Tag Archives: Hungarian Jews

Comrade BaronComrade Baron by Jaap Scholten

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Not a great book, but for me a very compelling one. Jaap Scholten’s relationship with Hungary parallels my own. In the early 1990s Hungary underwent a system change, from a Soviet-style political-economy to a western-style one. Like Scholten, I took advantage of the system change to live and work in Hungary. I too married a Hungarian woman, and decided that Hungary would be a fine place to raise a family. And I too find myself, beyond the point of no return, somewhat disappointed with my decision and Hungary’s subsequent development. Though not, it has to be said, as disappointed as Scholten:

“A few years ago I thought that Hungary and Romania would resemble the Netherlands within about twenty years … Now I think it will take at least a century” (pg 312).

I too, think Hungary’s political-economy will take longer to flourish than I did in the 90’s: I think it’s possible it may not flourish at all. But my reasons for thinking so are different to Scholten’s.

Comrade Baron is written in three sections named after the books of Miklós Bánffy‘s Transylvania trilogy. These sections cover pretty much the same ground as Between the Woods and the Water, Banished Families and 89 The Unfinished Revolution respectively. They replicate the same limitations of these books without adding anything other than Scholten’s personal experiences, though I expect the material is new to the Dutch market.

It is not a very clear book; it is episodic and impressionistic, and has a large amount of material drawn from interviews with survivors from Hungary’s pre-Trianon aristocracy. These interviews were conducted in the main as part of Scholten’s academic thesis “From Ballroom to Basement. The Internal Exile of the Hungarian Aristocracy in Transylvania”. For this reason Comrade Baron has an excellent bibliography, chronology, glossary and potted biographies of the interviewees. I wish I’d studied them before launching into the text itself. Even so, it’s hard to determine what Scholten’s thesis was. It is difficult to sort out what Scholten thinks from what his interviewees think, and it is not clear whether this book is an elegy for, or a defence of the Hungarian aristocracy.

If it is a defence of the Hungarian aristocracy, then his argument would seem to be that;

“By systematically crushing, exiling and killing the bearers of tradition, morality and fairness for over half a century, a society makes itself unstable.” (pg 192).

And that the problems the successor states of Hungary and Romania face today are a result of the destruction of it’s aristocracy under communism.

I disagree with this, I think the problems that Hungary faced at the system change were due to the destruction of it’s middle class since the end of the first world war. The consequences of the loss of a middle class are well articulated by one of Scholten’s interviewees, Count István Pálffy de Erdőd [bold my own]:

“The worst thing about fifty years of communism isn’t the sweeping away of the aristocracy, the worst thing is the wiping out of the old civil society, of all the people and classes with a long tradition of honest work, service, independence of mind, merchants, farmers, entrepreneurs, academics, professionals. In their place we have generations filled with cynicism and an attitude of “what the hell, we’re just doing what we can to survive”. They know nothing about the underlying concept of a civil society familiar to happier, Western countries. That is the great tragedy here” (pg 349)

Scholten seems to agree with Francis Bacon that:

“[an] aristocracy has a moderating effect on the holder of power, standing between ruler and people. As early as 1222 the Golden Bull gave the Hungarian nobles the right to depose a king for misrule. The removal of that buffer had far reaching consequences. The destruction of a cultivated elite and an increase in brutal terror went hand in hand.” (pg 141)

Well, the Hungarian aristocracy was still extant in the first half of the twentieth century, in fact the Horthy regime was largely an aristocratic regime. As far as I have read, it did conspicuously little to thwart the Red Terror, the White Terror, the atrocities that happened on the re-occupation of territory as a result of the Vienna Awards, or the Hungarian Holocaust itself. This argument simply isn’t supported by the facts.

I also beg to differ with Count Pálffy in that I see the destruction of Hungary’s middle class starting earlier, with the sudden rise and fall of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of Béla Kun. From the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a disproportionate part of Hungary’s middle class, of its intellectual, professional and commercial life. So much so that in The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary the English historian, Bryan Cartledge, divided his analysis of Hungarian society of that time into three parts – the nobility, the Jewish bourgeoisie, and peasants and workers.

