Expert opinion on the House of Fates design concept
The central theme of the the House of Fates concept is the story of the Hungarian Holocaust, but including presentations on Hungarian Jewish life before and after the Holocaust was an excellent choice by the designers. The House of Fates tells the story of Jews but the exhibition proposition is correct in stating that the Jewish fate is a Hungarian fate and that their story is a Hungarian story. This is because Jews living in Hungary were Hungarians and their contribution was crucial in building a flourishing Hungarian culture and economy. The proposed exhibition deserves special praise for showcasing the history, traditions and spiritual values of Hungarian Jews while also highlighting the complexities and divided nature of this community.
Notwithstanding the above, it is not clear who is considered to be a Hungarian Jew by the House of Fates. It seems to me that it uses the criteria of living within the borders of Hungary - whatever the borders were at the particular time. In the section telling the story up until 1918, Jews living in Slovakia, Carpathian Ruthenia, Transylvania and the southern territories are regarded as belonging to the Hungarian community. Then, in the presentation I received for evaluation on events after 1919, these Jews who ended up on the other side of the border are suddenly forgotten. Their fate is only mentioned again when some of these territories are re-annexed to Hungary between 1938 and 1941. When survivors of the Holocaust are mentioned, those on the other side of the border are consigned to oblivion again.
It is a praiseworthy effort to present a significant portion of the Holocaust through personal stories. This makes the tragedy and the trauma relatable and understandable.
In my opinion, the short explanations are true masterpieces because they summarise complex historical processes and events in a few sentences, and for the most part they are accurate.
The central subject of the House of Fates concept is the period between 1918 and 1945. The design proposal is correct in referring to antismitic tendencies overshadowing the beginning of the Horthy era. The introduction of the “numerus clausus” was the most well-known and significant of these. The design proposal presents the consolidation of the Bethlen era as a sort of “silver age” because Jews could live freely and their representatives were admitted to the upper house of the Parliament. The design proposal suggests that Hungarian Jews lived in good or at least in acceptable circumstances for most of the Horthy era and institutional antisemitism “only” began with introduction of “anti-Jewish legislation.”
According to my research this interpretation of history is misleading and does not help in understanding the period starting in 1938 that culminated in an almost total annihilation of Jews.
After the First World War, antisemitic politics and opinions became more and more prominent in Hungary and this is not portrayed appropriately. The design proposal promises to discuss Hungarian events in their international context but in actuality only Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish measures are described, although Hungarian antisemitic politics are most similar to that of Romania and Poland. These three countries exhibited very similar tendencies from the early 1920s. The rise of Nazi Germany only facilitated the carrying out of the antisemitic politics that was supressed in Europe dominated as it was by victorious Western powers after World War I.
Although we certainly cannot draw a straight line between the processes unfolding during the First World War and the final outcome in 1944, in my opinion the presentation on the road leading to the Holocaust should start with World War I.
Between 1914 and 1920 the situation of Jews changed almost everywhere in the world. There were two factors giving rise to this change. During the Russian civil war about 80-100 thousand Jews were murdered in Eastern Europe. These series of mass murders may be considered a kind of pre-Holocaust due to the large number of victims. On the other hand, at the end of the World War Jews became independent actors on the international stage. A prominent example is the setting up of the Committee of Jewish Delegations which represented minorities’ interests during the Parisian peace talks.
Jews living in Central Eastern Europe were affected by both factors. The wave of antisemitism that swept through the continent reached Central Europe in 1918/19. The political elite of countries created in the wake of the dissolution of the Russian and German Empires and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy wanted to build “Christian” nation states and considered Jews or at least a large proportion of Jews to be a “foreign body’. This was especially true in Poland, Hungary and Romania. All three countries hoped to “solve” the “Jewish question” by squeezing Jews out of economic and cultural life and by expelling “the foreigners.” Hungary was only exceptional in the sense that her political elite was more vocal about these plans and acted on them more openly.
Although Galicians were never precisely defined, there were vigorous campaigns led against them from the summer of 1918 demonstrating the general tendency of the political elite to
The legend of Galician immigration, a central myth of Hungarian antisemitism, formed the basis for action against foreigners of the “Jewish race."
discriminate between “good” Jews who assimilated into society and “foreigners” who were held responsible for both Communism and the injustices of Capitalism.
