Review of the Etz Hayim Project
László BorhiFirst of all, I would like to say that in general terms I agree with and commend the concept which places the Hungarian Holocaust not just in an international context but also into the context of the Jewish past, Hungarian-Jewish cohabitation, Jewish assimilation in Hungary. I also commend the approach that the Hungarian Holocaust was not “waiting to happen” was not coded into Hungarian [or for that matter, European] history. I also highly commend the notion that the victims, and even other contemporaries must be given a voice, a point emphasized by Saul Friedlander. I fully agree with the notion that a bottom-up approach, the stories ordinary people have the capacity engage a young [and maybe not so young] audience the most.
First, I will give some general remarks, then I will turn to a detailed analysis in a chronological order, section by section. My appraisal will be one of an historian, and will focus on problems rather than strengths, which I emphasize should not be read as meaning that I have fundamental problems with the material.
In the second section of the review, I have highlighted some specific problems including factual errors which will need to be corrected.
General comments.
First. Further thought is needed regarding the international context. What is to be included? Should it be broadened to include more major developments in international politics such as the Anschluss, or the Munich Conference or military events, war developments such as German defeats and victories? Developments concerning the Grand Alliance: Atlantic Charter, the large conferences, Teheran, Yalta Potsdam? I have no doubt that at least the German invasion of the Soviet Union has a place in the exhibit if for nothing else, its significance for the unfolding of the Final Solution. Should Anti-Semitic aspects of the domestic politics of regional states such as Poland or Romania, Slovakia be referred to? Should we mention that the first deportations were authorized in Bratislava? What about the European context of the Holocaust? On this point I am pretty sure that more needs to be included at least in the chronologies: the escalation of anti-Jewish policies by the German leadership, introduction of anti-Semitic measure in Germany and the
elsewhere in places such as Austria, France, etc.: laws decrees targeting Jews [and other groups], such as restrictions curbing every-day activities, the yellow star, etc., the beginning and destination of deportations. Space is not endless. I am aware of the constraints and of the fact that the focus is Hungary. Still, I think that more of this international background is needed to put Hungarian events into context. I think that it will be possible to include more material necessary to contextualize and understand Hungarian developments without saying too much to handle.
Second. Focusing on the Holocaust, I think the crucial message is, as it should be, that the deportations would not have taken place without the German invasion. If this is the case, the causes and impact of the German invasion must receive more emphasis than in the current concept. The German invasion is tied to Hungary’s efforts to quit the war, as Goebbels made amply clear in his diary. As an example, see Volume 9, p. 397: Im zusammenhang mit der Finnischen Angelegenheit ist der Fuhrer jetzt auch fest entschlossen die ungarische Frage zu losen. Die Ungarn uben Verrat am laufenden Band. Er wird Ihnen Dutzende Male nachgewisesen, aber sie reagieren nicht auf unsere proteste. Der Fuhrer hat nun keine Lust die Ungarischen Verhaltnisse sich genau so zuspitzen zu lassen… Der Verrat muss bestraft werden. Er will die Ungarische Regierung absetzen und verhaften, Horthy in gewersam nehmen, ein Regime Imredy einzurichten…”
Therefore, I strongly recommend that a section on premier Kállay’s maneuverings to change sides be included and tied to the German invasion. This could actually be made a highly exciting part of the exhibition as it involved the landing of the American Sparrow Mission in Hungary on March 17, 1944, which may have triggered the invasion. This part of the exhibit could even highlight the activities of figures like Albert Szentgyörgyi.
As for the consequences of the occupation: there are plenty of DEGOB testimonies that highlight the Jewish perception of the event and how their lives changed in consequence. The exhibition could also show the visitors that democratic and anti-German elements [including the prime minister] were rounded up and deported.
Third. The activities of the Jewish leadership should receive more emphasis and their inaction, sometimes heroism to save their community highlighted. Who were these people and why were they chosen? Did they have choices? How well did they serve their community?
