The Politics of Exclusion and Retribution in the Hungarian Film

Industry, 1929-1947

Susan M. Papp

A dissertation submitted in conformity with the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of History University of Toronto

The Politics of Exclusion and Retribution in the Hungarian Film Industry, 1929-1947

Susan M. Papp Doctor of Philosophy University of Toronto 2020 Abstract

This dissertation examines how the interwar and postwar governments in

Hungary politicized and shaped the film industry to do their bidding and how filmmakers, actors and actresses reacted to those political pressures. The interwar conservative government of Miklós Horthy set out to mold the film industry to suit its ideals and ideas, while, at the same time, seeking to limit the number of Jews in the professions. This dissertation investigates the resulting conflicted political forces that brought about the creation of the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber. It examines the impact of the chamber, specifically how those working in the film industry were affected by these laws and new measures.

The archival files of the postwar certification committees provide significant historical insight into the leadership and antisemitic narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era. In particular, these files illuminate the motivations of the individuals leading the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. The certification committees established to investigate the wartime activities of those involved in the film industry played a significant role in creating a positive postwar identity. In 1945, this identity grew out of the belief that Hungary had been a victim of Nazi aggression. The postwar system of retribution sought to smooth the transition, and to salvage the once thriving film industry. After the Communist Party consolidated its hold on the government in

May 1949, the regime recruited and rehabilitated famous Hungarian actors from the interwar era. The alleged crimes of these actors and actresses and their subsequent postwar convictions were no longer an issue of importance. The political trials that unfolded in the late 1940s served the position and power of the new elites more than anything else. By the early 1950s, the Cold War took precedence over retribution following the Second World War and the outcome of these trials seemed irrelevant. This dissertation notably adds to the research and discussion of how to shape, and for what purpose, a nation’s memory of the war and postwar years. This question is still being formed and framed in Hungary today, as it is in many European countries.

iii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation represents seven years of work. Through fieldwork and countless hours of reviewing original sources in eleven archives in Canada, the

United States and Hungary, as well as generating ideas, writing, rewriting and soliciting thoughtful feedback from my trusted committee, I was able to further hone my skills as a historian and writer. I wish to acknowledge all those who helped me on this journey, in particular, my very supportive advisor, Professor

Andres Kasekamp, Professor Piotr Wróbel who has been consistently encouraging throughout this process, and Professor Julie MacArthur, who has been most helpful. All were very positive in shaping my dissertation. I am grateful to Professors Attila Pok, Thomas Lahusen and Kyle Smith who gave generously of their time in joining the committee for my defense.

Professor Doris Bergen, the Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of

Holocaust Studies at the University of Toronto, provided me with guidance and support throughout. In 2015, I was fortunate to become a Fellow at the Jack,

Joseph and Morton Mandel Centre for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the

United States Holocaust Museum and want to thank fellow colleagues and researchers at the Centre for their inspiration and encouragement in my research and writing. Special thanks also to Steve Feldman and Suzanne Brown-Fleming, as well as the researchers and historians who were forthcoming with their advice, particularly Vincent Slatt, Megan Lewis, and Elizabeth Anthony.

Scholars who lent constructive guidance in foreign archives included

Tibor Sándor, Márk Záhonyi-Ábel and Zoltán Csadi in Budapest. Professor Judit

Némethy was generous in sharing her private collection of archival documents

regarding the Hungarian actors who worked in the Argentine diaspora. Thanks also to Michael Reményi, who allowed access to the papers of Tibor Polgár. In addition, my archival work at the Library of Congress, New York Public Library for Performing Arts, and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University provided key insights.

While writing my dissertation, I had the privilege to work with several distinguished scholars on academic publications, including Ferenc Laczó, László

Csősz, and Professor Antony Polonsky. I gained valuable experience and tremendous insight through these projects and am grateful for their advice and counsel. Others who inspired me as co-presenters at conferences include

Professors David Frey, János Kenyeres and Tamás Stark. Thanks also to

Professor Anna Shternshis, Director of the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish

Studies at the University of Toronto as well as to Professors Levente Diosady,

László Endrényi, Adrienne Hood, and Professor Lynn Viola for their assistance and encouragement. My sister Professor Klara K. Papp, and Rod McQueen were tireless in their willingness to review chapters and provide feedback. I would also like to express my appreciation to Robert Austin, Ph.D., Tomasz Frydel,

Nina Munk, Steve Penfold, Ph.D., Anna Porter, Eva Tomory, Ph.D, and Amanda

Wagner of the Information Commons.

I have had the privilege of working as a filmmaker and writer. Through this experience, I met and interviewed Yitzhak Livnat, also known as Suti, who was a survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary. Documenting the story of this remarkable man and his sister Hedy Weisz, in my book Outcasts, later a documentary, has deepened my knowledge of the Holocaust. I believe this

dissertation is a much more comprehensive and accessible work because of the insight and experience I gained from researching and writing their story.

Although he is no longer with us, I will always be grateful to Suti for his kindness and generosity in sharing his past.

Finally, I would like to honour my parents, Gábor and Katalin Papp, who were refugees to North America. They, as well as my grandfather who was formerly a Senator in the parliament of Czechoslovakia, instilled in me a great passion for life-long learning. They passed on the truism shared by all who are uprooted and are forced to establish themselves in another land, namely that, “it is only what is in your head that remains, all else can be taken away.”

The sense of achievement I feel in completing this degree is combined with the sadness of knowing that my husband Béla is not able to celebrate this accomplishment with me, though his encouragement was instrumental in helping me to see this through. I will always be grateful for his ongoing, loving support.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Introduction & the Argument ...... 1

Review of Literature ...... 9

Methodology and Sources ...... 25

Chapter 2: Setting the Stage (1914-1929) From optimism to energy to the near death of the film industry ...... 31

Hungarian Jews and the visual arts ...... 31

The legal situation of Hungarian Jews ...... 34

Filmmaking nationalized (1919) ...... 37

The economic and political impact of Trianon (1920) ...... 40

Numerus Clausus ...... 44

Conclusion ...... 51

Chapter 3: The creation of the Chamber System (1929-1939) ...... 53

The revolution in the technology of film: the talkies ...... 55

Exclusionary tactics in film ...... 62

Structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber ...... 74

Conflicted push-pull influences ...... 80

Conclusion ...... 83

Chapter 4: Religious vs. Racial antisemitism and the impact on the film industry (1939-1944) ...... 85

Fight vs. Flight: The Jewish community responds ...... 89

The Film Chamber: new membership rules and coping mechanisms ...... 98

Impact on the film industry ...... 107

vii

The end of the Horthy era ...... 117

Conclusion ...... 121

Chapter 5: Who survived and how (1945-1947) Actors and actresses as a means of building a new democratic Hungary (1945-1947) ...... 124

Postwar centralization and stabilization ...... 129

Priorities and the inner workings of the Certification Committees ...... 138

Conclusion ...... 152

Chapter 6: The process of certification and political influences ...... 154

Early files of the Certification Committee: opportunity and influence ...... 159

The process of certification for film employees ...... 166

Film industry related smaller Certification Committees ...... 173

Conclusion ...... 179

Chapter 7: Re-Writing the past: controversial films, theatre productions and inconsistent rulings ...... 181

The trial of Ferenc Kiss ...... 182

The search for plausibility: the prosecution of members of the executive ...... 194

Controversial films, conflicted outcomes ...... 201

The curious case of Antal Páger ...... 204

Conclusion ...... 216

Chapter 8: Conclusion ...... 219

Appendices ...... 234

Bibliography and Archival Sources ...... 265

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction & the Argument

Cinema was a pre-eminent form of popular culture during the first half of the twentieth century, certainly in Europe and North America. From the beginning of the invention of the new film technology, generations of talented filmmakers have originated from Hungary. A large percentage of filmmakers were

Hungarian Jews who were immersed in the language and the culture of the country. The first silent films created in Hungary coincided with the development of the new technology around the turn of nineteenth century. Once films were perfected to the point where they could be presented to an audience

(around 1890), cinema houses were built throughout Budapest. Hungarian audiences expressed their appreciation and enthusiasm for the art form of moving pictures to such a degree that 110 permanent cinemas were operating in

Budapest by 1914.1 The first Hungarian narrative film, Ma es Holnap [Today and

Tomorrow], was screened on October 14, 1912.2

By the last years of the First World War, only a handful of countries in the world were as advanced as Hungary in producing silent films: the United States,

Denmark, France, Italy and Germany.3 By 1918, fifteen professional Hungarian film directors were making a high number of films, when compared with directors in other countries of Europe. Most of the fifteen were former journalists.

1 Erzsébet Pongrácz, The Cinemas of Hungary, Budapest: City Hall, 1998. 2 John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004, 9-10. 3 Kőháti Zsolt, Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között [Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film, 1896-1930]. Budapest: Magyar filmintézet, 1996, 46.

1 2

Two in particular later became well known internationally: Mihály Kertész,

(Michael Curtis) and Sándor Korda (Alexander Korda).

The prodigious growth of the Hungarian film industry coincided with the

“Golden Age” of the millennium. It was a time of a self-confident liberal government, the modernization and industrialization of parts of the country, the building and development of Budapest, as well as unprecedented freedom for capitalists and the cultural and the artistic community. Starting in the mid- nineteenth century, Jews were given increasing legal freedoms to move, settle in cities, and own land. They came to Hungary in search of greater opportunities and education. This openness and acceptance of newcomers changed radically with the upheaval resulting from the First World War and the dissolution of the

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. With the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary lost two- thirds of her territory and one-third of the Hungarian-speaking population.

Hungarians became insular, bitter, and self-absorbed. A series of brief revolutions, including a Hungarian Soviet Republic, were followed by “Red

Terror” and then,“White Terror.” The best and brightest filmmakers fled the country.

Hungarian filmmakers, however, have demonstrated talent and ingenuity in producing films even during the most difficult and adversarial historical times. This dissertation explores how successive Hungarian governments have politicized and shaped the film industry to do the regime’s bidding and how filmmakers, actors and actresses reacted to these political pressures. The interwar government of Miklós Horthy, founded on conservative, Christian, anti-

Bolshevik ideology, tried to mold the film industry to suit its ideals and ideas.

The establishment of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was a result of the first and second anti-Jewish laws. The Jewish laws limited the number of Jews in the professions, legalized discrimination, and led to the exclusion of many Jews from the professions. The Chambers were a series of professional boards that governed membership in professional societies such as lawyers, physicians, engineers, journalists, filmmakers and actors and actresses. Members of these professions had to be registered with their respective Chamber in order to be able to work in their chosen field.

The First Jewish Law of 1938 (XV: 1938) specified that the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber and all the chambers established by that law should limit membership of Jews to 20 percent. One year later, in May 1939, the more draconian Second Jewish Law (IV: 1939) re-defined Jews by race instead of religion, following the Nazi model, and further restricted the number of Jews who could participate in the Chambers to 6 percent. The concept of compulsory membership in professional chambers was a modern modification of medieval guilds, one that was possibly copied from the Italian model of corporatively- structured economy.4

During the interwar period, other European countries recognized and used the power of propaganda through the medium of film as well. Other chamber systems, established in order to limit the number of Jews working in areas of film and culture, were established in Germany and Italy before Hungary enacted its own laws.

4 Yehuda Don, “The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, Periodicals Archive Online, 65.

This dissertation examines the more specific - and until now- unexplored topic of how the theatre and film community (both non-Jewish and Jewish) were affected by the implementation of the Chamber system. It explores the human costs within the film and theatre arts community through the prism of historical events as well as personal and collective reactions of the artistic community. This dissertation also views the impact of the Jewish laws, investigates the conflicted political forces that brought about the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, and examines the effects of the Chamber, specifically how Jewish and non-Jewish actors, actresses, producers, directors, and others involved in the film and theatre community were affected by these laws.

The parallel purpose of my dissertation is to examine the nature of antisemitism in Hungary during the interwar era. The nature of antisemitism in

Hungary during the interwar period that was both similar and different from the antisemitism in other European countries. My argument is that antisemitism as practiced by the Horthy regime was a form of “selective” antisemitism, meaning not whether or not there should be antisemitic legislation, but “how” and “to what effect” that legislation should be implemented.5 My analysis will demonstrate examples of this selective antisemitism through the film industry, illustrating individual vs. institutional, religious vs. racial, and idealistic vs. pragmatic.

My further purpose is to extend the scholarly work on the Theatre and

5Maria Ormos is the first to use this term in her biography of Miklos Kozma, she argues that this type of “selective antisemitism”was home-grown. Mária Ormos, Egy Magyar médiavezer: Kozma Miklos. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919-1941 [One Hungarian media leader: Miklos Kozma. Journey through hell in the media and in Politics, 1919-1941]. Vol. I & II, Budapest: PolgArt, 2000, 587.

Film Arts Chamber into the postwar era. The files of the postwar certification committees provide much historical insight into the leadership and antisemitic narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era, and in particular, the motivations of the individuals involved in leading the Theatre and

Film Art Chamber. There is a critically important historical arc that encompasses this era, from 1938 into the postwar era, defined by historian István Deák as

“institutional lawlessness,“ when innocent citizens were arbitrarily deprived of their civil rights, their property and often their life.6 Deák defines this era as spanning from 1938 to the early 1960s. My work provides further historical evidence in support of this argument of “institutional lawlessness.”

For the sake of clarity and specifically in dealing with the filmmaking industry, the interwar era is defined starting in March 1920, with the takeover of the government by Regent Horthy until March 1944, when the German army occupied Hungary and implemented the Final Solution. Even though Hungary was at war from June 1941 onwards, the filmmaking industry continued into

1944. In October, 1944, when the Nazis placed the Arrow Cross leader Ferenc

Szálasi in power, more radical changes were forced upon the leadership of the film industry. These leadership appointments were later judged by the certification committees and those decisions are analyzed within the context of this dissertation.

In order to understand the lives of individual actors affected by the Jewish

6 István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” Retribution and Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy. Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 124-147.

6 laws of 1938-39, it is necessary to provide a narrative of lived history within the world of Hungarian cinema and carry this history through to the postwar era.

My work adds to the history of the acting profession interwar. It examines how members of this profession reacted to and resolved the political pressures of the certification process during the immediate postwar era in Hungary. Postwar rhetoric was designed to remember and repress, to remember what was done to us, but not remember what was done by us to others during the war.7 My work also examines the opportunistic, not ideological involvement of ordinary people in the film industry.8

To clarify terminology utilized, the two fields of theatre and cinema often intersected. Many actors and actresses began their careers in the theatre and crossed over from the stage to become stars of film. This dissertation includes some of those actors and actresses, but only insofar as they were also active in the world of cinema. The specific case of the film industry as it was affected by the

Theatre and Film Arts Chamber in Hungary from 1938 onward provides a relevant case study.

During the interwar era, a relatively high proportion of Jews and non-Jews worked side-by-side in the fields of theatre and film. It was an industry that required much interaction and collaboration among actors, actresses, producers,

7 Tony Judt, “The Past in Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath. István Deák, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt, eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, 298. 8 See Máté Rigó, “Ordinary women and men: superintendents and Jews in the Budapest yellow- star houses in 1944-1945,” Urban History, 40, 1, 2013, 71-91. Rigo examines how ordinary people, such as building superintendents, assisted the implementation of discriminatory measures during the Nazi persecution of the Jews of Budapest. Rigo argues that the urban specificity of the older, nineteenth-century apartment buildings in Budapest provided autonomy for individual superintendents to “context or aggravate antisemitic persecution.”

7 directors, writers, cinematographers, sound technicians, editors, and many more types of technically skilled individuals. Jews and non-Jews were part of the same artistic milieu, the same theatre and film community. Once the Jewish laws were enacted, however, the goals of working together to produce an outstanding film became problematic. Some in the industry worked to find ways to help Jewish co-workers, others became bystanders, while still others took opportunistic advantage of the laws to seek out the positions normally held by Jewish colleagues. To avoid the requirements of the Film Chamber, misrepresentation seeped into the system, especially where it was difficult to find qualified people for certain skills required for film production. Jews on film credit lists were substituted with non-Jews. The situation was further complicated by the fact that there were a significant number of marriages between Jews and non-Jews within the film industry. The writings and diaries of these actors also shed light on coping mechanisms. For this dissertation, I use the term non-Jewish instead of

Christian. The Second Jewish Laws redefined Jews as a race, thus Jews who had converted to Christianity were also categorized retroactively as “racially

Jewish.”9

The literature review in this chapter demonstrates that my dissertation is the first qualitative study examining the original archival files of Magyar Szinészek

Szakszervezete Igazoló Bizottsága [Actors Certification Committee], the union set up to examine and certify the interwar activities of actors and actresses and to certify these actors and actresses postwar. I compare and contrast the methodology used

9 Thanks to Ferenc Laczó for his valuable comments and feedback. His most recent book, Hungarian Jews in the Age of Genocide: An Intellectual History, 1929-1948, was invaluable in contextualizing the history of this era.

8 by the union set up for Actors and Actresses to the methodology set up for film employees through the Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, Film

Employees Union, that included employees of Hunnia, the largest film production house during the interwar era, as well as many other smaller production companies. The difference between the certification processes of the two unions was significant. To my knowledge, no one has either pored through these extensive fonds or published on the topic.

In this dissertation, I examine the underlying reasons, opinions and motivations for the postwar certification system for the film industry through primary source material. The methodology of certification demonstrates that the certification process for actors and actresses was relatively easy and straightforward when compared to the union for technical and support workers in the film industry. I demonstrate that actors and actresses did their utmost to become certified, to be able to continue to remain active in the field. Some used tactics such as misrepresenting and obfuscating their acting roles during the interwar era and tapping into their social network of political contacts to intervene and smooth the process of certification. Further, my argument is that the certification process for this particular union for actors and actresses had a specific role in creating a positive image, for re-establishing a sense of normalcy and thereby legitimizing the postwar democratic political forces in Hungary.

The efforts of the certification committees lasted for two years, from 1945 to 1947. My research shows that even after the politics of postwar retribution and the work of the certification committees ended, the by-then firmly entrenched

Hungarian Communist government continued this policy of perpetuating its

9 positive image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers of famous interwar actors and actresses –even those who starred in interwar propaganda and/or antisemitic films and theatre performances. By reading the primary Hungarian language documents of the certification committee, my research expands and extends the knowledge about the history of the politics of retribution within the entertainment industry in Hungary.

Review of Literature

Filmmaking in Hungary and the recording of that history have been influenced by a myriad of factors including political regimes in power that often sought to shape, politicize, and form the filmmaking industry to reflect their own ideological goals. For this reason, in examining the literature about the history of film in Hungary, it is important to keep in mind the ideological lens and the point-of-view of the author. “Ideological lens” is defined as the political beliefs, ideals, and principles that are held by the author. Similarly, memoirs and biographies by and about key individuals who were involved with specific aspects of the film industry in Hungary should be examined and read judiciously, keeping in mind the ideological point of view of the authors.10

10 The works of the following authors are but a few examples of books written from an ideological perspective. Károly Nemes promotes the argument that the best Hungarian films were produced after the Hungarian film industry was nationalized in March 1948. Károly Nemes, Miért Jók a Magyar Filmek? [Why are Hungarian Films Good?] Budapest: Magvető, 1968. Béla Balázs was a film theorist and ardent communist. This volume was published posthumously to pay tribute to his dedication to the postwar political reorganization of Hungary through the People’s Movement. Béla Balázs, Népmozgalom és Nemzeti Bizottságok, 1945-1946 [The People’s Movement and National Committees], Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1961. György Aczél was the cultural czar in Hungary during the Communist era. No books were published, films produced or plays mounted without his approval. This volume, Instead of a Cancelled Debate is a lengthy interview conducted by journalist Jacques de Bonis where Aczél expresses his opinions and provides a singular vision of the success of the socialist system, with particular regard to culture in Hungary. Instead of a Cancelled Debate: Paris Asks-Budapest Answers. Jacques De Bonis interviews György Aczél. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1975.

In examining the overall histories of filmmaking, István Nemeskürty

(1925-2015), stands out as a prolific writer and historian of Hungarian film. As a young man, he studied to be a teacher, but later pursued a Ph.D. degree in history. Postwar, he became an author, screenwriter, film historian and head of

MAFILM.11 Through his many published books and articles, Nemeskürty documented the history of Hungarian film from its beginnings in 1896. He not only focused on the narrative and quality of the films themselves, examining their artistic value, analyzing the strength of the screenplays and the cinematography, but also examined the personalities of filmmakers, directors, actors and actresses and explored how these players shaped the industry as well.

He was highly regarded for his extensive knowledge of the history of film.

Despite the fact that he was head of the major state-owned film studio in

Hungary during the Communist era, his film reviews were not tainted by ideology. Nemeskürty avoided discussing the “socialist realism” of films produced during this era. His comprehensive Word and Image: History of the

Hungarian Cinema, first published in 1968, is one of the few studies that detailed the history of Hungarian film from its earliest days in the Budapest coffee houses in 1896 until 1944. This book is also only one of two works by Nemeskürty that has been translated into English and, it is the only text quoted extensively by other scholars writing about the history of Hungarian film in the English language.12

11 MAFILM was founded in 1964 as the largest film studio in Hungary, a combination of the former Hunnia and the Budapest Film Studio. Since 1994, the company has been enlarged several times and made into a publicly owned film studio. 12 István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of Hungarian Cinema, trans. Zsuzsanna Horn, Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968.

Overall histories of film in Hungary include chronological surveys as well.

While John Cunningham’s volume, Hungarian Cinema: from Coffee House to

Multiplex, includes chapters on the beginnings of the film industry in Hungary, the focus of this book is on the postwar period (1945-1989), and the resurgence of

Hungarian films through a new generation of filmmakers.13 Cunningham offers a social and institutional history of film free of ideological bias. Bryan Burns edited volume on the history of world cinema includes a chapter on Hungarian film.14

An invaluable resource for historians is the Lexicon of Hungarian Sound- films, a reference work compiled by Jozsef Mudrák and Tamás Deák. This

Lexicon contains synopses of films, and also the background of the founders of production companies as well as biographies of actors, actresses, directors, producers and government ministers involved in film during the interwar era. 15

The book builds upon a much earlier version of a Filmlexicon, edited by Henrik

Castiglione, a screenwriter, producer and expert on film statistics.16 Reference books and chronologies of Hungarian films also include titles that contain comprehensive synopses of films produced during the interwar era17 and into the post-1989 era.18

The other work by Nemeskürty translated into English: István Nemeskürty and Tibor Szántó, A Pictorial Guide to the Hungarian Cinema, 1901-1984, trans. by J.E. Szollosy, Budapest: Helikon, 1985. 13 John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004. 14 Bryan Burns, World Cinema: Hungary, Wiltshire. England: Flicks Books and Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. 15 Jozsef Mudrák and Tamas Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944 [Lexicon of Hungarian Sound-Films]. Mariabesenyő-Gödöllö: Attraktor, 2006. 16 Henrik Castiglione and Sándor Székely, eds. Lexicon. Budapest: publisher unknown, 1941. 17 István Juhász, Kincses Magyar Filmtár, 1931-1944 [The Store-House of Treasures of Hungarian Film] Pomáz: Kráter, 2007. 18 László Kelecsényi, Vászonszerelem: A magyar hangosfilm krónikája 1931-től napjainkig [Love on- screen: The History of Hungarian sound film from 1931 to the present day]. Budapest: Palatinus, 2007.

Most historians of Hungarian film are in agreement that this early period, from 1896 until the end of World War I, was a prolific era in Hungarian film.19

István Langer and Zsolt Kőháti specifically examine the early silent film era in

Hungary, 1896-1930.20 Both works are critically important in recording the history of this era, and in documenting biographical data and the chronology of the silent era. These studies are not widely accessible, however, as they are only available in Hungarian as unpublished manuscripts through the Magyar

Filmintézet [Hungarian Film Institute] in Budapest.

The richness of film during this liberal era of the Austro-Hungarian empire has been studied not only by historians mentioned thus far, but also through the biographies and autobiographies of those who were instrumental in building the industry such as producers/directors Sándor Korda, Mihály Kertész and film theorist Béla Balázs, widely regarded as the father of Hungarian film theory and writing.21

The end of the First World War, with Revolutions, radical changes in government and the partitioning of Hungary through the Treaty of Trianon

19 András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, Budapest: Central University Press, 2015; István Nemeskürty. Word and Image: History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968. 20 István Langer, Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl. I-II resz, 1919-48 [Chapters from the History of Hungarian Film Production]. Parts 1-2, 1919-1948. Budapest: MFI kézirat, 1980; Zsolt Kőháti. “Magyar film hangot keres (1931-1938)” [Hungarian Film Seeks Sound]. Filmspirál 2, no.1, 1996, 67-131. Zsolt Kőháti,Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között [Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film, 1896-1930]. Budapest: Magyar filmintézet, 1996. 21 Charles Drazin, Korda: Britain’s only Movie Mogul, London: Sidgewick and Jackson, 2002; Áron Tobiás, Korda Sándor, Budapest: A Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchivum, 1980; Alan K. Rode, Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film, Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 2017; Joseph Zsuffa, The Man and the Artist, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.

(1920) had a drastic effect on filmmakers and filmmaking in Hungary. Béla Kun established the Communist Party of Hungary (Magyar Kommunista Párt).

Following the collapse of the democratic government of Mihály Károlyi, Kun founded the Hungarian Soviet Republic in March of 1919.22 Following the Soviet model, one of the first acts of the Kun regime was to nationalize the film industry.23 Films were important in the history of the Soviet Union as an instrument for spreading the approved message, as films were truly a mass medium, reaching a literate and non-literate audience.24 Some of the finest filmmakers, such as Korda and Kertész and many others joined the revolutionaries. The Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted only 133 days, followed by the take-over of the counterrevolutionary regime of Regent Miklós Horthy.

During the “White Terror,” directed against Communists, Jews, and other supporters of the Kun regime, many of the best and brightest filmmakers fled.25

More than a decade passed before the Hungarian film industry recovered to its pre-war level of productivity.

The high proportion of Jews in the professions and particularly the film industry was on the agenda of the Horthy regime. Soon after Horthy came to power in 1920, the government introduced a decree that would have quickly

22 Rudolf L. Tőkés, Béla Kun and the Hungarian Soviet Republic: The Origins and role of the Communist Party of Hungary in the Revolutions of 1918-1919, New York and Washington: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1967; Peter Pastor, Hungary Between Wilson and Lenin: The Hungarian Revolution of 1918-1919 and the Big Three, Boulder CO: East European Quarterly, 1976; Albert Váry, A vörös uralom áldozatai Magyarországon [The Victims of the Red Terror in Hungary]. 3rd Ed., Szeged: Szegedi Nyomda, 1993. 23 István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968. 24 Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society from the Revolution to the Death of Stalin. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001, 3. 25 László Kontler, A History of Hungary: Millenium in Central Europe, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890- 1944, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.

14 forced out Jewish filmmakers from the film business.26 Some astute government ministers realized that the decree of 1920 would have destroyed what had been a vibrant film industry and the ordinance was reversed. Between 1919-1920, dozens of radical right wing organizations were established and became active in

Hungary.27 Organizations of the radical right, such as the Turul and others, exerted pressure on the government to take action against what they claimed was the dominance of Jews in higher education and later demanded the ouster of

Jews from the film industry.28 The Horthy regime introduced Numerus Clausus at universities soon after taking power in 1920.29

Some authors have examined the question of why such a disproportionately high number of Hungarian Jews were especially attracted to the new fields of film and photography. Important scholarship regarding the intellectual history as well as the acculturation and assimilation of Hungary’s

Jews includes the work of Laczó, Ránki and Patai.30 András Koerner has provided a contextualized history of the Jews in the cultural life of Hungary and attributes the high number of Jews in film to their willingness to adapt to the

26 Tibor Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, [After the Changing of the Guard: the Jewish Question and the Politics of Film] Budapest: Hungarian Film Institute, 1997. 27 Zoltán Vagi, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, eds., The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide. Lanham, Md.-Washington, D.C: AltaMira Press-USHMM, 2013; Péter Sipos, Imrédy Béla és a Magyar Megújulás Pártja [Béla Imrédy and the Party of Hungarian Renewal]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970. 28 Robert Kerepeszki, “The racial defence in Practice: The Activity of the Turul Association at Hungarian universities between the two world wars,” Victor Karády and Péter Tibor, eds., The Numerus Clausus in Hungary: Studies on the first anti-Jewish law and academic antisemitism in modern Central Europe. Budapest: Centre for Historical Research, Central European University, 2012. 29 Nathanial Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews: Policy and Legislation, 1920-1943, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983. 30 Ferenc Laczó, Hungarian Jews in the Age of Genocide: An Intellectual History, 1929-1948. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016; Vera Ránki. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary, New York: Holmes & Meier, 1999; Raphael Patai. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996.

15 societies and countries in which they lived.31 Max Kozloff, American critic and photographer, argues that the Jewish sensibility and talent in these fields stems from the desire to become part of the mainstream culture.32

Nemeskürty writes about the reasons for the vigorous participation of

Jewish artists not only in Hungarian cinema, but also in the fields of literature, music and the arts. Nemeskürty argues that it was the the creative environment prior to 1918 that ensured the atmosphere in which filmmakers could work freely: “prior to 1918, Hungary accepted and supported almost all kinds of movements, persuasions, religions and outlooks.”33

The talent Jews had for artistic endeavors including film was also evident in building the filmmaking industry in Poland. A number of short silent films, mainly in Yiddish and also in Polish, were already being produced in the partitioned territories of Poland before reunification in 1919. Of the silent films produced in the Polish lands between 1911 and 1913, approximately one-third were adaptations of plays written in Yiddish.34 One of the preoccupations of popular filmmakers was how to satisfy both a Polish and a Jewish audience.

Some historians of Polish film studies question whether in fact there can be talk

31András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, Budapest: Central University Press, 2015. 32 As quoted in Robert Fulford, ‘Dream Merchants: Jews, photography and Andre Kertesz,’ Queen’s Quarterly 112.2 (2005): 221+ Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. 33 Ibid. 34 Susan M. Papp and Antony Polonsky, ”The Politics of Exclusion: The Turbulent History of Hungarian and Polish Film, 1896-1945,” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Vol. 31, 289-311.

16 of any “Polish national cinema” prior to the country being unified following the

First World War.35

As in other countries of Europe, mainly Germany and Italy, the losses experienced during World War I created a nostalgia for the past, a rejection of industrialization, urbanization, and modernity.36 In Hungary, there was a longing for what was “truly” Hungarian, the return to the not well defined

“conservative” past.37 The French people were also traumatized by the human and material losses suffered during World War I and were caught between the memory of a brutal war and the fear of another world cataclysm.38

During the interwar period, the power of propaganda through the medium of film was recognized, developed, and officially supported by many governments in Europe. Scholars have examined the basic linkages of culture, sovereignty, and the idea of nationhood as expressed through film.39 Anna

Manchin explores the symbolism of interwar Hungarian film and how debates on national identity and modernity have been interconnected with film in

Hungary since the early 20th century. Manchin argues that the rural countryside

35 Sheila Skaff, The Law of the Looking Glass: Cinema in Poland, 1896-1939, Ohio University Press Polish and Polish-American Studies Series, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2008. Marek Haltof, Polish National Cinema, New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. 36 Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1961. 37 Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890- 1944, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006. 38 Eugen Weber, The Hollow Years: France in the 1930’s. New York: Norton, 1994. 39 Victoria de Grazie, “European cinema and the idea of Europe, 1925-1995,”Hollywood and Europe: Economics, Culture, National Identity 1945-1995, Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, ed., London: British Film Institute, 1998, 19-33. Marc Ferro,“Film as an Agent, Product and Source of History,” Journal of Contemporary History, 18, 1983, 357-364.

17 and its simple way of life was utilized in film as a powerful symbol of

“authentic” traditional national culture.40

Italy’s first “anti-Liberal” measures affecting film production occurred after 1925. Most of the measures de-emphasized the independent status of actors, actresses, film producers, and directors by bringing them into a newly organized

National Confederation of Fascist Syndicates, (Confederazione nazionale di sindicati fascisti) organized by the national government.41 Steven Ricci and Jacqueline Hay each explore the often-fraught relationship between government and cinema characterized by the continuous change between political stakes and culture.42

In their first year of power, the Nazi government in Germany established the Reichskulturkammer [the Reich Chamber of Culture] in 1933, which included a

Chamber for film. Although the first draft of the decree did not explicitly mention Jews, by 1935 the Chamber system in Germany was restructured and

Jews were purged from the membership.43 In 1935, Germany went even further by establishing an International Film Chamber for European countries. This international organization intended to bring together and control European film work under the leadership of Nazi Germany to counteract the influence of

40 Anna Manchin,“Interwar Hungarian Entertainment Films and the Reinvention of Rural Modernity,”Rural History, 21, no. 2, 2010, 195-212. 41 James Hay, Popular Film culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987, 203. 42 Steven Ricci, Cinema and Fascism: Italian Film and Society, 1922-1943. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008; Reich, Jacqueline, “Mussolini at the Movies: Fascism, Film and Culture,” Re-Viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943, Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garafalo, eds., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002. 43 Alan Steinweis, Art, Ideology & Economics in Nazi Germany: The Reich Chambers of Music, Theater and the Visual Arts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.

American films in Europe.44

While other countries were taking their own restrictive steps, the Horthy regime well understood the propaganda value of cinema. Scholars have examined the way that the Horthy regime utilized censorship under the guise of

“order, self-interest, rationalizations and the national interest.”45 Radical right forces and German pressure on Hungary for further anti-Jewish measures were acquiesced in favor of support for Hungary’s desperately sought border revision.

Hungary’s approach-avoidance methods involved placating, while often simply stalling and postponing the demands by Nazi Germany in order to accomplish this goal, and, on the other hand, keeping the radical right forces in check.46 The first anti-Jewish law was enacted by the Hungarian government in April, 1938.

That law, however, was only a precursor to the more restrictive Second Jewish

Law – Law No. IV of 1939 which, among other provisions, explicitly defined Jews as a race, following the Nazi model, and limited their proportion in the professions to no more than six percent.47 Tibor Sándor documented the effects of

44 Benjamin George Martin, “‘European Cinema for Europe! The International Film Chamber, 1935-42,’” Cinema and the Swastika: the International Expansion of the Third Reich Cinema, Roel Vande Winkel and David Welch, eds., Hampshire England and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, 25-42. This edited volume examines the film culture of each country in Europe occupied by or allied with Nazi Germany and also surveys countries such as Britain, Brazil and South Africa as to how their respective film culture was influence by the domination of Germany. 45 David Stephen Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-1944. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2018; Márk Záhonyi-Ábel, “Magyar Filmcenzura, 1920- 1930”,[Hungarian Film Censorship, 1920-1930]. Ph.D. diss., [Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem], 2010; Ungváry, Krisztián, A Horthy rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The Standards of Measures of the Horthy Regime: Discrimination, Social politics and antisemitism in Hungary]. Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 2012. 46 Ignác Romsich, Hungary in the Twentieth Century. Budapest: Corvina-Osiris, 1999; Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Trans. by Ann Major, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003; Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary. Vol. 1 and 2, 3rd ed., Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2016. 47 Don, Yehuda, “Antisemitic Legislations in Hungary and Their Implementation in Budapest-An Economic Analysis,” The Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry: Essays, Documents, Depositions, Randolph

19 the anti-Jewish laws in marginalizing Hungarian Jewish filmmakers and in permanently changing Hungarian cinema.48

Recent scholarship about Hungarian film during the interwar era include two volumes: David Frey’s work on the history Hungarian sound film during the interwar era, from 1929 until 1944 and a study of the same era by Gábor

Gergely.49 While both books examine the role of Jews and antisemitism in

Hungarian cinema and the effects of exclusionary legislation during the interwar era, these two volumes are substantially different. Frey examines how the postwar political forces that led the country out of the losses following World

War One determined that film would be the medium through which the country would re-define itself and find redemption in its national culture and history.

Frey traces the effort on the part of the government to create a “Christian

National Film Industry,” through the enactment of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber (1938-1939) and several other organizations to shore up this ideology.

The book is a social, political and institutional history of film in Hungary starting with the onset of the talkies until the total collapse, or as the author refers to it, the “murder” of the Hungarian film industry by the Germans in 1944. Frey argues how the formation of nation through the “Christian national” ideals put forward by the Horthy regime were shaped by contradictory forces such as

Braham, ed., Boulder, CO: Social Science Monographs and the Institute for Holocaust Studies of the City University of New York, 1986, 49-72. Robert Vértes, ed., Magyarországi Zsidótörvények és Rendeletek, 1938-1945 [Hungary’s Jewish Laws and Decrees, 1938-1945]. Budapest: Polgár Publishers, 1997. 48 Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás: A Magyar Film és a Szélsőjobboldal a harmincas negyvenes években (Tanulmanyok, dokumentumok), [Hungarian Film and the Extreme Right in the Thirties and Forties: Studies, Documents]. Budapest: Magyar Filmintézet, 1992. 49 David Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-44; Gábor Gergely, Hungarian Film, 1929-1947: National Identity, Anti-Semitism, and Popular Cinema, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017.

20 government and bureaucratic legislation and influence, Hungary’s geopolitical place in east-central Europe, free market and international forces implied by the very nature of film production and distribution, radical right groups vying for influence, and the adaptation and withdrawal of the Jews active in filmmaking.

In the last chapter, Frey also argues that the recent return to “Christian National” ideals by the present government of Victor Orbán bear distinct similarities to the interwar era of the Horthy regime through the search for a Christian national identity, particularly through culture and memorialization.

Gergely’s work, in contrast, argues against many of the previously established assumptions about Hungary’s filmmaking industry. Many of these arguments are directly opposed to the nuanced and meticulously researched arguments of David Frey. One of many examples, Gergely claims that the establishment of government bodies such as the Filmipari Alap in 1925 was the first step towards the complete government takeover of the industry. Gergely further argues that it was from this point onward that Jews were eliminated from the industry. Gergely claims that a hidden antisemitic narrative was infused into

Hungarian films of the time. Gergely uses Hippolit a Lakaj as an example of this

“hidden antisemitic narrative,” a film directed and produced by István Székely, one of the most outstanding Hungarian Jewish directors of the interwar era and written by screenwriters István Zágon and Károly Nóti, both Hungarian Jews.

Gergely also covers some aspects of the postwar reorganization of the film industry, including the certification process, but the section fails to point out the many factors of the changing political climate in postwar Hungary that influenced the work of the postwar reorganization of the film industry.

Memoirs and biographies of actors, actresses, directors and producers provide context and background as to how they were affected by the restrictive laws of the interwar era, how they situated themselves and for those who departed, how they struggled with their lack of status and miserable financial circumstances in the diaspora. Many of these biographies were written by the actor/actress later in life or with the help of a ghost-writer, were often self- published or only published many decades later in Hungary.50 Some are out-of- print, or available only in antique book stores or through the Magyar Film Intézet

[Film Institute] in Budapest and the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.

Some of these biographies, such as the one about Antal Páger and his return to

Hungary, are written through the lens of self-vindication.51

Many scholarly studies have been completed examining postwar retribution and the de-Nazification programs as they pertain to postwar Europe.

In France, for instance, scholars have argued that the prosecution of war criminals and members of the Vichy government became bogged down in legal wranglings, mainly due to the postwar myth that the French were victims of the

50 Tibor Bános, Jávor Pál: Szemtöl Szemben [Pál Jávor: Face to Face]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1978; László Kelecsényi, Katalin Karády. Budapest: A Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchivum, 1982; Ilona Nagykovácsi, Fény és Árnyek [Light and Shadows: Autobiography]. Toronto: Weller Publishing, 1982; Olga Somorja, Beregi Oszkár. Budapest: Magyar Szinházi Intezet, 1984; Mihály Sárossy Szüle, Miszter Jávor. New York: Püski-Corvin, 1982; Károly Kristóf, A halálos Tavasztol a Gestapó Fogságig [From the Deadly Spring to the Gestapo Prison]. Budapest: A Magyar Ujságirók Országos Szövetsége, 1987; Menyhért Lengyel, Életem Könyve: Naplók, Életrajz, Töredékek [My Life’s Work: Diaries, Resumes, Bits and Pieces]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1987; László Sándor, Három Ország Polgára Voltam: Egy Évszázadnyi Élet Emlékei, 1909-1993 [I was Citizen of Three Countries: Memories from a One Hundred Year Life, 1909-1993]. Bratislava: Madach- Posonium, 2009. 51 Péter Gál Molnár, A Páger Ügy. [the Pager Affair] Budapest: Pallas Lap és Könyvkiadó, 1988.

Nazis.52 It was only in the 1990s that the French government was willing to face the crimes of complicity of the Vichy government. The de-Nazification of

Germany and Austria were particularly hampered by the fact that both countries were occupied and divided by the armed forces of four different Allied countries, and the military command of each of those countries implemented de-

Nazification in each of these zones differently.53 In the Soviet zone, internment and retribution went hand in hand; one-third of those interned died, compared with less than one percent in the British zone.54 After the Nuremberg trials, the

Americans were eager to transfer primary responsibility for de-Nazification to the Germans, who had the ability but lacked the political will to continue. After

1950, the attention of the United States and other allies became much more focused on the Cold War rather than on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. 55

Beyond a slim selection of research on the postwar era in Hungary, there was little attention paid to the topic until the 1980s. That decade marked the publication of a wide range of studies and scholarly works on war crimes and retribution, perpetrators and collaborators, and collective memory in Hungary following the Second World War. One of the most important documentary collections on the post-war system of war crimes and retribution is a scholarly work on the trial of Arrow Cross leader Ferenc Szálasi and the three war

52 Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime, London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2002. See in particular Chapter 11: The Judgments of Paris, 270-300. Éric Conan and Henry Rousso, Vichy: an ever-present past. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1998. 53 Perry Biddiscombe, The Denazification of Germany, a History 1945-1950, Stroud, United Kingdom: Tempus, 2007; Lothar Kettenacker, Germany Since 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997; David Cohen, “Transitional Justice in Divided Germany after 1945,” Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 59-89. 54 Biddiscombe, 70. 55 Biddiscombe, 83. The Cold War was the driving force behind the emptying of prisons in 1951- 55. Moreover, German law permitted the reinstatement of most of those removed under earlier de-Nazification proceedings.

23 criminals principally responsible for the deportation of the Jews.56 Elek Karsai published one of the first collections of the original documents of the Hungarian

Holocaust along with many other works, such as the diaries of Ferenc Szálasi.57

These studies are important to my work because the establishment of the certification committees was inextricably linked to the establishment of the newly organized postwar system of justice that included the People’s Tribunals.

In cases where the certification committees felt that the individual seeking certification was guilty of more serious crimes, the certification committee forwarded the case to the People’s Tribunals. Early scholars in this field trace the chronology of events that brought about the Certification Committees and the connection between the committees and the People’s Tribunals.58 These studies assess the workings of the Certification Committees as being successful overall in rooting out war criminals. The works also identify problems such as of the over- simplification of the questions and the difficulties of organizing committees in rural regions of Hungary.

56 Elek Karsai and László Karsai, eds., A Szálasi per [The Trials of Szálasi], Budapest: Reform, 1988; László Karsai and Judit Molnár, eds., Az Endre-Baky-Jaross per [The Endre, Baky and Jaross Trial], Budapest: Cserépfalvi, 1994. 57 Elek Karsai, Szálasi Naplója: A Nyilasmozgalom a II világháboru idején [The Diaries of Szálasi: the Arrow Cross Movement during World War II], Budapest: Kossuth, 1978; Elek Karsai and Magda Somlyai, eds., Sorsforduló; iratok magyarország feszabadulásának történetéhez, 1944 szept.-1945 ápr., [Change of Fate: Documents regarding the History of the Liberation of Hungary], vol. 1 Budapest: n.p., 1970; Ilona Benoschofsky and Elek Karsai, eds., Vádirat a Nácizmus Ellen: Dokumentumok a magyarországi zsidóüldözés történetéhez [Indictment against Nazism: Documents adding to the History of the Persecution of Jews in Hungary], 4 vols., Budapest: A Magyar Izraeliták Országos Képviselete, 1960. 58 Tibor Zinner, “Háborus bünösök perei. Internálások, kitelepitések és Igazoló eljárások” [Trials of war criminals, deportations, and Certification Proceedings], Történelmi Szemle 28, no.1, 1985, 118-141; Pál Schönwald, Igazoló eljárások, 1945-1949. [Certification Proceedings, 1945-1949], unpublished manuscript. Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives].

