László Botos and Susan Tomory
What Sins did we Commit?
The West labeled us “guilty” and imposed upon us a punishment that was suitable for a guilty nation, yet if the researchers and historians were to look at the facts and search for the truth, rather than just accepting the information fed to them by the foreigners who wrote our history, who wished to erase our nation, they would be persuaded that this was not the case. They would recognize the self-sacrificing actions of the Hungarians over the period of a millennium, protecting the refugees fleeing from the Turks, from religious persecution and from their own oppressive masters. They would see how they welcomed these peoples, giving them autonomy to practice their religion, language and customs.
In the life of every nation, there is a period that modern historians judge through the eyes of the present and find actions that by modern standards are unacceptable.
In Hungarian history such a period was the ninth century. The campaigns of the Magyars against the West might possibly be compared only to the campaign of Hannibal. However, even Hannibal’s campaign does not measure up to the campaigns of Bulcsu Horka, Lehel, Botond and Szabolcs, which were all victorious campaigns except for the Battle of Lechfeld, which took place in the heart of the German territory.
The West calls these campaigns “wild, robbing campaigns”, forgetting that the Magyar “robbing campaigns” were preceded by the robbing campaigns of Charlemagne and Pepin, centuries earlier, who boasted proudly about the amount of treasures that they acquired. They destroyed the Hun Empire, which preceded the Avars, and which collected taxes from the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The Huns spared Rome, whereas the West destroyed both the Hun and Avar Empires, both peoples that were related to the Magyars. It is natural that after such events, even after the so-called second Magyar Conquest, that is to say the second Magyar Homecoming, any people that enters a new territory would look around at the neighboring countries to see how strong they are. It is natural that the Magyars would want to reclaim the treasures that had been stolen from their ancestors. This was one of the reasons for their campaigns against the West. Their goal was to reclaim the treasures that Charlemagne had stolen from the Avars and had given to the European cathedrals.
The second reason for the campaigns was that the three princes, Ludolf, Konrád and Arnulf, requested the help of the Magyars to oppose Otto. Bulcsu decided to help them because Otto was an increasing threat for the Magyars and he wished to weaken him and prevent him from unifying the German princes. The historians still call these campaigns “robbing campaigns” although Otto’s son, brother-in-law, relatives and vassals also asked the help of the Magyars, even leading them to the territories they wished to weaken.
The campaign of Bulcsu in 954 had a profound effect on both the Magyars and on the German princes. Before the campaign, the princes were hoping that the people would join with them against Otto but just the opposite occurred. Thus they were forced to ask Otto for mercy. His merciless revenge forced many of them to flee to Hungary, to beg for more help in the shape of another campaign.
The Magyars were not very keen to have another campaign in 955 and it took many months to prepare because of the reluctance of the Magyar soldiers and finally they lost at Lechfeld. This loss was followed by the humiliating hanging of Bulcsu and Lehel on the towers of the Augsburg Cathedral. Not only did this humiliate the two great army leaders but it was also a sacrilege to the Cathedral. The Magyar warriors who had laid down their arms were massacred.
I will leave the reader to judge the events for himself.
At the end of this “barbaric” era the Magyars adopted western Christianity and, from this time on, because of her location, Hungary became the Defense Bastion of Europe.
