¹ See: Fischer, Rolf, “Anti-Semitism in Hungary 1882–1932,” in Hostages of Modernization: Studies of Modern Antisemitism 1870–1933/39, ed. Strauss, Herbert A. (Berlin and New York, 1993), 883–84Google Scholar; Katzburg, Nathaniel, Zsidópolitika Magyarországon, 1919–1943 [Hungary and the Jews; Policy and Legislation, 1919-1943] (Budapest, 2002), 36–39 Google Scholar; Krisztián Ungváry “Sacco di Budapest, 1919. tábornok válasza Harry Hill Bandholtz vezérőrnagy nem diplomatikus naplójára [Gheorghe Mârdârescu's Response to the Unofficial Diary of Lieutenant General Harry Hill],” Budapesti Negyed 3–4 (2000): 173–203.

² For the first transnational perspective on paramilitary violence in Central Europe, see: Gerwarth, Robert, “The Central European Counter-Revolution: Paramilitary Violence in Germany, Austria and Hungary after the Great War,” Past and Present 200 (2008): 175–209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a regional approach, see: Elisabeth J. Ablovatski, “‘Cleansing the Red Nest:’ Counterrevolution and White Terror in Munich and Budapest in 1919,” (unpublished PhD diss., Columbia University, 2004). On paramilitary violence in Europe after 1918, see: Gerwarth, Robert and Horne, John, eds., War in Peace: Paramilitary Violence in Europe after the Great War (Oxford, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Historians estimate the number of Jews killed during the Civil War in the Soviet Union between 50,000 and 200,000. See: Stone, Normann and Glenny, Michael, The Other Russia (London, 1990), 64–70 Google Scholar; Baron, Salo W., The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets, 2nd ed. (New York, 1987), 168–86.Google Scholar

⁴ On the role of war veterans and Fascist militias in the Italian Civil War, see: Lyttelton, Adrian, The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy, 1919–1929 (New York, 2004).Google Scholar

⁵ For a typical example, see: Segrè, Claudio. G., Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar; Snowden, Frank M., The Fascist Revolution in Tuscany, 1919–1922 (New York, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Irvine, William D., “Fascism in France and the Strange Case of the Croix de Feu,” Journal of Modern History 63 (1991): 271–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kalman, Samuel and Kennedy, Sean, eds., The French Right between the Wars: Political and Intellectual Movements from Conservatism to Fascism (New York, 2014).Google Scholar

⁷ Waite, Robert G. L., Vanguard of Nazism: The Free Corps of Movement in Postwar Germany 1918–1923 (New York, 1952).Google Scholar

⁸ Theweleit, Klaus, Männerphantasien, 2 Vol. (Frankfurt, 1977–1978).Google Scholar

⁹ Eliza Johnson Ablovatski, “‘Cleansing the Red Nest’: Counterrevolution and White Terror in Munich and Budapest, 1919,” (PhD diss., New York, 2004), 229; 248–40.

¹⁰ Schulze, Hagen, Freikorps und Republik 1918–1920 (Boppard am Rhein, 1969), 34–69 Google Scholar; Koch, Hannsjoachim W., Der deutsche Bürgerkrieg. Eine Geschichte der deutschen und österreichischen Freikorps 1918–1923 (Berlin/Frankfurt, 1978), 69–81 Google Scholar; 301–10. On political violence, see: Schumann, Dirk, Political Violence in the Weimar Republic, 1919–1933: Fights for the Streets and Fear of Civil War (New York/Oxford, 2012).Google Scholar

¹¹ Kiesel, Helmuth, Ernst Jünger. Die Biographie (Munich, 2009), 266–74Google Scholar; 339–44; 400–423.