Memoirs of those involved in the political processes of setting up

Certification Committees and/or the People’s Tribunals provide insight into the process of reorganizing Hungary’s political justice system post-1945. Such memoirs trace the problems and resistance to the process at the time, and also reflect ideological views and attempts by the author to clarify their intent, or explain and justify their roles.59 One notable exception, István Bibó, considered one of the greatest Hungarian thinkers of the twentieth century, examines the postwar justice system and the certification committees through a critical lens, even though he was involved in setting up the system.60 Generally, these volumes were published just prior to the fall of Communism in 1989, when the countries of east-central Europe were once again in the midst of political change and upheaval.61

Since the fall of communism in Hungary, a new generation of scholars has been able to gain access to previously unexamined archives and has published studies about post-war retribution, certification committees, and how the process unfolded using a much more critical methodology.62 László Karsai examined a

59 Dr. Ákos Major, Népbiroskodás forradalmi törvényesség: egy népbiró visszaemlékezése [The People’s Tribunals: Revolutionary Law: The Memoirs of a Judge], Budapest: Minerva, 1988. Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile] Budapest: Szépirodalmi Kiadó, 1984. Gábor Antal, ed., A Szinház nem szelid intézmény: Irások Major Tamástol, irások Major Tamásrol [Theatre is not a placid institution: Writings by Tamás Major, Writings about Tamás Major], Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1985. 60 István Bibó, “Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után” [The Jewish Question in Hungary after 1944], Válogatott Tanulmányok, 1945-1949 [Selected Studies, 1945-1949] Budapest: Magvető, 1986, 623-797; István Bibó, “Néhány kiegészitő megjegyzés a Zsidókérdésről” [A few Supplementary Comments about the Jewish Question], Válogatott Tanulmányok, 1945-1949, Budapest: Magvető, 1986, 801-809; István Bibó, A Magyar demokrácia válsága [The Crisis of Democracy in Hungary], in Válogatott Tanulmányok, Budapest: Magvető, 1986, 40-42. 61 Terry Cox and Andy Furlong, eds. Hungary: the Politics of Transition, London: Routledge, 2017. Paul Lendvai. Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. London: Hurst & Co., 2012. 62 Julien Papp, “Az igazoló eljárások és a háborus bünök megtorlása 1945 után Magyarországon,” [The Certification process and reprisals against war crimes in post-1945 Hungary], AETAS- Történelemtudományi folyóirat 2, 2009: 162-179; László Karsai, “The People’s Court and Revolutionary Law in Hungary, 1945-1946,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and

25 system fraught with problems: the political motivations of the prosecutors, the lack of time to prepare and the unavailability of ministerial documents on which to build evidence.63 In one comparative study of the postwar system of retribution in Austria and Hungary, István Deák argues that the prosecution of war criminals lost its significance in both countries. In Austria, Nazis were eventually rehabilitated and, due to significant labour shortages, were employed.

In Hungary, de-Nazification programs failed because the collective purge of democrats, Social Democrats and even many loyal Communists took precedence over the purge of former fascists.64

Methodology and Sources

This dissertation is organized chronologically and thematically.

Chapter 1: Introduction. The Introduction presents the arguments, methodology and sources, and review of literature.

Chapter 2 examines why there were such a relatively large number of established producers and directors producing films in Hungary as early as 1914.

This chapter also explains how the political upheavals of the early twentieth century affected, influenced and disrupted the development of filmmaking in

its Aftermath. Istvan Deak, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt, eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000; Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy: Hungary Between East and West, 1944-1947. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011; Ildikó Barna and Andrea Pető, Political Justice in Budapest after World War II. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2015. 63 László Karsai, “The People’s Court and Revolutionary Law in Hungary, 1945-1946,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, István Deák, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt, eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, 233-252. 64 István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” Retribution and Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 124-147.

Hungary. This chapter further provides the historical background for the legal status of Jews in Hungary and studies why Hungarian Jews were early adaptors in the new industries of film and photography.

Chapter 3 analyzes the political forces that led to the creation of the

Chamber System (1938-1939), the pressures exerted by radical rightists, debates in parliament, rhetoric and rationalizations, internal conflicts within government, and the role of churches. Sources at the United States Holocaust History Museum such as RG-39.004 War History Archives, Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal

Home Defense Ministry and the Értelmiségi munkanélküliség ügyeinek Kormánybiztosa

[Ministry for the Office of the Intellectual unemployed] provided additional useful insight into motivations and reactions. I found a 56-page discussion paper containing a series of recommendations for legislation that preceded the establishment of the film chamber. This is the document—heretofore buried in the archives-- that prepared the way for the chamber system and the rationalizations of the government in implementing the law in reaction to the ongoing pressures exerted by antisemitic organizations. RG-39.004 also contained the original application form for individuals applying for membership in the film arts chamber. This application form was drafted after the draconian

Second Jewish Law came into effect. I also examined original articles in extreme right wing newspapers such as Magyarság [Magyardom], Új Magyarság [New

Magyardom], Virradat, [Dawn], Összetartás, [Unity] as well as Nemzetőr [National

Guard].65 These articles provide insight to the narrative promoted by the

65 War History Archives, Fond 1:31, HDM, 1919-1945, Elnöki A Osztály, 1938, 2837 csomó, USHMM.

27 extreme right at the time. At the Library of Congress, I found further materials on the Chamber, such as the first official journal of the Chamber itself, Magyar

Film, 1939-41.

Chapter 4 examines the impact of the chamber system (1939-1941) and looks at the collective and individual responses and coping mechanisms elicited within the film and acting community in response to the creation of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. This chapter also examines questions such as to what extent were the discriminatory laws institutionalized. Sources that provide insight into the interconnected lives of Jews and non-Jews include memoirs, correspondence, biographies, and newspaper reports of the era. After 1939, during this period when Jewish actors and actresses could no longer find work, almost every important actor of Jewish origin spent time writing his memoirs.66

These memoirs are primary sources of information regarding how Jewish actors reacted to the discriminative laws and how they lived following the implementation of the laws. I found many of these memoirs at the Library of

Congress in Washington, D. C. as well as in the United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum.

Through these sources, this dissertation also examines the trajectory of organizations that were established following the anti-Jewish laws to protest these laws and assist the unemployed. The files of OMIKE, Országos Magyar

Izraelita Közmüvelődési Egyesület [National Hungarian Jewish Cultural

Organization] a cultural organization for Jewish actors and actresses who became

66 Tamas Gajdó, “In the Service of Thalia,” In the Land of Hagar: The Jews of Hungary, History, Society and Culture, 240.

28 unemployed following the implementation of the Jewish Laws, provide an additional source of examples of lived history. Although it was an organization created by necessity because of the discriminatory laws, OMIKE was highly successful and productive in re-creating separate theatre and artistic presentations and providing work for unemployed artists and performers.

Another significant component to my list of primary sources are the letters of financial assistance and activities of the Pesti Izraelitak Pártfogó Irodája [Office of

Support for Jews of Pest]. These files contain lists of loans to unemployed families, even detailing the activities of “soup kitchens” and “milk and firewood collection funds.”67 The largest Jewish weekly in Budapest, Egyenlőseg [Equality] provides many of the varied responses and reactions of the Jewish community following the enactment of the discriminatory laws.

Chapter 5 explores the political reorganization that brought about the postwar process of certification (1945-1947), and analyzes what happened to the film community following the end of the Second World War through the politics of retribution. This chapter traces the postwar process of centralization and reorganization of the political and legal system to reflect the proclaimed goal of building a democratic country. The primary archival sources utilized regarding the establishment of the certification committees are the minutes of the meetings of the five-member Budapest National Committee, or BNB, set up to establish the

People’s Tribunals, certification committees, and issue all ordinances and decrees. This chapter further examines the ideological impetus of the newly-

67 MOL Z 89, reel 2, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet, [Economic Savings and Credit Union], USHMM.

29 organized government to create a sense of normalcy, legitimacy and a return to a functioning civil society. These efforts were underpinned by the establishment of certification committees, set up to re-organize the film and theatre industry. In addition to the original documents of those individuals who ordered the establishment of the certification committees, I also examine the certification documents themselves contained in the archival collection of the files on the

Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946,68 as well as certification files of the

Film Employees Union.

Chapter 6 examines the procedures of the Film Actors Union, specifically the committee that was established to scrutinize the details of the lives of actors, actresses, directors, producers of the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete

Igazoló Bizottság [Hungarian Actors Free Union Certification Committee] and compares and contrasts these proceedings with those of the Film Employees

Union.69 The Film Employees Union represented all film production staff who were employed by Hunnia, the largest film production house as well as all other independently employed film workers. The procedures utilized by the two unions was very different in what was required of each individual applying for certification. The two different modes of application affected the ways in which individuals navigated the system in order to become certified. Many files contain extensive statements and detailed information about the activities of the

68 XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives] (hereafter BFL). 69 XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár, hereafter BFL.

30 individual actors/actresses during the Horthy and Szálasi era, including shedding new historical information on the work of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber.

Chapter 7 is about re-writing the past. I examine controversial films, theatre productions, postwar retribution and later, the rehabilitation of those found guilty. This chapter analyzes of the trial of Ferenc Kiss, the President of the

Film Arts Chamber as well as other decision-makers and executives. Ferenc Kiss was the only individual in the film industry found guilty of war crimes and imprisoned in Hungary. I also examine those films that were written and produced as anti-Bolshevik and antisemitic propaganda. The certification hearings were used by the government to their own ends, mainly to eliminate opposition parties and consolidate their own position of power. My argument is that actors, as powerful public personae, were used to remove the tarnish of war crimes, so that Hungarians could restore their reputation and standing in the world. The onset of the Cold War meant that postwar retribution was no longer of importance. Famous actors of the interwar period, such as Antal Páger, who left, were rehabilitated and encouraged to return to Hungary, despite the fact that Páger starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. Re- writing the past meant rehabilitating those who were found guilty postwar, in order to provide the new communist regime with legitimacy.

Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this dissertation.

Chapter 2: Setting the Stage (1914-1929) From optimism to energy to the near death of the film industry Hungarian Jews and the visual arts

Technical developments that led to the discovery and development of film production began in many capitals of Europe around the end of the nineteenth century. The first film screening in Budapest took place in 1896 and coincided with the Millennium celebrations in Hungary commemorating 1000 years of the settlement of the Magyars in the Carpathian basin. At the center of festivities was the Millennium Exhibition in Budapest, which displayed the newest scientific and technical exhibits from around the world, including Thomas Edison’s new invention, the Kinetoscope, a precursor to the projector. Arnold Sziklai, a

Hungarian Jew, filmed the first few frames of the visit of Emperor Franz Josef to the Millennium Exhibition. In the same year, Arnold Sziklai and his brother

Zsigmond were the first to receive a permit to open a cinema, called Ikonograph, on Andrássy Avenue, one of the most elegant streets in Budapest.1 As technology was refined and films grew in popularity, cinemas were built across the country.

There were over 110 permanent cinemas in Budapest alone by 1914, more than in most other European capitals.2

Jews were at the forefront of developing and building the fledgling technologies of film and photography. While art historians, critics and film theorists have argued about the reasons of why this occurred, the sheer numbers

1 András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, 224. 2 John Cunningham. Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 7.

31 32 of Jews who were pioneers in the field of film and photography, certainly in central and eastern Europe, was remarkable. From the middle of the nineteenth century, many Hungarian Jewish photographers set up shops in Budapest as well as in provincial towns, such as Nándor Homonnai in Makó and József Plohn in Hódmezővásárhely. Photographers such as Lipót Strelisky and Manó Mai of

Budapest, were well known; Mai advertised himself as “the photographer of the

Royal Court.”3

American critic and photographer Max Kozloff claimed that Jewish sensibility and talent in these fields stems from the ‘tension between alienation and its opposite, the sense of belonging.’4 For the Jews of the Diaspora, making their way through the twentieth century involved a series of adaptions to new countries and new environments. Life also meant dealing with discrimination and conflicts. In many parts of Europe, Jews were restricted in where they could reside and which occupations they could pursue. In contrast, becoming part of the world of photography and/or film allowed them to express a ‘vigorous populism,’ in short: a sense of becoming part of mainstream culture.5 András

Koerner attributes the high number of Jews in the field of photography and film, especially in the case of the Jews of Hungary, to their ability to adapt:

“Assimilation requires a willingness to change, and this mental flexibility, the openness to new things, proved to be immensely useful not only in the

3 András Koerner, 228. Most of the world-famous Hungarian photographers were Jewish, such as André Kertész (born as Kohn), Robert Capa (born as Endre Friedmann), László Moholy-Nagy (born as László Weisz), Éva Besnyő, Lucien Hervé (born as László Elkán), Martin Munkácsi (born as Marton Marmelstein), and Nicholas Muray (born as Miklós Mandl). 4 Robert Fulford. ‘Dream Merchants: Jews, photography and Andre Kertesz,’ Queen’s Quarterly 112.2 (2005): 221+ Academic OneFile. Web. April 9, 2016. 5 Ibid.

33 exploitation of new business opportunities, but also in the exploration of new artistic forms and genres.”6

While arguments may be made about whether a distinct ‘Jewish sensibility’ exists in the field of film and photography, it can be stated without equivocation that during the first half of the twentieth century, certainly in

Hungary and elsewhere in east-central Europe, Jews played a significant role in building the film industry. The question of why so many Jews were attracted to the field of acting and why they excelled in this profession was a topic examined as early as 1911 in an article in the first Magyar Zsidó Almanach [Hungarian

Jewish Almanac].7 The author, Gyula Gál, a well-known theatre producer, wrote:

“the acting talent comes from life experience, this is why the most appropriate material stems from the ability of the Jewish people to adapt to the countless tribulations and trials that they have had to face….this is how, in their instinct for self-preservation, poverty-stricken Jewish children pursued by fate travelled through the cleansing fires of acting, and have become the best of humanity and the pride of their people.”8

Film historian István Nemeskürty wrote about the reasons for the all encompassing participation of Jewish artists in Hungarian cinema, and also in literature, music and the arts. Nemeskürty pointed out that Jewish artists did not play as prominent a role in other countries of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy such as Austria, Bohemia and Moravia and attributed this to: “The rich visual

6 Koerner, 230. 7 Gyula Gál, “A Zsidóság és a Szinjátszás,” [Jews and Acting] Magyar Zsidó Almanach, dr. József Patai, ed., 1. évf., 1911 május, 25-27, USHMM. All translations are those of the author. 8 Ibid, 26.

34 imagery of Hungarian folk carvings, folk tales and poetry.”9 Jewish filmmakers were immersed in the language and culture of Hungary. Sándor Korda started his career as a poet and published a collection of short stories, his outstanding film works were based on adaptations from popular stories of Hungarian literature. Moreover, Nemeskürty also observed that the creative environment was an era in which filmmakers could work freely. “Prior to 1918, Hungary accepted and supported almost all kinds of movements, persuasions, religions and outlooks.”10

At that time, photography and film were innovative and creative fields, involving new technologies. Both industries exerted a powerful influence on the masses and both artistic fields were open to Jews. As Hungarian Jews attained increased visibility in the film industry, antisemitic extremist groups focused and directed their anger and hostility towards these industries.

The legal situation of Hungarian Jews

The late 19th to early 20th Century was a flowering time for the Jews of

Hungary. After 1840, Jews were given the freedom to move and settle in cities in

Hungary, and in 1860, they were allowed to own agricultural plots of land. The

Emancipation Bill was voted into law in 1867, in which Jews were declared to have the same civil and political rights as Hungary’s Christians.11 By 1895, the

Law of Reception provided that Judaism was included on an equal basis with the

9 István Nemeskürty, “In the Maze of Movie,”Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar: the Jews of Hungary, History, Society and Culture, 251. 10 Ibid. 11 Raphael Patai. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture and Psychology, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996, 314.

35 other state-accepted religions of Hungary. Although Hungary’s economy remained largely traditional, feudal and agriculture-based, during the late nineteenth century many parts of the country were transformed into an urbanized, commercial-industrial economy.12 As part of the general legal equality introduced by liberal nationalists, Jews received full legal and economic emancipation. “Undoubtedly, Jews were prominent in economic entrepreneurship. They played a very important role in the industrialization of

Hungary, and were often the beacons of social change implied by industrialization.”13

In light of the liberal laws and opportunities afforded Jews in Hungary, their situation was unique when compared to all the other countries in east- central Europe. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, they migrated to

Hungary in great numbers. By the turn of the century, the number of Jews living in Hungary approached one million (out of a population of 18,264,533).14 In most professions, Jews were represented in numbers that far exceeded their percentage (about 5%) in the general population. In Budapest, the estimated total population of Jews was 25 percent; by 1910, Jewish representation in the professions were 62 percent of lawyers, 59 percent of physicians, 52 percent of veterinary surgeons, 44 percent of self-employed engineers and 33 percent of pharmacists.15 The convergence of the Jewish middle class in the liberal

12 Ibid., 433. 13 Yehuda Don, “The economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, Periodicals Archive Online, 63. 14 Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, Third Edition, Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2016, 5. 15 Victor Karády, “The Jewish Bourgeoisie of Budapest,” Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar, 147.

36 professions did not happen by accident. Towards the late nineteenth century, a division of labour evolved, whereby the jobs in the public sector became the field of the ‘gentry’ class, and the so-called liberal professions were open to students of the Jewish middle class.16 These occupations were very different when it came to job security. The public sector jobs offered security of employment; by contrast, the liberal professions were much more competitive.

Playwriting also started to flourish around the turn of the century. Many outstanding authors were Hungarian Jews, such as Jenő Heltai, Menyhért

Lengyel, Ferenc Molnár, Ernő Szép and Dezső Szomory, as were many actors and directors of the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre], where the majority of their plays had premieres. Theatres outside of Hungary often adapted these plays, mostly light comedies, and they became popular worldwide in the twenties and the thirties. These plays were called “export dramas” in Hungary.17 Additionally, film adaptations of plays by Hungarian Jewish playwrights were very successful.

For example, The Shop Around the Corner, a popular movie directed by Ernst

Lubitsch, directed in 1940, was based on Illatszer [Parfumerie], a play by Miklós

László. Other authors became successful as scriptwriters or screenwriters (as they are referred to today), including Menyhért Lengyel, who wrote the screenplay for Ninotchka, a 1939 film starring Greta Garbo.18

Hungary became a prodigious producer of films throughout the First

World War. During the silent film era, film producers created their own films

16 Ibid. 17 Koerner, 223. 18 Ibid., 224.

37 with their own money or, as they became more successful, found investors. By

1918, Sándor Korda (1893-1956) had produced nineteen films and built his own film production house, the Corvin Film Studio on Gyarmat utca in Budapest. His successful films were based on the works of talented writers such as Frigyes

Karinthy, Sándor Bródy, Mihály Babits, Ferenc Molnár and other writers affiliated with the progressive literary journal Nyugat.19 Korda edited and published one of the first journals dealing specifically with film, Mozihét [Movie

Week] published between 1915-1922. As editor of this pioneer professional journal and a prolific filmmaker, Sándor Korda became one of the most influential directors and producers in the Hungarian film industry.

Another successful director of this period, Mihály Kertész (1886-1962), produced thirty-eight films in Hungary between 1912 and 1919. 20 Unlike Korda,

Kertész worked with writers who learned how to write for film and created their own story lines. His films were more action and adventure-oriented. While they were in Hungary, both Korda and Kertész were instrumental in training individual writers, cameramen and technicians, providing a strong talent base for an expanding filmmaking industry.

Filmmaking nationalized (1919)

The end of First World War brought about the collapse of the Dual

Monarchy, followed by a series of short-lived, unsuccessful governments. The first, a liberal-democratic government led by Count Mihály Károlyi, resigned in

19 István Nemeskürty, Magyar Film, 1939-1944, [Hungarian Film, 1939-1944], 31. 20 István Nemeskürty and Tibor Szántó, A Pictorial Guide to the Hungarian Cinema, 1901-1984, 29- 40.

38 protest at the territorial demands of the Allied powers. The leadership void was filled by the communist leader Béla Kun, who joined forces with the Social

Democrats and established the Hungarian Soviet Republic on March 21, 1919.

One of the first acts of the Kun regime was to nationalize the agriculture industry instead of distributing land to the peasants, an action that alienated the peasantry. By March 26, many other industries had been nationalized: factories, mines, transport companies, credit institutions, and even tenement houses. A

“Committee of Public Safety” was organized to put pressure on the civilian population in order to maintain the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” This period, known as the “Red Terror”was carried out by the Red Guard, assisted by an elite corps of secret police, called the “Lenin boys,” formed to hunt down, arrest, imprison, and execute anyone who opposed the new order.21 More than 590 people were summarily executed.22

During the brief 133 days in power, from March to October 1919, the regime of Béla Kun nationalized the film industry. New film regulatory bodies were established to keep the film industry under tight controls. The “Directory,” was the central administrative board concerned with the organization, direction and pursuits of the entire industry.23 The “Commissars’ Council” was also established, directed by Political Commissar Béla Paulik, who became managing director of film affairs. In artistic questions, his chief deputy was Julia Komját.

21 László Kontler, A History of Hungary: Millenium in Central Europe, 334-335. 22 Albert Váry, A vörös uralom áldozatai Magyarországon [The Victims of the Red Terror in Hungary]. 3rd ed., Szeged: Szegedi Nyomda, 1993. 23 István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968, 41-50. Board members included: Pál Aczél, journalist and director, Béla Balogh, Director, Oszkár Damo, director, Jenő Farkas, projectionist, Lajos Grünfelder, industrial executive, Sándor Korda, director, László Vajda, dramatist.

The theoretical and practical work of nationalization was executed by Paulik and

Komját, they looked after every detail, from film production, registration of actors and actresses to the network of cinemas.

The work of filmmaking was further centrally controlled and directed by the merging of film studios with only six studios allowed to operate. Four main

Directors of Drama (screenwriters) were appointed: Pál Aczél, István Lázár, Ede

Sas and Iván Siklosi were the only designated individuals who could approve film scripts. Scripts gained final approval or were changed by the “Art Council,” a body that insured the political message was in synchrony with the Hungarian

Soviet Republic.24

Béla Lugosi played an important role in the film organization of the

Hungarian Soviet Republic. Lugosi was born Béla Blaskó; initially his screen name became Arisztid Olt. He later adopted the name of Lugosi because he was born in Lugos, Hungary. Béla Lugosi fled after the collapse of the Hungarian

Soviet Republic. Lugosi first went to Vienna, then to Hollywood, where he became famous by starring in the film Dracula.

Actors had to be registered with the Commissars’ Council. Only forty-one film actors and actresses were allowed to register and only these actors and actresses were entitled to play leading roles. There were thirty-seven “film actor candidates” as well as forty-five “juvenile film actor candidates” and 130 extras.

In total, 253 individuals were approved by the Directory to be allowed to work

24 Ibid., 41-50. The Art Council members included: Béla Balogh, Mihály Kertész, László Markus, József Pakots, László Vajda.

40 on various projects. During the four months, thirty-one films, mainly short propaganda films, were produced. Only one feature film survived from this era, it is entitled Tegnap [Yesterday], directed by Dezső Orbán.25

The economic and political impact of Trianon (1920)

The regime of Regent Miklós Horthy (1896-1957) came to power on March

1, 1920. His government ruled the country with a functioning multi-party system until March 15, 1944. Horthy was a Vice-Admiral in the Austro-

Hungarian army who began his career at the age of 14 in the Austro-Hungarian naval academy.26 In the chaos that followed the end of the World War I, he was appointed defense minister in the nationalist government formed in the French occupied Hungarian city of Szeged. Horthy raised the so-called National army

[Nemzeti Hadsereg], mostly made up of veterans of the First World War in order to overthrow the Hungarian Soviet Republic of Béla Kun. The take over of

Horthy was followed by “White Terror,” characterized by violence and retribution directed against those active in the leadership of the Hungarian

Soviet Republic. The victims of the White Terror were mainly Jews, real or alleged communists, and many peasants who rose up against landowners.

Estimates of the victims killed during the White Terror from the early 1920s

25 Nemeskürty and Szántó, A Pictorial Guide, 39. 26 For further information on his youth and background as a member of a noble Hungarian Protestant family, see Miklos Horthy, Emlékirataim [Memoirs], 2nd ed., Toronto: Weller Publishing, 1974.

41 range between 626 and 2,000.27 About 70,000 people were interned or arrested for shorter or longer periods.28

Korda, Kertész and countless others--the best and brightest filmmakers-- were involved in the nationalization of film during the Hungarian Soviet

Republic. As a result of the “White Terror,” they and dozens of other filmmakers left their homeland to work in other countries and to establish new studios elsewhere. In major capitals across Europe, Hungarian-speaking directors and producers found prominent positions. Alexander Korda moved to London,

England, where he was one of the key creators of the British film industry. He was later knighted for his outstanding contributions to British cinema. Mihály

Kertész, or Michael Curtiz, as he later became known, signed a contract in the spring of 1918 that took him to Vienna and later to the United States, where he became one of Hollywood’s most prolific filmmakers, directing such famous films as Casablanca (1942). In all, Curtiz directed more than one hundred films before passing away in 1962.29

The three empires defeated during the First World War were dismembered at the Paris Peace congress: namely the Ottoman Empire, the

German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The seemingly arbitrary nature of the new borders ordered by the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920) shocked Hungarians and the Hungarian national consciousness. The treaty assigned two-thirds of Hungary’s previous territory to successor states and from

27 Kontler, 339-40. 28 Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 383. 29 Alan K. Rode, Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film, Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 2017.

42 one day to the next, one-third of the country’s Hungarian-speaking population suddenly found themselves residing outside of Hungary’s borders. One central focus permeated popular debates among the defeated Hungarians: revision of the much-reviled treaty imposed upon the country. Hungarians were stunned by the enormity of their losses, not just land and population, but the country’s mineral wealth, forestry and agricultural territories were drastically diminished.

More than 700,000 Jews declared themselves Hungarians prior to the First

World War. The liberal, aristocratic regime that ruled Hungary since before the turn of the century had an unwritten agreement with the Jewish community, that

Jews living in Hungary would become equal citizens in the country as long as they declared their mother tongue to be Hungarian, thereby raising the demographic numbers of Hungarians within the Carpathian basin. This agreement fell apart, however, with the partitioning of historic Hungary. There were no more ethnic minorities to be placated in the newly created rump

Hungary. In 1919, while the Entente powers were determining the borders of the new states of east-central Europe, the fear of the “red menace,” led by Béla Kun, reverberated all the way to Paris. It was the first such communist “Soviet

Republic” to be declared outside of the Soviet Union. Of the some 5,000 commissars who led the Soviet Republic, an estimated 60 to 75 percent were Jews by either religion or birth, and this was used as a pretext to blame Jews for the disastrous events that followed.30 Many non-Jewish Hungarians felt betrayed by their Jewish countrymen, whom they felt had until then, been allowed access to

30 Lendvai, The Hungarians, 378.

43 many fields of higher education and professions as well as integrated into the social, economic, and cultural life of Hungary.

Hungarians believed their nation had been betrayed and, as with other countries in Europe, turned inward to the conservative revolution. Territorial revision of the Treaty of Trianon, “Nem, nem, soha!” [No, No, Never] became the rallying cry of the Hungarian people and the main foreign policy agenda of the

Hungarian government (1920-1944) during the interwar years.

The church, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, led the call for the return to tradition and conservatism.“New symbolic practices, new holidays, and above all, new narratives of Hungarian history served to mark the break with the liberal past and to create a reality in political and intellectual life of the ‘Christian

Hungarian nation.’”31 The central argument of this narrative was that, in order to establish a Christian society, it was necessary to eliminate “anti-Christian” forces, with the primary focus directed against Bolshevism. The propaganda forces of the Horthy regime blamed the regime of Béla Kun for the disaster of Trianon.

During the interwar years, Bolshevism became the central enemy, reflected in every aspect of the narrative of the Horthy government, including newspapers, books, media, theatre, and film.

The issue of the high proportion of Jews in the professions and particularly the film industry was on the agenda of the Horthy regime soon after coming to power in 1920. The ‘Szeged idea’ was the term for the somewhat

31 Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890- 1944, 3.

44 nebulous philosophy and program of the right radicals and counterrevolutionaries who rallied around Horthy. The main supporters of the movement were the dispossessed: fixed-income middle and lower middle classes hard hit by inflationary pressures of the postwar period, army officers of the disintegrated Hungarian Army, and a veritable flood of refugee bureaucrats and their families, estimated at 300,000, from the territories ceded to the successor states.32 Tens of thousands lived as refugees in abandoned boxcars for many years.

These politically conscious people, demoted from the ruling classes to homeless beggars, constituted an ideal ‘reservoir’ for various extremists, populist rabble-rousers and death squads of radical nationalist and antisemitic officers.33

Numerus Clausus

Between 1919-1920, dozens of radical right-wing organizations were established and became active in Hungary.34 A network of counterrevolutionary societies, some secret, others public, were organized under the intellectual leadership of Gyula Gömbös (1886-1936), a right-wing, antisemitic political leader who later became prime minister for four years. From 1919 until his death in 1937, Gömbös was the foremost leader of the Hungarian radical right movement, along with Endre Zsilinszky (1886-1944). Organizations like the

32 Randolph Braham, “The Holocaust in Hungary: An Historical Interpretation of the Role of the Hungarian Radical Right,” Studies on the Holocaust: Selected Writings, Randolph L. Braham, ed., Vol. 1, Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2000, 69-97. 33 Lendvai, 374. 34 Thomas Sakmyster, “Gyula Gömbös and Hungarian Jews, 1918-1936,” Hungarian Studies Review, 1918-1936, Vol. XXXIII, No. 102, 2006, 157-168.

Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete [Association of Awakening Magyars], and the

Magyarok Országos Védő Egyesülete [Hungarian National Defense

Organization] or MOVE, were the most radical. MOVE viewed its goal as breaking the majority hold that the Jews had on the Hungarians, as opposed to the position of the Ébredő Magyarok, EME, which promoted a much more radical ideology. Within a few years, MOVE had over 100,000 members as a political extreme right organization. Though Gömbös did not call for physical violence or elimination of the Jews, the movement did not condemn these methods when they were voiced by other groups.

One of the pillars of the philosophy of the Gömbös group was antisemitism, but the organization also claimed that an equally important element was the “positive, constructive ideology of lifting up the economic, social and cultural life of Hungarians.”35 Zsilinszky argued that Jews had gained so much power within Hungary that they were stunting the growth of the

Hungarian people. Gömbös wrote, “unless drastic action was taken, the successors of the state-founding people led by Árpád would become slaves to

Jews.”36

A more extremist organization, Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete, EME, was founded in 1919 with membership consisting mainly of civilians that grew to nearly one million by 1920. The organization sought to deprive Jews of their

35 Ibid.,159. 36 Ibid.,161. Árpád was the leader of the Magyar tribes when they settled in the Carpathian Basin around 896 AD. He founded the Árpád dynasty and is known as the founder of the Hungarian nation.

46 rights and separate them from their wealth, in effect, to remove them from

Hungarian society. Their goals, as described in a pamphlet:

It is the unalterable will of the Association of Awakening Magyars to re-establish the reign of pure Christian morals and national feeling throughout the country and to exterminate those destructive doctrines spread by the Jews that already contaminated the Christian population of Hungary.37

Other national organizations with similar ideological goals were also established around this time, the most significant of these were: Etelköz Magyarok [Etelköz

Association] and the Magyar Asszonyok Nemzeti Szövetsége [Hungarian Women’s

National Federation, or MANSz].

Disenfranchised university students, many of them bitter after returning from military service, also established right-wing organizations at universities such as the Hungária Egyesület [Hungaria Association] and the Szent István

Bajtársi Szövetség [Saint Stephen Fraternal Association]. But the most wide- reaching of the organizations founded by university students was the Turul

Társaság [Turul Association], established in 1919, a few days after the fall of the communist dictatorship. The ideological basis for the organization was Christian- national, militarism, antisemitism and irredentism. The main goal of the Turul was to organize university students and put pressure on the government to implement and enforce the numerus clausus laws limiting the number of Jewish students at universities. Another reason for the widespread success of the Turul was that the organization was not attached to a single university or faculty

37 Nathanial Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews: Policy and Legislation, 1920-1943, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 43.

47 within a university, but spanned all universities in Hungary. Although it was founded in 1919, the growth and expansion of the Turul took place in 1928, when the government considered changes to the numerus clausus aimed at limiting the number of Jews allowed at Hungarian universities. The organization did not succeed; the government went ahead with the changes.

At the height of the popularity of the Turul, the membership of the organization was estimated at 40,000 with 48 chapters operating throughout the country.38 The Turul did not, however, adapt the political ideology of the

Hungarian Arrow Cross party, or promote its core beliefs, as it opposed the economic and social domination by Nazi Germany and rejected the ideologies that originated in Germany.39 Organizations of the radical right such as Turul exerted pressure on the government to take action against what they claimed was the dominance by Jews in higher education and later, for ousting Jews from the film industry. The Horthy regime acted on this soon after taking office.

The ideological basis for the numerus clausus law was prepared by Alajos

Kovács, chief statistician of Hungary. Kovacs argued for ‘proportionality,’ because, according to him, Jews held a disproportionate amount of the national wealth and income, at the time estimated to be about 20-25 percent. The proportion of Jews in the population as a whole in 1920 was 6 percent, but their

38 As quoted in Robert Kerepeszki, “The racial defence in Practice: The Activity of the Turul Association at Hungarian universities between the two world wars,” Victor Karády and Péter Tibor, eds., The Numerus Clausus in Hungary: Studies on the first anti-Jewish law and academic antisemitism in modern Central Europe, Budapest: Centre for Historical Research, Central European University, 2012, 142. 39 The Arrow Cross, or Hungarian National Socialist Party, was founded on October 23, 1937 by Ferenc Szálasi and his followers. The Arrow Cross was built upon the ideology and goals of the German Nazi, or National Socialist German Workers Party.

48 numbers among university students hovered around 25 percent before the war and by 1918 reached 36 percent. Kovács argued that this proportion should be reduced to 5.9 percent, which was the percentage of the proportion of Jews within the overall national population. The resulting numerus clausus laws (Law no. XXV of 1920) limited Jewish participation in institutions of higher learning.

Eight ethnic groups were listed in the law: Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks,

Romanians, Ruthenians, Croats, Serbs and the Jews. The basis of determination was “mother tongue,” however, when it came to the Jews, mother tongue was a non-issue as most Jewish students living and studying in Hungary had lived there for generations and were, to a great degree, acculturated to the country and its language. The term “Isrealite” in the determination of the law of 1920 specified a religion not a nationality.

According to the official reasoning, the law was intended to prevent a surplus in liberal professions, which the government claimed the dismembered country was unable to integrate. For years following 1920, unemployed lawyers, doctors, civil servants, and white-collar workers fled the partitioned areas of former Hungary and sought housing and employment in Hungary. With time, it became evident, that numerus clausus laws were, first of all, directed mainly against Jews, who were disproportionately represented in liberal professions and secondly, against women, who lost any opportunity to advance to medical and legal professions.

Hungary was the first to introduce such a numerus clausus law in 1920. In

Poland, by contrast, almost all of the institutions of higher learning applied the numerus clausus as a main criterion in admitting new students. In the last few

49 years preceding the outbreak of the Second World War, Polish authorities took even more discriminative measures against university students of Jewish origin, allocating ‘Jewish benches,’ at the back of the auditoriums and classrooms only to be used by Jews. Jewish students frequently revolted against these regulations and refused to sit there.40

The Jewish quota was in force until 1928, when the government of István

Bethlen modified numerus clausus laws not only in response to international pressure from the League of Nations, but also because it realized that the legislation was not working in its original form. The law neither helped in the education of the “Christian” middle classes, nor in finding employment for these groups. Although it was enacted in 1920 and modified in 1928, some historians, such as Maria M. Kovacs, argue that the numerus clausus of 1920 was the first anti-Jewish law and that this law represented much continuity across decades of the Horthy regime.41

The numerus clausus laws had hardly passed in 1920, when the Horthy regime made its first attempts to extend the argument of ‘proportionality’ to the film industry. The government regarded the media, and in particular, filmmaking as an important new entertainment and propaganda medium. In fact, the film industry was viewed by the regime as an industry that had to be highly regulated, because its influence was of such great significance.

40 Szymon Rudnicki, “Jews in Poland Between Two World Wars,” Shofar, 2011, vol. 29, Issue 3, 21. 41 Maria M. Kovacs. Liberal Professions and Illiberal Politics, Washington, D.C. & New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Oxford University Press, 1994.

Reflecting these ideological goals, the Horthy regime introduced decree

8454/1920 soon after taking power, a decree that would have ejected Jewish filmmakers from the film business.42 Some astute government ministers realized that this decree would have destroyed what had been a vibrant film industry.

There were simply not enough skilled and talented professionals in the film business to replace those who had left in 1919. Realizing they had gone too far, the government reversed the decree in 1923 by introducing decree number

6900/1923, calling it the ‘creation of a social partnership.’ This decree allowed

Jews to return to the film industry.43

Another act on the part of the Horthy regime that deeply damaged film distribution was the revocation of theatre licenses from former Jewish owners and awarding those licenses to veterans, especially disabled veterans and war widows. By doing this, the regime brought in individuals who did not have experience in operating a local cinema, and who, in many cases, lacked funds to invest in the business. This created more pressure on an already struggling film business and further exacerbated the crisis occurring in the film industry.44

As a result of territorial losses, the Hungarian film industry had to adjust to smaller audiences and realized that new markets were required for Hungarian films. In regions ceded to successor states, the ownership of cinemas were transferred and/or appropriated by the state. In Czechoslovakia, for example,

42 Tibor Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, [After the Changing of the Guard: the Jewish Question and the Politics of Film] Budapest: Magyar Filmintézet, 1997, 9. 43 Ibid.,9. 44 Ibid.

51 cinemas owned by Austrians or Hungarians were taken over by the state and sold to Czechs or Slovaks.45

These factors led to the destabilization of the film industry during the

1920s. The Hungarian film industry had produced 220 films between 1917 and

October 1919.46 From that level, production declined steadily through the 1920s: from twenty-three films in 1923, seven in 1924, two in 1925, three in 1926 and

1927, to one film in 1928.47 The lowest point in the interwar history of filmmaking in Hungary was 1929, when the industry practically came to a halt.

The effects of the 1929 crash on Wall Street and the Great Depression that followed reverberated around the world, forcing many film studios into bankruptcy, including such powerful film production houses as Paramount

Studios in Hollywood, which went under in 1933. Several Hungarian film studios went bankrupt even prior to the Wall Street crash of 1929, including

Corvin Studios. Corvin was later purchased by the Hungarian government and transformed into a modern facility renamed Hunnia.

Conclusion

The history of the filmmaking industry in Hungary was vibrant from the beginning of its inception around 1890 until the end of World War I. Within the first two decades of the development of this artistic field, a wide array of talented producers, directors, actors and actresses joined the new medium, attracted by

45 Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 28. 46 Zsolt Kőháti, Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között, [Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film between 1896-1930], 154. 47 Nemeskürty, A képpé varázsolt idő, 224.

52 the excitement and creativity of the field. Jews were at the forefront of the new technology, attracted to the new field, becoming pioneers in the technical development of film. This vigorous era of production and creativity was disrupted at the end of the First World War by several short-lived, radical political regimes, border changes and the end of the liberal era of freedom and economic growth. The history of filmmaking in Hungary is inextricably linked to the many political changes that took place at the end of World War I. Jews were prominent in economic entrepreneurship and played an important role in the industrialization of Hungary. They were often leaders of social change that accompanied modernization. The extreme right portrayed the economic functioning of the Jews collectively as the primary culprit for the poverty, unemployment as well as for the deterioration of the peasantry and the oversupply of white-collar workers that followed the end of the war.48 These events provide the background narrative for a much-diminished country that became, similar to many other countries in Europe, insular and self-absorbed.

Already in the 1920s, radical right organizations were founded, demanding

Numerus Clausus at universities and seeking to limit Jewish participation in the film industry in particular, as well as other industries. The Horthy regime recognized the importance of promoting a domestic film industry, and forming it into an industry that was nationalist, irredentist, Christian, and anti-Bolshevik.

48 Yehuda Don,“The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter, 1986, 48,1, Periodicals Archive Online, 64. Modern antisemitism is defined by Yehuda Don as “the discriminatory reaction of the majority of a native society to socio-economic changes to which Jewish minorities adjusted faster and more effectively than the Gentile majority.”

Chapter 3: The creation of the Chamber System (1929-1939)

When World War I ended disastrously for Hungary, many segments of

Hungarian society searched for someone to blame. The aristocratic ruling class was reticent to allow change, especially in the fields of land distribution and universal suffrage. Except for a few forward thinking members of the aristocracy, most fought to keep the status quo with all their privileges. Jews were blamed for a wide assortment of woes, such as losing the war, the loss of territories, the takeover of the Hungarian Soviet Republic and practically all the economic and social problems that followed.

The tone of the government party, although consistently nationalistic, irredentist and anti-Bolshevik, was altered with the accession of different prime ministers. This chapter will examine how the terms of various prime ministers and the push of right-wing organizations affected the implementation of the laws. The 1930s were characterized by a struggle between extreme right-wing organizations and their attempts to gain power and the counter-attempts by the liberal, aristocratic members of the government party who often paid lip service to their ideology, yet attempted to keep the rightists in check. Regent Horthy and some of his closest ministers and advisors were conflicted in their views towards

Hungary’s Jews. Radical right forces wanted to purge all Jews from the film industry, however, pragmatic government ministers, many of whom had financial stakes in the industry, realized that evicting Jews from specific spheres of economic influence would be disastrous for many parts of the economy, especially the film industry.

53 54

The Hungarian government realized that their irredentist goals would only be achieved through a growing dependence on the Third Reich and thus, demands for closer ties to Germany grew stronger from the mid to late thirties onward. As a result of the closer ties, there was growing pressure on Hungary to bring in legislation that limited the expansion of Jewish influence. The

Reichskulturkammer, founded in 1933, had the effect of purging all Jews from the film industry in Nazi Germany within two years. By contrast, in Hungary, the film chamber system did not exclude all Jews from the film industry. While their official numbers were reduced according to the then newly-implemented rules,

Jews continued to work under pseudonyms as producers, directors and screenwriters. By 1942, Hungary became the third most prolific filmmaking country, after Italy and Germany.1

This chapter examines the extremist rhetoric of antisemitic organizations and their demands that the government take action against what they claimed was the “Jewish dominated” movie industry. Despite the fact that the Horthy regime stated that it did not want to nationalize film, they mandated the chamber to control the number of active filmmakers, and set up funding boards to ensure that only those films were financed that reflected the ideology of the government. This chapter will look at the ever-increasing influence of the government over film, the growing pervasiveness of antisemitism in Hungarian society and how these forces brought about the Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939.

Among the original sources examined in this chapter is a fifty-five page discussion paper that laid the groundwork for the by-laws of the Theatre and

1 Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-1944, 7.

Film Arts Chamber. It sheds new light on the inner workings of the Film chamber and provides further insight into the intent behind the creation of the chamber on the film industry.2 This document demonstrates the ever-increasing role of the government within the film industry and the growing radicalization of the rightist movement in Hungary. Through this document, I will describe how the government legislation establishing the chamber was brought about with the intent of placating the extreme right, but had the effect of clouding the mandate of the film industry and making it more difficult for members of the chamber to produce films. First, this chapter will look at how the Hungarian film industry fared amidst the major technological changes that came about with the introduction of sound.

The revolution in the technology of film: the talkies

The introduction of synchronized sound for films, also known as ‘the talkies,’ was a turning point of technology that revolutionized the film industry.

The first feature film produced with sound, The Jazz Singer, was released by

Warner Brothers in October, 1927. Production and distribution were overhauled.

The new technology required substantial input of investment and new equipment, as well as new expertise for skilled cinematographers and sound technicians. Everything regarding film production and distribution became significantly more expensive. Camera crews were larger, using an entirely new type of recording equipment; sets and studios had to be expanded and

2 RG-39.004, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], 1938 julius 27, 28, War History Archives, Bp, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, 1919-1945, reel 7, Bundle 3520, USHMM.

56 upgraded. Film theatres required renovations with new equipment; many were enlarged in order to make the theatre economically viable. Many village cinemas and pubs, until then successful at screening silent films, were no longer profitable.

The introduction of language into film production raised national consciousness about this medium as it related to cultural and national identity.

The Hungarian government quickly realized that in a territorially much diminished country, where the population was eight million, a vibrant film industry was critically important. The government placed the development of the new sound technology high on the list of priorities.

The talkies caused an even higher consumer demand for films. The first sound film made in Hungary was Csak egy Kislány van a Világon [There is only one girl in the world], made in 1930, directed by Béla Gaál. It would take another year before the first fully synchronized film was to reach Hungarian audiences in

A Kék Bálvány [The Blue Idol], directed by Lajos Lázár. Béla Gaál (1893-1945) was one of the most prolific film directors of the interwar era. He came from a background of theatre and produced several silent films during the 1920s. Gaál also directed the film training school in Budapest. His second film, Meseautó

[Dream Car], produced in 1934, provided “an upliftingly optimistic view of existence, a sense that if there are problems, they can be solved.”3

The production of Hungarian films flourished between 1933 to 1939.

Hungarian government and filmmakers realized they needed foreign partners to

3 Bryan Burns, World Cinema: Hungary, 4.

57 create Hungarian films and looked to other countries in Europe and the United

States for capital and partnerships, citing low expenses, multiple language skills and modern facilities.

