Hungarian society and were more open towards non-Jews. That was the reason they started assimilating into society and by 1910 77% of them declared themselves as Hungarian, and many of them converted to Christianity. However, anti-semitism started to appear in the country, people started to see Jews as rivals and the cause of their problems. A good example of this was the Tiszaeszlár affair, where the Jewish community of the village was falsely accused of murdering a young girl. Despite the government clamping down on anti-semitism, the sentiments against Jews remained strong in certain parts of the country.
It was also in Hungary that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism started to develop, which saw Judaism was not a religion but a nationality. The aim was the creation of a Jewish state, and the perfect place for it was the ancient origin of the Jews, Palestine. The founder of the Zionist movement was Theodor (Tivadar) Herzl, an activist from Budapest.
The Roma community in Hungary did not manage to voice their ethnic aspirations due to a lack of intellectuals as most of them were landless peasants or craftsmen. After the liberation of serfs, they predominantly lived in villages in abject poverty. By 1893, a census estimated their population at around 275,000, though historians suggest it could be closer to 300,000. Most had settled, with the vagrant lifestyle fading, as was emphasized by the government. Their occupations shifted from traditional crafts as mechanization and mass production replaced handcrafted goods. This devalued their skills, exacerbated their poverty and reinforced their subordinate status. Roma people often resorted to casual labor to make ends meet. Altogether, the industrialization of Hungary marked a significant change in their socio-economic landscape, with Gypsy communities facing increasing challenges and marginalization.
13. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION’S EFFECTS ON SOCIETY AND URBANIZATION
The first industrial revolution, starting in Britain at around 1750, changed society and cities in many important ways. Many people left their farms and moved to cities in search of jobs in new factories. This shift from agriculture to city work created a new social group, the working class. At the same time, cities grew very
fast, leading to urban sprawl and mostly unplanned urbanization.
As factories replaced hand work with machines, many workers lost the usefulness of the skills they had in traditional economies, which led to higher unemployment. The new factory jobs did not always replace these losses, and workers often found themselves without steady income. This situation highlighted a growing gap between the working class and the new middle class, or bourgeoisie, who became rich by investing in factories and urban development.
The centers of industry, cities (e.g. Manchester or London) grew exponentially as a result of the incoming working class people. Technologies like railways provided better ways for people to reach further distances, which led to urban sprawl—the geographic extension of city boundaries. In the growing cities, housing was built quickly to meet the needs of incoming workers. Workers hostels and workers districts sprang up to provide places to live. Unfortunately, these areas were usually crowded and lacked good planning. Poor sanitation was common, making it hard for people to stay healthy. Overcrowded living conditions and limited public services led to frequent health problems and outbreaks of disease. Despite these hardships, the changes brought by the industrial revolution also sparked improvements over time. The difficult living and working conditions pushed city leaders and reformers to make changes. New ideas about urban planning, housing, and sanitation began to take shape. In the end, although the first industrial revolution brought many challenges, it also set the stage for later reforms that improved city life and created better opportunities for future generations.
14. THE ESTATES DIETS AND THE COUNTY SYSTEM IN
THE REFORM ERA
Key data: diet, Upper and Lower Table, mandate, Francis I, supreme count, vice count, county assembly, Pozsony, 1844: Hungarian becomes the official language
The Reform Era marks a period in Hungarian history characterized by a gradual move toward national sovereignty from Habsburg rule. This era began to take shape with the 1825 Diet in Pozsony, widely seen as a starting point for political awakening. Around this time, nationalistic and liberal ideas began to spread, stirring growing demands for both political and economic reforms.
Prior to 1825, Habsburg emperors had rarely convened Diets, but mounting political pressures eventually forced King Francis I to convene the estates. The king now summoned Diets in Pozsony, retaining the power to dissolve or adjourn them at any time. In these assemblies, the king presented his proposals, and members of parliament had the opportunity to respond. The Diets served not only as forums for discussing grievances but also as venues where both “the upper and lower houses” could initiate proposals. If a petition came from the Lower Table, the Upper Table had the authority to either reject it or forward it to the king. Once the petition reached the king, he could either send it back for amendment, veto it outright, or accept and ratify it.
Several important Diets defined this era. The Diet of 1832–36 is often regarded as the first real reform Diet where reformist ideas were in majority; during its sessions, a law was enacted to establish Hungarian as the official language of legislation—in other words, Hungarian was to be used in the diets. Shortly after, the Diet of 1839–40 achieved another significant milestone by declaring the voluntary redemption of serfs, a move that began to undermine the feudal system. The Diet of 1843–44 further cemented the use of Hungarian by declaring it the state’s official language. Throughout this period, the Diet became a battleground where radical reformists clashed with loyalist conservatives. The reformists pushed for modernization and a break from the old feudal order, while the conservatives, aligned with the interests of the monarchy, strove to maintain established privileges and structures.
The structure of the Diet itself reflected these tensions. The Upper Table was made up of the aristocracy, Catholic high priests, and supreme counts (the official leaders of counties), all invited in person. Its work was chaired by the palatine. Members of the Upper Table held lifelong mandates based on either hereditary or clerical positions. This group, largely loyal to the king, acted as a conservative force, often resisting the sweeping reforms proposed by more progressive members of the common nobility.
In contrast, the Lower Table comprised deputies elected from counties and free royal towns, and it was chaired by the judge royal (országbíró). These deputies operated under a binding mandate, meaning they were required to follow specific instructions (i.e. how to vote on issues) from their counties. Although this body played a key role in advocating for reforms that would modernize Hungary, its members were often constrained by local interests. Notably,
the free royal towns tended to side with the monarchy due to the special privileges granted to them, resulting in clashes inside the Lower Touse.
Political work during this period was divided between the aristocrats who held positions in government bodies and the common nobility who managed the everyday affairs of the counties. Officially, counties were led by a supreme count appointed by the king, yet real political power lay with the vice counts (or viscounts), who were elected by the local nobility. The county assembly served as the main political forum at the local level, acting as a bridge between the common nobility and the Diet. In these assemblies, members debated the king’s proposals as well as those put forward by deputies, though the latter occurred less frequently. It was here that they decided the mandates given to deputies to the diet. This system, while providing a channel for local expression, also significantly slowed down the decision-making process.
15.THEINVOLVEMENTOFNATIONALITIESAND MINORITIES IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE REPRISALS
Key data: 11 April 1848: April Laws, serfs redemption, political nation, autonomy, nationalities
The liberal and nationalistic ideas of Spring of Nations spread not only among Hungarians, but also the national minorities living in Hungary, who were striving for more autonomy inside Hungary or a way to join neighbouring states (e.g. Serbians, Romanians). The nationalities’ attitude to the Hungarian revolution and the April Laws depended on two major factors: the effect of the serfs’ redemption and territorial autonomy—these two ideas influenced whether minority groups saw the Hungarian revolution as an opportunity or as a threat.
The main beneficiaries of the April Laws (11 April 1848) were the serfs all around the country, who mainly appreciated and celebrated the law on compulsory redemption. The Slovak, Rusyn, German and a large part of the Romanian serfs (mostly in the Partium region) and intellectuals were among the supporters of the reforms. At the same time, the serfs in the Serbian and Romanian territories mostly sided with the opposers of the Hungarian revolution and fought on the side of the Habsburgs: they felt that their nationality’s traditional autonomy was being threatened and that there might be a possibility
of gaining more autonomy from Vienna. These movements were led often by religious (Orthodox) leaders, as these societies lacked a traditional noble elite. However, members of the town-dwelling bourgeoisie, which was predominantly made up of Germans, also received voting rights, helping them side with the revolution.
The growing Hungarian Jewish population were also among the first to side with the Hungarians. Although the April Laws did not extend equality of civil rights to the Jews, a later decision of the parliament in 1849 gave Jewish people in Hungary equal civil rights to Christians. This decision was reverted after the end of the war; however, the Jewish community would regain this right later in 1867.
It also has to be said that the nobility leading the reforms were almost exclusively Hungarian, and they mostly followed the idea of a single political nation, meaning that only Hungarians (and Croatians in Croatia) should be given wide-ranging political rights inside Hungary. Although the events of the War of Independence— bloody revolts in the South in the Serbian territories and Romanian uprisings in Transylvania—led the Hungarian leaders to agree on a Law on Nationalities, it was published too late for it to serve as a basis of negotiation.
After the end of the war, the Habsburgs started a repressive era in Hungary (the neoabsolutist Bach Era), in which German and Czech administrators (Bach-huszárok) and also Serbian military officers were also involved.
16. THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BACKGROUND
OF THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN THE WORLD AND HUNGARY
Key data: cartel, population boom, mass production, Ford Model T, Ignác Semmelweis, Budapest
The Second Industrial Revolution, spanning roughly from the late 19th to the early 20th century, was marked by a profound transformation in economic and social structures. This period witnessed the concentration of capital, a population boom, rapid urbanization, and a host of negative environmental effects.
One of the central features of the Second Industrial Revolution was the concentration of capital. New resource-intensive technologies meant that more and more capital was necessary for research and development processes. This led to companies
investing heavily in technological development, enabling them to reduce production costs and increase efficiency (economies of scale). As capital concentrated in companies, risks were ever so high, which motivated large companies to try to reduce competition. This gave rise to fors of monopoly (and oligopoly) such as cartels and trusts, which restricted competition in the markets. This meant that multiple companies joined forces—through formal agreements (trust) or informal cooperation (cartel)—to control production, pricing, and market shares, effectively limiting competition. While these monopolies sometimes led to rapid economic growth by stabilizing prices and promoting innovation, they also had harmful sides. Monopolies could manipulate markets, suppress competition, while also driving up prices for consumers. In response to these negative effects, governments began to introduce anti-trust laws designed to break up monopolies and foster competitive markets.
At the same time, a population boom reshaped society. Improvements in sanitation, such as access to clean drinking water, and significant advancements in medical understanding led to decreased infant and child mortality rates. Groundbreaking research by pioneers like Ignác Semmelweis and Koch contributed to better understanding of the transmission of disease, which, along with advancements in public health, allowed populations to grow rapidly because of a decline in death rates. Agricultural developments also played a crucial role by increasing food production and improving nutrition, thereby sustaining larger populations. However, as the benefits of industrialization spread, birth rates began to decline slowly. This shift was influenced by factors such as family planning, enhanced education for women, and the growing number of working hours that redefined traditional family structures. Altogether, the population of the western world experienced a so-calle demographic transition from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates. Immigration and emigration also contributed to the growth or decline of population figures: for example, in Hungary, hundreds of thousands of people (mainly from peasant society) emigrated to the USA in hopes of better quality of life.
Urbanization was another defining characteristic of this period. With industries booming, people migrated in large numbers from rural agricultural areas to cities in search of better employment opportunities. The growth of cities and industrial areas led to what is known as urban sprawl. Personal transport
(e.g. with the mass produced Ford Model T) became increasingly important, reshaping the daily lives of workers and contributing to the expansion of metropolitan areas. As cities grew, they began to respond to the pressures of rapid urbanization by investing in urban planning, modern utilities (water, gas, electricity), and public transportation systems. These efforts aimed to improve living conditions and manage the expension of urban environments. In Hungary, the city of Budapest also saw a rapid increase in both population and the spread of utilities. Heating, electricity and running water were available in most of the wealthier parts of the city. The external parts of the city, separated from the city center, were made up of workers hostels for the tens of thousands of incoming workers.
