Jews and Non-Jews in a West Hungarian Township Under The

CEU eTD Collection

Jews Jews and Non 'Christian Course', with S In partial fu In partial Supervisors: ProfessorKarády Victor and András Professor Kovács - Jews Jews aWestin Hun lfillment the of requirements thedegree of MasterArts Central European University Jewish Studies ProgramJewish DepartmentHistory of ByBuchmüller Péter Budapest, Hungary p ecial Reference toLocal Press R Submitted to Submitted 2014 garian Township under the Interwar

eports

CEU eTD Collection such instructions may not a form must page the in lodged and Author the by given instructions the with accordance in only made be may part, or full p any by Copies Author. the with rests thesis this of text the in Copyright Statement Copyright of

Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This This librarian. the from obtained be may Details Library. European Central

part of any such copies made. Further cop Further made. copies such any of part

be permission made ofthe thewritten Author. without

ies made in accordance with with accordance in made ies rocess, either in either rocess,

CEU eTD Collection Hungary t impression an us give can nevertheless circumstances, social and economic political, given the under level local a on antisemitism chan a to hand one the on Magyars true as them t by assimilation of requirements level. micro a in antisemitism pr compare weekly Jews of exclusion gradual the level,localhow in antisemitism changesofand characteristics the Itinvestigates antisemitic live to had that Community Jewish small a presents thesis The Abstract

called hat finally led to themass Hungarian destructionhat of finallyledto Jews.

e atmosphere. ged

environment in the interwar years interwar the in environment e -

war Kőszeg és Vidéke és Kőszeg ,

the motivations of antisemites and on the other hand other the on and antisemites of motivations the

o interwar to happened .

The deep examination of the city’s society helps us understand better better understand us helps society city’s the of examination deep The

h tei das ih h qeto o asmlto and assimilation of question the with deals thesis The n practice. in

years lhuh h Jws Cmuiy f őzg ufle the fulfilled Kőszeg of Community Jewish the Although in th in he turn of the 20 the of turn he

e period b period e and also investigate the question of continuity of of continuity of question the investigate also and

h mi fcs s n h aayi o te local the of analysis the on is focus main The bu te anti the about i

in a W a in etween 1909 and 1939, h 1939, and 1909 etween th

century, estern Hungarian town called Kőszeg called town Hungarian estern - Jewish atmosphere of interwar interwar of atmosphere Jewish local antisemites did not accept not did antisemites local

in ,

gauly growing gradually a the reactions of Jews of reactions the ence we are able to to able are we ence . CEU eTD Collection IFinally, wouldlike tothank tomy friends family and me chapters, am I Wilke the research. this from do me to encouraged beginning and inspired who Hosszú, Gyula to gratitude immense feel I through theprocess to thanks special my give I patience. and expertise advice, guidance, their with in thesis and this research writing my in me helped who those all to gratitude my express to like would I Acknowledgements to improve

very thankful to my academic w academic my to thankful very ,

who helped

commented on them with a with them on commented y uevsr, Professor supervisors, my

my writing.

a lot of of the present work. in

the whole academic year.the whole academic I would also like like also would I s

many itr Karády Victor riting instructor, Eszter Tímár Eszter instructor, riting

suggestions and qu and suggestions ii

to give my thanks to Professor Carsten Carsten Professor to thanks my give to

n Adá Kovács András and for their emotional support. estions, and th and estions, , who closely read my my read closely who , ,

h gie me guided who ereby helped helped ereby

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion ofKőszeg3. Emancipation andassimilation Jewryand antisemitism local 2. Kőszegpress, Jewryinlocal the analysis of 1. Demographic, and economiccircumstances political ofKőszeg Jewry Introduction Acknowledgements Abstract Contents of Table 3.2. Antisemitism in Kőszeg in 3.2. Antisemitism Tendencies3.1. Assimilation among 1.3. Economic circumstances init role and oflocalJews the atmosphere1.2. Political inKőszeg 1.1. Demographiccharacteristics

......

...... Kőszeg Jewry ...... iii

Kőszeg és Vidéke Kőszeg

......

...... between 1909 and 1939 between 1909 ......

......

. ....

59 57 52 47 45 21 17 14

9 7 1 ii

CEU eTD Collection 2 II Volume Hungary, in Holocaust 4_2_3 1 ordinary the see Jew going uniform typicaltheir in 11 the deported were persons Jewry provincial photo This Introduction

Braham, pp. 756 pp. Braham, 94 Jn 18 June 1944.

who was the founder of the of founder the was who -

a.jpg th to the railway station was named after named was station railway the to

see this one and more pictures about it in Randolph L. Braham, Braham, L. Randolph in it about pictures more and one this see May. graph th

- h pict The 757. 2 -

looking victims wearing their wearing victims looking A in 1944 in s n o h fw remaining few the of one is s it is quite obvious if we lookth we at if obvious is quite it s

Picture 1:

r ws ae from: taken was ure Szombathely to were involved in the process. the in wereinvolved .

The photograph shows that o that shows photograph The , New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. pp. 758 pp. 1994. Press, University New , Columbia York:

The d

kindergarten, poorhouse and hospital and poorhouse kindergarten, eportation oftheeportation Jewry Kőszeg of

from http://www.holokausztmagyarorszagon.hu/images/photo/kep the 1

Fülöp Schey Fülöp on winter clothes in the middle of the summer the of middle the in clothes winter Kőszeg

the process of deportation of Hungarian Hungarian of deportation of process the

Ironic is picture is n the 18 the n

ghetto that had been established on established been had that ghetto

ally, the street on which they are they which on street the ally, (1798 , local Hungarianlocal , th The P The

- of June 1944 June of 1881) 1 olitics of Genoc of olitics

in Kőszeg in , a prominent local prominent a , - 762.

103 gendarmes .

ide ide We can We

Jewish –

The

CEU eTD Collection 1974. Nyomda, zsidóságnak 4 inone detail. but no worksit, examine some and theon published topic, were some 2000.) articles Kiadó, ( 3 I. War World before city small relatively investigate to like would and atmosphere The their fellowexperienced. have citizensaswe the by acceptance gradual societ majority its and ideology this of emergence the without that argue I pre from followed necessarily Jewry of deportation the Hungary emerged that ideology moreover antisemitism, interwar growing gradually the a in Jewry Hungarian of the present to is thesis this of purpose The in 1947 question. major the not is this understanding my gas whether information, different us give worked Since they were sent could. they as belongings their of much as taking are they that indicating

A Magyarországi holokaus Magyarországi A I have not found any study that particularly deal with the camp in Kőszeg. According to Randolph L. Braham L.Braham Randolph to According Kőszeg. in thecamp with deal particularly that study any not found have I Löwinger, Avraham Albert (edited), (edited), Albert Avraham Löwinger,

Shoah emergence of 19 of emergence

h hsoy f h dprain f őzg Jewry Kőszeg of deportation the of history the

in the nearby speaks for woods itself. in the city the in

(For the Memory of Vas County Jews: For Vas County Jews Who Suffered Death), Jaffa: Efrájim Efrájim Jaffa: Death), Suffered Who Jews County Vas For Jews: County Vas of Memory the (For n Hungary in

p.58. to Auschwitz. to Auschwitz. y,

antis

Hungarian society would not have been as indifferent indifferent as been have not would society Hungarian

should be a separate thesis, separate a be should

On the On th mtc legislation emitic te eotto o Hnain Jewry Hungarian of deportation the ,

zt bibliográfiája zt s al a te 1880s. the as early as century political antisemitism in Hungary, the Hungary, in antisemitism political century

Kőszeg

city is the process the is

one

like Kőszeg like .

hand For this purpose, this For vs zió elkr: mártír a emlékére: zsidók vasi A

(The Bibliography of the Holocaust in Hungary), Budapest: Park Park Budapest: Hungary), in Holocaust the of Bibliography (The ,

it was necessary to have the opportunity the have to necessary was it s of

. f the of

or gas or It explains that I that explains It long process which process long the gr the

4 2

3 Although

I will not deal with this with deal not will I

- The fact that some 25 some that fact The adual exclusion of Jews from Jews of exclusion adual newr eid r well are period interwar chambers were being used being were chambers

I started my investigation from investigation my started I o the to

I o o state not do I , n te ocnrto camp concentration the and argue

ihu cnetn i to it connecting without

finally - oiia atsmts and antisemitism political World War I antisemitism, I War World

that w that halált szenvedett vasmegyei vasmegyei szenvedett halált

led to the destruction the to led 00 corp 00

general

e should not study not should e in detail. in that

to - T know

there

h dsiy of destiny the aim r in or Nazism s were s

society in a in society weeks anti to . ht I What n.

or not. or

the M compare compare - Jewish emoirs

found

years

later

that the

CEU eTD Collection th in crucialparta Community Kős of city The we findKőszeg,we will in get can towns, other Kőszeg of situation the research present the however Hungary, of subject our of case in find we what and tendencies the that mind bearin also should We research. our of case overgeneralizethe w time, same the At hopefully ofthe reasons showthe will actions a Hungary in general anti the history, political the with gr gradually of tendencies the historical social this Through that infl and 1867 in anti continuous a there Is Jews? against society t local specific anti of continuity of question the about thinking pre the to the society and emerged during crisis and crisis during emerged and society the to

give us a more detailed picture detailed more a us give

- uenced societies as local well? and mot and

n te post the and 1914 was only an illusion? Or illusion? an only was 1914 t here was one of the smallest among Hungarian cities’. Hence they did not have not theydid Hence Hungariancities’.among smallest the of one was here always erms ivations e ad t Jwy should Jewry its and zeg e city’s everyday life, but at the same time the same at everydaybut city’slife, e .

What were the main reasons of the indifferent behavior indifferent the of reasons main the were What e should always be careful during these kinds of investigations not to to not investigations of kinds these during careful be always should e to show to what extent what to show to keeping in mind the different circumstances. different the mind in keeping re very useful and important, and useful very re

- are ol Wr pros o te te hand other the on periods, I War World . In addition what will be found in Kőszeg will be comp be will Kőszeg in found be will what addition In . . Examin .

comparable with them. In my understanding, understanding, my In them. with comparable perspective I expect that we will we that expect I perspective owing antisemitism in Hungary. Although studies that deal deal that studies Although Hungary. in antisemitism owing ing the interwar period on a me a on period interwar the ing

majority society’s

a little - do not necessarily apply to apply necessarily not do Jewish legislations or the characteristics of Jewry in in Jewry of characteristics the or legislations Jewish

about the environment in which Jews had to live and live to had Jews which in environment the about

was i was closer to the closer to

the already known tendencies are in line with line in are tendencies known already the 3 Th reasons. many for examined be

was t mainly generated by the antis the by generated mainly t - Jewish attitude that was deeply embedded deeply was that attitude Jewish - Semitism

they might hide might they thus the period of emancipation betwee emancipation of period the thus

anti tendenciescountry. inthe - Jewish behavior.Jewish

not only in general, but general, in only not ,

they were very visible theyverywere

be , other cities or communities communities or cities other

zo, sometimes micro level micro sometimes zo, to

able to able

Through the phenomena the Through that there were personal were there that

ae h psiiiy of possibility the have it

better is the essence of of essence the is

of emitic policy emitic

the majority the

arable with arable understand understand Jewish e

and hadand also in in also n

CEU eTD Collection 92. p. Levél Zsidó Magyar In Kőszeg) of Community Israelite Neolog the of Protocol 6 Th 5 according tothe these accept t of middle the in was Kőszeg While city. border unique otherThe my more thesisin detail country the in German Protocols their of language the changed they community the in tendencies the of sign t language their change to easier much was it Certainly, non as pressure double under was city the of Jewry The Kőszeg Jewry the of 50% under still were Magyars the 1900 and nation dominant the become to trying citi Magyar the city, the in nationality betw fight in themselves found Jews local peacefully, together lived Magyars and Germans Ge considerable a was there period interwar in also and trade life economic city’s the in role important an

ksei og. zalt htösg jegyzőkönyve hitközség izraelita congr. kőszegi A ayr áoo Saizia Évkönyve Statisztikai Városok Magyar irring, Budapest: Budapest Székesfőváros Házinyomdája, 1912. p. 88. and 100. and p. p. 88. 1912. Házinyomdája, Székesfőváros Budapest irring,Budapest:

circumstances - that

hitas ad n h ohr ad s msl German mostly a as hand other the on and Christians, to Hungarian to e hs w ain. codn o the to According nations. two these een

t eae iie fo most from divided became it , admitted

they intended they

1910

feature industry. ,

census, werecensus, trying to a relatively small but considerable Jewry, that had 266 members members 266 had that Jewry, considerable but small relatively a on

Hungari their difficulties question inthis their

of Kőszeg is that due to the 1920 Trianon Peace Treaty it became a it PeaceTrianonTreaty the1920 to due that Kőszegis of the

diinly te oit tee a blnul sne tl i the in still since bilingual, was there society the Additionally,

to an th assimila

of October in 1897. in October of

as their mother tongue. mother as their , (Statistical Yearbook of Hungarian Cities) edited by Gusztáv Gusztáv by edited Cities) Hungarian of Yearbook (Statistical , zens in the period of the so the of period the in zens te to the Magyar culture Magyar the to te

of make stay alive economicallystay and socially.

t former its (1894. szeptember 11. 11. szeptember (1894.

u t ter ov their to due rman minority in Kőszeg. Although ethnic ethnic Although Kőszeg. in minority rman population, in the same year 60. year same the in population,

at the end of the 19 the of end the at Magyar the dominant language. dominant the Magyar he Habsburg Empire, suddenly it had to had it suddenly Empire, Habsburg he

1880 census 1880 6

This .

economic and social social and economic han to change their religion. As a As religion. their change to han 5

may suggest may er - - ersnain n business, in representation , but I will discuss la discuss will I but , called magyarization were magyarization called tár (Hungarian Jewish Archive) Archive) Jewish (Hungarian tár German was the majority the was German –

1901. november 17.) (The (The 17.) november 1901. th - paig community. speaking

century. ,

that as in general in as that

links O

n the hand hand the n

9% of the of 9%

a cultural a While in While .

Under

ter in ter from CEU eTD Collection Ma In ofKőszeg) Community Israelite the of Neolog Protocol 8 http://www.idi.btk.pte.hu/dokumentumok/disszertaciok/katonaattilaphd.pdf County1920 7 have Che the of documents the to Budapest), Archive Jewish the in (available 1901 and w used to mostly sources contemporary I view, of point retrospective a of interpretations misleading the avoid To Katona outthat the points social h Kő emphasis the addition does but period, the in County Vas of policy the of I be one source ofmy mainsecondary Harsá accep more do hand 1974 as environment small a such in practice in antisemitism non and Jews between relationship time same the At huge. is Certainly

n 2008 Attila Katona Attila 2008 n aoa Attila: Katona ksei og. zalt htösg jegyzőkönyve hitközség izraelita congr. kőszegi A ith only one exce onlyone ith

the Jewish Community of K of Community Jewish the the vitally important vitally the szeg. There is no other serious published work published serious other no is There szeg. . not

nyi’s monog nyi’s However, es not focus on or on focus not es

been , the literature about the situation of Jews between the two world wars in Hungary in wars world two the between Jews of situation the about literature the , - 1938) PhD dissertation, available at: available dissertation, PhD 1938) ted in ted

sdsg s sdkré Vs ámgée 1920 vármegyében Vas zsidókérdés és Zsidóság found yet.Therefore found on the one hand one the on

an environment that had that environment an raph is full of full is raph ption, ption,

completed

is A kőszegi zsidók kőszegi A

the p the vra Kadisha (Burial Society) or Society) (Burial Kadisha vra be

n Szombathely on analyze the reasons why and how antisemi how and why reasons the analyze ,

there able to investigate the mentality of the period. Unfortunately, period. the of mentality the investigate to able

rotocol őszeg

precious

it does not does it istory the county of and its his are only a few works that try that works few a only are ,

I s.

- s of the of s . E . PhD dissertation PhD basically

Jew very protocol very

information about the community the about information in s (Jewry of Kőszeg) written by László Harsá László by written Kőszeg) of (Jewry

te aia ct o te county, the of city capital the , formerly

concentrate on the interwar years, on th on years, interwar the on concentrate

Jewish 5

(1894. szeptember 11. 11. szeptember (1894.

use use sal oit lk Kő like society small a

that deals with the Jewry of Kő of Jewry the with deals that three gyar Zsidó Levéltár (Hungarian Jewish Archive) Jewish (Hungarian Levéltár Zsidó gyar

apparently 8 not i not . ommunity of the period between 1894 between period the of ommunity

from the interwar years interwar the from there is a huge gap of sources of gap huge a is there

T - that

1938 types of primary sources to analyze to sourcesprimary of types here are here

the Israelite the nvestigate the social relations. I relations. social the nvestigate

provides a very detailed picture detailed very a provides (er ad Jewish and (Jewry . cities are not well examined cities are not

rejected

to deal with the everyday the with deal to existing –

1901. november 17.) (The (The 17.) november 1901. tism became more and and more became tism Women’s Association Women’s

zg n detail in szeg this ideology this

monographs ,

therefore rather - question in Vas Vas in question

szeg; lost

than e other e related

. Still . , e , it will will it in nyi

even even such such and ven .

on n ,

CEU eTD Collection tendencies and theories I K of situation the a present will I thesis my of chapter last the In Hungary due I War World after changed I general. in or locally community Jewish the about collect I 1939, until maintained important most the Since press. local I addition t all of First Vidéke 19 the of s Kőszeg the e an eorpia, economic demographical, main he n addition n I chapter analytical first the n .

, particularly aftertheof fall HungarianRepublic Soviet to th

, I, study will local century the I will start my thesis with a general a with thesis my start will I ituation

changes in őszeg Jewry and Jewry őszeg

and the article the and .

The one not one The

. will

the

try to investigate how the main narrative main the how investigate to try

antisemitism in thecity in antisemitism regiongeneral and the compared tothe , political atmosphere

its will ed s ed Protocol from the turn of the century, the of turn the from Protocol ed

members the questions of emancipation and assimilation of Jewry of assimilation and emancipation of questions the

of the most important most the of n analyze and

o h gauly rwn antis growing gradually the to analyze n sca caatrsis f hs ml community small this of characteristics social and periodical

r el wt te so the with dealt or the representation of the Kő the of representation the 6

n , brief ,

d was was

analysis of the locally the of analysis . its

Kőszeg és Vidéke és Kőszeg

articles introduction

local newspaper called newspaper local rm 99 o 1939 to 1909 from - ald Jws q “Jewish called of .

mtc atmosphere emitic of this weekly journal weekly this of Kő

founded in 1881 and 1881 in founded found szeg szeg Jewry in in Jewry szeg

birth certificates birth

and its Jewry its and

tendencies

Kőszeg és Kőszeg that were were that uestion” the

in in in . ,

CEU eTD Collection Jövő the of Half First the in Jewry Rural Hungarian of Development the of Courses (The 11 p. 26. 39., Economy 10 ( 3/4. No. 45, Vol. Studies, 9 knowledge rural ofthe also of needs people, conne good middleman a concent only it if even interaction, of lack the mean the become to ease relative argues Hanák cities. in live to allowed not were 18 the percent. 5 to 0.5 approximately from inhabitants country’s the of percentage T 910.000. some to grew 1910 by people, 12.000 Je Hungarian that mind in bear should we all, of First influencewell as border a Kőszeg made and country circumstances economic lived Jewry Kőszeg which in environment introduction the in noted As Jewry 1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467225

eua Don Yehuda . Hanák Péter “Jews and the modernization of Commerce in Hungary, 1790 Hungary, in Commerce of modernization the and “Jews Péter Hanák Hanák p. 32 and Walter Pietsch, “A magyar vidéki zsidóság fejlődésirányzatai a 19. század első felében” első század 19. a fejlődésirányzatai zsidóság vidéki magyar “A Pietsch, Walter and 32 p. Hanák

eorpi, oiia ad cnmc icmtne o Kősze of circumstances economic and political Demographic, (Past and Future), issue 3/2003, pp. 75 pp. 3/2003, issue Future), and (Past th

century with some exceptions, th exceptions, some with century

(edited by Michael K. Silber), Jerusale Silber), K. Michael by (edited ctions with the urban wholesale merchants, and on the other hand, had had hand, other the on and merchants, wholesale urban the with ctions h cut, n ms ipraty h efc o te 90 rao Tet that Treaty Trianon 1920 the of effect the importantly most and county, the - –

role between the village and the city, since on the one hand, they had very very had they hand, one the on since city, the and village the between role

they ere ao, Te eorpi D Demographic “The Magos, George .

“enjoyed the specific advantage of exclusion, and were thus able with able thus were and exclusion, of advantage specific the “enjoyed

(Summer -

city of the city the of

pioneers of capital of pioneers wih etil hd dmgahc eooi ad social and economic demographic, a had certainly which ,

–

sat y netgto with investigation my start I accessed

uun 18) Idaa Univer Indiana 1983), Autumn, .

