The Politics of Exclusion and Retribution in the Hungarian Film

Industry, 1929-1947

by

Susan M. Papp

A dissertation submitted in conformity with the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of History
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Susan M. Papp 2020

 The Politics of Exclusion and Retribution in the Hungarian Film
Industry, 1929-1947
Susan M. Papp
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Toronto
2020

Abstract

This dissertation examines how the interwar and postwar governments in

Hungary politicized and shaped the film industry to do their bidding and how

filmmakers, actors and actresses reacted to those political pressures. The

interwar conservative government of Miklós Horthy set out to mold the film

industry to suit its ideals and ideas, while, at the same time, seeking to limit the

number of Jews in the professions. This dissertation investigates the resulting

conflicted political forces that brought about the creation of the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber. It examines the impact of the chamber, specifically how those

working in the film industry were affected by these laws and new measures.

The archival files of the postwar certification committees provide

significant historical insight into the leadership and antisemitic narrative of the

entertainment industry during the interwar era. In particular, these files

illuminate the motivations of the individuals leading the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. The certification committees established to investigate the wartime

activities of those involved in the film industry played a significant role in

creating a positive postwar identity. In 1945, this identity grew out of the belief

that Hungary had been a victim of Nazi aggression. The postwar system of

retribution sought to smooth the transition, and to salvage the once thriving film

industry. After the Communist Party consolidated its hold on the government in

ii
May 1949, the regime recruited and rehabilitated famous Hungarian actors from

the interwar era. The alleged crimes of these actors and actresses and their

subsequent postwar convictions were no longer an issue of importance. The

political trials that unfolded in the late 1940s served the position and power of

the new elites more than anything else. By the early 1950s, the Cold War took

precedence over retribution following the Second World War and the outcome of

these trials seemed irrelevant. This dissertation notably adds to the research and

discussion of how to shape, and for what purpose, a nation’s memory of the war

and postwar years. This question is still being formed and framed in Hungary

today, as it is in many European countries.

iii
 Acknowledgements
This dissertation represents seven years of work. Through fieldwork and

countless hours of reviewing original sources in eleven archives in Canada, the

United States and Hungary, as well as generating ideas, writing, rewriting and

soliciting thoughtful feedback from my trusted committee, I was able to further

hone my skills as a historian and writer. I wish to acknowledge all those who

helped me on this journey, in particular, my very supportive advisor, Professor

Andres Kasekamp, Professor Piotr Wróbel who has been consistently

encouraging throughout this process, and Professor Julie MacArthur, who has

been most helpful. All were very positive in shaping my dissertation. I am

grateful to Professors Attila Pok, Thomas Lahusen and Kyle Smith who gave

generously of their time in joining the committee for my defense.

Professor Doris Bergen, the Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of

Holocaust Studies at the University of Toronto, provided me with guidance and

support throughout. In 2015, I was fortunate to become a Fellow at the Jack,

Joseph and Morton Mandel Centre for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the

United States Holocaust Museum and want to thank fellow colleagues and

researchers at the Centre for their inspiration and encouragement in my research

and writing. Special thanks also to Steve Feldman and Suzanne Brown-Fleming,

as well as the researchers and historians who were forthcoming with their

advice, particularly Vincent Slatt, Megan Lewis, and Elizabeth Anthony.

Scholars who lent constructive guidance in foreign archives included

Tibor Sándor, Márk Záhonyi-Ábel and Zoltán Csadi in Budapest. Professor Judit

Némethy was generous in sharing her private collection of archival documents

iv
regarding the Hungarian actors who worked in the Argentine diaspora. Thanks

also to Michael Reményi, who allowed access to the papers of Tibor Polgár. In

addition, my archival work at the Library of Congress, New York Public Library

for Performing Arts, and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University provided

key insights.

While writing my dissertation, I had the privilege to work with several

distinguished scholars on academic publications, including Ferenc Laczó, László

Csősz, and Professor Antony Polonsky. I gained valuable experience and

tremendous insight through these projects and am grateful for their advice and

counsel. Others who inspired me as co-presenters at conferences include

Professors David Frey, János Kenyeres and Tamás Stark. Thanks also to

Professor Anna Shternshis, Director of the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish

Studies at the University of Toronto as well as to Professors Levente Diosady,

László Endrényi, Adrienne Hood, and Professor Lynn Viola for their assistance

and encouragement. My sister Professor Klara K. Papp, and Rod McQueen were

tireless in their willingness to review chapters and provide feedback. I would

also like to express my appreciation to Robert Austin, Ph.D., Tomasz Frydel,

Nina Munk, Steve Penfold, Ph.D., Anna Porter, Eva Tomory, Ph.D, and Amanda

Wagner of the Information Commons.

I have had the privilege of working as a filmmaker and writer. Through

this experience, I met and interviewed Yitzhak Livnat, also known as Suti, who

was a survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary. Documenting the story of this

remarkable man and his sister Hedy Weisz, in my book Outcasts, later a

documentary, has deepened my knowledge of the Holocaust. I believe this

v
dissertation is a much more comprehensive and accessible work because of the

insight and experience I gained from researching and writing their story.

Although he is no longer with us, I will always be grateful to Suti for his

kindness and generosity in sharing his past.

Finally, I would like to honour my parents, Gábor and Katalin Papp, who

were refugees to North America. They, as well as my grandfather who was

formerly a Senator in the parliament of Czechoslovakia, instilled in me a great

passion for life-long learning. They passed on the truism shared by all who are

uprooted and are forced to establish themselves in another land, namely that, “it

is only what is in your head that remains, all else can be taken away.”

The sense of achievement I feel in completing this degree is combined with the

sadness of knowing that my husband Béla is not able to celebrate this

accomplishment with me, though his encouragement was instrumental in

helping me to see this through. I will always be grateful for his ongoing, loving

support.

vi
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Introduction & the Argument ................................................................................................1

Review of Literature ................................................................................................................9

Methodology and Sources ....................................................................................................25

Chapter 2: Setting the Stage (1914-1929) From optimism to energy to the near
death of the film industry ....................................................................................................31

Hungarian Jews and the visual arts ....................................................................................31

The legal situation of Hungarian Jews ................................................................................34

Filmmaking nationalized (1919) ..........................................................................................37

The economic and political impact of Trianon (1920) .......................................................40

Numerus Clausus...................................................................................................................44

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................51

Chapter 3: The creation of the Chamber System (1929-1939) ...............................................53

The revolution in the technology of film: the talkies ........................................................55

Exclusionary tactics in film ...................................................................................................62

Structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber ..............................................................74

Conflicted push-pull influences ...........................................................................................80

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................83

Chapter 4: Religious vs. Racial antisemitism and the impact on the film
industry (1939-1944)...............................................................................................................85

Fight vs. Flight: The Jewish community responds ............................................................89

The Film Chamber: new membership rules and coping mechanisms ...........................98

Impact on the film industry ................................................................................................107

vii
 The end of the Horthy era ...................................................................................................117

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................121

Chapter 5: Who survived and how (1945-1947) Actors and actresses as a

means of building a new democratic Hungary (1945-1947) ..........................................124

Postwar centralization and stabilization...........................................................................129

Priorities and the inner workings of the Certification Committees ..............................138

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................152

Chapter 6: The process of certification and political influences.........................................154

Early files of the Certification Committee: opportunity and influence........................159

The process of certification for film employees ...............................................................166

Film industry related smaller Certification Committees ................................................173

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................179

Chapter 7: Re-Writing the past: controversial films, theatre productions and

inconsistent rulings ..............................................................................................................181

The trial of Ferenc Kiss ........................................................................................................182

The search for plausibility: the prosecution of members of the executive ..................194

Controversial films, conflicted outcomes .........................................................................201

The curious case of Antal Páger .........................................................................................204

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................216

Chapter 8: Conclusion ..............................................................................................................219

Appendices ................................................................................................................................234

Bibliography and Archival Sources........................................................................................265

viii
 Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction & the Argument
Cinema was a pre-eminent form of popular culture during the first half of the

twentieth century, certainly in Europe and North America. From the beginning

of the invention of the new film technology, generations of talented filmmakers

have originated from Hungary. A large percentage of filmmakers were

Hungarian Jews who were immersed in the language and the culture of the

country. The first silent films created in Hungary coincided with the

development of the new technology around the turn of nineteenth century. Once

films were perfected to the point where they could be presented to an audience

(around 1890), cinema houses were built throughout Budapest. Hungarian

audiences expressed their appreciation and enthusiasm for the art form of

moving pictures to such a degree that 110 permanent cinemas were operating in

Budapest by 1914.1 The first Hungarian narrative film, Ma es Holnap [Today and

Tomorrow], was screened on October 14, 1912.2

By the last years of the First World War, only a handful of countries in the

world were as advanced as Hungary in producing silent films: the United States,

Denmark, France, Italy and Germany.3 By 1918, fifteen professional Hungarian

film directors were making a high number of films, when compared with

directors in other countries of Europe. Most of the fifteen were former journalists.

1
Erzsébet Pongrácz, The Cinemas of Hungary, Budapest: City Hall, 1998.
2
John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, London and New York:
Wallflower Press, 2004, 9-10.
3
Kőháti Zsolt, Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között
[Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film, 1896-1930]. Budapest: Magyar
filmintézet, 1996, 46.

1
 2

Two in particular later became well known internationally: Mihály Kertész,

(Michael Curtis) and Sándor Korda (Alexander Korda).

The prodigious growth of the Hungarian film industry coincided with the

“Golden Age” of the millennium. It was a time of a self-confident liberal

government, the modernization and industrialization of parts of the country, the

building and development of Budapest, as well as unprecedented freedom for

capitalists and the cultural and the artistic community. Starting in the mid-

nineteenth century, Jews were given increasing legal freedoms to move, settle in

cities, and own land. They came to Hungary in search of greater opportunities

and education. This openness and acceptance of newcomers changed radically

with the upheaval resulting from the First World War and the dissolution of the

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. With the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary lost two-

thirds of her territory and one-third of the Hungarian-speaking population.

Hungarians became insular, bitter, and self-absorbed. A series of brief

revolutions, including a Hungarian Soviet Republic, were followed by “Red

Terror” and then,“White Terror.” The best and brightest filmmakers fled the

country.

Hungarian filmmakers, however, have demonstrated talent and ingenuity

in producing films even during the most difficult and adversarial historical

times. This dissertation explores how successive Hungarian governments have

politicized and shaped the film industry to do the regime’s bidding and how

filmmakers, actors and actresses reacted to these political pressures. The interwar

government of Miklós Horthy, founded on conservative, Christian, anti-

Bolshevik ideology, tried to mold the film industry to suit its ideals and ideas.
 3

The establishment of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was a result of the first

and second anti-Jewish laws. The Jewish laws limited the number of Jews in the

professions, legalized discrimination, and led to the exclusion of many Jews from

the professions. The Chambers were a series of professional boards that

governed membership in professional societies such as lawyers, physicians,

engineers, journalists, filmmakers and actors and actresses. Members of these

professions had to be registered with their respective Chamber in order to be

able to work in their chosen field.

The First Jewish Law of 1938 (XV: 1938) specified that the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber and all the chambers established by that law should limit

membership of Jews to 20 percent. One year later, in May 1939, the more

draconian Second Jewish Law (IV: 1939) re-defined Jews by race instead of

religion, following the Nazi model, and further restricted the number of Jews

who could participate in the Chambers to 6 percent. The concept of compulsory

membership in professional chambers was a modern modification of medieval

guilds, one that was possibly copied from the Italian model of corporatively-

structured economy.4

During the interwar period, other European countries recognized and

used the power of propaganda through the medium of film as well. Other

chamber systems, established in order to limit the number of Jews working in

areas of film and culture, were established in Germany and Italy before Hungary

enacted its own laws.

4
Yehuda Don, “The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish
Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, Periodicals Archive Online, 65.
 4

This dissertation examines the more specific - and until now- unexplored

topic of how the theatre and film community (both non-Jewish and Jewish) were

affected by the implementation of the Chamber system. It explores the human

costs within the film and theatre arts community through the prism of historical

events as well as personal and collective reactions of the artistic community. This

dissertation also views the impact of the Jewish laws, investigates the conflicted

political forces that brought about the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, and

examines the effects of the Chamber, specifically how Jewish and non-Jewish

actors, actresses, producers, directors, and others involved in the film and theatre

community were affected by these laws.

The parallel purpose of my dissertation is to examine the nature of

antisemitism in Hungary during the interwar era. The nature of antisemitism in

Hungary during the interwar period that was both similar and different from the

antisemitism in other European countries. My argument is that antisemitism as

practiced by the Horthy regime was a form of “selective” antisemitism, meaning

not whether or not there should be antisemitic legislation, but “how” and “to

what effect” that legislation should be implemented.5 My analysis will

demonstrate examples of this selective antisemitism through the film industry,

illustrating individual vs. institutional, religious vs. racial, and idealistic vs.

pragmatic.

My further purpose is to extend the scholarly work on the Theatre and

5
Maria Ormos is the first to use this term in her biography of Miklos Kozma, she argues that this
type of “selective antisemitism”was home-grown. Mária Ormos, Egy Magyar médiavezer: Kozma
Miklos. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919-1941 [One Hungarian media leader: Miklos
Kozma. Journey through hell in the media and in Politics, 1919-1941]. Vol. I & II, Budapest:
PolgArt, 2000, 587.
 5

Film Arts Chamber into the postwar era. The files of the postwar certification

committees provide much historical insight into the leadership and antisemitic

narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era, and in

particular, the motivations of the individuals involved in leading the Theatre and

Film Art Chamber. There is a critically important historical arc that encompasses

this era, from 1938 into the postwar era, defined by historian István Deák as

“institutional lawlessness,“ when innocent citizens were arbitrarily deprived of

their civil rights, their property and often their life.6 Deák defines this era as

spanning from 1938 to the early 1960s. My work provides further historical

evidence in support of this argument of “institutional lawlessness.”

For the sake of clarity and specifically in dealing with the filmmaking

industry, the interwar era is defined starting in March 1920, with the takeover of

the government by Regent Horthy until March 1944, when the German army

occupied Hungary and implemented the Final Solution. Even though Hungary

was at war from June 1941 onwards, the filmmaking industry continued into

1944. In October, 1944, when the Nazis placed the Arrow Cross leader Ferenc

Szálasi in power, more radical changes were forced upon the leadership of the

film industry. These leadership appointments were later judged by the

certification committees and those decisions are analyzed within the context of

this dissertation.

In order to understand the lives of individual actors affected by the Jewish

6
István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” Retribution and
Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy. Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006, 124-147.
 6

laws of 1938-39, it is necessary to provide a narrative of lived history within the

world of Hungarian cinema and carry this history through to the postwar era.

My work adds to the history of the acting profession interwar. It examines how

members of this profession reacted to and resolved the political pressures of the

certification process during the immediate postwar era in Hungary. Postwar

rhetoric was designed to remember and repress, to remember what was done to

us, but not remember what was done by us to others during the war.7 My work

also examines the opportunistic, not ideological involvement of ordinary people

in the film industry.8

To clarify terminology utilized, the two fields of theatre and cinema often

intersected. Many actors and actresses began their careers in the theatre and

crossed over from the stage to become stars of film. This dissertation includes

some of those actors and actresses, but only insofar as they were also active in the

world of cinema. The specific case of the film industry as it was affected by the

Theatre and Film Arts Chamber in Hungary from 1938 onward provides a

relevant case study.

During the interwar era, a relatively high proportion of Jews and non-Jews

worked side-by-side in the fields of theatre and film. It was an industry that

required much interaction and collaboration among actors, actresses, producers,

7
Tony Judt, “The Past in Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe,” The Politics of
Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath. István Deák, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt,
eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, 298.
8
See Máté Rigó, “Ordinary women and men: superintendents and Jews in the Budapest yellow-
star houses in 1944-1945,” Urban History, 40, 1, 2013, 71-91. Rigo examines how ordinary people,
such as building superintendents, assisted the implementation of discriminatory measures
during the Nazi persecution of the Jews of Budapest. Rigo argues that the urban specificity of the
older, nineteenth-century apartment buildings in Budapest provided autonomy for individual
superintendents to “context or aggravate antisemitic persecution.”
 7

directors, writers, cinematographers, sound technicians, editors, and many more

types of technically skilled individuals. Jews and non-Jews were part of the same

artistic milieu, the same theatre and film community. Once the Jewish laws were

enacted, however, the goals of working together to produce an outstanding film

became problematic. Some in the industry worked to find ways to help Jewish

co-workers, others became bystanders, while still others took opportunistic

advantage of the laws to seek out the positions normally held by Jewish

colleagues. To avoid the requirements of the Film Chamber, misrepresentation

seeped into the system, especially where it was difficult to find qualified people

for certain skills required for film production. Jews on film credit lists were

substituted with non-Jews. The situation was further complicated by the fact that

there were a significant number of marriages between Jews and non-Jews within

the film industry. The writings and diaries of these actors also shed light on

coping mechanisms. For this dissertation, I use the term non-Jewish instead of

Christian. The Second Jewish Laws redefined Jews as a race, thus Jews who had

converted to Christianity were also categorized retroactively as “racially

Jewish.”9

The literature review in this chapter demonstrates that my dissertation is the

first qualitative study examining the original archival files of Magyar Szinészek

Szakszervezete Igazoló Bizottsága [Actors Certification Committee], the union set up

to examine and certify the interwar activities of actors and actresses and to certify

these actors and actresses postwar. I compare and contrast the methodology used

9
Thanks to Ferenc Laczó for his valuable comments and feedback. His most recent book,
Hungarian Jews in the Age of Genocide: An Intellectual History, 1929-1948, was invaluable in
contextualizing the history of this era.
 8

by the union set up for Actors and Actresses to the methodology set up for film

employees through the Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, Film

Employees Union, that included employees of Hunnia, the largest film

production house during the interwar era, as well as many other smaller

production companies. The difference between the certification processes of the

two unions was significant. To my knowledge, no one has either pored through

these extensive fonds or published on the topic.

In this dissertation, I examine the underlying reasons, opinions and

motivations for the postwar certification system for the film industry through

primary source material. The methodology of certification demonstrates that the

certification process for actors and actresses was relatively easy and

straightforward when compared to the union for technical and support workers

in the film industry. I demonstrate that actors and actresses did their utmost to

become certified, to be able to continue to remain active in the field. Some used

tactics such as misrepresenting and obfuscating their acting roles during the

interwar era and tapping into their social network of political contacts to

intervene and smooth the process of certification. Further, my argument is that

the certification process for this particular union for actors and actresses had a

specific role in creating a positive image, for re-establishing a sense of normalcy

and thereby legitimizing the postwar democratic political forces in Hungary.

The efforts of the certification committees lasted for two years, from 1945

to 1947. My research shows that even after the politics of postwar retribution and

the work of the certification committees ended, the by-then firmly entrenched

Hungarian Communist government continued this policy of perpetuating its

 9

positive image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers of famous interwar

actors and actresses –even those who starred in interwar propaganda and/or

antisemitic films and theatre performances. By reading the primary Hungarian

language documents of the certification committee, my research expands and

extends the knowledge about the history of the politics of retribution within the

entertainment industry in Hungary.

Review of Literature
Filmmaking in Hungary and the recording of that history have been

influenced by a myriad of factors including political regimes in power that often

sought to shape, politicize, and form the filmmaking industry to reflect their own

ideological goals. For this reason, in examining the literature about the history of

film in Hungary, it is important to keep in mind the ideological lens and the

point-of-view of the author. “Ideological lens” is defined as the political beliefs,

ideals, and principles that are held by the author. Similarly, memoirs and

biographies by and about key individuals who were involved with specific

aspects of the film industry in Hungary should be examined and read

judiciously, keeping in mind the ideological point of view of the authors.10

10
The works of the following authors are but a few examples of books written from an ideological
perspective. Károly Nemes promotes the argument that the best Hungarian films were produced
after the Hungarian film industry was nationalized in March 1948. Károly Nemes, Miért Jók a
Magyar Filmek? [Why are Hungarian Films Good?] Budapest: Magvető, 1968. Béla Balázs was a
film theorist and ardent communist. This volume was published posthumously to pay tribute to
his dedication to the postwar political reorganization of Hungary through the People’s
Movement. Béla Balázs, Népmozgalom és Nemzeti Bizottságok, 1945-1946 [The People’s Movement
and National Committees], Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1961. György Aczél was the cultural
czar in Hungary during the Communist era. No books were published, films produced or plays
mounted without his approval. This volume, Instead of a Cancelled Debate is a lengthy interview
conducted by journalist Jacques de Bonis where Aczél expresses his opinions and provides a
singular vision of the success of the socialist system, with particular regard to culture in
Hungary. Instead of a Cancelled Debate: Paris Asks-Budapest Answers. Jacques De Bonis interviews
György Aczél. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1975.
 10

In examining the overall histories of filmmaking, István Nemeskürty

(1925-2015), stands out as a prolific writer and historian of Hungarian film. As a

young man, he studied to be a teacher, but later pursued a Ph.D. degree in

history. Postwar, he became an author, screenwriter, film historian and head of

MAFILM.11 Through his many published books and articles, Nemeskürty

documented the history of Hungarian film from its beginnings in 1896. He not

only focused on the narrative and quality of the films themselves, examining

their artistic value, analyzing the strength of the screenplays and the

cinematography, but also examined the personalities of filmmakers, directors,

actors and actresses and explored how these players shaped the industry as well.

He was highly regarded for his extensive knowledge of the history of film.

Despite the fact that he was head of the major state-owned film studio in

Hungary during the Communist era, his film reviews were not tainted by

ideology. Nemeskürty avoided discussing the “socialist realism” of films

produced during this era. His comprehensive Word and Image: History of the

Hungarian Cinema, first published in 1968, is one of the few studies that detailed

the history of Hungarian film from its earliest days in the Budapest coffee houses

in 1896 until 1944. This book is also only one of two works by Nemeskürty that

has been translated into English and, it is the only text quoted extensively by

other scholars writing about the history of Hungarian film in the English

language.12

11
MAFILM was founded in 1964 as the largest film studio in Hungary, a combination of the
former Hunnia and the Budapest Film Studio. Since 1994, the company has been enlarged several
times and made into a publicly owned film studio.
12
István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of Hungarian Cinema, trans. Zsuzsanna Horn,
Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968.
 11

Overall histories of film in Hungary include chronological surveys as well.

While John Cunningham’s volume, Hungarian Cinema: from Coffee House to

Multiplex, includes chapters on the beginnings of the film industry in Hungary,

the focus of this book is on the postwar period (1945-1989), and the resurgence of

Hungarian films through a new generation of filmmakers.13 Cunningham offers a

social and institutional history of film free of ideological bias. Bryan Burns edited

volume on the history of world cinema includes a chapter on Hungarian film.14

An invaluable resource for historians is the Lexicon of Hungarian Sound-

films, a reference work compiled by Jozsef Mudrák and Tamás Deák. This

Lexicon contains synopses of films, and also the background of the founders of

production companies as well as biographies of actors, actresses, directors,

producers and government ministers involved in film during the interwar era. 15

The book builds upon a much earlier version of a Filmlexicon, edited by Henrik

Castiglione, a screenwriter, producer and expert on film statistics.16 Reference

books and chronologies of Hungarian films also include titles that contain

comprehensive synopses of films produced during the interwar era17 and into the

post-1989 era.18

The other work by Nemeskürty translated into English: István Nemeskürty and Tibor Szántó, A
Pictorial Guide to the Hungarian Cinema, 1901-1984, trans. by J.E. Szollosy, Budapest: Helikon, 1985.
13
John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, London and New York:
Wallflower Press, 2004.
14
Bryan Burns, World Cinema: Hungary, Wiltshire. England: Flicks Books and Fairleigh Dickinson
University Press, 1996.
15
Jozsef Mudrák and Tamas Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944 [Lexicon of Hungarian
Sound-Films]. Mariabesenyő-Gödöllö: Attraktor, 2006.
16
Henrik Castiglione and Sándor Székely, eds. Lexicon. Budapest: publisher unknown, 1941.
17
István Juhász, Kincses Magyar Filmtár, 1931-1944 [The Store-House of Treasures of Hungarian
Film] Pomáz: Kráter, 2007.
18
László Kelecsényi, Vászonszerelem: A magyar hangosfilm krónikája 1931-től napjainkig [Love on-
screen: The History of Hungarian sound film from 1931 to the present day]. Budapest: Palatinus,
2007.
 12

Most historians of Hungarian film are in agreement that this early period,

from 1896 until the end of World War I, was a prolific era in Hungarian film.19

István Langer and Zsolt Kőháti specifically examine the early silent film era in

Hungary, 1896-1930.20 Both works are critically important in recording the

history of this era, and in documenting biographical data and the chronology of

the silent era. These studies are not widely accessible, however, as they are only

available in Hungarian as unpublished manuscripts through the Magyar

Filmintézet [Hungarian Film Institute] in Budapest.

The richness of film during this liberal era of the Austro-Hungarian

empire has been studied not only by historians mentioned thus far, but also

through the biographies and autobiographies of those who were instrumental in

building the industry such as producers/directors Sándor Korda, Mihály Kertész

and film theorist Béla Balázs, widely regarded as the father of Hungarian film

theory and writing.21

The end of the First World War, with Revolutions, radical changes in

government and the partitioning of Hungary through the Treaty of Trianon

19
András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, Budapest:
Central University Press, 2015; István Nemeskürty. Word and Image: History of the Hungarian
Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press, 1968.
20
István Langer, Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl. I-II resz, 1919-48 [Chapters from the History of
Hungarian Film Production]. Parts 1-2, 1919-1948. Budapest: MFI kézirat, 1980; Zsolt Kőháti.
“Magyar film hangot keres (1931-1938)” [Hungarian Film Seeks Sound]. Filmspirál 2, no.1, 1996,
67-131.
Zsolt Kőháti,Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között
[Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film, 1896-1930]. Budapest: Magyar
filmintézet, 1996.
21
Charles Drazin, Korda: Britain’s only Movie Mogul, London: Sidgewick and Jackson, 2002; Áron
Tobiás, Korda Sándor, Budapest: A Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchivum, 1980;
Alan K. Rode, Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film, Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 2017;
Joseph Zsuffa, The Man and the Artist, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1984.
 13

(1920) had a drastic effect on filmmakers and filmmaking in Hungary. Béla Kun

established the Communist Party of Hungary (Magyar Kommunista Párt).

Following the collapse of the democratic government of Mihály Károlyi, Kun

founded the Hungarian Soviet Republic in March of 1919.22 Following the Soviet

model, one of the first acts of the Kun regime was to nationalize the film

industry.23 Films were important in the history of the Soviet Union as an

instrument for spreading the approved message, as films were truly a mass

medium, reaching a literate and non-literate audience.24 Some of the finest

filmmakers, such as Korda and Kertész and many others joined the

revolutionaries. The Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted only 133 days, followed

by the take-over of the counterrevolutionary regime of Regent Miklós Horthy.

During the “White Terror,” directed against Communists, Jews, and other

supporters of the Kun regime, many of the best and brightest filmmakers fled.25

More than a decade passed before the Hungarian film industry recovered to its

pre-war level of productivity.

The high proportion of Jews in the professions and particularly the film

industry was on the agenda of the Horthy regime. Soon after Horthy came to

power in 1920, the government introduced a decree that would have quickly

22
Rudolf L. Tőkés, Béla Kun and the Hungarian Soviet Republic: The Origins and role of the Communist
Party of Hungary in the Revolutions of 1918-1919, New York and Washington: Frederick A. Praeger
Publishers, 1967; Peter Pastor, Hungary Between Wilson and Lenin: The Hungarian Revolution of
1918-1919 and the Big Three, Boulder CO: East European Quarterly, 1976; Albert Váry, A vörös
uralom áldozatai Magyarországon [The Victims of the Red Terror in Hungary]. 3rd Ed., Szeged:
Szegedi Nyomda, 1993.
23
István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press,
1968.
24
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society from the Revolution to the Death of Stalin. New York: I.B.
Tauris, 2001, 3.
25
László Kontler, A History of Hungary: Millenium in Central Europe, London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2002; Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890-
1944, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.
 14

forced out Jewish filmmakers from the film business.26 Some astute government

ministers realized that the decree of 1920 would have destroyed what had been a

vibrant film industry and the ordinance was reversed. Between 1919-1920,

dozens of radical right wing organizations were established and became active in

Hungary.27 Organizations of the radical right, such as the Turul and others,

exerted pressure on the government to take action against what they claimed

was the dominance of Jews in higher education and later demanded the ouster of

Jews from the film industry.28 The Horthy regime introduced Numerus Clausus at

universities soon after taking power in 1920.29

Some authors have examined the question of why such a

disproportionately high number of Hungarian Jews were especially attracted to

the new fields of film and photography. Important scholarship regarding the

intellectual history as well as the acculturation and assimilation of Hungary’s

Jews includes the work of Laczó, Ránki and Patai.30 András Koerner has

provided a contextualized history of the Jews in the cultural life of Hungary and

attributes the high number of Jews in film to their willingness to adapt to the

26
Tibor Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, [After the Changing of the
Guard: the Jewish Question and the Politics of Film] Budapest: Hungarian Film Institute, 1997.
27
Zoltán Vagi, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, eds., The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a
Genocide. Lanham, Md.-Washington, D.C: AltaMira Press-USHMM, 2013; Péter Sipos, Imrédy Béla
és a Magyar Megújulás Pártja [Béla Imrédy and the Party of Hungarian Renewal]. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970.
28
Robert Kerepeszki, “The racial defence in Practice: The Activity of the Turul Association at
Hungarian universities between the two world wars,” Victor Karády and Péter Tibor, eds., The
Numerus Clausus in Hungary: Studies on the first anti-Jewish law and academic antisemitism in modern
Central Europe. Budapest: Centre for Historical Research, Central European University, 2012.
29
Nathanial Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews: Policy and Legislation, 1920-1943, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press, 1983.
30
Ferenc Laczó, Hungarian Jews in the Age of Genocide: An Intellectual History, 1929-1948. Leiden
and Boston: Brill, 2016; Vera Ránki. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in
Hungary, New York: Holmes & Meier, 1999; Raphael Patai. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture,
Psychology, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996.
 15

societies and countries in which they lived.31 Max Kozloff, American critic and

photographer, argues that the Jewish sensibility and talent in these fields stems

from the desire to become part of the mainstream culture.32

Nemeskürty writes about the reasons for the vigorous participation of

Jewish artists not only in Hungarian cinema, but also in the fields of literature,

music and the arts. Nemeskürty argues that it was the the creative environment

prior to 1918 that ensured the atmosphere in which filmmakers could work

freely: “prior to 1918, Hungary accepted and supported almost all kinds of

movements, persuasions, religions and outlooks.”33

The talent Jews had for artistic endeavors including film was also evident

in building the filmmaking industry in Poland. A number of short silent films,

mainly in Yiddish and also in Polish, were already being produced in the

partitioned territories of Poland before reunification in 1919. Of the silent films

produced in the Polish lands between 1911 and 1913, approximately one-third

were adaptations of plays written in Yiddish.34 One of the preoccupations of

popular filmmakers was how to satisfy both a Polish and a Jewish audience.

Some historians of Polish film studies question whether in fact there can be talk

31
András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, Budapest:
Central University Press, 2015.
32
As quoted in Robert Fulford, ‘Dream Merchants: Jews, photography and Andre Kertesz,’
Queen’s Quarterly 112.2 (2005): 221+ Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
33
Ibid.
34
Susan M. Papp and Antony Polonsky, ”The Politics of Exclusion: The Turbulent History of
Hungarian and Polish Film, 1896-1945,” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Vol. 31, 289-311.
 16

of any “Polish national cinema” prior to the country being unified following the

First World War.35

As in other countries of Europe, mainly Germany and Italy, the losses

experienced during World War I created a nostalgia for the past, a rejection of

industrialization, urbanization, and modernity.36 In Hungary, there was a

longing for what was “truly” Hungarian, the return to the not well defined

“conservative” past.37 The French people were also traumatized by the human

and material losses suffered during World War I and were caught between the

memory of a brutal war and the fear of another world cataclysm.38

During the interwar period, the power of propaganda through the

medium of film was recognized, developed, and officially supported by many

governments in Europe. Scholars have examined the basic linkages of culture,

sovereignty, and the idea of nationhood as expressed through film.39 Anna

Manchin explores the symbolism of interwar Hungarian film and how debates

on national identity and modernity have been interconnected with film in

Hungary since the early 20th century. Manchin argues that the rural countryside

35
Sheila Skaff, The Law of the Looking Glass: Cinema in Poland, 1896-1939, Ohio University Press
Polish and Polish-American Studies Series, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2008.
Marek Haltof, Polish National Cinema, New York: Berghahn Books, 2002.
36
Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1961.
37
Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890-
1944, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.
38
Eugen Weber, The Hollow Years: France in the 1930’s. New York: Norton, 1994.
39
Victoria de Grazie, “European cinema and the idea of Europe, 1925-1995,”Hollywood and Europe:
Economics, Culture, National Identity 1945-1995, Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, ed., London: British Film
Institute, 1998, 19-33. Marc Ferro,“Film as an Agent, Product and Source of History,” Journal of
Contemporary History, 18, 1983, 357-364.
 17

and its simple way of life was utilized in film as a powerful symbol of

“authentic” traditional national culture.40

Italy’s first “anti-Liberal” measures affecting film production occurred

after 1925. Most of the measures de-emphasized the independent status of actors,

actresses, film producers, and directors by bringing them into a newly organized

National Confederation of Fascist Syndicates, (Confederazione nazionale di sindicati

fascisti) organized by the national government.41 Steven Ricci and Jacqueline Hay

each explore the often-fraught relationship between government and cinema

characterized by the continuous change between political stakes and culture.42

In their first year of power, the Nazi government in Germany established

the Reichskulturkammer [the Reich Chamber of Culture] in 1933, which included a

Chamber for film. Although the first draft of the decree did not explicitly

mention Jews, by 1935 the Chamber system in Germany was restructured and

Jews were purged from the membership.43 In 1935, Germany went even further

by establishing an International Film Chamber for European countries. This

international organization intended to bring together and control European film

work under the leadership of Nazi Germany to counteract the influence of

40
Anna Manchin,“Interwar Hungarian Entertainment Films and the Reinvention of Rural
Modernity,”Rural History, 21, no. 2, 2010, 195-212.
41
James Hay, Popular Film culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1987, 203.
42
Steven Ricci, Cinema and Fascism: Italian Film and Society, 1922-1943. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2008; Reich, Jacqueline, “Mussolini at the Movies: Fascism, Film and Culture,”
Re-Viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943, Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garafalo, eds.,
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002.
43
Alan Steinweis, Art, Ideology & Economics in Nazi Germany: The Reich Chambers of Music, Theater
and the Visual Arts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
 18

American films in Europe.44

While other countries were taking their own restrictive steps, the Horthy

regime well understood the propaganda value of cinema. Scholars have

examined the way that the Horthy regime utilized censorship under the guise of

“order, self-interest, rationalizations and the national interest.”45 Radical right

forces and German pressure on Hungary for further anti-Jewish measures were

acquiesced in favor of support for Hungary’s desperately sought border revision.

Hungary’s approach-avoidance methods involved placating, while often simply

stalling and postponing the demands by Nazi Germany in order to accomplish

this goal, and, on the other hand, keeping the radical right forces in check.46 The

first anti-Jewish law was enacted by the Hungarian government in April, 1938.

That law, however, was only a precursor to the more restrictive Second Jewish

Law – Law No. IV of 1939 which, among other provisions, explicitly defined Jews

as a race, following the Nazi model, and limited their proportion in the

professions to no more than six percent.47 Tibor Sándor documented the effects of

44
Benjamin George Martin, “‘European Cinema for Europe! The International Film Chamber,
1935-42,’” Cinema and the Swastika: the International Expansion of the Third Reich Cinema, Roel Vande
Winkel and David Welch, eds., Hampshire England and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007,
25-42. This edited volume examines the film culture of each country in Europe occupied by or
allied with Nazi Germany and also surveys countries such as Britain, Brazil and South Africa as
to how their respective film culture was influence by the domination of Germany.
45
David Stephen Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-1944.
London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2018; Márk Záhonyi-Ábel, “Magyar Filmcenzura, 1920-
1930”,[Hungarian Film Censorship, 1920-1930]. Ph.D. diss., [Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem],
2010; Ungváry, Krisztián, A Horthy rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és
antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The Standards of Measures of the Horthy Regime:
Discrimination, Social politics and antisemitism in Hungary]. Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 2012.
46
Ignác Romsich, Hungary in the Twentieth Century. Budapest: Corvina-Osiris, 1999; Paul Lendvai,
The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Trans. by Ann Major, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2003; Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary. Vol. 1
and 2, 3rd ed., Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2016.
47
Don, Yehuda, “Antisemitic Legislations in Hungary and Their Implementation in Budapest-An
Economic Analysis,” The Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry: Essays, Documents, Depositions, Randolph
 19

the anti-Jewish laws in marginalizing Hungarian Jewish filmmakers and in

permanently changing Hungarian cinema.48

Recent scholarship about Hungarian film during the interwar era include

two volumes: David Frey’s work on the history Hungarian sound film during the

interwar era, from 1929 until 1944 and a study of the same era by Gábor

Gergely.49 While both books examine the role of Jews and antisemitism in

Hungarian cinema and the effects of exclusionary legislation during the interwar

era, these two volumes are substantially different. Frey examines how the

postwar political forces that led the country out of the losses following World

War One determined that film would be the medium through which the country

would re-define itself and find redemption in its national culture and history.

Frey traces the effort on the part of the government to create a “Christian

National Film Industry,” through the enactment of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber (1938-1939) and several other organizations to shore up this ideology.

The book is a social, political and institutional history of film in Hungary starting

with the onset of the talkies until the total collapse, or as the author refers to it,

the “murder” of the Hungarian film industry by the Germans in 1944. Frey

argues how the formation of nation through the “Christian national” ideals put

forward by the Horthy regime were shaped by contradictory forces such as

Braham, ed., Boulder, CO: Social Science Monographs and the Institute for Holocaust Studies of
the City University of New York, 1986, 49-72.
Robert Vértes, ed., Magyarországi Zsidótörvények és Rendeletek, 1938-1945 [Hungary’s Jewish Laws
and Decrees, 1938-1945]. Budapest: Polgár Publishers, 1997.
48
Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás: A Magyar Film és a Szélsőjobboldal a harmincas negyvenes években
(Tanulmanyok, dokumentumok), [Hungarian Film and the Extreme Right in the Thirties and Forties:
Studies, Documents]. Budapest: Magyar Filmintézet, 1992.
49
David Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-44; Gábor
Gergely, Hungarian Film, 1929-1947: National Identity, Anti-Semitism, and Popular Cinema,
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017.
 20

government and bureaucratic legislation and influence, Hungary’s geopolitical

place in east-central Europe, free market and international forces implied by the

very nature of film production and distribution, radical right groups vying for

influence, and the adaptation and withdrawal of the Jews active in filmmaking.

In the last chapter, Frey also argues that the recent return to “Christian National”

ideals by the present government of Victor Orbán bear distinct similarities to the

interwar era of the Horthy regime through the search for a Christian national

identity, particularly through culture and memorialization.

Gergely’s work, in contrast, argues against many of the previously

established assumptions about Hungary’s filmmaking industry. Many of these

arguments are directly opposed to the nuanced and meticulously researched

arguments of David Frey. One of many examples, Gergely claims that the

establishment of government bodies such as the Filmipari Alap in 1925 was the

first step towards the complete government takeover of the industry. Gergely

further argues that it was from this point onward that Jews were eliminated from

the industry. Gergely claims that a hidden antisemitic narrative was infused into

Hungarian films of the time. Gergely uses Hippolit a Lakaj as an example of this

“hidden antisemitic narrative,” a film directed and produced by István Székely,

one of the most outstanding Hungarian Jewish directors of the interwar era and

written by screenwriters István Zágon and Károly Nóti, both Hungarian Jews.

Gergely also covers some aspects of the postwar reorganization of the film

industry, including the certification process, but the section fails to point out the

many factors of the changing political climate in postwar Hungary that

influenced the work of the postwar reorganization of the film industry.

 21

Memoirs and biographies of actors, actresses, directors and producers

provide context and background as to how they were affected by the restrictive

laws of the interwar era, how they situated themselves and for those who

departed, how they struggled with their lack of status and miserable financial

circumstances in the diaspora. Many of these biographies were written by the

actor/actress later in life or with the help of a ghost-writer, were often self-

published or only published many decades later in Hungary.50 Some are out-of-

print, or available only in antique book stores or through the Magyar Film Intézet

[Film Institute] in Budapest and the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.

Some of these biographies, such as the one about Antal Páger and his return to

Hungary, are written through the lens of self-vindication.51

Many scholarly studies have been completed examining postwar

retribution and the de-Nazification programs as they pertain to postwar Europe.

In France, for instance, scholars have argued that the prosecution of war

criminals and members of the Vichy government became bogged down in legal

wranglings, mainly due to the postwar myth that the French were victims of the

50
Tibor Bános, Jávor Pál: Szemtöl Szemben [Pál Jávor: Face to Face]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó,
1978;
László Kelecsényi, Katalin Karády. Budapest: A Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchivum,
1982; Ilona Nagykovácsi, Fény és Árnyek [Light and Shadows: Autobiography]. Toronto: Weller
Publishing, 1982; Olga Somorja, Beregi Oszkár. Budapest: Magyar Szinházi Intezet, 1984;
Mihály Sárossy Szüle, Miszter Jávor. New York: Püski-Corvin, 1982; Károly Kristóf, A halálos
Tavasztol a Gestapó Fogságig [From the Deadly Spring to the Gestapo Prison]. Budapest: A Magyar
Ujságirók Országos Szövetsége, 1987; Menyhért Lengyel, Életem Könyve: Naplók, Életrajz, Töredékek
[My Life’s Work: Diaries, Resumes, Bits and Pieces]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1987; László
Sándor, Három Ország Polgára Voltam: Egy Évszázadnyi Élet Emlékei, 1909-1993 [I was Citizen of
Three Countries: Memories from a One Hundred Year Life, 1909-1993]. Bratislava: Madach-
Posonium, 2009.
51
Péter Gál Molnár, A Páger Ügy. [the Pager Affair] Budapest: Pallas Lap és Könyvkiadó, 1988.
 22

Nazis.52 It was only in the 1990s that the French government was willing to face

the crimes of complicity of the Vichy government. The de-Nazification of

Germany and Austria were particularly hampered by the fact that both countries

were occupied and divided by the armed forces of four different Allied

countries, and the military command of each of those countries implemented de-

Nazification in each of these zones differently.53 In the Soviet zone, internment

and retribution went hand in hand; one-third of those interned died, compared

with less than one percent in the British zone.54 After the Nuremberg trials, the

Americans were eager to transfer primary responsibility for de-Nazification to

the Germans, who had the ability but lacked the political will to continue. After

1950, the attention of the United States and other allies became much more

focused on the Cold War rather than on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. 55

Beyond a slim selection of research on the postwar era in Hungary, there

was little attention paid to the topic until the 1980s. That decade marked the

publication of a wide range of studies and scholarly works on war crimes and

retribution, perpetrators and collaborators, and collective memory in Hungary

following the Second World War. One of the most important documentary

collections on the post-war system of war crimes and retribution is a scholarly

work on the trial of Arrow Cross leader Ferenc Szálasi and the three war

52
Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime, London:
Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2002. See in particular Chapter 11: The Judgments of Paris, 270-300.
Éric Conan and Henry Rousso, Vichy: an ever-present past. Hanover: University Press of New
England, 1998.
53
Perry Biddiscombe, The Denazification of Germany, a History 1945-1950, Stroud, United Kingdom:
Tempus, 2007; Lothar Kettenacker, Germany Since 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997;
David Cohen, “Transitional Justice in Divided Germany after 1945,” Retribution and Reparation in
the Transition to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 59-89.
54
Biddiscombe, 70.
55
Biddiscombe, 83. The Cold War was the driving force behind the emptying of prisons in 1951-
55. Moreover, German law permitted the reinstatement of most of those removed under earlier
de-Nazification proceedings.
 23

criminals principally responsible for the deportation of the Jews.56 Elek Karsai

published one of the first collections of the original documents of the Hungarian

Holocaust along with many other works, such as the diaries of Ferenc Szálasi.57

These studies are important to my work because the establishment of the

certification committees was inextricably linked to the establishment of the

newly organized postwar system of justice that included the People’s Tribunals.

In cases where the certification committees felt that the individual seeking

certification was guilty of more serious crimes, the certification committee

forwarded the case to the People’s Tribunals. Early scholars in this field trace the

chronology of events that brought about the Certification Committees and the

connection between the committees and the People’s Tribunals.58 These studies

assess the workings of the Certification Committees as being successful overall in

rooting out war criminals. The works also identify problems such as of the over-

simplification of the questions and the difficulties of organizing committees in

rural regions of Hungary.

56
Elek Karsai and László Karsai, eds., A Szálasi per [The Trials of Szálasi], Budapest: Reform, 1988;
László Karsai and Judit Molnár, eds., Az Endre-Baky-Jaross per [The Endre, Baky and Jaross Trial],
Budapest: Cserépfalvi, 1994.
57
Elek Karsai, Szálasi Naplója: A Nyilasmozgalom a II világháboru idején [The Diaries of Szálasi: the
Arrow Cross Movement during World War II], Budapest: Kossuth, 1978; Elek Karsai and Magda
Somlyai, eds., Sorsforduló; iratok magyarország feszabadulásának történetéhez, 1944 szept.-1945 ápr.,
[Change of Fate: Documents regarding the History of the Liberation of Hungary], vol. 1
Budapest: n.p., 1970; Ilona Benoschofsky and Elek Karsai, eds., Vádirat a Nácizmus Ellen:
Dokumentumok a magyarországi zsidóüldözés történetéhez [Indictment against Nazism: Documents
adding to the History of the Persecution of Jews in Hungary], 4 vols., Budapest: A Magyar
Izraeliták Országos Képviselete, 1960.
58
Tibor Zinner, “Háborus bünösök perei. Internálások, kitelepitések és Igazoló eljárások” [Trials
of war criminals, deportations, and Certification Proceedings], Történelmi Szemle 28, no.1, 1985,
118-141; Pál Schönwald, Igazoló eljárások, 1945-1949. [Certification Proceedings, 1945-1949],
unpublished manuscript. Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives].
 24

Memoirs of those involved in the political processes of setting up

Certification Committees and/or the People’s Tribunals provide insight into the

process of reorganizing Hungary’s political justice system post-1945. Such

memoirs trace the problems and resistance to the process at the time, and also

reflect ideological views and attempts by the author to clarify their intent, or

explain and justify their roles.59 One notable exception, István Bibó, considered

one of the greatest Hungarian thinkers of the twentieth century, examines the

postwar justice system and the certification committees through a critical lens,

even though he was involved in setting up the system.60 Generally, these

volumes were published just prior to the fall of Communism in 1989, when the

countries of east-central Europe were once again in the midst of political change

and upheaval.61

Since the fall of communism in Hungary, a new generation of scholars has

been able to gain access to previously unexamined archives and has published

studies about post-war retribution, certification committees, and how the process

unfolded using a much more critical methodology.62 László Karsai examined a

59
Dr. Ákos Major, Népbiroskodás forradalmi törvényesség: egy népbiró visszaemlékezése [The People’s
Tribunals: Revolutionary Law: The Memoirs of a Judge], Budapest: Minerva, 1988.
Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile] Budapest: Szépirodalmi Kiadó, 1984.
Gábor Antal, ed., A Szinház nem szelid intézmény: Irások Major Tamástol, irások Major Tamásrol
[Theatre is not a placid institution: Writings by Tamás Major, Writings about Tamás Major],
Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1985.
60
István Bibó, “Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után” [The Jewish Question in Hungary after
1944], Válogatott Tanulmányok, 1945-1949 [Selected Studies, 1945-1949] Budapest: Magvető, 1986,
623-797; István Bibó, “Néhány kiegészitő megjegyzés a Zsidókérdésről” [A few Supplementary
Comments about the Jewish Question], Válogatott Tanulmányok, 1945-1949, Budapest: Magvető,
1986, 801-809; István Bibó, A Magyar demokrácia válsága [The Crisis of Democracy in Hungary], in
Válogatott Tanulmányok, Budapest: Magvető, 1986, 40-42.
61
Terry Cox and Andy Furlong, eds. Hungary: the Politics of Transition, London: Routledge, 2017.
Paul Lendvai. Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. London: Hurst & Co., 2012.
62
Julien Papp, “Az igazoló eljárások és a háborus bünök megtorlása 1945 után Magyarországon,”
[The Certification process and reprisals against war crimes in post-1945 Hungary], AETAS-
Történelemtudományi folyóirat 2, 2009: 162-179; László Karsai, “The People’s Court and
Revolutionary Law in Hungary, 1945-1946,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and
 25

system fraught with problems: the political motivations of the prosecutors, the

lack of time to prepare and the unavailability of ministerial documents on which

to build evidence.63 In one comparative study of the postwar system of

retribution in Austria and Hungary, István Deák argues that the prosecution of

war criminals lost its significance in both countries. In Austria, Nazis were

eventually rehabilitated and, due to significant labour shortages, were employed.

In Hungary, de-Nazification programs failed because the collective purge of

democrats, Social Democrats and even many loyal Communists took precedence

over the purge of former fascists.64

Methodology and Sources

This dissertation is organized chronologically and thematically.

Chapter 1: Introduction. The Introduction presents the arguments,

methodology and sources, and review of literature.

Chapter 2 examines why there were such a relatively large number of

established producers and directors producing films in Hungary as early as 1914.

This chapter also explains how the political upheavals of the early twentieth

century affected, influenced and disrupted the development of filmmaking in

its Aftermath. Istvan Deak, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt, eds., Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2000; Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy: Hungary Between East and West, 1944-1947.
Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011; Ildikó Barna and Andrea Pető,
Political Justice in Budapest after World War II. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2015.
63
László Karsai, “The People’s Court and Revolutionary Law in Hungary, 1945-1946,” The Politics
of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, István Deák, Jan T. Gross, and Tony Judt,
eds., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, 233-252.
64
István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” Retribution and
Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006, 124-147.
 26

Hungary. This chapter further provides the historical background for the legal

status of Jews in Hungary and studies why Hungarian Jews were early adaptors

in the new industries of film and photography.

Chapter 3 analyzes the political forces that led to the creation of the

Chamber System (1938-1939), the pressures exerted by radical rightists, debates

in parliament, rhetoric and rationalizations, internal conflicts within government,

and the role of churches. Sources at the United States Holocaust History Museum

such as RG-39.004 War History Archives, Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal

Home Defense Ministry and the Értelmiségi munkanélküliség ügyeinek Kormánybiztosa

[Ministry for the Office of the Intellectual unemployed] provided additional

useful insight into motivations and reactions. I found a 56-page discussion paper

containing a series of recommendations for legislation that preceded the

establishment of the film chamber. This is the document—heretofore buried in

the archives-- that prepared the way for the chamber system and the

rationalizations of the government in implementing the law in reaction to the

ongoing pressures exerted by antisemitic organizations. RG-39.004 also

contained the original application form for individuals applying for membership

in the film arts chamber. This application form was drafted after the draconian

Second Jewish Law came into effect. I also examined original articles in extreme

right wing newspapers such as Magyarság [Magyardom], Új Magyarság [New

Magyardom], Virradat, [Dawn], Összetartás, [Unity] as well as Nemzetőr [National

Guard].65 These articles provide insight to the narrative promoted by the

65
War History Archives, Fond 1:31, HDM, 1919-1945, Elnöki A Osztály, 1938, 2837 csomó,
USHMM.
 27

extreme right at the time. At the Library of Congress, I found further materials

on the Chamber, such as the first official journal of the Chamber itself, Magyar

Film, 1939-41.