Despite these advances, the rapid industrialization of this era came with significant negative side effects. Pollution became a major concern as factories and urban centers discharged waste and emissions into the air and waterways, degrading the natural environment and posing serious health risks to urban populations. Deforestation accelerated as natural landscapes were cleared to make way for industrial developments and expanding urban areas. The environmental degradation of this period not only affected local ecosystems but also set the stage for future environmental challenges that would require substantial intervention.
17. THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUDAPEST FROM THE REFORM ERA TO THE TIME OF WORLD WAR I
Key data: Palatine Joseph, István Széchenyi, Frigyes Podmaniczky, Pest-Buda, Budapest, representative assembly, historicism, secession, 1867: the Compromise, 1873: the unification of Budapest, 1896: Millennium Celebrations
PRE-PUBLICATION
The development of Budapest in the Dualist Era is a remarkable story of transformation, reflecting deep economic, social, and cultural changes. Before 1848, the twin cities of Pest and Buda—often referred to as Pest-Buda—had already established themselves as the economic, administrative, and cultural centers of Hungary, despite the official political seat being in Pozsony. Pozsony was the venue for the national Diets, yet Pest had emerged as Hungary’s trade hub, while Buda housed key administrative institutions such as the Lieutenancy Council (Helytartótanács) and the Hungarian Chamber (Magyar Kamara) since 1784.
The rise of Pest and Buda—and later Óbuda—was largely determined by their good location along the River Danube. This advantageous position made the towns important trade centers, particularly during the Napoleonic Wars, when the transport of crops became increasingly lucrative. Nevertheless, compared to the major cities of Western Europe, Pest-Buda was relatively modest in size; while London boasted a population exceeding two million, the combined population of Pest, Buda, and Óbuda reached only around 100,000 inhabitants at the time.
During the Reform Era, Budapest began to experience a transformation in both its urban landscape and cultural life. István Széchenyi’s infrastructural, cultural and industrial projects contributed to this boom (e.g. the Buda Tunnel, Joseph Rolling Mill, Óbuda Shipyard, Casino, horse racing track, Academy of Science, Chain Bridge). Furthermore, many educational institutions were founded or relocated to Buda and Pest (e.g. the University of Nagyszombat or the Technical University). Hungary’s first railway lines (from Vác and Szolnok) also connected to Pest, highlighting it as an infrastructural hub. The Habsburg government in Buda also supported the renovation and development of the city, and Palatine Joseph even established a Beautification Committee (Szépítési Bizottmány) to improve the urban environment. This period saw the arrival of neoclassical architecture, as prominent architects like József Hild and Mihály Pollack designed landmark buildings such as St. Stephen’s Basilica, the National Museum and Sándor Palace. These projects not only made the city more appealing but also set the stage for its future role as Hungary’s capital.
During the revolutionary period of 1848, Pest-Buda functioned as a de facto capital; it hosted the first representative National Assembly in the summer of that year and became the base for the first responsible government—the Batthyány government. The government and the political institutions left Buda in late 1848 to escape from the Habsburg attack, relocating the capital to Debrecen (and later to Szeged). Even after the defeat of the War of Independence, the city’s economic and cultural development continued despite restrictions imposed by the Habsburg regime.
PRE-PUBLICATION
In 1873, a pivotal moment arrived with the unification of Pest, Buda, and Óbuda into a single city—Budapest. This unification marked the beginning of a new era for the capital, which officially became Hungary’s capital in 1892 and served as a secondary capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The years following the 1867 Compromise saw a dynamic population growth; in 1867 the
city’s population was around 250,000, but by 1910 it had grown to nearly 900,000, placing Budapest among the top ten largest cities in Europe. The city became a melting pot, attracting thousands of German, Jewish, and Slovak industrialists, intellectuals, merchants, and workers who slowly assimilated into the Hungarian population. Additionally, tens of thousands of rural peasants migrated to Budapest, seeking a better life in its developing industrial sectors. This influx led to the creation of new housing estates on the city’s outskirts, providing affordable accommodation for the poorer newcomers.
As Budapest grew into a modern metropolis by the turn of the century, it also developed a rich leisure culture. The city offered a variety of entertainment options for its citizens, particularly the middle and upper classes, including cinemas, theatres, cafés, and even the first sports clubs in Hungary. The urban planning and beautification of Budapest were overseen by the Council of Public Works (Fővárosi Közmunkák Tanácsa), which was led by prominent political figure Frigyes Podmaniczky. This shows that the development of Budapest was both organic (shaped by urbanization) and planned (motivated by the Hungarian political leaders’ ambition to compete with Vienna). The Council played a crucial role in planning the city’s infrastructure, including the construction of ring roads (Kiskörút and Nagykörút), Andrássy Boulevard, three significant Danube bridges (Margaret Bridge, Elizabeth Bridge, and the Franz Joseph Bridge), and the development of the Danube embankments.
The late 19th century also witnessed the emergence of two new distinct architectural styles in Budapest. Historicism (often referred to as “eclecticism”) was characterized by the use of a mix of historical styles, as seen in the Hungarian Parliament Building by Imre Steindl, the Hungarian State Opera by Miklós Ybl, and the renovation of the Matthias Church by Frigyes Schulek. Even the world-famous Buda Castle was renovated and expanded during this period by architects Miklós Ybl and Alajos Hauszmann in a mostly Neo-Baroque style, but some older Gothic and Renaissance elements were retained. In contrast, the Secession style (sometimes known as Art Nouveau in English) introduced modern, dynamic, and often asymmetrical designs, as exemplified by the Gresham Palace and the Museum of Applied Arts.
Industrial and infrastructural development further strengthened Budapest’s role as an economic hub. The city became the center of the milling industry and machine industry in the empire, and it
developed a strong processing industry focused on foodstuffs, alcohol, and sugar. Budapest’s central location and the expansion of the railway network, with major stations such as the Western Railway Station (Nyugati Pályaudvar, 1877) and the Eastern Railway Station (Keleti Pályaudvar, 1884), made it easier to transport goods and facilitated the steady immigration of workers. Infrastructure improvements extended to urban transport, with the paving of city streets, the introduction of horse-drawn railways, and later, trams. Gas street lighting eventually gave way to electric lighting, while modern drinking water and sewerage networks were developed alongside the gradual introduction of electricity and piped gas.
Finally, the Millennium Celebrations of 1896 played a significant role in showcasing Budapest’s transformation. Celebrating the thousand-year anniversary of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, these celebrations were both a prestige project and a major tourist attraction. A year-long exhibition in the City Park (Városliget) highlighted Hungary and Croatia’s history, and iconic landmarks such as Vajdahunyad Castle, Heroes’ Square, the first underground in mainland Europe, and the Franz Joseph Bridge (today’s Szabadság Bridge) were constructed for the occasion.
18. NEW DIRECTIONS OF THE WORKER
MOVEMENT: SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY, COMMUNISM, CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM
Key data: Marx, Lenin, socialism, anarchism, International, social democracy, Bolshevik, Menshevik, Christian socialism, Rerum Novarum encyclical, cultural struggle, trade union
Marx’s vision failed to spark the global revolution he predicted. The expected uprising of the proletariat did not materialize, and revolutionary events like the Paris Commune were brutally suppressed. This failure highlighted the challenges in translating theory into practice, as national and economic differences hindered a unified movement. The First International (International Workingmen’s Association), established to unite workers beyond national borders, sought to overcome these divisions. However, internal conflicts and diverging national interests limited its effectiveness. Ultimately, both Marx’s revolutionary expectations and the promise of international solidarity failed, demonstrating the practical difficulties of implementing Marxist ideals in a complex world.
The revision of Marxism was started as a pragmatic response to the lack of a revolution and the transformative changes of the late 19th century. As the second industrial revolution unfolded, improved working conditions and better living standards for workers made the predictions of revolution seem less immediate. The rise of modern bourgeois states, with their increasing welfare provisions contributed to the gradual improvement in citizens’ lives. Over time, more people gained the right to vote, and political systems began to involve wider layers of working classes.
The idea of social democracy adapted Marxist theory to this evolving context, aiming to destroy capitalist structures through gradual reforms rather than violent revolution. They believed that by cooperating with trade unions and organizing strikes, they could win elections or at least pressure governments to create policies that redistributed wealth, improved labor rights, and increased social welfare. This revisionist approach emphasized achieving socialist aims—such as reducing inequality—within a democratic framework. As a result, social democracy became a significant political force in many industrialized nations, merging the goals of socialism with the practices of parliamentary democracy. The first clearly social democratic party was founded in Germany (Social Democratic Party of Germany) in 1875, followed by the Social Democratic Party of Hungary in 1890, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was founded in 1898, and the British Labour Party in 1906.
Another reinterpretation of Marxism happened in Russia. Vladimir Lenin reinterpreted Marxism to suit the unique conditions of Russia, a predominantly agrarian society lacking the industrial base Marx thought necessary for revolution. Also, Russia was a country with a despotic absolute ruler, Nicholas II, who cracked down on any subverting organization.
Inside the Russian Social Demoratic Labour Party, differences emerged about the future of socialism and the possible strategies, which later caused a split in the party. The more democratic Mensheviks (“the minority”) believed in a more open membership and a slower, gradual approach. Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik (“majority”) faction, argued that a disciplined vanguard party (a group of elite and dedicated revolutionaries) was essential to lead the proletariat, channeling revolutionary energy and providing direction. His idea emphasized the need for an organized revolutionary core to overcome the weaknesses of spontaneous mass movements. This reinterpretation laid the groundwork for
the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, which ultimately overthrew the old order. In the 20th century, this radical, revolutionary version of Marxist socialism became widely known as “communism”, despite the fact that Marx used this term to describe a state based on total equality and social property.
In the 19th century, anarchism became another, Marxismrelated political philosophy that rejected centralized authority and hierarchical systems. Advocates of anarchism (e.g. Mikhail Bakunin) envisioned a society organized through voluntary associations, where individuals freely cooperate without coercion. The movement emphasizes the abolition of the state, believing that governance based on power and authority inherently breeds inequality and oppression. Anarchists promote self-management, mutual aid, and direct democracy as alternatives to traditional political structures. This also led many anarchists to reject the idea of a revolutionary party because they believed that such a party would become oppressive with time; instead, they favoured individual action, which often manifested as acts of terrorism.