82. at (available 82. W I compare the characteristics of this popul this of characteristics the compare I

t eey iavnae f en ecue a Péter as excluded being of disadvantage every ith on m: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1992, pp. 23 pp. 1992, University, Hebrew The Press, Magnes The m: e majority of this s this of majority e

10.04.2014.)

of 7 ist

; magnates and peasants.

vlpet f ugra Jwy I Jewis In Jewry” Hungarian of evelopment

the demographical, social, political and and political social, demographical, the economy.” here was also a parallel a also was here www.ceeol.com rated on commercial issues. Jews issues. commercial on rated

wry , iy rs, 93 p. 189 pp. 1983. Press, sity 10 ociety lived in villages in lived ociety

that in 1720 was only around around only was 1720 in that

Exclusion did not necessarily not did Exclusion a - ) 1848” In: 1848”

chapter

11 19th century) In: In: century) 19th

Jews in the Hungarian Hungarian the in Jews ht us p the up sums that

increase in their in increase 9

Originally in Originally ation to the to ation - 1. p 216. ,

h Social Social h played Múlt és és Múlt

Jews . 189 . g - CEU eTD Collection 16 p. 166. 2007, 15 14 13 12 Pressburg. Komárom, 1890 by proportion Certainly, and naturally when they move to tendedJewry Hungary the of that clearlyshows migration. to due population Jewish the of increase 10% a than more was there years 10 only in and Jews, 2000 than less had 1830s the in that Miskolc is example One legislation the before settle to Jews allowed that cities legi the 1840 In were able t agricult system. thereJews wouldhav rural without importantly, more and country the of economy modernizing the by required out, points Pietsch a other each with interacted who merchants of network statewide a created purposely, not however, Jewry, Hungarian

Raphael Patai, Raphael Patai, (my80. translation) p. Pietsch, 80. p. Pietsch, 80. p. Pietsch, Howard N. Lupovitch, N. Howard 13 ural products and could distribute them distribute could and products ural

As he sums up: “Hungary needed such entrepreneurs who managed to buy up the up buy to managed who entrepreneurs such needed “Hungary up: sums he As 16

ofproduction.” again the it circles into collect necessarycapitalandinvest o the h lar the in 12% The increase of KőszegThe increase Jewry

The Jews of Hungary Jewsof The lto gaate h rgt to right the guaranteed slation et eih omnt ws n uaet bt t h sm tm their time same the at but Budapest, in was community Jewish gest

Hungarian Jewry functioned as modern merchants that were absolutely were that merchants modern as functioned Jewry Hungarian

eevr 12 Temesvár e been a huge gap of these kind of pioneers in the Hungarian economic ofpioneersinthe Hungarian thesegap kind hugeof e a been Jews at the Crossroa the at Jews a 26.2% was were

nd always knew what was needed in a given region. given a in needed was what knew always nd

allowed. , Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996, 429. p. 1996, Press, University Detroit: State Wayne,

, n as o also and %, in

Nagyvárad, ds , New York York New ,

is in line with is in 8

est stl nweei h onr. In country. the in anywhere settle to Jews all over the country and at the same time same the at and country the over all

ver 10% in Arad, Baja, Győr, Kassa, Kassa, Győr, Baja, Arad, in 10% ver – 65 i Szatmár in 16.5%

Budapest: Central European University Press, Press, University European Central Budapest:

their number had grow had number their

to citie to this tendency.this s if thereif was s

- Németi

n increasingly. n an opportunity opportunity an 12 ,

A 47 in 14.7%

This fact This s Walters 14

CEU eTD Collection 19 18 1912. Házinyomdája, Székesfőváros Budapest Budapest: Thirring, Gusztáv 17 by 1910 1 Figure Szomb of growth increasing the with up keep to failed Kőszeg industry handicraft rur mostly short with starts Yearbook The Kőszeg importantlycities, most toother rival inthe county, Szombathely. major toits data well the Évkönyve Statisztikai Városok Magyar the from development I 1

.1. Demograph

will MVSÉ, Statisztikák (Statistics) p. 53. p. (Statistics) Statisztikák MVSÉ, 54. p. (Monogaphs) Monográfiák MVSÉ, ayr áoo Saizia Évkönyve Statisztikai Városok Magyar presents every city of Hungary in detail and a and detail in Hungary of city every presents

Figure 1 present the general situation of the city at the beginning of the 20 the of beginning the at city the of situation general the present , Kőszeg that - ). known statistician of the era, Gusztáv Thirring in 1912. in Thirring Gusztáv era, the of statistician known

l iy wee ot epe work people most where city, al While : The population of KőszegandTheand Szombathely population 1910 between 1830

ic in 80 years 80 in .

characteristics Compared to its most important rival city in the county, Szombathely, Szombathely, county, the in city rival important most its to Compared

had 5757 inhabitants in 1830onlygrew 5757inhabitantsin had

second half of the 19 the of half second

the population of Szombathely increas Szombathely of population the

monographs of the cities in which Kőszeg appears as a a as appears Kőszeg which in cities the of monographs

(VÉ (ttsia Yabo o Hnain iis e Cities) Hungarian of Yearbook (Statistical (MVSÉ) ,

, (Statistical Yearbook of Hungarian Cities) edited by edited Cities) Hungarian of Yearbook (Statistical , th

n agriculture, in 9 century. For this purpose the best source is the is source best the purpose this century.For

lso gives us the opportunity to opportunity the us gives lso 18

to 8423. oee, ih a with however,

17 teys ouain (See population athely’s

This huge collection of collection huge This ed from 3 from ed

century and its its and century

888 to 30947 to 888

considerable

compare 19 ie by dited

CEU eTD Collection 20 decreaseas intheir number t in 6% some and approximately was that country the of Jewry of proportion general Although indeed political atmosphere was Hungary, in than Austria in better not was situation economic the Although Austria since well, th Wor the as tendency this behind decrease natural a was there Certainly, quickly. surprisingly decrease to started number their time that From 266. was population their when 1910 in peak its reached number their st were Kőszeg of Jews the problems, economic huge had and region the in importance its lost city the 1848 after Although growth. economic its importantly most life, 1 (Table 19 the of middle the From

Harsányi, p. 257. p. Harsányi, e Soviet Republic in Hungary in Republic Soviet e ld War I and the strongly antis strongly the and I War ld ). The members of this small community becamecommunity small this of members The ).

the Jewish population Jewish the Table

he interwar years, generally years, interwar he

1 mc finle environm friendlier much a

: Israelite: population of Kőszeg and 1946 between 1840 friendlier th

the city Kőszeg of century the Jewish population of Kősze of population centuryJewish the population 1946 1941 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 1869 1840 Year

motivated many of them to leave the city and the country ascountry the and city the leave to them of many motivated

neither in Kőszeg nor in the county the in nor Kőszeg in neither

for Jews for emitic post emitic

popu

Israelite was gradually becoming gradually was 109 131 162 266 243 259 213 177 15 91 . lation

- (see Table 2 the county the

war atmosphere, particularly after the fall of fall the after particularly atmosphere, war

n a ta time that at ent

Percentage 0. 1. 1. 1. 3. 3. 3. 2. 2. 1. 1% 1% 5% 9% 2% 1% 7% 9% 5% 4%

a did not experience not did )

. very important part of the city’s the of part important very

older, but most probably most but older, a vr coe o them. to close very was g was gradually growing gradually gwas 5% in the pre the in 5%

(Table 2 (Table 20

ill prosperous, ill such

)

reached the reached - war years war

crucia

the l

CEU eTD Collection 22 21 Total Other Serb Croatian Ruthenian Romanian Slovak German Magyar Nationality Magyars majori becameabsolute the part Hungarian and Austrian so a became Hungary as county(see the in minority considerableGerman County Vas tenden nationwide the to Similarly Total Other Israelite Unitarian Orthodox Greek Evangeli Calvinist Catholic Greek Catholic Roman

Katona, p. 28. p. Katona, 69. p. Statisztikák(Statistics) MVSÉ or 31. p. Katona,

435, 54, 23 16, 48 14 288 117, 247, 1910

ih oe hn af f h pplto, u a te ae ie hr ws a was there time same the at but population, the of half than more with 435, 10 9649 19 71 82, 12, 151 331, 1910 Table 3 Table 2

035 230 027 597

793 169 985 793 269

: : The The mother t - calle 0. 0. 0. 26. 56. Percentage 12. 0. 3. 76. Percentage 0. 2. 0. 0. 18. 2. 0. 01 00 07 01 72 denomination of thepopulation inVasdenomination County 00 21 00 02 89 03

89 9 4 , 02 82

nation d

h cut ls ams al f t Gra ihbtns and inhabitants German its of all almost lost county the

cies ty ongue of the population in Vas C ofthe Vas ongue populationin

, by 1910 the Magyar nation beca nation Magyar the 1910 by , of the county.of the - 257, 5182 16 3975 8 28 171 12, 246, 1920 tt atr h 1920 the after state 257, 27 8105 34 85 32, 10, 181 216, 1920

384 238 271

810 046 11 810 869

Table 3 Table

2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 4. 95. Percentage 0. 3. 0. 0. 12. 3. 0. 84. Percentage 01 01 54 00 01 07 8 01 14 01 03 98 07 44 ). The situation changedmuch very situation The ). 50 12

Peace

275, 5327 10 3346 0 12 93 8062 258, 1930 275 69 7291 0 113 31, 10, 186 224, 1930 Treaty.

ounty

886 786 , 021 171 021 690

me the majority of of majority the me

vdd into ivided 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 2. 93. Percentage 0. 2. 0. 0. 11. 3. 0. 81. Percentage 94 00 22 00 00 03 93 03 65 00 04 92 07 87 59 70

CEU eTD Collection 24 23 per interwar the in that natural of tendency general the mind in keep also should We Total Szombathely Kőszeg Cities Vasvár Szombathely Szentgotthárd Sárvár Németujvár Muraszombat Kőszeg Körmend Felsőőr Celldömölk Districts political andsocial environment. hundred the to due Austria of citizens became Jews 800 some only A border. new the by caused only not was county out points th one lost city the even that emphasize to o citythe of life economic the and district the influenced that district Kőszeg the in particularly considerable, was decrease The county. the of cities major two influenced border new the how see and majoritynation absolute to According

Katona, p. 34. p. Katona, pp.31 Katona, Table 4

people :

w sol ba i mn ta ti huge this that mind in bear should we , The Israelite thedistrictsThe in of population Vasand County1910 between

had lost almost its entire Jewish population. We will see later in detail how this how detail in later see will We population. Jewish entire its almost lost had

32. 32. al 2 n Tbe 3 Table and 2 Table

35, 38, 55, 38, 33, 48, 25, 35, 44, 40, 1910 435, 30, 8423 1910 ot rbby oe t Asra o bte opruiis n mc safer much a in opportunities better for Austria to moved probably most

087 925 348 926 829 655 540 436 285 392 947 793

iod became worse. In Table 5 Table In worse. became iod

9649 3125 266 Isr. 643 298 530 1148 160 414 383 808 324 1550 Isr.

Catholicism Catholicism

1. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 1. 2. 0. 3. % 2. 10. 3. % the number of Jewish inhabitants in the districts and the and districts the in inhabitants Jewish of number the w cn a ta i Vs ony ayr eae the became Magyar county Vas in that say can we , 20 15 83 76 95 94 47 85 49 28 73 83

a more a 345, 34, 8492 1920 33, 36, 23, 45, 0 1146 6671 33, 0 42, 1920

r o is eih ouain A At As population. Jewish its of ird 12 699 9 583 936 869 441 990 924 83

dominant denomination dominant

crig o tia aoas calculation Katona’s Attila to ccording 8589 3546 162 Isr. 521 231 354 1102 0 7 32 717 0 1433 Isr.

erae f eih ouain n the in population Jewish of decrease

we can see how the number of births of number the how see can we

f Kőszeg as well. Now it is it Now well. as Kőszeg f

2. 10. 1. % 1. 0. 1. 2. 0 0. 0 2. 0 3. %

48 91 53 63 48 40 61 14 33 ageing

new 22

401, 35, 8537 1930 34, 38, 26, 44,834 0 0 8552 34, 0 43, 1930 odr t border,

of the Jewi the of 758 952 646 229 200 313 . I . 790

able e te few other he 8189 3482 131 Isr. 462 147 263 1018 0 0 40 467 0 1281 Isr.

ia Katona tila

sh society sh

1930

enough we can we 2. 9. 1. % 1. 0. 1. 2. 0 0 0. 1. 0 3 % 24

04 74 53 32 38 00 27 47 37

CEU eTD Collection 29 28 Pedagógiai Országos 27 Budapest: Balogh), László by 7 pp. 1996. és Múzeum, Könyvtár (edited Hungary) in Education Jewish of History (The In Hungary) historical in schooling 26 Archive), 25 respectively tongue mother German and Magyar with people of 5460 and Magyar admitted who people 1505 were there census the to according 1880, In city. earlier noted have we As spinsters complained Linksz Izsák Kőszeg, of rabbi ferti that fact the nevertheless the in Christians among than more much decreased all. at born was child Jewish no Kőszeg in 1935 after born were children when years were there 1890s and 1880s the of certificates birth according Kőszeg In county. the of towns important most the in decreased gradually Table 5

MVSÉ, Statisztikák (Statistics) p. 88. p. (Statistics) Statisztikák MVSÉ, 39 pp. InKatona, research Attilaon Katona’s Based 196. p. Harsányi, Karády Viktor: “A zsidó “túliskolázás” kérdése a történelmi Magyarországon”(The question of question Magyarországon”(The történelmi a kérdése “túliskolázás” zsidó “A Viktor: Karády őzg Ayknvk 1851 Anyakönyvek Kőszegi 1944 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1919 Year

who had who

: Microfilm: A3539. Microfilm: . ” Number of birth Szombathely 27 .

German as German h fgt ewe lnugs o te so the or languages, between fight The 27 52 53 65 62 74 87

. 25

I n the interwar years the ave the years interwar the n

, Sárvár

s amongIsraelitesCounty 1919and 1944inVas between

their - until the until 1895 12 20 11 12 13 14 7 - 38. 11. p. 38.

A zsidó iskolaügy története Magyarországon története iskolaügy zsidó A

lity among Kőszeg Jewry became zero is surprising. is zero became Jewry Kőszeg among lity

Criiae o Kőszeg). of (Certificates

other tongue. In 1890, interestingly enough interestingly 1890, In tongue. other Kőszeg

1890 census 1890

1 1 0 0 0 2 2

that local Jews would rather stay rather would Jews local that Körmend 13 - 40.

7 6 0 1 1 1 0

German was the dominant language in the in language dominant the was German

rage is only one birth per year, per birth one only is rage s

was roughly equal roughly was

Magyar Zsidó Levéltár Hungarian Jewish Jewish Hungarian Levéltár Zsidó Magyar Jánosháza In general, the general, In is dcds f h 20 the of decades first - ald process called 12 6 4 2 4 7 6

– Cell

Neveléstörténeti füzetek 14. füzetek14. Neveléstörténeti more than more 4 4 1 7 4 4 8

fertility with with

f magyarization of Vasvár , “ 3197 and 3679 and 3197

4 4 0 0 2 3 6 the proportion the bachelors and and bachelors

among Jews Jews among th eight or ten or eight

Jewish over Jewish moreover century,

Even the the Even towns Sum 114 127 106 37 77 89 96

the

28 26 is -

CEU eTD Collection Hungary 35 In Radicalism) Civil and Catholicism (Middle között” radikalizmus 34 33 32 31 Kőszeg megmagyarosodott 30 vote. to right the had who those among antisemitism that shows This 1887 in Parliament, Anti time same the powerful. more became conservatism of wings different the and hegemony former its liberal life, political Hungarian in that clear became it 1890s the By 1.2 society the city. of Israelite than should show were Lutherans. and Catholics among tongue mother Magyar of proportion the than higher was that tongue situation the 1920 Israelites of 60.9% and Lutherans of 35.2% d Magyar most the became Israelite palpable.

Harsányi, p. 179. p. Harsányi, 179. p. Harsányi, 100. p. and 88. p. (Statistics) Statisztikák MVSÉ, Miklós Szabó, “Középosztály és újkonzervativizmus: Harc a politikai katolicizmus jobbszárnya és a polgár a és jobbszárnya katolicizmus politikai a Harc újkonzervativizmus: és “Középosztály Szabó, Miklós Komoróczy Not by coincidence in 1932 a book was published by Lajos Méhely entitled The Magyarized Kőszeg ( Kőszeg Magyarized The entitled Méhely Lajos by published was book a 1932 in coincidence by Not . - Political atmosphere Political

eie Party Semite attacked because of not maintaining Magyar language in pu in language Magyar maintaining not of because attacked they used Magyar more than the major Christian denominations of the city. Here we we Here city. the of denominations Christian major the than more Magyar used they

note II. 30

– 32

From

h ws tha was Why

Géza, briefly We will see later in the analysis of the local pr local the of analysis the in later see will We s ,

parties that basically wanted to question the legitimacy of liberalism, like the like liberalism, of legitimacy the question to wanted basically that parties n ayr ohr tongue, mother Magyar in

1849

was the same when 67.3% of the Israelites had Magyar as Magyar had Israelites the of 67.3% when same the was

(

zsidók the small Calvinist community o community Calvinist small the it Országos

until

g ) B ) ained only 11 mandates, and onlymandates, ained 11 udapest: Held Nyomda. ( Nyomda. Held udapest:

Nowadays) története - iprat n ae f oa Jews? local of case in important t ls ad New and class

Kőszeg Antiszemita e se per Világosság

Magyarországon

Pozsony: enomination in the city by 1900, as 1900, by city the in enomination

s pltcl rga a ta tm ws o popular not was time that at program political a as -

osraim Fgt ewe te Right the between Fight Conservatism: 1975/Volume 6. p. 322. p. 6. 1975/Volume 33

Párt Kalligram

14 u te wr ls iprat n h Christian the in important less were they but had Magyar as Magyar had Kőszeg

ee, h opsto bten iea and liberal between opposition the wever,

i 1 in ) II.

–

és by 1896 the party had dissolved itself. dissolved hadparty by the 1896 Kiadó, 1849 f the city that had that city the f

8 mngd o e 1 mnae in mandates 17 get to managed 884 Vidéke - től

2012.

a 1932. April 17.) 1932.

ess that some Jews in Kőszeg in Jews some that ess

their jelenkorig

p. ae o m calculations my on Based

235. blic, however, as our data our as however, blic,

mother tongue. mother ism as an ideology lost ideology an as ism

(Th a

47% of Catholics, Catholics, of 47%

higher percentage higher e

- History wing of Political Political of wing

their 31

mother

Still in Still Jews 34

35 in A , i

CEU eTD Collection 41 40 Prohászka. Ottokár ofSzékesfehérvár) the bishop 1905 39 38 37 36 war the before politician liberal a be to used he that emphasize 1936 parties conservative different He politician. and editor journalist, a Lingauer, Albin was important most the of one Kincs, Beside every was election wonbythe Christian and the of basis important most the was clergy provincial mostly younger, the argues, rightly Szabó Miklós press local antis an Kőszeg. of city the in and county century ofconservativeFrom the theturn and movement, even conservati new every of argument main the is this states, rightly Szabó Miklós As th was Gentry the of pauperization the of cause main the ideology nationalistic conservative, the to According traditions. national preserve to was fate whose peasantry the and Gentry the importantly basis national well country’s the that thought politiciansliberal While onwards. time that from lived and reappearedconservative thinking

Hubai Volume I p. 114, 120, 127, 134, 144 and 156. Volume II. p. 107 and 130. and p. 107 II. Volume 156. and 144 134, 120, 127, 114, p. I Volume Hubai 326. p. 1975, MiklósSzabó, 18. October 1903. és Vidéke, Kőszeg 325. p. 1975, Szabó, 324. p. 1975, Szabó, The party was established in 1894 due to the initiative of the infamo the of initiative the to due 1894 in established was party The

later A i As . emitic speech emitic

th hwvr accor however , the n e

conservative Christian party, the party, Christian conservative Keresztényszocialista , the conservative ide conservative the ,

e liberal ideology and most importantly the existence of Hungarian Jewry. Hungarian of existence the importantly most and ideology liberal e n

x catr wl da wt hs career his with deal will I chapter ext

clerical conservatism.

at the assembly of the county the of assembly the at

ig o h report the to ding

- a representative a ae a bit on built was fare

As early as 1903 as early As

a was that the country’s fundament was the nation, most nation, the was fundament country’s the that was a Párt

conservative (Christian –

37 right

Chri

Katolikus

ay ersnaie lkd i speech his liked representatives many

- stian parties were particularly popular in the were inthe stian parties particularly popular wing

of the city of Kőszeg of city the of - Socialist Party). Socialist

that at that time was condemned by the the by condemned was time that at that the lo the

cnmc eeomn rte ta a than rather development economic parties politician

Néppárt cal priest called István Kincs István called priest cal

was

n eal nw it now detail, in under different names under different us anti us , but after that he m he that after but , o h ein and region the of s

39 a

- member (Catholic People’s Party) People’s (Catholic Semitic Catholic priest (from (from priest Catholic Semitic 40