Chapter 4 examines the impact of the chamber system (1939-1941) and

looks at the collective and individual responses and coping mechanisms elicited

within the film and acting community in response to the creation of the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber. This chapter also examines questions such as to what

extent were the discriminatory laws institutionalized. Sources that provide

insight into the interconnected lives of Jews and non-Jews include memoirs,

correspondence, biographies, and newspaper reports of the era. After 1939,

during this period when Jewish actors and actresses could no longer find work,

almost every important actor of Jewish origin spent time writing his memoirs.66

These memoirs are primary sources of information regarding how Jewish actors

reacted to the discriminative laws and how they lived following the

implementation of the laws. I found many of these memoirs at the Library of

Congress in Washington, D. C. as well as in the United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum.

Through these sources, this dissertation also examines the trajectory of

organizations that were established following the anti-Jewish laws to protest

these laws and assist the unemployed. The files of OMIKE, Országos Magyar

Izraelita Közmüvelődési Egyesület [National Hungarian Jewish Cultural

Organization] a cultural organization for Jewish actors and actresses who became

66
Tamas Gajdó, “In the Service of Thalia,” In the Land of Hagar: The Jews of Hungary, History,
Society and Culture, 240.
 28

unemployed following the implementation of the Jewish Laws, provide an

additional source of examples of lived history. Although it was an organization

created by necessity because of the discriminatory laws, OMIKE was highly

successful and productive in re-creating separate theatre and artistic

presentations and providing work for unemployed artists and performers.

Another significant component to my list of primary sources are the letters

of financial assistance and activities of the Pesti Izraelitak Pártfogó Irodája [Office of

Support for Jews of Pest]. These files contain lists of loans to unemployed

families, even detailing the activities of “soup kitchens” and “milk and firewood

collection funds.”67 The largest Jewish weekly in Budapest, Egyenlőseg [Equality]

provides many of the varied responses and reactions of the Jewish community

following the enactment of the discriminatory laws.

Chapter 5 explores the political reorganization that brought about the

postwar process of certification (1945-1947), and analyzes what happened to the

film community following the end of the Second World War through the politics

of retribution. This chapter traces the postwar process of centralization and

reorganization of the political and legal system to reflect the proclaimed goal of

building a democratic country. The primary archival sources utilized regarding

the establishment of the certification committees are the minutes of the meetings

of the five-member Budapest National Committee, or BNB, set up to establish the

People’s Tribunals, certification committees, and issue all ordinances and

decrees. This chapter further examines the ideological impetus of the newly-

67
MOL Z 89, reel 2, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet, [Economic Savings and Credit Union],
USHMM.
 29

organized government to create a sense of normalcy, legitimacy and a return to a

functioning civil society. These efforts were underpinned by the establishment of

certification committees, set up to re-organize the film and theatre industry. In

addition to the original documents of those individuals who ordered the

establishment of the certification committees, I also examine the certification

documents themselves contained in the archival collection of the files on the

Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946,68 as well as certification files of the

Film Employees Union.

Chapter 6 examines the procedures of the Film Actors Union, specifically

the committee that was established to scrutinize the details of the lives of actors,

actresses, directors, producers of the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete

Igazoló Bizottság [Hungarian Actors Free Union Certification Committee] and

compares and contrasts these proceedings with those of the Film Employees

Union.69 The Film Employees Union represented all film production staff who

were employed by Hunnia, the largest film production house as well as all other

independently employed film workers. The procedures utilized by the two

unions was very different in what was required of each individual applying for

certification. The two different modes of application affected the ways in which

individuals navigated the system in order to become certified. Many files contain

extensive statements and detailed information about the activities of the

68
XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives]
(hereafter BFL).
69
XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete
[Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives].
Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár, hereafter
BFL.
 30

individual actors/actresses during the Horthy and Szálasi era, including

shedding new historical information on the work of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber.

Chapter 7 is about re-writing the past. I examine controversial films,

theatre productions, postwar retribution and later, the rehabilitation of those

found guilty. This chapter analyzes of the trial of Ferenc Kiss, the President of the

Film Arts Chamber as well as other decision-makers and executives. Ferenc Kiss

was the only individual in the film industry found guilty of war crimes and

imprisoned in Hungary. I also examine those films that were written and

produced as anti-Bolshevik and antisemitic propaganda. The certification

hearings were used by the government to their own ends, mainly to eliminate

opposition parties and consolidate their own position of power. My argument is

that actors, as powerful public personae, were used to remove the tarnish of war

crimes, so that Hungarians could restore their reputation and standing in the

world. The onset of the Cold War meant that postwar retribution was no longer

of importance. Famous actors of the interwar period, such as Antal Páger, who

left, were rehabilitated and encouraged to return to Hungary, despite the fact

that Páger starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. Re-

writing the past meant rehabilitating those who were found guilty postwar, in

order to provide the new communist regime with legitimacy.

Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this dissertation.

 Chapter 2: Setting the Stage (1914-1929)
From optimism to energy to the near death
of the film industry
Hungarian Jews and the visual arts
Technical developments that led to the discovery and development of film

production began in many capitals of Europe around the end of the nineteenth

century. The first film screening in Budapest took place in 1896 and coincided

with the Millennium celebrations in Hungary commemorating 1000 years of the

settlement of the Magyars in the Carpathian basin. At the center of festivities was

the Millennium Exhibition in Budapest, which displayed the newest scientific

and technical exhibits from around the world, including Thomas Edison’s new

invention, the Kinetoscope, a precursor to the projector. Arnold Sziklai, a

Hungarian Jew, filmed the first few frames of the visit of Emperor Franz Josef to

the Millennium Exhibition. In the same year, Arnold Sziklai and his brother

Zsigmond were the first to receive a permit to open a cinema, called Ikonograph,

on Andrássy Avenue, one of the most elegant streets in Budapest.1 As technology

was refined and films grew in popularity, cinemas were built across the country.

There were over 110 permanent cinemas in Budapest alone by 1914, more than in

most other European capitals.2

Jews were at the forefront of developing and building the fledgling

technologies of film and photography. While art historians, critics and film

theorists have argued about the reasons of why this occurred, the sheer numbers

1
András Koerner, How They Lived: the Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940, 224.
2
John Cunningham. Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 7.

31
 32

of Jews who were pioneers in the field of film and photography, certainly in

central and eastern Europe, was remarkable. From the middle of the nineteenth

century, many Hungarian Jewish photographers set up shops in Budapest as

well as in provincial towns, such as Nándor Homonnai in Makó and József Plohn

in Hódmezővásárhely. Photographers such as Lipót Strelisky and Manó Mai of

Budapest, were well known; Mai advertised himself as “the photographer of the

Royal Court.”3

American critic and photographer Max Kozloff claimed that Jewish

sensibility and talent in these fields stems from the ‘tension between alienation

and its opposite, the sense of belonging.’4 For the Jews of the Diaspora, making

their way through the twentieth century involved a series of adaptions to new

countries and new environments. Life also meant dealing with discrimination

and conflicts. In many parts of Europe, Jews were restricted in where they could

reside and which occupations they could pursue. In contrast, becoming part of

the world of photography and/or film allowed them to express a ‘vigorous

populism,’ in short: a sense of becoming part of mainstream culture.5 András

Koerner attributes the high number of Jews in the field of photography and film,

especially in the case of the Jews of Hungary, to their ability to adapt:

“Assimilation requires a willingness to change, and this mental flexibility, the

openness to new things, proved to be immensely useful not only in the

3
András Koerner, 228. Most of the world-famous Hungarian photographers were Jewish, such as
André Kertész (born as Kohn), Robert Capa (born as Endre Friedmann), László Moholy-Nagy
(born as László Weisz), Éva Besnyő, Lucien Hervé (born as László Elkán), Martin Munkácsi (born
as Marton Marmelstein), and Nicholas Muray (born as Miklós Mandl).
4
Robert Fulford. ‘Dream Merchants: Jews, photography and Andre Kertesz,’ Queen’s Quarterly
112.2 (2005): 221+ Academic OneFile. Web. April 9, 2016.
5
Ibid.
 33

exploitation of new business opportunities, but also in the exploration of new

artistic forms and genres.”6

While arguments may be made about whether a distinct ‘Jewish

sensibility’ exists in the field of film and photography, it can be stated without

equivocation that during the first half of the twentieth century, certainly in

Hungary and elsewhere in east-central Europe, Jews played a significant role in

building the film industry. The question of why so many Jews were attracted to

the field of acting and why they excelled in this profession was a topic examined

as early as 1911 in an article in the first Magyar Zsidó Almanach [Hungarian

Jewish Almanac].7 The author, Gyula Gál, a well-known theatre producer, wrote:

“the acting talent comes from life experience, this is why the most appropriate

material stems from the ability of the Jewish people to adapt to the countless

tribulations and trials that they have had to face….this is how, in their instinct for

self-preservation, poverty-stricken Jewish children pursued by fate travelled

through the cleansing fires of acting, and have become the best of humanity and

the pride of their people.”8

Film historian István Nemeskürty wrote about the reasons for the all

encompassing participation of Jewish artists in Hungarian cinema, and also in

literature, music and the arts. Nemeskürty pointed out that Jewish artists did not

play as prominent a role in other countries of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy

such as Austria, Bohemia and Moravia and attributed this to: “The rich visual

6
Koerner, 230.
7
Gyula Gál, “A Zsidóság és a Szinjátszás,” [Jews and Acting] Magyar Zsidó Almanach, dr. József
Patai, ed., 1. évf., 1911 május, 25-27, USHMM. All translations are those of the author.
8
Ibid, 26.
 34

imagery of Hungarian folk carvings, folk tales and poetry.”9 Jewish filmmakers

were immersed in the language and culture of Hungary. Sándor Korda started

his career as a poet and published a collection of short stories, his outstanding

film works were based on adaptations from popular stories of Hungarian

literature. Moreover, Nemeskürty also observed that the creative environment

was an era in which filmmakers could work freely. “Prior to 1918, Hungary

accepted and supported almost all kinds of movements, persuasions, religions

and outlooks.”10

At that time, photography and film were innovative and creative fields,

involving new technologies. Both industries exerted a powerful influence on the

masses and both artistic fields were open to Jews. As Hungarian Jews attained

increased visibility in the film industry, antisemitic extremist groups focused and

directed their anger and hostility towards these industries.

The legal situation of Hungarian Jews

The late 19th to early 20th Century was a flowering time for the Jews of

Hungary. After 1840, Jews were given the freedom to move and settle in cities in

Hungary, and in 1860, they were allowed to own agricultural plots of land. The

Emancipation Bill was voted into law in 1867, in which Jews were declared to

have the same civil and political rights as Hungary’s Christians.11 By 1895, the

Law of Reception provided that Judaism was included on an equal basis with the

9
István Nemeskürty, “In the Maze of Movie,”Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar: the Jews of
Hungary, History, Society and Culture, 251.
10
Ibid.
11
Raphael Patai. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture and Psychology, Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1996, 314.
 35

other state-accepted religions of Hungary. Although Hungary’s economy

remained largely traditional, feudal and agriculture-based, during the late

nineteenth century many parts of the country were transformed into an

urbanized, commercial-industrial economy.12 As part of the general legal equality

introduced by liberal nationalists, Jews received full legal and economic

emancipation. “Undoubtedly, Jews were prominent in economic

entrepreneurship. They played a very important role in the industrialization of

Hungary, and were often the beacons of social change implied by

industrialization.”13

In light of the liberal laws and opportunities afforded Jews in Hungary,

their situation was unique when compared to all the other countries in east-

central Europe. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, they migrated to

Hungary in great numbers. By the turn of the century, the number of Jews living

in Hungary approached one million (out of a population of 18,264,533).14 In most

professions, Jews were represented in numbers that far exceeded their

percentage (about 5%) in the general population. In Budapest, the estimated total

population of Jews was 25 percent; by 1910, Jewish representation in the

professions were 62 percent of lawyers, 59 percent of physicians, 52 percent of

veterinary surgeons, 44 percent of self-employed engineers and 33 percent of

pharmacists.15 The convergence of the Jewish middle class in the liberal

12
Ibid., 433.
13
Yehuda Don, “The economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish
Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, Periodicals Archive Online, 63.
14
Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, Third Edition,
Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2016, 5.
15
Victor Karády, “The Jewish Bourgeoisie of Budapest,” Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar,
147.
 36

professions did not happen by accident. Towards the late nineteenth century, a

division of labour evolved, whereby the jobs in the public sector became the field

of the ‘gentry’ class, and the so-called liberal professions were open to students

of the Jewish middle class.16 These occupations were very different when it came

to job security. The public sector jobs offered security of employment; by

contrast, the liberal professions were much more competitive.

Playwriting also started to flourish around the turn of the century. Many

outstanding authors were Hungarian Jews, such as Jenő Heltai, Menyhért

Lengyel, Ferenc Molnár, Ernő Szép and Dezső Szomory, as were many actors

and directors of the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre], where the majority of their

plays had premieres. Theatres outside of Hungary often adapted these plays,

mostly light comedies, and they became popular worldwide in the twenties and

the thirties. These plays were called “export dramas” in Hungary.17 Additionally,

film adaptations of plays by Hungarian Jewish playwrights were very successful.

For example, The Shop Around the Corner, a popular movie directed by Ernst

Lubitsch, directed in 1940, was based on Illatszer [Parfumerie], a play by Miklós

László. Other authors became successful as scriptwriters or screenwriters (as

they are referred to today), including Menyhért Lengyel, who wrote the

screenplay for Ninotchka, a 1939 film starring Greta Garbo.18

Hungary became a prodigious producer of films throughout the First

World War. During the silent film era, film producers created their own films

16
Ibid.
17
Koerner, 223.
18
Ibid., 224.
 37

with their own money or, as they became more successful, found investors. By

1918, Sándor Korda (1893-1956) had produced nineteen films and built his own

film production house, the Corvin Film Studio on Gyarmat utca in Budapest. His

successful films were based on the works of talented writers such as Frigyes

Karinthy, Sándor Bródy, Mihály Babits, Ferenc Molnár and other writers

affiliated with the progressive literary journal Nyugat.19 Korda edited and

published one of the first journals dealing specifically with film, Mozihét [Movie

Week] published between 1915-1922. As editor of this pioneer professional

journal and a prolific filmmaker, Sándor Korda became one of the most

influential directors and producers in the Hungarian film industry.

Another successful director of this period, Mihály Kertész (1886-1962),

produced thirty-eight films in Hungary between 1912 and 1919. 20 Unlike Korda,

Kertész worked with writers who learned how to write for film and created their

own story lines. His films were more action and adventure-oriented. While they

were in Hungary, both Korda and Kertész were instrumental in training

individual writers, cameramen and technicians, providing a strong talent base

for an expanding filmmaking industry.

Filmmaking nationalized (1919)

The end of First World War brought about the collapse of the Dual

Monarchy, followed by a series of short-lived, unsuccessful governments. The

first, a liberal-democratic government led by Count Mihály Károlyi, resigned in

19
István Nemeskürty, Magyar Film, 1939-1944, [Hungarian Film, 1939-1944], 31.
20
István Nemeskürty and Tibor Szántó, A Pictorial Guide to the Hungarian Cinema, 1901-1984, 29-
40.
 38

protest at the territorial demands of the Allied powers. The leadership void was

filled by the communist leader Béla Kun, who joined forces with the Social

Democrats and established the Hungarian Soviet Republic on March 21, 1919.

One of the first acts of the Kun regime was to nationalize the agriculture industry

instead of distributing land to the peasants, an action that alienated the

peasantry. By March 26, many other industries had been nationalized: factories,

mines, transport companies, credit institutions, and even tenement houses. A

“Committee of Public Safety” was organized to put pressure on the civilian

population in order to maintain the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” This period,

known as the “Red Terror”was carried out by the Red Guard, assisted by an elite

corps of secret police, called the “Lenin boys,” formed to hunt down, arrest,

imprison, and execute anyone who opposed the new order.21 More than 590

people were summarily executed.22

During the brief 133 days in power, from March to October 1919, the

regime of Béla Kun nationalized the film industry. New film regulatory bodies

were established to keep the film industry under tight controls. The “Directory,”

was the central administrative board concerned with the organization, direction

and pursuits of the entire industry.23 The “Commissars’ Council” was also

established, directed by Political Commissar Béla Paulik, who became managing

director of film affairs. In artistic questions, his chief deputy was Julia Komját.

21
László Kontler, A History of Hungary: Millenium in Central Europe, 334-335.
22
Albert Váry, A vörös uralom áldozatai Magyarországon [The Victims of the Red Terror in
Hungary]. 3rd ed., Szeged: Szegedi Nyomda, 1993.
23
István Nemeskürty, Word and Image: History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest: Corvina Press,
1968, 41-50. Board members included: Pál Aczél, journalist and director, Béla Balogh, Director,
Oszkár Damo, director, Jenő Farkas, projectionist, Lajos Grünfelder, industrial executive, Sándor
Korda, director, László Vajda, dramatist.
 39

The theoretical and practical work of nationalization was executed by Paulik and

Komját, they looked after every detail, from film production, registration of

actors and actresses to the network of cinemas.

The work of filmmaking was further centrally controlled and directed by

the merging of film studios with only six studios allowed to operate. Four main

Directors of Drama (screenwriters) were appointed: Pál Aczél, István Lázár, Ede

Sas and Iván Siklosi were the only designated individuals who could approve

film scripts. Scripts gained final approval or were changed by the “Art Council,”

a body that insured the political message was in synchrony with the Hungarian

Soviet Republic.24

Béla Lugosi played an important role in the film organization of the

Hungarian Soviet Republic. Lugosi was born Béla Blaskó; initially his screen

name became Arisztid Olt. He later adopted the name of Lugosi because he was

born in Lugos, Hungary. Béla Lugosi fled after the collapse of the Hungarian

Soviet Republic. Lugosi first went to Vienna, then to Hollywood, where he

became famous by starring in the film Dracula.

Actors had to be registered with the Commissars’ Council. Only forty-one

film actors and actresses were allowed to register and only these actors and

actresses were entitled to play leading roles. There were thirty-seven “film actor

candidates” as well as forty-five “juvenile film actor candidates” and 130 extras.

In total, 253 individuals were approved by the Directory to be allowed to work

24
Ibid., 41-50. The Art Council members included: Béla Balogh, Mihály Kertész, László Markus,
József Pakots, László Vajda.
 40

on various projects. During the four months, thirty-one films, mainly short

propaganda films, were produced. Only one feature film survived from this era,

it is entitled Tegnap [Yesterday], directed by Dezső Orbán.25

The economic and political impact of Trianon

(1920)
The regime of Regent Miklós Horthy (1896-1957) came to power on March

1, 1920. His government ruled the country with a functioning multi-party

system until March 15, 1944. Horthy was a Vice-Admiral in the Austro-

Hungarian army who began his career at the age of 14 in the Austro-Hungarian

naval academy.26 In the chaos that followed the end of the World War I, he was

appointed defense minister in the nationalist government formed in the French

occupied Hungarian city of Szeged. Horthy raised the so-called National army

[Nemzeti Hadsereg], mostly made up of veterans of the First World War in order

to overthrow the Hungarian Soviet Republic of Béla Kun. The take over of

Horthy was followed by “White Terror,” characterized by violence and

retribution directed against those active in the leadership of the Hungarian

Soviet Republic. The victims of the White Terror were mainly Jews, real or

alleged communists, and many peasants who rose up against landowners.

Estimates of the victims killed during the White Terror from the early 1920s

25
Nemeskürty and Szántó, A Pictorial Guide, 39.
26
For further information on his youth and background as a member of a noble Hungarian
Protestant family, see Miklos Horthy, Emlékirataim [Memoirs], 2nd ed., Toronto: Weller
Publishing, 1974.
 41

range between 626 and 2,000.27 About 70,000 people were interned or arrested for

shorter or longer periods.28

Korda, Kertész and countless others--the best and brightest filmmakers--

were involved in the nationalization of film during the Hungarian Soviet

Republic. As a result of the “White Terror,” they and dozens of other filmmakers

left their homeland to work in other countries and to establish new studios

elsewhere. In major capitals across Europe, Hungarian-speaking directors and

producers found prominent positions. Alexander Korda moved to London,

England, where he was one of the key creators of the British film industry. He

was later knighted for his outstanding contributions to British cinema. Mihály

Kertész, or Michael Curtiz, as he later became known, signed a contract in the

spring of 1918 that took him to Vienna and later to the United States, where he

became one of Hollywood’s most prolific filmmakers, directing such famous

films as Casablanca (1942). In all, Curtiz directed more than one hundred films

before passing away in 1962.29

The three empires defeated during the First World War were

dismembered at the Paris Peace congress: namely the Ottoman Empire, the

German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The seemingly arbitrary

nature of the new borders ordered by the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920)

shocked Hungarians and the Hungarian national consciousness. The treaty

assigned two-thirds of Hungary’s previous territory to successor states and from

27
Kontler, 339-40.
28
Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 383.
29
Alan K. Rode, Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film, Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 2017.
 42

one day to the next, one-third of the country’s Hungarian-speaking population

suddenly found themselves residing outside of Hungary’s borders. One central

focus permeated popular debates among the defeated Hungarians: revision of

the much-reviled treaty imposed upon the country. Hungarians were stunned by

the enormity of their losses, not just land and population, but the country’s

mineral wealth, forestry and agricultural territories were drastically diminished.

More than 700,000 Jews declared themselves Hungarians prior to the First

World War. The liberal, aristocratic regime that ruled Hungary since before the

turn of the century had an unwritten agreement with the Jewish community, that

Jews living in Hungary would become equal citizens in the country as long as

they declared their mother tongue to be Hungarian, thereby raising the

demographic numbers of Hungarians within the Carpathian basin. This

agreement fell apart, however, with the partitioning of historic Hungary. There

were no more ethnic minorities to be placated in the newly created rump

Hungary. In 1919, while the Entente powers were determining the borders of the

new states of east-central Europe, the fear of the “red menace,” led by Béla Kun,

reverberated all the way to Paris. It was the first such communist “Soviet

Republic” to be declared outside of the Soviet Union. Of the some 5,000

commissars who led the Soviet Republic, an estimated 60 to 75 percent were Jews

by either religion or birth, and this was used as a pretext to blame Jews for the

disastrous events that followed.30 Many non-Jewish Hungarians felt betrayed by

their Jewish countrymen, whom they felt had until then, been allowed access to

30
Lendvai, The Hungarians, 378.
 43

many fields of higher education and professions as well as integrated into the

social, economic, and cultural life of Hungary.

Hungarians believed their nation had been betrayed and, as with other

countries in Europe, turned inward to the conservative revolution. Territorial

revision of the Treaty of Trianon, “Nem, nem, soha!” [No, No, Never] became the

rallying cry of the Hungarian people and the main foreign policy agenda of the

Hungarian government (1920-1944) during the interwar years.

The church, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, led the call for the

return to tradition and conservatism.“New symbolic practices, new holidays, and

above all, new narratives of Hungarian history served to mark the break with the

liberal past and to create a reality in political and intellectual life of the ‘Christian

Hungarian nation.’”31 The central argument of this narrative was that, in order to

establish a Christian society, it was necessary to eliminate “anti-Christian” forces,

with the primary focus directed against Bolshevism. The propaganda forces of

the Horthy regime blamed the regime of Béla Kun for the disaster of Trianon.

During the interwar years, Bolshevism became the central enemy, reflected in

every aspect of the narrative of the Horthy government, including newspapers,

books, media, theatre, and film.

The issue of the high proportion of Jews in the professions and

particularly the film industry was on the agenda of the Horthy regime soon after

coming to power in 1920. The ‘Szeged idea’ was the term for the somewhat

31
Paul Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890-
1944, 3.
 44

nebulous philosophy and program of the right radicals and

counterrevolutionaries who rallied around Horthy. The main supporters of the

movement were the dispossessed: fixed-income middle and lower middle classes

hard hit by inflationary pressures of the postwar period, army officers of the

disintegrated Hungarian Army, and a veritable flood of refugee bureaucrats and

their families, estimated at 300,000, from the territories ceded to the successor

states.32 Tens of thousands lived as refugees in abandoned boxcars for many

years.

These politically conscious people, demoted from the ruling

classes to homeless beggars, constituted an ideal ‘reservoir’ for
various extremists, populist rabble-rousers and death squads of
radical nationalist and antisemitic officers.33

Numerus Clausus
Between 1919-1920, dozens of radical right-wing organizations were

established and became active in Hungary.34 A network of counterrevolutionary

societies, some secret, others public, were organized under the intellectual

leadership of Gyula Gömbös (1886-1936), a right-wing, antisemitic political

leader who later became prime minister for four years. From 1919 until his death

in 1937, Gömbös was the foremost leader of the Hungarian radical right

movement, along with Endre Zsilinszky (1886-1944). Organizations like the

32
Randolph Braham, “The Holocaust in Hungary: An Historical Interpretation of the Role of the
Hungarian Radical Right,” Studies on the Holocaust: Selected Writings, Randolph L. Braham, ed.,
Vol. 1, Boulder, CO.: East European Monographs, 2000, 69-97.
33
Lendvai, 374.
34
Thomas Sakmyster, “Gyula Gömbös and Hungarian Jews, 1918-1936,” Hungarian Studies
Review, 1918-1936, Vol. XXXIII, No. 102, 2006, 157-168.
 45

Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete [Association of Awakening Magyars], and the

Magyarok Országos Védő Egyesülete [Hungarian National Defense

Organization] or MOVE, were the most radical. MOVE viewed its goal as

breaking the majority hold that the Jews had on the Hungarians, as opposed to

the position of the Ébredő Magyarok, EME, which promoted a much more radical

ideology. Within a few years, MOVE had over 100,000 members as a political

extreme right organization. Though Gömbös did not call for physical violence or

elimination of the Jews, the movement did not condemn these methods when

they were voiced by other groups.

One of the pillars of the philosophy of the Gömbös group was

antisemitism, but the organization also claimed that an equally important

element was the “positive, constructive ideology of lifting up the economic,

social and cultural life of Hungarians.”35 Zsilinszky argued that Jews had gained

so much power within Hungary that they were stunting the growth of the

Hungarian people. Gömbös wrote, “unless drastic action was taken, the

successors of the state-founding people led by Árpád would become slaves to

Jews.”36

A more extremist organization, Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete, EME, was

founded in 1919 with membership consisting mainly of civilians that grew to

nearly one million by 1920. The organization sought to deprive Jews of their

35
Ibid.,159.
36
Ibid.,161. Árpád was the leader of the Magyar tribes when they settled in the Carpathian Basin
around 896 AD. He founded the Árpád dynasty and is known as the founder of the Hungarian
nation.
 46

rights and separate them from their wealth, in effect, to remove them from

Hungarian society. Their goals, as described in a pamphlet:

It is the unalterable will of the Association of Awakening Magyars

to re-establish the reign of pure Christian morals and national
feeling throughout the country and to exterminate those
destructive doctrines spread by the Jews that already
contaminated the Christian population of Hungary.37

Other national organizations with similar ideological goals were also established

around this time, the most significant of these were: Etelköz Magyarok [Etelköz

Association] and the Magyar Asszonyok Nemzeti Szövetsége [Hungarian Women’s

National Federation, or MANSz].

Disenfranchised university students, many of them bitter after returning

from military service, also established right-wing organizations at universities

such as the Hungária Egyesület [Hungaria Association] and the Szent István

Bajtársi Szövetség [Saint Stephen Fraternal Association]. But the most wide-

reaching of the organizations founded by university students was the Turul

Társaság [Turul Association], established in 1919, a few days after the fall of the

communist dictatorship. The ideological basis for the organization was Christian-

national, militarism, antisemitism and irredentism. The main goal of the Turul

was to organize university students and put pressure on the government to

implement and enforce the numerus clausus laws limiting the number of Jewish

students at universities. Another reason for the widespread success of the Turul

was that the organization was not attached to a single university or faculty

37
Nathanial Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews: Policy and Legislation, 1920-1943, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press, 1983, 43.
 47

within a university, but spanned all universities in Hungary. Although it was

founded in 1919, the growth and expansion of the Turul took place in 1928, when

the government considered changes to the numerus clausus aimed at limiting the

number of Jews allowed at Hungarian universities. The organization did not

succeed; the government went ahead with the changes.

At the height of the popularity of the Turul, the membership of the

organization was estimated at 40,000 with 48 chapters operating throughout the

country.38 The Turul did not, however, adapt the political ideology of the

Hungarian Arrow Cross party, or promote its core beliefs, as it opposed the

economic and social domination by Nazi Germany and rejected the ideologies

that originated in Germany.39 Organizations of the radical right such as Turul

exerted pressure on the government to take action against what they claimed

was the dominance by Jews in higher education and later, for ousting Jews from

the film industry. The Horthy regime acted on this soon after taking office.

The ideological basis for the numerus clausus law was prepared by Alajos

Kovács, chief statistician of Hungary. Kovacs argued for ‘proportionality,’

because, according to him, Jews held a disproportionate amount of the national

wealth and income, at the time estimated to be about 20-25 percent. The

proportion of Jews in the population as a whole in 1920 was 6 percent, but their

38
As quoted in Robert Kerepeszki, “The racial defence in Practice: The Activity of the Turul
Association at Hungarian universities between the two world wars,” Victor Karády and Péter
Tibor, eds., The Numerus Clausus in Hungary: Studies on the first anti-Jewish law and academic
antisemitism in modern Central Europe, Budapest: Centre for Historical Research, Central European
University, 2012, 142.
39
The Arrow Cross, or Hungarian National Socialist Party, was founded on October 23, 1937 by
Ferenc Szálasi and his followers. The Arrow Cross was built upon the ideology and goals of the
German Nazi, or National Socialist German Workers Party.
 48

numbers among university students hovered around 25 percent before the war

and by 1918 reached 36 percent. Kovács argued that this proportion should be

reduced to 5.9 percent, which was the percentage of the proportion of Jews

within the overall national population. The resulting numerus clausus laws (Law

no. XXV of 1920) limited Jewish participation in institutions of higher learning.

Eight ethnic groups were listed in the law: Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks,

Romanians, Ruthenians, Croats, Serbs and the Jews. The basis of determination

was “mother tongue,” however, when it came to the Jews, mother tongue was a

non-issue as most Jewish students living and studying in Hungary had lived

there for generations and were, to a great degree, acculturated to the country and

its language. The term “Isrealite” in the determination of the law of 1920

specified a religion not a nationality.

According to the official reasoning, the law was intended to prevent a

surplus in liberal professions, which the government claimed the dismembered

country was unable to integrate. For years following 1920, unemployed lawyers,

doctors, civil servants, and white-collar workers fled the partitioned areas of

former Hungary and sought housing and employment in Hungary. With time, it

became evident, that numerus clausus laws were, first of all, directed mainly

against Jews, who were disproportionately represented in liberal professions and

secondly, against women, who lost any opportunity to advance to medical and

legal professions.

Hungary was the first to introduce such a numerus clausus law in 1920. In

Poland, by contrast, almost all of the institutions of higher learning applied the

numerus clausus as a main criterion in admitting new students. In the last few
 49

years preceding the outbreak of the Second World War, Polish authorities took

even more discriminative measures against university students of Jewish origin,

allocating ‘Jewish benches,’ at the back of the auditoriums and classrooms only

to be used by Jews. Jewish students frequently revolted against these regulations

and refused to sit there.40

The Jewish quota was in force until 1928, when the government of István

Bethlen modified numerus clausus laws not only in response to international

pressure from the League of Nations, but also because it realized that the

legislation was not working in its original form. The law neither helped in the

education of the “Christian” middle classes, nor in finding employment for these

groups. Although it was enacted in 1920 and modified in 1928, some historians,

such as Maria M. Kovacs, argue that the numerus clausus of 1920 was the first

anti-Jewish law and that this law represented much continuity across decades of

the Horthy regime.41

The numerus clausus laws had hardly passed in 1920, when the Horthy

regime made its first attempts to extend the argument of ‘proportionality’ to the

film industry. The government regarded the media, and in particular,

filmmaking as an important new entertainment and propaganda medium. In

fact, the film industry was viewed by the regime as an industry that had to be

highly regulated, because its influence was of such great significance.

40
Szymon Rudnicki, “Jews in Poland Between Two World Wars,” Shofar, 2011, vol. 29, Issue 3, 21.
41
Maria M. Kovacs. Liberal Professions and Illiberal Politics, Washington, D.C. & New York:
Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Oxford University Press, 1994.
 50

Reflecting these ideological goals, the Horthy regime introduced decree

8454/1920 soon after taking power, a decree that would have ejected Jewish

filmmakers from the film business.42 Some astute government ministers realized

that this decree would have destroyed what had been a vibrant film industry.

There were simply not enough skilled and talented professionals in the film

business to replace those who had left in 1919. Realizing they had gone too far,

the government reversed the decree in 1923 by introducing decree number

6900/1923, calling it the ‘creation of a social partnership.’ This decree allowed

Jews to return to the film industry.43

Another act on the part of the Horthy regime that deeply damaged film

distribution was the revocation of theatre licenses from former Jewish owners

and awarding those licenses to veterans, especially disabled veterans and war

widows. By doing this, the regime brought in individuals who did not have

experience in operating a local cinema, and who, in many cases, lacked funds to

invest in the business. This created more pressure on an already struggling film

business and further exacerbated the crisis occurring in the film industry.44

As a result of territorial losses, the Hungarian film industry had to adjust

to smaller audiences and realized that new markets were required for Hungarian

films. In regions ceded to successor states, the ownership of cinemas were

transferred and/or appropriated by the state. In Czechoslovakia, for example,

42
Tibor Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, [After the Changing of the
Guard: the Jewish Question and the Politics of Film] Budapest: Magyar Filmintézet, 1997, 9.
43
Ibid.,9.
44
Ibid.
 51

cinemas owned by Austrians or Hungarians were taken over by the state and

sold to Czechs or Slovaks.45

These factors led to the destabilization of the film industry during the

1920s. The Hungarian film industry had produced 220 films between 1917 and

October 1919.46 From that level, production declined steadily through the 1920s:

from twenty-three films in 1923, seven in 1924, two in 1925, three in 1926 and

1927, to one film in 1928.47 The lowest point in the interwar history of

filmmaking in Hungary was 1929, when the industry practically came to a halt.

The effects of the 1929 crash on Wall Street and the Great Depression that

followed reverberated around the world, forcing many film studios into

bankruptcy, including such powerful film production houses as Paramount

Studios in Hollywood, which went under in 1933. Several Hungarian film

studios went bankrupt even prior to the Wall Street crash of 1929, including

Corvin Studios. Corvin was later purchased by the Hungarian government and

transformed into a modern facility renamed Hunnia.

Conclusion
The history of the filmmaking industry in Hungary was vibrant from the

beginning of its inception around 1890 until the end of World War I. Within the

first two decades of the development of this artistic field, a wide array of talented

producers, directors, actors and actresses joined the new medium, attracted by

45
Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 28.
46
Zsolt Kőháti, Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között,
[Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film between 1896-1930], 154.
47
Nemeskürty, A képpé varázsolt idő, 224.
 52

the excitement and creativity of the field. Jews were at the forefront of the new

technology, attracted to the new field, becoming pioneers in the technical

development of film. This vigorous era of production and creativity was

disrupted at the end of the First World War by several short-lived, radical

political regimes, border changes and the end of the liberal era of freedom and

economic growth. The history of filmmaking in Hungary is inextricably linked to

the many political changes that took place at the end of World War I. Jews were

prominent in economic entrepreneurship and played an important role in the

industrialization of Hungary. They were often leaders of social change that

accompanied modernization. The extreme right portrayed the economic

functioning of the Jews collectively as the primary culprit for the poverty,

unemployment as well as for the deterioration of the peasantry and the

oversupply of white-collar workers that followed the end of the war.48 These

events provide the background narrative for a much-diminished country that

became, similar to many other countries in Europe, insular and self-absorbed.

Already in the 1920s, radical right organizations were founded, demanding

Numerus Clausus at universities and seeking to limit Jewish participation in the

film industry in particular, as well as other industries. The Horthy regime

recognized the importance of promoting a domestic film industry, and forming it

into an industry that was nationalist, irredentist, Christian, and anti-Bolshevik.

48
Yehuda Don,“The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish
Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter, 1986, 48,1, Periodicals Archive Online, 64.
Modern antisemitism is defined by Yehuda Don as “the discriminatory reaction of the majority of
a native society to socio-economic changes to which Jewish minorities adjusted faster and more
effectively than the Gentile majority.”
 Chapter 3: The creation of the Chamber System (1929-1939)

When World War I ended disastrously for Hungary, many segments of

Hungarian society searched for someone to blame. The aristocratic ruling class

was reticent to allow change, especially in the fields of land distribution and

universal suffrage. Except for a few forward thinking members of the aristocracy,

most fought to keep the status quo with all their privileges. Jews were blamed

for a wide assortment of woes, such as losing the war, the loss of territories, the

takeover of the Hungarian Soviet Republic and practically all the economic and

social problems that followed.

The tone of the government party, although consistently nationalistic,

irredentist and anti-Bolshevik, was altered with the accession of different prime

ministers. This chapter will examine how the terms of various prime ministers

and the push of right-wing organizations affected the implementation of the

laws. The 1930s were characterized by a struggle between extreme right-wing

organizations and their attempts to gain power and the counter-attempts by the

liberal, aristocratic members of the government party who often paid lip service

to their ideology, yet attempted to keep the rightists in check. Regent Horthy and

some of his closest ministers and advisors were conflicted in their views towards

Hungary’s Jews. Radical right forces wanted to purge all Jews from the film

industry, however, pragmatic government ministers, many of whom had

financial stakes in the industry, realized that evicting Jews from specific spheres

of economic influence would be disastrous for many parts of the economy,

especially the film industry.

53
 54

The Hungarian government realized that their irredentist goals would

only be achieved through a growing dependence on the Third Reich and thus,

demands for closer ties to Germany grew stronger from the mid to late thirties

onward. As a result of the closer ties, there was growing pressure on Hungary to

bring in legislation that limited the expansion of Jewish influence. The

Reichskulturkammer, founded in 1933, had the effect of purging all Jews from the

film industry in Nazi Germany within two years. By contrast, in Hungary, the

film chamber system did not exclude all Jews from the film industry. While their

official numbers were reduced according to the then newly-implemented rules,

Jews continued to work under pseudonyms as producers, directors and

screenwriters. By 1942, Hungary became the third most prolific filmmaking

country, after Italy and Germany.1

This chapter examines the extremist rhetoric of antisemitic organizations

and their demands that the government take action against what they claimed

was the “Jewish dominated” movie industry. Despite the fact that the Horthy

regime stated that it did not want to nationalize film, they mandated the

chamber to control the number of active filmmakers, and set up funding boards

to ensure that only those films were financed that reflected the ideology of the

government. This chapter will look at the ever-increasing influence of the

government over film, the growing pervasiveness of antisemitism in Hungarian

society and how these forces brought about the Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939.

Among the original sources examined in this chapter is a fifty-five page

discussion paper that laid the groundwork for the by-laws of the Theatre and

1
Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success, 1929-1944, 7.
 55

Film Arts Chamber. It sheds new light on the inner workings of the Film

chamber and provides further insight into the intent behind the creation of the

chamber on the film industry.2 This document demonstrates the ever-increasing

role of the government within the film industry and the growing radicalization

of the rightist movement in Hungary. Through this document, I will describe

how the government legislation establishing the chamber was brought about

with the intent of placating the extreme right, but had the effect of clouding the

mandate of the film industry and making it more difficult for members of the

chamber to produce films. First, this chapter will look at how the Hungarian film

industry fared amidst the major technological changes that came about with the

introduction of sound.

The revolution in the technology of film: the

talkies
The introduction of synchronized sound for films, also known as ‘the

talkies,’ was a turning point of technology that revolutionized the film industry.

The first feature film produced with sound, The Jazz Singer, was released by

Warner Brothers in October, 1927. Production and distribution were overhauled.

The new technology required substantial input of investment and new

equipment, as well as new expertise for skilled cinematographers and sound

technicians. Everything regarding film production and distribution became

significantly more expensive. Camera crews were larger, using an entirely new

type of recording equipment; sets and studios had to be expanded and

2
RG-39.004, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], 1938 julius 27, 28, War History Archives, Bp,
Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, 1919-1945, reel 7, Bundle 3520,
USHMM.
 56

upgraded. Film theatres required renovations with new equipment; many were

enlarged in order to make the theatre economically viable. Many village cinemas

and pubs, until then successful at screening silent films, were no longer

profitable.

The introduction of language into film production raised national

consciousness about this medium as it related to cultural and national identity.

The Hungarian government quickly realized that in a territorially much

diminished country, where the population was eight million, a vibrant film

industry was critically important. The government placed the development of

the new sound technology high on the list of priorities.

The talkies caused an even higher consumer demand for films. The first

sound film made in Hungary was Csak egy Kislány van a Világon [There is only

one girl in the world], made in 1930, directed by Béla Gaál. It would take another

year before the first fully synchronized film was to reach Hungarian audiences in

A Kék Bálvány [The Blue Idol], directed by Lajos Lázár. Béla Gaál (1893-1945) was

one of the most prolific film directors of the interwar era. He came from a

background of theatre and produced several silent films during the 1920s. Gaál

also directed the film training school in Budapest. His second film, Meseautó

[Dream Car], produced in 1934, provided “an upliftingly optimistic view of

existence, a sense that if there are problems, they can be solved.”3

The production of Hungarian films flourished between 1933 to 1939.

Hungarian government and filmmakers realized they needed foreign partners to

3
Bryan Burns, World Cinema: Hungary, 4.
 57

create Hungarian films and looked to other countries in Europe and the United

States for capital and partnerships, citing low expenses, multiple language skills

and modern facilities.

The Hungarian government purchased Corvin film studio, transformed it

into a modern, updated facility and renamed it Hunnia Studios. By 1931, Hunnia

had become a national institution and the centre of film production in the

country.4 Dr. János Bingert, formerly in law enforcement, was named head of

Hunnia Studios. Despite his limited background, Bingert understood that one of

the necessities for making films was working capital.5 Bingert worked with his

colleague, Gyula Pekár, another key individual of the interwar film

establishment, in reaching out to foreign partners in order to raise capital. Pekár

had been a writer involved in film since the silent era of 1900. He was head of the

Filmtanács [Film Council] and President of the Film Industry Fund. Gyula Pekár

demonstrated leadership in bringing talented Hungarians home from other

European countries and even the United States. Pekár believed that “if Hungary

could become the commercial center of European film production, then they

(Hungary’s émigré talent) will have an interest in coming home.”6

One of the main obstacles that prevented the Hungarian film industry

from being re-built was that the postwar film viewing audience was significantly

reduced, and the country was flooded with a plethora of American and French-

made foreign films. In the 1930s, more than half the feature films shown in

4
Nemeskürty, Word and Image, 71.
5
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 64-5.
6
“Lesz Magyar Film,” [There will be Hungarian Film], Magyar Filmkurir, 1930 junius 8.
 58

Hungary were from the United States, and an additional twenty percent were

from Germany.7 Hungarians wanted to see films in their own language, but the

problem was how to make these films financially viable. János Bingert, Director

of Hunnia, found a solution by calling for a tax on foreign films screened in

Hungary, thereby creating a fund for domestic film producers. It was proposed

that for every twenty foreign films imported and screened in Hungary, one

Hungarian film had to be produced.8 These contributions made it possible to

start the revival of the Hungarian film industry, as a result Hungary became the

only small European country to produce films on a regular basis.9

The film tax was not the only incentive to re-build the Hungarian film

industry. As a result of the Great Depression, many countries, including

Hungary, restricted currency exchanges or prohibited them outright. The result

was that foreign distributors would not likely be paid for their films in their own

currency. These restrictions also had a positive side: the currency restrictions

prevented the flow of foreign films into Hungary and forced film companies to

invest their profits in more Hungarian films before the currency became further

devalued.10

Regime change also played a critical role. In October 1932, riding on a

wave of right wing popularity, political leader Gyula Gömbös (1886-1936), one of

the ideological leaders of the right wing, was appointed Prime Minister of

Hungary. While Gömbös was supported by many, he could not implement the

7
Nemeskürty, Word and Image, 71.
8
Ibid, 72.
9
István Langer, “Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl, I-II resz, 1919-48 [Chapters from the History
of Hungarian Film Production], Parts 1-2, 1919-1948, 44.
10
Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 46.
 59

antisemitic laws he had so fervently promoted prior to being appointed to power

due to the requirements laid out by Regent Horthy. While Gömbös followed the

rules, he expanded his base within the government party and placed more like-

minded individuals in positions of power in Ministries and generals in the army

command.11 The work of Gömbös strengthened the radical right and laid the

groundwork for the implementation of antisemitic laws. Gömbös sought to

stabilize the economy and introduced a 95-point plan entitled A Nemzeti

Munkaterv [The National Work Programme].12 In this plan, he emphasized the

importance of the film industry, in light of the “extraordinary importance of film

in terms of its educational, cultural, propaganda and entertainment influences.”

Gömbös did not complete the tasks he started since he passed away suddenly

while in office in October 1936.

Germany provided the precedent for the creation of a Chamber system,

limiting and controlling the membership of certain professions. The

Reichskulturkammer [Reich Chamber of Culture], established in 1933,

encompassed seven fields of arts and culture, including film. Although the first

draft of the decree did not explicitly mention Jews, by 1935 the Chamber system

in Germany was restructured and Jews were expelled from membership.

Italy’s first “anti-Liberal” measures affecting film production occurred

much earlier, starting in 1925. Most of the measures reduced the independent

status of actors, actresses, film producers and directors by bringing them into a

11
Sándor, Orségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 12.
12
Vonyó, Gömbös Gyula, 172-180.
 60

newly organized Confederazione nazionale di sindicati fascisti [National

Confederation of Fascist Trade Unions] organized by the federal government.13

Hungarian émigré talent working in Germany was forced out by the

enactment of the Reichskulturkammer. More than 300 Hungarian-born actresses,

actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, cinematographers were living and

working in Germany between the 1920s and early 1930s.14 In the 1930s, a number

of exiled directors returned to Hungary, bringing with them high technical

standards and experience from their years abroad in the United States and

Germany.

Among those who returned were two exceptional talents, István Székely

(1899-1979) and Pál Fejős (1897-1963). Székely became one of Hungary’s most

prolific film directors, directing over twenty-six films during the interwar era,

including one of the most popular films of that era, Hippolit a Lakáj (1931),

[Hippolit the Butler]. Székely was interviewed many years later about why he

returned to Hungary.15 János Bingert, the head of Hunnia, paid a personal visit to

Székely, to coax the famous director back to Budapest with two screenplays in

hand. Neither of the two projects interested Székely, however, he was persuaded

when Bingert presented him with the screenplay for Hippolit a Lakáj, and showed

him that a Czech financier and film producer agreed to finance the project.16

13
James Hay, Popular Film culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex, 203.
14
Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 59.
15
Székely was interviewed by film historian István Langer. Langer, Fejezetek a Filmgyár
Történetéböl. I-II resz, 1919-48, 67.
16
Langer, 67.
 61

Székely adapted other films from literature, films in which Hungarians

could visualize stories based on their own lives, incorporating plots and scenes

that appealed to middle and lower-class audiences.17 The plots were multi-

layered, frequently incorporating stories of love with humorous twists of plot.

Székely worked with actors who were popular in the film world: the brilliant

comedian Gyula Kabos, the debonair actor Pál Jávor, and the seductive actress

Katalin Karády. Székely reminisced about his early work in Hungary:

The number of filming days were less, in general we had to shoot

everything in about two weeks…then, however, we worked day
and night. We were young and enthusiastic, no one wanted to go
to sleep, we wanted to finish the films quickly.18

Pál Fejős was a talented screenwriter who also brought the fast pace of

filmmaking that he had learned in the United States.19 Fejős had a reputation for

writing the screenplay for a scene in the morning and directing the scene in the

afternoon of the very same day. He was indefatigable, he would work late into

the night writing, directing and editing.20

By the mid-1930s, the Hungarian film industry had regained its vitality.

Directors produced highly watchable versions of the Hollywood comedies of the

1930s. Cinema was an art form most people craved as a means of escapism from

the economic hardships of everyday life and movie tickets were relatively

17
Burns, 4
18
Langer, 116-117
19
http://www.filmkultura.hu/regi/2004/articles/essays/fejos.hu.html. Accessed March 28,
2017.
20
Ibid.
 62

inexpensive.21 During the 1930s, the Hungarian population spent roughly the

same amount on cinema tickets – 25 million pengős in 1935, for example – as

they did on all printed matter, newspapers, books and almanacs together.22

The optimism and energy reflected by the film industry in the 1930s lasted for

several years. Neither the public nor the professionals active in the production of

film could have foreseen, however, the effects of the anti-Jewish laws of 1938 and

1939 on the film industry.

Exclusionary tactics in film

While the Horthy regime did not seek to nationalize the film industry, it

did exert government control over the industry by establishing membership

organizations, such as the film chamber, as well as putting in place funding

mechanisms to ensure oversight. A few writers and journalists covered the

expansion of these organizations and the appointment of individuals who were

directly linked to government ministers. Andor Lajta, for example, edited and

authored one of the most comprehensive journals, Filmkultura [Film Culture] on

the history of Hungarian film during the interwar era. The monthly magazine

featured articles on technical advances, distribution, and new legislation in

filmmaking. The journal also published articles on the success of Hungarian

films internationally, while at the same time providing an important historical

record of antisemitic attacks on Jewish filmmakers in the press. Lajta, who was

himself a Jew, started the journal in 1928 and edited and published the monthly

magazine until 1937, when the journal was ordered to cease publication under

21
Cunningham, 29.
22
Ignác Romsics, Hungary in the Twentieth Century, Budapest: Corvina-Osiris, 1999, 178.
 63

Prime Minister Béla Imrédy.23 Lajta also published the Filmművészeti Évkönyv

[Film Culture Yearbook], from 1919 to 1947. This Évkönyv, published annually for

almost thirty years, served as a primary historical record of the Hungarian film

industry.

Filmkultura tracked the establishment of organizations specifically

mandated to monitor the film industry. One such early organization, established

in 1936, was known as the Országos Magyar Filmegyesület, or OMF [National

Hungarian Film Association], precursor to the Film Chamber of 1938. The

Filmegyesület (OMF) was organized with the intent of bringing various branches

of the film industry together, such as producers, distributors, and cinema

owners, as well as to create a body that would ensure the quality of Hungarian

film.24 The narrative of the origins of this organization reflected the historical

context in which it was founded. Initially, two successful filmmakers were voted

onto the executive board of the OMF in February 1937, namely: director István

Székely as Head of the Directors Department, and Béla Gaál as Executive Vice-

President.25 Some members of the government exerted quiet pressure to appoint

more pragmatic individuals to lead this organization, namely those who had

experience in producing films and realized that Hungary’s film industry

depended on the talent, expertise and capital provided by Hungarian Jews. Two

23
http://mandarchiv.hu/cikk/4807/A_Lajta_Andor_altal_szerkesztett_Filmkultura_szamai.
Accessed April 27, 2017.
24
Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 13.
25
Filmkultura, 1937 március 1, 5.
 64

such pragmatic individuals were studio head Zoltán Taubinger of MFI Magyar

Filmintézet [Hungarian Film Institute] and János Bingert of Hunnia Studios.26

Other members of the government ensured that at least the two positions of vice-

presidents were filled with individuals acceptable to the right-wing, namely,

Miklós Vitéz, writer and production manager, and actor Ferenc Kiss, an

outspoken member of the Turul who would later be appointed President of the

Film Arts Chamber from 1939 until April 1942.27 Vitéz and Kiss were in daily

contact and maintained close relationships with like-minded government

ministers. As Filmkultura documented, the establishment of one main governing

body for the film industry began in 1936 with the founding of its predecessor, the

OMF, Országos Magyar Filmegyesület. The purpose of these appointments was

two-fold: to placate the calls of right-wing organizations that demanded the end

to the Jewish domination of the film industry, and secondly to have compliant

individuals in the upper echelons of the OMF who would report to government

members about the goings-on within the organization and be willing to carry out

the film related agenda of the government. Within months, these government

appointees pushed out the experienced filmmakers, who also happened to be the

Jewish members of the executive, namely Béla Gaál and István Székely.28

The replacement of Gyula Gömbös as Prime Minister in 1936 with Kálmán

Darányi (1886-1939) was viewed as a welcome change to those who believed that

Darányi was chosen to stop the aggressive expansion of the right-wing

26
Taubinger, who changed his name to Törey in 1939 to make it sound more Hungarian, was
known as an ally and protector of the Jews. Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 199.
27
Sándor, 31. This date marks the induction of Prime Minister Miklós Kállay.
28
Sándor, 14.
 65

movements that had gained strength during the Gömbös government. In reality,

the Darányi government paved the way for the implementation of the Jewish

Laws and worked to align Hungary with the foreign policy interests of Germany

and Italy. Darányi’s speech of March 5, 1938 in the city of Győr announced the

re-armament of the nation and declared the need for an Örségváltás [changing of

the guard] in order to assure a more “effective and equal balance” of social and

economic conditions.29 In fact, Darányi’s speech was “testing the waters” to

assess public opinion about the forthcoming First Jewish law XV of 1938. For the

Jews, the speech in Győr represented something more ominous as Darányi

announced the necessity for “a solution to the Jewish question.”30 While

reassuring the populace in the same speech that the government party would

follow the constitution and keep the Arrow Cross Party at bay, Darányi’s

government introduced restrictions on the press, extended legal powers of the

central government and adopted the first Jewish law.31

Nazi Germany annexed the Austrian Republic in what became known as

the Anschluss on March 12, 1938. Through this military extension of its power,

Nazi Germany became the direct neighbour of Hungary. Regent Horthy and his

inner circle of advisers became increasingly worried about the more intense

infiltration of Nazi ideology that this closer geographical proximity presented.