The Hungarian government purchased Corvin film studio, transformed it into a modern, updated facility and renamed it Hunnia Studios. By 1931, Hunnia had become a national institution and the centre of film production in the country.4 Dr. János Bingert, formerly in law enforcement, was named head of

Hunnia Studios. Despite his limited background, Bingert understood that one of the necessities for making films was working capital.5 Bingert worked with his colleague, Gyula Pekár, another key individual of the interwar film establishment, in reaching out to foreign partners in order to raise capital. Pekár had been a writer involved in film since the silent era of 1900. He was head of the

Filmtanács [Film Council] and President of the Film Industry Fund. Gyula Pekár demonstrated leadership in bringing talented Hungarians home from other

European countries and even the United States. Pekár believed that “if Hungary could become the commercial center of European film production, then they

(Hungary’s émigré talent) will have an interest in coming home.”6

One of the main obstacles that prevented the Hungarian film industry from being re-built was that the postwar film viewing audience was significantly reduced, and the country was flooded with a plethora of American and French- made foreign films. In the 1930s, more than half the feature films shown in

4 Nemeskürty, Word and Image, 71. 5 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 64-5. 6 “Lesz Magyar Film,” [There will be Hungarian Film], Magyar Filmkurir, 1930 junius 8.

Hungary were from the United States, and an additional twenty percent were from Germany.7 Hungarians wanted to see films in their own language, but the problem was how to make these films financially viable. János Bingert, Director of Hunnia, found a solution by calling for a tax on foreign films screened in

Hungary, thereby creating a fund for domestic film producers. It was proposed that for every twenty foreign films imported and screened in Hungary, one

Hungarian film had to be produced.8 These contributions made it possible to start the revival of the Hungarian film industry, as a result Hungary became the only small European country to produce films on a regular basis.9

The film tax was not the only incentive to re-build the Hungarian film industry. As a result of the Great Depression, many countries, including

Hungary, restricted currency exchanges or prohibited them outright. The result was that foreign distributors would not likely be paid for their films in their own currency. These restrictions also had a positive side: the currency restrictions prevented the flow of foreign films into Hungary and forced film companies to invest their profits in more Hungarian films before the currency became further devalued.10

Regime change also played a critical role. In October 1932, riding on a wave of right wing popularity, political leader Gyula Gömbös (1886-1936), one of the ideological leaders of the right wing, was appointed Prime Minister of

Hungary. While Gömbös was supported by many, he could not implement the

7 Nemeskürty, Word and Image, 71. 8 Ibid, 72. 9 István Langer, “Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl, I-II resz, 1919-48 [Chapters from the History of Hungarian Film Production], Parts 1-2, 1919-1948, 44. 10 Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 46.

59 antisemitic laws he had so fervently promoted prior to being appointed to power due to the requirements laid out by Regent Horthy. While Gömbös followed the rules, he expanded his base within the government party and placed more like- minded individuals in positions of power in Ministries and generals in the army command.11 The work of Gömbös strengthened the radical right and laid the groundwork for the implementation of antisemitic laws. Gömbös sought to stabilize the economy and introduced a 95-point plan entitled A Nemzeti

Munkaterv [The National Work Programme].12 In this plan, he emphasized the importance of the film industry, in light of the “extraordinary importance of film in terms of its educational, cultural, propaganda and entertainment influences.”

Gömbös did not complete the tasks he started since he passed away suddenly while in office in October 1936.

Germany provided the precedent for the creation of a Chamber system, limiting and controlling the membership of certain professions. The

Reichskulturkammer [Reich Chamber of Culture], established in 1933, encompassed seven fields of arts and culture, including film. Although the first draft of the decree did not explicitly mention Jews, by 1935 the Chamber system in Germany was restructured and Jews were expelled from membership.

Italy’s first “anti-Liberal” measures affecting film production occurred much earlier, starting in 1925. Most of the measures reduced the independent status of actors, actresses, film producers and directors by bringing them into a

11 Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 12. 12 Vonyó, Gömbös Gyula, 172-180.

60 newly organized Confederazione nazionale di sindicati fascisti [National

Confederation of Fascist Trade Unions] organized by the federal government.13

Hungarian émigré talent working in Germany was forced out by the enactment of the Reichskulturkammer. More than 300 Hungarian-born actresses, actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, cinematographers were living and working in Germany between the 1920s and early 1930s.14 In the 1930s, a number of exiled directors returned to Hungary, bringing with them high technical standards and experience from their years abroad in the United States and

Germany.

Among those who returned were two exceptional talents, István Székely

(1899-1979) and Pál Fejős (1897-1963). Székely became one of Hungary’s most prolific film directors, directing over twenty-six films during the interwar era, including one of the most popular films of that era, Hippolit a Lakáj (1931),

[Hippolit the Butler]. Székely was interviewed many years later about why he returned to Hungary.15 János Bingert, the head of Hunnia, paid a personal visit to

Székely, to coax the famous director back to Budapest with two screenplays in hand. Neither of the two projects interested Székely, however, he was persuaded when Bingert presented him with the screenplay for Hippolit a Lakáj, and showed him that a Czech financier and film producer agreed to finance the project.16

13 James Hay, Popular Film culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex, 203. 14 Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 59. 15 Székely was interviewed by film historian István Langer. Langer, Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl. I-II resz, 1919-48, 67. 16 Langer, 67.

Székely adapted other films from literature, films in which Hungarians could visualize stories based on their own lives, incorporating plots and scenes that appealed to middle and lower-class audiences.17 The plots were multi- layered, frequently incorporating stories of love with humorous twists of plot.

Székely worked with actors who were popular in the film world: the brilliant comedian Gyula Kabos, the debonair actor Pál Jávor, and the seductive actress

Katalin Karády. Székely reminisced about his early work in Hungary:

The number of filming days were less, in general we had to shoot everything in about two weeks…then, however, we worked day and night. We were young and enthusiastic, no one wanted to go to sleep, we wanted to finish the films quickly.18

Pál Fejős was a talented screenwriter who also brought the fast pace of filmmaking that he had learned in the United States.19 Fejős had a reputation for writing the screenplay for a scene in the morning and directing the scene in the afternoon of the very same day. He was indefatigable, he would work late into the night writing, directing and editing.20

By the mid-1930s, the Hungarian film industry had regained its vitality.

Directors produced highly watchable versions of the Hollywood comedies of the

1930s. Cinema was an art form most people craved as a means of escapism from the economic hardships of everyday life and movie tickets were relatively

17 Burns, 4 18 Langer, 116-117 19 http://www.filmkultura.hu/regi/2004/articles/essays/fejos.hu.html. Accessed March 28, 2017. 20 Ibid.

62 inexpensive.21 During the 1930s, the Hungarian population spent roughly the same amount on cinema tickets – 25 million pengős in 1935, for example – as they did on all printed matter, newspapers, books and almanacs together.22

The optimism and energy reflected by the film industry in the 1930s lasted for several years. Neither the public nor the professionals active in the production of film could have foreseen, however, the effects of the anti-Jewish laws of 1938 and

1939 on the film industry.

Exclusionary tactics in film

While the Horthy regime did not seek to nationalize the film industry, it did exert government control over the industry by establishing membership organizations, such as the film chamber, as well as putting in place funding mechanisms to ensure oversight. A few writers and journalists covered the expansion of these organizations and the appointment of individuals who were directly linked to government ministers. Andor Lajta, for example, edited and authored one of the most comprehensive journals, Filmkultura [Film Culture] on the history of Hungarian film during the interwar era. The monthly magazine featured articles on technical advances, distribution, and new legislation in filmmaking. The journal also published articles on the success of Hungarian films internationally, while at the same time providing an important historical record of antisemitic attacks on Jewish filmmakers in the press. Lajta, who was himself a Jew, started the journal in 1928 and edited and published the monthly magazine until 1937, when the journal was ordered to cease publication under

21 Cunningham, 29. 22Ignác Romsics, Hungary in the Twentieth Century, Budapest: Corvina-Osiris, 1999, 178.

Prime Minister Béla Imrédy.23 Lajta also published the Filmművészeti Évkönyv

[Film Culture Yearbook], from 1919 to 1947. This Évkönyv, published annually for almost thirty years, served as a primary historical record of the Hungarian film industry.

Filmkultura tracked the establishment of organizations specifically mandated to monitor the film industry. One such early organization, established in 1936, was known as the Országos Magyar Filmegyesület, or OMF [National

Hungarian Film Association], precursor to the Film Chamber of 1938. The

Filmegyesület (OMF) was organized with the intent of bringing various branches of the film industry together, such as producers, distributors, and cinema owners, as well as to create a body that would ensure the quality of Hungarian film.24 The narrative of the origins of this organization reflected the historical context in which it was founded. Initially, two successful filmmakers were voted onto the executive board of the OMF in February 1937, namely: director István

Székely as Head of the Directors Department, and Béla Gaál as Executive Vice-

President.25 Some members of the government exerted quiet pressure to appoint more pragmatic individuals to lead this organization, namely those who had experience in producing films and realized that Hungary’s film industry depended on the talent, expertise and capital provided by Hungarian Jews. Two

23 http://mandarchiv.hu/cikk/4807/A_Lajta_Andor_altal_szerkesztett_Filmkultura_szamai. Accessed April 27, 2017. 24 Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 13. 25 Filmkultura, 1937 március 1, 5.

64 such pragmatic individuals were studio head Zoltán Taubinger of MFI Magyar

Filmintézet [Hungarian Film Institute] and János Bingert of Hunnia Studios.26

Other members of the government ensured that at least the two positions of vice- presidents were filled with individuals acceptable to the right-wing, namely,

Miklós Vitéz, writer and production manager, and actor Ferenc Kiss, an outspoken member of the Turul who would later be appointed President of the

Film Arts Chamber from 1939 until April 1942.27 Vitéz and Kiss were in daily contact and maintained close relationships with like-minded government ministers. As Filmkultura documented, the establishment of one main governing body for the film industry began in 1936 with the founding of its predecessor, the

OMF, Országos Magyar Filmegyesület. The purpose of these appointments was two-fold: to placate the calls of right-wing organizations that demanded the end to the Jewish domination of the film industry, and secondly to have compliant individuals in the upper echelons of the OMF who would report to government members about the goings-on within the organization and be willing to carry out the film related agenda of the government. Within months, these government appointees pushed out the experienced filmmakers, who also happened to be the

Jewish members of the executive, namely Béla Gaál and István Székely.28

The replacement of Gyula Gömbös as Prime Minister in 1936 with Kálmán

Darányi (1886-1939) was viewed as a welcome change to those who believed that

Darányi was chosen to stop the aggressive expansion of the right-wing

26 Taubinger, who changed his name to Törey in 1939 to make it sound more Hungarian, was known as an ally and protector of the Jews. Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 199. 27 Sándor, 31. This date marks the induction of Prime Minister Miklós Kállay. 28 Sándor, 14.

65 movements that had gained strength during the Gömbös government. In reality, the Darányi government paved the way for the implementation of the Jewish

Laws and worked to align Hungary with the foreign policy interests of Germany and Italy. Darányi’s speech of March 5, 1938 in the city of Győr announced the re-armament of the nation and declared the need for an Örségváltás [changing of the guard] in order to assure a more “effective and equal balance” of social and economic conditions.29 In fact, Darányi’s speech was “testing the waters” to assess public opinion about the forthcoming First Jewish law XV of 1938. For the

Jews, the speech in Győr represented something more ominous as Darányi announced the necessity for “a solution to the Jewish question.”30 While reassuring the populace in the same speech that the government party would follow the constitution and keep the Arrow Cross Party at bay, Darányi’s government introduced restrictions on the press, extended legal powers of the central government and adopted the first Jewish law.31

Nazi Germany annexed the Austrian Republic in what became known as the Anschluss on March 12, 1938. Through this military extension of its power,

Nazi Germany became the direct neighbour of Hungary. Regent Horthy and his inner circle of advisers became increasingly worried about the more intense infiltration of Nazi ideology that this closer geographical proximity presented.

The extreme right became more emboldened. Miklos Horthy learned about a plot

29 Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary, 538-9. 30 Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, Third Revised Edition, Boulder, CO: Social Science Monographs, 2016, 78. 31 János Pelle, Sowing the Seeds of Hatred: Anti-Jewish Laws and Hungarian Public Opinion, 1938-1944, Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2004, 17.

66 to oust him, a plot that endangered the very safety of his family. Horthy was incensed by the prime minister’s lack of ability to keep the extremists in check. 32

On April 3, Horthy addressed the nation directly on the radio for the first time during his Regency. Horthy’s appeal to the nation declared his non- confidence in the government of Kálmán Darányi and announced the prospect of firm action against the disturbers of the peace, against radical antisemites, and those who were fomenting social unrest and discontent.33 Starting on April 24,

1938, the Horthy regime placed Ferenc Szálasi, leader of the Hungarian National

Socialist Party (the Arrow Cross) and seventy-two activists of his movement under police surveillance.34 Horthy considered Szálasi a dangerous man whose extremist demagoguery would cause investors to leave Hungary, exactly at the time when capital was needed to re-build and re-arm the country. Horthy was particularly concerned about Szálasi’s influence on some members of the military general staff and ordered, through the Supreme Commander of the Hungarian armed forces, that officers who engage in any political or disguised political activity should be charged in military court.35 Members of the armed forces who received written information from the Hungarian National Socialist Party were required to report such incidents and submit such material to their commanding officers under penalty of being charged in military court.36

32 Péter Sipos, Imrédy Béla és a Magyar Megújulás Pártja [Béla Imrédy and the Party of Hungarian Renewal] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970, 34. 33 Pelle, 28. 34 Ibid. 35 Sipos, 34. 36 RG-39.004, War History Archives, Budapest. Records of Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, Reel 1, USHMM. One letter from lieutenant Jenő Komlos in this collection was of particular interest as Komlos compiled and submitted several flyers he received from anonymous sources while at his military barracks. Komlos explained that his family was Jewish.

A further demonstration of the concern on the part of the Horthy regime of the growing influence of the National Socialists was that the government also collected reports of the activities of Szálasi while the leader of the Arrow Cross made a visit to the Hungarian regions of Romania. Reports were compiled by the administrators and police in each of the larger communities and cities where he visited.37

Regent Miklós Horthy compelled Kálmán Darányi to resign on May 13,

1938, just prior to the implementation of the First Jewish Law. The following day,

Béla Imrédy (1891-1946) was appointed Prime Minister. One of the first acts of the new Prime Minister was to increase the ten-month sentence of a lower court against Szálasi to three years.38 Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Imrédy had been Minister of Finance and President of the National Bank. Those moderate members of government who hoped for a more independent path believed the conservative, steady-handed fiscal policies of Imrédy would lead the country away from the growing influence of the extreme right. As a politician, Imrédy had been intimately involved with the drafting of the First Jewish Law, which was passed during his premiership. In his view, he intended that the implementation of the law be applied fairly. Some of the industrial and banking houses were provided five to ten years to conform to the laws. He also planned that the laws should be carried out fully, not only in the interests of fairness, but also to prevent the extremists from demanding much harsher measures. Imrédy

37 A collection of these reports is contained in MOL-K149, Reels 1 and 2, USHMM. 38 Pelle, 29.

68 and many other politicians mistakenly believed that the First Jewish Law would placate the extremists.

Calls for state supervision of the entire film profession came from discontented individuals who demanded more action to expel Jews from the

Hungarian film business. Members of the Turul were especially active in pushing the government for legislation regarding the Örségváltás, [changing of the guard].39 Some of the most vociferous, most politically active leaders of the Turul who were appointed to government positions. These appointments demonstrate the belief, on the part of the government, that by awarding certain members of the Turul with government positions, they could placate the extreme right organization and thereby slow the membership of the Turul in their agitation and push for power. Leaders of the Turul, such as István Antal, went on to become part of the Sajtóosztaly [Press Department] during the right-wing government leadership of Gyula Gömbös. From April 1938 to April 1942, Antal became

Minister of State for the Justice Ministry. From 1942 until March 1944, he was tárca nélküli Nemzetvédelmi Propagandaminiszter [Propaganda Minister without

Portfolio]. Another leader and right-wing propagandist for the Turul Society was

Géza Bornemisza, who was appointed to positions within the Ministries of

Industry, Trade and Transportation between 1935 and 1944. His older brother,

Gábor Bornemisza, was editor of the extreme right-wing newspaper Virradat

39 The Turul were supported in their aims by organizations such as the Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete [Association of Awakening Hungarians] the Magyar Országos Véderő Egyesület [Hungarian Association of National Defense] and the Etelközi Szövetség [Etelköz Association].

[Dawn].40 By the end of the 1930s, Gábor had been appointed President of the A

Magyar Mozgóképüzemengelyézések Országos Egyesületének [National Film

Production Permit Association].41

Members of the Turul also founded their own publishing house, Centrum

Kiadóvállalat Rt. In addition to taking an active role in the production and distribution of films, Gábor Bornemisza became Executive Director of Centrum

Publishing. After 1939, the publishing house gained the exclusive right to print

Magyar Film [Hungarian Film], the official press organ of the Hungarian Theatre and Film Arts Chamber.

The right-wing news media added fuel to the fire with speculation and false news stories. Stories that Jews had conspired to keep non-Jews out of the film industry were published and countered by the Jewish newspapers. Baseless news stories emanated from the right-wing press that director István Székely was unwilling to provide employment for non-Jews. This was allegedly in retaliation for Germany’s treatment of Jews. In articles printed in the right-wing press, Joe Pasternak and Ernő Gál purportedly made a pact to deny employment to all non-Jewish film professionals.42 The final conspirator was István Gerő, the well-known head of the Royal Theatre Trust. Some sources estimated without

40 RG-39-004, Reel 1, War History Archives, Budapest. Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, USHMM. This collection contains several original copies of antisemitic articles from Virradat. 41 Sándor, Orségváltás Után, 38. 42 The right-wing newspaper Uj Magyarsag [New Hungarians] published this charge in mid-1937. The Jewish daily Egyenlőség [Equality] response: “Árja filmek kellenek?” [Should there be Aryan films?], 1937, szeptember 9, 5.

70 basis in fact that Gerő influenced nearly 80 percent of the films made in Hungary through provision of credit for production.43

The Turul held rallies in support of unemployed white-collar educated professionals. The organization also led rallies against films they deemed to be offensive to non-Jews. One film in particular, Lovagias ügy [An Affair of Honour], released in 1937, caused a great furor among Turul and its supporters, as it ended with a marriage between a Christian and a Jew. The film was directed by well- known director István Székely and starred Gyula Kabos. Kabos was Jewish, and one of the most popular comedic actors in Hungary at the time. Kabos acted in the role of Virág at the Milkó food factory. In the film, Virág has a run-in with the offensive nephew of the owner, Pál Milkó. In a dramatic turn, Milkó befriends members of the Virág family and falls in love with Virág’s lovely daughter, Baba, played by the stunning blonde-haired Zita Perczel.44 The climax of the film is a typical Hollywood happy ending: Milkó and Virág reconcile, and Milkó asks for

Baba’s hand in marriage, which is granted.

It was the ending of the film that caused the furor on the part of the Turul, the idea that it was acceptable for Jews and Christians to intermarry.

Demonstrations against the film began in Budapest, but spread to other cities as well, including Pécs and Debrecen. Newspapers such as Virradat, edited by

Gábor Bornemisza, were rife with denunciations against the film.

Demonstrations continued and became sufficiently violent that the police had to

43 Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 113. 44 Zita Perczel landed her first role at the age of 18. She never finished film school, but was a natural beauty on screen. In the 1940s, due to the Jewish laws, she left and went to Hollywood where she had little success due to her lack of English-language skills.

71 intervene. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Religion and Education, Bálint

Homan, called for a meeting with the leaders of the Turul to mediate an end to the violence. While the demonstrations were brought under control, the agitation and campaigning continued for the “changing of the guard” in the Hungarian film industry.

The numbers brought about even greater demands for state supervision of the entire film industry from discontented individuals and antisemitic groups.

János Smolka, an established film producer, conducted a comprehensive study of the film business in Hungary before the First Jewish law was enacted in 1938.

Ironically, Smolka was a writer of Jewish origin. His study found that “the majority of films (93 out of 100) in Hungary were produced by Jewish firms, and sixty-five of those were directed by Jewish directors. At the time there were only two companies established by Christians.”45

The radical right wing newspaper, Új Magyarság [New Magyars], edited by

István Milotay, was one of the first to demand that Jews be expelled from the film business entirely.46 During 1937, frequent ads such as the following appeared in the antisemitic newspaper Magyar Nemzeti Szocializmus [Hungarian National

Socialism]:

More than 100 films have been made in Hungary. Seventy-five percent of the production companies were Jewish. We demand

45 Sándor, Örségváltás Után [After the Changing of the Guard], Introduction, quoting from the book written by János Smolka, Story Machine in Reality, p. 9-10. 46 RG-39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], Reel 1, USHMM.

more Hungarian films. We want to see Hungarians at the head of production companies.47

In July, 1937, the leadership of the Turul submitted a Memorandum to Balint

Homan, the Minister of Religion and Education, on the topic of the so-called

“getto films.”48 As the title of the memorandum so obviously and crudely indicated, the document demanded an end to films made by Hungarian Jews.

A prominent voice countering the antisemitic propaganda of the extreme right was László Zsolnai (1902-1974), a journalist and specialist in the film industry who established his own newspaper, Filmújság [Film News], published between 1932 and 1937.49 Zsolnai wrote an extensive response to the “Getto Film

Memorandum” in the pages of the Filmújság, sending an open letter to Géza

Bornemisza, asking for his views on the matter. Zsolnai’s written calls to the

Minister went unanswered.50 Zsolnai was one of a few countering the propaganda of those right wing newspapers campaigning for the “changing of the guard.” The anti-Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939 shut down Filmújság, but with the help and connections of his second wife, Olga Fehér, Zsolnai continued to

47 RG-39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], Reel 1, War History Archives, Bp, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, USHMM. Collection contains copies of Magyar Szocializmus from 1937 Dec. 19 onwards, with many anti-Semitic articles about Jewish ownership of film and news –media companies. Nemzet Szava article: “Tüzet Szüntess”[Put out the Fire]: “Enough of Jewish actors, actresses, screenwriters!” This series of articles provide the tone and intent of Radical Right. 48 Sándor, Örségváltás Után [After the Changing of the Guard], 43. 49As a seventeen year old, Zsolnai took part in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic as a soldier. After the Hungarian Soviet regime of Bela Kun ended, he couldn’t find a school where he could continue his education because of his Red Army service. For two years, he lived and travelled in Holland and Germany before returning home. 50 Sándor, Örségváltás Után, 43.

73 counter the arguments of the extreme right under a new magazine, The Gazette.51

Typical of Zsolnai’s writings was this ironic response to the attacks by the Turul:

We can say with confidence that the Jewish film producers of Budapest await with open arms those production companies designated under the Aryan designations…they do not object to the influx of either right-wing capital, or right-wing actors, writers, producers, or technicians. They are not only willing to distribute such films, but are also willing to screen such films in their cinemas.52

During the war, Zsolnai was drafted into the labour service. When he returned, he went into hiding in Budapest. Once the war ended, he managed a movie theatre in the small community of Alpár, in eastern Hungary and continued to write. His newspaper was shut down for the last time by the communist regime in 1948.53

In addition to protests from individuals such as Zsolnai, a group of prominent fifty-nine Christian intellectuals, writers and artists published a strongly-worded protest against the forthcoming Jewish Law.54 While the bill was under consideration, in May 1938, many respected cultural leaders declared

“the exclusion of 400,000 Jewish citizens from the ranks of the nation…the shame of Magyardom.”55 Among the signatories were two of Hungary’s most famous composers Zoltán Kodály and Béla Bartok, writers Lajos Zilahy and Zoltán

51 The company’s name was Fehér Olga Filminformácios Vállalata [Olga Fehér’s Film Information Company]. Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás, Introduction. 52 Sándor, Örségváltás: A Magyar Film és a Szélsőjobboldal a harmincas negyvenes években: Tanulmányok, dokumentumok, [Hungarian Film and the Extreme Right in the Thirties and Forties: Studies, Documents], Budapest: Magyar Filmintezet, 1992, 41-42. 53 Zsolnai did not work as a journalist again and passed away in Budapest in 1974. 54 Yehuda Don, “Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation in Hungary,” Cesarini, David, ed., Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944, 50. 55 “Pronouncement of 59 Leading Intellectuals and Artists protesting the First Jewish Law,” Zoltán Vági, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide, Lanham, Md.-Washington, D.C: AltaMira Press-USHMM, 2013, Chapter 1, 4-5.

Szabo, artist Aurel Bernáth, and literary scholar László Bóka. The open letter had little impact on the general public.

One of the most devastating aspects of the legislation for the Jewish community was its approval by representatives of the Christian Churches during the debates in Parliament. Cardinal Jusztinian Serédy, Prince-Primate, head of the Roman Catholic church in Hungary, Lutheran bishop Sándor Raffay, and

László Ravasz, bishop of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, were unanimous in approving the Bill’s essential provisions and blaming Jews for their necessity.56

The First Jewish Law, Act 1938:XV, enacted into Law on May 28, 1938, was officially entitled: “Act for the more Effective Safeguard of the Balanced Social and Economic Life of the Country.”57 The law ordered the establishment of different Chambers for members of the press, theatre, film arts, legal, engineering and medical professions, as well as those employed in the fields of business and economic life. Most importantly, the legislation declared that the Jewish membership of these chambers be limited to a maximum of 20 percent.

Structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber

This section contains an analysis of a discussion paper outlining the structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. The 55-page document, dated

July 27, 1938, was found in the files of the Royal Home Defense Ministry

Archives in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.58 This document is

56 Patai, The Jews of Hungary, 536. 57 RG. 39.015, 2007.92. Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, USHMM. 58 RG-39.004 War History Archives, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], reel 7, Bundle 3520, July 27, 1938. Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry (1919-1945), USHMM.

75 in effect the original draft wording of the by-laws of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. The decrees creating the professional chambers, including the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, were signed into law on August 26, 1938. The document is accompanied by a cover letter addressed to the Minister of Justice, Ödön

Mikecz (1894-1965), who was in charge of this Ministry until November, 1938.59

The cover letter requests the comments of Justice Minister. Before Mikecz was named Minister, as a university student, Mikecz was a key member of the leadership of the Turul, along with the previously mentioned István Antal and

Géza Bornemisza. The cover letter refers to the document as: “the decree plan for the establishment of the theatre and film arts chamber.”60

The structure, purpose and language of the document come under the rubric of attempts by the government to create a “Christian” Hungary and a

“Christian” national film industry through legislation. Through the implementation of the First Jewish Law and examining the structure of this 55- page working paper, we can trace how, through such legislation, Jews went from being viewed as the “outsider”to being the “alien.” As historians have traced, the trajectory of the demonization of Jews and the legalization of their discrimination laid the groundwork for the Holocaust.61

The first chapter of the document begins with definitions and organizational structures, such as who may be admitted as a member of the chamber: theatre and film actors, film directors and producers, as well as those in

59 RG-39.004, War History Archives, Bp. Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, Betétiv a 32737/eln. 15.-1938 sz. ügyirathoz. [insert to the 32737/President’s Documents #15- 1938], USHMM. 60 Ibid. 61 Vera Ránki, The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary, New York: Holmes & Meier, 1999, 113-32.

76 managerial positions and others who assist in film production. Point #1 also determines that the headquarters of the chamber will be located in Budapest, and the territory under its jurisdiction will extend to the entire country. Point #2 of chapter 1 provides a general definition of the tasks set out for the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber. The tasks are defined as: “promoting the national spirit

(Nemzeti szellem) and successful implementation of Christian moral values, to protect the organizational and social interests of the members of the chamber and to ensure moral standards and prestige of the profession. Further, to protect the rights and moral responsibilities that accompany the profession and, if needed, hold disciplinary hearings, to take a stand and provide direction on questions pertaining to the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber and to provide assistance in obtaining work and organize theatre and film productions.”62

Specific terms used several times throughout the document are not clarified. The term, Nemzeti szellem [National Spirit] is not defined, nor are there any examples of or direction provided towards the successful implementation of

“Christian moral values.” Although the definition of the organization itself is at the front of the document, specific qualifications of the individual members who are allowed to join the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber only appear much later on page twenty-two. Requisites for membership are detailed as “the individual be at a minimum 18 years of age, practice his profession with sufficient national

62 RG-39.004 War History Archives, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], reel 7, Bundle 3520, 1938 julius 27. Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry (1919-1945), USHMM, 1-2.

77 spirit and moral point-of-view and have practical or theoretical experience in their field.”63

While definitions of specific important terms are ambiguous, the structure and inner workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber are very clearly established, details such as: when and how often Annual General Meetings

(AGM) should be held, the agenda of the AGM, voting and composition of

Executive and Executive committee, payments and dues, and acceptance of new members.64

Chapter I, section 2 provides details of the election process and when and how the elections are to be held each year, stating that “those who receive the most votes are to be declared elected.”65 The following paragraph contradicts this statement, however, by stipulating that:

those individuals who fall under law 1938: XV, paragraph 4, (the section that deals with the percentage of Jewish members allowed) may only be chosen as delegates in the case they do not exceed 20 percent of the total numbers of the membership. If these numbers are filled, more individuals from this group cannot be viewed as elected, even if according the votes counted, such individuals would have been elected by majority vote. In such a case, the individuals who received the next largest number of votes will be elected, if this individual does not fall under law 1938:XV, paragraph 4.66

63 RG-39.004, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], 22. 64 Ibid., 1-33. 65 Ibid., 5. 66 Ibid., 6-7.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Előadói Tervezet are the many clauses that underscore that the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber will be under the direct supervision of the Vallás és Közoktatási Miniszter [Minister of Religion and Education], hereafter referred to as VKM. While the clause that states this outright is on page nineteen, there are no less than fourteen mentions of the role of the VKM in the internal workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber throughout the document. The VKM must approve the time and date of the elections and the AGM, including the agenda. All minutes must be forwarded to and all money matters must be approved by the VKM. The Minister (of the

VKM) has power to abrogate certain resolutions of the chamber, has the final say in approving honorary members, and in dealing with complaints.67 The Ministry of Religion and Education may annul decisions by the Theatre and Film

Chamber, inasmuch as those decisions counter laws or regulations, or if those decisions are not in harmony with the Nemzeti szellem [National Spirit] or the requirements of Christian morals, or if they endanger the peaceful inner workings of the community.68

Chapter II of the Előadói Tervezet describes how members are to be admitted to the Chamber, and what requirements they must meet to maintain their membership, and the circumstances by which they would lose their membership and be ejected. Clause after clause emphasizes the importance of experience in the theatre and/or film as a pre-requisite for joining, whether the individual joins as a producer, director, actor, actress or in any other area of

67 Ibid., The first mention of the VKM is on page 5, one of the last is on page 41. 68 Ibid., 21.

79 theatre or film. For example, the document explicitly states that managers and directors of film companies must be able to demonstrate that they have been active in this role for over five years prior to joining the chamber. Moreover, the film companies must be able to show sufficient capital to operate.69

Repeatedly, clauses describe the importance of the maintenance and promotion of professionalization. For example, in providing requirements for the acceptance of members in the Film Chamber, the recommendations state that members who are nominated must have been active in the field for at least five years, must be a graduate of an established theatre or film academy, or must have been a member in good standing of the OMF [Országos Magyar

Filmegyesület].70 If the individual has been without a working contract for over two years, they will be stricken from the rolls of the chamber.71 Throughout the document, the First Jewish Law 1938: XV, point 4 is repeatedly cited as the guiding principal in organizing the chamber.

Chapter III deals solely with the disciplinary responsibilities, offenses, procedures, departmental investigations and well as disciplinary actions that may be taken against the members of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. This section spans more than twelve pages of the discussion paper.72 Disciplinary actions escalated from: a warning, then a monetary fine, suspension from the profession and, finally, firing from the occupation/profession. The appeal procedure, including the setting up of a separate appeal board, Az Országos

69 Ibid., 25. 70 Ibid., 28. 71 Ibid., 28. 72 Ibid., 42-55

Szinművészeti és Filmművészeti Tanács [National Theatre and Film Council] is explained in detail.

The convoluted administrative details of the Előadói Tervezet are reflected in the inner workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber itself. As demonstrated by the document, the effectiveness of the Film Chamber was weighed down by bureaucracy. The document was written and assembled by government bureaucrats who demonstrated little knowledge of the film industry. It is apparent from the document that the government sought control over the film industry and aimed to force Jews out of the industry, but didn’t know quite how to exert control, other than through bureaucratic rules.

Conflicted push-pull influences

The decrees creating professional chambers, including the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber, were signed into law on August 26, 1938 by the Interior

Minister, Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer. Two days later, on August 28, the government ordered the arrest of many prominent right-wing extremists on charges of agitation and disrupting the peace, including Ferenc Szálasi himself, the leader of the Arrow Cross party. The original Statement of Claim against

Szálasi contains a detailed analysis of the writings of Ferenc Szálasi that describes how his writings “are all maliciously directed against one religious group, namely the Jews.”73

Because of the content of the writings, the Crown finds Ferenc Szálasi guilty of inciting hatred on the part of Christians towards Jews, moreover, that these writings further incite the deliberate

73 RG-39.004, Reel 1, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], USHMM.

and forceful overthrow of the laws of state and order of civil society.74

This Statement of Claim against Szalasi and his anti-Jewish writings was being drafted while, ironically just two days earlier, the government passed the first Jewish Law focused on limiting the number of Jews that were able to work in specific industries. These two actions contradict each other, demonstrating the conflicted actions of the government. One part of the government was intent on limiting the activities of the antisemitic extremist Arrow Cross and their leader, while another was intent on carrying out the demands and placating right-wing organizations with legislation against Jews. The chamber was mandated to start its activity on January 1, 1939.

Overdue action against the extreme right did not change the fact that the antisemitic press was gaining ground and continuing to spread, despite government efforts to shut down newspapers that supported the Arrow Cross party, such as Összetartás [Unity]. On May 27th, 1938, Olivér Rupprecht sold the popular daily, Magyarság [Magyardom] to the Arrow Cross movement, turning the newspaper into an unrestrained organ of party propaganda and antisemitic writings.75

Those who believed that the implementation of the Jewish laws would placate the extreme rightists were misled in their assumptions. The working

74 Ibid., The writings of Szálási the charges are based on writings that appeared in the “Uj Magyar Munkás” [New Hungarian Worker], March 15, 1937. 75 Krisztián Ungváry, A Horthy rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The Standards of Measures of the Horthy Regime: Discrimination, Social politics and antisemitism in Hungary], Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 2012, 234.

82 arrangements surrounding the establishment and mandate of the first Jewish

Laws were barely in place when discussions got underway regarding the implementation of the Second Jewish Law. The Second Jewish Law went much further, in that this Law completely altered the definition of Jewishness, from religion to that of race.

The predictions of Count István Bethlen, pragmatic Prime Minister and statesman between 1921 and 1931, referring to Act 1938:XV, had been prophetic:

“those who hasten this law will soon realize that it did not solve their problem, and will manipulate the Government… to go much further.”76 István Bibó was a lawyer, civil servant, politician and political theorist. After the Holocaust, Bibo wrote that the anti-Jewish laws provided the social and psychological preparation for the eventual genocide.

The Hungarian legislation did not take the wind out of the sale of the radical right, but, instead, gave it new impetus. It did not convert the dangers of the bloody persecution of the Jews but, instead, had Hungarian society become accustomed to the exclusion of the Jews from the common trenches of human dignity… They did not have to confront directly those who removed from their positions. The fundamental law of these policies was rooted in the fact that since it could not depend on the real and clear attempts at reform, it had to appeal largely to base instincts. Wide strata of Hungarian society became accustomed to the fact that from that time on, they could establish their existence not through hard work and entrepreneurship, but by searching out an already established person, reporting him to the authorities, who will look up his grandparents religion, expel him from his job, expropriate his business and perhaps have him interned, then take possession of his business. These possibilities have immediately underscore the process of the moral decline of Hungarian society and were showing examples of eager greed,

76 Yehuda Don, “Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation,” 55.

hypocritical rejection of inhibitions, or at best, a cold-hearted careerism of large segments of society. This had created an unforgettable shock not only for the Jews, but also for every Hungarian of good will.77

Conclusion

The introduction of anti-Jewish legislation represented a new legal paradigm, breaking 70 years of liberal rule in Hungary where previously, antisemitism was not tolerated. The legislation was created by the conservative government of Miklós Horthy to placate radical right political forces, who were not satisfied with the First Jewish law that limited Jewish participation in the educational system and economy to 20 percent.

The Horthy regime did not restrict the growth and development of film, it realized it did not want to destroy an industry that was successful in entertaining the masses, and in promoting Hungary’s international image. Hungary’s film industry continued to thrive in spite of the legislation, and continued to produce highly-watchable, entertaining films.

The narrative of the late 1930s and early 1940s is one of the government finding ways to attempt to legislate the film industry, while just stopping short of nationalizing the film industry. The Hungarian film industry was a creative sector in a small country, trying to build itself up with limited resources. As evident in the success or failure of filmmaking within small nations, nations with limited

77 István Bibó, “Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után,”[The Jewish Question in Hungary after 1944] in Zsidókérdés, asszimilació, antiszemitizmus [The Jewish Question, Assimilation, Antisemitism], Budapest: Gondolat, 1984, 148-9.

84 resources need to have public and private financial resources for a viable filmmaking sector to exist.

The early discussion paper examined in this chapter preceded the creation of the film chamber. It demonstrates attempts by government officials to over- bureaucratize the chamber, ultimately having the effect of making the final legislation obscure. The efforts to control the film industry through the film chamber were largely ineffective, again demonstrating the selective nature of antisemitism on the part of government officials and bureaucrats in Hungary.

Despite the convoluted and unclear nature of the legal language in their implementation, the anti-Jewish laws were restrictive and prohibitive and created large numbers of unemployed Jewish breadwinners, with widespread ripple effects on Jewish families and communities. Further, the long-term effect of the laws was the legalization of discrimination, that is: these laws laid the groundwork for the demonization of the Jews, from being “outsiders,” to becoming “aliens.”

Chapter 4: Religious vs. Racial antisemitism and the impact on the film industry (1939-1944)

Time or chronology is not the only category by which history may be organized. Some scholars consider place and space as also fundamental in how people and cultures relate to the past. Time and place are critical to understanding the era, these measurements provide background on how and why events unfold, and provide insight into how memory is embedded in historical consciousness.

Understanding the motivations, anxieties and actions on the part of the

Hungarian government during the interwar era was influenced in large part by the geopolitical position of Hungary and the ever-increasing influence of larger, more powerful neighbors. In March of 1938, Nazi Germany became a direct neighbor of Hungary through the annexation of Austria, or Anschluss. A few months later, in November, 1938, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom, agreed to Hitler’s demands to the Sudetenland, thereby causing the break-up of Czechoslovakia. Through the First Vienna Accord, signed in November, 1938, Hungary was granted a southern strip of land of what had been formerly part of northern Hungary [Felvidék]. This represented a territorial gain of 11,927 sq. km. of land with 1,060,000 inhabitants, of whom, according to the Hungarian census of 1941, 84 percent were Magyars.1 The “re- taking” of territories was done with much fanfare. Regent Horthy rode into

Kassa [Kosice, today part of Slovakia] on a white stallion, escorted by Hungarian military forces. The press corps of the Hungarian army filmed and photographed

1 Lendvai, The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 409.

85 86 enthusiastic crowds lining the route during what was called the “triumphant” return of the Felvidék. The recovery of forty percent of the territories partitioned to the successor states at Trianon was carried out between November 1938 and

April 1941. The move strengthened the irredentist policies of the Horthy regime, and further emboldened radical right forces. Hitler dismantled Czechoslovakia through the First Vienna Accord and created an independent Slovak, later Nazi puppet state headed by a Catholic priest, Jozef Tiso (1887-1947).2 Shortly after taking office as Prime Minister in October, 1938, Tiso ordered the expulsion of over 7,500 Jews from Slovakia into Hungary, as “mass punishment” for the

German-sponsored First Vienna accord that ceded territory to Hungary.3

Thousands of Jews from Slovakia fled, especially to the northeast region of

Transcarpathia, bringing with them eyewitness accounts of the brutality of the expulsion.4

A few months later, in March, 1939, Hitler allowed Transcarpathia to be occupied by the Hungarian army. Through this annexation, Hungary once again obtained a common border with Poland. Six months later, however, the

Hungarian government refused Hitler’s demand to allow German troops to attack Poland through Hungary.5 In September, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded

2 Mary Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011, 93. 3 James Mace Ward, Priest, Politician, Collaborator: Jozef Tiso and the Making of Fascist Slovakia, 287. The deportation of 60,000 Slovak Jews to Auschwitz and certain death happened later, between March and October 1942. Although Tiso had the right of exemptions, he only exempted some 650 Jews. 4Interview by author conducted with Hédy Weisz, who lived in Nagyszőllős [today Vinogradiv, part of Ukraine] on March 13, 2004 in New York City. Weisz recorded the eyewitness accounts of Teréz Ilkovics, a Jewish woman from Slovakia who came to live in Nagyszőllős. Ilkovics related how they were ordered out of their homes in the middle of the night, after which their homes were set ablaze. 5 László Kontler, A History of Hungary, 375.

Poland. Hungarians felt the effects of this invasion directly. Tens of thousands of refugees from Poland flooded into Hungary from the northeast.6 Some travelled on horse-drawn carriages, others on trucks, but many others simply came on foot, carrying their children and few belongings with them, many still in shock by the savagery they had just witnessed.7 The impact of the refugees from Poland raised thorny questions that Hungarians were not ready to face. How could a regime that had promised to undo the injustices of the Treaty of Trianon invade and destroy Poland, their most loved neighbor, the nation that had been their closest ally throughout centuries? The massive numbers of refugees required special arrangements. Thousands of Jewish civilians and soldiers also escaped and were provided refuge in Hungary, bringing the total number of refugees to more than 100,000. As an ally of Nazi Germany, Hungary was prepared to face a diplomatic row with Germany in siding with the Poles. The Hungarian government facilitated the onward passage of Polish enlisted men through

Yugoslavia to join the Polish government-in-exile in France. Nazi Germany demanded the return of all Polish enlisted men and Jews from Poland, but the

Hungarian government refused to comply. Polish Jews were registered as

Christians upon their arrival, housed with their fellow countrymen and provided with Christian papers.8

6 Barátok a bajban: lengyel menekűltek magyarországon [Friends in Need: Polish refugees in Hungary], Tadeusz Olszanski and Jerzy Robert Nowak, eds., Budapest: Europa, 1985. 7 Interview by author with Caroline Padányi, March 3, 2008, in Toronto. Mrs. Padányi was a resident of Nagyszöllös [today Vinogradiv, part of Ukraine], one of the towns in Hungary flooded with Polish refugees and an eyewitness to the events. 8 Kinga Frojimovics. I have been a Stranger in a Strange Land: The Hungarian State and Jewish Refugees in Hungary, 1933-1945. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2007, 177.

It is important to consider the geopolitical location of Hungary at the time of the implementation of the Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939 in light of the drastic changes taking part in neighboring countries. The dismantling of Czechoslovakia and the attack upon the territorial integrity of Poland, however, were actions taken by Nazi Germany that pointed to much more sinister plans on the part of

Hitler. Government minister and media czar Miklos Kozma wrote in his diary that this was the turning point when he realized that any small nation within the sphere of influence of Germany, including Hungary, could lose their autonomy at any moment.9

The shock of the world is enormous, as is ours. The Czechs have been declared part of Germany’s Lebensraum. And it has been determined that Slovakia—as a Protectorate—is 41% German. This is madness and false, but demonstrates the tendency. On this basis, they could also declare Hungary part of their ‘Lebensraum,’ and determine as many ethnic Germans as they want.10

Other ministers and members of the inner circle of government believed they could keep the Nazi Germany at bay through a give and take principle, that is implementing Jewish laws, but especially from the point of view of individuals such as Kozma, who were involved in the film industry, not to the point of destroying the film industry. Examples of this selective antisemitism have already been examined in Chapter Two through a careful analysis of the drafting of the legislation. Further examples will appear in this chapter, selective anti-

9 Mária Ormos. Egy Magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919- 1941 [One Hungarian media leader: Miklós Kozma. Journey through hell in media and politics, 1919-1941]. Vol. II. Budapest: PolgART, 2000, 597. 10 Ibid.

Semitism being defined as: not whether to legislate anti-Jewish laws, but deciding how and to what degree they should be implemented.

Fight vs. Flight: The Jewish community responds

The leadership of the Hungarian Jewish community stayed abreast of domestic and international events and the fate of Jewish communities, especially keeping track of those laws and regulations that affected Jewish communities in surrounding countries. When lawmakers in Romania announced anti-Jewish revisions to the citizenship act, editorials and articles in Egyenlőség [Equality], expounded on the discriminatory aspects of the law months ahead of its implementation. In protest over the ever-worsening situation of Jews in Romania under the Goga regime, the headline in the largest Hungarian language newspaper, Egyenlőség, exclaimed: “We Protest the Deprivation of Rights!”11 The headline was a quote from a speech by Samuel Stern,12 who, while addressing the annual general meeting of the Jewish Congregation of Pest, pointed to the ever- worsening situation of Jews in Romania.

