dregs who have driven native Hungarians out of the country".

By amplifying the influx-efflux theory of neo-conservatives, Gyula Szekfű denounced the

liberal illusion that expected to increase the population of Hungarians by assimilating a large number of immigrants. Then he required the Eastern Jews to accept Zionism with its implicit

commitment to actual emigration, and the Neolog Jews to be dissimilated on the principle of ethnic minority. Szekfű's Három Nemzedék [Three generations] of 1920(5) was a very textbook of today's Hungarian populism, in which he accused the Jewish immigration and assimilation

of the decay of historic middle class, and mentioned that the metropolitan culture of Central Eupope was Judaized.

The neo-conservatism was a source of incitement politics from the Szeged idea of post-World War I through Kunó Klebelsberg's Neo-Nationalism (1928) and the folk writers in the 1930s to Sándor Csoóri's "Nappali hold" [Daytime moon] (1990). The linage of

neo-conservatism trivializes the national concept of Hungarians. That is, they define the nation as an ethnic, rather than a political, community. But one should not forget that the Hungarian

history had self-control precedents in xenophobia relying on the inclusive concept of the nation.

5

One: Modernization of Hungary and the Jews

Migration in the EmpireBased on the principle of the Empire's inseparability, Hungarian law of 1840 gave the

freedom of settlement in the whole country to the Jews of the Empire, where they could found

factories or practice trades with the help of their coreligionists.(1) The law XVII of the same year allowed the non-guildsmen to practice enterprises; the law XVIII gave more allowance to organize a company by notification instead of licensing. The law IV of 1844 lifted the ban on

Jewish leasing of nobleman's land on a long-term basis. An official status for lawyers in 1852, for trade and industry in 1859 which included the freedom of hiring Christians, and for real

estate in 1860 was admitted to the Jews, too.(2) There existed such a long prelude to the Jewish emancipation of 1867 since the tolerance edicts (1781-83) of Emperor Joseph II.(3)

The Jewish immigration into Hungary was partly due to the 1726 edict (Familiantengesetz)

of Holy Roman Emperor Karl VI, who aimed at limiting the number of Jews in Bohemia,Moravia and Silesia by permitting only one man in each family to marry. Other backgrounds of

their immigration into Hungary were the partition of Poland (1772-95) and the tolerance edict of Emperor Joseph II. In the 1830s, in order to connect the Czech industrial area with the Danubian region, the Northern Railroad was constructed with the financial assistance of the

Rothschilds, which finally extended to the Silesian mines in the mid-19th century.The infrastructure and the legal acceptance helped not only immigrants from other parts of

the Empire but refugees from Russia in the wake of pogroms between 1881 and 1882 after the assassination of Alexander II. In accordance with the census of 1910, Hungarian Jewry

exceeded 900,000. That is, the Jewish population of Hungary increased more than ten times through "the long 19th century". Their population explosion was partly owing to the high birth

rate of the Eastern Jews (Orthodox and Hassidic type) as well as a great wave of immigrants from the east. The rate of increase in their population (68,4%) was as twice as that of Christians for the last forty years after the Compromise of 1867.(4)

Eastern JewsIn the Habsburg monarchy, while the Western type Jews lived chiefly in the larger cities of

Bohemia, Moravia and Transdanubia, the Eastern type Jews were mainly concentrated in the rural areas and small cities of Galicia, Bukovina, northeastern provinces of Transylvania and

sub-Carpathian region. Most of the modernist Jews kept their parents' belief and even celebrated the religious

holidays, but were not at all strict in keeping traditional rules. They were attached to the

6

Neolog branch, wore similar clothing and had similar habits in the host society. They spoke the

same language as their neighbors. In contrast, the Orthodox and Hassidic Jews refusedmodernization and secularization. Living around their rabbis in closely-knit communities, they wore traditional clothing and hair styles. Married women shaved their hair, and men did not cut

their sideburns. They spoke a unique language called Yiddish, and followed their own religious rules; they scarcely shared anything in common with the non-Jewish population. The conflicts

between modernists and traditionalists frequently divided families as well as communities: marriages were dissolved and couples were often forced to divorce even when they lived in harmony.(5) Open clashes developed and grew in violence in almost every Jewish

community.(6)

The Neolog Jews accepted the centralized control by the authority, whereas the Orthodox

and Hassidic Jews opposed the centralization and demanded total autonomy. Although serious religious differences remained among them, the Neolog and the Orthodox representativesissued a joint statement against Zionism in September 1897, right after the first Zionist

congress in Basel.

Political Zionism aiming to creat a new Jewish state in Palestine is a dangerous fanaticism. […] An attempt to make a Jewish nation from a Jewish denomination will never be supported. Hungarians of Jewish faith exist, but a Jewish nation does not. In

this respect, both the Neolog and the Orthodox reached agreement perfectly.(7)

Eastern Hungary stood next to economically underdeveloped Galicia and Bukovina. The Jewish population of Galicia in 1900 was estimated about 810,000, that of Bukovina was more

than 90,000. At the back of Galicia and Bukovina, there existed 5,200,000 Jews in Russia. Hence, more than six million Jews were living on the east of Hungary. They were descendants

of the Polish contract system (arenda) Jews who supported the population explosion of the West during the 16th-17th centuries. The contract system meant leasing of the magnates' estate-related rights to the lesser

noblemen or Jewish merchants. The Jewish leaseholders divided the rights and sublet them to the lesser Jewish merchants. The right of propinacja (tavern) was among them. It not only

siphoned off peasant surplus but supplied the agriculture with added-value and stable consumption.(8)

The contract system was also popularized in eastern Hungary with the colonization of the

Ukraine by Polish nobility. In the first half of the 19th century, just under a third of Hungarian Jews were arendars while northeastern region, well over half.(9) In accordance with the census

of 1910, there were 29,562 public houses whose 41.8 per cent were managed by the Jews.(10)

7

Szekfű called the contract system as a springboard by which the village Jews became grain

merchants.(11)

On April 1 (Saturday) of 1882, Eszter Solymosi, a 14-year-old servant girl disappeared from Tiszaeszlár in northeastern Hungary. As the day was just before the Jewish Passover,

Jews were accused of ritual murder just like the medieval blood libel. In June of the next year, fifteen Jews were indicted for murder and support. Throughout the fifteen months of the trial,

the country was seething with anti-Semitic rage. Although the indicted Jews were all found not guilty in August 1883, the Tiszaeszlár case gave a great shock to the Hungarian Jewry. During the Tiszaeszlár trial the president of the Liberal Party and prime minister [1875-90]

Kálmán Tisza extolled in the parliament that Jews were an industrious and constructive segment of the population, and warned that anti-Semitism was shameful, barbarous and

injurious to the national honor.(12) Lajos Kossuth in exile also sent a message that "as a person of the 19th century anti-Semitic agitation is a shame, as a Hungarian I feel great regret, and as a patriot I blame it".(13)

Industrialization and the JewsBuda is a gently-sloping hill and Pest is flat. Buda was located on the easternmost part of

the Transdanubia where a lot of German Catholics lived. John Lukacs impressively described the prosperity of Lipótváros in Pest where most of all Jewish economic elite resided and the

decline of German artisans of Viziváros in Buda in his book of Budapest, 1900.(14)

Until the mid-19th century almost all the merchants and artisans in Buda and Pest were

Germans, and their guilds restricted the economic activities of the Jews. However, guild system was finally abolished in 1872; the Liberal governments supplied the new

entrepreneurial class, that is, the Jews in particular who had been excluded from the guilds, with subsidies and tax exemptions for the competitiveness of Hungarian goods on the Austrian

and the Balkan markets. Consequently, of the fifty founding members of the National Association of Industrialists (GyOSz) in 1902, roughly 60 per cent were Jews or converted Jews including Ferenc Chorin (leading coal magnate) and Manfréd Weiss (owner of the

munitions complex).(15)

The first president of GyOSz, Ferenc Chorin was born in Arad (chartered city in the

southern part of historical Hungary) in 1842, became a lawyer, and started an anti-Habsburg political daily newspaper in Hungarian. Since he became MP in 1867, he had been on the Liberal Party, and a leading figure in the Hungarian industry.

Grandfather of Baron Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch, one of the founders of the GyOSz, was a grocer, but later became a moneylender in Arad. In 1852 he moved his business base to Pest,

where he dealt with the grain trade as well as the financial business, and invested even in the

8

construction of the railroad. His father started the sugar industry in Slovakia. The Hungarian

sugar boom began, and by the mid-1880s the government subsidized a massive expansion of the sugar industry. In 1908 they acquired the baronial title. Their family name became only Hatvany three years later. They received as a bride a daughter of László Lukács who was a

financial minister [1895-1905] of the four governments and a prime minister [1912-13].(16)

Baron Manfréd Weiss' grandfather was a humble maker of smoking articles in the outskirts

of Pest. His father was a traveling grain trader, but established a firm of his own in Pest after marrying into a rich family. The Weiss family became important after they won their first contract for supplying Hungarian Army's canned consumption in the mid-1880s. In 1892 they

established a gunpowder plant on the Csepel Island in the Danube. In 1896, the festive year of the millennium, Manfréd Weiss obtained a rank of nobility. He was regularly supplying a

quarter of the Austro-Hungarian Army's cartridge cases. He proceeded from iron processing into steel production. Finally he was created a baron in 1918. The Millennial anniversary was also celebrated at the newly-finished Dohány street

synagogue (founded in 1854) in Budapest. Here is the scene as described in the Neolog weekly newspaper Egyenlőség of May 15, 1896.

In front of the temple, which was decorated with flags, there stood an entire barricade of coaches that had brought the ladies and the gentlemen in white tie. In some of the more

decorative private coaches arrived co-religionaries sporting splendid Hungarian national gala costumes, complete with sword, clasps, egret feathers on their high fur hats, cocky,

with pelisses thrown on one shoulder, frogs and loops laden with jewels, as well as gold or silver spurs attached to long and dashing cordovan boots. The most dazzling

Hungarian national gala costumes were worn by Berthold Weiss, Sándor Deutsch de Hatvan and Lajos Krausz de Megyer.(17)

Berthold Weiss was an elder brother of Manfréd and a president of the association of textile industry. Lajos Krausz was a leading figure of GyOSz, who had succeeded to his father's

distillery. The splendid national gala costumes they demonstrated were "inovation of tradition" which the 19th century Hungarian nationalists imagined from the models of chieftain Árpád

conquering the Carpathian basin in the 9th century and/or aristocratic warriors fighting against the Ottoman army in the 16th century.(18)

The first Jewish aristocrat was Baron Sámuel Wodianer, whose fasther came from

Moravia.(19) His family immigrated into the southern part of Hungary in the mid-18th century, and made fortunes by trading in cotton, grain, and tobacco during the Napoleonic boom.

Sámuel Wodianer established a trading house in Pest in 1828, and exported Balkan cotton and

9

Hungarian wool to England. In 1841 he opened the Commercial Bank of Pest, and three years

later having converted, he acquired Hungarian nobility.(20) In 1863 he also bacame a baron in Austria. Baron was the highest rank of aristocracy to the Jews. Miklós Horthy, the regent of interwar Hungary, married a woman from the Wodianers. When the anti-Semitic climate grew

strong, such graffiti appeared on the walls of Budapest buildings as "Rebecca, get out of the royal palace".(21)

Economic system by the iron and steam in the first half of the 19th century was replaced with the new system by the technology of steal and electricity after the 1870s. New industry based on the new energy of electricity and gas appeared all at once in the 1890s. Innovation of

the information technology such as telegraph and telephone, and expansion of the network of railroads and liners paralleled to this. Taking advantage of these technologies, the Jews

emancipated in the second half of the 1860s grew up economically and branched into other fields. The electric car of Leó Lánczy, the president of the Commercial Bank of Pest, was a very symbol of the new era.(22)

The National Association of Merchants was organized two years later after GyOSz. However, it was unable to form an alliance with the establishment because of their inferior

economic position to the industrial and financial groups.(23) Vilmos Vázsonyi, a lawyer in Pest who came from a little town Sümeg in western Hungary, being closely tied up with this commercial circle, became MP in 1901, and advocated the strict control of cartels and

termination of state privileges for the big capital, and the state protection of small scale industry and retail trade.(24) He criticized the Orthodox traditionalist rabbinate and the

plutocracy of the Neolog communities in the theater of Jewish politics, and the collusion of feudal and Jewish economic elite in the theater of Hungarian politics.(25)

Why the alliance with the Jews? In 1848, Hungary was in the revolution of Central Europe. The liberal radicals who aimed at independence of the country from the Habsburgs wanted to obtain the support not only from the guild members but the non-guild marchants and artisans in order to advance their

revolution. However, German guilds tried to expel Jews or forbid their peddling*(i) during the revolution. So that revolutionary parliament could not resolve the Jewish equality until the end

of July in 1849, that is, immediately before the defeat of Independence War. In spite of its ineffectiveness, that was the first attempt of the Jewish emancipation.

The modernization of Hungary which regained its sovereignty by the law of Compromise

started on the basis of cooperation between feudal elite and Jewish economic elite. The Compromise itself was the Habsburg dynasty's survival strategy after it was defeated by

Prussia in the war of 1866. That was a retreat from the project of Emperor Joseph II who aimed

10

at weakening the defiant Hungarian lesser nobility by centralization and Germanization. On the

other hand, that was a rejection to the Austrian Slavism which had required the federalization of the monarchy. The Habsburgs chose Hungarian nobility as a strategic partner to maintain the monarchy; Hungarian feudal elite regarded Jewish bourgeois as their partner for the

country's modernization. As Hungarian feudal elite's worst fears were peasants' land hunger and nationalities' struggles for independence, it is easy to understand that they chose the Jews

as their strategic partner because of the latter's urban character with no racial self-determination. Then, why did Hungarian feudal elite reject Germans as their partner? It was partly because

of the above-mentioned guild system which was substantially in the hands of German elementsuntil 1872, and partly because of feudal elite's intellectual inferiority to the German culture and

their guard against the pan-Germanism.(26) It can be said therefore that the strategic partnership between feudal elite and Jewish economic elite was the countermeasure to the affluent class of German origin who dominated the city administration of Buda and Pest. The repulsion for the

Swabians invited by the royal court of Vienna promoted their cooperation with the Jews. The so-called Swabians were German immigrants, particularly Catholic farmers recruited by the

Habsburgs in order to repopulate the regions which had been depopulated during the series of anti-Habsburg wars in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The immigration of German-speaking urban dwellers peaked in the second half of the 19th century. In that

meaning, assimilated Jews were expected not only to overcome the numerical pressure of national minorities but to be a driving force of modernization against the old-fashioned guild

system and a counterbalance to the German and Slavic intelligentsia. One of the titled economic elite, Baron Móric Kornfeld wrote that Jews had Hungarianized German-speaking

Budapest when he was in exile in Portugal during the Second World War.(27)

*(i) For the guild members, the Jewish peddlers who did not pass through the market but dilectly delivered articles to the consumers were dangerous rivals. Because non-guild Jewish peddlers were free from the guild agreement such as price maintenance, and could

buy and sell what the guild-catalogs did not contain: for example, old clothes, feathers and waste paper.

Cityscape of Budapest In the early 20th century Hungarian society, 1 per cent of the population was composed of

landowners (mainly aristocrats) and economic elite; 19 per cent was medium landowning nobility, gentry (landless nobility) and urban upper-lower middle classes; 62 per cent was

farmers (38%) and agricultural laborers (24%); and 18 per cent was skilled-unskilled industrial

11

workers.(28) Most of the Jews related to commerce and industry, whereas overwhelming

non-Jews to agriculture and industry. In industry Jews were more than double of non-Jews, and in professions more than three times. In those days the Jewry had nearly one quarter of the population and a half of the voters in

Budapest. They occupied more than 80 per cent of the industrialists who employed more than twenty persons, 90 per cent of the owners or heads of the city banks as well as almost a half to

60 per cent of the liberal professions in the country: 48.4 per cent of journalists, 58.8 per cent of doctors, and 61.5 per cent of lawyers.(29) Besides, 220 out of 346 ennobled Jewish families acquired their rank in the last two decades of the monarchy, when Hungary's industrial

revolution was growing rapidly.(30) 22 per cent of MPs (84 persons) in 1910, and the ministers such as Baron Samu Hazai (minister of defense: 1910-17), János Teleszky (minister of finance:

1912-17), Baron János Harkányi (minister of commerce: 1913-17), and Vilmos Vázsonyi (minister of justice: 1915-17, 1918) were very products of the tacit alliance between feudal and Jewish economic elite. Among them Vázsonyi was not converted. The Neolog newspaper

Egyenlőség boasted on June 15, 1917 that the appointment of Vázsonyi was a victory of their patriotic assimilation movement.(31) Reading the description that "this is our fatherland, so we

are not aliens; we belong to this county", one could hear the Neolog Jews weeping for joy. Christian Socialist Karl Lueger of Vienna mayor made fun of Budapest as "Judapest". True to his naming, the Budapest Jewish society enjoyed the prosperity even after Trianon. They

owned 40.5 per cent of the industrial plants in the country in 1920.(32) From one third to 60 per cent of the liberal professions (journalists 34.3%, doctors 50.6%, and lawyers 59.9%) in the

whole country, as well as more than half of the white collar strata and two thirds of the small trade owners in the urban areas were Jews.(33) Further and more telling, in Budapest 38.2 per

cent of the two-storied, 47.2 per cent of the three-storied, and 57.5 per cent of the more than six-storied buildings were in their hands.(34)

The Jewry was also reduced by the Trianon peace treaty to 51 per cent of their prewar population. However, in the territory of Trianon Hungary, they had a population of 473,310 in 1920 while 471,355 in 1910; besides, in Budapest 23.2 per cent of the population in 1920

while 23.0 per cent in 1910. Additionally estimated 50,000-62,000 converts who did not show up in the religious census included the most of economic elite.(35)

Entrepreneur spirit and education During four decades preceding World War I, Budapest developed as a center of

modernizing Hungary. There emerged a rapidly growing middle class from the assimilated city dwellers. The metropolitan culture in Hungary was inseparable from their activities. According

to Endre Ady, a reporter for the Szabadság in Nagyvárad (now Oradea in Romania), the

12

Catholic People's Party official newspaper, Alkotmány criticized the Jewish educational

enthusiasm, and stated that the percentage of the Jewish gymnasium students had exceeded those of all Christian denominations except the Catholic.(36)

As concerns their course after leaving gymnasia, while the students from the gentry of

feudal origin entered university, usually faculty of law in order to find employment in a government office, most of the Jewish students prefered academies, especially commercial

academy which was said to be the most liberal as the training school of middle-level executives. György Lengyel who studied the educational background of interwar economic elite emphasized that 31.8 per cent of Jewish descent was from commercial academy.(37) By

contrast, German elements from commercial academy comprised 10.5 per cent, and Magyarsdid 4.6 per cent. On the other hand, while Magyars from the faculty of law were 56.9 per cent

and Germans were 50 per cent, Jews were 31.8 per cent. According to the Lengyel's study, of those who started working under the age of twenty, both Germans and Jews were more than 33 per cent, whereas Magyars were 12 per cent.

Max Weber maintained in his book of The Ethics of Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) that Protestants demanded the education for business, but the Catholics

required the liberal arts. However, Hungarian lesser nobility (mainly Calvinist) did not represent entrepreneur spirit and economic rationality. Those who longed for the business education and economic rationality were not the Hungarian historic middle class who had

despised the trades and commerce as "ungentlemanly" occupation but the newborn middle class of Jewish and German immigrants. The latter made significant contributions to a

blossoming urban way of life in the newly established capital city.

13

Two: Gentry State and Neo-Conservatism

When Jewish economic elite was regarded as the strategic partner of feudal elite in the

second half of the 19th century, economic downfall of lesser nobility started, particularly after 1880. According to the study of Peter I. Hidas, the richest stratum (nobiles bene possessionati)

of the untitled nobility that owned between 1,000 and 5,000 holds [575-2875 ha] of land was 20 per cent of the privilaged class at most, and the rest of them cultivated 200 to 1,000 holds [115-575 ha] of land per family (nobiles possessionati). But the majority of the lesser nobility

in number was the armalista who possessed merely the dogskin parchment on which their origin was certified; they belonged to the privilaged class only by law.(1) Ironically as a result

of the greatest achievement of the revolution of 1848, that is, the elimination of the related feudal ownership, most of the privileged class was reduced to poverty. Additionally in the 1870s, enormous quantities of overseas crop, mainly cheap wheat from America inflicted a

tremendous blow on the small scale farming in Hungary. Two thirds of the landowning families lost their landed estates by the early 20th century.(2)

Gentry state Yet they never ceased to be strong men in their externals, notwithstanding divorced from

the land. In imitation of English gentleman, they called themselves "gentry". They found their new way of life chiefly in the state employment as civil and military officials. Trades and

commerce were despised, and even doctors or teachers were evaluated with some contempt from their peculiar mentality. Consequently a third to a half of the posts among the state

officials in the ministries, and between two thirds and three fourths of those in the county administration were held by the gentry class. The state officials rose from 20,000 in 1870 to

153,000 by 1909. According to István I. Mócsy, the state bureaucracy was beyond reasonable limits.(3)

This "gentry state" was founded by the Liberal Party. They formed the strategic partnership

of the Jewish economic elite, bureaucrats from gentry (Protestants in general), and landedaristocrats (predominantly Catholics) supposing the division of labor.(4) The feudal elite

supplied their counterpart with the needed judicial-administrative supports.However, when economic magnates emerged out of the Jewry and some of them were

ennobled, the Pesti Napló, a Budapest newspaper charged that the new elite were stock

exchange knights and gin nobles. That meant they had made handsome profits and bought the titles. The Neolog Jewish newspaper Egyenlőség, thereupon, polemicized back that the feudal

elite were pimp knights, stable noblemen, and bandit counts.(5) In the Millennial year of 1896,

14

the extensive ties between the economic elite and the governing party were already out in the

parliament.(6) The symbiotic partnership broke down when industry such as mills expanded beyond the traditional branches and the food-processing branches themselves developed to a far greater extent than the agriculture whose products they were supposed to process. That was

the moment the economic magnates found it profitable to buy foreign wheat and re-export it in the form of flouer, much to the chagrin of feudal landlords.(7)

Around the turn of the century when industrial development and agricultural depression were crossing, feudal elite split into two camps: those who promoted the industrialism and agrarians against the free competition. Among the supporters of modern industry, members of

historic families filled a number of leading positions in the management of banks and industrial firms. For instance, in 1905 eighty-eight counts and sixty-four barons sat on the

boards of directors and of supervision directors in various industrial works, railway companies, and banks of Leó Lánczy, Ferenc Chorin, Manfréd Weiss and others.(8)

Agrarians desired the positive intervention of the government in the liberal market

economy: restraints on commodity speculation, an end to corn-import preferences for the big mills, the assurance of cheap credit facilities, subsidies for debt-ridden landowners, and most

of all, higher protective farm tariffs. They regarded the failure of small scale artisans and farmers as a victim of industrial big capital; they set the patriotism of "fixed capital" against the cosmopolitanism of "mobile capital" and identified the latter with Jewish industrialists and

financers.

The Alliance of Landowners Agrarian forerunner was the anti-Compromise circle led by Count Albert Apponyi. Count

Sándor Károlyi belonged to this circle. He formed an agrarian pressure group named the Alliance of Landowners in 1896, the year of the millennium. Three years earlier in Germany,

an organization of the same name (Bund der Landwirte) was formed. It advocated inner colonization in order to increase the medium landowners because of judging that the small holders' increasing in number would promote the political instability. The Alliance was born

under the influence of such German agrarianism.As to agricultural organization there existed OMGE (National Economic Association), but

it chiefly aimed at protecting the aristocrats' large estates. The Alliance was therefore potentially against the latifundism. But they soon realized the partition of latifundium or the land distribution impossible, and chased the colonist ideas of utilizing the devastated lands. In

order to turn the dissatisfaction of agrarians against the economic elite's landowning, they set up a slogan of the Alliance: "Those rule the country who own the land" and "Hungary belongs

to the Hungarians".(9) It means that if the land passes industrialists' and financers' possession,

15

Hungary would be under the foreigners' rule. According to Barna Buday, ardent follower of

Count Sándor Károlyi and secretary-general of OMGE, the Jews owned four million holds, and including the lease, managed a fifth of the arable land of Hungary as of 1917.(10)

The neo-conservatives emerged as a counterforce to liberalism and Marxism at the end of

the 19th century. Using such terms as people or socialism (a patent of leftist until then), they "organized mass movement, and utilized a social demagogy and modern technology of

propaganda for arousing public opinion".(11) This political trend led by feudal elite and clericals was different from the populism "from below" of the People's Party (1891-1908) in America. Nevertheless, Mária M. Kovács maintains that their strength lay in their understanding and

support for the interests of dislocated parts of society, especially those of the small peasantry and the gentry. According to her, by pointing to the common grievances of agrarian society

from top to bottom against the free play of market forces, they were demonstrating theexistence of a united front of various social groups against liberal capitalism.(12) In this respectthe author sees proto-type populism "from above" which neo-conservatism contained.

Definition of populism is diverse; here we define it according to Albertazzi and McDonnell as a method of politics which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elite and

dangerous "others".(13) The term of elite and dangerous "others" meant pro-industry advocatesof historic families and Jewish entrepreneurs. On the other hand, considering that one of the key words of neo-conservatives was "organic", a virtuous and homogeneous people meant

small and medium farmers (including cultivating nobles) and handicraftsmen who were against the "inorganic and foreign" capitalism of Hungary.(14)

The Alliance of Landowners advocated the relief of small scale management saying that "Hungarian small holders and handicraftsmen are forced to leave for America when the

factories of foreign capital are making vast profits".(15) Its program of October 1896 declared that "they won't consent to the influx of foreign dregs who have driven native Hungarians out

of the country. This country is attached to us Hungarians for a thousand years, and should be ours for ever".(16) Then they wrote down one phrase from the Vörösmarty's Szózat (Appeal to Hungarians) (17) in their program that "we have to live and die in this country".(18) The "foreign

dregs" they indicated meant the Eastern Jews. Instigation of the Alliance went far beyond any definition of a pressure group.

Agrarians were encouraged by Károlyi's political friend Ignác Darányi who was the minister of agriculture for twelve and a half years in two terms between 1895 and 1910.Darányi explained a bill for the state-driven inner colonization saying that "emigration of

peasants and handicraftsmen, the low birth-rate question and land hunger in the rural life are all combined with the present latifundism. Nothing can solve it but the nation-wide and

powerful land reform".(19) However, Count Róbert Zselénszky, the vice-president of OMGE,

16

stood in the forefront of the repeal of the bill saying that it is an infringement against their own

properties.(20) Seeing such countercharge, Darányi leased 12,622 holds on 25-year contract from the Count Schönborns, the greatest landowner aristocrat in the sub-Carpathian region, and distributed them (less than 3 holds on the average) to 4,303 families in forty-one

counties.(21)

Darányi's inner colonization bill was passed by the legislature in 1911 after he left the

ministry. The new law provided about 1,340 peasants with almost 17,000 holds: 58.6 per cent between 1 and 5 holds, 27.8 per cent between 5 and 10 holds, 11.9 per cent between 10 and 50holds, and 1.7 per cent between 50 and 100 holds.(22) Looking at the fact that 86.4 per cent

peasants received the land of under 10 holds, it was far from "the nation-wide and powerful land reform".

Another feature of the Alliance was anti-usury campaign. They asked in their program "why the farmers and handicraftsmen was in financial difficulties". According to them, it was not owing to a question of managerical talent as the supporters of industry insisted, but to the

absence of cheap credit facilities in most cases.(23) Therefore, they instituted a National Center for Christian Associations known as Hangya (Ant), which was to give relief to the farmers and

handicraftsmen of villages suffering from the usurers. The greatest investor of Hangya was its founder Count Sándor Károlyi. The backgrounding factor that agrarians founded Hangya was impoverishment of the

peasantry since the 1870s. Economic activity was stagnant because of a slump in stocks right after the opening of the Vienna World Exposition in 1873. Consequently such sectors as the

railway construction and river improvement that had absorbed the massive village laborforce were rapidly reduced. Besides, in the rural communities, peasants suffered the very bad harvest

in 1873 and crop losses in 1875 and 1879. Furthermore, in the first half of the 1870s, pest damaged half a million agricultural population. In the exhaused villages of the 1890s, futures

contract and high interest of usury became acute.Hangya built four-storied shop in Budapest and started a cooperative society for the sake of

competition with the existing commercial network in 1905. At this point agrarians showed

their flag against not only village moneylenders or merchants dealing with agricultural products for speculation but monopolistic urban business circles. They organized 1,276

branches and held a membership of 200,000 by the First World War. But why did they put the adjective "Christian" (Keresztény) intentionally on the head of the Associations (Keresztény Szövetkezetek Országos Központja) which was given racial overtones? Supposedly they

utilized the heathen as a common enemy in order to appease the Chriatian communities.

The Catholic People's Party

17

In November 1894, the Catholic People's Party was proposed to establish by Bishop

Prohászka, and founded by Count Nándor Zichy and Count Móric Miklós Esterházy in Székesfehérvár for the purpose of "maintaining the Christian values of Hungarian society". It was a product of the Catholic Church's sense of crisis facing the introduction of civil and

mixed marriage in 1894 on the principle of separation of state and church, as well as the proposed law to receive the Judaism, which was enacted next year. The first president of the

party was Count Nándor Zichy, but the party was actually led by his nephew Count János Zichy (second president) from the very beginning.(24)

The People's Party also desired the government intervention in order to protect small

holders and handicraftsmen.(25) In their program of January 1895 they opposed the introductionof civil marriage and the reception of Judaism, whereas they claimed autonomy of church and

division of roles between state and church.(26) To add to the preservation of these vested interests, they demanded a relief measure for small scale farmers saying that "Hungary is a farming nation".(27) The relief measure included not only a financial support by the state but a

cooperative society by themselves.(28)

The idea of cooperative society was succeeded by the Alliance of Landowners and its

Hangya. According to Gyula Mérei, the emigration issue of peasantry led to the ban on the immigration of the people with no living basis.(29) It was crystallized into the declaration of the Alliance next year that "they won't consent to the influx of foreign dregs who have driven

native Hungarians out of the country". Considering that a founder of the People's Party, Count Nándor Zichy participated in forming the Alliance and became its vice-president, and his son

Count Aladár Zichy (president of the People's Party after 1903) was a member of the Alliance,(30) the Alliance's blatant program against the Jewish immigration can be regarded as a

developed political phrase of the People's Party. The closely-knit relationship of the parties was ensured by the Catholic organizations from top to bottom.(31)

In the spring of 1901, a student organization of the People's Party mounted a campaign against Gyula Pikler (vice-president of the Social Science Society), accusing him ofpropagating "the idea that makes light of the homeland and religion" in his lectures and new

publication.(32) The People's Party made an issue of the matter in the parliament. In the name of the party Count Aladár Zichy showed their way of thinking: "I know I shall be called a

defender of darkness but I confess I should be glad to see less knowledge, less science, and more godliness, more attachment to the fatherland".(33) Next year, when the merchant association of Nagyvárad invited Vázsonyi who advocated the secularization of the church's

landed estates, some fifty youths dispatched by the Catholic Church heapted abuses upon him crying "down with Weiszfeld".(34) (Weiszfeld was Vázsonyi's original name.) In 1903, Pikler's

disciple Bódog Somló (secretary of the Social Science Society) was denounced by his

18

colleagues of Law Academy in Nagyvárad. They charged that he had disparaged "God, king

and country" at a meeting of the Social Science Society in Budapest where he gave a lecture on liberalism and social evolutionism.(35) The lecture was published in the Huszadik Század in May of the year.

It was Ady's review of "Bódog Somló's theory of social evolution" for the local Nagyváradi Napló that triggered a great uproar. (The People's Party slandered the newspaper as Jewish

radical's or Freemaison's one.)(36) Looking at the aftermath of the scandal in Ady's article of May 29, two professors of Péter Ágoston and Géza Magyary protected Somló, but the other five denounced him "with cheap national slogan such as homeless archivillain, atheist, or

anarchistic and disruptive activist", and appealed his discharge to the minister of education and religion.(37) Such enthusiastic national radicals emerged in the early 20th century in parallel

with the rapidly growing number of lower-level officials and petty bourgeois imitating the bureaucratic gentry class.(38)

Their mass organization, the Catholic People's Union founded in 1907 took hold of 2,886

branches and 300,000 members six yeard later. At the convention of the Union in March 1918, MP of the People's Party, Károly Huszár (prime minister, 1919-20) stressed the change of

national concept saying that "we are looking for new Hungary. We demand Hungary of old Hungarians living since the age of St. István instead of newcomers' Hungary".(39) Newcomersmeant Swabian and Jewish descendants. But those he intended to exclude from the national

concept were not Christian Swabian but heathen Jewish descendants.

The Christian Socialist Party In October 1905, thanks to the assistance of Bishop Prohászka, the Christian Socialist Party

became separated from the People's Party. Prohászka's aim of their separation was deepening the basis of Hungarian neo-conservatism. Prohászka was an ardent warrior of Christian

socialism exclusively against the decadence of Budapest and the "Jewish capitalism" in accordance with the spirit of Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum ("Rights and duties of capital and labor"), which suggested to fight against the capitalist system or

"rapacious usury under a different guise and the tenet of socialism that "would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal".(40)

Although they were politically nothing but a flying column of the People's Party, they had more characteristic of Christian socialism. While the People's Party persistently dealt with the old middle class, they considered the laborers. In order to solve the social problems, they asked

for the universal suffrage.(41) On the other hand, from an old-fashioned view on the woman's role of children, kitchen and church, they asserted that "we don't need feminism, social

democracy and free love". They opposed the climate of modernism saying that woman should

19

serve for her husband at home and bring up useful children for fatherland.(42) Additionally, they

manifested as a party of Christianity that "if the capital is heathen, it should be Christianized"(43) because "not until the Christian principles completely permeate the whole society would the peace come on earth".(44)

Meanwhile they regarded the small holders as a "backbone of the nation", and proposed the large scale land distribution as well as the promotion of inner colonization.(45) Then they

emphasized the creation of small farmers' cooperatives for the mutual aid.(46) It paralleled the Smallholder's Party(48) founded four years later in the point that they didn't think of the small farmers only as something to be protected or relieved.