In the interwar period interwar the In

between 1920 and 1920 between

of Parliament of

s nuh to enough is ad . 41 ve party ve the cit the e

. many many 38

had

As in 36 y

CEU eTD Collection 48 in Va revolution 47 46 45 44 43 of 42 part became antisemitism Additionally, politics. of goal major the was revisionism in region As caseconcrete persons. oflocal Judeo the 1920 from Certainly, Halász.József thi emphasize not does Deme general In noted. communists local of background Jewish the surprising but counter profession. his practice mont So six Bass Hungarian penitentiary, the of fall the after punished took background Jewish the In of Vasvármegye community enough Jewish Interestingly the with connection no had he emphasizes Harsányi Republic HungarianSoviet strong

Deme 7. March 1920. KV. és Vidéke Kőszeg 59. p. Katona, 176. p. Harsányi, a inhis local role emphasizes Löwinger Avraham Even

Deme László László Deme , ny n ae f io Szamue Tibor of case in only s, Halász’s wedding with KatalinHalász’s wedding Glatzhofer. with h i fti tei i not is thesis this of aim the

ly 1918 revolution a revolution 1918 – -

revolution in Vas County. Vas in revolution

antisemitic statements antisemitic Keleti, p. 105. p. Keleti,

h itra pro, it period, interwar the

s County and Szombathely) Szombathely: Martineum Nyomda, 1920. MartineumNyomda, Szombathely: Szombathely) and sCounty ly enough neither in his work, nor in the local weekly ( weekly local the in nor work, his in neither enough ly (Vas County) in 1911, in County) (Vas

It for seems –

Keleti József: József: Keleti (henceforth KV) (henceforth

igur n Hls ue t used Halász and Lingauer 46 nd later in the in later nd

As early as the s the as early As major

local was József Halász József was hs in penitentiary and for five years he was not allowed to to allowed not was he years five for and penitentiary in hs

z lefraao Vsámgée é Szombathelyen és Vasvármegyében ellenforradalom Az

. - 1909. November 28. 1909. 42

communist myth communist contemporaries their Jewish contemporaries their part: o nlz h oiia amshr n h iyadi the in and city the in atmosphere political the analyze to

The local communist leader during the few months of the of months few the during leader communist local The 47 is

ly One of the authors, authors, the One of 44

nuh to enough ,

ósf Halász József 48 moreover

Hungarian Soviet Republic Soviet Hungarian

u not but pring of 1920 a memoir was published about the about published was memoir a 1920 of pring 16 45 , a ,

ntisemitism. (Löwinger p. 58.) p. (Löwinger ntisemitism.

journalist journalist

in 1909 Ling 1909 in viet Republic. Halász got 12 years in in years 12 got Halász Republic. viet state is vigorous is n ae f éa Ku Béla of case in ei tgte te ony daily county the together edit o

and

ht as that László Deme himself took part in tookpart László himself Deme

es Bass. Rezső wi

background th a Jewish background, but background, Jewish a th in the in auer was one of the witnesses the of one was auer everywhere

press two Kőszeg n,

Both or

local person local was important. not articles, but not in not but articles,

h lcl leader, local the

n h country, the in

és of them were were them of (h Counter (The , f Kőszeg. of

Vidéke

s called )

w was

ith ith

as it, 43 -

CEU eTD Collection 237 pp. 2000, (1865 City Royal Free a as Kőszeg 53 52 51 50 391 pp. Statistics, 49 Sop with Szombathely.with railwayline lines railway new th of one wasborder) Kősze of city The coated roads. instance for Kőszeg, than developed more was Szombathely indicator, Szombathely time same 20 the of Austrian cities first the of one infrastructure. was Kőszeg modern evolving the and region. change economic every industrialization, for beneficial be not could H of development and modernization general The 1.3 abused far local of emergence the with however danger, in see will we as life everyday

MVSÉ, Statistics, p. 414. p. Statistics, MVSÉ, 436. p. Statistics, MVSÉ, p. 4 and p. 431 429, p. Statistics MVSÉ, Söptei, Imre: “Kőszeg szabad királyi város törvényhatóságának utolsó évei (1865 évei utolsó törvényhatóságának város királyi szabad “Kőszeg Imre: Söptei, Only in Pest, Pozsony, Sopron, Brassó and Nagyszeben had a savings bank earlier than Kőszeg. MVSÉ, MVSÉ, Kőszeg. than earlier bank savings a had Nagyszeben and Brassó Sopron, Pozsony, Pest, in Only . Economic circumstances Economic .

- ron and Sárvár, these lines these Sárvár, and ron Hungarian Bank did not open an office there. office an open not did Bank Hungarian th ,

- century, by 1908 the city had city the 1908 by 286, p. 279. 279. p. 286, , the capital of the county the of capital the , 52 -

396. g in Vas County (after the 1920 Peace Treaty a city next to the Austria the to next city a Treaty Peace 1920 the (after County Vas in g being developed in the 1850 the in developed being

n őzg hr ws n was there Kőszeg in e cities t cities e

o lose o

- 53 1876))

and the role of local Jews in it Jewsin local roleof and the the

Although, before World War I the city had been connectedbeen had Icity the War World beforeAlthough, as many as many as 36. 36.

their former importance. It could not become part of the the of part become not Itcould importance. former their local

in partly went through Austria through went partly hr a aig ba savings a where

Kőszeg 2000 Kőszeg that had no electric no had that

Kőszeg o 17

drainage, 4 –

5 streets with electric lighting electric with streets 5 60s;

- hr ms hv be lsr in losers been have must There right associati right ungary in the period of dualism certainly dualism of period the in ungary press. In general, local Jews were not in not were Jews local general, In press. , Kőszeg: Kőszeg Város Polgármes Város Kőszeg Kőszeg: ,

only as late as 1883 as late as only

Statistics show that show Statistics piped k a established, was nk

street - water,

ons

lighting. after 1920 after occasionally - r gas or 1876)” did it have it did o te ubr of number the for

51 a

(The Last Years of Years Last (The -

t the beginning the t main. , In every other every In

which

compared to compared 49 teri Hivatala, Hivatala, teri

they were were they

Although Although 50 later

a di a

t the At meant

rect the the n

CEU eTD Collection 58 ofKőszeg) Community Israelite the of Neolog Protocol 57 56 55 1920s) the of Part 287 pp. First the in Kőszeg of Life Economic Kő the on Treaty Peace Trianon the of Influence 54 war, an of trade the of table situation. bad a in been had war the before even that life economic city’s the influenced borders new the how present to enough situation. same the 80%. pharmacies’ the 90%, also trade their of 95% lost Kőszeg n the to Due needed. they what buy to Szombathely to go The on the Sopronkeresztúr, and Lakompak with connections economic important very had also they Kőszeg, of Community loss this Jews 6145. to decreased 27, 1913 in while that border. new the to due towns 85 of out duty

Őry pp. 302 Őry pp. 58. p. Löwinger, July 1934. 1. KV. Őry, Ferenc: Ferenc: Őry, ksei og. zalt htösg jegyzőkönyve hitközség izraelita congr. kőszegi A szeg 2000 szeg

- citizens of citizens but free transport came to an end an to came transport free

- way tobe 315.

the influence of the war yearsthe warthe influence of and

edited by Istvá by edited - 303. “ A trianoni békediktátum hatása Kőszeg gazdasági életére az 1920 az életére gazdasági Kőszeg hatása békediktátum trianoni A

towns that remained in the Kőszeg district, mostlyKőszegdistrict, south the remainedin towns that

coming f h city the of

55 We could continue to continue could We

57 919 people lived in the city’s Hinterland, by 1930 the same population same the city’sbyHinterland,1930 the in lived 919people vn vaa Lwne udrie i the in underlines Löwinger Avraham Even

both of both imals in sales. in imals

n Bariska and Imre Söptei, Kőszeg: Kőszeg Város Polgármesteri Hivatala, 2000. 2000. Hivatala, Polgármesteri Város Kőszeg Kőszeg: Söptei, Imre and Bariska n less andless impor less . 56

which , the c the , codn t te ny vial Pooo o te Jewish the of Protocol available only the to According 58

In accordance with these tendencies, local industry was inindustrywas tendencies,local these In with accordance . Moreover .

became part of Austria. of part became To

lothiers’ loss was loss lothiers’ It clearly show clearly It 54

illustrate the drop in drop the illustrate

Still the kind these give tant after1920 became a dead 18

, (1894. szeptember 11. 11. szeptember (1894. Treaty isobvious. ,

the city lost economic conne economic lost city the in 1934 the local the 1934 in s that the decrease started decrease the that s

90%, the building material stores’ stores’ material building the 90%, s

ew border ew of examples, but I think this is this think I but examples, of

The

the city’s economy city’s the

Kőszeg

c – eoy o memory ity that already had been had already that ity

1901. november 17.) (The (The 17.) november 1901. - as évek első felében első évek as ,

the general stores of stores general the of -

end

press e press Kőszeg tended to Kőszegtended

ctions with 68 with ctions city. County Vas f

mphasized before the the before

I add a a add I ” (The (The ”

CEU eTD Collection 64 63 62 61 60 59 17, Lutherans hand other The instanceLondon. from about reports it Additionally evident. becomes factories ten these in worked people 328 altogether that 1898) in (established factory Eisner’s Kamill was 1912 emphasized. be must life economic city’s the in Jews of importance The Jewish ot and engineer three had Lexikon Zsidó Magyar city. the of life economic the in Jews local of role the up sum briefly should we Now

A firm from London ordered 25.000 hats factor from the 25.000 Londonordered fromfirmA 507. p. ZsidóLexikon, Magyar 309. p. Statistics, MVSÉ, 178. p. Harsányi, 506. p. ZsidóLexikon, Magyar Őry,308. p.

list of taxpayers in taxpayers of list

S , hers). tatistical Yearbook there were ten considerable ten were there Yearbook tatistical 61 1928 1922 1914 1910 , one , Year

in line with in line wholesalers, 15 mer 15 wholesalers, ,

60 their

940 crown 940 officer public 200 codn t Hráy’ dt, n 1920 in data, Harsányi’s to According

high okr i 1927. in workers Table 6

the general over Jewish 64

Horse

(Hu 1647 1844 1909 tnad f living of standard 295 196 s , the Israel the , ngarian Jewish Lexicon) reports, in reports, Lexicon) Jewish ngarian , four ,

: The change s

chants, two chants, on the one hand show hand one the on

private officers, 47 others (probably staff of the merchants the of staff (probably others 47 officers, private a a rdal goig atr a t as factory growing gradually a was ites 4 ites 63 Number of

It also had had also It

sales oflivestockin sales 934 crown 934 artisans, artisans, Wie oa Ctois ad 44, paid Catholics Roman While . - 1 representation in business in Hungary. business in in representation 9 Cattles

2878 5293 419 361 y in 1933. (KV. 1933. February 12.) February (KV. 1933. 1933. y in animals two employing 78 people 78 employing

s s the importance of local Jewry, on the the on Jewry, local of importance the s c

. nrcs ih im fo ara, for abroad, from firms with ontracts

This means that Israelites paid 7.3% 7.3% paid Israelites that means This farmers ,

producers , the importance of Eisner’s of importance the

sold 29 o lcl ecat were merchants local of 32.9%

Kőszeg , one ,

1910 the Jewish community Jewish the 1910

in the city. One of them them of One city. the in

lawyer 59 1344 3086 Pig

609 710 . e eih Lexicon Jewish he 62 s

According to the to According

, one ,

Bearing in mind in Bearing

5 crown 854

doctor industry industry

As the As , one , s,

CEU eTD Collection 66 65 economic life. commun Jewish small council. the of 15% meant that Jewish, was who highesttaxpayers the 1911 as in that emphasizes the in proportionhowever their taxes, of

Harsányi, p. 149. p. Harsányi, 148 pp. Harsányi,

- 149.

t o te city the of ity

Se al 4) Table (See

city’s population was onlywas 3.1%. city’spopulation 20

66 five persons were in the council of the citythe of council the in werepersons five

These facts These

had a considerable importance in its its in importance considerable a had

underline that the relatively the that underline 65

Harsányirightly CEU eTD Collection 68 1974. 67 reported weekly enough Interestingly mostlywrote approvingly ofthe citizens about city. the Jewish editors or Jews were they that fact report word the even to journal the of reaction priest local the of speech antisemitic the before noted have I statements them analyze news the present only not article the 1939 weekly, I years interwar the Vidéke interwar the analyze I period in Kőszeg of community Jewish the of sources internal of lack the to Due and 193 1909 between 2

. KV 1909. June6. 1909. KV Harsányi László, Harsányi Kőszeg Jewryin Kőszeg

aot them about s . .

To have the opportunity to follow the to opportunity To havethe o eape we tee a a arae or marriage a was there when example, For s .

of the weekly and presented them, I found it necessary to reexamine them and them reexamine to necessary it found I them, presented and weekly the of .

‘ Harsány László Although s el n addition in well as Jew . d

A kőszegi zsidók kőszegi A

In one case Lipót Kopfstein was an assistant, an was Kopfstein Lipót case one In the most important press of the city, namely the weekly called weekly the namely city, the of press important most the

’ otyrdcdt brh mrig,dah n cnas (duels), scandals and death marriage, birth, to reduced mostly ,

did

or in 1909 there 1909 in

‘ Jewish every of analysis the

local press, the analysis of of theanalysis press, local it. But, i But, it.

Israelit items

(The Jews of Kőszeg), Budapest: Magyar Izraeliták Országos Képviselete Képviselete Országos Izraeliták Magyar Budapest: Kőszeg), of Jews (The

’

did not appear in the articles the in appear not did

n the ex the n e did e chronologically were tw were ih h atce wih oti covert contain which articles the with

i his in i not amined five amined

o duels o 21 seem important in important seem change

i ssue

monograph

eeat o loca to relevant

with Jewish involvement Jewish with of the press from the pre the thepressfrom of from the year 1909 year the from

years of pre of years et aog Jews among death 67 , Kőszeg ésVidéke Kőszeg

István Kincs in 1903 an 1903 in Kincs István . Naturally, there were many were there Naturally, . 68 on Kőszeg Jewry processed Jewry Kőszeg on

that period that in the other a Jew, namely Jew, a other the in - Jw bt thoroughly but Jews l war period war

to the end of the the of end the to , ,

at least for the for least at h newspaper the -

war period to period war of which the which of

, 1909 , antisemitic Kőszeg és Kőszeg

u the but - d the d 1914

CEU eTD Collection 73 72 Yearbook Department 71 70 69 neverthelessneve thejournal keepers of lack the h who Jew a particularly Hungarian city, the in stranger a accept not could they in magyarization Gentile local most that seems it Germany,” and Jerusalem from guests an Hebrew 1909 Jew a on attack one only found have I meat Bass Dr.because him, attacked who slaughterer a with incident another Gentiles. as well as gentlemen were they that tende by attacked frequently more were Jews probably antisemitism, other the on but society, Gentile h one the duelers. duel. a had also Deutsch cit the of vet the

KV 1911. Dec. 3. Issue 49. p. 2. (my p. 2. 3. Issuetranslation) Dec. 49. 1911. KV June9. 1912. KV Harsányi, Issue21. 12. March 1909. KV Victor Karady: "Denominational Dimensions of Crime in Early Twentieth Century Hungary", Hungary", Century Twentieth Early in Crime of Dimensions "Denominational Karady: Victor

d to react to them to react to d from the slaughterer. and 1914: a 1914: and

71 as well as

n, they and, In our example our In p. 143. p.

d German d words in words Hungarian

who

the period and the inner fight of the city between Germans and Magyars and Germans between city the of fight inner the and period the D. es Bs ws n o te duelists. the of one was Bass Rezső Dr. y , 2001 , tavern

can be a proof of the high level of assimilation of these Jews to the the to Jews these of assimilation of level high the of proof a be can shop his

, but had forgotten had but , sometimes

. -

02, pp. 187 pp. 02, wo 70 For acculturating, assimilating Jews it was very important to prove to important very was it Jews assimilating acculturating, For - s keeper called Perl who Perl called keeper

72 , unfortunately we do not know what caused the incidents, but incidents, the caused what know not do we unfortunately , Victor Karady points out th out points Karady Victor

d, u poal tee were there probably but rds,

r attacked them,onlytheJews -

window.

forgot to put words in their shop their in words put to forgot - 197. s

73 a acpe lcl es bt due but Jews, local accepted had

ad h mnfsain f antis of manifestation the hand because of his Jewishness his of because In this case the most important problem was indeed indeed was problem important most the case this In

as the weekly reports in 1911. in reports weekly the as to do so do to

We should notice here that Rezső Bass had Bass Rezső that here notice should We placed information i information placed

in Hungarian in at Jews were over were Jews at

tnc German ethnic

for omission. this 69 Gentiles, and Jewish victims Jewish and Gentiles, . “It seems he only expect only he seems “It .

n 90 h lwe Lajos lawyer the 1900 In in the in - windows in Hungarian in windows n his shop his n

In my understanding my In confiscated - ne represented emitism. shop wspaper between wspaper

ad not written written not ad

to hysteria of of hysteria to - o tavern or , - CEU History History CEU window in window

infected u to Due

among

o n s - ,

CEU eTD Collection 76 75 74 underlines usuallywear that ‘guests’ his help to wanted only Lock that understands article dangerous was anymore, behavior his good a was he that admits and Talmud antisemitism. O T even Association. Schey) Fülöp city, the of Jews prominent association every city. the of citizens re also but accepted, only not seemingly and prosperous were Jews local general, In generalizations onO w Harsá German. in made were sermons Church Lutheran the in mad Richter rabbi that welcomed newspaper child (Libe article half for and German in speech inauguration Richter Zsigmond rabbi, new the when 1884 in happened had similar Something

here is rthodox member of the Jewish community and a shop a andcommunity Jewish the ofmember rthodox hile KV 1913. July 20. Kohn, Kopfstein, Deutsch and Kamill Eisner also attended. also Eisner Kamill and Deutsch JulyKohn, Kopfstein, 1913. 20. KV Harsányi, 129. p. Harsányi, ren aim n Otooy criticizing Orthodoxy) and ralism

the

a pbihd in published was

lo n German in also

weekly vehemently attacked rabbi Richter for using only German, moreover German, only using for Richter rabbi attacked vehemently weekly pp. 129 pp. n , oteworthy Günser 76

h atce n 93 September 1913 in article The ,

as they claimed they as - 130. ,

Anzeiger According to the weekly the to According the parties of the local kindergarten (that was established by the the by established was (that kindergarten local the of parties the rthodoxy, in case of the Lutheranrthodoxy,not happen. incaseofthe same pastor did the

issue

namely that he had he that namely rte ta Hungarian than rather ,

őzg s Vidéke és Kőszeg that appeared in the weekly, the case of Jakab Lockthat appeared weekly,thecase ofJakab inthe

defended the rabbi.defended the

e due to the da the to due

the sermon in Hungarian, however, they sadly noted that noted sadly they however, Hungarian, in sermon the -

natured person, but the authorities could not accept not could authorities the but person, natured

a this and and this

caftan,a costume. typical Jewish

strange guests from outside the city, the outside from guests strange

23 t a he

nger of cholera epidemic. The author of the of author The epidemic. cholera of nger

year he only had sermons in German. in sermons had only he year nild “ entitled 75 14 y attended y

and support and Two yearsTwo laterin1886 also the fact that that fact the also

Nt upiigy te oa German local the surprisingly, Not .

emph the - keeper

ieaims s Orthodoxizmus és Liberalizmus szs oks knowle Lock’s asizes ball

almost every ball or program of of program or ball every almost s

the poor but at the same time time same the at but poor the

that represents locals’ covert covert locals’ represents that f h Catholi the of y rgty nelns that underlines, rightly nyi

e agt h Jewish the taught he Kőszeg és Vidéke Kőszeg

Eventually Lock , who was an whowas , Women’s c g of dge

since made spected spected

74 made made

this

the An an an ”

CEU eTD Collection 80 79 78 77 n poverty, deep in here lived “they grossly: very them on reported It well. as weekly st widespread was decision home. them send to idea the supported weekly the July same the that 50 n article TheKőszeg city in1916August. arrived people hundred few A newspaper. of arrival the Nevertheless, th present and fronts governments.decisions ofthe the from report to than newspaper the for important less the from disappeared absolutely w it Perhaps almost newspaper. Jews 1918 and 1914 between Surprisingly, due tothe suggest why he because mostly that claims article The that. of because punished was Lock only weekly the to according much as helped people local whom to beggars or ‘guests’ I punishment. this about for punished was t la bt rswrhl fr n ya [] ehp te take they perhaps […] year one for trustworthily but clean ot

Bihari Péter, Lövészárkok a hátországban, Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2008, p. p. 150. 2008, Kiadó, Napvilág Budapest: hátországban, Lövészárkok a Péter, Bihari July 1917. 8. KV. 2. p. August 13. 1916. KV. 3. p. September13. 1913. KV 00 crown 00

was

that some that otes that formerly Italian refugee Italian formerly that otes

ir it

age s important to emphasize the outfit of the people he helped? he people the of outfit the emphasize to important

ereotype against Galician Jews that they were dirty were they that Jews Galician against ereotype still not had been compensated been had not still would happen with the with happen would ae n h Galician the on made - old prejudiceagai

the crime the

local people wer people local had repeated this ‘crime’ this repeated had

n a relatively large center large relatively a n as not a special phenomenon special a not as

the

of involvement in forbidden begging. forbidden in involvement of

mostly Jewish Jewish mostly h nst Jews. ad to pay their cost ofliving ad one topay their e afraid of these recognizably O recognizably these of afraid e refugees - usin nml ta te hd o o home. go to had they that namely question, s arrived in arrived s

in 24

the Kőszeg District, exactly 100 to the city of city the to 100 exactly District, Kőszeg the the authorities had authorities the refugees

for the city the for Galicia. of

like Kőszeg there must have been other other been have must there Kőszeg like

the city and their cost of living was living of cost their and city the since in general local local general in since from Galicia in 1916 in Galicia from

A year after their arrival their after year A by the state the by 79

In as

to do something, but then then but something, do to

80 October

hy ol, nevertheless could, they

77 crown/person/day.

appeared in the Kőszeg the in appeared rthodox Jews probably Jews rthodox

oe ltl western little a home I am quite suspicious quite am I . The city was afraid was city The .