I suggest adding the following information: In November 1943 leaders of the Jewish Rescue Committee, Rezső Kasztner and Shmuel Springmann met Oscar Schindler in Hotel Hungaria in Budapest. Kasztner and Springmann wanted to know why the Germans were murdering Jews. The question itself suggested that they had already known about the German policy of mass murder. Schindler suggested that there were around 500 thousand Jews left alive in Poland. Kasztner and Springmann inquired whether there was a universal order to kill all the Jews. They were told that no such order existed but a “higher authority” must have given the SS orders to destroy “dangerous or useless Jews.” Somebody from above ‘ordered annihilation’ although Schindler doubted their goal was “total annihilation.” Pressed further Schindler admitted that according to figures he had obtained from the SS, 4 to 4,5 million Jews had already been murdered although he thought these figures were exaggerated. But he claimed that 90 percent of the Jewish children in the General Government had been “shot or gassed.” Kasztner and Springmann told Schindler they had heard Auschwitz was an “extermination camp.” Schindler indicated that was possible particularly for the “elderly and children.” Schindler added that he had heard Jews were being “gassed and burned there.” The Germans he thought had “perfected a scientific system there in order to avoid more Katyns.” 1
I suggest adding a section on the role and membership of the Jewish council and the fate of these people. I do not think that the exhibition would be complete without addressing the function and role of the Jewish Councils.
Fourth. I suggest a theme room where the visitor could “meet” the Hungarian and German perpetrators, organizers of the deportations: Endre, Baky, Ferenczy, Eichmann, Höss, Veesenmayer, Winkelmann, etc. as well as the ordinary Hungarian gendarme or German SS man. This would highlight individual responsibility rather than that of faceless structures, systems, bureaucracies. Given the fabulous technology touted in the documentation I am confident that this could be done. Such a section would also highlight the ‘collaborative’ nature of the killing process.
Fifth: In the general part on the Holocaust it must definitely mention that a significant part of the Holocaust victims were murdered on the eastern front and Romanian occupied areas; the traditional, Auschwitz centered narrative of the Holocaust does not stand. In case space permits, a
section or subsection could be introduced to show the mass killings on the eastern front and interrelatedly, the behavior of occupation troops including the behavior of Hungarian units. The latter has been subject to intense debate lately.
Sixth. I recommend that the postwar [post Holocaust] section the anti-Zionist persecution of 1952/1953 in the framework of which two former members of the Jewish Council (Stöckler, Berend) were arrested and tortured be included
Seventh. I miss Slomo’s verbal remark that Etz Hayim will break with tradition and show Jews as flesh and blood people not as the gaunt figures that preserve the Nazi image of the Jew.
Eight. Values are emphasized but what I have seen says little about ordinary saviors and perpetrators who made choices right and wrong both in the camp system and during the nyilas era. One lesson of the experience could be that there is always a choice, no matter how little, even in the direst of circumstances.
Nineth. I like the idea of the tree of life representing the Hungarian – Jewish relationship running through the museum. The idea is that the trunk narrowed but was never cut, the relationship between the two groups was not ruptured the evidence being the revival of Jewish life. The question to be addressed is why this is so? What kept this relationship and the community in Hungary alive?
Tenth. In most places the language is neutral, sometimes however, it becomes a little strident ‘Hungary’s fascist Italian, Nazi German allies, etc. I would leave these out and refer to these actors without the adjectives.
Specific comments.
Introduction: ‘extremely unique’ – should be ‘unique’. Instead of ‘tolerant society’ I would rather say tolerant political elite. It is hard to say in retrospect exactly how tolerant a society was. In addition, what really mattered were the attitudes of the elite and the political class.
Growth of anti-Semitism: I suggest citing the war, which saw the intensification of anti-Jewish sentiments in Hungary and internationally and mainly the reign of terror of the Republic of Councils.
Audience: “telling the stories of children and young adults…’ I would change this to the more inclusive ‘telling the stories of individual victims with focus on children and young adults.’