The Smallholders' Party supported by the Transdanubian well-to-do farmers required universal and equal franchise, secret vote and abolition of the feudal ranks. Regarding the

small holders as a "backbone of the Hungarian society", they advocated the co-existence andco-prosperity between the farmers and the agricultural laborers.(47) They also expected the state to expropriate the giant estates with compensation and lend those lands to the small holders.

By way of making good use of them, they intended to ensure the employment security of the agricultural and industrial workers, and prevent the emigration of the rural population. Besides,

they claimed that the state should control the church-owned properties and use its capital as the sources of agricultural credit facilities for farmers.(48) The Smallholders' such radicalism approved of the republic declaration in November 1918.(49)

Oppositely the Christian Socialists joined with the People's Party again in February 1918. In the then program one can see the negative attitude of neo-conservatives toward the stock

exchange where speculators played actively as well as toward usury.(50)

The Independence (Károlyi) PartyCount Mihály Károlyi, the first president of Hungarian republic after World War I, learned

the new type agrarianism and cooperation movement from Count Sándor Károlyi, and became the president of OMGE in 1909 after the death of his grandparent's nephew. OMGE wasleading a vehement campaign for abolition of the stock exchange under the influence of Count

Sándor Károlyi.(51) Mihály Károlyi learned not only agrarianism but the political party to which he should belong from Sándor Károlyi; he joined the Independence Party in 1904.

He was elected to the party leadership in 1913. However, in the middle of the First World War, the party split into two factions: Count Apponyi group and Count Károlyi group. The latter showed another way to the land question in its new program of July 1916.

Our party will improve the country's unhealthy latifundism completely through the land

distribution. The most miserable result of the past decades is the impoverishment of the

20

peoples, among them Hungarians in particular. One of the main reasons that increased

their efflux rapidly on a large scale was poverty. Emigration will continue on much larger scale than the past years. Hungarian nation faces the severe population depletion by the emigration of the peasantry in addition to the heavy loss by the war. Our party

considers the absolute need of land distribution to the cultivating peasants in order to dissolve the threat.(52)

Against this new line, István Milotay, editor of a magazine who had supported the party since 1913, blamed the party's head in his article saying that Count Mihály Károlyi criticized

Count Róbert Zselénszky (giant estate) more severely than Leó Lánczy (financial capital) and parted from Károlyi.(53) The author does not know to what extent the Károlyi party thought of

the land distribution, but supposes that they wished to follow the unfinished Darányi's project. Yet it was manifested in the "pressed" situation of the World War I. That is, in the middle of 1916, the Central Powers including Hungary lacked perspective on the war. In August of the

year, Romanian troops intruded the Transylvania. By that time self-determination of nations had become one of the Entente's war aims. The Habsburg new Emperor Karl I was seeking

peace conditions. In March 1917, Russian czarism was defeated by the revolution; Americaentered the war next month. In these circumstances, there emerged Károlyi as an adequet person for the peace negotiations with the Entente states.

Mihály Károlyi and the postwar revolution The affair at the end of October 1918 that Count Károlyi was appointed premier by the newEmperor and King was like an overripened fruit fallen from the monarchy. Nevertheless, it was

nothing but a revolution when they declared the republic on November 16.*(i)

The Károlyi government called itself people's government and its laws were named

people's laws. But they only wished to represent the peoples of the country. The aim of the republic was consistently the territorial integrity of historical Hungary. It was the great Hungarianism of Kossuth which was revived by cultural superiority and racial loneliness of the

Károlyi Party's program*(ii) combined with Oscar Jászi's Eastern Switzerland. Such a classical nationalism was doomed to clash with the neighbors' fresh spirit of independence.

The Independence (Károlyi) Party splited again after the declaration of the republic.Károlyi who tided over the government crisis by doubling the ministers of Social Democrats and enforcing the martial law, took a "genuine peasant" from the Smallholders' Party into "a

little left" government in order "to help counterbalance the power of the city democracy".(54) In response to the nomination for minister, István Nagyatádi-Szabó, the president of Smallholders

liquidated the relations with the Agricultural Party in February 1919, which was organized by

21

OMGE in December 1918 in order to halt "the nationalization or socialization of land".(55)

However, having no victorious powers' security about the territorial integrity, Károlyi (president of the republic since January 1919) dumped everything on the Social Democrats supported by the labor unions, and resigned. John Lukacs found the same irresponsibility of

Károlyi here as the considerable loss of his dissipated young days in gambling.(56) He was branded as a "traitor" to the country by the counter-revolutionary camp.

*(i) Article one of Néphatározat [People's decision] on November 16, 1918 proclaimed that Hungary is independent people's republic which is not subject to any other countries.

*(ii) Károlyi Party declared in its program of 1916 that the mission of Hungarians who had no sib

among the neighbors was to protect the small and weak nationalities against the expansionism

of the great powers.

22

Three: Civic Radicalism

The Social Science Society The Social Science Society, which the People's Party severely criticized in the previous chapter, was originally composed of Jewish intellectuals, leaders of the German assimilationist

movement and the ruling Liberals.(1) It was a half-official think-tank for bridging the split between the forty-eighters against the Habsburgs and the supporters of Compromise. The first president of the Society was Ágost Pulszky, and the second was Count Gyula Andrássy the

younger. The leadership was chosen on the balance between right and left or Jewish and non-Jewish origins: Gyula Pikler and Lóránt Hegedüs for the vice-president as well as Bódog

Somló and Gusztáv Gratz for the secretary. Forty members of the board of directors included all sorts of political conviction such as from national radical Jenő Rákosi and Catholic conservative Győző Concha to Civic Radicals.(2)

The Social Science Society was founded in 1901 by the contributors to the journal named Huszadik Század which started on January 1 of 1900. It introduced the English-French

liberalism and positivism of those such as Herbert Spencer, Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. However, five years later, the Society was broken up; national radicals and conservatives left it.

The break up of the Society began with the Civic Radical's appointment of József Kristóffy, minister of interior of the Baron Géza Fejérváry government [1905-06] as a director of the

Society. They welcomed the universal election proposed by Kristóffy although he was ordered by the Vienna court to contain the Hungarian nationalism. It is why the national radicals and

conservatives tried to split up the Society. They say that those who manipulated the split was Hegedüs and Gratz.(3) The Society fell from the great think-tank to the club of Jewish radical

intellectuals since those influencial conservatives such as Count Gyula Andrássy the younger(second president), Lóránt Hegedüs (vice-president) and Gusztáv Gratz (first editor of the Huszadik Század) left it in 1906.

The leader of the remaining Civic Radicals in the Society was Oscar Jászi. He was born in 1875 as son of a physician who was converted to Calvinist in Szatmár county. Until his

grandfather, the family name was Jakubovits, but they changed it in 1881. His uncle on the mother's side Leó Liebermann was a famous professor of medicine, obtained a noble rank, and worked for the ministry of agriculture as a president of experimental chemical station. After

graduating the Budapest university, Jászi took up a post at the ministry of agriculture. But as he could not bear the gentry type milieu of the ministry, he made his way as a freelance

intellectual. Following the break with the national-conservative faction, he became a member

23

of the secretariat of the Society and editor of its journal. During his stay in France in 1905, he

experienced so-called Dreyfusian revolution.*(i)

*(i) The Dreyfus affair proved to be a conspiracy of the military and the right wing against

Germany; France rushed into radicalism. The most influential Radical Party in the Third Republic was founded in 1901 by Georges Clemencea who organized liberal-republicans

during the Dreyfus trial.

FreemasonsHungarian Freemasonry was reintroduced in the 1870s, and soon became the most

powerful movement in the Danubian countries. Until the end of World War I, it had 126

branches and 13,000 members. One can find famous names on the membership list: a great supporter of the Compromise, Count Gyula Andrássy, a non-titled prime minister of German origin, Sándor Wekerle, a mayor of Budapest, István Bárczy, the president of the Democratic

Party, Vilmos Vázsonyi, financial magnates of Jewish background, Leó Weiss and Ferenc Chorin, and from the cultural field, Gyula Pikler as well as Endre Ady and Dezső Kosztlányi.(4)

19 per cent of GyOSz (20 out of 104 members) belonged to the Masonic lodges in 1903; about a third of GyOSz members of Jewish origin were Masons.(5) Under the guidance of extremists of the Independence Party, conservative or reactionary lodges were established;(6) the People's

Party stood against the Masons by way of entering their members in the Jewish colored lodges.(7)

1908 was a great turning point for the Hungarian Freemasonry. In November of the year, opposite to the old unpolitical orientation, the Symbolic Grand Lodge explicitly showed the

new orientation. They called for universal suffrage by secret ballot, public education to be provided free of charge and free of denomination at their congress.(8) The election law of 1874

restricted the electorate to a fourth of adult manhood (6 per cent of the population) by property and literacy. However at that time, in the Western countries, 20-30 per cent of the nations had already suffrage by secret ballot.

Jászi entered the Democracy lodge in 1906, and two years later created a new lodge with seven members. It was symbolic that he named the new lodge after the Hungarian Jacobin and

federalist. The Martinovics lodge included, among others, Zsigmond Kunfi, Jenő Varga, József Pogány, József Diner-Dénes, Zoltán Rónai and Péter Ágoston from the Social Democratic Party as well as a poet Endre Ady. Additionally, some leading students of the Galileo Circle

such as Károly Polány who gethered to guard Pikler against the national radicals were associate members.

In June 1914, the Civic Radical Party's program was drafted by the Martinovic members

24

including the Social Democrats Kunfi, Varga and Rónai in addition to Jászi as the head of the

party. The program was a product of such intellectual exchanges.

The Civic Radical PartyIn 1907 Jászi published an article under the title of "Toward new Hungary". He advocated

in it the abolition of the aristocrats' hereditary estates, the secularization of the church estates

and de-gentrification of the local administration as well as universal suffrage by secret ballot, freedom of meeting, association, press and religion, the complete separation of state and church, public education to be provided free of charge, and the democratic solution of

nationality question.(9)

With the exception of the gigantic modernization in Budapest, in the counties where feudal

remains had been long preserved, and administration and justice were not separated, all power was concentrated in the hands of appointed officials, or one and the same person: the prefect(szolgabíró). The prefect engaged in from elections of towns and villages (because the

candidates needed his recommendation) till the appointment of notary (jegyző) and the wages of agrarian laborers in the villages. More than 80 per cent of the prefects were from gentry;(10)

the county administrations remained absolutely closed to the Jews even if converted.(11)

On the other hand, in Jászi's eyes, the Hungarian bourgeoisie was mostly an obedient collaborator of the feudal class and the clergy.(12) Jászi found the roots of economic and moral

unhealthiness of Hungary in "the most vicious combination in the world", that is, a curious mixture of the gentry's way of life (arrogance, self-indulgence, laziness, superficiality) and the

Jewish lifestyle (cynicism, hedonism, amoralism) of Lipótváros. That was a socio-political conglomerate of the "despotic spirit of prefect" and the "miser spirit of capitalist", or

"feudalism and usury".(13) This oppression system was named the trinity of "feudalism, clericalism, and usurious capitalism".(14) At the end of World War I (October 2, 1918) he read

such a message of condolence at the funeral of Ervin Szabó (vice-president of the Social Science Society) that this country would no longer remain the trinity of "predatory knights, merciless money-changers, and atheistic clergies".(15)

It may be in this respect that Jászi is estimated as an excellent example of "self-hating Jew". In the article of Béla Vágó, Jászi is alleged to have condemned "in a quasi-racial tone" the

faults and failings of the Jews, and their parasitism.(16) William O. McCagg calls Jászi anti-Jewish Jew.(17) Péter Hanák regards the Jászi's behavior to the Jews as "self anti-Semitism". According to Hanák, such a self anti-Semitism was not a special phenomenon among the

educated descendants of the assimilated Jews at the end of the 19th century. He explains it as an intellectual self-defense of the younger Jews who saw their "prehistory" in the primitive

newcomers from the east.(18)

25

There emerged in such circumstances a stratum of new middle class with the urbanite ethos,

which was apart from the bureaucratic gentry and the Jewish economic elite he labelled "service bourgeois". 28 per cent of the Jewry belonged to the new middle class.(19) Jászidefined their civic radicalism as a material, spiritual and moral "improvement of productivity"

movement of the working middle class for eliminating the unearned income,(20) first of all, parasitic landownership such as the agricultural rentier.(21) In this context, he regarded it as the

rational solution of the Jewish question that the Jewish intellectual workers would repress the Jewish parasitism.(22) As concerns the influx of Eastern Jews, he was pinning his much hope on the Russian revolution of March 1917, saying that "Russian democracy will solve the Jewish

question without difficulty by the peaceful assimilation mind like Western democratic countries. It will finally liberate the Central Europe, first of all Hungary from the Jewish

question".(23) Jászi thought that as Russian democratic revolution would stop the influx of Eastern Jews, Hungarian Jews could devote themselves to assimilation without considering the newcomers from the east. János Gyurgyák calls this view the "leftist intellectual's illusion" of

those days.(24)

Efflux of rural population The rapid development of industry caused the large scale emigration of rural population. The third fourths of the emigrants were poor peasants. The amount of poor peasantry such as

the agricultural laborers and the dwarf holders under 5 holds reached more than five millions.(25) From the serious agricultural depression in the mid-1870s until World War I, more

than three and a half million people emigrated;(26) two millions of them concentrated upon the turn of the century, that is, during the decades when the industrial revolution was at the peak in

Hungary. According to Arthur J. May, 338,452 people left the monarchy for America in the single year of 1907, but its 60 per cent people were born under the Hungarian flag.(27) Most of

them worked in the industrial areas such as Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland. However, in Hungary after the Compromise, the aristocrats' privilages of hereditary estates

were abused, and by the mid-1890s the sort of lands grew about five times in number. Of

ninety-two such lands, sixty cases were recognized after 1867.(28) Count István Széchenyi

advocated the abolition of such landownership already in the first half of the 19th century. The

industrialists also desired the freedom of land transactions. In July 1907 they regarded the problem

of mass emigration as "the great enemy and vampire" of capitalist development in the congress of

GyOSz.(29) Lóránt Hegedüs, the managering director of GyOSz, attributed the problem not only to

the peasants' poverty but to the barriers to social mobility owing to feudalism and clericalism.(30)

The reason why Civic Radicals could receive financial support from the economic magnates despite

their radicalism was the mutual tacit agreement on the removal of feudal remnants.(31) That is, the

26

latifundism was for both sides the very illness of half-feudalistic society which prevented the

industrial development and social evolution.

Linguistic assimilationismNot only the latifundism but the linguistic assimilationism to the national minorities were

seeds of troubles. Although the law on the nationalities of 1868 declared Hungarian as a state

language, it recognized the civil equality of all nationalities and guaranteed their linguistic and cultural autonomy on the lower level of administration and justice, as well as in elementary and secondary schools. The public education law of the same year did not prescribed

Hungarian language compulsory. However, its politico-legal fiction of defining Hungary as a "unitary national state" and regarding the non-Magyar peoples as Hungary's "inseparable

political nation" could not be accepted by the awakening members of the national minorities. The public education law of 1868 was modified in 1879; in all the non-Magyar schools and teacher's training colleges, the teachers from the nationalities were obligated to master

Hungarian for the teaching of that language. This language policy was also applied to the secondary schools and completed by the so-called Lex Apponica of 1907. In exchange for

introducing the free of charge in the elementary schools and for doubling the amount of teacher's salary, Count Apponyi, the minister of religion and education, carried Hungarianization into the public education law. Hence, in every elementary school of the

minority areas, Hungarian language became compulsory, and only the nationalistic textbooks were admitted to use. As a result of such a series of assimilationism, the number of elementary

school in the minority areas reduced by almost half: from 6,000 schools of nationality language in 1899 to about 3300 in 1914.(32)

After the linguistic assimilationism became forcible, the village Jews who had direct contact with the national minorities in every day life formed a strong bridgehead for the

forcible assimilation. Nearly half of the Jews lived in the small towns or large villages as merchants, doctors or lawyers. There, sometimes as one and only Hungarian-speaking family, the village Jews were as middlemen "selling everything the peasants bought and buying

everything the peasants sold".(33) McCagg pointed out that not only the Neologs of Budapest who Hungarianized themselves but the Orthodox Jews of the countryside who had adopted

Hungarian language and customs, opted decisively against the developing nationalities.(34)

By the early 20th century, about two millions linguistic assimilation was reported: Jews (about 700,000), Germans (600,000), Slovaks (400,000) and Southern Slavs (over 100,000).(35)

Hungary without the Croatia-Slavonia region managed to gain the majority (54.5 per cent) in 1910. However, the forcible assimilation policy increased only 10 per cent of the Hungarian

speakers.

27

The vanguard of the Hungarianization policy was Jenő Rákosi, chief editor of the daily

Budapesti Hírlap, and Béla Grünwald, the vice-sheriff (alispán) of Zólyom county, now Zvolen in Slovakia. Rákosi advocated a noisy idea of "thirty million Hungarians" for the forcible assimilation policy of the Baron Bánffy government [1895-99]. On the other hand, Grünwald

served the extinction of several gymnasia in which he discovered symptoms of Pan-Slavism, and turned the educational institutions to huge machines of "producing Hungarians".(36)

Rákosi and Grünwald of German background commonly believed the superiority and assimilating ability of Hungarian language and culture. Grünwald perceived the nationality law of 1868 as an "abdication of the Hungarianhood" in his book of 1878.(37) According to him,

Hungarians are superior to "servile Slovaks" in mental power and morals.(38) Therefore, "we have to make us strong by assimilating the national minorities. We do not admit them to tie up

with their neighboring kins for separation. Especially we have to divorce Slovaks from the other Slavic nationalities. Slovaks in Hungary are Alsace-Lorraine Germans to France".(39) Ifdivorced from the Slavic kinship, he thought, Slovakian people would be loyal members of

Hungarian nation as Alsatian Germans became loyal French citizens.(40)

Criticism of the forcible assimilation policyJászi who represented the civic radicalism of the early 20th century in Hungary and Robert

W. Seton-Watson who influenced significantly the British foreign policy described the village

Jews as a junior partner of Hungarianization when they criticized the forcible assimilationismto the nationalities. Seton-Watson condemned in a quasi-racial tone the collaboration of village

Jews with gentry on the ground that they cunningly assumed a "mask of Hungarian" and dominated the rural life of national minorities who could not understand Hungarian

language.(41)

Jászi also found the complicity of Hungarian repressive rule over the nationalities in the

Jewish "renegades" who had become ardent supporters of Hungarian nationalism.(42) Anton Štefánek, later minister of public education in Czechoslovakia, noted that the village Jews were considered as "the exponents of Hungarians, or an auxiliary troop of the prefects, the notaries,

and the gendarmerie".(43) (This phrase of his response to the questionaire on the Jewishquestion in 1917 made good copy in Jászi's writing of 1929).(44) According to Tibor Hajdu,

village Jews were always with "despotic" notaries or "brutal" army officers.(45) However, Seton-Watson knew that the village Jews depending on the contract system could not refuse the collaboration with the local magnates at the expense of their concessions.(46) Anyway, it is

why the village Jews and the subordinate officials who had a direct contact with the national minorities at the bottom of the power structure became the scapegoat of the old authority after

the magnates and upper officials returned home at the end of the First World War.

28

The world history was, according to Jászi, a "huge process of assimilation" to unify a

nation on a large scale.(47) Hence, assimilation into a higher culture was good without any question, but the forcible assimilation policy was something evil to hinder the "true assimilation". The former was the advanced nationality policy of England resting on the basis

of industrialism, whereas the latter was the Czarist Russian despotism.(48)

However, Szekfű argued against Jászi saying that there had been no "forcible assimilation

policy" Jászi indicated. In Szekfű's eyes, harmful influences were caused mainly by English journalism and Jászi who regarded the whole Hungarians as evil and the national minorities as "pure and innocent".(49) Despite "Jászi blames us Hungarians for our nationality question as if

he were an inquisitor",(50) "we know that the Hungarianization policy was not so wicked as Jászi and Seton-Watson criticized. It is not the nationalities but we Hungarians that suffered from

acute pains because of their emotional and empty publications with childish contents".(51)

Land reform and nationality questionJászi pitted the ideas of liberalism, democracy and progress as well as the improvement of

productivity through the land distribution against the feudal latifundism and repressive rule

over the nationalities. It was named liberal socialism, which meant nothing but the elimination of unearned income. But he saw a moment of social development in the elimination of unearned income based on the feudal latifundia.

Jászi was convinced that the abolition of latifundism or the land distribution and the introduction of genuine universal suffrage would solve the nationality question. He then paid

special attention to Denmark, where they produced twice as much wheat as in Hungary before the First World War on the basis of land distribution.(52) Such Danish farmers were, according

to Jászi, "urbane and cultivated, open and brave people in contrast to sneaky and humble Hungarian peasants".(53) He maintained that the land distribution to the dwarf holders and

landless peasants without national discrimination would be the "morality of nation-building" and the "barometer of democracy".

In this way, the land reform on the Danish model (the creation of peasant proprietors and

their cooperatives) and the liberation of national minorities on the Swiss model (national self-determination and their federalization) became X and Y axis of Jászi's reorganization plan

of the monarchy. That is, the conception of "independence to re-union" was based on Jászi's conviction that "men will reach a stage of internationalism only after passing through the nation".(54) But, how did his key concept harmonize with Sacro Egoismo of nationalities and

land famine of peasantry? In this respect, he was so optimistic as to say that they were only negative patrimony of feudalism to be solved in the world-wide reformism of the early 20th

century.

29

Eastern SwitzerlandJászi's reorganization project of dualism to pentarchy by the historic nations such as

German, Hungarian, Pole, Czech and South Slav was a friendly reply to the Austro-Slavism.

But his project of Eastern Switzerland did not reach the historical Hungary. One of the reasons he was so negative about the federalization of Hungary was that the Hungarian cultural and

economic hegemony would not be an obstacle to the Danubian cooperation if the forcible Hungarianization stopped.(55) The other one was lack of the indispensable condition for the federalization. That is, in his view, Hungary had no economic and geographic possibilities of

separation, no tradition of territorial autonomy, and more than anything else, no consciousness of the multinational state.(56) Contemporary political leaders including Jászi could not break

with the concept of historic nations of the 19th century; they underestimated the dynamism of "unhistoric nations".(57) It can not be denied that Jászi's idea of Eastern Switzerland was—to quote Béla K. Király—nothing but the "half-century-old Kossuth project".(58)

One of the rightist brains of Count Tisza, Mihály Réz discovered the danger of Romanian nationalism and Pan-Slavism in Jászi's discourse.(59) In the summer of 1918, he contributed an

article of "Racial problems from a political viewpoint" to the Huszadik Század. In the next number of the journal, Jászi published an article against it. Then he brought out a booklet composed of his own and Réz's articles with twelve persons' comments in January 1919.

In connection with Réz-Jászi controversy, Concha reviewed that "Réz knows nothing about human being, and separates the basis of rule and power from freedom; that is erroneous. On the

other hand, Jászi understands only half of the nation, and lacks the understanding of human being's freedom".(60) While Concha was equally distant to both of them, Jenő Rákosi criticized

the latter severely on the former's side. According to him, Jászi believed that harmoney and cooperation between Hungarians and nationalities could be created by abolishing the forcible

Hungarianization in the country.(61) Jászi's reorganization plan of the monarchy would, in Rákosi's opinion, "promote the thoughtless arming of the peoples as well as the greedy neighbors' ambitions, and plunge the nation into catastrophe; the weakening of the Hungarians

would lead to the break up of historical kingdom. Jászi's idea is nice and interesting, but politically worthless and even dangerous".(62)

Count Tisza's criticism of Civic Radicals Prior to 1883, the social circles of feudal and economic elite were only three: Nemzeti

Casino of aristocracy, Országos Casino of gentry, and Lipótváros Casino of bourgeoisie. The former two Casinos also accepted the Jewish economic elite, but only after their conversion.(63)

Thence by 1910, nine casinos were newly opened; Terézváros Casino was one of them.

30

Terézváros next to Lipótváros was a district of Jewish petty bourgeoisie.

Three months earlier than the Liberal Party's defeat of elections in January 1905, prime minister Count István Tisza talked proudly at this Casino as follows. "Just contrast the picture of our country in 1866 with that of 1896: thirty years of such flourishing, such growth, such

increase of material, spiritual, moral and intellectual entrepreneur! Should it be so easy to tear out such thirty years from the life of a nation?"(64) That was a severe reply not only to the Civic

Radicals but to the national extremists who had required to get rid of the Compromise regime. The point is that the cityscape of Budapest (economic development) and the national self-portrait of Hungarians (concept of the nation) had the same focus in his eyes.

István Tisza was a son of Kálmán Tisza, a founder of the gentry state and a premier for fifteen years between 1875 and 1890. He was a successful man of gentry origin. Becoming a

member of the House of Representatives at the age of twenty-five, he succeeded to his uncle's title of count in 1897 and possessed 2,000 holds [150 ha] of land. He stayed in power twicebetween 1903-1905 and 1913-1917.

Five years later after the defeat of elections, he made a new party (the National Labor Party) and returned to power in the elections of 1910. Thence, in order to make a clearance of

the civic radicalism in the fields of social science and literature—in his words "decadence influenced by the serious illness of French spirit", he started a journal of Magyar Figyelő in cooperation with Ferenc Herczeg of German background, and confronted with the Jászi group

and "decadence" of Ady. Count Tisza warned in his first article of the journal that Budapest should not be a city of

coffee houses filled with "frivolous chatter, backbiting, gossip, semi-educated superficiality, arrogant posturing and impotent dreariness". He maintained that they were amusement places

for "foreigners", therefore Hungarians should be back to "the intimate warmth of family and friends".(65) To him, Ady who had become an idol of the coffee houses was a "betrayer of the

gentry class". He wrote it in the journal next year that "how could anyone compare Vörösmarty's mature and ethical world view, logical thought, and clean, noble and distinguished emotional life with Ady's nonsensical bombast, concealing a spiritual anarchy

and emptiness of mind and heart?"(66) According to Hegedüs, Count Tisza's friend and admirer of Ady, when Ady became a topic of conversation, Count Tisza said disdainfully, twitching his

face and raising his voice, that "Ady and the Nyugat are plant-lice on the palm tree of Hungarian culture".(67) The Nyugat was a magazine started in January 1908 by the second-generation of financial magnates such as Ferenc Chorin the younger and Baron Lajos

Hatvany as well as some founders of GyOSz. Its representative Lajos Hatvany was a son of sugar king Baron Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch. Ady and Jászi were at the same gymnasium in the northeastern district of Transylvania.

31

When Jászi published The Emergence of Nation State and the Nationality Question in 1912, he

raved about the book saying that Jászi finally accomplished a monumental work to solve the racial problems.(68) Szekfű wrote about such Ady in his Három Nemzedék that "those who could not touch the mind of Hungarians because of their half-assimilation, utilized full-blooded

Hungarian Ady as their mouthpiece".(69) However, Count Tisza was like his father sternly critical about such attempt. He protested in a parliamentary speech of May 1911 against the

tendency to identify the Jews with the progressive movement. "I believe that various trends coexist among the Jews, ranging the darkest bigotry to atheism, and we should not exploit this issue as free material for further incitement and set the Hungarian national society on fire".(70)

Count Bethlen's criticism of Civic Radicals Count István Bethlen (prime minister 1921-31) also warned of the dangers created by the radical intellectuals in the parliament of July 5, 1918. According to him, "the political radicalism is produced not only by the working class but by a part of newcomer intellectuals

who can not be assimilated with the Hungarian state. From the standpoint of their moral sense and world view, they might not accept the tradition, the idea and the historical understanding

of the Hungarian nation".(71) While he concluded that gentry had to "fight against these radical intellectuals to halt their securing political power",(72) he alerted Count Mihály Károlyi to the dangers of his alliance with the Civic Radicals as well as the national minorities.(73) It was his

very caution against the postwar revolution. Count Bethlen confessed in the parliament of 1925 that "a nation needs intellectuals as its

leaders because of their national feeling, tradition, learning, experience and patriotism. Intellectual class with independent properties is indispensable to the life of a nation. Hungarian

society has two propertied classes: one is landed aristocrats, and the other is urban Jewry. However, lateiner (professionals) can not be regarded as a class with independent properties.

The civic radicalism that Jászi group advocated and Károlyi party sympathized with did not take the Hungarian way of life into consideration".(74)

Szekfű-Jászi controversyJászi contended in his book of 1912 that "all political, national, socio-cultural initiatives

have originated from the cities".(75) Szekfű argued back in Három Nemzedék saying that it was totally false.(76) He spoke with conviction that the tragedy such as the collapse of historical Hungary was a result of "an excess of Western liberal spirit" in the big city's culture and

certain "racial sins of Hungarians" combined with the corrosive influences of Jewish radicalism and internationalism.(77) Jászi argued against Szekfű in his English work of 1929 as

follows.

32

To speak of an excess of liberalism in Hungarian institutions is the greatest possible, self-deception. The so-called racial sins (vanity, conceit, short-lived zeal, self-deception, megalomany, disregard of reality, inertia, contempt of productive work) were only the

historical consequences of the social, economic and intellectual facts of a war-like feudal society. And certain detrimental effects of the Jewish influence (usury, economic

exploitation and reinforcement of the chauvinistic tendencies) were far less racial problems than the sickness of a society in which the masses of the peasantry and of the working-classes led a life of slow starvation and mental decay under the pressure of an

anachronistic and cruel class domination.(78)

Jászi and the Civic Radicals were front-running libertarians as well as believers of progress and innovation. Probably for that reason they overestimated the Anglo-American democracy. They believed that by abolishing the latifundism, democratization of the rural life would

advance as fast as anything in America,(79) and the forcible foreign rule being put an end, voluntary assimilation would serve the host-country with "agricultural values with earthy

smelling".(80) However, as Péter Kende mentioned, the Civic Radicals did not have even "smell of daily life".(81) They were urban intellectuals to the end. Gyurgyák deems that Jászi had no Jewish identity with him, but in public eyes, his circle looked like a "Jewish salon".(82)

Jászi put it out in his publication of 1920 over the postwar revolutions that "at least 95 per cent of the Communist leaders were Jewish".(83) He explained it was due to the fact that "the

Hungarian ghetto is much less assimilated than in the West; it is virtually an independent body in society, which has never been really in contact with the traditional spirit of the country".(84)

What a stereotype argument! Summing up of the postwar revolutions by such an old-fashioned view on the Jews tells his defeatism.

Szekfű remarked on Jászi's explanation about the relationship between Communists and Eastern Jews that "his contention is unjust to the Jewish oldtimers, but aptly applied in the case of newcomers from the east". Szekfű concluded in addition that "reading these views, I won't

be able to blame him for his former biased opinions against Hungarians".(85) This is never their reconciliation. It was just Szekfű's cynical shout of triumph to his mortal opponent. He always

put his old enemy's original family name Jakubovics in parentheses when he wrote about Jászi.The source of "95 per cent" matter Jászi mentioned above is unknown, but overly a

sensational description.(86) In order to connect communism with "half-assimilated" Jews, he

apparently ignored the plain fact that "the majority of the Jewry had nothing to do with communism".(87) This remains as one of his greatest guiltiness to the later Hungarian studies.

33

Responsibility of the intellectualsRegarding the responsibility of intellectuals, Szekfű is not without exception, either. As

Irene Raab Epstein pointed out, he never acknowledged any responsibility for the harmful influence he exerted by Három Nemzedék.(88) The title of his last article is "Metamorphosis of

the postwar intellectuals",(89) but it is he who underwent a metamorphosis most. Although Szekfű was not a member of the Communist Party, he gave a lecture on Lenin at the Opera

Theater before leaving for Moscow as a minister in early 1946. The lecture was given for celebrating the founder of the Soviet Union about whom "almost all Hungarians did not know" then. It was sponsored by the Cultural Association of Hungary and the Soviet Union.

Szekfű praised Lenin greatly there. "Lenin is the most influential political leader in the five continents. He is a maestro who raised politics to the art. We can see a creative spirit of the

modern world in him".(90) Szekfű who was the most critical of the Hungarian Soviet Republic after World War I, grolified the proletarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union as follows. "Dictatorship of the proletariat is not the party's dictatorship. There are all of the proletariat

behind the vanguard party. Although the dictatorship is a forcible power system, the party can not exercise its power without the confidence of proletarian masses".(91) He adorned his

metamorphosis in this lecture, peppering his speech so often with such words as "three generations" or "exile" from the titles of his works among the unfamiliar leftist terms.(92)

Szekfű maintained that the Soviet Union had made Hungary free at great expense, so that "we

Hungarians have to understand the Soviet Union as much as possible, learning Leninism and its succeeding Stalinism".(93) It is a very speech of scholar under the government's thumb.

László Németh diagnosed that Szekfű had learned "very cautious conformism" as a lesson from the incident of 1913 occasioned by a serious slip of the pen (see chapter 5).(94) István Bibó

who was opposed to Szekfű and his disciple Domokos Kosáry, expressed the following opinion in an interview.

I know Szekfű's achievements very well, but I thought of him as a vicious and mean establishmentarian. I watched him ingratiate himself with any authority after 1945, too.

[…] I found that Németh's diagnosis of "very cautious conformism" was quite right.(95)

On the other hand, Jászi in exile finished writing a book of Against the Tyrant with his colleague in 1955. He denounced it in his part that "the Marxian ideal of the communist state could not be realized by the method and spirit of democracy. Lenin's application of the

communist revolution to Russia had already involved an unscrupulous undermining of the beginning of democratic institutions in Russia in order to achieve Bolshevik power; and he had

frankly transformed the Marxian dictatorship of the proletariat into the still narrower

34

dictatorship of the party that was its vanguard". Then Jászi concluded Leninism's succeeding

Stalinism to be a "true tyranny".(96) The Szekfű-Jászi controversy which started at first on the modernization of Hungary shifted to the international politics under the cold war.