The extreme right became more emboldened. Miklos Horthy learned about a plot

29
Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary, 538-9.
30
Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, Third Revised
Edition, Boulder, CO: Social Science Monographs, 2016, 78.
31
János Pelle, Sowing the Seeds of Hatred: Anti-Jewish Laws and Hungarian Public Opinion, 1938-1944,
Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2004, 17.
 66

to oust him, a plot that endangered the very safety of his family. Horthy was

incensed by the prime minister’s lack of ability to keep the extremists in check. 32

On April 3, Horthy addressed the nation directly on the radio for the first

time during his Regency. Horthy’s appeal to the nation declared his non-

confidence in the government of Kálmán Darányi and announced the prospect of

firm action against the disturbers of the peace, against radical antisemites, and

those who were fomenting social unrest and discontent.33 Starting on April 24,

1938, the Horthy regime placed Ferenc Szálasi, leader of the Hungarian National

Socialist Party (the Arrow Cross) and seventy-two activists of his movement

under police surveillance.34 Horthy considered Szálasi a dangerous man whose

extremist demagoguery would cause investors to leave Hungary, exactly at the

time when capital was needed to re-build and re-arm the country. Horthy was

particularly concerned about Szálasi’s influence on some members of the military

general staff and ordered, through the Supreme Commander of the Hungarian

armed forces, that officers who engage in any political or disguised political

activity should be charged in military court.35 Members of the armed forces who

received written information from the Hungarian National Socialist Party were

required to report such incidents and submit such material to their commanding

officers under penalty of being charged in military court.36

32
Péter Sipos, Imrédy Béla és a Magyar Megújulás Pártja [Béla Imrédy and the Party of Hungarian
Renewal] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970, 34.
33
Pelle, 28.
34
Ibid.
35
Sipos, 34.
36
RG-39.004, War History Archives, Budapest. Records of Hungarian Royal Home Defense
Ministry, Reel 1, USHMM. One letter from lieutenant Jenő Komlos in this collection was of
particular interest as Komlos compiled and submitted several flyers he received from anonymous
sources while at his military barracks. Komlos explained that his family was Jewish.
 67

A further demonstration of the concern on the part of the Horthy regime

of the growing influence of the National Socialists was that the government also

collected reports of the activities of Szálasi while the leader of the Arrow Cross

made a visit to the Hungarian regions of Romania. Reports were compiled by

the administrators and police in each of the larger communities and cities where

he visited.37

Regent Miklós Horthy compelled Kálmán Darányi to resign on May 13,

1938, just prior to the implementation of the First Jewish Law. The following day,

Béla Imrédy (1891-1946) was appointed Prime Minister. One of the first acts of

the new Prime Minister was to increase the ten-month sentence of a lower court

against Szálasi to three years.38 Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Imrédy had

been Minister of Finance and President of the National Bank. Those moderate

members of government who hoped for a more independent path believed the

conservative, steady-handed fiscal policies of Imrédy would lead the country

away from the growing influence of the extreme right. As a politician, Imrédy

had been intimately involved with the drafting of the First Jewish Law, which

was passed during his premiership. In his view, he intended that the

implementation of the law be applied fairly. Some of the industrial and banking

houses were provided five to ten years to conform to the laws. He also planned

that the laws should be carried out fully, not only in the interests of fairness, but

also to prevent the extremists from demanding much harsher measures. Imrédy

37
A collection of these reports is contained in MOL-K149, Reels 1 and 2, USHMM.
38
Pelle, 29.
 68

and many other politicians mistakenly believed that the First Jewish Law would

placate the extremists.

Calls for state supervision of the entire film profession came from

discontented individuals who demanded more action to expel Jews from the

Hungarian film business. Members of the Turul were especially active in pushing

the government for legislation regarding the Örségváltás, [changing of the

guard].39 Some of the most vociferous, most politically active leaders of the Turul

who were appointed to government positions. These appointments demonstrate

the belief, on the part of the government, that by awarding certain members of

the Turul with government positions, they could placate the extreme right

organization and thereby slow the membership of the Turul in their agitation and

push for power. Leaders of the Turul, such as István Antal, went on to become

part of the Sajtóosztaly [Press Department] during the right-wing government

leadership of Gyula Gömbös. From April 1938 to April 1942, Antal became

Minister of State for the Justice Ministry. From 1942 until March 1944, he was

tárca nélküli Nemzetvédelmi Propagandaminiszter [Propaganda Minister without

Portfolio]. Another leader and right-wing propagandist for the Turul Society was

Géza Bornemisza, who was appointed to positions within the Ministries of

Industry, Trade and Transportation between 1935 and 1944. His older brother,

Gábor Bornemisza, was editor of the extreme right-wing newspaper Virradat

39
The Turul were supported in their aims by organizations such as the Ébredő Magyarok Egyesülete
[Association of Awakening Hungarians] the Magyar Országos Véderő Egyesület [Hungarian
Association of National Defense] and the Etelközi Szövetség [Etelköz Association].
 69

[Dawn].40 By the end of the 1930s, Gábor had been appointed President of the A

Magyar Mozgóképüzemengelyézések Országos Egyesületének [National Film

Production Permit Association].41

Members of the Turul also founded their own publishing house, Centrum

Kiadóvállalat Rt. In addition to taking an active role in the production and

distribution of films, Gábor Bornemisza became Executive Director of Centrum

Publishing. After 1939, the publishing house gained the exclusive right to print

Magyar Film [Hungarian Film], the official press organ of the Hungarian Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber.

The right-wing news media added fuel to the fire with speculation and

false news stories. Stories that Jews had conspired to keep non-Jews out of the

film industry were published and countered by the Jewish newspapers. Baseless

news stories emanated from the right-wing press that director István Székely

was unwilling to provide employment for non-Jews. This was allegedly in

retaliation for Germany’s treatment of Jews. In articles printed in the right-wing

press, Joe Pasternak and Ernő Gál purportedly made a pact to deny employment

to all non-Jewish film professionals.42 The final conspirator was István Gerő, the

well-known head of the Royal Theatre Trust. Some sources estimated without

40
RG-39-004, Reel 1, War History Archives, Budapest. Records of the Hungarian Royal Home
Defense Ministry, USHMM. This collection contains several original copies of antisemitic articles
from Virradat.
41
Sándor, Orségváltás Után, 38.
42
The right-wing newspaper Uj Magyarsag [New Hungarians] published this charge in mid-1937.
The Jewish daily Egyenlőség [Equality] response: “Árja filmek kellenek?” [Should there be Aryan
films?], 1937, szeptember 9, 5.
 70

basis in fact that Gerő influenced nearly 80 percent of the films made in Hungary

through provision of credit for production.43

The Turul held rallies in support of unemployed white-collar educated

professionals. The organization also led rallies against films they deemed to be

offensive to non-Jews. One film in particular, Lovagias ügy [An Affair of Honour],

released in 1937, caused a great furor among Turul and its supporters, as it ended

with a marriage between a Christian and a Jew. The film was directed by well-

known director István Székely and starred Gyula Kabos. Kabos was Jewish, and

one of the most popular comedic actors in Hungary at the time. Kabos acted in

the role of Virág at the Milkó food factory. In the film, Virág has a run-in with the

offensive nephew of the owner, Pál Milkó. In a dramatic turn, Milkó befriends

members of the Virág family and falls in love with Virág’s lovely daughter, Baba,

played by the stunning blonde-haired Zita Perczel.44 The climax of the film is a

typical Hollywood happy ending: Milkó and Virág reconcile, and Milkó asks for

Baba’s hand in marriage, which is granted.

It was the ending of the film that caused the furor on the part of the Turul,

the idea that it was acceptable for Jews and Christians to intermarry.

Demonstrations against the film began in Budapest, but spread to other cities as

well, including Pécs and Debrecen. Newspapers such as Virradat, edited by

Gábor Bornemisza, were rife with denunciations against the film.

Demonstrations continued and became sufficiently violent that the police had to

43
Frey, Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary, 113.
44
Zita Perczel landed her first role at the age of 18. She never finished film school, but was a
natural beauty on screen. In the 1940s, due to the Jewish laws, she left and went to Hollywood
where she had little success due to her lack of English-language skills.
 71

intervene. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Religion and Education, Bálint

Homan, called for a meeting with the leaders of the Turul to mediate an end to

the violence. While the demonstrations were brought under control, the agitation

and campaigning continued for the “changing of the guard” in the Hungarian

film industry.

The numbers brought about even greater demands for state supervision of

the entire film industry from discontented individuals and antisemitic groups.

János Smolka, an established film producer, conducted a comprehensive study of

the film business in Hungary before the First Jewish law was enacted in 1938.

Ironically, Smolka was a writer of Jewish origin. His study found that “the

majority of films (93 out of 100) in Hungary were produced by Jewish firms, and

sixty-five of those were directed by Jewish directors. At the time there were only

two companies established by Christians.”45

The radical right wing newspaper, Új Magyarság [New Magyars], edited by

István Milotay, was one of the first to demand that Jews be expelled from the film

business entirely.46 During 1937, frequent ads such as the following appeared in

the antisemitic newspaper Magyar Nemzeti Szocializmus [Hungarian National

Socialism]:

More than 100 films have been made in Hungary. Seventy-five

percent of the production companies were Jewish. We demand

45
Sándor, Örségváltás Után [After the Changing of the Guard], Introduction, quoting from the book
written by János Smolka, Story Machine in Reality, p. 9-10.
46
RG-39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], Reel 1, USHMM.
 72

more Hungarian films. We want to see Hungarians at the head of

production companies.47

In July, 1937, the leadership of the Turul submitted a Memorandum to Balint

Homan, the Minister of Religion and Education, on the topic of the so-called

“getto films.”48 As the title of the memorandum so obviously and crudely

indicated, the document demanded an end to films made by Hungarian Jews.

A prominent voice countering the antisemitic propaganda of the extreme

right was László Zsolnai (1902-1974), a journalist and specialist in the film

industry who established his own newspaper, Filmújság [Film News], published

between 1932 and 1937.49 Zsolnai wrote an extensive response to the “Getto Film

Memorandum” in the pages of the Filmújság, sending an open letter to Géza

Bornemisza, asking for his views on the matter. Zsolnai’s written calls to the

Minister went unanswered.50 Zsolnai was one of a few countering the

propaganda of those right wing newspapers campaigning for the “changing of

the guard.” The anti-Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939 shut down Filmújság, but with

the help and connections of his second wife, Olga Fehér, Zsolnai continued to

47
RG-39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], Reel 1, War History Archives, Bp,
Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry, USHMM. Collection contains copies of
Magyar Szocializmus from 1937 Dec. 19 onwards, with many anti-Semitic articles about Jewish
ownership of film and news –media companies. Nemzet Szava article: “Tüzet Szüntess”[Put out
the Fire]: “Enough of Jewish actors, actresses, screenwriters!” This series of articles provide the tone
and intent of Radical Right.
48
Sándor, Örségváltás Után [After the Changing of the Guard], 43.
49
As a seventeen year old, Zsolnai took part in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic as a
soldier. After the Hungarian Soviet regime of Bela Kun ended, he couldn’t find a school where he
could continue his education because of his Red Army service. For two years, he lived and
travelled in Holland and Germany before returning home.
50
Sándor, Örségváltás Után, 43.
 73

counter the arguments of the extreme right under a new magazine, The Gazette.51

Typical of Zsolnai’s writings was this ironic response to the attacks by the Turul:

We can say with confidence that the Jewish film producers of

Budapest await with open arms those production companies
designated under the Aryan designations…they do not object to
the influx of either right-wing capital, or right-wing actors,
writers, producers, or technicians. They are not only willing to
distribute such films, but are also willing to screen such films in
their cinemas.52

During the war, Zsolnai was drafted into the labour service. When he

returned, he went into hiding in Budapest. Once the war ended, he managed a

movie theatre in the small community of Alpár, in eastern Hungary and

continued to write. His newspaper was shut down for the last time by the

communist regime in 1948.53

In addition to protests from individuals such as Zsolnai, a group of

prominent fifty-nine Christian intellectuals, writers and artists published a

strongly-worded protest against the forthcoming Jewish Law.54 While the bill

was under consideration, in May 1938, many respected cultural leaders declared

“the exclusion of 400,000 Jewish citizens from the ranks of the nation…the shame

of Magyardom.”55 Among the signatories were two of Hungary’s most famous

composers Zoltán Kodály and Béla Bartok, writers Lajos Zilahy and Zoltán

51
The company’s name was Fehér Olga Filminformácios Vállalata [Olga Fehér’s Film Information
Company]. Tibor Sándor, Örségváltás, Introduction.
52
Sándor, Örségváltás: A Magyar Film és a Szélsőjobboldal a harmincas negyvenes években:
Tanulmányok, dokumentumok, [Hungarian Film and the Extreme Right in the Thirties and Forties:
Studies, Documents], Budapest: Magyar Filmintezet, 1992, 41-42.
53
Zsolnai did not work as a journalist again and passed away in Budapest in 1974.
54
Yehuda Don, “Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation in Hungary,” Cesarini,
David, ed., Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944, 50.
55
“Pronouncement of 59 Leading Intellectuals and Artists protesting the First Jewish Law,”
Zoltán Vági, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide,
Lanham, Md.-Washington, D.C: AltaMira Press-USHMM, 2013, Chapter 1, 4-5.
 74

Szabo, artist Aurel Bernáth, and literary scholar László Bóka. The open letter had

little impact on the general public.

One of the most devastating aspects of the legislation for the Jewish

community was its approval by representatives of the Christian Churches during

the debates in Parliament. Cardinal Jusztinian Serédy, Prince-Primate, head of

the Roman Catholic church in Hungary, Lutheran bishop Sándor Raffay, and

László Ravasz, bishop of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, were unanimous in

approving the Bill’s essential provisions and blaming Jews for their necessity.56

The First Jewish Law, Act 1938:XV, enacted into Law on May 28, 1938, was

officially entitled: “Act for the more Effective Safeguard of the Balanced Social

and Economic Life of the Country.”57 The law ordered the establishment of

different Chambers for members of the press, theatre, film arts, legal, engineering

and medical professions, as well as those employed in the fields of business and

economic life. Most importantly, the legislation declared that the Jewish

membership of these chambers be limited to a maximum of 20 percent.

Structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber

This section contains an analysis of a discussion paper outlining the

structure of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. The 55-page document, dated

July 27, 1938, was found in the files of the Royal Home Defense Ministry

Archives in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.58 This document is

56
Patai, The Jews of Hungary, 536.
57
RG. 39.015, 2007.92. Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, USHMM.
58
RG-39.004 War History Archives, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], reel 7, Bundle 3520,
July 27, 1938. Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry (1919-1945),
USHMM.
 75

in effect the original draft wording of the by-laws of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. The decrees creating the professional chambers, including the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber, were signed into law on August 26, 1938. The document

is accompanied by a cover letter addressed to the Minister of Justice, Ödön

Mikecz (1894-1965), who was in charge of this Ministry until November, 1938.59

The cover letter requests the comments of Justice Minister. Before Mikecz was

named Minister, as a university student, Mikecz was a key member of the

leadership of the Turul, along with the previously mentioned István Antal and

Géza Bornemisza. The cover letter refers to the document as: “the decree plan for

the establishment of the theatre and film arts chamber.”60

The structure, purpose and language of the document come under the

rubric of attempts by the government to create a “Christian” Hungary and a

“Christian” national film industry through legislation. Through the

implementation of the First Jewish Law and examining the structure of this 55-

page working paper, we can trace how, through such legislation, Jews went from

being viewed as the “outsider”to being the “alien.” As historians have traced, the

trajectory of the demonization of Jews and the legalization of their discrimination

laid the groundwork for the Holocaust.61

The first chapter of the document begins with definitions and

organizational structures, such as who may be admitted as a member of the

chamber: theatre and film actors, film directors and producers, as well as those in

59
RG-39.004, War History Archives, Bp. Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry,
Betétiv a 32737/eln. 15.-1938 sz. ügyirathoz. [insert to the 32737/President’s Documents #15-
1938], USHMM.
60
Ibid.
61
Vera Ránki, The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary, New York:
Holmes & Meier, 1999, 113-32.
 76

managerial positions and others who assist in film production. Point #1 also

determines that the headquarters of the chamber will be located in Budapest, and

the territory under its jurisdiction will extend to the entire country. Point #2 of

chapter 1 provides a general definition of the tasks set out for the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber. The tasks are defined as: “promoting the national spirit

(Nemzeti szellem) and successful implementation of Christian moral values, to

protect the organizational and social interests of the members of the chamber and

to ensure moral standards and prestige of the profession. Further, to protect the

rights and moral responsibilities that accompany the profession and, if needed,

hold disciplinary hearings, to take a stand and provide direction on questions

pertaining to the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber and to provide assistance in

obtaining work and organize theatre and film productions.”62

Specific terms used several times throughout the document are not

clarified. The term, Nemzeti szellem [National Spirit] is not defined, nor are there

any examples of or direction provided towards the successful implementation of

“Christian moral values.” Although the definition of the organization itself is at

the front of the document, specific qualifications of the individual members who

are allowed to join the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber only appear much later

on page twenty-two. Requisites for membership are detailed as “the individual

be at a minimum 18 years of age, practice his profession with sufficient national

62
RG-39.004 War History Archives, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], reel 7, Bundle 3520,
1938 julius 27. Budapest, Records of the Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry (1919-1945),
USHMM, 1-2.
 77

spirit and moral point-of-view and have practical or theoretical experience in

their field.”63

While definitions of specific important terms are ambiguous, the structure

and inner workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber are very clearly

established, details such as: when and how often Annual General Meetings

(AGM) should be held, the agenda of the AGM, voting and composition of

Executive and Executive committee, payments and dues, and acceptance of new

members.64

Chapter I, section 2 provides details of the election process and when and

how the elections are to be held each year, stating that “those who receive the

most votes are to be declared elected.”65 The following paragraph contradicts this

statement, however, by stipulating that:

those individuals who fall under law 1938: XV, paragraph 4, (the
section that deals with the percentage of Jewish members allowed)
may only be chosen as delegates in the case they do not exceed 20
percent of the total numbers of the membership. If these numbers
are filled, more individuals from this group cannot be viewed as
elected, even if according the votes counted, such individuals
would have been elected by majority vote. In such a case, the
individuals who received the next largest number of votes will be
elected, if this individual does not fall under law 1938:XV,
paragraph 4.66

63
RG-39.004, Előadói Tervezet [Planned Presentation], 22.
64
Ibid., 1-33.
65
Ibid., 5.
66
Ibid., 6-7.
 78

One of the most interesting aspects of the Előadói Tervezet are the many

clauses that underscore that the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber will be under

the direct supervision of the Vallás és Közoktatási Miniszter [Minister of Religion

and Education], hereafter referred to as VKM. While the clause that states this

outright is on page nineteen, there are no less than fourteen mentions of the role

of the VKM in the internal workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber

throughout the document. The VKM must approve the time and date of the

elections and the AGM, including the agenda. All minutes must be forwarded to

and all money matters must be approved by the VKM. The Minister (of the

VKM) has power to abrogate certain resolutions of the chamber, has the final say

in approving honorary members, and in dealing with complaints.67 The Ministry

of Religion and Education may annul decisions by the Theatre and Film

Chamber, inasmuch as those decisions counter laws or regulations, or if those

decisions are not in harmony with the Nemzeti szellem [National Spirit] or the

requirements of Christian morals, or if they endanger the peaceful inner

workings of the community.68

Chapter II of the Előadói Tervezet describes how members are to be

admitted to the Chamber, and what requirements they must meet to maintain

their membership, and the circumstances by which they would lose their

membership and be ejected. Clause after clause emphasizes the importance of

experience in the theatre and/or film as a pre-requisite for joining, whether the

individual joins as a producer, director, actor, actress or in any other area of

67
Ibid., The first mention of the VKM is on page 5, one of the last is on page 41.
68
Ibid., 21.
 79

theatre or film. For example, the document explicitly states that managers and

directors of film companies must be able to demonstrate that they have been

active in this role for over five years prior to joining the chamber. Moreover, the

film companies must be able to show sufficient capital to operate.69

Repeatedly, clauses describe the importance of the maintenance and

promotion of professionalization. For example, in providing requirements for the

acceptance of members in the Film Chamber, the recommendations state that

members who are nominated must have been active in the field for at least five

years, must be a graduate of an established theatre or film academy, or must

have been a member in good standing of the OMF [Országos Magyar

Filmegyesület].70 If the individual has been without a working contract for over

two years, they will be stricken from the rolls of the chamber.71 Throughout the

document, the First Jewish Law 1938: XV, point 4 is repeatedly cited as the

guiding principal in organizing the chamber.

Chapter III deals solely with the disciplinary responsibilities, offenses,

procedures, departmental investigations and well as disciplinary actions that

may be taken against the members of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. This

section spans more than twelve pages of the discussion paper.72 Disciplinary

actions escalated from: a warning, then a monetary fine, suspension from the

profession and, finally, firing from the occupation/profession. The appeal

procedure, including the setting up of a separate appeal board, Az Országos

69
Ibid., 25.
70
Ibid., 28.
71
Ibid., 28.
72
Ibid., 42-55
 80

Szinművészeti és Filmművészeti Tanács [National Theatre and Film Council] is

explained in detail.

The convoluted administrative details of the Előadói Tervezet are reflected

in the inner workings of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber itself. As

demonstrated by the document, the effectiveness of the Film Chamber was

weighed down by bureaucracy. The document was written and assembled by

government bureaucrats who demonstrated little knowledge of the film

industry. It is apparent from the document that the government sought control

over the film industry and aimed to force Jews out of the industry, but didn’t

know quite how to exert control, other than through bureaucratic rules.

Conflicted push-pull influences

The decrees creating professional chambers, including the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber, were signed into law on August 26, 1938 by the Interior

Minister, Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer. Two days later, on August 28, the

government ordered the arrest of many prominent right-wing extremists on

charges of agitation and disrupting the peace, including Ferenc Szálasi himself,

the leader of the Arrow Cross party. The original Statement of Claim against

Szálasi contains a detailed analysis of the writings of Ferenc Szálasi that

describes how his writings “are all maliciously directed against one religious

group, namely the Jews.”73

Because of the content of the writings, the Crown finds Ferenc

Szálasi guilty of inciting hatred on the part of Christians towards
Jews, moreover, that these writings further incite the deliberate

73
RG-39.004, Reel 1, Papers of the Nemzeti Front [National Front], USHMM.
 81

and forceful overthrow of the laws of state and order of civil

society.74

This Statement of Claim against Szalasi and his anti-Jewish writings was

being drafted while, ironically just two days earlier, the government passed the

first Jewish Law focused on limiting the number of Jews that were able to work

in specific industries. These two actions contradict each other, demonstrating the

conflicted actions of the government. One part of the government was intent on

limiting the activities of the antisemitic extremist Arrow Cross and their leader,

while another was intent on carrying out the demands and placating right-wing

organizations with legislation against Jews. The chamber was mandated to start

its activity on January 1, 1939.

Overdue action against the extreme right did not change the fact that the

antisemitic press was gaining ground and continuing to spread, despite

government efforts to shut down newspapers that supported the Arrow Cross

party, such as Összetartás [Unity]. On May 27th, 1938, Olivér Rupprecht sold the

popular daily, Magyarság [Magyardom] to the Arrow Cross movement, turning

the newspaper into an unrestrained organ of party propaganda and antisemitic

writings.75

Those who believed that the implementation of the Jewish laws would

placate the extreme rightists were misled in their assumptions. The working

74
Ibid., The writings of Szálási the charges are based on writings that appeared in the “Uj Magyar
Munkás” [New Hungarian Worker], March 15, 1937.
75
Krisztián Ungváry, A Horthy rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és antiszemitizmus
Magyarországon [The Standards of Measures of the Horthy Regime: Discrimination, Social politics
and antisemitism in Hungary], Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 2012, 234.
 82

arrangements surrounding the establishment and mandate of the first Jewish

Laws were barely in place when discussions got underway regarding the

implementation of the Second Jewish Law. The Second Jewish Law went much

further, in that this Law completely altered the definition of Jewishness, from

religion to that of race.

The predictions of Count István Bethlen, pragmatic Prime Minister and

statesman between 1921 and 1931, referring to Act 1938:XV, had been prophetic:

“those who hasten this law will soon realize that it did not solve their problem,

and will manipulate the Government… to go much further.”76 István Bibó was a

lawyer, civil servant, politician and political theorist. After the Holocaust, Bibo

wrote that the anti-Jewish laws provided the social and psychological

preparation for the eventual genocide.

The Hungarian legislation did not take the wind out of the sale of
the radical right, but, instead, gave it new impetus. It did not
convert the dangers of the bloody persecution of the Jews but,
instead, had Hungarian society become accustomed to the
exclusion of the Jews from the common trenches of human
dignity… They did not have to confront directly those who
removed from their positions. The fundamental law of these
policies was rooted in the fact that since it could not depend on
the real and clear attempts at reform, it had to appeal largely to
base instincts. Wide strata of Hungarian society became
accustomed to the fact that from that time on, they could establish
their existence not through hard work and entrepreneurship, but
by searching out an already established person, reporting him to
the authorities, who will look up his grandparents religion, expel
him from his job, expropriate his business and perhaps have him
interned, then take possession of his business. These possibilities
have immediately underscore the process of the moral decline of
Hungarian society and were showing examples of eager greed,

76
Yehuda Don, “Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation,” 55.
 83

hypocritical rejection of inhibitions, or at best, a cold-hearted

careerism of large segments of society. This had created an
unforgettable shock not only for the Jews, but also for every
Hungarian of good will.77

Conclusion
The introduction of anti-Jewish legislation represented a new legal

paradigm, breaking 70 years of liberal rule in Hungary where previously,

antisemitism was not tolerated. The legislation was created by the conservative

government of Miklós Horthy to placate radical right political forces, who were

not satisfied with the First Jewish law that limited Jewish participation in the

educational system and economy to 20 percent.

The Horthy regime did not restrict the growth and development of film, it

realized it did not want to destroy an industry that was successful in entertaining

the masses, and in promoting Hungary’s international image. Hungary’s film

industry continued to thrive in spite of the legislation, and continued to produce

highly-watchable, entertaining films.

The narrative of the late 1930s and early 1940s is one of the government

finding ways to attempt to legislate the film industry, while just stopping short of

nationalizing the film industry. The Hungarian film industry was a creative sector

in a small country, trying to build itself up with limited resources. As evident in

the success or failure of filmmaking within small nations, nations with limited

77
István Bibó, “Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után,”[The Jewish Question in Hungary after
1944] in Zsidókérdés, asszimilació, antiszemitizmus [The Jewish Question, Assimilation,
Antisemitism], Budapest: Gondolat, 1984, 148-9.
 84

resources need to have public and private financial resources for a viable

filmmaking sector to exist.

The early discussion paper examined in this chapter preceded the creation

of the film chamber. It demonstrates attempts by government officials to over-

bureaucratize the chamber, ultimately having the effect of making the final

legislation obscure. The efforts to control the film industry through the film

chamber were largely ineffective, again demonstrating the selective nature of

antisemitism on the part of government officials and bureaucrats in Hungary.

Despite the convoluted and unclear nature of the legal language in their

implementation, the anti-Jewish laws were restrictive and prohibitive and created

large numbers of unemployed Jewish breadwinners, with widespread ripple

effects on Jewish families and communities. Further, the long-term effect of the

laws was the legalization of discrimination, that is: these laws laid the groundwork

for the demonization of the Jews, from being “outsiders,” to becoming “aliens.”
 Chapter 4: Religious vs. Racial antisemitism and the impact
on the film industry (1939-1944)
Time or chronology is not the only category by which history may be

organized. Some scholars consider place and space as also fundamental in how

people and cultures relate to the past. Time and place are critical to

understanding the era, these measurements provide background on how and

why events unfold, and provide insight into how memory is embedded in

historical consciousness.

Understanding the motivations, anxieties and actions on the part of the

Hungarian government during the interwar era was influenced in large part by

the geopolitical position of Hungary and the ever-increasing influence of larger,

more powerful neighbors. In March of 1938, Nazi Germany became a direct

neighbor of Hungary through the annexation of Austria, or Anschluss. A few

months later, in November, 1938, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom, agreed to Hitler’s demands to the Sudetenland, thereby

causing the break-up of Czechoslovakia. Through the First Vienna Accord,

signed in November, 1938, Hungary was granted a southern strip of land of what

had been formerly part of northern Hungary [Felvidék]. This represented a

territorial gain of 11,927 sq. km. of land with 1,060,000 inhabitants, of whom,

according to the Hungarian census of 1941, 84 percent were Magyars.1 The “re-

taking” of territories was done with much fanfare. Regent Horthy rode into

Kassa [Kosice, today part of Slovakia] on a white stallion, escorted by Hungarian

military forces. The press corps of the Hungarian army filmed and photographed

1
Lendvai, The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 409.

85
 86

enthusiastic crowds lining the route during what was called the “triumphant”

return of the Felvidék. The recovery of forty percent of the territories partitioned

to the successor states at Trianon was carried out between November 1938 and

April 1941. The move strengthened the irredentist policies of the Horthy regime,

and further emboldened radical right forces. Hitler dismantled Czechoslovakia

through the First Vienna Accord and created an independent Slovak, later Nazi

puppet state headed by a Catholic priest, Jozef Tiso (1887-1947).2 Shortly after

taking office as Prime Minister in October, 1938, Tiso ordered the expulsion of

over 7,500 Jews from Slovakia into Hungary, as “mass punishment” for the

German-sponsored First Vienna accord that ceded territory to Hungary.3

Thousands of Jews from Slovakia fled, especially to the northeast region of

Transcarpathia, bringing with them eyewitness accounts of the brutality of the

expulsion.4

A few months later, in March, 1939, Hitler allowed Transcarpathia to be

occupied by the Hungarian army. Through this annexation, Hungary once again

obtained a common border with Poland. Six months later, however, the

Hungarian government refused Hitler’s demand to allow German troops to

attack Poland through Hungary.5 In September, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded

2
Mary Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed, New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2011, 93.
3
James Mace Ward, Priest, Politician, Collaborator: Jozef Tiso and the Making of Fascist Slovakia, 287.
The deportation of 60,000 Slovak Jews to Auschwitz and certain death happened later, between
March and October 1942. Although Tiso had the right of exemptions, he only exempted some
650 Jews.
4
Interview by author conducted with Hédy Weisz, who lived in Nagyszőllős [today Vinogradiv,
part of Ukraine] on March 13, 2004 in New York City. Weisz recorded the eyewitness accounts of
Teréz Ilkovics, a Jewish woman from Slovakia who came to live in Nagyszőllős. Ilkovics related
how they were ordered out of their homes in the middle of the night, after which their homes
were set ablaze.
5
László Kontler, A History of Hungary, 375.
 87

Poland. Hungarians felt the effects of this invasion directly. Tens of thousands of

refugees from Poland flooded into Hungary from the northeast.6 Some travelled

on horse-drawn carriages, others on trucks, but many others simply came on

foot, carrying their children and few belongings with them, many still in shock

by the savagery they had just witnessed.7 The impact of the refugees from Poland

raised thorny questions that Hungarians were not ready to face. How could a

regime that had promised to undo the injustices of the Treaty of Trianon invade

and destroy Poland, their most loved neighbor, the nation that had been their

closest ally throughout centuries? The massive numbers of refugees required

special arrangements. Thousands of Jewish civilians and soldiers also escaped

and were provided refuge in Hungary, bringing the total number of refugees to

more than 100,000. As an ally of Nazi Germany, Hungary was prepared to face a

diplomatic row with Germany in siding with the Poles. The Hungarian

government facilitated the onward passage of Polish enlisted men through

Yugoslavia to join the Polish government-in-exile in France. Nazi Germany

demanded the return of all Polish enlisted men and Jews from Poland, but the

Hungarian government refused to comply. Polish Jews were registered as

Christians upon their arrival, housed with their fellow countrymen and provided

with Christian papers.8

6
Barátok a bajban: lengyel menekűltek magyarországon [Friends in Need: Polish refugees in Hungary],
Tadeusz Olszanski and Jerzy Robert Nowak, eds., Budapest: Europa, 1985.
7
Interview by author with Caroline Padányi, March 3, 2008, in Toronto. Mrs. Padányi was a
resident of Nagyszöllös [today Vinogradiv, part of Ukraine], one of the towns in Hungary
flooded with Polish refugees and an eyewitness to the events.
8
Kinga Frojimovics. I have been a Stranger in a Strange Land: The Hungarian State and Jewish Refugees
in Hungary, 1933-1945. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2007, 177.
 88

It is important to consider the geopolitical location of Hungary at the time

of the implementation of the Jewish laws of 1938 and 1939 in light of the drastic

changes taking part in neighboring countries. The dismantling of Czechoslovakia

and the attack upon the territorial integrity of Poland, however, were actions

taken by Nazi Germany that pointed to much more sinister plans on the part of

Hitler. Government minister and media czar Miklos Kozma wrote in his diary

that this was the turning point when he realized that any small nation within the

sphere of influence of Germany, including Hungary, could lose their autonomy

at any moment.9

The shock of the world is enormous, as is ours. The Czechs have

been declared part of Germany’s Lebensraum. And it has been
determined that Slovakia—as a Protectorate—is 41% German.
This is madness and false, but demonstrates the tendency. On this
basis, they could also declare Hungary part of their ‘Lebensraum,’
and determine as many ethnic Germans as they want.10

Other ministers and members of the inner circle of government believed they

could keep the Nazi Germany at bay through a give and take principle, that is

implementing Jewish laws, but especially from the point of view of individuals

such as Kozma, who were involved in the film industry, not to the point of

destroying the film industry. Examples of this selective antisemitism have

already been examined in Chapter Two through a careful analysis of the drafting

of the legislation. Further examples will appear in this chapter, selective anti-

9
Mária Ormos. Egy Magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919-
1941 [One Hungarian media leader: Miklós Kozma. Journey through hell in media and politics,
1919-1941]. Vol. II. Budapest: PolgART, 2000, 597.
10
Ibid.
 89

Semitism being defined as: not whether to legislate anti-Jewish laws, but

deciding how and to what degree they should be implemented.

Fight vs. Flight: The Jewish community responds

The leadership of the Hungarian Jewish community stayed abreast of

domestic and international events and the fate of Jewish communities, especially

keeping track of those laws and regulations that affected Jewish communities in

surrounding countries. When lawmakers in Romania announced anti-Jewish

revisions to the citizenship act, editorials and articles in Egyenlőség [Equality],

expounded on the discriminatory aspects of the law months ahead of its

implementation. In protest over the ever-worsening situation of Jews in Romania

under the Goga regime, the headline in the largest Hungarian language

newspaper, Egyenlőség, exclaimed: “We Protest the Deprivation of Rights!”11 The

headline was a quote from a speech by Samuel Stern,12 who, while addressing the

annual general meeting of the Jewish Congregation of Pest, pointed to the ever-

worsening situation of Jews in Romania.

11
Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 58. Evf. 3 szám, Budapest, 1938 január 20, 1.
12
Samuel Stern (1874-1947), was elected President of the Jewish Congregation of Pest, the largest
Neolog religious community in Hungary in 1929. The organization promoted the principle of
political and social integration and believed that Hungarian Jews were an integral part of the
Hungarian nation. Stern was a businessman who had established a successful refrigeration
business during the First World War. For his contributions, he was named a privy councillor by
the Emperor Franz Josef. Stern devoted much of his time as President of this representative body
to maintaining good relations with the government and with Jewish organizations outside of
Hungary. Stern enjoyed close ties with Prime Minister Istvan Bethlen (1921-1931) and even the
antisemitic Gyula Gömbös (1932-1936). In 1935, Stern led a delegation of Jewish leaders who met
with Regent Miklos Horthy, but during the meeting Horthy failed to address the matter of most
concern to Jews—the fear of new restrictive laws. Samu Stern, Emlékirataim: Versenyfutás az idővel!
A Zsidotanács Müködése a német megszállás és a nyilas uralom idején [Memoirs: Race against Time.
The Work of the Jewish Committee at the time of the German occupation and rule of the Arrow
Cross]. Budapest: Babel Kiado, 2004.
 90

The Jews of Hungary were commemorating the 70th anniversary of their

emancipation as citizens in 1938. For 70 years, they had felt that their rights in

the country were protected as a legally recognized religion. Ironically, while

commemorating this anniversary, the Jewish community became increasingly

aware that discriminatory laws were being discussed and drafted in the

Hungarian parliament over a period of many months. The leadership of the

Jewish community was already lobbying members of parliament in the hope of

preventing the implementation of the First Jewish law. On the front page of the

longest-running Hungarian language newspaper, Egyenlőseg13 was an editorial

entitled “Az Emancipáció” [The Emancipation]:

On the anniversary of this fate altering 70th anniversary,

unfortunately, there is not much reason to celebrate. We gather to
pray only quietly on each Friday evening for the past year. Instead
of feeling joy of this anniversary, our hearts are full of worry,
trepidation and uncertainty. The present is a hazy mist and more
and more the future is full of thick clouds. It is not a time for
celebration, but simply remembrance which is what we must do
on this anniversary, because if we examine the situation of Jews
all around us, and here in our homeland, we can only derive
confidence by remembering the past, and can only find confidence
in our future by examining our historical greats.14

Despite the lobbying efforts and protestations, the First Jewish Law was

introduced to parliament in April 1938 and enacted one month later, on May 28th

13
Egyenlőseg [Equality] was one of the longest-running Hungarian-language weekly newspapers
representing the views of the largest Neolog Jewish community. The newspaper was founded in
November, 1882 in the midst of the Tiszaeszlár ritual murder trial and was published
continuously until October of 1944. Although the newspaper reflected the assimilationist views
of Neolog Jews, the rights of Jews in surrounding countries and in all of Europe were of primary
importance in the topics it covered.
14
Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 58. Evf. 3 szám, Budapest, 1938 január 20, 1.
 91

as Act XV:1938.15 Jewish leaders were pragmatic in their acceptance of the new

law after the fact. They hoped that with the passage of this law, the incitement

against the Jews and discussion of the Jewish question would come to an end.

Just months after enacting the First Jewish Law, however, the government

began drafting the Second Jewish Law. The leadership of the Jewish community

learned of the proposed severity of the Second Jewish Law, mainly that the new

restrictions of Jewish professionals registered with the Chamber system would

be reduced from 20 percent to 6 percent. From January 1939 onwards, the

national newspaper, Egyenlőség, editorialized on the unfairness of the proposed

law, lobbying legislators, and informing readers about the ever-more

discriminatory nature of the clauses that were being drafted.

One month before the Second Jewish Law was enacted, Sándor Eppler,

general secretary of the Jewish community of Pest, provided estimates of how

many Jewish professionals would be affected: “The Jewish laws will affect not

only employees, but also those who provide employment in such as fields that

deal with business, commerce, industry, credit and transportation.”16 Eppler

estimated that 40 percent of 425,000 Hungarian Jews would lose their

employment because of the law or be directly affected by family members who

will become unemployed.”17 The article also contained detailed information on

the number of actors and actresses affected by the law, estimating that there were

1,971 actors and actresses in Hungary at the time, 475 of whom were Jewish. The

15
RG. 39.015, 2007.92. Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, USHMM.
16
Egyenlőseg, [Equality] 1 Évf., 14 szám, Budapest, 1939 április 13, 8.
17
Ibid., According to the estimates of Eppler at the time, 168,000 Hungarian Jews would lose their
employment due to the Second Jewish Law.
 92

law, according to Eppler, will affect the Jewish community in a catastrophic

way.18 The estimates turned out to be too conservative. Historian Randolph

Braham estimated that the law affected about 15,000 Hungarian Jewish

professionals, as well as 50,000 Jewish families who were affected by the impact

of the law.19

A few weeks after Eppler wrote these ominous predictions, on May 5,

1939, Hungary adopted its Second Jewish Law that re-defined a Jew by race: Law

No. IV of 1939 - Concerning the Restriction of the Participation of Jews in Public

and Economic Life.20 The Second Jewish law emulated the Nazi Germany:

Jewishness was no longer defined as a religion, it became defined as a race.21 If an

individual had one parent or two grandparents who were Jewish, Hungarian law

now considered that person to be Jewish. During the debate, forty-two

representatives of the Christian churches in the Upper Chamber of the

Parliament protested against the re-Judaization of their converts. The protests

were ineffective, however, and in the end, the representatives of Christian

religions voted for the law.22 Exemptions were included, such as decorated

veterans of the First World War, veterans who had lost limbs or become

physically disabled during the war, and Olympic medalists.23 Clauses within the

law also prevented Jews from gaining citizenship by marriage or naturalization,

and limited their proportion in the professions to no more than 6 percent.

18
Ibid.
19
Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1, 128-9.
20
Anti-Jewish Laws and Decrees of Hungary, 1938-44, RG. 39.015, 2007.92. USHMM.
21
Yehuda Don, “The Economic Effect of Antisemitic Discrimination: Hungarian Anti-Jewish
Legislation, 1938-1944,” Jewish Social Studies, Winter 1986, 48, 1, 66.
22
Yehuda Don,“Economic Implications of the Anti-Jewish Legislation,” David Cesarini, ed.,
Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary, 55.
23
Pelle, Sowing the Seeds of Hatred, 43.
 93

The legal minds of the community understood better than most that these

Jewish Laws were part of a much larger legal paradigm. The laws represented a

break with the official position Hungary held toward the Jews for the past 40

years, namely that they were among those legally protected religious

denominations and could not be singled out or discriminated against. For the

Jewish community, these laws required a rethinking of their own position in

Hungary, something most Hungarian Jews were simply reluctant to do.24

Religious and community leaders predicted the laws would be short-lived and

that the community should bear the trials with patience. Historian Andrew

Handler assembled a volume of the writings of the leadership of the Jewish

community in Hungary at the time and summarized that: “most of Hungarian

Jewish poets, writers, rabbis and community leaders were by tradition

overzealous patriots, yet deeply conscious and proudly expressive of the

teachings and values of Judaism.”25 Géza Ribáry, a well-known lawyer and

community leader, wrote: “Our lives and future are inextricably fused with the

destiny of the Magyar people.”26 Ribáry advised his fellow “Hungarians of the

Israelite persuasion” to pursue “modesty and steadfastness…until we regain the

position in this land that we have earned by the common destiny we shared with

the Magyar people, and by our passionate devotion to the Magyar ideal.”27 The

Second Jewish Law also included a clause allowing emigration, but even with

that, tragically, only a small percentage of Jews considered emigration as an

option. In a summary of the annual work of the Pesti Izraelita Hitközség [Jewish

24
Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology, 541.
25
Andrew Handler, ed., The Holocaust in Hungary: An Anthology of Jewish Responses, University,
Ala. University of Alabama Press, 1982, xii.
26
Ibid., 43
27
Ibid., 44.
 94

Community of Pest], the organization prepared the paperwork for 56,066

individuals, comprising 24,501 families who expressed their desire to emigrate

during the six months period from July 1938 to December 31 of that year.28

The reaction of the Jewish leadership was twofold: to engage in protests

and conduct charity work, that is by providing aid to those affected by the law.29

As the lawyer and prosecutor for the Jewish Community of Pest, Ernő Munkácsi

spent an inordinate amount of his time writing about and publicizing the

devastating effects of these laws.30 Along with other leaders of the community,

Munkácsi submitted several memoranda to the lower and upper chambers of the

Hungarian Parliament, protesting the laws, detailing how the laws violated the

Hungarian Constitution, and describing how they were causing the loss of

employment for tens of thousands of Hungarian citizens. Munkácsi referred to

this campaign as a “press war” and wrote that it garnered widespread

attention.31 He was instrumental in drafting a booklet entitled Itéljetek [You

Judge], which outlined the unconstitutionality of the laws.32 The booklet

ironically included many photographs of artifacts from the museum as proof of

the long and loyal history of Jews in Hungary to their homeland. Munkácsi held

28
“Minden Magyar Zsidó teljesitse kötelességét: A kivándorlás előkészitése,”[Every Hungarian
Jew should carry out his/her responsibility: Preparing for Emigration] A Magyar Zsidók Lapja, 1.
Évf., 26. Szám, 1939, julius 13, 13, 1-2.
29
Patai, 542.
30
This was the largest Neolog congregation in Hungary with 215,000 members. Kinga
Frojimovics, Szétszakadt történelem: Zsidó vallási irányzatok Magyarországon, 1868-1950, [History
Torn Apart: Jewish Religious Directions in Hungary, 1868-1950], Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008,
31
“Országos Magyar Zsidó Muzeum Jelentése,” Előterjesztette az 1940 évi rendes közgyülésen
Dr. Munkácsi Ernö ügyvezető igazgató, [Report on the National Hungarian Jewish Museum, put
forward by Dr. Ernő Munkácsi, Director General on occasion of the National General Meeting,
held in 1940], Évkönyv 1940 [Yearbook], Samu Szemere, ed., Budapest: Izrealita Magyar Irodalmi
Társulat, 341, USHMM.
32
Márton Vida, Itéljetek! Néhány kiragadott lap a magyar-zsidó életközösség könyvéből [You Judge! A
Few Pages Torn from the Book on Magyar-Jewish Coexistence], Budapest: Földes, 1939.
 95

the belief, so prevalent among Jewish religious and community leaders, that the

laws were simply a sign of the times, and that they would run their course. In his

writings, he continued to relentlessly remind the Jewish community of their rich

cultural and historical heritage as a great source of strength in such times of

turmoil. Munkácsi wrote in the Jewish Museum’s annual report of 1940:

Although all may be lost, established rights may be taken away,

we may lose friends and become disillusioned with our co-
religionists—our common past is with us, our forefathers are with
us, the virtue of our ancestors, their lives, their ability to sacrifice,
the entire thousand-year history of Hungary, which is proven by
the stones of our museum, the faded documents, that declare that
we have been here for one thousand years, we have lived and
died here, just the same as other citizens of Hungary.33

Even as Munkácsi extolled the virtues of remaining steadfast to Jewish

culture and history, he grew more strident in tone. He admonished those Jews

who chose the path of conversion to Christianity, describing this act as

“disowning their ancient faith, their origins, denying the very essence of their

being, rushing towards foreign lands, and with fanatical elbowing striving to

forget about their Jewish past, trying to melt in among others.”34 According to

reports compiled by rabbis in Hungary, approximately 4,000 Jews converted to

Christianity during the one-year period between the declaration of the First

Jewish Law in May 1938 and the Second Jewish Law in May 1939.35

33
Dr. Ernő Munkácsi, “Országos Magyar Zsidó Muzeum Jelentése,” Előterjesztette az 1940 évi
rendes közgyülésen Dr. Munkácsi Ernő ügyvezető igazgató, [Report on the National Hungarian
Jewish Museum, put forward by Dr. Ernő Munkácsi], 341.
34
Ibid, 339.
35
“Minden Magyar Zsidó teljesitse kötelességét: Négyezer kitérés egy év alatt,”[Every Hungarian
Jew should carry out his/her responsibility: Four thousand conversions in one year] A Magyar
Zsidók Lapja, 1. Évf., 26. Szám, 1939 Julius 13, 1-2.
 96

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians rushed to county registry offices

and church archives in order to obtain birth certificates of their parents and

grandparents. Everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike, had to prove their ancestry

through official documents. Following the implementation of the new legislation,

the headline of A Magyar Zsidók Lapja exclaimed: “Seventy thousand Jews are

searching for their documents!”36 The front-page article compared this work to a

war.

…a large-scale and very discouraging battle that is ongoing in the

country for several days now…as a war, fought by individuals for
their own rights… The war is being waged by soldiers who are
the Jews, in particular those who fall under the Law 1939: IV. The
weapons used in this war are documents. Fathers, Mothers,
grandparents need to stand at attention with their birth and
marriage certificates to defend their children and grandchildren.

The Second Jewish Law, with all of its restrictions and new requirements,

somehow galvanized the community. The tone of the newspaper articles about

the law continued to emphasize the seriousness of the deprivation of long-term

rights.

The right in the present concrete example is the right to vote. In

reality though each shred of our rights is contained in the
complete rights of citizenry through which the state has made us
equal citizens, which are now being taken away by the Jewish
Laws. That is why our work now is a struggle and demonstration
for full rights, which we have lost, which even a shred of which

36
“Hetvenezer zsidó keresi az okmányait,” [Seventy thousand Jews are searching for their
documents] A Magyar Zsidók Lapja, [Newspaper of Hungarian Jews] 1 évf. 18. Szám, 1939 május
11, 1.
 97

we will not give up voluntarily and have dedicated ourselves to

the most extreme struggle to hold onto.37

The newspaper sent reporters to the offices of the registrars who reported

witnessing seemingly endless lines of people, forms in hand, waiting to file the

request for their official documents. The article detailed the documents that were

required: Documents proving that they or their forefathers and mothers were

born in historic Hungary before December 31, 1867. If the individuals themselves

were born before this date, then they must document this with their own birth

certificate and the certificate of marriage of their parents. Whoever was born after

this date would have to produce their own birth certificate as well as those of

their parents. If the parents of the individual were born after December 31, 1867,

then that individual would have to produce the birth certificate and marriage

licenses of all four grandparents as well.38

The Second Jewish Law gradually filtered through every aspect of

Hungarian society. A large percentage of Hungarian Jews, who had been

acculturated for many generations within Hungarian society, felt shocked,

betrayed and conflicted by the imposition of the new laws. Among the many

statements of military reservists declaring their Jewish or non-Jewish status in

the Archives of the Hungarian Ministry of Defense, is one by Zoltan Német, who

was a reservist from Pápa, in western Hungary. The declaration by Német

illustrates this sense of shock and betrayal. “I report with respect that in light of

Law 1939, IV, I am a Jew. This report is painful for me to write, that is why I am

37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
 98

late with it.”39 One could only assume he was a Christian and could not face a

future as a Jew in Hungary.

For the residents of the town of Nagyszöllös [today Vynogradiv, part of

Ukraine], the tragic effects of the Second Jewish Law reverberated through the

entire community with the suicide of one of their own, Lieutenant Jozsef Veress.