¹² On the history of the Heimwehr, see: Edmondson, Clifton Earl, The Heimwehr and Austrian Politics, 1918–1936 (Athens, 1977)Google Scholar; Rape, Ludger, Die österreichischen Heimwehren und die bayerische Rechte, 1920–1923 (Vienna, 1977)Google Scholar; Naderer, Otto, Der bewaffnete Aufstand: der Republikanische Schutzbund der österreichischen Sozialdemokratie und die militärische Vorbereitung auf den Bürgerkrieg, 1923–1934 (Graz, 2005).Google Scholar

¹³ Newman, Jean Paul, Yugoslavia in the Shadow of the First World War: War Veterans and the Limits of South Slav State-Building (Cambridge, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Judson, Pieter M., Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge/London, 2006), 177–257.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See: Wingfield, Nancy M., Flag Wars and Stone Saints: How the Bohemian Lands Became Czech (Cambridge, 2007), 138–70Google Scholar. For an excellent local study, see: King, Jeremy, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics (Princeton, 2005).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the discourse on the boundaries of the future Czechoslovak state, one of Europe's “imagined territories,” see: Haslinger, Peter, Nation und Territorium im tschechischen politischen Diskurs 1880–1938 (Munich, 2010), 210–337.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Wingfield, Flag Wars and Stone Saints, 188–98.

¹⁸ On Jászi's life and career, see: Litván, György, A Twentieth-Century Prophet: Oszkár Jászi, 1875–1957 (Budapest, 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jászi, Oszkár, Magyar Kálvári–Magyar Föltámadás: A Két Forrradalom Értelme, Jelentősége és Tanulságai [Hungarian Calvary-Hungarian Resurrection: The Meaning, Significance and Lessor of the Two Revolutions] (Budapest, 1989), 153–55Google Scholar; originally published in Vienna by Bécsi Magyar Kiadó in 1920.

²⁰ See Jászi, Oscar, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Hungary (London, 1924), 158–59.Google Scholar

²¹ As People's Commissar of War during the Council Republic, he ordered the executions of several soldiers in the spring of 1919. A political adventurer, Pogány became a Comintern functionary and played an important role both in the German and in the American Communist movements. On Pogány's life and career, see: Sakmayster, Thomas, A Communist Odyssey: The Life of József Pogány (Budapest, 2012), 36–52.Google Scholar

²² József Pogány, “Fehérterror Természetrajza,” [The Nature of the White Terror] in Markovits, Györgyi, Magyar Pokol. A magyarországi fehérterror in betiltott és üldözött kiadványok tükrében [The Hungarian Hell: The Hungarian White Terror in the Mirror of Proscribed and Forbidden Publications] (Budapest, 1964), 29–32 Google Scholar, first published by Arbeiter-Buchhandlung in Vienna in 1920; also: József Pogány, “A munkásosztály kiintása,” [The Extermination of the Working Class] in Markovits, Magyar Pokol, 402–3, first published by Arbeiter-Buchhandlung in Vienna in 1920.

²³ József Révai, “A fasizmus veszedelme,” [The Threat of Fascism] Munkás (4 Feb. 1923); in Major, Róbert, 25 Év Ellenforradalmi Sajtó [25 Years of Counterrevolutionary Journalism] (Budapest, 1945), 185–87.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ignác Romsics, “A Horthy-kép változásai,” [The Changing Image of Horthy] Rubicon, 2007/10, 6–7.

²⁵ Népszava, 10 July 1919.

²⁶ Az Ember (21 Feb. 1920); Andor Gábor, “Iszonyatos Iván,” [Ivan the Terrible] in Markovits, Magyar Pokol, 45–49.

²⁷ See: Biró, Mihály, Horthy (Vienna, 1920).Google Scholar

²⁸ On the Right radical newspapers during the White Terror, see: Bodó, Béla, “White Terror, Newspapers and the Evolution of Hungarian Anti-Semitism after WWI,” Yad Vashem Studies, XXXIV (Spring 2006).Google Scholar

²⁹ Az Est, 8 Nov. 1919; Szegedi Új Nemzedék, 26 July 1919; Szózat, 3 Feb. 1920. On the origins of the Horthy Cult, see: Turbucz, Dávid, “Az Új Árpád Honfoglalása: Horthy-naptár a magyar nemzet újjászületésének emlékére,” [The New Árpád's Conquest: Horthy Calendar to Commemorate the Revival of the Hungarian Nation], Rubicon 10 (2007): 21 Google Scholar. Also: Turburz, Dávid, “A Horthy-Kultusz,” [The Horthy Cult] in A magyar jobboldali hagyomány 1900–1948 [The Tradition of the Hungarian Right], ed. Romsics, Ignác (Budapest, 2009), 138–66.Google Scholar

