Hungarian Studies Review, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hungarian Studies Review, Vol. XLII, Nos. 1-2 (Spring-Fall 2015) Including a Special Section: Hungary and International Relations in the Interwar Years With essays by: Éva Mathey Zsolt Nagy András Becker Papers on other subjects by: Virginia L. Lewis Agatha Schwartz Katherine Magyarody Nándor Dreisziger Also: book and conference reviews and an obituary Hungarian Studies Review, Vol. XLII, Nos. 1-2 (Spring-Fall, 2015) Contents Special section: Hungary and International Relations in the Interwar Years Editor’s Introduction………………………...……………………. …….. 5 Articles: Revisionist Expectations toward the USA and Hungarian History Writing: A Case Study of Jenő Horváth (1881-1950) ÉVA MATHEY ………………………………………….…….. 7 In Search of a Usable Past: The Legacy of the Ottoman Occupation in Interwar Hungarian Cultural Diplomacy ZSOLT NAGY …………………………………………….….. 27 A Step too Far? The Impact of German Military Passage to Romania through Hungary on the Anglo-Hungarian Relationship, April 1940 ANDRÁS BECKER …………………………………………… 53 Other themes: Lockean “Gold” Versus Ancien Régime “Mud” in Zsigmond Móricz’s Sárarany VIRGINIA L. LEWIS …………………………………………. 91 (Contents, continued) Éva Heyman, the Hungarian Anne Frank: Writing Against Persecution and Trauma AGATHA SCHWARTZ ……………………………………... 117 Hungarian Scouting in Exile: Frame Narratives and the Creation of a Diasporic Community KATHERINE MAGYARODY ……………………………… 135 László Réthy and the Quest for an Ancient Hungarian Homeland NÁNDOR DREISZIGER ………………………………… 163 Book and Conference Reviews By Edit Nagy, Susan Glanz, Agatha Schwartz and Anđelko Vlašić …. 171 Obituary: Gábor Vermes (1935-2014) ………………………………... 185 OUR CONTRIBUTORS ……………………………………………… 187 Hungarian Studies Review, Vol. XLII, Nos. 1-2 (Spring-Fall, 2015) Special Section: Hungary and International Relations in the Interwar Years, 1919-1940 Introduction In many respects the interwar decades constitute a unique period in the evolution of Hungary. What distinguishes this age from the previous four centuries above all is the fact that from the end of the First World War in November of 1918 to Hungary’s involvement in the Second World War in the spring of 1941 the country was an independent entity and conducted its own foreign affairs. Such a situation did not exist, except for certain brief periods during some of the wars of independence against foreign rule, during the four centuries that separate the time of Hungary’s Jagiellonian kings of the early sixteenth century and the conclusion of World War I. It should be added here that for Hungary the period between 1867 and 1918 was one in which the country — in respect to external affairs — was not ruled by the Habsburg Court but shared responsibility for foreign policy (including a diplomatic service) with the Austrian half of the dual- monarchy of Austria-Hungary. For the purposes of understanding some of the papers in this special section we should also add that for Hungary the interwar era lasted almost two years longer than it did for many countries in Europe as the country did not get involved in World War II for some twenty-two months after September of 1939. The predominant theme of Hungarian foreign policy in the period that separates the end of the First World War and the spread of fighting to the Balkans and Russia in the Second, was determined by the peace settlement that concluded World War I. As is well known, in the aftermath of that war the peacemakers, the victorious Western Allies, imposed one- rous terms on the vanquished Central Powers, terms which included terri- torial losses — and that no country lost more of its lands than Hungary. Revising the territorial provisions of the post-war peace settlement became the cornerstone of interwar Hungarian diplomacy and heavily influenced Budapest’s dealings with the outside world not only concerning diplomatic Introduction matters but, as we’ll see in one of the papers in this section, in cultural contacts as well. The studies featured here make it clear that in interwar Hungary both public opinion and scholarly judgement blamed the ill-fate that befell the country — above all the dismemberment of the historic Hungarian kingdom — on the decisions of the victorious Allied powers. In doing so Hungarians largely ignored the fact that in the years and decades leading up to 1920 their country’s leadership, and even its Magyar-speaking general public, regularly ignored the political and cultural sensitivities of the numerous nationalities living within the Kingdom — or managed to annoy these groups — or at least their intellectual elites. The dismember- ment of Hungary was not so much the deed of vengeful or ignorant western leaders — even if some of them had grudges against Hungary’s elite and were less than well-informed about the affairs of East Central Europe — but more of the consequence of long-term historical processes that had been taking place in the Middle Danube Basin of Central Europe for many generations. Perhaps the most important cause of these develop- ments stemmed from early modern times when during the Ottoman occu- pation of southern