35

Four: Arguments on the Jews in the early 20th Century

The Zionist magazine Múlt és Jövő was launched by József Patai in 1911. The Catholic

People's Party accused the magazine of fostering Jewish consciousness and separatism two years later.(1) In their eyes, his activity was a defiant attitude to the Hungarianization policy

although Zionists were minor in the then Hungarian Jewry. Along with the development of the First World War, the massive Jewish refugees reached Hungary from Galicia occupied by the Russian army, which accelarated the hard feeling toward the Hungarian Jewry. Patai pointed

out that "anti-Jewish arguments in the parliament or in the press and the Galician Jewish refugees have nothing to do with each other. They are raising a voice against the children and

grandchildren of yesterday's Galicianers, that is, the entire Hungarian Jewry".(2) In theparliament of August 1918, Count Tisza vehemently deplored the spread of anti-Semitism and accompanying accusations against war profiteers.(3)

Ágoston's book in 1917Ágoston, a member of the Social Science Society and the freemason lodge which Jászi led,

published The Way of the Jews in March 1917 when the Galician Jewish refugees and the big capitalists caused anti-Jewish arguments. The book was composed of six parts; the most

impressive was the third part of "the nature of Jews". Out of its twelve chapters, one chapter was dealing with the "two kinds of Jew", and five chapters were related to the "Jewish Jews".

He wrote that "the host society is just a colony to be exploited" for the Jewish Jews who were "apt to evade physical labor as much as possible",(4) and stirred up great troubles in the Jewry.

In Ágoston's view, there were two types in the Jewry: the non-Jewish Jews accepted the modernization and the Jewish Jews adhered to their ancient traditions. The point is that "the

modernized non-Jewish Jews have no ability to civilize the backward Eastern Jews in a short time, and Hungarians can not integrate for themselves the newcomers into their life, either".(5)

If such circumstances last further, he continued, "it is inevitable for Hungarian Jews to be

decivilized. It means that the Hungarian Jewry would turn to one of the nationalities, and that is destructive to Hungarians".(6) Then he regarded the current Jewish question as the problems

of "maladjusted Jews", or "fanatic" Jewish Jews who planned to sweep away not only theChristians but the reformist Jews; he proposed the non-Jewish Jews to sever their relations with the Jewish Jews whose way of thinking, ethics and sensitivity were completely different from

the Neolog's.(7)

The forerunner who told the Jewish reformists to break with the Eastern counterpart was Miklós

Bartha, MP of the Independence Party. He reported in his essay of 1901 that the sound middle class

36

had not be formed in the Carpatho-Ukraine because of the harmful influence of Jewish usurers from

Galicia. "They do not learn and improve themselves. They do not take a bath. They are industrious only in business and having children".(8) He also described that "the Hungarians of Mosaic faith are gifted with poesy and music, and desirous to learn and ambitious" but the

"proliferous like a worm, practical like a sparrow and destructive like a rat" Galician Jews were different race.(9)

Jenő Cholnoky also pointed out the difference between Hungarianized Jews and "vulgar and ignorant Galicianers who speak broken German (i.e. Yiddish)". The former is a purely religious body but the latter is an ethnic one in the "ridiculous" long coat and with "peculiar"

ringlets on the sideburns. "They do not make much of their families; men and women frequent coffee houses, wander about on the streets, and gather in front of the shops. As a result, home

training of their children is ignored. This is a serious problem"—he showed his distaste for the culture of immigrants. According to him, it was a point of the Jewish question that this serious problem could not be settled by the assimilated Jews of "racially another origin".(10)

Therefore, Cholnoky emphasized that "the immigration of the vulgar and ignorant Galician Jews should be halted by every possible means". Unassimilated Jewish immigrants should be

regarded as "ethnic"; this criterion would be applied to the unassimilated oldtimers, too. Sociologists who advocated cosmopolitanism as well as internationalism, and disregarded the Hungarian traditions were—he deemed—almost Jewish; most of the writers and artists who

mocked and dishonored the traditional beauty, greatness and holiness were also Jewish. "We do not require the Jews to be ennobled; conversion is not necessary. What is necessary for them is

to learn the real culture of Christian society, and to educate their children patriotism". However, it is the actual state of our country—he concluded—that "immigrant Eastern Jews who are not

fully absorbed into the Hungarian society have reproduced troubles which we call Jewish question".(11)

Győző Concha also claimed that "most of the Christian farmers whose smallholdings were bought by the Jewish industrialists and financers were forced to emigrate". But he was coolheaded compared with Cholnoky. Concha said that Jews had been allies of Hungarians

since 1848 revolution and contributed to rising the standard of living after the Compromise. They were linguistically assimilated sooner than the other minorities, and became a cultural

and political agent of Hungarians in the nationality areas. After the outbreak of the First World War, they fulfilled their duties in the battlefield and devoted themselves to the welfare activities on the home front.(12)

Concha attributed the Jewish question to the transfiguration of Jewry at the turn of the century, that is, "their younger generation has turned to another direction". He apparently

indicated Jászi type radicalism or Western orientation of Hatvany in the statement. For him,

37

the Jews who ridiculed the Hungarian traditional culture from the viewpoint of Western values

were "alien" and "hidden enemy". In his view, Christian society embodied a "rule of right", but Jews preferred a "military rule".(13) As the Jewish influence broke into not only the economic field but the spiritual life, the gentry's leadership was jeopardized. A marked decline of the

gentry's leadership was—in his words—partly due to the Hungarian ariostocrats who looked down on the gentry class, but partly as a result of fierce competition with the Jewish

bourgeoisie.(14) So that, in order to soften this antagonism between gentry and Jewish elite, Concha demanded a concession of the Jews for the traditional intellectuals.

If this will not happen, that is, if the Jewish elite insist on their leading part on the basis of internationalism and anti-Christian line, there would be two guidance divisions in a

nation. That is very dangerous. In that case, we should expect a bitter and open struggle for the supremacy of the national and Christian idea. […] But it is common sense to think that Jews will restrain themselves from such an outrageous struggle as to be a

leader of our society. They still have an important task to infuse into the Hungarian nation certain talents and virtues that we lack.(15)

As well as previously mentioned Count Bethlen's confession in the parliament, Concha's statement is also regarded as a warning against the postwar revolutions.

Radicalism of the refugees Between 1918 and 1924, about 350,000 individuals were registered as refugees from the detached areas, but the real number was estimated more than 420,000.(16) Their largest group

(42.9%) was consisted of the former state and county subordinates such as notary, teacher, policeman and gendarme. The second group (34.4%) was of the employees of commerce and

industry, small business owners or handicraftsmen. A group of gentry and aristocratic landowners was the third (18.1%), but the most active and powerful in politics.(17) Therefore more than three quarters of the refugees were on the lower middle class. Among them the

subordinate officials (gentroid) were composed of educated petty bourgeois national minorities, mostly of German citizens.(18) The former subordinates who became unemployed and homeless

were the most bitter victims of the collapse of historical Hungary.(19)

Miklós Kozma (minister of interior, 1935-37) observed the miserable destiny of the notarywho worked as an agent of the foreign rule, wrote down as follows. "In Macsola

(sub-Carpathian region) the village folks deliberately disinterred a naturally deceased notary's body, and dumped it into a ditch of the cemetery".(20) Kozma's description tells much about a

dreadful foreign rule of the time. Statistical evidence indicates that, during the first half of

38

November 1918, 40 per cent of notaries (the national average) were expelled, whereas 66 per

cent in Temes prefecture, now in Romania.(21) Another data estimates that about one third of notaries fled from Hungarian villages, 50 per cent from Slovak areas, and almost 90 per centfrom Romanian regions.(22) In any case, the subordinate officials such as village notaries who

had a direct contact with the natives at the bottom of the ruling system symbolized the old authority after the upper officials returned home.

However, what the bitter refugees saw in Trianon Hungary was a Jewish overwhelming share among the professions. Here emerged a keen socio-economic competition in the shrinking country between the Jews (roughly 473,000 individuals, 5.9 per cent of the

population in 1920) and the refugees (estimated 426,000 individuals, or 5.3 per cent), especially between the Jewish and Chrisrian middle classes. The decisive factor which

switched this kind of friction acutely to a political anti-Semitism was an odious trauma of the Soviet Republic in particular: Jewish high participation and commanding positions during the Communist dictatorship. The people's commissars from cities ordered to reconstruct religious

buildings into movie theaters or to "sow wheat seeds in April".(23) Such a feeling of wrongness to the urbanism of the young commissars accelerated anti-Semitism in the villages. It was the

ressentiment of refugees that elevated the villagers' ill feeling toward the Jews to the so-called Szeged idea or the leading ideology of the interwar period. Szeged is a city where counter-government was established. There Christian nationalism,

paranoid fear of communism and anti-Semitism were amalgamated into an idea by those who were seeking for the revitalization of Christians at the expense of Jewish middle class.

However, this right radicalism was hostile not only to the Jews but to the feudal aristocrats who spent almost all of their lives abroad. In the right radicals' eyes, feudal elite looked

foreigners because of their cosmopolitan appearance and familiarity with Jewish elite.The Szeged idea was created in a great many secret associations. They became an

enormous nation-wide network owing to the combination of prominent figures. The most powerful association was the League of Etelköz. Etelköz was a place of blood pledge where ancient Hungarian tribes elected Árpád their chieftain. Bishop Prohászka played a positive role

among them.(24)

Some secret associations were connected with Turanism. Turanism rallied non-Aryan

peoples against Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism around the year of millenial festival. The first president (1910-18) of the Turanian Society was Count Pál Teleki (prime minister, 1920-21; 1939-41), the second (1921-37) was Gyula Pekár, and the third (1939-44) was Jenő

Cholnoky. The real activities were chiefly carried out by the leading members of the agrarian organizations.(25) The Society refounded in the counter-revolutionary movement proclaimed in

1921 that they would "refuse blind obedience to the West" in order to fight against the "Jewish

39

corruption and Aryan decadence".(26)

The Szeged idea was practised by such organizations as the National Defense League and the Association of Awakening Hungarians. The former was recruited mainly from military officers, whereas the latter from civil officials and intellectuals. According to Mócsy, out of the

29 leaders of the Awakening Hungarians 14 persons were born in the lost territories, or resided there in 1918.(27) Randolph L. Braham pointed out that the Awakening Hungarians had been

more violent than the National Defense League.(28)

The most influential leader of these organizations was Horthy's right hand, Gyula Gömbös (prime minister, 1932-36). His father was a Protestant teacher of gentry origin, but his mother

was from one of the richest Swabian families in the village.(29) He was merely a captain of the general staff earlier, but became vice-minister of war in the Szeged counter-government.

Hungarian Germans including Gömbös played a significant role in the military life; so that the army became a center of the right wing extremism. Hungarian Germans used to talk about the Christian fight against Jewry. One reason was

that they were not chosen as the strategic partner of feudal elite; another reason was their repulsion toward the remarkable socio-economic progress and rapidly growing influence of

Jews. As George Barany indicated, as long as the Hungarian economy was expanding and the state bureaucracy was able to absorb the historic intelligentsia, the issue of middle class anti-Semitism did not become acute.(30) (The middle class here means the gentry for the most

part and its assistant gentroid.) However, as the Trianon peace treaty reduced the state into a third of the old one, division of labor was put an end between the public officials (gentry and

gentroid) in the state administration and the Jews in the private sectors such as commerce, industry and finance.

Cécile Tormay While the neo-conservatives around the turn of the century hastily connected "the influx of Eastern Jews with the efflux of Hungarians", the postwar right radicals related "the revolutions with Jews". Cécile Tormay's Bujdosó Könyv [Diary in exile] published in December 1920 was

a typical example of the postwar incitement politics. The title of her book originated from the fact that as a leader of the women's organization for the counter-revolution, she had led a

fugitive life during the Soviet Republic. This novel was translated into English, German and French at the suggestion of Count Kunó Klebelsberg, minister of religion and education [1922-31] in the Bethlen government. Being suppressed in Hungary after World War II, it was

reprinted in the 1990s in her homeland, too. Tormay regarded the Jews as a herald of the Russian revolution. She declared that "those

such as Trotsky, Radek and Joffe are relatives of the Jews living in Budapest".(31) This writing

40

was dated on November 2. So that historically the Communist Party was not founded in

Hungary. Nevertheless, she created the image of Jewish agents of the Bolsheviki at this point.She added the German "stab-in-the-back" theory to this. "My worst fears came true. Enemies lurk behind us, and dream of realizing what they could not do at the front. They belonged to

the Masonic Science Society or academies longing for free thoughts. Most of the members of Galilei Circle are Jewish youths".(32) The Masonic Science Society meant here the Social

Science Society obviously.According to Tormay's calculation, the National Council (original body of the postwar

republican revolution) was composed of eleven Jews including Baron Lajos Hatvany and eight

"sinful" Hungarians such as Count Mihály Károlyi.(33) She then indicated that "the revolutionary government has three, nay, five Jewish ministers substantially".(34) The five

ministers of Jewish background were supposed to be Jászi (minister of national minorities) and Pál Szende (minister of finance) from the Civic Radicals, and Kunfi (minister of labor and welfare), Ernő Garami (minister of commerce) and Diner-Dénes (vice-minister of foreign

affairs) from the Social Democrats. (In those days Hungary had no independent ministry of foreign affairs; so foreign minister was served concurrently by Károlyi himself.) As an avowed

anti-Semite, she used the practice of putting their original family names in parentheses. "Throw off your mask!" Tormay often cried. Then liberal and radical journalists removed their masks. "My God! Unmasked their faces were never Hungarianlike".(35) She wrote down

with rage against the revolutionary demonstration of the Jews "under the mask of Hungarians".

As a result of devouring all the Galician immigrants for years, Budapest swelled like a huge stomack. It is now in the conditions of feeling sick. […] Around the Syrianlike (i.e.

Jewish: German racist terminology) faces and figures, red hammers and placards were whirling. The mob such as Freemasons, feminists, journalists, Galilei Circle, regulars of

the suburban coffee houses and the stock exchanges are rising in riot in the main street. Alas! Soldiers from the ghetto of the Dob street are marching with Hungarian tricolor cockade on their caps.(36)

Tormay made an attack not on Count Károlyi from a distinguished family but on Jászi who

"had earwigged Károlyi".(37) In her eyes, Jászi was the prime mover of the republican revolution. "The internationalist from Galicia who had aimed at reorganizing our country into Eastern Switzerland" hated everything Hungarian as if he wanted to destroy all

intentionally.(38) But Jászi—in her words—"made every preparation for his race when he spoke of our country".(39) That is, through the Eastern Switzerland project "he is trying to separate the

tree-clad provinces such as Máramaros, Bereg, Ung and Ugocsa next to Galicia from the

41

organic whole".(40)

To Tormay, image of the Jews was agent of Bolshevism on the one hand, they were those who "cut off their ringlets on the sideburns when they arrived in Kassa (town of eastern Slovakia), tore up their caftan in Miskolc (town of northeastern Hungary), and climbed to be

barons of millionaires in Budapest"(41) on the other hand. However, this is not a "two kinds of Jew" theory. She had never recognized distinction between "good Jews" and "bad Jews".

According to her expression, Tormay feared "the senses seeping through the Jews". She declared that "the source of Jewish violence is their senses. They stretch imagination and acquire energies from them".(42) The suggestive account on the school education during the

Soviet Republic which she called "devil's laboratory"(43) comes from her physiological distaste for the Jewish "senses".(44)

Born in 1875, Tormay was as old as Károlyi, Klebelsberg, Jászi and Gratz. So in the periodof the postwar revolutions, she was over forty years old. Her father, an authority of veterinary science obtained a rank of nobility in 1896, and crimbed to be vice-minister of agriculture.

Until her grandfather, the family name was Krenmüller. (Her great-grandfather of mother's side was Spiegel.) In this point, Tormay belonged to the second-generation of the assimilated

family just like Jászi. It is explained at the end of the reprinted Bujdosó Könyv that she had some German and French ancestors. But Mária M. Kovács points out clearly that Tormay came from a family of German settlers, and her usage of the term "native" as against the "alien" race

was symptomatic of the kind of assimilationist zealotry so common to minority intellectuals in a nationalist culture.(45)

According to the date of her writing, Tormay formed the National Union of Hungarian Women in January 1919.(46) There at that time Archbishop Count János Mikes was present,

who was "one of the supreme leaders of counter-revolution".(47) Archbishop Mikes was—she wrote—so much sympathetic to their thoughts and activities.(48) They say she held three

hundred thousand supporters by March of the year. However, such capacity for attracting people can not be assumed without the assistance of the Catholic Church and its mass organizations.

Neolog's view on the JewsWhile Lajos Venetianer's History of Hungarian Jews (1922) which emphasized the Jewish

patriotism and their devotion to the fatherland was written to the Christian citizens,(49) the Jewish Lexicon (34 authors) was edited for their communities in 1929 in order to recover the

Jewish identity. Venetianer dealt with the Catholic People's Party in thirteen pages long, in which he

recognized that they had disturbed the "country's peace" for twenty years because of their

42

demagogy and anti-Semitism.(50) He also indicated that the core supporters of the party were

land lost government men (i.e. gentry) filled with discontent.(51) However, he looked at theiranti-Semitism only in the agricultural depression and the decay of gentry citing Szekfű'sHárom Nemzedék very long for his analysis.(52) (Yes, he had read the book!) Nevertheless,

Venetianer avoided referring to the intimate relationship between Szekfű and neo-conservatism. Besides, he did not argue back the government commissioner's report saying that "Máramaros

Jews or immigrants from Russia and Galicia are not real Jews like Hungarian Jews. They are not Jewish but Khazar descendants".(53) It was nothing but a recognition of the "two kinds of Jew" theory by the Neolog leader. During the Upper House debate on the second Jewish bill of

1939, Lajos Láng also addressed in the name of Neolog Jews that "we have nothing to do with those so-called Eastern, caftan-wearing Jews".(54)

The Jewish Lexicon not only recorded the well-known achievements of ancient and modern Jewish people but criticized the most vicious apocryphal book of the 20th century: theProtocols of the Elders of Zion, and expressed its opinion about many important issues such as

Zionism and intermarriage.(55) As it aimed at regaining the Jewish solidarity, the Lexicon did not have hostility toward Zionism, but wrote clearly the existence of a dissentient voice.

Moreover, it underlined the prohibitive view on the intermarriage, which had parallel with Lajos Szabolcsi's appeal for reconsideration to the converts whose number visibly increased after the fall of Soviet Republic.(56) It was only two years and three months since he boasted

Vázsonyi's assumption of the ministry of justice a victory of their patriotic assimilation movement. It was nothing but a dilemma of the Neolog's assimilation strategy.

The Lexicon also dealt with the Catholic People's Party in the article of anti-Semitism, but only described that "the People's Party was not so noisy and intolerant as Istóczy's anti-Semitic

Party".(57) The author of the article stated in somewhat flattering tone that "most of the racist leaders were not native Magyars but Slavic and German descendants".(58) Vera Ranki wrote

that the Jewish Lexicon had been "part of the mirage of their nationalistic identity as Jewish Hungarians".(59)

43

Five: Három Nemzedék of Szekfű

Szekfű was born in 1883 into a Catholic family in Székesfehérvár of the Transdanubia,

which contained a number of assimilated German population. The city was Bishop Prohászka's headquarter and the People's Party was formed there. His father was a lawyer of renown who

had been a supporter of the Independence Party, but became one of the originators of the People's Party.

Trauma of 1913 incidentAfter graduating from the Budapest university, Szekfű worked for a museum and archives

in Budapest for a while, then in Vienna since 1908. He got into trouble because of a book he published in 1913. In the book entitled Rákóczi in Exile, he described the hallowed kuruc leader as "a manager of gambling house who longed for a boss of pirates".(1) The fierce

resentment of Hungarian public was directed against the book and resulted in his ostracism. To Szekfű, kuruc leaders such as Rákóczi and Kossuth were so eager for independence and

ignored the real politics that they were the principals who had ruined the country. When he published the Hungarian State in German (the title of Hungarian edition was the Biography of Hungarian State) in 1917, the public outrage against him was supposed to be created again.

Therefore, he remained in Vienna even after Három Nemzedék was brought out at the end of1920.

The Independence Party which took up the reins of government in the elections of 1905 brought back Rákóczi's ashes from Turkey and reburied them next year. It was seven years

later that Szekfű's maiden work caused a scandal. Thereupon, being confronted with kuruc legend,*(i) Szekfű was denounced as a "traitor who was bribed by the Austrian government for

the purpose of blackening the name of Hungarian hero deliberately". Aladár Ballagi, asecond-generation of converted Jew as well as a professor of the Budapest university and a member of the Independence Party, was in the van of those who impeached Szekfű's book for

betraying his fatherland.(2) The Academy of Sciences did not play a role of mediator between the author of the book and its critics.(3) Those who stood by Szekfű on the ground of academic

freedom were only Jászi's tiny circle and Lajos Szabolcsi's group around the Egyenlőség. Being supported by Count Apponyi, Ballagi aimed at rapping liberal Frigyes Riedl (professor of the Budapest university) who had the responsibility of publishing the book. Szabolcsi

defended Szekfű for his teacher Riedl.(4)

*(i) Kuruc means originally the late 17th century anti-Habsburg movement of Protestant

44

nobility in Transylvania. At the end of the 19th century, the romantic historiography made

Prince Rákóczi II a nation-wide hero and created a kuruc legend.

Motive of Három NemzedékIn the early 20th century, the linguistic assimilationism of Hungary was confronted with

the common army which regarded Hungarian as one of the nationality languages. Therefore, in

the elections of 1905 before re-contracting the Compromise law two years later, it became a hot issue between the governing Liberal Party and the opposition parties.

Most of those who had supported the ruling party were optimistic that there would be no

confusion if they rode along with the campaign of national radicals. However, on the contrary to their forecast, the result was a great trouble. Out of the 413 seats, the Liberals gained 159

whereas the opposition parties got 231 seats: the Independence Party 166, the Constitution Party led by Count Andrássy the younger 27, the Catholic People's Party 25, The New Party of Baron Dezső Bánffy 13. After the elections, the National Party of Count Apponyi joined the

coalition. This political upheaval was, according to the confession of Gratz, due to the result that the urban intellectuals were also involved in the nationalistic enthusiasm after the

Millennial festival, and could not stand boldly against the kuruc legend.(5)

Although the political power was regained by Count Tisza's reorganized National Labor Party, the fire of kuruc legend was not extinguished. Nay, the national radicals were looking

for a scapegoat to be sacrificed on the altar. Then was Szekfű a stray sheep in the yard of the shrine? All in all, the incident of 1913 left a permanent mark on his life.(6) Három Nemzedék

was something by which he escaped from this trauma. He wrote that in its introduction as followes. "This book is my personal experience. The catastrophe of October 1918 and the

collapse of Austria-Hungary gave a serious shock to us, Hungarian intellectuals in particular. I felt that I would never be able to recover myself without investigating the causes of decline

which had led us to this disaster as well as the forces that had dragged my nation out of its healthy development. Thus did I come to write this book, and thus did I redeem my soul".(7)

However, did he really write the work from the viewpoint of purely intellectual and

spiritual catharsis? According to Gyurgyák, Szekfű did not refer to the Jewish question untilthe publication of Három Nemzedék.(8) It may have nothing to do with his wife's Jewish

background.(9) Hardly surprising if he tried to rehabilitate himself by criticizing the Liberals and making peace with the national radicals. Since the incident of 1913, he had been "in exile" in the archives of Vienna and held uncontrollable ressentiment just like the refugees. In the

second edition of the book (1922), he confessed frankly that he had written it only for three chapters,*(ii) in which he dealt with the relation between the dismemberment of historical

Hungary and the Jewish immigration.(10)

45

As well as Tormay's Bujdosó Könyv, in late 1920 when Szekfű published Három

Nemzedék, Hungarian society was completely confused because of the two revolutions and the counter-revolution as well as the Trianon peace treaty. Hungarians were looking for their new national identity. In response to the nation's sincere desire, he accepted the ressentiment of the

refugees, systematized and reasoned it out historically saying that the collapse of historical Hungary was a result of "national illusion" which assimilated Jews provided to the lonely

Hungarians with no sib, and let them underestimate the power of national minorities.(11) As soon as a keen compitition started in the labor market between the Jews at home and the refugees from the prewar territory, he charged the Jewish immigration and assimilation which

Liberal governments promoted. Szekfű denounced that those intellectuals who had prepared the "anti-national revolutions" were sons of assimilated Jewish fathers such as Jászi and his

circle.(12) They were "children of the immoral Russian Jews who organized the unintelligent Hungarian working class and carried the Bolshevik experiment".(13)

*(ii) "Liberalism and Jewish question" (part 2, chapter 9), "The beginning of capitalism and the Jewish role" (part 3, chapter 7) and "The Jewish role and the culture of Budapest" (part 4,

chapter 5).

Liberalism and the influx of Eastern JewsThe title of his work means three generations of liberalism, almost one century between

1825 and 1918. The first generation was from the national revival movement initiated by

Count Széchenyi to the War of Independence led by Kossuth in 1848-1849. The second was a generation of Count Gyula Andrássy and Kálmán Tisza who realized the Compromise of 1867.

Tisza extolled the Jews as an "industrious and constructive segment of the population" and Andrássy addressed that transportation needed the Jews and railroads, but Hungary was lack of

enough Jews.(14) The third generation was the period when Hungarian economy took off with the millenial festival of 1896. Most of the Jewish economic elite were ennobled in this period. Speaking symbolically, Szekfű regarded the three generations of liberalism advocated by

Kossuth, Kálmán Tisza, and his son István as a century of liberal illusion. He attributed the decline of Hungary to the immigration policy introduced in the first half of the 19th century.

As the Eastern Jews joined the Hungarian Jewry, the Jewish population was swollen. […] The administrations and inhabitants of Russia, Poland and the Ukraine did not solve

the problems of their Jewish society. Therefore, the Jews were forced to leave Galicia and Russia in order to be released from bad sanitary conditions and poverty. The Jewish

history of this new Diaspora can be well understood as a human being. A part of the

46

Russo-Polish Jews left for America, where they lived unassimilated in the ghetto of big

cities adhering to their ancestral low culture. However, most of them rushed into the neighboring countries. Romania did not accept them, but the liberalism of German, Austria and Hungary did not restrict their immigration. Subsequently, the nations of

these three countries encountered the similar situation today. That is, as the eastern borders were left open for the past thirty years, the newcomers with curious morality

overwhelmed the Jewish oldtimers who have settled for hundreds years. Accordingly, no wonder that these three nations are suffering from the Jewish problems. The problems can be seen everywhere. Monopoly of labor market and other problems will inevitably

lead them to the anti-Semitic feeling. The three Central European countries had completely different experiences with the Jewish new Diaspora from the Western

countries. There have also settled assimilated Jews in England, France and North European countries for hundreds years, but they can not understand the Jewish problems of the Central Europe because they had not experienced the massive influx of Eastern

Jews. In the above-mentioned Central European countries, liberalism did not permit closing the eastern borders against the great flood of Jewish immigrants. So that the

Carpatho-Ukraine where they settled first was finally reduced to extreme poverty.(15)

Szekfű pointed out that "the Jewish population passed the one million mark in 1914.

Hungarian nation realized the importance of the fact first when they reached 10 per cent of the total population. Half of one million were Eastern Jews who had immigrated for the recent few

decades".(16) Tormay resented that "Jews cut off their ringlets on the sideburns when they arrived in Kassa, tore up their caftan in Miskolc, and became rich barons in Budapest",

whereas Szekfű perceived that "the Jewish tavern-keeper at Máramaros pushed forward an enterprise in Budapest, and became a banker in Vienna".(17)

Liberal illusionSzekfű described that "the main problem of liberalism was to have dealt with the Jews not

as a race but as a religious body. That is why the solution of the Jewish question was so delayed. It was due to such understanding that they could not restrict the Jewish

immigration".(18) According to him, the radical liberalism of the first generation "denied all religious and ethnical differences for the benefit of making all persons equal, and gave a never-hoped possibility to Jewish merchants".(19) However, they did not take it into

consideration that the massive immigration of Eastern Jews would cause the acculturation of Hungary. Kossuth referred to the criminal acts of "the scum from Máramaros", but he did not

admit any "distinction between the immigrants from Galicia and native Hungarians".(20) Szekfű

47

denounced the "national illusion" of the Liberals who expected to increase the population of

Hungarians by assimilating a large number of immigrants.(21)

The liberal illusion of our country made the influx of Russo-Polish Jews much easier

than any other countries. Galician and Russian Jews who were long in the state of Asiatic conditions came across the Carpathian mountains. […] They enjoyed the improved and

comfortable circumstances, took off their traditional clothes (i.e. caftan), and learned Hungarian everyday language. Then the Liberals expected that the immigrants would soon become good Hungarians, that is, significant elements of the nation, just like the

Jewish oldtimers or Hungarian nobility and peasantry.(22)

We demanded superficial, only seeming but quick transformation from the

immigrants. Without looking into their soul, we were satisfied with their externalities of clothing and speech, and thus we fell into the gravest mistake. That was what Széchenyi feared mortally. […] We confused nationality with language, Hungarianness with

chattering in Hungarian, the eternal soul with the transient, deceptive exterior. It would seem to be wrong, but our mistake may have passed the point of no return.(23)

In this context, Szekfű reevaluated Győző Istóczy (Catholic and gentry origin) and his anti-Semitic Party founded in 1883. He wrote that "Istóczy had looked at the restriction of

Jewish immigration into Hungary for a long time in the right light. His anti-Semitic Party declared to protect the interests of small holders and handicraftsmen against the influx of

Eastern Jews and the spreading of capitalism. However, he diagnosed that illness of Hungarylay only in the Jewish question, but took no decisive measures against it or had no

socio-economic prospect to solve it. Therefore, anti-Semitism in Hungary was nipped in the bud".(24)

The anti-Semitic Party advocated "the elimination of the Jewish power" in the fields of press, finance, commerce, industry, transportation and agriculture in its program of March 1884, half a year later since the Tiszaeszlár trial concluded. In order to protect the interests of small

holders and agricultural laborers, Istóczy required the restriction of boundless economic freedom in the industrial world, the revision of criminal law favoring Jewish interests, the

prohibition of Jewish ownership of taverns with the right to sell alcoholic beverages, the restoration of Jewish oath*(iii) in the courts of law, the abrogation of the law ratifying marriages between Jews and Christians as well as the modification of the law of naturalization, and the

transference of the responsibility of keeping Jewish birth records to the civil authorities for the sake of preventing the Jewish immigration.(25) Although Istóczy's party won 17 seats (vicar

Ignác Zimándy was present among them) in the elections of 1884, it fizzled away in the 1890s.

48

However, its demagogic approach to the Eastern Jews was succeeded by the Catholic People's

Party as well as the Alliance of Landowners,(26) and finally joined in Szekfű's Három Nemzedék.(27)

*(iii) The oath imposed on Jews involved in legal proceedings with non-Jews, which was current in East Central Europe from the Middle Ages. Being abolished in 1846 in Germany, it was

revived in 1852 in Austria.

Gentry's decaySzekfű came to the conclusion that due to the misguided liberalism of the three generations,

Hungary was on the path of decline during the 19th century. Regarding liberalism, capitalism

and Jewish threat to the Hungarian culture as the evil linkage, he hastily connected the decay of gentry with the socio-economic rise of Jews.

Intellectual class (i.e. gentry) who could not take advantage of capitalistic developementwas reduced to poverty, and even landed noblemen were divorced from the intellectual

creativity. Jews avoided the competition with gentry from the viewpoint of interests. They gave way to gentry in the state and county administrations, and advanced to the better-paid lawyer, doctor and any kind of industrial-commercial field.(28)

Szekfű indicated the division of labor between Jews and gentry, but he did not refer to the

fact that gentry had despised "ungentlemanly careers" and occupied the state offices.Nevertheless, he was indignant to say that "economic field of the second generation was

Judaized; thence in the third generation even intellectual field suffered the same fate",(29) and concluded that "Jewish intrusion into the center of Hungarian culture was in part due to the

gentry's organizing inability, and in part to their need of illusion".(30) "Széchenyi stated repeatedly that Hungarian daydream, or Asiatic fantasy was a national sin, and a by-product of vanity. Vanity turns easily into self-deception. Hungarians are apt to escape into the fantastic

dreaming world when their self-love is hurt in the cruel reality".(31)

Although he knew well such a weakness of gentry, Szekfű posed a question as follows.

"Inexhaustible vitality of the young capitalism in Hungary depended upon the alien elements, or those who were foreigners yesterday, but today changed only their names in Hungarian way. By the fact, a question becomes much more actual whether foreigners could be permitted to

rule the economy of Hungary, and whether they could be allowed to affect the Hungariancultural and spiritual side as well after influencing the material side profoundly".(32) He was

particularly shocked at the Jewish "intrusion" into the Hungarian culture, which had been long

49

preserved by the gentry class.

Judaization of metropolitan cultureSzekfű regarded the journalism of Berlin, Vienna and Budapest as completely "shallow

products of Jewish capitalism and intellectuals. Their greatest interest is to supply the cultural

demands of urban Jews and Judaized Christians".(33) In Szekfű's eyes, Jewish intellectuals used the liberal illusion for their self-interest, and "conquered Budapest as their cultural

headquarter".(34) As to such cultures of Vienna and Berlin, "Germans tried to oppose the Judaization, because they had their own unchanged culture. But Hungarians had, with much regret, raised the urban culture of Budapest to the national one".(35)

The "Jewish footloose culture"(36)—Szekfű lemented, permeated Hungarian culture so deeply because "simple Hungarians believed the Jewish newspapers just like a Bible".(37)

Kálmán Mikszáth himself of gentry origin put the following words into the mouth of his gentry-figure in The Cavaliers of 1897. "A country which gives out of its hands commerce and the press will perish, like Poland. [...] The task in front of the nation now is not to wrench the

flag out of the Turkish hands, but to wrench the pen out of the Jewish hands".(38) Tormay also wrote that "newspapers had been thoroughly in the hands of destructive foreigners. Priest Béla

Banga regarded the monopoly of this tribe (i.e. Jews) as dangerous" when she met him, a Jesuit stateman from the gentry class.(39) Szekfű's sense of crisis as well as that of Mikszáth, Tormay and Banga had something in common with that of André Gide who confessed in his diary dated

from January 24, 1914 that French culture might be taken over by the Jewish intellectuals emerging with the Dreyfus trial.(40)

Rehabilitation of Szekfű

Count Klebelsberg, the minister of religion and education in the Bethlen government, employed Szekfű to engage in editing a journal of the Napkelet, which he established as a

countermeasure to the Western-oriented Nyugat in 1921.