This example may example This

the the appeared in the in appeared issues became became issues ae er a year same , although

in 1917 in latest e 78

The The The

CEU eTD Collection 86 85 84 83 82 81 city the into marched hadarmy nationalthat the ofmembers who Jews the about paragraph a contained 9 Szombathely. in situation the normalize died nobody althoug and could they everything damaged synagogue, the attacked mob the Szombathely cas the was anti That Hungary, emerged. in pogroms actions other or uprising revolution, every almost in As Revolution. 1848 the during Jews against atrocities the about story local a is one first During Kőszeg relatively was low. 2. population. city. the fewer appeared refugees Italian ex arrived. home, gone had them of some only why asked and satisfied not still was journal the but home, went refugees 100 the Galicianref home. cu th

6%, and 6%, Harsányi, p. 112. p. Harsányi, 152. p. Bihari, May 1918. 26. KV. April 28. 1918. KV. 28. October 1917. KV. 7. October 1917. KV. lture.” es o te iy n ad times. hard in city the on pense

when the decree about equal rights of the newly organized revolutionary government that newly revolutionary the government that whenorganized equal thedecree about rightsof 82

84 the

By 1918 the problem still not had been solved, hence in April the weekly noted that noted weekly the April in hence solved, been had not still problem the 1918 By 81 In ad In

cos the that understandable is it Certainly,

in Vienna in Three weeks later the press still complained that the Galicians had not yet gone yet not had Galicians the that complained still press the later weeks Three war years two two years war By comparison, at that time that at comparison, By ,

Jews were banned from the city. The city. the from banned were Jews d ugees had been in the city for two beencity for inthe had ugees ition

between 3.5% and 4.0%. and 3.5% between the proportion of proportion the

liig that claiming notable and relevant and notable

t han Galicians, however, admittedly however, Galicians, han

ut drn te eouin n h s the in Revolution the during e l o te sol hv left have should them of all

the Galician refug Galician the 86

their percentage their the

The anti The should have should

urg ses xgeae prl because partly exaggerated seems outrage 25 85

anecdotes were presented in the weekly. the in presented were anecdotes

Thus, the number of refugees in the city of city the in refugees of number the Thus,

years. - Jewish wave arrived in arrived wave Jewish

t of liv of t government

been defended, was proclaimed. The The proclaimed. was defended, been 83

in Budapest in

Finally in 1918 e es es ing of the refugees was refugees the of ing

just before and local people didpeople local before and just was only 1. only was

authorities had to come to come to had authorities

it was also difficult for difficult also was it

was between 2. between was together as they had had they as together - rn o 1848. of pring May eih atrocities, Jewish 18% of the city’s city’s the of 18%

Kőszeg on Kőszeg , 27outofthe,

an extra an 2 % and and %

April

The

th In h e

CEU eTD Collection 90 89 88 87 service Monarchy the but during antisemites Gentiles as much as war the in part their took they that Meanwhile the cont press no even tothe king. say could who Rotschild, was powerful how underlines article the as author the of purpose bet even is position Rot of philosemi legend this of evocation the find Jew the be rather would I majesty, my “No, said: Rot Rot when September 1918 in war the of is anecdote other the of aim The wereatt story local man this time h who Krötzl, József person, infamous Har to according before. days few a Szombathely in happened pro the accept to want not

KV. 1918. September1. 1918. KV. January28. KV. and 1917. 114. p. Harsányi January 1917. 28. KV. 113. p. Harsányi, h h schild as the Jews of Jerusalem asked him to do. But Rot But do. to him asked Jerusalem of Jews the as schild schild h

cid o i kin his to schild acked inthe past? undeservedly r manage or tic story, or on the contraryasthe story,on tic or

We te ig cuid euae h ofrd h kndm f ai to David of kingdom the offered he Jerusalem occupied king the When . again

had the sobriquet “Judenkrötzl.” sobriquet the had in general in

? To prove To ? sá nyi also in 190 in also nyi

e ta big Kn o Ire, u ms poal te latte the probably most but Israel, of King a being than ter

o id h ls dneos lcs n h army the in places dangerous less the find to

more vehemently more o itrrt i dcso as decision his interpret or g

inuouslyreports soldiers, onthelocal were trying to and to trying were posal, moreover wanted to exp to wanted moreover posal,

that

behavior like Krötzl’s is Krötzl’s like behavior

even 3, but interesti but 3,

ey ambiguous very

ad a key role in the in role key a ad h lgn ws w was legend the more questionable. The country was close to the end the to close was country The questionable. more

oblique antisemitism. oblique

after World War I was that Jews of Hungary of Jews that was I War World after 26 ,

in most cases most in

89 ngly in 1917 in ngly 87

Wha

of kings than the k the than kings of őzg s Vidéke és Kőszeg sne t a b itrrtd as interpreted be can it since ,

t was the purpose of presenting of purpose the was t spec

itn bu Ki about ritten not accepted, or to show how Jews how show to oraccepted, not

e hne h gnrl cuain of accusation general the hence , attack l

the Jews from the city as it had had it as city the from Jews the lto sne i contemporary his since ulation ,

did We can emphasize the loyaltyemphasizecanthe We put the emphasis on the local the on emphasis the put

h including s on local Jews local on s schild refused schild

successfully skip military skip successfully .

ing of the Jews.” the of ing eotd hs story, this reported g ere n Mr. and George ng s ihp Ottokár Bishop As

Jews Jews

which the offer and and offer the . 88

Since that Since ws the was r

proves proves

this and 90

a I

CEU eTD Collection Pollák Jenő 96 (Nagycsömöte), Löwinger Gyula (Gyöngyösfalu). Goldschmidt Ferenc (Perenye), Geiszler Mór (Gyöngyösfalu), Kemény, Ernő Deutsch, Imre Artúr Jakab Nussbaum, Fried, Ferenc Gyula Kopfstein, Sch Frankl, Jenő Ferenc Kopfsetin, Kopfstein, Lipót Hugó namely: Preisler, 288. p. 2013. 1914 Kiadó, the of Zrínyi Memory Budapest: the for Jews: Veteran Magyar the of Album Golden (The 95 94 93 p. 144. 1989. 92 91 per (!) 31 about in noted are who soldiers Jewish the and Lexicon), n army the in served persons 18 Hinterland war the in served who Jews Hungarian of w album the the during to According army the in served Jewry Kőszeg how up sum briefly should we Now partbattlefields inthesimply war,intheis true. or not decoration.” higher or class, Or the awarded were officers reserve Jewish the of cent per 7.22% were action war.” this during action in killed were officers officers the examine give Schmidl A. Erwin to according Austrian the I? in soldiers War World in part take Monarchy the of Jews the did How saves life.” his more the fire an the Christians to go we closer “the 1918 in claimed Prohászka ames

There are many are peo There 145. p. Schmidl, 145. p. Schmidl, quotes Bihari Hegedűs Márton (edited): (edited): Márton Hegedűs Erwin A. Schmidl, Schmidl, A. Erwin

h eat ubr u t te ak f rpr ouet a ta time. that at documents proper of lack the to due number exact the

ie in given

Jewish. d the further the d Prohszáka, p. 152. p. Prohszáka, 91

ons this list and the one one the and list this ple who appear in who ple appear Jews in the Habsburg Armed Forces Armed Habsburg the in Jews

of the very small community of Kőszeg of community small very the of

’ numbers ’ cmd as udrie ta “af f h Jws cre ofcr and officers career Jewish the of “half that underlines also Schmidl A Magyar hadviselt zsidók aranyalbuma: az 1914 az aranyalbuma: zsidók hadviselt Magyar A - ugra am was army Hungarian

away 94

These data prove that the theory that Jews did not take their take not did Jews that theory the that prove data These

az Ljs on Jn Kr, es Lnyl Aof cwr, Mór Schwarz, Adolf Lengyel, Dezső Kürt, Jenő Kohn, Lajos warz, , probably around 300,000, around probably , in the army. Schmidl argues that “more than 1000 than “more that argues Schmidl army. the in

we go the more are the Jews. the are more the go we Kőszeg és Vidéke Kőszeg in .

95 the the

27 There is There

Magyar somewhere

but not in the Album, and viceversa. Album, and but in not the

In addition, 6.78% of the office the of 6.78% addition, In , Eisenstadt: Österreichisches Jüdisches Museum, Museum, Jüdisches Österreichisches Eisenstadt: , Kőszeg

discrepancy in discrepancy Zsidó

és however between between

who

Vidéke Lexikon

The former dies, the latter the dies, former The

- served in the army during during army the in served 1918 der of der - h nme o Jewish of number The

1918 World War), (reprint) War), World 1918 , it . 7,0 ad 400, and 275,000

- rm őzg n its and Kőszeg from as v as the

seems

The lexicon reports lexicon The

Hnain Jew (Hungarian t numerous he Iron Crown 3 Crown Iron he

ilágháború emlékére ilágháború numbers and numbers 92

t s air to easier is It impossible to impossible

rs killed in killed rs

r the are Jewish 000, the ish ar. rd

CEU eTD Collection 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 applied. Hacker Samu and Kopfstein Mór Frankl, Miksa Bass, Rezső Popper, Géza Deutsch, Lajos Dr. Deutsch, Artur 98 97 Lingauerantisemites such as see to donot, want this. ordidnot respected antisemites for that understand clearly can we article this villain the see only popular most the of one in appeared it As antisemitism. former his confirm to tool useful a only were experiences’ Kő of commitment the of aware was he probably Most we Jews unsuccessfulas with coupled which antisemitic local is war the in Jewry Kőszeg of participation The Ensign 1918. in lieutenant a became also Deutsch Lajos Pál SergeantJózsef 1915, in lieutenant first a became Kopfstein citiz equal their as Monarchy the defend to Guard.Civil the I. War World

KV. 1915. February 21. 1915. KV. ( 506. p. ZsidóLexikon, Magyar

codn t K. 94 etme 2. and 27. September 1914 KV. to According KV. 1916 October 1. October 1916 KV. January 1917. 14. KV. Bihari, p. 188. (my 188. p. translation) Bihari, 168. p. Harsányi, 10. March 1918. KV. Aug 1917. KV. ,

as he claims he as Manó Adler got silvermedal Manó a Adler for . Although the Jews of Kőszeg devotedly served devotedly Kőszeg of Jews the Although .

97 his personal experience when he realized that the process of assimil of process the that realized he when experience personal his

ust 5. ust In 98

leader, Albin Lingauer later will refer to his own experiences in the war in war the in experiences own his to refer will later Lingauer Albin leader,

As in general, Kőszeg Jewry as well wanted to prove that theythat readyprovewere to wanted general,well as in KőszegJewryAs the fa the

whether he has a ringlet a has he whether ,

was wounded in the in wounded was

Jews were trying to avoid their duties. As he stat he As duties. their avoid to trying were Jews

re still not true Magyars,a true not still re ll of 1914 many 1914 of ll

national

http://mek.oszk.hu/04000/04093/html/0514.html

newspaper

1914 October 4. Zsiga Kohn, Miksa Pollák, Gyula Deutsch, Deutsch, Gyula Pollák, Miksa Kohn, Zsiga 4. October 1914 battle

of Kőszeg Jewry voluntarily applie voluntarily Jewry Kőszeg of

his brave ens and at the same time same the at and ens on his temple his on 99 28 s field twice, first in firsttwice, field

called called

and later g later and

very important for our for important very 103 nd this theory this nd ry

on the Italianon the battlefield. r Mka uez eae captain, a became Dukesz Miksa Dr. Az Est Az

zg er i te war the in Jewry szeg ot the Signum Laudis in 1917. in Laudis Signum the ot their homeland their

or medals on his chest.” his on medals or whatever

(‘The Evening’) in 1915: in Evening’) (‘The

promoted his antis his promoted 1916,

) as true Magyars. true as

a Jew Jew a 101 es

research since the since research 1917.in second in the army, local army, the in that was the time time the was that d for service in service for d did 104 , it it ,

ation was ation n ‘war and emitism. 105 was not not was

Lipót From “we 102 100

CEU eTD Collection O 45. p. 2012, In rejuvenation. Christian national with Paksa, it Rudolf to react and stop to liberal wanted they the that dualism realized of period the they during because “Awakening”, January. 1919 in established 110 109 108 107 the40 106 Véd Országos every on reports constantly weekly The from onwards. that time economy. in particularly cl he which in Lingauer Albin of speech Kisgazdapárt of tendency anyhow information, this emphasize to editors the readers in presented is Popper Ignác community, Jewish the of member them o all 1920 From thousandon themainpeople squareontheweekly reported orsix about the five c local the when example, For city. the in and as apart hence press, the on effect huge a had propaganda communist changed journal lost. are 1919 and Unfortunately

KV. 1920. March 28. March 1920. KV. January 1920. 18. KV. June22. 1919. KV. The missing issues are from the collection of the Hungarian National Library: in 1918 every issue between between issue every 1918 in Library: National Hungarian the of collection the from are issues missing The beő ayrk geüee Ascain f wknn Hnain) a a far a was Hungarians) Awakening of (Association Egyesülete Magyarok Ébredő

th are

and 52 and

are specifically are ycountrylikelyItalmost everything inthe toexaggerate thathappened was journal. as Popper was a prominent member of the of member prominent a was Popper as

full of anti of full

n the 30 the n nd A magyar szélsőjobb története szélsőjobb magyar A lmn Jw fr vrtig tre. h wel qoe te pno o the of opinion the quotes weekly The started. everything for Jews blaming

, in 1919 1 in , 1919

er ( but not surprisingly not but Smallholders ő Egy ő

f the issues are available. From available. are issues the f by early 1919 early by 106

of November 1919 they had their assembly in Budapest where a few days later they they later days few a where Budapest in assembly their had they 1919 November of

Semitic statements Semitic The available issues still clearly show how much the narration of the of narration the much how show clearly still issues available The let - 8, 10, 12 8, 10,

informed that he was a Jew. It seems it became very important for for important very became it seems It Jew. a was he that informed ) 109 110

and ÉME and Briefly Party) that the Jewish press Jewish the that Party)

- . 13, 15 13,

In the short period short the In ,

, - many issues of issues many 16, 18 16, h cag o te na the of change the

( (The History of Hungarian Far Hungarian of History (The Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete Magyarok Ébredő , although the editor was the same. The death of a of death The same. the was editor the although , aimed that we should not work together with Jews, Jews, with together work not should we that aimed - although 20, 22 20, event 29 ommunist leader, József Halász h Halász József leader, ommunist

- the first is first the 23, 23,

f h lcl rus f OE ( MOVE of groups local the of

community and the cit the and community 26 probably it was quite a well a quite was it probably of the of Kőszeg és Vidéke és Kőszeg - 28, 30 28, encouraged the encouraged

sue of the year 1920 almost 1920 year the of sue rtv o te esae is newspaper the of rrative Soviet Republic of Hungary, the the Hungary, of Republic Soviet - 40 issues. 40 Kőszeg the newspaper, but now the the now but newspaper, the - Right), Budapest: Jaffa Kiadó, Kiadó, Jaffa Budapest: Right), Jewish overwhelming power power overwhelming Jewish

) ,

111 és of 1914 war, 1914

these two stronglytwo these Vidéke the years of 1918 of years the y .

In addition, In - right movement movement right - square. ad a speech speech a ad

known fact known functioned functioned 108 Magyar Magyar

or the or

all of all 107 clear

the the

CEU eTD Collection 116 115 the in were published under statements Magyar the takes who Vázsonyi is other the gallows Magyar, the kills who Szamuelly of face the is one press d with the phenomena in written had he that articles Lingauer’s Vasvármegye quotes author The Látó. László by written faces) entitled many Lingauer on Budapest in published was paper short a 1922 in Later, 21.) November 1920. (KV. freemasons. of member a be to used moreover, liberal, was Lingauer that emphasized Rupert turnaround. 114 113 http://lexikon.katolikus.hu/B/B%C3%A1rdos.html 112 meantnon that in13.) practice March 1921. in Even (1932 ofHungary minister prime (1 Gömbös Gyula was president first Its January. 1919 in established was that 111 association. ofthe original 5 p. (Paksa, ÉME. as same the less or more were membership re or organized they do be not should th exclude Jews, of machination the “monitor legislation: the Hungary that realize gradually not did we and years 40 for us tricked “They speech: antisemitic typical a had Lingauer that is point The thousand. six and five between number, same very Halász: leader communist of number The city. the in liberal Néppárt was who Lingauer Albin leader, antisemitic local from Gymnasium Catholic local the of director The associations. antisemitic

KV. 1920. November 7. November 1920. KV. MagyarKat KV. 1920. January 11. front page (my translation) (my frontJanuary page 1920. 11. KV. translation) (my frontJanuary page 1920. 11. KV. Even in the National Assembly Lingauer was attacked by attacked was Lingauer Assembly National the in Even ayr rzgs éeő Egylet Véderő Országos Magyar

192 - - re f zmel b set ak n sie” 11. Se (1919. smile.” and talk sweet by Szamuelly of tree Kőszeg és Vidéke és Kőszeg conser ,

then we have to use we to have then (Chris

0 had beco had 112

(Vas County) as a proof of his unreliability and duplicity. For example: “Church and home are are home and “Church example: For duplicity. and unreliability his of proof a as County) (Vas olikus Lexikon (Hungarian Catholic Lexicon) available online at: online available Lexicon) Catholic Lexikon(Hungarian olikus -

politician, and journalist vative organized the the organized in attacked while they do not want to defeat our defeat to want not do they while attacked t ifferent origins.” (1910.) “I like Jews” (1918. November 20.) “The Jew has two faces, the the faces, two has Jew “The 20.) November (1918. Jews” like “I (1910.) origins.” ifferent

i n oils Party) Socialist an November the same year same the November

it was emphasized that only Christians could be members of the associations (KV. associations the of members be could Christians only that emphasized was it

Jewish, but Jewish,

Vasvármegye We should notice that even the local clergy supported these groups. these clergysupported evenlocal that the notice should We Országos Antiszemita Párt Antiszemita Országos

his audience was again probably exaggerated as in the case the in as exaggerated probably again was audience his probably it was not a coincidence t coincidence a not was it probably - 1936). In Paksa, p. 45. 45. p. InPaksa, 1936). stricter tools.

Hnain ainl eec Ascito) a a far a was Assocoiation) Defence National (Hungarian

not Magyar.” not

word for word. (KV. 1922. May 1922. 4.) word.word(KV. for - n a te ae ie f h ÉE bt sd o e a be to used but ÉME, the of time same the at and Jews.