11 Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 58. Evf. 3 szám, Budapest, 1938 január 20, 1. 12 Samuel Stern (1874-1947), was elected President of the Jewish Congregation of Pest, the largest Neolog religious community in Hungary in 1929. The organization promoted the principle of political and social integration and believed that Hungarian Jews were an integral part of the Hungarian nation. Stern was a businessman who had established a successful refrigeration business during the First World War. For his contributions, he was named a privy councillor by the Emperor Franz Josef. Stern devoted much of his time as President of this representative body to maintaining good relations with the government and with Jewish organizations outside of Hungary. Stern enjoyed close ties with Prime Minister Istvan Bethlen (1921-1931) and even the antisemitic Gyula Gömbös (1932-1936). In 1935, Stern led a delegation of Jewish leaders who met with Regent Miklos Horthy, but during the meeting Horthy failed to address the matter of most concern to Jews—the fear of new restrictive laws. Samu Stern, Emlékirataim: Versenyfutás az idővel! A Zsidotanács Müködése a német megszállás és a nyilas uralom idején [Memoirs: Race against Time. The Work of the Jewish Committee at the time of the German occupation and rule of the Arrow Cross]. Budapest: Babel Kiado, 2004.

The Jews of Hungary were commemorating the 70th anniversary of their emancipation as citizens in 1938. For 70 years, they had felt that their rights in the country were protected as a legally recognized religion. Ironically, while commemorating this anniversary, the Jewish community became increasingly aware that discriminatory laws were being discussed and drafted in the

Hungarian parliament over a period of many months. The leadership of the

Jewish community was already lobbying members of parliament in the hope of preventing the implementation of the First Jewish law. On the front page of the longest-running Hungarian language newspaper, Egyenlőseg13 was an editorial entitled “Az Emancipáció” [The Emancipation]:

On the anniversary of this fate altering 70th anniversary, unfortunately, there is not much reason to celebrate. We gather to pray only quietly on each Friday evening for the past year. Instead of feeling joy of this anniversary, our hearts are full of worry, trepidation and uncertainty. The present is a hazy mist and more and more the future is full of thick clouds. It is not a time for celebration, but simply remembrance which is what we must do on this anniversary, because if we examine the situation of Jews all around us, and here in our homeland, we can only derive confidence by remembering the past, and can only find confidence in our future by examining our historical greats.14

Despite the lobbying efforts and protestations, the First Jewish Law was introduced to parliament in April 1938 and enacted one month later, on May 28th

13 Egyenlőseg [Equality] was one of the longest-running Hungarian-language weekly newspapers representing the views of the largest Neolog Jewish community. The newspaper was founded in November, 1882 in the midst of the Tiszaeszlár ritual murder trial and was published continuously until October of 1944. Although the newspaper reflected the assimilationist views of Neolog Jews, the rights of Jews in surrounding countries and in all of Europe were of primary importance in the topics it covered. 14 Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 58. Evf. 3 szám, Budapest, 1938 január 20, 1.

91 as Act XV:1938.15 Jewish leaders were pragmatic in their acceptance of the new law after the fact. They hoped that with the passage of this law, the incitement against the Jews and discussion of the Jewish question would come to an end.

Just months after enacting the First Jewish Law, however, the government began drafting the Second Jewish Law. The leadership of the Jewish community learned of the proposed severity of the Second Jewish Law, mainly that the new restrictions of Jewish professionals registered with the Chamber system would be reduced from 20 percent to 6 percent. From January 1939 onwards, the national newspaper, Egyenlőség, editorialized on the unfairness of the proposed law, lobbying legislators, and informing readers about the ever-more discriminatory nature of the clauses that were being drafted.

One month before the Second Jewish Law was enacted, Sándor Eppler, general secretary of the Jewish community of Pest, provided estimates of how many Jewish professionals would be affected: “The Jewish laws will affect not only employees, but also those who provide employment in such as fields that deal with business, commerce, industry, credit and transportation.”16 Eppler estimated that 40 percent of 425,000 Hungarian Jews would lose their employment because of the law or be directly affected by family members who will become unemployed.”17 The article also contained detailed information on the number of actors and actresses affected by the law, estimating that there were

1,971 actors and actresses in Hungary at the time, 475 of whom were Jewish. The

15 RG. 39.015, 2007.92. Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, USHMM. 16 Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 1 Évf., 14 szám, Budapest, 1939 április 13, 8. 17 Ibid., According to the estimates of Eppler at the time, 168,000 Hungarian Jews would lose their employment due to the Second Jewish Law.

92 law, according to Eppler, will affect the Jewish community in a catastrophic way.18 The estimates turned out to be too conservative. Historian Randolph

Braham estimated that the law affected about 15,000 Hungarian Jewish professionals, as well as 50,000 Jewish families who were affected by the impact of the law.19

A few weeks after Eppler wrote these ominous predictions, on May 5,

1939, Hungary adopted its Second Jewish Law that re-defined a Jew by race: Law

No. IV of 1939 - Concerning the Restriction of the Participation of Jews in Public and Economic Life.20 The Second Jewish law emulated the Nazi Germany:

Jewishness was no longer defined as a religion, it became defined as a race.21 If an individual had one parent or two grandparents who were Jewish, Hungarian law now considered that person to be Jewish. During the debate, forty-two representatives of the Christian churches in the Upper Chamber of the

Parliament protested against the re-Judaization of their converts. The protests were ineffective, however, and in the end, the representatives of Christian religions voted for the law.22 Exemptions were included, such as decorated veterans of the First World War, veterans who had lost limbs or become physically disabled during the war, and Olympic medalists.23 Clauses within the law also prevented Jews from gaining citizenship by marriage or naturalization, and limited their proportion in the professions to no more than 6 percent.

18 Ibid. 19 Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, 128-9. 20 Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, RG. 39.015, 2007.92. USHMM. 21 Yehuda Don, “The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, 66. 22 Yehuda Don,“Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation,” David Cesarini, ed., Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary, 55. 23 Pelle, Sowing the Seeds of Hatred, 43.

The legal minds of the community understood better than most that these

Jewish Laws were part of a much larger legal paradigm. The laws represented a break with the official position Hungary held toward the Jews for the past 40 years, namely that they were among those legally protected religious denominations and could not be singled out or discriminated against. For the

Jewish community, these laws required a rethinking of their own position in

Hungary, something most Hungarian Jews were simply reluctant to do.24

Religious and community leaders predicted the laws would be short-lived and that the community should bear the trials with patience. Historian Andrew

Handler assembled a volume of the writings of the leadership of the Jewish community in Hungary at the time and summarized that: “most of Hungarian

Jewish poets, writers, rabbis and community leaders were by tradition overzealous patriots, yet deeply conscious and proudly expressive of the teachings and values of Judaism.”25 Géza Ribáry, a well-known lawyer and community leader, wrote: “Our lives and future are inextricably fused with the destiny of the Magyar people.”26 Ribáry advised his fellow “Hungarians of the

Israelite persuasion” to pursue “modesty and steadfastness…until we regain the position in this land that we have earned by the common destiny we shared with the Magyar people, and by our passionate devotion to the Magyar ideal.”27 The

Second Jewish Law also included a clause allowing emigration, but even with that, tragically, only a small percentage of Jews considered emigration as an option. In a summary of the annual work of the Pesti Izraelita Hitközség [Jewish

24 Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology, 541. 25 Andrew Handler, ed., The Holocaust in Hungary: An Anthology of Jewish Responses, University, Ala. University of Alabama Press, 1982, xii. 26 Ibid., 43 27 Ibid., 44.

Community of Pest], the organization prepared the paperwork for 56,066 individuals, comprising 24,501 families who expressed their desire to emigrate during the six months period from July 1938 to December 31 of that year.28

The reaction of the Jewish leadership was twofold: to engage in protests and conduct charity work, that is by providing aid to those affected by the law.29

As the lawyer and prosecutor for the Jewish Community of Pest, Ernő Munkácsi spent an inordinate amount of his time writing about and publicizing the devastating effects of these laws.30 Along with other leaders of the community,

Munkácsi submitted several memoranda to the lower and upper chambers of the

Hungarian Parliament, protesting the laws, detailing how the laws violated the

Hungarian Constitution, and describing how they were causing the loss of employment for tens of thousands of Hungarian citizens. Munkácsi referred to this campaign as a “press war” and wrote that it garnered widespread attention.31 He was instrumental in drafting a booklet entitled Itéljetek [You

Judge], which outlined the unconstitutionality of the laws.32 The booklet ironically included many photographs of artifacts from the museum as proof of the long and loyal history of Jews in Hungary to their homeland. Munkácsi held

28 “Minden Magyar Zsidó teljesitse kötelességét: A kivándorlás előkészitése,”[Every Hungarian Jew should carry out his/her responsibility: Preparing for Emigration] A Magyar Zsidók Lapja, 1. Évf., 26. Szám, 1939, julius 13, 13, 1-2. 29 Patai, 542. 30 This was the largest Neolog congregation in Hungary with 215,000 members. Kinga Frojimovics, Szétszakadt történelem: Zsidó vallási irányzatok Magyarországon, 1868-1950, [History Torn Apart: Jewish Religious Directions in Hungary, 1868-1950], Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008, 31 “Országos Magyar Zsidó Muzeum Jelentése,” Előterjesztette az 1940 évi rendes közgyülésen Dr. Munkácsi Ernö ügyvezető igazgató, [Report on the National Hungarian Jewish Museum, put forward by Dr. Ernő Munkácsi, Director General on occasion of the National General Meeting, held in 1940], Évkönyv 1940 [Yearbook], Samu Szemere, ed., Budapest: Izrealita Magyar Irodalmi Társulat, 341, USHMM. 32 Márton Vida, Itéljetek! Néhány kiragadott lap a magyar-zsidó életközösség könyvéből [You Judge! A Few Pages Torn from the Book on Magyar-Jewish Coexistence], Budapest: Földes, 1939.

95 the belief, so prevalent among Jewish religious and community leaders, that the laws were simply a sign of the times, and that they would run their course. In his writings, he continued to relentlessly remind the Jewish community of their rich cultural and historical heritage as a great source of strength in such times of turmoil. Munkácsi wrote in the Jewish Museum’s annual report of 1940:

Although all may be lost, established rights may be taken away, we may lose friends and become disillusioned with our co- religionists—our common past is with us, our forefathers are with us, the virtue of our ancestors, their lives, their ability to sacrifice, the entire thousand-year history of Hungary, which is proven by the stones of our museum, the faded documents, that declare that we have been here for one thousand years, we have lived and died here, just the same as other citizens of Hungary.33

Even as Munkácsi extolled the virtues of remaining steadfast to Jewish culture and history, he grew more strident in tone. He admonished those Jews who chose the path of conversion to Christianity, describing this act as

“disowning their ancient faith, their origins, denying the very essence of their being, rushing towards foreign lands, and with fanatical elbowing striving to forget about their Jewish past, trying to melt in among others.”34 According to reports compiled by rabbis in Hungary, approximately 4,000 Jews converted to

Christianity during the one-year period between the declaration of the First

Jewish Law in May 1938 and the Second Jewish Law in May 1939.35

33 Dr. Ernő Munkácsi, “Országos Magyar Zsidó Muzeum Jelentése,” Előterjesztette az 1940 évi rendes közgyülésen Dr. Munkácsi Ernő ügyvezető igazgató, [Report on the National Hungarian Jewish Museum, put forward by Dr. Ernő Munkácsi], 341. 34 Ibid, 339. 35“Minden Magyar Zsidó teljesitse kötelességét: Négyezer kitérés egy év alatt,”[Every Hungarian Jew should carry out his/her responsibility: Four thousand conversions in one year] A Magyar Zsidók Lapja, 1. Évf., 26. Szám, 1939 Julius 13, 1-2.

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians rushed to county registry offices and church archives in order to obtain birth certificates of their parents and grandparents. Everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike, had to prove their ancestry through official documents. Following the implementation of the new legislation, the headline of A Magyar Zsidók Lapja exclaimed: “Seventy thousand Jews are searching for their documents!”36 The front-page article compared this work to a war.

…a large-scale and very discouraging battle that is ongoing in the country for several days now…as a war, fought by individuals for their own rights… The war is being waged by soldiers who are the Jews, in particular those who fall under the Law 1939: IV. The weapons used in this war are documents. Fathers, Mothers, grandparents need to stand at attention with their birth and marriage certificates to defend their children and grandchildren.

The Second Jewish Law, with all of its restrictions and new requirements, somehow galvanized the community. The tone of the newspaper articles about the law continued to emphasize the seriousness of the deprivation of long-term rights.

The right in the present concrete example is the right to vote. In reality though each shred of our rights is contained in the complete rights of citizenry through which the state has made us equal citizens, which are now being taken away by the Jewish Laws. That is why our work now is a struggle and demonstration for full rights, which we have lost, which even a shred of which

36“Hetvenezer zsidó keresi az okmányait,” [Seventy thousand Jews are searching for their documents] A Magyar Zsidók Lapja, [Newspaper of Hungarian Jews] 1 évf. 18. Szám, 1939 május 11, 1.

we will not give up voluntarily and have dedicated ourselves to the most extreme struggle to hold onto.37

The newspaper sent reporters to the offices of the registrars who reported witnessing seemingly endless lines of people, forms in hand, waiting to file the request for their official documents. The article detailed the documents that were required: Documents proving that they or their forefathers and mothers were born in historic Hungary before December 31, 1867. If the individuals themselves were born before this date, then they must document this with their own birth certificate and the certificate of marriage of their parents. Whoever was born after this date would have to produce their own birth certificate as well as those of their parents. If the parents of the individual were born after December 31, 1867, then that individual would have to produce the birth certificate and marriage licenses of all four grandparents as well.38

The Second Jewish Law gradually filtered through every aspect of

Hungarian society. A large percentage of Hungarian Jews, who had been acculturated for many generations within Hungarian society, felt shocked, betrayed and conflicted by the imposition of the new laws. Among the many statements of military reservists declaring their Jewish or non-Jewish status in the Archives of the Hungarian Ministry of Defense, is one by Zoltan Német, who was a reservist from Pápa, in western Hungary. The declaration by Német illustrates this sense of shock and betrayal. “I report with respect that in light of

Law 1939, IV, I am a Jew. This report is painful for me to write, that is why I am

37 Ibid. 38 Ibid.

98 late with it.”39 One could only assume he was a Christian and could not face a future as a Jew in Hungary.

For the residents of the town of Nagyszöllös [today Vynogradiv, part of

Ukraine], the tragic effects of the Second Jewish Law reverberated through the entire community with the suicide of one of their own, Lieutenant Jozsef Veress.

Veress was, by his own request, at the front of the military lines when the

Hungarian army marched into his hometown in Transcarpathia on March 15,

1939. When, a few months later, Veress discovered that his grandmother was

Jewish and that he would have to resign his commission in the military, he took his own life.40

The Film Chamber: new membership rules and coping mechanisms

Following the enactment of the Second Jewish Law, a new form had to be completed by applicants who wanted to obtain membership in the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber. The revised form meant that members had to re-apply under much stricter terms and more invasive questions. Filmmakers who decided to join the chamber had to comply and complete the forms by the start of 1939.

Some producers, directors, actors, actresses simply waited, avoided joining altogether, or left Hungary. The sole purpose of the admission form was to determine who was Jewish or whose ancestors had been Jewish at anytime during the previous ninety years. The top of the second application form

39 RG-39.004, Papers of the Ministry of Defense, Reel 3, USHMM. 40 Author interview with Caroline Padanyi, March 3, 2008, in Toronto.

99 explicitly states: “for those chamber members who have been admitted prior to

June 30, 1939.”41

Of the twenty-nine questions on the admission application form, seventeen deal with religion, including questions such as:

7. If you have changed religion, when did that take place and what was your religion prior to conversion?

10. If your father changed his religion, when did that happen, and what was his religion prior to conversion?

11. If your mother changed her religion, when did that happen, and what was her religion prior to conversion?

17. Among your grandparents, did any of them change their religion, and if they did, what religion did they belong to prior to conversion?

18. What is the date of your marriage?

19. From this marriage, were there any children born prior to 5 May 1939?

20. What are the dates of birth of the children and when were they baptized?

21. Do you have an agreement with your spouse that any of your children will be raised according to the Jewish faith?

22. Do you have any Jewish ancestors born prior to 1 January 1849 and what are their names?42

The result was that even if Hungarian Jews had converted, they were now unable to disguise, hide or leave behind their Jewish past. At the bottom of the instruction sheet appeared a warning: “incomplete or false responses will be punishable by law.” Based on this new definition of the Second Jewish Law, if filmmakers were found to be Jewish, for all but a small percentage of them

41 “Kamarai tagok bejelentőlapja,” [Registration form for members of the chamber] (n.d), RG- 39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front, [National Front], reel 1, USHMM. 42 The complete translation of this application form is in Appendix 1.

100

(Jewish membership in the chamber was limited to 6 percent), would mean the loss of their ability to work in the film industry.

The definition of who was Jewish cut deeply into Hungarian society.

Jewishness became an unavoidable destiny irrespective of religious affiliation.

The Second Jewish Law stipulated that those industries affected be required to reduce their employees to less than 6 percent within a given framework of time, which varied depending on the industry. In the banking sector: 80.6 percent of directors and 43.7 percent of employees were Jewish, as such, it was one of the first industries to be directly affected. The banking sector required employees who had specialized financial skills and therefore they couldn’t all be replaced at the same time. As a result, the banking sector was given up to five years to comply with the law. The Bank records of the Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet

[Savings and Loan and Credit Union], provide a narrative for the issues faced by

Jewish breadwinners who were fired and how they dealt with losing their white- collar employment, that for many, was the equivalent dealt with “social death.”43

The personnel files of the Savings and Loan Credit Union are wide-ranging and demonstrate the inter-connectedness between deprivation of rights, employment, social isolation, and eventually, ostracism and deportation.

The records of the Savings and Loan Credit Union also provide insight into the way that the Jewish community dealt with their members who lost their income through contemporaneous letters about financial assistance and the

43 The term “social death” was first used by sociologist Orlando Patterson, and later incorporated into the work Marion Kaplan. See O. Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1985 and M. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

101 activities of the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews. Among the means and methods are lists of loans to unemployed families, activities such as soup kitchens, and assistance that by 1942 became the “milk and firewood collection fund.”44 The organization also kept lists of those members who obtained loans from pawnshops.45

Among the files are many letters from individuals illustrating the hardships they were forced to endure after becoming unemployed. One such letter, dated December 18, 1939, was written by Abraham Gancz, 39, married with two children and unemployed for six months after working at the same firm for twenty-three years. In the letter, Gancz pleads with the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews to give him the job advertised within the organization.46 The reply was written on December 31, the organization stated that it would hire

Gancz for a one-month trial period as a janitor.47

The files of the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews also lists of names of individuals from all backgrounds, including lawyers, journalists, actors, and actresses who sought loans and financial help from the Savings and Loan Credit

Union.48 Because of the large number of professionals who requested help, the

Office of Support did their due diligence and had background checks completed

44 MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan Credit Union], reel 2, USHMM. In January and February of 1942, collections were announced for “népkonyhák, tej és tüzelő akcióra,”[soup kitchens, milk and firewood funds]. Scan numbers are included, where they are available. 45 Ibid., reel 4. 46“Levél a Pártfogó Iroda Vezetőségének,”[Letter to the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews], 1939 december 18, MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit Union], reel 2, USHMM. 47 Ibid., “Válasz Gancz Ábrahám urnak,” 1939 december 31. 48 MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit Union], reel 2, USHMM.

102 on the applicants.49 Once the credit checks were completed, the organization then supplied the names to the bank and guaranteed the bank loans granted to the unemployed members of the Jewish community.

The Office of Support was active in many aspects of creating work for the unemployed in the arts along with the Országos Magyar Izrealita Közmüvelődési

Egyesület [National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association], hereafter named

OMIKE. Among the bank files, I found a letter from the Directors of OMIKE to the Savings and Loan Credit Union requesting a loan for a publication project on the part of writers.50 The letter was submitted by the OMIKE press group, representing over 160 families of former newspaper journalists and their families, all of whom had lost their employment as a result of the Jewish Laws. The group had been working on a Zsidó Évkönyv [Jewish Yearbook], focusing in particular on gathering and publishing the writings of the most outstanding Hungarian

Jewish novelists, writers, and poets, such as Ferenc Molnár, Lajos Biró, Ernő Szép and Béla Zsolt. The letter detailed the status of the project:

We have more than one thousand orders for the Yearbook which will cover the fees of the distributors and the printer, however, we cannot send the book to the printer yet because we cannot cover the cost of paper in advance. To cover the costs of the paper, we respectfully ask for an advance loan of 300 pengős51. … Without this requested amount, our work over many months will have been fruitless, we are respectfully asking for a speedy response.52

49 Ibid. To demonstrate the perilous situation in which professionals found themselves, one such credit report: dated February 1, 1940, was completed on a 53-year old unmarried lawyer, Dr. Arthur Weiss, who had requested a loan for 105 pengős. The report by the Perfekt Credit Agency concluded that Weiss was completely without financial resources. 50 “Sajtócsoport levelezése,”[Correspondence of Press Group], MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet, reel 1, scan 06798, USHMM. 51 Ibid. This sum, 300 pengős, represented approximately two months salary of a teacher. 52 Ibid.

103

The reply from the bank as to whether the loan had been approved was not contained in the file, however, the Yearbook was published.53 Among the list of contributors to the volume are the distinguished authors and poets named in the letter.

OMIKE led the cultural life of the community by spearheading the cultural activities of unemployed Jewish actors, singers, and artists who were fired from their jobs due to the Jewish laws. The original idea to start a cultural organization for Hungarian Jews may be traced much further back. It was first proposed by Lipót Low (1811-1875), a rabbi and scholar, who also called for the emancipation of Jews. The organization itself was established in 1909. Once the

Jewish laws came into effect, the organization founded a sub-group entitled

OMIKE Művészakció [OMIKE Artistic Enterprise], and it was this sub-group, or branch of OMIKE that served the artistic community from 1939 to 1944.54

While advising patience and steadfastness, lawyer Géza Ribáry and writer

Lajos Bálint were instrumental in creating other opportunities for actors, writers and artists who became unemployed. Even before the antisemitic laws took full effect, Ribáry held salons, or private concerts at his home so that unemployed actors and actresses would have the opportunity to perform in front of an appreciative audience. As vice-president of the Office of Support for Hungarian

Jews, Ribáry succeeded in obtaining the necessary permission for theatre and

53 Magyar Zsidók Naptára 1941-5701, Dr. Simon Hevesi, ed., Budapest: Springer Gusztáv nyomda, 1940. USHMM. 54 Jenő Lévai, ed., The Writers, Artists, Singers and Musicians of the National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association (OMIKE), 1939-1944. Trans. Anna Etawo, West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2017, XI.

104 cultural performances to be produced by unemployed Hungarian Jewish actors, actresses, singers, writers and poets.55 OMIKE was granted permission to use the

Goldmark Theatre for their presentations.56 Ribáry believed that writers and poets should have reserved seating in the front rows during performances, as

“they are just as deprived of opportunities to present their work as are performing actors and actresses.”57

The life and times of actor Oszkár Beregi (1876-1965), Creative Director of the OMIKE Művészakció, demonstrates the multi-faceted nature of his role in the arts. Many outstanding actors and actresses had to follow similar eclectic paths of career development, if they were to survive the ups and downs of political changes in Hungary. Beregi was born in Budapest. After graduating from the

Theatre Academy at the age of twenty, he was given contracts with several theatres, most importantly the Vigszinház [Comedy theatre] where he performed on occasion with such dignitaries as Emperor Franz Josef I in the audience. In

1907, Beregi was hired by producer Max Reinhardt for a three-year contract with the Deutsches Theatre in Berlin. Having established himself as an outstanding actor in Germany, Beregi moved back to Hungary where he became one of the principal actors of the National Theatre. In 1919, he participated in the cultural programs of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic. For this, he was hounded by right-wing groups and fled, first to Vienna where he worked for several years, then to Hollywood. When he returned in 1930, Beregi was once

55 “Az OMIKE művészakciója,” Magyar Zsidók Naptára, 1941-5701, 85-87, USHMM. 56 Goldmark Hall is still located next to the most important and largest synagogue in Hungary on Dohány utca in Budapest. 57 “Az OMIKE művészakciója,” Magyar Zsidók Naptára, 1941-5701, 85-87, USHMM.

105 again a celebrated as an internationally well-known actor and played major roles in theatre and films.58 In 1925, Beregi gave an interview about his travails in his homeland.

At the beginning of 1920, one of the leading individuals in the Ministry of Culture told me: ‘Convert, then everything will be fine!’ I asked: Why should I convert? I was born a Jew and will die a Jew! .... Who are these people? They were barely out of short pants when I was already playing major roles in the National Theatre, they hadn’t seen or heard of me! These are the judges of my patriotism? It looks like I’ve become a football to be used by certain politicians. They are playing ball with me, using my name for political gain, allowing or denying my acting in performances…. Sooner or later I will become the subject of compensation of sorts in the hands of this or that political group. It’s a good source of entertainment.59

In 1944, after the German occupation of Hungary, Beregi went into hiding with the help of his non-Jewish son-in-law, opera singer Kálmán Pataki, and survived.

While he was initially celebrated by the postwar government and elected

President of the actors union, Beregi ultimately became disenchanted with the postwar government and left Hungary in 1946. He travelled to the United States and sought citizenship there, while fearing deportation.60

During the four years of its activity, OMIKE organized cultural presentations of the highest caliber: opera, plays, operettas, musical evenings, poetry, and literary events. Although the facilities at Goldmark Hall were limited

58 http://www.szineszkonyvtar.hu/contents/a-e/beregielet.htm. Accessed on November 28, 2018. 59 Jenő Molnár, “Keresztelkedj ki, akkor minden rendben van. Nem térek ki, én már igy halok meg. Beszélgetés Beregi Oszkárral,”[Convert: then everything will be fine. I won’t convert, this is how I will die], Egyenlőség [Equality], 44 Évf., 9.szám, 1925 február 28, 1. Thanks to Professor János Kenyeres for assisting in the translation of one of the archaic expressions in this quote. 60 http://www.szineszkonyvtar.hu/contents/a-e/beregielet.htm. Accessed on November 28, 2018.

106 and the space itself much smaller when compared to what most actors and actresses were used to, the company mounted large-scale operas and concerts by

Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Offenbach, Rossini and Strauss, among others.61 During the first season alone, the company produced more than 125 different presentations. The cultural group even formed its own orchestra and choir for the many Jewish musicians and singers who were fired from their positions in other orchestras.62

The records of the OMIKE Művészakció also demonstrate a determination on the part of the Jewish community, especially on the part of actors, actresses, producers, directors, screenwriters and musicians, to not become debilitated by their unemployment. The artistic activity of the company was prolific. Through the OMIKE Művészakció, Jewish actors and actresses expressed a desire to believe in themselves and wanted to continue performing, demonstrating a positive response to all the negativity around them, and to the discriminatory anti-Jewish laws.63 The first performance was held on November 11, 1939. There were three separate venues where performances were held.64 At some venues, as many as five performances were held in one day. During the four seasons (1939-1943) of the existence of the OMIKE Művészakció, 733 performances were mounted by the

61 Jenő Lévai, ed., The Writers, Artists, Singers and Musicians of the National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association, 135. 62 Géza Ribáry, “Az OMIKE Művészakció Keretében rendezendő előadások Tájékoztatója, 1941- 1942,” Évkönyv [Yearbook], USHMM rare books, 1942, 200-206. 63 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIcfpCLO6do, Interview with Prof. László Harsányi, sociologist and Holocaust researcher on Heti TV, originally aired July 27, 2017. This program is number 5 of a series on the work of OMIKE. Accessed on December 6, 2018. 64 Ibid., The three venues were: the Goldmark Theatre, the music school on Hollán Ernő utca, and the Bethlen téri diszterem (the auditorium above the synagogue on Bethlen Square).

107 company, and enjoyed by audiences of more than 272,000.65 Beregi noted in his diary:

We were deprived of our intellectual work and physical livelihood at the same time. We may have survived the latter, but we choked on the ‘word’ which we were forbidden to utter. Work at the Goldmark hall was financially completely insignificant, but this was our ‘pulpit.’ And it is to my satisfaction that we did not use this pulpit for cheap, inferior purposes.66 Impact on the film industry

The new decrees had a massive impact on the film industry. Among the best actors, actresses, directors, producers, screenwriters, and film composers --

80 individuals in total -- were denied membership and were no longer able to legally participate in the filmmaking industry.67 The Hungarian film industry lost two of its finest directors, István Székely and Béla Gaál, as well as several of the most outstanding and popular actors and actresses. Those who left for

Hollywood included Székely, who later changed his name to Steve Sekely. Other well-known actors and actresses also emigrated to the United States, including

Irén Ágai (wife of Székely), Franciska Gaál, Gyula Kabos, and Szakáll Szőke.

Some directors, writers, actors, and actresses had begun to establish contacts in the American theatre and film community much earlier, starting in

65 Jenő Lévai, ed., 135. 66 Tamás Gajdó, ”In the Service of Thália,” in Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar: The Jews of Hungary: History, Society and Culture, 240. 67 Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 351-2. I have also gathered information on actors, actresses, producers, directors and many others involved in the film industry in Appendix 2. This research document is titled, “Expelled from the Chamber.” This excel document is based on many sources: primary as well as secondary: biographical indices, lexicons, books about film, and individual biographies, in English as well as Hungarian. One of the most difficult tasks in assembling this information is that some of those involved in the film industry didn’t stay in Hungary postwar, or disappeared during the siege of Budapest. These latter individuals were placed into the “fate unknown” category in my research document.

108 the 1920s, as illustrated by the papers of Edmund Pauker.68 Pauker was born in

Hungary in the late 1880s; he emigrated to the United States in 1922.69 Pauker became an influential literary agent representing actors, and actresses, writers and screenwriters in New York City. Much of his business came from relationships he had previously established in Europe. As representative for a number of theatre and film agencies in Austria, Hungary and Germany in the

United States, Pauker promoted the work of Hungarian writers, authors and screenwriters, primarily Ferenc Molnár, Miklós László and Melchoir (Menyhért)

Lengyel. The advice and counsel of Edmond Pauker to the Hungarian writers went beyond the usual monetary arrangements. In one set of correspondence,

Pauker explains why it is practically impossible to sell a screenplay that has not been previously produced as a stage play or published as a novel.70 Many letters of rejection illustrate how problematic it was to break into the theatre and film world of the United States and Pauker often explained how difficult it was to write for American films from Europe. Still, despite the barriers of language and style, some Hungarian authors were able to adapt and found representation with

Edmond Pauker who was successful in selling their literary properties. The works of Ferenc Molnár were in especially high demand.71

68 The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Billy Rose Theatre Division, Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Centre, New York City. 69 The exact date Pauker was born has not been documented, the bibliographical guide to the Edmond Pauker papers records that he was born in 1887 or 1888, and died in 1962. Guide to the Edmond Pauker Papers, 1910-1957, T-Mss 1960-001. 70“Letter to Béla Ágai,” November 30, 1927, The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, Box 1, folder 27. 71 “Letter to Wesley Addy, National Theatre, Washington, D.C. from Edmond Pauker,” 22 May 1946, The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, box 1, folder 12. There is significant correspondence regarding Molnar’s Tale of the Wolf. In this letter, Pauker responds that the play is available for stock performances at a weekly royalty of $250 to $300, depending on the town. Pauker also pitched short stories successfully by Ferenc Molnár, Alexander Királyfi and László Ormos to Atlantic Magazine.

109

While some emigrated, others stayed in Hungary and remained in denial.

After 1939, almost every important actor of Jewish origin took to writing his memoirs, only partly as a source of income. These books were meant to substitute for their presence on the stage so that the audience should not forget the former favourites. They did not believe, they could not believe in the finality of their situation. These memoirs are written in the tone of sad astonishment rather than resentment. None of these artists could comprehend how they ended up ostracized from the Hungarian nation.72

Writer and screenwriter, Menyhért (Melchoir) Lengyel (1880-1974) wrote such a memoir.73 Part autobiography, part diary, it is written in a matter of fact tone, with no anger or recrimination towards the Hungarian government. The

Jewish Law of 1938 is first mentioned in an entry for January 11, 1939 as “All day

I’ve been living in the upsetting depression of the Hungarian Jewish laws, the hopeless evil and fear of the stupidity of it all. Terrible German poison!”74

The film industry in Hungary, especially after the enactment of the chamber system, was chaotic at best. It struggled with a lack of direction, a bloated bureaucracy, and the constant vying for power between the radical right idealists, who wanted to purge all Jews from the industry and, on the other side, pragmatic influential government officials and ministers, many of whom had financial stakes in Hungary’s film business. The latter group found racial antisemitism to be distasteful. Their interventions and work behind the scenes

72 Tamás Gajdó, 241. 73 Menyhért Lengyel, Életem Könyve: Naplók, Életrajz, Töredékek [My Life’s Work: Diaries, Resumes, Bits and Pieces]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1987. 74 Lengyel, 326.

110 sought to protect their business interests. In contrast, the Nazi-style Chamber system of Germany drove out all Jews within two years.

Typical of this group was Miklós Kozma (1884-1941), a businessman and media owner, who was introduced earlier as a government minister and media baron. Maria Ormos, author of his biography, used the term “selective antisemitism.”75 Kozma was a former Interior Minister (1935-1937) who was also the head of the Hungarian Telegraph Office and President of Hungarian Radio.

He owned Magyar Film Iroda [Hungarian Film Office], hereafter referred to as

MFI, one of the largest private filmmaking companies in Hungary during the interwar period.76

One of the immediate effects of the Jewish laws was the withdrawal of

Jewish investors from the film industry. Each year in the past, at least thirty new films were made to meet the demands of the marketplace for the 507 theatres throughout the country. Following the First Jewish Law, audiences shrank by almost thirty percent and filmmakers were reticent to start new film productions.77 Kozma wrote, “films need to be made with capital, not with illusions or supposed stipulations.”78 Kozma insisted that Hungarian films must continue to be made, “even if they are made by the devil.”79 Kozma used his newspapers to attack the Jewish laws, explaining how it had halted investors

75 Mária Ormos, Egy Magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919- 1941, 587. 76 Magyar Film Iroda Rt. was founded in 1923 by Miklos Kozma. The company began by producing documentary films, then expanded into newsreel production. In 1935, MFI branched into feature film production and by 1938, the films produced by MFI represented serious competition to Hunnia, the state-owned production studio. 77 Ormos, 581-2. 78 Ibid., 582. 79 Ibid.

111 from funding new productions. He compared the film industry and its construct to a house of cards that had collapsed. He argued for modernization and railed against the bureaucratization of the film industry.

Another effect was how drastically the implementation of the First Jewish

Law would affect musicians and actors, especially those songs performed on radio. Kozma railed against this and wrote: “If we were to carry out the expulsions one hundred percent, then a large percentage of the most beautiful and patriotic Hungarian songs could not be performed.”80 In light of the law, well-loved musicals such as “János Vitéz” [John the Valiant], written by composer Jenő Heltai, would have been expunged from radio programs, as well as such well-known patriotic songs as: “Szép vagy gyönyörü vagy magyarország”[Hungary you are lovely, you are beautiful!] as both were written by Hungarian Jews. Kozma worked assiduously to inform government ministers about the drastic effects of this law, and for this, he became the target of the extreme right.81

Most filmgoers in Hungary were undoubtedly aware that some of the best film producers and directors left the country following the implementation of antisemitic laws, but most ardent fans of film were undoubtedly stunned by the revelation that Gyula Kabos, one of the most famous Hungarian comedic actors of all time, suddenly left his homeland. Kabos (1887-1941) went to film school in

1905 and soon afterwards, began his career as an actor of stage and film in

Budapest. He was brilliant acting in silent films and had a difficult time adjusting

80 Ibid., 575. 81 See Ormos, “Viharfelhők, 1938,” [Stormclouds, 1938], 582-87

112 to sound, however, he soon learned to demonstrate his amazing ability to play a wide range of roles. His filmography was extensive; he was one of the hardest working and most highly sought after actors in Hungarian films. Kabos left his homeland reluctantly; he travelled to the United States with his wife and son in

1939.82 There, he had little success in translating his skills as an actor. His English was insufficient and tragically, this once-famous actor found himself doing one- night acting gigs in low-paying jobs in New York City. In 1941, he suddenly fell ill and died soon afterwards of a heart attack at the age of fifty-seven. While it is difficult to possibly estimate the number of ruined careers and lives, Gyula

Kabos is certainly an example of an outstanding, well-loved actor whose career and life were destroyed by the Jewish laws.83

The bureaucratization of the film industry with the implementation of the

Jewish laws is clearly evident on the pages of Magyar Film, the official government-sponsored weekly journal of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber.84

First published on February 18, 1939, this official news organ documented the many issues facing the Hungarian film industry and how the lack of direction by officials was evident in every aspect of the Film Chamber.85

One of the first topics consistently covered in the pages of the early issues of Magyar Film was the demand, made in editorials on behalf of members, that the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber should be divided into two chambers,

82 Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn, Gyula Kabos. Edinburgh, Scotland: Lennex Publisher, 2012, 2. 83 Russell and Cohn, 3. 84 The official weekly journal of the Chamber itself, Magyar Film was published until October 15, 1944. The editor until July 1942 was Dezső Váczi, who was replaced by Géza K. Matolay. 85 Back issues of Magyar Film were accessed in the European section of the Library of Congress. Special thanks to Kenneth Nyirady, chief librarian, for his assistance.

113 namely one for theatre and one for film. This editorial, published at the end of the first year of the Chamber, in December 1939, already illustrates metaphorically the length of time that this issue had been discussed with little success.

We have stepped into the last months of the first year of our existence … however, our clothes fit too tightly, as in the original fitting. Yet how many times have we asked that we receive a new coat that will fit our Chamber, a coat that will allow future growth and development as well.86

Many of the weekly issues that followed continued to expound on the difficulties of working with the two branches of artistic endeavor bound together as they were. Proposals for the reorganization of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber dominated the pages. The criticism was multi-faceted but could be narrowed down to the argument that there were more differences between the two artistic fields than similarities.87 Hardly an issue was published in the first half of 1940 that did not demand a solution to this problem in prominent editorials or headlines. In May 1940, another editorial linked the inability of the film industry to properly carry out the “Nemzeti [National] and cultural” tasks it was mandated to perform “unless its structure and mandate are clarified…These tasks, in light of the present circumstances, are more important than ever.”88

In June 1940, another editorial in Magyar Film focused on the “Őnnálló

Filmkamara,” [Independent Film Chamber]. This issue also reported that Bálint

86 Magyar Film, 1939 december 2, 1 évf. 42. Szám, 2. 87“A kamara szétválasztásárol szoló törvényjavaslat indoklása,”[The reasons for the proposed changes in legislation regarding the separation of the chamber], Magyar Film, 1940 junius 15, II évf., 24. Szám, 2. 88 Magyar Film, 1940 május 11, 1940, II évf. 19. Szám, 3.

114

Homan, Minister of Religion and Education, had presented a bill to the parliament creating a separate Film and Theatre Chamber.89 Despite all the news coverage and discussion in parliament about dividing the Chamber into a separate Film Chamber and Theatre Chamber, the government continued to delay any action.90

The first President of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was Ferenc Kiss, who held that position from the enactment of the chamber until the spring of

1942. While Kiss was at the helm of the chamber, the government had to contend with strong leadership of the organization. He too, was an advocate for the separation of the theatre and film chamber into two separate bodies. When Prime

Minister Miklos Kállay was named to replace László Bárdossy on March 9, 1942,

Kiss realized that the change would have a considerable effect on the political climate, and that the new, more moderate Prime Minister Kállay would not be in favour of separating the chamber. László Bárdossy was Prime Minister for only one year (April 1941 to March 1942) but was pro-German and one of the chief architects of Hungary’s entry into World War II. Miklós Kállay was a more moderate Prime Minister from March 1942 to March 1944, who tried to secretly negotiate Hungary’s withdrawal from the war and joining the Allies.

Kiss, realizing that his three-year effort in campaigning “to cleanse our cultural work from the international group of foreigners distant from our race,” was in vain, announced his resignation as President in the Christmas issue of

89 Magyar Film, 1940 junius 8, II évf. 23. Szám, 2. 90 “A kamara átszervezése,”[The reorganization of the Chamber] Magyar Film, 1940 szeptember 28, 1.

115

Magyar Film: “Now, that I look back on three years hard work with the Film

Chamber, I close this year, and use this opportunity to bid farewell to my colleagues and through them, to the entire film industry.”91 In the following issue of Magyar Film, however, the news of the resignation is referred to as

“unsubstantiated.”92 As it turned out, Kiss didn’t fully cut his ties with the film industry, he continued in his role as “film commissioner” for the government and as part owner of film production company, Takács Film Rt.93

Prime Minister Kállay named Dr. András Cziffra to replace Kiss as government commissioner of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Cziffra was introduced to the theatre and film industry through an article in Magyar Film where he made a commitment to execute his duties according to the directives of

Ministry.94 While a few articles appeared in Magyar Film about Cziffra in the following few years, he became known as a “shadow commissioner” as his activities as Commissioner of the Chamber were limited under his term. Cziffra was viewed as an absentee director of the chamber, so much so that he was absolved of any wrongdoing by the postwar People’s Tribunals, he was released from internment and it was determined that his case should be handed over to the Certification Committees.95

From the spring of 1942 onwards, the chamber was viewed as an impotent organization, the main focus of which was to administer the registration of actors

91 Kiss Ferenc, “Karácsonyi búcsú,” Magyar Film, 1941 december 22, 1. 92 “Bucsú három évtől”[Good-bye to three years], Magyar Film, December 31, 1941,1. 93 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3, accessed July 18, 2017. 94 Dr. Sándor Cziffra, “A Kamara jővendő útjai,”[The future path of the film chamber] Magyar Film, 1942 május 13, 1. 95 Ibid.

116 and actresses and to continue to implement the Jewish quotas in the membership. During this period of relative inactivity on the part of the chamber, there were a group of actors and actresses who stayed in Hungary and continued to work, either under pseudonyms, in hiding or working with OMIKE, [Országos

Magyar Izrealita Közművelődési Egyesület]. The language of the Second Jewish Law did not completely ban all Jewish participation in the world of film, leaving some loopholes for Jewish film professionals and their friends to exploit. Once again, the conflicted nature of antisemitism in Hungary became evident. Although many Jewish filmmakers, directors, screenwriters were not admitted to the chamber, another group of about forty individuals continued to work in the business under pseudonyms or even from behind bars.96 Stróhmann [straw man in German] or “Aladár rendszer,” meant that non-Jews were officially placed at the head of the company as President, while the Jewish owner, producer, director was listed towards the end of the credits in the film, along with, for example, the catering crew. Some of the best screenwriters, such as Károly Noti, were not evicted from the Chamber, but frequently, to avoid the film being banned or worse, their work appeared under false names. A young novelist and newspaper editor and writer, Julianna Zsigray began her career as screenwriter by replacing Árpád Herczeg in the credits for the film, Tóparti Látomás

[Lakeshore Vision].97 A screenwriter who was just learning the craft, Margit

Pusztaszery, received several credits as screenwriter between 1939-1944. Her name appeared in films actually written by such well-known authors of

96 Appendix 2, research document titled, “Expelled from the Chamber.” 97 Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 343.

117 screenplays as Mihály István and Károly Noti.98 Such replacements often weren’t even able to give an interview regarding the production because they had no idea about the construct or aesthetics of the film.

The last theatre presentation organized by OMIKE took place on March

19, 1944, when the German army occupied Hungary. That day, during a dress rehearsal of a Molière comedy in Szeged, German soldiers marched in, ordered everyone to leave and closed down the theatre for any further performances, ending the four years of activity of the OMIKE Művészakció.

The end of the Horthy era

The occupation of Hungary by the German army on March 19, 1944, ended the work of any and all Jews still active in the Hungarian film industry. In the tumultuous days that followed, Adolf Eichmann’s special operations unit,

Sondereinsatzkommando Eichmann, began implementing the “final solution” in

Hungary. Among the first steps taken by the Gestapo was to round up and arrest about 3,000 pro-western politicians, aristocrats, journalists, captains of industry and intellectuals — in effect anyone capable of raising their voice in protest — and deport them to Mauthausen.99 The Nazis ordered the creation of a Jewish

Council (Judenrat), an administrative body composed of community leaders through which the Gestapo would communicate with and issue orders to

Hungary’s Jews. Within a matter of months, a crush of more than 107 decrees were issued by Sondereinsatzkommando Eichmann, by Eichmann himself, and by the Hungarian government, which severely limited the lives of the Jewish

98 Ibid., 253. 99 Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 402.

118 citizens of Hungary.100 Ernő Munkácsi, a member of the Jewish Council, detailed the seizure and looting of Jewish property under the euphemistic guise of

“requisitions,” noting that the requisitioning of Jewish homes in Budapest — at one point, the Jewish Council was given twenty-four hours to vacate and hand over 1,500 apartments — was “the first signs of destiny waiting in the wings.”101

Munkácsi recounted the Jewish Council’s desperate efforts to get help from their many contacts within the Hungarian government, only to find that those contacts suddenly couldn’t be reached, wouldn’t reply, had been arrested, or had gone into hiding. Between May 15 and July 7, 1944, in less than eight weeks, 437,402 men, women and children were rounded up, forced into ghettos, and deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where many were killed.102 Horthy halted the deportations in June/July of 1944 when he ordered military action against the gendarmes. Through this action, he is attributed with saving the lives of forty percent of the Jews of Hungary.103 In October of 1944, Regent Horthy secretly sent a delegation to Moscow to sign an armistice and announced his plans to extricate Hungary from the war via a radio broadcast. The Germans foiled the plan, however, by kidnapping the son of the Regent, Miklós, and releasing him only after Horthy agreed to legalize a puppet regime headed by the Arrow Cross leader, Ferenc Szálasi. The Arrow Cross unleashed a reign of terror on the streets of Budapest. The capital paid a high price for the Arrow Cross regime and

Hitler’s order to defend “fortress Budapest house by house.” By January 13, the

Germans had already blown up all the bridges across the Danube, and bloody

100 Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 2, 2016, Appendix 3, pp. 1660-1674. 101 Ernő Munkácsi, How it Happened: Documenting the Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry, 31. 102 Lendvai, The Hungarians, 422. 103 Ibid., 423.