I wish you with your Három Nemzedék as well as Cécile Tormay with her Bujdosó

Könyv and János Horváth with his Aranytól Adyig [From Arany till Ady] to stand against the Nyugat: the three works embodied the spirit of Christianity. Hungarian mind

became feeble as a result of accepting the Western thoughts for the past quarter of century after the Millennial festival in particular.(41)

Count Klebelsberg's invitation assisted Szekfű to be rehabilitated. Two years later, in July 1923, Szekfű was invited by the minister to the Budapest university as a successor to Aladár

Ballagi.(42) Ballagi was a champion of impeaching Szekfű when his maiden work was

50

confronted with kuruc legend. Notwithstanding Ballagi's retirement under the age limit,

succeeding to the post of Ballagi was apparently vindication of his honor to Szekfű. In 1925, he was officially appointed to a professor of modern history at the university.

When Szekfű returned home, Jászi who had been in exile in Vienna left for America in

order to work for Oberlin Collage in Ohio. Jewish or non-Jewish, a number of intellectuals who joined the postwar revolutions left Hungary. In September 1920, Somló committed suicide

by hanging in front of his mother's grave.Szekfű wrote a long introduction in November 1921 for the second edition of Három

Nemzedék. It aimed mainly to soften the criticism of Szabolcsi and his group as well as

Concha who pointed out his "sensational method" of the book.(43) Szekfű responded to the Jews as follows.

The Jewish political weekly (i.e. Egyenlőség) says that I provided people with an outlet for low enthusiasm as a "noisy instigator", and wrote the present work "in hatred of

liberalism, the great century and Jews". […] But, I condemned not only Jews but Petőfi, Kossuth, Eötvös, Andrássy and Tisza as bacterium of liberalism. Therefore the weekly

understood that the dock was not prepared only for them.(44)

I know that the Jewish leaders are in a difficult situation. […] The Jewish society or the Christian society has been prevented from restoring the stabilized symbiosis by the

trauma of the postwar revolutions. […] However, it is a great misunderstanding if Jews think that they obtained the present positions for themselves after their emancipation.

During the Liberal era, they were protected and given the privileges by the governments.(45)

Szekfű had no intention to modify the three chapters on Jews. "But why did they suddenly

become hysterical?"(46) That was strange to him. Nevertheless, in order to appease Szabolcsi and his group, he stated cunningly that the point of Jewish question was the influx of dangerous elements from the east,(47) and that there were truly assimilated Hungarian Jews in

the Transdanubia.(48) It was manifested even in the first edition that "it is unfair to deal with equally the good Hungarian Jews who have lived in the Transdanubia for hundreds years and

the Galician newcomers".(49) The good Hungarian Jews he indicated here are descendants of those whom aristocrats invited to settle in the western part of Hungary for the purpose of promoting the commodity production at the end of the 17th century. "Two kinds of Jew"

theory was one of the themes of Három Nemzedék, in which he prejudged the Orthodox andHassidic Judaism absolute evil just like Bartha, Ágoston and Cholnoky.

51

Dissimilation proposalIn the supplement of the enlarged edition of Három Nemzedék (1934), amplifying the

above-mentioned dichotomy, Szekfű required the Eastern Jews to practice Zionism, and the Neolog Jews to be dissimilated on the principle of ethnic minority. In his opinion, the

relationship between Hungarians and "good Jews in the Transdanubia" would be better after Eastern Jews leave for Palestine.

The recent newcomers would not be able to abandon their ancient way of life. It is better for them to go back to Jerusalem. Even assimilated Jews are required to settle in

Jerusalem if they were pro-Zionists. The rest of the assimilated Jews should be dissimilated on the principle of ethnic minority.

If Eastern Jews accept this logical conclusion, Judaized culture of the big cities would be normalized soon.

Consequently, the relationship between Hungarians and cultural-assimilated Jews

would improve, and the final security of Christian Hungary can be expected in the near future.(50)

Dissimilation was cherished opinion of Gömvös and Tibor Eckhardt. A booklet of the Awakening Hungarians led by Eckhardt reads as follows. "The Jew may be christened a

thousand times, he never can stripe off his Semite race. If he remains a good Jew, he may be respected for not having left the faith of his ancestors, but we do not see why we should regard

him as our equal and brother from the moment he changed his Israelite confession for the Christian Church. It would be better if they would proudly confess themselves Jews, and leave

us in peace instead of pursueing (sic) their special racial interests at our costs".(51)

Two months later after the World Anti-Semitic Congress of 1925 in Budapest, Eckhardt

submitted a bill to the parliament in order to define the Jews (including those converted to the Christianity) as an ethnic minority.(52) Szekfű advanced a proposal on the Jewish dissimilation in response to this bill. But in practice, he read carefully the changing political climate of the

time, and wrote it in the new edition after Hitler got into power: "Now in Central Europe, people are talking about dissimilation instead of assimilation under German influence, and a

completely new branch of science is developed for its practical use against assimilation".(53)

Against his dissimilation proposal, Jews proclaimed in the general assembly of the Pest community in 1934 that "we do not need the new slogan of dissimilation. We are not interested

in any kind of Jewish national chimera".

The authorized historian Gyula Szekfű manifests in the new edition of Három Nemzedék

52

that we were not Hungarianized but we Judaized Hungarians. [...] We can never accept

such an idea. Professor Szekfű maintains in excuse that "the continuing immigration from Galicia" has prevented the full integration of newcomers into Hungarianizedoldtimers' cultural life. However, his excuse is no sense to us. We are all Hungarians like

the rest of the people in this country. Such a criticism of Galician immigrants is nothing but a historical forgery. So that we will refuse the proposal of professor Szekfű, or

alternative between Zionism and ethnic minority for the better relationship between Hungarians and Jews.(54)

53

Six: The Bethlen System

The Bethlen government was formed after the failure of the last Habsburg emperor's

(Hungarian king Károly IV) putsch in the spring of 1921. His government was based on the balance of power between the two socially different tendencies: the Vienna group of the landed

magnates and capitalists and the Szeged group or the former upper stratum of military and civil service. The extremists of the People's Party in Vienna joined forces with the latter. Horthy was a balancer of the two camps.

Count Bethlen regarded it as his mission to revitalize the economically dispossessed "historic middle class" in his inaugural address, but openly manifested that he was far from

"any kind of noisy anti-Semitism".(1) To him, the radicalized lower middle class was dangerous, and economically the society of great agrarians was the "backbone of the nation".(2) It should be the counterbalance to the "urban Jews"(3) who owned 40 per cent industrial plants in the

country. However, he was one of the best statesmen that could understand the impossibility of either the reconstruction of national economy or foreign credit facilities without the

participation of Jewish capitals. Nevertheless, the lower middle class based on the refugees' ressentiment became an

independent political force in the general elections of early 1920. Former experienced

politicians were frequently defeated in favor of unknowns in the elections in which number of electors was increased from prewar about 6 per cent to nearly 40 per cent of the population.(4)

So Count Bethlen reduced the electoral size to 28,4 per cent in order to contain the extremismof the lower middle class. At the same time, he outlawed the Communist Party, and turned the

Social Democrats into his loyal opposition on the basis of Bethlen-Peyer pact at the end of 1921. Any kind of political strike in the public service and organizing activity in the villages

were prohibited. For the elections of 1922, Bethlen merged the Smallholders' Party which had won 91 seats in the previous elections into the government party.

As for the land policy after the counter-revolution, OMGE reinforced the gentry's

economic foundation by land distribution for the national reconstruction. Gyula Rubinek, former president of OMGE and minister of agriculture, handed over his portfolio of the

ministry to the head of Smallholders (István Nagyatádi-Szabó) in August 1920, and made Nagyatádi-Szabó carry out his land reform.(5) By the bill Rubinek elaborated, more than threehundred thousand people were given land: 1 hold per person. However, those who contributed

to the counter-revolution were given larger parcels in return: 50 holds of land for officers and 12 holds for soldiers on the average.(6)

54

*(i) Nagyatádi-Szabó was blamed for joining the unified ruling party (Somogy branch of

Socialist-Communist Party) during the Soviet Republic although it was only a matter of form, and became a target of assassination by the counter-revolutionary detachment.Perhaps he had suspected that; he surrendered to Horthy's "national army" saying that "the

bayonets of the sons of villages must flash on the streets of Budapest". Thereupon, in late November 1919, he accepted the merger with the Agricultural Party again "in order to

liberate the Christian society of Hungary from the Jewish exploitation".

Conflicts between Count Bethlen and right radicalsCount Bethlen's next step was to get reconstruction loan under the guarantee of the League

of Nations. However, there were some problems to be solved. The Western Jewish

organizations opposed the participation of Hungary in the League of Nations because of its Numerus Clausus law of 1920. The Succession States were cautious about its irredentism. In addition, the League loan was predicated on the reduction of state employees. So he made

territorial revisionism pending, and reduced the number of civil officials to roughly one half of the prewar period by 1925. The first target of dismissal was refugee teachers and railmen.

Subsequently, Count Bethlen's loan project entailed the conflict with right radicals who were forced not only to give up their irredentism but to lose their main supporters in the state apparatus.

Gömbös hated the foreign regulations in exchange for the League loan. The right wingers' intervention in the loan project became really violent. When a plot of the Awakening

Hungarians supported by the extremists of Germany was discovered in July 1923, Count Bethlen opened a strong campaign against the right camp. He then re-created the former

strategic partnership: while feudal elite pressed the extreme rightists, upper stratum of the Jewry contained the leftist intellectuals of Jewish background. Notwithstanding the

reconstruction of prewar symbiotic system in the center, the junior partnership in the periphery was not restored.

The Numerus Clausus law The Numerus Clausus law of 1920 restricted the entry of students to higher learning under

their racial share in the total population. It was evidently a product of Szeged idea. Prohászkaproposed as early as in May 1918 that Jewish students should be limited in number.(7) He defined the proposed law as the "racial self-defense" in the parliament of September 1920.(8)

However, suspecting the law of violating the "protection of minorities" in the Trianon peace treaty, the British and French Jewish organizations appealed to the League of Nations against it

three times: in 1921, 1925 and 1927.

55

Concerning the troubles in the League, the former minister of finance, Hegedüs advanced a

proposal to Count Bethlen that they should ask the Western Jewish leaders not to take any action in the League through the Hungarian Jewish elite. But Count Klebelsberg denied this proposal boldly saying that it would entail the abolishment of the law in terms of a strong

moral sense if they accepted a favor from either Hungarian or Western Jews. Then he suggested Count Bethlen to solve the problem without any Jewish assistance by means of some

"rational modification", or changing the criteria for selection from a racial concept to a professional one.(9) Here the occupation of the parents became the determining factor. The children of civil servants in addition to war orphans and veterans were the first. Next, since

"Hungary is a farming country", the childre of agriculturists were given priority. Industrialists, financiers, tradesmen and liberal professions were treated to be lower in rank. Considering a

Jewish high level of the dependence on these categories, the proposed amendment was stillanti-Jewish; yet the ratio of Jewish students increased from about 8 per cent in the late 1920s to about 12 per cent in the early 1930s.(10)

Count Klebelsberg's neo-nationalism Count Klebelsberg drew a self-portrait of the Hungarian nation in his articles in early 1928. He denied the racism of Gömbös group as well as the "unproductive" postwar revolutions and counter-revolution. Because "racism excludes a number of non-Magyars. Without prominant

persons from nationalities such as Sándor Petőfi, we can not imagine the greatness of our fatherland".(11) (Petőfi's mother was Slovak and his father Serb.) Following is the substance of

his "Hungarian neo-nationalism".

For us Hungarians, the tragedy of losing the World War was turned into a double tragedy by the fact that revolutions and counter-revolution proved to be sterile for the soul. They

did not bring a single new idea and thought that could have led to a fresh national life. The movement of Mihály Károlyi and Béla Kun was merely an uprising and not a revolution. But the counter-revolution was no more.

I am trying to bring two supreme concepts to the nation through the school system: a nationalism resting on a moral basis and the idea of economic productivity. What was

the content of Hungarian nationalism for the last four centuries? In the first place it was a struggle in the face of Austrian centralism and Germanization. This question became moot when we separated from Austria. Then it was the struggle of Hungarian

nationalism to inculcate the Hungarian state concept into the souls of those nationalities that held a majority in our fatherland during the years in which Turks and Germans

ravaged the country. This attempt also became moot because the treaty of Trianon tore

56

our nationalities away from us. Thus Hungarian nationalism lost its most important

features. As a result, we must find new aims for old feeling.I regard the inner content of Italian fascism as their neo-nationalism. Now in Italy

they are colonizing the empty lands: the drying up and making the malarial sea coast into

arable land; the acquiring of colonies where its surplus population can find a home on itssoil; the restoration of the role once played by Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, the

Balkans and the Levant. The goal is the renewing of what the rich Italian states, Venice, Genoa and Florence, had in the late Middle Ages.

In contrast, it is typical of the general Hungarian thinking that it still sees as heroes

the happy-go-lucky card players who, in the middle of the last century, lost their entire fortune in one night. A truly romantic image of prodigality and risk taking lives in our

country, and our economic history does not mention those who were successful in producing tangible goods. Now isolated farmsteads (tanya) are being created on the Great Plain. This is nothing else but the purchase or renting of land outside of the

villages' inner land belt, of lands devastated and left empty since the days of Turkish rule. This is not only a movement of repopulation, but is also the acquisition of wealth, the

most fruitful work Hungarians can perform.We do not want to sit always in the half-shade; we do not want always to suffer, be

needy, die or live hand-to-mouth. With the might moral and knowledge we want to raise

to the square the fruitfulness of Hungarian labor. As a result of this fruitful labor, we want to become better off, more independent, and above all, we want to be more

devotedly and consciously Hungarian. This is the healthy aim of Hungarian neo-nationalism.(12) (Note: emphasis in original throughout.)

According to him, it is necessary to reform the Hungarian way of life in order to realize

this aim. That is, creating of "silent and industrious Hungarians" instead of talkative and gambler type Hungarians.(13) Count Klebelsberg criticized the gentry's "vanity and wasteful habits" which Count Széchenyi regarded as a national sin, and advocated the repopulation on

the Great Plain or the "acquisition of wealth". He who compared the reclamation of the Great Plain to the restoration of late medieval Venice, Genoa and Florence was apparently

succeeding to the inner colonization policy of agrarians around the turn of the century. Although final goal of his neo-nationalism was the restoration of historical territory, CountKlebelsberg left it to the coming generation. Thence he tried to make Hungarians tough and

vitalize their fatherland by the way of resorting to their old patriotism.(14) It was the essence of his neo-nationalism. Such a nationalism should be, in his terms, "excellently popularist".(15)

That meant not the electoral reform or the constitutional amendment but "popularization of

57

government and administration".(16) While nationalism of the 19th century was against

dynasties, according to his phrase, that of the 20th century was against the "enemies among the masses organized by Socialists".(17) Herein one can see clearly his populism "from above". Szekfű was rehabilized for the purpose of fighting with such "hidden enemy".

Folk writers Young folk writers born at the turn of the century formed their thoughts from Dezső Szabó's first novel, Swept Away Village of 1919 and Szekfű's Három Nemzedék during CountKlebelsberg's ministry. They regarded the emigration of rural population as a critical issue of

endangering the national existence, and accused the latifundism of the disaster. Folk writers' leitmotif was "back to the soil". To Szabó, city was a space for aliens

(German and Jewish citizens in particular) who were ruinous enough to corrupt the national spirit. In the novel he espoused the idea that the hope for Hungarian resurrection lay in the peasantry. The hero of his novel from a gentry family who uncomfortably lived in a city

returned to his Transylvanian village and married a peasant girl, a symbol of national purity. Then and there, he devoted himself to recovering the village. The hero's decision reminds us

the above-mentioned inner colonization. Németh born in 1901 was a theoretical leader of the young folk writers. He learned from Szekfű that the historic intellectuals' decay was due to the misguided liberalism, but he saw

himself as a successor to Szabó who emphasized the organic concept of the nation. Némethadvocated the creation of indigenous middle class from the peasantry. In parallel with this, he

thought of "expelling lords from castles, managers from banks, and Westernized intellectuals from café".(18)

From the question "why was the true national spirit marginalized in its own country?",Németh designed a dichotomy of "profound Hungarian and shallow Hungarian". The latter

meant the newcomers of German and Jewish elements who advanced the "inorganic"capitalism. He discovered the answer to the question in their "internal colonialism".

This argument went back to the "Snobs and peasants" he published in the Magyarország on

March 29, 1934. Snobs meant the Jews who lived in Hungary just like colonialists. They were little interested in the concerns of Hungarians, longed for Paris and London, and showed off

Western civilization.(19) On the other hand, peasants meant those intellectuals and folk writers who had nothing to do with the Western values. To him, Baron Lajos Hatvany who presided over the literary journal of Nyugat and actively supported the postwar revolution was a

"shallow" Hungarian. That is, not only newcomers from Galicia but oldtimers such as the baptized Hatvanys from Moravia became the target of his criticism. Yet in response to the

enlarged edition of Három Nemzedék, he proposed the "closing of borders" against the Jewish

58

immigration, "deportation" of unassimilated Jews, and "dissimilation" of the Jewish

remainders in 1934.(20) At that time he stated that Hungarians and the remaining Jews could come to an amicable settlement when Hungarians liquidate the latifundism and the remaining Jews abolish the capitalism.(21) It was a very rhetoric of demagogic populist.

Németh was alienated from Szekfű in the second half of the 1930s. Because, in his view,Szekfű had gone establishmentarian;(22) Szekfű could not feel sympathy with the people

fighting against the Jewish problems because of his "too much objectivity", and overlooked the bad influence of German and Slavic middle class because of his "bias". "What a bias! Szekfűcondemns a Jewish baron, but does not blame a Slovak bishop. He criticizes bitterly a Jewish

writer Sándor Bródy, but does not comment a German writer Ferenc Herczeg".(23)

Szekfű committed Hungary's revitalization to the Catholic People's Party supported by Slovaks and Swabians in the Transdanubia. However, Christian socialism of pro-Habsburg clergies does not raise a voice against the latifundism, but merely against

the Jewish small leaseholdings.(24)

On the other hand, Szekfű commented in the article of 1939 that Németh was "an intellectual just like an obstinate child who breaks a doll because its clothing is not peasant style".(25) In addition, Szekfű stated that "it was the common sin of the shallow elders such as

János Horváth that they had joined forces with Cécile Tormay in the Napkelet and promoted the right wing barren arguments. Of course I admit I had another sin. It is my great shame that

I dealt with the historical writings from the pro-Habsburg and the Catholic point of view and questioned Endre Ady's Hungarianness".(26) In the same year at the end of the book he edited,

he proclaimed that "if those who are free from the younger generation's mistake do not assume a new leadership on the basis of historical tradition, we intellectuals have to accomplish our

duty".(27) But he continued to stick to his cherished opinion that "foreigners who blended into Hungarians have crippled the nature of the nation".(28) Notwithstanding his strategic adjustments, however, anti-Semitic instigation of Három Nemzedék had deeply permeated the

younger generation.In the process of transformation from half of a huge, multinational monarchy into a small

nation state as a result of the treaty of Trianon, arguments on the Jews in the early 20th century changed from promoting their assimilation to denying it. At this point, the focus of the metropolitan cityscape and that of the national self-portrait separated out. Count Klebelsberg

accepted assimilation saying that "without prominant persons from nationalities such as Sándor Petőfi, we can not imagine the greatness of our fatherland". On the contrary, Szekfű

denied assimilation on the ground that even Petőfi was bacterium of liberalism. Thence his

59

theme of "decaying gentry" was replaced by Németh's "decaying Hungarians". The shift from

the former to the latter was a result of the political player's transition from the lower nobility to the lower middle class after the First World War.

60

Seven: The Holocaust

Gömbös who dissolved his racist party and joined the governing party in 1928 was

appointed as prime minister in October 1932. One of the conditions for premier stipulated by Horthy was not to introduce any anti-Semitic legislation.(1) Thence he promised not to infringe

Jewish rights and interests in the negotiations with the Neolog delegation if they support his economic reconstruction program. He announced it in his inaugural address as follows.

I want to speak frankly. As a Protestant, I aim at peace among the Christendom. I also desire to attain the same relationship with Jews. I have changed my mind about this topic.

The part of Jewry that shares a common fate with our nation—I regard as brethren. […] I know that they will be the first to condemn those who can not or won't assimilate into communities of our nation.(2)

Gömbös accepted here the "two kinds of Jew" theory. However, he took a great many right

radicals of German background into the upper state apparatus. It is a parallel to a marked increase in the number of ministers of German origin. They were around 20 per cent during the dual monarchy (18.2% between 1887-1901; 22.3% between 1901-1918), but grew over 30 per

cent after the First World War, and leaped to 42.1 per cent when the Nazi government was established in Germany.(3) Such a change was a product of Hungary's approach to Hitler for

irredentism.As Gömbös died in October 1936, the eldest minister of his government Kálmán Darányi, a

nephew of Ignác Darányi, was appointed to the next premiership. Darányi at first distanced himself from the right wingers, but leaned to them after his visit to Germany in November of

the next year. Hungary's quick turn to the Nazi German orbit is evident from a twofold increase of its foreign trade with Germany between 1937 and 1939 (exports: 24.1% to 52.4%; imports: 26.2% to 52.5%).(4) In this context, Darányi declared in March 1938 that the Jewish

influence should be diminished in economic and cultural life to the suitable level.

Anti-Jewish lawsThe first Jewish law was enacted in May 1938. It limited the Jewish proportion in the

professions as well as business, commerce and finance to 20 per cent; their conversion to the

Christianity after the fall of the Soviet Republic was proclaimed void. The second Jewish law enacted in May 1939 reduced the quota of the first Jewish law to 6 per cent. It defined that

those having one Jewish parent or two Jewish grandparents were Jewish race. The third Jewish

61

law enacted in August 1941 broke off the human relationship between the Jews and the

non-Jews by forbidding marriage between them. Furthermore, the Reception law of 1895 was invalidated in July 1942. The introduction of these Jewish laws on the grounds of Nürnberg law (1935) was a kind of payment for the Vienna Awards of 1938 and 1940.

On May 5 of 1938 in the course of discussing the first Jewish bill in the parliament, anappeal of "To the conscience of the nation" was made public, in which altogether sixty-one

prominent men of culture including Béla Bartók, Zoltán Kodály and Zsigmond Móriczprotested against the bill. They impeached the Szeged idea hidden in the bill saying that "if the existance of Christian middle class could be secured at the expense of denying the Jewish

equalities before the laws and robbing the Jews of their civil rights, that would only disgrace the Christian middle class at best".(5)

In the Jewish society the Neolog leader Samu Stern published a pamphlet against theJewish bill, in which he insisted that "Jews are not newcomers. A Jewish gravestone of the third century excavated in Esztergom is a proof that Jewish people have lived here since then,

long before the Árpád dynasty was established in the Carpathian basin. In addition, historyproves that the Jewish tribal heads had been present among the Hungarian conquerors".(6)

The Jewish tribal heads Stern indicated were the Khazar Jews. Before conquering the Carpathean basin in the late 9th century, Hungarians were under the rule of Khazar Empire. Itsruling class accepted Judaism between the Byzantium and the Islam world. Judaism permeated

into the people too, but warriors were almost Muslims, and non-Khazars of the Empire were not Judaized. A trained historian and the chief rabbi of the Neolog in Pest, Sámuel Kohn

published a study in 1884, shortly after the Tiszaeszlár trial.(7) He suggested that the HungarianJews were descended from the Khazar tribes that took part in the Hungarian conquest.(8)

Considering the Christianization of Hungary, they might have been converted sooner or later to the state religion. Yet Kohn's Khazar theory was embraced by the vast majority of not only the

Neolog Jews but the Orthodox ones as their ideology of symbiosis in the Hungarian society.(9)

Nathaniel Katzburg also agreed that they had adopted it positively as their theoretical ground that they were right members of Hungarian state.(10)

On the other hand, Count Bethlen together with ten MPs including Eckhard (now presidentof the Independent Smallholder's Party) and Zoltán Tildy (president of the republic,

1946-1948) made a representation to the regent in January 1939, saying that the liquidation of Jewish business turns tens and hundreds of thousands of Christians into unemployed".(11)

However, in the parliament sitting on the Jewish bills, while Gratz, MP of Count Bethlen group,

laid stress on the Jewish contribution to the national economy, pro-Nazi Ferenc Rajniss (minister of education in the Szálasi government) hooted Gratz's speech saying that "they used

the state subsidy" or "that's a result of exploitation from peasantry".(12) Another leader of

62

Arrow-Cross men Kálmán Hubay hastily connected the influx of Eastern Jews with the efflux

of Hungarians, and stirred up MPs to enact the laws against the Jewish "intrusion".(13)

Archbishop Jusztinián Serédi made a speech that after the reception of Judaism, a part of Jewrywas sceptical about the things Christians regarded as sacred, and destroied the Christian ethics

with the help of liberals in the field of press, literature and arts.(14)

German occupationMiklós Kállay was a prime minister for two years since March 1942. His government was

the least pro-Axis of all the wartime governments, and during his premiership Hungary

gradually moved away from the German orbit. But Germans did not tolerate the Hungarian independent judgment ultimately, and Horthy was caused to dismiss the premier.

In March 1944 when Germans occupied Hungary, there were about seven hundred and sixty thousand people in Hungary whom the laws classified as the Jewish race. That is, mainly as a result of the Vienna Awards, Hungary gained 324,217 Jews: 67,876 persons from the

so-called Upper Province (Felvidék), 78,087 persons from Sub-Carpathia, 164,052 persons from northern Transylvania, and 14,202 persons from the adjacent areas of Yugoslavia.(15)

Among them approximately one hundred thousand people were converts to Christianity.According to István Deák, until the German occupation, Hungarian Jews lived in their own

homes, wore no discriminatory marks, and were free to move around in the country. However,

in the periphery, sixty thousand odd Jews were already dead. Immediately after the military campaign against the Soviet Union, Hungarian authorities removed the fifteen to twenty

thousand Jewish people of the Felvidék to Galicia who were unable to provide evidence of their Hungarian citizenship. They were killed by the SS and the Ukrainian militia in the spring

of 1942. Besides, during a mopping-up operation in northern Yugoslavia (Újvidék) in January 1942, four thousand citizens were massacred by the Hungarian army, but one thousand or less

were Jewish. Among the dead were labor-service men with no weapons in the battle field. They were sent to the eastern front without enough food and clothing, and killed by a great offensive of the Red Army and the frozen weather of 1942-1943, or as a victim of incredible

brutality of the Hungarian officers. Most of all prisoners of war died in the Soviet camps.In a short time between mid-May and early July after the German occupation, systematic

mass deportation started in the provinces; more than four hundred thousand persons were removed to Auschwitz and killed. Borrowing the phrase of I. Deák, the swift and efficient deportations could not be realized without "devoted colaboration" of the Hungarian authorities

from prime minister to county prefects with the entire state apparatus including the gendarmes, the police, the railroad men and such teachers who had been drafted into assisting the

bureaucrats.(16) It has been calculated that two hundred thousand persons in public service

63

participated in it. Especially among them vice-ministers of interior László Endre and László

Baky, and lieutenant colonel of gendarmerie László Ferenczy known as the interior ministry's "deportation trio" played key roles in colaboration with Adolf Eichmann in charge of the Final Solution.

When the deportations did not remain a secret, Horthy received protest messages not only from the home statesmen including Count Bethlen but from Pope Pius XII, King Gustav V of

Sweden, President Roosevelt of America, and other world leaders. Along with such public opinion, deeply impressed by the Allied D-day in Normandy (June 1944) as well as the approaching Red Army, Horthy forbade the removal of Budapest Jews on July 7. Further

operations were not done by the day when Horthy was deprived of his regency and taken to Germany in October 1944.

However, Vera Ranki is sceptical about the regent's motives of the order which was issued when the deportations of the provincial Jews were completed and the Jewish community was left only in Budapest, considering the German defeat in the battles of El Alamein (November

1942) and Stalingrad (January 1943).(17) Nevertheless, I. Deák writes that "about two thirds of such Jews died who lived within Hungary's 1944 boundaries, but while we must assign

responsibility for their death mainly to the government and people of Hungary, we must also credit the government and the people for the survival of the remaining one third. The fact is that the two to three hundred thousand survivors were not simply those who would have been

killed anyway, had there been time to do so, but were mostly persons whom government officials, army officers, clergymen and nuns as well as scores of individual Gentiles had saved

at some risk to their own lives".(18) He named three of the saviors: the Catholic sister Margit Schlachta, the Lutheran minister Gábor Sztehló and the journalist Béla Stollár. In addition to

the Catholic bishops and sister Schlachta, Tibor Erényi also named sister Sára Salkaházi and jesuit József Jánosi as the saviors.(19) Among those people, Raoul Wallenberg, a delegate of the

American War Refugee Board under the protection of the Swedish Legation, the Swiss Consul Carl Lutz and the Papal Nuncio Angelo Rotta were well-known. They say that the hundreds of Hungarian names among the Righteous Gentiles are listed at the Yad Vashem Institute (the

official Holocaust memorial) in Jerusalem. On the other hand, one can not forget the atrocities of Father András Kun who dressed in

his cassock along with an Arrow Cross armband. He and his unit broke into hospitals and killed the Jewish patients, or invaded sheltered housings and abducted the Jews and their protectors in order to torture them to death. (20)

Szekfű in the Count Bethlen groupAs a member of Count Bethlen group fumbling for a separate peace with Britain and

64

America, Szekfű wrote an article of the "Concept of freedom" for the Népszava at the end of

1941. This Christmas issue was planned by him together with Social Democrats, Communists, a part of folk writers and Endre Bajcsy-Zsilinszky (leader of the Independent Smallholder'sParty) against Nazism. That was from a sense of intellectuals' duty he mentioned in the book

he edited at the end of 1930s. Two years later, between November 1943 and February 1944, he serialized an article of "Somewhere we lost the way" for the Magyar Nemzet. Both of them

were not open criticism of Nazism. But a German intelligence (Forschungsamt, July 30 of 1943) reported that "in Hungary, activity of democratic force followed on the discharge of Mussolini. Szekfű, a historian close to Count Bethlen, plays a role of middleman between the

government and the working class".(21) He escaped from the Gestapo and concealed himself at the monastery of Pannonhalma after the German occupation. But Gratz who protested the

Jewish laws, Kállay who tried to move away from the German orbit, and Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer (minister of interior, 1931-1944) who attempted to protect the Jews after the enactment of the first Jewish law were removed to Mauthausen camp near Linz.

Looting of the Jewish assetsIn May 1944, minister of interior Andor Jaross manifested the government policy on the

Jewish assets in Nagyvárad as follows.

I underscore the fact that all those assets, wealth and valuables which greedy Jews amassed during the Liberal era, would no longer belong to them. They are now the

property of Hungarian nation. They should be used in order to enrich the whole nation. So that they should be put in the distribution process of the national economy for the

high-minded Hungarians who live by the sweat of their brows.(22)

Such an idea was already crystalized immedietly after the First World War. According to Gratz, on November 30, 1919 in Budapest, the convention of Awakening Hungarians adopted a proposal of Gyula Zákány (thirty-year-old Catholic priest) as its resolution. Zákány called for

the removal of Jews to Palestine, or deviding them among the civilized countries on the one hand. He demanded on the other hand that the Jews should be deprived of all the foodstuff and

fuel they possessed by confiscation and the Awakening Hungarians would distribute them among the Christians.(23) This resolution would light the way to the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry.

The removal of provincial Jews to Auschwitz and the move of Bupapest Jews to the so-called yellow star buildings were accompanied by widespread looting of the Jewish assets.

When the state apparatus seized the most valuable items and the inventories of Jewish

65

businesses, even the local teachers and officials were mobilized as assistant personnel for the

police in order to secure the wealth of the individuals. Household chattels were left for the public. As Randolph L. Braham points out, almost all offices at every level of government were directly involved in the despoliation and all acts of expropriation and looting bore official

stamps of approval.(24) In June 1944 Count Bethlen sent a memorandum to the regent, in which he violently condemned the Jewish deportation and the Hungarian plunder of Jewish properties

from the viewpoint of corruption and moral depravity spreading among the Christians. "The source of the most odious corruption, robbery and thievery, into which unfortunately a large portion of the Hungarian intelligentsia has been dragged. [...] Christian society would become

tainted beyond cure".(25)

Szekfű referred to the Hungarian looting of Jewish assets in the publication of 1947, when

he was ambassador in Moscow. Szekfű wrote that since the Gömbös government, corruption had spreaded particularly in the economic sectors. "Morals of army officers and higher bureaucrats fell to the earth in the treatment of the Jewish question. They obtained the farming

lands at a give-away-price from the Jews who were forced into a tight corner. The state leaders advocating the revilalization of Hungarian economy, as a matter of fact, enriched themselves

with the Jewish estates after the owners were removed".(26) In imitation of them, rank and file hunted for abandoned Jewish properties.(27) In the villages, peasants watched carefully how the upper class would deal with the Jewish assets they confiscated. Szekfű alarmed that "if leaders

of the state plunder the Jewish estates legally, peasants would learn sooner or later to despoilthe landlords' latifundia".(28) Then he changed his tune at the end of the writing. "Is this a state?

Hungarian state? How about a society? Is it Hungarian society? No, it is not a state, not a society, either. State is collapsed and society is corrupt. At the end of the long suffering process

of the history, what a miserable, dishonorable, shameless, grotesque and bloody tragicomedy this is! Under these circumstances, the only way of reconstructing the state and society would

be nothing but a revolution".(29)

The last phrase of "nothing but a revolution" might reflect his postwar true mentality. It was his declaration of defeat as the interwar influential ideologue. Compare the dull writing

with his ambitious introduction of Három Nemzedék. His "revolution" was never what he had wished. Ady's revolution was hopeful whereas Szekfű's "revolution" was a product of despair.

Szekfű criticized Ady severely as just like a "diseased leaf"(30) who had supported the Civic Radicals' republican revolution,*(i) but Szekfű was a very diseased leaf after World War II. He only mentioned the Hungarian looting of Jewish properties because he could not endure the

poor sight of Christians hunting for others' wealth.