In his letter to Pope Innocent on November 14, 1250, from Sárospatak, King Béla IV. stated the following:
„. . .because the major part of Hungary was destroyed by the plague of the Tartars and was encircled as if it were a sheep-pen by pagan peoples like the Ruthenians, the Brodniks, and the Bulgar and Bosnian heretics in the east, with whom our armies are presently at war, only the Germans from the west and the north, since they have the same religion as we do, should come to our aid. However, they are actually not helping us but rather attacking us when we least expect it and take part of the country from us. We are writing primarily of matters of religion, so that we are not accused of laziness and negligence . . . But we cannot be accused of negligence because, when we were at war with the Tartars, we asked for help from the three largest Christian courts and from your Holiness, who is recognized and declared to be the lord and master of every royal court. We also wrote to the Emperor and we were ready to pledge allegiance to him if he would help us against the Tartar plague. We also asked the King of France, but we did not receive any help from any of these sources, just words.”  (Nil nisi verba)
European history records that the Turks made an alliance with the most Christian French King against the Hapsburgs. François I. did not like the fact that King Lajos II. took Maria Hapsburg in marriage. This marriage offended the interests of France because from the Pyrenees and to the Netherlands, Charles V. of Hapsburg was the ruler. This is why the King of France signed the Treaty of Cognac with the greatest Muslim Sultan against the Hungarians who were defending Europe and who were at war with the Sultan. Suleiman’s goal was to cross Hungary to attack the German Emperor. The Hungarians would have benefited more by allowing this than by trying to fight the Turks on their own. The 400 year Turkish occupation did not change our religion, so it is obvious that the Turks did not force the Islamic religion upon us. At one time, the Pope also made an alliance with the Turks. The Holy See proposed an agreement for “co-existence” with Ogotaj the chief Khan of the Tartars, behind the backs of the Hungarians.
After all this, the western historians and the Church state that Christianity saved the Hungarians from destruction. According to Géza Radics, this “salvation” needs to be examined: we need to look at how the Christian world acted toward the Christian Hungarians. We need to look at this objectively, not through the eyes of a Christian. The truth is that, after the death of Emperor Heinrich II., the brother-in-law of István I., in 1024, the friendly attitude of the Germans became unfriendly, even hostile. In 1031, Konrad II. attacked Hungary and was defeated by Prince (Saint) Imre at the Rába River near Győr and Prince Imre took back this territory which had been inhabited by Hungarian-type peoples for centuries. First of all this territory was part of the Empire of Atilla, then temporarily became the home of Frank and Goth tribes, then became the Avar Kaganate and, finally, the people of Árpád re-conquered it and it became the western border of Hungary under the name of Őrség, between the Lajta and Fischa Rivers, together with the Field of Morva. (Morvamező). In 1041, 1044, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1108 and finally in 1146, the Hungarians won every battle except the battle in 1044, but these victories are never mentioned in German or European history.
From this, it can be seen that our Western Christian brothers did not display the Christian philosophy of “love your fellow-man” toward the Hungarians. The attacks from the West occurred on a regular basis, every year, which showed their obvious goal of conquering Hungary and were definitely not friendly visits. After the unsuccessful war of 1146, the Germans gave up the hopeless struggle to conquer the Hungarians. However, what they could not achieve with the sword, the Hapsburg Austrian Germans achieved through marriages and under the pretext of spreading Christianity.
In connection with the rumor that the Hungarians suppressed and kept foreigners under inhumane oppression, we have to mention that, at that time, the foreigners in Hungary were not assimilated and were not reduced in numbers. How was it that their numbers were able to increase, how could they develop their culture and why did the Hungarians introduce the Rumanian language in the time of György Rákóczi? In 1648, István Fogarasi translated the Heidelberg Catechism and the New Testament into Rumanian. Three years later he translated the Psalms of David and this started the development of the Rumanian language.
In comparison, what did István I. do? According to Pál Vágó (A Nap Fiai 1978, Jan. Feb. edition), the Avars ruled the territory of the Ober-Enns and in 907 between July 3 and 5, in the territory of Pozsony the Magyars re-conquered this territory which had been taken from the Avars by the Germans. Then István I. under the influence of the Germans, without a battle, withdrew the Hungarian populace from this territory as far as the territory now called Ungartor-Deutsch-Holtenburg, about 30 km. from Vienna. This is how German Austria came into being.
This explains how King István I. became Saint István.
Colonel Mogyoródy was a heroic colonel of General István Tűrr. His rank is acknowledged by the following expression: “He was the captain of the red caps.” At the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Compromise in 1867, since he was very familiar with the situation in Croatia (he was from there) together with István Tűrr, he tried to convince Gyula Andrássy and Ferenc Deák that they should not give the three counties of Szerém, Pozsega and Verőce to Croatia, because the majority of the people would object to this. They proposed: “With the gradual teaching of the Hungarian language, Hungarian would become the official language.” But nobody listened to them. This indicates the false accusation of “forceful Magyarization”.
