My views on Hungary
Tamás Szabados, January 2018
Until 1526, the
tragic battle at Mohács, the Kingdom of Hungary was a
significant medium-sized European country. Even if it was backward in some
areas compared to the West, it was well integrated into the Europe of the era.
The emergence of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans was a very dangerous threat
by a power stronger than Hungary. Consequently, Hungary was not able to
overcome this enemy alone. This fact was probably already apparent to Kings
Louis and Sigismund, Governor John Hunyadi and King Matthias. As it turned out,
the only force that was able to stop and later repel this enemy was another
great power, the Holy Roman Empire led by the Habsburg Monarchy from 1452. It
is a regrettable, but humanly understandable fact that from 1526 the Hungarian
political class was split or fluctuated between the Ottoman and the Habsburg
sides. It is regrettable because the lesser evil between the two bad options
was clearly the Habsburg Monarchy. The Ottoman culture and the Islamic religion
were so foreign to the European -- and thus the Hungarian -- cultures and
religions that they led to destruction and desertion in the territories they
occupied. The Habsburg rule, as can be seen from the Czech and Polish examples
as well, has led to a loss of a magnitude less.
It is unfortunate
that in the teaching and the memory of Hungarian history, many people, like
Gabriel Bethlen, Imre Thököly and Francis Rákóczi II,
who did not recognize this important difference between the two sides are
counted as national heroes. No matter how painful it is, but the pursuit of
complete national independence after 1526 was counterproductive from a
Hungarian point of view. After 1526, the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary lost
its role and prestige toward its ethnic minorities to be able to defend them
against an outside attack. This way, only the Habsburg Monarchy was able to
defend and preserve the historical Hungary during the following centuries. In
fact, the Habsburg Empire, multinational and rather well functioning, was a
rudimentary "small European Union", a forerunner of the present EU.
(It is no coincidence that Hitler so hated it.)
Turning toward the
important period of 1848-1849, one can state that history has justified the
views of István Széchenyi
compared to the ones of Lajos Kossuth. First, entering into an armed conflict
against the Habsburgs was a historic mistake. Another serious mistake of
Kossuth was that he did not agree to negotiate with the ethnic minorities
(Serbs, Croats, etc.) in the spring of 1848, when they were still willing.
Eventually, these mistakes contributed to the situation that the Habsburg
Empire was not able to transform itself into a more attractive framework for
its ethnic groups.
In sum, after 1526
Hungary was significantly lagging behind Western Europe. Essential progress was
made only during the reigns of Maria Theresa and Joseph II (1740-1790), then in
the reform period of 1825-1847, in the revolutionary spring of 1848, and
between 1867 and 1914, after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise.
1914 was a fatal
year for the whole European political system. ("Never ever has man been
smaller," Remembrance of a summer night by Endre
Ady.) For no real reason, Europe maneuvered itself
into a deadly trap from which it was able to free itself only by 1990, after
extremely tragic losses. The technological advances in the twentieth century were
a major cause of the magnitude of losses. During this period, European peoples
fought against each other. Consequently, Europe weakened very much and became
subordinate to other great powers. In sum, the period 1914-1989 became a chain
of tragedies in Europe and especially in Hungary. It is not exaggeration to
call this period the Age of Catastrophe and the worst period of the European
(and Hungarian) history.
It is important to
understand that in the "subconscious" of the majority of Hungarians,
the name "Trianon" not only denotes the fatal peace treaty of 1920,
but it is also the symbol and the name of the tragedies that happened to
Hungary between 1526 and 1989. It is not a victimhood hypocritically put on; it
really corresponds to the fate of Hungary, which fell victim to a hostile great
power, the Ottoman Empire, and later, consequently, became a playground of
great powers. It is true that many members of the Hungarian political class
performed poorly during this long period, but that can be partially explained
by the circumstances how most people react to situations that are beyond their
power. Of course, it does not imply that we should acquit the ones who actively
participated in the crimes of the tragic period 1914-1989.