*(i) Ady's message to the congress of Civic Radicals from sickbed was as follows. "I'm for all

66

your resolution. Let's try to expiate the feudal and nationalistic crimes! Let's relieve

Hungarians and other peoples in Hungary! Come, people's right! Come, people's alliance! Come, democracy; I trust in it. I devoutly pray that your belief and power will triumph over the issues".

Bibó's argunent on the Jews Although the Jewish laws were nullified in March 1945, when the Holocaust survivors returned home, a gradual revival of anti-Semitism became noticeable. István Bibó who feltdanger about the situation, wrote a very long essay on the problem for the folk writer's

periodical in 1948. In the essay he condemned the Szeged idea which was seeking for "the happiness of Christians" at the expense of Jews.

Interwar Hungary was based on two principles: restricting Jewish participation in politics and in the civil service while at the same time preserving economic opportunities for

Jews and even strengthening them through monopolistic-capitalistic practices. From its very start, such a dualistic course, accepting political anti-Semitism while at the same

time supporting a capitalism largely owned by Jews, fostered a tension in which the "Jewish question" and its "solution" became synonymous with demands for eliminating the Jews' economic power and as such surfaced as the country's primary social issue.(31)

As for the "solution of the Jewish issue", most people understood this to mean the childishly simple remedy of introducing some arbitrary measures "decreeing" Jews to

earn less and non-Jews to earn more money, without implementing any charge in the total structure of the economy and society. In the 1930s no element of Hungarian society,

except for the Jews, had the ingrained historical experience to make them realize that the unrestrained anti-Jewish public mood—incited or allowed to flourish under the pretext of

eliminating certain inequalities in earnings—along with its facilitator, ethnic discrimination, could easily lead to the persecution and murder of Jews.(32)

The situation which Bibó could not endure was not only the lack of Hungarian historical insight but the moral decline of Hungarian society "longing to flourish by discriminating

against others".

However, when it comes to striking a moral balance with regard to the Jewish laws, there

arises another, much more serious issue beyond that of approval of the laws: the moral decline of Hungarian society that came to light in the course of implementing these

measures. After all, these laws provided opportunities for broad layers of the middle

67

class as well as actual and potential petty bourgeois elements to create new, much more

favorable material circumstances for themselves at the expense of others without any personal effort, but relying on governmental fiat, without any genuine and comprehensive social goal as a justification. […] This was the time when broad segments

of Hungarian society learned that there are other methods for bettering their lot than work or enterprise. They could cast their eyes on the already well-established position of

another man and denounce that individual, search out who his grandparents were, have him fired from his job, put in a claim for his business, possibly have him deported, and take over his establishment. These opportunities revealed and worsened the moral

degradation of Hungarian society, presenting an appalling picture of insatiable avarice, a hypocritical lack of scruples, or at best cold opportunism in a sizeable segment of this

society that was profoundly shocking not only to the Jews involved, but also all decent Hungarians.(33)

Bibó went back to the mid-19th century for the beginning of Hungarian moral decline, and finally discovered the falsification of the Compromise to be its beginning. "After the defeat of

the War of Independence in 1849, Hungarian leaders and the intelligentsia focussed their political instincts on maintaining historical Hungary. This, along with the defensive stance of landowning classes, resulted in the false and contradiction-riddled edifice of 1867, under

which the vitality of the country became weak. This was followed by the postwar revolutions and the Trianon treaty which reinforced the sense of national crisis and ultimately led to the

dead-end policies of irredentism and anti-Bolshevism".(34) However, he not only discoveredthat Hungary had been weakened because of the falsification of the Compromise but concluded

that the prewar symbiosis between the Hungarian society and the Jewish assimilants had been merely "the pact formed under false conditions".(35) He found the self-deception in both

sides.(36)

Hungarian society deceived itself because it placed the entire issue of Jewish assimilation

into the wishful context of the 19th century Hungary's great political illusion, that is, the linguistic Hungarianization of the entire historical Hungary. […] From this time onward,

assimilation in Hungary meant nothing more than for the assimilant to learn the Hungarian language, or to declare himself to be a Hungarian at census-taking time. This is why the Hungarian society of the Millennial period was overjoyed at the perceived

phenomenon of assimilation, most of all the assimilants were urban Germans and Jews. Hungarian society welcomed their assimilation and hoped in vain that the

Hungarianization of the entire country could be accomplished in decades. In fact,

68

linguistic assimilation remained a hopeless cause among the masses of national minority

peasants, whose geographic distribution was a decisive factor in preserving historical Hungary.(37)

Due to the forcible Hungarianization during the era of the Bánffy government [1895-99] and the Lex Apponica of 1907, the number of elementary school using nationality language

reduced by almost half in 1914. Not a few people against the forcible program of education did not send their children to school in the minority areas.

Looting under the Communist regimeJózsef Révai published a book of Marxism, Folk Writers, Hungarians in October 1947. In

the preface of its third edition in April 1949, he wrote that they had supported the left faction of folk writers' movement before the war in order to fight together with fascism, but the situation had changed after that, and "the time has come when they should crush

pseudo-populism of Hungarian Narodniki against the working class. [...] It became now a reactionary ideology. [...] Those who express support for only independent small holders are

the minions of imperialistic anti-communism".(38)

Révai's writing in the preface reflected the post-1947 turnover of the Communist Party on the policy to the folk writers. In the general elections of November 1945, the Smallholders'

Party obtained absolute majority of 57 per cent, and the National Peasant Party founded on the basis of folk writers' movement won 7 per cent. On the contrary, the Communist and Socialist

Parties each 17 per cent, that is, 34 per cent in all.(39) The Communists formed a government coalition with the Smallholders until then. However, in May 1947, they forced Ferenc Nagy of

the Smallholders' Party to resign from the premiership, and at the same time made the leaders of other parties helpless by "salami tactics". Then in June of the next year, one party

dictatorship was completed by the combination of Communists and Socialists. In February 1949, they expelled Cardinal József Mindszenty from the country, and purged the dissidents by the trial of László Rajk in September of the year. Through the influence of the Soviet Union's

forces in the early 1950s, Mátyás Rákosi labelled the feudal elite as the "undesirable elements" and the middle class as the "former exploiters", then confiscated their residences and assets,

and removed them from Budapest to the remote countryside.(40) (It was one of those cases that the business of György Konrád's father and their house were confiscated because his parents who survived the Holocaust belonged to the middle class before the war.) This removal was

done without prior notice, usually at night.(41) According to Erényi, the Party selected about fifty thousand individuals including nobility, high-ranking officials of Horthy regime and

capitalists, of which 15-16 per cent were Jewish, but selections were "extremely arbitrary".(42)

69

It was a Hungarian version of "Night and Fog" operation under the Communists regime on the

model of prewar Soviet Union's policy against the kulaks.

70

Epilogue: Populism of the early 21st Century

Political map after the regime changeIn October 1989, the People's Republic constitution of Stalin model was amended and

Hungary went to the polls next spring (March and April). Two flows of thoughts in the

intellectual opposition formed political parties (the Hungarian Democratic Forum and the Alliance of Free Democrats) respectively and ran against each other. It is the decisively different point from the former that the latter recognized Jászi as one of their forerunners.

The Democratic Forum came to power in cooperation with the Independent Smallholder'sParty and the Christian Democratic People's Party. But, as prime minister József Antall did not

appoint the troublesome head of Smallholder's Party as a minister, the Smallholders seceded from the coalition government in 1992. One of the reasons of secession could be their disagreement to the government's land reform. The cleavage of the coalition government was

promoted by the intra-party strife of the Democratic Forum. The vice-president of the party, István Csurka who confronted the moderate leadership of prime minister József Antall pointed

out the continuity of elite in the Magyar Fórum (August 20, 1992) saying that the winner of theregime change was the ex-Communist nomenklatura. In addition, he mentioned as a confessed anti-Semite that New York and Tel Aviv became a ruler of Hungary instead of Moscow.(1) The

Democratic Forum suffered a serious defeat in the elections of 1994 because of not only theirintra-party conflict (Csurka was expelled from the party in June 1993) but the sudden death of

Antall in November of the year.For the following four years the Socialist Party (former reformists in the Communist Party)

and the Free Democrats were in power. The Democratic Forum emphasized the centralization of the power whereas the Socialist Party and the Free Democrats stood for the decentralization.

But both governments supported privatization and market economy, and aimed at joining the NATO (1999) as well as the coming European Union (2004). Especially the Free Democrats who mainly represented the Budapest inhabitants with high education insisted the American

type liberalism. However, rapid privatization and introduction of market economy accelerated unemployment rate and hyperinflation. While small group of new rich was born as a result of

the legal defects and immature market economy, the gap between winners and losers of the regime change was widened. Although retrenchment policy (Bokros-csomag) by the left-liberal coalition government improved the country's fiscal balance significantly, it lost

reputation among the people whose social security and pension as well as wage and salary were reduced, and brought Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége, or Alliance of Young

Democrats) into power in May 1998.

71

Fidesz formed a coalition government with the Democratic Forum and the Independent

Smallholders. However, the Smallholders had no seat after 2002, whereas the Democratic Forum lost their seats in 2010 and dissolved next year. The Justice and Life Party of Csurka obtained 14 seats in the elections of 1998, but lost them four years later, and failed in 2006, too.

The Christian Democratic People's Party which split in 1997 because some members of the party had connection with Csurka's party started again at the end of 2002 receiving the MPs of

Fidesz as their head and executives. In the elections of 2006, they joined hands with Fidesz, and keeps a position as its junior partner since. Fidesz strengthened their power base forming a strategic partnership with the Catholic Church through the People's Party. On the other hand,

the Free Democrats cooperated with the Socialists who regained power in 2002, but seceded from the governing coalition in 2008. They failed in the elections of the European Parliament

of 2009 as well as in the general elections of 2010, and disappeared after their intra-partyconflict.

Right leaning of FideszFidesz started in 1988 as an organization of the students and graduates mainly from the

Budapest university. They ran in the general elections of 1990 in alliance with the Free Democrats, and advanced to the parliament. They were very popular in their early years. Butthey could not expand the party strength to their satisfaction; they were the lowest in rank in

the elections of 1994. A factor backgrounding their slump was that some leaders including Viktor Orbán abandoned their liberal ideals when they were promised posts in the government

by the Christian-national coalition; others such as Gábor Fodor joined the Free Democrats.Orbán learned the way, argued Dieter Dettke, to resort to the patriotic feelings in order to

occupy a political spectrum.(2) Next year, they changed the party's name to Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party and promoted their cooperation with the Democratic Forum.

After that Fidesz denounced Budapest for its "foreign capital and non-Hungarian values" advocating the redistribution of the wealth among the rural middle class. Their main supporters were Transdanubian middle-aged adults with high standard of living. (Viktor Orbán himself

comes from Székesfehérvár.) In connection with the Trianon syndrome of the right wingers, the Fidesz government recognized the populace of Hungarian origin in the neighboring

countries as a potential part of Hungarian nation by the status law (the law LXII of 2001), and gave them sub-citizenship of Hungary. While the Socialist Party approved the law, the Free Democrats opposed it on the ground that the law is not in line with the spirit of European

integration.Nevertheless, Fidesz-Democratic Forum electoral union (188 seats) narrowly lost the 2002

elections to the Socialist Party and the Free Democrats (198 seats in all). The Democratic

72

Forum gained 24 seats, but the other right wing parties lost their seats totally. (Additionally in

the 2006 elections either, Fidesz could not regain power: the Socialists 190 seats, the Free Democrats 20 seats, Fidesz 164 seats, and the Democratic Forum 11 seats.) Thence, Fideszorganized a patriotic mass movement for coming to power, and changed its name again to

Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Union. Gábor Vona (now president of Jobbik), then belonged toFidesz, was one of the leaders in the movement.

According to the prospectus for foundation of Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Union in 2003, they recognized in the article one that more than ten thousand patriotic-awakening citizen circles (estimated 160,000 individuals) had voluntarily formed public opinions on the streets first after

the regime change.(3) Borrowing the phrase of András Deák, the streets were political arenasdiscovered by Fidesz only as late as 2002.(4) In the article two, they declared to join the

European People's Party which held the populist parties of various countries. (Orbán was a vice-chairman in the European People's Party from 2002 to 2012.) In the 2007 program for thenew majority line, they boasted to creat the "unparalleled rightist union" in the post-communist

states, and proclamed that the cohesion of "patriotic-awakening citizens" was a very source of Fidesz's strength.(5) However, Fidesz defined itself as a "Western orientation" party, and

concerning the relations with Russia, they manifested that they would not be under the Russian control for the purpose of economic market.(6)

The greatest fruit of the Fidesz-led patriotic mass movement was the referendum held on

March 9 of 2008. It was aimed at revoking the tuition fees, hospital fees, and medical co-payments which the Gyurcsány government proposed to introduce. However, it meant a

vote of non-confidence in the premier, because prime minister Gyurcsány's "liar speech" in which he revealed to his group that they did not provide a full picture about the economy in

order to win the elections was leaked four months later, caused enormous public indignation and resulted even riots in the autumn of 2006. Fidesz initiated the referendum since then. In the

referendum, more than 80 per cent of the people rejected the left-liberal government's reforms, which entailed the dissolution of the coalition. Gyurcsány resigned the premiership next year. The referendum of 2008 was straightforwardly combined with the triumph of Fidesz in the

general elections of two years later.Fidesz which regained power in April 2010 amended the nationality law and gave

full-citizenship of the country to the Hungarian minorities beyond the borders. Similar citizenship solutions are provided for kin-minorities by Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Poland and Romania.(7) Slovakia, 10 per cent of whose population is Hungarian ethnic, took a

countermeasure to prohibit the dual citizenship because they feared the Hungary's political intervention on the pretext of protecting its citizens.

Looking at the campaign platform for the 2010 elections,(8) populist character of Fidesz is

73

less than that of Jobbik which was formed in the right wing movement Fidesz organized.

(According to A. Deák, Orbán did not publicize his "revolutionist" program*(i) during the campaign.(9)) However, like the twins of neo-conservatism at the end of the 19th century: the Catholic People's Party and the Alliance of Landowners, Fidesz and Jobbik complemented

each other in their intention. Therefore, present Hungary's populism can be understood more clearly through Csoóri's essays of 1989-90 and Jobbik's series of programs.

*(i) After the triumph of Fidesz in the elections of 2010, in order to reduce the budget deficit, Orbán forced nationalization of private pension funds which allocated around 10 per cent

of the GDP and excessive taxation of multinational companies, whereas he tried to change the elite not only in Hungary but in the Hungarian communities of the neighboring

countries. He also created the new media regulation system which financially supports the pro-Fidesz government groups as well as the gerrymander system which favors Fidesz in the elections. It may be the reason that Fidesz's support fell from 40-50 per cent in 2010 to

around 20 per cent two years later.

Csoóri's argument on the nationSándor Csoóri's essay of "Nappali hold" in the Democratic Forum magazine Hitel

(September 1990) is of diary form just like Tormay's Bujdosó Könyv. The sensational

argument of July 3 included his definition of the nation that only those capable of experiencing the pain of being Hungarian can be called true members of the nation. It also included his

understanding of history that Hungarian-Jewish symbiosis came to an end with the postwar revolutions of 1918-19.

Jewish intellectuals such as Hatvany and Jászi groups gathered around Ady, and held in

common their issues to discuss. I think that the time of Ady was probably the last the Jews dealt with life-and-death problems of Hungarian nation. Jews of those days learned not only Hungarian language but the pains settled in it. However, they lost solidarity

with Hungarians by experiencing the Soviet Republic of 1919, the interwar Horthy regime and especially the Age of Disaster. […] Today a reverse assimilationist attempt is

remarkable. That is, Jewish liberals make an effort to assimilate Hungarians to their own tastes, both in style and mentality. For this very purpose they made a parliamentary springboar they have never possessed in the past.(10)

After his definition of the nation comes a phrase that the Free Democrats are longing for a

new formation of the political nation based not on the "old sentimental feeling" but on the

74

"cool good sense" of laws, economics and market.(11) According to Csoóri, the Alliance of Free

Democrats was founded by Jews as their political springboard for Judaizing Hungarians. Here "old sentimental feeling" represents those such as Csoóri who found a symptom of Hungarian disappearance in the kin-minorities of neighboring countries that had lost their "national

identity", whereas "cool good sense" is a Jewish intellectualism of the Free Democrats who feelno empathy for the plight of compatriots beyond the borders. He maintained that Zipsers and

Swabians of German origin who had lived in Hungary for centuries could empathize with Hungarian tragic fate, but "the Jewish immigrants after the Compromise" could not do that.(12)

He believed that Hungarians could show off their majestic presence by purifying his

introspective mindset on the nation.

The decrease of our population is alarming. We are spread out and dissolved in theworld; our countrymen beyond the borders and we in the mother country are weakened daily by a "war in peace". It would never occur to a Frenchman, an Englishman, an

Italian, or a Russian that his nation could be broken by the next day. But it could occur to us! We are haunted by our own statistics just like terrorist groups. […]

However, we can never start a war again to defend our national minorities over the borders. Just like a new work of art, an unknown masterpiece, only a rebuilt, reformed Hungarian nation can exert an incredible influence, both in the Carpathian basin and in a

united Europe just now in the making.(13)

Csoóri began to reconstruct the Hungarian consciousness of the kin-minorities abroad in the 1960s when he discovered the loss of their national identity. He explained that "when I

tried to work on the rebirth of popular culture, few people realized that through the popular culture I intended to lay down the foundation of a missing Hungarian consciousness".(14)

However, according to him, "in the course of visiting Transylvania, frequenting dance-houses and organizing folk-camps, grew a crowd of the new populists or new nationalists. Later the meeting at Lakitelek and, finally the Hungarian Democratic Forum".(15)

For Csoóri, "nation is a spiritual, linguistic and historical organization with a common tradition and way of doing beyond the borders".(16) Although he says nation is no longer a

physical but a spiritual concept, he regards cosmopolitans who feel no empathy for a symptom of Hungarian disappearance beyond the borders as "hidden enemy" and defends the closed national concept. His strong exclusionism was already linked to the present-day European

populism.Csoóri discussed not only the Hungarian minorities' loss of national identity but the life

under the Communist rule as a symptom of national disappearance. In his words, compared

75

with the period of Mátyás Rákosi, János Kádár regime undoubtedly "gave space to private life,

to family life, and to the limited realization of the self; it stretched freedom in these private spheres while it reduced vitality of the nation. The only life remaining was the biological existence."(17)

Such a belief of life and the closed national concept of Csoóri was succeeded by the declaration of Jobbik party foundation in October 2003. It manifested that the vitality of the

nation had been reduced by not only the Communists' dictatorship for forty years but post-1990 ultra-liberalism of "open society" which had disturbed the family ties, diluted national identity, and eliminated patriotism in the provinces.(18) Thence they committed

Hungary's revitalization to the "re-discovery" of Hungarian history and traditions.

Hungary's future lies in re-discovering the power of traditional communities: family, fatherland, church, and nation. […] If we are to make Hungary a better place to live, we have to be able to re-discover our common roots. We can become a strong player in the

world not as individuals, but as a nation.(19)

For Jobbik, what is proud of is not an individual but a nation.

An essay on JobbikJobbik is an acronym of the Rightist Youths Community (Jobboldali Ifúsági Közösség)

organized by the religious students mainly of the Budapest university in 1999. In response to

Fidesz's appeal to the national rights, they formed a civic association of "Jobbik, the movement for Hungary" in 2002, and registered it as a political party next year. The first president Dávid

Kovács was a member of Csurka's party. They went to the polls in 2006 in cooperation with Csurka's party, but could not advance to the parliament.

However, three years later they obtained 3 seats in the elections of the European Parliament, and moreover became the third party (47 seats) in the general elections of 2010. They gained 427,773 votes in 2009, and double (855,436 votes) in 2010. One of the grounds of their great

strides was the country's ill economy buffeted by the global financial crisis in 2008, which was due to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in America. Hungarian government applied the IMF,

the European Union and the World Bank in the middle of October 2008 for an emergency loan of 20 billion euro in all. Unemployment of even 2012 was 11.1 per cent, but that of those under twenty-five years old was much higher, reaching 28.3 per cent.(20) National average of

unemployment was reduced to 7.4 per cent in February 2015. Nevertheless, that of those under twenty-five years old was still 19.2 per cent.

In the program of 2006, Jobbik pointed out that after the regime change, income difference

76

had increased thirty times between the "elite of globalization" representing 5-6 per cent of the

upper class and 30 per cent of the lowest stratum, which they labelled the South-Amenicanization. Then they declared that it could be solved only by the "state intervention" on the basis of Christianity.(21)

While Fidesz found their chief support in the Transdanubia, or economically well-off areas, Jobbik founded their support base in the poor eastern and northeastern provinces, or former

power base of the Communists. Looking at the geographical percentage of the vote, Jobbikobtained in the elections of 2010, from 13.5 per cent to 14.9 per cent in Transdanubia, from 16.0 per cent to 16.5 per cent in the central area and the southern part of the Great Plain, but

from 22.1 per cent to 24.3 per cent in the northern part of the Great Plain as well as thenortheastern area of the country. That is, higher rate in the east and north than in the west.(22)

Jobbik politically leaped in the economically ill conditions. But is that all? A think-tank of Demos in London made a report in January 2012 that "Jobbik party should not be groupedtogether with other nationalist populist parties in Western Europe".(23) According to the report,

its voters base should not be regarded simplistically as the "losers of the transition" following the collapse of the Communist regime: poor, unemployed or undereducated. They are better

educated (high school and technical school graduates), 40 per cent of them are under 35 years old, economically active, better-off than the national average, and 33 per cent of them are non-religious inspite of Jobbik's almost "fundamentalist, Christian self-definition". They are

formerly Fidesz voters or politically inactive people from provincial small cities, and motivated in large part by "ideology and cultural considerations rather than economics".

Péter Krekó, a member of the Political Capital Institute in Budapest and a co-author of the Demos report, shows a drastic change of the socio-political climate in Hungary between 2002

and 2009. That is, between the years when Fidesz started a nationalistic mass movement andJobbik advanced to the European Parliament, "prejudices and welfare chauvinism" increased

from 37.3 per cent in 2002 to 52.4 per cent in 2009. "Uncertainty about the future" also increased from 19.1 per cent in 2002 to 27.2 per cent in 2009. However, sympathy with the "right wing values" had little difference between 27.8 per cent in 2002 and 27.3 per cent in

2009.(24) Taken in the lump, the data shows that an increase of 15.1 per cent in "prejudices and welfare chauvinism" and that of 8.1 per cent in "uncertainty about the future" over the year of

2002 joined the fixed supporters of right wing (about 27 per cent) and promoted the right leaning politics in 2009.

In connection with their ideology and cultural considerations, in the program of 2009 for

the elections of the European Parliament, Jobbik expressed their distaste for efficiency and competitiveness in the name of neo-liberalism or the globalization which gives priority to the

foreigner's profit. Both the title of "Hungary belongs to the Hungarians" and the phrase of

77

"those rule the country who own the land" were from the slogans of the Alliance of

Landowners.(25)

They worked out a very long program for the elections of 2010. The third chapterproclaimed to review the process of privatization in which only former executives of the

Communist Party and high-ranking bureaucrats of the Communist regime in addition to the advocators of neo-liberalism in the left-liberal government filled their pockets. It also declared

to re-evaluate the presence of multinational corporations which came into Hungary in order to seek for only cheap labor and potential market. Here they regarded the elite's continuity between the Communist and post-Communist periods as the source of corruption and nepotism,

and promised to break it off.(26) In their eyes, the left-liberal government in which not a few persons were from the families of former nomenklatura, was the symbol of such elite's

continuity. Even in the "sabotaged culture struggle" of the third chapter in the election program of 2014, they required to purge the former "Kádár Jugend" from the key positions of the cultural field who abruptly went into the Western liberalism after the regime change.(27)

Besides, in the "protection of agriculture" of the 2010 program, they wrote it clearly that the clauses of the Accession treaty with the EU should be re-examined in order to defend the

arable lands from the foreigners' speculation. Additionally, they stated definitely that they would refuse such colonialism of foreign capital combined with the earlier governments as selling off the good domestic produce and importing the cheap, mass-produced, poor-quality

substitutes. Further, they planned to establish a bank, which will offer long-term low-rate credit to the rural groups saying that earlier governments preferred the interests of big corporations

and agribusiness concerns to the welfare of local societies.(28) (In the program of 2006 and 2009,using the word "Hangya" they regarded the strengthening of family farms by founding a credit

cooperative for small capitals as one of the national strategies.)(29) Still more, they advocated the rural development with a new concept of agriculture, by which young people can enjoy the

economic activities in the countryside. This project easily reminds us of Count Klebelsberg's inner colonization, and the picture of "upstanding, hard-working, multi-child families" in their economic philosophy also reminds us of the Count's "expected Hungarians" in his

Neo-Nationalism.In the sixth chapter on the defense and foreign policy of the 2010 program, they considered

the "integration of the countrymen beyond the borders" as the most decisive issue and declared to give the Hungarian citizenship to them and support their self-determination with all political measures.(30) However, at that time, they used the term "mangled country" [csonkaország],

which was so demagogic as to irritate the Trianon syndrome of Hungarians. (In the program of 2009, they described Hungarians as "mutilated nation" [megcsonkított nemzet].)

In addition to such a nationalistic incitement politics, Jobbik has characteristics common to

78

present-day European populism including anti-globalization based on the criticism of

ultra-liberalism, anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism and Euroscepticism (opposing statement(31)

against the Lisbon treaty effective in December 2009). Anti-immigration is one of them. In the program of 2006, they showed a flag against the immigration in order to defend the traditional

communities from the acculturation which would be caused by the influx of immigrants.(32)

Apart from the context to follow the European populist parties, and notwithstanding Hungary

was far from large scale immigration in the early 21st century, the reason why they rejected the immigration was due to their "historical experience" with the Jews and the Roma. They do not count the Cumans in the 13th century as well as the Swabians in the 18th century.

Roma came into the picture on the Hungarian history as slaves dealing with torture or making arms in the second half of the 15th century. Queen of Hungary, Maria Theresia

regarded them as new Hungarians in 1761, and promoted their assimilation. Her son Joseph II ordered in 1783 (the same year of tolerance edict for the Jews in Hungary) that "the four-year-old children of Roma should be put out to peasant foster parents. Foster parents

would be supplied with money for nursing them for ten years". Being prohibited from speaking in their mother language, Roma language speakers were "beaten by stick twenty-four times".(33)

Endogamy was also forbidden strictly. Clergies were obligated to educate them both religiously and secularly without fee.

While about six million Roma live in East Central Europe, 10 per cent of them are in

northern and northeastern part of Hungary as well as on the middle reaches of the Tisza river. In the early 1960s, after the negotiations with Roma organization, the government issued a

decree that the Roma were not to be considered as a "national minority". The political leadership of the Communist Party believed that "the Roma issue would cease to exist" through

the social policies such as "labor, housing and school".(34) In the 1970s the rate of their unemployment was 20 per cent, but reached 70 per cent in the middle of 1990s. It was because

a lot of unskilled Roma laborers were dismissed in the process of economic liberalization. In addition, as the total population of Hungary is estimated at eight million in the middle of this century, so the population of Roma is supposed to increase double: that is, 15 per cent of the

total population in Hungary. Conjecturing the psychology of Jobbik supporters, their ill feeling toward the Roma "free riders" of the state welfare, or welfare chauvinism provided them with

an outlet for anger. Gergely Karácsony and Dániel Róna thought of the "pseudo-civil war" between the Roma and the non-Roma societies in 2009 as one of the Jobbik's strides.(35)

In 1998, Márta Gyenei of the Karl Marx university (now Corvinus university) wrote an

article entitled "Strategic child—why the infant mortality rate is high in our country?"(36) for the Népszabadság, in which she had dealt with the problems of Roma communities in the

villages of the Great Plain since the end of 1980s. The so-called "strategic child" of the title

79

meant those who were born in order to help their families with the state welfare. The article

says that "some children were born as a result of strategic reason of the family in order to support their parents with no income, and provide a good condition of housing to their parents who can not buy a house or rent an apartment for themselves". According to her survey of

1993, "63 per cent of the children were the strategic ones: of those 67 per cent were from the Roma, 29 per cent were from the non-Roma". In this connection she maintained that such a

strategy had produced negative chains: decrease in school enrollment, unhealthy development of the children, crimes by young people, and increase of unemployment; consequently it would impose a burden on the Hungarian society. The author does not know what she concretely

intended in the article, and why she resigned the university. But it is undeniable that in the Jobbik supporters' eyes, the population explosion of the Roma communities based on such a

"strategy" was a defiant attitude to the Hungarian society. As regards the Roma issue, Jobbik wrote it clearly in its 2014 program that they won't accept their strategic childbirth.(37)

Both Jobbik and Fidesz are authoritarian on the basis of Christianity; their special feature is

the Eastern orientation. If it is a policy to reduce the economic dependence on the big powers in the West, or omnidirectional diplomacy, their Eastern orientation is nothing peculiar.

However, they look east not only in the economy and diplomacy but in the history and culture of Hungarians. Especially Jobbik's nativism shows a penchant for Hungarian uniqueness of Eastern origin.

In the third chapter of the 2010 program, Jobbik indicated that Hungary had not a few occasions for business and capital alliance with China, India, Russia, Turkey, Khazakhstan,

and Indonesia for the past twenty years, but earlier governments had taken no effective measures for that. In their opinion, Hungary could be a "transit country between Western

Europe and Asia" from the viewpoint of its location. From the viewpoint of cultural relationsand ancient kinship with the peoples of Central Asia, they emphasized to establish the

geopolitically strategic relationship with them. (From this viewpoint and in connection with the Jews and Israel, Jobbik is pro-Islam; that is unusual among the populist parties.) This argument extends to the second biggest economic power China, and to Southeast Asia which will be "an

economic leading center of the world in several years".(38) Fidesz also mentioned the foreign trade with Eastern countries (China, Russia, India, and other Asian states) as a transit base

between East and West in their campaign platform of 2010.(39)

Jobbik which emphasizes the historical and cultural uniqueness of Hungarians defined the competitive neo-liberalism as "a kind of cultural terror" or "soft dictatorship" to destroy the

Hungarian national consciousness intentionally. In the fifth chapter of 2010 program, they required to constitutionalize the ancient national symbols such as the crown of St. István,

historical flags and Turul (legendary bird carrying the sword of Attila) in order to pit them

80

against the "cultural terror" or "soft dictatorship".(40) The crown of St. István symbolized the

historical territory of Hungary; one of the historical flags is that of Árpád who was elected a chieftain of the seven tribes before they conquered the Carpathian basin; Turul is a sacred bird in the mythology on the founding of Hungarian state. The Chronicle of Anonymus (around

1200) says that a girl named Emese heard a revelation of Turul notifying in her dream that she will give a birth to a boy Álmos and his descendants are destined to be kings of Hungary; then

the bird led Hungarians to the present location. The legend of Turul defined Hungarians as a direct offspring of the Huns. These legends were unfortunately exploited by the extreme rights. Former premier Béla

Imrédy used the Miraculous Stag in The Deeds of the Hungarians (1282-1285) as a symbol of his Hungarian Life movement. Turul became a name of the biggest right winger student

organization (the Turul Association) during the interwar period. Randolph L. Braham says that some ten thousand highly secretive and half secret associations were created in early 1920s; the Turul Association was one of them.(41) The Turul students rediculed the aristocrats of

German origin as "the most alian minority", and denounced the Catholic priests' "Swabian and Slovakian character".(42)

Jobbik's proposals seriously influenced the Fidesz government's policies. In the program of2006 and 2009, Jobbik demanded the constitution based on the spirit of St. István's crowninstead of the "provisional" one enforced by the Soviet Union.(43) In the general elections of

April 2010, Fidesz and the Christian Democratic People's Party gained 263 seats (more than two thirds of the 386 parliamentary seats) and started the constitutional change immediately.

One year later, on April 18 of 2011, the Fidesz government established a new constitution. Itdeclares in its preamble (Nemzeti hitvallás or national confession) that "Christianity is a strong

tie to hold the nation" and "the crown of St. István embodies the continuity of Hungarian state as well as the integrity of Hungarian nation".(44) However, as long as the crown of St. István

now in the parliament embodies the continuity of Hungarian state, it would be necessarily perceived as a symbol of Hungarian irredentism by the neighboring states. In connection with the integrity of Hungarian nation, the article D expressed clearly that "Hungary shall bear

responsibility for the fate of Hungarians living outside its borders, and facilitate the survival and development of their communities. Hungary shall support their efforts to preserve their

Hungarianness, and promote their cooperation with each other and with Hungary".(45)

In the program of 2010, in order to liquidate the past negative legacy, Jobbik required to remove the statues which do not match their recognition of history (e.g. the statue of Mihály

Károlyi in the Kossuth square). Instead of them they advocated building the monuments of Horthy, Teleki, Prohászka, Tormay, Albert Wass and Béla Hamvas, and claimed to eliminate

the Communist- or the Soviet Union-related naming of public facilities. They proposed at the

81

parliament that the fourth of June should be a national memorial day in order not to forget the

humiliating Trianon treaty and introduced it in May 2010. Their request that Roosevelt square should be renamed to Széchenyi square was received the support of Fidesz delegation at thecity council of Budapest. The names and statues such as Marx, Lenin and Béla Kun

disappeared; Moscow square in the second ward of Budapest was changed to old Kálmán Széllsquare. The names of public land in the third ward and one of the squares in the seventeenth

ward of Budapest were changed to Béla Hamvas and Albert Wass respectively. A street of the Csepel Island was named after Péter Mansfeld who took part in the 1956 revolution and was executed before the eighteenth birthday. One of the streets in the eighth ward of Budapest was

after Sándor Bauer who burned himself to death in January 1969, before the seventeenth birthday, against the Soviet military invasion to suppress the Prague Spring of 1968. Although

they are not always the orders of the Fidesz government and Jobbik, but such ridiculous impulse as renaming streets after their favorites was undoubtedly a natural result of historical revisionism fomented in the patriotic-awakening citizen movement Fidesz promoted in the

early 21st century. The field of education was noisy, too. Jobbik criticized the postwar education saying that

Hungary became a morbid country where any authority was ignored because the postwar education regarded every traditional value as "Prussian" and denied it.(46) Their historical revisionism was introduced in the new curriculum on June 4 of 2012, in which the ministry of

education recommended reading, for example, the books of Albert Wass, József Nyirő, István Sinka and Dezső Szabó at school.(47) Regarding this issue, the Jewish organizations asked the

authority to except those publications from the reading list because of their toxic anti-Semiticviews. The teachers' union also registered its protest that the works of Szabó, Nyirő and Wass

are inadequate to accept as the recommended reading in public education since they are not conservatives but national extremists.