119 battles on the streets of Budapest with the Soviet army lasted 102 days, only ending on February 13, 1945. Unlike other major urban battlegrounds such as

Stalingrad, the civilian inhabitants of Budapest were never evacuated. The fighting engulfed 800,000 non-combatants, of whom 38,000 were killed in the brutal house-to-house fighting, during relentless bombings, and from hunger. A similar number of Hungarian and German military personnel died during the siege.104 The total cost of human lives lost during the three-month siege, including 80,000 soldiers of the Red Army, was close to 160,000.105 In addition, more than 500,000 Hungarians were deported to forced labour camps in the

Soviet Union, with one-third of them dying from the cold, hunger and inhuman conditions.106 Approximately one million civilians fled to the West –- mainly due to fear of the Soviets. Of these, many returned, the exact number is unknown, while about 100,000 remained in Displaced Person camps, waiting to be accepted to whatever country would agree to receive them.107

Most actors, actresses and other Hungarian Jews involved in the film industry had by this time gone into hiding or obtained false papers. One example, Tibor Polgár, a talented music composer for film, secreted himself in the villa of his lover, the well-known singer and actress, Ilona Nagykovácsi.

Polgár survived the war and was named head of the Budapest Radio Orchestra postwar.

104 Krisztián Ungváry, Battle for Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II, translated by Ladislaus Löb, London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010, xi. 105 Ibid. 106 Tamás Stark, “Hungary’s Casualties in World War II.” In Hungarian Economy and Society during World War II, György Lengyel, ed.,Vol. XXIX. War and Society in East Central Europe. Boulder, Colorado: Social Science Monographs, 1993, 171-260. 107 Lendvai, 424-425.

120

Many of those filmmakers who stayed were deported and killed in concentration camps, or drafted into labour battalions and died on the eastern front. My research demonstrates that at least eleven well-known actors, producers, directors, and other active filmmakers were killed, the most prominent was the prolific producer, screenwriter and director Béla Gaál (1893-

1945).108 Gaál directed some of the most entertaining films produced during the interwar era. While it is unclear exactly when he was deported from Hungary, he was transported to Dachau on December 8, 1944 and died there on February 17,

1945.109 Nineteen individuals who were producers, directors, actors and actresses disappeared during the last stages of the war, either killed or died of starvation during the siege of Budapest, or perished while trying to escape.110 This latter group is categorized as “fate unknown.”111 Magda Horák compiled biographies of over 750 members of the Hungarian intelligentsia who were deported, killed, or lost their lives during the war. The list included not only members of the

OMIKE Művészakció, but also singers, musicians, dancers, composers, writers, actors, actresses, directors, poets, conductors, composers, as well as doctors, scientists, lawyers, dentists, athletes and academics.112

108 Gaál began directing local theatre companies, he later became director of the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre]. He taught at the Hungarian National Film Academy between 1934-1939. Béla Gaál directed some of the most entertaining films during the inter-war era, films such as A Meseautó [Dream Car], a Budai cukrászda [The Sweet Shop in Buda], Új Földesúr [The New Landlord] and János Vitéz [John the Valiant]. 109 The Tracing and Documentation number for Béla Gaál was 199648. The date of death was confirmed in the “Death Book of Dachau,” ITS documents. Special thanks to Elizabeth Anthony at the Mandel Centre in the USHMM for assisting in this search. 110 Appendix 2, research document titled, “Expelled from the Chamber.” 111 One such actor, Károly (Pufi) Huszár disappeared while trying to emigrate to the United States. According to some sources, he died in Tokyo. According to others, he was caught by the Soviets and ended up in the Gulag, where he died in 1946. Mudrák and Deák, 146. 112 Magda Horák, A Magyar értelmiség veszteségei az 1940-es években [Hungarian Intellectual Losses in the 1940’s] with Foreword by Randolph L. Braham, Budapest: Bekes Print Kft., 1994.

121

Conclusion

The late 1930s illustrates the varied push-pull forces in conflict with one another while the government attempted to create a system of “Christian” national film in Hungary. On the one side, there was pressure from antisemitic radicals, who demanded the implementation of a complete “changing of the guard” [Őrségváltás]. These individuals had little to no experience in producing films. The training of a new breed of professional Christian filmmakers was also a plan that was without any real foundation. On the other side were pragmatic government ministers and industry officials who resisted the implementation of anti-Jewish laws knowing how difficult it would be to replace all the Jews. These individuals held financial stakes in film companies and were interested in protecting their own business interests. Instead of a complete purging of Jews in the entertainment industry – as had happened in Germany -- in Hungary, Jews went underground, often protected by the “Strohman” system, continuing to write screenplays, to act, and direct. The songs they wrote continued to be played on the radio.

While the anti-Jewish laws were carried out in some industries, creating thousands of unemployed Jews, they were impossible to implement in the film industry, where Jews were active in many films still being produced until March of 1944. The legislation establishing the rules for administrative organizations intending to create a “Christian” national film utilized administrative rules and nebulous terms that seem to muddle more than clarify. The main organization charged with enforcing the rules overseeing of the film industry, especially the

Theatre and Film Chamber, became in the end, impotent. The President of the

122

Chamber, Ferenc Kiss, resigned and the government replaced Kiss with Andras

Cziffra, a relatively unknown individual who did not pursue the implementation of the Jewish laws with the vigour of the previous leadership. In fact, the work of the Chamber slid into obscurity, once again underlying the conflicted state of antisemitism, especially regarding film, demonstrated by the government of the interwar era.

The geopolitical position of Hungary also contributed to the internal push-pull forces in Hungary. The dismantling of Czechoslovakia by Hitler and the Nazi invasion of Poland all underscored the insecurity of the country.

Territorial gains were granted by Hitler. The invasion of Poland, however, destroyed the “illusion”that border revisions would happen without a steep cost.

Through the destruction of Poland, Hungarians realized that their nation could also be destroyed by the military might of Nazi Germany. Hungary was engulfed in the war by 1941.

The First and Second Jewish laws were in reaction to many pressures, from right-wing politicians and organizations, to external pressures from Nazi

Germany, to a desperate desire on the part of the Horthy regime to re-gain territories lost following the First World War.

Jews tragically believing that what was taking place in neighboring countries could never take place in Hungary, that they were a fully integrated part of the culture and history of Hungary, and that no harm would come to them if they followed the rules. Even when the Second Jewish Laws further abrogated their rights as Hungarian citizens and changed the definition of

Jewishness from that of religion to race, only a few representatives in the

123

Parliament raised their objections. These protests, however, were to no avail.

Hungarian Jews stayed in Hungary and completed forms and registrations.

Among the few signs pointing to the tragic mistake of aligning the country with Nazi Germany, was the suicide of Prime Minister Pál Teleki in

1941. His embittered suicide note was in reaction to the government allowing the

German army through Hungary to occupy Yugoslavia, although Hungary had just signed a “friendship pact”with Yugoslavia a few months prior.

“We broke our word, – out of cowardice […] The nation feels it, and we have thrown away its honor. We have allied ourselves to scoundrels […] We will become body-snatchers! A nation of trash. I did not hold you back. I am guilty”113

113 Balázs Ablonczy, A Miniszterelnök élete és halála: Teleki Pál (1879-1941) [The Life and Death of the Prime Minister: Pál Teleki: 1879-1941]. Budapest: Jaffa, 2018, 281.

Chapter 5: Who survived and how (1945-1947) Actors and actresses as a means of building a new democratic Hungary (1945-1947)

The siege of Budapest ended on February 13, 1945. German and their allied Arrow Cross forces were defeated by the Soviets and fighting ended in the country by April 1945. Once the war ended, by order of the newly-organized provisional postwar government, all individuals who wanted to continue to work – Jews and non-Jews alike – were required to be certified by a certification committee set up for each profession. This dissertation will look at the inner workings of two different certification committees, one designated for actors and actresses, producers and directors, the second established for employees of the filmmaking industry through the lens of postwar retribution and how this was carried out in Hungary. The examination of the certification committees for actors and actresses also provide insight into the work of the Hungarian Theatre and Film Arts Chamber during the interwar era. Specifically, I look at the means by which individual actors/actresses situated themselves within their field and how perceived “collaborators” of the Szálasi regime defended themselves against accusations of being complicit in promoting antisemitic rhetoric and propaganda. I examine how the politics of retribution unfolded in the reorganization of the fields of theatre and film immediately following the end of the war in Hungary and assess how the political atmosphere of the interim government was reflected in the work of the certification committees and what criteria were used to determine eligibility of employment in the industry.

The Budapest Nemzeti Bizottság [Budapest National Committee], henceforth referred to as the BNB, was the political body set up to establish the certification

124 125 committees and the People’s Tribunals, all ordinances and decrees that dealt with re-building the country and finding and punishing collaborators. Where the certification committee was unable to reach a decision, the case was sent to the People’s Tribunal for a final verdict. The BNB was provided this mandate by the Provisional National Assembly, formed in Debrecen in December 1944.

Among the first decrees declared by the postwar provisional government, the

BNB, were ordinances that directed the re-opening of theatres and re-starting of film and theatre productions. The certification process took on the specific role of creating a sense of normalcy, legitimacy and a return to a functioning civil society.1 This all-encompassing process was largely built by the government on the idea that Hungary was a victim of Nazi aggression. The drive to return to normalcy accelerated the work of the Actors Certification Committee and put pressure on decision-makers to certify actors quickly. However, the certification committee also reflected the reality of a politically conflicted state and the uncertainty of the provisional government. The testimony of actors and actresses demonstrate that they wanted Hungarian audiences to understand that they were outside the political sphere of the interwar government, that they were merely entertainers.2 This chapter will also demonstrate that those in the acting profession had a critical specific role to play in creating a positive image for the

1 This statement is concluded by reading the original ordinances, and the order in which they are published and acted upon by the BNB. Ferenc Gáspar and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee 1945-1946], Források Budapest Multjábol [Sources from Budapest’s Past], vol. VII, Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára Forráskiadványai [City of Budapest Archives Publications], 1975; Ferenc Gáspar, ed., Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], vol. VI, Források Budapest Multjábol, Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára Forráskiadványai, 1973. 2 XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives] hereafter BFL.

126 postwar democratic political forces in Hungary, and actors and actresses were to play the leading role in this regard.

My purpose in extending the scholarly work on the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber into the postwar era is because the files of the certification committees provide significant historical insight about the leadership and antisemitic narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era, and in particular, the inner workings of the individuals involved in leading the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. As already cited, there is an important historical arc that encompasses this era, from 1938 into the 1960s, it was a time when “institutional lawlessness” reigned in Hungary, that is when innocent citizens were arbitrarily deprived of their civil rights, their property and often their life.3 The focus of my dissertation, through the examination of the work of these two specific certification committees, supports this historical arc.

Postwar rhetoric was designed to remember and repress, to remember what was done to us, but not remember what was done to others by us during the war.4 In order to understand the impact upon the lives of individual actors affected by the Jewish laws of 1938-39, it is necessary to provide a narrative of

“lived history” within the world of Hungarian cinema and carry this history through to the postwar era. My work adds to the literature about the acting profession interwar, and how members of this profession reacted to the political pressures of the certification process during the immediate postwar era in

3 István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” István Deák, Jan Gross and Tony Judt, eds. The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 142. 4 Tony Judt, “The Past in Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 298.

127

Hungary. As the section in the Introduction detailing the review of literature has

demonstrated, there have been only a handful of articles written on the postwar

certification of actors and actresses. My research fills an important gap in the

postwar history of the politics of retribution within the entertainment industry in

Hungary. More broadly, my dissertation adds to the scholarship of how the

certification system worked in Hungary to smooth the transition, and how the

entertainment industry was salvaged from the ruins of almost complete

devastation to a working and thriving industry. This industry was key to

contribute to the sense of normalcy and continuity and, as demonstrated through

this work, the certification of actors and actresses was a critical part of that

process.

This chapter is organized chronologically and thematically. The first

section examines the postwar process of centralization and re-organization of the

political and legal system to reflect the proclaimed goal of building a democratic

country. Next, I trace the ideological basis for the certification committees, how

they were established and the process of certification. In the last section of this

chapter, I will examine the early files of the certification committee, how and

why individual actors and actresses were certified quickly, and the process of

determining complicity and retribution.

I conduct a qualitative examination by reading, analyzing, and gaining a fuller understanding of the underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations that constitute the postwar certification system for the film industry. The comparison of the methodologies will demonstrate that the certification process for actors and actresses was relatively easy, straightforward and flawed. I demonstrate that

128 actors and actresses did their utmost to become certified, to be able to continue to remain active in the field, including using such tactics as misrepresenting and obfuscating their acting roles during the interwar era and using political contacts to intervene and mitigate the process of certification. I argue that the certification process for this particular union for actors and actresses had a specific role in creating a positive image for the postwar democratic political forces forming the government in Hungary. Actors and actresses were to play the leading role in creating a sense of normalcy, of legitimizing the post-war government. My argument adds further to the findings of István Deák:

Retribution served several purposes beyond punishing those held responsible for the nation’s wartime humiliation and suffering. It was designed to legitimize the power of new rulers, to reduce to impotence those groups that might stand in the way of postwar reconstruction and the reorganization of society, and to help in the redistribution of wealth.5

The work of the certification committees lasted for two years, from 1945 to

1947. My work demonstrates that even after the era of postwar retribution and

the work of the certification committees ended, the by-then firmly entrenched

Hungarian Communist government continued this policy of molding its positive

image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers of famous actors and

actresses, even those tainted by their participation in interwar propaganda

and/or antisemitic films and theatre performances.

5 István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” 133.

129

This chapter is primarily based on archival sources. The primary archival sources utilized regarding the establishment of the certification committees are the minutes of the meetings of the five-member Budapest National Committee, or BNB, set up to establish the People’s Tribunals, certification committees, and issue all ordinances and decrees. The four-volume minutes and original documents of the BNB, commissioned by the City Archives of Budapest, document the chronology and provide the narrative for the goals of the postwar interim government in Hungary.6 In addition to the original documents of those individuals who ordered the establishment of the certification committees, I also examined the certification documents themselves contained in the archival collection of the files on the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946,7 as well as certification files of the Film Employees Union. First, I examine the postwar process of centralization and re-organization of the political and legal system to reflect the purported goal of building a democratic country.

Postwar centralization and stabilization

During the interwar years, the Horthy regime had devoted much of its propaganda efforts to anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet material in newsreels, print and radio.8 Hungarians had been wary of greeting the Russians as “liberators,” there was fear among the population that one oppressor was being replaced by

6 Ferenc Gáspar and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee 1945-1946], Források Budapest Multjábol [Sources from Budapest’s Past], vol. VII; Ferenc Gáspar, ed., Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945- 1950 [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], vol. VI. 7 XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives] (hereafter BFL). 8 Balazs Sipos, Sajtó és Hatalom a Horthy Korszakban [Media and Power in the Horthy Era], Budapest: Argumentum Press, 2011, 86-93.

130 another.9 Similar to many other European countries that had suffered defeat, the

Hungarian population was subjected to brutality and violence, first with the occupation of the German army in March of 1944, and then, later that year, with the arrival of the Soviets.10

As for Hungarian Jews, the occupation of the German army only worsened their situation. Under the anti-Jewish Laws of 1938 and 1939, Jews had already experienced the abrogation of rights -- those laws that removed the legal protection of Hungarian Jews, quashed their ability to be employed and brought about their social isolation. In 1944, under German occupation, a further crush of

107 decrees directed against the Jews were created in a span of months. These legalized the theft of Jewish property and deprivation of their rights as individuals.11 Moreover, during this period and until the end of the war, there was a high incidence of anonymous reports and other personal accusations, mainly for the material gain of the accusers.12 Jews, returning from concentration camps after the war, found their homes occupied and businesses oftentimes looted. In many cases, furniture and possessions were taken by local squatters, who claimed they had been given these items by the authorities, and refused to

9 Hungarians had viewed the Russians as brutal conquerors extending back to 1849 when they joined Austria in defeating the Hungarian War of Independence during Europe’s “Springtime of Nations.” See Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 235-241. 10 On the arrests and deportations by the Gestapo following Hungary’s occupation in 1944, see László Kontler, A History of Hungary, 383. For a first-hand account, see Marianne Szegedy- Maszák, I Kiss your Hand Many Times: Hearts, Souls and Wars in Hungary, New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2013, 175-79. 11 For a complete list of the 107 decrees, see Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 2, 3rd ed., Boulder, Col.: East European Monographs, 2016, Appendix 3, 1660-1674. 12 Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, New York: Penguin, 2006, 37.

131 leave or return them.13 Under Soviet rule, the process of reporting on neighbors, informing on friends or anyone seen as a threat, continued and became even more prevalent in an already intimidated and fearful Hungarian society.14

Still, the arrival of the Soviet army did bring liberation to political prisoners and to the Jews, who could come out of hiding. Residents also felt much relieved that the active bombardment of their city was over. Their worst fears, however, were soon confirmed. Liberation came at a price: Hungarians were subjected to a widespread campaign of looting and rape by the Russian army.15 Those stopped on the streets who did not have proper papers could be incarcerated without reason, or worse, dragged away to forced labour camps in the Soviet Union.

The practice, known as “Malenkij Robota,” [Malenkaia rabota; little work] had already begun in October of 1944 in Transcarpathia - the northeastern part of

Hungary - where Hungarian and German men between the ages of eighteen and fifty were ordered to report for “three days work” to the local authorities. Set out officially under the Second Order of the Military Commander of the Soviet army of each region, the men — and later women and children — were gathered

13 Interview conducted by the author with Yitzhak Livnat, on June 17, 2007. Born as Sándor Weisz, he returned from Mauthausen to his hometown of Sevlus, Czechoslovakia in June 1945. See also Zsuzsanna Agora, “Holocaust Remembrance in Hungary,” Polin: Poland and Hungary, Jewish Realities Compared, Francois Guesnet, Howard Lupovitch and Antony Polonsky, eds., Vol. 31, London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization with Liverpool University Press, 2019, 430-31. 14 Peter F. Sugar, Peter Hanak and Tibor Frank, eds., A History of Hungary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990, 372-375. 15 Andrea Pető, Elmondani az Elmondhatatlant: A nemi erőszak története Magyarországon a II világháboru alatt. [Telling the Untellable: the History of Rape during the Second World War in Hungary], Budapest: Jaffa, 2018; Lucy Ash, “The Rape of Berlin,” BBC Magazine, 1 May, 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32529679, accessed March 18, 2019; Anthony Beevor used official reports about rape by Soviet soldiers written to the NKVD in The Fall of Berlin, New York: Penguin Books, 2003, 28-32.

132 without consideration of age or gender.16 Red Army soldiers showed little interest in distinguishing one Hungarian from another, underground communists and Jewish survivors of the Nazi concentration camps were just as likely to fall victim as the rest.17 While estimates vary, the number of Hungarians deported to forced labour camps in the Soviet Union range from 530,000 to

750,000, with one-third never returning.18 Such violence against citizens, and the accompanying lawlessness on the part of the occupying Soviet army, bred cynicism, hatred and a fear of authority.19

The Hungarian Communist Party (MKP), backed by the Soviet occupation forces, worked to amalgamate power in Hungary. This pattern was also followed in those parts of Germany and Austria occupied by the Red Army and other countries in east-central Europe, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. In each of these countries, Moscow-trained communists first established a National Front with a wide coalition of antifascist parties, while concurrently taking over the

16 Tamás Stark, “Hungarian Forced Laborers in the Soviet Union” (lecture, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, September 18, 2017). See also Tamás Stark, ed.,…”Akkor Aszt mondák kicsi Robot”A Magyar polgári lakosság elhurcolása a Szovjetúnióba korabeli dokumentumok tűkrében. [“They then said: little work” The dragging away of the Hungarian civilian population to the Soviet Union as reflected in contemporaneous documents] Budapest: Történettudományi Intézet, 2017. 17 István Deák, “A Fatal Compromise? The Debate over Collaboration and Resistance in Hungary,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 39-73. 18 Tamás Stark. Magyar Foglyok a Szovjetunióban [Hungarian Prisoners in the Soviet Union] Budapest: Lucidus, 2006. 19 Mayor’s ordinance, XXIV/19.-1945. BNB sz. Polgármesteri rendelet,’ 1945 március 25, Minutes of meeting of the BNB [Budapest Nemzeti Tanacs], F. Gáspár and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottsag jegyzőkonyvei, 1945-1946 [The Minutes of the Budapest National Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest, 1975, 73-74. The issue of Soviet soldiers going into apartments in Budapest and taking men between the ages of seventeen and fifty was discussed at this meeting of the BNB. The mayor stated that this could cause widespread fear and halt any reorganization and healthy growth of life in the city. A resolution was made by the BNB to form a delegation to go and speak to the Soviet authorities about this.

133 country’s police apparatus.20 During this so-called coalition era, between 1945 and 1947, legislation was introduced which permitted the communist party to eliminate political opposition by both legal means and police arrest and incarceration.21 The hardcore membership of the Hungarian Communist party numbered only a few thousand in 1945. Returning from exile in Russia were

Soviet-trained communists such as Mátyás Rákosi, who later became General-

Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party, as well as Ernő Gerő, Mihály

Farkas, József Révai, Gábor Péter, and Imre Nagy. There were other, indigenous

Hungarian communists like László Rajk and János Kádár as well, who had until then, worked underground in Hungary. Backed by the occupying Red Army, the

Hungarian Communist Party (MKP), which had operated illegally between the two world wars, was now rehabilitated and returned to organizing and recruiting members in Hungary, becoming an active force in the creation of the next government.

To ensure a smooth transition of power, the leaders of the MKP, most notably Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő, were mandated by the communist leadership in Moscow to work with the coalition government in order to build continuity, and to collaborate with both former and future adversaries and enemies, including members of the Horthy regime.22 Stalin gave the directive that Hungarian communist leaders would have to wait at least ten to fifteen

20 Wolfgang Mueller, “Soviet Policy, Political Parties and Preparation for Communist Takeovers in Hungary, Germany and Austria, 1944-1946,” East European Politics and Societies 24, no. 1,winter 2010, 90. 21 László Borhi, “Stalinist Terror in Hungary, 1945-1956,” Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe: Elite Purges and Mass Repression, Kevin McDermott and Matthew Stibbe, eds., Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2010, 119. 22 Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy: Hungary Between East and West, 1944-1947, Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011,13.

134 years for the amalgamation of power in Hungary.23 The coalition government followed these directives and chose several former ministers of the Horthy regime to be an integral part of the interim government, including: Béla Dálnoki

Miklós, who was named Prime Minister; János Vörös as Minister of Defence;

Gábor Faraghó Minister of Supplies; and Count Géza Teleki, Minister of

Education.24

The Provisional National Assembly was formed on December 21, 1944, the result of a coalition of antifascist parties.25 Out of a total of 230 deputies, seventy- two delegates represented the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP). The other parties in the coalition were the Nemzeti Paraszt Párt [National Peasant Party]

(NPP), Demokrata Néppárt [Social Democratic Party] (SzDP), Független Kisgazda

Párt [the Independent Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party] (FKgP) and the

Országos Szakszervezeti Tanács [National Council of Unions] (OSzT).

The interim government had the appearance of being remarkably democratic. Their main goals were to conclude an armistice with the Allies, pay reparations, repeal antisemitic and anti-democratic laws, guarantee democratic rights, institute universal and secret suffrage, disband right-wing political

23 Charles Gáti, Hungary and the Soviet Block, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986, 37; Martin Mevius, Agents of Moscow: the Hungarian Communist Party and the origins of socialist patriotism, 1941-1953, Oxford and New York: Clarendon University Press and Oxford University Press, 2005, 48. 24 Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 11. Béla Dálnoki Miklós, a well-respected military General, was in command of one of two Hungarian armies. On the orders of Regent Horthy, he was on the forefront of directing the military to switch sides on October 15, 1944. The attempt failed due to lack of preparation. János Vörös, also a high-ranking officer in the army, had encouraged Regent Horthy to travel to Transcarpathia to enter into discussions with the Soviet military commander regarding changing sides. The plans could not be acted upon, however, as a military coup, led by the Arrow Cross leader, Ferenc Szálasi, and backed by Hitler, seized power that same day. 25 Debrecen is a major urban centre in eastern Hungary, close to the border with Romania.

135 movements, punish war criminals, and effect land reform.26 Another of the main priorities of the Provisional National Assembly was to determine the culpability and collaboration of the Horthy and Szálasi regimes, especially those individuals who had played a role in the implementation of the Jewish laws from 1938 onwards, and those who had participated in the deportation and killing of Jews during the Holocaust in Hungary. This was especially important since the

Provisional National Government was concerned with gaining legitimacy, to be seen as dealing, in a very thorough manner, with the crimes of the interwar regime, and to separate, in the minds of Hungarians, the postwar government from the interwar regime.

Once that task was completed, the government sought to assure the nation that the unpleasant memories of the war were behind them, so that the people of

Hungary could get on with their lives. In most countries in Europe, especially those formerly allied with Nazi Germany, there was reticence for the new leadership to blame their countrymen for the worst crimes. The postwar leadership of these countries were in agreement that the Germans had to take full responsibility for the crimes of the Second World War.27

One of the first acts of the Provisional National Government was to re- establish the municipal government of Budapest, as previously mentioned, by creating a governing council, the Budapest National Committee, or BNB. One delegate from each of the four political parties active in the Provisional National

26 László Szücs, ed., Dálnoki Miklós Béla kormányának (Ideiglenes Nemzeti Kormány) Ministertanácsi Jegyzőkönyvei, 1944 december 23.-1945. November 15 [Minutes of Advisory Council of the Provisional National Government of Béla Miklós Dálnoki, December 23, 1944-November 15, 1945] B kötet, [Vol. B], Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár 1997, 25. 27 Tony Judt, Postwar, 52.

136

Government was appointed to the BNB, as well as one representative from the unions. All new resolutions and ordinances would go through the five member

BNB.

The urgency to deal with the crimes of the interwar era was evident when examining the initial group of resolutions created by the Provisional National

Government as well as the BNB. The first statement of the BNB was to repeal all

Jewish laws.28 The BNB established and provided the mandate for the Népbiróság

[Hungarian People’s Tribunal] at their fourth meeting held on January 27, 1945.29

Five regional councils were established to find and name judges and administrators to the newly established Hungarian People’s Tribunals. The following day, a resolution of the BNB stressed the importance of quick action on this matter and named a former military judge, Ákos Major, Chair of the

Hungarian People’s Tribunal.30 The court system was organized by district.

Members of the four ruling political parties and unions were assigned to be part of the advisory councils. Within three weeks, by February 19, the councils had appointed the judges, administrators and directors of the first four districts of the court system.31 Twenty-four such tribunals were set up across the country and operated for different lengths of time until April 1950.32 Within the first four years of the operation of the Hungarian People’s Tribunals, approximately 27,000 individuals were charged with war crimes, crimes against the state, or crimes

28 The first statement of the BNB [Budapest Nemzeti Tanács], 21 January 1945, also published in the first issue of re-started Szabadság [Freedom]newspaper. The statement appeared as a directive at the first meeting of the BNB. The directive was made into a resolution later, 200/1945, on 6 February1945, Gáspár and Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946, 18. 29 Ibid., Minutes of 1945 január 27, II/9.-1945, 20 30 Ibid., Minutes of 1945 január 28, III/2.-1945, 21. 31 Ibid., Minutes of 1945 február 19, XII/4.-1945, 36. 32 Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 13.

137 against humanity.33 By March 1, 1948, the verdicts had included 322 death sentences, of which 146 were carried out, including the chief Hungarian perpetrators of the Holocaust, László Endre, and László Baky, who organized and implemented the deportation of the Jews, and Ferenc Szálasi, the leader of the Arrow Cross regime.34

A further form of retribution, “collective punishment” was approved at the Potsdam conference held in August 1945 by the Big Three: Stalin, Churchill and Truman. This affected the expulsion of 180,000 to 200,000 Hungarian citizens of German origin, who were expelled from Hungary. Collective punishment also affected the Hungarian and German minorities living in Czechoslovakia, who were officially declared second-class citizens, harassed and intimidated, many of them put into concentration camps, raped and brutalized by local populations of

Czechs and Slovaks. This campaign of terror, promoted by President Edvard

Benes and other national and local political leaders, was conducted in the immediate postwar era in an effort to rid the country of the millions of ethnic

Germans and Hungarian minorities.35 Moreover, the Benes decrees (Decree no.

1/1940), signed five years before the agreement in Potsdam, allowed the official expulsion of these minorities and expropriation of their land and property. The

Benes decrees have never been revoked. Collective punishment affected more than the German Volksdeutsche and Hungarians in Czechoslovakia. The Poles

33 László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233. 34 Ibid. 35 Mary Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009, 150-176.

138 in Ukraine, the Ukrainians in Poland and the Albanians in Greece were also held collectively responsible for the war.

Other forms of postwar punitive measures included internment, affecting over 40,000 people, loss of civic rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on residency, and monetary fines and/or loss of pension rights. Historian László

Karsai estimates that well over 300,000 citizens of Hungary, or 3 percent of the population suffered some kind of punishment during the postwar purges.36

Priorities and the inner workings of the Certification Committees

Igazoló Bizottságok [Certification Committees] were established by the

Provisional National Government, through the BNB in January 1945. They were created by ordinance number 15/1945 to establish a national structure that would examine the previous political activities of all working people.37 The ordinances were structured so that the sub-clauses dealt with those institutions and companies under the control of the state: schools (both private and public), industry and trade, and community welfare organizations. Others dealt with self-employed professionals, such as veterinarians, dentists, pharmacists, journalists, engineers, doctors, actors, and actresses and all those seeking work as sub-contractors in the film industry. Anyone who worked or wanted to continue

36 László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233. 37 Ordinance 15/1945, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945 január 4, 1. Szám [Number 1], 3, Magyar Országos Leveltár [Hungarian National Archives] (hereafter MOL).

139 to work in Hungary had to apply for certification within three days of returning to work.38

The members of certification committees were appointed by members of the five-ruling political parties. A chairperson was elected from the appointed members. An ex-officio member of the committee, who was usually a lawyer, was also included in the committee. Each individual local certification committee was organized under the aegis of the Főispán, or county sheriff. If the individual seeking certification was not successful, the respective committee could release them with a Megfeddés [reprimand], and depending on the seriousness of the charge, terminate the employment of the individual, or order that he/she be interned. If the committee suspected the applicant of criminal activity, they transferred the case to the People’s Tribunal.39

The assigned task of the certification committee was to determine, if the applicant was, after the implementation of the First Jewish Law, a supporter, promoter of the goals of, or a member of an Arrow Cross or Fascist-type party, who worked to worsen the situation of those who were deprived of their rights.40

Further, the committees wanted to ascertain if the applicants kept track of former employees, whether they followed their movements, intimidated them, and/or removed them from employment.41 Each profession was required to undergo its

38 Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 4, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny, 1945 január 4, 1. Szám [Number 1], 3, MOL. 39 Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 19, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny, 1945 január 4, 1. Szám [Number 1], 3, MOL. 40 Prof. László Marjanucz,“Helyi közigazgatás, 1944-1949 [Local Public Administration]” accessed March 21, 2017, http://gepeskonyv.btk.elte.hu/adatok/Tortenelem/14Szab%F3_Marjanucz/html/7_7.htm 41 Ibid.

140 own certification process. A study of the certification of civil servants demonstrates that in some areas, there was a lack of willingness to follow the procedures. A summary for report from January 1946 found that 88.6 percent of civil servants in Budapest were confirmed.42 Certain sectors of the civil service were “cleansed” of the majority of Arrow Cross and Pro-Nazi elements. The fact that each political party was represented on all committees also led to abuses. For example, the left-leaning parties used these committees to discharge public employees whom they described as “reactionary,” while the Smallholders Party, for example, did everything possible to retain these same employees.43 Moreover, the political parties were vigilant about their respective delegates being present at all of the meetings of the certification committees. Each party appointed their delegate in writing and this notification was then sent to the central secretariat for certification. In one case, the Független Kisgazda Párt [the Independent

Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party] (FKgP), notified the Film Employees

Union of their delegate. When the delegate was not notified of the meetings, the

FKgP sent a letter demanding that all work conducted until then by the certification committee be declared invalid and that the work of the committee start again, this time with the participation of their delegate.44

As part of the proceedings, in January 1945, the Provisional National

Government in Debrecen appointed János Csorba to the position of mayor of

Budapest. Zoltán Vas, an organizer for the Hungarian Communist Party, had

42 Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 23. 43 Ibid. 44 “Letter sent from Executive of FKgP to the Secretariat of the Certification Committees,” 1945 junius 20, XVII.1633, Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.

141 travelled to Budapest as the representative of the Provisional National

Government in order to convince Csorba that he should accept the appointment.

Csorba initially refused, claiming that he had formerly been the mayor in the small town of Makó in southeastern Hungary and as such, did not have the experience required to be mayor of Budapest. Vas insisted, saying that Csorba would be provided with a strong mandate from the Provisional National

Government through the recently appointed BNB.45 Csorba agreed to become mayor. Soon after being sworn in on January 21, 1945, and with the siege of

Budapest still continuing, Csorba set about to organize the reconstruction of the devastated city. One of his first acts as Mayor was to issue an ordinance to the citizens of the city that all able-bodied men and women must participate in the clean-up, including the gathering and burial of dead soldiers, civilians and animal carcasses that littered the streets; the collection of broken glass for reuse; assisting in the repair of damaged roofs; and the removal of all Fascist posters and symbols.46

Among the first ordinances of the BNB were several that dealt with issues such as: the prevention of epidemics, providing food for the residents who were starving and trapped by fighting, and the reorganization and reinstatement of

45 Mária Palasik, “Csorba János,” A Főváros Élén: Budapest Főpolgármesterei és Polgármesterei, 1873- 1950 [At the head of the Capital: Chief Mayors and Mayors of Budapest, 1873-1950], István Feitl, ed., Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2008, 231-241. Csorba was a lawyer, politician and life-long member of the Independent Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party. He was elected to parliament in 1941. When the Germans occupied Hungary, Csorba joined the underground resistance movement and became a communist. He disguised himself by growing a long beard, walking with a limp, carrying a cane. 46 Ordinance I/1945, 2/1945, 3/1945, 4/1945, 5/1945. P.-m.Sz., 1945 január 23, BNB, in Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950, [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], Gáspar Ferenc, ed., Források Budapest Multjábol, vol.IV, Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára Forráskiadványai, 1973, 25-27.

142 officials at the National Bank to put the monetary system back in order.47 At the same time, Csorba made it a priority to re-establish the entertainment industry in a city where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. Hungarians were avid theatregoers before and during the war. It was only during the siege of

Budapest, lasting fifty days until February 13, 1945, that the theatres were completely shut down. Before the siege ended, Mayor Csorba named three individuals to organize the administration and start-up of performances at the

Budapest Opera House.48 As a politician, Csorba understood intuitively that one important way to bring the population of the city out of its siege mentality was to re-open cultural institutions. By February 16, 1945, the BNB had named eleven new directors for each of the theatres in Budapest. These new theatre directors were provided permits to create programs for the 1944-1945 season.49

Mayor Csorba also issued a special appeal on January 31, 1945 to the

Magyar Müvészek Szabadszervezete Filmosztályához [Hungarian Artists Free Union

Film Committee], to re-build the film sector.50 He requested a report on the working condition of all film production companies, film laboratories, film theatres – including those that were well-known companies formerly run by

47 Minutes, 1945 január 31, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee], Ferenc Gáspár and László Halasi, eds., 25. An official resolution was made by the BNB at this meeting requesting that a five-member committee of doctors report on the possibility of an epidemic, and to suggest ways of preventing the epidemic. 48 Decision reached by BNB on1945 január 31, II/9.-1945, BNB, naming the three new opera managers as: Pál Komáromy, Mihály Székely, and Kálmán Nádasdy. A letter by the BNB to that effect was made official on February 1, 1945. A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945- 1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee], Ferenc Gáspár and László Halasi, eds., 25. 49 Ibid., Minutes of meeting naming eleven new theatre directors, 1945 február 16, XI/7.-1945 BNB, 34. 50 “Mayor’s Proclamation,” 1945 január 30, Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], 31-32.

143 fascists.51 Moreover, he wanted film companies to document the state of destruction of the city on film and in still photographs. Copies of such films and pictures were to be submitted to the office of the mayor and the office of the

BNB.52 Csorba also required that the Film Committee form a professional organization to certify members qualified to work in the film industry, and that its by-laws be approved by the Mayor’s office. Csorba also gave his assurances that theatres formerly run by fascists had been taken over and the new ownership licenses had been granted.

One week later, on February 5, 1945 the BNB declared an ordinance for the establishment of the Magyar Müvészek Szabadszervezete [Hungarian Artists Free

Union Committee].53 This organization was entrusted to name key advisors to initiate further artistic activities. Six separate artistic advisory boards were named to make recommendations on cultural matters including film, music, literature, and fine arts.54 The advisory board for film included Victor Gertler,

Ákos D. Hamza, Rudolf Icsey, Tibor Polgár, Ákos Ráthonyi, and Dr. Géza Staud, who later became the Secretary-General of the Actors Certification Committee.55

The Actors Certification Committee was urged to certify actors and actresses who would resurrect the theatre and film industry. Hilda Gobbi (1913-

1988) was one member of the three-person committee, and the only woman

51 Ibid. In the letter, these theatres were listed as: the Kamara, Royal Apollo, Köruti Hiradó, and Belvárosi Hiradó. 52 Ibid. 53 Minutes of 1945 február 5, VI/4.-1945 BNB, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945- 1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee, 1945-1946], 26-27. 54 Minutes of 1945 február 21, XIII/9.-1945. BNB, in Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], 38-39. 55 Ibid.

144 appointed to participate in organizing this monumental task.56 During the interwar period, Gobbi was active in anti-poverty and leftist movements. Gobbi had taken part in organizing theatre for the workers movement and was known as a socialist. Following the German occupation in 1944, she went into hiding and was active in the underground resistance.57 As a result, in 1945, she was perceived as being trustworthy by the postwar political establishment.58

The two other members of the committee were Zoltán Várkonyi and

Tamás Major. As a student in middle school, Várkonyi was already writing and translating poems; his works were published in Budapest newspapers. He excelled in writing and translation. Várkonyi was admitted to the Theatre

Academy in 1931 and graduated in 1935. As an actor, Várkonyi obtained a contract with the National Theatre and became a well-respected theatre and film director in the postwar era.

Another member, Tamás Major, was an actor, producer and theatre director, and a member of the National Theatre. Towards the end of the 1930s, he had become an active member of the workers movement. In 1945, the BNB named Major the Director of the National Theatre and the National Chamber

Theatre. (Major’s brother, Ákos, was the Chair of the Hungarian People’s

56 Gobbi had a contract with the National Theatre and remained a member of the organization for over twenty-five years during the interwar period. From 1937 onwards, she starred in fifteen films, including such notables as: A Kölcsönkért Kastély [The Borrowed Castle] (1937) and A hölgy kissé bogaras [The Woman is a bit Whimsical] (1938), and Áll a Bál [The Interrupted Ball] (1939). 57 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 120. 58 Minutes of 1945 február 7, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee, 1945-1946], 28. At the first presentation of the National Theatre, organized by the parties to give thanks to the Soviet Union for liberating Hungary, Hilda Gobbi was one of three invited to organize and collaborate in the program, along with actors Tamás Major and János Pásztor.

145

Tribunal.)59 In his memoirs, Ákos Major recounted that his brother Tamás held firm communist beliefs and that he was already an underground communist organizer during the interwar era.60

Lajos Básti (1911-1977) was also invited to be a member of the Certification

Committee. Básti had been banned from the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber following the implementation of the Jewish laws. He agreed to work on the committee, often leading the questioning and contributing to the certification decisions of countless actors and actresses, many of whom were his former colleagues. Born as Lajos Berger in 1911 into a Jewish family in Keszthely, Básti was accepted into the Szinmüvészeti Főiskola [Theatre and Film School] in 1935, and graduated in 1937. He started his career at the Belvárosi Szinház [City

Theatre] and subsequently joined the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre]. In 1941, despite the Jewish laws, Básti was able to find work in both the Magyar Theatre and Andrássy Theatre. During the war, Básti lived briefly in London, where he met Nöel Coward, but was unable to find work and returned to Budapest. Básti was drafted into the Labour Service twice, but in between, wrote and published books. In 1945, he became a permanent member of the Nemzeti Szinház [National

Theatre], where he took on major roles in many films in the 1950s and 1960s, and also won many awards. In his later years, he taught at the Theatre and Film

School in Budapest.61

59 Minutes of 1945 január 28, III/2.-1945, in A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee], 21-22. 60 Dr. Ákos Major, Népbiroskodás Forradalmi Törvényesség: Egy Népbiró Visszaemlékezése [The People’s Tribunals: Revolutionary Law: The Memoirs of a Judge of the People’s Tribunal], Budapest: Minerva, 1988, 72-73. 61 Ibid., 55.

146

Gobbi wrote in her memoirs about the difficult process of starting again:

Well yes, to reorganize the theatres! Ruin, devastation, starvation, no electricity, hardly any water. Major, Várkonyi and I set out to assess the situation. After our tour and further meetings, they decided to name the directors of the ruined theatres, in the hope that individual responsibility will create something out of nothing more quickly than otherwise.62

As a reflection of the political uncertainty of the era, Csorba’s appointment as mayor lasted less than four months. Even so, János Csorba had a significant role in rejuvenating the theatre community. Although some of the early performances took place in theatre basements, by candlelight amid the power outages, the cultural life of the city had begun again in earnest.63 When his term ended, Csorba was feted at a dinner in his honour, where Árpád Szakasits, the

General Secretary of the Social Democratic party, listed his many accomplishments:64

He became a mayor of the city in ruins. Cannons were still firing, land mines were blowing up, bombs were exploding when he took his seat as Mayor. It’s been four months since. Would anyone have believed that this city would recover this quickly? Because it has recovered. Its energy has returned, its streets are clean, streetcars are running on the formerly ruined tracks and in the evenings, light is streaming out of more and more windows. This ruined city is once again living, breathing …and the name of János Csorba cannot be separated from the uplifting, the cleansing, the gathering of strength and of super-human effort cannot be separated from this four months…On behalf of the entire city, we give heartfelt thanks to Mayor János Csorba for his selfless and

62 Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1984, 207. 63 Tamás Gajdó, “A Magyar Szinházi Élet Ujjászervezése 1945-ben,” [The Reorganization of theatre life in 1945]. Accessed January 24, 2017, http://szinház.net/2012/05/30/gajdo-tamas-a- magyar-szinhazi-elet-ujjaszervezese-1945-ben/. 64 Maria Palasik, “A Szeretetteljes köszönet. Csorba Jánosnak, Budapest 1945 utáni első polgármesterének története” [The Heartfelt Thanks. The History of János Csorba, first Mayor of Budapest after 1945], Betekintő I, 2013, 7. Translations are by the author.

147

great, rejuvenating work and join together to declare: ‘Long Live János Csorba!’

Csorba’s accomplishments as Mayor, however, were soon forgotten.65

By order of the Mayor of Budapest, Hilda Gobbi then became part of a larger five-member National Committee of theatre artists who were appointed to reorganize and resuscitate the artistic and theatre community. This committee consisted of Béla Both, Tamás Major, Hilda Gobbi, Gusztáv Oláh, and Zoltán

Várkonyi. Béla Both was an actor and theatre director, star of stage and screen.

Gusztáv Oláh was a composer who became Director of the National Opera. The ideological and political goals of the committee were outlined in the founding document:

Our goals are to cleanse our theatre life, raise the standards, so that theatre may be made accessible to all the people. In the interests of truth, we will include the widest segments of society in order to create theatres and related institutions that are based on democratic principles. In the interest of these goals, we must complete artistic and political examinations. We feel it is important to introduce strict artistic principles and to build an organization and system which will guarantee that every value of the national and unified drama world will reach an audience which is truly made up of all the Hungarian people.66

65 Ibid., 7. The Communist party monopolized political power in May 1949. In 1951, during the height of persecution of alleged “enemies of the state,” Csorba and his family were banned from living in Budapest and exiled to the rural community of Dévaványa, without means of support or ability to earn income. Csorba appealed the exile decree, but he and his family were only allowed back to the outskirts of Budapest after the death of Stalin in 1953. 66 Tamás Gajdó, “A Magyar Szinházi Élet Ujjászervezése 1945-ben” [The Reorganization of theatre life in 1945]. No page numbers.