Hungarian story: Rather than the awkward and politically loaded mirror translation ‘Greater Hungary’ I would say prewar Hungary or historic Hungary.
p. 12. Hungarian story: the statement the Kállay Government’s ‘fluctuating Jewish policy’ is too vague and hence lacks meaning. Instead, I suggest something like ‘even though the Kállay administration, under pressure from the radical right, introduced anti-Jewish measures, Kállay rejected German demands to deport Hungary’s Jews. Kállay also took steps to alleviate the suffering of Jews and others serving in the labor battalions on the eastern front. That the situation of the Jews in Hungary was better than elsewhere is an understatement. The British Foreign Office noted in 1943 that possibly due to the secret peace efforts the situation of the Jews in Hungary improved. Jews coming to Hungary referred to it as a comparative paradise. Young Jewish Zionist leader Rafi Benshalom, who arrived in Budapest from Slovakia in January 1944, was shocked:
‘For me, in Europe of 1944, this seemed like a fantasy… Jews seeking entertainment could still visit coffee houses, cinemas and theaters. While in Poland, hundreds of thousands of Europe’s Jews were being annihilated and the whole world lived in fear.” 2 They were allowed to visit restaurants and coffeehouses do their shopping unrestricted, travel around, etc. Simon Kemény’s diary is also a good source.
p. 14. It should be emphasized that Auschwitz was not the only death camp [Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek etc. should also be listed].
The statement ‘scientific infrastructure of mass murder’ reflects an obsolete view: well over a million people were murdered in the east with ‘traditional’ methods: starvation, shooting, beating, etc. In addition, murder in Auschwitz included very hands on methods such as various forms torture beating to death, freezing to death, burning people alive in pits. The bestiality of killings
must be emphasized; omitting the atrocities would falsify history and lend credence to views that killing was ‘humane.’
5. “The museum’s narrative – telling the history of the Holocaust…’ add something along the lines of ‘embedded in the history of Jewish life in Hungary.’
Museum ‘will not be a wall hanging encyclopedia’: For most visitors this will be the first and probably the last exposure to the topic, therefore, to the contrary, I would strive to provide a firm factual grounding.
1.7 ‘The war to end wars’ – make the necessary attribution to Woodrow Wilson.
2.1. ‘The Red Terror brought widespread terror to both Jews and non-Jews’: this is a false equivalence which could hurt the Museum’s credibility Most of the violence was directed against non-Jews. Consult with NEB for current estimate of victims.
Hundreds of Jews killed in the White Terror; the actual figure may have been much higher, traditionally estimated at 2500; consult with NEB for current estimate.
2.3 ‘empowerment of feudalistic elite’ this is very old school in a bad way. In fact, the interwar period saw an intensive effort for the cultural uplifting of the countryside and the social ascent of at least a part of the working class. Ethnic minorities were not suppressed in interwar Hungary, which was the ethnically most homogenous state in the region anyhow.
2.14. First Vienna Treaty should be First Vienna Award. Caption should indicate that this was an international arbitration sought by Budapest and Prague to which Great Britain was invited to participate but declined. The Second Vienna Treaty should be Second Vienna Award.
November 2 1938 Hungary was not officially allied with either state at the time; it joined the antiComintern Pact on February 24 1939. Horthy was still hoping to keep the door open with the British. ‘Fascist allies’: keep the language neutral.
p. 44. On the shelf, add: September 28 1939: Soviet-German Treat of Friendship – delineated the spheres of interests between the two powers.
p. 47. April 30 1940 precedes November 23 1939: switch round.
p. 50. Jewish refugees in Hungary – mention could be made of the Poles and the French who received asylum in Hungary; identify individuals who might have played a role!
p. 51. 3.8 Kamenets Podolsk: the whole thing hangs in the air if the context: mass murder of civilians on the eastern front – is not explained in the light of German occupation policy As far as I know Ukrainian volunteer units also took part in the killing. Please clarify.
I suggest that a section should be added at this point that explains the mass killings perpetrated by the Germans and local helpers [communal killings] on the eastern front!
3.9 Wannsee: The caption suggests that the decision to exterminate European Jewry was made at this conference – which is not the case. In fact, over a million Jews had already been murdered; the decision for the Final Solution was made sometime in fall 1941. Please rectify.
3.11 The way the sentence is phrased creates the wrong emphasis and thus diminishes the importance of Hungary being the last safe haven for Jews in Europe. I would switch around the two parts of the sentence along the lines of: ‘although anti-Semitic rhetoric in the 30s… Nazi policy of mass murder was rejected.’
p. 57 on the shelf: first sentence ‘the frustration of the antifascist bloc to armed resistance’ garbled.
p. 58. [and later] it might be more precise to say that Horthy suspended rather halted deportations.
March 19 – July 7: ‘deportations and mass murder take place’ confusing, as deportations did not start until mid-May.