Additionally in the program of 2010, Jobbik manifested that it would be compulsory for the upper year pupils of elimentary schools to go on a school excursion to the Hungarian historical territories which now belong to the neighboring states.(48) Parliament approved the draft

decision of the Fidesz government in October of the year. However, Zoltán Balczó, a vice-president of Jobbik, and originally a member of Csurka's party complained that Fidesz

had constantly stolen the ideas of Jobbik and peddled them as its own.(49) Indeed Fidesz used to incorporate the ideas and proposals of right radicals such as Jobbik into their programs, and led the conservative and extreme right camps until now. But Jobbik went too far right. Fidesz has

absolutely no chance of winning in competition with Jobbik over the nationalistic line, which became now the biggest rival to Fidesz. It is a dilemma of Fidesz's right leaning strategy.

On May 29 of 2013, the Budapest city council decided again that a street of the second

82

ward would be named after Tormay. Next day the Jewish organizations asked the mayor István

Tarlós to reconsider his decision to support the naming of a street after Tormay because of hervicious anti-Semitism. The Socialist Party also entered a protest against it. Tarlós reluctantly complied with the wishes of Jewish organizations and Socialists. He urged the city council to

withdraw the plan on the one hand, and asked for the verdict of Academy of Sciences about the issue on the other hand. The research agenda of Academy of Sciences was whether Tormay

street skirts the law CLXXXIX of 2011 which prohibits the naming of public places and institutions after those who founded and developed or supported the despotic regimes of the 20th century (i.e. Arrow-Cross men and Communists). Academy of Sciences (Humanities

Research Center) examined it carefully and reported that "Tormay was avowed anti-Semite and fascist on the principle of her confessed racism, and in fact her-led National Union of

Hungarian Women earnestly supported the establishment of Numerus Clausus law of 1920. So in spite of the fact that she was dead in 1937 and not related directly to the Arrow-Cross dictatorship, the naming after Tormay is against the law of 2011.(50) Then the Budapest city

council withdrew the former decision on September 3, 2013. However, Jobbik delegation was not satisfied, saying that the Theodore Herzl square of the seventh ward should be discussed in

the city council and examined by Academy of Sciences whether its naming is suitable for Hungarian society.

Why does Jobbik so blindly adhere to changing the name of street? The renaming wave

peaked from spring to summer in 2011. It was not always ideological. The best example is the Ferenc Liszt International Airport. However, the renaming of Moscow square caused

disagreement with the Russian Foreign Ministry. In the case of Roosevelt square, a letter was sent to the Budapest mayor from the Roosevelt family in America to the effect that they were

deeply disappointed. It was not a political campeign to be done at the expense of the relationship with Russia and America.

Historical revisionism is also seen in the new constitution. The ostensible characteristic of the new constitution is Christian values such as negative views on same-sex marrige or induced abortion as well as nationalistic tendency of the article D. However, the most

controversial point is its understanding of history that Hungary had no right of self-determination from the German occupation in March 1944 till the end of the Communist

regime under the Soviet occupation, or the formation of the parliament based on the free and multi-party elections in May 1990.(51) It means that Hungary does not admit any responsibility for the past negative legacy happened during the foreign rules. This description of the

preamble created a sensation within and outside the country. It's nothing but the excessive victim-feeling and the self-deception. Such a perception of history was, in the eyes of Jewish

society, a very pretext to avoid the Hungarian responsibility of the Holocaust. Ney, not only

83

from the viewpoint of Jewish history. Forty-one well-informed persons including Hungarian

historian Krisztián Ungváry expressed that "the draft preamble robs us of part of our national history."(52) American historian I. Deák criticized that those who insisted on Hungary's no responsibility for the things caused during the period, had forgotten the existence of the regent

as well as the government and the parliament even after the German occupation. Then he advised that the present international severities against Hungary were due to the hysterical

persistence that "Hungarians were innocent at all times".(53)

Yet, Géza Jeszenszky, former foreign minister of the Democratic Forum government and ambassador of the Fidesz government to America, protected the historical perception of the

preamble saying that "after the German occupation, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky and Gratz were arrested by Gestapo; three thousand people including Ferenc Nagy of the Independent Smallholder's

Party and Károly Peyer of the Socialist Party were taken hostage; Count Bethlen was forced into hiding. 70 per cent of prefects and two thirds of city mayors including the mayor of Budapest were replaced by the radical right officials; high-ranking military posts were given to

the persons of German descent or supporters of the Arrow Cross Party. Such Hungary was not at all sovereign state."(54) However, when Zoltán Balczó, a vice-president of Jobbik,

condemned prime minister Orbán who tried to restore the relations with Israel as well as the home and abroad Jewish organizations, saying that Orbán asked for the Jewish assistance in order to ease the international severities against the Fidesz government,(55) Jeszenszky

criticized Balczó in a happy phrase that "in my view, those who deny the Holocaust should go to a mental hospital instead of prison".(56)

As for Jeszenszky, at the end of 2012 when he was ambassador to Norway, he was accused of some prejudice against Roma in his course textbook for the Corvinus university students.

According to the open letter of three Rafto laureates including Ian Hancock of Romabackground, the poin at issue was as follows: "The reason why many Roma are mentally ill is

because in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other".(57) In terms of their letter, it was merely "mirroring anti-Roma prejudices*(ii) that are the most unfortunetely and shamefully

wide-spread in Hungarian society".(58) One of the signers of the open letter was Péter Molnár who took part in the foundation of Fidesz and was a Rafto laureate of 1989 representing the

struggle of Fidesz against the Communist suppression of human rights. But he joined the Free Democrats together with Fodor and other Fidesz members after its right leaning.

*(ii) Zsolt Bayer, journalist and founding member of Fidesz, wrote it in the Magyar Hírlap(January 5, 2013) as a refutation of the Rafto laureates' open letter that "most of Gipsies are

animals which can not live symbiotically in the human society. They behave as animals:

84

whatever the occasion they go to rut, and kill her when she resists them. […] Such animals

should be excluded from the society. We should solve the problem—immediately and in any case!" In the article, he used the word [megold] which suggests the Final Solution [végső megoldás in Hungarian] of Nazi.

Schiff-Bayer controversy Two years earlier before the above-mentiond column, in January 2011, Bayer bursted out his ill feeling toward András Schiff, a Hungarian-born concert pianist living in Florence, who responded to the Washington Post's editorial "The Putinization of Hungary" of December 26 in

2010. The Washington Post's editorial defined the Orbán government as "populist and

power-hungry", and regarded the adopted media law which suited to its authoritarian regimeundesirable.(59) Schiff questioned in his letter to the paper (published on January 1, 2011) whether Hungary is worthy to take on the rotating presidency of the EU Council because of

rampant "racism, discrimination against the Roma, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, chauvinism and reactionary nationalism". Then he concluded that the EU and America had to keep an eye on

the Orbán government for the European common values.(60)

Three days later after Schiff's letter in the Washington Post, Bayer published a column of "The same stink" in the Magyar Hírlap. He showed his physiological distaste saying that Schiff

has the same stink as exiling leftists. Following Tormay, he asserted Schiff to be a "mental-spiritual relative" of the exiling leftists.(61) A significant part of the column dealt with

the red terror during the Soviet Republic of 1919 and its leaders in exile. He is indignant thatWestern countries denounced Hungary for its white terror during the counter-revolution only

listening to the exiling leftists.(62) Even just limited to the persons in this monograph, Zsigmond Kunfi and Zoltán Rónai are regarded as the greatest traitors; to say nothing of Béla Kun. Then,

how the exiling leftists are related to Schiff? For the patriotic publicists including Bayer, the most inexcusable matter is that they commonly criticize their native land outside the country. In this context, they are usually rubbed the wrong way by the "anti-Hungarian" doings of

intellectuals who are active abroad such as György Konrád and György Dalos.

Conclusion Lastly let's state the risky and doubtful points of the today's populist arguments in Hungary. The Fidesz government expressed the "Ignác Darányi plan" on January 16, 2012 for

vitalizing the local economies and "one million employment in ten years" promised in the program of 2010. Prime minister Orbán announced in the ministry of rural development that

the new agriculture strategy would improve living standards in the provinces, and contribute to

85

the interests of small- and medium-sized farms in particular. He added that the Hungarian soil

provided us with everything: comfort comparable to urban life, jobs ensuring a decent living, healthy water, and domestic safe produce instead of imported poor-quality substitutes.

However, József Ángyán, vice-minister of rural development who drafted the "Ignác

Darányi plan" made it public to resign from the post. Some media had doubts about the effectiveness of the new agriculture strategy, supposing that his resignation was due to the

conflict between Ángyán who stood by family farms and the authority which wanted to cooperate with big farming for regional peace. He showed his opinion in the interview of April 27, 2012 that in Hungary's agriculture there had been a movement toward the oligopolization

of speculative large companies, but in many European countries, family farms with 30-35 hectares [about 50-60 holds] of land were standard. To the question whether small-sized farms

can compete with large scale farming, he referred to the family farms' cooperative in Austria, and replied that it was a European way but Hungary's agriculture was following a way of South-America. According to Ángyán, land price of Austria (Burgenland) is five times as

much as that of western Hungary, and fifty times of eastern Hungary;(63) so, some people havefear that Hungary's farmland would pass into foreigners' possession. But he said in the

interview of June 21, 2013 that "foreigners mean the non-EU citizens in the agricultural land act, so that five hundred million people of the EU can get Hungary's farmland in the same terms as Hungarians". From the viewpoint of the new strategy to strengthen the family

farms—he concluded, seeds of troubles are not "foreigners' purchase of Hungary's farmland but Hungarian speculative large companies".(64) Even so in the first chapter of the Jobbik's

2014 program, they instigated that today's agriculture of Hungary was leading to the political "colonization", which exports the greater part of its raw materials and imports a small

percentage of the processed goods for domestic consumption.(65) Reading the subhead of "the fate of slave" and the rhetoric of political colonization, they toy with the words too much.

Concerning the Eastern orientation, both Jobbik and Fidesz desire that Hungary should be a transfer station between East and West. But doesn't the idea end in the daydream which Count Széchenyi called a national sin? Even though Orbán proclaimed in the program of 2010 that

"we don't chase délibáb (mirage); we have to start from the present difficulties". China, India and Russia are three of the five states (so-called BRICS) which are said to lead the world

economy of this century. Economic scale of BRICS, that is, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (South Africa took part in the BRICs in April 2011) are said to exceed G7 orseven major countries including America, Japan and Germany by 2050. It is a giant consumer

market which has 40 per cent of the world population. World economy won't move only for the geopolitical location. If the superiority is just a geopolitical location, another country is

possible as the alternative to Hungary. Further and more telling, an adventurous country with

86

no economic rationality and security is not trusted by the world. When the Hungarian Soviet

Republic was established by the colaboration of Socialists and Communists in March 1919,Sándor Garbai, president of the Soviet Republic, expressed that "we have to advance in order to obtain from the East what we could not get from the West".(66) Who can say definitely that

Eastern orientation of the populist parties won't be another "flight ahead" from the present difficulties?

On the other hand, in regard to the differences between Jobbik and Fidesz, for example, the former requires the restoration of gendarmerie in order to maintain public peace, but the latter insists on making the criminal law stricter and the police force stronger. Among other things,

their difference of attitude to education is the most symbolic. Jobbik proposed that religious instruction should be placed back in the school curriculum as a compulsory subject,(67) whereas

Fidesz is so forward-looking as to say that "they will create an educational system responsible to the economic expectation with Western high norm".(68)

However, notwithstanding the Jobbik's hope for the religious instruction, the Catholic

Church criticized the "new paganism in the right wing movement". It is because the extreme rightists amalgamate "Christianity with the Eastern paganish principles" and proclaim that "the

Christian principles are in harmony with ancient Hungarian faith" or "mother of Jesus, Mary was genealogically familiar with ancient Hungarians". No doubt that they certainly reminded the Catholic Church of Ferenc Szálasi's Hungarism (a variant of Turanism) propagating that

Hungarians are of Sumer origin and Jesus was a Hungarian.Turanism became the party principle in the Jobbik's general assembly of December 2010.

They aim to revitalize the Hungarians who, in the context of this monograph, decayed because of the acculturation by the newcomers, their internal colonialism, or the false Compromise in

1867 (Szekfű, Németh, Bibó), and lost their vitality under the Communist rule (Csoóri) as well as their soundness as a result of postwar education (the Jobbik's 2010 program). That is the

very final goal of Count Klebelsberg's neo-nationalism. Fidesz also shares this conception.However, the Fidesz government and the Socialists opposed the Jobbik's bill to celebrate

the "day of Turanic kin nations". Vona stated to them in the party's home page on April 15,

2013 that "there is no scientific agreement on the Fin-Ugric linguistic kinship with Hungarians, but Turanic blood relations with Hungarians are almost universally recognized now", and

added that "we are all Attila's grandchildren". In the "cultural policy" of the party's 2014program, they labelled their Eastern orientation as "Eurasianism",(69) which has some parallel with the Russian anti-Western orientation. The paganish right wing movement and Jobbik's

Turanism would be one critical test of the Fidesz government, or a strategic partner of the Catholic Church. It is a dear pay of Fidesz for having released the uncontrollable national

extremists because of their power hunger. Whether Fidesz clears off their debts is a barometer

87

of international trust. In the context of Hungarian history, it will be Viktor Orbán's way to

return to the Tiszas and Bethlen, or the self-control precedents in xenophobia. Remember a historically precious eyewitness account of Gratz that the urban intellectuals were alsoinvolved in the nationalistic enthusiasm and could not stand boldly against the kuruc legend at

the beginning of 20th century.

88

Notes

Preface(1) Johan G. Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (Wiesbaden: R.

Löwit, 1985), p.429.(2) Vera Ranki, The politics of inclusion and exclusion. Jews and nationalism in Hungary (New

York / London: Holmes & Meier, 1999), p.116.(3) Viktor Karády, "Egyenlőtlen elmagyarosodás avagy hogyan vált Magyarország magyar

nyelvű országgá" [How Hungary became a Hungarian speaking country?], Századvég, 1990/2, p.5.

(4) Péter Hanák ed., Magyarország története 1890-1918 [History of Hungary, vol.7] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), p.944-946.

(5) Gyula Szekfű, Három Nemzedék: egy hanyatló kor története [Three generations: a history of

declining era] (Budapest: "Élet" Irodalmi és Nyomda R. T. Kiadása, 1920). Reprint of the revised and enlarged edition: Gyula Szekfű, Három Nemzedék és ami utána következik

[Three generations and post-Trianon] (Budapest: Maecenas, 1989).

89

One: Modernization of Hungary and the Jews(1) The law XXIX of 1840 (A zsidókról) [About the Jews]. László Gonda, A zsidóság

Magyarországon 1526-1946 [The Jews in Hungary between 1526 and 1946] (Budapest:

Századvég Kiadó, 1992), pp.269-270.(2) Péter Ujvári ed., Magyar zsidó lexikon [Hungarian Jewish lexicon] (Budapest: A Magyar

Zsidó Lexikon Kiadása, 1929), pp.126-127.(3) The law XVII of 1867 (Az izraeliták egyenjogúságáról polgári és politikai jogok

tekintetében) [On the Jewish equality of civil and political rights].(4) Robert A. Kann, "Hungarian Jewry during Austria-Hungary's constitutional period (1867-

1918)", Jewish Social Studies (vol.7, no.4, 1945), p.380.(5) Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The golden tradition: Jewish life and thought in Eastern Europe (New

York, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996), pp.27-28.(6) Livia Elvira Bitton, A decade of Zionism in Hungary, the formative years—the post World

War I period: 1918-1928 (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, New York University, 1968), p.110.

(7) Lajos Venetianer, A magyar zsidóság története. Különös tekintettel gazdasági és művelődési fejlődésére a XIX. században [History of Hungarian Jews in the 19th century] (Budapest: Könyvértékesítő Vállalat, 1986), p.318.

The first edition was published in 1922, but was republished in an abridged form in 1986 under the above title.

(8) Hillel Levine, Economic origins of antisemitism. Poland and its Jews in the early modern period (New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 1991), pp.140-143.

(9) Michael K. Silber, "A Jewish minority in a backward economy: an introduction" in Michael K. Silber ed., Jews in the Hungarian economy 1760-1945. Studies dedicated to Moshe

Carmilly-Weinberger on his eightieth birthday (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1992),p.13.

(10) Venetianer, op. cit., p.483.(11) Bálint Hóman・Gyula Szekfű, Magyar történet [Hungarian history], vol.5 (Budapest:

Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1936), p.250.(12) Andrew C. Janos, "The decline of oligarchy. Bureaucratic and mass politics in the age of

dualism (1867-1918)" in Andrew C. Janos・William B. Slottman eds., Revolution in perspective. Essays on the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 (Berkeley, Los Angeles:

University of California, 1971), p.36.(13) Ignác Romsics, Magyarország története a XX. században [History of Hungary in the 20th

century] (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2000), p.73.

90

(14) John Lukacs, Budapest, 1900. A historical portrait of a city and its culture (New York:

Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988), pp.35-36.(15) George Deak, "The search for an urban alliance. The politics of the National Association of

Hungarian Industrialists [GyOSz] before the First World War" in Silber ed., op. cit., p.211.(16) William O. McCagg Jr., Jewish nobles and geniuses in modern Hungary (Boulder: East

European Monographs, 1986), p.36.(17) István Deák, "The Holocaust in Hungary", The Hungarian Quarterly (vol.45, no.176, 2004),

pp. 53-54.(18) Ibid., p.68, n.8.(19) Ujvári ed., op. cit., p.965.(20) McCagg, op. cit., pp.55-56.(21) Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary: history, culture, psychology (Detroit: Wayne State

University Press, 1996), pp.378-379.(22) J. Lukacs, op. cit., p.59.(23) Zsuzsa L. Nagy, The liberal opposition in Hungary 1919-1945 (Budapest: Akadémiai

Kiadó, 1983), p.12.(24) Hugó Csergő・József Balassa eds., Vázsonyi Vilmos beszédei és írásai [Speeches and

writings of Vázsonyi] (Budapest: Az Országos Vázsonyi-Emlékbizottság Kiadása, 1927), vol.1, pp.155-156.

(25) McCagg, op. cit., p.200.(26) George Barany, "‘Magyar Jew or Jewish Magyar?’ Reflection on the question of

assimilation" in Béla Vágó・George L. Mosse eds., Jews and non-Jews in Eastern Europe

1918-1945 (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1974), p.61.(27) Móric Kornfeld, Trianontól Trianonig: tanulmányok, dokumentumok [Articles and

documents] (Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 2006), p.188.(28) Romsics, op. cit., p.52. Ignác Romsics, Hungary in the twentieth century (Budapest:

Corvina-Osiris Kiadó, 1999), p.42.(29) Andrew C. Janos, Hungary: 1867-1939. A study of social change and the political process

(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1961), pp.168-169, fn.67.(30) William O. McCagg, Jr., "Hungary's ‘feudalized’ bourgeoisie", Journal of Modern History

(vol.44, no.1, 1972), p.74.(31) Lajos Szabolcsi, Két emberöltő. Az Egyenlőség évtizedei 1881-1931 [Fifty years of the

Equality] (Budapest: MTA Judaisztikai Kutatócsoport, 1993), pp.201-202.(32) R. Patai, op. cit., p.368.(33) Ezra Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p.101. Janos, "The decline of oligarchy",

91

p.36.(34) Thomas Karfunkel, "The impact of Trianon on the Jews of Hungary" in Béla K. Király・

Peter Pastor・Ivan Sanders eds., Essays on World War I: Total war and peacemaking, acase study on Trianon (New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1982), p.468.

(35) Andrew C. Janos, The politics of backwardness in Hungary, 1825-1945 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982), p.223. Ujvári ed., op. cit., pp.153, 553.

On the Jewish population of Trianon Hungary, see Randolph L. Braham, The politics of genocide. The Holocaust in Hungary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994) vol.1, p.28, table 1.3.

(36) Szabadság [Ocrober 23, 1900], Endre Ady, "A zsidó gyerekek bűne" [The sin of Jewish children] in Ady Endre összes művei [Complete works of Ady] CD-ROM (Budapest:

Arcanum Adatbázis Kft., 1999): összes prózai művei [prosaic works], 1-490. (37) György Lengyel, "The ethnic composition of the economic elite in Hungary in the interwar

period" in Yehuda Don・Victor Karady eds., A social and economic history of Central

European Jewry (New Brunswick / London: Transaction Publishers, 1990), p.236.

92

Two: Gentry State and Neo-Conservatism(1) Peter I. Hidas, The metamorphosis of a social class in Hungary during the reign of young

Franz Joseph (Boulder: East European Quarterly, 1977), pp.64-65.(2) Iván T. Berend・Miklós Szuhay, A tőkés gazdaság története Magyarországon 1848-1944

[History of capitalistic economy in Hungary between 1848 and 1944] (Budapest: Kossuth

Könyvkiadó / Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, 1978), p.141. Iván T. Berend, Válságos évtizedek. Közép- és Kelet-Európa a két világháború között [Decades of crisis] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1983), p.37. Iván T. Berend, Decades of crisis. Central and Eastern Europe

before World War II (Berkeley, Los Angeles / London: University of California Press, 1998), p.27.

(3) István I. Mócsy, The effect of World War I. The uprooted: Hungarian refugees and their impact on Hungary's domestic politics, 1918-1921 (New York: Brooklyn College Press, 1983), p.73.

(4) Romsics, Magyarország története a XX. Században [History of Hungary in the 20th century], p.72; idem, Hungary in the twentieth century, p.57.

(5) McCagg, Jewish nobles and geniuses in modern Hungary, p.36.(6) According to a deposition made by István Rakovszky (MP of the Catholic People's Party) to

the House of Representatives in 1896, one hundred and forty-one members of the Liberal Party held 170 jobs with railroad and transportation companies as well as with banks and industrial corporations either as legal advisers or as members of the board. Janos, "The decline of oligarchy", p.22.

(7) G. Deak, "The search for an urban alliance", p.211.(8) Iván T. Berend・György Ránki, Economic development in East-Central Europe in the 19th

and 20th centuries (New York / London: Columbia University Press, 1974), p.164.(9) Miklós Szabó, Az újkonzervativizmus és a jobboldali radikalizmus története [History of neo-

conservatism and right radicalism] (Budapest: Új Mandátum, 2003), p.276, fn.478.(10) "A zsidókérdés Magyarországon: a Huszadik Század körkérdése" [Opinionnaire on the

Jewish question in 1917], Huszadik Század (vol.18, no.2, 1917), p.64.(11) Hanák ed., Magyarország története 1890-1918 [History of Hungary, vol.7], p.945.(12) Mária M. Kovács, Liberal professions and illiberal politics: Hungary from the Habsburgs

to the Holocaust (New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp.27-28.(13) Daniele Albertazzi・Duncan McDonnell, "The sceptre and the spectre" in Daniele

Albertazzi・Duncan McDonnell eds., Twenty-first century populism. The spectre of Western

European democracy (New York / London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p.3.(14) Péter Hanák, "The anti-capitalist ideology of the populists" in Joseph Held ed., Populism in

93

Eastern Europe: racism, nationalism, and society (Boulder: East European Monographs,

1996), p.154.(15) Gyula Mérei, A magyar polgári pártok programjai (1867-1918) [Programs of Hungarian

civic parties in the dualist period] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971), p.176.(16) Ibid., p.178.(17) Mihály Vörösmarty, "Szózat" [Appeal to Hungarians] in Vörösmarty Mihály összes

költeményei [Anthology of Vörösmarty] (Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1978), vol.1, pp.291-292.

(18) Mérei, op. cit., p.176.(19) Mihály Kerék, A magyar földkérdés [Hungarian land question] (Budapest: Mefhosz Könyvkiadó,

1939), p.96.(20) Ibid., p.111.(21) János Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon: Politikai eszmetörténet [Jewish question

in Hungary] (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2001), p.351.(22) Kerék, op. cit., p.117.(23) Mérei, op. cit., pp.177-178.(24) Ujvári ed., Magyar zsidó lexikon [Hungarian Jewish lexicon], p.48.(25) Mérei, op. cit., p.149.(26) Ibid., pp.148-149.(27) Ibid., p.148.(28) Ibid., pp.148-149.(29) Gyula Mérei, Magyar politikai pártprogrammok (1867-1914) [Programs of Hungarian

political parties before World War I] (Budapest: Ranschburg Gusztáv Könyvkereskedése, 1934), p.167.

(30) Ibid.(31) Hanák ed., Magyarország története 1890-1918 [History of Hungary, vol.7], p.179.(32) György Litván, Jászi Oszkár [Oscar Jászi] (Budapest: Osiris, 2003), p.36.(33) M. Kovács, op. cit., pp.34-35.(34) Nagyváradi Napló [April 13, 1902], Endre Ady, "Vázsonyi Vilmos Nagyváradon"

[Vázsonyi in Nagyvárad] in Ady Endre összes művei: összes prózai művei [Complete works of Ady: prosaic works], 3-29.

(35) Litván, op. cit., pp.36-37.(36) Nagyváradi Napló [January 23, 1903], Endre Ady, "Prohászka és vidéke" [Prohászka and

his province], op. cit., összes prózai művei [Complete works of Ady: prosaic works], 4-12.(37) Nagyváradi Napló [May 29, 1903], Endre Ady, "Merénylet a nagyváradi jogakadémián"

[Attempt at the law academy of Nagyvárad], ibid, 4-56.

94

(38) Hanák ed., op. cit., p.457.(39) The People's Party official newspaper, Alkotmány [March 12, 1918] in the shortened

chapter 6 of Péter Bihari, Lövészárkok a hátországban. Középosztály, zsidókérdés, antiszemitizmus az első világháború Magyarországán [Middle class, Jewish question,

anti-Semitism in Hungary during the First World War] (Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2008), http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/antiszemitizmus-az-elso-vilaghaboru-magyarorszagan.

(40) Rerum Novarum "Rights and duties of capital and labor", paragraph 3 and 15 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo_xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum_novarum.html), pp.1, 5.

Prohászka was the first that translated the social program of Pope Leo XIII into Hungarian.(41) Mérei, A magyar polgári pártok programjai [Programs of Hungarian civic parties in the

dualist period], pp.165-166.(42) Ibid. p.165.(43) Ibid.(44) Ibid., p.164.(45) Ibid., p.169.(46) Ibid., p.165.(47) Ibid., pp.350-352.(48) Ibid., p.351.(49) Gyula Mérei, A magyar októberi forradalom és a polgári pártok [Hungarian October

revolution and the civic parties] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1969), p.188.(50) Ibid., pp.174-175.(51) Mihály Károlyi, Egy egész világ ellen [Against a whole world] (München: Verlag für

Kulturpolitik, 1923), vol.1, p.44.(52) Mérei, op. cit., p.310.(53) Hanák ed., op. cit., p.950.(54) Mihály Károlyi's statement in the report of the Coolidge Mission (January 16, 1919). U. S.

Department of State, Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1919:

The Paris Peace Conference (Washington: United States Government Printing, 1947),vol.12, p.381.

(55) Mérei, op. cit., p.195.(56) J. Lukacs, Budapest, 1900, pp.86-87.

95

Three: Civic Radicalism(1) McCagg, Jewish nobles and geniuses in modern Hungary, p.194.(2) Gyula Mérei, Polgári radikalizmus Magyarországon 1900-1919 [Civic radicalism in

Hungary 1900-1919] (Budapest: Karpinszky Aladár könyvnyomdája, 1947), p.14.(3) Ibid., p.24.(4) L. Nagy Zsuzsa, Szabadkőművesség a XX. században [Freemasons in the 20th century]

(Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1977), pp.26-27.(5) Lengyel, "The ethnic composition of the economic elite in Hungary", p.241.(6) M. Szabó, Az újkonzervativizmus és a jobboldali radikalizmus története [History of neo-

conservatism and right radicalism], p.165.(7) Fejtő Ferenc, Magyarság zsidóság [Hungarians and Jews] (Budapest: História・MTA

Történettudományi Intézete, 2000), p.165.(8) Romsics, Magyarország története a XX. Században [History of Hungary in the 20th century],

p.75; idem, Hungary in the twentieth century, p.59.(9) Oszkár Jászi, "Az új Magyarország felé" [Toward new Hungary], Huszadik Század (vol.8,

no.1, 1907), pp.11-12.(10) Hanák ed., Magyarország története 1890-1918 [History of Hungary, vol.7], p.451.(11) R. Patai, The Jews of Hungary, p.375.(12) Oszkár Jászi, Magyar kálvária magyar föltámadás. A két forradalom értelme, jelentősége

és tanulsága [Hungarian calvary and resurrection of Hungary], (Wien: Bécs Magyar Kiadó,

1920). Munich edition (München: Aurora Könyvek, 1969), p.88; Budapest edition(Budapest: Magyar Hírlap Könyvek, 1989), p.88. Oscar Jászi, Revolution and

counter-revolution in Hungary (New York: Howard Fertig, 1969. First edition: 1924),pp.75-76.

(13) Ibid., Munich edition, p.156; Budapest edition, p.160; idem, Revolution and counter-revolution in Hungary, p.189.

(14) Oscar Jászi, The dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy (Chicago / London: The University

of Chicago Press, 1971), p.234.(15) Ervin Szabó, A szocializmus. Szindikalizmus és szociáldemokrácia [Syndicalism and social

democracy] (Budapest: Az Új Magyarország Részvénytársaság, 1919), p.10.(16) Béla Vágó, "The attitude toward the Jews as a criterion of the left-right concept" in Vágó・

Mosse eds., Jews and non-Jews in Eastern Europe, p.32.(17) William O. McCagg Jr., A history of Habsburg Jews, 1670-1918 (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1992), p.195.(18) Péter Hanák, Jászi Oszkár dunai patriotizmusa [Danubian patriotism of Jászi] (Budapest:

96

Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1985), p.10.(19) György Ránki ed., Magyarország története: 1918-1919, 1919-1945 [History of Hungary,

vol.8] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), p.786.(20) Oszkár Jászi, Mi a radikalizmus? [What is the radicalism?] (Budapest: Országos Polgári

Radikális Párt Kiadása, 1918), pp.17-18.(21) Richard Edwin Allen, Oscar Jászi and radicalism in Hungary, 1900-1919 (Unpublished

Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1972), pp.334-335.When the Civic Radicals and the Socialists drafted the common land reform after the postwar revolution, Jászi proposed the land value tax of Henry George in order to eliminate

the unearned income. The "single tax" George advocated in his Progress and Poverty(1879) was based on his conviction that everything in nature including the land belongs

equally to all humanity. Socialists such as Kunfi and Varga supported the proposal and estimated that "it is practically the only possible solution". Jenő Varga, Földosztás és földreform Magyarországon [Land distribution and land reform in Hungary] (Budapest:

Népszava, 1919), p.50.(22) Jászi, Magyar kálvária magyar föltámadás [Hungarian calvary and resurrection of

Hungary], Munich edition, p.157; Budapest edition, p.160; idem, Revolution and counter-revolution in Hungary, p.189.

(23) "Huszadik Század körkérdése" [Opinionnaire on the Jewish question in 1917], p.100.(24) Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon: politikai eszmetörténet [Jewish question in

Hungary], p.503.(25) 1,279,718 dwarf holders possessed the land of under 5 holds in accordance with the census

of 1895. To add to them, there were nearly four million landless peasants (2,741,753

agricultural laborers and 1,211,234 farm hands) in 1910. Ferenc Pölöskei・Kálmán Szakács, Földmunkás- és szegényparaszt-mozgalmak Magyarországon 1848-1948 [Hungarian

peasant movements between 1848 and 1948] (Budapest: A mezőgazdasági és erdészeti dolgozók szakszervezete, 1962), p.495.

(26) Jászi, The dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy, p.234. p.233.(27) Arthur J. May, The Hapsburg monarchy 1867-1914 (New York: The Norton Library, 1968),

p.235.(28) Kerék, A magyar földkérdés, p.126. Hanák ed., op. cit., p.435.(29) Mario D. Fenyo, Literature and political change: Budapest, 1908-1918 (Philadelphia: The

American Philosophical Society, 1987), p.19.(30) G. Deak, "The search for an urban alliance", p.215.(31) Fenyo, op. cit., p.20.(32) Karády, "Egyenlőtlen elmagyarosodás avagy hogyan vált Magyarország magyar nyelvű

97

országgá" [How Hungary became a Hungarian speaking country?], p.10.(33) May, op. cit., p.243.(34) McCagg, A history of Habsburg Jews, p.190.(35) László Katus, "The status of ethnic minorities in Hungary during the age of dualism

(1867-1918)" in Peter I. Hidas ed., Minorities & the law from 1867 to the present(Montreal: Dawson College Publications, 1987), p.10.

(36) Grünwald remarked in his book that the secondary schools should be large machines in which "you feed a Slovak kid in on the one side, and on the other, a Hungarian gentleman comes out". Béla Grünwald, A Felvidék: Politikai tanulmány [Upper Hungary] (Budapest:

Ráth Mór, 1878), p.140.(37) Ibid., p.78.(38) Ibid., p.112.(39) Ibid., p.22.(40) Ibid.(41) Robert W. Seton-Watson, Racial problems in Hungary (New York: Howard Fertig, 1972.