The Western historians accused the Hungarians of starting World War I. and this accusation is still in effect. This was one reason for the carving up of Hungary. Even though there is enough evidence to refute this accusation, the historians have still not taken any steps to reexamine the decision and change the punishment.
Count István Tisza, taking the public opinion into account, submitted a letter to the Emperor, opposing the war. The following is István Tisza’s letter to the Emperor:
Because of the good news from Berlin, together with the events in Serbia and the rightful indignation they caused, the ministers who were at the conference of public ministers, which took place yesterday, proposed that we declare war on Serbia, so that we would finally deal with this ancient enemy of the Monarchy.
I was not in a position to agree completely with this plan. If we think carefully about it, we shall see that an attack on Serbia would cause the involvement of Russia, which would cause a world war and, in spite of the optimism which I observed in Berlin, I am very doubtful that Rumania will remain neutral. The public opinion in Rumania would vehemently demand that they declare war against the Monarchy and the present Rumanian government of King Carol would find it difficult to oppose it. In this war, therefore, we could expect that the Russian and Rumanian armies would fight on the side of the enemy which would make the outcome of the war unfavorable to us.
I am very reluctant to give my consent to start a war under such circumstances. Right now, in Berlin, we have just reached the long-desired goal that there should be no obstacle to our Balkan politics. We have just obtained the possibility of influencing the Balkan development in our interest and by so doing we can create a more favorable situation for the Monarchy. This gives us hope that if, later on, the decisive battles of the war are forced upon us, then in that case we will be better prepared to face the challenge .
“ . . .Tomorrow, it will be my duty to convince the Hungarian Cabinet to take a stand. Until then, I announce to you, in my own name that, in spite of my service to Your Excellency, or rather, because of it, I am unable to share the responsibility of becoming involved in a war of aggression.
Count István Tisza 
Budapest, July 8, 1914.
Count István Tisza was the only one among all the Central Powers to oppose the War and his statement of opposition to the War was unanimously accepted by the Hungarian Council of Ministers on July 9, 1914. Referring to the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand and his wife, Colonel Dragutin Dimitrievics, the leader of the Serbian news agency stated from his prison cell in Salonika: “I wanted it. I did it. I am boasting and I am proud because I wanted the destruction of Austria.”
With the ratification of the Peace Treaty after World War II. Hungary was again punished as a “war criminal”. At that time, when Pál Teleki was the only one to oppose the War, and when he was forced to enter the War under foreign pressure (Germany), he committed suicide. Winston Churchill stated: “ At the peace negotiations we shall leave an empty chair for Pál Teleki. This empty chair will remind the world that the Hungarian Prime Minister sacrificed himself for the truth.”
In the interest of clearing the name of the Hungarians, the time has come to refute the accusation that, at the time of the Jewish persecution in Hungary, several hundreds of thousands of Jews from Budapest were sent to the gas chambers.
The following explains the actual truth of about this:
Under Hitler’s pressure, in 1938 and 1939, “Jewish laws” were enacted which restricted the number of Jews allowed in certain professions. When these laws were enacted in Parliament, as a reaction, a movement took hold in the whole society against these laws. 56 of the most distinguished artists and writers took part in this movement and, during the War, 101 Hungarian generals took part in demonstrations against these laws. Hungary was the only country under Hitler’s influence, where the Jews were able to live without any restriction until March 1944. This is why, during that time, 16,000 Jews sought refuge in Horthy’s Hungary from countries which were under Hitler’s influence. Goebbels called Hungary “the island of European Jews”. The Jewish deportation from Hungary started on March 19, 1944, as Eichmann took into his own hands the deportation of Jews but Horthy managed to slow down and stop the actions of Eichmann, which the German Consul in Hungary, on October 10, 1944, reported to Hitler, expressing his disagreement.