Lastly, Christian socialism emerged as a way of reconciling Christian ethics with the call for social justice, emphasizing love, charity, and solidarity with the working people. In the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII addressed these challenges in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, which critiqued the excesses of both unrestricted capitalism and radical socialism: he argued that liberal capitalism makes for unequal, dehumanizing competition between workers and exploits the working people, but he also rejected socialism for its anti-religious and oppressive tendencies. Christian socialists argued that genuine social reform should come from an integration of faith and politics. They believed that state intervention to help trade unions, combined with the voluntary charity of citizens, could alleviate the problems of poverty and injustice. In this vision, the Church’s teachings on love and charity served as a counterweight to the dehumanizing effects of industrial capitalism. Altogether, Christian socialists sought to create a society that mirrored the compassionate ideals of the Jesus while addressing real-world challenges. Christian socialist parties, and also Pope Leo XIII, later found themselves in cultural struggle (Kulturkampf) against Euroepan states and their liberal/nationalist parties that advocated for the separation of church and state.
19. THE REASONS AND GOALS OF
19TH C. COLONIZATION,
THE INTEREST AND CONFLICTS OF GREAT POWERS IN THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM
Key data: British Empire, India, Suez Canal, Fashoda, 1868: Meiji Restoration, 1878: Congress of Berlin
The 19th century witnessed a renewed period in colonization and the Age of Imperialism—marked by aggressive expansion, intense competition, and a mix of economic, political, and ideological motivations. This era was characterized by an ideology that connected ideas of racial superiority with a perceived duty to “civilize” nonEuropean peoples, justifying imperial expansion and the subjugation of vast territories across the globe. Nations argued that they were bringing order, modernity, and Christianity to regions that were seen as uncivilized. Economic ambitions played a pivotal role as well—the Industrial Revolution had created a demand for raw materials such as oil and minerals, while new markets were desperately needed to sell manufactured goods. This dual need for resources and markets led to an environment where imperial projects were seen not only as a political necessity but also as an economic imperative, leading to the pursuit of self-sufficient empires capable of sustaining growth.
The British Empire emerged as the greatest imperial power during this period, and its influence was felt across continents. In India (“the jewel in the crown”), British rule, known as the British Raj, was instituted in 1857 to exploit the subcontinent’s vast resources and labor. The British implemented administrative and infrastructural changes that, while modernizing parts of India, also served to integrate the local economy into the global capitalist system, ensuring a steady flow of wealth. Similarly, during the Scramble for Africa, British captured key territories in a north to south direction, driven by both strategic interests and the availability of untapped resources. This led to Britain creating the largest empire in history; however, regions like Canada and Australia were given dominion status—more autonomy inside the empire.
While the British carved out an empire of unmatched size, France also pursued its own imperial ambitions, but on a slightly smaller scale. The French colonial project in Africa and Asia was driven by similar motives: economic gain, national prestige, and the spread of French culture. In Africa, France established a network of colonies that spanned from the west coast to Central Africa, and in Asia, it laid claim to vast territories in Indochina. Also, in North Africa,
they started the building of the Suez Canal as a route between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean; however, the canal was later operated by a company made up of British-French shareholders. The French also got into a tense standoff with British forces in Sudan (Fashoda incident, 1898), which showed that imperialist rivalries that could arise over colliding territorial interests—the standoff was defused as the two powers were getting closer to each other to counter German expansion in Europe.
The later part of the century saw new players joining the imperial race, notably Germany and Italy. Germany’s late entry into the colonial competition was formalized at the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, where European nations convened to establish rules for the colonization of Africa and also carved out territories for the new counries to colonize. Although Germany’s colonial ventures (e.g. Kamerun—Cameroon, German East Africa—Tanzania) were relatively short-lived compared, but they were marked by a vigorous and assertive approach that often led to social unrest and bloody repression. Italy, similarly, wanted to assert itself on the international stage through colonial expansion, though its efforts were more modest.
Simultaneously, the once-mighty Chinese Empire was experiencing a profound decline. Internal strife—exemplified by the catastrophic Taiping Rebellion which had to be put down with BritishFrench help—coupled with humiliations in the Opium Wars by Britain weakened the emperors’ hold over its territories and undermined its sovereignty. China saw more and more foreign powers setting up trading posts inside the vast empire and getting larger amounts of political control. The subsequent anti-imperialist Boxer Rebellion destabilized the nation, leading to even more intervention by foreign powers. This period thus saw China being “carved-up” by imperialist nations, while at the same time Japan (after the modernization sparked by the 1868 Meiji Restoration) capitalized on China’s vulnerability by extending its influence into Manchuria and Korea.
PRE-PUBLICATION
Across the Atlantic, the United States began to emerge as a global power. Rooted in the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers against further colonization in the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. adopted an increasingly interventionist foreign policy during this period. The “big stick” approach, as advocated by President Theodore Roosevelt, and later “dollar diplomacy” projects, showed America’s determination to secure its interests in Latin America. Russia, too, tried to play a significant role in the age of imperial rivalry. They were involved in the “Great Game,” a
prolonged struggle for influence in Central Asia and Afghanistan against Britain, which highlighted Russia’s strategic interests in global trade. However, Russia mainly viewed the Balkans as their most important target: they wanted to take over hegemony over the area from the “sick man of Europe”, the Ottoman Empire. The 1877–78 Russo-Turkish War was a decisive conflict in which Russia secured significant gains at the expense of the weakening Ottoman Empire, paving the way for the liberation of several Balkan nations and Russuan hegemony. However, the European powers stepped in and organized the Congress of Berlin (1878) to discuss the “Eastern Question”: to counter the Russian expansion, they reconfigured the borders of states in the Balkans and also gave Austria-Hungary the right to occupy Bosnia. Russian ambitions, therefore, were curtailed, but the Ottoman Empire’s decline was made even more obvious.
Altogether, imperialism accelerated the rivalries among European powers and intensified competition over resources and strategic territories. These tensions led to a complex web of alliances and conflicts that ultimately set the stage for the outbreak of World War I.
20. POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES AND THE PARTY SYSTEM IN DUALIST-ERA HUNGARY
Key data: Austria-Hungary, dualism, Christian socialism, Compromise, public law question, common affairs, open and secret ballot, filibuster, coalition, trade union, National Party of Work (Munkapárt), Liberal Party, Independence Party, Social Democratic Party of Hungary, Gyula Andrássy, Ferenc Deák, Kálmán Tisza, Sándor Wekerle, István Tisza, Ottokár Prohászka, 1867 Compromise, 1875-1890 Kálmán Tisza as PM, 1905 Coalition crisis
The politics of Hungary in the dualist era was defined by deep political and ideological divisions following the 1867 Compromise, which established Austria-Hungary.
After the departure of prominent statesmen like Gyula Andrássy and the political retirement of Ferenc Deák in the early 1870s, the Deák-party began to weaken. At the time of the Compromise, opposition leadership was found in figures like Kálmán Tisza, who led the Center-Left Party and articulated his views through the Bihar Points, criticizing the Compromise. Faced with the challenge of gaining power while remaining true to his principles, Tisza eventually abandoned the Bihar Points and merged his party with the Deák-party. This merger
created the new Liberal Party, which secured electoral victories from 1875 onward, even as many opposition members allied with the Independence Party of 1848, the loudest critics of the Compromise.
The debate over the “public law” became a central issue during this period. The governing Liberal Party argued that the Compromise, though imperfect, provided a necessary framework for progress and unity, while the opposition (mainly the Independence Party) contended that it only meant unjust limitations on Hungary’s autonomy. The political struggle was further complicated by a voting system based on open ballots, which made voter intimidation common and ensured that only a small fraction of the population—approximately 6%, mostly landowners and elites—could participate in elections. This limitation largely benefited the governing Liberal Party, leaving little room for voices calling for true independence or major reform.
Between 1875 and 1890, the PM Kálmán Tisza’s government achieved significant success by promoting economic modernization, administrative efficiency, and political stability. However, by the late 1880s, growing divisions emerged as intense debates over defense spending and military reforms exposed cracks in Austrian-Hungarian relations. Additionally, the controversy surrounding revoking Lajos Kossuth’s citizenship further polarized public opinion, questioning the Tisza’s commitment to Hungary’s national identity, which altogether led Tisza to step down as PM in 1890.
During the 1890s, several new political ideas emerged, leading to the formation of various parties that reflected the evolving social landscape. The Social Democratic Party, which was founded in 1890, represented the interests of industrial workers and the proletariat. Their agenda focused on universal suffrage, social reforms, the expansion of workers’ rights and supporting trade unions. However, their influence was cut by restrictive voting laws and government suppression of socialist movements.
Meanwhile, the Catholic People’s Party (from 1894)—a Christian socialist party—primarily representing rural Catholics, opposed liberal social policies such as civil marriages and criticized Jewish emancipation, made in the times of the cultural struggle (Kulturkampf) by Sándor Wekerle’s government in the 1890s. The leaders of this party, such as Ottokár Prohászka, also wanted to align Christian teachings with social problems.
The Smallholders’ Party, representing the middle class, peasants, and workers, advocated for land reform and tax relief for struggling peasants and former serfs, yet faced strong resistance from the established elite and lacked the national organization needed to drive substantial reforms.
The political landscape shifted dramatically in the early 1900s, when the Liberal Party’s support declined and the opposition parties started using the filibuster (giving lengthy speeches in Parliament) to hinder the work of the legislation. In the infamous 1904 “handkerchief vote”, the leader of the Liberal Party, István Tisza (son of Kálmán Tisza) cracked down on the opposition filibuster by adopting new “house rules” for the Parliament, effectively curtailing the rights of opposition politicians.
For the 1905 elections, many opposition parties organized into a coalition to defeat the Liberal Party, resulting in a sweeping victory for the opposition. However, the subsequent 1905 coalition crisis showed the inherent problems of the dualist system: the victory of the anti-Compromise parties could shake the entire dualist system to its core. Instead of yielding to the opposition’s call for greater independence, Emperor Franz Joseph appointed Géza Fejérváry, establishing what many saw as a ‘puppet government.’ This move sparked widespread public unrest, protests, and strikes. In an attempt to restore order, Franz Joseph later negotiated with the opposition coalition and appointed Sándor Wekerle as Prime Minister once again in 1906. Wekerle’s government achieved some successes, yet it struggled with internal divisions.
By 1910, István Tisza returned to prominence, forming the National Party of Work out of the former Liberal Party as a new conservative force. Tisza, appealing to elites frustrated by the government’s inefficacy, secured the support of the monarchy and won the 1910 elections, effectively restoring pro-compromise leadership.
21. HUNGARY’S NATIONALITY POLICY, THE STRUGGLES OF NATIONALITIES IN THE ROLE OF JEWS AND GERMANS IN BOURGEOIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE DUALIST ERA
Key data: József Eötvös, Sándor Wekerle, 1868: Croatian Compromise, Nationalities Law, irredentism, separatism, panSlavism, Fiume
After the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, Hungarian leaders sought to maintain stability in the multi-ethnic Kingdom of Hungary by addressing the status of various nationalities.
In 1868, Hungary and Croatia formalized their relationship through the Croatian Settlement, or Hungarian-Croatian Compromise. This agreement granted Croatia broad autonomy in domestic affairs, including economic, internal, and educational matters. Croatian
became the official language, and the Croats were allowed to maintain their own parliament, the Sabor, and a government led by a governor known as the bán. Although the bán was appointed by Hungary— often a Hungarian-Croatian politician—they governed with relative independence. Additionally, Croatia was represented in the Hungarian Parliament, and the Hungarian government always maintained a Minister for Croatian Affairs.