First edition: 1908), pp.173, 331-332.(42) Jászi, The dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy, p.325.(43) "Huszadik Század körkérdése" [Opinionnaire on the Jewish question in 1917], p.139.(44) Jászi, op. cit., p.175.(45) Tibor Hajdu, A magyarországi tanácsköztársaság [Hungarian Soviet Republic] (Budapest:

Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1969), p.215.(46) Seton-Watson, op. cit., p.286, fn.499.(47) Oszkár Jászi, A nemzeti államok kialakulása és a nemzetiségi kérdés [The emergence of

nation states and the nationality question] (Budapest: Grill Károly Könyvkiadóvállalata,

1912), p.228.(48) Ibid., p.525.(49) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, p.310; reprint, pp.358-359.(50) Hóman・Szekfű, Magyar történet [Hungarian history] vol.5, p.597.(51) Szekfű, op. cit., first edition, p.261; reprint, p.297.(52) Barna Buza, "Az októberi földreform" [The land reform of the October revolution] in Vince

Nagy ed., Öt év multán. A Károlyi korszak előzményei és céljai [The precedents and aims

of the Károlyi era] (Budapest: Globus-nyomda,, 1923), p.43.(53) György Fukász, A magyarországi polgári radikalizmus történetéhez 1900-1918: Jászi

Oszkár ideológiájának bírálata [The history of Hungarian bourgeois radicalism between

1900 and 1918. Criticism of Oscar Jászi's ideology] (Budapest, 1960), p.276.(54) Oszkár Jászi, A nemzetiségi kérdés és Magyarország jövője [Nationality question and the

98

future of Hungary] (Budapest: Galilei Kör, 1911), p.27.(55) Oszkár Jászi, A monarchia jövője. A dualizmus bukása és a dunai egyesült államok [Future

of the monarchy] (Budapest: Az Új Magyarország Részvénytársaság, 1918), p.38.(56) Ibid., p.52.(57) György Ránki, "A hit, az illúzió és a politika" [Belief, illusion and politics], Valóság (no. 9,

1977), p.62.(58) Béla K. Király, "The Danubian problem in Oscar Jászi's political thought", The New

Hungarian Quarterly (vol.5, no.1-2, 1965), p.124.(59) Mihály Réz,"A nemzeti államok kialakulása és a nemzetiségi kérdes" [The emergence of

nation states and the nationality question], Magyar Figyelő (no.2, 1912), p.328.(60) Oszkár Jászi, A nemzetiségi kérdés a társadalmi és az egyéni fejlődés szempontjából

[Nationality question from the viewpoint of social and individual development] (Budapest: Az Új Magyarország Részvénytársaság, 1919), pp.44, 46.

(61) Ibid., pp.39-40, 92-93.(62) Ibid., p.95.(63) Hanák ed., Magyarország története 1890-1918 [History of Hungary, vol.7], p.447.(64) István Tisza, Küzdelem a parlamentarizmusért [Struggle for the parliamentarism]

(Budapest: Athenaeum, 1904), pp.17-18.(65) Gabor Vermes, István Tisza. The liberal vision and conservative statecraft of a magyar

nationalist (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp.164-165.(66) Ibid., p.166.(67) Ibid. Quotation from Lóránt Hegedüs, Ady és Tisza [Ady and Tisza] (Budapest: Nyugat,

n.d.).(68) Endre Ady, "Jászi Oszkár könyve" [Jászi's book] Nyugat (no.10, 1912) in Ady Endre összes

művei: összes prózai művei [Complete works of Ady: prosaic works], 10-95.(69) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, p.314; reprint, p.363.(70) Vermes, op. cit., p.173.(71) István Bethlen, Bethlen István gróf beszédei és írásai [Speeches and writings of Count

Bethlen] (Budapest: Génius Kiadás, 1933), vol.1, p.137.(72) Ibid., p.138.(73) Ibid., pp.141-142.(74) Ibid., vol.2, p.57.(75) Jászi, A nemzeti államok kialakulása és a nemzetiségi kérdés [The emergence of nation

states and the nationality question], p.383.(76) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, p.73, fn.1; reprint, p.69, fn.1.(77) Jászi, The dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy, p.239, fn.10.

99

(78) Ibid.(79) Jászi, A nemzeti államok kialakulása és a nemzetiségi kérdés [The emergence of nation

states and the nationality question], pp.512-513.(80) "Huszadik Század körkérdése" [Opinionnaire on the Jewish question in 1917], p.98.(81) Péter Kende, Az én Magyarországom [My Hungary] (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 1997), p.108.(82) Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary], p.489.(83) Jászi, Magyar kálvária magyar föltámadás [Hungarian calvary and resurrection of

Hungary], Munich edition, p.127; Budapest edition, p.129; idem, Revolution and counter-revolution in Hungary, p.122.

(84) Ibid. Munich edition, p.127; Budapest edition, p.129; idem, Revolution and counter-revolution in Hungary, p.123.

(85) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], reprint, p.361, fn.1.(86) The Socialist-Communist leaders of Jewish origin were around 70 per cent according to the

following studies. Gyurgyák: 68.9 per cent; Eckelt: 70.4 per cent; Kosáry: 71.1 per cent;

Mendelsohn: 76.9 per cent. Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary], p.102. Frank Eckelt, The rise and fall of the Béla Kun regime in 1919 (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1965), p.61. Dominic G. Kosáry, A

history of Hungary (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1971. First edition: 1941), p.388. Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars,

p.95. (87) Gyurgyák, ibid., p.504.(88) Irene Raab Epstein, Gyula Szekfű: A study in the political basis of Hungarian

historiography (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1974), p.289.(89) Gyula Szekfű, "Az értelmiségiek átállása a felszabadulás idején" [Metamorphosis of the

postwar intellectuals], Csillag (vol.9, no.8, 1955).(90) Iván Zoltán Dénes, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű] (Budapest: Új Mandátum, 2001), p.140.(91) Ibid., p.138.(92) Ibid., pp.136-137.(93) Ibid., p.140.(94) László Németh, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű] (Budapest: Bólyai Akadémia, 1940), p.15.(95) György Litván・Katalin S. Varga eds, Bibó István életút dokumentumokban [Documents on

the Bibó's life] (Budapest: 1956-os Intézet・Osiris-Századvég, 1995), p.263.(96) Oscar Jászi・John D. Lewis, Against the Tyrant. The tradition and theory of tyrannicide

(Glencoe, Illinois: The Falcon's Wing Press, 1957), p.220.

100

Four: Arguments on the Jews in the early 20th Century(1) R. Patai, The Jews of Hungary, p.446.(2) József Patai, "Az antiszemitizmus Magyarországon. A galiciaiak és a morál" [Anti-Semitism

in Hungary], Múlt és Jövő (vol.8, August 1918), p.283.(3) Vermes, István Tisza, p.430.(4) Péter Ágoston, A zsidók útja [The way of Jews] (Nagyvárad: Társadalomtudományi

Társulat, 1917), pp.270, 296.(5) Ibid., p.6.(6) Ibid., pp.6-7.(7) Ibid., pp.8, 16, 296-297.(8) Bartha Miklós, Kazár-földön [In the land of Khazars] (Budapest: Stadium Kiado, 1939. First

edition, 1901), p.89.(9) Ibid., pp.34, 90.(10) "Huszadik Század körkérdése" [Opinionnaire on the Jewish question in 1917], pp.71-74.(11) Ibid., pp.72, 74-75.(12) Ibid., pp.80-81.(13) Ibid., pp.81-83.(14) Győző Concha, "A gentry" [The gentry] (1910) in idem, A konzervatív és a liberális elv:

válogatott tanulmányok 1872-1927 [Selected works of Concha] (Máriabesnyő—Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2005), p.152.

(15) Ibid., p.153.(16) István I. Mócsy, ''Partition of Hungary and the origins of the refugees problem" in Király・

Pastor・Sanders eds., Essays on World War I, p.494.(17) Ibid., p.495, table 3.(18) Janos, Hungary: 1867-1939, p.102.(19) Ibid.(20) Miklós Kozma, Az összeomlás 1918-1919 [Collapse between 1918 and 1919] (Budapest:

Athenaeum, 1933), p.64.(21) Pölöskei ・ Szakács, Földmunkás- és szegényparaszt-mozgalmak Magyarországon

[Hungarian peasant movements between 1848 and 1948], p.506.(22) Tibor Hajdu, Az 1918-as magyarországi demokratikus forradalom [Hungarian democratic

revolution of 1918] (Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1968), p.98.(23) A tanácsok országos gyűlésének naplója: 1919 június 14-június 23 [The minutes of the

national congress of councils: 1919 June 14-23] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1919), pp.20, 70.(24) Mócsy, The effect of World War I, p.159.

101

(25) M. Szabó, Az újkonzervativizmus és a jobboldali radikalizmus története [History of

neo-conservatism and right radicalism], p.294.(26) The Turanian Society, "A Magyar Turáni Szövetség céljai és tevékenysége" [The aims and

activity of the Turanian Society], Turán [vol.8, 1921]. Janos, The politics of backwardness

in Hungary, p.274. (27) Mócsy, op. cit., p.222, n.34.(28) Braham, The politics of genocide, vol.1, p.20.(29) Ignác Romsics, Ellenforradalom és konszolidáció [Counter-revolution and consolidation]

(Budapest: Gondolat, 1982), pp.23-24.(30) Barany, "‘Magyar Jew or Jewish Magyar?’", p.80.(31) Cécile Tormay, Bujdosó Könyv [Diary in exile] (Budapest: Gede Testvérek, 2003. First

edition, vol.1: 1920; vol.2: 1922), vol.1 (Feljegyzések 1918-1919-ből), p.40.(32) Ibid., p.38.(33) Ibid., p.12.(34) Ibid., p.77.(35) Ibid., p.23.(36) Ibid., pp.13-14.(37) Ibid., p.55.(38) Ibid., pp.112-113.(39) Ibid., p.113.(40) Ibid., p.144.(41) Ibid.(42) Ibid., vol.2 (A proletárdiktatúra), p.415.(43) Ibid., p.352.(44) Ibid., p.353.(45) Mária M. Kovács, "Hungary" in Kevin Passmore ed., Women, gender and fascism in

Europe 1919-45 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutger University Press, 2003), p.87, n.12.(46) Tormay, op. cit., vol.1, p.195.(47) Ibid., p.217.(48) Ibid., p.195.(49) Nathaniel Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews 1920-1943 (Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan University

Press, 1981), p.47.(50) Venetianer, A magyar zsidóság története [History of Hungarian Jews], pp.440, 441.(51) Ibid., p.439.(52) Ibid., p.330-338.(53) Ibid., p.448.

102

(54) Katzburg, op. cit., pp.138, 151. Quotation from Felsőházi Napló 1935-1939 [Minutes of

Upper House], vol.4, p.155.(55) Ujvári ed., Magyar zsidó lexikon [Hungarian Jewish lexicon], pp.173-174, 174-175,

943-944.(56) Egyenlőség [September 18, 1919] Szabolcsi Lajos, "Szózat a kitérőkhöz" [Appeal to the

converts] in Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary],

p.237.(57) Ujvári ed., op. cit., p.48.(58) Ibid., p.255.(59) V. Ranki, The politics of inclusion and exclusion, pp.128-129.

103

Five: Három Nemzedék of Szekfű(1) Dénes, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű], p.179. Quotation from Aladár Ballagi, Az igazi Rákóczi

[True Rákóczi] (Budapest: Rényi Károly kiadása, 1916).(2) Szabolcsi, Két emberöltő [Fifty years of the Equality], p.161.(3) Attila Pók, A Huszadik Század körének történetfelfogása [Historical approach of Huszadik

Század group] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1982), p.388.(4) Szabolcsi, op. cit., pp.161-162.(5) Gusztáv Gratz, A dualizmus kora: Magyarország története 1867-1918 [The era of dualism],

vol.2, p.58.(6) Németh, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű], p.5.(7) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, p.4; reprint, p.6.(8) Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary], p.304.(9) Ibid., p.309.(10) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], second edition (1922), p.25.(11) Ibid., first edition, p.294; reprint, p.336.(12) Hóman・Szekfű, Magyar történe [Hungarian history], vol.5, pp.596-597.(13) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, p.309; reprint, p.358.(14) Romsics, Magyarország története a XX. Században [Hungarian history of the 20th century],

p.73.(15) Szekfű, op. cit., first edition, pp.288-289; reprint, pp.329-330.(16) Ibid., p.288; p.329.(17) Ibid., p.218; p.246.(18) Ibid., p.220; pp.248-249.(19) Ibid., p.144; p.155.(20) Ibid., p.146; p.158.(21) Ibid., p.289; p.331.(22) Ibid., p.289; p.330.(23) Ibid., pp.289-290; p.331.(24) Ibid., pp.304-305; pp.348-349.(25) Mérei, A magyar polgári pártok programjai [Programs of Hungarian civic parties in the

dualist period], pp.145-146.(26) Romsics, op. cit., pp.73-74; idem, Hungary in the twentieth century, p.58.(27) Hanák, "The anti-capitalist ideology of the populists" in Held ed., Populism in Eastern

Europe, p.150.(28) Szekfű, op. cit., first edition, p.291; reprint, p.333.

104

(29) Ibid., p.220; p.249.(30) Ibid., p.287; p.328.(31) Ibid., p.29; pp.18-19.(32) Ibid., p.219; p.247.(33) Ibid., p.296; p.339.(34) Ibid., p.292; p.334.(35) Ibid., p.299; p.342.(36) Ibid., pp.297-298; p.341.(37) Ibid., p.293; p.336.(38) Kálmán Mikszáth, A gavallérok [Gallants] (Budapest: Pallas, 1910). Cf. V. Ranki, The

politics of inclusion and exclusion, p.69.(39) Tormay, Bujdosó Könyv [Diary in exile], vol.1, p.218.(40) Paul Johnson, A history of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson / New York: Harper

& Row, 1987), pp.390-391.(41) Klebelsberg's letter to Szekfű [July 23, 1921] in Miklós Lackó, Korszellem és tudomány

1910-1945 [Spirit of the age and science] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1988), p.73.(42) Klebelsberg's letter to Szekfű [July 7, 1923], ibid., p.76.(43) Concha pointed out the "sensational method" of Három Nemzedék and regarded the

following sentence as a lack of sufficient proof: "There was a sign of the decay even in the

Reform Period, and liberalism promoted its process". Concha Győző, "A konzervatív és a liberális elv" [The conservative and the liberal principles] (1920) in idem, Válogatott

tanulmányok 1872-1927 [Selected works of Concha], p.217.(44) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], second edition, p.26.(45) Ibid., p.28.(46) Ibid., pp.27-28.(47) Ibid., p.36.(48) Ibid., p.30.(49) Ibid., first edition, p.290; reprint, p.332.(50) Ibid. reprint, p.444.(51) Association of Awakening Hungarians (Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete), Antisemitism in

Hungary (Budapest: Bethlen Gábor Society, 1920), p.15.(52) Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews, pp.85-86.(53) Szekfű, op. cit., reprint, p.443.(54) Jenő Lévai, Zsidósors Magyarországon [Jewish fate in Hungary] (Budapest: Magyar Téka,

1948), pp.19-20.

105

Six: The Bethlen System(1) Bethlen, Bethlen István gróf beszédei és írásai [Speeches and writings of Count Bethlen],

vol.1, p.161.(2) Ibid., p.162,(3) Ibid., vol.2, p.57.(4) William M. Batkay, Authoritarian politics in a transitional state: István Bethlen and the

Unified Party in Hungary 1919-1926 (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1982), p.17.(5) The law XXXVI of 1920 (A földbirtok helyesebb megoszlását szabályozó rendel-

kezésekről) [On the land distribution].(6) Kerék, A magyar földkérdés [Hungarian land question], pp.177-178.(7) N. Szegvári Katalin, Numerus Clausus rendelkezések az ellenforradalmi Magyarországon

[The Numerus Clausus law in the counter-revolutionary Hungary] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988), p.86.

(8) László Karsai ed., Kirekesztők: Antiszemita írások 1881-1992 [Anti-Semitic writings],

(Budapest: Aura Kiadó, 1992), p.45.(9) Miklós Szinai・László Szűcs, Bethlen István titkos iratai [Confidential papers of István

Bethlen] (Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1972), pp.256-257.(10) M. Kovács, Liberal professions and illiberal politics, p.64 , table 8.(11) Pesti Napló [January 8, 1928], Kunó Klebelsberg, "Reálpolitika és neonacionalizmus" [Real

politics and neo-nationalism] in idem, Neonacionalizmus [Neo-nationalism] (Budapest:

Athenaeum, 1928), pp.129-130.(12) Pesti Napló [January 1, 1928], Kunó Klebelsberg, "A magyar neonacionalizmus" [The

Hungarian neo-nationalism], ibid., pp.120-126. Cf. Tibor Frank, "Nation, national minorities, and nationalism in twentieth-century Hungary" in Peter F. Sugar ed., Eastern

European nationalism in the twentieth-century (Washington: The American University Press, 1995), pp.208-211.

(13) 8 Órai Ujság [February 5, 1928], Kunó Klebelsberg, "Új magyar típus" [New type

Hungarian], ibid., p.142.(14) Nemzeti Ujság [January 29, 1928], Kunó Klebelsberg, "Neonacionalizmus"

[Neo-nationalism], ibid., p.135.(15) Klebelsberg, "Reálpolitika és neonacionalizmus" [Real politics and neo-nationalism], ibid.,

p.132.(16) Ibid.(17) Ibid., p.131.(18) László Németh, "Sznobok és parasztok" [Snobs and peasants] in Péter Sz. Nagy ed., A

106

népi-urbánus vita dokumentumai 1932-1947 [Documents on the controversy of folk-urbane

writers] (Budapest: Rakéta Könyvkiadó, 1990), p.58.(19) Ibid., p.57.(20) Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary], pp.564-565.(21) Ibid., p.564 fn.46. Quotation from László Németh, "A magyar élet antinómiái" [Antinomy

of Hungarian life], Válasz (no.2, 1934).(22) Németh, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű], p.64.(23) Ibid., pp.57-58.(24) Ibid., p.62.(25) Gyula Szekfű, "Lírai történetszemlélet" [Lyric view of history], Magyar Szemle (no.36,

1939) in Dénes, Szekfű Gyula [Gyula Szekfű], p.163.(26) Ibid.(27) Gyula Szekfű, "A magyar jellem történetünkben" [Hungarian character in the history] in

idem ed., Mi a magyar? [What is the Hungarian?] (Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság,

1939), pp.555-556.(28) Ibid., p.493,

107

Seven: The Holocaust(1) Thomas L. Sakmyster, Hungary’s admiral on horseback. Miklós Horthy, 1918-1944

(Boulder: East European Monographs, 1994), pp.170-171.(2) Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews, pp.86-87. László Karsai ed., Befogadók: Írások az

antiszemitizmus ellen 1882-1993 [Philo-Semitic writings] (Budapest: Aura Kiadó, 1993),

p.126, fn.(3) Janos, Hungary: 1867-1939, p.190.(4) Berend・Ránki, Economic development in East-Central Europe, p.282.(5) Karsai ed., op. cit., p.80.(6) Samu Stern, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon [Jewish question in Hungary] (Budapest: A

Pesti Izraelita Hitközség, 1938), p.5.(7) Sámuel Kohn, A zsidóság története Magyarországon. A legrégibb időtől a mohácsi vészig

[History of Jews in Hungary] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1884).(8) Ujvári ed., Magyar zsidó lexikon [Hungarian Jewish lexicon], pp.509-510.(9) Anikó Prepuk, "A zsidóság a Millenniumon" [Jews in the Millennial anniversary],

Századvég 17 (2000/2), p.92.(10) Nathaniel Katzburg, A magyar-zsidó történetírás problémája. Miért nem volt magyar

Dubnov, zsidó Szekfű? [The problem of Hungaria-Jewish historiography] (ÉRTESÍTŐ, MTA

Judaisztikai Kutatócsoport, 1995 július), p.4.(11) Miklós Szinai・László Szűcs, Horthy Miklós titkos iratai [Confidential paperes of Horthy]

(Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1963), p.210; idem, The confidential paperes of admiral Horthy (Budapest: Corvina, 1965), p.117.

(12) The minutes of the House of Representatives (May 9, 1938), Karsai ed., Befogadók[Philo-Semitic writings], p.88.

(13) The minutes of the House of Representatives (March 13, 1939), ibid., p.125.(14) The minutes of the Upper House (April 15, 1939), Karsai ed., Kirekesztők [Anti-Semitic

writings], p.104.(15) Randolph L. Braham, "The rightists, Horthy, and the Germans. Factors underlying the

destruction of Hungarian Jewry" in Vágó・Mosse eds., Jews and non-Jews in Eastern

Europe, pp.151-152, n.1.(16) I. Deák, "The Holocaust in Hungary", pp.59-60.(17) V. Ranki, The politics of inclusion and exclusion, p.149.(18) I. Deák, op. cit., p.65.(19) Tibor Erényi, A zsidók története Magyarországon [History of Jews in Hungary] (Budapest:

Útmutató, 1996), pp.89-90.

108

(20) Braham, The politics of genocide, vol.2, pp.1194, 1319.(21) György Ránki et al eds., A Wilhelmstrasse és Magyarország. Német diplomáciai iratok

Magyarországról,1933-1944 [Papers of German diplomacy on Hungary] (Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1968), p.737.

(22) Karsai ed., Kirekesztők [Anti-Semitic writings], p.130. Lévai, Zsidósors Magyarországon[Jewish fate in Hungary], p.138.

(23) Gusztáv Gratz,, A forradalmak kora: Magyarország története 1918-1920 [The period of revolutions], (Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság, 1935), pp.254-255.

(24) Braham, The politics of genocide, vol.1, pp.549-553.(25) Szinai・Szűcs, op. cit., p.460; idem, pp.309-310.(26) Gyula Szekfű, Forradalom után [After revolution] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1983), pp.57-58.(27) Ibid., p.58.(28) Ibid., p.59.(29) Ibid., pp.74-75.(30) Szekfű, Három Nemzedék [Three generations], first edition, pp.315, 318; reprint, pp.364,

368.(31) István Bibó, Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után [Jewish question in Hungary after

1944] (Budapest: Katalizátor Iroda, 1994), p.12. Cf. Károly Nagy ed., Democracy, revolution, self-determination. István Bibó selected writings (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1991), pp.156-157.(32) Bibó, ibid., pp.18-19. Nagy ed., ibid., p.164.(33) Bibó, ibid., pp.19-20. Nagy ed., ibid., pp.164-165.(34) Bibó, ibid., p.31. Nagy ed., ibid., p.177.(35) Bibó, ibid., p.117. Nagy ed., ibid., p.273.(36) Bibó, ibid., p.111. Nagy ed., ibid., p.267.(37) Bibó, ibid., pp.111-112. Nagy ed., ibid.(38) József Révai, Marxizmus népiesség magyarság [Marxism, populism of folk writers,

Hungarians] (Budapest: Szikra Kiadás, 1949), p.6.(39) Ervin Pamlényi ed., A history of Hungary (London / Wellingborough: Collet’s, 1975),

p.545.(40) Steven Béla Várdy, Historical dictionary of Hungary (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press,

1997), p.240.(41) Steven Béla Várdy, History of the Hungarian nation (Astor Park, Florida: Danubian Press,

1969), p.310.(42) Erényi, op. cit., p.107.

On the basis of the data of National Archives (Magyar Országos Levéltár 276. f. 65/183),

109

Győri Szabó calculated the Jewish ratio at 15-20 per cent. Róbert Győri Szabó, A

kommunista párt és a zsidóság [The Communist Party and the Jews] (Budapest: Windsor, 1997, first edition, 1995), p.189.

110

Epilogue: Populism of the early 21st Century(1) Magyar Fórum [August 20, 1992] Csurka István, "Néhány gondolat a rendszerváltozás két

esztendeje és az MDF új politikai programja kapcsán" [Some thoughts on the party's new

program] in Karsai ed., Kirekesztők [Anti-Semitic writings], p.191.(2) Dieter Dettke, Hungary's Jobbik Party. The challenge of European ethno-nationalism and

the future of the European project (Warszawa: Center for international relations, 2013), p.23.

(3) Fidesz, "Fidesz - Magyar Polgári Szövetség Alapító levél" [Foundation of Fidesz-Hungarian

Civic Union] (http://archiv.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=10594).(4) András Deák, "Hungarian Dances—The Origins and the Future of Viktor Orbán's

Revolution", Hungarian Institute of International Affairs (November 2012), (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/lasr.2013.11.issue-1/v10243-012-0026-z/v10243-012-0026-z.xml?format=INT), p.149.

(5) Fidesz, "Jövőnk: A Fidesz - Magyar Polgári Szövetség Vitairat" [Fidesz's program of 2007] (http://static.fidesz.hu/download/Vitairat2007.pdf), p.18.

(6) Ibid.(7) Anita Sobják, "The implications of Hungary's national policy for relations with

neighbouring states", PISM: The Polish Institute of International Affairs (no.32, 2012), p.4,

fn.6.(8) Fidesz, "Nemzeti ügyek politika" [Fidesz's program of 2010]

(http://static.fidesz.hu/download/481/nemzeti_ugyek_politikaja_8481.pdf).(9) A. Deák, op. cit., p.146.(10) Sándor Csoóri, "Nappali hold" [Daytime moon] in idem, Nappali hold [Daytime moon]

(Budapest: Püski, 1991), p.255. Cf. István Deák, "The danger of antisemitism in Hungary"

in Yehuda Bauer ed., The danger of antisemitism in Central and Eastern Europe in the wake of 1989-1990 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), p.54.

(11) Csoóri, ibid., p.256.(12) Ibid., p.255.(13) Sándor Csoóri, "Mi a magyar, ma?" [What is the Hungarian, today?], ibid., pp.153-154. Cf.

Frank, "Nation, national minorities, and nationalism in twentieth-century Hungary",pp.221-222.

(14) Csoóri, ibid., p.151. Frank, ibid., p.220.(15) Csoóri, ibid., pp.151-152. Frank, ibid.(16) Csoóri, ibid., p.149.(17) Csoóri, ibid., Frank, op. cit., p.218.

111

(18) Jobbik, "Alapító nyilatkozat: Jobbik Magyarországért mozgalom" [Declaration of Jobbik

party foundation] (http://jobbik.hu/rovatok/egyeb/alapito_nyilatkozat), p.1.(19) Ibid., pp.2-3, 4.(20) "Hungary unemployment rate 2014"

(http://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/hungary).(21) Jobbik, "A Jobbik 2006-os rövid programja" [Jobbik's program of 2006]

(http://jobbik.hu/rovatok/egyeb/a_jobbik_2006-os_rovid_ programja), p.1.(22) András Kovács, "Antisemitic prejudice and political antisemitism in present-day Hungary",

Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (vol.4, no.2, 2012), p.459, figure 5.(23) Jamie Bartlett・Jonathan Birdwell・Péter Krekó・Jack Benfield・Gabor Gyori, Populism in

Europe: Hungary (London: Demos, 2012), p.17.(24) Péter Krekó, Attila Juhász, Csaba Molnár, "A szélsőjobboldal iránti társadalmi kereslet

növekedése Magyarországon" [Social background of right-leaning in Hungary], Politikatudományi Szemle (vol.20, no.2, 2011), p.64.

(25) Jobbik, "Magyarország a magyaroké! A Jobbik programja a magyar érdek védelmében, a nemzetek Európája megteremtéséért" [Jobbik's program for the European Parliament of

2009] (http://balatonalmadi.default/files/users/jobbik.hu/sites/Jobbik-program2009EP.pdf), p.39.

(26) Jobbik, "Radikális változás. A Jobbik országgyőlési választási programja a nemzeti

önrendelkezésért és a társadalmi igazságosságért" [Jobbik's program of 2010] (http://jobbik.hu/sites/default/files/jobbik-program2010gy.pdf), pp.14-15, 23.

(27) Jobbik, "Kimondjuk, megoldjuk. A Jobbik országgyőlési választási programja a nemzet felemelkedéséért" [Jobbik's program of 2014]

http://jobbik.hu/sites/default/files/cikkcsatolmany/kimondjukmegoldjuk2014_netre.pdf), p.62.

(28) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], pp.20-21.(29) Jobbik, "A Jobbik 2006-os rövid programja" [Jobbik's program of 2006], p.3.

"Magyarország a magyaroké!" [Jobbik's program of 2009], p.46.(30) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], p.74.(31) Ibid., p.75.(32) Jobbik, "A Jobbik 2006-os rövid programja" [Jobbik's program of 2006], p.2.(33) Csaba Dupcsik, A magyarországi cigányság története: Történelem a cigánykutatások

tükrében, 1890-2008 [History of Roma in Hungary] (Budapest: Osiris Kiado, 2009), pp.51,

52.(34) Attila Juház, Péter Krekó, András Zágoni-Bogsch, "Hungary" in Radko Hokovský・Jiří

Kopal eds., Politics and policies of integration in Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Denmark and

112

at the EU level (Bruno: League of Human Rights / Praha : European Values Think-Tank,

2013), p.242.(35) Gergely Karácsony ・ Dániel Róna, "A Jobbik titka. A szélsőjobb magyarországi

megerősödésének lehetséges okairól" [The secret of Jobbik's stride], Politikatudományi

Szemle (vol.19, no.1, 2010), p.55.(36) Népszabadság [November 14, 1998] Márta Gyenei, "A ‘stratégiai gyerek’—avagy miért

növekszik nálunk a csecsemő halandóság?" [Strategic children—why the infant mortality rate is high in our country?].

(37) Jobbik, ""Kimondjuk, megoldjuk" [Jobbik's program of 2014], p.31.(38) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], pp.10, 73.(39) Fidesz, "Nemzeti ügyek politika" [Fidesz's program of 2010], p.46.(40) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], pp.51-53.(41) Braham, The politics of genocide, vol.1, p.21.(42) M. Szabó, Az újkonzervativizmus és a jobboldali radikalizmus története [History of

neo-conservatism and right radicalism], p.341.(43) Jobbik, "A Jobbik 2006-os rövid programja" [Jobbik's program of 2006], p.2.

"Magyarország a magyaroké!" [Jobbik's program of 2009], p.3.(44) "Magyarország alaptörvénye" [Fundamental law of Hungary],

(http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/02627/02627.pdf), p.1.(45) Ibid., p.2.(46) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], p.48.(47) "A nemzeti alaptanterv kiadásáról, bevezetéséről és alkalmazásáról" [Decree on the new

curriculum], 2012 június 4

(http://www.budapestedu.hu/data/cms149320/MK_12_66_NAT.pdf), pp.10671, 10677, 10678.

(48) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [ Jobbik's program of 2010], p.56.(49) MTI [August 17, 2012] "A Jobbik határozottabb fellépést vár a kormánytól" [Jobbik waits

for the government's more determined measures] Népszava online,

(http://nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=577831).(50) "Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont. Állásfoglalás Tormay Cécile-ről" [The verdict of

Humanities Research Center on the Tormay issue ] (http://mandiner.hu/cikk/20130904_bolcseszettudomanyi_kutatokozpont_allasfoglalas_tormay_cecil_rol), p.1.

(51) "Magyarország alaptörvénye" [Fundamental law of Hungary], p.1.(52) Krisztián Ungváry, "The perception of 1944 in the Fidesz-constitution"

(http://www.commartrecovery.org/sites/default/files/1944megítéléseFidesz.pdf).

113

(53) Népszabadság [April 10, 2011] István Deák, "Ne ragaszkodjunk a nemzet mindenkori

ártatlanságához" [Hungarians should not persist that they were innocent at all times].(54) Népszabadság [May 31, 2011] Géza Jeszenszky, "Az alaptörvény és a magyar történelem"

[New constitution and Hungarian history].(55) Zoltán Balczó, "Orbán Izraeltól vár oltalmat" [Orbán asks for Israel's assistance]

(http://jobbik.hu/rovatok/rolunk_irtak/ balczo_zoltan_orban_izraeltol_var_oltalmat).(56) Géza Jeszenszky, "Balczó Zoltán antiszemita maszlagjai" [Balczó's anti-Semitic silly talks]

(http://hvg.hu/velemeny/20110207_antiszemitizmus_jeszenszky_jobbik), p.1.(57) Peter Molnar, Ian Hancock, Frank Mugisha, "Open letter to Geza Jeszenszky. pdf"

(http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14432579/118602888/name/Open+letter+to+Geza+Jeszenszky.pdf).

(58) Ibid.(59) The Washington Post [December 26, 2010] "The Putinization of Hungary" (http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122601791/html).(60) The Washington Post [January 1, 2011] Andras Schiff, "Hungary's E.U. role questioned"

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/01/AR2011010102177.h

tml).(61) Magyar Hírlap [January 4, 2011] Bayer Zsolt, "Ugyanaz a bűz" [The same stink]

(http://archivum.magyarhirlap.hu/velemeny/ugyanaz_a_buz).(62) Ibid.(63) "Ángyán: Orbánnak üzenem" [Message to prime minister Orbán]

(http://fn.hir24.hu/nagyinterju/2012/04/27/angyan-orbannak-uzenem/).(64) "Ángyán József: Mindkét oldal maffia" [Both sides are mafia]

(http://fn.hir24.hu/interju/2013/06/21/angyan-jozsef-mindket-oldal-maffia/).(65) Jobbik, "Kimondjuk, megoldjuk" [Jobbik's program of 2014], p.10.(66) Az egység okmányai. A szociáldemokraták és kommunisták egyesülésének előzményei [The

documents of Socialist-Communist unity] (Budapest: Közoktatásügyi Népbiztosság Kiadása, 1919), p.3.

(67) Jobbik, "Radikális változás" [Jobbik's program of 2010], p.49.(68) Fidesz, "Nemzeti ügyek politika" [Fidesz's program of 2010], pp.21-22.(69) Jobbik, "Kimondjuk, megoldjuk" [Jobbik's program of 2014], p.62.

114

Biographical Index

Ady, Endre [1877-1919]

Symbolist poet and radical journalist. Leading contributor to the Nyugat.Ágoston, Péter [1874-1925]

University professor of jurisprudence. Social Democrat. Deputy commissar of foreign affairs during the Soviet Republic. Sentenced to death after the collapse of the republic, but as a result of the exchange of prisoners went into Moscow, 1922.

Aleksandr II, Romanov [1818-1881]Russian czar, 1855-1881. Initiator of liberating the serfs in 1861, but suppressed the

revolutionary movements. Assassinated, 1881.Ámos [819-895]

Chieftain of the Hungarian tribes before their conquest of the Carpathian basin.

Andrássy, Gyula Jr., Count [1860-1929]Formed the Constitution Party (1905-1910). Minister of interior, 1906-1910; foreign

minister, October 1918. One of the leaders of the Anti-Bolshevik Committee in Vienna. Mihály Károlyi's father in law.

Andrássy, Gyula Sr., Count [1823-1890]

Urged Compromise with Austria. Prime minister, 1867-1871, common foreign minister, 1871-1879.