Veress was, by his own request, at the front of the military lines when the

Hungarian army marched into his hometown in Transcarpathia on March 15,

1939. When, a few months later, Veress discovered that his grandmother was

Jewish and that he would have to resign his commission in the military, he took

his own life.40

The Film Chamber: new membership rules and

coping mechanisms
Following the enactment of the Second Jewish Law, a new form had to be

completed by applicants who wanted to obtain membership in the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber. The revised form meant that members had to re-apply under

much stricter terms and more invasive questions. Filmmakers who decided to

join the chamber had to comply and complete the forms by the start of 1939.

Some producers, directors, actors, actresses simply waited, avoided joining

altogether, or left Hungary. The sole purpose of the admission form was to

determine who was Jewish or whose ancestors had been Jewish at anytime

during the previous ninety years. The top of the second application form

39
RG-39.004, Papers of the Ministry of Defense, Reel 3, USHMM.
40
Author interview with Caroline Padanyi, March 3, 2008, in Toronto.
 99

explicitly states: “for those chamber members who have been admitted prior to

June 30, 1939.”41

Of the twenty-nine questions on the admission application form, seventeen deal

with religion, including questions such as:

7. If you have changed religion, when did that take place and what was
your religion prior to conversion?

10. If your father changed his religion, when did that happen, and what
was his religion prior to conversion?

11. If your mother changed her religion, when did that happen, and what
was her religion prior to conversion?

17. Among your grandparents, did any of them change their religion, and
if they did, what religion did they belong to prior to conversion?

18. What is the date of your marriage?

19. From this marriage, were there any children born prior to 5 May 1939?

20. What are the dates of birth of the children and when were they
baptized?

21. Do you have an agreement with your spouse that any of your children
will be raised according to the Jewish faith?

22. Do you have any Jewish ancestors born prior to 1 January 1849 and
what are their names?42

The result was that even if Hungarian Jews had converted, they were now

unable to disguise, hide or leave behind their Jewish past. At the bottom of the

instruction sheet appeared a warning: “incomplete or false responses will be

punishable by law.” Based on this new definition of the Second Jewish Law, if

filmmakers were found to be Jewish, for all but a small percentage of them

41
“Kamarai tagok bejelentőlapja,” [Registration form for members of the chamber] (n.d), RG-
39.004, Papers of the Nemzeti Front, [National Front], reel 1, USHMM.
42
The complete translation of this application form is in Appendix 1.
 100

(Jewish membership in the chamber was limited to 6 percent), would mean the

loss of their ability to work in the film industry.

The definition of who was Jewish cut deeply into Hungarian society.

Jewishness became an unavoidable destiny irrespective of religious affiliation.

The Second Jewish Law stipulated that those industries affected be required to

reduce their employees to less than 6 percent within a given framework of time,

which varied depending on the industry. In the banking sector: 80.6 percent of

directors and 43.7 percent of employees were Jewish, as such, it was one of the

first industries to be directly affected. The banking sector required employees

who had specialized financial skills and therefore they couldn’t all be replaced at

the same time. As a result, the banking sector was given up to five years to

comply with the law. The Bank records of the Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet

[Savings and Loan and Credit Union], provide a narrative for the issues faced by

Jewish breadwinners who were fired and how they dealt with losing their white-

collar employment, that for many, was the equivalent dealt with “social death.”43

The personnel files of the Savings and Loan Credit Union are wide-ranging and

demonstrate the inter-connectedness between deprivation of rights, employment,

social isolation, and eventually, ostracism and deportation.

The records of the Savings and Loan Credit Union also provide insight

into the way that the Jewish community dealt with their members who lost their

income through contemporaneous letters about financial assistance and the

43
The term “social death” was first used by sociologist Orlando Patterson, and later incorporated
into the work Marion Kaplan. See O. Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, Cambridge, Mass,
Harvard University Press, 1985 and M. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi
Germany, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
 101

activities of the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews. Among the means and

methods are lists of loans to unemployed families, activities such as soup

kitchens, and assistance that by 1942 became the “milk and firewood collection

fund.”44 The organization also kept lists of those members who obtained loans

from pawnshops.45

Among the files are many letters from individuals illustrating the

hardships they were forced to endure after becoming unemployed. One such

letter, dated December 18, 1939, was written by Abraham Gancz, 39, married

with two children and unemployed for six months after working at the same

firm for twenty-three years. In the letter, Gancz pleads with the Office of Support

for Hungarian Jews to give him the job advertised within the organization.46 The

reply was written on December 31, the organization stated that it would hire

Gancz for a one-month trial period as a janitor.47

The files of the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews also lists of names of

individuals from all backgrounds, including lawyers, journalists, actors, and

actresses who sought loans and financial help from the Savings and Loan Credit

Union.48 Because of the large number of professionals who requested help, the

Office of Support did their due diligence and had background checks completed

44
MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan Credit Union], reel 2,
USHMM. In January and February of 1942, collections were announced for “népkonyhák, tej és
tüzelő akcióra,”[soup kitchens, milk and firewood funds]. Scan numbers are included, where
they are available.
45
Ibid., reel 4.
46
“Levél a Pártfogó Iroda Vezetőségének,”[Letter to the Office of Support for Hungarian Jews],
1939 december 18, MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit
Union], reel 2, USHMM.
47
Ibid., “Válasz Gancz Ábrahám urnak,” 1939 december 31.
48
MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit Union], reel 2,
USHMM.
 102

on the applicants.49 Once the credit checks were completed, the organization then

supplied the names to the bank and guaranteed the bank loans granted to the

unemployed members of the Jewish community.

The Office of Support was active in many aspects of creating work for the

unemployed in the arts along with the Országos Magyar Izrealita Közmüvelődési

Egyesület [National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association], hereafter named

OMIKE. Among the bank files, I found a letter from the Directors of OMIKE to

the Savings and Loan Credit Union requesting a loan for a publication project on

the part of writers.50 The letter was submitted by the OMIKE press group,

representing over 160 families of former newspaper journalists and their families,

all of whom had lost their employment as a result of the Jewish Laws. The group

had been working on a Zsidó Évkönyv [Jewish Yearbook], focusing in particular

on gathering and publishing the writings of the most outstanding Hungarian

Jewish novelists, writers, and poets, such as Ferenc Molnár, Lajos Biró, Ernő Szép

and Béla Zsolt. The letter detailed the status of the project:

We have more than one thousand orders for the Yearbook which
will cover the fees of the distributors and the printer, however, we
cannot send the book to the printer yet because we cannot cover
the cost of paper in advance. To cover the costs of the paper, we
respectfully ask for an advance loan of 300 pengős51. … Without
this requested amount, our work over many months will have
been fruitless, we are respectfully asking for a speedy response.52

49
Ibid. To demonstrate the perilous situation in which professionals found themselves, one such
credit report: dated February 1, 1940, was completed on a 53-year old unmarried lawyer, Dr.
Arthur Weiss, who had requested a loan for 105 pengős. The report by the Perfekt Credit Agency
concluded that Weiss was completely without financial resources.
50
“Sajtócsoport levelezése,”[Correspondence of Press Group], MOL Z 89, Gazdasági Takarék és
Hitelszövetkezet, reel 1, scan 06798, USHMM.
51
Ibid. This sum, 300 pengős, represented approximately two months salary of a teacher.
52
Ibid.
 103

The reply from the bank as to whether the loan had been approved was not

contained in the file, however, the Yearbook was published.53 Among the list of

contributors to the volume are the distinguished authors and poets named in the

letter.

OMIKE led the cultural life of the community by spearheading the

cultural activities of unemployed Jewish actors, singers, and artists who were

fired from their jobs due to the Jewish laws. The original idea to start a cultural

organization for Hungarian Jews may be traced much further back. It was first

proposed by Lipót Low (1811-1875), a rabbi and scholar, who also called for the

emancipation of Jews. The organization itself was established in 1909. Once the

Jewish laws came into effect, the organization founded a sub-group entitled

OMIKE Művészakció [OMIKE Artistic Enterprise], and it was this sub-group, or

branch of OMIKE that served the artistic community from 1939 to 1944.54

While advising patience and steadfastness, lawyer Géza Ribáry and writer

Lajos Bálint were instrumental in creating other opportunities for actors, writers

and artists who became unemployed. Even before the antisemitic laws took full

effect, Ribáry held salons, or private concerts at his home so that unemployed

actors and actresses would have the opportunity to perform in front of an

appreciative audience. As vice-president of the Office of Support for Hungarian

Jews, Ribáry succeeded in obtaining the necessary permission for theatre and

53
Magyar Zsidók Naptára 1941-5701, Dr. Simon Hevesi, ed., Budapest: Springer Gusztáv nyomda,
1940. USHMM.
54
Jenő Lévai, ed., The Writers, Artists, Singers and Musicians of the National Hungarian Jewish
Cultural Association (OMIKE), 1939-1944. Trans. Anna Etawo, West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University Press, 2017, XI.
 104

cultural performances to be produced by unemployed Hungarian Jewish actors,

actresses, singers, writers and poets.55 OMIKE was granted permission to use the

Goldmark Theatre for their presentations.56 Ribáry believed that writers and

poets should have reserved seating in the front rows during performances, as

“they are just as deprived of opportunities to present their work as are

performing actors and actresses.”57

The life and times of actor Oszkár Beregi (1876-1965), Creative Director of

the OMIKE Művészakció, demonstrates the multi-faceted nature of his role in the

arts. Many outstanding actors and actresses had to follow similar eclectic paths

of career development, if they were to survive the ups and downs of political

changes in Hungary. Beregi was born in Budapest. After graduating from the

Theatre Academy at the age of twenty, he was given contracts with several

theatres, most importantly the Vigszinház [Comedy theatre] where he performed

on occasion with such dignitaries as Emperor Franz Josef I in the audience. In

1907, Beregi was hired by producer Max Reinhardt for a three-year contract with

the Deutsches Theatre in Berlin. Having established himself as an outstanding

actor in Germany, Beregi moved back to Hungary where he became one of the

principal actors of the National Theatre. In 1919, he participated in the cultural

programs of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic. For this, he was

hounded by right-wing groups and fled, first to Vienna where he worked for

several years, then to Hollywood. When he returned in 1930, Beregi was once

55
“Az OMIKE művészakciója,” Magyar Zsidók Naptára, 1941-5701, 85-87, USHMM.
56
Goldmark Hall is still located next to the most important and largest synagogue in Hungary on
Dohány utca in Budapest.
57
“Az OMIKE művészakciója,” Magyar Zsidók Naptára, 1941-5701, 85-87, USHMM.
 105

again a celebrated as an internationally well-known actor and played major roles

in theatre and films.58 In 1925, Beregi gave an interview about his travails in his

homeland.

At the beginning of 1920, one of the leading individuals in the

Ministry of Culture told me: ‘Convert, then everything will be
fine!’ I asked: Why should I convert? I was born a Jew and will die
a Jew! .... Who are these people? They were barely out of short
pants when I was already playing major roles in the National
Theatre, they hadn’t seen or heard of me! These are the judges of
my patriotism? It looks like I’ve become a football to be used by
certain politicians. They are playing ball with me, using my name
for political gain, allowing or denying my acting in
performances…. Sooner or later I will become the subject of
compensation of sorts in the hands of this or that political group.
It’s a good source of entertainment.59

In 1944, after the German occupation of Hungary, Beregi went into hiding with

the help of his non-Jewish son-in-law, opera singer Kálmán Pataki, and survived.

While he was initially celebrated by the postwar government and elected

President of the actors union, Beregi ultimately became disenchanted with the

postwar government and left Hungary in 1946. He travelled to the United States

and sought citizenship there, while fearing deportation.60

During the four years of its activity, OMIKE organized cultural

presentations of the highest caliber: opera, plays, operettas, musical evenings,

poetry, and literary events. Although the facilities at Goldmark Hall were limited

58
http://www.szineszkonyvtar.hu/contents/a-e/beregielet.htm. Accessed on November 28,
2018.
59
Jenő Molnár, “Keresztelkedj ki, akkor minden rendben van. Nem térek ki, én már igy halok
meg. Beszélgetés Beregi Oszkárral,”[Convert: then everything will be fine. I won’t convert, this is
how I will die], Egyenlőség [Equality], 44 Évf., 9.szám, 1925 február 28, 1. Thanks to Professor
János Kenyeres for assisting in the translation of one of the archaic expressions in this quote.
60
http://www.szineszkonyvtar.hu/contents/a-e/beregielet.htm. Accessed on November 28,
2018.
 106

and the space itself much smaller when compared to what most actors and

actresses were used to, the company mounted large-scale operas and concerts by

Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Offenbach, Rossini and Strauss, among others.61 During

the first season alone, the company produced more than 125 different

presentations. The cultural group even formed its own orchestra and choir for

the many Jewish musicians and singers who were fired from their positions in

other orchestras.62

The records of the OMIKE Művészakció also demonstrate a determination

on the part of the Jewish community, especially on the part of actors, actresses,

producers, directors, screenwriters and musicians, to not become debilitated by

their unemployment. The artistic activity of the company was prolific. Through

the OMIKE Művészakció, Jewish actors and actresses expressed a desire to believe

in themselves and wanted to continue performing, demonstrating a positive

response to all the negativity around them, and to the discriminatory anti-Jewish

laws.63 The first performance was held on November 11, 1939. There were three

separate venues where performances were held.64 At some venues, as many as

five performances were held in one day. During the four seasons (1939-1943) of

the existence of the OMIKE Művészakció, 733 performances were mounted by the

61
Jenő Lévai, ed., The Writers, Artists, Singers and Musicians of the National Hungarian Jewish
Cultural Association, 135.
62
Géza Ribáry, “Az OMIKE Művészakció Keretében rendezendő előadások Tájékoztatója, 1941-
1942,” Évkönyv [Yearbook], USHMM rare books, 1942, 200-206.
63
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIcfpCLO6do, Interview with Prof. László Harsányi,
sociologist and Holocaust researcher on Heti TV, originally aired July 27, 2017. This program is
number 5 of a series on the work of OMIKE. Accessed on December 6, 2018.
64
Ibid., The three venues were: the Goldmark Theatre, the music school on Hollán Ernő utca, and
the Bethlen téri diszterem (the auditorium above the synagogue on Bethlen Square).
 107

company, and enjoyed by audiences of more than 272,000.65 Beregi noted in his

diary:

We were deprived of our intellectual work and physical

livelihood at the same time. We may have survived the latter, but
we choked on the ‘word’ which we were forbidden to utter. Work
at the Goldmark hall was financially completely insignificant, but
this was our ‘pulpit.’ And it is to my satisfaction that we did not
use this pulpit for cheap, inferior purposes.66

Impact on the film industry

The new decrees had a massive impact on the film industry. Among the

best actors, actresses, directors, producers, screenwriters, and film composers --

80 individuals in total -- were denied membership and were no longer able to

legally participate in the filmmaking industry.67 The Hungarian film industry lost

two of its finest directors, István Székely and Béla Gaál, as well as several of the

most outstanding and popular actors and actresses. Those who left for

Hollywood included Székely, who later changed his name to Steve Sekely. Other

well-known actors and actresses also emigrated to the United States, including

Irén Ágai (wife of Székely), Franciska Gaál, Gyula Kabos, and Szakáll Szőke.

Some directors, writers, actors, and actresses had begun to establish

contacts in the American theatre and film community much earlier, starting in

65
Jenő Lévai, ed., 135.
66
Tamás Gajdó, ”In the Service of Thália,” in Anna Szalai, ed., In the Land of Hagar: The Jews of
Hungary: History, Society and Culture, 240.
67
Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 351-2.
I have also gathered information on actors, actresses, producers, directors and many others
involved in the film industry in Appendix 2. This research document is titled, “Expelled from the
Chamber.” This excel document is based on many sources: primary as well as secondary:
biographical indices, lexicons, books about film, and individual biographies, in English as well as
Hungarian. One of the most difficult tasks in assembling this information is that some of those
involved in the film industry didn’t stay in Hungary postwar, or disappeared during the siege of
Budapest. These latter individuals were placed into the “fate unknown” category in my research
document.
 108

the 1920s, as illustrated by the papers of Edmund Pauker.68 Pauker was born in

Hungary in the late 1880s; he emigrated to the United States in 1922.69 Pauker

became an influential literary agent representing actors, and actresses, writers

and screenwriters in New York City. Much of his business came from

relationships he had previously established in Europe. As representative for a

number of theatre and film agencies in Austria, Hungary and Germany in the

United States, Pauker promoted the work of Hungarian writers, authors and

screenwriters, primarily Ferenc Molnár, Miklós László and Melchoir (Menyhért)

Lengyel. The advice and counsel of Edmond Pauker to the Hungarian writers

went beyond the usual monetary arrangements. In one set of correspondence,

Pauker explains why it is practically impossible to sell a screenplay that has not

been previously produced as a stage play or published as a novel.70 Many letters

of rejection illustrate how problematic it was to break into the theatre and film

world of the United States and Pauker often explained how difficult it was to

write for American films from Europe. Still, despite the barriers of language and

style, some Hungarian authors were able to adapt and found representation with

Edmond Pauker who was successful in selling their literary properties. The

works of Ferenc Molnár were in especially high demand.71

68
The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Billy
Rose Theatre Division, Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Centre, New York City.
69
The exact date Pauker was born has not been documented, the bibliographical guide to the
Edmond Pauker papers records that he was born in 1887 or 1888, and died in 1962. Guide to the
Edmond Pauker Papers, 1910-1957, T-Mss 1960-001.
70
“Letter to Béla Ágai,” November 30, 1927, The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, Box 1, folder
27.
71
“Letter to Wesley Addy, National Theatre, Washington, D.C. from Edmond Pauker,” 22 May
1946, The Edmond Pauker Papers, 1960-001, box 1, folder 12. There is significant correspondence
regarding Molnar’s Tale of the Wolf. In this letter, Pauker responds that the play is available for
stock performances at a weekly royalty of $250 to $300, depending on the town. Pauker also
pitched short stories successfully by Ferenc Molnár, Alexander Királyfi and László Ormos to
Atlantic Magazine.
 109

While some emigrated, others stayed in Hungary and remained in denial.

After 1939, almost every important actor of Jewish origin took to

writing his memoirs, only partly as a source of income. These
books were meant to substitute for their presence on the stage so
that the audience should not forget the former favourites. They
did not believe, they could not believe in the finality of their
situation. These memoirs are written in the tone of sad
astonishment rather than resentment. None of these artists could
comprehend how they ended up ostracized from the Hungarian
nation.72

Writer and screenwriter, Menyhért (Melchoir) Lengyel (1880-1974) wrote

such a memoir.73 Part autobiography, part diary, it is written in a matter of fact

tone, with no anger or recrimination towards the Hungarian government. The

Jewish Law of 1938 is first mentioned in an entry for January 11, 1939 as “All day

I’ve been living in the upsetting depression of the Hungarian Jewish laws, the

hopeless evil and fear of the stupidity of it all. Terrible German poison!”74

The film industry in Hungary, especially after the enactment of the

chamber system, was chaotic at best. It struggled with a lack of direction, a

bloated bureaucracy, and the constant vying for power between the radical right

idealists, who wanted to purge all Jews from the industry and, on the other side,

pragmatic influential government officials and ministers, many of whom had

financial stakes in Hungary’s film business. The latter group found racial

antisemitism to be distasteful. Their interventions and work behind the scenes

72
Tamás Gajdó, 241.
73
Menyhért Lengyel, Életem Könyve: Naplók, Életrajz, Töredékek [My Life’s Work: Diaries, Resumes,
Bits and Pieces]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1987.
74
Lengyel, 326.
 110

sought to protect their business interests. In contrast, the Nazi-style Chamber

system of Germany drove out all Jews within two years.

Typical of this group was Miklós Kozma (1884-1941), a businessman and

media owner, who was introduced earlier as a government minister and media

baron. Maria Ormos, author of his biography, used the term “selective

antisemitism.”75 Kozma was a former Interior Minister (1935-1937) who was also

the head of the Hungarian Telegraph Office and President of Hungarian Radio.

He owned Magyar Film Iroda [Hungarian Film Office], hereafter referred to as

MFI, one of the largest private filmmaking companies in Hungary during the

interwar period.76

One of the immediate effects of the Jewish laws was the withdrawal of

Jewish investors from the film industry. Each year in the past, at least thirty new

films were made to meet the demands of the marketplace for the 507 theatres

throughout the country. Following the First Jewish Law, audiences shrank by

almost thirty percent and filmmakers were reticent to start new film

productions.77 Kozma wrote, “films need to be made with capital, not with

illusions or supposed stipulations.”78 Kozma insisted that Hungarian films must

continue to be made, “even if they are made by the devil.”79 Kozma used his

newspapers to attack the Jewish laws, explaining how it had halted investors

75
Mária Ormos, Egy Magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában, 1919-
1941, 587.
76
Magyar Film Iroda Rt. was founded in 1923 by Miklos Kozma. The company began by
producing documentary films, then expanded into newsreel production. In 1935, MFI branched
into feature film production and by 1938, the films produced by MFI represented serious
competition to Hunnia, the state-owned production studio.
77
Ormos, 581-2.
78
Ibid., 582.
79
Ibid.
 111

from funding new productions. He compared the film industry and its construct

to a house of cards that had collapsed. He argued for modernization and railed

against the bureaucratization of the film industry.

Another effect was how drastically the implementation of the First Jewish

Law would affect musicians and actors, especially those songs performed on

radio. Kozma railed against this and wrote: “If we were to carry out the

expulsions one hundred percent, then a large percentage of the most beautiful

and patriotic Hungarian songs could not be performed.”80 In light of the law,

well-loved musicals such as “János Vitéz” [John the Valiant], written by

composer Jenő Heltai, would have been expunged from radio programs, as well

as such well-known patriotic songs as: “Szép vagy gyönyörü vagy

magyarország”[Hungary you are lovely, you are beautiful!] as both were written

by Hungarian Jews. Kozma worked assiduously to inform government ministers

about the drastic effects of this law, and for this, he became the target of the

extreme right.81

Most filmgoers in Hungary were undoubtedly aware that some of the best

film producers and directors left the country following the implementation of

antisemitic laws, but most ardent fans of film were undoubtedly stunned by the

revelation that Gyula Kabos, one of the most famous Hungarian comedic actors

of all time, suddenly left his homeland. Kabos (1887-1941) went to film school in

1905 and soon afterwards, began his career as an actor of stage and film in

Budapest. He was brilliant acting in silent films and had a difficult time adjusting

80
Ibid., 575.
81
See Ormos, “Viharfelhők, 1938,” [Stormclouds, 1938], 582-87
 112

to sound, however, he soon learned to demonstrate his amazing ability to play a

wide range of roles. His filmography was extensive; he was one of the hardest

working and most highly sought after actors in Hungarian films. Kabos left his

homeland reluctantly; he travelled to the United States with his wife and son in

1939.82 There, he had little success in translating his skills as an actor. His English

was insufficient and tragically, this once-famous actor found himself doing one-

night acting gigs in low-paying jobs in New York City. In 1941, he suddenly fell

ill and died soon afterwards of a heart attack at the age of fifty-seven. While it is

difficult to possibly estimate the number of ruined careers and lives, Gyula

Kabos is certainly an example of an outstanding, well-loved actor whose career

and life were destroyed by the Jewish laws.83

The bureaucratization of the film industry with the implementation of the

Jewish laws is clearly evident on the pages of Magyar Film, the official

government-sponsored weekly journal of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber.84

First published on February 18, 1939, this official news organ documented the

many issues facing the Hungarian film industry and how the lack of direction by

officials was evident in every aspect of the Film Chamber.85

One of the first topics consistently covered in the pages of the early issues

of Magyar Film was the demand, made in editorials on behalf of members, that

the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber should be divided into two chambers,

82
Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn, Gyula Kabos. Edinburgh, Scotland: Lennex Publisher, 2012, 2.
83
Russell and Cohn, 3.
84
The official weekly journal of the Chamber itself, Magyar Film was published until October 15,
1944. The editor until July 1942 was Dezső Váczi, who was replaced by Géza K. Matolay.
85
Back issues of Magyar Film were accessed in the European section of the Library of Congress.
Special thanks to Kenneth Nyirady, chief librarian, for his assistance.
 113

namely one for theatre and one for film. This editorial, published at the end of

the first year of the Chamber, in December 1939, already illustrates

metaphorically the length of time that this issue had been discussed with little

success.

We have stepped into the last months of the first year of our
existence … however, our clothes fit too tightly, as in the original
fitting. Yet how many times have we asked that we receive a new
coat that will fit our Chamber, a coat that will allow future growth
and development as well.86

Many of the weekly issues that followed continued to expound on the

difficulties of working with the two branches of artistic endeavor bound together

as they were. Proposals for the reorganization of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber dominated the pages. The criticism was multi-faceted but could be

narrowed down to the argument that there were more differences between the

two artistic fields than similarities.87 Hardly an issue was published in the first

half of 1940 that did not demand a solution to this problem in prominent

editorials or headlines. In May 1940, another editorial linked the inability of the

film industry to properly carry out the “Nemzeti [National] and cultural” tasks it

was mandated to perform “unless its structure and mandate are clarified…These

tasks, in light of the present circumstances, are more important than ever.”88

In June 1940, another editorial in Magyar Film focused on the “Őnnálló

Filmkamara,” [Independent Film Chamber]. This issue also reported that Bálint

86
Magyar Film, 1939 december 2, 1 évf. 42. Szám, 2.
87
“A kamara szétválasztásárol szoló törvényjavaslat indoklása,”[The reasons for the proposed
changes in legislation regarding the separation of the chamber], Magyar Film, 1940 junius 15, II
évf., 24. Szám, 2.
88
Magyar Film, 1940 május 11, 1940, II évf. 19. Szám, 3.
 114

Homan, Minister of Religion and Education, had presented a bill to the

parliament creating a separate Film and Theatre Chamber.89 Despite all the news

coverage and discussion in parliament about dividing the Chamber into a

separate Film Chamber and Theatre Chamber, the government continued to

delay any action.90

The first President of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was Ferenc Kiss,

who held that position from the enactment of the chamber until the spring of

1942. While Kiss was at the helm of the chamber, the government had to contend

with strong leadership of the organization. He too, was an advocate for the

separation of the theatre and film chamber into two separate bodies. When Prime

Minister Miklos Kállay was named to replace László Bárdossy on March 9, 1942,

Kiss realized that the change would have a considerable effect on the political

climate, and that the new, more moderate Prime Minister Kállay would not be in

favour of separating the chamber. László Bárdossy was Prime Minister for only

one year (April 1941 to March 1942) but was pro-German and one of the chief

architects of Hungary’s entry into World War II. Miklós Kállay was a more

moderate Prime Minister from March 1942 to March 1944, who tried to secretly

negotiate Hungary’s withdrawal from the war and joining the Allies.

Kiss, realizing that his three-year effort in campaigning “to cleanse our

cultural work from the international group of foreigners distant from our race,”

was in vain, announced his resignation as President in the Christmas issue of

89
Magyar Film, 1940 junius 8, II évf. 23. Szám, 2.
90
“A kamara átszervezése,”[The reorganization of the Chamber] Magyar Film, 1940 szeptember
28, 1.
 115

Magyar Film: “Now, that I look back on three years hard work with the Film

Chamber, I close this year, and use this opportunity to bid farewell to my

colleagues and through them, to the entire film industry.”91 In the following issue

of Magyar Film, however, the news of the resignation is referred to as

“unsubstantiated.”92 As it turned out, Kiss didn’t fully cut his ties with the film

industry, he continued in his role as “film commissioner” for the government

and as part owner of film production company, Takács Film Rt.93

Prime Minister Kállay named Dr. András Cziffra to replace Kiss as

government commissioner of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Cziffra was

introduced to the theatre and film industry through an article in Magyar Film

where he made a commitment to execute his duties according to the directives of

Ministry.94 While a few articles appeared in Magyar Film about Cziffra in the

following few years, he became known as a “shadow commissioner” as his

activities as Commissioner of the Chamber were limited under his term. Cziffra

was viewed as an absentee director of the chamber, so much so that he was

absolved of any wrongdoing by the postwar People’s Tribunals, he was released

from internment and it was determined that his case should be handed over to

the Certification Committees.95

From the spring of 1942 onwards, the chamber was viewed as an impotent

organization, the main focus of which was to administer the registration of actors

91
Kiss Ferenc, “Karácsonyi búcsú,” Magyar Film, 1941 december 22, 1.
92
“Bucsú három évtől”[Good-bye to three years], Magyar Film, December 31, 1941,1.
93
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the
Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3, accessed July 18, 2017.
94
Dr. Sándor Cziffra, “A Kamara jővendő útjai,”[The future path of the film chamber] Magyar
Film, 1942 május 13, 1.
95
Ibid.
 116

and actresses and to continue to implement the Jewish quotas in the

membership. During this period of relative inactivity on the part of the chamber,

there were a group of actors and actresses who stayed in Hungary and continued

to work, either under pseudonyms, in hiding or working with OMIKE, [Országos

Magyar Izrealita Közművelődési Egyesület]. The language of the Second Jewish Law

did not completely ban all Jewish participation in the world of film, leaving some

loopholes for Jewish film professionals and their friends to exploit. Once again,

the conflicted nature of antisemitism in Hungary became evident. Although

many Jewish filmmakers, directors, screenwriters were not admitted to the

chamber, another group of about forty individuals continued to work in the

business under pseudonyms or even from behind bars.96 Stróhmann [straw man

in German] or “Aladár rendszer,” meant that non-Jews were officially placed at

the head of the company as President, while the Jewish owner, producer,

director was listed towards the end of the credits in the film, along with, for

example, the catering crew. Some of the best screenwriters, such as Károly Noti,

were not evicted from the Chamber, but frequently, to avoid the film being

banned or worse, their work appeared under false names. A young novelist and

newspaper editor and writer, Julianna Zsigray began her career as screenwriter

by replacing Árpád Herczeg in the credits for the film, Tóparti Látomás

[Lakeshore Vision].97 A screenwriter who was just learning the craft, Margit

Pusztaszery, received several credits as screenwriter between 1939-1944. Her

name appeared in films actually written by such well-known authors of

96
Appendix 2, research document titled, “Expelled from the Chamber.”
97
Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 343.
 117

screenplays as Mihály István and Károly Noti.98 Such replacements often weren’t

even able to give an interview regarding the production because they had no

idea about the construct or aesthetics of the film.

The last theatre presentation organized by OMIKE took place on March

19, 1944, when the German army occupied Hungary. That day, during a dress

rehearsal of a Molière comedy in Szeged, German soldiers marched in, ordered

everyone to leave and closed down the theatre for any further performances,

ending the four years of activity of the OMIKE Művészakció.

The end of the Horthy era

The occupation of Hungary by the German army on March 19, 1944,

ended the work of any and all Jews still active in the Hungarian film industry. In

the tumultuous days that followed, Adolf Eichmann’s special operations unit,

Sondereinsatzkommando Eichmann, began implementing the “final solution” in

Hungary. Among the first steps taken by the Gestapo was to round up and arrest

about 3,000 pro-western politicians, aristocrats, journalists, captains of industry

and intellectuals — in effect anyone capable of raising their voice in protest —

and deport them to Mauthausen.99 The Nazis ordered the creation of a Jewish

Council (Judenrat), an administrative body composed of community leaders

through which the Gestapo would communicate with and issue orders to

Hungary’s Jews. Within a matter of months, a crush of more than 107 decrees

were issued by Sondereinsatzkommando Eichmann, by Eichmann himself, and by

the Hungarian government, which severely limited the lives of the Jewish

98
Ibid., 253.
99
Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 402.
 118

citizens of Hungary.100 Ernő Munkácsi, a member of the Jewish Council, detailed

the seizure and looting of Jewish property under the euphemistic guise of

“requisitions,” noting that the requisitioning of Jewish homes in Budapest — at

one point, the Jewish Council was given twenty-four hours to vacate and hand

over 1,500 apartments — was “the first signs of destiny waiting in the wings.”101

Munkácsi recounted the Jewish Council’s desperate efforts to get help from their

many contacts within the Hungarian government, only to find that those contacts

suddenly couldn’t be reached, wouldn’t reply, had been arrested, or had gone

into hiding. Between May 15 and July 7, 1944, in less than eight weeks, 437,402

men, women and children were rounded up, forced into ghettos, and deported

to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where many were killed.102 Horthy halted the

deportations in June/July of 1944 when he ordered military action against the

gendarmes. Through this action, he is attributed with saving the lives of forty

percent of the Jews of Hungary.103 In October of 1944, Regent Horthy secretly

sent a delegation to Moscow to sign an armistice and announced his plans to

extricate Hungary from the war via a radio broadcast. The Germans foiled the

plan, however, by kidnapping the son of the Regent, Miklós, and releasing him

only after Horthy agreed to legalize a puppet regime headed by the Arrow Cross

leader, Ferenc Szálasi. The Arrow Cross unleashed a reign of terror on the streets

of Budapest. The capital paid a high price for the Arrow Cross regime and

Hitler’s order to defend “fortress Budapest house by house.” By January 13, the

Germans had already blown up all the bridges across the Danube, and bloody

100
Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 2, 2016, Appendix
3, pp. 1660-1674.
101
Ernő Munkácsi, How it Happened: Documenting the Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry, 31.
102
Lendvai, The Hungarians, 422.
103
Ibid., 423.
 119

battles on the streets of Budapest with the Soviet army lasted 102 days, only

ending on February 13, 1945. Unlike other major urban battlegrounds such as

Stalingrad, the civilian inhabitants of Budapest were never evacuated. The

fighting engulfed 800,000 non-combatants, of whom 38,000 were killed in the

brutal house-to-house fighting, during relentless bombings, and from hunger. A

similar number of Hungarian and German military personnel died during the

siege.104 The total cost of human lives lost during the three-month siege,

including 80,000 soldiers of the Red Army, was close to 160,000.105 In addition,

more than 500,000 Hungarians were deported to forced labour camps in the

Soviet Union, with one-third of them dying from the cold, hunger and inhuman

conditions.106 Approximately one million civilians fled to the West –- mainly due

to fear of the Soviets. Of these, many returned, the exact number is unknown,

while about 100,000 remained in Displaced Person camps, waiting to be accepted

to whatever country would agree to receive them.107

Most actors, actresses and other Hungarian Jews involved in the film

industry had by this time gone into hiding or obtained false papers. One

example, Tibor Polgár, a talented music composer for film, secreted himself in

the villa of his lover, the well-known singer and actress, Ilona Nagykovácsi.

Polgár survived the war and was named head of the Budapest Radio Orchestra

postwar.

104
Krisztián Ungváry, Battle for Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II, translated by
Ladislaus Löb, London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010, xi.
105
Ibid.
106
Tamás Stark, “Hungary’s Casualties in World War II.” In Hungarian Economy and Society during
World War II, György Lengyel, ed.,Vol. XXIX. War and Society in East Central Europe. Boulder,
Colorado: Social Science Monographs, 1993, 171-260.
107
Lendvai, 424-425.
 120

Many of those filmmakers who stayed were deported and killed in

concentration camps, or drafted into labour battalions and died on the eastern

front. My research demonstrates that at least eleven well-known actors,

producers, directors, and other active filmmakers were killed, the most

prominent was the prolific producer, screenwriter and director Béla Gaál (1893-

1945).108 Gaál directed some of the most entertaining films produced during the

interwar era. While it is unclear exactly when he was deported from Hungary, he

was transported to Dachau on December 8, 1944 and died there on February 17,

1945.109 Nineteen individuals who were producers, directors, actors and actresses

disappeared during the last stages of the war, either killed or died of starvation

during the siege of Budapest, or perished while trying to escape.110 This latter

group is categorized as “fate unknown.”111 Magda Horák compiled biographies

of over 750 members of the Hungarian intelligentsia who were deported, killed,

or lost their lives during the war. The list included not only members of the

OMIKE Művészakció, but also singers, musicians, dancers, composers, writers,

actors, actresses, directors, poets, conductors, composers, as well as doctors,

scientists, lawyers, dentists, athletes and academics.112

108
Gaál began directing local theatre companies, he later became director of the Vigszinház
[Comedy Theatre]. He taught at the Hungarian National Film Academy between 1934-1939. Béla
Gaál directed some of the most entertaining films during the inter-war era, films such as A
Meseautó [Dream Car], a Budai cukrászda [The Sweet Shop in Buda], Új Földesúr [The New
Landlord] and János Vitéz [John the Valiant].
109
The Tracing and Documentation number for Béla Gaál was 199648. The date of death was
confirmed in the “Death Book of Dachau,” ITS documents. Special thanks to Elizabeth Anthony
at the Mandel Centre in the USHMM for assisting in this search.
110
Appendix 2, research document titled, “Expelled from the Chamber.”
111
One such actor, Károly (Pufi) Huszár disappeared while trying to emigrate to the United
States. According to some sources, he died in Tokyo. According to others, he was caught by the
Soviets and ended up in the Gulag, where he died in 1946. Mudrák and Deák, 146.
112
Magda Horák, A Magyar értelmiség veszteségei az 1940-es években [Hungarian Intellectual Losses
in the 1940’s] with Foreword by Randolph L. Braham, Budapest: Bekes Print Kft., 1994.
 121

Conclusion
The late 1930s illustrates the varied push-pull forces in conflict with one

another while the government attempted to create a system of “Christian”

national film in Hungary. On the one side, there was pressure from antisemitic

radicals, who demanded the implementation of a complete “changing of the

guard” [Őrségváltás]. These individuals had little to no experience in producing

films. The training of a new breed of professional Christian filmmakers was also

a plan that was without any real foundation. On the other side were pragmatic

government ministers and industry officials who resisted the implementation of

anti-Jewish laws knowing how difficult it would be to replace all the Jews. These

individuals held financial stakes in film companies and were interested in

protecting their own business interests. Instead of a complete purging of Jews in

the entertainment industry – as had happened in Germany -- in Hungary, Jews

went underground, often protected by the “Strohman” system, continuing to

write screenplays, to act, and direct. The songs they wrote continued to be

played on the radio.

While the anti-Jewish laws were carried out in some industries, creating

thousands of unemployed Jews, they were impossible to implement in the film

industry, where Jews were active in many films still being produced until March

of 1944. The legislation establishing the rules for administrative organizations

intending to create a “Christian” national film utilized administrative rules and

nebulous terms that seem to muddle more than clarify. The main organization

charged with enforcing the rules overseeing of the film industry, especially the

Theatre and Film Chamber, became in the end, impotent. The President of the
 122

Chamber, Ferenc Kiss, resigned and the government replaced Kiss with Andras

Cziffra, a relatively unknown individual who did not pursue the implementation

of the Jewish laws with the vigour of the previous leadership. In fact, the work of

the Chamber slid into obscurity, once again underlying the conflicted state of

antisemitism, especially regarding film, demonstrated by the government of the

interwar era.

The geopolitical position of Hungary also contributed to the internal

push-pull forces in Hungary. The dismantling of Czechoslovakia by Hitler and

the Nazi invasion of Poland all underscored the insecurity of the country.

Territorial gains were granted by Hitler. The invasion of Poland, however,

destroyed the “illusion”that border revisions would happen without a steep cost.

Through the destruction of Poland, Hungarians realized that their nation could

also be destroyed by the military might of Nazi Germany. Hungary was

engulfed in the war by 1941.

The First and Second Jewish laws were in reaction to many pressures,

from right-wing politicians and organizations, to external pressures from Nazi

Germany, to a desperate desire on the part of the Horthy regime to re-gain

territories lost following the First World War.

Jews tragically believing that what was taking place in neighboring

countries could never take place in Hungary, that they were a fully integrated

part of the culture and history of Hungary, and that no harm would come to

them if they followed the rules. Even when the Second Jewish Laws further

abrogated their rights as Hungarian citizens and changed the definition of

Jewishness from that of religion to race, only a few representatives in the

 123

Parliament raised their objections. These protests, however, were to no avail.

Hungarian Jews stayed in Hungary and completed forms and registrations.

Among the few signs pointing to the tragic mistake of aligning the

country with Nazi Germany, was the suicide of Prime Minister Pál Teleki in

1941. His embittered suicide note was in reaction to the government allowing the

German army through Hungary to occupy Yugoslavia, although Hungary had

just signed a “friendship pact”with Yugoslavia a few months prior.

“We broke our word, – out of cowardice […] The nation feels it,
and we have thrown away its honor. We have allied ourselves to
scoundrels […] We will become body-snatchers! A nation of trash.
I did not hold you back. I am guilty”113

113
Balázs Ablonczy, A Miniszterelnök élete és halála: Teleki Pál (1879-1941) [The Life and Death of
the Prime Minister: Pál Teleki: 1879-1941]. Budapest: Jaffa, 2018, 281.
 Chapter 5: Who survived and how
(1945-1947) Actors and actresses as a means of building a
new democratic Hungary (1945-1947)
The siege of Budapest ended on February 13, 1945. German and their

allied Arrow Cross forces were defeated by the Soviets and fighting ended in the

country by April 1945. Once the war ended, by order of the newly-organized

provisional postwar government, all individuals who wanted to continue to

work – Jews and non-Jews alike – were required to be certified by a certification

committee set up for each profession. This dissertation will look at the inner

workings of two different certification committees, one designated for actors and

actresses, producers and directors, the second established for employees of the

filmmaking industry through the lens of postwar retribution and how this was

carried out in Hungary. The examination of the certification committees for

actors and actresses also provide insight into the work of the Hungarian Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber during the interwar era. Specifically, I look at the means

by which individual actors/actresses situated themselves within their field and

how perceived “collaborators” of the Szálasi regime defended themselves against

accusations of being complicit in promoting antisemitic rhetoric and

propaganda. I examine how the politics of retribution unfolded in the

reorganization of the fields of theatre and film immediately following the end of

the war in Hungary and assess how the political atmosphere of the interim

government was reflected in the work of the certification committees and what

criteria were used to determine eligibility of employment in the industry.

The Budapest Nemzeti Bizottság [Budapest National Committee], henceforth

referred to as the BNB, was the political body set up to establish the certification
124
 125

committees and the People’s Tribunals, all ordinances and decrees that dealt

with re-building the country and finding and punishing collaborators. Where

the certification committee was unable to reach a decision, the case was sent to

the People’s Tribunal for a final verdict. The BNB was provided this mandate by

the Provisional National Assembly, formed in Debrecen in December 1944.

Among the first decrees declared by the postwar provisional government, the

BNB, were ordinances that directed the re-opening of theatres and re-starting of

film and theatre productions. The certification process took on the specific role of

creating a sense of normalcy, legitimacy and a return to a functioning civil

society.1 This all-encompassing process was largely built by the government on

the idea that Hungary was a victim of Nazi aggression. The drive to return to

normalcy accelerated the work of the Actors Certification Committee and put

pressure on decision-makers to certify actors quickly. However, the certification

committee also reflected the reality of a politically conflicted state and the

uncertainty of the provisional government. The testimony of actors and actresses

demonstrate that they wanted Hungarian audiences to understand that they

were outside the political sphere of the interwar government, that they were

merely entertainers.2 This chapter will also demonstrate that those in the acting

profession had a critical specific role to play in creating a positive image for the

1
This statement is concluded by reading the original ordinances, and the order in which they are
published and acted upon by the BNB. Ferenc Gáspar and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti
Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee
1945-1946], Források Budapest Multjábol [Sources from Budapest’s Past], vol. VII, Budapest:
Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára Forráskiadványai [City of Budapest Archives Publications], 1975;
Ferenc Gáspar, ed., Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents of the History of
Budapest, 1945-1950], vol. VI, Források Budapest Multjábol, Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi
Levéltára Forráskiadványai, 1973.
2
XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors Certification
Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives] hereafter BFL.
 126

postwar democratic political forces in Hungary, and actors and actresses were to

play the leading role in this regard.

My purpose in extending the scholarly work on the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber into the postwar era is because the files of the certification committees

provide significant historical insight about the leadership and antisemitic

narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era, and in

particular, the inner workings of the individuals involved in leading the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber. As already cited, there is an important historical arc that

encompasses this era, from 1938 into the 1960s, it was a time when “institutional

lawlessness” reigned in Hungary, that is when innocent citizens were arbitrarily

deprived of their civil rights, their property and often their life.3 The focus of my

dissertation, through the examination of the work of these two specific

certification committees, supports this historical arc.

Postwar rhetoric was designed to remember and repress, to remember

what was done to us, but not remember what was done to others by us during

the war.4 In order to understand the impact upon the lives of individual actors

affected by the Jewish laws of 1938-39, it is necessary to provide a narrative of

“lived history” within the world of Hungarian cinema and carry this history

through to the postwar era. My work adds to the literature about the acting

profession interwar, and how members of this profession reacted to the political

pressures of the certification process during the immediate postwar era in

3
István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” István Deák, Jan
Gross and Tony Judt, eds. The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 142.
4
Tony Judt, “The Past in Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe,” in The Politics
of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 298.
 127

Hungary. As the section in the Introduction detailing the review of literature has

demonstrated, there have been only a handful of articles written on the postwar

certification of actors and actresses. My research fills an important gap in the

postwar history of the politics of retribution within the entertainment industry in

Hungary. More broadly, my dissertation adds to the scholarship of how the

certification system worked in Hungary to smooth the transition, and how the

entertainment industry was salvaged from the ruins of almost complete

devastation to a working and thriving industry. This industry was key to

contribute to the sense of normalcy and continuity and, as demonstrated through

this work, the certification of actors and actresses was a critical part of that

process.

This chapter is organized chronologically and thematically. The first

section examines the postwar process of centralization and re-organization of the

political and legal system to reflect the proclaimed goal of building a democratic

country. Next, I trace the ideological basis for the certification committees, how

they were established and the process of certification. In the last section of this

chapter, I will examine the early files of the certification committee, how and

why individual actors and actresses were certified quickly, and the process of

determining complicity and retribution.

I conduct a qualitative examination by reading, analyzing, and gaining a

fuller understanding of the underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations that

constitute the postwar certification system for the film industry. The comparison

of the methodologies will demonstrate that the certification process for actors and

actresses was relatively easy, straightforward and flawed. I demonstrate that

 128

actors and actresses did their utmost to become certified, to be able to continue to

remain active in the field, including using such tactics as misrepresenting and

obfuscating their acting roles during the interwar era and using political contacts

to intervene and mitigate the process of certification. I argue that the certification

process for this particular union for actors and actresses had a specific role in

creating a positive image for the postwar democratic political forces forming the

government in Hungary. Actors and actresses were to play the leading role in

creating a sense of normalcy, of legitimizing the post-war government. My

argument adds further to the findings of István Deák:

Retribution served several purposes beyond punishing those held

responsible for the nation’s wartime humiliation and suffering. It
was designed to legitimize the power of new rulers, to reduce to
impotence those groups that might stand in the way of postwar
reconstruction and the reorganization of society, and to help in the
redistribution of wealth.5

The work of the certification committees lasted for two years, from 1945 to

1947. My work demonstrates that even after the era of postwar retribution and

the work of the certification committees ended, the by-then firmly entrenched

Hungarian Communist government continued this policy of molding its positive

image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers of famous actors and

actresses, even those tainted by their participation in interwar propaganda

and/or antisemitic films and theatre performances.

5
István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” 133.
 129

This chapter is primarily based on archival sources. The primary archival

sources utilized regarding the establishment of the certification committees are

the minutes of the meetings of the five-member Budapest National Committee,

or BNB, set up to establish the People’s Tribunals, certification committees, and

issue all ordinances and decrees. The four-volume minutes and original

documents of the BNB, commissioned by the City Archives of Budapest,

document the chronology and provide the narrative for the goals of the postwar

interim government in Hungary.6 In addition to the original documents of those

individuals who ordered the establishment of the certification committees, I also

examined the certification documents themselves contained in the archival

collection of the files on the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946,7 as well

as certification files of the Film Employees Union. First, I examine the postwar

process of centralization and re-organization of the political and legal system to

reflect the purported goal of building a democratic country.

Postwar centralization and stabilization

During the interwar years, the Horthy regime had devoted much of its

propaganda efforts to anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet material in newsreels, print

and radio.8 Hungarians had been wary of greeting the Russians as “liberators,”

there was fear among the population that one oppressor was being replaced by

6
Ferenc Gáspar and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the
Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee 1945-1946], Források Budapest Multjábol
[Sources from Budapest’s Past], vol. VII; Ferenc Gáspar, ed., Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-
1950 [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], vol. VI.
7
XVII. 1670.9 Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives]
(hereafter BFL).
8
Balazs Sipos, Sajtó és Hatalom a Horthy Korszakban [Media and Power in the Horthy Era],
Budapest: Argumentum Press, 2011, 86-93.
 130

another.9 Similar to many other European countries that had suffered defeat, the

Hungarian population was subjected to brutality and violence, first with the

occupation of the German army in March of 1944, and then, later that year, with

the arrival of the Soviets.10

As for Hungarian Jews, the occupation of the German army only

worsened their situation. Under the anti-Jewish Laws of 1938 and 1939, Jews had

already experienced the abrogation of rights -- those laws that removed the legal

protection of Hungarian Jews, quashed their ability to be employed and brought

about their social isolation. In 1944, under German occupation, a further crush of

107 decrees directed against the Jews were created in a span of months. These

legalized the theft of Jewish property and deprivation of their rights as

individuals.11 Moreover, during this period and until the end of the war, there

was a high incidence of anonymous reports and other personal accusations,

mainly for the material gain of the accusers.12 Jews, returning from concentration

camps after the war, found their homes occupied and businesses oftentimes

looted. In many cases, furniture and possessions were taken by local squatters,

who claimed they had been given these items by the authorities, and refused to

9
Hungarians had viewed the Russians as brutal conquerors extending back to 1849 when they
joined Austria in defeating the Hungarian War of Independence during Europe’s “Springtime of
Nations.” See Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, 235-241.
10
On the arrests and deportations by the Gestapo following Hungary’s occupation in 1944, see
László Kontler, A History of Hungary, 383. For a first-hand account, see Marianne Szegedy-
Maszák, I Kiss your Hand Many Times: Hearts, Souls and Wars in Hungary, New York: Spiegel &
Grau, 2013, 175-79.
11
For a complete list of the 107 decrees, see Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The
Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 2, 3rd ed., Boulder, Col.: East European Monographs, 2016, Appendix 3,
1660-1674.
12
Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, New York: Penguin, 2006, 37.
 131

leave or return them.13 Under Soviet rule, the process of reporting on neighbors,

informing on friends or anyone seen as a threat, continued and became even

more prevalent in an already intimidated and fearful Hungarian society.14

Still, the arrival of the Soviet army did bring liberation to political

prisoners and to the Jews, who could come out of hiding. Residents also felt

much relieved that the active bombardment of their city was over. Their worst

fears, however, were soon confirmed. Liberation came at a price: Hungarians

were subjected to a widespread campaign of looting and rape by the Russian

army.15 Those stopped on the streets who did not have proper papers could be

incarcerated without reason, or worse, dragged away to forced labour camps in

the Soviet Union.