148

The initial certification process soon gave way to a different format, one that was, temporarily at least, far more bureaucratic. The committees were intended to start with the individual theatres in the City of Budapest. Each theatre was directed to organize a five-member examining committee composed of actors and actresses, technical workers and employees in management who would decide about individual certification. Decisions of the lower committees were to be supervised by a twenty-five member committee of other actors, actresses and other technical people and employees, in addition to one representative of each political party.

The smaller committees started their tasks as set out in the ordinance declared by the Mayor. In a very short time, however, the main and most important body that decided how the theatre and arts community was to be organized became the National Committee. In turn, the National Committee, worked through the Actors Certification Committee. Actors, actresses, directors, producers, stars of stage and screen, as well as support staff who wanted to remain involved in the theatre and film industry in Hungary, were directed to this body for certification.67 Gobbi described the Committee’s barely functional office space:

With a friend, we noticed a burnt out space above the Hiradó Theatre which was empty. We took a broom, threw the broken glass and other debris through the window and wrote on a sheet of paper: ‘The Actors Union is Open.’ We hung this sign on the gate, and I told my friend to sit down next to the banged-up table. Only the devil knows how it happened, but the people just started

67 XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL.

149

coming. We gave numbers to their identity cards and found out where people lived and what they needed: medicine, food or a little shelter to live in the National Theatre.68

The first document created by the hastily assembled Actors Union was a list dated February 13, 1945, the date that marked the end of the siege in

Budapest. This document listed ninety-eight actors and actresses, Jewish and non-Jewish, who were widely known for their anti-Fascist resistance. The Actors

Union provided these individuals with passes to guarantee their freedom of movement in Budapest. One blank space, number 85, was left for Pál Jávor, one of the most outstanding and popular actors of film and stage. Between 1931 and

1944, he had starred in seventy-six Hungarian films.69 The request to provide

Jávor with a number and spot on the list came from his wife and fellow actress,

Olga Landesmann.70

Jávor had endured much hardship and poverty in his quest to become an actor. Audiences flocked to his films because of his on-screen honest, tough demeanor. That behavior on-screen was reflected in his life off-screen; he would not bow to political authority. The ruggedly handsome Jávor, along with his

Jewish wife and fellow actress, Olga, were already under police surveillance during the Horthy era for socializing with known left-wing individuals and inviting them to parties at their home. In April of 1944, Jávor, incensed about the arrests and deportations, made derogatory comments about Ferenc Kiss, the

Director of the Szinművészeti Akadémia [Theatre Academy], in front of two of his

68 Gobbi, Közben, 208. 69 Mihaly Sárossy Szüle, Miszter Jávor [Mr. Jávor], 81. 70 Gobbi, 209. Jávor was let out of the Gestapo run prison at Sopronkőhida by retreating Hungarian army units and taken with them to Germany. Once he wrote his wife about his whereabouts, the Hungarian Communist Party sent a car to Bavaria to bring him home in 1945.

150 students.71 Jávor was inside one of the dressing rooms at the theatre when he smashed a bust of Kiss to the ground and was quoted as saying: “Be banned from here dark ulcer on the body of Thalia!”72 The students reported the incident and Jávor went into hiding, but was eventually arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned at Sopronkőhida prison in the fall of 1944. At the time the list was drawn up, no one knew his whereabouts and his actor colleagues feared the worst. Jávor was released from the Gestapo run prison at Sopronkőhida by retreating Hungarian army units and taken with them to Germany. Once he wrote his wife about his whereabouts, the Hungarian Communist Party sent a car to Bavaria to bring him home in 1945.

The Actors Certification Committee began the task of examining individual files on March 1, 1945. By that time, although the siege of Budapest had ended, the fighting in the western part of the country continued. It would take two more months for the war to end in Europe. The decisions set out by the certification committee were divided into four main categories:

1. “Igazolva” [Certified];

2. “Megfeddés” [Reprimand]--this category was used in instances where

the committee determined that the offense was minor in nature;

3. “Időleges (egy-két-több szezonra) elutasitás [Temporary ban]. This

decision specified the number of months or years for which the

individual was banned; and

71 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss]”, Magyar Nemzet , 2016 május 3, accessed July 18, 2017, https://mno.hu/szerzo/ujsagiró/fabian-titusz-24360. 72 The name Thalia originated in Greek mythology and is considered the muse of comedy and poetry.

151

4. “Végleges Elutasitás” [Banned for life]. This was the most serious

classification, and usually meant that the case was redirected to the

Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Courts].

The certification committee began the massive task of examining the individual history of the thousands who wanted to become certified in the theatre and film arts, deciding the status of each individual. The process lasted more than two years. Each person was assigned a case file number, with the exception of those individuals who were banned indefinitely or where the case was forwarded to the Municipal Courts. There was also the possibility for appeal, and many actors and actresses, displeased with the decision of the certification committee, often did appeal, as lack of certification meant the end of their career in their field. Even a ban for a specified period of time was debilitating for one’s career and it reduced the likelihood of success in this field.

The option of leaving Hungary during the postwar period and resuming this career in another country was also not viable without proficiency in the language of the new host country. The acting careers of those who left Hungary often came to an end, whether they left during or at the end of the war or, even a few years later after having received certification. As acting was so intricately linked with language, outstanding actors such as Gyula Kabos and Katalin Karády were unable to establish themselves and transfer their skills in other countries in the field of acting. There were exceptions to this such as Szakáll Szőke and Béla

Lugosi, who both succeeded in Hollywood and found work with heavy accents, but were typecast in very specific roles.

152

Conclusion

The immediate postwar era in Hungary represented a time of great change and insecurity, but was also a time of hope for a better future. The Nazis were defeated, and Jews could come out of hiding. The country was now occupied by Soviet forces. The entire country had been turned into a moving battlefield during the last months of the war, Budapest itself had been under siege for fifty days. A provisional government was formed out of a coalition of antifascist parties that gave the impression of the formation of a democratic government. During the coalition era, between 1945 and 1947, the communist party amalgamated power and took over the country’s police apparatus. The widespread deportation of men, and later, women and children to forced labour camps in the Soviet Union (Malenkij Robota) created a new sense of insecurity and lawlessness and fear of the occupying Soviet army.

In examining the politics of retribution in Hungary, the most serious war criminals were dealt with relatively quickly. Once the Hungarian People’s

Tribunals was established, it charged up to 27,000 individuals with war crimes, crimes against the state and crimes against humanity. In total, well over 300,000 citizens of Hungary, or 3 percent of the population suffered some kind of punishment during the postwar purges: including internment, loss of civic rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on residency and monetary fines and/or loss of pension rights.

Men and women who wanted to continue to work within their own occupation had to be certified as to their activities during the interwar era.

Certification committees were set up by the provisional government to create a

153 sense of normalcy, legitimacy and to return to functioning civil society. The theatre and film industry was viewed as having a critical role in creating a positive image for the postwar democratic political forces in Hungary, and actors and actresses were to play the leading role in this regard.

Two separate certification committees were set up to deal with those employed within the film industry. Those in charge of the certification committees were chosen and influenced by the political parties within the provisional government. The members of the certification committees were also under pressure to certify actors and actresses quickly to get the theatres and filmmaking industry working again.

Chapter 6: The process of certification and political influences

This chapter examines the methodology and decisions of the main certification committee, the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete Igazoló

Bizottság [Hungarian Actors Free Union Certification Committee], hereafter referred to as Actors Certification Committee, the union that was established to examine the wartime details of the activities of all actors, actresses, directors, producers, and technical workers in the theatre and film industry.1 For actors and actresses, obtaining postwar certification was a matter of critical importance, because it was the key to being able to work again in their chosen field. In addition to examining the certification files of the Actors Union, I also studied the certification files of the Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete

[Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], hereafter referred to as Film

Employees Union, the organization that represented cinematographers, sound technicians, and all support workers in film, from telephone receptionists, porters, cleaners to make-up artists to film supervisors. These files included those employed at Hunnia, the largest film production company in Hungary.

This latter union also included those individuals independently employed within the film industry at smaller production houses, who were also required to obtain certification.2

1 Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945 január 4, 1. Szám [Number 1], 3, MOL. 2 XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár, hereafter BFL.

154 155

Further, the methodology and decisions of the examiners of the committee are also examined in this chapter. The language used by the examiners regarding actors and actresses was frequently biased, and certain individuals involved with antisemitic or far right-wing organizations were certified quickly and with very little administrative processes, while others, often charged with the same offense, were banned from acting for months, several years or for their lifetime. Members of the Film Employees Union were required to complete a much more comprehensive questionnaire in applying for certification. I demonstrate how and why these set of questions were much more likely to identify those involved with implementing the Jewish laws as well as right-wing collaborators among film employees working in the industry. In addition to the process, I will also examine the personalities of the individuals involved, because the leadership of the committees often reflected the caution and the political insecurity of the time.

As designated by the original ordinance establishing the certification committees, the committee hearings for the Actors Union were held in closed sessions, with no media or general public allowed.3 In contrast, as demonstrated later, the certification of the Film Employees Union invited members of the public to submit statements regarding specific applicants. The members of the certification committee were not listed for each meeting at which the past activities of actors and actresses were discussed. The meeting minutes simply recorded as present: “the Chairman, the lawyer, the quorum for the Certification

3 Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945 január 4, 1. Szam [Number 1], 3, MOL.

156

Committee and the Recording Secretary.”4 The reasons for this might have been that the reputation and activities of actors and actresses during the interwar era may have been better known, as actors and actresses were more likely to be in the public spotlight. The questions put to actors and actresses were far fewer than those put to the members of the Film Employees Union, and only those actors and actresses who were named by others as having collaborated with the previous regime were interviewed in any detail.

In the case where hearings were necessary, individuals were allowed to bring witnesses to testify on their behalf. By examining the files of both certification committees, it can be concluded that the actors and actresses were provided with a greater leeway and tolerance. If an actor or actress called witnesses, especially if those witnesses were members of one of the five political parties that formed the provisional government, the chances of the actor/actress receiving a lesser sentence or penalty were more likely.5

The information contained on the form issued by the certification committee for the Actors Union following a hearing simply included: the full name of Actor/Actress, date and place of birth, and mother’s maiden name. The final decision of the certification committee was clearly indicated on the form, and if not certified, the reasons provided and the sanctions imposed were described on the form as well. Each applicant received a case file number typed

4 XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. 5 The parties in the coalition were the Magyar Kommunista Párt [Hungarian Communist Party] (MKP), Nemzeti Paraszt Párt [National Peasant Party] (NPP), Demokrata Néppárt [Social Democratic Party] (SzDP), Független Kisgazda Párt [the Independent Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party] (FKgP) and the Országos Szakszervezeti Tanács [National Council of Unions] (OSzT).

157 in the upper left-hand corner. This number was determined by the order in which the individuals presented themselves for certification. The completed forms were signed by the chair of the committee, Dr. Géza Staudt, and the recording secretary, Marczell Béláné (Mrs. Béla Marczell). The stamp of the certification committee was also included near the official signatures. The committee had used half a standard-sized paper that contained the typed descriptions of two applicants.

The meticulous signature of Dr. Géza Staudt (1906-1988), chairperson of the certification committee for the Actors Union appeared on each certification document. Staudt received his doctoral degree in the history of theatre and literature, and studied in Budapest and Paris. He was an editor of A Szinpad [The

Stage] magazine, and worked as a playwright for the Madách Theatre from 1941 to 1944.6 The other members of the certification committee for the Actors Union were the previously described Hilda Gobbi, Zoltán Várkonyi, Tamás Major, and

Lajos Básti, all of whom were instrumental in setting up the committee.

The members of the certification committee were each equally outstanding in their own field. They were chosen not only on the basis of their talents in the theatre and the film industry, but also because they each had a

“reliable” political background. The committee members had to be well-known actors and actresses, and could not have had connections with extremist ideology or the regime of the Arrow Cross leader, Ferenc Szálasi. The political decision

6 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 55. Staudt was also a prolific writer -- having published over seventy books -- forty as author, and thirty as editor or co-editor - on all aspects of theatre history, including the collected works of András Fáy; the correspondence of Déryné; the diaries of László Kelemen; and the collected works of playwright Sándor Hevesi.

158 makers who oversaw the certification process also included representatives of a wide-range of political parties in Hungary. The five political parties active in this process were influential in determining who remained. As demonstrated in the certification documents, several actors downplayed, distorted and/or misrepresented their roles in the interest of becoming certified and were aided by political players. The receipt of certification was influenced by whom the individual knew politically and could call upon as witness to support the application. It was a time of political uncertainty, and individuals placed in positions of power and on certification committees realized they needed to carry out their duties with political acumen.

Those granted certification without undergoing a formal interview received a document with a form letter stapled to that contained the following standard text:

In light that no allegations have been brought forward against the individual, it is determined that no further hearing or interview was necessary. In consideration of ordinance number 1080/1945 and ordinance number 1146/1945, we find the above named individual to be certified.7

If an applicant was required to answer to allegations, however, the interviews that were conducted during the hearings were then transcribed and attached to the document of certification. If the committee did not rule to certify

7 XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. All translations are by the author, unless otherwise specified.

159 the individual, the reasons for the ruling were also attached. In some cases, these documents, including witness testimony, ran to dozens of pages.

Early files of the Certification Committee: opportunity and influence

The earliest applications to the certification committee for the Actors

Union came from actors and actresses, stars of both stage and screen, who were relatively young and talented, and often well-known in Hungary. Most of these early and successful applicants could demonstrate that once the Germans occupied Hungary, they withdrew from their acting careers or found a sympathetic doctor who provided documents that they were too ill to work, or if they were Jewish, went into hiding. This certification committee was particularly interested in those who remained active during the Szálasi regime. It was crucial that actors/actresses were able to demonstrate that they did not support, or take part in the theatre/film industry during the period of the Arrow Cross.

Hundreds of actors and actresses were granted certification on the first official working day of the certification committee for the Actors Union, March 1,

1945, even though the certification committee did not interview them. The archival documents demonstrate that they were simply granted certification based on their reputation, their acting careers, and/or what colleagues knew about their activities during the war and German occupation. One such example was Hilda Gobbi who was among the early applicants and was certified on that

160 first day.8 Gobbi was active in the underground resistance, and as such, was perceived as trustworthy by the postwar political establishment.9

Katalin Karády was another example of a popular actress who, once the deportations began in 1944, hid and protected Jewish children in three separate homes she owned in the hills of Buda. When her activities were reported, she was arrested by the Gestapo, beaten, and tortured. As a result, the file of Karády simply states she was provided with certification on March 1, 1945.10 Within a few years, however, Karády became disillusioned with the way her career was developing in Hungary and emigrated.11 When the Germans occupied Hungary, music composer Tibor Polgár went into hiding in the home of his lover, actress and singer Ilona Nagykovácsi, who later became his wife. Polgár was Jewish and had been able to continue to work until then, due to the influence and intervention of Nagykovácsi, who twice prevented Polgár from being drafted into the labour service. She accomplished this by appealing to the military high command, arguing and threatening that her performances would have to cease without his musical accompaniment and support.12 Polgár was among the early applicants and was certified on March 1,1945.13 Both Polgár and Nagykovácsi were granted certification and continued to work until the early 1960s when they left Hungary and emigrated to Canada. There, Polgár continued to work, and

8 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4, file #48, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai (hereafter SzIUI), 1945-1946 [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. 9 Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1984. 10 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 5, file #167, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. 11 Karády emigrated to Brazil in 1949 and later to New York City, where she opened a millinery boutique. László Kelecsényi, Katalin Karády, Budapest: Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchivum, 1982), 47-48. 12 Ilona Nagykovácsi, Fény és Árnyek [Light and Shadows], 249-250. 13 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 9, file #84, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.

161 wrote the music and libretto to one of the first Canadian operas, entitled The

Glove, produced by George Jonas.14 At the end of every performance in the diaspora, Polgár reminded audiences he would not be alive without his wife’s action during the war.15

Actors and actresses who were banned from the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber, established in 1938, were also processed quickly. Being an outcast actor or actress during the interwar era provided them with the necessary credentials for quick certification. Examples included the well-known performers

Gyula Gózon and Ella Gombaszögi, who were both ousted from the Film Arts

Chamber in 1939 because of the Jewish Laws.16 Gózon and Gombaszögi were granted certification on the first day of the committee’s work and then resumed their professional lives as popular stars of both stage and screen in postwar

Hungary.

The certification system was at times manipulated by some applicants. As some of the files of the certification committee illustrate, there were also actors and actresses who were untruthful and fabricated information in order to become certified. Actor and theatre manager, Géza Földessy (also known as Géza von Földessy), was among the early applicants for certification, as his file,

14 The complete opera is in the collection of the Tibor Polgár papers, held by Michael Reményi at Reményi House of Music in Toronto. The Reményi family emigrated from Hungary in 1956, the family has had a long established history of being specialists in musical instruments since 1890. Special thanks to Michael Reményi for allowing me access to the personal papers. 15 Nagykovácsi. Fény és Árnyek, 477-8. 16 XVII. 1670.9, HU BFL, doboz 4, file #47 Gózon and #54 Gombaszögi, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.

162 number fifteen, demonstrates.17 He was one of the earliest numbers found in the entire collection of certification documents for the Actors Union. Földessy was forty years old in 1945, and did not have an extensive background or filmography. He was involved in five films during the interwar period, and one major motion picture starring Pál Jávor in 1941. During his hearing, Földessy stated that he took over the Madách Theatre from Lajos Cselle, who was then also vice-chair of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Földessy claimed that “he defended the Theatre from being ransacked by Szálasi’s men and German soldiers.”18 Although this seemingly overambitious claim was neither verified nor questioned, Földessy was able to convince the committee of the veracity of his statements and he was granted certification. Földessy was married to Juci

Komlos, who had an extensive acting career in postwar Hungary, starring in many made-for-television movies and series in the 1970s. Komlos was also certified early.

Applications were also processed quickly for those individuals who were active in the Országos Magyar Izrealita Közművelődési Egyesület, or OMIKE

[National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association]. After 1939, OMIKE led the cultural life of the Jewish community by spearheading the cultural activities of unemployed Jewish actors, singers, and artists who were fired from their jobs due to the Second Jewish Law. Most were also banned from the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber. Oszkár Beregi (1916-1953) was artistic director of OMIKE from

17 Number 15 is the earliest file number I could find. The collection, HU BFL, XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, is organized alphabetically by last name of actors and actresses, and not by the number of the file. 18 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file 15, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.

163

1939 onwards. Beregi’s reputation preceded him, he was also provided with certification quickly.19

In stark contrast to the preceding examples, the certification committee conducted carefully structured interviews with those actors/actresses who had been named by other actors/actresses as having collaborated with the previous regime. After reading hundreds of the summary reports on these interviews, I have been able to determine that there was a set pattern to the questions that usually included:

1. Which political parties did you belong to?

2. Did you belong to the Turul Bajtársi Közösség?

3. What newspapers did you read?

4. What theatre presentations did you accept roles in?

5. What were your feelings when the Germans occupied Hungary?

6. Who were the individuals who were known Nazi sympathizers in your

theatre company and/or circle of friends?

7. Did you know or have any dealings with any known Nazi sympathizers?

The construct of the questions used during the interviews by the members of the Certification Committee was frequently biased. Moreover, the questions themselves were leading, eliciting information evident in the formulation of the questions themselves. The language and expressions used by those seeking certification was also reflective of the historical period. The construction of the questions is worth a careful examination. The first five questions were intended

19 Ibid., doboz 1, file 2495.

164 to shed light on the political sympathies of the interviewee, while the last two sought to elicit information about the involvement of others, who, in the opinion of the interviewee, should be scrutinized for their activities during the previous regime. In terms of the responses to the first question, rarely did interviewees admit that they belonged to the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary. If the individuals seeking certification were confronted or accused, most denied membership, or at the very least, offered rationalizations as to why they joined. These reasons were in many cases, accepted by the members of the certification committee.

The second question was significant in terms of the Hungarian context:

Did you belong to the Turul Bajtársi Közösség? The Turul, officially known as The

Turul Bajtársi Közösség [Turul Fraternal Association], was the largest and most influential right-wing student association during the interwar period.20 The ideological basis for the organization was a mixture of Christian-nationalist, militarism, antisemitism, and revision of borders. Membership in the Turul was also relevant to the members of the certification committee because the organization had stood at the forefront of the effort to remove Jews entirely from the film industry in Hungary, and had worked to encourage non-Jews to become involved instead.21 The Turul Szépmives Filmgyártó és Filmterjesztő Szövetkezet [The

Turul Fine Arts Film Production and Film Distribution Co-Operative] was founded concurrently with the enactment of the Second Jewish Law, in May of

1939, under the aegis of the Turul Fraternal Association. The executive of the Co-

20 Established in 1919, by the end of the 1930s, the organization had more than forty-eight sub- chapters throughout the country, with an estimated membership of more than 40,000. Robert Kerepeszki, A Turul Szövetség, 1919-1945: egyetemi ifjuság és jobboldali radikalizmus a Horthy korszakban [The Turul Association, 1919-1945: university youth and right wing radicalism during the Horthy era], Mariabesnyő: Attraktor, 2012, 75. 21 Tibor Sándor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 38.

165

Operative had several members who were also on the executive of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Despite its extensive political connections, the organization had very little success in producing new films. From 1939, of the five films that went into production by the Turul Co-Operative, only one was completed, Te vagy a dal [You Are the Song] in 1940.22

Actors and actresses who were found during the certification process to have been members of the Turul were questioned closely about their participation.

During the testimonies, there was no distinction made between being a member of the Turul or of the Turul Film Co-Operative, probably because the latter was not successful at producing films. Nor was the committee consistent in its application of criteria as demonstrated by the following illustrative examples.

Actor Ferenc Farkas admitted to being a member of the Turul, despite the fact that he was Jewish. Farkas claimed joining the Turul was “a question of self- preservation, a way to camouflage his origins.”23 Farkas received a light sentence, a Megfeddés [Reprimand], and was certified.24 Actor János Görbe claimed he joined Turul “to obtain acting contracts.” During the interview, Görbe stated that he was only a member of Turul for two months, did not know much about the organization, and when the City Theatre ceased to exist, he tried to obtain contracts through other members in the Turul. The claim that he did not know much about the organization was hardly credible, as membership in the Turul involved taking a lengthy oath and swearing on the Bible:

22 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 319. 23 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #4144, SzIUI, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. 24 Ibid., doboz 3, file # 4144.

166

…to uphold and stabilize the whole Hungarian nation, based on Christian morals, and to do everything in my power to prevent the conflicts of race...I swear that the goals of the nation are my goals, and that the enemies of those goals remain my enemies.25

Despite the fact that Görbe was a member of Turul, he was certified on March 24,

1945.26 As the files of the actors certification committee illustrate, the majority of actors, actresses were not ideologically motivated in membership of any parties or organizations, they were simply trying to survive and obtain acting contracts.

Ernő Bartos claimed to have joined Turul for similar self-serving reasons.

Bartos stated “he couldn’t join the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber without being a member of Turul, it was a matter of earning a living.”27 Bartos was the head of one of the committees that awarded the contracts for members of the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber during the interwar period. Although this committee was quite influential, Bartos played down his role. As demonstrated in the next chapter, the certification committee specifically sought out such executives of the

Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Despite this, Bartos simply received a reprimand [Megfeddés] on December 7, 1945, and was certified.28

The process of certification for film employees

Thus far, I have examined the process of certification for actors and actresses of the Actors Union. Now I compare this to the certification procedure followed by members of the Film Employees Union, including those employed

25 For a full text of the oath, see Robert Kerepeszki, A Turul Szövetség, 1919-1945: egyetemi ifjuság és jobboldali radikalizmus a Horthy korszakban, 61-62. 26 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4, file #2011, SzIUI, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. 27 Ibid., doboz 1, [Box 1], file number 4877. 28 Ibid.

167 independently and employees of Hunnia.29 The latter group of film employees underwent a more rigorous process, they were required to purchase and complete a detailed declaration about all aspects of their lives, including their personal and financial circumstances during the interwar period.30 (For a full translation of the document, see Appendix 3). Applicants included directors of all film production companies, from managers and film engineers, heads of departments, costume managers, and set designers to make-up artists, telephone switchboard operators and even cleaners.31 Among the fifty-three questions, the majority of questions dealt with the implementation of the Jewish Laws, particularly whether or not the individual seeking certification received any benefits from the abrogation of rights and confiscation of property from Jews in

Hungary. The question of involvement in any aspect of the implementation of the Jewish laws as well as confiscation of Jewish property was the primary focus in the certification of Film Employees Union when compared to the Certification

Committee that certified actors and actresses. This questionnaire also demonstrates that the litmus test for this certification committee was in examining the individual respondents in their attitudes/actions towards the

Jews and the Jewish laws. The questions were organized into the following categories.

29 Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945. január 4, 1. Szam [Number 1], 3, MOL. 30 The document, entitled “Declaration,” was required to be purchased for one pengő. By August of 1945, hyperinflation had taken place in Hungary and one US dollar was equal to 1,320 pengős. https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/?p=2382, accessed October 2, 2017. 31 XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], BFL. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.

168

The first category requests details of employment before and after the

Jewish Laws were implemented, including financial status and salaries compared between January 1, 1937 (prior to the implementation of the Jewish laws) and January 1, 1945. This was to determine if the individual had secured any benefits from the implementation of the Jewish laws. The questions regarding the implementation of the Jewish laws were so specific that individuals were asked if they took part in the sale or purchase of contents of

Jewish stores. Even the purchase of radios confiscated from Jews was an important indication of the role of the individual in this process. Any move from one apartment to another after January 1, 1940 onwards was questioned in detail.32

The questions surrounding membership in political organizations were also carefully structured to probe specific activities. In particular, they focused on membership in and connections to extremist, right-wing and Fascist organizations. Compared to the questions put to actors and actresses, the questions film employees were required to answer did not simply ask whether the individual seeking certification was a member of any right-wing organizations, the questions were much more thorough and comprehensive.

Beginning as far back as January 1, 1920, the questions focused on the political parties and movements in which the applicant was a member or may have supported financially. The membership and role in any chamber, professional

32 After the German army occupied Hungary in March of 1944, thousands of Hungarian Jews were ordered to give up their apartments by Eichmann through the Hungarian Ministry of Interior Affairs (Decrees 1200/1943 M.E. and 1280/1943 B.M.). For detailed information on the requisitioning of apartments and the role of the Budapest Jewish Council in carrying out these orders, see Ernő Munkácsi. How it Happened: Documenting the Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry, 57-62.

169 guild, or self-promoting professional organization from 1920 onwards was also questioned, as well as any benefits gained from these memberships. Moreover, the applicant had to certify that no one in his/her extended family, including by marriage, benefitted from these memberships from January 1938 onwards.

The last section of questions involving receipt of awards, honours, or titles from January 1, 1930 onwards was intended to identify individuals whose work was lauded by the interwar government. The receipt of such an award during the interwar era was in itself reason enough to be reprimanded or barred from certification. The Nemzetvédelmi Kereszt [National Defense Cross] was founded by

Prime Minister Pál Teleki on the proposal of Regent Horthy in 1940.

Cinematographer István Eiben admitted to receiving such an award on his written statement. In a further statement, Eiben explained that although he received this award in January, 1944 for his work as a cinematographer, the award was later revoked in April 1944, when it was learned by the authorities that Eiben’s wife was Jewish. Eiben received a reprimand by the certification committee. It was noted on his file that “only those individuals received such awards who were politically trusted by the regime.”33

The question: “Were you a director or a member of the board of any companies from January 1, 1938 onwards?” targeted individuals who took over

Jewish companies because of the Jewish Laws. The last group of questions focused on those who participated in the press, media or promoted the right- wing and/or antisemitic ideology of the interwar regime.

33 “Határozat,” [Resolution], Eiben István, Doboz 1, A-Fe, XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.

170

Once the application form was completed, the wider public who lived near the applicant was also to become involved in the process of certification for film employees. When the completed questionnaire was submitted, the certification committee for the Film Employees Union directed that an announcement be placed on the message board at the apartment building where the applicant resided. The announcement requested that if anyone in the building knew whether the individual applicant had taken part in “Fascist or

Germanophile activities,” such information should be reported to the certification committee in writing. The individual was asked to submit this information under his/her own signature and apartment number. The announcement was displayed on the bulletin board of the building for a required eight days. At the end of the period, if there weren’t any reports about the individual, the apartment superintendent signed the document, certifying that it was displayed for the required number of days and that no reports had been received regarding the individual seeking certification.34 The person was then certified by a three-person certification committee, chaired by lawyer Dr. Jenő

Lichter. If there were reports of participation in Fascist activities, the certification of those actors/actresses was halted until the committee further investigated their activities and heard the testimony of witnesses. Such witnesses were listed by name in the minutes of these hearings35 held at the Hunnia Film Factory.36 In

34 Document of Károly Csicsmanczay, official at Hunnia, at apartment address Erzsébet Körút 12 signed by building superintendent László Szabo, dated: 1945 julius 26, Doboz 1, A-Fe, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL. 35 Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, Kl-Ö, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 36 These hearings were held at the Gyarmat utca (street) location of the Hunnia Film Factory Budapest. Document of Lőrinc Eck, set designer, who admitted to membership in the Arrow Cross Party in 1943. The Certification Committee decreed Eck be expelled from the industry (job

171 cases where reports of the activities of the applicant were found to be suspect, the files were forwarded to the People’s Tribunals.

In several instances, specific individuals were placed under special scrutiny because of their positions of leadership. The file of Ferenc Lohr reflects such an example. Lohr was an electrical engineer who worked for Hunnia beginning in 1930, he was appointed director of technical engineering in 1942, and became director of the film company in 1943. Lohr was sent to Germany on several occasions to take part and provide training on the use and advanced technology of sound within the film industry. Based on his file, Lohr was passionate about learning and perfecting the technical aspects of sound within the film industry. His first book, A Filmszalag utja [the Development of Celluloid] was published in 1942. In 1944, Lohr was named to a five-member committee appointed by the Szálasi regime to direct the work at Hunnia. In his testimony at the certification committee hearings, he defended himself and provided witnesses to demonstrate that during the final days of the war, he postponed and defied orders to dismantle and remove the factory’s technical equipment, under what he termed the “false pretence” that the equipment be moved to Bad-

Gastein, near Vienna, where “allegedly Hungarian films would be produced again.”37 He also stated, that, along with another engineer, they sabotaged this request as well as other technical requests of the Arrow Cross.38 The veracity of his statements and actions were upheld by several witnesses, such as well-

loss) for life. 1945 julius 5, Doboz 1, A-Fe, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL. 37 “Statement of Defense,” 1945 augustus 10, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö, 5, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 38 Ibid.

172 known producer Endre Rodriguez.39 Despite this, Lohr was banned from work in the film industry for life. He appealed the decision of the certification committee and provided an eight-page statement of defence.40 In it, Lohr lists fourteen former employees of Hunnia who would testify as to the veracity of his statements regarding his behavior in the last days of the Szálasi regime. The decision of the certification committee was upheld by the People’s Court.41

Despite the ban, Lohr stayed in Hungary. His talents in technical sound and acoustics were so exceptional, that in 1951 he was put in charge of implementing the sound system for the newly-built Népstadion [People’s Stadium].42

If the individual seeking certification left the country at any time during the war, that fact alone was always treated with suspicion by the certification committees. Jews who were deported and/or part of labour batallions and survived were not given any special dispensation, they also had to go through the certification process after the war ended.43 János Holbach, a Financial

Director with the MFI, was drafted into the Hungarian army. When the war ended, he was captured by the Americans and held in a prisoner of war camp.

The certification committee deemed that Holbach was “guilty because he departed. He was very right wing – a Germanophile.” His file was passed on to the People’s Courts.44

39 “Letter from Endre Rodriguez to Lohr Ferenc,” Budapest, 1945 julius 16, Ferenc Lohr, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 40 “Statement of Defense,” 1945 augusztus 10, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö, 7, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL 41 1945.Nü.10307/1.sz. Decision by Budapesti Népügyészség, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 42 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 194. 43 See files of “Korodi Gábor,” file #2123/1945, Box 3, KL-Ö and Kövér István, file #1926/1945, XVII 1633, BFL. 44“Holbach János,” no file number, Box 3, XVII.1684.

173

At times, the determination of the certification committees over individual actors, actresses and musicians who had departed Hungary were made in absentia. Ernő Dohnányi (1877-1960) was a pianist, composer and conductor of the Budapest Philharmonic Orchestra from 1918 until 1943, when he disbanded the orchestra due to the chaos caused by the Second World War. He was also director of music for Hungarian Radio during the war and left the country in

December 1944. Dohnányi resisted Nazi influence.45 The case of Dohnanyi was placed before the certification committee after he had left the country. They determined that: “It is thanks to him [Dohnányi], that in the last years, German music was almost exclusively always played on Hungarian radio.”46 The certification committee determined that Dohnányi be banned from employment for life and submitted his documents to the People’s Courts.47 His music was banned in communist Hungary for over 10 years.48 Dohnányi made a new life for himself in the United States, his music became famous worldwide. He worked as composer-in-residence at Florida State University.

Film industry related smaller Certification Committees

In comparing the certification of actors and actresses of the Actors Union with the Film Employees Union, it becomes evident that the process for the Film

Employees Union was more clearly documented and much more rigorous. I did not find any comparable declaration form required from actors and actresses that

45 See Éva Kelemen, ed., Dohnányi Ernő családi levelei, [The Family Letters of Dohnányi Ernő] Budapest: NSZL-HAS Institute for Musicology-Gondolat Publishers, 2011. 46 “Dohnányi Ernő,” file #915, Box 1, XVII.1684. 47 Ibid. 48 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ernst-von-Dohnanyi, accessed March 12, 2019.

174 needed to be completed for the certification process. The questions put to actors and actresses were far fewer and only those actors and actresses who were named by others as having collaborated with the previous regime were interviewed in any detail.

Other, smaller film-related certification committees were also included in the files of the Film Employees Union. Several such committees were established under one committee chair, Dr. Gyula Ortutay, for employees of Hungarian

Radio, the Telegraph Office, the Film Office, National Apollo49 and the Star Film and Distribution Factory. Gyula Ortutay (1910-1978) took a leadership role in establishing leftist intellectual movements during the interwar era, most notably the Szegedi Fiatalok Művészeti Kollégium. Between 1935 and 1944, he became a producer with Hungarian Radio. Ortutay was a personal friend of Miklós

Radnóti, one of the most outstanding Hungarian poets of the twentieth century.

Radnóti was of Jewish origin, and was killed while part of a labour batallion in

1944. Through the death of his friend, Ortutay was well-aware of the suffering and fate of his fellow Jewish countrymen. After 1945, Ortutay led the left-wing of the Agrarian Party, FKgP and assisted with the amalgamation of the power of the

Communist party in 1948 and again, after 1956. He became Minister of Religion and Education between 1945 and 1950, and had a major role in the nationalization of the public school system. Later in life, Ortutay published major works on Hungarian literature and folklore, specializing in folk stories and

49 Originally built as a Hotel in 1896, the Royal Apollo became one of the most elegant theatres in Budapest in 1915. The first Hungarian-language sound film, a Kék Bálvány first premiered at this location. The theatre was renovated and enlarged and by 1920, could accommodate over one thousand guests for a screening. Prior to 1945, the staff wore uniforms that included white gloves. https://www.hangosfilm.hu/mozilexikon/budapest-vii-royal-apollo, accessed March 10, 2019.

175 ballads. He became editor-in-chief of the Hungarian Folklore Lexicon. As an internationally renown-academic in the field of folklore, he was awarded many honorary degrees and awards and was a member of the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences.50

Ortutay submitted his final report in February 1945, along with the minute books of the hearings of the certification committees for all five of the institutions and companies examined by the committees under his jurisdiction.51 In this letter, Ortutay summarized what he considered the main goals of the work of the certification committees and as chair, wrote how he viewed the most important tasks of the certification of the employees of the five smaller media and film companies.

Although recently we have not received any kind of official decision or direction in this regard, whether the Radio and affiliated companies should set up their own certification committees, my own belief is that the first, most essential task was that these companies should go through the strictest certification process. If and when the Hungarian Radio and Telegraph office and affiliated companies start their work again, whether it be in any position, as laborer, technician or executive, only those workers remain who had no connection to the sins of the political past, and whose person will not cause worry that they believe in any kind of reactionary ideology.

Ortutay was keenly aware of the changing political situation in Hungary.

Through his work, he felt confident that he was finally on the right side of history. He carefully crafted his summary report to reflect his confidence in the

50 “Ortutay Gyula,” Magyar Életrajzi Lexicon, Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár, file:///Volumes/DISS%204/Magyar%20Életrajzi%20Lexikon.html, accessed February 13, 2019. 51 Gyula Ortutay,“Levél a Nemzeti Bizottság Ötös Végrehajtó Bizottságnak,” [Letter to the five member Executive committee], 1945 február 26, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.

176 judgment of the political leadership, deferring to supervising authorities, stating that they will be able to overturn any decision made by his committee.

Of course I paid special attention to the fact that the work of these certification committees are to be viewed as temporary, preventative proceedings until higher authorities provide new directives. Therefore, the certification committees only decided whether or not the individual, based on his/her behavior, would be eligible to receive protection from the company (identification, food allowances), otherwise we did not bring about final decisions regarding the relation of the individual with the company (salary, pension), or termination of employment, or the final political certification of the individual. The only thing we wanted to prevent among our colleagues through the work of the certification committees is that the old, damaging, extreme right- wing or reactionary spirit re-emerge and start to organize in its defence, something we have seen openly in several places already.

Ortutay requested that the decisions his committee made be accepted quickly for the purpose of “clearing away any impediments towards the building of a new, democratic Hungary.”52

The questions asked by the examiners for the Certification Committees chaired by Gyula Ortutay were different again from the certification committee for actors and actresses and film employees union. The main focus of the questions asked by the certification committees of the Hungarian Radio and

Telegraph office and the Film Office were: was the individual seeking certification ever a member of a fascist political party or the Volksbund; is the individual responsible for work that they completed during the repression of the

52 Ibid.

177 fascist era, and lastly, during the past few years, has the individual demonstrated fascist behavior or sympathies?53

The addendum then categorizes the decisions into four groups and lists the number of employees in each category. The results for the Hungarian Radio and Telegraph office were listed as follows:

Out of a total of 212 employees, those who participated in left-wing resistance movements included eighteen individuals or 8 percent; those who demonstrated determined anti-fascist democratic conduct totaled forty-four individuals or 22 percent. By far the majority of the employees were determined had no political affiliation or opinion, 121 or 57 percent. Finally, those who were members of the fascist, Imredy-st, party, or a member of the Volksbund, or expressed fascist or Germanophile opinions and/or behavior numbered twenty- nine individuals or 14 percent.54

The chair of the certification committee for the Magyar Film Iroda, or MFI was Herrer Cézár (1907-1998).55 Cézár was descended from an old, aristocratic

Spanish family, many members of which were involved in the arts.56 Cézár became director and manager of a series of movie houses, namely the City, Décsi,

Rádius, Kaszinó, and Pallas, before he became director of distribution with the

53 “Jegyzőkönyv,” [Minute Books] MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 54 “Melléklet 2-5” [Addendum], MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 55 https://www.hangosfilm.hu/filmenciklopedia/herrer-cezar, accessed March 5, 2019. 56 Cézár’s father and grandfather were well-known painters; and his brother Pál was a conductor, composer, and music teacher.

178

Magyar Filmiroda. In 1945, he was appointed chairman of the certification committee for the Magyar Film Iroda.57

Cézár had an inside knowledge of the film industry, and was well- acquainted with many of employees of MFI who sought certification. The opening statement in his report clearly states -- in effect for the record – that

“friendship” cannot have any influence on the work of the committee. Also, he emphasizes that any further decisions regarding employees of the MFI who’s records are controversial and cannot be certified, will be passed on to other committees.

Based on the three points detailed above, those individuals whose decisions the certification committee has postponed, those whose continued employment with the company has been suspended, those who have not received an employment permit, their fate will be determined by a separate committee. The Russian- Hungarian ceasefire agreement places special emphasis on the complete isolation of political criminals. Our work cannot therefore be influenced by considerations of business, competence or feelings of friendship.58

The total number of former employees of MFI seeking certification was

321. Of these, 273 or 85 percent, were certified and able to continue to work. Five individuals, or 2 percent, were demoted to positions of lesser responsibility.

Seventeen individuals, or 5 percent were permanently removed from their positions in light of further investigations into their political past. Because the fate of these individuals would be decided by others outside of the jurisdiction of

57 The Magyar Film Iroda Rt. was founded in 1923 by Miklos Kozma as part of the Hungarian Telegraph Office. The company began producing films such as: newsreels, documentaries, and feature films. After 1945, the company was renamed Új [New] Magyar Film Iroda Rt. and continued to produce films. Mudrák and Deák, 198. 58 “Melléklet 2-5” [Addendum], 1945 február 9, MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.

179 the committee, the certification committee determined it would not make a final decision in their case. The decision concerning those who left the country, 18 or 6 percent, whether they were under suspicion or not, was postponed until such time as the individual returned and could be interviewed by the committee. The last group of eight individuals named in the final report were executives and or technical directors.59 The committee stated that they did not reach a final decision in the case of this latter group because they forwarded the names to the professional certification committee. On October 23, 1947, the Film Employees

Union completed its work.60 In the summary documents, 2,378 individuals were certified, those not certified were forwarded to the Municipal Courts, or filed appeals.61

Conclusion

Two main certification committees were designated to certify members of the film industry: The Hungarian Actors Union and the Hungarian Film

Employees Union (including Hunnia), in addition to smaller certification committees examining the Magyar Film Iroda, the Telegraph Office, and other independent companies. These two certification committees were established in the immediate postwar era in Hungary, at a time of great political uncertainty.

The Actors Union certified approximately 5,000 actors and actresses, the certification process was based largely on the reputation of the individual actors and actresses. The questions put to the members of this certification committee

59 Among the eight individuals listed in this group is László Cserepy who left the country in 1948 and became a cinematographer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the 1950s. He was director of the controversial film, Harmincadik, [The Thirtieth]. 60 Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, XVII.1709 Budapest 287/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. 61“Ügyviteli Iratok,” 287/B, Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, XVII.1709, BFL.

180 were straightforward and simple. Those employed overall in the film industry applied to the Film Employees Union for certification. This union certified some

2,378 employees. The certification process for the Film Employees Union was much more stringent when compared to the Actors Union, there was much less room for obfuscation and avoidance. A specific questionnaire was created for those who applied. Once completed, the application form was posted at the apartment building where the individual applicant lived. The applicants had to be “certified” not just by members of the certification committee, but by vigilant neighbors and the “eyes and ears” of the community.

The certification committees were headed by well-intentioned individuals chosen on the basis of their qualifications in the field and desire to root out individuals who were ideologically motivated to the rightist cause. They believed they were part of a new beginning of building democracy in Hungary and most were determined to do a good job, however, the certification committees were directed by the ruling parties who were part of the provisional government and as such, these political parties were able to influence the work of the certification committees. If actors or actresses had contacts with members of the provisional government, and were able to call upon those individuals to provide testimony on their behalf, the chances of the actor/actress or being cleared completely was more likely.

Chapter 7: Re-Writing the past: controversial films, theatre productions and inconsistent rulings

This chapter will examine the postwar certification of the former executives and decision makers of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, through the documents of the Actors Union. Authorities in charge of the certification of actors and actresses were primarily interested in seeking out for extensive interviews former executives and decision makers of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber because most of the written records of the Chamber had been destroyed during bombings and the siege of Budapest. Although some exceptions occurred, these individuals received the most scrutiny, and were viewed as those who most likely collaborated in implementing the Jewish laws of 1938-1939 that were so problematic for the film industry.

This chapter also examines the main theatre productions and films that were deemed to be antisemitic and/or anti-Bolshevik during the interwar era and follows the certification proceedings and trials of those individuals involved with these productions. Further, the focus of Chapter 6 will also be the rehabilitation of actors convicted of war crimes and tainted by certification proceedings. The term “re-writing the past” refers to the rewriting of the biographies of individuals and how this relates to historical and nationalist revisionism through film. The postwar communist government of Hungary quashed the previous postwar convictions and later rehabilitated certain well- known actors from the interwar era to legitimize their own postwar regime. The era of retribution was over. The cold war with the west demanded a different

181 182 form of ideological warfare, one that demonstrated to the population that famous individuals who left or “disappeared” for a few years were still with us, they had re-appeared and/or returned from the west, and by their return, they legitimized the work of the postwar communist regime. In order to publicize their return to an even wider audience, these convicted individuals were later granted national awards of achievement by the Hungarian government.