Dr. John Lukács writes in his foreword to the autobiography of General Géza Lakatos that, after Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina and taken to Jerusalem to be tried, he testified: “Horthy’s action was unique in the part of Europe occupied by Hitler. A country – allied with Germany – which employed its regular army to save Jews! I never heard of such a thing before. First I thought the information must be erroneous or I must be dreaming. But later Lakatos expelled me from Hungary altogether.” János Fercsey writes that in 1994, the movie “Schindler’s List” was released, which relates the story of a German businessman who saved the lives of 1,100 Jews. When are they going to make a movie about Ferenc Koszorus, a Hungarian brigadier-general, who saved the lives of 250,000 Hungarian Jews and many thousands of foreign Jews who had sought refuge in Hungary at that time?
Between 1938 and 1945, Hungarian historians were not allowed to mention these matters for fear of provoking the Third Reich. After 1945, the Soviets forbade any research of this period, therefore we do not have any clear data about this era. Even the Decision at Vienna fell within this time period and to speak about it was taboo.
Tibor Hernádi, a Hungarian historian, quotes an article by István G. Kovách, which he found in a London library: Fasiszta Nemzet? Antiszemita Magyarság? (Hunnia, 1991) Kovách quotes from document: C12035 of October 15, 1943 of the British Foreign Office. In this document is the report of a conversation between Professor Namier and A. W. S. Randall:
“Professor Namier of the Jewish Agency told me yesterday that his people were most seriously concerned at the possible consequences to the 800,000 Jews, who now enjoy comparative security in Hungary, of any premature desertion of Germany by the Hungarian Government. The Jews here, he said, felt that Germany could not possibly tolerate Hungarian defection and, as long as the German army was in a position to react, would answer such a move by the Hungarian Government by German occupation of the country, the result of which would be the extermination of the most important body of Jewry left in Europe.
I said that this possibility was already being put forward in public as a reason for Hungary not making any premature move to the Allied side.
Professor Namier said that the only hope, as far as the Jews are concerned, was that the Hungarians would choose not to move until it was practically certain that the Germans would not be able to re-act.”
A. W. S. Randall
(Juhász Gyula: Magyar-Brit titkos tárgyalások, 1943-ben. Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1978)
They are demanding more and more recompense and, although the Hungarians did not want to enter the War, there is no talk of giving them recompense for the loss of life, territory, property and the rape of thousands of women who received syphilis from the Russians.
In 1956 the West betrayed the Hungarians, did not come to their aid, although the youth of Budapest, the workers and peasants took the first step in the fall of Communism.
October 23, 1956 signified the most honest revolution in the world. The people were unified against their oppressors. The primary freedom fighters were the youngsters, who were raised in school to be Communists yet revolted against the system, although they did not remember the “good old times”. Their families were able to counterbalance the influence of Communism.
If we compare the 1956 Revolution to the French Revolution which was extremely violent, yet is always mentioned as the forerunner of other European revolutions, we shall see that the 1956 Revolution was far superior. In Budapest, there was no senseless destruction, no looting, the store-windows remained undamaged, and people collected money in open, unguarded baskets for the widows and orphans of the freedom-fighters.
At the same time, we can reiterate the words of the Hungarian King Béla IV. that he did not receive any help from anywhere, although we continued to hope day by day that help would come. The hopes were not justified because the capitalistic West found the Suez crisis to be more important than a freedom fight which opposed the Muscovite terror regime which threatened the world.
Géza Radics in his work 1956 és előzményei mentions the following:
„Just so that Moscow would not doubt the goodwill of the United States, the Foreign Department sent another telegram on November 2 to Tito, when the Yugoslav dictator was meeting with Khrushchev and Malenkov. Michael A. Feighan, the Representative of the United States entered the following into the Congressional Record in 1960:
„The government of the United States does not look kindly on governments, on the borders of the Soviet Union, which are not friendly toward the Soviet Union”. I have no knowledge if the full text of these telegrams was ever published.
In these decisive days there was another memorable press release by the President of the United States, in which he said the following – among others: „The United States does not advise and never did advise that a defenseless population begin an open revolution against a power that it is impossible for them to defeat.”
Oh! Yeah? An American would say. The same kind of hand-washing as two thousand years ago?