The practice, known as “Malenkij Robota,” [Malenkaia rabota; little work]

had already begun in October of 1944 in Transcarpathia - the northeastern part of

Hungary - where Hungarian and German men between the ages of eighteen and

fifty were ordered to report for “three days work” to the local authorities. Set out

officially under the Second Order of the Military Commander of the Soviet army

of each region, the men — and later women and children — were gathered

13
Interview conducted by the author with Yitzhak Livnat, on June 17, 2007. Born as Sándor
Weisz, he returned from Mauthausen to his hometown of Sevlus, Czechoslovakia in June 1945.
See also Zsuzsanna Agora, “Holocaust Remembrance in Hungary,” Polin: Poland and Hungary,
Jewish Realities Compared, Francois Guesnet, Howard Lupovitch and Antony Polonsky, eds., Vol.
31, London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization with Liverpool University Press, 2019, 430-31.
14
Peter F. Sugar, Peter Hanak and Tibor Frank, eds., A History of Hungary. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990, 372-375.
15
Andrea Pető, Elmondani az Elmondhatatlant: A nemi erőszak története Magyarországon a II
világháboru alatt. [Telling the Untellable: the History of Rape during the Second World War in
Hungary], Budapest: Jaffa, 2018; Lucy Ash, “The Rape of Berlin,” BBC Magazine, 1 May, 2015,
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32529679, accessed March 18, 2019; Anthony Beevor
used official reports about rape by Soviet soldiers written to the NKVD in The Fall of Berlin, New
York: Penguin Books, 2003, 28-32.
 132

without consideration of age or gender.16 Red Army soldiers showed little

interest in distinguishing one Hungarian from another, underground

communists and Jewish survivors of the Nazi concentration camps were just as

likely to fall victim as the rest.17 While estimates vary, the number of Hungarians

deported to forced labour camps in the Soviet Union range from 530,000 to

750,000, with one-third never returning.18 Such violence against citizens, and the

accompanying lawlessness on the part of the occupying Soviet army, bred

cynicism, hatred and a fear of authority.19

The Hungarian Communist Party (MKP), backed by the Soviet occupation

forces, worked to amalgamate power in Hungary. This pattern was also followed

in those parts of Germany and Austria occupied by the Red Army and other

countries in east-central Europe, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. In each of

these countries, Moscow-trained communists first established a National Front

with a wide coalition of antifascist parties, while concurrently taking over the

16
Tamás Stark, “Hungarian Forced Laborers in the Soviet Union” (lecture, Munk School of Global
Affairs, University of Toronto, September 18, 2017). See also Tamás Stark, ed.,…”Akkor Aszt
mondák kicsi Robot”A Magyar polgári lakosság elhurcolása a Szovjetúnióba korabeli dokumentumok
tűkrében. [“They then said: little work” The dragging away of the Hungarian civilian population
to the Soviet Union as reflected in contemporaneous documents] Budapest: Történettudományi
Intézet, 2017.
17
István Deák, “A Fatal Compromise? The Debate over Collaboration and Resistance in
Hungary,” in The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 39-73.
18
Tamás Stark. Magyar Foglyok a Szovjetunióban [Hungarian Prisoners in the Soviet Union]
Budapest: Lucidus, 2006.
19
Mayor’s ordinance, XXIV/19.-1945. BNB sz. Polgármesteri rendelet,’ 1945 március 25, Minutes
of meeting of the BNB [Budapest Nemzeti Tanacs], F. Gáspár and László Halasi, eds., A Budapesti
Nemzeti Bizottsag jegyzőkonyvei, 1945-1946 [The Minutes of the Budapest National Committee,
1945-1946], Budapest, 1975, 73-74. The issue of Soviet soldiers going into apartments in Budapest
and taking men between the ages of seventeen and fifty was discussed at this meeting of the
BNB. The mayor stated that this could cause widespread fear and halt any reorganization and
healthy growth of life in the city. A resolution was made by the BNB to form a delegation to go
and speak to the Soviet authorities about this.
 133

country’s police apparatus.20 During this so-called coalition era, between 1945

and 1947, legislation was introduced which permitted the communist party to

eliminate political opposition by both legal means and police arrest and

incarceration.21 The hardcore membership of the Hungarian Communist party

numbered only a few thousand in 1945. Returning from exile in Russia were

Soviet-trained communists such as Mátyás Rákosi, who later became General-

Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party, as well as Ernő Gerő, Mihály

Farkas, József Révai, Gábor Péter, and Imre Nagy. There were other, indigenous

Hungarian communists like László Rajk and János Kádár as well, who had until

then, worked underground in Hungary. Backed by the occupying Red Army, the

Hungarian Communist Party (MKP), which had operated illegally between the

two world wars, was now rehabilitated and returned to organizing and

recruiting members in Hungary, becoming an active force in the creation of the

next government.

To ensure a smooth transition of power, the leaders of the MKP, most

notably Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő, were mandated by the communist

leadership in Moscow to work with the coalition government in order to build

continuity, and to collaborate with both former and future adversaries and

enemies, including members of the Horthy regime.22 Stalin gave the directive

that Hungarian communist leaders would have to wait at least ten to fifteen

20
Wolfgang Mueller, “Soviet Policy, Political Parties and Preparation for Communist Takeovers
in Hungary, Germany and Austria, 1944-1946,” East European Politics and Societies 24, no. 1,winter
2010, 90.
21
László Borhi, “Stalinist Terror in Hungary, 1945-1956,” Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe: Elite
Purges and Mass Repression, Kevin McDermott and Matthew Stibbe, eds., Manchester and New
York: Manchester University Press, 2010, 119.
22
Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy: Hungary Between East and West, 1944-1947, Montreal &
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011,13.
 134

years for the amalgamation of power in Hungary.23 The coalition government

followed these directives and chose several former ministers of the Horthy

regime to be an integral part of the interim government, including: Béla Dálnoki

Miklós, who was named Prime Minister; János Vörös as Minister of Defence;

Gábor Faraghó Minister of Supplies; and Count Géza Teleki, Minister of

Education.24

The Provisional National Assembly was formed on December 21, 1944, the

result of a coalition of antifascist parties.25 Out of a total of 230 deputies, seventy-

two delegates represented the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP). The other

parties in the coalition were the Nemzeti Paraszt Párt [National Peasant Party]

(NPP), Demokrata Néppárt [Social Democratic Party] (SzDP), Független Kisgazda

Párt [the Independent Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party] (FKgP) and the

Országos Szakszervezeti Tanács [National Council of Unions] (OSzT).

The interim government had the appearance of being remarkably

democratic. Their main goals were to conclude an armistice with the Allies, pay

reparations, repeal antisemitic and anti-democratic laws, guarantee democratic

rights, institute universal and secret suffrage, disband right-wing political

23
Charles Gáti, Hungary and the Soviet Block, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986, 37;
Martin Mevius, Agents of Moscow: the Hungarian Communist Party and the origins of socialist
patriotism, 1941-1953, Oxford and New York: Clarendon University Press and Oxford University
Press, 2005, 48.
24
Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 11. Béla Dálnoki Miklós, a well-respected military General,
was in command of one of two Hungarian armies. On the orders of Regent Horthy, he was on the
forefront of directing the military to switch sides on October 15, 1944. The attempt failed due to
lack of preparation. János Vörös, also a high-ranking officer in the army, had encouraged Regent
Horthy to travel to Transcarpathia to enter into discussions with the Soviet military commander
regarding changing sides. The plans could not be acted upon, however, as a military coup, led
by the Arrow Cross leader, Ferenc Szálasi, and backed by Hitler, seized power that same day.
25
Debrecen is a major urban centre in eastern Hungary, close to the border with Romania.
 135

movements, punish war criminals, and effect land reform.26 Another of the main

priorities of the Provisional National Assembly was to determine the culpability

and collaboration of the Horthy and Szálasi regimes, especially those individuals

who had played a role in the implementation of the Jewish laws from 1938

onwards, and those who had participated in the deportation and killing of Jews

during the Holocaust in Hungary. This was especially important since the

Provisional National Government was concerned with gaining legitimacy, to be

seen as dealing, in a very thorough manner, with the crimes of the interwar

regime, and to separate, in the minds of Hungarians, the postwar government

from the interwar regime.

Once that task was completed, the government sought to assure the nation

that the unpleasant memories of the war were behind them, so that the people of

Hungary could get on with their lives. In most countries in Europe, especially

those formerly allied with Nazi Germany, there was reticence for the new

leadership to blame their countrymen for the worst crimes. The postwar

leadership of these countries were in agreement that the Germans had to take full

responsibility for the crimes of the Second World War.27

One of the first acts of the Provisional National Government was to re-

establish the municipal government of Budapest, as previously mentioned, by

creating a governing council, the Budapest National Committee, or BNB. One

delegate from each of the four political parties active in the Provisional National

26
László Szücs, ed., Dálnoki Miklós Béla kormányának (Ideiglenes Nemzeti Kormány) Ministertanácsi
Jegyzőkönyvei, 1944 december 23.-1945. November 15 [Minutes of Advisory Council of the
Provisional National Government of Béla Miklós Dálnoki, December 23, 1944-November 15,
1945] B kötet, [Vol. B], Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár 1997, 25.
27
Tony Judt, Postwar, 52.
 136

Government was appointed to the BNB, as well as one representative from the

unions. All new resolutions and ordinances would go through the five member

BNB.

The urgency to deal with the crimes of the interwar era was evident when

examining the initial group of resolutions created by the Provisional National

Government as well as the BNB. The first statement of the BNB was to repeal all

Jewish laws.28 The BNB established and provided the mandate for the Népbiróság

[Hungarian People’s Tribunal] at their fourth meeting held on January 27, 1945.29

Five regional councils were established to find and name judges and

administrators to the newly established Hungarian People’s Tribunals. The

following day, a resolution of the BNB stressed the importance of quick action on

this matter and named a former military judge, Ákos Major, Chair of the

Hungarian People’s Tribunal.30 The court system was organized by district.

Members of the four ruling political parties and unions were assigned to be part

of the advisory councils. Within three weeks, by February 19, the councils had

appointed the judges, administrators and directors of the first four districts of the

court system.31 Twenty-four such tribunals were set up across the country and

operated for different lengths of time until April 1950.32 Within the first four

years of the operation of the Hungarian People’s Tribunals, approximately 27,000

individuals were charged with war crimes, crimes against the state, or crimes

28
The first statement of the BNB [Budapest Nemzeti Tanács], 21 January 1945, also published in
the first issue of re-started Szabadság [Freedom]newspaper. The statement appeared as a directive
at the first meeting of the BNB. The directive was made into a resolution later, 200/1945, on 6
February1945, Gáspár and Halasi, eds., A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946, 18.
29
Ibid., Minutes of 1945 január 27, II/9.-1945, 20
30
Ibid., Minutes of 1945 január 28, III/2.-1945, 21.
31
Ibid., Minutes of 1945 február 19, XII/4.-1945, 36.
32
Maria Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 13.
 137

against humanity.33 By March 1, 1948, the verdicts had included 322 death

sentences, of which 146 were carried out, including the chief Hungarian

perpetrators of the Holocaust, László Endre, and László Baky, who organized

and implemented the deportation of the Jews, and Ferenc Szálasi, the leader of

the Arrow Cross regime.34

A further form of retribution, “collective punishment” was approved at

the Potsdam conference held in August 1945 by the Big Three: Stalin, Churchill

and Truman. This affected the expulsion of 180,000 to 200,000 Hungarian citizens

of German origin, who were expelled from Hungary. Collective punishment also

affected the Hungarian and German minorities living in Czechoslovakia, who

were officially declared second-class citizens, harassed and intimidated, many of

them put into concentration camps, raped and brutalized by local populations of

Czechs and Slovaks. This campaign of terror, promoted by President Edvard

Benes and other national and local political leaders, was conducted in the

immediate postwar era in an effort to rid the country of the millions of ethnic

Germans and Hungarian minorities.35 Moreover, the Benes decrees (Decree no.

1/1940), signed five years before the agreement in Potsdam, allowed the official

expulsion of these minorities and expropriation of their land and property. The

Benes decrees have never been revoked. Collective punishment affected more

than the German Volksdeutsche and Hungarians in Czechoslovakia. The Poles

33
László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” The
Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233.
34
Ibid.
35
Mary Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2009, 150-176.
 138

in Ukraine, the Ukrainians in Poland and the Albanians in Greece were also held

collectively responsible for the war.

Other forms of postwar punitive measures included internment, affecting

over 40,000 people, loss of civic rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on

residency, and monetary fines and/or loss of pension rights. Historian László

Karsai estimates that well over 300,000 citizens of Hungary, or 3 percent of the

population suffered some kind of punishment during the postwar purges.36

Priorities and the inner workings of the

Certification Committees
Igazoló Bizottságok [Certification Committees] were established by the

Provisional National Government, through the BNB in January 1945. They were

created by ordinance number 15/1945 to establish a national structure that

would examine the previous political activities of all working people.37 The

ordinances were structured so that the sub-clauses dealt with those institutions

and companies under the control of the state: schools (both private and public),

industry and trade, and community welfare organizations. Others dealt with

self-employed professionals, such as veterinarians, dentists, pharmacists,

journalists, engineers, doctors, actors, and actresses and all those seeking work as

sub-contractors in the film industry. Anyone who worked or wanted to continue

36
László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” in The
Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233.
37
Ordinance 15/1945, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945 január 4, 1.
Szám [Number 1], 3, Magyar Országos Leveltár [Hungarian National Archives] (hereafter MOL).
 139

to work in Hungary had to apply for certification within three days of returning

to work.38

The members of certification committees were appointed by members of

the five-ruling political parties. A chairperson was elected from the appointed

members. An ex-officio member of the committee, who was usually a lawyer,

was also included in the committee. Each individual local certification committee

was organized under the aegis of the Főispán, or county sheriff. If the individual

seeking certification was not successful, the respective committee could release

them with a Megfeddés [reprimand], and depending on the seriousness of the

charge, terminate the employment of the individual, or order that he/she be

interned. If the committee suspected the applicant of criminal activity, they

transferred the case to the People’s Tribunal.39

The assigned task of the certification committee was to determine, if the

applicant was, after the implementation of the First Jewish Law, a supporter,

promoter of the goals of, or a member of an Arrow Cross or Fascist-type party,

who worked to worsen the situation of those who were deprived of their rights.40

Further, the committees wanted to ascertain if the applicants kept track of former

employees, whether they followed their movements, intimidated them, and/or

removed them from employment.41 Each profession was required to undergo its

38
Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 4, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny, 1945 január 4, 1. Szám
[Number 1], 3, MOL.
39
Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 19, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny, 1945 január 4, 1. Szám
[Number 1], 3, MOL.
40
Prof. László Marjanucz,“Helyi közigazgatás, 1944-1949 [Local Public Administration]” accessed
March 21, 2017,
http://gepeskonyv.btk.elte.hu/adatok/Tortenelem/14Szab%F3_Marjanucz/html/7_7.htm
41
Ibid.
 140

own certification process. A study of the certification of civil servants

demonstrates that in some areas, there was a lack of willingness to follow the

procedures. A summary for report from January 1946 found that 88.6 percent of

civil servants in Budapest were confirmed.42 Certain sectors of the civil service

were “cleansed” of the majority of Arrow Cross and Pro-Nazi elements. The fact

that each political party was represented on all committees also led to abuses. For

example, the left-leaning parties used these committees to discharge public

employees whom they described as “reactionary,” while the Smallholders Party,

for example, did everything possible to retain these same employees.43 Moreover,

the political parties were vigilant about their respective delegates being present

at all of the meetings of the certification committees. Each party appointed their

delegate in writing and this notification was then sent to the central secretariat

for certification. In one case, the Független Kisgazda Párt [the Independent

Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party] (FKgP), notified the Film Employees

Union of their delegate. When the delegate was not notified of the meetings, the

FKgP sent a letter demanding that all work conducted until then by the

certification committee be declared invalid and that the work of the committee

start again, this time with the participation of their delegate.44

As part of the proceedings, in January 1945, the Provisional National

Government in Debrecen appointed János Csorba to the position of mayor of

Budapest. Zoltán Vas, an organizer for the Hungarian Communist Party, had

42
Palasik, Chess Game for Democracy, 23.
43
Ibid.
44
“Letter sent from Executive of FKgP to the Secretariat of the Certification Committees,” 1945
junius 20, XVII.1633, Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad
Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest
City Archives]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.
 141

travelled to Budapest as the representative of the Provisional National

Government in order to convince Csorba that he should accept the appointment.

Csorba initially refused, claiming that he had formerly been the mayor in the

small town of Makó in southeastern Hungary and as such, did not have the

experience required to be mayor of Budapest. Vas insisted, saying that Csorba

would be provided with a strong mandate from the Provisional National

Government through the recently appointed BNB.45 Csorba agreed to become

mayor. Soon after being sworn in on January 21, 1945, and with the siege of

Budapest still continuing, Csorba set about to organize the reconstruction of the

devastated city. One of his first acts as Mayor was to issue an ordinance to the

citizens of the city that all able-bodied men and women must participate in the

clean-up, including the gathering and burial of dead soldiers, civilians and

animal carcasses that littered the streets; the collection of broken glass for reuse;

assisting in the repair of damaged roofs; and the removal of all Fascist posters

and symbols.46

Among the first ordinances of the BNB were several that dealt with issues

such as: the prevention of epidemics, providing food for the residents who were

starving and trapped by fighting, and the reorganization and reinstatement of

45
Mária Palasik, “Csorba János,” A Főváros Élén: Budapest Főpolgármesterei és Polgármesterei, 1873-
1950 [At the head of the Capital: Chief Mayors and Mayors of Budapest, 1873-1950], István Feitl,
ed., Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2008, 231-241. Csorba was a lawyer, politician and life-long
member of the Independent Smallholders Agrarian Workers Party. He was elected to parliament
in 1941. When the Germans occupied Hungary, Csorba joined the underground resistance
movement and became a communist. He disguised himself by growing a long beard, walking
with a limp, carrying a cane.
46
Ordinance I/1945, 2/1945, 3/1945, 4/1945, 5/1945. P.-m.Sz., 1945 január 23, BNB, in Források
Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950, [Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], Gáspar
Ferenc, ed., Források Budapest Multjábol, vol.IV, Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára
Forráskiadványai, 1973, 25-27.
 142

officials at the National Bank to put the monetary system back in order.47 At the

same time, Csorba made it a priority to re-establish the entertainment industry in

a city where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. Hungarians were

avid theatregoers before and during the war. It was only during the siege of

Budapest, lasting fifty days until February 13, 1945, that the theatres were

completely shut down. Before the siege ended, Mayor Csorba named three

individuals to organize the administration and start-up of performances at the

Budapest Opera House.48 As a politician, Csorba understood intuitively that one

important way to bring the population of the city out of its siege mentality was to

re-open cultural institutions. By February 16, 1945, the BNB had named eleven

new directors for each of the theatres in Budapest. These new theatre directors

were provided permits to create programs for the 1944-1945 season.49

Mayor Csorba also issued a special appeal on January 31, 1945 to the

Magyar Müvészek Szabadszervezete Filmosztályához [Hungarian Artists Free Union

Film Committee], to re-build the film sector.50 He requested a report on the

working condition of all film production companies, film laboratories, film

theatres – including those that were well-known companies formerly run by

47
Minutes, 1945 január 31, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute
Books of the Budapest National Committee], Ferenc Gáspár and László Halasi, eds., 25. An
official resolution was made by the BNB at this meeting requesting that a five-member committee
of doctors report on the possibility of an epidemic, and to suggest ways of preventing the
epidemic.
48
Decision reached by BNB on1945 január 31, II/9.-1945, BNB, naming the three new opera
managers as: Pál Komáromy, Mihály Székely, and Kálmán Nádasdy. A letter by the BNB to that
effect was made official on February 1, 1945. A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-
1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee], Ferenc Gáspár and László Halasi,
eds., 25.
49
Ibid., Minutes of meeting naming eleven new theatre directors, 1945 február 16, XI/7.-1945
BNB, 34.
50
“Mayor’s Proclamation,” 1945 január 30, Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents
of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], 31-32.
 143

fascists.51 Moreover, he wanted film companies to document the state of

destruction of the city on film and in still photographs. Copies of such films and

pictures were to be submitted to the office of the mayor and the office of the

BNB.52 Csorba also required that the Film Committee form a professional

organization to certify members qualified to work in the film industry, and that

its by-laws be approved by the Mayor’s office. Csorba also gave his assurances

that theatres formerly run by fascists had been taken over and the new

ownership licenses had been granted.

One week later, on February 5, 1945 the BNB declared an ordinance for the

establishment of the Magyar Müvészek Szabadszervezete [Hungarian Artists Free

Union Committee].53 This organization was entrusted to name key advisors to

initiate further artistic activities. Six separate artistic advisory boards were

named to make recommendations on cultural matters including film, music,

literature, and fine arts.54 The advisory board for film included Victor Gertler,

Ákos D. Hamza, Rudolf Icsey, Tibor Polgár, Ákos Ráthonyi, and Dr. Géza Staud,

who later became the Secretary-General of the Actors Certification Committee.55

The Actors Certification Committee was urged to certify actors and

actresses who would resurrect the theatre and film industry. Hilda Gobbi (1913-

1988) was one member of the three-person committee, and the only woman

51
Ibid. In the letter, these theatres were listed as: the Kamara, Royal Apollo, Köruti Hiradó, and
Belvárosi Hiradó.
52
Ibid.
53
Minutes of 1945 február 5, VI/4.-1945 BNB, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-
1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee, 1945-1946], 26-27.
54
Minutes of 1945 február 21, XIII/9.-1945. BNB, in Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950
[Documents of the History of Budapest, 1945-1950], 38-39.
55
Ibid.
 144

appointed to participate in organizing this monumental task.56 During the

interwar period, Gobbi was active in anti-poverty and leftist movements. Gobbi

had taken part in organizing theatre for the workers movement and was known

as a socialist. Following the German occupation in 1944, she went into hiding

and was active in the underground resistance.57 As a result, in 1945, she was

perceived as being trustworthy by the postwar political establishment.58

The two other members of the committee were Zoltán Várkonyi and

Tamás Major. As a student in middle school, Várkonyi was already writing and

translating poems; his works were published in Budapest newspapers. He

excelled in writing and translation. Várkonyi was admitted to the Theatre

Academy in 1931 and graduated in 1935. As an actor, Várkonyi obtained a

contract with the National Theatre and became a well-respected theatre and film

director in the postwar era.

Another member, Tamás Major, was an actor, producer and theatre

director, and a member of the National Theatre. Towards the end of the 1930s, he

had become an active member of the workers movement. In 1945, the BNB

named Major the Director of the National Theatre and the National Chamber

Theatre. (Major’s brother, Ákos, was the Chair of the Hungarian People’s

56
Gobbi had a contract with the National Theatre and remained a member of the organization for
over twenty-five years during the interwar period. From 1937 onwards, she starred in fifteen
films, including such notables as: A Kölcsönkért Kastély [The Borrowed Castle] (1937) and A hölgy
kissé bogaras [The Woman is a bit Whimsical] (1938), and Áll a Bál [The Interrupted Ball] (1939).
57
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 120.
58
Minutes of 1945 február 7, A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute
Books of the Budapest National Committee, 1945-1946], 28. At the first presentation of the
National Theatre, organized by the parties to give thanks to the Soviet Union for liberating
Hungary, Hilda Gobbi was one of three invited to organize and collaborate in the program, along
with actors Tamás Major and János Pásztor.
 145

Tribunal.)59 In his memoirs, Ákos Major recounted that his brother Tamás held

firm communist beliefs and that he was already an underground communist

organizer during the interwar era.60

Lajos Básti (1911-1977) was also invited to be a member of the Certification

Committee. Básti had been banned from the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber

following the implementation of the Jewish laws. He agreed to work on the

committee, often leading the questioning and contributing to the certification

decisions of countless actors and actresses, many of whom were his former

colleagues. Born as Lajos Berger in 1911 into a Jewish family in Keszthely, Básti

was accepted into the Szinmüvészeti Főiskola [Theatre and Film School] in 1935,

and graduated in 1937. He started his career at the Belvárosi Szinház [City

Theatre] and subsequently joined the Vigszinház [Comedy Theatre]. In 1941,

despite the Jewish laws, Básti was able to find work in both the Magyar Theatre

and Andrássy Theatre. During the war, Básti lived briefly in London, where he

met Nöel Coward, but was unable to find work and returned to Budapest. Básti

was drafted into the Labour Service twice, but in between, wrote and published

books. In 1945, he became a permanent member of the Nemzeti Szinház [National

Theatre], where he took on major roles in many films in the 1950s and 1960s, and

also won many awards. In his later years, he taught at the Theatre and Film

School in Budapest.61

59
Minutes of 1945 január 28, III/2.-1945, in A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946
[Minute Books of the Budapest National Committee], 21-22.
60
Dr. Ákos Major, Népbiroskodás Forradalmi Törvényesség: Egy Népbiró Visszaemlékezése [The
People’s Tribunals: Revolutionary Law: The Memoirs of a Judge of the People’s Tribunal],
Budapest: Minerva, 1988, 72-73.
61
Ibid., 55.
 146

Gobbi wrote in her memoirs about the difficult process of starting again:

Well yes, to reorganize the theatres! Ruin, devastation, starvation,

no electricity, hardly any water. Major, Várkonyi and I set out to
assess the situation. After our tour and further meetings, they
decided to name the directors of the ruined theatres, in the hope
that individual responsibility will create something out of nothing
more quickly than otherwise.62

As a reflection of the political uncertainty of the era, Csorba’s appointment

as mayor lasted less than four months. Even so, János Csorba had a significant

role in rejuvenating the theatre community. Although some of the early

performances took place in theatre basements, by candlelight amid the power

outages, the cultural life of the city had begun again in earnest.63 When his term

ended, Csorba was feted at a dinner in his honour, where Árpád Szakasits, the

General Secretary of the Social Democratic party, listed his many

accomplishments:64

He became a mayor of the city in ruins. Cannons were still firing,

land mines were blowing up, bombs were exploding when he
took his seat as Mayor. It’s been four months since. Would anyone
have believed that this city would recover this quickly? Because it
has recovered. Its energy has returned, its streets are clean,
streetcars are running on the formerly ruined tracks and in the
evenings, light is streaming out of more and more windows. This
ruined city is once again living, breathing …and the name of János
Csorba cannot be separated from the uplifting, the cleansing, the
gathering of strength and of super-human effort cannot be
separated from this four months…On behalf of the entire city, we
give heartfelt thanks to Mayor János Csorba for his selfless and

62
Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1984, 207.
63
Tamás Gajdó, “A Magyar Szinházi Élet Ujjászervezése 1945-ben,” [The Reorganization of
theatre life in 1945]. Accessed January 24, 2017, http://szinház.net/2012/05/30/gajdo-tamas-a-
magyar-szinhazi-elet-ujjaszervezese-1945-ben/.
64
Maria Palasik, “A Szeretetteljes köszönet. Csorba Jánosnak, Budapest 1945 utáni első
polgármesterének története” [The Heartfelt Thanks. The History of János Csorba, first Mayor of
Budapest after 1945], Betekintő I, 2013, 7. Translations are by the author.
 147

great, rejuvenating work and join together to declare: ‘Long Live

János Csorba!’

Csorba’s accomplishments as Mayor, however, were soon forgotten.65

By order of the Mayor of Budapest, Hilda Gobbi then became part of a

larger five-member National Committee of theatre artists who were appointed to

reorganize and resuscitate the artistic and theatre community. This committee

consisted of Béla Both, Tamás Major, Hilda Gobbi, Gusztáv Oláh, and Zoltán

Várkonyi. Béla Both was an actor and theatre director, star of stage and screen.

Gusztáv Oláh was a composer who became Director of the National Opera. The

ideological and political goals of the committee were outlined in the founding

document:

Our goals are to cleanse our theatre life, raise the standards, so
that theatre may be made accessible to all the people. In the
interests of truth, we will include the widest segments of society
in order to create theatres and related institutions that are based
on democratic principles. In the interest of these goals, we must
complete artistic and political examinations. We feel it is
important to introduce strict artistic principles and to build an
organization and system which will guarantee that every value of
the national and unified drama world will reach an audience
which is truly made up of all the Hungarian people.66

65
Ibid., 7. The Communist party monopolized political power in May 1949. In 1951, during the
height of persecution of alleged “enemies of the state,” Csorba and his family were banned from
living in Budapest and exiled to the rural community of Dévaványa, without means of support or
ability to earn income. Csorba appealed the exile decree, but he and his family were only
allowed back to the outskirts of Budapest after the death of Stalin in 1953.
66
Tamás Gajdó, “A Magyar Szinházi Élet Ujjászervezése 1945-ben” [The Reorganization of theatre
life in 1945]. No page numbers.
 148

The initial certification process soon gave way to a different format, one

that was, temporarily at least, far more bureaucratic. The committees were

intended to start with the individual theatres in the City of Budapest. Each

theatre was directed to organize a five-member examining committee composed

of actors and actresses, technical workers and employees in management who

would decide about individual certification. Decisions of the lower committees

were to be supervised by a twenty-five member committee of other actors,

actresses and other technical people and employees, in addition to one

representative of each political party.

The smaller committees started their tasks as set out in the ordinance

declared by the Mayor. In a very short time, however, the main and most

important body that decided how the theatre and arts community was to be

organized became the National Committee. In turn, the National Committee,

worked through the Actors Certification Committee. Actors, actresses, directors,

producers, stars of stage and screen, as well as support staff who wanted to

remain involved in the theatre and film industry in Hungary, were directed to

this body for certification.67 Gobbi described the Committee’s barely functional

office space:

With a friend, we noticed a burnt out space above the Hiradó

Theatre which was empty. We took a broom, threw the broken
glass and other debris through the window and wrote on a sheet
of paper: ‘The Actors Union is Open.’ We hung this sign on the
gate, and I told my friend to sit down next to the banged-up table.
Only the devil knows how it happened, but the people just started

67
XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL.
 149

coming. We gave numbers to their identity cards and found out

where people lived and what they needed: medicine, food or a
little shelter to live in the National Theatre.68

The first document created by the hastily assembled Actors Union was a

list dated February 13, 1945, the date that marked the end of the siege in

Budapest. This document listed ninety-eight actors and actresses, Jewish and

non-Jewish, who were widely known for their anti-Fascist resistance. The Actors

Union provided these individuals with passes to guarantee their freedom of

movement in Budapest. One blank space, number 85, was left for Pál Jávor, one

of the most outstanding and popular actors of film and stage. Between 1931 and

1944, he had starred in seventy-six Hungarian films.69 The request to provide

Jávor with a number and spot on the list came from his wife and fellow actress,

Olga Landesmann.70

Jávor had endured much hardship and poverty in his quest to become an

actor. Audiences flocked to his films because of his on-screen honest, tough

demeanor. That behavior on-screen was reflected in his life off-screen; he would

not bow to political authority. The ruggedly handsome Jávor, along with his

Jewish wife and fellow actress, Olga, were already under police surveillance

during the Horthy era for socializing with known left-wing individuals and

inviting them to parties at their home. In April of 1944, Jávor, incensed about the

arrests and deportations, made derogatory comments about Ferenc Kiss, the

Director of the Szinművészeti Akadémia [Theatre Academy], in front of two of his

68
Gobbi, Közben, 208.
69
Mihaly Sárossy Szüle, Miszter Jávor [Mr. Jávor], 81.
70
Gobbi, 209. Jávor was let out of the Gestapo run prison at Sopronkőhida by retreating Hungarian
army units and taken with them to Germany. Once he wrote his wife about his whereabouts, the
Hungarian Communist Party sent a car to Bavaria to bring him home in 1945.
 150

students.71 Jávor was inside one of the dressing rooms at the theatre when he

smashed a bust of Kiss to the ground and was quoted as saying: “Be banned

from here dark ulcer on the body of Thalia!”72 The students reported the incident

and Jávor went into hiding, but was eventually arrested by the Gestapo and

imprisoned at Sopronkőhida prison in the fall of 1944. At the time the list was

drawn up, no one knew his whereabouts and his actor colleagues feared the

worst. Jávor was released from the Gestapo run prison at Sopronkőhida by

retreating Hungarian army units and taken with them to Germany. Once he

wrote his wife about his whereabouts, the Hungarian Communist Party sent a

car to Bavaria to bring him home in 1945.

The Actors Certification Committee began the task of examining

individual files on March 1, 1945. By that time, although the siege of Budapest

had ended, the fighting in the western part of the country continued. It would

take two more months for the war to end in Europe. The decisions set out by the

certification committee were divided into four main categories:

1. “Igazolva” [Certified];

2. “Megfeddés” [Reprimand]--this category was used in instances where

the committee determined that the offense was minor in nature;

3. “Időleges (egy-két-több szezonra) elutasitás [Temporary ban]. This

decision specified the number of months or years for which the

individual was banned; and

71
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the
Story of Ferenc Kiss]”, Magyar Nemzet , 2016 május 3, accessed July 18, 2017,
https://mno.hu/szerzo/ujsagiró/fabian-titusz-24360.
72
The name Thalia originated in Greek mythology and is considered the muse of comedy and
poetry.
 151

4. “Végleges Elutasitás” [Banned for life]. This was the most serious

classification, and usually meant that the case was redirected to the

Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Courts].

The certification committee began the massive task of examining the

individual history of the thousands who wanted to become certified in the

theatre and film arts, deciding the status of each individual. The process lasted

more than two years. Each person was assigned a case file number, with the

exception of those individuals who were banned indefinitely or where the case

was forwarded to the Municipal Courts. There was also the possibility for

appeal, and many actors and actresses, displeased with the decision of the

certification committee, often did appeal, as lack of certification meant the end of

their career in their field. Even a ban for a specified period of time was

debilitating for one’s career and it reduced the likelihood of success in this field.

The option of leaving Hungary during the postwar period and resuming this

career in another country was also not viable without proficiency in the language

of the new host country. The acting careers of those who left Hungary often came

to an end, whether they left during or at the end of the war or, even a few years

later after having received certification. As acting was so intricately linked with

language, outstanding actors such as Gyula Kabos and Katalin Karády were

unable to establish themselves and transfer their skills in other countries in the

field of acting. There were exceptions to this such as Szakáll Szőke and Béla

Lugosi, who both succeeded in Hollywood and found work with heavy accents,

but were typecast in very specific roles.

 152

Conclusion
The immediate postwar era in Hungary represented a time of great

change and insecurity, but was also a time of hope for a better future. The Nazis

were defeated, and Jews could come out of hiding. The country was now

occupied by Soviet forces. The entire country had been turned into a moving

battlefield during the last months of the war, Budapest itself had been under

siege for fifty days. A provisional government was formed out of a coalition of

antifascist parties that gave the impression of the formation of a democratic

government. During the coalition era, between 1945 and 1947, the communist

party amalgamated power and took over the country’s police apparatus. The

widespread deportation of men, and later, women and children to forced labour

camps in the Soviet Union (Malenkij Robota) created a new sense of insecurity and

lawlessness and fear of the occupying Soviet army.

In examining the politics of retribution in Hungary, the most serious war

criminals were dealt with relatively quickly. Once the Hungarian People’s

Tribunals was established, it charged up to 27,000 individuals with war crimes,

crimes against the state and crimes against humanity. In total, well over 300,000

citizens of Hungary, or 3 percent of the population suffered some kind of

punishment during the postwar purges: including internment, loss of civic

rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on residency and monetary fines and/or

loss of pension rights.

Men and women who wanted to continue to work within their own

occupation had to be certified as to their activities during the interwar era.

Certification committees were set up by the provisional government to create a

 153

sense of normalcy, legitimacy and to return to functioning civil society. The

theatre and film industry was viewed as having a critical role in creating a

positive image for the postwar democratic political forces in Hungary, and actors

and actresses were to play the leading role in this regard.

Two separate certification committees were set up to deal with those

employed within the film industry. Those in charge of the certification

committees were chosen and influenced by the political parties within the

provisional government. The members of the certification committees were also

under pressure to certify actors and actresses quickly to get the theatres and

filmmaking industry working again.

 Chapter 6: The process of certification and political
influences
This chapter examines the methodology and decisions of the main

certification committee, the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete Igazoló

Bizottság [Hungarian Actors Free Union Certification Committee], hereafter

referred to as Actors Certification Committee, the union that was established to

examine the wartime details of the activities of all actors, actresses, directors,

producers, and technical workers in the theatre and film industry.1 For actors

and actresses, obtaining postwar certification was a matter of critical importance,

because it was the key to being able to work again in their chosen field. In

addition to examining the certification files of the Actors Union, I also studied

the certification files of the Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete

[Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], hereafter referred to as Film

Employees Union, the organization that represented cinematographers, sound

technicians, and all support workers in film, from telephone receptionists,

porters, cleaners to make-up artists to film supervisors. These files included

those employed at Hunnia, the largest film production company in Hungary.

This latter union also included those individuals independently employed

within the film industry at smaller production houses, who were also required to

obtain certification.2

1
Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945
január 4, 1. Szám [Number 1], 3, MOL.
2
XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete
[Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Budapest City Archives].
Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár, hereafter
BFL.

154
 155

Further, the methodology and decisions of the examiners of the committee

are also examined in this chapter. The language used by the examiners regarding

actors and actresses was frequently biased, and certain individuals involved with

antisemitic or far right-wing organizations were certified quickly and with very

little administrative processes, while others, often charged with the same offense,

were banned from acting for months, several years or for their lifetime. Members

of the Film Employees Union were required to complete a much more

comprehensive questionnaire in applying for certification. I demonstrate how

and why these set of questions were much more likely to identify those involved

with implementing the Jewish laws as well as right-wing collaborators among

film employees working in the industry. In addition to the process, I will also

examine the personalities of the individuals involved, because the leadership of

the committees often reflected the caution and the political insecurity of the time.

As designated by the original ordinance establishing the certification

committees, the committee hearings for the Actors Union were held in closed

sessions, with no media or general public allowed.3 In contrast, as demonstrated

later, the certification of the Film Employees Union invited members of the

public to submit statements regarding specific applicants. The members of the

certification committee were not listed for each meeting at which the past

activities of actors and actresses were discussed. The meeting minutes simply

recorded as present: “the Chairman, the lawyer, the quorum for the Certification

3
Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945
január 4, 1. Szam [Number 1], 3, MOL.
 156

Committee and the Recording Secretary.”4 The reasons for this might have been

that the reputation and activities of actors and actresses during the interwar era

may have been better known, as actors and actresses were more likely to be in

the public spotlight. The questions put to actors and actresses were far fewer

than those put to the members of the Film Employees Union, and only those

actors and actresses who were named by others as having collaborated with the

previous regime were interviewed in any detail.

In the case where hearings were necessary, individuals were allowed to

bring witnesses to testify on their behalf. By examining the files of both

certification committees, it can be concluded that the actors and actresses were

provided with a greater leeway and tolerance. If an actor or actress called

witnesses, especially if those witnesses were members of one of the five political

parties that formed the provisional government, the chances of the actor/actress

receiving a lesser sentence or penalty were more likely.5

The information contained on the form issued by the certification

committee for the Actors Union following a hearing simply included: the full

name of Actor/Actress, date and place of birth, and mother’s maiden name. The

final decision of the certification committee was clearly indicated on the form,

and if not certified, the reasons provided and the sanctions imposed were

described on the form as well. Each applicant received a case file number typed

4
XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL.
5
The parties in the coalition were the Magyar Kommunista Párt [Hungarian Communist Party]
(MKP), Nemzeti Paraszt Párt [National Peasant Party] (NPP), Demokrata Néppárt [Social
Democratic Party] (SzDP), Független Kisgazda Párt [the Independent Smallholders Agrarian
Workers Party] (FKgP) and the Országos Szakszervezeti Tanács [National Council of Unions]
(OSzT).
 157

in the upper left-hand corner. This number was determined by the order in

which the individuals presented themselves for certification. The completed

forms were signed by the chair of the committee, Dr. Géza Staudt, and the

recording secretary, Marczell Béláné (Mrs. Béla Marczell). The stamp of the

certification committee was also included near the official signatures. The

committee had used half a standard-sized paper that contained the typed

descriptions of two applicants.

The meticulous signature of Dr. Géza Staudt (1906-1988), chairperson of

the certification committee for the Actors Union appeared on each certification

document. Staudt received his doctoral degree in the history of theatre and

literature, and studied in Budapest and Paris. He was an editor of A Szinpad [The

Stage] magazine, and worked as a playwright for the Madách Theatre from 1941

to 1944.6 The other members of the certification committee for the Actors Union

were the previously described Hilda Gobbi, Zoltán Várkonyi, Tamás Major, and

Lajos Básti, all of whom were instrumental in setting up the committee.

The members of the certification committee were each equally

outstanding in their own field. They were chosen not only on the basis of their

talents in the theatre and the film industry, but also because they each had a

“reliable” political background. The committee members had to be well-known

actors and actresses, and could not have had connections with extremist ideology

or the regime of the Arrow Cross leader, Ferenc Szálasi. The political decision

6
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 55. Staudt was also a prolific writer --
having published over seventy books -- forty as author, and thirty as editor or co-editor - on all
aspects of theatre history, including the collected works of András Fáy; the correspondence of
Déryné; the diaries of László Kelemen; and the collected works of playwright Sándor Hevesi.
 158

makers who oversaw the certification process also included representatives of a

wide-range of political parties in Hungary. The five political parties active in this

process were influential in determining who remained. As demonstrated in the

certification documents, several actors downplayed, distorted and/or

misrepresented their roles in the interest of becoming certified and were aided by

political players. The receipt of certification was influenced by whom the

individual knew politically and could call upon as witness to support the

application. It was a time of political uncertainty, and individuals placed in

positions of power and on certification committees realized they needed to carry

out their duties with political acumen.

Those granted certification without undergoing a formal interview

received a document with a form letter stapled to that contained the following

standard text:

In light that no allegations have been brought forward against the

individual, it is determined that no further hearing or interview
was necessary. In consideration of ordinance number 1080/1945
and ordinance number 1146/1945, we find the above named
individual to be certified.7

If an applicant was required to answer to allegations, however, the

interviews that were conducted during the hearings were then transcribed and

attached to the document of certification. If the committee did not rule to certify

7
XVII. 1670.9, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL. All translations are by the author, unless otherwise
specified.
 159

the individual, the reasons for the ruling were also attached. In some cases, these

documents, including witness testimony, ran to dozens of pages.

Early files of the Certification Committee:

opportunity and influence
The earliest applications to the certification committee for the Actors

Union came from actors and actresses, stars of both stage and screen, who were

relatively young and talented, and often well-known in Hungary. Most of these

early and successful applicants could demonstrate that once the Germans

occupied Hungary, they withdrew from their acting careers or found a

sympathetic doctor who provided documents that they were too ill to work, or if

they were Jewish, went into hiding. This certification committee was particularly

interested in those who remained active during the Szálasi regime. It was crucial

that actors/actresses were able to demonstrate that they did not support, or take

part in the theatre/film industry during the period of the Arrow Cross.

Hundreds of actors and actresses were granted certification on the first

official working day of the certification committee for the Actors Union, March 1,

1945, even though the certification committee did not interview them. The

archival documents demonstrate that they were simply granted certification

based on their reputation, their acting careers, and/or what colleagues knew

about their activities during the war and German occupation. One such example

was Hilda Gobbi who was among the early applicants and was certified on that
 160

first day.8 Gobbi was active in the underground resistance, and as such, was

perceived as trustworthy by the postwar political establishment.9

Katalin Karády was another example of a popular actress who, once the

deportations began in 1944, hid and protected Jewish children in three separate

homes she owned in the hills of Buda. When her activities were reported, she

was arrested by the Gestapo, beaten, and tortured. As a result, the file of Karády

simply states she was provided with certification on March 1, 1945.10 Within a

few years, however, Karády became disillusioned with the way her career was

developing in Hungary and emigrated.11 When the Germans occupied Hungary,

music composer Tibor Polgár went into hiding in the home of his lover, actress

and singer Ilona Nagykovácsi, who later became his wife. Polgár was Jewish and

had been able to continue to work until then, due to the influence and

intervention of Nagykovácsi, who twice prevented Polgár from being drafted

into the labour service. She accomplished this by appealing to the military high

command, arguing and threatening that her performances would have to cease

without his musical accompaniment and support.12 Polgár was among the early

applicants and was certified on March 1,1945.13 Both Polgár and Nagykovácsi

were granted certification and continued to work until the early 1960s when they

left Hungary and emigrated to Canada. There, Polgár continued to work, and

8
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4, file #48, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai (hereafter SzIUI), 1945-1946
[Files of the Actors Certification Committee, 1945-1946], HU BFL.
9
Hilda Gobbi, Közben [Meanwhile]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1984.
10
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 5, file #167, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
11
Karády emigrated to Brazil in 1949 and later to New York City, where she opened a millinery
boutique. László Kelecsényi, Katalin Karády, Budapest: Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és
Filmarchivum, 1982), 47-48.
12
Ilona Nagykovácsi, Fény és Árnyek [Light and Shadows], 249-250.
13
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 9, file #84, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
 161

wrote the music and libretto to one of the first Canadian operas, entitled The

Glove, produced by George Jonas.14 At the end of every performance in the

diaspora, Polgár reminded audiences he would not be alive without his wife’s

action during the war.15

Actors and actresses who were banned from the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber, established in 1938, were also processed quickly. Being an outcast

actor or actress during the interwar era provided them with the necessary

credentials for quick certification. Examples included the well-known performers

Gyula Gózon and Ella Gombaszögi, who were both ousted from the Film Arts

Chamber in 1939 because of the Jewish Laws.16 Gózon and Gombaszögi were

granted certification on the first day of the committee’s work and then resumed

their professional lives as popular stars of both stage and screen in postwar

Hungary.

The certification system was at times manipulated by some applicants. As

some of the files of the certification committee illustrate, there were also actors

and actresses who were untruthful and fabricated information in order to

become certified. Actor and theatre manager, Géza Földessy (also known as Géza

von Földessy), was among the early applicants for certification, as his file,

14
The complete opera is in the collection of the Tibor Polgár papers, held by Michael Reményi at
Reményi House of Music in Toronto. The Reményi family emigrated from Hungary in 1956, the
family has had a long established history of being specialists in musical instruments since 1890.
Special thanks to Michael Reményi for allowing me access to the personal papers.
15
Nagykovácsi. Fény és Árnyek, 477-8.
16
XVII. 1670.9, HU BFL, doboz 4, file #47 Gózon and #54 Gombaszögi, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
 162

number fifteen, demonstrates.17 He was one of the earliest numbers found in the

entire collection of certification documents for the Actors Union. Földessy was

forty years old in 1945, and did not have an extensive background or

filmography. He was involved in five films during the interwar period, and one

major motion picture starring Pál Jávor in 1941. During his hearing, Földessy

stated that he took over the Madách Theatre from Lajos Cselle, who was then

also vice-chair of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Földessy claimed that “he

defended the Theatre from being ransacked by Szálasi’s men and German

soldiers.”18 Although this seemingly overambitious claim was neither verified

nor questioned, Földessy was able to convince the committee of the veracity of

his statements and he was granted certification. Földessy was married to Juci

Komlos, who had an extensive acting career in postwar Hungary, starring in

many made-for-television movies and series in the 1970s. Komlos was also

certified early.

Applications were also processed quickly for those individuals who were

active in the Országos Magyar Izrealita Közművelődési Egyesület, or OMIKE

[National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association]. After 1939, OMIKE led the

cultural life of the Jewish community by spearheading the cultural activities of

unemployed Jewish actors, singers, and artists who were fired from their jobs

due to the Second Jewish Law. Most were also banned from the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber. Oszkár Beregi (1916-1953) was artistic director of OMIKE from

17
Number 15 is the earliest file number I could find. The collection, HU BFL, XVII. 1670.9,
Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, is organized alphabetically by last name of
actors and actresses, and not by the number of the file.
18
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file 15, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
 163

1939 onwards. Beregi’s reputation preceded him, he was also provided with

certification quickly.19

In stark contrast to the preceding examples, the certification committee

conducted carefully structured interviews with those actors/actresses who had

been named by other actors/actresses as having collaborated with the previous

regime. After reading hundreds of the summary reports on these interviews, I

have been able to determine that there was a set pattern to the questions that

usually included:

1. Which political parties did you belong to?

2. Did you belong to the Turul Bajtársi Közösség?

3. What newspapers did you read?

4. What theatre presentations did you accept roles in?

5. What were your feelings when the Germans occupied Hungary?

6. Who were the individuals who were known Nazi sympathizers in your

theatre company and/or circle of friends?

7. Did you know or have any dealings with any known Nazi sympathizers?

The construct of the questions used during the interviews by the members

of the Certification Committee was frequently biased. Moreover, the questions

themselves were leading, eliciting information evident in the formulation of the

questions themselves. The language and expressions used by those seeking

certification was also reflective of the historical period. The construction of the

questions is worth a careful examination. The first five questions were intended

19
Ibid., doboz 1, file 2495.
 164

to shed light on the political sympathies of the interviewee, while the last two

sought to elicit information about the involvement of others, who, in the opinion

of the interviewee, should be scrutinized for their activities during the previous

regime. In terms of the responses to the first question, rarely did interviewees

admit that they belonged to the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary. If the individuals

seeking certification were confronted or accused, most denied membership, or at

the very least, offered rationalizations as to why they joined. These reasons were

in many cases, accepted by the members of the certification committee.

The second question was significant in terms of the Hungarian context:

Did you belong to the Turul Bajtársi Közösség? The Turul, officially known as The

Turul Bajtársi Közösség [Turul Fraternal Association], was the largest and most

influential right-wing student association during the interwar period.20 The

ideological basis for the organization was a mixture of Christian-nationalist,

militarism, antisemitism, and revision of borders. Membership in the Turul was

also relevant to the members of the certification committee because the

organization had stood at the forefront of the effort to remove Jews entirely from

the film industry in Hungary, and had worked to encourage non-Jews to become

involved instead.21 The Turul Szépmives Filmgyártó és Filmterjesztő Szövetkezet [The

Turul Fine Arts Film Production and Film Distribution Co-Operative] was

founded concurrently with the enactment of the Second Jewish Law, in May of

1939, under the aegis of the Turul Fraternal Association. The executive of the Co-

20
Established in 1919, by the end of the 1930s, the organization had more than forty-eight sub-
chapters throughout the country, with an estimated membership of more than 40,000. Robert
Kerepeszki, A Turul Szövetség, 1919-1945: egyetemi ifjuság és jobboldali radikalizmus a Horthy
korszakban [The Turul Association, 1919-1945: university youth and right wing radicalism during
the Horthy era], Mariabesnyő: Attraktor, 2012, 75.
21
Tibor Sándor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 38.
 165

Operative had several members who were also on the executive of the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber. Despite its extensive political connections, the

organization had very little success in producing new films. From 1939, of the

five films that went into production by the Turul Co-Operative, only one was

completed, Te vagy a dal [You Are the Song] in 1940.22

Actors and actresses who were found during the certification process to have

been members of the Turul were questioned closely about their participation.

During the testimonies, there was no distinction made between being a member

of the Turul or of the Turul Film Co-Operative, probably because the latter was

not successful at producing films. Nor was the committee consistent in its

application of criteria as demonstrated by the following illustrative examples.

Actor Ferenc Farkas admitted to being a member of the Turul, despite the fact

that he was Jewish. Farkas claimed joining the Turul was “a question of self-

preservation, a way to camouflage his origins.”23 Farkas received a light sentence,

a Megfeddés [Reprimand], and was certified.24 Actor János Görbe claimed he

joined Turul “to obtain acting contracts.” During the interview, Görbe stated that

he was only a member of Turul for two months, did not know much about the

organization, and when the City Theatre ceased to exist, he tried to obtain

contracts through other members in the Turul. The claim that he did not know

much about the organization was hardly credible, as membership in the Turul

involved taking a lengthy oath and swearing on the Bible:

22
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 319.
23
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #4144, SzIUI, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee,
1945-1946], HU BFL.
24
Ibid., doboz 3, file # 4144.
 166

…to uphold and stabilize the whole Hungarian nation, based on

Christian morals, and to do everything in my power to prevent
the conflicts of race...I swear that the goals of the nation are my
goals, and that the enemies of those goals remain my enemies.25

Despite the fact that Görbe was a member of Turul, he was certified on March 24,

1945.26 As the files of the actors certification committee illustrate, the majority of

actors, actresses were not ideologically motivated in membership of any parties

or organizations, they were simply trying to survive and obtain acting contracts.

Ernő Bartos claimed to have joined Turul for similar self-serving reasons.