”

116 became the honorary chairman of ÉME. of chairman honorary the became

114 30

, in early Ja early in

115 Remig Bárdos, the abbot of Pannonhalma of abbot the Bárdos, Remig (National Antisemite Party) of which leader which of Party) Antisemite (National

the liberal politician Rezső Rupert because of his his of because Rupert Rezső politician liberal the

0.) This fact also proves the antisemitic attitude attitude antisemitic the proves also fact This 0.) He went further and gave the gave and further went He a

ebr f the of member ptember) The author argues that these these that argues author The ptember) nuary m nuary honest em from ev from em

hat the weekly reported weekly the hat 886

A ad

sokarcú ember sokarcú and - 1936) who later became the the became later who 1936) e

an antisemitic speech antisemitic an serious work, but if but work, serious Ker er y field […] They […] field y esztényszociális - right movement movement right

(A Men with with Men (A advice to advice

113

of the of -

, and and , The the the

CEU eTD Collection 120 119 1920 Hungary, in Clausus’ ‘Numerus Law: the Kovács, M. Mária and 2012; Europe Central Hungary in clausus’ ‘numerus 118 117 of years chaotic the to compared beco had Bethlen István after that noted. also is clausus’ ‘numerus the keep not did motherland.” the destroy would who those let not will and not should […] race Magyar the of supremacy the of bastion the is clausus numerus “the claims by written wea hand, of importance the emphasized one first legislation. that to universities the thing urgent and doub any without Although Jewish coming in antisemitism Vidéke of és Kőszeg leader the was ÉME, the of member Tihanyi, Márkus Gymnasium, wri to able were time page. o year the During

KV. 1920. September 5. front page (my page front September5. 1920. KV. KV. 1922. August 22. front page (my translation) (my front August page 22. 1922. KV. frontAugust page 6. 1922. KV. In detail about ’numerus clausus’ see the studies in in studies the see clausus’ ’numerus about detail In

T - -

question inthe changeablewaves politics.” of called e so he to the city. As he claimed: “ city. Ashe to the

pon in the other, do not let not do other, the in pon József Csapodi József -

ald Jewish called eie b Victor by (edited 6% nmrs c ‘numerus

However, in 1922 August two articles were published on this question. The question. this on published were articles two August 1922 in However, s

. In 1920 September he war he September 1920 In . . to do according to according do to f 1920 the weekly is full of antisemitic statem antisemitic of full is weekly the 1920 f 118

te their articles in the paper. One of the teacher the of One paper. the in articles their te In my understanding the local far Inunderstandinglocal the my Törvénytől sújtva: a numerus clausus Magyarországon, 1920 Magyarországon, clausus numerus a sújtva: Törvénytől – who emphasizes the advantages of the ‘numerus clausus’ ‘numerus the of advantages the emphasizes who

lausus Studies on the First Anti First the on Studies - t usin a te e ise for issue key the was question

“solving” the Jewish the “solving”

Karady and Peter Tibor Nagy), Budapest: Central European University, University, European Central Budapest: Nagy), Tibor Peter and Karady 120 l ’ revolutions me the prime minister prime the me

In this issue the “scandal” that the University of Szeged of University the that “scandal” the issue this In

They are very They translation) w ht iie te ubr f Je of number the limited that aw the far the

- red are 1945), Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 1992. Kiadó, Budapest:Napvilág 1945),

the -

Jews to be power again.” power be to Jews devotees of Marx and Engels and Marx of devotees -

right associations, the associations, right

. It did not happen by coincidence that coincidence by happen not did It . 31

mly welcomed the board leaders board the welcomed mly hita yuh n nvriis “ok n one in “book universities; in youth Christian

Research Reports on Central European History: The History: European Central on Reports Research - Jewish Law and Academic Anti Academic and Law Jewish

much needed, toavoid We should not leave out out leave not should We - question was one of the most important most the of one was question 117 - right was right

things were relatively normalized relatively were things

the

oa far local absolutely unsatisfied with absolutelyunsatisfied

ents, usually on the front the on usually ents, weekly did not even not did weekly 119 s

of the local Cathol local the of

The other one was one other The

to - ih tdns in students wish dictate here, who here, dictate r - Semitism in Modern in Semitism

- gt h a that at who ight of consideratio of disregarding 1945

of ÉME who ÉME of

(Penalized by (Penalized

in 1920 in . As he As . note

the we ic n

CEU eTD Collection 124 123 1.7.) Old the in Daniel to reference a was probably Balthazar 122 it theirideology. prove to antisemites nowadays Still 1903. Russia in published first was It world. 121 Jewish the legislation that by and enough, is bastion important most the of one against politician antisemitic strongly the While regime. the of consolidation the of sign the be could 1922 in clausus’ I in master is Jewry that admit to have “We again: Jews the blames and argument his continues valid. document the found had once that Museum British the to later week one Only the Jewish Zion of Elders Protocols ofthe i Still clausus’ was enough, definitely even not didnot hence they ‘ the about nothing others and Tihanyi Márkus Lingauer, Albin to due press local on far when sue ht atog i seems it although that, assume

KV. 1921. April 24. 1921. KV. April 17. 1921. KV. wherewhen and topu The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is an infamous forgery that presents the Jewish plans how to rule the the rule to how plans Jewish the presents that forgery infamous an is Zion of Elders the of Protocol The V 12. pi 1. annam i a oa Ctoi, áoptk s Cliit etr Te name The center. Calvinist a is Sárospatak Catholic, Roman a is Pannonhalma 10. April 1921. KV.

motn tig f u pltcl ie … Poáza ul te odn rde between bridge golden the built Prohászka Pannonhalma Sárospatak, and but […] life political our of thing important clear become of partition has it Magyar stupidest the for Even 12, iay emp Tihanyi 1921, n

Jews, in 1922 by report by 1922 in Jews, - right ÉME and ÉME right - question?) i hmln i te i o Jwy Te Jewish The Jewry. of sin the is homeland his

numer ,

s did not even not did s : a very long arti long very a

t their spies t MOVE us clausus’ us aie te Jewish the hasized

121 ing the importance of the the of importance the ing

were

s with his article entitled articleentitled with his controversial

of Christian self Christian of , howto note .

cle cle it was destroyed by Balthazar.

I noted earlier that for these antisemites the ‘numerus ‘numerus the antisemites these for that earlier noted I very powerful in the ci the in powerful very

reviewed it and wanted to g to wanted and it divide 32

- - , to emphasize the importance of ‘numerus ‘numerus of importance the emphasize to , testament, who was g was who testament, question. - usin a be solved. been had question

the Protocols. The unknown author refers refers author unknown The Protocols. the

Christian denominations.”Christian - defense, the author also argues that this that argues also author the defense,

is one of the most important ‘document’ for ‘document’ important most the of one is

ht h aoy hmlain and humiliation agony, the that

Hova lett a zsidókérdés Hova letta n April In law, and pointing out that out pointing and law,

o much further in discrimination in further much o care to - ty and probably had a pressure pressure a had probably and ty usin eae h most the became question 123 122

iven the name Balthazar. (Dan (Dan Balthazar. name the iven

, In the next issue, Tihanyiissue, next the In

note

iay rfre t the to referred Tihanyi őzgé Vidéke és Kőszeg

it in the local press. it

124 Certainly,

? (Where ? is

said said was the

CEU eTD Collection 131 130 129 128 127 126 perspektívában 125 that time to research further require was antisemitism that assume Győr in situation the whether Vienna to went who Eisner, ofcase in that doubt not Ido decisions. these in role important an had antisemitism growing Vienna. to moved Kőszeg of factory biggest the of director the November Within architect, Universi the from graduated the Adler to Manó due clausus’. ‘numerus probably most Vienna, in graduated who Jews local about reported weekly government. Bethlen’s István even legislation, by Jews of rights the restrict that Jewry. Hungarian of rights equal the questioned argues K Mária As education. higher about only not was law this that proves race” of importance them. against steps rad more urge not did but policy, official the of anti part unquestionably terror, was Jewishness Communist the and Jewry between connection the underlines still weekly

KV. 1925. December 27. 1925. KV. 129. p. Mária, M. Kovács KV. 1922. January 1922. 1. KV. 6. November 1921. KV. June15. 1930. KV. 18. November 1928. KV. Kovács M. Mária “A ‘numerus clausus’ és a zsidótörvények” In In zsidótörvények” a és clausus’ ‘numerus “A Mária M. Kovács from this law onwards onwards law this from ,

although it was about the limitation of Jews in higher education, it fundamentally it education, higher in Jews of limitation the about was it although two

127 or not.

1921 the lawyer Miksa Dukesz moved to moved Dukesz Miksa lawyer the 1921

while , (edited by Judit Molnár), Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2005, pp.1 2005, Kiadó, Balassi Budapest: by Molnár), (edited , Judit ots two months ‘numerus clausus’ and calling it calling and clausus’ ‘numerus

in 1928Béla as Krausz a

t h sm tm, t s als is it time, same the At

rmnn pros moved persons prominent all of the governments of governments the of all decide whether Győr was a friendlier environment for Jews for environment friendlier a was Győr whether decide , was

aty th partly atclry strong particularly

better than in Kőszeg. If it had been the case the been had it If Kőszeg. in than better t a hs oiain Bt fn i questionable it find I But motivation. his was at l awyer 33

a “bastion of the supremacy of the Magyar the of supremacy the of “bastion a ncsay o oe that note to necessary o 125

, 128 n Kőszeg in

Győr,

interwar Moreover,

away in 1930Endre Havas as 130 A holokauszt Magyarországon európai európai Magyarországon holokauszt A

rm h ct, oh Jewish: both city, the from

in Hun compared y f ina n 95 s an as 1925 in Vienna of ty

131

January hs example this 28

gary found it necessaryto it found gary As Harsányi emphasizes Harsányi As - 139. p. p. 132. 139.

1922 Kamill EisnerKamill 1922 to

mhszn the emphasizing

Győr.

lo confirm also a ovács rightly rightly ovács 126

doctor. ,

we should should we

ae the Later It

would 129 ical ical

i at n s - ,

CEU eTD Collection 136 135 134 133 132 scrounged.” is community the of tax the “Even title: a with published of Community Israelite negative a into Additionally, Jews put to opportunity every use to tried still weekly the seems atmosphere example ‘Jewish the or Jews on appeared nothing almost years following the In particul suppression.” Jewish 1 news Tihanyi i 1922 from Although practicesexclusive Jews. against legislati other education, higher about was Clausus’ ‘Numerus excluded absolutely were they which from professions were Hungarythere in thatwell as Jews local for clear officially became It emphasizes article the clear, things make To appear advertisement an group gendarme local the of leader the also and sergeant happened it when cases some were were notlikely dualism liberal Jews of Naturally, period inthe 922 an article recalls what recalls article an 922

Harsányi, p. 159. p. Harsányi, KV. December 30. 1923. KV. 5. November 1922. KV. 3. March 1922. KV.

items

1925. February 22. 1925. arly incaseofHungarian communism.

articles their and f he gy wo atd o rs te odr illegally border the cross to wanted who guys three of

ab well

i out ÉME or MOVE, still antisemitism was vivid in the weekly the in vivid was antisemitism still MOVE, or ÉME out n 1925 n T .

134

ses ht oe id f consolidation a of kind some that seems t (“Még a hitközségi adót iselsikkasztják”) adót hitközségi a (“Még it ril epaie ta a that emphasizes article

ed in the weekly that encouraged that weekly the in ed

h wel uqetoal links unquestionably weekly The

present Pest did

happened four years before,years four happened

not a not

but he he but s

the crime the ppear fr xml hr i Kőszeg in here example for , sto nt e b lw bt n practice. in but law, by yet not ,

as much in the press as before, t before, as press the in much as le

of that a letter of letter a that 34 10 million crowns from it. The article was was article The it. from crowns million 10

a l f hm ee es rm Budapest. from Jews were them of ll

person who person

and sums up the events as events the up sums and

until his death in 1914 in death his until

people to apply to apply to people

baptism together

had to n wr o ncsay for necessary not were ons

become officials, but there officials,become there but

to collect money for the for money collect to started,

i es n communism, and Jews s nec s

n 1923 in aao Rt ws a was Réti Salamon he - 136 essary to apply. to essary question’, but question’,

re as

hs ie the gives This

. In .

the were Although the the Although

igur and Lingauer presents the the presents .

132 November November gendarme.

“the red “the also In 1922 In light 135

less the 133

It - .

CEU eTD Collection 137 brethren. show dinner have you family story short this of problem main the understandi says Tobias family, Tobias’s visit fe he that admits narrator in arrived Tobias Tobias classmates, a 1926 in Also these kind Jewish. not could person that which but factory, fellow job, a find not could Czechoslovakia that moreover addition, other, In each from steal to hesitate misappropriationsomething is typically Jewish not did Jews that impression

KV. 1926. February 21. 1926. KV.

that his, the Christi the his, that

s relevant for our topic if the article the if topic our for relevant

where sfml e i le n a w eat and sleep him let family ’s were tricked were It

Later in the story, the story, the in Later s seem

ng this is a referen a is this ng of trickery.

“o ae t oe ih or aiy I m ny get a stranger.” a guest, a only am I family, your with home at are “You :

they had to work in a cave and later join later and cave a in work to had they

ya later year a he had to eat with the servants. The The servants. the with eat to had he s

ey tag tl ws ulse, a published, was tale strange very with us, we see we us, with

lt that Tobias was Tobias that lt it was always important to emphasize that there was always a Jew behind Jew a always was there that emphasize to important always was it the city the

Singer

by the intelligence office intelligence the by

but

escape and eventually arrived in arrived eventually and escape an family, is much friendlier to friendlier much is family, an , we do not know which one, which know not do we ,

Tobias immediately answered: “You cannot cannot “You answered: immediately Tobias

who i 1926 n

ce to the strangeness of Jews in Jews of strangeness the to ce

narrator s ecie a having as described is you as you

concealing that Tobias used have f have used Tobias that therefore h weekly the

the same the

had a nightmare: Tobi nightmare: a had did not underline not did ith them ith 35

. The . .

went to Bratislava where he and some of his of some and he where Bratislava to went

something. Once he said that he wanted to wanted he that said he Once something.

as us as

eot o a ayr esn h in who person Magyar a on reports a couple of times a week. a times of couple a

narrator y eor f suet bu oe f his of one about student a of memoir

had been offered a job in Fran in job a offered been had

to study, but as but study, to .” ed

poor Jews like Tobias than his own his than Tobias like Jews poor

e hi, usos and sunspots hair, red

This Sopron.

h rnhFrin ein from Legion Foreign French the

r that the the that underlines ee dinner ee

may suggest that he wants to wants he that suggest may

Hungary. as beco as 137

intelligence officer was was officer intelligence The whole story would story whole The s

he was very poor the poor very was he : “See, at my at “See, : also with the Berger the with also me come to us!” Later us!” to come

Later we arrive at arrive we Later s

a lawyer in the the in lawyer a The narrator The

eyeglasses.

ce in a a in ce family n my In

CEU eTD Collection 139 138 goo the Hence religion. his of devotee a also is Magyar admits least at that article uses good presents weekly In Jews. about stereotypes of full story above the published also paper the and connotations negative t same the At rabbi new the became who or died, who engaged, was who naturally were notices short Very earlier. as 1920s the of part second note can we general, In at Jews. leastabout stereotypes necessar not enhance to how of example typical a is story this opinion, contempora that sure quite am Ge narrator poor the with behave Berger, case this in Jews, wealthy how presents it hand other the on but equal, as classmate Jewish his hand this Although a Jew gloatingly. him at looks Tobias him visits he when and boulevard

Jusztinián Serédi (1884 Serédi Jusztinián (my April 11. translations) 1926. KV. ntile point of view. of point ntile February

, Jew as a denomination instead of Israelite, but still still but Israelite, of instead denomination a as Jew

devotees the story shows the helpfulness of the of helpfulness the shows story the returns . Additionally, the narrator’s ‘nightmare’ ‘nightmare’ narrator’s the Additionally,

98 srrsnl finl atce a pbihd n Jewry on published was article friendly surprisingly a 1928

ime the narrator’s help and kindness with negligencegloat. helpthe narrator’s and andkindness with

is of their own denominations own their of

the speech of Jusztinián Serédi Jusztinián of speech the a very a in the news items the weekly tried to use the opportunities to put Jew put to opportunities the use to tried weekly the items news the in

- 1945) was the head of the Hungarian Catholic Church from 1927 death. until his from1927 Church Catholic wasHungarian ofthe head the 1945) Even though it is not pronounced expli pronounced not is it though Even

short story it is full of prejudices and prejudices of full is it story short that Kőszeg Jewry appeared much less much appeared Jewry Kőszeg that

that even Jews could be could Jews even that

ry readers were able to recognize him as him recognize to able were readers ry

and

how , Catholics, Protestants and also Jews. The Jews. also and Protestants Catholics, ,

lat

most 36 er Tobias in the ‘nightmare’ behave ‘nightmare’ the in Tobias er

139

probably Christian narrator, who looks at looks who narrator, Christian probably

as good Magyars as Magyars good as

depict who states that all Magyars Magyars all that states who d Catholic, the good Protestant, good the Catholic, d after

tpcl eih aer rm a from career Jewish typical a , sometimes about their charity. their about sometimes ,

citly that Tobias was a Jew, a was Tobias that citly a long time this was the firs the was this time long a generalizations. On the one one the On generalizations.

in 138 Kőszeg

In other words other In

il Christians. “A good “A Christians. written about them: about written

y antisemitism, but antisemitism, y such

és n g in

Vidéke a Jew. In my my In Jew. a eneral. The The eneral. have s

, with the with

Tobias,

article

in the the in s to

into

the

I t

CEU eTD Collection 143 142 141 140 opportunityonly sho toattack Jewish not which Christians, as impression the gives article the and again, peace “ is: conclusion final the but shopkeepers, Christian article H included. veh article shopkeepers year same the In local Jewry inthe m was p was article an year same the streets local of names it as community. Jewish the ofmembers or Association Women’s the about reports it when ‘Jewish’ or ‘Jew’ than rather ‘Israelite’ 1920s. the of half first the to compared particularly Jews, to friendlier the of beginning the at and 1920s late the In early beconceived must 1920sthis as change. apositive Jew good

KV. 1930. May 25. (the translation is mine) is (thetranslation May 1930. 25. KV. August 3. 1930. KV. July 1930. 27. KV. February 19 1928. KV. . 142 did te hita cud not!” could Christian the ,

ignores These are indeed very small things, but important in case of the representation of representation the of case in important but things, small very indeed are These

in the pre the in can be a good Magyar as well.” as Magyar good a be can emently attacks this decision in decision this attacks emently owever evokes anti evokes

hs at Te ril cam ta ti i go nihr o Jws, o for nor Jewish, for neither good is this that claims article The fact. this

a dfntl nt h cs. eetees ti ise a aan good a again was issue this Nevertheless, case. the not definitely was - , in ,

h postpone the war period. In 1930 July a short article that presents the origins of the of origins the presents that article short a July 1930 In period. war ain

. (the translation is mine) is (thetranslation . appreciates Fülöp Schey and ha and Schey Fülöp appreciates

the decision the newspaper. - Jewish feelings since the fair was put to a Christian holiday. The holiday. Christian a to put was fair the since feelings Jewish

ublished about how beautiful Nussbaum’s new shop new Nussbaum’s beautiful how about ublished ment 143

In many cases th cases Inmany making h inequal The

f h lcl fair local the of pkeepers, butJewry ingeneral.

140 which Christian artisans o artisans Christian which

committee there was there committee 37

Compared to the rudeness against Jews in the in Jews against rudeness the to Compared 1930s

t bten es n Crsin appears Christians and Jews between ity

if Hence the Jew could keep his holiday his keep could Jew the Hence , e paper does not note the denominationthe note not does paper e

it seems it s charity in the mid the in charity s h atoiis prefer authorities the

u to due Kő

h rqet f t of request the s a Christian majority, the the majority, Christian a z eg és Vidéke és eg r shopkeepers were not were shopkeepers r

19 h wel uses weekly The e Jw over Jews red th

century,

e Jewish he was much much was - window 141

in in

CEU eTD Collection 16. p. 1995. ofNew England, Press 147 146 mine) is translation 145 144 wasthis inhis thesituation ownfamily: that out points clearly autobiography his in Katz Jacob anymore. profit have not could they which in city the leave to had sometimes shops, small their maintain than chances other any circumstances. economic Jews that proves 1930 in shop his close border new the hand other the on Jews, among decrease natural a was there hand, one the On 1910. in peak its reached city the of population Jewish the chapter previous the in noted Jew that to “moved Szer József appearsin also sta the and business local of decrease the to due that clear is “It conclusion: the makes and city the of population articleThe city’spopulation. the historyof the Thirringabout Gusztáv than better seems and 1931 In

Szeremley József, SzeremleyJózsef, April 3. KV. KV. 1930. April 27. 1930. KV. Jacob Katz, Katz, Jacob o mc cptl dpnig n h wliges f h ct woeaes o extend to wholesalers city the of willingness the credit. on depending capital, much not storewith general a mightopen he neighboringwhich a in village out sought he choice, 1900 ab for in finance, born was brother eldest my which region] the in city[major Pápa storein a openedHe business.some in it invest and career only The

s tended to leave the city when the economic situation worsened, albeit as I have have I as albeit worsened, situation economic the when city the leave to tended s there were no Jews in the city, however, probably no news items about items news no probably however, city, the in Jews no were there

places more profitable more places 147

n fedn atce I April In article. offending an With my Own Eyes Own my With in the first half of half first the in

on their population their on

Kőszeg, a nyugati végvár nyugati a Kőszeg,

out a year later he had to liquidate his business. For lack of any other any of lack For business. his liquidate to had he later year a out

nto o dvlpet hi nme decreased.” number their development of gnation open to a yeshiva student like my father was to take his wife’s dowry wife’s his take to was father my like student yeshiva a to open 146 e mley’s short monograph on the city and he adds that local Jewry local that adds hecity and the on monograph short mley’s

, Hannover and London: Brandeis University Press, published by University University by published Press, University Brandeis London: and Hannover , n diin ide fr eih hpepr wo d who shopkeepers Jewish for indeed addition, In

1932 .”