PRE-PUBLICATION
Despite this settlement, other ethnic minorities in Hungary, such as the Slovaks, Romanians, and Serbs, demanded similar autonomy but were not recognized as separate political nations. Instead, the Hungarian Parliament passed the Nationalities Act of 1868 (drafted by József Eötvös), which granted individual freedoms to non-Hungarians and allowed for limited language rights in public administration, education, and the legal system. While the law did not provide collective autonomy, it was considered progressive for its time and helped maintain Hungarian dominance within the kingdom.
Although Hungary did not initially pursue a policy of forced assimilation, it became apparent that most ethnic minorities—threequarters of the non-Hungarian population—had little connection to the Hungarian state and spoke very little Hungarian. Many Hungarian politicians believed this was a result of excessively liberal policies and pushed for stronger integration measures. Under Prime Minister Kálmán Tisza in 1879, Hungarian language instruction was made compulsory in all elementary schools. This effort intensified in 1907 with the passage of Lex Apponyi, which mandated that all students achieve a minimum proficiency in Hungarian after four years of schooling. Schools were also required to display Hungarian symbols, such as the coat of arms and national flag. These measures were widely criticized by ethnic minority leaders, who saw them as an attempt at forced assimilation. Hungarian authorities also required all towns to have a Hungarian name, even if they were predominantly inhabited by non-Hungarian people.
At the same time, nationalist movements among ethnic minorities gained momentum. Many Romanians and Serbs sought political autonomy or even separation (separatism) from Hungary. The Croatians, dissatisfied with their level of autonomy, advocated for trialism—a proposal to reorganize Austria-Hungary into a three-state union. They were particularly frustrated that Fiume (modern-day Rijeka) remained under Hungarian control rather than being integrated into Croatia.
Meanwhile, the rise of pan-Slavism among Serbs and irredentist aspirations among Romanians fueled separatist sentiments. Many Romanians in Transylvania increasingly identified with the Kingdom
of Romania, where nationalist ideas about reclaiming “lost” territories (irredentism), including Transylvania, gained traction. The emergence of independent Serbian and Romanian states, coupled with shifting power dynamics in the Balkans, set the stage for future conflicts that would eventually reshape the region.
Jews and Germans played a prominent role in Hungary’s bourgeois and capitalist transformation. Their historical urban lifestyle provided them with advantages that facilitated the development of a modern urban society. Many Hungarian towns were established by German settlers, while Jews, due to long-standing legal restrictions, gravitated toward services where they worked with money. These conditions led both groups to enjoy higher levels of education and easier access to capital than the majority, resulting in their overrepresentation in bourgeois ownership and intellectual pursuits relative to their population size. However, this progress was not uniform; rural Germans and Jews from smaller settlements did not experience similar advancements: the majority of the Swabians were peasants, and the tradesmen Jews in villages lived a lower middle class lifestyle. Neither the Jewish, nor the German was driven by strong nationalist sentiments, and people living in cities quickly assimilating into the broader society. Their significant economic and intellectual contributions are exemplified by figures such as Ábrahám Ganz (of Swiss descent), Manfréd Weiss (of Jewish origin), and architect Miklós Ybl (of German parents). Jewish and German people rarely managed to reach the highest levels of politics as there was an exclusivity there for Hungarian noblemen, with prime minister Sándor Wekerle (of bourgeois German descent) being a notable exception.
his son Miklós Horthy Jr., forced Horthy to renounce the armistice, depose the Lakatos government, and name the leader of the Arrow Cross Party, Ferenc Szálasi, as prime minister. Horthy resigned and Szálasi became prime minister of a new Government of National Unity (Nemzeti Összefogás Kormánya), under which Hungary effectively functioned as a German puppet state. The Szálasi-regime continued the deportations of Jews (now from Budapest) to Auschwitz; however, the large scale deportations were halted because Budapest was soon besieged by the Soviet-Romanian troops (Dec 1944-Feb 1945). In late 1944, some parts of the Hungarian Army sided with the Soviets; while the majority was still cooperating with the Nazis, defending Hungary and Germany to the last man. This lasted only until April 1945, when Hungary was liberated from German / Arrow Cross rule by the Red Army and the war ended in Hungary.
This “liberation”, however, came at a cost. Alreday in January 1945, 32,000 ethnic Germans from within Hungary were arrested and transported to the Soviet Union as forced laborers to do some “little work” (malenkij robot). In some villages, the entire adult population (able bodied Germans and Hungarians) were taken to labor camps in the Donets Basin. For example, about 50.000 Hungarian and Germanborn civilians were collected in the Svaliava (Szolyva) labour camp in Transcarpathia, only to be taken to the Soviet Union. This was in line with the later decision of the Potsdam Conference, which declared that all Germans were collectively responsible for the war, the war crimes, and the crimes against humanity that happened. Altogether, with the hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war, about 500.000 Hungarian citizens were taken to the Soviet Union, from which about 200.000 never returned.
12. THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR I, THE WESTERN FRONT AND NAVAL WARFARE
Key data: 28 June 1914: the Sarajevo incident, 28 July 1914: the outbreak of WWI, 1914-1918: World War I, 1916: the Verdun “world blood pump”, 1916: Romania sides with the Entente, 1917: Bolshevik takeover in Russia, the US enters the war, Entente, Central Powers, Schlieffen Plan, trench warfare, rationing, hinterland, front, Franz Joseph, Franz Ferdinand, Wilhelm II, Paul von Hindenburg, Vladimir Lenin, Nicholas II, Russia, Serbia, Sarajevo
In the summer of 1914, Europe found itself on the verge of an unprecedented conflict, fueled by longstanding tensions and rivalries. The complex system of alliances—such as the Triple Entente among France, Russia, and Britain, and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-
Hungary, and Italy (who later did not join them as one of the Central Powers)—created an environment where local disputes had the potential to escalate into continental warfare. In the Balkans, nationalist sentiments and territorial ambitions were intensifying, as various ethnic groups sought self-determination and regional power while the great powers of Russia, the Ottomans, and Austria-Hungary also wanted to stretch their empire’s control over the territory. Meanwhile, a naval arms race had developed between Britain and Germany, with the two countrie building up massive naval armament and modern ships that made the later war ever more devastating. European imperial ambitions also added to these tensions, as rival powers competed fiercely for colonies and global influence. However, it was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo that acted as the spark that ignited these antagonisms. It set in motion a chain reaction: investigations showed that the Serbian military circles were probably behind the assassination, which prompted Franz Joseph to send an ultimatum to Serbia, asking them to stop propaganda and plotting against Austria-Hungary and to give Austria-Hungary permission to investigate in Serbia. The Serbians rejected the ulimatum and turned to Russia for protection. Franz Joseph was unsure as to whether the time for war was favourable, as he did not want to risk a conflict with Russia and the Hungarian PM István Tisza also warned him against starting the war. However, when Franz Joseph received the support of German Emperor Wilhelm II in the form of a “blank cheque”, he declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914, starting World War I.
PRE-PUBLICATION
The Western Front became the principal theater of war, defined by its static nature and continuous battles. The German military strategy, known as the Schlieffen Plan, aimed to quickly knock France out of the war by sweeping through Belgium and thus to avoid a two-front war. The Germans anticipated that Russia would not be able to mobilize quickly, so a swift strike against France was possible. However, the Russian army mobilized and attacked surprisingly quickly and thus, a large part of the German army led by Paul von Hindenburg had to be deployed to the Eastern Front.Thus the Schlieffen plan faltered at the First Battle of the Marne when French and British forces halted the German advance, leading to a prolonged stalemate. As both sides dug in, trench warfare emerged as the new norm. Extensive networks of trenches stretched from the Swiss border to the North Sea, where soldiers endured terrible conditions, with mud, pests, and relentless artillery bombardments becoming part of daily life. British forces soon joined the fray in support of the French in large numbers, further stabilizing the front and contributing to a bitter contest of attrition. The year 1916 saw horrific battles, notably at Verdun—called the “world blood pump” for the 1 million dead/wounded soldeirs—and the
Somme. In these battles the enormous casualties showed the futility of frontal assaults against fortified positions equipped with artillery and machine guns. Chemical warfare, first employed at Ypres, added a new layer of suffering, as poisonous gases inflicted terrible injuries and death. By 1917, some important turning points emerged—offensives, new technology, and the gradual decline of morale began to signal that the stalemate might eventually be broken. Although Russia had quit the war after the Bolshevik takeover in the fall of 1917 led by Lenin, Germany had to face a new enemy: the USA, which decided to join the Entente (1917) after numerous provocations by the Central Poweres and because of an interest to capitalize on the Entente’s victory.
Naval warfare played a crucial role in shaping the conflict’s dynamics, as control of the seas became essential for both economic and military reasons. The British Navy imposed a comprehensive blockade on Germany, aiming to restrict the flow of vital resources. This blockade not only strained the German economy but also necessitated the establishment of strict rationing systems on the home front (or hinterland). To break out of the blockade, the Germans started an all out attack against the British in the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the war’s largest naval engagement. Although the battle was tactically inconclusive, the main result was that Germany remained under blockade. In addition to conventional naval battles, the use of submarines revolutionized warfare. Germany adpoted unrestricted submarine warfare aimed to cut off Britain’s supply lines by targeting military and civilian vessels alike, a strategy that ultimately backfired. The indiscriminate sinking of ships, including those carrying American passengers (e.g. the Lusitania), stirred international outrage and played a pivotal role in shifting public opinion in the United States.
13. BOLSHEVIK TAKEOVER IN RUSSIA
Key data: Bolshevik, Menshevik, war economy, Red Terror, people’s commissar, Nicholas II, Lenin, Trotsky, 1917: Bolshevik takeover in Russia, 1922: the creation of the Soviet Union, St. Petersburg, Moscow
After the start of World War I, Russia, similarly to other countries, faced plenty of military, economic and social issues. In the war, the country switched to what is known as a war economy, where nearly all production was dedicated to the war effort. This meant those who stayed at home also suffered as due to requisitions, famines and food rationing, there was widespread starvation all throughout the country, especially in cities. The army did see few successes on the fronts,
however, at great human cost. Furthermore, secretly there were rising underground communist grous (notably the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, RSDLP), this was heavily fuelled by the hatred towards Tsar Nicholas II’s absolute power which allowed him to oppress his people.
In February of 1917, due to an outbreak of a famine combined with the aforementioned issues, anti-war, anti-rationing and antimonarchy, broke out in St. Petersburg. The army, which was ordered home to bring an end to them, ended up siding with the protesters. The following revolution ended with Tsar Nicholas II abdicating from the throne. The Russian Republic was established with a bourgeois liberal Provisional Government later led by Alexander Kerensky. However, in St. Petersburg, the socialist workers council (Rus. soviet), known as the Petrograd Soviet (led by Leon Trotsky) held power in the time of “dual power”.