From the autumn of 1919 Hungarian public life was permeated with almost incessant calls for expelling “Galician” Jews. Károly Huszár, Sándor Simonyi-Semadam, Pál Teleki’s first government and even István Bethlen’s government, all introduced legislation about expelling “foreigners of the Jewish race." Bethlen, as he explained in his introductory speech on April 19, 1921, wished to fight “noisy” antisemitism. He agreed that Jews were not Hungarians and wished to restrict their perceived economic power. He didn’t wish of course to use aggressive means to achieve the strengthening of the Hungarian middle classes’ economic position against that of Jews, but he wanted to accomplish this gradually, not disregarding equal rights for all. Still, we must note that in Europe in the 1920s, and especially for a country desiring international recognition and membership of the League of Nations, there was no choice but to follow this policy.
Antisemitism was deeply ingrained in society throughout the Horthy era. This facilitated the carrying out of the “final solution."
Hungarian historiography has a long tradition of blaming the Holocaust almost exclusively on the Germans. Unfortunately, the design concept is not free from this attitude.
The story of the first Hungarian deportations is not sufficiently highlighted. This event consisted of deporting 22 thousand Jews “without citizenship” to Galicia. The transportation of “foreign” Jews was initiated by the Hungarian government and executed by the Hungarian armed forces. The deportations were only halted on the express request of the Germans. The Hungarian government is responsible not just for the transportations but also for not permitting the return of the deportees even after it became clear that they would become victims of mass murders.
The design concept correctly states that Hungarian Jews, except for those serving as forced labourers, were safe under the Kállay government. Undoubtedly, most Hungarian Jews would have survived the war if Germany did not occupy Hungary. But it is also clear that the Germans would have been unable to realize their plans for the Hungarian “final solution” without the active support of Hungarian authorities.
The design concept does not portray the immense moral dilemma facing Jewish leaders and Hungarian state representatives following German occupation. To save Jewish lives, members of the Jewish Council undertook the relaying and execution of Nazi orders. Members of the council and other Jewish leaders were forced to negotiate with Nazis in a very precarious position where only a thin line separated compromise from treachery. The exhibition does not present the
dramatic nature of this situation although it does make a mention of Rezső Kasztner’s trials and fate.
Leaders of public administration also faced the quandary of whether or not to take up a direct or indirect role in destroying Jews. Several sheriffs and mayors, as well as officials of the Foreign Ministry and the Interior Ministry were replaced. We know that many sheriffs and deputy sheriffs as well as mayors voluntarily resigned and retired following German occupation. Some officials refused to obey instructions and orders. But overall, the administration worked “well."
The design proposal does not give sufficient weight to the issue of collaboration by “common” people. There were several levels of collaborative behaviour manifested by them. There were some who gave up Jews in hiding. Others wanted to benefit from the properties of deported Jews. Others made official applications requesting such properties while many looted houses and shops after their owners were deported. And others took on great risks to express their solidarity by arranging for food, medicine and false papers for Jews moved into ghettos or crowded apartments.
The fifth chapter deals with the most important dilemma of surviving Jews: should they remain in the country of their birth overshadowed as it was by the death of their murdered loved ones or should they embark on a new life somewhere else. The design proposal does not include the answer to this question. During the spring of 1946, different Jewish organisations received about a 100 thousand registrations of intention to emigrate. 63 thousand Jews wished to travel to Palestine and 40 thousand specified a Western country, especially the United States as their destination. It seemed that half of those Hungarian Jews who survived the Holocaust wanted to leave the country. Although there are no accurate figures for those who actually emigrated, a lot fewer left than it was expected based on registrations. In 1946, 15 thousand Jews emigrated from Hungary according to the International Refugee Organization. By the end of 1949, when the borders were closed, another 30-40 thousand left. It is important to note that in the years immediately following the war, most Jews from Transylvania and Carpathian Ruthenia emigrated from the land of their birth.
The design concept contains very important ideas relating to the moral message of the House of Fates: We are personally accountable for our actions and decisions and we are also responsible for what happens around us in our immediate and extended neighbourhood. Essentially, the museum aspires to draw the attention of all visitors to the importance of civic responsibility and the accountability of governments. This crucial message should be complemented with highlighting the importance of democratic politics. Furthermore, the fact that it is dictatorships that carry out ethnic cleansing and genocide should be mentioned.