145 is quite obvious. quite is

basically

This is quite a misleading statement, since statement, misleading a quite is This

(Kőszeg, the Western the Western (Kőszeg,

1932 obviously 38

nothing n nothing

–

őzg s Vidéke és Kőszeg only to pay dearly for this lesson in in lesson this for dearly pay to only

The case of Rezső Deutsch who had to had who Deutsch Rezső of case The

i nt ev te iy u t bad to due city the leave not did oteworthy appears in the weekly. I weekly. the in appears oteworthy Castle ) Debrecen, 1942. p. 39. (thep. 39. 1942. Debrecen, )

reviews deals with the Jewishthe with deals 144

hs conclusion This the infl the

h atce of article the d o have not id

it them –

uence of uence

assumes in in

was was t CEU eTD Collection 150 149 148 children poor when year this in that emphasizes Harsányi occasion. this for sermons had b the at year ori Jewish their underline not does but Kun, Béla notes and Rákosi Mihály t Surprisingly, calls him Kopfstein ( I War World in battlefield the in were who those of association the instance For Jews. local respected and accepted assump the have can still we time, same the At in more chapter detail thenext in movemen the in part take Magya the time not did article no Germans enough surprisingly but city, the in nameplates German the lists bitterly article “ 1 October na initiated Nagy Miklós mayor the even joined, also Kőszeg of city wasFrom 1933there Kőszeg are loyalthecity to weekly the of review this through palpable Sti ayr Man Magyar

KV. 1934. February 4. 1934. KV. mine) is (thetranslation 15. October 1933. KV. 8. October 1933. KV. ll, a very strong stereotype against Jews Jews against stereotype strong very a ll, rs ,

comrade

whether they magyarized their names or not. or names their magyarized they whether togy ainlsi pol bhn te oeet i nt osdr es as Jews consider not did movement the behind people nationalistic strongly to their meeting to make a a make to meeting their to 933 t irthday of Governor Horthy Governor of irthday

Jews whose majority also had German surnames. German had also majority whose Jews . he year 1935 of the weekly is also not anti not also is weekly the of 1935 year he 148 note ut ae ayr Name! Magyar Have Must

n h sm mnh n ril ws ulse i te eky entitled: weekly the in published was article an month same the In Kopfstein

Jews since it was not expected not was it since Jews

a popular, almost mandatory movement to magyarize namesa almostmagyarize mandatory to popular, movement t, but I will examine the issue of name of issue the examine will I but t, as long as beneficial for them. as asfor long beneficial . 150 rnhroo Szövetsége Frontharcosok

speech about their rights. The rights. their about speech

the weekly notes that all of the four denominations four the of all that notes weekly the

” . The arti The .

39 ( ayr me mga nvt viseljen nevet magyar ember Magyar ht they that

in that tion to magyarize their magyarize to cle gives the impression impression the gives cle

i 13 invited 1934 in ) Not surprisingly Not

ee ny neetd n oe is money in interested only were

- t es a ru of group a least at Jewish 149 - magyarization among Jews among magyarization

My assumption is that thethat is assumption My . It reports on the trial of trial the on reports It . association in the article the in association

me names, since by that by since names, ,

local Jews did not did Jews local - h lwe Lipót lawyer the magyarization in magyarization gins. In the same same the In gins.

that Jews of Jews that oa people local

only ethnic ethnic only

which the which the !) The .

CEU eTD Collection 154 153 152 151 with attacked sadistic “Jewry claims he As Jewry. Hungarian of behavior and situation current far antisemitism: growing for reasons three are countrysid the in even country, Moreover, in other words, community feel not do “Jews and business antisemitism. about page front In exaggeration. huge a certainly is economy the of 80% to Jews. money from steal to villains for opportunitygood a und was atmosphere antisemitic the Republic Soviet Hungarian the of fall the after that claims he but question, Jewish the solve not could Jews against violence that admits He statements. antisemtic Sti capital. the in but city, the in live not did he however Parliament, in city the of deputy the was Németh Imre 1936 From happenings anymore. Harsányi circles, own suppose its into closed was community I charity. time this same the from At case. this excluded overemphasizes were they that mean necessarily action. city the to came

KV. 1936. December 13. (The translation is mine) is translation (The December 13. 1936. KV. April 26. 1936. KV. 18. and August 11. 1935. KV. 193. p. Harsányi, 151 anger

ned lcl es r mis are Jews local Indeed,

fw ots ae h cam tha claims he later months few a condemn

n vr forum every in are

rm Vienna from

still strangers.still erstandable and and erstandable

h lzns ad noptny f h gnr, u sil cl still but gentry, the of incompetency and laziness the

in the hands of Jews of hands the in

with Magyars, they did not integrate not did they Magyars, with e where agitators had not come. not had agitators where e h hlls Christian helpless the H Jw wr no were Jews , 154

dis the admits e December l h wel peet hs pehs n wiig fl of full writings and speeches his presents weekly the ll,

reasonable, albeit he admits that sometimes it was only only was it sometimes that admits he albeit reasonable, ig rm h ls o te donors the of list the from sing

thus they did not deal with these kind these with deal not did they thus 40 the same year his article was published on the on published was article his year same the atsmts ws ey vivid very was antisemitism t ,

- , which is a stro a is which ,

competence hs xml shows example this right agitation, the need for reforms, and the and reforms, for need the agitation, right alwd o tak to allowed t - ayrs teps n h economic the in attempts Magyar’s 153

and profession and Németh also claims that st that claims also Németh ng antisemitic stereotype and and stereotype antisemitic ng In his interpretation, his In e part in supporting this this supporting in part e

into the Magyar nation”, nation”, Magyar the into how much the Jewish Jewish the much how , 152

u ti de not does this but alism

l aon the around all

of Jews in Jews of s is that aims

of local of

ill 70 ill there - CEU eTD Collection 158 157 156 155 all that Jews should reader the that underlines also and view, of point rightist a from Jew” counter the On ambiguous. is story This counter the against was Jewry local that mean not does it that underlines also he that cou the in part took who Jews local among one only the died. Axer Izrael photographer, Jewish local a 1937 In these in argument of kind questions at all. any or view of point Jewish the for place no was there that Jews local and him for sign telling very a probably Jewry. Kossuth, all are we since strangers Old the from story a notes Vidéke és Kőszeg press Kőszeg seen antise possible not was it says he as but sacrifices, make should community a as Jewry that is conclusion His fields.”

KV. 1937. March 21. March 1937. KV. April 4. 1937. KV. April 4. 1937. KV. 28. March 1937. KV. ,

mitic mitic lhuh h dpt o te iy ie i Bdps, i ies also ideas his Budapest, in lived city the of deputy the although 157 spat on spat - revolution as a whole, but on the other hand other the on but whole, a as revolution

Ferenc ete Nmt, o ayn es asee t te l rabbi old the to answered else anyone nor Németh, Neither perception. For our investigation investigation our For perception.

were thecounter against Te oa rbi Isk ikz meitl woe lte t Németh to letter a wrote immediately Linksz Izsák rabbi, local The .

Halász, the local communist leader on the street. At the sametime At the street. the leaderon Halász,communist thelocal

ek and Deák

published it “without any comment any “without it published

u t te xeine bhvo o Jews of behavior experienced the to due

children of the Almighty. the of children

József -

etmn t age ht e hud not should we that argue to Testament

hand

övs h prom who Eötvös - revolution. ,

it emphasizes that local Jewry was not active in the the in active not was Jewry local that emphasizes it 41 t

his

s ey motn, eas a w have we as because important, very is

as well. This example proved t proved example This well. as He also refers to the policies the to refers also He , at least gives an example of example an gives least at , .” td h eacpto o Hungar of emancipation the oted The obituary emphasizes that he was was he that emphasizes obituary The 156 nter

The rabbi refers to the Bible and Bible the to refers rabbi The - revolution, and notes the story the notes and revolution, . 155

ee e ae typical a have we Here

, e otl against hostile be

which perd n the in appeared - revolution. not suppose not ,

the articlethe a most was

of a “good a o

Lajos , them

and i 158 a n ,

CEU eTD Collection 164 163 162 161 2002. Kiadó, Bábel Budapest: 160 159 to immigrated to Jewish the that stated They weekly. the in ideas and program Mozgalom Move Hungarist the 1938, June time, same the At society the local city and of for what Jewryhappening was their ahome. miles from few in come only of kind what emphasizes and properties their behind leave to had they that underlines however action, South that issue, same the In weekly tells usalot (not Jewish) ( Weekly” Hetilap Political Politikai Nemzeti, National, “Christian, subhead a had weekly the 1938, to professions free profes intellectual in sphere, economic the in Jews of number the maximized so first the on report not did weekly the enough, Surprisingly

The law of 1938/XV accepted by Parliament o by accepted Parliament law of1938/XV The KV. 1938. July 1938. KV. June26. 1938. KV. mine) is translation (The May 1938. 22. KV. May 1938. 22. KV. ahne Katzburg Nathaniel 0 bt by but 20,

the Jews of Burgenland were Burgenland of Jews the - mrc, eio n Plsie Te ril does article The Palestine. and Mexico America, ) a is tttr meeting. statutory its had to the town at town the to banners were displayed at the entrance to the towns in Burgenland in towns the to entrance the at displayed were banners

o 10 percent 100 a to Hungary 3.

the paper reports on what happens on the other side of the border, namely namely border,the of side other the on happens what on reports paper the

the 20% ,

sdpltk Mgaosáo 1919 Magyarországon Zsidópolitika

local far local . wie n ad hl milli half a and one while , 160

p. 94. p. ).

But, 161 their own resp own their

- h fc ta te ae epaie ta i ws Christian a was it that emphasized paper the that fact The right was becoming more and more powerful in the city. In city. the in powerful more and more becoming was right

it is a vital a is it a

bout its conception.bout its deported to Vienna, while the younger ones emigrated to emigrated ones younger the while Vienna, to deported d hy lie ta hl a ilo Glca Jews Galician million a half that claimed they nd et ( ment 163

nMay29

ayr ezt Soilsa át Hungarista Párt Szocialista Nemzeti Magyar t h bgnig f uy hy ulse their published they July of beginning the At onsibility.” ly important change important ly 42

1938. - 1943 n ayr eirtd o America. to emigrated Magyars on

162

This definitely made clear for the for clear made definitely This (Jewish o dsrb te rtlt o this of brutality the describe not - question should be solved not solved be should question

- from the issue of May 22 May of issue the from oiy n ugr 1919 Hungary in policy - ald Jewish called sions and in and sions - : “ : Keresztény, law Jews can Jews 159 - 1943), 1943),

that had 164 nd

CEU eTD Collection 168 167 166 11pp. 2005. Kiadó, Pannonica Magyarországon kori dualizmus 165 life public from Jews of exclusion gradual the hand, of analysis the Through aswellcitizens far local the time, same the at and society local notice. to article the in people notice: the also antisemitism growingvehemently tendencyof the Ishows clearlyarticle note last the Kőszeg ideology. pushed who businessman Fürnberg inthese ofSamu confute role the shop. his for items church antique get to guy that encouraged states paper The Szombathely. in shop antique an had Christi a was perpetrator as his in and Axer’s man.” Christian young, Izrael a am “I emphasized: be to used that shop the bought photographer new a 1938 October In city. the in palpable is atmosphere the of change The mass immigrationGalic from H owever

KV. 1939. January 1939. 15. KV. July 1938. 17. KV. 23 October 1938. KV. See Varga László, “Zsidó bevándorlás Magyarországon” (Jewish Immigration in Hungary) In In Hungary) in Immigration (Jewish Magyarországon” bevándorlás “Zsidó László, Varga See they did they

oa lvl I Jnay h lcl National local the January In level. local 168

Mga Crsin hp ( Shop” Christian “Magyar és ,

From that time time that From it was clearly proved even by the antisemitic statistician, Alajos Kovács Alajos statistician, antisemitic the by even proved clearly was it Vidéke

in the 1920s, the weekly reports weekly the 1920s, the demanding thatthey keep

only had eight issues in the year 1939, after that it it that after 1939, year the in issues eight had only

. (the translation is mine) .is (thetranslation

Kőszeg a - n guy from Kőszeg, but put the emphasis on emphasis the put but Kőszeg, from guy n o hi sopn there shopping their do Jewish shopkeepers and Jews altogether Jews and shopkeepers Jewish 30.

h Christi the

ia was a only legend. (Jewry in the Dualist Hungary) (edited by László Varga) Budapest: Budapest: Varga) László by (edited Hungary) Dualist the in (Jewry

és

Vidéke ayr eezéy Üzlet Keresztény Magyar n no i ncl ft it te age the into fits nicely sin into an

their commands. their between 1909 and 1938 and 1909 between deeds 43 166

a ser a

Soci Moreover , this story with the emphasis on storywith thethis emphasis , 165 - , otherwise the party will send them a a them send will party the otherwise , right party started to threaten Christian Christian threaten to started party right ies of thefts of ies lsi Pry si Party alistic

that he was behind these crimes as he as crimes these behind was he that n nteohrhn h ae of waves the hand other the on and ,

to put J put to 167 ). Moreover the party warns warns party the Moreover ).

from temples in which the which in temples from Although I cannot prove or prove cannot I Although business

ews into ews we have seen on the one the on seen have we nd vr shop every gned were excluded from the from excluded were

came to an end an to came Samu Fürnberg Samu

- introduci a l antisemitic old

negative

the Jewish Zsidóság a a Zsidóság

that the that

on with a a with . Still, . ,

light , who

he at

CEU eTD Collection ( Rónai. Frigyes 1934: October 28. from Szabadváry, Ferenc konyvtar.hu/ 1931: April 5. from Rónai, Frigyes Rónai Frigyes 1922: January 1. from Fuchs, Endre 1921: June 12. from Rónai, 169 from the until the beginning of1920 friendly relatively period interwar pre the clearlydistinguish can we time, same the At early1930s. the like Jewish antise growing constantly a is there that say cannot we enough, Interestingly weekly. the in antisemitism

rm 2 Mrh 91 Fiys óa, from Rónai, Frigyes 1911: March 12. From

eras like the early 1920s and obviously the late 1930s late the obviously and 1920s early the like eras digitalizalas iim nteppr u rte ifrn periods different rather but paper, the in mitism ee tog te dtr wr msl te ae persons same the mostly were editors the though even ,

- chernel periods

- kalman

gis lcl es anti Jews, local against

- varosi -

konyvtarban weeklycame toan end in1938.

1 Spebr 93 Ljs abis fo 5 Arl 94 Frigyes 1914: April 5. from Jambrits, Lajos 1913: September 21. 44 )

- eihes a praety palpable permanently was Jewishness Jr., and Béla Pandúr, from 6. May 1923: May 6. from Pandúr, Béla and Jr., , and relatively friendly relatively and , .

T here were strongly anti strongly were here

- war yearsfro war . 169 http://www.koszeg

ept the Despite m the the m

ones ones - - CEU eTD Collection accordingto assimilate his to it. against strongly was Széchenyi side Jews whether question, were that Jews foundEötvös József Bertalan orlike Szemere politicians noble liberalthe of Some min age the in nobles between emerged relationship Austria) nobles. of protection the their before that mind in bear should detail into The proce antisemitism, argu and theories general purpose and Jewry chapter this In antisemitism 3 . Emanc rt in ority . hl Seee Etö or Eötvös Szemere, While s.

likely to become Magyars. Naturally, during the 1840s there was a huge debate huge a was there 1840s the during Naturally, Magyars. become to likely

et o őzg ee ne te rtcin f h Etráy family. Esterházy the of protection the under were Kőszeg to next I ss of emancipation of Jewry emancipation ss of

I , , use

t h ae time same the at ipation and ipation h Kndm f ugr, although Hungary, of Kingdom the present as , what

wl examin will I well as

f ainl awakening national of I have found have I

oe pca caatrsis f h Hnain case. Hungarian the of characteristics special some

the connection between phenomena these

hud be should For example For

assimilation of Kőszeg Jewry and Jewry Kőszeg of assimilation et o te usin of question the on ments

, experiences

te usin o mniain and emancipation of questions the e nobles and magnates and nobles h aitos of variations the

in Kőszeg in

Dessewffy

emancipated.

ué Dessewfy Aurél , 1867 in Europe is in Europe

the famous ‘Seven Communities’ ‘Seven famous the :

a t raie ht h Mga nto ws in was nation Magyar the that realize to had emancipation, the Jews of Hungary were Hungary of Jews the emancipation,

45 in my primary and secondary sources, secondary and primary my in

as early as 1840 as early as

local

hy atd o e h dmnn nation. dominant the be to wanted they hr were There a .

From the early 18 early the From fairly

antisemitism and its and antisemitism rmtd h ie, on István Count idea, the promoted

well mniain asmlto and assimilation emancipation,

- argued that Jews had ten had Jews that argued p known s oiet esn o both on persons rominent

locally and ingenerallocally and

siiain f Kőszeg of assimilation th

tory. Without going going Without tory.

century

local (now Burgenland, Burgenland, (now

origins. For this this For origins. is o all of First

symbiotic A

Hungarian

and the and

on the the on under under . ,

ded we we CEU eTD Collection 173 Assimilation Embourgeoisement, (Jewry, 605 pp. Budapest, 172 234. p. 1994, Press, University London: Harvard 171 Nobility. Hungarian the 170 out points rightly Kovács András As country. the in Magyars of proportion the increase process this through and nation Magyar the to nobility Magyar the and state liberal the to loyal be to for their through time same This relevantly period ( this calls Karády Viktor been started,quickly very and happened importa an had Eötvös Baron C the after I of War the of fall character.” oriental unique a procl 1849 in government revolutionary of origin, Asian its to owing was, which nation, Hungarian the into assimilated be not could They renaissance. Hungarian the of obstacle summarizes, Katz opinion the of was Széchenyi Count szmlcó traam szerződés társadalmi asszimilációs

Lupovitch, Howard N., N., Lupovitch,Howard András Kovács, p. 606. p. Kovács, András nrs oás A asiiáis iem” Te iem o Asmlto) In Assimilation) of Dilemma (The dilemma” asszimilációs “Az Kovács András Jacob Katz, Katz, Jacob Jews

meant that the liberal nobility promote nobility liberal the that meant who have already become perfect Magyars from alanguage view. point of midst whose in nation the into easily especially assimilate peoples isolated that found have of I interestsbecause nature,the our threaten will Jews the of emancipation the that fear the share not do I 173

and protect and

mrms wt Asra te dc o eacpto ws rcamd in proclaimed was emancipation of edict the Austria, with ompromise This was a was This rm Pre From - 1. . 0. r K or 606. p. 612.

ht es ee “ were Jews that

ndependence the legislation the ndependence Budapest: Central European University Press, 2006. p. p. 200. 2006. Press, University European Budapest:Central ed

Jews at the Crossroads: Tradition and Accommodation during the Golden Age of Ageof the Golden during Accommodation and Tradition Crossroads: the at Jews n absolutely win absolutely n

judice to Destruction Destruction to judice these rights f rights these

oooie oiia pwrtenblt gaate qa rights equal guaranteed nobility the power political monopolized

nt they live. I know Alföld [the Great Hungarian Plain] Jews Plain] Hungarian Great [the Alföld know I live. they arády Viktor, Viktor, arády role. The process of Jewish assimilation, that had already already had that assimilation, Jewish of process The role. -

Studies) Budapest: Cserépfalvi Kiadó, 1997. p. 120. 1997. Kiadó, Cserépfalvi Budapest: Studies) bten lib between ) rom the attacks of antisemites. of attacks the rom that Jews cannot be assimilated be cannot Jews that too - aimed the equal rights of Jews, however, Jews, of rights equal the aimed , win contract, win

apparently

epy mud y h Gra sii, h main the spirit, German the by imbued deeply o eacpto asmlto was assimilation emancipation for –

d Anti 46 Zsidóság, polgárosodás, asszimiláció asszimiláció polgárosodás, Zsidóság,

Jewry in modernizing the country and country the modernizing in Jewry

was not ratified not was eiim 1700 Semitism, the rl oiiy n Jws bourgeoisie. Jewish and nobility eral

successfully.

as , which , sca cnrc o assimilation” of contract “social

the two groups needed each other. each needed groups two the -

1933 meant they had to assimilate assimilate to had they meant

. Final , Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Cambridge, ,

Additionally .

He thought He ly, in 1867 not long long not 1867 in ly, 170 Világosság

–

a Tanulmányok.

due to the to due , as Jacob Jacob as , necessary Jews had Jews

1988/8 171 , at the the at , which

T 172 he - 9.

CEU eTD Collection 177 Archive) Jewish (Hungarian Levéltár Zsidó Magyar In ofKőszeg) Community Israelite the of Neolog Protocol 176 175 174 called Community, weekly theJewish of German in answered hence Hungarian, speak not could he Hungarian. in rabbis Hungarian to came other exercise is language of importance The changed th Hungarian. city, the in needed comm language Hungarian most the was been the became Hungarian existed requirement which in process this in went Jewry Kőszeg far how is question Our Jewry Kőszeg among Tendencies 3.1. Assimilation the Magyar nobility. Hungar the in requirement

MVSÉ, Statisztikák (Statistics) p. 88. and p. 100. p. and 88. p. (Statistics) Statisztikák MVSÉ, Harsányi, p. 137. p. Harsányi, 129. p. Harsányi, ksei og. zalt htösg jegyzőkönyve hitközség izraelita congr. kőszegi A

the dominant language of the city. the of language dominant the prominent persons came to Kőszeg.cameto persons prominent emn was German

. For this occasion this For . greet e language of their Protocols f e language of 175 .