4.4. Talks with Eichmann, ‘The goal is…’ Clarify that the offer came from Eichmann. I suggest making mention of the related Brand – Grosz mission. If space permits a brief history of this would make a fascinating exhibit. The Eichmann proposal, whatever its merits remained unexplored and raises a lot of questions regarding the western attitude to the Holocaust.
4.5 on the shelf caption has a part missing; deportations begin: supply date.
4.9 ‘In the context of the Soviets defeating the Germans a year earlier in 1943’ sentence makes no sense: What Soviet defeat of the Germans in 1943?
‘creates a war with multiple fronts for the first time’: incorrect: there already existed a front in Italy since 1943
p. 76. The image does not match the caption.
4.15 Lists the reasons behind Horthy’s decision to suspend the deportations. This contradicts a statement made earlier that the Vrba-Wetzler report may have been the reason. This is a contentious issue and it is a good idea to list the possible causes – the Vrba Wetzler report being one of them.
4.16. Refer to the attempts to quit the Axis from 1942! See the general section of the review for details.
4.18 ‘Wallenberg and others’ I find this wording derogatory. Use this opportunity to highlight lesser known heroes. It needs to be added that many ordinary people were hiding Jews and others on the run from the nyilas in their homes or the cellars of their buildings despite the evident risk they incurred.
Raul should be Raoul.
4.22 Caption does not match the image.
‘Wallenberg’s fate remains in dispute’ I think it is safe to say that he was murdered in Moscow Lubyanka prison in 1947.
5.3 Hungarian trials: 1945-1967 should be correctly 1945-1971. The Zuglói per was not the last Arrow Cross trial. The last major one was held in 1971, Budai Gyilkosok pere, which was less publicized but of equal significance. The latter dealt with one of the most murderous nyilas gangs, the XIIth district, which was active on both sides of the river.
5.4. You might consider the following quote from a liberation sermon [source: DEGOB]:
‘Germany may have lost but Hitler won the war against the Jews. We see the endless lines of our dead comrades, our impotence, we cannot understand how we stayed alive. We are not alive we are dead too.’
5.6 Meaning of quote, ‘rise and fall without letting go’ unclear.
5.8 End of quote garbled.
5.11 This Beria quote comes from just one memoir. Whether he actually did say this is unclear.
5.12 ‘The revolution unleashes a wave of anti-Jewish incidents.’ To the best of my knowledge ‘a wave’ is an overstatement. Éva Standeiszky tried very hard to find anti-Semitic incidents and came up with a few but even one of those is dubious. This is the kind of sweeping statement that could undermine the credibility of the Museum. Bringing up the charge of anti-Semitism in relation with the 1956 revolution would open the exhibition to criticism unnecessarily.
5.15 Sentence ‘Remembering evil…’ meaning unclear.
Major Hungarian Holocaust related events the election seems to be arbitrary, I do not see much logic behind it. If Jobbik is mentioned why is MIÉP is not? How are they related to the Holocaust?
How does Keleti’s award fit into this chronology? [other Holocaust survivors were decorated also]. Why is the erection of memorials such as Wallenberg’s statue not mentioned? The publication of Braham’s two volume Holocaust history in the 80s? The two major Arrow Cross trials? I think this part could be skipped without much damage.
4.13 The right term is not Governor but Regent.
4.15 There was no Hungarian brand of totalitarian rule [before Rákosi]. Their vision [Hungarism] was not ‘totalitarian’ and neither they have time to establish any kind of formal political system. The adjectives ‘cruelty, madness, arbitrariness’ do not capture well the motivations behind the atrocities in Budapest. The Arrow Cross detachments did not act on orders from above, in fact they defied the orders of the party’s top leaders. Many arrow cross killers were motivated by a very rational goal: the de-Jewification of Hungary while they filled their pockets and party coffers at the side. They were also driven by class resentment/hatred and beside Jews they turned their murderous ire against representatives of the old regime the clergy and people who aided Jews. Their main targets were indisputably Jews. This section needs to be reworded.
5.1 Bittersweet liberation: I would add that that most people may have experienced the moment of their liberation with great joy and exhilaration and as the restoration of their human dignity. I would also add that some saw liberation as a chance to exact revenge on their tormentors. There are plenty of DEGOB sources for the individual experience of liberation