It would be important to point out that although the Holocaust belongs to the past, it is not a thing of the past; ethnic cleansing or genocides based on other cirteria happen regularly ever since and unfortunately they are likely to occur in the future too. Ecclesiastical anti-judaism took a long time to lead to political antisemitism and eventually to the Holocaust. In my opinion, a fundamental purpose of the exhibition is to teach visitors how to recognise antidemocratic tendencies in their own country and how to spot early signs of antisemitism, racism and nationalism. We must combat inhumane, destructive ideologies at the first sign of their appearance, not waiting until their poison pollutes the greater part of society.
Visitors should be made aware of how hate campaigns against minorities undermine democracy and facilitate the rise of authoritarian regimes that trample on fundamental citizens’ and human rights. The exhibition should show how democracy can gradually turn into dictatorship and point out that Hitler essentially got into power by election.
I cannot give an expert opinion on the interior design and arrangements of the House of Fates, but based on the design proposal the museum is promising to be a novel, spectacular, exciting and probably captivating exhibition.
Specific corrections:
Introduction, page 3 there is the following sentence: During the Second World War, Hungary was first a German ally but later became occupied by Germany. This phrasing is inaccurate. Between September 1, 1939 and June 26, 1941, Hungary was officially “a noncombatant party."
1.5. The antisemitic party established in 1883 was named National Antisemitic Party (Országos Antiszemita Párt). It should be mentioned that it was an official party until 1892.
2.1. This short description does not make it clear why the Hungarian Soviet Republic was considered by many to be a “Jewish conspiracy." The text should explain that among the members of left-wing movements, as well as among the founders and leaders of the first Communist dictatorship there were many who were born into Jewish families but did not practice their religion and did not consider themselves Jewish - as it is clear from the Béla Kun quote. It appears unavoidable to clarify how the House of Fates views such people of Jewish descent.
Using the “Jews” who served as leaders of the Communist regime, antisemitic propaganda equated Jews and Communism. This view was accepted, embraced and promulgated by the majority of the political elite during the Horthy era.
2.4. “Hungary became an ally of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 1930s.” This statement is inaccurate. On February 24, 1939, Hungary joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, but this did not denote a commitment to the alliance since the Pact was created to counterbalance the political activities of the Communist International. On November 20, 1940, Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact which was originally signed on September 27, 1940. This act brought Hungary closer to the position of being an ally. Section 3.11. refers to Hungary joining the Tripartite Pact.
Section 3. “World War 2. Gallery - 1939-1944
The principal message of this summary is that compared to the rest of Europe occupied by Germany, Jews in Hungary lived in relative safety. The text makes references to anti-Jewish legislation and forced labour but does not mention the first Hungarian deportations. 3.8. summarises the history of these deportations, albeit quite inaccurately.
3.5. Novi Sad Massacre
At the end of the description there is no mention of the fact that those with principal responsibility for the massacre fled to Germany and thus avoided punishment. Furthermore, there is a phrase “Hungarian speaking Jews” regarding Jews of the southern territories. There was no earlier mention of this. It may become a source of confusion as it is incongruous with the position (that the design concept also subscribes to) that Jews living in Hungary were Hungarians.
3.8. Murder in Kamenets Podolski
According to the text, 18 thousand Hungarian Jews who were unable to provide official proof of their Hungarian citizenship were deported to German occupied territories. These statements are inaccurate. Literature on the topic usually gives the figure as 22 thousand. A significant proportion of Jews were deported despite having proof of their Hungarian citizenship. Most of the deportees ended up in territories that were not controlled by Hungarian armed forces. This facilitated deportations. In Kamenets-Podolski, it was not the Einsatzgruppe that executed the massacres but Police Battalion 320. The text does not mention that the order given on the 9th of August to suspend deportations was made due to pressure from German high command.
Annihilating all Jews living in occupied territories was one of the main objectives of Nazi high command in the war against the Soviet Union. However, in the summer of 1941, there was no central management and uniform policy to accomplish this purpose. On August 25, German army headquarters in Vinnytsia resolved to murder all Jews living or staying in Kamenets-Podolski. According to a report given on the 11th of September by Einsatzgruppe C, 23,600 fell victim to the mass killings between August 27 and 29. Sources estimate that 11 to 13 thousand of the victims were Hungarians.
For deported Jews, their only chance of survival was returning to Hungary by some means. This was made extremely difficult by domestic authorities and the army strengthening their eastern border security to prevent Jews “seeping back." Very few deportees managed to get back home by asking or paying soldiers for their help, or by some other means.
Most of those Jews who escaped deportation to Kamenets-Podolski fell victim to massacres in Nadvirna, Kolomyia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chortkiv, Horodenka and other towns.