Despite its original promises, the Provisional Government did not withdraw from war since it was paid massive sums by the Entente not to do so. This meant that the Provisional Government almost completely lacked broad social support, it pushed away both the monarchist right and the far left. The backbone of the Provisional Government was given by the SRs (agrarian socialists) and the social democratic Mensheviks (who split from the RSDLP). Meanwhile, the Petrograd Soviet which held power in St. Petersburg was only gaining support.
PRE-PUBLICATION
Seeing the unique situation and opportunity, Vladimir Lenin, a socialist who had been exiled, returned to Russia with German support. While in exile, he published his April Theses, in which he put together a 10-point list of the necessary steps to establish a proletariat dictatorship. Lenin’s party (or faction), the Bolsheviks were, thus, disinterested in helping the Provisional Governmen stay afloat, and planned to overthrow it. Lenin helped the Bolsheviks gain wide-ranged by promising the people bread, land and peace. In August 1917, monarchist general Kornilov organised a coup aiming to reinstall the monarchy. Against this, the Provisional Government allowed the Petrograd Soviet to arm the workers, creating the so-called Red Guard, which defeated the coup. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks, supported by the Red Guard and the Petrograd Soviet, staged a coup against the Provisional Government. The coup was swift and successful. The Bolsheviks declared the establishment of the Council of the People’s Commissars (= a new socialist government). Lenin became the Chairman of the Council, while Trotsky became the people’s first Commissar for Foreign Affairs and Commissar for War. The new government promised peace, land redistribution, and to place the means of production in control of the workers.
Following the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks began consolidating their power by establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the beginning of 1918, when it became clear that non-Bolshevik parties would have the majority, they dissolved the Assembly. The Bolsheviks also created a secret police force named the Cheka tasked with suppressing counter-revolutionary activities and dissent. This is known as the Red Terror. Thousands of suspected counter-revolutionaries, including former Tsarist officials, members of the bourgeoisie, and Mensheviks, were arrested and executed. The Bolsheviks had significant support in the major cities, and created their new headquarters in Moscow, but lacked support in the countryside. The Bolsheviks kept their promises and quit the war in 1918, and they also began the nationalisation of factories and banks, while also appropriating church and noble estates for land redistribution.
The Bolshevik takeover led to the outbreak of the Russian Civil War, which lasted from 1917 to 1922. The war pitted the Red Army, organized by Trotsky, against a loose coalition of anti-Bolshevik forces known as the Whites, supported by the Entente. The Whites included monarchists, liberals, and moderate socialists, all opposing Bolshevik rule. The civil war was brutal, with widespread violence, famine, and disease claiming millions of lives. By 1922, the Bolsheviks had consolidated their control over most of Russia, leading to the formation of the Soviet Union, a new socialist state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).
14. THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE
Key data: Anschluss, reparations, League of Nations, selfdetermination of peoples, Clemenceau, Piłsudski, Beneš, Wilson, 1919: Treaty of Versailles, 1920: Battle of Warsaw, 1921: Sopron referendum, Paris/Versailles, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Burgenland, Southern Hungary, Yugoslavia
The Paris Peace Conference, held in 1919, was the meeting of powers involved in WWI, aimed at creating a lasting peace after the Great War. The main goal was to rebuild Europe and set up a new order to prevent future conflicts. The four major powers dictating the discussions were Britain, France, Italy and the USA. Britain wanted to keep a balance of power in Europe, ensuring that no single country would become too strong. France, still fearing repeated German attacks, focused on protecting itself from Germany. France also wanted to weaken and embarrass Germany so that it could never again pose such a threat. Italy had its own ambitions and looked to
gain new territories to increase its influence. Russia was not invited to the conference because the Allied powers were suspicious of the new Bolshevik government that had come to power during the revolution. What is more, the French PM Clemenceau stated an interest in creating a “cordon sanitaire” to contain the spread of Bolshevism in Eastern Europe. The United States, led by President Woodrow Wilson, also played a key role. Wilson believed in the idea of people’s selfdetermination, which meant that peoples (ethnic/national groups) should be given the right to choose what government they want to live under. He also advanced the idea of a League of Nations (LoN), an international organization that would help keep the peace and friendly relations among countries in the future. The LoN acted as a mediator between countries in conflicts and also pushed for disarmament around the world; however, it ultimately failed as the great powers, especially the USA did not put support or force behind it.
In general, the conference forced the losing countries, especially Germany and its allies, to accept harsh conditions. They were required to pay large sums in reparations, give up their colonies, and lose significant territories. These measures were intended to punish the defeated nations and reduce their ability to wage war again, although they later contributed to further tensions in Europe.
The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, imposed harsh measures on Germany to curb its power and prevent future conflict. Germany lost vast territories, including Alsace-Lorraine, while the establishment of the Polish Corridor granted Poland access to the Baltic Sea, and the Free City of Danzig was created under LoN supervision. Additionally, the treaty required the demilitarisation of the Rhineland, establishing a buffer zone to protect France from future German aggression, and granted France supervision over the Saarland, rich in coal resources. Germany was also forced to pay heavy reparations, placing a significant strain on its economy, which led to hyperinflation, and its military was drastically reduced with strict limits on the size of its army (100.000 persons), navy, and air force, along with a ban on developing new weapons. The treaty explicitly forbade an Anschluss (union) with Austria, limiting the power of the German-speaking nations. Also in 1919, the Republic of Austria signed the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which consolidated the new, vastly reduced borders of Austria after the breakup of Austria-Hungary. The southern Slovene or Italian-speaking parts were given to Yugoslavia and Italy, while the Czech-speaking Bohemian region became one of the centers of Czechoslovakia. Interestingly, the German-majority parts from Western Hungary (Burgenland) were handed over to Austria.
The Paris Peace Conference, the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the territorial losses of the German Empire, and the fall of the Russian
Empire completely restructured Central and Eastern Europe. At least seven new countries appeared as a result. The main architects of the countries in Central-Eastern Europe was France, which also helped the creation of the Little Entente (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania) as a way of countering Hungarian revisionism and as a bulwark against Soviet influence.
One of the most significant was Poland, which reemerged as an independent state after more than a century of partitions. With newly drawn borders, Poland was reborn under the leadership of Józef Piłsudski, a key figure who also played a central role during the PolishSoviet War, defending the nation against Soviet advances and securing its independence in the Battle of Warsaw (1920). Czechoslovakia was another notable creation. Formed from the lands of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, it united the Czechs and Slovaks into a democratic republic. Under the guidance of leaders like Tomaš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš, the country established a stable government that promoted democratic values and cultural diversity, serving as a model for minority rights and a peaceful coexistence of different national groups. Additionally, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later known as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was established under the Karadjordjevic dynasty. This new state also united various South Slavic territories, including Bosnia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary (Bácska/Bánát/Baranya). Also, new countries in the Baltic emerged with the fall of the Russian Empire: Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became new independent states in 1917-1918.
15. THE FASCIST STATE AND ITS IDEOLOGY
Key data: fascism, Mussolini, Duce, totalitarian state, irredentism, party state, corporative system, nationalization, cult of personality, public works
The Italian fascist state emerged in the wake of post-World War I turmoil, transforming Italy’s political and economic landscape under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, known as Il Duce (= the leader). Mussolini began his political journey as a committed socialist before his pro-war stance came into conflict with the pacifist socialists. Disillusioned with socialism, he embraced nationalism and led the Blackshirts movement after the war, an armed paramilitary force that became instrumental in his rise to power, paving the way for his authoritarian fascist regime in Italy. Mussolini rose to power after the dramatic Marcia su Roma in October 1922, capitalized on national discontent, promising order, unity, and renewed national greatness. His coup marked the beginning of a totalitarian party state, where the state and the National Fascist Party became one and the same.
At its core, fascism in Italy was defined by an extreme form of nationalism and a belief in the superiority of the state over the individual. Mussolini’s regime emphasized a strong, centralized government that controlled all aspects of life. Fascism also relied heavily on an “us versus them” narrative, glorifying a unified, superior in-group (the patriotic Italians) while demonizing and excluding anyone deemed an outsider or enemy of the nation.
PRE-PUBLICATION
The state was organized as a corporative system, intended to harmonize the interests of employers, workers, and the state. Instead of class conflict, the corporatist model sought to promote national solidarity through state-managed corporations that were supposed to work for the common good. In practice, however, this system consolidated power in the hands of the ruling party, leaving little room for genuine worker representation.
Fascist Italy under Mussolini was a totalitarian state where every aspect of life was subject to strict state control. The regime employed terror and repression to eliminate opposition, relying heavily on the OVRA—the secret political police—to monitor and suppress dissent. Through censorship, intimidation, and outright violence, the state silenced critics and quashed any potential challenges to its authority.
Mussolini’s cult of personality was a central feature of the fascist ideology. Propaganda was used extensively to portray him as an infallible leader, a savior of Italy, and the embodiment of the nation’s spirit. Through carefully orchestrated public events and media control, the regime created an image of Mussolini that was present in every aspect of Italian society. This propaganda machine not only glorified the Duce but also promoted fascist ideals such as discipline, order, and the subordination of personal interests to the national good.
The economic policy of the fascist state was characterized by a dirigiste approach—a heavily state-directed economy. Mussolini’s government nationalized key industries and implemented largescale public works projects, aiming to modernize the Italian economy and reduce unemployment. Mussolini also promoted economic growth by calling people to join the “economic battles” (the battle for the Lira, the battle for bread), which were originally presented as a way to rejuvenate Italy’s economic power with the involvement of the people, but they also served embed fascist ideology in everyday life. The regime’s economic interventions were meant to demonstrate the superiority of the fascist system over liberal capitalism and socialism, positioning the state as the ultimate decision-maker in economic matters.
Italian fascism was also driven by irredentism and imperial ambitions. Mussolini aspired to revive the glory of the Roman Empire
and to extend Italy’s influence abroad. This ambition was most clearly seen in Italy’s aggressive moves in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. The invasion of Libya in the 1910s and the later conquest of Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia) in 1935 were carried out under the banner of national resurgence and the promise of new resources and territories for Italy. In Europe, Italy also clearly announced claims for parts of the Adriatic Coast from Yugoslavia, and in 1939, it invaded and captured Albania. These ambitions were presented as a continuation of Italy’s historical destiny, a creation of a new Roman Empire.
16. THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND ITS SOLUTIONS IN THE USA
Key data: New Deal, public works, protectionism, 1929: Great Depression, J. M. Keynes, F. D. Roosevelt, minimum wage
The period following World War I saw the United States emerge as the world’s leading economy, marking the beginning of the “Roaring Twenties.” During this time, the nation experienced sustained economic growth, and an ever-increasing number of Americans invested heavily in the stock market. The country also became the world’s first true consumer society, where people were continuously encouraged to purchase the latest products. This optimism, however, masked growing signs of an economic bubble. Companies steadily increased their production capacity, yet demand for their goods began to wane. Overproduction soon set in, which was one of the key factors that would later contribute to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. Investors, seduced by years of rising stock prices and impressive returns, began to speculate wildly, driving up the value of stocks based more on perceived profits than actual earnings. As companies started earning less due to decreasing demand, dividends fell, further shaking investor confidence.