The trial of Ferenc Kiss

The first president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was Ferenc Kiss, a position he held from its establishment in 1938 until the spring of 1942. The change in the life path of Ferenc Kiss was stark: from a well-respected actor and teacher at the Theatre Academy to become the President of the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber, established to limit the number of Jews in the industry. Born into a family of ten in the city of Székesfehérvár in 1892, Kiss was enrolled in the

Theatre Academy at the age of nineteen in 1912. After being called up for military service during World War I, he returned to the theatre and built a successful acting career with starring roles in plays such as Cyrano de Bergerac,

Macbeth, Othello and Bánk Bán. He also garnered major roles in many

Hungarian and Italian films. His first wife, Piroska Duschinsky, was Jewish, but the marriage ended in divorce after ten years. In 1930, he married a woman from

Transylvania. By 1933, he was an instructor at the Theatre Academy, teaching actors who would later become outstanding in the field of acting, among them

Hilda Gobbi, Tamás Major, Zita Szeleczky, and Zoltán Várkonyi. 1

1 “Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting profession has come out at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945

183

Kiss had ambitious plans as first president of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. He urged the government to separate the two branches of artistic endeavour, theatre and film, in effect to create a separate chamber for each. Kiss resigned as president of the Theatre and Film Chamber in 1942 as the government continually stalled on the request to separate the two chambers, and because he felt his three-year effort “to cleanse our cultural work from the international group of foreigners distant from our race,” had been in vain.2 The resignation of Kiss coincided with the appointment of the more moderate Miklós

Kállay as prime minister. Kiss didn’t fully cut his ties with the film industry, however, he continued in his role as “film commissioner” for the government and part owner of the film production company, Takács Film Rt.3 Kiss built a villa in the hills of Buda and he and his second wife were often invited to the garden party hosted by Horthy and his wife. András Cziffra was appointed the new President of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber,4 which effectively entered a period of inactivity from March 1942 until March of 1944.5 From the spring of

1942 onwards, the Chamber was viewed as an impotent organization. Its main focus was to administer the registration of actors and actresses and to continue to implement the Jewish quotas among its membership.

November 27, István Máday Miscellaneous Papers, 1945-1948, no page numbers, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University. After the war, Tamás Major and Zoltán Várkonyi would both testify against Kiss at his trial. 2 Kiss Ferenc, “Karácsonyi búcsú,” Magyar Film, 1941 december 22, 1. 3 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3, https://magyarnemzet.hu/archivum/halalos-tavasz/a-meltosagos-ur-kiss-ferenc-tort, accessed July 18, 2017. 4 András Cziffra was viewed as an absentee director of the Chamber, so much so that he was absolved of any wrongdoing by the postwar People’s Tribunals, he was released from internment and it was determined that his case should be handed over to the Certification Committees. 5 Tibor Sándor, Tibor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 169.

184

The German army occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944 and installed a puppet government led by Döme Sztójay who was named prime minister and foreign minister. Sztójay ordered that the implementation of the total “de-

Jewification” of all the chambers.6 Miklós Mester was named the new government commissioner of the film industry.7While he was government commissioner, Mester became sympathetic to the cause of Jewish actors and actresses. The tenure of Miklós Mester lasted less than six months. Once the extremist Arrow Cross regime of Ferenc Szálasi seized power in October, 1944,

Mester resigned and went into hiding.8

Shortly after taking power with the backing of the Nazis, Szálasi invited

Kiss and other actors to a meeting, where the Arrow Cross leader spoke to the group about the importance of the Hungarista [Hungarian National Socialist] ideology in the arts. Kiss attended, as did actor Antal Páger. The life of Kiss took another abrupt turn. Four days after the Arrow Cross siezed power, Kiss was named artistic director of the National Theatre, a position he had sought all his life. As director of the National Theatre for only six weeks, he became a mouthpiece for the importance of National Socialism in the artistic development of theatre and film.9 The position came with a distinguished title: “Right

6 Ordinance number 1220/1944. Sándor, Tibor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938- 1944, 209. For a full list of the 107 ordinances that came into effect following the German occupation in March 1944, see Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 2, Third Edition, Boulder, Col.: East European Monographs, 2016, Appendix 3, 1660-1674. 7 Mester obtained a Ph.D in history prior to founding his own film production company, Mester Films, with partners in 1938. 8 Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 209. 9 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3. https://magyarnemzet.hu/archivum/halalos-tavasz/a-meltosagos-ur-kiss-ferenc-tortenete, accessed July 18, 2017.

185

Honourable” and Kiss insisted that other actors and non-actors, indeed anyone he had contact with, such as barbers, tailors, or wardrobe assistants, address him using that honorific title.10 According to Gobbi, the overweening ambition of

Ferenc Kiss clouded his judgment.

He was a brilliant actor, I felt sorry for him because of his obtuseness, his never-ending vanity, he became a tool of the regime and became wretched. He didn’t comprehend what he had been lured into.11

The Soviet army was closing in, so there was hardly any time for Kiss to initiate any of his artistic plans for the National Theatre. Kiss fled the country in

December 1944, along with his lover, a young actress named Kata Fülöp and their small child.12

By that time, other actors had gone into hiding or fled the country. Some, like Tamás Major and Hilda Gobbi, went underground. Others, including Klára

Tolnay, Francisca Gaál and Zita Szeleczky all sought refuge at the homes of relatives and friends or withdrew to the countryside. Antal Páger was named

“film commissioner” by the Szálasi regime.

In October, 1945, Kiss was arrested by the US Army in Germany and sent back to Budapest. Lieutenant George Gerbner, a US officer of Hungarian origin who was in charge of this operation, said about Kiss: “He said he was a famous

10 Ibid. According to his barber, he once left the barber’s chair in a huff because the barber referred to him only as “Mr. Actor,” and not “The Right Honourable.” 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

186 actor, nothing else. He said he never had anything to do with politics, he didn’t understand why they arrested him.”13

The former Right Honourable Director of the National Theatre became persona non grata. The report of the arrival of Kiss at the airport in Budapest, along with eighteen others, collectively referred to as “chief war criminals,” was covered by reporter István Kelemen in the Magyar Nemzet [Hungarian Nation], one of the largest postwar dailies.14 The article by Kelemen provided a detailed list of those individuals who arrived and their positions in the previous regime, several of those returned along with Kiss were former ministers in the Szálasi regime.15

Journalists wrote disparagingly of those accused of committing war crimes. The “prejudice and vulgarity” of the audience as well as contemporary press was encouraged in order to underscore that the government in Hungary was being vigilant in tracking down and punishing the guilty in this new

13 Ibid. 14 István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 oktober 10, István Máday, Miscellaneous Papers, 1945-1948, no page numbers, Hoover Institution Archives, hereafter HIA, Stanford University. 15 Ibid. Among the eighteen were several ministers of the Szálasi regime, such as László Budinszky, József Gera, Mihály Kolosváry-Borcsa, Ferenc Fiala, Károly Beregfy-Berger, Kálmán Hubay, László Baky, Jenő Rata, and István Antal. They were all tried and found guilty of war crimes; some were executed. Others, such as Ferenc Kiss, were sentenced to years in prison. Chief war criminal László Baky was hanged for his role in the deportation of Jews in the spring of 1944.

187 postwar era.16 For example, Kelemen described the accused as “the black army of the murderers of this nation.”17

As Kiss disembarked from the plane, Kelemen wrote: “when he saw the reporters behind cameras with the Hungarian News Agency, he recognized and greeted them. As Kiss glanced into the camera, he struck an actor’s pose. It can’t be helped; an actor reacts instinctively when the camera is running. Béla Pásztor, the head of the Hungarian News Agency, replied to the greeting by Kiss with:

‘Ferenc, get ready for your final role.’”18

The case of Ferenc Kiss was sent to the Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Court], where the proceedings of the court were described in detail by the press. The trial took two days, but even on the first day Kiss was referred to as a condemned man in the court of public opinion.19 The indictment against him included the following:

-“Using all his skills and abilities as an actor to serve the ideals of the extreme right wing;

-Handing over the entire Hungarian film industry to the mercy of the Fascist world-view and condemning actors and actresses to be used as agents of propaganda;

- Appointing individuals to positions of importance who in turn provided assistance to the Arrow Cross movement to obtain and hold on to power;

16 Karsai, “The People’s Court,” p. 235. See as well István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II.” In Retribution and Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, ed. Jon Elster, 137. 17 István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 oktober 10, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA. 18 Ibid. 19“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen”[The Hungarian acting profession has come out against Ferenc Kiss at the People’s Court], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.

188

-In January 1945, Kiss recited the Magyar Miatyánk (the Hungarian Our Father), on the radio at Bécsújhely,20 a poem promoting the ideology of the Arrow Cross regime;

-As the head of the National Theatre, he led the exodus of the theatre group to the west;

- As president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, he made the acting roles of Jews and those classified as “half-Jewish” impossible;

Attached are various speeches and roles as part of this indictment, as with these, Kiss hereby contributed to an anti-democratic mood to develop in this country.”21

Actors and actresses saw this very public trial as a means by which they could distance themselves from the previous regime, especially the Arrow Cross regime. A number of actors testified against Kiss; no one testified on his behalf.

Kiss seemed to embody all of the mistakes made by the leadership of the film industry as well as the abuses suffered by many within the film industry during the interwar era.

One of the first actors called was Tamás Major, named the director of the

Hungarian National Theatre postwar and also a leading member of the certification committee for the Actors Union. Major testified that Kiss was not democratically voted in as president of the Film Chamber. In fact, he forced himself upon the organization, as if he were executing a coup. Major asserted that Kiss then created a system by which even the legally allowed number of

20 Bécsújhely, or Wiener-Neustadt in German, is a town in lower Austria, close to the Hungarian border. 21 “Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting profession has come out at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.

189

Jewish actors and actresses were shut out. Major further testified that Kiss had close relations with the police and if anyone was arrested, Kiss was informed of every detail about the interrogation within twenty-four hours.22

The next witness, Lajos Básthy, stated that he lost all of his acting contracts due to the Jewish laws and Kiss was the one who enforced these laws within the

Chamber. Básthy agreed with Major, saying that even the allowable percentage of Jewish actors were not allowed on stage.23 Básthy testified that at one point he confronted Kiss and told him that he would take legal action against the

Chamber for the lost contracts and work. According to Básthy, Kiss retorted by threatening him, saying that he will have Básthy drafted into the Labour

Service.24

Another witness, Zoltán Greguss said that, in November 1944, he was told he couldn’t continue his acting career. When Greguss confronted Kiss as to why he had been excluded, Kiss told him that in order to remain an actor, Greguss would have to divorce his Jewish wife.25 On the first day alone, more than a dozen actors and actresses testified to the autocratic and dictatorial manner of

Kiss, to his dismissal of Jewish actors and actresses, and to his strict interpretation and upholding of the Jewish laws.

22 Ibid. 23 The Second Jewish Law, enacted in May 1939, limited the number of Jews allowed in the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber to six percent. 24“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting profession has demonstrated at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA. 25 Ibid.

190

The well-known and popular actress Katalin Karády was convinced that it was Kiss who had her imprisoned by the Gestapo. Karády testified that when she was released, she wanted to finish the film she had been working on before her arrest, but Kiss disallowed the continued work on the film and threatened her, saying that “if she continued to agitate, he will have her interned.”26 During the testimony of Karády, the chairman of the proceedings, Dr. László Molnár, allowed Kiss to respond. Kiss claimed that he was no longer the president of the

Chamber when this incident happened. Karády replied: “But you were still belligerent!” Kiss denied the allegation, to which Karády, facing the accused, yelled: “We were more afraid of you than Hitler! Do you know who you were in the world of Film? Hitler!”27

On the second day of the trial, Chief Prosecutor Dr. Ferenc Fontányi summarized the case against Kiss:

The crimes of Ferenc Kiss were perpetrated against all of Hungarian culture. It was under his name that the worst crimes were instigated and committed. He handed over the entire film industry to the rightist cause. It is without doubt that he helped the Arrow Cross gain power. During their reign, he volunteered for work and offered his services to the Arrow Cross. As director of the Film Academy, Kiss persecuted Jews beyond the law. The theatre presentation Ártatlanok [The Innocents] originated with him and he participated in its presentation.28

26 “Nyolcévi kényszermunkára itélték Kiss Ferencet” [Ferenc Kiss sentenced to eight years hard labour], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 28, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. Ártatlanok was an antisemitic theatre presentation.

191

The trial of Ferenc Kiss was held in public, and the trial was written about in minute detail in the print media. Based on newspaper reports, the outcome was evident from the beginning. Relating detailed accounts of these trials in the print media was a critical part of this process. Their reports intended to serve the propaganda aim of “educating the nation.” The charges, witnesses’ testimony, and even the closing arguments were published verbatim in the national newspapers of Hungary.

Although several points in the original indictment were not proven, at the end of the second day of the trial, a panel of judges found Ferenc Kiss guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to eight years hard labour. The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty.29 In addition, the judges noted that he was to be deprived of his individual rights as a citizen for ten years.30 Ida Turay was one of the few actors who later defended Kiss. She later wrote in her memoirs, “Kiss knew exactly that my Jewish husband István Bekeffi was hiding from the Arrow

Cross henchmen in the attic of the Rudas Hotel; he never told anyone.”31

Despite everything, the acting career of Kiss did not end with the trial and imprisonment. After serving his eight-year sentence, when he was released at the age of sixty, he found work as a labourer and a night watchman, and later worked at a slaughterhouse in Székesfehérvár. During the Uprising of 1956, he didn’t take part in any rebellious activities, nor did he leave when the border was

29 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3. 30 “Nyolcévi kényszermunkára itélték Kiss Ferencet” [Ferenc Kiss is sentenced to eight years hard labour] Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 28, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA. 31 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története”[The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.

192 unguarded. Kiss was again allowed to take on minor acting roles in stage plays and films, but only in smaller cities.32 During one such acting appearance in

Békéscsaba in eastern Hungary, Kiss began by apologizing to his co-actors:

“Please accept me as a new colleague. I am old. I am guilty and was punished.

Please help me so that my good name, which was ruined by myself, may be restored.”33 Kiss was interviewed several times in his later years, during which he admitted to his guilt, vanity and stupidity.34

In the end, Kiss was fully absolved. In 1963, Kiss was awarded the distinguished Magyar Népköztársaság Érdemes Müvésze [Merited Artist of the

Hungarian People’s Republic]. This award was surprising in light of his record as a convicted war criminal. The honour bestowed on Kiss postwar may be traced back to one of his students, Henrik Appel, who, as a nineteen year-old aspiring actor, enrolled in a class taught by Kiss at the Theatre Academy in 1936.

Kiss recommended that his student change his name, advising that Henrik Appel would never be a proper name for a career in acting. Beyond advice, Kiss also offered compassion. On one particularly cold winter day, Kiss also noticed that the young man was poorly clad, and shaking from the cold. Kiss gave the student his coat.35 Appel never became an actor but did change his name to

György Aczél and became the pre-eminent individual directing the cultural policy of the Kádár regime (1956-1988). Aczél determined what was published,

32 Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 167. 33 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3. As related by the young actor Balázs Szuhay. 34 Ibid. 35 Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3.

193 which plays were presented in the theatres, and what performances were mounted at the opera.36 While there is no firm proof that György Aczél initiated this honour for the discredited actor, certainly Aczél would have had to approve such an honour in post-1956 Hungary. Kiss wrote his memoirs later in life, ironically entitled: Mindenért Fizetni Kell [Everything has a Price]. The title alone is telling.37

The criminal conviction of Kiss at the Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Court], required anyone associated or working with Ferenc Kiss to be certified, including his personal assistant, Károly Gebauer, who had been assigned to him as designated hairdresser and valet. The statements by Károly Gebauer demonstrated how frequently testimony became twisted. The written record of the hearing of Károly Gebauer began with the chair of the certification committee making the assertion that “the accused was beaten and slapped across the face because he was glorifying Hitler.”38 Gebauer claimed that he was able to prove just the opposite, namely that he was beaten for criticizing the Germans.

Testifying on Gebauer’s behalf was Géza Abonyi, who stated that this was simply a fight between two hairdressers because the second hairdresser wanted

Gebauers’ job.39 Two other witnesses were called and both stated that Gebauer

36 http://faktor.hu/faktor-ki-volt-aczel-gyorgy, accessed March 18, 2018. Aczel Gyorgy, “Aspects of Cultural Policy,”New Hungarian Quarterly, 1985, Vol. 26, Issue 97, 14. 37After searching several film archives and speaking to film archivists, I learned that this memoir existed in manuscript form only and was never published. It has not been located. 38XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4 file #618, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Union Certification Committee], hereafter SzIUI, HU BFL. 39Abonyi was an actor and President of the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete [Actors Union] from 1945-1948. Mudrák and Deák, 33.

194 was never known to hold right-wing views. Károly Gebauer was granted certification on March 23, 1945.40

The search for plausibility: the prosecution of members of the executive

The certification committee took great care when investigating the executive of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, however, not all accused appeared before the certification committee as they had left the country. One member of the executive of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber who was widely sought but never interviewed was Lajos Cselle, actor, producer and theatre manager. Cselle was named during interviews by other actors as someone who drafted actors and actresses into roles they didn’t want to accept, as they were controversial productions.41 Cselle was elected secretary-general of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber in 1939, a position of considerable influence. In addition, he was the editor of the official newsmagazine of the Chamber, Magyar Szinészet

[Acting in Hungary] from 1939-1944. In 1944, for a short time, he was named

Director of the Madách Theatre. In spring 1945, he fled to Germany, and from there went to Argentina in 1948 where he founded a theatre company in 1948, where in addition to being the founder, he acted as director and producer.42

Other high-ranking officials who stayed in Hungary were taken to task for their activities. Actor and producer Robert Bánky, vice-president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, was also a member of the influential nominations

40 XVII. 1670.9, file #618, doboz [box] 4, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. 41 One such example was found in the testimony of Zoltan Szakáts, doboz 11, file #1355, SzIUI, HUBFL. He refers to Cselle as the person who recruited him for a role in the propaganda play “Ártatlanok” [The Innocents]. 42 Cselle died in Argentina in 1957. Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 77.

195 committee of the Chamber.43 He was director of the Hungarian Comedy

Chamber Theatre from 1933 to 1939. Beginning in 1943, Bánky directed the Tábori

Szinház [Camp Theatre], which was organized to entertain Hungarian troops serving on the eastern front lines.44 The certification committee concluded that such activity by Bánky as well as actors and actresses who travelled to the front lines to entertain the troops, was sufficient indictment of their support for the interwar regime and the war effort. Bánky founded the Iris Filmgyártó és

Kölcsönző Kft. [Iris Film Production and Distribution Co.] in 1941, a company that produced, among others, controversial films such as Harmincadik [The Thirtieth].

The production company was pressured by the censorship committee to make changes to the film. As a result, the ending of the film was changed significantly by Iris, a new section was added that created an antisemitic narrative to the production.45 The certification committee banned Bánky for life from the acting profession, although in the 1950s he was allowed to act once again in smaller towns such as Győr and Szolnok.46

The former Treasurer of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, Imre

Endrédy, applied relatively early to the certification committee.47 The certification committee believed that Endrédy could provide detailed

43 While fighting in the First World War, Bánky was captured and held as a prisoner of war in the Soviet Union, where he organized a theatre group within the camp where he was interned. After returning to Hungary, he held contracts with various theatres in Budapest and surrounding regions. 44 “Frontszinházak” [Theatres on the Front], Magyar Szinházmüvészeti Lexicon [Hungarian Theatre Arts Lexicon], http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02139/html/sz07/352.html, accessed February 13, 2017. 45 A Harmincadik, OL K159, 50 csomo, 11290-1944, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives], hereafter MNL. 46 Mudrák and Deák, 50. A separate section in this chapter will deal with the controversy surrounding the film Harmincadik. 47 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.

196 information about the inner workings of the Chamber. Endrédy, however, downplayed his role in the Chamber, even claiming that he wasn’t present at the annual general meeting when he was nominated and elected treasurer. During his testimony, Endrédy stated: “Someone telephoned me afterwards and notified me that I had been elected. The Chamber members knew me simply as an actor, and as a trustworthy man.”48 The certification committee was not so easily deceived. At the beginning of the written record of the certification hearing,

Endrédy was accused, along with other members, of taking the examination fees paid by prospective members to join the Chamber and dividing these amounts amongst the examiners, thereby stealing from the actors’ fund and enriching themselves. Endrédy admitted to the misappropriation of funds, even providing details of how the examiners divided the sums between themselves, but he blamed others for the whole scheme. He claimed that the misappropriation of funds took place on the recommendation of another member, Aladár Haász, who was an influential member of the National Film Committee (ONFB) during the interwar years. Individual actors/actresses paid 40 pengős per exam. According to Endrédy, the members received on average between 80-100 pengős per day as a result of sharing these fees. The certification committee members asked how much President Ferenc Kiss had received from this scheme, to which Endrédy replied: “In total Kiss took 100,000 pengős.”49

The testimony of Imre Endrédy’s testimony contained detailed information about the individuals who were active on the Executive and on

48 Ibid. 49 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. This was considered an enormous sum, when considering that in 1940, the average monthly salary of a teacher in Hungary was 150 pengő.

197 certain committees within the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Endrédy described their behaviour, but the descriptions he provided about their political views were sketchy. It became apparent from his testimony that Endrédy believed that the more information he divulged about key individuals and their behavior within the Chamber, the more likely he would be successful in the effort to absolve or at least mitigate his own involvement with the organization and obtain the postwar certification he sought in 1945.

Endrédy stated that, within the nominations committee, the most

“véresszájuak” [extremist, literal translation: bloody-mouthed] in their political views were: István Unger, the actor Zsigmond Pilinszky, Károly Bereczky, and

Dr. József Laczó, but he never offered any reasons or proof for his views. The certification committee then asked about the members of the executive committee of the Chamber, wanting to know in particular who held extreme right-wing views and who voted for the stricter application of the Jewish laws.

The information provided by Endrédy was vague.

Lajos Vertes was not positively right wing, Bánky only attended meetings rarely, Miklós Beck was right-wing, Tibor Hegedüs always worked in the best interest of the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre] regarding the plays that were presented and the Jewish employees of the theatre. Jakabffy never attended meetings, the voice of Jenő Danis was barely heard. Andor Markovits was small time. Boray hardly attended any meetings, Zoltán Hosszú had loud arguments with Ferenc Kiss.50

The members of the certification committee asked Endrédy why there hadn’t been an annual general meeting called for the members of the Theatre and

50 Ibid., doboz 3, file number 487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.

198

Film Arts Chamber for over six years. Endrédy replied that Ferenc Kiss, through a ministerial order, had the meeting postponed. The certification committee then asked Endrédy why he was applying for certification, to which he replied that

“as a financial manager, he would like to work at a theatre.”51 Finally, in his defence, Endrédy claimed that “the office in which he worked while at the

Chamber was known as the Anglophile office.” Despite all the language of obfuscation, Imre Endrédy was certified on March 7, 1945, presumably because he provided the committee with sufficient helpful information.52 My research on these files -- and in particular files such as the certification of Imre Endrédy -- illustrate that the nefarious process of reporting on colleagues and friends in order to seek personal gain (for example, certification) became part of the narrative of the certification process. After the war, this process became even more prevalent in an already intimidated and fearful Hungarian society. 53

The nominations committee of the Theatre and Film Art Chamber was all- powerful in determining which actors and actresses would be granted membership into the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. As described, they enforced the rules for upholding the Jewish quota, but were also able to make exceptions. They administered the entrance exam necessary to be admitted to the

Chamber. The testimony of Imre Endrédy and others shed light on how members of this committee illegally divided payments to enrich themselves.54

51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Peter F. Sugar, Peter Hanak and Tibor Frank, eds., A History of Hungary, 372-375. 54 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI,1945-1946, HU BFL.

199

Political connections played an important role in the decisions of the certification committee for the Actors Union. The role of political connections is illustrated in the case of Lajos Boray and Jenő Danis, who were both members of the nominations committee of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, and both served on this committee for six years, from 1939 until 1945. These two actors, however, were judged very differently by the certification committee. Boray was banned for life by the certification committee; he appealed the ruling but was unsuccessful in his bid to become reinstated.55 Jenő Danis was banned from acting for two years, but when he appealed the ruling, he was successful in having his ban reduced. During the appeal, Danis revealed that he and Andor

Pünkösti were co-founders of the Madách Theatre.56 Pünkösti was a screenwriter and producer, who, as director of the Madách, was outspoken with his anti-Nazi statements and directives.57 When the Germans occupied Hungary, Pünkösti was persecuted, and committed suicide in 1944. Danis could demonstrate a close personal relationship with Pünkösti, and the appeal was successful. The committee was evidently influenced by this connection with Pünkösti.

One specific event that frequently surfaced during questioning was whether the actor/actress attended the opening of the “Müvészek Háza” [House of Culture] that took place in August 1944. The event was politically tainted and if an actor or actress did participate, it was seen as an indictment of their support of the Horthy regime and its policies. Although Regent Miklós Horthy had

55 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 2, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. Because Boray was not certified, there was no file number. 56 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 2, file #2980, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. 57 Deák and Mudrák, 253.

200 halted the deportation of the Jews from Budapest in early July 1944, and the

Szálasi regime hadn’t yet grabbed power, support for this event in August was fraught with political consequences. The case of Ida Turay (1907-1997), a favorite of audiences, because of her sunny, outgoing demeanor, provides such an example. According to her testimony, “she attended the controversial opening because she was told that if she didn’t, she would never act again.”58 Turay also testified in her defence that she saved the life of her Jewish husband, István

Békeffi, screenwriter and music composer, by hiding him. She also stated that she didn’t take on any roles once the Szálasi regime came to power. The decision of the certification committee seemed to be based solely on her attendance at the event; their decision was that she be banned from acting for life.59 Turay appealed the decision and the People’s Tribunal altered the ban to one year.60

The process of appeal was arduous, time-consuming and expensive. In addition to hiring a lawyer to assist in building the case, the individual preparing his/her appeal needed to find credible witnesses who would be willing to testify on his/her behalf. Ideally those witnesses would be politically connected to one of the five parties involved with the provisional government. According to my research, roughly half of those who appealed their sentence received some reduction of their sentence. Most of these appeals were attached to the files of certification.

58 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 12, file #5306, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. 59 Ibid. 60 Mudrák and Deák, 318.

201

Controversial films, conflicted outcomes

Of the more than 300 sound films that were made during the interwar period, three films in particular and one stage play became the primary focus of attention during the postwar questioning of actors, actresses, producers, and technical assistants. The certification committee determined that the following films and stage play were particularly egregious because they were determined to be anticommunist, anti-Soviet, or antisemitic propaganda. The films in question were: Negyediziglen [To the Fourth Generation], Örségváltás [Changing of the Guard], Harmincadik [The Thirtieth], and the theatre play entitled

Ártatlanok [The Innocents]. The actors/actresses who accepted roles in these three films and one stage play were placed under closer scrutiny and questioned in a much more rigorous manner than most others in their field.

Negyediziglen [To the Fourth Generation] was an anti-Soviet film made in

1941. The plot centers on a Hungarian man, István, who awaits the arrival of

Hungarian troops in Soviet Ukraine so that he can return with them to his homeland. He is disillusioned with communism and desires to be reunited with his family. His daughter, Vera, born in Moscow, is an atheist who was raised on a collective farm. During one of the battles within the Soviet Union, she unknowingly kills her older brother. She returns to Hungary with her father.

Vera assists the Soviet reconnaissance units filtering into Hungary, but is

202 wracked by guilt because of her brother’s death. In the final scene of the film,

Vera turns against the Soviets and is killed by them.61

Örségváltás [Changing of the Guard] reflected the attempts by the Horthy regime to change the leadership of business and industry through the Jewish

Laws, in particular replacing Jewish business leaders with non-Jews. The main character of the film is Peter Takács, an talented engineer who has been sidelined. The plot illustrates how the inner workings of a company become unsettled following a speech by Prime Minister Gyula Gömbös.62 The management team is led by an elderly gentleman Zsiga Kály, who tries to lead his dilettante managers on the right path. One corrupt manager transfers the assets of the company to London. The plot is discovered by police and the money is recovered. When the new Ministerial commission returns to make order, Péter

Takács is appointed as the new technical director. Only fragments of the film survived.

Ártatlanok [The Innocents] was a stage play written as the Hungarian language version of Jud Süss, the most successful antisemitic film made by the

Nazis.63 The incendiary film, personally supervised by Propaganda Minister

Goebbels, was estimated to have been shown to audiences totaling more than

61 David Frey, “Why We Fight Hungarian Style: War, Civil War, and the Red Menace in Hungarian Wartime Feature Film,” Kinokultura, January 24, 2008, http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/7/frey.shtml, accessed March 9, 2017. 62 Gyula Gömbös, who was Prime Minister from 1932 to 1936, strengthened the work of the antisemitic right and laid the groundwork for the implementation of the anti-Jewish laws. 63 The film was based on a best selling historical novel by the same title written in 1925 by Munich-born playright Lion Feuchtwanger. The original novel was not antisemitic in nature. The book was adapted for the stage for the first time in the United Kingdom, where it was also made into a film in 1929.

203 twenty million.64 Written by two relatively unknown writers, Lajos Kádár and

István Solymosi, the play was presented in some district theatres outside of the capital, and was then mounted in the Madách Theatre in Budapest on June 16,

1944.65 The play remained in the repertoire of the theatre, reaching its fiftieth presentation on July 29, 1944. The producer was Géza Kardoss, who along with

Lajos Cselle, Lenke Egyed, and Ferenc Kállay all escaped to the west in 1945 and were never charged for their involvement in the play.

An actor who played a major role in Ártatlanok and stayed in Hungary was László Bánhidi. In 1945, Banhidi requested certification. His file was forwarded to the Municipal Court where Bánhidi was charged with “crimes against the people.”66 The Court eventually reversed this decision and dismissed the charges against Bánhidi, along with two other actors who also had roles in the play, with the curious reasoning that they were simply “reciting the words written by others.”67 László Bánhidi went on to develop a major role in a television series entitled Tüskevár [Thorn Castle] produced by Hungarian television in the 1960s; he was known as Matula bácsi [Uncle Matula].68

Also playin in Ártatlanok were actors György Székely and Mihály

Szigetvári. Székely was banned from acting for three months for his role in the play. Szigetvári, on the other hand, who acted in the play in Salgótarján, a small

64 http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html, accessed April 10, 2017. 65 Pál Benyovszky, “Ártatlanok? Az Ujjászervezett Madách Szinház Első Bemutatója” [the Innocents? The first presentation of the newly organized Madách Theatre] Film Hiradó, 1944 (exact date unknown). http://tbeck.beckground.hu/szinhaz/htm/19.htm. Accessed March 18, 2017. 66 Iván Miklós Szegő, “Hogy lett Matula bácsi a Magyar antiszemita szinjátszás ‘úttörője’? [How did Uncle Matula become the pioneer of Hungarian antisemitic theatre productions?] HVG (Heti Világgazdaság) [World Economist Weekly], 2015 junius 9. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid.

204 town in northeastern Hungary, was given his certification without any penalty or retribution. One may only speculate that Szigetvári was certified due to his political connections. Székely, on the other hand, did not have such political connections and received a mild punishment.69

The writer of Ártatlanok, Lajos Kádár, was also ironically absolved of wrongdoing by the postwar certification committee. Kádár had a personal connection to József Darvas, who later became minister of education in the postwar period. Their relationship began during the interwar period, when

Darvas and Kádár were both part of the Nép Irók [People’s writers] movement.

Although Kádár was found guilty of “crimes against the people,” and was briefly incarcerated, Darvas, as Minister of Education, was able to have the

Kádár file classified as “ad acta” or considered closed, providing yet another example of the vagaries of the committee.70

The curious case of Antal Páger

The film Harmincadik [The Thirtieth] was the most controversial of these three films. The narrative of the film was a critical assessment of class differences in Hungary and of unbridled capitalism. The story takes place in a mining town where children walk great distances each day to attend school in a neighboring community. The film opens with shots of a child being picked up at the side of the road after he had collapsed from exhaustion after walking in a howling wind.

69 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 11 [box 11], György Székely: file #3088 and Mihály Szigetvári: file #4031, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. 70 Iván Miklós Szegő, “Hogy lett Matula bácsi a Magyar antiszemita szinjátszás ‘úttörője’? [How did Uncle Matula become the pioneer of Hungarian antisemitic theatre productions?] HVG, 2015 junius 9.

205

The child is taken to a doctor who determines that he has pneumonia. The hero of the film is a teacher, Gábor Nagy, played by one of Hungary’s most famous actors, Antal Páger, who makes every effort to try to convince the residents that a school is needed in the mining town and that the mining company has been derelict in not building such a school. By law, there should be thirty children for a class; the town cannot meet this minimum enrollment number. The head of the mining company cannot be convinced to provide a school. In fact, the head of the company is presented as the ultimate villain by resisting all efforts by the teacher and the families to have a school in the community. Nagy does not give up and, in the end, more families arrive and the minimum requirement is met. The screenplay and original work that it was based upon, was written by Márton

Kerecsendi-Kiss, a former teacher who drew upon on his experiences as an educator in a small mining town. In its original form, the screenplay contains subtle messages of how “outsiders” will not help build a better life for

Hungarians, they must do it themselves, without foreign influences. The viewer is left with the impression that the successful rebuilding of small communities and ultimately, the country, will be through the heroic efforts of teachers such as

Gábor Nagy.

On September 28, 1942, the Censorship Committee of the Országos

Mozgóképvizsgáló Bizottság [OMB] objected to the release of the film, stating that the message of the film was “fomenting class tensions” because it presented the mining company in an unfavorable anti-capitalist light. As a result, the censorship committee issued an order to block the release of Harmincadik until

206 certain specific changes were made.71 The OMB then made these recommended changes to the distribution company, Iris Filmgyártó és Kölcsönző Kft. [Iris Film and Distribution Ltd.] and left the status of the film in abeyance.

Further information regarding the release of the film and the requests of the OMB were only revealed later, in 1947, by Márton Kerecsendi-Kiss and Antal

Páger in Argentina, where both had emigrated. Páger provided extensive interviews in Buenos Aires to the Hungarian-language press about his film career and in particular, his role in Harmincadik and claimed the film was altered by censors in 1942.72 Páger insisted that these changes were inserted without informing either the writer Kerecsendi-Kiss, or the producer, Lászlo Cserepy.

Páger also claimed that the censorship committee asked the cinematographer,

Barna Hegyi, to film the new segment to be inserted, but Hegyi refused.73

According to the official records of the OMB, among the requests that were to be deleted were sections that denigrated the leadership of the company.

The distribution company complied, removing derogatory sentences that described the leadership of the company: “Pongrácz is useless, Haday is officious, the rest are worthless, evil, Laskó is a worm.”74 In a more general way, statements that denigrated the upper classes were removed, including dialogue

71 Márk Záhonyi-Ábel, “A népi filmek vidék-reprezentációja,”in József Pap, Árpád Tóth, Tibor Valuch, eds., Vidéki élet és vidéki társadalom Magyarországon, Budapest: Hajnal István Kör Társadalomtörténeti Egyesület, 2016, 204-205. 72 “Vádlottak padján: Páger Antal: Néha mar mar elhiszem, hogy én üzentem meg a világháborut,” [On the accused Bench: Antal Páger: ‘At times I believed that I was responsible for declaring the War’] Magyar Ut, 1948 november 17, 5. 73 Ibid. 74 A Harmincadik, OL K159, 50 csomo, 11290-1944. MNL (Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár) [Hungarian National Archives].

207 such as: “Power remains with the descendants of the gentry class, as ears stay on a donkey.”75

By the end of the film, a new President named Pongrácz is appointed to head the mining company. Pongrácz replaces a Jewish man named Rozner.

Based on the files of the OMB, the distribution company, Iris Filmgyártó és

Kölcsönző Kft., even inserted an entire new section of dialogue into the film where

Pongrácz announces that Rozner has been replaced. The offensive section of dialogue was:

Because, slowly the Mr. Rozners will disappear, those who changed the sweat of honest decent workers into the tinkling sound of gold, those who live without a sense of community, those who thwart the social welfare efforts of large companies… and believe me Gentlemen, the Mr. Rozners will never rise again!76

This new wording clearly added an antisemitic narrative and ending to the film. The Iris Filmgyártó és Kölcsönző Kft. made the required changes by the following day and the OMB provided the necessary permission to release the film on September 30, 1942.

While the OMB was the final governing body involved in releasing films during the interwar era, it generally dealt only with the distribution and production companies, or those production companies that held the rights to the productions. While it may be that the producer, screenwriter and director were not informed of the changes suggested by the OMB, it was the production

75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.

208 company affiliated with the company, namely Iris Film and Distribution Ltd., that would have been be responsible for inserting the changes, making the film acceptable to the censorship board of the OMB.77

It was not only prior to the release that the film was already much disputed and discussed, Harmincadik created much controversy when it was finally released.78 The mining company portrayed in the film, Aluminum Rt., was determined to sue the producers of the film, including the production company.

When they were thwarted in their bid against Iris, the company went after the screenwriter, Kerecsendi-Kiss, and tried, without success, to revoke his teacher’s certification. Harmincadik became the rallying cry for thousands of educators and teachers in Hungary, who viewed the film as an accurate portrayal of their dismally poor wages and little-appreciated profession.

In October, 1944, the Szálasi regime seized power and Márton Kerecsendi-

Kiss, the thirty-year-old school teacher who had written the screenplay based on his own experiences as an educator in a backward mining town, was shut out of the National Film Committee [Országos Mozgóképvizsgáló Bizottság]. His fledgling career as a screenwriter came to an abrupt end. He left for Austria in 1945, and from there, emigrated to Argentina. The fallout continued in the postwar period.

The certification committee viewed Harmincadik as an antisemitic film. All major players and actors who were involved in the project became the focus of further

77 I am grateful for the advice and assistance of Márk Záhonyi-Ábel. Márk Záhonyi-Ábel, Filmpolitika Magyarországon a Horthy Korszak második felében [The Politics of Film in Hungary in the Second Half of the Horthy Era] Masters Thesis, 2010. 78 Judit Nemethyné Kesserü, Szabadságom lett a börtönöm: Az Argentinai Magyar Emigració Története, 1948-1968, [My Freedom became my Prison: The History of the Hungarian Diaspora of Argentina]. Budapest: A Magyar Nyelv es Kultura Nemzetközi Társaság, 2003, 186-187.

209 investigation. Kerecsendi-Kiss was declared a war criminal in absentia by the

Hungarian People’s Republic.79

The fate of Antal Páger, the famous actor who starred in Harmincadik as the heroic teacher, ended altogether differently. Páger began his career in

Hungary in the early 1920s, and by the mid-1930s, was an outstanding star of stage and film. The Szálasi regime named Antal Páger “film commissioner” in

1944. Páger claimed he heard of the appointment on August 20, 1944, before the

Szálasi regime even came to power. In his memoirs, Páger blamed his second wife, Julia Komár, for this appointment. Komár, who was apparently on friendly terms with several members of the Szálasi cabinet, allegedly accepted the position on behalf of her husband.80 Páger wrote that he was very irate when he found out about the appointment and fought with his wife about it. Páger proceeded to pack up the family and left Budapest to live in Pornóapáti, a westernmost village of Hungary on the border with Austria until the end of the war.81 In his memoirs, Páger adamantly defended his reputation. In fact, he acted in major roles in two of the most controversial film productions, Harmincadik and

Örségváltás, and appeared on stage with such antisemitic politicians and journalists as the former prime minister Béla Imrédy and Ferenc Rajniss. Páger was found guilty in absentia by the People’s Tribunal in 1945 and all of the one hundred twelve films he starred in were blacklisted.82 Páger left for Austria in late 1944, then soon afterwards, went to Argentina along with Márton

Kerecsendi-Kiss. The much younger Kerecsendi-Kiss considered Páger his

79 Mudrák and Deák, 163. 80 Molnár Gál Péter, A Páger Ügy [The Pager Affair]. Budapest: Pallas Könyvkiadó, 1988, 193. 81 Ibid. 82 http://nol.hu/kultura/nyilasa-volt-e-pager-antal-1607431, accessed April 9, 2018.

210

“outstanding mentor.”83 Life in Argentina became intolerable for the experienced actor, however, despite the fact that he was named artistic director of a stage company founded by and for the Hungarian community in Buenos Aires. The community stage company was struggling and in dire need of monetary support.

In his search to find more financial resources to support his family and himself,

Páger, who also had some artistic talent, even resorted to producing paintings that members of the community were eager to buy as a memento of the film star.84

In August 1956, by special secret agreement with the Hungarian government, Páger was allowed to return to Hungary and resume his acting career. One day, he disappeared from Buenos Aires. The secret agreement and furtive departure from Argentina came as a great shock and bitter disappointment to the Hungarian community of Buenos Aires.85 His wife Julia

Komár was left behind with a detailed written assurance by the Hungarian government that she would be allowed to join her husband and that her transportation to Budapest would be paid for by the Hungarian government.

This government promise was later reneged upon. Komár stayed and languished in poverty in Buenos Aires with their two daughters and died five years later, in

1961. The timing of the return for Páger turned out to be unfortunate. Amidst

83 Judit Nemethy Kesserü, Szabadságom lett a börtönöm: Az Argentinai Magyar Emigració Története, 1948-1968, [My Freedom became my Prison: The History of the Hungarian Diaspora of Argentina],186-187. 84 Author Interview with Judit Nemethy Kesserü, who wrote the book on the Hungarian diaspora in Argentina as her doctoral dissertation at the University of Szeged. Interview took place on May 28, 2017 in Toronto. I am grateful to Judit Némethy, who allowed me to look at her original files of the lives of actors and theatre presentations in the postwar Hungarian diaspora in Argentina. 85 Ibid.

211 much publicity, Páger was just restarting his acting career when the Hungarian

Uprising broke out in October 1956.86

The irony of the return of Páger to Hungary is important because it underscores how, within less than a decade, the ideological focus of the communist regime changed because of the Cold War. Páger was enticed and encouraged to return to Hungary, despite the fact that he starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. Undoubtedly, the Hungarian government used the return of Páger for propaganda purposes, to demonstrate to the Hungarian people that the outstanding actors of the interwar period were returning and thereby providing legitimacy for the postwar communist regime.

Neither the writer, Kerecsendi-Kiss or the producer of Harmincadik, László

Cserepy, were provided similar certification or reinstatement. The former was declared a war criminal for his role in writing the screenplay, the latter emigrated to Canada. From 1956 until he passed away in 1986, Páger starred in more than 100 film and television programs and series. In 1965, he was granted the Kossuth Award, the highest honour bestowed on an actor in Hungary.87

The producer of Harmincadik, László Cserepy, applied for certification to work in the film industry after 1945, but certification was not granted. His filmography and experience was extensive, however, and Cserepy emigrated to

Canada in 1949, and became a producer with the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation in Toronto.88

86 Ibid. 87Mudrák and Deák, 234. 88 Ibid., 78

212

The cinematographer of Harmincadik, Barna Hegyi, who according to

Páger, refused to film the controversial inserted last scene, received a two-year ban from the certification committee for his work on the film. From 1947 onwards, Hegyi was once again active as a cameraman and taught cinematography in the Theatre and Film School in Budapest. In the 1950s, he received the several national awards and honours for his outstanding work in the film industry.89

Other decisions by the committee were equally inconsistent. The decisions regarding the fate of two different actors, József Juhász and ifj. Sándor Juhász

(Sandor Juhasz, Jr.), both with the same surname but not related, provides further examples of the inconsistencies in the determinations of the certification committee. Both actors had roles in the film Harmincadik. József Juhász was almost twenty years older than Sándor Juhász, the latter had a promising career before him. József Juhász was given a “Megfeddés” [Reprimand] by the committee, whereas Sándor Juhász, who also had a role in the same controversial film, was provided with certification.90

Interestingly, the testimony of defense for both actors contains the same statement, as if they had pre-determined what they were going to say during their testimony. Their identical statements included:

89 Ibid., 136 90 XVII. 1670.9, doboz 7 [box 7], József Juhász (file # 5391), Sándor Juhász (file #2029), SzIUI, HU BFL.

213

they were not sympathetic to any Fascist cause and couldn’t have been because when the Germans occupied Budapest, they took part in an anti- German demonstration on stage with the actress Margit Dajka.91

Another example of light sentences and conflicted determinations was the certification file of Lajos Garday, who had roles in both films that were deemed antisemitic, namely “Negyediziglen” and “Harmincadik.” Garday, however, seemed to be unaffected by the decisions the committee. He was sought out by filmmakers because of his uncanny ability to portray the appearance, speech intonations, and behaviour of the idealized hardy Hungarian peasant. Garday was given a “Megfeddés” [Reprimand] by the certification committee.92 The role that Garday was able to portray was in great demand during the regime of

Mátyás Rákosi, General-Secretary of HCP, 1948-1956, and later János Kádár,

General-Secretary of HCP, 1956-1988. Garday continued to be offered important roles in films until the 1960s.