3.12. This description concerns Hungarian participation in the Soviet Union offensive. Based on the text the visitor might get the impression that Hungarian troops were not deployed on the Eastern Front until April 1942. There is no mention of the Carpathia-group (Kárpát-csoport) that fought on the Eastern Front from July 1941 and the Swift Action Unit (Gyorshadtest) that previously belonged to the Carpathia-group.
4.10. This section points out that while religious bodies voted for the first two anti-Jewish laws, they objected to the third one which was based on purely ethnic considerations. In actual fact, they also opposed the racial considerations of the second anti-Jewish law and urged modifications to benefit those Jews who converted to Christianity. There is no mention of the name of László Ravasz, although his picture is shown on page 136. Ravasz was one of the many religious leaders whose reaction to the deportations was too late and too reticent.
4.17. “An armed revolt in Pest, by Jewish labor servicemen is quickly quashed (not squashed)." Although plans were made for an uprising, there is no mention of such a revolt (or its quashing) in any literature on the topic. The text would suggest otherwise.
4.18. The text mentions the Red Cross among those saving lives. This statement may be misleading. The Hungarian Red Cross did not take part in rescue missions, but Friedrich Born, a delegate of the International Red Cross, joined rescue efforts by saving children, placing hospitals and orphanages under Red Cross protection and issuing safe passes.
4.22. The text accurately mentions that the Soviet Army of liberation took captive a huge number of civilians, among them Jews. However, the description should also point out that the civilians thus arrested were detained in Soviet POW and internment camps for several years - as did the soldiers. Different estimates put the number of Hungarian Jews in Soviet labour camps between 25 and 30 thousand. Most of them were forced labourers when they became “POWs."
Between 5.5. and 5.6. in the section “On the Shelf” there is no mention of the World Jewish Congress among organisations that helped the remaining Jews. The organisation’s Budapest office not only distributed aid but also facilitated Jewish spiritual renewal. The Statistical Department of the Hungarian branch of the World Jewish Congress prepared a series of publications on the demographical, economic and social situation of Jews who survived the Holocaust.
5.15. The section Contemporary Legacy of the Holocaust should provide a comprehensive picture of the course of Hungarian remembrance politics from the 1990 memorial to the victims of Holocaust to the memorial to the victims of German occupation which conflates Jewish losses with losses of the Hungarian army or civilians during the war.
Major Hungarian Holocaust Related Event
This section completely overlooks the years of regime change.
In a statement on June 12, 1990 the synod council of the Hungarian Reformed Churches expressed its regret over the Holocaust and admitted that the Church did not rise to the challenges presented by the war.
On July 8, 1990, at the unveiling of the memorial to the Hungarian Jewish victims of the Holocaust, president Árpád Göncz and prime minister József Antall described the Holocaust as a shameful episode in history, condemned antisemitism and paid homage to the martyrdom of Jews.
There is no mention of the “compensation act.” This government decree (74/1991.) was published on June 19, 1991 and pertained to the national insurance and employment rights status of people who were deported, conscripted to forced labour or were restricted in their personal freedom in other ways between 1938 and 1945 due to their ethnicity or nationality or because of their attitude towards Nazism.
On page 243 there is a table with the following caption: “forced labour on the front, 1943." The text mentions that “350 thousand Hungarian soldiers were lost.” In 1942 and 1943 the number of soldiers killed and forced labourers who suffered martyrdom is estimated to be around 100 thousand altogether. In World War II just over 300 thousand Hungarian soldiers perished although exact figures are not available. The table also contains the statement: “400 thousand Hungarian soldiers survived the war.” This figure is meaningless since the number of conscripted soldiers and those sent to the front fluctuated constantly. The table also contains the data: “40 thousand forced labourers died.” This number relates to forced labourers taken to the front with the 2nd Army. At the bottom of the table we find the statement: “65 thousand forced labourers survived.” Again, this statement is meaningless. The 2nd Army took about 50-60 thousand forced labourers to the Eastern Front.
The table on page 253 states that there were 825 thousand Jews in 1944. This figure is inaccurate for several reasons. The 1941 census recorded 725 thousand Jews within the contemporary borders of Hungary. Several estimates were drawn up of Hungarians who converted to Christianity but were still considered Jewish according to anti-Jewish legislation. Literature on the topic quotes lead statistician Alajos Kovács, who estimates their number to be 100 thousand. These figures relate to 1941. Because of widespread losses, by 1944 there were clearly fewer than 825 thousand Jews.