In October 1929, the fragile stock market bubble burst in what would come to be known as the Wall Street stock market crash. The collapse was swift and devastating; stock prices plunged by nearly 40% in a single week as panic spread through the financial markets. The crash set off a chain reaction—banks, which had invested depositors’ funds in these now devalued stocks, suddenly found themselves in dire straits. The resulting bank runs, where masses of people hurried to withdraw their savings, quickly depleted the banks’ reserves. Unable to meet withdrawal demands, many banks
went bankrupt, cutting off vital loans to businesses. In response, companies were forced to reduce costs, primarily by slashing wages and firing workers. This created a vicious cycle: as unemployment rose, consumer spending fell, causing companies to further lower prices and cut jobs, which deepened the deflationary spiral and intensified the economic crisis.
The initial response to this economic disaster came from President Herbert Hoover, who was in office when the Depression began. Hoover believed strongly in maintaining balanced budgets and minimal government intervention, adhering to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. At the time, the value of a dollar was based on a gold standard, and thus, the Federal Reserve (the central bank) could not engage in expansionary monetary policy, e.g. “printing money” to give to the businsses. His administration did attempt to urge businesses to maintain wages and employment levels, but his policies ultimately backfired. His decision to freeze foreign trade and implement protectionist tariffs aimed at shielding the domestic market only worsened the situation. These measures hindered international trade and forced the U.S. to deal with its surplus of goods internally, while simultaneously causing economic hardship abroad. Hoover’s reluctance to engage in direct federal intervention to provide relief for the unemployed, combined with his ineffective policies, led to growing public dissatisfaction and disillusionment with his leadership.
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded Hoover and immediately set about transforming the country’s approach to economic recovery. Recognizing that the federal government needed to play an active role in reviving the economy and alleviating widespread suffering, Roosevelt introduced a series of interventionist policies known as the New Deal. The New Deal was built on the three R’s: relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the financial system to prevent future collapses. As part of this sweeping initiative, banks were temporarily closed and then bailed out by government funds to restore confidence in the financial system. Farmers received much-needed financial aid to help them cope with their losses, while a range of public works projects—such as large-scale construction and infrastructure developments—were launched to reduce unemployment without increasing the supply of consumer goods. The New Deal also introduced social safety nets like unemployment insurance and pensions, and later a law on the right to earn a minimum wage set by the state.
The intellectual basis of this shift in economic policy was
provided by economist John Maynard Keynes. In 1936, Keynes presented a theoretical framework that challenged the traditional laissez-faire approach, arguing that state intervention was essential to overcome economic downturns. His famous analogy—that if the government did not fund construction projects, it could simply bury money and then pay people to dig it up, thereby stimulating the economy—captured the essence of his ideas. Keynesian economics soon became the dominant policy framework, influencing economic policy in the United States and around the world until the 1970s.
The impact of these events was not confined solely to the United States. The policies of freezing foreign trade and imposing protectionist tariffs, along with the collapse of banks and the resulting credit crisis, contributed to the spread of the Great Depression across the globe. As international trade stopped and economic activity plummeted, mass unemployment and widespread starvation became global challenges. In many countries, these conditions also created fertile ground for political radicalism, as extremist groups, such as the Nazis in Germany, gained traction by promising radical solutions to economic woes.
17. THE EFFECTS, SOLUTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN HUNGARY
Key data: protectionism, public works programme, revision, St. Stephen’s concept of the state, Arrow Cross Party, anti-Semitism, 1929: Great Depression, 1938: First Jewish Law, First Vienna Award, 1939: Second Jewish Law, occupation of Transcarpathia, 1940: Second Vienna Award, Gyula Gömbös, Endre Bajcsy-Zsilinszky, Ferenc Szálasi
PRE-PUBLICATION
The Great Depression that erupted in 1929 had profound consequences for Hungary. Initially, Hungary’s economy was hit hard due to its heavy reliance on agriculture. Worldwide overproduction led to a steep decline in the prices of agricultural goods, and as nations retreated into protectionism, Hungarian farmers found it increasingly difficult to export their products. Food prices dropped by 50 to 70 percent (deflation), which led to widespread bankruptcies among both farmers and agricultural companies. This collapse in the agricultural sector created a ripple effect throughout the economy, especially because nearly two-thirds of the population was dependent on agriculture. With less money circulating in the economy, demand
for industrial goods—such as machinery, steel, and wood products— fell sharply, resulting in a 40 percent decrease in the prices of these industrial products and generating widespread unemployment.
The crisis was compounded by the failure of financial institutions. Banks, already weakened by the downturn, began to fail by 1931. Without the ability to offer new loans or extend credit, there was no financial mechanism to help stabilize struggling sectors or invest in recovery. In an attempt to manage the economic problems, the Hungarian government, under the leadership of the István Bethlen’s (1921-1931) and later Gyula Károlyi’s (1931-1932) administrations, resorted to austerity measures. Drastic cuts in public spending meant that civil servants were either paid less or dismissed. The outcome was stark: millions of Hungarians were pushed into poverty.
Hungary’s economic difficulties were further worsened by a significant foreign debt, largely owed to the League of Nations and the burdensome reparations imposed after World War I. Under normal circumstances, this debt was manageable through exports or new loans. However, with export markets collapsing and foreign banks becoming either insolvent or unwilling to lend, Hungary was on the brink of going bankrupt by 1931. The inability of the government to effectively address these mounting challenges led to a political crisis.
Into this turbulent environment stepped Gyula Gömbös, a former nationalist who became Prime Minister in 1932. Gömbös sought to restore confidence by promising sweeping reforms. One of his early measures was to allow agricultural businesses to file for bankruptcy protection, which provided these companies with a fresh start by restructuring their debts after the crisis. Gömbös’s most significant move, however, was in foreign policy. He forged closer economic ties with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy—countries that expressed a strong demand for Hungarian agricultural exports. This shift provided crucial relief to Hungary’s weakened rural sector by opening up new markets for its products. Furthermore, Gömbös announced the start of public works programmes similar to those in the US and Germany to combat unemployment.
Gömbös also had ambitions to reshape the nation’s political system along authoritarian lines. His plan was to dismantle Hungary’s democratic parliament and institute a single-party system under the Party of National Unity. He envisioned a government where parliament, state administration, and even military leadership would be populated exclusively by his loyal supporters. However, his aspirations for autocracy encountered resistance from former Prime Minister István Bethlen and from Regent Miklós Horthy. The Regent, however, did not have to dismiss Gömbös, as he died after a long illness in 1936.
During this period, new political forces emerged. The Independent Smallholders’ Party, founded in 1930, began advocating for land reforms that would benefit smallholding peasants in rural areas. Another group, the National Radical Party led by Endre BajcsyZsilinszky (a former member of the Hungarian Party of Racial Defence), also emerged with a platform that combined calls for land reform, national unity, and a restoration of monarchical traditions. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky was staunchly anti-fascist, warning that Nazi Germany posed a grave threat to Hungary’s national identity and racial purity.
At the same time, the political landscape was becoming increasingly radicalized by the rise of far-right movements. Ultranationalist parties had been present in Hungarian politics since 1919, when the Hungarian National Defence Association (MOVE) was established in reaction to the left-leaning Károlyi government and the brief Hungarian Soviet Republic. In the 1930s, new far-right groups, such as the National Socialist Hungarian Workers’ Party—later known as the Scythe Cross Party—and the Party of National Will, which evolved into the infamous Arrow Cross Party led by Ferenc Szálasi, gained popularity. These groups promoted an ideology known as Hungarism, which shared many similarities with Nazism. Their platform called for the reclamation of territories lost after World War I, the establishment of Hungary as the dominant nation in the Carpathian Basin, and a vision of a Christian state governed by ethnic Hungarians. Integral to their message was a virulent anti-Semitism that sought the expulsion of Jews from Hungary and the seizure of their property.
In response to the growing influence of these extremist groups, the Hungarian government initially tried to take away their momentum by banning their symbols and, eventually, their activities. For instance, the Scythe Cross Party was banned in 1937, and Szálasi was arrested in both 1937 and 1938. Nonetheless, as Nazi influence intensified following the Anschluss of 1938, far-right parties experienced a resurgence. To mitigate this trend, the government began to adopt some of the far-right policies it had earlier condemned, such as the “First Jewish Law” of 1938, which limited Jewish participation in various economic and cultural sectors.
After Gömbös’s death, Kálmán Darányi assumed the premiership from 1936 until 1938. Darányi’s tenure was marked by his ambitious rearmament program—the Győr program—which allocated one billion pengő to modernize Hungary’s military and improve infrastructure. This initiative not only strengthened national defense but also created jobs and reduced unemployment. Initially, Darányi sought to rebuild relationships with Western powers like the United Kingdom
and France, but the shifting geopolitical landscape—especially after the Anschluss—drove him to embrace a more pro-German stance. Later, in 1938, Béla Imrédy, then serving as finance minister, succeeded Darányi as Prime Minister. Imrédy attempted to counter the influence of extremist right-wing elements. His government temporarily detained Ferenc Szálasi and implemented electoral reforms designed to restrict the far-right’s voting base by taking voting rights away from roughly 300,000 voters through a wealth-based census. A major diplomatic achievement during his time was the First Vienna Award in November 1938, which restored over 12,000 square kilometers of territory to Hungary and returned nearly 900,000 inhabitants, predominantly ethnic Hungarians. However, Imrédy’s domestic policies became increasingly radical. He was responsible for drafting the Second Jewish Law (1939), a racial statute that defined Jews based on ancestry and curtailed their participation in public life, including employment in government, academia, and various professions.
Emboldened by Hungary’s improved territorial position, Imrédy sought to consolidate his power further by proposing to centralize authority in the hands of the executive, reduce parliamentary influence, and steer the country toward a totalitarian regime. Yet, his efforts to reshape the political system were hinderded by both Regent Horthy and conservative elements within his own party. The final blow to Imrédy’s career came when revelations surfaced regarding his ancestry—evidence emerged that he was one-eighth Jewish, a fact that was intolerable to many of his political opponents. Confronted by Horthy and facing mounting pressure, Imrédy resigned on 13 February 1939, marking the end of a turbulent decade in which economic collapse and rising extremism reshaped Hungarian politics and society.
After Imrédy, Pál Teleki served as Hungary’s Prime Minister from 1939 to 1941, a period marked by his pursuit of neutrality amid escalating global conflict that became World War II. Teleki aimed to steer Hungary through turbulent times by avoiding direct involvement in the war while maintaining the country’s sovereignty. His administration embraced the St. Stephen’s concept of the state the revisionist idea that Hungary has to unite the Carpathian Basin with a Christianity-based, responsible, non-imperialist leadership. Teleki’s revisionist aims were fulfilled in 1939 and 1940 with the occupation and annexation of Transcarpathia (1939) and the Second Vienna Award (1940), which clearly tied Hungary to the Axis Powers—Hungary signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940, accepting a new European order led by Germany and Italy.
