The Holocaust in Hungary: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

Randolph L. Braham, the authority on the Holocaust in Hungary, spoke out forcefully against the historical revisionism of the Fidesz government in Hungary. Historians and publicists close to that leadership equate the occupation of Hungary by its World War II German ally with its occupation by the Red Army and subsequent decades of Soviet domination. Implying that the Hungarian people suffered at the hands of the Germans just as did the Jews, these writers set forth a nationalist narrative that casts Hungary as a victimized “Christian” nation. Braham submitted this synthetic article shortly before he died in 2018. An introduction by Paul Hanebrink sets Braham’s work in its biographical, political, and historical contexts.

Information manipulation and historical revisionism: Russian disinformation and foreign interference through manipulated history-based narratives

“…The Treaty of Trianon (4 June 1920) meant the partition of the historical territory of Hungary between the successor states (Czechoslovakia, Romania, Serbia Croatia and Slovenia) with the consequent distribution of the Hungarian population (one third) between the countries of destination. The Trianon topic issue has been a core theme of the Hungarian historiography since then, but its interest has increased in the last decade, being a regular resource in the Hungarian far-right rhetoric ( Braham & Hanebrink, 2020 ; Kurimay, 2016 ; Petsinis, 2015 ; Petö, 2017 ) and serving a dual purpose: on the one hand, to reinforce nationalism (domestically and between the Magyar minorities abroad) through the exploitation of a victimhood sentiment; and, on the other hand, to contribute to feed anti-Western narratives based on the idea of “historical injustice” committed by the West.…”

“… Petsinis (2015) points out the anti-Western narrative disseminated by Hungarian far-right regarding the “historical injustice” of the Trianon Treaty (1920) and allowed by Western countries, that reduced the Greater Hungary to a third of its former size. Braham & Hanebrink (2020) emphasizes the employment by Fidesz of the emotional legacy of the Treaty as a “collective trauma that unified ethnic Hungarians inside and outside the new borders” (p.3), being well represented in Victor Orban´s memory politics.…”

“…On the other hand, it is well known that the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a necessary ‘moment’ or process of identity questioning/reformulation, or identity assertiveness, in the countries of the post-Soviet space. In this context, the revision of history emerged as a fundamental pillar from which to define new (and sometimes former) sovereign states ( Cheskin, 2012 ; Moll, 2013 ; Tolz, 1998 ), by focusing on facing/dealing with the 20th Century communist and fascist experiences ( Belavusau et al, 2021 ; Braham & Hanebrink, 2020 ; Đureinović, 2018 ; Pavasović Trošt, 2018 ) and on territorial and ethnic issues rooted in the First World War peace treaties. This revision of history, based on the historiographical research and the sound work of historians, is precisely the most effective tool against the manipulative revision of historical events and its weaponization by the Kremlin.…”