and central Hungary many regions became depopulated — and after Christian armies, mainly under Habsburg leadership, drove out the Turks from there the Imperial Court in Vienna decided to replace the missing inhabitants predominantly by newcomers from the Balkans and from the Habsburgs’ German possessions. Hungarians were not wel- come in these ancient Magyar lands, neither as landlords nor as settlers. Hungarian preoccupation with the revision of the post-World War I territorial peace settlement on the whole didn’t serve the Hungarian nation well. As illustrated by the three studies in this special section of this volume, this preoccupation diverted attention from the nation’s myriad socio-economic problems and often hindered in the establishment of good relations — or the keeping of such relations in the few instances that they had been achieved — with certain countries that sometimes exercised at least some influence in international affairs in the interwar period, among them the United States, Turkey, and Great Britain. The interplay between Hungary and these three countries during all or a part of the interwar era is the main theme of the three studies in this special section and we hope that what they say contributes to a better understanding of this critical period of Hungarian history. Nándor Dreisziger Hungarian Studies Review, Vol. XLII, Nos. 1-2 (Spring-Fall, 2015) Revisionist Expectations toward the USA and Hungarian History Writing: A Case Study of Jenő Horváth (1881-1950) Éva Mathey Signed on June 4, 1920 in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles, the Treaty of Trianon dismembered historic Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy became a bygone idea. The terms of the treaty fundamentally affected the geo-political status of the new Hungarian state and defined the foreign policy of Hungary inasmuch as it limited the government’s scope of action. Contemporary Hungarian public opinion understandably reacted to the Trianon Peace Treaty with great despair and refused to accept its terms which were considered to be unfairly punitive. Regardless of class and status, interwar Hungarian society viewed the revision of the Treaty of Trianon as the only possible solution for Hungary’s future. Trianon came as a “shock on Hungary’s collective psyche,”1 and created a serious emoti- onal “dislocation” in the Hungarian mind. The trauma which the postwar settlement inflicted was unparalleled within living memory. Hungarian history writing between the wars assumed a significant role in helping the Hungarian nation come to terms with the trauma of Trianon.2 Seeking answers for the ill-fate of the Monarchy, offering explanation for what had happened, Hungarian historians between the wars made an attempt to furnish the process of ‘healing’ from the shock of defeat: they wanted to prove wrongs done to Hungary, provide evidence and justification for revision.3 Trianon, and therefore revisionism, served as major focuses of their inquiry. One of the most prominent figures in this field between the wars was Jenő Horváth. Jenő Horváth produced an extensive and voluminous body of scholarship on the problems of Trianon in particular, and on Hungarian and world history in general. At the same time he held several high- standing offices in various professional as well as social circles. His academic significance demonstrably makes him one of the “official” historians of Trianon in the interwar period.4 Before we look at his oeuvre, we must introduce the man and his background for the sake of English audiences. Horváth received his doctorate in history and Latin from Buda- 8 Éva Mathey pest University in 1905. Having an excellent command of English, French and German, first he wished to become a career diplomat. When such ambitions failed, he opted for his second love, history, which he began to teach at various Hungarian secondary schools. His academic interest in and commitment to the profession of the historian manifested themselves at a very early stage of his career. Two substantial and voluminous pieces of his early scholarship demonstrate this: A történelem bölcselete. Tanu- lmányok a történettudomány alapelveiről és az emberi művelődés irány- eszméiről [The Wisdom of History. Essays on the Basic Principles of Historiography and the Guiding Concepts of Human Culture] (1907) and A XIX. század alapvetése. A nagyhatalmak megalakulása 1648-1715. Köztörténeti tanulmány [The Core Principles of the 19th Century. The Formation of the Great Powers 1648-1715. A Study in Public History] (1910). Both attracted the attention and acknowledgment of professional circles. Appointed Professor of History at the Nagyvárad Law Academy in 1912, Horváth turned his attention to world and diplomatic history. The end of World War I and the crisis which set in from the fall of 1918 forced Hungarian historians to react to the events of the war. Amidst the turmoil caused by the defeat and the military collapse of the Central Powers, and in response to the Hungarian fears of the prospective unfavorable peace settlement, Horváth published his first Trianon work, Magyarország füg- getlensége és területi épsége.