Bartos stated “he couldn’t join the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber without being

a member of Turul, it was a matter of earning a living.”27 Bartos was the head of

one of the committees that awarded the contracts for members of the Theatre and

Film Arts Chamber during the interwar period. Although this committee was

quite influential, Bartos played down his role. As demonstrated in the next

chapter, the certification committee specifically sought out such executives of the

Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Despite this, Bartos simply received a

reprimand [Megfeddés] on December 7, 1945, and was certified.28

The process of certification for film employees

Thus far, I have examined the process of certification for actors and

actresses of the Actors Union. Now I compare this to the certification procedure

followed by members of the Film Employees Union, including those employed

25
For a full text of the oath, see Robert Kerepeszki, A Turul Szövetség, 1919-1945: egyetemi ifjuság és
jobboldali radikalizmus a Horthy korszakban, 61-62.
26
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4, file #2011, SzIUI, 1945-1946, [Files of the Actors Certification Committee,
1945-1946], HU BFL.
27
Ibid., doboz 1, [Box 1], file number 4877.
28
Ibid.
 167

independently and employees of Hunnia.29 The latter group of film employees

underwent a more rigorous process, they were required to purchase and

complete a detailed declaration about all aspects of their lives, including their

personal and financial circumstances during the interwar period.30 (For a full

translation of the document, see Appendix 3). Applicants included directors of

all film production companies, from managers and film engineers, heads of

departments, costume managers, and set designers to make-up artists, telephone

switchboard operators and even cleaners.31 Among the fifty-three questions, the

majority of questions dealt with the implementation of the Jewish Laws,

particularly whether or not the individual seeking certification received any

benefits from the abrogation of rights and confiscation of property from Jews in

Hungary. The question of involvement in any aspect of the implementation of

the Jewish laws as well as confiscation of Jewish property was the primary focus

in the certification of Film Employees Union when compared to the Certification

Committee that certified actors and actresses. This questionnaire also

demonstrates that the litmus test for this certification committee was in

examining the individual respondents in their attitudes/actions towards the

Jews and the Jewish laws. The questions were organized into the following

categories.

29
Ordinance 15/1945, sub-clause 15, ME. sz. Rendelet, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette], 1945.
január 4, 1. Szam [Number 1], 3, MOL.
30
The document, entitled “Declaration,” was required to be purchased for one pengő. By August
of 1945, hyperinflation had taken place in Hungary and one US dollar was equal to 1,320 pengős.
https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/?p=2382, accessed October 2, 2017.
31
XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad
Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], BFL. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest
395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.
 168

The first category requests details of employment before and after the

Jewish Laws were implemented, including financial status and salaries

compared between January 1, 1937 (prior to the implementation of the Jewish

laws) and January 1, 1945. This was to determine if the individual had secured

any benefits from the implementation of the Jewish laws. The questions

regarding the implementation of the Jewish laws were so specific that

individuals were asked if they took part in the sale or purchase of contents of

Jewish stores. Even the purchase of radios confiscated from Jews was an

important indication of the role of the individual in this process. Any move from

one apartment to another after January 1, 1940 onwards was questioned in

detail.32

The questions surrounding membership in political organizations were

also carefully structured to probe specific activities. In particular, they focused on

membership in and connections to extremist, right-wing and Fascist

organizations. Compared to the questions put to actors and actresses, the

questions film employees were required to answer did not simply ask whether

the individual seeking certification was a member of any right-wing

organizations, the questions were much more thorough and comprehensive.

Beginning as far back as January 1, 1920, the questions focused on the political

parties and movements in which the applicant was a member or may have

supported financially. The membership and role in any chamber, professional

32
After the German army occupied Hungary in March of 1944, thousands of Hungarian Jews
were ordered to give up their apartments by Eichmann through the Hungarian Ministry of
Interior Affairs (Decrees 1200/1943 M.E. and 1280/1943 B.M.). For detailed information on the
requisitioning of apartments and the role of the Budapest Jewish Council in carrying out these
orders, see Ernő Munkácsi. How it Happened: Documenting the Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry, 57-62.
 169

guild, or self-promoting professional organization from 1920 onwards was also

questioned, as well as any benefits gained from these memberships. Moreover,

the applicant had to certify that no one in his/her extended family, including by

marriage, benefitted from these memberships from January 1938 onwards.

The last section of questions involving receipt of awards, honours, or titles

from January 1, 1930 onwards was intended to identify individuals whose work

was lauded by the interwar government. The receipt of such an award during

the interwar era was in itself reason enough to be reprimanded or barred from

certification. The Nemzetvédelmi Kereszt [National Defense Cross] was founded by

Prime Minister Pál Teleki on the proposal of Regent Horthy in 1940.

Cinematographer István Eiben admitted to receiving such an award on his

written statement. In a further statement, Eiben explained that although he

received this award in January, 1944 for his work as a cinematographer, the

award was later revoked in April 1944, when it was learned by the authorities

that Eiben’s wife was Jewish. Eiben received a reprimand by the certification

committee. It was noted on his file that “only those individuals received such

awards who were politically trusted by the regime.”33

The question: “Were you a director or a member of the board of any

companies from January 1, 1938 onwards?” targeted individuals who took over

Jewish companies because of the Jewish Laws. The last group of questions

focused on those who participated in the press, media or promoted the right-

wing and/or antisemitic ideology of the interwar regime.

33
“Határozat,” [Resolution], Eiben István, Doboz 1, A-Fe, XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz.
Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees
Free Union]. Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.
 170

Once the application form was completed, the wider public who lived

near the applicant was also to become involved in the process of certification for

film employees. When the completed questionnaire was submitted, the

certification committee for the Film Employees Union directed that an

announcement be placed on the message board at the apartment building where

the applicant resided. The announcement requested that if anyone in the

building knew whether the individual applicant had taken part in “Fascist or

Germanophile activities,” such information should be reported to the

certification committee in writing. The individual was asked to submit this

information under his/her own signature and apartment number. The

announcement was displayed on the bulletin board of the building for a required

eight days. At the end of the period, if there weren’t any reports about the

individual, the apartment superintendent signed the document, certifying that it

was displayed for the required number of days and that no reports had been

received regarding the individual seeking certification.34 The person was then

certified by a three-person certification committee, chaired by lawyer Dr. Jenő

Lichter. If there were reports of participation in Fascist activities, the certification

of those actors/actresses was halted until the committee further investigated

their activities and heard the testimony of witnesses. Such witnesses were listed

by name in the minutes of these hearings35 held at the Hunnia Film Factory.36 In

34
Document of Károly Csicsmanczay, official at Hunnia, at apartment address Erzsébet Körút 12
signed by building superintendent László Szabo, dated: 1945 julius 26, Doboz 1, A-Fe, Hunnia:
XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag, BFL.
35
Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, Kl-Ö, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
36
These hearings were held at the Gyarmat utca (street) location of the Hunnia Film Factory
Budapest. Document of Lőrinc Eck, set designer, who admitted to membership in the Arrow
Cross Party in 1943. The Certification Committee decreed Eck be expelled from the industry (job
 171

cases where reports of the activities of the applicant were found to be suspect,

the files were forwarded to the People’s Tribunals.

In several instances, specific individuals were placed under special

scrutiny because of their positions of leadership. The file of Ferenc Lohr reflects

such an example. Lohr was an electrical engineer who worked for Hunnia

beginning in 1930, he was appointed director of technical engineering in 1942,

and became director of the film company in 1943. Lohr was sent to Germany on

several occasions to take part and provide training on the use and advanced

technology of sound within the film industry. Based on his file, Lohr was

passionate about learning and perfecting the technical aspects of sound within

the film industry. His first book, A Filmszalag utja [the Development of Celluloid]

was published in 1942. In 1944, Lohr was named to a five-member committee

appointed by the Szálasi regime to direct the work at Hunnia. In his testimony at

the certification committee hearings, he defended himself and provided

witnesses to demonstrate that during the final days of the war, he postponed and

defied orders to dismantle and remove the factory’s technical equipment, under

what he termed the “false pretence” that the equipment be moved to Bad-

Gastein, near Vienna, where “allegedly Hungarian films would be produced

again.”37 He also stated, that, along with another engineer, they sabotaged this

request as well as other technical requests of the Arrow Cross.38 The veracity of

his statements and actions were upheld by several witnesses, such as well-

loss) for life. 1945 julius 5, Doboz 1, A-Fe, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottsag,
BFL.
37
“Statement of Defense,” 1945 augustus 10, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö, 5, Hunnia: XVII.1709
Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
38
Ibid.
 172

known producer Endre Rodriguez.39 Despite this, Lohr was banned from work in

the film industry for life. He appealed the decision of the certification committee

and provided an eight-page statement of defence.40 In it, Lohr lists fourteen

former employees of Hunnia who would testify as to the veracity of his

statements regarding his behavior in the last days of the Szálasi regime. The

decision of the certification committee was upheld by the People’s Court.41

Despite the ban, Lohr stayed in Hungary. His talents in technical sound and

acoustics were so exceptional, that in 1951 he was put in charge of implementing

the sound system for the newly-built Népstadion [People’s Stadium].42

If the individual seeking certification left the country at any time during

the war, that fact alone was always treated with suspicion by the certification

committees. Jews who were deported and/or part of labour batallions and

survived were not given any special dispensation, they also had to go through

the certification process after the war ended.43 János Holbach, a Financial

Director with the MFI, was drafted into the Hungarian army. When the war

ended, he was captured by the Americans and held in a prisoner of war camp.

The certification committee deemed that Holbach was “guilty because he

departed. He was very right wing – a Germanophile.” His file was passed on to

the People’s Courts.44

39
“Letter from Endre Rodriguez to Lohr Ferenc,” Budapest, 1945 julius 16, Ferenc Lohr, Hunnia:
XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
40
“Statement of Defense,” 1945 augusztus 10, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö, 7, Hunnia: XVII.1709
Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL
41
1945.Nü.10307/1.sz. Decision by Budapesti Népügyészség, Ferenc Lohr, Doboz 3, KL-Ö,
Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
42
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 194.
43
See files of “Korodi Gábor,” file #2123/1945, Box 3, KL-Ö and Kövér István, file #1926/1945,
XVII 1633, BFL.
44
“Holbach János,” no file number, Box 3, XVII.1684.
 173

At times, the determination of the certification committees over individual

actors, actresses and musicians who had departed Hungary were made in

absentia. Ernő Dohnányi (1877-1960) was a pianist, composer and conductor of

the Budapest Philharmonic Orchestra from 1918 until 1943, when he disbanded

the orchestra due to the chaos caused by the Second World War. He was also

director of music for Hungarian Radio during the war and left the country in

December 1944. Dohnányi resisted Nazi influence.45 The case of Dohnanyi was

placed before the certification committee after he had left the country. They

determined that: “It is thanks to him [Dohnányi], that in the last years, German

music was almost exclusively always played on Hungarian radio.”46 The

certification committee determined that Dohnányi be banned from employment

for life and submitted his documents to the People’s Courts.47 His music was

banned in communist Hungary for over 10 years.48 Dohnányi made a new life for

himself in the United States, his music became famous worldwide. He worked as

composer-in-residence at Florida State University.

Film industry related smaller Certification

Committees
In comparing the certification of actors and actresses of the Actors Union

with the Film Employees Union, it becomes evident that the process for the Film

Employees Union was more clearly documented and much more rigorous. I did

not find any comparable declaration form required from actors and actresses that

45
See Éva Kelemen, ed., Dohnányi Ernő családi levelei, [The Family Letters of Dohnányi Ernő]
Budapest: NSZL-HAS Institute for Musicology-Gondolat Publishers, 2011.
46
“Dohnányi Ernő,” file #915, Box 1, XVII.1684.
47
Ibid.
48
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ernst-von-Dohnanyi, accessed March 12, 2019.
 174

needed to be completed for the certification process. The questions put to actors

and actresses were far fewer and only those actors and actresses who were

named by others as having collaborated with the previous regime were

interviewed in any detail.

Other, smaller film-related certification committees were also included in

the files of the Film Employees Union. Several such committees were established

under one committee chair, Dr. Gyula Ortutay, for employees of Hungarian

Radio, the Telegraph Office, the Film Office, National Apollo49 and the Star Film

and Distribution Factory. Gyula Ortutay (1910-1978) took a leadership role in

establishing leftist intellectual movements during the interwar era, most notably

the Szegedi Fiatalok Művészeti Kollégium. Between 1935 and 1944, he became a

producer with Hungarian Radio. Ortutay was a personal friend of Miklós

Radnóti, one of the most outstanding Hungarian poets of the twentieth century.

Radnóti was of Jewish origin, and was killed while part of a labour batallion in

1944. Through the death of his friend, Ortutay was well-aware of the suffering

and fate of his fellow Jewish countrymen. After 1945, Ortutay led the left-wing of

the Agrarian Party, FKgP and assisted with the amalgamation of the power of the

Communist party in 1948 and again, after 1956. He became Minister of Religion

and Education between 1945 and 1950, and had a major role in the

nationalization of the public school system. Later in life, Ortutay published major

works on Hungarian literature and folklore, specializing in folk stories and

49
Originally built as a Hotel in 1896, the Royal Apollo became one of the most elegant theatres in
Budapest in 1915. The first Hungarian-language sound film, a Kék Bálvány first premiered at this
location. The theatre was renovated and enlarged and by 1920, could accommodate over one
thousand guests for a screening. Prior to 1945, the staff wore uniforms that included white
gloves. https://www.hangosfilm.hu/mozilexikon/budapest-vii-royal-apollo, accessed March 10,
2019.
 175

ballads. He became editor-in-chief of the Hungarian Folklore Lexicon. As an

internationally renown-academic in the field of folklore, he was awarded many

honorary degrees and awards and was a member of the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences.50

Ortutay submitted his final report in February 1945, along with the minute

books of the hearings of the certification committees for all five of the institutions

and companies examined by the committees under his jurisdiction.51 In this

letter, Ortutay summarized what he considered the main goals of the work of the

certification committees and as chair, wrote how he viewed the most important

tasks of the certification of the employees of the five smaller media and film

companies.

Although recently we have not received any kind of official

decision or direction in this regard, whether the Radio and
affiliated companies should set up their own certification
committees, my own belief is that the first, most essential task was
that these companies should go through the strictest certification
process. If and when the Hungarian Radio and Telegraph office
and affiliated companies start their work again, whether it be in
any position, as laborer, technician or executive, only those
workers remain who had no connection to the sins of the political
past, and whose person will not cause worry that they believe in
any kind of reactionary ideology.

Ortutay was keenly aware of the changing political situation in Hungary.

Through his work, he felt confident that he was finally on the right side of

history. He carefully crafted his summary report to reflect his confidence in the

50
“Ortutay Gyula,” Magyar Életrajzi Lexicon, Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár,
file:///Volumes/DISS%204/Magyar%20Életrajzi%20Lexikon.html, accessed February 13, 2019.
51
Gyula Ortutay,“Levél a Nemzeti Bizottság Ötös Végrehajtó Bizottságnak,” [Letter to the five
member Executive committee], 1945 február 26, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz.
Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
 176

judgment of the political leadership, deferring to supervising authorities, stating

that they will be able to overturn any decision made by his committee.

Of course I paid special attention to the fact that the work of these
certification committees are to be viewed as temporary,
preventative proceedings until higher authorities provide new
directives. Therefore, the certification committees only decided
whether or not the individual, based on his/her behavior, would
be eligible to receive protection from the company (identification,
food allowances), otherwise we did not bring about final decisions
regarding the relation of the individual with the company (salary,
pension), or termination of employment, or the final political
certification of the individual. The only thing we wanted to
prevent among our colleagues through the work of the
certification committees is that the old, damaging, extreme right-
wing or reactionary spirit re-emerge and start to organize in its
defence, something we have seen openly in several places already.

Ortutay requested that the decisions his committee made be accepted quickly for

the purpose of “clearing away any impediments towards the building of a new,

democratic Hungary.”52

The questions asked by the examiners for the Certification Committees

chaired by Gyula Ortutay were different again from the certification committee

for actors and actresses and film employees union. The main focus of the

questions asked by the certification committees of the Hungarian Radio and

Telegraph office and the Film Office were: was the individual seeking

certification ever a member of a fascist political party or the Volksbund; is the

individual responsible for work that they completed during the repression of the

52
Ibid.
 177

fascist era, and lastly, during the past few years, has the individual demonstrated

fascist behavior or sympathies?53

The addendum then categorizes the decisions into four groups and lists

the number of employees in each category. The results for the Hungarian Radio

and Telegraph office were listed as follows:

Out of a total of 212 employees, those who participated in left-wing

resistance movements included eighteen individuals or 8 percent; those who

demonstrated determined anti-fascist democratic conduct totaled forty-four

individuals or 22 percent. By far the majority of the employees were determined

had no political affiliation or opinion, 121 or 57 percent. Finally, those who were

members of the fascist, Imredy-st, party, or a member of the Volksbund, or

expressed fascist or Germanophile opinions and/or behavior numbered twenty-

nine individuals or 14 percent.54

The chair of the certification committee for the Magyar Film Iroda, or MFI

was Herrer Cézár (1907-1998).55 Cézár was descended from an old, aristocratic

Spanish family, many members of which were involved in the arts.56 Cézár

became director and manager of a series of movie houses, namely the City, Décsi,

Rádius, Kaszinó, and Pallas, before he became director of distribution with the

53
“Jegyzőkönyv,” [Minute Books] MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság,
BFL.
54
“Melléklet 2-5” [Addendum], MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz. Igazolóbizottság,
BFL.
55
https://www.hangosfilm.hu/filmenciklopedia/herrer-cezar, accessed March 5, 2019.
56
Cézár’s father and grandfather were well-known painters; and his brother Pál was a conductor,
composer, and music teacher.
 178

Magyar Filmiroda. In 1945, he was appointed chairman of the certification

committee for the Magyar Film Iroda.57

Cézár had an inside knowledge of the film industry, and was well-

acquainted with many of employees of MFI who sought certification. The

opening statement in his report clearly states -- in effect for the record – that

“friendship” cannot have any influence on the work of the committee. Also, he

emphasizes that any further decisions regarding employees of the MFI who’s

records are controversial and cannot be certified, will be passed on to other

committees.

Based on the three points detailed above, those individuals whose

decisions the certification committee has postponed, those whose
continued employment with the company has been suspended,
those who have not received an employment permit, their fate
will be determined by a separate committee. The Russian-
Hungarian ceasefire agreement places special emphasis on the
complete isolation of political criminals. Our work cannot
therefore be influenced by considerations of business, competence
or feelings of friendship.58

The total number of former employees of MFI seeking certification was

321. Of these, 273 or 85 percent, were certified and able to continue to work. Five

individuals, or 2 percent, were demoted to positions of lesser responsibility.

Seventeen individuals, or 5 percent were permanently removed from their

positions in light of further investigations into their political past. Because the

fate of these individuals would be decided by others outside of the jurisdiction of

57
The Magyar Film Iroda Rt. was founded in 1923 by Miklos Kozma as part of the Hungarian
Telegraph Office. The company began producing films such as: newsreels, documentaries, and
feature films. After 1945, the company was renamed Új [New] Magyar Film Iroda Rt. and
continued to produce films. Mudrák and Deák, 198.
58
“Melléklet 2-5” [Addendum], 1945 február 9, MTI, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz.
Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
 179

the committee, the certification committee determined it would not make a final

decision in their case. The decision concerning those who left the country, 18 or 6

percent, whether they were under suspicion or not, was postponed until such

time as the individual returned and could be interviewed by the committee. The

last group of eight individuals named in the final report were executives and or

technical directors.59 The committee stated that they did not reach a final decision

in the case of this latter group because they forwarded the names to the

professional certification committee. On October 23, 1947, the Film Employees

Union completed its work.60 In the summary documents, 2,378 individuals were

certified, those not certified were forwarded to the Municipal Courts, or filed

appeals.61

Conclusion
Two main certification committees were designated to certify members of

the film industry: The Hungarian Actors Union and the Hungarian Film

Employees Union (including Hunnia), in addition to smaller certification

committees examining the Magyar Film Iroda, the Telegraph Office, and other

independent companies. These two certification committees were established in

the immediate postwar era in Hungary, at a time of great political uncertainty.

The Actors Union certified approximately 5,000 actors and actresses, the

certification process was based largely on the reputation of the individual actors

and actresses. The questions put to the members of this certification committee

59
Among the eight individuals listed in this group is László Cserepy who left the country in 1948
and became a cinematographer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the 1950s. He was
director of the controversial film, Harmincadik, [The Thirtieth].
60
Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, XVII.1709 Budapest 287/b sz. Igazolóbizottság, BFL.
61
“Ügyviteli Iratok,” 287/B, Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete, XVII.1709, BFL.
 180

were straightforward and simple. Those employed overall in the film industry

applied to the Film Employees Union for certification. This union certified some

2,378 employees. The certification process for the Film Employees Union was

much more stringent when compared to the Actors Union, there was much less

room for obfuscation and avoidance. A specific questionnaire was created for

those who applied. Once completed, the application form was posted at the

apartment building where the individual applicant lived. The applicants had to

be “certified” not just by members of the certification committee, but by vigilant

neighbors and the “eyes and ears” of the community.

The certification committees were headed by well-intentioned individuals

chosen on the basis of their qualifications in the field and desire to root out

individuals who were ideologically motivated to the rightist cause. They

believed they were part of a new beginning of building democracy in Hungary

and most were determined to do a good job, however, the certification

committees were directed by the ruling parties who were part of the provisional

government and as such, these political parties were able to influence the work

of the certification committees. If actors or actresses had contacts with members

of the provisional government, and were able to call upon those individuals to

provide testimony on their behalf, the chances of the actor/actress or being

cleared completely was more likely.

 Chapter 7: Re-Writing the past: controversial films, theatre
productions and inconsistent rulings

This chapter will examine the postwar certification of the former

executives and decision makers of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, through

the documents of the Actors Union. Authorities in charge of the certification of

actors and actresses were primarily interested in seeking out for extensive

interviews former executives and decision makers of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber because most of the written records of the Chamber had been

destroyed during bombings and the siege of Budapest. Although some

exceptions occurred, these individuals received the most scrutiny, and were

viewed as those who most likely collaborated in implementing the Jewish laws

of 1938-1939 that were so problematic for the film industry.

This chapter also examines the main theatre productions and films that

were deemed to be antisemitic and/or anti-Bolshevik during the interwar era

and follows the certification proceedings and trials of those individuals involved

with these productions. Further, the focus of Chapter 6 will also be the

rehabilitation of actors convicted of war crimes and tainted by certification

proceedings. The term “re-writing the past” refers to the rewriting of the

biographies of individuals and how this relates to historical and nationalist

revisionism through film. The postwar communist government of Hungary

quashed the previous postwar convictions and later rehabilitated certain well-

known actors from the interwar era to legitimize their own postwar regime. The

era of retribution was over. The cold war with the west demanded a different

181
 182

form of ideological warfare, one that demonstrated to the population that famous

individuals who left or “disappeared” for a few years were still with us, they had

re-appeared and/or returned from the west, and by their return, they legitimized

the work of the postwar communist regime. In order to publicize their return to

an even wider audience, these convicted individuals were later granted national

awards of achievement by the Hungarian government.

The trial of Ferenc Kiss

The first president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber was Ferenc Kiss,

a position he held from its establishment in 1938 until the spring of 1942. The

change in the life path of Ferenc Kiss was stark: from a well-respected actor and

teacher at the Theatre Academy to become the President of the Theatre and Film

Arts Chamber, established to limit the number of Jews in the industry. Born into

a family of ten in the city of Székesfehérvár in 1892, Kiss was enrolled in the

Theatre Academy at the age of nineteen in 1912. After being called up for

military service during World War I, he returned to the theatre and built a

successful acting career with starring roles in plays such as Cyrano de Bergerac,

Macbeth, Othello and Bánk Bán. He also garnered major roles in many

Hungarian and Italian films. His first wife, Piroska Duschinsky, was Jewish, but

the marriage ended in divorce after ten years. In 1930, he married a woman from

Transylvania. By 1933, he was an instructor at the Theatre Academy, teaching

actors who would later become outstanding in the field of acting, among them

Hilda Gobbi, Tamás Major, Zita Szeleczky, and Zoltán Várkonyi. 1

1
“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting
profession has come out at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945
 183

Kiss had ambitious plans as first president of the Theatre and Film Arts

Chamber. He urged the government to separate the two branches of artistic

endeavour, theatre and film, in effect to create a separate chamber for each. Kiss

resigned as president of the Theatre and Film Chamber in 1942 as the

government continually stalled on the request to separate the two chambers, and

because he felt his three-year effort “to cleanse our cultural work from the

international group of foreigners distant from our race,” had been in vain.2 The

resignation of Kiss coincided with the appointment of the more moderate Miklós

Kállay as prime minister. Kiss didn’t fully cut his ties with the film industry,

however, he continued in his role as “film commissioner” for the government

and part owner of the film production company, Takács Film Rt.3 Kiss built a

villa in the hills of Buda and he and his second wife were often invited to the

garden party hosted by Horthy and his wife. András Cziffra was appointed the

new President of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber,4 which effectively entered

a period of inactivity from March 1942 until March of 1944.5 From the spring of

1942 onwards, the Chamber was viewed as an impotent organization. Its main

focus was to administer the registration of actors and actresses and to continue to

implement the Jewish quotas among its membership.

November 27, István Máday Miscellaneous Papers, 1945-1948, no page numbers, Hoover
Institution Archives, Stanford University. After the war, Tamás Major and Zoltán Várkonyi
would both testify against Kiss at his trial.
2
Kiss Ferenc, “Karácsonyi búcsú,” Magyar Film, 1941 december 22, 1.
3
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the
Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3,
https://magyarnemzet.hu/archivum/halalos-tavasz/a-meltosagos-ur-kiss-ferenc-tort,
accessed July 18, 2017.
4
András Cziffra was viewed as an absentee director of the Chamber, so much so that he was
absolved of any wrongdoing by the postwar People’s Tribunals, he was released from internment
and it was determined that his case should be handed over to the Certification Committees.
5
Tibor Sándor, Tibor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944, 169.
 184

The German army occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944 and installed a

puppet government led by Döme Sztójay who was named prime minister and

foreign minister. Sztójay ordered that the implementation of the total “de-

Jewification” of all the chambers.6 Miklós Mester was named the new

government commissioner of the film industry.7While he was government

commissioner, Mester became sympathetic to the cause of Jewish actors and

actresses. The tenure of Miklós Mester lasted less than six months. Once the

extremist Arrow Cross regime of Ferenc Szálasi seized power in October, 1944,

Mester resigned and went into hiding.8

Shortly after taking power with the backing of the Nazis, Szálasi invited

Kiss and other actors to a meeting, where the Arrow Cross leader spoke to the

group about the importance of the Hungarista [Hungarian National Socialist]

ideology in the arts. Kiss attended, as did actor Antal Páger. The life of Kiss took

another abrupt turn. Four days after the Arrow Cross siezed power, Kiss was

named artistic director of the National Theatre, a position he had sought all his

life. As director of the National Theatre for only six weeks, he became a

mouthpiece for the importance of National Socialism in the artistic development

of theatre and film.9 The position came with a distinguished title: “Right

6
Ordinance number 1220/1944. Sándor, Tibor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-
1944, 209. For a full list of the 107 ordinances that came into effect following the German
occupation in March 1944, see Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in
Hungary, Vol. 2, Third Edition, Boulder, Col.: East European Monographs, 2016, Appendix 3,
1660-1674.
7
Mester obtained a Ph.D in history prior to founding his own film production company, Mester
Films, with partners in 1938.
8
Mudrák and Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 209.
9
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története [The Right Honourable Gentleman- the
Story of Ferenc Kiss],” Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3.
https://magyarnemzet.hu/archivum/halalos-tavasz/a-meltosagos-ur-kiss-ferenc-tortenete,
accessed July 18, 2017.
 185

Honourable” and Kiss insisted that other actors and non-actors, indeed anyone

he had contact with, such as barbers, tailors, or wardrobe assistants, address him

using that honorific title.10 According to Gobbi, the overweening ambition of

Ferenc Kiss clouded his judgment.

He was a brilliant actor, I felt sorry for him because of his

obtuseness, his never-ending vanity, he became a tool of the
regime and became wretched. He didn’t comprehend what he had
been lured into.11

The Soviet army was closing in, so there was hardly any time for Kiss to

initiate any of his artistic plans for the National Theatre. Kiss fled the country in

December 1944, along with his lover, a young actress named Kata Fülöp and

their small child.12

By that time, other actors had gone into hiding or fled the country. Some,

like Tamás Major and Hilda Gobbi, went underground. Others, including Klára

Tolnay, Francisca Gaál and Zita Szeleczky all sought refuge at the homes of

relatives and friends or withdrew to the countryside. Antal Páger was named

“film commissioner” by the Szálasi regime.

In October, 1945, Kiss was arrested by the US Army in Germany and sent

back to Budapest. Lieutenant George Gerbner, a US officer of Hungarian origin

who was in charge of this operation, said about Kiss: “He said he was a famous

10
Ibid. According to his barber, he once left the barber’s chair in a huff because the barber
referred to him only as “Mr. Actor,” and not “The Right Honourable.”
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
 186

actor, nothing else. He said he never had anything to do with politics, he didn’t

understand why they arrested him.”13

The former Right Honourable Director of the National Theatre became

persona non grata. The report of the arrival of Kiss at the airport in Budapest,

along with eighteen others, collectively referred to as “chief war criminals,” was

covered by reporter István Kelemen in the Magyar Nemzet [Hungarian Nation],

one of the largest postwar dailies.14 The article by Kelemen provided a detailed

list of those individuals who arrived and their positions in the previous regime,

several of those returned along with Kiss were former ministers in the Szálasi

regime.15

Journalists wrote disparagingly of those accused of committing war

crimes. The “prejudice and vulgarity” of the audience as well as contemporary

press was encouraged in order to underscore that the government in Hungary

was being vigilant in tracking down and punishing the guilty in this new

13
Ibid.
14
István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A
new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet,
1945 oktober 10, István Máday, Miscellaneous Papers, 1945-1948, no page numbers, Hoover
Institution Archives, hereafter HIA, Stanford University.
15
Ibid. Among the eighteen were several ministers of the Szálasi regime, such as László
Budinszky, József Gera, Mihály Kolosváry-Borcsa, Ferenc Fiala, Károly Beregfy-Berger, Kálmán
Hubay, László Baky, Jenő Rata, and István Antal. They were all tried and found guilty of war
crimes; some were executed. Others, such as Ferenc Kiss, were sentenced to years in prison.
Chief war criminal László Baky was hanged for his role in the deportation of Jews in the spring of
1944.
 187

postwar era.16 For example, Kelemen described the accused as “the black army of

the murderers of this nation.”17

As Kiss disembarked from the plane, Kelemen wrote: “when he saw the

reporters behind cameras with the Hungarian News Agency, he recognized and

greeted them. As Kiss glanced into the camera, he struck an actor’s pose. It can’t

be helped; an actor reacts instinctively when the camera is running. Béla Pásztor,

the head of the Hungarian News Agency, replied to the greeting by Kiss with:

‘Ferenc, get ready for your final role.’”18

The case of Ferenc Kiss was sent to the Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Court],

where the proceedings of the court were described in detail by the press. The

trial took two days, but even on the first day Kiss was referred to as a

condemned man in the court of public opinion.19 The indictment against him

included the following:

-“Using all his skills and abilities as an actor to serve the ideals of the extreme
right wing;

-Handing over the entire Hungarian film industry to the mercy of the Fascist
world-view and condemning actors and actresses to be used as agents of
propaganda;

- Appointing individuals to positions of importance who in turn provided

assistance to the Arrow Cross movement to obtain and hold on to power;

16
Karsai, “The People’s Court,” p. 235. See as well István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and
Hungary after World War II.” In Retribution and Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, ed. Jon
Elster, 137.
17
István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A
new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet,
1945 oktober 10, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
18
Ibid.
19
“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen”[The Hungarian acting
profession has come out against Ferenc Kiss at the People’s Court], Magyar Nemzet, 1945
november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
 188

-In January 1945, Kiss recited the Magyar Miatyánk (the Hungarian Our Father),
on the radio at Bécsújhely,20 a poem promoting the ideology of the Arrow Cross
regime;

-As the head of the National Theatre, he led the exodus of the theatre group to
the west;

- As president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, he made the acting roles of
Jews and those classified as “half-Jewish” impossible;

Attached are various speeches and roles as part of this indictment, as with these,
Kiss hereby contributed to an anti-democratic mood to develop in this
country.”21

Actors and actresses saw this very public trial as a means by which they

could distance themselves from the previous regime, especially the Arrow Cross

regime. A number of actors testified against Kiss; no one testified on his behalf.

Kiss seemed to embody all of the mistakes made by the leadership of the film

industry as well as the abuses suffered by many within the film industry during

the interwar era.

One of the first actors called was Tamás Major, named the director of the

Hungarian National Theatre postwar and also a leading member of the

certification committee for the Actors Union. Major testified that Kiss was not

democratically voted in as president of the Film Chamber. In fact, he forced

himself upon the organization, as if he were executing a coup. Major asserted

that Kiss then created a system by which even the legally allowed number of

20
Bécsújhely, or Wiener-Neustadt in German, is a town in lower Austria, close to the Hungarian
border.
21
“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting
profession has come out at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945
november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
 189

Jewish actors and actresses were shut out. Major further testified that Kiss had

close relations with the police and if anyone was arrested, Kiss was informed of

every detail about the interrogation within twenty-four hours.22

The next witness, Lajos Básthy, stated that he lost all of his acting contracts

due to the Jewish laws and Kiss was the one who enforced these laws within the

Chamber. Básthy agreed with Major, saying that even the allowable percentage

of Jewish actors were not allowed on stage.23 Básthy testified that at one point he

confronted Kiss and told him that he would take legal action against the

Chamber for the lost contracts and work. According to Básthy, Kiss retorted by

threatening him, saying that he will have Básthy drafted into the Labour

Service.24

Another witness, Zoltán Greguss said that, in November 1944, he was told

he couldn’t continue his acting career. When Greguss confronted Kiss as to why

he had been excluded, Kiss told him that in order to remain an actor, Greguss

would have to divorce his Jewish wife.25 On the first day alone, more than a

dozen actors and actresses testified to the autocratic and dictatorial manner of

Kiss, to his dismissal of Jewish actors and actresses, and to his strict

interpretation and upholding of the Jewish laws.

22
Ibid.
23
The Second Jewish Law, enacted in May 1939, limited the number of Jews allowed in the
Theatre and Film Arts Chamber to six percent.
24
“Felvonult a magyar szinészet a Népbiróságon Kiss Ferenc ellen” [The Hungarian acting
profession has demonstrated at the People’s Court against Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 1945
november 27, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
25
Ibid.
 190

The well-known and popular actress Katalin Karády was convinced that it

was Kiss who had her imprisoned by the Gestapo. Karády testified that when

she was released, she wanted to finish the film she had been working on before

her arrest, but Kiss disallowed the continued work on the film and threatened

her, saying that “if she continued to agitate, he will have her interned.”26 During

the testimony of Karády, the chairman of the proceedings, Dr. László Molnár,

allowed Kiss to respond. Kiss claimed that he was no longer the president of the

Chamber when this incident happened. Karády replied: “But you were still

belligerent!” Kiss denied the allegation, to which Karády, facing the accused,

yelled: “We were more afraid of you than Hitler! Do you know who you were in

the world of Film? Hitler!”27

On the second day of the trial, Chief Prosecutor Dr. Ferenc Fontányi

summarized the case against Kiss:

The crimes of Ferenc Kiss were perpetrated against all of

Hungarian culture. It was under his name that the worst crimes
were instigated and committed. He handed over the entire film
industry to the rightist cause. It is without doubt that he helped
the Arrow Cross gain power. During their reign, he volunteered
for work and offered his services to the Arrow Cross. As director
of the Film Academy, Kiss persecuted Jews beyond the law. The
theatre presentation Ártatlanok [The Innocents] originated with
him and he participated in its presentation.28

26
“Nyolcévi kényszermunkára itélték Kiss Ferencet” [Ferenc Kiss sentenced to eight years hard
labour], Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 28, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid. Ártatlanok was an antisemitic theatre presentation.
 191

The trial of Ferenc Kiss was held in public, and the trial was written about

in minute detail in the print media. Based on newspaper reports, the outcome

was evident from the beginning. Relating detailed accounts of these trials in the

print media was a critical part of this process. Their reports intended to serve the

propaganda aim of “educating the nation.” The charges, witnesses’ testimony,

and even the closing arguments were published verbatim in the national

newspapers of Hungary.

Although several points in the original indictment were not proven, at the

end of the second day of the trial, a panel of judges found Ferenc Kiss guilty of

war crimes and sentenced him to eight years hard labour. The prosecutor had

asked for the death penalty.29 In addition, the judges noted that he was to be

deprived of his individual rights as a citizen for ten years.30 Ida Turay was one of

the few actors who later defended Kiss. She later wrote in her memoirs, “Kiss

knew exactly that my Jewish husband István Bekeffi was hiding from the Arrow

Cross henchmen in the attic of the Rudas Hotel; he never told anyone.”31

Despite everything, the acting career of Kiss did not end with the trial and

imprisonment. After serving his eight-year sentence, when he was released at the

age of sixty, he found work as a labourer and a night watchman, and later

worked at a slaughterhouse in Székesfehérvár. During the Uprising of 1956, he

didn’t take part in any rebellious activities, nor did he leave when the border was

29
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman-
the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3.
30
“Nyolcévi kényszermunkára itélték Kiss Ferencet” [Ferenc Kiss is sentenced to eight years hard
labour] Magyar Nemzet, 1945 november 28, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
31
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története”[The Right Honourable Gentleman- the
Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
 192

unguarded. Kiss was again allowed to take on minor acting roles in stage plays

and films, but only in smaller cities.32 During one such acting appearance in

Békéscsaba in eastern Hungary, Kiss began by apologizing to his co-actors:

“Please accept me as a new colleague. I am old. I am guilty and was punished.

Please help me so that my good name, which was ruined by myself, may be

restored.”33 Kiss was interviewed several times in his later years, during which

he admitted to his guilt, vanity and stupidity.34

In the end, Kiss was fully absolved. In 1963, Kiss was awarded the

distinguished Magyar Népköztársaság Érdemes Müvésze [Merited Artist of the

Hungarian People’s Republic]. This award was surprising in light of his record

as a convicted war criminal. The honour bestowed on Kiss postwar may be

traced back to one of his students, Henrik Appel, who, as a nineteen year-old

aspiring actor, enrolled in a class taught by Kiss at the Theatre Academy in 1936.

Kiss recommended that his student change his name, advising that Henrik Appel

would never be a proper name for a career in acting. Beyond advice, Kiss also

offered compassion. On one particularly cold winter day, Kiss also noticed that

the young man was poorly clad, and shaking from the cold. Kiss gave the

student his coat.35 Appel never became an actor but did change his name to

György Aczél and became the pre-eminent individual directing the cultural

policy of the Kádár regime (1956-1988). Aczél determined what was published,

32
Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 167.
33
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman-
the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3. As related by the young actor Balázs
Szuhay.
34
Ibid.
35
Fábian Titusz, “A Méltóságos úr -Kiss Ferenc Története” [The Right Honourable Gentleman-
the Story of Ferenc Kiss], Magyar Nemzet, 2016 május 3.
 193

which plays were presented in the theatres, and what performances were

mounted at the opera.36 While there is no firm proof that György Aczél initiated

this honour for the discredited actor, certainly Aczél would have had to approve

such an honour in post-1956 Hungary. Kiss wrote his memoirs later in life,

ironically entitled: Mindenért Fizetni Kell [Everything has a Price]. The title alone

is telling.37

The criminal conviction of Kiss at the Fővárosi Biróság [Municipal Court],

required anyone associated or working with Ferenc Kiss to be certified, including

his personal assistant, Károly Gebauer, who had been assigned to him as

designated hairdresser and valet. The statements by Károly Gebauer

demonstrated how frequently testimony became twisted. The written record of

the hearing of Károly Gebauer began with the chair of the certification committee

making the assertion that “the accused was beaten and slapped across the face

because he was glorifying Hitler.”38 Gebauer claimed that he was able to prove

just the opposite, namely that he was beaten for criticizing the Germans.

Testifying on Gebauer’s behalf was Géza Abonyi, who stated that this was

simply a fight between two hairdressers because the second hairdresser wanted

Gebauers’ job.39 Two other witnesses were called and both stated that Gebauer

36
http://faktor.hu/faktor-ki-volt-aczel-gyorgy, accessed March 18, 2018.
Aczel Gyorgy, “Aspects of Cultural Policy,”New Hungarian Quarterly, 1985, Vol. 26, Issue 97, 14.
37
After searching several film archives and speaking to film archivists, I learned that this memoir
existed in manuscript form only and was never published. It has not been located.
38
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 4 file #618, Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946, [Files of
the Actors Union Certification Committee], hereafter SzIUI, HU BFL.
39
Abonyi was an actor and President of the Magyar Szinészek Szabad Szakszervezete [Actors Union]
from 1945-1948. Mudrák and Deák, 33.
 194

was never known to hold right-wing views. Károly Gebauer was granted

certification on March 23, 1945.40

The search for plausibility: the prosecution of

members of the executive
The certification committee took great care when investigating the

executive of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, however, not all accused

appeared before the certification committee as they had left the country. One

member of the executive of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber who was widely

sought but never interviewed was Lajos Cselle, actor, producer and theatre

manager. Cselle was named during interviews by other actors as someone who

drafted actors and actresses into roles they didn’t want to accept, as they were

controversial productions.41 Cselle was elected secretary-general of the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber in 1939, a position of considerable influence. In addition,

he was the editor of the official newsmagazine of the Chamber, Magyar Szinészet

[Acting in Hungary] from 1939-1944. In 1944, for a short time, he was named

Director of the Madách Theatre. In spring 1945, he fled to Germany, and from

there went to Argentina in 1948 where he founded a theatre company in 1948,

where in addition to being the founder, he acted as director and producer.42

Other high-ranking officials who stayed in Hungary were taken to task for

their activities. Actor and producer Robert Bánky, vice-president of the Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber, was also a member of the influential nominations

40
XVII. 1670.9, file #618, doboz [box] 4, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
41
One such example was found in the testimony of Zoltan Szakáts, doboz 11, file #1355, SzIUI,
HUBFL. He refers to Cselle as the person who recruited him for a role in the propaganda play
“Ártatlanok” [The Innocents].
42
Cselle died in Argentina in 1957. Mudrák and Deák, Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944, 77.
 195

committee of the Chamber.43 He was director of the Hungarian Comedy

Chamber Theatre from 1933 to 1939. Beginning in 1943, Bánky directed the Tábori

Szinház [Camp Theatre], which was organized to entertain Hungarian troops

serving on the eastern front lines.44 The certification committee concluded that

such activity by Bánky as well as actors and actresses who travelled to the front

lines to entertain the troops, was sufficient indictment of their support for the

interwar regime and the war effort. Bánky founded the Iris Filmgyártó és

Kölcsönző Kft. [Iris Film Production and Distribution Co.] in 1941, a company that

produced, among others, controversial films such as Harmincadik [The Thirtieth].

The production company was pressured by the censorship committee to make

changes to the film. As a result, the ending of the film was changed significantly

by Iris, a new section was added that created an antisemitic narrative to the

production.45 The certification committee banned Bánky for life from the acting

profession, although in the 1950s he was allowed to act once again in smaller

towns such as Győr and Szolnok.46

The former Treasurer of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, Imre

Endrédy, applied relatively early to the certification committee.47 The

certification committee believed that Endrédy could provide detailed

43
While fighting in the First World War, Bánky was captured and held as a prisoner of war in the
Soviet Union, where he organized a theatre group within the camp where he was interned. After
returning to Hungary, he held contracts with various theatres in Budapest and surrounding
regions.
44
“Frontszinházak” [Theatres on the Front], Magyar Szinházmüvészeti Lexicon [Hungarian Theatre
Arts Lexicon], http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02139/html/sz07/352.html, accessed February 13,
2017.
45
A Harmincadik, OL K159, 50 csomo, 11290-1944, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [Hungarian National
Archives], hereafter MNL.
46
Mudrák and Deák, 50. A separate section in this chapter will deal with the controversy
surrounding the film Harmincadik.
47
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
 196

information about the inner workings of the Chamber. Endrédy, however,

downplayed his role in the Chamber, even claiming that he wasn’t present at the

annual general meeting when he was nominated and elected treasurer. During

his testimony, Endrédy stated: “Someone telephoned me afterwards and notified

me that I had been elected. The Chamber members knew me simply as an actor,

and as a trustworthy man.”48 The certification committee was not so easily

deceived. At the beginning of the written record of the certification hearing,

Endrédy was accused, along with other members, of taking the examination fees

paid by prospective members to join the Chamber and dividing these amounts

amongst the examiners, thereby stealing from the actors’ fund and enriching

themselves. Endrédy admitted to the misappropriation of funds, even providing

details of how the examiners divided the sums between themselves, but he

blamed others for the whole scheme. He claimed that the misappropriation of

funds took place on the recommendation of another member, Aladár Haász, who

was an influential member of the National Film Committee (ONFB) during the

interwar years. Individual actors/actresses paid 40 pengős per exam. According

to Endrédy, the members received on average between 80-100 pengős per day as

a result of sharing these fees. The certification committee members asked how

much President Ferenc Kiss had received from this scheme, to which Endrédy

replied: “In total Kiss took 100,000 pengős.”49

The testimony of Imre Endrédy’s testimony contained detailed

information about the individuals who were active on the Executive and on

48
Ibid.
49
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. This was considered an enormous
sum, when considering that in 1940, the average monthly salary of a teacher in Hungary was 150
pengő.
 197

certain committees within the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. Endrédy

described their behaviour, but the descriptions he provided about their political

views were sketchy. It became apparent from his testimony that Endrédy

believed that the more information he divulged about key individuals and their

behavior within the Chamber, the more likely he would be successful in the

effort to absolve or at least mitigate his own involvement with the organization

and obtain the postwar certification he sought in 1945.

Endrédy stated that, within the nominations committee, the most

“véresszájuak” [extremist, literal translation: bloody-mouthed] in their political

views were: István Unger, the actor Zsigmond Pilinszky, Károly Bereczky, and

Dr. József Laczó, but he never offered any reasons or proof for his views. The

certification committee then asked about the members of the executive

committee of the Chamber, wanting to know in particular who held extreme

right-wing views and who voted for the stricter application of the Jewish laws.

The information provided by Endrédy was vague.

Lajos Vertes was not positively right wing, Bánky only attended
meetings rarely, Miklós Beck was right-wing, Tibor Hegedüs
always worked in the best interest of the Vigszinház [Comedy
Theatre] regarding the plays that were presented and the Jewish
employees of the theatre. Jakabffy never attended meetings, the
voice of Jenő Danis was barely heard. Andor Markovits was small
time. Boray hardly attended any meetings, Zoltán Hosszú had
loud arguments with Ferenc Kiss.50

The members of the certification committee asked Endrédy why there

hadn’t been an annual general meeting called for the members of the Theatre and

50
Ibid., doboz 3, file number 487, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
 198

Film Arts Chamber for over six years. Endrédy replied that Ferenc Kiss, through

a ministerial order, had the meeting postponed. The certification committee then

asked Endrédy why he was applying for certification, to which he replied that

“as a financial manager, he would like to work at a theatre.”51 Finally, in his

defence, Endrédy claimed that “the office in which he worked while at the

Chamber was known as the Anglophile office.” Despite all the language of

obfuscation, Imre Endrédy was certified on March 7, 1945, presumably because

he provided the committee with sufficient helpful information.52 My research on

these files -- and in particular files such as the certification of Imre Endrédy --

illustrate that the nefarious process of reporting on colleagues and friends in

order to seek personal gain (for example, certification) became part of the

narrative of the certification process. After the war, this process became even

more prevalent in an already intimidated and fearful Hungarian society. 53

The nominations committee of the Theatre and Film Art Chamber was all-

powerful in determining which actors and actresses would be granted

membership into the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber. As described, they

enforced the rules for upholding the Jewish quota, but were also able to make

exceptions. They administered the entrance exam necessary to be admitted to the

Chamber. The testimony of Imre Endrédy and others shed light on how

members of this committee illegally divided payments to enrich themselves.54

51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Peter F. Sugar, Peter Hanak and Tibor Frank, eds., A History of Hungary, 372-375.
54
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 3, file #487, SzIUI,1945-1946, HU BFL.
 199

Political connections played an important role in the decisions of the

certification committee for the Actors Union. The role of political connections is

illustrated in the case of Lajos Boray and Jenő Danis, who were both members of

the nominations committee of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, and both

served on this committee for six years, from 1939 until 1945. These two actors,

however, were judged very differently by the certification committee. Boray was

banned for life by the certification committee; he appealed the ruling but was

unsuccessful in his bid to become reinstated.55 Jenő Danis was banned from

acting for two years, but when he appealed the ruling, he was successful in

having his ban reduced. During the appeal, Danis revealed that he and Andor

Pünkösti were co-founders of the Madách Theatre.56 Pünkösti was a screenwriter

and producer, who, as director of the Madách, was outspoken with his anti-Nazi

statements and directives.57 When the Germans occupied Hungary, Pünkösti was

persecuted, and committed suicide in 1944. Danis could demonstrate a close

personal relationship with Pünkösti, and the appeal was successful. The

committee was evidently influenced by this connection with Pünkösti.

One specific event that frequently surfaced during questioning was

whether the actor/actress attended the opening of the “Müvészek Háza” [House

of Culture] that took place in August 1944. The event was politically tainted and

if an actor or actress did participate, it was seen as an indictment of their support

of the Horthy regime and its policies. Although Regent Miklós Horthy had

55
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 2, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL. Because Boray was not certified, there was no
file number.
56
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 2, file #2980, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
57
Deák and Mudrák, 253.
 200

halted the deportation of the Jews from Budapest in early July 1944, and the

Szálasi regime hadn’t yet grabbed power, support for this event in August was

fraught with political consequences. The case of Ida Turay (1907-1997), a favorite

of audiences, because of her sunny, outgoing demeanor, provides such an

example. According to her testimony, “she attended the controversial opening

because she was told that if she didn’t, she would never act again.”58 Turay also

testified in her defence that she saved the life of her Jewish husband, István

Békeffi, screenwriter and music composer, by hiding him. She also stated that

she didn’t take on any roles once the Szálasi regime came to power. The decision

of the certification committee seemed to be based solely on her attendance at the

event; their decision was that she be banned from acting for life.59 Turay

appealed the decision and the People’s Tribunal altered the ban to one year.60

The process of appeal was arduous, time-consuming and expensive. In

addition to hiring a lawyer to assist in building the case, the individual preparing

his/her appeal needed to find credible witnesses who would be willing to testify

on his/her behalf. Ideally those witnesses would be politically connected to one

of the five parties involved with the provisional government. According to my

research, roughly half of those who appealed their sentence received some

reduction of their sentence. Most of these appeals were attached to the files of

certification.

58
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 12, file #5306, SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
59
Ibid.
60
Mudrák and Deák, 318.
 201

Controversial films, conflicted outcomes

Of the more than 300 sound films that were made during the interwar

period, three films in particular and one stage play became the primary focus of

attention during the postwar questioning of actors, actresses, producers, and

technical assistants. The certification committee determined that the following

films and stage play were particularly egregious because they were determined

to be anticommunist, anti-Soviet, or antisemitic propaganda. The films in

question were: Negyediziglen [To the Fourth Generation], Örségváltás [Changing

of the Guard], Harmincadik [The Thirtieth], and the theatre play entitled

Ártatlanok [The Innocents]. The actors/actresses who accepted roles in these three

films and one stage play were placed under closer scrutiny and questioned in a

much more rigorous manner than most others in their field.

Negyediziglen [To the Fourth Generation] was an anti-Soviet film made in

1941. The plot centers on a Hungarian man, István, who awaits the arrival of

Hungarian troops in Soviet Ukraine so that he can return with them to his

homeland. He is disillusioned with communism and desires to be reunited with

his family. His daughter, Vera, born in Moscow, is an atheist who was raised on

a collective farm. During one of the battles within the Soviet Union, she

unknowingly kills her older brother. She returns to Hungary with her father.