There were also cases where the Actors Certification Committee seemed to be making examples of specific individuals. These cases were not always consistent, however, and the committee reverted to attempts to provide the appearance of treating everyone applying for certification equally. Generally, any actor or actress who was found to have been a member of the Arrow Cross party was banned from acting for a period of time or for life. This was the situation in the case of Ferenc Gyökér, who was found to be a member of the

Hungarian Arrow Cross Party from 1938 onwards. The decision of the

91 Ibid. 92 Ibid, Doboz 4, [Box 4], file #620.

214 certification committee was: “It can be ruled out that Ferenc Gyökér would be able to take part in the cultural life of a democratic Hungary and it is for this reason that the committee brings this decision” (banned for life).93

At times, in order to obtain certification, the testimony of actors and actresses bordered on the absurd. The case of actress Eva Géczhy was an example where the strange testimony of an actress resulted in a reprimand. The actress was accused of “being a fan of statues of Hitler” [rajongott a Hitler szobrokért]. It was not clear how the accusation came to the attention of the committee, but Géczhy provided a far-fetched, somewhat unbelievable response, saying that “She was not a fan of Hitler statues, they were simply the cheapest gift she could find in the department stores to take to her friends.” Éva Géczhy was given a simple reprimand.94

Throughout the proceedings, it is important to once again examine the language utilized by members of the certification committee. Opera singers and their family members were provided with the opportunity to leave Budapest just as the siege of the city began. What became commonly referred to as the “opera train” was not only to transport opera stars and support staff to the west, but also their elaborate costumes and many valuable stage sets for fear that all these valuable items would become damaged in the bombings, or would be looted.

The opera train transported the stars of stage and screen, and the costumes and sets to Austria, but was eventually returned to Hungary. The Actors certification

93 XVII. 1670.9, SzIUI, 1945-1947, doboz 4 [box 4], HU BFL. No file number exists as Ferenc Gyökér was not certified. 94 Ibid., Doboz 4, [Box 4], File # 2103.

215 committee frequently dealt with this exodus, consistently referring to it as the

“opera fascist train.” During their testimony, many of the opera stars and support staff accused of leaving on the train often referred to the fact that they became part of a “crowd mentality of escaping from impending doom.” There were several who claimed “they didn’t realize where the train was heading, they simply viewed it as an opportunity to seek safe refuge for their wives and daughters.” Árpád Hajdú was one of a few who seemed to challenge the committee in its assumptions. When asked why he was on the “opera fascist train,” Hajdú replied: “it wasn’t a ‘fascist’ train, it was simply a train, a way in which he could take his family away from the impending chaos and war in

Budapest.”95 Hajdú also claimed that his fiancé was Jewish and that he intended to get her out of Budapest, to save her and her property. His explanation was rejected by the members of the certification committee, and Hajdú was banned from the opera for four years.96

One of the few actors who dared to criticize the proceedings of the Actors certification committee was László Gömöri. While under cross-examination,

Gömöri openly stated his objections: “Before this political change happened, I was the best-loved actor of all the regional theatres, no one asked me what my political views were, and it wasn’t necessary for me to deal with politics.”97 He admitted to being a member of the chamber, but never the Turul. László Gömöri was provided certification.98

95 Ibid., Doboz 5, [Box 5], File #3752. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid, Doboz 4 (Box 4), File #625. 98 Ibid.

216

Some accusations were, in the minds of the members of the certification committee, considered very serious. At other times, the accusations seemed comic, had they not been taken so seriously. The case file of Gizella Görbe presents such an example. The actress was accused of “dancing with joy upon hearing of the death of Stalin.”99 Towards the end of the war, the death of Stalin was a frequent rumour, one that spread quickly through the theatre where Görbe was employed as an actress. She apparently did a happy dance witnessed by a few people while the theatre was empty. One of those individuals reported this act to the certification committee. For this dance, Görbe was banned from the theatre for one year.100

Conclusion

The certification system at times seemed to be arbitrary and capricious.

Much depended on the accusations, the defendants, the witnesses called to testify on their behalf and the political realignments that were taking place. The

People’s Courts were actually party courts, as all parties delegated members to the People’s Courts system.101

The certification committees for those in the acting and film industry in postwar Hungary seemed to be under particular pressure to produce results, and to finish the task at hand within the two-year mandate, to certify actors/actresses, producers, directors and get the entertainment industry working again.

99 Ibid., Doboz 4, (Box 4), File #2691. 100 Ibid. 101 László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary,” István Deák, Jan Gross and Tony Judt, eds. The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 236.

217

The archival documents of the certification committees shed new light on the intentions of those who applied for certification. The documents demonstrate that the intention of the majority of actors and actresses was opportunistic and gain-oriented, rather than idealistic. This became evident when they were questioned about membership in right-wing organizations such as the Turul.

Most stated that joining the Turul was a pre-requisite to obtaining acting contracts, a matter of earning a living, nothing more.

In France, the prosecution of those in the artistic world began with ordinary actors, actresses, cabaret singers, journalists, writers, poets and philosophers.102 In Hungary, top-level decision makers of the interwar Theatre and Film Arts Chamber were placed under particular scrutiny. The files of those who left the country were sent to the People’s Courts and tried in absentia. Those who remained were brought before the committees, many received a lifetime ban from acting and participating in the field of stage/film.

Ferenc Kiss, the former president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, was brought back from Austria by the Americans to be placed on public trial for

“handing over the entire film industry to the mercy of the Fascist world-view and condemning actors and actresses to be used as agents of propaganda.”103

Kiss was the only individual active in the arts sphere in Hungary to be found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to eight years hard labour.

102István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II.” Retribution and Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., 4. 103István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 oktober 10, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.

218

The irony of the return of Antal Páger to Hungary is important because it underscores how, within less than a decade, the ideological focus of the regime changed due to the Cold War. Páger was enticed and encouraged to return to

Hungary, despite the fact he was declared a war criminal in absentia, and starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. The Hungarian government used the return of Páger for propaganda purposes, to demonstrate to the Hungarian people that the outstanding actors of the interwar period were returning and thereby providing legitimacy for the Hungarian communist regime. The criminal past of both Ferenc Kiss and Antal Páger were whitewashed and re-written. In order to further publicize their return to the stage and screen, both were awarded outstanding acting awards of merit by the government towards the end of their acting careers in the 1960s.

Chapter 8: Conclusion

This dissertation provides new insight and adds further context to the history of the interwar and postwar film industry in Hungary. It examines the conflicted political forces that brought about the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber and the effects of the establishment of the chamber on the film industry. I provide several examples of selective antisemitism through my historical analysis.1 This expression describes the conflicted actions by the Hungarian government in implementing antisemitic legislation. As defined in the

Introduction of this dissertation, “selective antisemitism” refers to not whether or not there should be antisemitic legislation, but “how” and “to what degree” the legislation should be implemented. The analysis of the 55 page Előadói Tervezet

(Chapter 3) demonstrates that the government sought control over the film industry and aimed to force Jews out of the industry, but didn’t know quite how to exert control, other than through bureaucratic rules. Selective antisemitism is further demonstrated by the charges laid against the leaders of the Arrow Cross, just two days after the implementation of the Second Jewish law in 1939. One part of the government was intent on limiting the activities of the antisemitic extremist Arrow Cross and their leaders, while another part was intent on carrying out the demands and placating right-wing organizations with legislation against Jews. In later chapters, more examples of selective antisemitism are demonstrated through the continuing role of talented Jewish filmmakers, screenwriters, actors and actresses through the “Strohman” system.

1 I am attributing this expression to historian Maria Ormos as used in the biography of Miklos Kozma.

219 220

My work extends into the postwar era because the files of the postwar certification committees provide valuable insight into the leadership and antisemitic narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era.

Further, this dissertation examines the underlying reasons, motivations, and work of the certification system in the postwar rebuilding of the devastated

Hungarian film industry. My research demonstrates that even after the politics of postwar retribution and work of the certification committees ended, the by-then firmly entrenched Hungarian communist government continued a policy of further enhancing its positive image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers of famous actors from the interwar era – even those who had starred in propaganda and/or antisemitic films and theatre performances.

In presenting the conclusions for this dissertation, it is important to once again place into a historical narrative the work of the certification committees into the time, and geopolitical position of Hungary in postwar Europe. Never had so many people been ensnared in the process of collaboration, resistance and retribution as had happened in Europe in 1944 and after the end of the Second

World War.2 While it is impossible to calculate the exact number of people targeted by postwar retribution, best estimates claim that they numbered several million, or 2 to 3 percent of the population under German occupation alone.3

Postwar retribution and de-Nazification programs unfolded differently in western European countries than in east-central Europe.

2 István Deák, “Introduction,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, István Deák, Jan Gross and Tony Judt, eds. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, 4. 3 Ibid.

221

The de-Nazification of Germany and Austria were particularly hampered by the fact that both countries were occupied and divided by the armed forces of four different Allied countries. The military command of each of those countries implemented de-Nazification very differently.4 In the Soviet zone, retribution and internment went hand in hand; one-third of those interned by the Soviets died, compared with less than one percent in the British zone.5 Germans in the

US occupied zone completed 12 million Fragebogen, or questionnaires, that sought to determine complicity with the Nazi party. General Lucius Clay claimed that at least that many Germans were identified with Nazi activities, yet the examination of the Nazi past of these individuals ended quickly.6 In the field of arts, Veit Harlan, producer of the antisemitic propaganda film Jud Süss, and the leading filmmaker of Joseph Goebbels, was the only film director of the Third

Reich to be charged with crimes against humanity. However, Harlan was later acquitted.7

After the Nuremberg trials, the Americans were eager to transfer primary responsibility for de-Nazification to the Germans, who could have acted, but lacked the political will to continue. By 1950, the attention of the United States

4 See Perry Biddiscombe, The Denazification of Germany, a History 1945-1950, Stroud, United Kingdom: Tempus, 2007; David Cohen, “Transitional Justice in Divided Germany after 1945,” Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy, ed. Jon Elster, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 59-89. 5 Ibid, 70. 6 Ibid, 59-89. 7 http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html, accessed April 10, 2017. Harlan recruited Jews from the Prague ghetto to act as extras, a callous act focused on by the prosecutors.

222 and other allies became focused on the Cold War rather than on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals.8

In France, the prosecution of war criminals and members of the Vichy government became bogged down in legal wranglings, mainly due to the postwar myth that the French were primarily victims of the Nazis.9 More pertinent to this dissertation was how European countries dealt with collaborators in the area of culture, particularly writers and film. France was the only country where two writers, Robert Brasillach and Jean Luchaire, were executed postwar for their writings promoting fascist movements and attacking republicans, communists, Jews, and foreigners. Brasillach and Luchaire were charged with “intelligence with the enemy.”10 Some film directors and performers, including director Henri-Georges Clouzot, and actresses Ginette

Leclerc and Arletty, were banned from working for a few years postwar.11

In east-central Europe, Poland was the only country where there was no official program of postwar retribution because collaborators were dealt with by the Polish underground.12 For example, Polish actor Igo Sym became a

Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) and was subsequently executed by the Polish

8 Ibid., 83. The Cold War was the driving force behind the emptying of prisons in 1951-55. Moreover, German law permitted the reinstatement of most of those removed under earlier de- Nazification proceedings. 9 Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime, London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2002. See in particular Chapter 11: The Judgments of Paris, 270-300. Despite the very public display immediately postwar of townspeople shaving the heads of women, and the lynching of some 10,000 individuals accused of collaboration, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the French government was finally willing to face the crimes of complicity by the leaders of the Vichy government. 10 See Alice Kaplan, The Collaborator: The Trial and Execution of Robert Brasillach. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press, 2000, 149-151. 11 Michael Curtis, 347. 12 Agnieszka Haska, “Discourse of Treason in Occupied Poland,” Eastern European Politics and Societies, August 2011, Vol. 25, No. 3, 530-552.

223 underground. The Polish Army fought the invasion of Nazi Germany and never surrendered. The primary goal of Stalin was to destroy leaders and factions who took part in the wartime government-in-exile. Postwar, backed by the Soviet army, Stalin forced the merger of opposition leftist and workers parties, under the ruling communist party by 1948. Other postwar regimes, such as

Czechoslovakia, used the opportunity offered by the continent-wide push towards retribution to carry out ethnic cleansing and mass expulsions under the guise of “collective guilt.”13

In Hungary, well over 300,000 citizens, or 3 percent of the population suffered some kind of punishment during the postwar purges.14 The People’s

Courts passed 322 death sentences before March 1, 1948 and 146 individuals were executed. In comparison to the number of those executed in postwar trials,

Hungary lies in the middle of the list of countries in Europe.15

It is also vital to note the arc of “institutional lawlessness” that began in

1938-1939 in Hungary, starting with the implementation of the Jewish laws. By

1939, Jews were defined as a race -- according to the Nazi model -- and not as a religion; laws protecting their rights were revoked, and innocent citizens were arbitrarily deprived of their civil rights, their property, and often their lives.16

With the occupation by the German army in 1944, more antisemitic regulations

13 Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed, 150-176. 14 László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233. 15 László Karsai, “Crime and Punishment: People’s Courts, Revolutionary Legality, and the Hungarian Holocaust,” https://ece.columbia.edu/files/ece/images/karsai2.pdf, 4, accessed June 20, 2019. 16 István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe, 142.

224 were implemented. By the time the Soviet army arrived in 1945, there was widespread fear of and intimidation by the authorities. Over one million

Hungarians fled to the west, many later returned, but 100,000 remained permanently in the west, while others adapted to this new era of lawlessness.

The provisional government of Hungary began a structured process of organizing the People’s Tribunals and certification committees as soon as the fighting had ceased in the capital. By law, everyone had to be certified in order to work. The Soviet army was present to oversee the efforts of the provisional government. As a result, political influence eventually seeped into the system as the Hungarian Communist Party used the certification system to expel democrats, social democrats – even loyal Communists – who they saw as enemies of the state.17 This work took precedence over the purge of former fascists.

The activities of the certification committees resulted in a wide range of rulings. If the cases were forwarded to the People’s Tribunals, individuals could be interned. Certification committees could dismiss individual actors/actresses from their jobs for life or for a specific time period. Other penalties included demotion, loss of civic rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on residency, monetary fines, and/or loss of pension rights. The certification committees established for actors/actresses and individuals working in the film industry also ascertained whether the actor/actress was involved in promoting right-wing ideology. The answer to the question as to whether they were successful at

17 Ibid., 124-147.

225 attaining this goal is multi-layered and nuanced and influenced by many factors.

The backgrounds of actors and actresses were varied. Some lived in Budapest, others were from smaller towns and villages, some were Jewish, others non-

Jewish, some popular, others obscure, playing minor support roles. Numerous testimonials also demonstrate that many of the actors, actresses, and most technical workers in film expressed their ardent desire to continue to work in the film industry postwar. In their drive to re-establish normalcy, one of the first acts of the provisional government of the city of Budapest was to re-organize the entertainment industry in the city where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The certification committees were under pressure to certify actors and actresses and technical workers quickly.

The Actors certification committee, created in 1945, was composed of highly-qualified individuals who were provided with a mandate to root out and expel from the profession those who had sympathized or worked with the extreme right during the interwar era. Initially, this system seemed to be working. Thousands of actors and actresses who were not engaged in political activity during the interwar years were certified expeditiously. As examined in this dissertation, the procedure utilized by each union to certify members was very different. The certification committee for actors and actresses depended on the reputation of the actor in question and the testimony of others, whereas the members of the Film Employees Union required those seeking certification to complete a thorough a 53-question survey of their domestic, economic, social, and political background.

226

The litmus test of the questionnaire was whether film employees had benefitted from the implementation of the Jewish laws and the confiscation of

Jewish property. The members of the Film Employees Union were examined in great detail, but these individuals were relatively unknown support and behind the scenes workers in the film industry. After examining the files of both of these major certification committees, I concluded that the actors and actresses were given a greater leeway and tolerance. The hearings were held in secrecy; the names of the committee members were not released. If an actor or actress called witnesses to testify on his/her behalf, especially if those witnesses were members of one of the political parties that formed the government, the chances of the actor/actress receiving a reduced sentence or penalty were more likely. My archival work adds to the literature about the acting profession in the interwar era, and how members of this profession reacted to the political pressures of the certification process during the immediate postwar era in Hungary.

Many well-intentioned individuals, such as Gyula Ortutay, took on the task of chairing these committees. Ortutay was ideologically motivated. He felt confident that Hungary was finally on the right side of history and that the country was looking towards a new beginning. Ortutay believed he was completing this task for the purpose of “clearing away any impediments towards the building of a new, democratic Hungary.”18 According to my research, approximately 85 percent of the individuals in the entertainment industry who

18Gyula Ortutay, “Levél a Nemzeti Bizottság Ötös Végrehajtó Bizottságnak,” [Letter to the five member Executive committee],1945 február 26, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL. Gyula Ortutay was chair of the certification committee for employees of Hungarian Radio, the Telegraph Office, the Film Office, National Apollo and the Star Film and Distribution Factory.

227 applied for certification were certified.19 A smaller percentage, roughly 10 percent, of actors/actresses and individuals involved in the field of film and theatre were not certified, including those who were found to be part of right- wing movements, or left the country permanently, or were killed.

The documents of the certification committees shed new light on the intentions of those who applied for certification. The documents demonstrate that the intention of the majority of actors and actresses was opportunistic and gain-oriented, rather than idealistic. This became evident when they were questioned about membership in right-wing organizations such as the Turul.

Most stated that joining the Turul was a pre-requisite to obtaining acting contracts. Very few actors or actresses admitted to an ideological or principled belief in the Arrow Cross or Turul. When confronted with the fact that actors or actresses or other support workers were members of such organizations, applicants denied membership or obfuscated regarding their roles. I have presented several cases of this latter group who misrepresented themselves in various ways during the hearings. In some instances, they testified about others in order to divert attention away from their own actions. My argument is that there were conflicting forces operating within the certification system. Those who were connected politically or socially, whether or not they were guilty of complicity with the previous regime, could rely on those connections to assist them in gaining certification. A select group of Hungarians who recovered quickly from the trauma of the war once again followed an opportunistic, rather than idealistically motivated involvement with the new postwar regime. This

19 This figure is based on the files of the Film Actors Union and Film Employees Union and the work of smaller certification committees.

228

“quick-change” remains embedded in the collective consciousness of

Hungarians, to the point that it is illustrated in one of the exhibits in the House of

Terror Museum in Budapest, opened in 2002. The exhibit shows a mannequin wearing an Arrow Cross uniform entering a revolving door and exiting wearing the uniform of an AVH officer.20

The postwar government was an interim government, lasting three years and included ministers of the Horthy era. This provisional government felt it had to assign blame for the crimes of the past, and once the task of retribution was completed, to assure the people of Hungary that all of those who had been complicit in the crimes of the past had been tried and convicted.

My dissertation adds important historical depth to how the certification system worked in Hungary to smooth the transition, and how the entertainment industry was salvaged from the ruins of near devastation of a once thriving industry. This could only be achieved if the certification committees for the entertainment industry were swift in completing its work.

The trial of Ferenc Kiss, President of the Theatre and Film Chamber, was one of the few criminal trials that assigned blame in the field of filmmaking. The trial lasted just two days. Once it was over and Kiss was convicted, the blame had seemingly been appropriately assigned. The details of the trial, at times published verbatim in the national newspaper, was a crucial part of this process of “educating the nation” about the crimes of the previous regime. Unlike in

France, where two writers were executed postwar for promoting the work of the

20AVH stands for the Államvédelmi Hatóság, [Security Police]. This security police organization was a tool for terror during the height of the Stalinist era in Hungary.

229 far-right, no one in the field of arts was executed for collaborating with the

Arrow Cross in Hungary.

While reading the files of the certification committees for actors, actresses and employees in the field of theatre and film, one could not help but be reminded of the film Taking Sides (2002), directed by István Szabó. The plot of the film revolves around the US-led investigation into the German conductor of the

Berlin Philharmonic, Wilhelm Furtwangler. The film focuses on the cross- examination of Furtwangler by an American army officer, Major Steve Arnold, who is determined to find Furtwangler guilty of complicity with the Nazis.

Director István Szabó sheds light on the series of painful choices faced by many artists, actors, writers, composers in positions of importance under totalitarian regimes. Szabó presents the choices as: stay and try to survive as an actor, as an artist, or leave and bring an end to a brilliant career. Despite all the efforts of

Major Arnold, Furtwangler is found not guilty by the war crimes tribunal.

Throughout, Arnold treats the distinguished composer with such contempt, that one of his assistants quits in disgust. The film reflects the conflicted choices

Szabó himself had to make as he was forced to inform on fellow students at the film academy in the 1970s.21 Szabó wrote and produced the film Mephisto (1981) about an actor whose career was promoted by the Nazis, but while doing so, loses his soul.22 The underlying theme of Taking Sides is also an example of the complexities of convicting an artist of collaboration, whether he/she was an actor, producer, writer or a music conductor during the war.

21 www.theguardian.com/film/2006/jan/27/news1, accessed March 12, 2019. 22 John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 121-122.

230

My argument is that the certification committee for the Actors Union played a significant role in molding a positive postwar identity with particular emphasis on theatre and film in Hungary. In 1945, this identity grew out of the belief that Hungary had been a victim of Nazi aggression. Once the Communist

Party consolidated its hold on the government in May 1949, the Communist regime proceeded to seek out and recruit famous Hungarian actors and actresses who had emigrated to return to their homeland. The alleged crimes of these actors and actresses during the interwar era was no longer an issue of importance.

The final chapter is about re-writing selective biographies, and by extension, white-washing and creating a new narrative for postwar retribution.

The political trials that unfolded in the late 1940s served the position and power of the new elites more than anything else. By the early 1950s, the Cold War took precedence over retribution following the Second World War and the outcome of these trials seemed irrelevant. A new Cold War took over between east and west.

Some of those individuals convicted as war criminals and tainted by the certification proceedings were rehabilitated. Antal Páger was lured back to

Hungary from Argentina to resume his acting career, while the regime seemingly ignored the fact that he had been found guilty in absentia by the People’s

Tribunals in 1945. Páger was encouraged to return, despite the fact that he starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. Ferenc Kiss, the only actor convicted of war crimes, was rehabilitated and returned to the stage, even though the trial of Kiss was widely publicized and “overshadowed by

231 prejudice and vulgarity of the contemporary press.”23 In 1960s, Kiss and Pager were even honoured separately with one of the most distinguished awards by the government for their work in film and theatre. It was as if the trials of the late

1940s were abrogated and a new narrative was written for those found guilty postwar to provide legitimacy for the communist regime.

The return of Páger and the rehabilitation of Kiss created much controversy, at the time and much later, even in the highest echelons of the communist leadership in Hungary.24 Decades after his return, the case of Páger and the relationship between totalitarian regimes and artists was still being examined. Musician and academic, Gábor Bolváry Takács, assessed the Páger affair and wrote: “For the totalitarian system, art is always a means, and the traps set out by those in power can only be avoided by those with exceptional wisdom.”25

In examining the files of the certification committee for the Actors Union, I have included copious information from primary sources not previously published. This dissertation makes linkages between government interference inside the world of film and in the lives of artists understandable to a wider audience. There were actors who said ”no” to complicity and collaboration and paid the price with their careers and often their lives. Others collaborated with the devil in order to continue working.

23 István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 136. 24 Gábor Bolvári-Takács,“A Páger ügy útóélete,”[The afterlife of the Páger affair] Kritika, Április 1999, 18-19. Gábor Bolvári-Takács is a musician, conductor and Rector of the School of Dance in Budapest. 25 Ibid.

232

This dissertation describes in detail the inter-connectedness, relationships, sense of belonging, and career opportunities within the world of acting and cinema. Just as the interwar Horthy government attempted to politicize the film industry, and in doing so, to mold the film industry to reflect its values, so too the postwar communist government of Hungary also exploited actors and actresses in the film industry, in order to provide it with legitimacy. As intellectual, writer and dissident Miklós Haraszti wrote “freedom is an essential condition of art: anything which severs art from its anti-authoritarian essence will kill it.”26 This dissertation provides further understanding about the role of the state as it interfered in the film industry and the lives of actors and actresses interwar as well as postwar.

From the end of the Second World War through the mid-1960s the experience of what went on in the first half of the twentieth century in Europe became blurred. In dealing with the Second World War, it suited almost everyone to forget the crimes of their own nation.27 European nations, both in the east and west, willingly submerged their memories in the “freezer of history.”28

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the significant other geopolitical changes that have unfolded in Europe since 1989, the immediate postwar historiography of Europe has since become stale and outdated. From the mid

1960s, a much-debated “revival of memory” has emerged, starting in Germany, but later in France, Italy and elsewhere in Europe.29 In addition, archives

26 Miklós Haraszti, The Velvet Prison: Artists under State Socialism, New York: Basic Books, 1987, 13. 27 Tony Judt, “Preface,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, vii. 28 I first heard this expression from Professor Piotr Wrobel. Since, I realized that it is the perfect metaphor for what happened to memory in the immediate postwar era in east-central Europe. 29 Judt, “Preface,”viii.

233 previously closed have opened and a new generation of historians have been examining postwar history, bringing fresh perspectives. The question of how to shape, and for what purpose, a nation’s memory of the war years, and postwar years, is still being formed and framed in Hungary, as it is in many European countries. 30

30 Curtis, Verdict on Vichy, 13.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Registration Form for Members of the Chamber

The top of the second application form explicitly states: “for those Chamber members who have been admitted prior to June 30, 1939.”1

1. Family name and first name /Women to provide their maiden name as well/. 2. Membership number in Chamber 3. When did you become a member of the Chamber? (Year, month, day) 4. Permanent residence 5. Date of Birth (year, month, day) 6. Religion: Details of member; details of spouse 7. If you have changed religion, when did that take place (year, month, day) and what was your religion prior to conversion? 8. Religion of Mother? 9. Religion of Father? 10. If your father changed his religion, when did that happen (year, month, day) and what was his religion prior to the change?

11. If your mother changed his religion, when did that happen (year, month, year) and what was her religion prior to the change?

12. The date of your parents’ marriage

13. The religion of your paternal grandfathers.

14. The religion of your paternal grandmother.

15. The religion of your maternal grandfather.

16. The religion of your maternal grandmother.

17. Among your grandparents, were there any who changed their religion, and if so, what was their religion prior to the change?

18. Your date of marriage.

1 RG-39.004, Reel 1, Papers of the Nemzeti Front, [National Front], USHMM.

234 235

19. From this marriage, were there any children born prior to May 5th, 1939?

20. Date of birth of the children and when were they baptized?

21. Do you have an agreement with your spouse that any of your children will be raised according to the Jewish faith?

22. Name of your Jewish ancestors born prior to January 1, 1849

23. The place of birth of these ancestors.

24. The date of birth of these ancestors.

25. In compliance with article 2 of the law, are there any exemptions which apply to you, and if so, on what basis?

26. Which department of the Chamber do you belong to?

27. What is your area of expertise?

28. Documents attached.

29. Other comments

There were further comments/clarifications at the end of this registration admission questionnaire:

-A person who is regarded as Jewish only needs to complete questions 1-6, further questions 25-27; and this person needs to complete question number 29 as: “Person regarded as Jewish.”

-The form must be accompanied with documents certifying the facts.

-Those individuals, who were born as members of the Christian faith prior to October 1, 1895, need only to complete questions 8-17, but only need to attach documents to verify the statements if they are requested to do so by the Chamber.2

2This date is referring to Act 42 of 1895, the Law of Reception, which made Judaism equal to other received religions of Hungary. Religions were defined as received, recognized or tolerated. Received religions benefited from protection of the state.

236

Those, who were born after October 1, 1895 as members of the Christian faith and whose parents were born as members of the Christian faith, only need to fill our questions 12-17, but only need to attach documents to verify the statements if they are requested to do so by the Chamber.

-A person who is regarded as Jewish, need only attach certifying documents if they have completed question #24, otherwise no documents need to be attached.

237

Appendix 2: Expelled from the Chamber—what happened to them after 1944?

A = Actor/Actress/ Színész/ Színésznő

P = Producer/Rendező

S = Screenwriter/Forgatókönyvíró

O = Opera Star/ Singer/ Opera Énekes/ Énekesnő

D - Director/ Igazgató

C – Composer/ Zeneszerző

T- Táncos

PM- Production Manager/ Gyártásvezető

E-Editor/ Vágó

238

Date of Comments/ Megjegyzés Roles/Produ Birth- Name/Né Occupation/Hi ctions Death/ v vatása Szereplései, Született- alkotásai elhunyt

20. Uri Muri Márc.4., 1950 Lifetime member of the National Theatre/ Nemzeti Szeged, 28. Déryné Szinhaz orokos tagja volt Bartos 1872.4.7. – 1. A Oct.19. Gyula Budapest, 1954. 5.21. 40. Föltámadott a tenger

239

3, 10, 28, 48, 52, 58, 68, 72,

3. A Tanítónő Sept.22, 1945 Pilisborosje Bárdi nő, 1877. 1. 10. Beszterce 2. A Ödön 5.–Bp., ostroma 1958. 6. 24. aug.1948

28. Déryné Oct.19, 1951

48. Fel a Fejjel Oct.7, 1954

Budapest, Published books: 1882. 4. 2. – Bárdos Játék a függöny mögött (1942): 3. Buffalo, P Artúr http://mtdaportal.extra.hu/books/bardos_artur_jatek_a_ USA 1974. fuggony_mogott.pdf 8.10.)

240

A színház műhelytitkai (1943): http://mtdaportal.extra.hu/books/bardos_artur_a_szinh az_muhelytitkai.pdf

(Mudrák)

Left Hungary in 1948- taught at Catholic Univ. of America

Bársony Moved to USA in 1938; 4. 1914-1980's Erzsébet Moved back to Hungary in 1961;

1, 10, 11, 20, 28

1. Aranyóra Márc.14, 1946 Bársony 5. 1882-1956 A, P István 10. Beszterce Ostroma Aug., 1948

11. Forró Mezők Márc

241

26, 1949

20. Uri Muri Márc 6, 1950

28. Déryné Oct. 19, 1951

Starred in 25 films. Básti Lajos Keszthely, 1911.11.17. Until 1970. 6.* (born A – Budapest, Berger Worked on Certification Committee to certify actors, 1977. 6.1. Lajos) actresses postwar

Szeged, I: 17 Békeffy 1901.08.31. 7. D, S F: 3, 7, 10, 12, István – Budapest, 17, 23, 27, 28, 1977. 06.9. 37, 70 (1957)

Berend F: 2 8. (Berger) S Lajos (Mudrak)

242

Hazugság 9. Bihari S nélkül * László Aug.29., 1946

Lopott 10 Bogáthy A boldogság . Vera Oct.11, 1962

Bp., 1886. Survived and starred in films in Hungary. 11 Boross 06. 1.–Bp., (Mudrak) A . Géza 1955. 06. 13.

1876. márc. Otherwise not known. 12 Csillag 16-án, NOT A . Benő Szereden, FOUND Pozsonym.

Fel-Enyed, 10,12 13 Dávid 1898. 05. A . Mihály 29.–Párizs, 10. Beszterce 1965. 11. 5. Ostroma 1948

243

12. Mágnás Miska 1949 January

Magyarkes zi, 1891. 14 Dénes 05.8. - 1950. A . Oszkár 07.2. Trento, Italy

Dobay Bp, 1912. Retired as actress and settled in Vienna 1957 15 Lívia 05.15. – O . (Davidovi Bécs, 2002. cs) 07. 16.

Nyíregyhá 1, 3, 11, 14, 16 Dózsa za, 1895. A 33, 39, 46, 47, . István jún. 22.–?) 52, 59, 179

17 Engel Starred in „Merénylet” 1960 feb. 4. A 112 . György

244

18 Erdélyi Acted in last film in 1943 1888- A . Géza

Miskolc, 1944-45 Ukraine 19 Falus 1901. 04.11. P . István Died as a Soviet Prisoner of war -

Magyarkan Last Film: „A Kőszívű Ember Fiai” April 1965 3, 23, 26, 28, Fenyő izsa, 1889. A 20 29, 85, 122, Was let go from the Cabaret Theatre (Frid) 03. 18. – . 142, 143, 199, Emil Bp, 1980. P 207, 2017 08. 15.

21 Földvári NOT A . Sándor FOUND

Dombrád, Gaal Béla 1893. 01. 2. A 22 - Dachaui P . (born Gold koncentráci stein Béla) ós tábor, D 1945.02.18.

245

Mohács, Gaal 1901. ápr. 23 Sándor 21.– Bp., A . 1966. okt. 12.

Gárdonyi Died while serving in the Labour Battallion Lajos Bp, *His own book: Véletlenül történt [It Happened 24 : 1896.10.27. Accidentally] (1942) A . – Szerbia, born: Bor, 1945 Grünberger Lajos)

Gervay 25 Scheffer 1919 - 2005 A . Marica

Bp, 1898. 26 Gombaszö 12.27. – Bp, A 2, 17, 28, . gi Ella 1951. 11.12.

246

27 Gonda NOT “He was known as the Hungarian actor of Jewish origin 1901- ? A . József FOUND who spoke the most beautiful Hungarian.” (Mudrak)

Buda v. Pest, 1869. 28 Góth okt. 19.– A . Sándor Bp., 1946. szept. 7.

Érsekújvár, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, Starred in 34 films postwar. 29 Gózon 1885.04.19. 17, A The last was Aranysárkány [Golden Dragon] 1966. okt.27. . Gyula – Bp, 1972.10.8.

Gyalog Razzia Nov.20, 1958 30 Ödön 1907- A 98 . György

Hajdu From the 1930s onward lived in New York City 31 NOT (Weisz) C . FOUND Imre

32 Hetényi 1875-1951 C NOT

247

. (Heidelber FOUND g) Albert

Huszár 1941 he died in unknown Károly Bp, A circumstances during the war (Pufi) 1884.09.3. – 33 Szovjetunió S . (born: , 1941.

Hochstein július Károly)

Bp, 1887. Fired from Comedy Theatre (Vigszinház) 34 Justh jún. 24. – 1, 3, 10, 17, A . Gyula Bp, 1955. 35, 38, 40, 42 jún. 3.)

Bp, 1896. 35 Komjáthy március 8. C . Károly – Bp, 1953. július 3.)

36 Komlos Szabadka, Starred in 15 films post war. A . Juci (Klein 1919.

248

Julia) február 10. – Bp, 2011. április 5

37 Kondor Bp., 1903. Settled in Italy at the end of the 1940s. A . Ibolya jún. 15.–?

38 Kovács Fate unknown. Ran his own 1885 P . Emil own production company.

39 Landor 1873-1954 F Mudrák . Tivadar

40 Lanyi NOT 1920- A . Ágnes FOUND

Vác, 1901. Lendvay május 20. 41 A (Leopold) — Bp, 37 . Andor 1964. május O 13.

42 Lengyel Nagyszebe A 10, 29

249

. Vilmos n, 1893. máj. 14.– Bp., 1959. ápr. 14.

Zombor, 1883. jún. 43 Molnár 23.–Bp., A 3, 20, 24, 28 . László Z. 1956. nov. 1.

Temesvár, Nyilasok áldozata lett 44 Nádor 1882. C Was killed by Arrow Cross thugs . Mihály április 16. - Bp, 1944

Bp, 1905. Munkaszolgálatosként halt meg március 5. 45 Nagy Died while in labour battallion – Harka, A . György 1945. január 8.

46 Pártos Bp, A 1944-ben kizárták a színészkamarából

250

. Dezső 1886.12.5. - Ejected from Film Chamber in 1944

Pártos Starred in 30 films in postwar Hungary Erzsi Bp, 1907. 47 április 2. – A . (eredeti Bp, 2000. neve: Pollá április 18. k Erzsébet)

48 Pataky Started acting career in 1904 1882 - A . Ferenc Starred in many films until 1944

Bp, 1898. Played a major role in over 65 films in Hungary Peti november 49 (Kanitzer) 17. – Bp, A . Sándor 1973. április 6.

Bp., 1907. Wrote music for 14 films 50 Polgar márc. 11.– C Emigrated to Canada in late 1960s . Tibor Torontó, 1993. nov.

251

51 Pulay Magyarkan Was not allowed to work after 1944 A . Etelka izsa, 1917 -

Radó Disappeared in Ukraine as part of a labour batallion 52 (Rosenber 1915 -? Assist-dir. . g) László

Bp, 1907. Worked for composing music for films after war 53 Ránki október 30. C .* György – Bp, 1992. május 22.

Bp, 1881. Continued to work postwar november 54 Rátkai 18. – Bp, C . Márton 1951. szeptember 18.

55 Renner NOT 1892.feb.1. . Endre FOUND

56 Rózsahegy Endrőd, C

252

. i Kalman 1873. október 6. – Bp, 1961. augusztus 27.

Bp., 1896. Despite his Jewish background, he became a member of 57 Rubinyi szept. 29.– C the Film Chamber. He was killed by the Arrow Cross in . Tibor Bp., 1944 1944.

Budapest, Sarkadi 1874.

március 26. 58 Aladár – Budapest, C . Survived the war (Schuller 1949. Ármin) december 15.

Simon Nagyvárad 59 Zsuzsa , 1910. C . (Weisz október 24. Margit) – Budapest,

253

1996. május 27.

Szolnok, Continued to work in Hungary - Kossuth díjas 1902. május 60 Somló 8. – A . István Budapest, 1971. április 5.

61 Szabó Életrajzi adatai ismeretlenek A . Dezső

1939-44 Could only work under pseudonyms because of Bp., 1892. his origins 62 Szatmári jan. 23 – S . Jenő Tar - Vác, 1949-50 Editor of the Kis Ujsag [Little Newspaper] 1952 Imprisoned in 1950; died in prison

63 Szende Couldn’t obtain an acting contract after 1944 Bp, 1899 A . Artur

64 Szenes 1889.dec.24 A Nyilasterror áldozata lett.

254

.* Ernő . - Bp, 1944 Killed by the Arrow Cross (Schwarz Ernő)

1940-44 was not allowed to act because of his Jewish Szepes Lia background 65 (Pálóczy A 1945-48: re-joined the Comedy Theatre, emigrated to . Lászlóné) Australia

Debrecen, 1890. dec. 66 Szigeti 18.–Bp., A . Jenő 1949. dec. 12.

Bp, 1879. Sziklay január 2. – 67 Szeréna Bp, A O

. (Föld Erzsébetvá Aurelné) ros, 1949. március 26.

255

68 Szilas Played many roles until1938 E . József

Szirmay Nyilasterror áldozata lett. 69 (Süssman 1890-1944 A .* Killed by the Arrow Cross n) Vilmos

Graduate of the Ludovika military academy.

70 Szlatinai C 1943-44 Was banned from stage and screen

. Sándor P 1945-ben left for West Germany, became prominent actor there

Nagykárol 71 Szűts Irén y, 1878 - A . Bp, 1960

Bp., 1887. 72 ápr. 23.– Törzs Jenő A . Bp., 1946. febr. 1.

256

Váradi A fasizmus áldozata lett. Killed by Arrow Cross thugs 73 Miskolc, (Weisz) A . 1895 –1944 Lajos

Vidor Ukrajnában halt meg ismeretlen helyen, mint 74 Cinematograph Andor 1912-1941 munkaszolgálatos. . er Gyula Died in Ukraine –part of labour batallion

75 Vincze NOT Editor . Ferenc FOUND

1939-1944 – Could not officially work due to Jewish laws, but continued to be employed. He taught filmmaking to

76 Vincze Nagykárol Peter Bajusz and Miklós Szalontai Kiss production

. László y, 1893 managers.

Started his own production company after WWII (Független Film)

Vitéz Started her own production company Reflector Films. 77 Production Miklósné First female producer and dir. of production in Hungary. . Manager Vadász

257

Erzsébet She was imprisoned during the Fascist era (Szalasi), but managed to escape.

Tiszaszőllő One of the most successful films of the inter-war era, 78 Zágon s, 1893- Bp, Screenwriter Hippolyt, a lakáj was based on his written work. . István 1975

79 Zsoldos Couldn’t work from 1938- onwards due to Jewish laws Set designer . Imre

258

Actors, writers, producers not expelled from the Chamber

NEM VOLTAK KIZÁRVA A KAMARÁBÓL

1. Nóti Károly Tasnád, Screenwriter 2, 5, 27, 48 One of the most popular screenwriters in 1892. the Hungarian film industry; wrote under 48- Fel a fejjel február 1. – pseudonyms after 1939 Oct.7., 1954 Budapest, 1954. május 29.

2. Gertler Bp, 1901. P 1938- did not receive an acting contract Viktor augusztus after Jewish laws were enacted. Survived 24. – Bp, the labour battalion. 1969. július 5.

259

3. Gray Bobbie Dancer One of the most popular dancers of the era. (Weisz After 1942, served in a labour batallion. Imre)

4. Güttler 1913-1944 Production Volunteered for military service in 1944 Lajos manager and was killed in action on the eastern front.

5. Pünkösdi Editor of the newspaper Magyar Újság c. Andor Between 1939-1944.

1939-44 Director of Madách Színház

Arrested by the Nazis – committed suicide while in prison.

6. Pusztaszeri S Received screenwriter credits for Margit screenplays written by Mihály István és Nóti Károly between 1939-44)

7. Salamon Beregrákos, A Béla 1885.

260

március 4. (Saly Béla) – Bp, 1965. június 15.

8. Somogyváry Füles, 1895. Screenwriter Plotted against the Germans. Gyula vitéz április 21. – Budapest, (Freissberger 1953. Gyula) február 12.

9. Szabó Bp, 1911. Operastar Died during the siege of Budapest Ilonka augusztus 18. – Bp, 1945. január 27

10. Székely Bp, 1899. Producer Moved to USA in 1937 Dec. István február 25. – Palm (Steve Springs, Sekely, S. K. Kalifornia, Seeley) USA, 1979.

261

március 11.

11. Székely Eger, Head of Dir of 1944 – Died during the deportations Sándor October 25, Production 1899 - Bp, 1944. October

12. Vincze Otto 1906-1984 Composer Liszt 1939-43 Conductor of orchestra made up of unemployed Jewish musicians

Appendix 3

Translation of questionnaire to be completed by members of the Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], including employees of Hunnia, the largest film production company in Hungary, in order to become certified.

1. Name 2. Place of birth, year 3. Marital status, number of children 4. Address of apartment, number of rooms 5. Education, last degree obtained, technical skills 6. Occupation, employment 7. If employed, the name of employer, company, address 8. If self-employed, company name and address 9. Income, monthly and payment in kind. 10. How long have you been employed with the present company? 11. List previous employers 12. If self-employed, how long have you pursued this employment? 13. As an employee, when was your last promotion? 14. What was your previous income? 15. What did your personal wealth consist of on January 1, 1937? 16. What did your personal wealth consist of on January 1, 1945? 17. Did you serve in the army? When? In what rank? In what unit? 18. What awards or medals have you received? 19. During the last census, what did you declare as your mother tongue? 20. In case you have an earlier “Magyarized” name, have you changed it back and if so why? 21. Were you ever a member of the Volksbund?

262 263

22. Were you ever a member of Germany army, SS unit, and if so when and for how long? 23. Were you ever in contact with the German army or other authorities and if so when and why? 24. Were you ever sent to Germany? If so, when and for what purpose and who sent you? 25. In the implementation of the Jewish laws, what real role did you have? 26. Did you sell Jewish-owned merchandise? 27. Did you buy such stores and/or merchandise? 28. Did you obtain radios originating from Jews? If yes, when, and under what circumstances? 29. Did you move into Jewish apartments and if so for what reason? 30. As someone who’s apartment was not damaged by bombing, did you exchange your apartment from January 1, 1940 onwards? If yes, why? 31. How large was the size of your previous and later apartment? 32. Did you wear emblems or armbands of the Hungarian Nazi party? 33. Did you wear uniforms of the Hungarian Nazi party? 34. From January 1, 1920 what political parties were you a member of and when? 35. Did you pay membership dues and/or support? If yes, when? 36. What role did you accept in these parties, what activities did you carry out? 37. From 1920 onwards, what Chamber, and or other self-promoting organization, professional organization or body were you a member of? 38. What office or role did you have in these? 39. Without becoming a member, did you support any parties, political or social movement, and if yes, which ones, when and to what degree? 40. Did you, your wife, your wife’s siblings, or any of your descendants, brother or sister receive any beneficial licenses, written or otherwise, from January 1938 onwards? And if so, what were they and from whom? 41. What social organizations were you a member of? 42. What role did you accept in these, did you support them financially, and what kind of benefits did you receive from them?

264

43. Did you receive any awards, or honours from January 1, 1930 onwards? If so, what were they and from whom? 44. Are you or were you a member of the Knightly Order of Vitez? 45. Are you a recipient of the Nemzetvédelmi Kereszt [National Defense Cross]? If so for what reason? 46. Have you received the title of Kormánytanácsos [Government Advisor], Főkormánytanácsos [Chief Government Advisor], Gazdasági tanácsos [Economic advisor] or gazdasági főtanácsos [Chief Economic Advisor] or any similar title? If yes, for what reason? 47. Were you a director or a member of the board of any companies from January 1, 1938 onwards? What income did you receive from these appointments? 48. From January 1, 1930 onwards did you publish any articles in newspapers or magazines? If so, when and what was the subject? 49. Did you publish any books? If so what was the title and the subject? 50. From January 1938, did you hold any public speeches at meetings, public rallies, or on the radio? If yes, when and what was the subject? 51. What newspaper dailies or magazines do you subscribe to or purchase on a regular basis? 52. Have there been any court judgments against you, suspending your political rights? If so, based on what and for how long? 53. Are there any other issues to be presented?

Source:

XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], BFL.

Bibliography and Archival Sources