Bearing in mind that we should not overgeneralize the different groups of Jews Jews groupsnotofdifferent overgeneralize the should we that mind Bearingin

ian Kingdom, we can argue that Hungarian Jewry fulfilled the requirements of of requirements the fulfilled JewryHungarian that arguecan we Kingdom, ian him. Finally

After that After

for , as a last step in the magyarization direction magyarization the in step last a as , the the h cmuiy eurd oen wo pk both spoke who someone required community the

oiat agae n őzg abi utl h 18s German 1880s the until albeit Kőszeg, in language dominant the ethnic Germ ethnic the oiat nationality dominant

Emperor Franz Joseph, E Joseph, Franz Emperor , Franz Joseph, as the as Joseph, Franz ,

clearly seen in seen clearly The rabbi of Eisenstadt, Salamon Kuttna Salamon Eisenstadt, of rabbi The

As we have seen in the first chapter first the in seen have we As r unity in the city the in unity Egyenlőség 177 ans of Hungary. We have alre have We Hungary. of ans o m German toHungarianm German

When Franz Joseph had an audience also rabbisaudienceanalso had Joseph Franz When 47

(1894. szeptember 11. 11. szeptember (1894.

oa ise n19 hr a a was there 1893 In issue. local a rather

king

mperor William II William mperor (Equality) strongly criticized therabbi:criticized (Equality) strongly

than Magyar, however, the same same the however, Magyar, than welcomed the guests, including guests, the welcomed . 174

In 1884 when a new rabbi was rabbi new a when 1884 In o h E the to

the

– in 1897

the Jewish Community Jewish the special environment in environment special 1901. november 17.) (The (The 17.) november 1901. mperor ,

many ministers and ministers many ady examined how how examined ady

had to admit to had . 176 ,

. The national national The . Kőszeg Jewry Kőszeg

emn and German military

that had the

CEU eTD Collection 184 1913 begging”in 183 ( family.” Orthodox strictly 182 a in job translation) a get will mistress Orthodox strictly 181 180 179 178 national Magyar the A society. majority underlines Kovács András as But, the 19 O held style. reform a in built family, Rosenstingl ther however movement, reform center. bema the as style reform a in O O behind assimilation of process the should we Here the idea toconn p The “Orthodoxen?” German: in asked he Hungarian, speak not could Kuttna rabbi that realized king the after put and king “who rthodoxy that used to be dominant in the 1880s decreased t decreased 1880s the in dominant be to used that rthodoxy Jewry Kőszeg among dominant was rthodoxy

Harsányi, p. 129. p. Harsányi, 608. p. Kovács, András Egyenlőség András Kovács, p. 608. (my 608. translation) p. Kovács, András 1 p. Harsányi, Still in 1929 the family was strictly Orthodox according to their advertisement p advertisement their to according Orthodox strictly was family the 1929 in Still asni p. 159 pp. Harsányi,

at his own home, own his at ever th

By the turn of the 20 the of turn the By century.

tooy n eey in f it. of sign every and rthodoxy available online at: at: online available cannot speak Hungarian should go home and learn it, but should no should but learnit, and gohome Hungarian should speak cannot , 1893. Septembe , 1893. ,

if not the whole Jewry, but O but Jewry, whole the not if 59.

(presented in Chapter 2) in Chapter (presented ect the lack ofHungarian theect lack withO

emphasize - s he argues he s 160. Most probably that was the origin of his punishment for “supporting illegal illegal “supporting for punishment his of origin the was that probably Most 160. 181

character.”

aper emphasizes how awkward it awkward how emphasizes aper

Lock and Jaka and 182

http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/ r 29. available online at available 29. r U

n that chang that invited the poor Jews of nearby villages. nearby of Jews poor the invited and

able to find ten men to have the have to men ten find to able th

(almemar) was put next to next put was (almemar) ,

Jews had to make the make to had Jews century the Kőszeg Community mostly became part of the the of part became mostly Community Kőszeg the century b Lock, who did not even enter even not did who Lock, b 184

e were families which remained O remained which families were e h atmt o become to attempt the

. I do not do I ,

this ing

a sil o enough not still was

179 the language to language the rthodoxy to shame.” to rthodoxy in 48

tend Although http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/

, rthodoxy. 180

to analyze what is, or more importantly, more or is, what analyze to their synagogue built in 1859 was made was 1859 in built synagogue their “ impossible step, impossible ,

was that th that was

the s asni states Harsányi as accepted.

178 Hungarian

Ark of the Covenant, the of Ark

o a few perso few a o

minjan

o eoe cetd y the by accepted become to

the synagogue since synagogue the Egyenlőség The weekly also notes that notes also weekly The

rthodox, for instance the instance for rthodox, e king immediately had had immediately king e Jews

183 ublished in ublished

(the translation is mine) is (thetranslation

was was ” for

This shows us how us shows This namely

also

a sermon that he that sermon a only one step in step one only 99 My 1 my 11. May 1929. ns by the end of of end the by ns ,

t go before the the gobefore t

n h 1880s the in a t l to had Egyenlőség

not in th in not

“ acquire it was it eave : “a “a :

CEU eTD Collection (In place.” same the at met had merchants the of all when before been Katalin: Fenyves had it what of quarter a not was it decreased, schnapps and produce in businesses my time that From […] merchants. smaller the with club same other to went and merchants the com not of did merchants great club the because day, by the day off fell businesses left my hence associations, trading they and enemies became reformers the of all [...] me. left I that tenets my knew all they And capacity. and spirit whole my with orthodoxy on class, my on insisted the and faith my in living been inalways have I while reformers, the of side believed who Jews the among t to the cafe to or merchants the upset grea huge city’s caused the had with that of club the went to businesses they when day by Day […] congress. the of was time the That […] Torah the and Almighty my enmity of new all the losing of of because afraid merchants was I 1868 of autumn the “In memoir: his in Munk remembers Méir Ávrahám (Oradea) Nagyvárad of rabbi the as business, in relations their influenced also it enough Importantly 187 Archive) Jewish (Hungarian Levéltár Zsidó Magyar In ofKőszeg) Community Israelite the of Neolog Protocol 186 185 importance, its and fact this emphasize to forget not should we other, each from split community. same the assimilation of levels different Jews These well. as life community a hence Jews, Talmudist.” a m a had and hunt duel, to used who J maintained who Hungarian was assimilate to mind in bear should together decisions made Kőszeg of community Jewish the nor Hungary, of Jewry the neither that here emphasize should we all, of First theseto fulfill requirem to Jews for possible been had it 20 the of turn the at was what ewish Community of Kőszeg was not homogeneous. There homogeneous. not was Kőszeg Community ewish of

Gyáni Gábor, Gábor, Gyáni (my 160. translation) p. Harsányi, A kőszegi congr. izraelita izraelita congr. kőszegi A

was more likely in use than use in likely more was 185 lthough the families that were O were that families the lthough Nép, nemzet, zsidó nemzet, Nép, Képzelt asszimilác Képzelt

But, we should not forget that in Kőszeg there was only one Commun one only was there Kőszeg in that forget not should we But, O

rthodoxy and rthodoxy quite

that thes that

186 ents

strong. etil, n ot ae mmes f ifrn wns f Judaism of wings different of members cases most in Certainly, rade it always ended in a quarrel. Almost all of the great merchants were on the the wereon merchants great the of Almost all quarrel. in a ended it always rade ikzé jegyzőkönyve hitközség

as acommunity some cases and in personally e were e

th ió? ió? (People, Nation, Jew), Pozsony: Kalligram Ki Jew), Kalligram Nation, Pozsony: (People, ,

paid tax paid

century the M the century

acquire it or not, but examine what Kőszeg Jewry Kőszeg what examine but not, or it acquire German as wel as German – lhuh h O the Although

Négy zsidó értelmiségi nemzedék önképe nemzedék értelmiségi zsidó Négy

embership in the Casino, and another and Casino, the in embership personal choices, although choices, personal , German, there were still members of the community community the of members still were there German,

es h hd ifrn lfsye ad da, ee on were ideas, and lifestyles different had who , attend , 49

rthodo agyar national character. Nor Nor character. national agyar (1894. szeptember 11. 11. szeptember (1894.

l. As Harsányi rightly states: rightly Harsányi As l. ed

rthodoxy was mostly played down, and and down, played mostly was rthodoxy s community a as

the meetings and u and meetings the x like Rosenstingl or Lock, or Rosenstingl like x

never concealed and almost all of them have them of all almost and concealed never

were , indeed the pressure on Jews Jews on pressure the indeed ,

the rich the

– n hs questions. these in

adó, 2013. pp. 220 pp. 2013. adó,

1901. november 17.) (The (The 17.) november 1901. (Imagined Assimiliation? Assimiliation? (Imagined ndertook positions in positions ndertook

with and will

“Certainly, the “Certainly, t and prestigious prestigious and t

the a

took part in part took I long beard, beard, long

poor. One One poor.

an had - 224. alyze if alyze 187 e to the the to e

ity ofity done done

We but –

CEU eTD Collection 192 191 190 189 city council. the in automatically place a had instance for others, 188 translation) Self The wh Jews local of examples some found I I, War World Before t very two The he was avivid,funnywhom personality Jews. among unusual definitely and pastime gentry countryside gentleman typical hi noted already have we II Chapter In city. the of persons interesting vet a as position a won 1904 in and Sárvár in born was “ the was this society. of fields many from exclusion their to due strategies” “compensational great a as research Jewry Kőszeg the of persons prominent O these Beside divid list. fo O Local questions. apparent small very of case in his

r many years was years many r Harsányi, p. 149. Virilism meant that the biggest taxpayers of a g ofa taxpayers thebiggest that meant Virilism 149. p. Harsányi, Furtherresearc 150 pp. Harsányi, és Vidéke Kőszeg p. 123. Karády,1997,

188 was not an option for them. for option an not was , but both wings, butboth appearedcity’s life. inthe final step. I did not find any example any find not did I step. final

hs s eeat o our for relevant is This - mg o Fu Jws Itleta Gnrtos Bdps: ovn Kaó 21. p 163 pp. 2010. Kiadó, Corvina Budapest: Generations) Intellectual Jewish Four of image rthodox Jews also took part in the city’s life, for instance for life, city’s the in part took also Jews rthodox

ly other steps of assimilation were assimilation of steps other

a nt h cs, oee ms poal te hd ruet i religious in arguments had they probably most however case, the not was over h would be necessary necessary would be h too Jw o Jews rthodox

- 1911. August 6. He is on the list of who bought hunter bought who of istheon list He August 6. 1911. 151. ly - copihet f h dmns f assimilation.” of demands the of accomplishment

xml o over of example

behavi communities like Kőszeg Jewry strict division strict Jewry Kőszeg like communities m ember of the City C City the of ember r I addition In or. th f investigation in the documents of the local Christiandenominations. local the of documents the in 192 ct, e should we city, e

Name - siiain A Vko Krd argues Karády Viktor As assimilation. ade many j ade many

nml Rző Bass Rezső namely , name -

magyarization is more interesting in their case. their in interesting more is magyarization of baptism of ouncil as he had he as ouncil , 50

sne eom es n O and Jews reform since , e sd o hunt to used he

- magyari okes other with

also among Kőszeg Jewry Kőszeg among iven city or town had more rights than more had town or city iven zation and possibly baptism as the as baptism possibly and zation in

Kőszeg became one of the most most the of one became Kőszeg see

a good position on the virilist virilist the on position good a -

o magyarized their name that name their magyarized o ticket. ticket.

As Harsányi describes him describes Harsányi As h ohr side. other the , s ey motn fr our for important very is 190 citizens. Jakab Rosenstingl, who Rosenstingl, Jakab

which was not possible, and possible, not was 189 s dueling in 1909 in dueling s rthodoxies rthodoxies

es Bs, who Bass, Rezső 191

a a typical a was ,

thus it seems it thus ,

One part of of part One On es used Jews

o the of e - i not did 6. my 164.

as ,

CEU eTD Collection number. onlytheoretical a isthis that authorsemphasize 197 196 195 194 Kürti (Certificates). Lipót Kohn to in 4.), 1914 October (KV 1914. Pál to Pollák i 7.) September. 1913. (KV Darvas, to Deutsch Artúr Jolán and Jenő, 1913 193 the in Jewry Kőszeg among decision complic personal every investigate to possible not is It sound as alien Magyar as inother dominant towns. u minority considerable a period interwar the in still and language German which in environment an in probably Most names. they that evident quite is it Jewry, Kőszeg assimilating 12 every that conclusion the to led were Kozma István and Karády Viktor out If magyarized. few a labor forced in men of list the and 1944 in Kőszeg of Jews deported Kőszeg than get to harder much of Interestin forJew theChristians. minorities Christian name that emphasizes in appeared mostly

Karády, 1997, p. 125. Karády,1997, in (Certificates), Szász magyarizedto Weisz Sándor in 1913 Kemény Kohn (Certificates), to Izidor In1903 Karády Viktor KarádyViktor 205 pp. Harsányi, p. 126. Karády,1997, name

f h 9 Jws pros lived persons Jewish 91 the of

before

ayrzd hi nms a names: their magyarized

ated process of assimilation. Even in such a small community we have seen the two two the seen have we community small a such in Even assimilation. of process ated - did attempt to attempt did th magyarization among Kőszeg Jews Kőszeg among magyarization gly enough, in the interw the in enough, gly

person magyarized his or her name. her or his magyarized person . 195

– we Unfortunately

Kozma IstváKozma - 206 and 209 and 206

count them not as not them count

permission for name magyarization from the Ministry Ministry the from magyarization name for permission

in Hungary in the

194 - magyarization magyarization get the permission, or not or permission, the get

oa press local

n, - 210, or Löwinger, pp. 166 pp. or Löwinger, 210, Név és nemzet Név ,

such as Germans, Slovaks or Serbs. A Jew still remained a remained still Jew A Serbs. or Slovaks Germans, as such crig o y calculation my to ccording

ar period, between 1918 and 1939, and 1918 between period, ar o o ko wehr oe of some whether know not do

ih ayr surnames Magyar with and

families, but families, a nt as not was

(Name and nation), Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2002. p. 53. The 2002. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest: nation), and (Name posteri .

51 W

197

e should not forget that forget not should e orly

. Although we cannot count count cannot we Although

fetv i cs o Jw, as Jews, of case in effective as individuals, as 167. But, if we have we if But,

n it certificates birth in

did

n őzg in Kőszeg in , n 1914 Sándor, Sándor, JózsefErzsébet and n1914

ny w out two only not ,

a German surname did not not did surname German a among assimilating Jewry assimilating among we can find can we

e t b te dominant the be to sed

tend the , a 196

I did not find any caseany find not Idid look at the list of list the at look

es eotd from deported Jews we can see that onlythat see can we

in this this in . o magyarize to 193

for Home Affairs Home for h ery 1940s early the

aáy rightly Karády of the number of number the

that period it was it period

in case of of case in

only families

their

two the .

CEU eTD Collection p. 241. 2012. Jelenkor, 200 199 Jews the of Pre Between 198 Jews: against accusations following the claimed He connection. that proves also county the of assembly the at 1903 his made who Kincs István Kőszeg, of priest Catholic the of example leader, 20 the of turn the before even statements antisemitic strong Arrow the of members sources.” different from sprang and category different a of were Jewry the and should differenti 20 the of beginning the from changed and Kőszeg in emerged antisemitism local how investigate should we Now inKőszeg 3.2. Antisemitism “Magyar most the became Community Israelite denom the I Chapter in seen have we as moreover German, than rather dominant, became language Hungarian gradually Kőszeg of Community as of requirements the overfulfilled Bass Rezső different very

Volkov, p. 52. p. Volkov, yn, p 228 pp. Gyáni, Krisztián Ungváry, Ungváry, Krisztián . Shul . 200 ination ofKőszegby the 20 theturn of not

interwar

t pltcl antisemiti political ate

(edited by Francois Furet) New York: Schocken Books, 1989. pp. 33 pp. 1989. Books, Schocken York: New Furet) by Francois (edited clearly proves the connection between 19 between connection the proves clearly - underestimate the connection between them between connection the underestimate 1914 and Nazi and 1914 amit Volkov separates the two by two the separates Volkov amit

answers to the assimilation offer. Jakab Lock stayed strictly Orthodox, while Orthodox, strictly stayed Lock Jakab offer. assimilation the to answers -

231. and Shulamit Volkov, “The Written Matter and the Spoken Word Word Spoken the and Matter Written “The Volkov, Shulamit and 231. antisemitism

Horthy A

Cross Party Cross Anti etbhn Otooy n eae eom community reform a became and Orthodoxy behind left

th ayr dik ht uh cnps u t te eih tavern Jewish the to due schnapps much that drink Magyars -

Semitism” In Semitism” - c edzr mérlege rendszer

nuy to entury

one that one m eoe n atr ol Wr I, War World after and before sm looked up to up looked

eventually Unanswered Questions: The Nazi Germany and the Genocide the and Germany Nazi The Questions: Unanswered

h ed f h 1930s. the of end the (h Bto Ln o te Horthy the of Line Bottom (The , 52 th

saying that saying

century.

iiain A te ae time, same the At similation.

B led to the mass destruction of destruction mass the to led th ishop Ottokár Prohászka, who had who Prohászka, Ottokár ishop

century , nor the connecti the nor ,

“the murderous acts of the Nazis the of acts murderous “the the inter the th

cen

- 198 53. Admittedly, 199 uy a ter spiritual their as tury, war

but antisemitic speech in speech antisemitic h fc that fact The on between pre between on

antisemitism. t seems it - sys tem) Budapest: Budapest: tem)

–

we should should we the - Hungari On the Gap Gap the On , speaking” speaking”

and also and ht we that Jewish

many

very very The war war an -

CEU eTD Collection they as 201 ruin country’s the led only assimilation their and Jews Hungarian emancipating connec and pre all that thought econom Treaty Trianon the to reaction a As mentality atmosphere for useful and popular particularly were statements hence battlefield, developed the gradually in part their take not did Jews as I War World experie his by affected been had he that claimed He antisemite. strong a became Lingauer I. War World after right ideology L Albin example of the in role important antisemitism. racist anti clerical Kőszeg: will I Now proof prejudices. forformerlyexisted the revo the war, the of experiences The before. existed had I War World after Jews against accusations vivid the that clear also them for profitable is it until king army,are loyalthe to they Christi than tax less pay socialism, behind are Jews keepers,

KV. 1903. October 18. October 1903. KV. - war era. war ingauer was most most was ingauer ic circumstances of the c the of circumstances ic opportunist

, therefore therefore , e te to them ted clericalanti

collect the collect They wanted political reforms and strongly criticized liberalism and capitalism, and liberalism stronglycriticized and reforms political wanted They this

happened because of the of because happened István Kincs István

I m opinion my In . ic city’s political life political city’s

uas, potnsi atsmts, anti antisemitism, opportunistic Judaism,

ucsfly sd t o his for it used successfully - four antisemitism.

Judaism Jewry probably not the only person who drastically changed his political his changed drastically who person only the not probably

forms of antisemitism, or anti or antisemitism, of forms

n also and . lution and the Hungarian Soviet Republic only served as a a as served only Republic Soviet Hungarian the and lution

, ountry

the

, noted ,

, he was a respected and prominent figure, the figure, prominent and respected a was he ,

the and

only

nobility,

use

53 depression local priest local mistaken the paupe the

d to be a liberal journalist but journalist liberal a be to d

elzd h opruiy ht antisemitic that opportunity the realized

own mostly

politics of liberal governments of the of governments liberal of politics

rization of rization

a f h society, the of still upss Thus purposes.

- political Jewishn . ans, do not take their part in the in part their take not do ans,

201

aristocrats in the interwar period had an had period interwar the in

Through this example this example this isThrough this - iea atsmts and antisemitism liberal society, many politicians politicians many society, ess that I have found in found have I that ess career .

, hy huh that thought They h general the

wud al this call would I his n t in

after the war the after antisemitism e interwar he cs in nces ly

local bad bad

CEU eTD Collection generalMárkus Tihanyi’s ideology and the anti for basis good a created Kősz i how imagine can We antisemitism. political about think not did people ordinary probably Most questions. r everyday and antisemitism political other each enhanced and source antisemitism of forms these I racist antisemites. literally were they understanding my in hence libel, blood the like accusations accepted wanted and ÉME like organ their and people rights their narrow and Jewry, the Certainly, antisemitism less Jews, with problems these connected demagogues that saw clearly he although middle “historical” the of pauperization of problem “econo their for altogether Jews attacked writings and speeches seen, have we as 1936, from Parliament Magyars. Christian exploited t seems t

also eg that the respected priest respected the that eg these , cetd this accepted

as we have seen have we as

to anti

already exclude them from them exclude types of anti of types elations, -

liberal

, per se per noted three types of antisemites wanted to de to wanted antisemites of types three noted

izations that appeared from the turn of turn the from appeared that izations he

antisemitism. dooy s a as ideology accepting h oiis f ifrn tps f nieiim r nt h key the not are antisemitism of types different of origins the

does not appear not does

- , were mixed, were

Jewishness , but had a very important role in supporting it. supporting in role important very a had but , attacked Jewry altogether Jewry attacked

, but they did not did they but , me Németh Imre , István Kincs had been had Kincs István , .