18. THE CHANGES OF SOCIETY AND LIFESTYLE IN HUNGARY IN THE 1920-30S
Key data: genrtry, Order of Vitéz
Despite the transformations during the dualism period and the revolutionary years of 1918–1919, Hungarian society remained a mixed or superimposed one. Feudal and bourgeois structures coexisted: while feudal relations had legally ended in the 19th century, the social hierarchy and traditions of the feudal world persisted into the 20th. In the interwar period, agricultural society remained dominant—over 60% of the population worked in agriculture—though industry continued to grow.
The elite classes were the feudal landed aristocracy and the bourgeois industrialists. A few hundred families, owning over 30% of Hungary’s land, made up the landed aristocracy. Though their incomes declined slightly compared to pre-1914 levels, they remained the wealthiest. Their historical prestige ensured political influence, seen in the continuation of noble titles (barons, counts), and many held ministerial or countylevel positions. New aristocratic titles were not given out in the Horthy era, since Miklós Horthy was only a regent without the right of granting titles of nobility. Instead, an order of merit, called the Order of Vitéz was created, whose members were given this award for their military heroism, anti-bolshevism, Christian values and other merits. Around 25.000 people were inducted into the Order by Horthy.
The bourgeois industrial elite included wealthy industrialists, bankers, and business magnates maintained their importance. Although lacking formal political power, their influence over policy increased. Leaders like Horthy and Bethlen cultivated close ties with them.
The middle class consisted of the old feudal nobility (gentry) and the bourgeois middle class. The gentry —rural landowners who had lost political influence and privileges—who now sought civil service or higher education. It also included the urban middle class: intellectuals, civil servants (teachers, doctors, engineers), higher-ranking officers, and businessmen. They often lived in spacious flats or suburban houses with modern amenities like plumbing and electricity. The so-called petite bourgeoisie were considered the lower middle class; they were small business owners, tradesmen, and low-level civil servants (clerks, postmen, policemen). Known for their “200 pengő fix” income, many struggled financially. They typically lived in modest homes or rented small city flats, often without proper bathrooms. Feelings of financial stagnation led to widespread pessimism, sometimes manifesting in
alcoholism or suicide. Politically, they leaned toward antisemitic, fascist, or hungarist ideologies.
The lower layers of society comprised the diverse peasantry and the urban working class. Around 50% of Hungary’s population—about 4 to 4.5 million—were peasants. While modernization was slow, electricity, radios, and improved clothing reached some larger villages. Rich peasants (over 12 hectares of land) were a minority (7%) but often financially stable enough to educate their children. Most peasants, owning 3–12 hectares, lived modestly with little savings. The poorest, owning less than 3 hectares or none at all, often worked as sharecroppers or agricultural laborers. Though land reform provided small plots to some, it rarely ensured self-sustenance, leading many to seek industrial jobs in cities. Growth in the working class slowed, and its composition shifted. More women entered the workforce, especially in textiles, and unskilled or semi-skilled labor increased. Many domestic servants—typically young rural women—worked in bourgeois homes for low wages. Workers often lived in poor conditions: slums, hostels, or cramped flats lacking basic amenities. Reforms in the late 1930s brought improvements: eighthour workdays, minimum wages, family allowances, and paid holidays.
From 1920 to 1941, Hungary’s population rose from 7.9 to 9.3 million, driven by: peace and rising living standards, healthcare investments reducing infant mortality, improved public health, the arrival of refugees from pre-Trianon territories.
The Treaty of Trianon reshaped Hungary into a near nation-state. Over 90% were native Hungarian speakers. The largest remaining minority was the Swabian Germans (about 500,000), followed by smaller Slovak, Serbian, and Croatian groups. Census data focused on language, not identity, making precise minority figures unclear.
Gypsies (Roma) numbered around 100,000, though exact data is unavailable. Around 10–15% were still nomadic and frequently discriminated against by authorities. Hungary’s Jewish community comprised around 5% of the population, but was heavily urbanized—20% of Budapest’s residents were Jewish. Census methods often classified Jews and Roma as Hungarian due to language use.
Religion regained importance during the Horthy era. Christian values were promoted by the ruling party, and the Catholic Church reclaimed political influence, despite Horthy being Reformed. Religious practices like Lent fasting and pilgrimages remained central in rural life.
In census data, about 65% identified as Roman Catholic, 21% as Calvinist, and 6% as Lutheran. “Non-religious” was not an option. Jews formed about 5–6% of the population, but due to conversions, this dropped to 4–4.5% by 1940.
Postwar Hungary faced a severe social crisis. World War I left behind many invalids, widows, and orphans in need of support. The Treaty of Trianon also caused a refugee crisis—many displaced people lived for years in train carriages (wagon dwellers) due to housing shortages. This led to the establishment of a public welfare system. A Ministry for Public Welfare and Work Affairs was created, and the 1920s saw several social reforms: compulsory sickness and accident insurance, old-age pensions at 65, allowances for war widows and orphans, and a national social security system.
19. WORLD WAR II: FRONTS, TURNING POINTS AND THE END OF THE WAR
Key data: 1 September 1939: the invasion of Poland, 1939-1945 World War II, 1939-1940: the Winter War, 1940: the Battle of England, 22 June 1941: Nazi attack on the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa); 7 December 1941: the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 1942: the Battle of ElAlamein, the Battle of Midway, 1943: the Tehran Conference, February 1943: the end of the Battle of Stalingrad; 6 June 1944: the invasion of Normandy; August 1944: Romania switches sides to the Allies, 1945: Potsdam and Yalta Conferences, 9 May 1945: the end of the war in Europe; 6 August 1945: the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, 2 September 1945: Japanese surrender Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, Hitler, Rommel, Roosevelt, Stalin, Zhukov, Berlin, Dresden (bombing), Hiroshima, Japan, Italy (invasion in 1943), Kursk, Leningrad, Moscow, Normandy, Pearl Harbour, Stalingrad, USSR, Vichy, Warsaw, Yugoslvia, Allies, Axis Powers, Blitzkrieg, front, total war, Yalta Conference, partisan, collective guilt
World War II (1939–1945) was a global conflict involving most of the world’s nations and fought across multiple fronts between the Allies (mainly Britain, the USSR, the USA, France, China) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, and other allies) The war’s outcome hinged on the shifting momentum of battles, key strategic decisions, and the resilience of nations under the strain of total war, an all-out war involving not only military personnel but civilian populations as well.
The war began on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, where they utilized the rapid, overwhelming tactics of Blitzkrieg, with tanks and airplanes making way for a swift invasion. This invasion triggered declarations of war by Britain and France, starting the broader conflict.
On the Western Front, after a brief lull called the “Phoney War”, in which the French and the British did not launch attacks despite the declaration of war, German forces launched a major offensive in 1940 through Belgium, defeating French forces and occupying France. A collaborationist regime based in Vichy governed the unoccupied zone; while Charles de Gaulle created an emigré French government in London, calling for resistance against the Nazis. British forces, under Churchill, resisted German aerial bombing in the 1940 Battle of England, ultimately defending Britain from invasion.
Meanwhile, in 1939-1940, the USSR fought the Winter War against Finland, seizing territory but suffering heavy losses, foreshadowing the grim campaigns on the Eastern Front.
The North African front was defined by tank warfare and desert combat. Nazi forces under Erwin Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” battled British and Commonwealth troops in hopes of putting their hands on the British-occupied oil fields in the Middle East. The tide turned at the 1942 Battle of El-Alamein, a key Allied victory in Egypt. Following the North African battles, the Allies invaded Italy (invasion in 1943). Despite Mussolini’s fall in 1943, German troops resisted fiercely and took over the fight from Fascist Italy. Mussolini was freed by an SS commando unit and reinstalled as leader in the north of Italy (Republic of Saló). This turned Italy into a prolonged warzone and Mussolini into a Nazi puppet. Still, despite a long stalemate at Monte Cassino, Allied troops slowly pushed north, eventually capturing key cities. Italy’s fall weakened the Axis and diverted German resources from other fronts.
The Eastern front was the largest and bloodiest theatre of the war. On 22 June 1941, Nazi Germany launched a massive invasion of the USSR (Operation Barbarossa), despite signing a non-agression treaty with the Soviets in 1939. The early battles of 1941 and 1942 raged around Moscow and Leningrad, but the campaign also saw destruction of rural and urban environments as well as the deportation or killing of Slavic/Jewish population from the region. In 1942, the Nazis launched a campaign into the southern parts of Russia in order to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus. The campaign was halted along the River Volga and the city of Stalingrad, where the Nazis and the Soviets engaged in fierce house-to-house fights for the city. The Battle of Stalingrad, ending in February 1943 with Soviet victory, marked a major shift in favor of the Allies. It is also considered the bloodiest and costliest battle of the entirety of human history, with at least 1 million dead and around 2 million more wounded or captured. After Stalingrad, the Soviets were
pushing Germany out of Eastern Europe at great speed. In July 1943, the Nazis launched a counterattack at Kursk, which turned into the greatest tank battle in history with at least 6.000 tanks and 4.000 aircraft involved. The counterattack was repelled by the Soviets, who now had a clear way into liberating Eastern Europe from Nazi rule.
In the Pacific, the war escalated when Japan, allied with Germany and Italy, bombed Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941, leading to U.S. entry into the war on the side of the Allies. The Pacific war was defined by naval battles and island hopping, with major clashes such as the 1942 Battle of Midway, where Japan lost four major aircraft carriers. This halted Japanese expansion and gave momentum to the Allies.
At the 1943 Tehran Conference, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to plan the final defeat of Nazi Germany. Although Churchill and Roosevelt contemplated launching an invasion in the Balkans, the Big Three agreed on opening a second front in Western Europe (which would become the Normandy invasion) as Stalin demanded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans should be in the USSR’s sphere of influence. They also discussed postwar arrangements, reflecting Allied cooperation and long-term vision.
Following victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, the USSR launched massive offensives in the East. Soviet troops advanced through Eastern Europe, liberating territories and entering Poland (while completely ignoring the Polish Uprising in Warsaw) and helping to liberate Yugoslavia, which had had its partisan resistance movement fighting against the Nazis. In August 1944, Romania switches sides to the Allies, opening the Balkans further to Soviet influence.
On 6 June 1944 (the so-called D-Day), American general Eisenhower commanded Allied forces landing in Normandy, establishing a Western front. This massive amphibious assault broke through German coastal defenses. Later, Charles de Gaulle returned to France as Allied forces liberated Paris and pushed toward Germany. In late 1944, Hitler launched a last-ditch counteroffensive in the Ardennes, known as the Battle of the Bulge. The surprise attack temporarily stalled Allied progress, but ultimately the Germans were repelled, leaving their western defenses shattered.
The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, brought together Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin to discuss the postwar order as Germany neared defeat. They agreed on dividing Germany into occupation zones, the formation of the United Nations, and free elections in Eastern Europe—though tensions were already visible.