Jews also played a disproportionate role in Béla Kun’s government, so that they were treated with suspicion by the aristocratic government of Horty that followed it. Jews, especially talented Jews began to leave Hungary even before the Numerus Clausus seriously restricted their educational and professional opportunities. Sir Alexander Korda, for example, left Hungary after making films for Béla Kun’s nationalised film industry. This process of reducing the role of Jews in Hungary climaxed in the Holocaust in 1944. Because of the disproportionate role Jews played in the middle class, the Holocaust was also destructive of the middle class in Hungary, a process that was continued under the Communist regime.

The lack of clarity about Scholten’s position arises because the material he quotes often seems to be making the case against the aristocracy, such as this from Banffy’s They Were Divided [bold my own]:

““There is nothing wonderful at all marvellous or wonderful about it, my boy, and especially there is nothing to boast about. What has happened has been entirely natural. Long ago, when the country folk were all serfs, everything belonged to the landowner, the so-called noble who himself held it from the king. It was therefore nothing less than his bounden duty to take care of everything , to build what was necessary and to repair what needed repairing. That our family have only done this shows that they have done their duty, nothing else. Let this be a lesson to you! … That members of our family often obtained great positions in the state was no accident and no particular merit to them. Such places were naturally offered to people of high rank, nobles whose fortunes and family connections were necessary if they were to do a useful job . We can be proud that our forebears honestly carried out what was expected of them, and that is all. Family conceit because is not only ridiculous but also dangerous to the character of those who come believe in it.”” (pg 84)

Maybe we are not to take this literally, as a case of ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know’, but to regard it as example of the modesty and magnanimity of the aristocratic mind.

When Scholten discusses the case against the aristocracy, which he very briefly does:

““In general the Hungarian semi-feudal aristocracy was the most corrupt and decadent in Europe and could only be compared with that of Russia of the Romanovs, in the twilight of the Czarist Empire”” (pg 216)

rather than explore whether this claim was fair, he simply dismisses its source, a Communist sympathiser – “as not simply gullible, but also malicious, … one who legitimizes torture and murder…” (pg 218). But even a source on the right side of Scholten’s political and social fence, an English aristocrat of the mid 19th century, remarked on the enormous privileges of his Hungarian peers:

““If an aristocrat harboured an ambition to hold public office he could simply have himself appointed deputy governor of a province; if he chooses to devote himself to agriculture, thousands of hectares of land were waiting for him … and if he wanted to work for a good cause, then there was the peasantry, which depended on him from practically everything and looked up to him.”” (pg 87)

In this situation, there sees to be plenty of opportunity for corruption and decadence to arise. But Scholten doesn’t examine or even compose the evidence he assembles.

This weakness in critically examining his sources highlights a suspicion I frequently had of Scholten: instead of being attracted to the Hungarian aristocracy’s ‘fairness and morality’, he is attracted to their culture – the decor, the dress, the manners. Scholten’s snobbery is given away by thoughts such as

“the sartorial impoverishment of the aristocracy in Eastern Europe is a belated triumph of communism” (pg 347)


“The thought of hundreds of square metres of castle being renovated in its entirety … in medieval style by a nouveau riche Romanian oligarch makes my imagination run riot” (pg 300)

The book was originally written in Dutch, and so grating did I find this kind of remark, I had to wonder whether I, or the translator had missed some aspects of Dutch irony.

I’m not familiar with Transylvania or Romania, but suspect that Scholten is wrong in lumping Hungary and Romania together

“fear is something you learn. The dictatorships in Hungary and Romania did a good job of teaching it to the people … you see it in the submissiveness of schoolchildren” pg (374).

Kádár’s regime in Hungary for far less brutal than Ceausescu’s was in Romania, and remembered as such. I put down the submissiveness of my Hungarian schoolchildren to bored indifference rather than fear.

Scholten and I agree that Hungary has not developed as quickly or in the way we would have expected in the 1990s. But I put that difference in our expectations down to European Accession in 2004 rather than the destruction of the Aristocracy in the 1950s. In the nineties, foreign capital had to come to Hungary to exploit Hungary’s cheap, talented labour. As it did so, a new middle class of professionals and business people emerged. Since accession that cheap talented labour now moves west to exploit foreign capital. The Hungarian population is declining, and those that are leaving take their honest work, service and independence of mind with them.

The global economic downturn has accelerated this destruction of Hungary’s middle class, which I still see as the great tradegy here. The flows of talent and capital may again work in Hungary’s favour, which will lead to the development of a middle class, but that seems to have little to do with the presence or absence of the Hungarian aristocracy.

View all my reviews