Religious anti Religious

society. They referred to the to referred They society. the local opportunistic antisemite, Albin Lingauer’s and Lingauer’s Albin antisemite, opportunistic local the

stemmed from different sources different from stemmed s

moreover, lto. ht s h I would I why is That olution.

a racist antisemite on the whole, but vehemently vehemently but whole, the on antisemite racist a i cnus. Sne e atd o ov the solve to wanted he Since conquest.” mic a ti kn o ielg. codn t his to According ideology. of kind this had 54 ,

nfluential

- h ws h rpeettv o Kse in Kőszeg of representative the was who - Jewish atmosphere of the in atmosphere theJewish of

Judaism perhaps was not the fundament of fundament the not was perhaps Judaism think about destroying them. destroying about think

in myunderstanding in , whenever they had the had they whenever , -

ls ad h poverty the and class talking against Jews. Certainly, this Certainly, Jews. against talking it

was for the Catholic majority Catholic the for was

the Protocols of Elders of Zion, of Elders of Protocols

eiiu anti religious

1920 - emancipate Hungarian emancipate s did s

. But . built call terwar. .

At in most cases most in - commona on These groups These But, far But, this uas and Judaism

opportunity opportunity n general in he local level local

political more or more - right

of of ,

CEU eTD Collection 1920. MartineumNyomda, Szombathely: Szombathely) and County in Vas revolution 204 period. whole the sameduring the was tendency onlyThe once. attended 203 202 from somewhere else a as myth of typical note the even not background, Repu Soviet Hungarian myth of characteristic interesting other The the impression thattheyfelt C City the of members Jewish every the how far how seen have We the same mentality. business. in Magyars speech the to according yea interwar the in but II,in Chapter periods two these in pre in same werethe Jewry. view, acculturated this supports and assimilated the became antisemites of target the period interwar the in Magyars, to enough assimilate not did who Jews attacked mostly with line In

Gyáni, p. 216. p. Gyáni, Harsányi, p. 180. eight of nine Jewish members did not attend any meetings in 1920, while Kamill Eisner Eisner Kamill while 1920, in meetings any attend not did members Jewish nine of eight 180. p. Harsányi, ee László Deme,

was vivid in the city, in case of local Jews who took part in the revolution and the and revolution the in part took who Jews local of case in city, the in vivid was

strong supporter of interw of supporter strong the whole examined period of period examined whole the

Miklós Szabó, Gábor Gyáni states that while in the prewar years antisemitism years prewar the in while that states Gyáni Gábor Szabó, Miklós

he day

–

was punished in 1913 for inviting and helping poor Jews who worecaftans, andJews helping poor in1913for inviting punished was Keleti, József: József: Keleti, relationship changed between Jews and non and Jews between changed relationship

b . We should We . -

ut I would I ut , m

war and post and war I argue that argue I - rs he could have been attacked been have could he rs right like right

ost probably pressfrom theofBudapest antisemitic lc a lat h lcl weekly local the least at blic, and ideology and they were notwelcome

z lefraao Vsámgée é Szombathelyen és Vasvármegyében ellenforradalom Az ouncil did not attend the meetings that they used to used they that meetings the attend not did ouncil d contemporary counter contemporary d

emphasize that in many cases many in that emphasize cite

ÉME attacked local Jews local attacked ÉME - these warperiods

the example of Jakab Lo Jakab example of the ar anti ar

local antisemitism that although the Judeo the although that antisemitism local of Imre of

manifestations őzgé Vidéke és Kőszeg - Jewishness was not experienced. not was Jewishness 55

, but their victims also victims their but ,

Németh, did not give a chance a give not did Németh, .

- were only different justifications of justifications different only were imply as a Jewish shopkeeper who, shopkeeper Jewish a as imply revolutioner’s memoir. revolutioner’s

i nt mhsz ter Jewish their emphasize not did

in Kőszeg, but we do we but Kőszeg, in

. It seems the Judeo the seems It . ck -

Jews. However, the fact the However, Jews. not only not

again

. As it has been shown beenhas it As . same werethe

a ntisemitic persons ntisemitic 202 .

It (h Counter (The , y research My to

204 was learned was - -

Bolshevik Bolshevik Christian not know know not That was That 203

persons

gives

that - -

CEU eTD Collection Antisemitism Modern of Contexts Social 205 happened Kőszeg. inthe society of had that mentality an an become neededto arenot hand experiencesonepersonal the on arguesthat Sartre Kőszeg.society of Jean that assume I Thus, Hungary an Bass, or Lock Kopfstein, Horthy the of mentality and ideology e not were Magyars I War World period. antisemitic most his in even Parliament far of ideas. associations local antisemitic for Kőszeg of in affinity an was there establishments that show 1) Chapter in the (see organizations and elections of results The

Jean

- Paul Sartre, “What is an Anti isan “What Sartre, Paul li Lnae wn the won Lingauer Albin d the nation wasd the apparently , ti ht they that semite, on the other hand other the on semite,

already xperienced by local citizens, they were likely to accept the antisemitic the accept to likely were they citizens, local by xperienced

i nt ae hi pr i te ateils and battlefields the in part their take not did -

al ates theory Sartre’s Paul but been built. been

- h ie o a e wo a bhn al f h polm of problems the of all behind was who Jew a of idea the Semite?” in Semite?”

(edited by Helen Fein), Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1987. pp. 58 pp. Gruyter,1987. de W. Berlin: byFein), Helen (edited lcin n bcm te representative the became and election

205 -

regime. Certainly, in general they did not condemn not did they general in Certainly, regime. accepted

According to my investigation my to According The Persisting Question Question Persisting The former 56

Although the accusations against Jews after Jews against accusations the Although

bu atsmts i antisemitism about by themajority society

or act ual experiences ual –

Soc iological Perspectives and Perspectives and iological vld n ae f the of case in valid s .

cannot , exploit

something similar something

f h city the of

ed question the question

Christian - 63.

- right

CEU eTD Collection their itself into Ne and Hungarian assimilation; compared period. tothe interwar pre the in better much was Jewry Kőszeg of situation the Certainly, policy andH mentalityofthe anti general the accepted they whole the on seems it society, the from Jewry Kőszeg Jewry. local threatening Christian probably M borders. a in was Kőszeg seen, have we As scapegoat without nothing post warstarted.before the emergedlong had antisemitism that seenhavewe s the At develop. could antisemitism which in field ideal an created events These Hungary. in mentality political the influenced 1919 the I, War World Conclusion vertheless, they had to face to had they vertheless, -

war antisemitism was much more exclusive than exclusive more much was antisemitism war and Ide, it Indeed, .

the -

, osraie ate bt al but parties conservative strengthened and roe, h thr the oreover, ot importantly most

pre i responsible forresponsible

s ebr wr gradually were members ts

own

- war elg bcm te oiat denomination, dominant the became Neology

1918

circle

a bree wt te ihy iapitn Pae Treaty Peace disappointing highly the with burdened was nieii mentality, antisemitic

oa Mga nationalism. Magyar local Although, the majority society apparently did not want to exclude to want not did apparently society majority the Although, eouin te shor the revolution, s , and a ta te iy ol possibly could city the that eat orthy ,

the problems of the Hungarian ofthe the problems society.

the the

local antisemitism and as and antisemitism local some even

Kőszeg Jewry as a community fulfilled the requirements a of fulfilled community the as Kőszeg Jewry - era. outcomes ame time, as time, ame p

so riual bad articularly

left the city.left the the

57 pro o te ugra Sve Republic Soviet Hungarian the of period t es could Jews f the of hnig hi la their changing

far

in general in the country, the in general in -

ih cud eoe oe powerful, more become could right

Under these circumstances not only only not circumstances these Under

1920 the

economic

not pre a

reaction, the community locked community the reaction, Trianon Peace Treaty strongly strongly Treaty Peace Trianon

- bec war one war have o ngua

m oiin u t te new the to due position

ahr hn Orthodoxy. than rather appear part e -

war years, particularly particularly years, war , ge from German to to German from ge

Certainly, although Certainly,although d

id not come from come not id ed f Austria of

also

as a possible possible a as However, .

in Kőszeg in - Jewish

most most

CEU eTD Collection same period, the in situation similar the in f Certainly, country. the in tendencies general the about phenomena the on not should We Hungary. of period interwar thesis This loca t practice. in antisemitism of characteristics the but Hungary, Through és Vidéke 1930s late ex 20 the of turn the at even Jewry against accusations the seen have we A hat ccording ponentially

l antisemites rsrtos jaose adpltcl ambitions political and jealousies frustrations, .

towns of the Western Hungarian Western the of towns the present the in between these twoperiods as well. in between these , however ,

to my sources, my to presents only one example of the environment in which Jews had to live in the in live to had Jews which in environment the of example one only presents

stronger .

that we have found in found have we that

occasionally resea . It reached its peak reachedits It .

rch we rch interwar th

century.

to see how far t far how see to

strongly antisemitic strongly have

antisemitism in Kőszeg in antisemitism

t h sm tm antisemitism time same the At see region Kőszeg s

n in the early 1920s and from the mid the from and early1920s the in

that became much stronger after the war the after stronger much became that

58 not only the general political radicalization of of radicalization political general the only not overgeneralize the situation in Hungary b Hungary in situation the overgeneralize , particularly in border cities which were in a in were which cities border in particularly ,

he cir he

és Vidéke és

were cumstances sentiments were expressed in expressed were sentiments urther research urther

typically , howeve ,

did not come from nothing. As nothing. from come not did Thus, we can understand better better understand can we Thus,

and phenomenon and

behind the decisions of of decisions the behind r we can have an image image an have can we r

would be necessary be would a nt becoming not was - 1930s

were the the were

Kőszeg Kőszeg existed existed

to ased the

CEU eTD Collection The Hebrew1992, pp. 23 University, Economy Hungarian the in 1790 Hungary, in Commerce of modernization the and “Jews Péter, Hanák, Gyáni, Gábor, Budapest: Corvina Ki Assimiliation? (Imagined Katalin: Fenyves 1920. Counter LászlóDeme, Press, 1983.pp.189 Jewis Yehuda Don, New York:University Press, Columbia 1994. L., Randolph Braham Bihari, Péter, Literature: (NationalLibrary) FM3/779 Széchényi Microfilm: Vidéke és Kőszeg Library) Mi Vidéke és Kőszeg Egyenlőség Egyenlőség Periodicals LevéltárZsidó Archive) Jewish (Hungarian 1851 Anyakönyvek Kőszegi (Hungarian Archive) Jewish Is Neolog the of Protocol (The 17.) jegyzőkönyve hitközség izraelita congr. kőszegi A Archival Sources: Bibliography Sca Suis Vl 4, o 3/4 No. 45, Vol. Studies, Social h

- revolu , 1893. 29, , September : crofilm: FM3/779 crofilm:

May 11 Lövészárkok ahátországban Lövészárkok – – Nép, nemzet, zsidó Nép, nemzet, in n a Cut ad Szombathely) and County Vas in tion

Keleti, József: Keleti, József: Magos, George, “The Demographic development of Hungarian Jewry” In Jewry” Hungarian of development Demographic “The George, Magos,

, Eey su bten 99 n 1939. and 1909 between issue Every ,

coe 18, October Képzelt asszimiláció? asszimiláció? Képzelt - , 1929. 216. ( 216. adó, 2010. adó, T e oiis f Genocide of politics he https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467225

available onlineat –

- (edited by Michael K. Silber), Jerusalem: The The Jerusalem: Silber), K. Michael by (edited

1895

h Self The Az ellenforradalom Vasvármegyében és Szombathelyen

1903.

(People, Nation, Pozsony: Jew), Kiadó,2013. Kalligram availableat online

Criiae o Kse) Mcoim A59 Magyar A3539. Microfilm: Kőszeg). of (Certificates raelite Community of Kőszeg). of Community raelite - 39. rzgs zcéy Knvá (ainl Széchényi (National Könyvtár Széchényi Országos - mg o Fu Jws Itleta Generations) Intellectual Jewish Four of image

, Budapest: NapvilágKiadó, 2008. (Summer

– 59

http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/

éy sd étliéi ezdk önképe nemzedék értelmiségi zsidó Négy –

(1894. szeptember 11. szeptember (1894.

h Hlcut n Hungary in Holocaust The http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/ –

uun 18) Indi 1983), Autumn, zmahl: atnu Nyomda, Martineum Szombathely:

rzgs zcéy Könyvtár Széchényi Országos

accessed 10.04.2014.) Magyar Zsidó Levéltá Zsidó Magyar –

1901. november 1901. -

1848” In: 1848” n University ana ans Press, Magnes Vlm II, Volume ,

Jews (The (The

CEU eTD Collection 42. Budapest, (available 1912. online: Népszámlálási at: Lexikon Zsidó Magyar Thirring,Gusztáv Évkönyve Statisztikai Városok Magyar University 2007. Press, Lupovit SufferedDeath) zsidóságnak vasmegyei (edited), In Albert Avraham zsidótörvények” Löwinger, a és clausus’ Kiadó, 2005,pp.128 ‘numerus perspektívában “A európai Magyarországon M., Mária Kovács, 1988/8 Andr Kovács, 2012. History Komoróczy 1919 Nathanial, Katzburg, 19 published byPress ofNew University 1995. England, County Jacob, Katz, Vas http:// in question Attila: Katona, 2002. Century Twentieth Viktor Karády Early in Crime of Dimensions Hungary", "Denominational Victor: Karády, Embourgeoisement, Assimilation Karády, Hungary Magyarországon”( történelmi a Magyarországon kérdése over “túliskolázás” Jewish of zsidó question “A Viktor: Karády, Elections Hungary if ine László: Hubai, the 1914 világháb (edited): Márton Hegedűs, Országos 1974. Képviselete, László: Harsányi, http://mek.oszk.hu/04000/04093/html/ -

1943), Budapest: Bábel Kiadó,2002. www.idi.btk.pte.hu/dokumentumok/disszertaciok/katonaattilaphd.pdf -

9. Budapest ch, Howard N. Howard ch, of - ) orú emlékére orú 1918 World War),1918 World ,

Viktor: Budapest: CEU History Department History CEU Yearbook Jews

Géza, ás, “Az asszimilációs dilemma” (The Dilemma of Assimilation) In Assimilation) of Dilemma (The dilemma” asszimilációs “Az ás,

ih y w Eyes Own my With adatok – Magyarország XX. századi választási atlasza 1920 atlasza választási századi XX. Magyarország , Jaffa: Efrájim Nyomda, 1974. Efrájim , Jaffa: Zsidóság és zsidókérdés Vas vármegyében 1920 vármegyében Vas zsidókérdés és Zsidóság

in Kozma István, Kozma

Budapest: Budapest Házinyomdája, Székesfőváros –

ksei zsidók kőszegi A , pp.605

A Hungary - sdsg pláooá, asszimiláció polgárosodás, Zsidóság, Neveléstört 139.

O Zsidópolitika Magyarországon 1919 Magyarországon Zsidópolitika

zsidók (The Golden Album of the Magyar Veteran Jews: for the Memory of Memory the for Jews: Veteran Magyar the of Album Golden (The

1910 r

(Hungarian Jewish Lexikon) edited by Ujvári, 1929. available online available 1929. Ujvári, by edited Lexikon) Jewish (Hungarian

s Jews at the Crossroads the at Jews (For the Memory of Vas County Jews: For Vas County Jews Who Jews County Vas For Jews: County Vas of Memory the (For zágos Pedagógiai és Könyvtár 1994.pp. Múzeum, th 20 -

coln i hsoia Hungary historical in schooling

- (reprint) (Data of Census of 1910) In: Statisztikai In: 1910) of Census of (Data

612. Mga hdiet sdk rnabm: z 1914 az aranyalbuma: zsidók hadviselt Magyar A II. története th

Century 1920 nt fztk 4 ( 14. füzetek éneti – Név és nemzet és Név

- From Studies) BudapestStudies) Hnoe ad odn Badi Uiest Press, University Brandeis London: and Hannover , ,

Budapest: 20 Te es f Kőszeg) of Jews (The http://www.omm1910.hu/?/adatbank

vs zió elkr: mríhll szenvedett mártírhalált a emlékére: zsidók vasi A Magyarországon (Statistical Yearbook of Hungarian Cities) Hungarian of Yearbook (Statistical

- 1849 98 PD israin 2008 dissertation PhD 1938)

(dtd y ui Mlá) Budapes Molnár), Judit by (edited , 60 -

2000 , 2001 until

(Name and nation), Budapest: Osiris Kiadó Osiris Budapest: nation), and (Name Zrínyi , New York New , )

Nowadays) Budap - h Hi The : Cserépfalvi1997. Kiadó,

02, pp.187

Kiadó, 2013

II. - In ) est: Napvilág Kiadó, 194

story – –

uaet Mga Izraeliták Magyar Budapest: 3 uaet eta European Central Budapest:

1849 A zsidó iskolaügy története története iskolaügy zsidó A

- Pozsony: - - (Jewish

197. 1938 . f eih dcto in Education Jewish of -

Tanulmányok. 2000 -

1912.

től

Közlemények volume Közlemények . (Jewry and Jewish and (Jewry .

- . a

policy in Hungary in policy

Kalligram (The (The

)

7 jelenkorig

- 38. holokauszt A available: ,

Atlas of the of Atlas 2001.

Világosság

: Balassi t:

edited by edited - 1918

(Jewry, Kiadó, ,

(The The The - as - ,

CEU eTD Collection Budapest: 2012. Jelenkor, Krisztián, Ungváry 53. Jews the of Genocide Anti Nazi and 1914 Word Spoken the and Matter Written “The Shulamit, Volkov, Szeremley, József, 1975/Issue 6. Right the between újkonzervati (Middle között” radikalizmus polgári és a és jobbszárnya “Középosztály Miklós, Szabó, 237 Istvá (1865 City Royal Free a as Kőszeg of Years (1865 Last évei (The utolsó törvényhatóságának város királyi szabad “Kőszeg Imre: Söptei, Museu Jüdisches A., Erwin Schmidl, de Gruyter,W. 58 1987. pp. Antisemitism Modern of Contexts Social and Perspectives Sartre, www.ceeol.com In: century) felében” első of század Courses 19. (The a fejlődésirányzatai zsidóság vidéki magyar “A Walter, Pietsch, Patai, Raphael, Budapest:Kiadó, 2012. Jaffa Rudolf, Paksa, Kőszeg: pp.287 Polgármesteri Város Kőszeg 2000. Hivatala, In 1920s) the of Part First the in felében első Ferenc: Őry,

- 286. Brsa n Ir Spe Kse: őzg áo Plámsei Hivatala Polgármesteri Város Kőszeg Kőszeg: Söptei Imre and Bariska n

Jean

- ” Paul,

“ (The Influence (The út s Jövő és Múlt tinn bkdkáu hts Kse gzaái ltr a 1920 az életére gazdasági Kőszeg hatása békediktátum trianoni A The Jews of Hungary The Jews ) mga sésjb történet szélsőjobb magyar A m, 1989.

the Development of Hungarian Rural Jewry in the First Half of the 19th the of Half First the in Jewry Rural Hungarian of Development the

Wa i a Anti an is “What Kőszeg, anyugatiKőszeg, végvár - ig f oiia Ctoiim n Cvl Radical Civil and Catholicism Political of wing Horthy A -

es n h Hbbr Amd Forces Armed Habsburg the in Jews (edited by Francois Furet) New York: Schocken Books, 1989. pp. 33 pp. 1989. Books, Schocken York: New Furet) Francois by (edited eiim In Semitism”

63.

of the Trianon Peace Treaty on the Economic Life of Kőszeg of Life Economic the on Treaty Peace Trianon the of - Ps ad uue, issue Future), and (Past edzr mérlege rendszer

Kőszeg 2000 Kőszeg , Detroit: Wayne 1996. University Press, State nnwrd Question Unanswered - eie” in Semite?” ,

61 (Kőszeg theWestern(Kőszeg Castle)

e (h Bto Ln o te Horthy the of Line Bottom (The , edited by Istvan Bariska and Imre Söptei, Söptei, Imre and Bariska Istvan by edited

vi Te itr o Hnain Far Hungarian of History (The T ms Hr a oiia katolicizmus politikai a Harc zmus: he Persisting Question Question Persisting he - class and New and class - /03 p. 75 pp. 3/2003, 1876))

: h Nz Gray n the and Germany Nazi The s: (edited by Helen Fein), Berlin: Fein), Helen by (edited - Esntd: Österreichisches Eisenstadt: , 315. –

in On the Gap Between Pre Between Gap the On

Kőszeg 2000 Kőszeg - Conservatism: Fight Conservatism: s) In ism) -

2 (vial at (available 82. Debrecen, 1942. –

Sociological 2000, , Világosság , edited by by edited ,

- - - as évek évek as system) system) - Right), Right), 1876)”

pp.

- -