GUILTY NATION Or UNWILLING ALLY?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GUILTY NATION or UNWILLING ALLY? A short history of Hungary and the Danubian basin 1918-1939 By Joseph Varga Originally published in German as: Schuldige Nation oder VasalI wider Willen? Beitrage zur Zeitgeschichte Ungarns und des Donauraumes Teil 1918-1939 Published in Hungarian: Budapest, 1991 ISBN: 963 400 482 2 Veszprémi Nyomda Kft., Veszprém Translated into English and edited by: PETER CSERMELY © JOSEPH VARGA Prologue History is, first and foremost, a retelling of the past. It recounts events of former times, relates information about those events so that we may recognize the relationships between them. According to Aristoteles (Poetica, ch. IX), the historian differs from the poet only in that the former writes about events that have happened, while the latter of events that may yet happen. Modern history is mostly concerned with events of a political nature or those between countries, and on occasion with economic, social and cultural development. History must present the events in such a manner as to permit the still-living subjects to recognize them through their own memories, and permit the man of today to form an adequate picture of the events being recounted and their connections. Those persons who were mere objects in the events, or infrequently active participants, are barely able to depict objectively the events in which they participated. But is not the depiction of recent history subjective? Everyone recounts the events from their own perspective. A personal point of view does not, theoretically, exclude objectivity – only makes it relative. The measure of validity is the reliability of the narrator. The situation is entirely different with historical narratives that are written with a conscious intent to prove a point, or espouse certain interests. In these instances, we can not talk of reliability or objectivity in the search for truth. These endeavors can be noticed in the historical interpretation of events in East-central and South-eastern Europe by Communist – and fellow traveller – historians between, during and after the two wars. A barrier to the true and objective documentation of events was the overly sensitive nature of the new ‘controlling superpower,’ which demanded extensive orthodoxy in observing its state and social ideology when interpreting historical events. A further difficulty arises in striving for truth and objectivity, if the validation for the imposed political, economic and social changes in East-central and South-eastern Europe following WWII, when the Communist power takeover is made to appear as an historical necessity and came about with the agreement and choice of the overwhelming majority of the people of the region. They are repeatedly attempting to sell the idea that the exclusive measure of assessing the past is the present; that only that is to be accepted as positive development or advance, which the interest and judgement of the system deems advantageous or useful for the present. This view essentially subordinates the past to the present and opens the gates to the skewing and manipulating of historical events. The Communists regimes will stop at nothing to undermine, in part or entirely, the basic foundation blocks of social perception, to weaken the universally accepted and respected national traditions. A number of outstanding and accepted Hungarian historiographers were gradually forced to become silent. Instead of objective, factual history, party ideology was forcibly imposed in education; historically significant memorials are razed; pictures of noted historical personages and events are removed from classrooms; streets and squares are renamed; wholesale destruction of manuscripts, books and documents critical of the system. The result: uncertainty, identity turmoil and a crack can be sensed in the historical and national identity sense of generations. Only ‘revolutionary’ traditions may be nurtured, at least those that the Communist party deems ‘revolutionary.’ After the war, Communist and fellow traveller historians strive to create a new kind of historical perspective and perception. In their view, only those portions of modern Hungarian history can be deemed progressive and valuable, which instinctively or deliberately serves the furthering of socialism. Doubt in the viability of socialism, critical views of the methods and means employed are marked as outmoded, reactionary and anti-democratic, which invited virulent attacks, threats and, not infrequently, reprisals. Communist politicians, historians and newspapermen invented the concept of ‘guilty nation’ after WWII. Their chief aim is to brand the Hungarian nation as Hitler’s ‘most loyal ally’ and, consequently, burden it with a sense of ‘collective guilt.’ Almost constantly, they repeat: “Fascism has infected the Hungarian people. The actions of the leading inter-war politicians were guided by class interests.” The politicians in power at the time made faulty assumptions regarding the future prospects of the country. Because of it, a vanquished Hungary could not expect any understanding or support from the victors. This includes expectations and ideas concerning the decisions of the peace conference. They stayed unfailingly mute about the exemplary behavior and brave stand taken by a number of Hungarian politicians against the war and dictatorship, the brave deeds of individuals and institutions, the passive resistance of a significant portion of the population, as much as of the fact that the Slovaks and Croats were also ‘loyal vassals’ of Hitler, that Czech industry operated in overtime, until the end of the war, to produce materiel for the German forces, etc. 2 The manipulation of historical facts and, as a result, historical and national identity – primarily among the older generation, especially among writers, educators, historians, etc. – causes growing unease and fear. A similar reaction can be observed among members of the younger generation interested in the recent past. Although this younger generation admits to the importance of Marxist historiography, yet they accept critically and with reservations the ‘official explanations,’ especially regarding countless events between the wars and during WWII, the official justification for the legitimization and legalization of the governing system, etc. For the younger generation – in searching for the truth and striving for objectivity – every new, credible clue, information and fact is of great importance. This work, planned to be two volumes, intends to present, through important historical events and relationships, that statements of inter-war Hungary’s political, economic and social backwardness, when compared to the degree of development of the other countries of the region, are as unsupportable as the reports of the infection of the majority of the country by Fascism, Nazism, and the Fascist, or semi-Fascist, leaning of its government. Further, the study wishes to establish that the creation of the ‘peoples democracies’ in the Danubian basin occurred against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. Its creation was made possible only as a result of the new ‘controlling superpower’ and the massive support of the Red Army – in Yugoslavia, by armed-to-the-teeth partisans, in Czechoslovakia, abetted by a Communist takeover –, the abuses of power by Communists loyal to Moscow and, not coincidentally, with the enthusistic help of ‘fellow travellers’ active in other parties. The first part of the study contains a few thoughts on the history of the Danubian basin. It points out the significance of the rule of the House of Habsburg in the Danubian basin and presents extracts from the history of the region’s new ‘controlling superpower.’ The author intentionally avoids a comprehensive review of events in Hungary between 1918 and 1939, preferring to treat, instead, those events which Marxist historiography has intentionally omitted, presented in a one-sided manner or ‘assessed’ from a Marxist point-of-view. Among other things, the study treats in greater detail the two ‘revolutions’ (1918 and 1919), the reasons for, and and consequences of, their failure, the noteworthy achievements of the Bethlen era, the in-depth social analysis of Gyula Szekf ű, and the reformist ideals and reform movements of the 30’s. The analyses of this study endeavor to explore the intellectual history background. The author discusses in some detail, in the first section of the essay, the Catholic rebirth in Hungary. In general, the churches had, and have, a major impact on the thought process and behavior of the vast majority of the population – especially the Catholic Church. The impetus received from the Catholic Church materially contributed to the struggle of national self-preservation. Catholic individuals and institutions continued to create new reform ideas and movements through the 20 th century, which served as bases in the intellectual resistance to National Socialism and, later, Bolshevism. It was not by accident that, after the war, the Communists forcefully attacked, slandered without qualms and persecuted without respite large numbers of Catholic individuals and institutions in Hungary. The ‘official’ history books today still lack a factual and complete treatment of these events. The second part of this study relates bona fide facts covering countermeasures to German influence, the intellectual and political resistance movements during and after the war, the brave struggle of a significant majority of the population for the creation of parliamentary democracy,