Ángyán József [1952- ]University professor of agricultural administration. Vice-minister of rural development,

2010-2012.Antall József [1932-1993]

Historian. President of the Democratic Forum and prime minister, 1990-1993.Apponyi, Albert, Count [1846-1933]

Leader of the agrarian opposition in the governing party after 1881. Organized the National

Party, 1892. Minister of religion and education, 1906-1910 and 1917-1918.Arany János [1817-1882]

Poet. Participated in the revolution against Austria, 1848.Árpád [845/55-907]

Son of Ámos. Founder of Árpád dynasty that ruled Hungary for more than 400 years.

Attila [?-453]King of the nomadic Huns, 434-453.

Bajcsy-Zsilinszky, Endre [1886-1944]

115

Founding member of the National Defense League. Took part in extreme racist

organizations such as Gömbös' Fajvédő, later became a leader of the anti-Nazi resistance. Executed by the Arrow-Cross government, December 1944.

Baky, László [1898-1946]

Pro-Nazi right radical politician. Vice-minister of interior in the Szálasi government.Collaborator of Eichmann.

Balczó, Zoltán [1948- ]Joined the Democratic Forum, 1992. Participated in the founding of the Justice and Life Party. MP of the party, 1998-2002. Turned to Jobbik and its vice-president, 2003. Member

of European Parliament, 2009-2010. MP of the national parliament, 2010-2014. Member of European Parliament again from 2014.

Ballagi, Aladár [1853-1928]Professor at Budapest University. MP of the Independence Party, 1905-1910. President of Budapest University, 1919-1920.

Bánffy, Dezső, Baron [1843-1911]Prime minister, 1895-1899. Promoter of forcible Hungarianization. Organized the New

Party, 1903.Bangha, Béla [1880-1940]

Jesuit priest. Follower of Pope Pius X who denied the social program of former Pope Leo

XIII. Counter-revolutionary propagandist, 1919. Champion of the "Christian national thought".

Bárczy, István [1866-1943]Budapest mayor, 1906-1918. Minister of justice in the Huszár government, 1919-1920.

Bartha, Miklós [1848-1905]Leader of a radical nationalist circle. MP of the Independence Party, 1873-1875 and

1881-1905.Bartók, Béla [1891-1945]

Composer, pianist and ethnomusicologist. Unwilling to accept the politics of nationalism,

and emigrated to the United States, 1940.Bauer, Sándor [1952-1969]

Burned himself to death in January 1969 against the Soviet military invasion to suppress the Prague Spring of 1968.

Bayer Zsolt [1963- ]

Journalist. Columnist of the Magyar Hírlap. Founding member of Fidesz.Béla IV, Árpád [1206-1270]

King of Hungary, 1235-1270. Carried out the large-scale immigration policy including the

116

Cuman settlement in order to restore the country devastated by the Mongolian invasion

(1241-1242). Accomplished a great deal of construction such as the Buda Castle.Bethlen, István, Count [1874-1946]

Formed the National Unity party in February 1919, then the Anti-Bolshevik Committee in

Vienna. Prime minister, 1921-1931. During World War II supported Anglo-Saxon orientation in politics.Taken to the Soviet Union, March 1945. Reportedly died in a prison

of Moscow, October 1946.Bibó, István [1911-1979]

Political scientist, historian. Member of the National Peasant Party. In 1956 became

minister in the Imre Nagy government. Imprisoned, 1957-1963.Bokros, Lajos [1954- ]

Economist. President of Budapest Bank, 1991-1995. Minister of finance in the left-liberal coalition government, 1995-1996. Carried out the adjustment of national budget (Bokros package).

Bródy, Sándor [1863-1924]Novelist and playwright. His stories and plays introduced Jewish characters. Openly

identified himself as a Jewish-Hungarian author. Buday, Barna [1870-1936]

Expert of agricultural administration. Secretary-general of the National Economic

Association. Member of the Upper House from 1931.Cholnoky, Jenő [1870-1950]

Geographer. Professor at Kolozsvár (now in Romania) University from 1905. Professor at Budapest University after World War I.

Chorin, Ferenc Jr. [1879-1964]Lawyer. Converted in 1919. Succeeded to his father's position of Salgótarján coal-mining

plant. President of the National Association of Industrialists, 1928-1942. Baron Manfréd Weiss was his father in law. Member of the Upper House, 1927. Emigrated to the United States, 1947.

Chorin, Ferenc Sr. [1842-1925]Industrialist. President of Salgótarján coal-mining plant. The Upper House member.

Clemenceau, Georges [1841-1932] As a leader of the Radical Party, played a central role in politics. Prime minister of France,

1906-1909 and 1917-1920.

Comte, Auguste [1798-1857]French philosopher and sociologist. Advocate of sociological positivism.

Concha, Győző [1846-1933]

117

Professor of legal and constitutional thought at Kolozsvár (now in Romania) University,

1872-1892. Professor at Budapest University, 1892-1928. Member of the Upper House, 1913-1918.

Coolidge, Archibald Cary [1866-1928]

American scholar. Member of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. Leader of the mission to study the conditions in the Succession States. Visited Budapest,

March 1919.Csoóri, Sándor [1930- ]

Poet, writer. Awarded the Kossuth-prize twice. One of the architects of the Democratic

Forum. Editor of the party's magazine, Hitel.Csurka, István [1934-2012]

Writer, playwright. Awarded the Attila József-prize twice. Right radical politician. One ofthe initiators of the Democratic Forum. Vice-president of the party, 1991-1992, but expelled from the party in 1993 and founded the Justice and Life Party. Avowed

anti-Semite.Dalos, György [1943- ]

Writer, historian. His father was dead during the labor-service, 1945. Started the dissident movement against the one party rule, 1977. Lives in Vienna, 1987-1995 and in Berlin since1995.

Darányi, Ignác [1849-1927]Minister of agriculture, 1895-1903 and 1906-1910. Advocated the inner colonization at the

turn of the century.Darányi, Kálmán [1886-1939]

Minister of agriculture in the Gömbös and his own governments, 1935-1938. Prime minister, 1936-1938.

Deák, István [1926- ]American historian from Hungary. Studied at Budapest University, later at Sorbonne University. Lived in the United States from 1956. Taught at Columbia University,

1968-1979. Member of Hungarian Academy of Sciences from 1990.Diner-Dénes, József [1857-1937]

Socialist publicist and art historian. Vice-minister for foreign affairs during the Károlyi regime.

Dreyfus, Alfred [1859-1935]

French army officer. Accused of espionage in the trials, 1894-1898, found guilty. Finally cleared, 1906.

Durkheim, Emile [1858-1917]

118

French sociologist and philosopher of Jewish extraction. One of the architects of modern

sociology.Eckhardt, Tibor [1888-1972]

Lawyer. Founding president of the Association of Awakening Hungarians. Member of the

League of Etelköz. Joined the Independent Smallholders' Party and became its president, 1932-1940. Left for the United States, 1941.

Eichmann, Adolf [1906-1962]Austrian SS officer. Head of the Gestapo section that dealt with Jewish affairs in 1941, then in charge of the liquidation of Jewry. Arrested in Algentina, 1960, brought to trial in Israel

where sentenced to death.Endre, László [1895-1946]

Pro-Nazi far-right politician. Vice-minister of interior in the Szálasi government, 1944.Collaborator of Eichmann

Eötvös, József, Baron [1813-1871]

Supported the Compromise with Austria. Minister of religion and education, 1848 and 1867-1871. Introduced liberal education and promoted the emancipation of the nationalities

as well as the Jews.Esterházy, Miklós Móric, Count [1855-1925]

The Upper House member, 1887-1918. Founder of the Catholic People's Party, 1894.

Fejérváry, Géza, Baron [1833-1914]Confidant of Franz Joseph. Commander of the royal guard. Minister of defense, 1884-1903.

Prime minister, 1905-1906.Ferenczy, László [1898-1946]

Gendarmerie officer in charge of the Jewish affairs. One of the "deportation trio" in the interior ministry, who collaborated with Eichmann.

Fodor, Gábor [1962- ]Jurist. Founding member of Fidesz. Joined the Alliance of Free Democrats, 1994. Left the coalition government together with other Free Democrat ministers, April 2008. Became

president of the party in June of the year, but resigned due to the defeat in the 2009 elections of European Parliament.

Franz Joseph I, Habsburg [1830-1916]Emperor of Austria, 1848-1916; king of Hungary, 1867-1916. Agreed to the Compromise or the Dual Monarchy, 1867.

Garami, Ernő [1876-1935]Leader of Social Democrats from 1898. Minister of the Károlyi government. Went into

exile after the declaration of the Soviet Republic, 1919.

119

Garbai, Sándor [1879-1947]

Leader of the construction workers' union. Executive member of the Social Democratic Party. Chairman of the revolutionary governing council, March 21-August 1, 1919.

George, Henry [1839-1897]

American economist. Influential proponent of the land value tax (so-called single-tax). Mentioned that the value of land belongs equally to all humanity in his most famous work,

Progress and Poverty (1879).Gide, André [1869-1951]

French novelist, essayist, dramatist. Winner of the Nobel-prize in literature, 1947.

Gömbös, Gyula [1886-1936] President of the National Defense League. Organizer of the League of Etelköz. Prime

minister, 1932-36.Gratz, Gusztáv [1875-1946]

Leading member of the Anti-Bolshevik Committee in Vienna. Foreign minister of the

Teleki government, 1920-1921. Opposed the pro-Nazi politics and the anti-Jewish laws. After the German occupation, arrested and imprisoned in the Mauthausen concentration

camp.Grünwald, Béla [1839-1891]

Historian. Member of the Apponyi circle in parliament.

Gustaf V, Bernadotte [1858-1950]Controversial king of Sweden, 1907-1950. Traditional opponent of the liberal trend on a

domestic matter. Internationally following the president Roosevelt, appealed to Hitler for peace negotiations, 1938. Appealed also to Horthy to save the Jews in the name of

humanity, 1944.Gyurcsány, Ferenc [1961-]

Rich businessman. Became a politician of the Socialist Party, 2003. Prime minister, 2004-2009.

Hamvas, Béla [1897-1968]

Thinker and essayist who tried to integrate Eastern and Western traditions. Founded a literary circle which later gained prominent members including Németh. Placed in the

harsh conditions during the Communist regime. Posthumously received the Kossuth-prize, 1990. His thought has nothing to do with Jobbik.

Hancock, Ian [1942- ]

Philologist born in Great Britain. Leader of the Roma liberation movement. Raft laureate for human rights, 1997.

Harkányi, János, Baron [1859-1938]

120

Minister of commerce, 1913-1917. Member of the Upper House.

Hatvany-Deutsch, Sándor, Baron [1852-1913]President of the Association of Sugar Producers from 1894. Vice-president of the National Association of Industrialists, 1902. Member of the Upper House from 1903.

Hatvany, Lajos, Baron [1880-1961]Writer and critic. Started the Nyugat. Member of the National Council, 1918.

Hazai, Samu, Baron [1851-1942]Army officer of Jewish extraction. Converted in 1873; changed family name three years later. Advanced to lieutenant general, 1910. Minister of defense, 1910-1917, as a member

of the governing party. Created a baron, 1912.Hegedüs, Lóránt [1872-1943]

Writer, economist. Minister of finance in the Teleki and Bethlen governments, 1920-1921.Herczeg, Ferenc [1863-1954]

Novelist, journalist. Son of an ethnic German family. Wrote the early works in German.

Governing party MP, 1896. Member of the Upper House from 1927.Herder, Johann Gottfried von [1744-1803]

German philosopher, poet and literary critic.Herzl, Theodore [1860-1904]

Born in Budapest, moved with his family to Vienna, 1878. Published the Jewish State,

1896. Founding father of modern political Zionism.Hitler, Adolf [1889-1945]

German chancellor, 1933-1934, and dictator of the Nazi state, 1934-1945.Horthy, Miklós [1868-1957]

Aide-de-camp of emperor and king Franz Joseph I, 1909-1914. Commanding admiral in the First World War. Commander-in-chief of the so-called National Army of Szeged, 1919.

Regent of Hungary, 1920-1944.Horváth, János [1878-1961]

Professor of literary history at Budapest University, 1923-1948. Consistently accused those

around the Nyugat including Ady.Hubay, Kálmán [1902-1946]

Far-right journalist. MP of the Arrow-Cross Party. Executed as a war criminal.Huszár, Károly [1882-1941]

MP of the Christian People's Party, 1910-1918. Minister of religion and education,

August-November 1919. Prime minister, November 1919-March 1920.Imrédy, Béla [1891-1946]

Minister of finance in the Gömbös government, 1932-1935. Prime minister, 1938-1939.

121

Minister of economy in the Sztójay government, 1944. Executed as a war criminal, 1946.

Ioffe, Adol'f A. [1883-1927]Born in Crimea, Russian Empire, into a wealthy Jewish family. Diplomat of the Soviet Union.

Istóczy, Győző [1842-1915]Lawyer. Became a member of the Liberal Party, 1872. Formed the Anti-Semitic Party,

1884.Jánosi, József [1898-1965]

Jesuit priest, philosopher. University professor from 1935. Attempted to rescue the Jews

under the leadership of Rotta (Papal Nuncio in Budapest) from 1944.Jaross, Andor [1896-1946]

Born in Slovakia. MP of the Life Party organized by Imrédy, 1940. Minister of interior in the Szálasi government.

Jászi, Oszkár [1875-1957]

Political writer. Minister of nationalities in the Károlyi government, November 1918-January 1919. Emigrated to Vienna, May 1919. Later settled in the United States.

Professor of sociology at Oberlin College in Ohio.Jeszenszky, Géza [1941- ]

Taught at Karl Marx (now Corvinus) University From 1976. Founding member of

Democratic Forum. József Antall was his teacher at high school as well as uncle in law. Foreign minister, 1990-1994. Ambassador to the United States, 1998-2002; Ambassador to

Norway, 2011-2014.Joseph II, Habsburg [1741-1790]

Holy Roman emperor and archduke of Austria, 1765-1790. King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1780-1790.

József, Attila [1905-1937] The greatest Hungarian poet comparing with Ady in the 20th century. An underground

Communist. Awarded the Kossuth-prize after his death.

Kádár, János [1912-1989]First secretary of the Socialist Workers' Party, 1956-1988, as well as prime minister,

1956-1959 and 1961-1965. Forced to resign from the party's position, 1988.Kállay, Miklós [1887-1967]

Minister of Agriculture in the Gömbös government, 1932-1935. Prime minister, 1942-1944.

Sought ways of reaching an agreement with the Anglo-Saxon powers and a separate peace. After the German occupation, arrested and imprisoned in the Mauthausen concentration

camp.

122

Karl VI, Habsburg [1685-1740]

Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, 1711-1740. King of Hungary and Bohemia. Imposed the limitation on Bohemian and Moravian Jewish marriages.

Károlyi, Mihály, Count [1875-1955]

Leader of the October Revolution in 1918. First premier of Hungarian republic, November 1918, its provisional president, January 1919. Went into exile in July of the year.

Károlyi, Sándor, Count [1831-1906]MP of Liberal Party, 1881. Member of Apponyi faction, 1884. Founded the Alliance of Landowners, 1896. Joined the Independence Party, 1904.

Károly IV., Habsburg [1887-1922]Hungary's last king as well as Austria's last emperor, 1916-1922. Made two attempts to

regain the throne, March and October 1921, but prevented by those including Horthy and Gömbös.

Keresztes-Fischer, Ferenc [1881-1948]

Lawyer. Leader of the anti-revolutionary movement in Pécs, 1919. Minister of interior, 1931-1935 and 1938-1944. Member of the Bethlen group. After the German occupation,

arrested and imprisoned in the Mauthausen concentration camp.Klebelsberg, Kunó, Count [1875-1932]

Minister of interior, then religion and education in the Bethlen government, 1922-1931.

Kodály, Zoltán [1882-1967]Composer, ethnomusicologist and pedagogue. Close associate of Bartók.

Kohn, Sámuel [1841-1920]Historian. Rabbi in Budapest, 1866. Chief-rabbi from 1905. Advocate of Hungarianization

of Jewry.Konrád, György [1933- ]

Writer, essayist. Initiator of the Alliance of Free Democrats, 1989. Awarded the Kossuth-prize in 1990. President of the International PEN Club, 1990-1993.

Kornfeld, Móric, Baron [1882-1967]

Banker and industrialist. Supporter of the Nyugat. Member of the Upper House from 1927. Ferenc Chorin Jr. was his brother in law.

Kosáry, Domokos [1913-2007]Professor of history at Budapest University, 1946-1949. President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1991-1996.

Kossuth, Lajos [1802-1894]Leader of the 1848-1849 revolution. After the defeat of the war of independence, lived in

exile. Strict opponent of 1867 Compromise with Austria.

123

Kosztolányi, Dezső [1885-1936]

Poet and novelist who represented the first generation of the Nyugat.Kovács, Dávid [1976- ]

Joined the Justice and Life Party, 1994. Participated in the founding of Jobbik and its first

president, 2003-2006. Opposed the organization of Magyar Gárda, left the party, 2008.Kozma, Miklós [1884-1941]

Army officer. Member of the League of Etelköz. Member of the Upper House, 1934. Minister of interior, 1935-1937.

Kristóffy, József [1857-1928]

MP of Liberal Party, 1896. Minister of interior, 1905-1906; promised to introduce universal suffrage and secret ballots.

Kun, András [1911-1945]Defrocked Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order. Enrolled in the Arrow Cross Party,March 1944, and commanded its squad which massacred Jews.

Kun, Béla [1886-1939]Leader of the Soviet Republic in 1919. After its collapse, emigrated to the Soviet Union.

Kunfi, Zsigmond [1879-1929]Socialist chief negotiator with the arrested Communists. Governmental member of theKárolyi regime and the Soviet Republic.

Lánczy, Leó [1852-1921]President of the Commercial Bank of Pest.

Láng, Lajos [1885-1952]Lawyer. Member of the Upper House, 1933-1939.

Lenin, Vladimir Il'ich [1870-1924]Architect of the Russian Communist Party and first leader of the Soviet Union.

Leo XIII [1810-1903]Pope, 1878-1903. By the social program entitled "rights and duties of capital and labor" indicated that the improvement of laborers' poor circumstances was an issue of social

justice.Liebermann, Leó [1852-1926]

Professor at Academy of Veterinary Medicine from 1879. Also professor at Budapest University.

Liszt, Ferenc [1811-1866]

Composer, pianist as well as teacher and conductor. Born into a Swabian family in west Hungary (Sopron county). Strongly regarded himself as a Hungarian, but could not speak

Hungarian language.

124

Ludendorff, Erich von [1865-1937]

German army officer. Supporter of the right-wing movements after the First World War. Member of the parliament, 1924-1928.

Lueger, Karl [1844-1910]

Austrian politician. Founded the Christian Social Party, 1893. Mayor of Vienna, 1897-1910.

Lukács, László [1850-1932]MP of the Liberal Party, 1878. Minister of finance in various governments, 1895-1905.Prime minister and minister of interior as well as minister for the person of the king,

1912-1913.Lutz, Carl [1895-1975]

Vice-minister of Swiss legation in Budapest, 1942-1945. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 1964.

Magyary, Géza [1864-1928]

Professor at Nagyvárad Academy of Law and Budapest University.Mansfeld, Péter [1941-1959]

Youngest victim of the 1956 revolution. Member of the Pest Boys.Maria Theresia, Habsburg [1717-1780]

Daughter of Karl VI, emperor of Holy Roman Empire. Habsburg archduchess, queen of

Hungary and Bohemia, 1740-1780.Martinovics, Ignác [1755-1795]

Franciscan monk in Buda from 1773. Organized the Jacobin movement of nobilityreformers into a secret society. Arrested in 1794 and executed next year.

Marx, Karl Heinrich [1818-1883]German philosopher. Initiator of so-called Marxism.

Megyeri-Krausz, Lajos [1844-1905]Manufacturer, landowner. Managed a family malt works and distillery. Liberal Party MP from 1884. Played a leading role in the National Association of Industrialists.

Mikes, János, Count [1876-1945]Archbishop, 1912.

Mikszáth, Kálmán [1847-1910]Novelist. Worked for liberal newspapers. Member of parliament.

Milotay, István [1883-1963]

Editor of the journal New Generation, 1913. Supported Gömbös and Imrédy in the 1930s.Mindszenty, József [1892-1975]

Cardinal archbishop of Esztergom and prince primate of Hungary, 1945-1974. Arrested by

125

the Arrow-Cross government at the close of the Second World War, and imprisoned by the

Communist government after the war. Liberated by the 1956 revolution, sought asylum in the American embassy in Budapest, but was deported in 1971.

Molnár, Péter [1964- ]

Jurist. Founding member of Fidesz. Awarded the Raft-prize for human rights on behalf of Fidesz, 1989. Its MP, 1990-1994. Joined the Free Democrats and became its MP,

1994-1998.Móricz, Zsigmond [1879-1842]

Novelist and publicist. One of the editors of the Nyugat, 1929-1933.

Mussolini, Benito A. A. [1883-1945] Graduated from teachers college. Exective member of the Socialist Party; later leader of

Fascism. Prime minister, 1922-1943.Nagyatádi-Szabó, István [1863-1924]

President of the Smallholders' Party. Minister in the governments, 1920-1924.

Nagy, Ferenc [1903-1979]Founding member of the Independent Smallholder's Party. Its MP from 1939. Arrested

after the German occupation, 1944. Prime minister, 1946-1947. Emigrated to the United States, May 1947.

Németh, László [1901-1975]

Novelist, dramatist and essayist. Major ideologue of the folk-writers during the wars, but was silenced in the 1950s.

Nyirő, József [1889-1953]Writer from Transylvania. Former Catholic priest. MP of the Arrow-Cross Party. His

works were prohibited from publication during the Communist regime.Orbán, Viktor [1963- ]

President of Fidesz, 1993-2000 and from 2003. Prime minister, 1998-2002 and from 2010.Patai, József [1882-1953]

Zionist. Editor of the journal Múlt és Jövő. Emigrated to Palestine, 1940. Father of

Raphael Patai [1910-1996] mentioned in the citation.Pekár, Gyula [1867-1937]

Writer. Worked with the counter-revolutionary government in Szeged, and a minister of Friedrich government, August-November 1919. Second president of the Turanian Society, 1921-1937.

Petőfi, Sándor [1823-1849]Romantic poet of Slovak origin. His poem helped spark the 1848 revolution against the

Habsburg rule.

126

Peyer, Károly [1881-1956]

Trade-union leader. Headed the Social Democratic Party, 1919-1944. Opposed the fusion of the Social Democrats and the Communists; emigrated to the United States after the war.

Pikler, Gyula [1864-1937]

Professor at Budapest University. Vice-president of the Social Science Society, 1901-1906;became its president in 1906.

Pius X [1835-1914]Pope, 1903-1914. Condemned modernism.

Pius XII [1876-1958]

Pope, 1939-1958. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem. But his photographs were captioned that he did not protest the Holocaust.

Pogány, József [1886-1939]Social Democrat, later Communist. Staff member of the journal of Social Democrats Népszava. Government commissioner for the soldiers' councils in the Károlyi government.

Commissar of military affairs during the Soviet Republic.Polány, Károly [1886-1964]

Earned a doctorate under the tutelage of Bódog Somló, 1908. First president of the Galilei Circle. Emigrated after the Communist takeover. Lived in Austria, later in England and in Canada. Ervin Szabó was his cousin.

Prohászka, Ottokár [1858-1927]German descent in Slovakia. Bishop of Székesfehérvár, 1905-1927. Influential initiator of

neo-conservatism.Pulszky, Ágost [1846-1901]

Professor (philosophy of law) at Budapest University. First president of the Social Science Society.

Radek, Karl B. [1885-1939]Polish journalist of Jewish extraction. Became one of the leaders of the Comintern.

Rajk, László [1909-1949]

Took part in a communist movement from his student days. Joined the Spanish Civil War,1937. Minister of interior, 1946-1948; foreign minister from 1948. Sentenced to death and

executed under the Rákosi regime. Rehabilitated in 1955.Rajniss, Ferenc [1893-1946]

Pro-Nazi journalist of German descent in Slovakia. Leader of the Life Party organized by

Imrédy. Minister of education in the Szálasi government.Rákóczi, Ferenc II [1676-1735]

Prince of Transylvania and leader of the unsuccessful War of Liberation, 1703-1711. Lived

127

in exile in France and Turkey.

Rákosi, Jenő [1842-1929]Writer and publicist. Active proponent of Hungarianization. Editor-in-chief of the Budapesti Hírlap. Supported the Apponyi circle in the 1890s.

Rákosi, Mátyás [1892-1971]Made contact with the Bolsheviks while prisoner of the First World War. Became a

commissar under the Soviet Republic. Returned to Hungary from the Soviet Union in 1945 as the top man of the Communist Party. First secretary of the party, 1945-1956, and prime minister, 1952-1953. Replaced in 1956, and spent the rest of his life in the Soviet Union.

Rakovszky, István [1858-1931]Founding member of the Catholic People's Party. Supported the Károly IV's second attempt

to regain the throne, October 1921.Révai, József [1898-1959]

Participated in the formation of the Communist Party of Hungary. Lived in exile after the

collapse of the Soviet Republic. Cultural dictator until 1956 under the Communist regime.Réz, Mihály [1878-1921]

Jurist. Professor at Kolozsvár (now in Romania) University.Riedl, Frigyes [1856-1921]

Professor of literature at Budapest University.

Rónai, Zoltán [1880-1940]Lawyer and Social Democrat. Director of the Social Science Society. Commissar of justice

during the Soviet Republic. Went into exile. Roosevelt, Franklin D. [1882-1945]

President of the United States, 1933-1945.Rotta, Angelo [1872-1965]

Papal Nuncio and spokesman for the corps diplomatique in Budapest. Ordered the Hungarian cardinal archbishop Serédi to stop the Jewish deportation at the end of June 1944. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 1997.

Rubinek, Gyula [1865-1922]President of National Economic Association. Member of parliament after 1901. Minister of

agriculture, 1919-1920.Salkaházi, Sára [1899-1944]

Influenced by Schlachta, became a social worker as a Catholic nun, 1927. Gave shelter to

some hundreds of Jewish people in her office, but due to the information of its staff, killed by the Arrow-Cross men, December 1944. Named to the list of Righteous among the

Nations by Yad Vashem, 1972.

128

Schiff, András [1953- ]

Hungarian-born concert pianist, conductor. Awarded the Bartók-prize in 1991, the Kossuth-prize in 1996. Although his paternal grandparents were Orthodox Jews, he had no Jewish upbringing from his parents who experienced the Holocaust. Emigrated from

Hungary, 1979.Schlachta, Margit [1884-1974]

Catholic nun. Social active. First female MP in Hungary, 1920. Opposed the anti-Jewish laws and the Jewish deportation; appealed to the Pope Pius XII. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 1985.

Serédi, Jusztinián [1884-1945]Cardinal archbishop of Esztergom and prince primate of Hungary, 1927-1945.

Seton-Watson, Robert W. [1879-1951]British publicist. Firm opponent of the forcible Hungarianization. Expressed sympathy toward the Succession States by his journal (The New Europe) during the First World War.

Sinka, István [1897-1969]Poet and writer from herdsman family. Posthumously received the Kossuth-prize, 1990.

Somló, Bódog [1873-1920]Jurist who studied under Pikler's tuition. Founding member of the Social Science Society. Enthusiastic advocate of Spencerian philosophy.

Spencer, Herbert [1820-1903]British philosopher and sociologist. Developed the conception of evolution as the progress

of human societies.Stalin, Iosif [1879-1953]

Dictator of the Soviet Union. Established the so-called Stalin constitution, 1936.Štefánek, Anton [1877-1964]

Slovakian politician. Minister of education in Czechoslovakia after World War I.Stern, Samu [1874-1946]

Arms dealer during the First World War. Representative of Neolog in Budapest, 1932.

Chairman of the Jewish councils under the German occupation.St. István I [967-1038]

First king of Hungary, 1001-1038. Accepted Christianity as state religion. Canonized,1083.

Stollár, Béla [1917-1944]

Journalist. Anti-Nazi activist. Killed by the Arrow-Cross men, December 1944. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 2003.

Szabó, Dezső [1879-1945]

129

Writer and publicist. Forerunner of the folk-writers. Racial anti-Semite.

Szabó, Ervin [1877-1918]Socialist. Changed family name in 1892 and converted to Lutheranism three years later. Vice-president of the Social Science Society from 1907.

Szabolcsi, Lajos [1889-1943]Son of Miksa Szabolcsi. Succeeded to his father's weekly newspaper.

Szabolcsi, Miksa [1857-1915]Journalist. Editor-in-chief of the Egyenlőség founded in 1881. 3,000 Jewish people changed their family names under his influence at the turn of the century.

Szálasi, Ferenc [1897-1946]Army officer in the general staff. Leader of the Arrow-Cross Party from 1940. "Leader of

the Nation" after October 15, 1944. Executed for war crimes.Széchenyi, István, Count [1791-1860]

Leading reformer of the pre-1848 period. Established the Academy of Sciences. Initiated

modernization and bourgeois development. Kossuth called him "the greatest Hungarian".Szekfű, Gyula [1883-1955]

Influential figure in the interwar Hungary's historiography. Ideologue of the counter-revolutionary regime.

Széll, Kálmán [1845-1915]

Prime minister, 1899-1903, when the relations between Austria and Hungary was seriously ill. Member of the Andrássy Jr. group from 1905, and chairman of the Constitution Party.

His wife was a daugher of Mihály Vörösmarty.Szende, Pál [1879-1934]

Lawyer, vice-president of the Civic Radical Party. Minister of the Károlyi regime, 1919. Went into exile.

Sztehló, Gábor [1909-1974]Lutheran representative in the Budapest Committee of Good Priests, 1944. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 1973.

Sztójay, Döme [1883-1946]Military officer and ambassador to Berlin with pro-Nazi sympathies, 1935-1944. Prime

minister as well as foreign minister, March-August 1944. Executed for war crimes.Tarlós, István [1948- ] Belonged to the Alliance of Free Democrats, 1990-1994. The headman of the third ward of

Budapest, 1990-2006. Budapest mayor since 2010. Supporter of Fidesz now, but formally independent.

Teleki, Pál, Count [1879-1941]

130

University professor of geography. Foreign minister of the Szeged counter-government,

1919. Prime minister, 1920-1921 and 1938-1941.Teleszky, János [1868-1939]

Minister of finance, 1912-1917. President of the Commercial Bank of Pest.

Tildy, Zoltán [1889-1961]Calvinist clergyman. Participated in the organization of the Independent Smallholders'

Party. Prime minister, 1945-1946. President of the republic, 1946-1948. Joined the 1956revolution.

Tisza, István, Count [1861-1918]

Inherited the title of count from his uncle, 1897. Prime minister, 1903-1905 and 1913-1917. Founded the National Party of Work, 1910. Murdered by soldiers at the end of the war.

Tisza, Kálmán [1830-1902]President of the Liberal Party and prime minister, 1875-1890.

Tormay, Cécile [1875-1937]

Writer. Founder of the National Union of Hungarian Women to "defend fatherland, family and religion". Editor of the journal of Napkelet, 1923-1937.

Trotsky, Lev D. [1879-1940]Commissar of war of Soviet Russia. Architect of the Red Army.

Varga, Jenő [1879-1964]

Joined the Social Democratic Party, 1906; became Communist, February 1919. Left Hungary after the 133 days revolution; lived in the Soviet Union. Director of the Institute

of World Economics and World Politics in Moscow, 1927-1947.Vázsonyi, Vilmos [1868-1926]

Organized the Democratic Party, 1900. Its MP from 1901. Minister of Justice, 1915-1917 and 1918.

Venetianer, Lajos [1867-1922]Rabbi of Újpest, 1897. Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary of Budapest from 1910.

Vona, Gábor [1978- ]Historian. Member of Fidesz, 2001-2003. President of Jobbik from 2006. Head of Magyar

Gárda, 2007-2009.Vörösmarty, Mihály [1800-1855]

Poet and playwright. Ardent supporter of Kossuth.

Wallenberg, Raol [1912-1947]Recruited by the American War Refugee Board and arrived in Budapest, July 1944. Given

status as a diplomat by the Swedish legation, prevented the deportation of tens of thousands

131

of Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camp, 1944-1945. Captured by Soviets and

reportedly died in a Soviet prison, 1947. Named to the list of Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, 1996.

Wass, Albert, Count [1908-1998]

Influential writer in the interwar Transylvania. After the war, sentenced to death in the Romanian People's trial. Emigrated to the United States, 1952.

Weber, Max [1864-1920]German social historian. Challenged Marxist theory of determinism.

Weiss, Berthold [1845-1915]

Member of parliament from 1896. President of the National Association of Textile Industrialists.

Weiss, Manfréd, Baron [1857-1922]Leading figure of heavy industry. Founder of the greatest Hungarian ironworks in Csepel. The Upper House member from 1915.

Wekerle, Sándor [1848-1921]Economist. Prime minister, 1892-1895, 1906-1910 and1917-1918. First non-titled premier

in Hungary. Passed laws allowing the separation of church and state.Wodianer, Sámuel, Baron [1780-1850]

Banker. All the family were converted to Christianity, 1844.

Zákány, Gyula [1889-1963]Catholic father. Took part in founding the Association of Awakening Hungarians.

Under-secretary of culture in the Szeged counter-government, 1919. Member of parliament, 1920-1922.

Zichy, Aladár, Count [1864-1937]Son of Count Nándor Zichy. President of the Catholic People's Party, 1903-1918. Active in

the Szeged counter-revolution. President of Hangya, 1925-1934. Member of the Upper House from 1927.

Zichy, János, Count [1868-1944]

Nephew of Count Nándor Zichy. President of the Catholic People's Party, 1900-1903. Minister of religion and education, 1910-1913 and 1918. Participated in the Viennese

Anti-Bolshevik Committee.Zichy, Nándor, Count [1829-1911]

Vice-president of National Economic Association in the early 1860s. Member of

parliament, 1865-1880. Co-founder of the Catholic People's Party.Zimándy, Ignác [1831-1903]

Catholic deputy bishop. Member of the Anti-Semitic Party. MP of the party, 1884.

132

Zselénszky, Róbert, Count [1850-1939]

Conservative champion of National Economic Association. Member of the House of Representatives, 1881-1906. The Upper House member from 1906.