There are different figures circulating concerning the numbers of dead in the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. According to the best estimates their number was about 2600 or probably more. In the years of revenge, according to some sources the Government ordered 341, according to other sources 356 people, to be hanged. Their names are inscribed on black marble at the 1956 museum of Kiskunmajsa, established by the best-known leader of the revolution, Gergely Pongrátz. The children they captured were held captive until their 18th birthday and then executed. The last such execution was in the summer of 1961 which fact exemplifies the merciless cruelty of the Kádár regime. 35,000 people were accused, of which 26,000 came to court and 22,000 were convicted. A further 13,000 people were taken into forced labor camps. One has to take into consideration the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of people disappeared without a trace and after whom no one could or dared to inquire. About 200,000 people fled to the West. This was a huge blood-letting for Hungary. If we take into consideration the facts mentioned earlier and that, after the Revolution, everything fell back into the old Soviet dictated ways, which ruined the people’s self respect during the following 36 years, then we have to count as a loss the fact that the progress and development of the people came to a halt, which could have brought improved living conditions to the people.
From a distance of 50 years we have to bow our heads before the memory of the Budapest youth who sacrificed their lives for the freedom and independence of Hungary. They wrote their names in blood onto the golden pages of Hungarian history.”
The report of the UN select committee (Hungarian title: Tanulságok és következtetések) article XII says the following about the period following the defeat of the Revolution:
„ . . .Kádár slowly allowed most of the programs of the Revolution to fall by the wayside even though he promised the Hungarian people to keep them. The withdrawing of the Soviet troops was a central issue, which he fully supported according to the will of the people. Later he distanced himself so much that by now he refuses even to discuss it. He destroyed step by step the power of the workers and worker-unions.”
The withdrawal of the Soviet troops came about decades later, after the fall of the Soviet Empire. By then the children of the Muscovite Communists, who defeated the Revolution, had come of age and are still in power, 50 years after the Revolution, and celebrate themselves at the graves of the Hungarians they brought to martyrdom.
The peaceful uprising of 2006 attempts to demonstrate against these and the tension of the grievances of the past 50 years, which needs to be resolved, in the hope of restoring the nation’s one thousand year old Constitution and her freedom. The youths participating in this are called by the foreign press – who serve as a mouthpiece for the Communists – hooligans, akin to those of 1956 and even Nazis. The foreign press does not give enough dignity to the freedom struggle of an ancient European nation by publishing some short news reports about the happenings, or interviewing the participants concerning the background and the goals of these events.
In 1956, Hungary took the first step in bringing the Soviet Empire to ruin, and the tender hands of martyred Hungarian children later caused the Berlin Wall to fall and East German refugees to flee to Hungary.
In 2006, the struggle is against the forced presence of foreign interests. It tries to bring to a halt the aims of globalization, which brings about the ruination of men and nations, and their moral stature. A saying in today’s Hungary is: „The tanks left, the banks arrived”. If one translates this into today’s language: One tyranny follows the other, but in a different guise.
Hungary hopes to bring about the dreams and demands of the 1956 Revolution for which an entire generation sacrificed its life.
 Árpád-kori és az Anjou-kori levelek, XI, XIV század. Gondolat kiadó, Budapest, 1960
 Raffay, Ernő: A magyar tragédia, Trianon 75 éve, p. 220
 Pozzi, Henri: A háború visszatér, p. 184-85
 Encyclopedia Hungarica, 1996, Teleki Pál. 580.
 Article from Ösi Gyökér, October-December 1998, p. 155-156
 Lakatos, Géza: As I saw it, Tragedy of Hungary. Foreword, p. iii. Quoting from Magyar Nemzet, Oct. 14, 1994, p. 12
 Publication of the Universal Publishing Co.
 Hernádi Tibor: Kiknek állt érdekében a második világháború, Baja, 1998, 252-253.
 ((46)Congressional Record, Volume 106, Part 14, Eighty-sixth Congress, Second Session, 31 August, 1960. 18785.)
 Hunnia Publ. 1989