As the Allies closed in from both west and east, Germany faced relentless bombardment. Cities like Dresden suffered devastating air raids. Berlin became the final battleground. Soviet troops, commanded by general Zhukov, entered the city in April 1945, and after some days of fighting, Hitler committed suicide. A couple of days earlier, Mussolini was also captured by Italian partisans and executed. Germany surrendered on 9 May 1945, which is considered the end of the war in Europe. The Potsdam Conference, held in July–August 1945, involved Stalin, President Truman (Roosevelt’s successor), and British leaders Churchill and later Attlee. It focused on partitioning Germany and Berlin into three (later four) zones of occupation, demilitarizing and denazifying Germany, as well as expelling millions of Germans from Eastern Europe on the basis of collective guilt.
In the Pacific, captured capturing strategic islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. With Japan heavily bombed and its navy crippled, surrender seemed near. Despite heavy casualties and firebombings, Japan refused unconditional surrender. The U.S. opted for a nuclear solution. On 6 August 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, followed by a second bomb on Nagasaki. Facing unimaginable destruction, Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945, ending World War II.
20. HUNGARY’S INVOLVMENT IN WORLD WAR II UNTIL MARCH 1944
Key data: 1938: the First Vienna Award, the First Jewish Law, 1939: reannexation of Transcarpathia, the Second Jewish law, 1940: Second Vienna Award, April 1941: attack on Yugoslavia, 27 June 1941: Hungary declares war on the USSR, 1941: the Third Jewish Law, January 1943: Defeat at the Don Bend, 19 March 1944: the German occupation of Hungary, László Bárdossy, Hitler, Miklós Horthy, Miklós Kállay, Ferenc Szombathelyi, Pál Teleki, Don Bend, Southern Hungary, Kassa, Upper Hungary, Yugoslavia, Transcarpathia, Northern Transylvania, Novi Sad
On the eve and during the early years of WWII, Hungary regained several territories lost after the Treaty of Trianon. The first such event followed the 1938 Munich Conference, after which Czechoslovakia was forced to cede the Sudetenland to Germany. Hungary and Poland were advised to resolve territorial disputes
with Czechoslovakia through bilateral talks. When those failed, the First Vienna Award (1938) was concluded with Italian and German arbitration. Hungary received 12,000 km², largely inhabited by ethnic Hungarians, including the Hungarian-populated parts of Upper Hungary and a small part of Transcarpathia. However, Hungary was not yet committed to participating in an upcoming war on the side of Germany and Italy, instead Prime Minister Pál Teleki (1939-1941) opted to stay neutral.
The second major gain occurred in March 1939, when Germany occupied Czech lands and Slovakia declared independence (and quickly turned into a Nazi puppet state). Hungary seized the rest of Transcarpathia and established a border with Poland. It was through this corridor that tens of thousands of Polish refugees arrived in Hungary after the Nazi invasion in September 1939.
Following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the 1939 invasion of Poland, Hitler supported territorial changes between Hungary and Romania to ensure harmony between his allies. When bilateral talks failed again, the Second Vienna Award (1940) gave Hungary Northern Transylvania and the Székelyföld—an area of 43,000 km² with a Hungarian majority. While this was celebrated in Hungary, Romania saw it as a disaster and the UK questioned its legality. The agreement pushed Hungary into political dependence on Germany, ending its neutrality and forcing it to join the Tripartite Pact.
Hungary’s final territorial gain came after the German invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Though PM Teleki had signed a friendship treaty with Yugoslavia in 1940 to signal independence from Germany, Hitler expected Hungary’s involvement in the invasion. Unable to resolve the conflict between German pressure and treaty obligations, Teleki committed suicide on 3 April.
PRE-PUBLICATION
After Croatia declared independence and the Yugoslav state collapsed, Hungarian forces entered Bácska (Bačka), the Baranya triangle, and Muraköz and thus regained Southern Hungary. Although they faced guerrilla resistance rather than front-line fighting, Hungary acquired 11,500 km². Around a third of the population there was Hungarian. In 1942, army chief Ferenc Szombathelyi ordered the Hungarian Army to put down partisan actions in Serbian territory, and thus they started the Újvidék (Novi Sad) massacre, killing 3,000–4,000 Serb and Jewish civilians. Yugoslav partisans later retaliated, killing about 6,000 Hungarians and 27,000 Germans in 1944–1945.
Despite atrocities and the questionable deals, the return of historically significant cities such as Kassa (Košice), Nagyvárad
(Oradea), Kolozsvár (Cluj), and Szabadka (Subotica) had a profound psychological effect on Hungarians and justified the government’s pro-Axis policies in the eyes of many citizens—though it cost Hungary the goodwill of the UK and USA.
Days the start of Operation Barbarossa (22 June 1941), the city of Kassa was bombed (26 June) by unidentified aircraft. The origin of the attack remains uncertain—most evidence points to an accidental Soviet bombing. Regardless, Horthy quickly declared war on the USSR on 27 June without consulting the Assembly, and also against the wisdom of PM László Bárdossy. By the end of 1941, Hungary was at war with the USSR, the UK, and the USA. These developments later led to clashes between Prime Minister László Bárdossy, Horthy and other political leaders.
In 1942, Horthy began distancing himself from Hitler and replaced Bárdossy with Miklós Kállay as PM (1942-1944), a moderate tasked with cautiously reducing Hungary’s reliance on Germany. Although the Kállay government maintained formal alliance with Germany, from summer 1942 onward, they secretly explored ways to exit the way— this is often called a sort of “swing policy”. With Horthy’s backing, and advice from former PM István Bethlen, secret negotiations with the Western Allies began about quitting the war and/or switching sides.
Hungarian troops, notably the Rapid Corps, first fought in Southwest Ukraine. Despite bravery, their outdated equipment led to heavy losses. They were pulled back by November 1941. In summer 1942, under German pressure, the Hungarian Second Army joined the offensive towards Stalingrad, taking up positions at the Don River (“Don bend”). When the Soviet counteroffensive began in January 1943, the Hungarian forces were overwhelmed. Poorly equipped compared to Soviet troops, they lost approximately 40,000 men, while another 60,000 were captured or wounded. The disaster at the Don devastated both the army and public morale.
After this, Hungary refrained from major frontline battles. Some units were deployed for occupation duties in Belarus and Ukraine. The Don disaster reinforced Kállay’s secret efforts to negotiate peace. He promised the Allies that Hungary would surrender once they reached its borders. However, although the Allies landed in Sicily in 1943 and Italy exited the war, the plan proved unrealistic.
By 1944, the Red Army was at Hungary’s doorstep, and Kállay continued seeking a separate peace with Horthy’s approval. However, Horthy himself only wanted to surrender to the western Allies, as he was a staunch anti-bolshevik. Believing a Balkan front
might open, Kállay pursued western Allied contact. Aware of these efforts, Hitler invited Horthy to a meeting at Schloss Klessheim near Salzburg on 15 March. While Horthy was away, German troops occupied Hungary on 19 March 1944.
21. THE TRAGEDIES OF HUNGARIANS OUTSIDE THE BORDERS OF HUNGARY (1944-1946)
Key data: Iron Guard, Maniu Guard, Benes-decrees, collective guilt, concentration camp, deportation, expulsion, malenkiy robot, partisan, show trial, population exchange, E. Benes, János Esterházy, Áron Márton, Csúrog, Jarek, Southern Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Svaliava (Szolyva), Transcarpathia
For the ethnic Hungarians living outside the post-Trianon borders of Hungary—in Transcarpathia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia—the period between 1944 and 1946 brought systemic persecution, mass deportations, and acts of violence driven by both ideological and ethnic motivations.
One of the earliest and most brutal tragedies to affect ethnic Hungarians occurred in Soviet-occupied Transcarpathia. As the Red Army advanced into the region in late 1944, Soviet authorities initiated mass deportations under the pretext of “malenkij robot”—a “little work” that supposedly would last only a few days. In reality, it was a euphemism for forced labor in the Soviet Union. Tens of thousands of Hungarian and German men aged between 18 and 50, were rounded up and transported to labor camps deep inside the Soviet Union. One of the most infamous collection and transit points was the camp in Svaliava (Szolyva), where many detainees were held in inhumane conditions before being sent east. The mortality rate in these camps was devastating, with starvation, disease, and exhaustion claiming countless lives. These deportations were carried out indiscriminately, punishing individuals based solely on their ethnicity (those who had Germansounding names) rather than any proven collaboration with the Axis powers.
In Northern Transylvania, which had been returned to Hungary after the Second Vienna Award, ethnic tensions flared once again after the withdrawal of German and Hungarian forces in 1944. Earlier in the war, Romanian fascism had been characterized by the violent
antisemitism of the Iron Guard, a far-right paramilitary movement allied with the Nazis until their removal from power in 1941. After Romania switching sides in August 1944, a new extremist group known as the Maniu Guard emerged and targeted the Hungarian minority in the territories of Transylvania, killing dozens and deporting thousands to concentration camps.
One of the most significant voices against brutality in Romania was Áron Márton, the Roman Catholic bishop of Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár), who condemned the deportations of Hungarian and Romanian Jews in the years of the Holocaust, the atrocities against the Hungarians, and also the incoming Soviet forces. He was later imprisoned for some years by the Romanian Communists, but continued his service until 1980.
In Czechoslovakia, post-war government policies were rooted in the concept of collective guilt, promoted by President Edvard Beneš. Through a series of decrees known as the Beneš Decrees, ethnic Germans and Hungarians were declared collectively responsible for the disintegration of the First Czechoslovak Republic and for collaboration with the Nazis. These decrees stripped minorities of citizenship, property rights, and civil liberties. Hungarians in the territories of Czechoslovakia faced expulsions particularly under the 1946 population exchange agreement between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Thousands of Hungarian families were deported to Hungary (around 80-100.000), while Slovaks from Hungary (around 72.000) were resettled in their place. However, the Hungarians could not keep their belongings and were expelled with a few days’ notice, while Slovaks in Hungary were even given the choice to stay in Hungary or to resettle in Czechoslovakia. Some Hungarians were also sent to forced labor camps in 1945-1946, while others endured show trials, where the outcomes were predetermined and often severe.
A notable victim of Czechoslovak repression was János Esterházy, a Hungarian nobleman and politician who had consistently opposed both fascism and Nazism. Despite his democratic stance, Esterházy was arrested by Soviet forces, handed over to the Czechoslovaks, and condemned in a politically motivated show trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and died in custody in 1957.
In the Yugoslav territories with a large Hungarian population, the end of Axis occupation in 1944 brought a new wave of terror. Tito’s partisan forces, while hailed as liberators, also sought revenge for alleged wartime collaboration by ethnic minorities, mostly Hungarians and Germans. These reprisals often escalated into
massacres, especially in places like Csúrog, Zsablya, and Mozsor. Hungarian men, women, and children were executed without trial, and entire communities were uprooted. In Jarek, a notorious concentration camp was established where ethnic Hungarians and Germans were detained under dire conditions. The Yugoslav authorities also implemented policies of ethnic cleansing and property confiscation, aiming to change the demographic makeup of the region. Those who survived the initial massacres were often expelled or resettled, with their homes and lands given to Serb settlers.