Vera assists the Soviet reconnaissance units filtering into Hungary, but is
 202

wracked by guilt because of her brother’s death. In the final scene of the film,

Vera turns against the Soviets and is killed by them.61

Örségváltás [Changing of the Guard] reflected the attempts by the Horthy

regime to change the leadership of business and industry through the Jewish

Laws, in particular replacing Jewish business leaders with non-Jews. The main

character of the film is Peter Takács, an talented engineer who has been

sidelined. The plot illustrates how the inner workings of a company become

unsettled following a speech by Prime Minister Gyula Gömbös.62 The

management team is led by an elderly gentleman Zsiga Kály, who tries to lead

his dilettante managers on the right path. One corrupt manager transfers the

assets of the company to London. The plot is discovered by police and the money

is recovered. When the new Ministerial commission returns to make order, Péter

Takács is appointed as the new technical director. Only fragments of the film

survived.

Ártatlanok [The Innocents] was a stage play written as the Hungarian

language version of Jud Süss, the most successful antisemitic film made by the

Nazis.63 The incendiary film, personally supervised by Propaganda Minister

Goebbels, was estimated to have been shown to audiences totaling more than

61
David Frey, “Why We Fight Hungarian Style: War, Civil War, and the Red Menace in
Hungarian Wartime Feature Film,” Kinokultura, January 24, 2008,
http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/7/frey.shtml, accessed March 9, 2017.
62
Gyula Gömbös, who was Prime Minister from 1932 to 1936, strengthened the work of the
antisemitic right and laid the groundwork for the implementation of the anti-Jewish laws.
63
The film was based on a best selling historical novel by the same title written in 1925 by
Munich-born playright Lion Feuchtwanger. The original novel was not antisemitic in nature. The
book was adapted for the stage for the first time in the United Kingdom, where it was also made
into a film in 1929.
 203

twenty million.64 Written by two relatively unknown writers, Lajos Kádár and

István Solymosi, the play was presented in some district theatres outside of the

capital, and was then mounted in the Madách Theatre in Budapest on June 16,

1944.65 The play remained in the repertoire of the theatre, reaching its fiftieth

presentation on July 29, 1944. The producer was Géza Kardoss, who along with

Lajos Cselle, Lenke Egyed, and Ferenc Kállay all escaped to the west in 1945 and

were never charged for their involvement in the play.

An actor who played a major role in Ártatlanok and stayed in Hungary

was László Bánhidi. In 1945, Banhidi requested certification. His file was

forwarded to the Municipal Court where Bánhidi was charged with “crimes

against the people.”66 The Court eventually reversed this decision and dismissed

the charges against Bánhidi, along with two other actors who also had roles in

the play, with the curious reasoning that they were simply “reciting the words

written by others.”67 László Bánhidi went on to develop a major role in a

television series entitled Tüskevár [Thorn Castle] produced by Hungarian

television in the 1960s; he was known as Matula bácsi [Uncle Matula].68

Also playin in Ártatlanok were actors György Székely and Mihály

Szigetvári. Székely was banned from acting for three months for his role in the

play. Szigetvári, on the other hand, who acted in the play in Salgótarján, a small

64
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html, accessed April 10, 2017.
65
Pál Benyovszky, “Ártatlanok? Az Ujjászervezett Madách Szinház Első Bemutatója” [the
Innocents? The first presentation of the newly organized Madách Theatre] Film Hiradó, 1944
(exact date unknown). http://tbeck.beckground.hu/szinhaz/htm/19.htm. Accessed March 18,
2017.
66
Iván Miklós Szegő, “Hogy lett Matula bácsi a Magyar antiszemita szinjátszás ‘úttörője’? [How
did Uncle Matula become the pioneer of Hungarian antisemitic theatre productions?] HVG (Heti
Világgazdaság) [World Economist Weekly], 2015 junius 9.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
 204

town in northeastern Hungary, was given his certification without any penalty

or retribution. One may only speculate that Szigetvári was certified due to his

political connections. Székely, on the other hand, did not have such political

connections and received a mild punishment.69

The writer of Ártatlanok, Lajos Kádár, was also ironically absolved of

wrongdoing by the postwar certification committee. Kádár had a personal

connection to József Darvas, who later became minister of education in the

postwar period. Their relationship began during the interwar period, when

Darvas and Kádár were both part of the Nép Irók [People’s writers] movement.

Although Kádár was found guilty of “crimes against the people,” and was

briefly incarcerated, Darvas, as Minister of Education, was able to have the

Kádár file classified as “ad acta” or considered closed, providing yet another

example of the vagaries of the committee.70

The curious case of Antal Páger

The film Harmincadik [The Thirtieth] was the most controversial of these

three films. The narrative of the film was a critical assessment of class differences

in Hungary and of unbridled capitalism. The story takes place in a mining town

where children walk great distances each day to attend school in a neighboring

community. The film opens with shots of a child being picked up at the side of

the road after he had collapsed from exhaustion after walking in a howling wind.

69
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 11 [box 11], György Székely: file #3088 and Mihály Szigetvári: file #4031,
SzIUI, 1945-1946, HU BFL.
70
Iván Miklós Szegő, “Hogy lett Matula bácsi a Magyar antiszemita szinjátszás ‘úttörője’? [How
did Uncle Matula become the pioneer of Hungarian antisemitic theatre productions?] HVG, 2015
junius 9.
 205

The child is taken to a doctor who determines that he has pneumonia. The hero

of the film is a teacher, Gábor Nagy, played by one of Hungary’s most famous

actors, Antal Páger, who makes every effort to try to convince the residents that a

school is needed in the mining town and that the mining company has been

derelict in not building such a school. By law, there should be thirty children for

a class; the town cannot meet this minimum enrollment number. The head of the

mining company cannot be convinced to provide a school. In fact, the head of the

company is presented as the ultimate villain by resisting all efforts by the teacher

and the families to have a school in the community. Nagy does not give up and,

in the end, more families arrive and the minimum requirement is met. The

screenplay and original work that it was based upon, was written by Márton

Kerecsendi-Kiss, a former teacher who drew upon on his experiences as an

educator in a small mining town. In its original form, the screenplay contains

subtle messages of how “outsiders” will not help build a better life for

Hungarians, they must do it themselves, without foreign influences. The viewer

is left with the impression that the successful rebuilding of small communities

and ultimately, the country, will be through the heroic efforts of teachers such as

Gábor Nagy.

On September 28, 1942, the Censorship Committee of the Országos

Mozgóképvizsgáló Bizottság [OMB] objected to the release of the film, stating that

the message of the film was “fomenting class tensions” because it presented the

mining company in an unfavorable anti-capitalist light. As a result, the

censorship committee issued an order to block the release of Harmincadik until

 206

certain specific changes were made.71 The OMB then made these recommended

changes to the distribution company, Iris Filmgyártó és Kölcsönző Kft. [Iris Film

and Distribution Ltd.] and left the status of the film in abeyance.

Further information regarding the release of the film and the requests of

the OMB were only revealed later, in 1947, by Márton Kerecsendi-Kiss and Antal

Páger in Argentina, where both had emigrated. Páger provided extensive

interviews in Buenos Aires to the Hungarian-language press about his film

career and in particular, his role in Harmincadik and claimed the film was altered

by censors in 1942.72 Páger insisted that these changes were inserted without

informing either the writer Kerecsendi-Kiss, or the producer, Lászlo Cserepy.

Páger also claimed that the censorship committee asked the cinematographer,

Barna Hegyi, to film the new segment to be inserted, but Hegyi refused.73

According to the official records of the OMB, among the requests that

were to be deleted were sections that denigrated the leadership of the company.

The distribution company complied, removing derogatory sentences that

described the leadership of the company: “Pongrácz is useless, Haday is

officious, the rest are worthless, evil, Laskó is a worm.”74 In a more general way,

statements that denigrated the upper classes were removed, including dialogue

71
Márk Záhonyi-Ábel, “A népi filmek vidék-reprezentációja,”in József Pap, Árpád Tóth, Tibor
Valuch, eds., Vidéki élet és vidéki társadalom Magyarországon, Budapest: Hajnal István Kör
Társadalomtörténeti Egyesület, 2016, 204-205.
72
“Vádlottak padján: Páger Antal: Néha mar mar elhiszem, hogy én üzentem meg a
világháborut,” [On the accused Bench: Antal Páger: ‘At times I believed that I was responsible for
declaring the War’] Magyar Ut, 1948 november 17, 5.
73
Ibid.
74
A Harmincadik, OL K159, 50 csomo, 11290-1944. MNL (Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár) [Hungarian
National Archives].
 207

such as: “Power remains with the descendants of the gentry class, as ears stay on

a donkey.”75

By the end of the film, a new President named Pongrácz is appointed to

head the mining company. Pongrácz replaces a Jewish man named Rozner.

Based on the files of the OMB, the distribution company, Iris Filmgyártó és

Kölcsönző Kft., even inserted an entire new section of dialogue into the film where

Pongrácz announces that Rozner has been replaced. The offensive section of

dialogue was:

Because, slowly the Mr. Rozners will disappear, those who

changed the sweat of honest decent workers into the tinkling
sound of gold, those who live without a sense of community,
those who thwart the social welfare efforts of large companies…
and believe me Gentlemen, the Mr. Rozners will never rise
again!76

This new wording clearly added an antisemitic narrative and ending to

the film. The Iris Filmgyártó és Kölcsönző Kft. made the required changes by the

following day and the OMB provided the necessary permission to release the

film on September 30, 1942.

While the OMB was the final governing body involved in releasing films

during the interwar era, it generally dealt only with the distribution and

production companies, or those production companies that held the rights to the

productions. While it may be that the producer, screenwriter and director were

not informed of the changes suggested by the OMB, it was the production

75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
 208

company affiliated with the company, namely Iris Film and Distribution Ltd., that

would have been be responsible for inserting the changes, making the film

acceptable to the censorship board of the OMB.77

It was not only prior to the release that the film was already much

disputed and discussed, Harmincadik created much controversy when it was

finally released.78 The mining company portrayed in the film, Aluminum Rt., was

determined to sue the producers of the film, including the production company.

When they were thwarted in their bid against Iris, the company went after the

screenwriter, Kerecsendi-Kiss, and tried, without success, to revoke his teacher’s

certification. Harmincadik became the rallying cry for thousands of educators and

teachers in Hungary, who viewed the film as an accurate portrayal of their

dismally poor wages and little-appreciated profession.

In October, 1944, the Szálasi regime seized power and Márton Kerecsendi-

Kiss, the thirty-year-old school teacher who had written the screenplay based on

his own experiences as an educator in a backward mining town, was shut out of

the National Film Committee [Országos Mozgóképvizsgáló Bizottság]. His fledgling

career as a screenwriter came to an abrupt end. He left for Austria in 1945, and

from there, emigrated to Argentina. The fallout continued in the postwar period.

The certification committee viewed Harmincadik as an antisemitic film. All major

players and actors who were involved in the project became the focus of further

77
I am grateful for the advice and assistance of Márk Záhonyi-Ábel. Márk Záhonyi-Ábel,
Filmpolitika Magyarországon a Horthy Korszak második felében [The Politics of Film in Hungary in the
Second Half of the Horthy Era] Masters Thesis, 2010.
78
Judit Nemethyné Kesserü, Szabadságom lett a börtönöm: Az Argentinai Magyar Emigració Története,
1948-1968, [My Freedom became my Prison: The History of the Hungarian Diaspora of
Argentina]. Budapest: A Magyar Nyelv es Kultura Nemzetközi Társaság, 2003, 186-187.
 209

investigation. Kerecsendi-Kiss was declared a war criminal in absentia by the

Hungarian People’s Republic.79

The fate of Antal Páger, the famous actor who starred in Harmincadik as

the heroic teacher, ended altogether differently. Páger began his career in

Hungary in the early 1920s, and by the mid-1930s, was an outstanding star of

stage and film. The Szálasi regime named Antal Páger “film commissioner” in

1944. Páger claimed he heard of the appointment on August 20, 1944, before the

Szálasi regime even came to power. In his memoirs, Páger blamed his second

wife, Julia Komár, for this appointment. Komár, who was apparently on friendly

terms with several members of the Szálasi cabinet, allegedly accepted the

position on behalf of her husband.80 Páger wrote that he was very irate when he

found out about the appointment and fought with his wife about it. Páger

proceeded to pack up the family and left Budapest to live in Pornóapáti, a

westernmost village of Hungary on the border with Austria until the end of the

war.81 In his memoirs, Páger adamantly defended his reputation. In fact, he acted

in major roles in two of the most controversial film productions, Harmincadik and

Örségváltás, and appeared on stage with such antisemitic politicians and

journalists as the former prime minister Béla Imrédy and Ferenc Rajniss. Páger

was found guilty in absentia by the People’s Tribunal in 1945 and all of the one

hundred twelve films he starred in were blacklisted.82 Páger left for Austria in

late 1944, then soon afterwards, went to Argentina along with Márton

Kerecsendi-Kiss. The much younger Kerecsendi-Kiss considered Páger his

79
Mudrák and Deák, 163.
80
Molnár Gál Péter, A Páger Ügy [The Pager Affair]. Budapest: Pallas Könyvkiadó, 1988, 193.
81
Ibid.
82
http://nol.hu/kultura/nyilasa-volt-e-pager-antal-1607431, accessed April 9, 2018.
 210

“outstanding mentor.”83 Life in Argentina became intolerable for the experienced

actor, however, despite the fact that he was named artistic director of a stage

company founded by and for the Hungarian community in Buenos Aires. The

community stage company was struggling and in dire need of monetary support.

In his search to find more financial resources to support his family and himself,

Páger, who also had some artistic talent, even resorted to producing paintings

that members of the community were eager to buy as a memento of the film

star.84

In August 1956, by special secret agreement with the Hungarian

government, Páger was allowed to return to Hungary and resume his acting

career. One day, he disappeared from Buenos Aires. The secret agreement and

furtive departure from Argentina came as a great shock and bitter

disappointment to the Hungarian community of Buenos Aires.85 His wife Julia

Komár was left behind with a detailed written assurance by the Hungarian

government that she would be allowed to join her husband and that her

transportation to Budapest would be paid for by the Hungarian government.

This government promise was later reneged upon. Komár stayed and languished

in poverty in Buenos Aires with their two daughters and died five years later, in

1961. The timing of the return for Páger turned out to be unfortunate. Amidst

83
Judit Nemethy Kesserü, Szabadságom lett a börtönöm: Az Argentinai Magyar Emigració Története,
1948-1968, [My Freedom became my Prison: The History of the Hungarian Diaspora of
Argentina],186-187.
84
Author Interview with Judit Nemethy Kesserü, who wrote the book on the Hungarian diaspora
in Argentina as her doctoral dissertation at the University of Szeged. Interview took place on
May 28, 2017 in Toronto. I am grateful to Judit Némethy, who allowed me to look at her original
files of the lives of actors and theatre presentations in the postwar Hungarian diaspora in
Argentina.
85
Ibid.
 211

much publicity, Páger was just restarting his acting career when the Hungarian

Uprising broke out in October 1956.86

The irony of the return of Páger to Hungary is important because it

underscores how, within less than a decade, the ideological focus of the

communist regime changed because of the Cold War. Páger was enticed and

encouraged to return to Hungary, despite the fact that he starred in the same

films that caused the banishment of others. Undoubtedly, the Hungarian

government used the return of Páger for propaganda purposes, to demonstrate

to the Hungarian people that the outstanding actors of the interwar period were

returning and thereby providing legitimacy for the postwar communist regime.

Neither the writer, Kerecsendi-Kiss or the producer of Harmincadik, László

Cserepy, were provided similar certification or reinstatement. The former was

declared a war criminal for his role in writing the screenplay, the latter

emigrated to Canada. From 1956 until he passed away in 1986, Páger starred in

more than 100 film and television programs and series. In 1965, he was granted

the Kossuth Award, the highest honour bestowed on an actor in Hungary.87

The producer of Harmincadik, László Cserepy, applied for certification to

work in the film industry after 1945, but certification was not granted. His

filmography and experience was extensive, however, and Cserepy emigrated to

Canada in 1949, and became a producer with the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation in Toronto.88

86
Ibid.
87
Mudrák and Deák, 234.
88
Ibid., 78
 212

The cinematographer of Harmincadik, Barna Hegyi, who according to

Páger, refused to film the controversial inserted last scene, received a two-year

ban from the certification committee for his work on the film. From 1947

onwards, Hegyi was once again active as a cameraman and taught

cinematography in the Theatre and Film School in Budapest. In the 1950s, he

received the several national awards and honours for his outstanding work in

the film industry.89

Other decisions by the committee were equally inconsistent. The decisions

regarding the fate of two different actors, József Juhász and ifj. Sándor Juhász

(Sandor Juhasz, Jr.), both with the same surname but not related, provides

further examples of the inconsistencies in the determinations of the certification

committee. Both actors had roles in the film Harmincadik. József Juhász was

almost twenty years older than Sándor Juhász, the latter had a promising career

before him. József Juhász was given a “Megfeddés” [Reprimand] by the

committee, whereas Sándor Juhász, who also had a role in the same controversial

film, was provided with certification.90

Interestingly, the testimony of defense for both actors contains the same

statement, as if they had pre-determined what they were going to say during

their testimony. Their identical statements included:

89
Ibid., 136
90
XVII. 1670.9, doboz 7 [box 7], József Juhász (file # 5391), Sándor Juhász (file #2029), SzIUI, HU
BFL.
 213

they were not sympathetic to any Fascist cause and couldn’t have been
because when the Germans occupied Budapest, they took part in an anti-
German demonstration on stage with the actress Margit Dajka.91

Another example of light sentences and conflicted determinations was the

certification file of Lajos Garday, who had roles in both films that were deemed

antisemitic, namely “Negyediziglen” and “Harmincadik.” Garday, however,

seemed to be unaffected by the decisions the committee. He was sought out by

filmmakers because of his uncanny ability to portray the appearance, speech

intonations, and behaviour of the idealized hardy Hungarian peasant. Garday

was given a “Megfeddés” [Reprimand] by the certification committee.92 The role

that Garday was able to portray was in great demand during the regime of

Mátyás Rákosi, General-Secretary of HCP, 1948-1956, and later János Kádár,

General-Secretary of HCP, 1956-1988. Garday continued to be offered important

roles in films until the 1960s.

There were also cases where the Actors Certification Committee seemed to

be making examples of specific individuals. These cases were not always

consistent, however, and the committee reverted to attempts to provide the

appearance of treating everyone applying for certification equally. Generally,

any actor or actress who was found to have been a member of the Arrow Cross

party was banned from acting for a period of time or for life. This was the

situation in the case of Ferenc Gyökér, who was found to be a member of the

Hungarian Arrow Cross Party from 1938 onwards. The decision of the

91
Ibid.
92
Ibid, Doboz 4, [Box 4], file #620.
 214

certification committee was: “It can be ruled out that Ferenc Gyökér would be

able to take part in the cultural life of a democratic Hungary and it is for this

reason that the committee brings this decision” (banned for life).93

At times, in order to obtain certification, the testimony of actors and

actresses bordered on the absurd. The case of actress Eva Géczhy was an

example where the strange testimony of an actress resulted in a reprimand. The

actress was accused of “being a fan of statues of Hitler” [rajongott a Hitler

szobrokért]. It was not clear how the accusation came to the attention of the

committee, but Géczhy provided a far-fetched, somewhat unbelievable response,

saying that “She was not a fan of Hitler statues, they were simply the cheapest

gift she could find in the department stores to take to her friends.” Éva Géczhy

was given a simple reprimand.94

Throughout the proceedings, it is important to once again examine the

language utilized by members of the certification committee. Opera singers and

their family members were provided with the opportunity to leave Budapest just

as the siege of the city began. What became commonly referred to as the “opera

train” was not only to transport opera stars and support staff to the west, but

also their elaborate costumes and many valuable stage sets for fear that all these

valuable items would become damaged in the bombings, or would be looted.

The opera train transported the stars of stage and screen, and the costumes and

sets to Austria, but was eventually returned to Hungary. The Actors certification

93
XVII. 1670.9, SzIUI, 1945-1947, doboz 4 [box 4], HU BFL. No file number exists as Ferenc Gyökér
was not certified.
94
Ibid., Doboz 4, [Box 4], File # 2103.
 215

committee frequently dealt with this exodus, consistently referring to it as the

“opera fascist train.” During their testimony, many of the opera stars and

support staff accused of leaving on the train often referred to the fact that they

became part of a “crowd mentality of escaping from impending doom.” There

were several who claimed “they didn’t realize where the train was heading, they

simply viewed it as an opportunity to seek safe refuge for their wives and

daughters.” Árpád Hajdú was one of a few who seemed to challenge the

committee in its assumptions. When asked why he was on the “opera fascist

train,” Hajdú replied: “it wasn’t a ‘fascist’ train, it was simply a train, a way in

which he could take his family away from the impending chaos and war in

Budapest.”95 Hajdú also claimed that his fiancé was Jewish and that he intended

to get her out of Budapest, to save her and her property. His explanation was

rejected by the members of the certification committee, and Hajdú was banned

from the opera for four years.96

One of the few actors who dared to criticize the proceedings of the Actors

certification committee was László Gömöri. While under cross-examination,

Gömöri openly stated his objections: “Before this political change happened, I

was the best-loved actor of all the regional theatres, no one asked me what my

political views were, and it wasn’t necessary for me to deal with politics.”97 He

admitted to being a member of the chamber, but never the Turul. László Gömöri

was provided certification.98

95
Ibid., Doboz 5, [Box 5], File #3752.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid, Doboz 4 (Box 4), File #625.
98
Ibid.
 216

Some accusations were, in the minds of the members of the certification

committee, considered very serious. At other times, the accusations seemed

comic, had they not been taken so seriously. The case file of Gizella Görbe

presents such an example. The actress was accused of “dancing with joy upon

hearing of the death of Stalin.”99 Towards the end of the war, the death of Stalin

was a frequent rumour, one that spread quickly through the theatre where Görbe

was employed as an actress. She apparently did a happy dance witnessed by a

few people while the theatre was empty. One of those individuals reported this

act to the certification committee. For this dance, Görbe was banned from the

theatre for one year.100

Conclusion
The certification system at times seemed to be arbitrary and capricious.

Much depended on the accusations, the defendants, the witnesses called to

testify on their behalf and the political realignments that were taking place. The

People’s Courts were actually party courts, as all parties delegated members to

the People’s Courts system.101

The certification committees for those in the acting and film industry in

postwar Hungary seemed to be under particular pressure to produce results, and

to finish the task at hand within the two-year mandate, to certify

actors/actresses, producers, directors and get the entertainment industry

working again.

99
Ibid., Doboz 4, (Box 4), File #2691.
100
Ibid.
101
László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary,” István Deák, Jan
Gross and Tony Judt, eds. The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 236.
 217

The archival documents of the certification committees shed new light on

the intentions of those who applied for certification. The documents demonstrate

that the intention of the majority of actors and actresses was opportunistic and

gain-oriented, rather than idealistic. This became evident when they were

questioned about membership in right-wing organizations such as the Turul.

Most stated that joining the Turul was a pre-requisite to obtaining acting

contracts, a matter of earning a living, nothing more.

In France, the prosecution of those in the artistic world began with

ordinary actors, actresses, cabaret singers, journalists, writers, poets and

philosophers.102 In Hungary, top-level decision makers of the interwar Theatre

and Film Arts Chamber were placed under particular scrutiny. The files of those

who left the country were sent to the People’s Courts and tried in absentia. Those

who remained were brought before the committees, many received a lifetime ban

from acting and participating in the field of stage/film.

Ferenc Kiss, the former president of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber,

was brought back from Austria by the Americans to be placed on public trial for

“handing over the entire film industry to the mercy of the Fascist world-view

and condemning actors and actresses to be used as agents of propaganda.”103

Kiss was the only individual active in the arts sphere in Hungary to be found

guilty of war crimes and sentenced to eight years hard labour.

102
István Deák, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II.” Retribution and
Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., 4.
103
István Kelemen, “Ujabb tizennyolc háborus főbünös érkezett a mátyásföldi repülőtérre,” [A
new group of eighteen chief war criminals arrived at the Mátyásfold airport], Magyar Nemzet,
1945 oktober 10, István Máday Papers, 1945-1948, HIA.
 218

The irony of the return of Antal Páger to Hungary is important because it

underscores how, within less than a decade, the ideological focus of the regime

changed due to the Cold War. Páger was enticed and encouraged to return to

Hungary, despite the fact he was declared a war criminal in absentia, and starred

in the same films that caused the banishment of others. The Hungarian

government used the return of Páger for propaganda purposes, to demonstrate

to the Hungarian people that the outstanding actors of the interwar period were

returning and thereby providing legitimacy for the Hungarian communist

regime. The criminal past of both Ferenc Kiss and Antal Páger were

whitewashed and re-written. In order to further publicize their return to the

stage and screen, both were awarded outstanding acting awards of merit by the

government towards the end of their acting careers in the 1960s.

 Chapter 8: Conclusion
This dissertation provides new insight and adds further context to the

history of the interwar and postwar film industry in Hungary. It examines the

conflicted political forces that brought about the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber

and the effects of the establishment of the chamber on the film industry. I

provide several examples of selective antisemitism through my historical

analysis.1 This expression describes the conflicted actions by the Hungarian

government in implementing antisemitic legislation. As defined in the

Introduction of this dissertation, “selective antisemitism” refers to not whether or

not there should be antisemitic legislation, but “how” and “to what degree” the

legislation should be implemented. The analysis of the 55 page Előadói Tervezet

(Chapter 3) demonstrates that the government sought control over the film

industry and aimed to force Jews out of the industry, but didn’t know quite how

to exert control, other than through bureaucratic rules. Selective antisemitism is

further demonstrated by the charges laid against the leaders of the Arrow Cross,

just two days after the implementation of the Second Jewish law in 1939. One

part of the government was intent on limiting the activities of the antisemitic

extremist Arrow Cross and their leaders, while another part was intent on

carrying out the demands and placating right-wing organizations with

legislation against Jews. In later chapters, more examples of selective

antisemitism are demonstrated through the continuing role of talented Jewish

filmmakers, screenwriters, actors and actresses through the “Strohman” system.

1
I am attributing this expression to historian Maria Ormos as used in the biography of Miklos
Kozma.

219
 220

My work extends into the postwar era because the files of the postwar

certification committees provide valuable insight into the leadership and

antisemitic narrative of the entertainment industry during the interwar era.

Further, this dissertation examines the underlying reasons, motivations, and

work of the certification system in the postwar rebuilding of the devastated

Hungarian film industry. My research demonstrates that even after the politics of

postwar retribution and work of the certification committees ended, the by-then

firmly entrenched Hungarian communist government continued a policy of

further enhancing its positive image by resurrecting and re-launching the careers

of famous actors from the interwar era – even those who had starred in

propaganda and/or antisemitic films and theatre performances.

In presenting the conclusions for this dissertation, it is important to once

again place into a historical narrative the work of the certification committees

into the time, and geopolitical position of Hungary in postwar Europe. Never

had so many people been ensnared in the process of collaboration, resistance and

retribution as had happened in Europe in 1944 and after the end of the Second

World War.2 While it is impossible to calculate the exact number of people

targeted by postwar retribution, best estimates claim that they numbered several

million, or 2 to 3 percent of the population under German occupation alone.3

Postwar retribution and de-Nazification programs unfolded differently in

western European countries than in east-central Europe.

2
István Deák, “Introduction,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath,
István Deák, Jan Gross and Tony Judt, eds. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
2000, 4.
3
Ibid.
 221

The de-Nazification of Germany and Austria were particularly hampered

by the fact that both countries were occupied and divided by the armed forces of

four different Allied countries. The military command of each of those countries

implemented de-Nazification very differently.4 In the Soviet zone, retribution

and internment went hand in hand; one-third of those interned by the Soviets

died, compared with less than one percent in the British zone.5 Germans in the

US occupied zone completed 12 million Fragebogen, or questionnaires, that

sought to determine complicity with the Nazi party. General Lucius Clay

claimed that at least that many Germans were identified with Nazi activities, yet

the examination of the Nazi past of these individuals ended quickly.6 In the field

of arts, Veit Harlan, producer of the antisemitic propaganda film Jud Süss, and

the leading filmmaker of Joseph Goebbels, was the only film director of the Third

Reich to be charged with crimes against humanity. However, Harlan was later

acquitted.7

After the Nuremberg trials, the Americans were eager to transfer primary

responsibility for de-Nazification to the Germans, who could have acted, but

lacked the political will to continue. By 1950, the attention of the United States

4
See Perry Biddiscombe, The Denazification of Germany, a History 1945-1950, Stroud, United
Kingdom: Tempus, 2007; David Cohen, “Transitional Justice in Divided Germany after 1945,”
Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy, ed. Jon Elster, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006, 59-89.
5
Ibid, 70.
6
Ibid, 59-89.
7
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html, accessed April 10, 2017.
Harlan recruited Jews from the Prague ghetto to act as extras, a callous act focused on by the
prosecutors.
 222

and other allies became focused on the Cold War rather than on the prosecution

of Nazi war criminals.8

In France, the prosecution of war criminals and members of the Vichy

government became bogged down in legal wranglings, mainly due to the

postwar myth that the French were primarily victims of the Nazis.9 More

pertinent to this dissertation was how European countries dealt with

collaborators in the area of culture, particularly writers and film. France was the

only country where two writers, Robert Brasillach and Jean Luchaire, were

executed postwar for their writings promoting fascist movements and attacking

republicans, communists, Jews, and foreigners. Brasillach and Luchaire were

charged with “intelligence with the enemy.”10 Some film directors and

performers, including director Henri-Georges Clouzot, and actresses Ginette

Leclerc and Arletty, were banned from working for a few years postwar.11

In east-central Europe, Poland was the only country where there was no

official program of postwar retribution because collaborators were dealt with by

the Polish underground.12 For example, Polish actor Igo Sym became a

Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) and was subsequently executed by the Polish

8
Ibid., 83. The Cold War was the driving force behind the emptying of prisons in 1951-55.
Moreover, German law permitted the reinstatement of most of those removed under earlier de-
Nazification proceedings.
9
Michael Curtis, Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime, London:
Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2002. See in particular Chapter 11: The Judgments of Paris, 270-300.
Despite the very public display immediately postwar of townspeople shaving the heads of
women, and the lynching of some 10,000 individuals accused of collaboration, it wasn’t until the
1990s that the French government was finally willing to face the crimes of complicity by the
leaders of the Vichy government.
10
See Alice Kaplan, The Collaborator: The Trial and Execution of Robert Brasillach. Chicago and
London: the University of Chicago Press, 2000, 149-151.
11
Michael Curtis, 347.
12
Agnieszka Haska, “Discourse of Treason in Occupied Poland,” Eastern European Politics and
Societies, August 2011, Vol. 25, No. 3, 530-552.
 223

underground. The Polish Army fought the invasion of Nazi Germany and never

surrendered. The primary goal of Stalin was to destroy leaders and factions who

took part in the wartime government-in-exile. Postwar, backed by the Soviet

army, Stalin forced the merger of opposition leftist and workers parties, under

the ruling communist party by 1948. Other postwar regimes, such as

Czechoslovakia, used the opportunity offered by the continent-wide push

towards retribution to carry out ethnic cleansing and mass expulsions under the

guise of “collective guilt.”13

In Hungary, well over 300,000 citizens, or 3 percent of the population

suffered some kind of punishment during the postwar purges.14 The People’s

Courts passed 322 death sentences before March 1, 1948 and 146 individuals

were executed. In comparison to the number of those executed in postwar trials,

Hungary lies in the middle of the list of countries in Europe.15

It is also vital to note the arc of “institutional lawlessness” that began in

1938-1939 in Hungary, starting with the implementation of the Jewish laws. By

1939, Jews were defined as a race -- according to the Nazi model -- and not as a

religion; laws protecting their rights were revoked, and innocent citizens were

arbitrarily deprived of their civil rights, their property, and often their lives.16

With the occupation by the German army in 1944, more antisemitic regulations

13
Heimann, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed, 150-176.
14
László Karsai, “The People’s Courts and Revolutionary Justice in Hungary, 1945-46,” in The
Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 233.
15
László Karsai, “Crime and Punishment: People’s Courts, Revolutionary Legality, and the
Hungarian Holocaust,” https://ece.columbia.edu/files/ece/images/karsai2.pdf, 4, accessed
June 20, 2019.
16
István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” The Politics of
Retribution in Europe, 142.
 224

were implemented. By the time the Soviet army arrived in 1945, there was

widespread fear of and intimidation by the authorities. Over one million

Hungarians fled to the west, many later returned, but 100,000 remained

permanently in the west, while others adapted to this new era of lawlessness.

The provisional government of Hungary began a structured process of

organizing the People’s Tribunals and certification committees as soon as the

fighting had ceased in the capital. By law, everyone had to be certified in order to

work. The Soviet army was present to oversee the efforts of the provisional

government. As a result, political influence eventually seeped into the system as

the Hungarian Communist Party used the certification system to expel

democrats, social democrats – even loyal Communists – who they saw as

enemies of the state.17 This work took precedence over the purge of former

fascists.

The activities of the certification committees resulted in a wide range of

rulings. If the cases were forwarded to the People’s Tribunals, individuals could

be interned. Certification committees could dismiss individual actors/actresses

from their jobs for life or for a specific time period. Other penalties included

demotion, loss of civic rights, loss of right to travel, restrictions on residency,

monetary fines, and/or loss of pension rights. The certification committees

established for actors/actresses and individuals working in the film industry also

ascertained whether the actor/actress was involved in promoting right-wing

ideology. The answer to the question as to whether they were successful at

17
Ibid., 124-147.
 225

attaining this goal is multi-layered and nuanced and influenced by many factors.

The backgrounds of actors and actresses were varied. Some lived in Budapest,

others were from smaller towns and villages, some were Jewish, others non-

Jewish, some popular, others obscure, playing minor support roles. Numerous

testimonials also demonstrate that many of the actors, actresses, and most

technical workers in film expressed their ardent desire to continue to work in the

film industry postwar. In their drive to re-establish normalcy, one of the first acts

of the provisional government of the city of Budapest was to re-organize the

entertainment industry in the city where much of the infrastructure had been

destroyed. The certification committees were under pressure to certify actors and

actresses and technical workers quickly.

The Actors certification committee, created in 1945, was composed of

highly-qualified individuals who were provided with a mandate to root out and

expel from the profession those who had sympathized or worked with the

extreme right during the interwar era. Initially, this system seemed to be

working. Thousands of actors and actresses who were not engaged in political

activity during the interwar years were certified expeditiously. As examined in

this dissertation, the procedure utilized by each union to certify members was

very different. The certification committee for actors and actresses depended on

the reputation of the actor in question and the testimony of others, whereas the

members of the Film Employees Union required those seeking certification to

complete a thorough a 53-question survey of their domestic, economic, social,

and political background.

 226

The litmus test of the questionnaire was whether film employees had

benefitted from the implementation of the Jewish laws and the confiscation of

Jewish property. The members of the Film Employees Union were examined in

great detail, but these individuals were relatively unknown support and behind

the scenes workers in the film industry. After examining the files of both of these

major certification committees, I concluded that the actors and actresses were

given a greater leeway and tolerance. The hearings were held in secrecy; the

names of the committee members were not released. If an actor or actress called

witnesses to testify on his/her behalf, especially if those witnesses were members

of one of the political parties that formed the government, the chances of the

actor/actress receiving a reduced sentence or penalty were more likely. My

archival work adds to the literature about the acting profession in the interwar

era, and how members of this profession reacted to the political pressures of the

certification process during the immediate postwar era in Hungary.

Many well-intentioned individuals, such as Gyula Ortutay, took on the

task of chairing these committees. Ortutay was ideologically motivated. He felt

confident that Hungary was finally on the right side of history and that the

country was looking towards a new beginning. Ortutay believed he was

completing this task for the purpose of “clearing away any impediments towards

the building of a new, democratic Hungary.”18 According to my research,

approximately 85 percent of the individuals in the entertainment industry who

18
Gyula Ortutay, “Levél a Nemzeti Bizottság Ötös Végrehajtó Bizottságnak,” [Letter to the five
member Executive committee],1945 február 26, Hunnia: XVII.1709 Budapest 395/b sz.
Igazolóbizottság, BFL. Gyula Ortutay was chair of the certification committee for employees of
Hungarian Radio, the Telegraph Office, the Film Office, National Apollo and the Star Film and
Distribution Factory.
 227

applied for certification were certified.19 A smaller percentage, roughly 10

percent, of actors/actresses and individuals involved in the field of film and

theatre were not certified, including those who were found to be part of right-

wing movements, or left the country permanently, or were killed.

The documents of the certification committees shed new light on the

intentions of those who applied for certification. The documents demonstrate

that the intention of the majority of actors and actresses was opportunistic and

gain-oriented, rather than idealistic. This became evident when they were

questioned about membership in right-wing organizations such as the Turul.

Most stated that joining the Turul was a pre-requisite to obtaining acting

contracts. Very few actors or actresses admitted to an ideological or principled

belief in the Arrow Cross or Turul. When confronted with the fact that actors or

actresses or other support workers were members of such organizations,

applicants denied membership or obfuscated regarding their roles. I have

presented several cases of this latter group who misrepresented themselves in

various ways during the hearings. In some instances, they testified about others

in order to divert attention away from their own actions. My argument is that

there were conflicting forces operating within the certification system. Those

who were connected politically or socially, whether or not they were guilty of

complicity with the previous regime, could rely on those connections to assist

them in gaining certification. A select group of Hungarians who recovered

quickly from the trauma of the war once again followed an opportunistic, rather

than idealistically motivated involvement with the new postwar regime. This

19
This figure is based on the files of the Film Actors Union and Film Employees Union and the
work of smaller certification committees.
 228

“quick-change” remains embedded in the collective consciousness of

Hungarians, to the point that it is illustrated in one of the exhibits in the House of

Terror Museum in Budapest, opened in 2002. The exhibit shows a mannequin

wearing an Arrow Cross uniform entering a revolving door and exiting wearing

the uniform of an AVH officer.20

The postwar government was an interim government, lasting three years

and included ministers of the Horthy era. This provisional government felt it had

to assign blame for the crimes of the past, and once the task of retribution was

completed, to assure the people of Hungary that all of those who had been

complicit in the crimes of the past had been tried and convicted.

My dissertation adds important historical depth to how the certification system

worked in Hungary to smooth the transition, and how the entertainment

industry was salvaged from the ruins of near devastation of a once thriving

industry. This could only be achieved if the certification committees for the

entertainment industry were swift in completing its work.

The trial of Ferenc Kiss, President of the Theatre and Film Chamber, was

one of the few criminal trials that assigned blame in the field of filmmaking. The

trial lasted just two days. Once it was over and Kiss was convicted, the blame

had seemingly been appropriately assigned. The details of the trial, at times

published verbatim in the national newspaper, was a crucial part of this process

of “educating the nation” about the crimes of the previous regime. Unlike in

France, where two writers were executed postwar for promoting the work of the

20
AVH stands for the Államvédelmi Hatóság, [Security Police]. This security police organization
was a tool for terror during the height of the Stalinist era in Hungary.
 229

far-right, no one in the field of arts was executed for collaborating with the

Arrow Cross in Hungary.

While reading the files of the certification committees for actors, actresses

and employees in the field of theatre and film, one could not help but be

reminded of the film Taking Sides (2002), directed by István Szabó. The plot of the

film revolves around the US-led investigation into the German conductor of the

Berlin Philharmonic, Wilhelm Furtwangler. The film focuses on the cross-

examination of Furtwangler by an American army officer, Major Steve Arnold,

who is determined to find Furtwangler guilty of complicity with the Nazis.

Director István Szabó sheds light on the series of painful choices faced by many

artists, actors, writers, composers in positions of importance under totalitarian

regimes. Szabó presents the choices as: stay and try to survive as an actor, as an

artist, or leave and bring an end to a brilliant career. Despite all the efforts of

Major Arnold, Furtwangler is found not guilty by the war crimes tribunal.

Throughout, Arnold treats the distinguished composer with such contempt, that

one of his assistants quits in disgust. The film reflects the conflicted choices

Szabó himself had to make as he was forced to inform on fellow students at the

film academy in the 1970s.21 Szabó wrote and produced the film Mephisto (1981)

about an actor whose career was promoted by the Nazis, but while doing so,

loses his soul.22 The underlying theme of Taking Sides is also an example of the

complexities of convicting an artist of collaboration, whether he/she was an

actor, producer, writer or a music conductor during the war.

21
www.theguardian.com/film/2006/jan/27/news1, accessed March 12, 2019.
22
John Cunningham, Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex, 121-122.
 230

My argument is that the certification committee for the Actors Union

played a significant role in molding a positive postwar identity with particular

emphasis on theatre and film in Hungary. In 1945, this identity grew out of the

belief that Hungary had been a victim of Nazi aggression. Once the Communist

Party consolidated its hold on the government in May 1949, the Communist

regime proceeded to seek out and recruit famous Hungarian actors and actresses

who had emigrated to return to their homeland. The alleged crimes of these

actors and actresses during the interwar era was no longer an issue of

importance.

The final chapter is about re-writing selective biographies, and by

extension, white-washing and creating a new narrative for postwar retribution.

The political trials that unfolded in the late 1940s served the position and power

of the new elites more than anything else. By the early 1950s, the Cold War took

precedence over retribution following the Second World War and the outcome of

these trials seemed irrelevant. A new Cold War took over between east and west.

Some of those individuals convicted as war criminals and tainted by the

certification proceedings were rehabilitated. Antal Páger was lured back to

Hungary from Argentina to resume his acting career, while the regime seemingly

ignored the fact that he had been found guilty in absentia by the People’s

Tribunals in 1945. Páger was encouraged to return, despite the fact that he

starred in the same films that caused the banishment of others. Ferenc Kiss, the

only actor convicted of war crimes, was rehabilitated and returned to the stage,

even though the trial of Kiss was widely publicized and “overshadowed by
 231

prejudice and vulgarity of the contemporary press.”23 In 1960s, Kiss and Pager

were even honoured separately with one of the most distinguished awards by

the government for their work in film and theatre. It was as if the trials of the late

1940s were abrogated and a new narrative was written for those found guilty

postwar to provide legitimacy for the communist regime.

The return of Páger and the rehabilitation of Kiss created much

controversy, at the time and much later, even in the highest echelons of the

communist leadership in Hungary.24 Decades after his return, the case of Páger

and the relationship between totalitarian regimes and artists was still being

examined. Musician and academic, Gábor Bolváry Takács, assessed the Páger

affair and wrote: “For the totalitarian system, art is always a means, and the traps

set out by those in power can only be avoided by those with exceptional

wisdom.”25

In examining the files of the certification committee for the Actors Union, I

have included copious information from primary sources not previously

published. This dissertation makes linkages between government interference

inside the world of film and in the lives of artists understandable to a wider

audience. There were actors who said ”no” to complicity and collaboration and

paid the price with their careers and often their lives. Others collaborated with

the devil in order to continue working.

23
István Deak, “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II,” The Politics of
Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, 136.
24
Gábor Bolvári-Takács,“A Páger ügy útóélete,”[The afterlife of the Páger affair] Kritika, Április
1999, 18-19. Gábor Bolvári-Takács is a musician, conductor and Rector of the School of Dance in
Budapest.
25
Ibid.
 232

This dissertation describes in detail the inter-connectedness, relationships,

sense of belonging, and career opportunities within the world of acting and

cinema. Just as the interwar Horthy government attempted to politicize the film

industry, and in doing so, to mold the film industry to reflect its values, so too

the postwar communist government of Hungary also exploited actors and

actresses in the film industry, in order to provide it with legitimacy. As

intellectual, writer and dissident Miklós Haraszti wrote “freedom is an essential

condition of art: anything which severs art from its anti-authoritarian essence

will kill it.”26 This dissertation provides further understanding about the role of

the state as it interfered in the film industry and the lives of actors and actresses

interwar as well as postwar.

From the end of the Second World War through the mid-1960s the

experience of what went on in the first half of the twentieth century in Europe

became blurred. In dealing with the Second World War, it suited almost

everyone to forget the crimes of their own nation.27 European nations, both in the

east and west, willingly submerged their memories in the “freezer of history.”28

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the significant other geopolitical

changes that have unfolded in Europe since 1989, the immediate postwar

historiography of Europe has since become stale and outdated. From the mid

1960s, a much-debated “revival of memory” has emerged, starting in Germany,

but later in France, Italy and elsewhere in Europe.29 In addition, archives

26
Miklós Haraszti, The Velvet Prison: Artists under State Socialism, New York: Basic Books, 1987, 13.
27
Tony Judt, “Preface,” The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and its Aftermath, vii.
28
I first heard this expression from Professor Piotr Wrobel. Since, I realized that it is the perfect
metaphor for what happened to memory in the immediate postwar era in east-central Europe.
29
Judt, “Preface,”viii.
 233

previously closed have opened and a new generation of historians have been

examining postwar history, bringing fresh perspectives. The question of how to

shape, and for what purpose, a nation’s memory of the war years, and postwar

years, is still being formed and framed in Hungary, as it is in many European

countries. 30

30
Curtis, Verdict on Vichy, 13.
 Appendices
Appendix 1 Registration Form for Members of the Chamber

The top of the second application form explicitly states: “for those Chamber

members who have been admitted prior to June 30, 1939.”1

1. Family name and first name /Women to provide their maiden name as
well/.
2. Membership number in Chamber
3. When did you become a member of the Chamber? (Year, month, day)
4. Permanent residence
5. Date of Birth (year, month, day)
6. Religion: Details of member; details of spouse
7. If you have changed religion, when did that take place (year, month, day)
and what was your religion prior to conversion?
8. Religion of Mother?
9. Religion of Father?
10. If your father changed his religion, when did that happen (year, month,
day) and what was his religion prior to the change?

11. If your mother changed his religion, when did that happen (year, month,
year) and what was her religion prior to the change?

12. The date of your parents’ marriage

13. The religion of your paternal grandfathers.

14. The religion of your paternal grandmother.

15. The religion of your maternal grandfather.

16. The religion of your maternal grandmother.

17. Among your grandparents, were there any who changed their religion, and if
so, what was their religion prior to the change?

18. Your date of marriage.

1
RG-39.004, Reel 1, Papers of the Nemzeti Front, [National Front], USHMM.

234
 235

19. From this marriage, were there any children born prior to May 5th, 1939?

20. Date of birth of the children and when were they baptized?

21. Do you have an agreement with your spouse that any of your children will be
raised according to the Jewish faith?

22. Name of your Jewish ancestors born prior to January 1, 1849

23. The place of birth of these ancestors.

24. The date of birth of these ancestors.

25. In compliance with article 2 of the law, are there any exemptions which apply
to you, and if so, on what basis?

26. Which department of the Chamber do you belong to?

27. What is your area of expertise?

28. Documents attached.

29. Other comments

There were further comments/clarifications at the end of this registration

admission questionnaire:

-A person who is regarded as Jewish only needs to complete questions 1-6,

further questions 25-27; and this person needs to complete question number 29
as: “Person regarded as Jewish.”

-The form must be accompanied with documents certifying the facts.

-Those individuals, who were born as members of the Christian faith prior to
October 1, 1895, need only to complete questions 8-17, but only need to attach
documents to verify the statements if they are requested to do so by the
Chamber.2

2
This date is referring to Act 42 of 1895, the Law of Reception, which made Judaism equal to other
received religions of Hungary. Religions were defined as received, recognized or tolerated.
Received religions benefited from protection of the state.
 236

Those, who were born after October 1, 1895 as members of the Christian faith
and whose parents were born as members of the Christian faith, only need to fill
our questions 12-17, but only need to attach documents to verify the statements if
they are requested to do so by the Chamber.

-A person who is regarded as Jewish, need only attach certifying documents if

they have completed question #24, otherwise no documents need to be attached.
 237

Appendix 2: Expelled from the Chamber—what happened to them after 1944?

A = Actor/Actress/ Színész/ Színésznő

P = Producer/Rendező

S = Screenwriter/Forgatókönyvíró

O = Opera Star/ Singer/ Opera Énekes/ Énekesnő

D - Director/ Igazgató

C – Composer/ Zeneszerző

T- Táncos

PM- Production Manager/ Gyártásvezető

E-Editor/ Vágó
 238

Date of Comments/ Megjegyzés

Roles/Produ
Birth-
Name/Né Occupation/Hi ctions
Death/
v vatása Szereplései,
Született-
alkotásai
elhunyt

20. Uri Muri

Márc.4., 1950
Lifetime member of the National Theatre/ Nemzeti
Szeged,
28. Déryné Szinhaz orokos tagja volt
Bartos 1872.4.7. –
1. A Oct.19.
Gyula Budapest,
1954. 5.21. 40.
Föltámadott a
tenger
 239

3, 10, 28, 48,

52, 58, 68, 72,
75

3. A Tanítónő
Sept.22, 1945
Pilisborosje
Bárdi nő, 1877. 1. 10. Beszterce
2. A
Ödön 5.–Bp., ostroma
1958. 6. 24. aug.1948

28. Déryné
Oct.19, 1951

48. Fel a Fejjel

Oct.7, 1954

Budapest, Published books:

1882. 4. 2. –
Bárdos Játék a függöny mögött (1942):
3. Buffalo, P
Artúr http://mtdaportal.extra.hu/books/bardos_artur_jatek_a_
USA 1974.
fuggony_mogott.pdf
8.10.)
 240

A színház műhelytitkai (1943):

http://mtdaportal.extra.hu/books/bardos_artur_a_szinh
az_muhelytitkai.pdf

(Mudrák)

Left Hungary in 1948- taught at Catholic Univ. of America

Bársony Moved to USA in 1938;

4. 1914-1980's
Erzsébet Moved back to Hungary in 1961;

1, 10, 11, 20,

28

1. Aranyóra
Márc.14, 1946
Bársony
5. 1882-1956 A, P 10. Beszterce
István
Ostroma
Aug., 1948

11. Forró
Mezők Márc
 241

26, 1949

20. Uri Muri

Márc 6, 1950

28. Déryné
Oct. 19, 1951

Básti Lajos Starred in 25 films.

Keszthely,

(born 1911.11.17. Until 1970.

6.* A
Berger – Budapest,
Worked on Certification Committee to certify actors,
Lajos) 1977. 6.1.
actresses postwar

Szeged, I: 17

Békeffy 1901.08.31. F: 3, 7, 10, 12,

7. D, S
István – Budapest, 17, 23, 27, 28,
1977. 06.9. 37, 70 (1957)

Berend F: 2
8. (Berger) S
Lajos (Mudrak)
 242

Hazugság
9. Bihari
S nélkül
* László
Aug.29., 1946

Lopott
10 Bogáthy
A boldogság
. Vera
Oct.11, 1962

Bp., 1886. Survived and starred in films in Hungary.

11 Boross 06. 1.–Bp., (Mudrak)
A
. Géza 1955. 06.
13.

1876. márc. Otherwise not known.

12 Csillag 16-án, NOT
A
. Benő Szereden, FOUND
Pozsonym.

Fel-Enyed, 10,12
13 Dávid 1898. 05.
A 10. Beszterce
. Mihály 29.–Párizs,
1965. 11. 5. Ostroma 1948
 243

12. Mágnás
Miska 1949
January

Magyarkes
zi, 1891.
14 Dénes 05.8. - 1950.
A
. Oszkár 07.2.
Trento,
Italy

Dobay Bp, 1912. Retired as actress and settled in Vienna 1957

15 Lívia 05.15. –
O
. (Davidovi Bécs, 2002.

cs) 07. 16.

Nyíregyhá 1, 3, 11, 14,

16 Dózsa
za, 1895. A 33, 39, 46, 47,
. István
jún. 22.–?) 52, 59, 179

17 Engel Starred in „Merénylet” 1960 feb. 4.

A 112
. György
 244

18 Erdélyi Acted in last film in 1943

1888- A
. Géza

Miskolc, 1944-45 Ukraine

19 Falus
1901. 04.11. P
. István Died as a Soviet Prisoner of war
-

Magyarkan Last Film: „A Kőszívű Ember Fiai” April 1965

3, 23, 26, 28,
Fenyő izsa, 1889. A
20 29, 85, 122, Was let go from the Cabaret Theatre
(Frid) 03. 18. –
. P 142, 143, 199,
Emil Bp, 1980.
207, 2017
08. 15.

21 Földvári NOT
A
. Sándor FOUND

Dombrád,
Gaal Béla 1893. 01. 2. A
22 - Dachaui
(born Gold P
. koncentráci
stein Béla) ós tábor, D
1945.02.18.
 245

Mohács,
Gaal
1901. ápr.
23 Sándor 21.– Bp., A
.
1966. okt.
12.

Gárdonyi Died while serving in the Labour Battallion

Lajos
Bp, *His own book: Véletlenül történt [It Happened
24 : 1896.10.27. Accidentally] (1942)
A
. – Szerbia,
born:
Bor, 1945
Grünberger
Lajos)

Gervay
25
Scheffer 1919 - 2005 A
.
Marica

Bp, 1898.
26 Gombaszö
12.27. – Bp, A 2, 17, 28,
. gi Ella
1951. 11.12.
 246

27 Gonda NOT “He was known as the Hungarian actor of Jewish origin
1901- ? A
. József FOUND who spoke the most beautiful Hungarian.” (Mudrak)

Buda v.
Pest, 1869.
28 Góth
okt. 19.– A
. Sándor
Bp., 1946.
szept. 7.

Érsekújvár, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, Starred in 34 films postwar.

29 Gózon 1885.04.19. 17,
A The last was Aranysárkány [Golden Dragon] 1966. okt.27.
. Gyula – Bp,
1972.10.8.

Gyalog Razzia Nov.20, 1958

30
Ödön 1907- A 98
.
György

Hajdu From the 1930s onward lived in New York City

31 NOT
(Weisz) C
. FOUND
Imre

32 Hetényi 1875-1951 C NOT

 247

. (Heidelber FOUND
g) Albert

Huszár 1941 he died in unknown

Károly Bp,
A circumstances during the war
(Pufi) 1884.09.3. –
33
Szovjetunió S
. (born:
, 1941.
Hochstein július
Károly)

Bp, 1887. Fired from Comedy Theatre (Vigszinház)

34 Justh jún. 24. – 1, 3, 10, 17,
A
. Gyula Bp, 1955. 35, 38, 40, 42
jún. 3.)

Bp, 1896.
35 Komjáthy március 8.
C
. Károly – Bp, 1953.
július 3.)

36 Komlos Szabadka, Starred in 15 films post war.

A
. Juci (Klein 1919.
 248

Julia) február 10.

– Bp, 2011.
április 5

37 Kondor Bp., 1903. Settled in Italy at the end of the 1940s.

A
. Ibolya jún. 15.–?

38 Kovács Fate unknown. Ran his own

1885 P
. Emil own production company.

39 Landor
1873-1954 F Mudrák
. Tivadar

40 Lanyi NOT
1920- A
. Ágnes FOUND

Vác, 1901.
Lendvay május 20. A
41
(Leopold) — Bp, 37
. O
Andor 1964. május
13.

42 Lengyel Nagyszebe A 10, 29

 249

. Vilmos n, 1893.
máj. 14.–
Bp., 1959.
ápr. 14.

Zombor,
1883. jún.
43 Molnár
23.–Bp., A 3, 20, 24, 28
. László Z.
1956. nov.
1.

Temesvár, Nyilasok áldozata lett

44 Nádor 1882.
C Was killed by Arrow Cross thugs
. Mihály április 16. -
Bp, 1944

Bp, 1905. Munkaszolgálatosként halt meg

március 5.
45 Nagy Died while in labour battallion
– Harka, A
. György
1945.
január 8.

46 Pártos Bp, A 1944-ben kizárták a színészkamarából

 250

. Dezső 1886.12.5. -
Ejected from Film Chamber in 1944

Pártos Starred in 30 films in postwar Hungary

Erzsi Bp, 1907.
47 április 2. –
(eredeti A
. Bp, 2000.
neve: Pollá április 18.
k Erzsébet)

48 Pataky Started acting career in 1904

1882 - A
. Ferenc Starred in many films until 1944

Bp, 1898. Played a major role in over 65 films in Hungary

Peti november
49
(Kanitzer) 17. – Bp, A
.
Sándor 1973.
április 6.

Bp., 1907. Wrote music for 14 films

50 Polgar márc. 11.–
C Emigrated to Canada in late 1960s
. Tibor Torontó,
1993. nov.
 251

51 Pulay Magyarkan Was not allowed to work after 1944

A
. Etelka izsa, 1917 -

Radó Disappeared in Ukraine as part of a labour batallion

52
(Rosenber 1915 -? Assist-dir.
.
g) László

Bp, 1907. Worked for composing music for films after war
53 Ránki október 30.
C
.* György – Bp, 1992.
május 22.

Bp, 1881. Continued to work postwar

november
54 Rátkai 18. – Bp,
C
. Márton 1951.
szeptember
18.

55 Renner NOT
1892.feb.1.
. Endre FOUND

56 Rózsahegy Endrőd, C
 252

. i Kalman 1873.
október 6. –
Bp, 1961.
augusztus
27.

Bp., 1896. Despite his Jewish background, he became a member of

57 Rubinyi
szept. 29.– C the Film Chamber. He was killed by the Arrow Cross in
. Tibor
Bp., 1944 1944.

Budapest,
Sarkadi 1874.
Aladár március 26.
58
– Budapest, C Survived the war
. (Schuller 1949.
Ármin) december
15.

Simon Nagyvárad
59 Zsuzsa , 1910.
C
. (Weisz október 24.
Margit) – Budapest,
 253

1996. május
27.

Szolnok, Continued to work in Hungary - Kossuth díjas

1902. május
60 Somló 8. –
A
. István Budapest,
1971.
április 5.

61 Szabó Életrajzi adatai ismeretlenek

A
. Dezső

1939-44 Could only work under pseudonyms because of

Bp., 1892.
his origins
62 Szatmári jan. 23 –
S
. Jenő Tar - Vác, 1949-50 Editor of the Kis Ujsag [Little Newspaper]
1952
Imprisoned in 1950; died in prison

63 Szende Couldn’t obtain an acting contract after 1944

Bp, 1899 A
. Artur

64 Szenes 1889.dec.24 A Nyilasterror áldozata lett.

 254

.* Ernő . - Bp, 1944

Killed by the Arrow Cross
(Schwarz
Ernő)

1940-44 was not allowed to act because of his Jewish

Szepes Lia
background
65 (Pálóczy A
. 1945-48: re-joined the Comedy Theatre, emigrated to
Lászlóné)
Australia

Debrecen,
1890. dec.
66 Szigeti
18.–Bp., A
. Jenő
1949. dec.
12.

Bp, 1879.
Sziklay január 2. –
67 Szeréna Bp, AO

. (Föld Erzsébetvá
Aurelné) ros, 1949.
március 26.
 255

68 Szilas Played many roles until1938

E
. József

Szirmay Nyilasterror áldozata lett.

69
(Süssman 1890-1944 A
.* Killed by the Arrow Cross
n) Vilmos

Graduate of the Ludovika military academy.

70 Szlatinai C 1943-44 Was banned from stage and screen

. Sándor P 1945-ben left for West Germany, became prominent actor
there

Nagykárol
71
Szűts Irén y, 1878 - A
.
Bp, 1960

Bp., 1887.
72 ápr. 23.–
Törzs Jenő A
. Bp., 1946.
febr. 1.
 256

Váradi A fasizmus áldozata lett. Killed by Arrow Cross thugs

73 Miskolc,
(Weisz) A
. 1895 –1944
Lajos

Vidor Ukrajnában halt meg ismeretlen helyen, mint

74 Cinematograph munkaszolgálatos.
Andor 1912-1941
. er
Gyula Died in Ukraine –part of labour batallion

75 Vincze NOT
Editor
. Ferenc FOUND

1939-1944 – Could not officially work due to Jewish laws,

but continued to be employed. He taught filmmaking to

76 Vincze Nagykárol Peter Bajusz and Miklós Szalontai Kiss production

. László y, 1893 managers.

Started his own production company after WWII

(Független Film)

Vitéz Started her own production company Reflector Films.

77 Production
Miklósné First female producer and dir. of production in Hungary.
. Manager
Vadász
 257

Erzsébet
She was imprisoned during the Fascist era (Szalasi), but
managed to escape.

Tiszaszőllő One of the most successful films of the inter-war era,

78 Zágon
s, 1893- Bp, Screenwriter Hippolyt, a lakáj was based on his written work.
. István
1975

79 Zsoldos Couldn’t work from 1938- onwards due to Jewish laws

Set designer
. Imre
 258

Actors, writers, producers not expelled from the Chamber

NEM VOLTAK KIZÁRVA A KAMARÁBÓL

1. Nóti Károly Tasnád, Screenwriter 2, 5, 27, 48 One of the most popular screenwriters in
1892. the Hungarian film industry; wrote under
48- Fel a fejjel
február 1. – pseudonyms after 1939
Oct.7., 1954
Budapest,
1954. május
29.

2. Gertler Bp, 1901. P 1938- did not receive an acting contract

Viktor augusztus after Jewish laws were enacted. Survived
24. – Bp, the labour battalion.
1969. július
5.
 259

3. Gray Bobbie Dancer One of the most popular dancers of the era.
(Weisz After 1942, served in a labour batallion.
Imre)

4. Güttler 1913-1944 Production Volunteered for military service in 1944

Lajos manager and was killed in action on the eastern
front.

5. Pünkösdi Editor of the newspaper Magyar Újság c.

Andor Between 1939-1944.

1939-44 Director of Madách Színház

Arrested by the Nazis – committed suicide

while in prison.

6. Pusztaszeri S Received screenwriter credits for

Margit screenplays written by Mihály István és
Nóti Károly between 1939-44)

7. Salamon Beregrákos, A
Béla 1885.
 260

március 4.
(Saly Béla)
– Bp, 1965.
június 15.

8. Somogyváry Füles, 1895. Screenwriter Plotted against the Germans.

Gyula vitéz április 21. –
Budapest,
(Freissberger
1953.
Gyula)
február 12.

9. Szabó Bp, 1911. Operastar Died during the siege of Budapest

Ilonka augusztus
18. – Bp,
1945.
január 27

10. Székely Bp, 1899. Producer Moved to USA in 1937 Dec.

István február 25.
– Palm
(Steve
Springs,
Sekely, S. K.
Kalifornia,
Seeley)
USA, 1979.
 261

március 11.

11. Székely Eger, Head of Dir of 1944 – Died during the deportations
Sándor October 25, Production
1899 - Bp,
1944.
October

12. Vincze Otto 1906-1984 Composer Liszt 1939-43 Conductor of orchestra made up
of unemployed Jewish musicians
Appendix 3

Translation of questionnaire to be completed by members of the Magyar

Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free
Union], including employees of Hunnia, the largest film production company
in Hungary, in order to become certified.

1. Name
2. Place of birth, year
3. Marital status, number of children
4. Address of apartment, number of rooms
5. Education, last degree obtained, technical skills
6. Occupation, employment
7. If employed, the name of employer, company, address
8. If self-employed, company name and address
9. Income, monthly and payment in kind.
10. How long have you been employed with the present company?
11. List previous employers
12. If self-employed, how long have you pursued this employment?
13. As an employee, when was your last promotion?
14. What was your previous income?
15. What did your personal wealth consist of on January 1, 1937?
16. What did your personal wealth consist of on January 1, 1945?
17. Did you serve in the army? When? In what rank? In what unit?
18. What awards or medals have you received?
19. During the last census, what did you declare as your mother tongue?
20. In case you have an earlier “Magyarized” name, have you changed it back
and if so why?
21. Were you ever a member of the Volksbund?

262
 263

22. Were you ever a member of Germany army, SS unit, and if so when and
for how long?
23. Were you ever in contact with the German army or other authorities and if
so when and why?
24. Were you ever sent to Germany? If so, when and for what purpose and
who sent you?
25. In the implementation of the Jewish laws, what real role did you have?
26. Did you sell Jewish-owned merchandise?
27. Did you buy such stores and/or merchandise?
28. Did you obtain radios originating from Jews? If yes, when, and under
what circumstances?
29. Did you move into Jewish apartments and if so for what reason?
30. As someone who’s apartment was not damaged by bombing, did you
exchange your apartment from January 1, 1940 onwards? If yes, why?
31. How large was the size of your previous and later apartment?
32. Did you wear emblems or armbands of the Hungarian Nazi party?
33. Did you wear uniforms of the Hungarian Nazi party?
34. From January 1, 1920 what political parties were you a member of and
when?
35. Did you pay membership dues and/or support? If yes, when?
36. What role did you accept in these parties, what activities did you carry
out?
37. From 1920 onwards, what Chamber, and or other self-promoting
organization, professional organization or body were you a member of?
38. What office or role did you have in these?
39. Without becoming a member, did you support any parties, political or
social movement, and if yes, which ones, when and to what degree?
40. Did you, your wife, your wife’s siblings, or any of your descendants,
brother or sister receive any beneficial licenses, written or otherwise, from
January 1938 onwards? And if so, what were they and from whom?
41. What social organizations were you a member of?
42. What role did you accept in these, did you support them financially, and
what kind of benefits did you receive from them?
 264

43. Did you receive any awards, or honours from January 1, 1930 onwards? If
so, what were they and from whom?
44. Are you or were you a member of the Knightly Order of Vitez?
45. Are you a recipient of the Nemzetvédelmi Kereszt [National Defense
Cross]? If so for what reason?
46. Have you received the title of Kormánytanácsos [Government Advisor],
Főkormánytanácsos [Chief Government Advisor], Gazdasági tanácsos
[Economic advisor] or gazdasági főtanácsos [Chief Economic Advisor] or
any similar title? If yes, for what reason?
47. Were you a director or a member of the board of any companies from
January 1, 1938 onwards? What income did you receive from these
appointments?
48. From January 1, 1930 onwards did you publish any articles in newspapers
or magazines? If so, when and what was the subject?
49. Did you publish any books? If so what was the title and the subject?
50. From January 1938, did you hold any public speeches at meetings, public
rallies, or on the radio? If yes, when and what was the subject?
51. What newspaper dailies or magazines do you subscribe to or purchase on
a regular basis?
52. Have there been any court judgments against you, suspending your
political rights? If so, based on what and for how long?
53. Are there any other issues to be presented?

Source:

XVII.1633 Budapest 287/b. sz. Igazolóbizottsag, Magyar Filmalkalmazottak

Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees Free Union], BFL.
 Bibliography and Archival Sources
Archives

Archives of Liszt Ferenc Music Academy

Peter Bársony Files

Budapest Fővárosi Levéltár [Archives of the City of Budapest]

Hunnia Files

Magyar Filmalkalmazottak Szabad Szakszervezete [Hungarian Film Employees

Free Union Certification Committee].
Pál Schönwald, “Igazoló eljárások, 1945-1949” [Certification Proceedings, 1945-
1949] kézirat, [unpublished manuscript].
Szinmüvész Igazolóbizottság ügyek iratai, 1945-1946 [Files on the Actors
Certification Committee, 1945-1946].

Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University

István Máday Papers

Hungarian Jewish Museum and Archives

Ernő Munkácsi Papers

Jewish Council

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Film Archives, Library of Congress

Oszkár Beregi

Journal of the Theatre and Film Arts Chamber, Magyar Film, 1939-41

Menyhért Lengyel (Melchior Lengyel)

Ferenc Molnár

László Sándor

István Székely Biography

265
 266

Magyar Nemzeti Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives, Budapest,

Hungary]

Hunnia Filmgyár Vezetőség [Executive of Hunnia Film Production House]

Magyar Film Iroda [Hungarian Film Office]

Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette].

Ministry of the Interior- Belügyminisztérium.

Personal papers of ministers: Miklós Kozma and Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer.

Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Archivum [Hungarian Film Studies

Institute and Archives, Budapest, Hungary]

Minutes of the Executive of the Hungarian Theatre and Film Arts Chamber.

Tibor Sándor Files

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Billy Rose Theatre Division,
Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Centre.

Lili Darvas Papers

Edmond Pauker Papers

Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár [Széchenyi National Library of Hungary]

Gizi Bajor file

Sári Fedák file

Katalin Karády File

Antal Páger File

 267

Petőfi Irodalmi Muzeum [Petofi Museum of Literature]

Remenyi House of Music

Tibor Polgár Papers

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C., Jack, Joseph

and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Education

Anti-Jewish laws and decrees of Hungary, 1938-1944

Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit Union]

Records

Hungarian Royal Home Defense Ministry Records

Gazdasági Takarék és Hitelszövetkezet [Savings and Loan and Credit Union]

Records

Ferenc Rajniss Papers

OMIKE Files

Magyar-Olasz Bank [Hungarian Italian Bank] Files

Hungarian Jewish Communities, 1944-1956 Records

Records of the Mayor of Budapest

Rare books Section: Zsidó Évkönyv [Jewish Yearbook], 1930-1944

Primary Sources

American Jewish Yearbook. Chamber Dismissals. Vol. 1940-1, 361 and Vol. 1942-3,
260.
A Második Zsidótörvény célja, indoklása, következményei. Néhány szó a magyar
értelmiség nevében a közveleményhez [The Aims, Reasons and Consequences
of the Second Jewish Law. A few words in the name of Hungarian Jewish
Intellectuals Addressed to Hungarian Public Opinion]. Budapest: Béla
`Kelemen- Pesti Lloyd Nyomda, 1939.
 268

Bolykovsky, Béla. “A Magyar Filmmüvészet Szolgálatában” Visszaemlékezések I. [In

the Service of Hungarian Film Art. Recollections], Part I. Filmkultura 27,
no.4, 1991, 5-16.
Bolykovsky, Béla. “A Magyar Filmmüvészet Szolgálatában” Visszaemlékezések I [In
the Service of Hungarian Film Art. Recollections], Part II. Filmkultura 27,
no.5, 1991, 32-42.
Gál, Gyula, “A Zsidóság és a Szinjátszás,” [Jews and Acting], Magyar Zsidó
Almanach, dr. Jozsef Patai, ed., 1 évf., May 1911, 25-27. USHMM.
Langer, István. Fejezetek a Filmgyár Történetéböl. I-II resz, 1919-48 [Chapters from
the History of Hungarian Film Production]. Parts 1-2, 1919-1948.
Budapest: MFI kézirat, 1980.
Lévai, Eugene. Black Book on the Martyrdom of Hungarian Jewry. Zurich: Central
European Times Publishing Co. in conjunction with Panorama Publishing
Co. in Vienna, 1948.
Munkácsi, Ernő. Hogyan Történt? Adatok és okmányok a Magyar Zsidóság
Tragédiájához [How did it Happen? Facts and Documents on the Tragedy
of Hungarian Jewry], Budapest: Renaissance, 1947.
--. “Országos Magyar Zsidó Muzeum Jelentése,” Előterjesztette az 1940 évi
rendes közgyülésen. [Report on the National Hungarian Jewish Museum,
put forward by Dr. Ernő Munkácsi on occasion of the National General
Meeting, held in 1940], Samu Szemere, ed., Évkönyv 1940, Budapest:
Izrealita Magyar Irodalmi Társulat, 1940, USHMM.
Schönwald, Pál. “Igazoló eljárások, 1945-1949” [Certification Proceedings, 1945-
1949]. Budapest Főváros levéltara. Unpublished manuscript.
Smolka, János. Mesegép A valóságban [The Fantasy Machine in Reality]. Budapest:
Cserepfalvy, n.d.
Stern, Samu. Emlékirataim: Versenyfutás az idővel! A Zsidotanács Müködése a német
megszállás és a nyilas uralom idején [Memoirs: Race against Time. The Work
of the Jewish Committee at the time of the German occupation and rule of
the Arrow Cross]. Budapest: Babel Kiado, 2004.
Szabolcsi, Miska, ed.,“Tiltakozunk a Jogfosztás Ellen” [We Protest against the
Deprivation of Rights], Egyenlőség [Equality], 58 évf., 3 szám, Budapest,
January 20, 1938.
Székely, Sándor István. A Második Zsidótörvény és a Vegrehajtási Utasitás. Teljes,
hiteles szövege részletes magyarázatokkal [The Second Jewish Law and its
Enforcement Instructions. Complete, Official Paragraphs with Detailed
Explanations]. Budapest: Kellner Albert Könyvnyomdája, 1939.
Szekfü, Gyula. Három Nemzedék és ami utána következik [Three Generations and
what follows Afterwards]. Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda,
1938.
Szemere, Samu, ed. Évkönyv [Yearbook of the Jewish Hungarian Literary
Society]. Budapest: Izrealita Magyar Irodalmi Társulat, 1939.
 269

Vida, Márton. Itéljetek! Néhány kiragadott lap a magyar-zsidó életközösség könyvéből

[You Judge! A Few Pages Torn from the Book on Magyar-Jewish
Coexistence]. Budapest: Földes, 1938.

Secondary Sources

Bános, Tibor. Jávor Pál: Szemtöl Szemben [Pál Jávor: Face to Face]. Budapest:
Gondolat Kiadó, 1978.
Barkai, Avraham. From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of German
Jews, 1933-1943. Translated by William Templer. Hanover and London:
University Press of New England for Brandeis University Press, 1989.
Barna, Ildiko and Andrea Pető. Political Justice in Budapest after World War II.
Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2015.
Benoschofsky, Ilona and Elek Karsai, eds., Vádirat a Nácizmus Ellen:
Dokumentumok a magyarországi zsidóüldözés történetéhez. 4 Vols. Budapest: A
Magyar Izraeliták Országos Képviselete, 1960.
Berend, Ivan and György Ránki. Magyarország a Fasiszta Németország “életterében,”
1933-1939 [Hungary in Fascist Germany’s “Lebensraum”]. Budapest:
Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, 1960.
Bergen, Doris. War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust. 3rd ed.
Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
Bibó, István. “Zsidókérdés Magyarországon 1944 után,” [The Jewish Question in
Hungary after 1944], Zsidókérdés, asszimilació, antiszemitizmus, Budapest:
Gondolat, 1984, 135-295.
Biddiscombe, Perry. The Denazification of Germany, a History 1945-1950, Stroud,
United Kingdom: Tempus, 2007.
Bihari, Peter. “A Magyarországi zsidóság helyzete a zsidótörvényektöl a
deportálásig,” [The Situation of Hungarian Jews from the time of the
Jewish laws to the Deportations] Hét Évtized a Hazai Zsidóság Életében [70
decades in the life of Hungarian Jewry], Pál Horváth, ed., Vol. II.
Budapest: MTA Filozofiai Intezet kiadasa, 1990.
Birch, Brian. “Hungarian cinema and fascism.” In Film, History and the Jewish
Experience: A Reader, ed., Jonathan Davis. London: National Film
Theatre/Jewish Film Foundation, 1986.
Bodó, Béla. “Hungarian Aristocracy and the White Terror.” Journal of
Contemporary History 45, 2010, 703-724.
Borhi, László. “Stalinist Terror in Hungary, 1945-1956,” Stalinist Terror in Eastern
Europe: Elite Purges and Mass Repression, Kevin McDermott and Matthew
Stibbe, eds., Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press,
2010.
 270

--. Dealing with Dictators: The United States, Hungary and East Central Europe, 1942-
1989, Translated by Jason Vincze, Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 2016.
--. Hungary in the Cold War, 1945-1956: Between the United States and the Soviet
Union. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2004.
Braham, Randolph L. “The Holocaust in Hungary: An Historical Interpretation
of the Role of the Hungarian Radical Right.” In Studies on the Holocaust:
Selected Writings, Randolph L. Braham, ed.,Vol. 1. Boulder, CO: East
European Monographs, 2000, 69-97.
--. The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary. Vol. 1 and 2, 3rd ed. Boulder,
Col.: East European Monographs, 2016.
Burns, Bryan. World Cinema: Hungary, Wiltshire. England: Flicks Books and
Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996.
Case, Holly. Between States: the Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during
World War II. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2009.
Cesarini, David, ed. Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944. Oxford
and New York: Berg Publishers, 1997.
Cole, Tim. Holocaust City: The Making of a Jewish Ghetto. New York: Routledge,
2003.
--. Traces of the Holocaust: Journeying in and out of the Ghettos. London and New
York: Continuum Publishing Group, 2011.
Conan, Éric and Henry Rousso, Vichy: an ever-present past. Hanover: University
Press of New England, 1998.
Cunningham, John. Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex. London &
New York: Wallflower Press, 2004.
Curtis, Michael. Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002.
de Grazie, Victoria. “European cinema and the idea of Europe, 1925-1995,”
Hollywood and Europe: Economics, Culture, National Identity 1945-1995,
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, ed., London: British Film Institute, 1998, 19-33.
--. “Mass culture and Sovereignty: the American Challenge to European Cinema,
1920-1960,” Journal of Modern History 61, (March 1989): 53-87.

Deák, István. “Hungary from 1918 to 1945.” New York: Columbia University
Press: Occasional Papers of the Institute on East Central Europe, 1989.
--. “Hungary and the Holocaust,”Varieties of Antisemitism: History, Ideology,
Discourse, Murray Baumgarten, Peter Kenéz, and Bruce Thompson, eds.,
Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2009, 93-104.
--. “Political Justice in Austria and Hungary after World War II.” Retribution and
Reparation in the Transitions to Democracy, Jon Elster, ed., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
 271

--. Europe on Trial: The Story of Collaboration, Resistance and Retribution During
World War II, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2015.
Deák, István, Jan Gross and Tony Judt, eds. The Politics of Retribution in Europe:
World War II and its Aftermath. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 2000.
Don, Yehuda. “The Economic Dimensions of Antisemitism: Anti-Jewish
Legislation in Hungary, 1938-44,” East European Quarterly 20, no.4, January
1987.
Don, Yehuda. “Antisemitic Legislations in Hungary and Their Implementation in
Budapest-An Economic Analysis.” The Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry: Essays,
Documents, Depositions, Randolph Braham, ed., Boulder, CO: Social Science
Monographs and the Institute for Holocaust Studies of the City University
of New York, 1986, 49-72.
Don, Yehuda and Victor Karády, eds. A Social & Economic History of Central
European Jewry. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers,
1990.
Ehrlich, Evelyn. Cinema of Paradox: French Filmmaking under the German
Occupation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Elek Karsai and Magda Somlyai, eds. Sorsforduló; iratok magyarország
feszabadulásának történetéhez, 1944 szept.-1945 ápr. [Change of Fate:
Documents regarding the History of the Liberation of Hungary]. Vol.1,
Budapest, 1970.
Elster, Jon, ed., Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Erényi, Tibor. “Zsidók és a Magyar Politikai Élet, 1848-1938” [Jews and
Hungarian Political Life]. Multunk 39, no. 4, 1994, 3-30.
Esbenshade, Richard S. “Shylocks” and “Intellectual Storm Troopers”:
Hungarian Intellectuals and Antisemitism in the 1930s,” Varieties of anti-
Semitism: history, ideology, discourse, Murray Baumgarten, Peter Kenéz and
Bruce Thompson, eds., Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2009.
Feitl, István, ed. A Főváros Élén: Budapest Főpolgármesterei és Polgármesterei, 1873-
1950 [At the head of the Capital: Chief Mayors and Mayors of Budapest,
1873-1950]. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2008.
Feitl, István, and Márta Gellerine Lázár, eds. Mátyás Rákosi, Visszaemlékezések,
1940-1949 [Mátyás Rákosi, Memoirs 1940-1949]. Vol 1 and 2. Budapest:
Napvilág, 1997.
Ferro, Marc. “Film as an Agent, Product and Source of History.” Journal of
Contemporary History 18, 1983, 357-364.
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Cultural Front: Power and culture in revolutionary Russia.
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992.
Frey, David Stephen. Jews, Nazis and the Cinema of Hungary: The Tragedy of Success,
1929-1944. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2017.
 272

--. “A Smashing Success: The Paradox of Hungarian Films,” Journal of

Contemporary History, 51, 2016, 3: 577-605.
--. “International Factors in the Growth and Evolution of Hungary’s National
Sound Film Culture, 1929-33,” Southern Quarterly; Hattiesburg, Vol. 39,
Issue 4, Summer 2001.
Friedlander, Saul. Memory, History and the Extermination of the Jews of Europe.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Friedlander, Saul. The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-
1945. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.
Fritz, Regina and Doreen Eschinger. “Memory Crossroads: Remembering the
Holocaust in Hungary after 1945.” Deportate, Esuli, Profugbe no. 7, 2007, 74-
86.
Frojimovics, Kinga. I have been a Stranger in a Strange Land: The Hungarian State
and Jewish Refugees in Hungary, 1933-1945. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2007.
--. Szétszakadt történelem: Zsidó vallási irányzatok Magyarországon, 1868-1950
[History Torn Apart: Jewish religious directions in Hungary, 1868-1950].
Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008.
Fry, Helen. Denazification: Britain’s Enemy Aliens, Nazi War Criminals and the
Reconstruction of post-war Europe. Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2010.
Füzesi, R. Szinház az Árnyékban [Theatre in the Shadows]. Budapest, 1990.
Gábor Antal, ed., A Szinház nem szelid intézmény: Irások Major Tamástol, irások
Major Tamásrol [Theatre is not a placid institution: Writings by Tamás
Major, Writings about Tamás Major]. Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó,
1985.
Gáspar Ferenc., ed. Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1945-1950 [Documents of the
History of Budapest, 1945-1950]. Források Budapest Multjábol, Ágnes
Ságvári, ed., vol. IV. Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára
Forráskiadványai, 1973.
Gáspár, Ferenc and László Halasi, eds. A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság
jegyzőkönyvei, 1945-1946 [the Minute Books of the Budapest National
Committee]. Források Budapest Multjábol, Ágnes Ságvári, ed., vol. VII.
Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára Forráskiadványai, 1975.
Gerő, András and János Poór, eds. Budapest: a history from its beginnings to 1998.
Boulder, Colo., Social Science Monographs; Highland Lakes, N.J.: Atlantic
Research and Publications; New York: Distributed by Columbia
University Press, 1997.
Gobbi, Hilda. Közben [Meanwhile]. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1984.
Gotz, Eszter and Tibor Sándor, eds. Ennyi…Cut…Budapest-Vienna—Hollywood:
the Emigration of Hungarian Film. Budapest: Magyar Zsidó Múzeum, 1999.
Graham-Dixon, Francis. The Allied Occupation of Germany: the Refugee Crisis,
Denazification and the Path to Reconstruction. London and New York: I.B.
Tauris, 2013.
 273

Gyarmati György and Mária Palasik, eds. A Nagy Testvér Szatocsboltja:

Tanulmányok a magyar titkosszolgálatok 1945 utáni történetéböl, [Big Brothers’
Grocery Store: Studies of the post-1945 History of the Hungarian Secret
Service]. Budapest: Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Történelmi Levéltára-
L’Harmattan, 2012.
Hajdú, Éva, ed. Victims and Perpetrators. Washington, D.C.: Cultural Exchange
Foundation, 1995.
Handler, Andrew, ed., The Holocaust in Hungary: An Anthology of Jewish Responses,
University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1982.
Hanebrink, Paul. In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and
Antisemitism, 1890-1944. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
2006.
Haraszti, Miklós. The Velvet Prison: Artists under State Socialism, New York: Basic
Books, 1987.
Hay, James. Popular Film culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.
Heberer, Patricia and Jurgen Matthaus, eds. Atrocities on Trial: Historical
Perspectives on the Politics of Prosecuting War Crimes. Lincoln and London:
University of Nebraska Press, published in Association with the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2008.
Heimann, Mary. Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 2009.
Held, Joseph. “Culture in Hungary during World War I,” European Culture in the
Great War, Aviel Roshwald and Richard Stites, eds., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999, 176-193.
Herczl, Moshe, Y. Christianity and the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry. New York:
New York University Press, 1993.
Horák, Magda. A Magyar értelmiség veszteségei az 1940-es években [Hungarian
Intellectual Losses in the 1940’s] with Foreword by Randolph L. Braham,
Budapest: Bekes Print Kft., 1994.
--. “Szinház a gettóban” [Theatre in the Ghetto]. Évkönyv (Yearbook), 1983/1984,
Sándor Scheiber, ed. Budapest: Magyar Izraeliták Országos Képviselete,
1984, 167-193.
Horthy, Miklos. Emlékirataim [Memoirs]. 2nd ed., Toronto: Weller Publishing,
1974.
Janos, Andrew C. The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825-1945. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1982.
Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Károly Kapronczay, Lengyel katonák Magyar földön [Polish Soldiers on Hungarian
territory] Budapest: Zrinyi, 1994.
Karády, Victor and Peter Tibor Nagy, eds. The Numerus Clausus in Hungary:
Studies on the First Anti-Jewish Law and Academic Anti-Semitism in Modern
 274

Central Europe. Research Reports on Central European History. Budapest:

Centre for Historical Research, History Department of the Central
European University, 2012.
Karsai, Elek. Szálasi Naplója: A Nyilasmozgalom a II világháboru idején [The Diaries
of Szálasi: The Arrow Cross Movement during World War II]. Budapest:
Kossuth, 1978.
Karsai, László. Szálasi Ferenc politikai életrajza. [The Political Biography of
Ferenc Szálasi], Budapest: Balassi Kiado, 2016.
Katzburg, Nathaniel. Hungary and the Jews: 1920-1943. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press, 1981.
Kelecsényi, Laszlo. Katalin Karády. Budapest: A Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet
és Filmarchivum, 1982.
--. Vászonszerelem: A magyar hangosfilm krónikája 1931-től napjainkig [Love on-
screen: The History of Hungarian sound film from 1931 to the present
day]. Budapest: Palatinus, 2007.
Kelemen Éva, ed., Dohnányi Ernő családi levelei, [The Family Letters of Dohnányi
Ernő], Budapest: NSZL-HAS Institute for Musicology-Gondolat
Publishers, 2011.
Kenéz, Peter. The Coming of the Holocaust: From Antisemitism to Genocide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
--. Hungary from the Nazis to the Soviets: The Establishment of the Communist Regime
in Hungary, 1944-1948. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kerepeszki, Robert. A Turul Szövetség, 1919-1945: egyetemi ifjuság és jobboldali
radikalizmus a Horthy korszakban [The Turul Association, 1919-1945:
university youth and right-wing radicalism during the Horthy era].
Mariabesnyő: Attraktor, 2012.
Kettenacker, Lothar, Germany since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Koerner, András. How They Lived: The Everyday Lives of Hungarian Jews, 1867-1940.
Budapest: Central University Press, 2015.
Kontler, László. A History of Hungary, Basinstoke, U.K. & New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002.
Koreman, Megan. The Expectation of Justice: France 1944-1946, Durham and
London: Duke University Press, 1999,
Kovács, Maria M. Liberal Professions and Illiberal Politics. Washington, D.C. & New
York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Oxford University Press, 1994.
Kovács, M. “The Case of the Teleki Statue: New Debates on the History of the
Numerus Clausus in Hungary,“Jewish Studies at the Central European
University, A. Kovacs and M. Miller, eds., Vol. IV. Budapest: Central
European University, 2003-2005.
Kőháti Zsolt. “Magyar film hangot keres (1931-1938)” [Hungarian Film Seeks
Sound]. Filmspirál 2, no.1, 1996, 67-131.
 275

--. Tovamozduló ember, tovamozduló világban. A Magyar némafilm, 1896-1930 között

[Progressive Man in a Progressive World. Hungarian Silent Film, 1896-
1930]. Budapest: Magyar filmintézet, 1996.
Kristóf, Karoly. A halálos Tavasztol a Gestapó Fogságig [From the Deadly Spring to
the Gestapo Prison]. Budapest: A Magyar Ujságirók Országos Szövetsége,
1987.
Laczó, Ferenc. Hungarian Jews in the Age of Genocide: An Intellectual History,
1929-1948. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016.
Langer, Lawrence. Versions of Survival: The Holocaust and the Human Spirit. New
York: SUNY Press, 1982.
Lendvai, Paul. Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. London: Hurst
& Company, 2012.
--. The Hungarians: One Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2003.
Lengyel, György, ed. Hungarian Economy and Society during World War II. Boulder,
CO: Social Science Monographs, 1993.
Lengyel, Menyhért. Életem Könyve: Naplók, Életrajz, Töredékek [My Life’s Work:
Diaries, Resumes, Bits and Pieces]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1987.
Lévai, Jenő, ed. The Writers, Artists, Singers and Musicians of the National Hungarian
Jewish Cultural Association (OMIKE), 1939-1944. Anna Etawo, trans., West
Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2017.
Macartney, C. A. “Hungarian Foreign Policy during the Inter-War Period, with
Special Reference to the Jewish Question.” In Jews and non-Jews in Eastern
Europe, 1918-1945, Béla Vágó and George L. Mosse, eds., Jerusalem: Keter
Publishing House, 1974, 125-137.
--. October Fifteenth: A History of Modern Hungary, 1929-1945. Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh Press, 1957.
Major, Ákos. Népbiroskodás forradalmi törvényesség: egy népbiró visszaemlékezése
[The People’s Tribunals: Revolutionary Law: The Memoirs of a Judge of
the People’s Tribunal]. Budapest: Minerva, 1988.
Manchin, Anna. “Interwar Hungarian Entertainment Films and the Reinvention
of Rural Modernity,” Rural History 21, no. 2, 2010, 195-212.
--. “Imagining Modern Hungary through Film: Debates on National Identity,
Modernity and Cinema in Early 20th-century Hungary,” Cinema, Audiences
and Modernity: New Perspectives on European Cinema History, Richard
Maltby, ed., NY: Routledge, 2011, 64-80.
--. “Jewish Humour and the Cabaret Tradition in Interwar Hungarian
Entertainment Films.” In Storytelling in World Cinemas, Lina Khatib, ed.,
New York: Wallflower Press, 2012, 34-37.
Markovits, Inga. “Selective Memory: How the Law affects what we Remember
and Forget about the Past: The Case of East Germany.” Law and Society
Review 35, no.3, January 2001.
 276

Marrus, Michael.“History and the Holocaust in the Courtroom.” In The Holocaust

in Hungary: A European Perspective, Judit Molnár, ed., Budapest: Balassi
Kiado, 2005.
--. Lessons of the Holocaust. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016.
--. The Holocaust in History. Hanover and London: University Press of New
England, 1988.
--. The Unwanted: European Refugees in the 20th Century. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985.
McDermott, Kevin and Matthew Stibbe, eds., Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe:
Elite Purges and Mass Repression, Manchester and New York: Manchester
University Press, 2010.
Molnár, Judit, ed. Jogfosztás-90 éve: Tanulmányok a numerous claususrol,
[Deprivation of Rights-90 Years: Studies of the Numerus Clausus].
Budapest: Nonprofit Társadalomkutató Egyesület, Budapest, 2011.
---. The Holocaust in Hungary: A European Perspective. Budapest: Balassi Kiado,
2005.
Mudrák, Jozsef and Tamás Deák. Magyar Hangosfilm Lexicon, 1931-1944 [Lexicon
of Hungarian Sound-Films]. Mariabesenyő-Gödöllö: Attraktor, 2006.
Mueller, Wolfgang. “Soviet Policy, Political Parties, and the Preparation for
Communist Takeovers in Hungary, Germany and Austria, 1944-1946.”
East European Politics and Societies 24, no. 1, Winter 2010.
Munkácsi, Ernő. How it Happened: Documenting the Tragedy of Hungarian Jewry.
Nina Munk, ed., translated by Péter Bialkó Lengyel, Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2018.
Nagykovácsi, Ilona. Fény és Árnyek [Light and Shadows: Autobiography].
Toronto: Weller Publishing, 1982.
Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in
Hungary and Romania. Iasi, Romania: The Center for Romanian Studies,
2001.
Nemes, Károly. Miert Jók a Magyar Filmek? [Why are Hungarian Films Good?].
Budapest: Magvető, 1968.
Nemeskürty, István. A Meseautó Utasai: A Magyar Filmesztétika Törtenete, 1930-
1948 [The Passengers in the Dream Car: The History of Hungarian Film
Aesthetics]. Budapest: Corvina, 1993.
--. A képpé varázsolt idő: a Magyar film története és helye az egyetemes kulturában,
párhuzamos kitekintéssel a világ filmművészetére [Time Transformed into
Image: The History of Hungarian Film in Context of universal culture and
the Art of Film worldwide]. Budapest: Magvető, 1983.
--. Word and Image: A History of Hungarian Cinema. Budapest: Corvina, 1974.
--. Magyar Film, 1939-1944. Budapest: Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és
Archivum, 1980.
 277

Nemeskürty, István and Tibor Szántó. A Pictorial Guide to the Hungarian Cinema,
1901-1984. Budapest: Revai Printing, 1985.
Némethy Kesserű, Judit. Szabadságom lett a börtönöm: Az Argentinai Magyar
Emigració Története, 1948-1968 [My Freedom became my prison: the history
of the Hungarian Émigré community in Argentina]. Budapest: A Magyar
Nyelv és Kultura Nemzetközi Társaság, 2003.
Olszanski, Tadeusz and Jerzy Robert Nowak, eds., Barátok a bajban: lengyel
menekűltek magyarországon [Friends in Need: Polish refugees in Hungary],
Budapest: Europa, 1985.
Ormos, Mária. Egy Magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a
politikában, 1919-1941 [One Hungarian media leader: Miklós Kozma.
Journey through hell in the media and in Politics, 1919-1941]. Vol. 1 & II.
Budapest: PolgART, 2000.
Palasik, Maria. A jogállalam megteremtésének és kudarca magyarországon, 1944-1949
[the Creation of a Constitutional State and its failures in Hungary].
Budapest: Napvilág, 2000.
--. “A Szeretetteljes köszönet. Csorba Jánosnak, Budapest 1945 utáni első
polgármesterének története” [The Heartfelt Thanks. The history of Janos
Csorba, first Mayor of Budapest after 1945]. Betekintő 1, (2013). Online
source: http://www.betekinto.hu/2013_1_palasik.
--. Chess Game for Democracy: Hungary Between East and West, 1944-1947. Montreal
& Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011.
Papp, Gyula. “Az igazoló eljárások és a háborus bünök megtorlása 1945 után
Magyarországon” [The Certification process and reprisals against war
criminals in post-1945 Hungary]. AETAS-Történelemtudományi folyóirat no.
2, 2009.
Passmore, Kevin, ed. Women, Gender and Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003.
Patai, Raphael. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1996.
Pelle, Janos. Sowing the Seeds of Hatred: Anti-Jewish Laws and Hungarian Public
Opinion, 1938-1944. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2004.
Pető, Andrea. “Death and the Picture: Representation of War Criminals and
Construction of Divided Memory about World War II in Hungary.” In
Faces of Death: Visualizing History, Andrea Pető and Klaaertje Schrijvers,
eds., Pisa: Plus Pisa University Press, 2009, 39-57.
--. Women in Hungarian Politics, 1945-1951. Boulder, Colorado: East European
Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2003.
--. Elmondani az Elmondhatatlant: A nemi erőszak története Magyarországon a II
világháboru alatt. [Telling the Untellable: the History of Rape during the
Second World War in Hungary], Budapest: Jaffa, 2018.
 278

Pok, Attila. The Politics of Hatred in the Middle of Europe: Scapegoating in the 20th
Century. Hungary: History and Historiography, Szombathely: Savaria
University Press, 2009.
Porter, Monica. Deadly Carousel: A Singer’s Story of the Second World War,
[Biography of Vali Rácz]. London: Quartet Books, 1990.
Rákosi, Mátyás. Visszaemlékezések, 1940-1949 [Memoirs]. István Feitl and Márta
Lázár Gelleriné, eds., Budapest: Napvilág, 1997.
Ránki, Vera. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in
Hungary. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1999.
Reich, Jacqueline. “Mussolini at the Movies: Fascism, Film and Culture.” In Re-
Viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943, Jacqueline Reich and Piero
Garafalo, eds., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
2002.
Reeves, Nicholas. The Power of Film Propaganda: Myth or Reality. London and New
York: Cassells, 1999.
Ricci, Steven. Cinema and Fascism: Italian Film and Society, 1922-1943. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2008.
Robertson, James C. The Casablanca Man. London and New York: Routledge,
1993.
Romsics, Ignác. Hungary in the Twentieth Century. Budapest: Corvina-Osiris, 1999.
Russell, Jesse and Ronald Cohn. Gyula Kabos. Edinburgh, Scotland: Lennex
Publisher, 2012.
Sakmyster, Thomas. “Gyula Gömbös and Hungarian Jews, 1918-1936.”
Hungarian Studies Review, 33, no. 102, 2006, 157-168.
Sándor, László. Három Ország Polgára Voltam: Egy Évszázadnyi Élet Emlékei, 1909-
1993 [I was Citizen of Three Countries: Memories from a One Hundred
Year Life, 1909-1993]. Bratislava: Madach-Posonium, 2009.
Sándor, Tibor. Örségváltás Után: Zsidókérdés és Filmpolitika, 1938-1944. [After the
Changing of the Guard: the Jewish Question and the Politics of Film].
Budapest: Hungarian Film Institute, 1997.
--. Örségváltás: A Magyar Film és a Szélsőjobboldal a harmincas negyvenes években.
Tanulmanyok, dokumentumok [Hungarian Film and the Extreme Right in the
Thirties and Forties. Studies, Documents]. Budapest: Magyar Filmintézet,
1992.
Sárközi Mátyás. Szinház az Egész Világ: Molnár Ferenc Regényes Elete [The Whole
World is Theatre: the Dramatic Life of Ferenc Molnár]. Budapest: Osiris-
Századvég, 1995.
Sárossy Szüle, Mihály. Miszter Jávor. New York: Püski-Corvin, 1982.
Scheiber, Sándor. Magyar zsidó hirlapok és folyoiratok bibliográfiája [Bibliography of
Hungarian Jewish Newspapers and Journals]. Budapest: MTA
Judaisztikai Kutatócsoport, 1993.
 279

Schönwald, Pál. “Igazoló eljárások, 1945-1949” [Certification Proceedings, 1945-

1949].” Budapest Főváros levéltara. Unpublished Manuscript.
Silber, Michael, ed. Jews in the Hungarian Economy, 1760-1945. Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1992.
Sipos, Balázs. Sajtó és Hatalom a Horthy Korszakban [Media and Power in the
Horthy Era]. Budapest: Argumentum Press, 2011.
Sipos, Péter. Imrédy Béla és a Magyar Megújulás Pártja [Béla Imrédy and the Party
of Hungarian Renewal]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970.
Somorjai, Olga. Beregi Oszkár. Budapest: Magyar Szinházi Intezet, 1984
Sulics, Fruzsina, “Nagyjátékfilm és politika 1945 és 1948 között
Magyarországon,“ [Feature Film and Politics between 1945 and 1948 in
Hungary], BA thesis, [Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem], 2016.
---. “Az Országos Mozgóképvizsgáló Bizottság szerepe a magyarország film
történetében 1945 és 1948 között,”[The Role of the National Feature Film
Committee in the history of Hungarian Film] ed. G.Molnár Péter, Studium,
Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem, 2016.
Stark, Tamás. Hungarian Jews During the Holocaust and After the Second World War,
1939-1949. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2000.
---. “Hungary’s Casualties in World War II.” In Hungarian Economy and Society
during World War II, ed. György Lengyel, 171-260. Vol. XXIX. War and
Society in East Central Europe. Boulder, Colorado: Social Science
Monographs, 1993.
---. Magyar Foglyok a Szovjetunióban [Hungarian Prisoners in the Soviet Union].
Budapest: Lucidus, 2006.
---.…”Akkor Aszt mondák kicsi Robot”A Magyar polgári lakosság elhurcolása a
Szovjetúnióba korabeli dokumentumok tűkrében. [“They then said: little work”
The dragging away of the Hungarian civilian population to the Soviet
Union as reflected in contemporary documents] Budapest:
Történettudományi Intézet, 2017.
--. Magyarország Második Világháborus Embervesztesége, [Hungary’s Human Losses
in the Second World War]. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet,
1989.
Steinweis, Alan. Art, Ideology & Economics in Nazi Germany: The Reich Chambers of
Music, Theater and the Visual Arts. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1993.
Stern, Fritz. The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic
Ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California
Press, 1961.
Szalai, Anna, ed. In the Land of Hagar: The Jews of Hungary, History, Society and
Culture. Tel Aviv: Beth Hatefutsoth, the Nahum Goldmann Museum of
Jewish Diaspora, Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 2002.
 280

Szapor, Judit. “A Maganszférábol a Politikai Közéletbe: A Női Politizálás

Története a Kezdetektől 1945-ig” [From the Private Sphere into the Centre
of Political life: the History of Women in Politics from the beginning until
1945]. In A Nő és a Politikum: A nők politikai szerepvállalása Magyarországon
[Women and their Political Roles in Hungary], ed. Maria Palasik, 129-144.
Budapest: Napvilág Publisher, 2007.
Szekeres József, ed. Források Budapest Történetéhez, 1919-1945 [Documents of the
History of Budapest, 1919-1945]. Források Budapest Multjábol, edited by
Ágnes Ságvári, vol. III. Budapest: Budapest Fővárosi Levéltára
Forráskiadványa, 1972.
Székely István. Hippolittól a Lila Akácig. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1978.
Szita, Szabolcs. A Gestapo Tevékenysége Magyarországon, 1939-1945 [The Work of
the Gestapo in Hungary, 1939-1945]. Budapest: Corvina, 2014.
Turbucz, David. Horthy Miklos. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2014.
Trunk, Isaiah. Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe under Nazi
Occupation. New York: Macmillan, 1972.
Ungvári, Tamás. Csalodások Kora: A Zsidókérdés magyarországi története [The Age of
Disappointments: The History of the Hungarian Jewish Question].
Budapest: Scolár Kiadó, 2010.
Ungváry, Krisztián. A Horthy rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és
antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The Standards of Measures of the Horthy
Regime: Discrimination, Social politics and antisemitism in Hungary].
Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 2012.
Ungváry, Krisztián, ed. Buvópatakok: A jobboldal és az állambiztonság, 1945-1989
[Hiding Places: the right-wing and the Security Services, 1945-1989].
Budapest: Jaffa Kiadó, 2013.
Vági, Zoltán, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, eds. The Holocaust in Hungary:
Evolution of a Genocide. Lanham, Md.-Washington, D.C: AltaMira Press-
USHMM, 2013.
Vágó, Bela. The Shadow of the Swastika: The Rise of Fascism and anti-Semitism in the
Danube Basin, 1936-1939. London: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1975.
Vágó, Bela and Mosse, George L., eds. Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern Europe, 1918-
1945. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1974.
Vértes, Robert, ed. Magyarországi Zsidótörvények és Rendeletek, 1938-1945
[Hungary’s Jewish Laws and Decrees, 1938-1945]. Budapest: Polgár
Publishers, 1997.
Ward, James Mace, Priest, Politician, Collaborator: Jozef Tiso and the Making of
Fascist Slovakia, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013.
Weber, Eugen. The Hollow Years: France in the 1930’s. New York: Norton, 1994.
Welch, David. Propaganda and the German Cinema, 1933-1945. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985.
 281

Winkel, Roel Vande, and David Welch, eds. Cinema and the Swastika: the
International Expansion of the Third Reich Cinema. Hampshire England and
New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.
Wrobel, Piotr, “Double Memory: Poles and Jews after the Holocaust.” East
European Politics and Societies 11, no. 3, Fall 1997.
Záhonyi-Ábel, Márk. “Filmpolitika Magyarországon a Horthy Korszak második
felében” [The Politics of Film in Hungary in the Second Half of the Horthy
Era]. Masters Thesis, [Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem], 2010.
--. “Magyar Filmcenzura, 1920-1930,”[Hungarian Film Censorship, 1920-1930].
Ph.D. diss., [Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem], 2010.