³⁰ Técsy, Viktor D. Miért lett Horthy Miklós a kormányzó? [Why Did Miklós Horthy become Regent?] (Hódmezővásárhely, 1932), 14–21 Google Scholar; Gratz, Gusztáv, A Forradalmak Kora: Magyarország Története, 1918–1920 [The Age of Revolutions: A History of Hungary] (Budapest, 1935), 210; 252–53Google Scholar; 262–71; Doblhoff, Baroness Lily, Horthy Miklós (Budapest, 1938), 235–49Google Scholar; Owen Rutter's book also reproduced to the word Baroness Doblhoff's assertions about Horthy's role in the counterrevolution. See: Rutter, Owen, Regent of Hungary: The Authorized Life of Admiral Nicholas Horthy (London, 1939), 224–42.Google Scholar

³¹ Pilch, Jenő, Horthy Miklós (Budapest, 1928), 175–76Google Scholar, 205–6.

³² On Makkai's political career and his role in the persecution of the Jews: Ungváry, Krisztián, A Horthy-Rendszer Mérlege: Diszkrimináció, Szociálpolitia És Antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The Balance of the Horthy Regime: Discrimination, Social Policy and Anti-Semitism in Hungary] (Pécs/Budapest, 2012)Google Scholar, 169, 184, 188, 192, 216, 271–72. 377, 382.

³³ Makkai, János, A háború utáni Magyarország [Hungary after the War] (Budapest, 1937), esp. 82–98.Google Scholar

³⁴ See: Bálint, János István, ed., A Rongyos Gárda Harcai 1919–1939 [The Struggles of the Ragged Guards] (Budapest, 1999)Google Scholar, first published in 1941; Dr. Héjjas, Jenő, A Nyugat-Magyarországi Felkelés [The Uprising in Western Hungary] (Budapest, 2006)Google Scholar; Somogyváry, Gyula, És mégis élünk [We Are Still Alive] (Budapest, 2004)Google Scholar, first published in 1941.

³⁵ For the use of this term as the main characteristic of Fascism, see: Griffin, Roger, The Nature of Fascism (London, 1991), 26–28.Google Scholar

³⁶ Prónay Pál, “Ellenforradalmi naplójegyzeteim 1918–1921,” [Notes in My Diary during the Counterrevolution] National Security Historical Archive (Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Történeti Levéltára or ÁBTL), 4.1. A-738/1; Pál Prónay, “Tótprónai és Blatniczai Prónay Pál alezredes naplójegyzetei az 1921. év szeptember 1-től 1922. év végéig lefolyt fontosabb eseményekre vonatkozólag,” [Notes in the Diary of Deputy Colonel Pál Prónay von Tótpróna and Blatnicza Dealing with the Events That Had Taken Place between 21 September 1921 and the end of 1922] ÁBTL 4.1. A-738, 422/16 (2/1).

³⁷ Gábor Gyáni, in a thought-provoking article, has recently argued that the conservative regime in Hungary underwent a substantial change in the 1930s to become an etatist dictatorship during the war. Wolfgang Wipperman, on the other hand, has described interwar Hungary, along with Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece, as a monarchical distatorship. Both authors emphasize the difference between Nazism and Fascism, on the one hand, and the rest of the authoritarian and Fascist regimes in Europe, on the other. However, both definitions contain at least two contradictions. Dictatorship cannot be anything but etatist. On the other hand, kingship, as Max Weber explained, represents a traditional form of domination. See: Gyáni, Gábor, “Társadalom és Sociálpolitika,” [Society and Social Policy] in Gróf Bethlen István és kora [Count István Bethlen and His Era], ed. Nagy, Zsejke (Budapest, 2014), 97–107 Google Scholar, here 99. See also: Püski, Levente, “Demokrácia és diktatúra között. A Horthy-rendszer jellegéről,” [Between Democracy and Dictatorship. The Nature of the Horthy Regime] in Mítoszok, legendák, tévhitek a 20. századi magyar történelemről [Myths, Legends and Misconceptions about Hungarian History in the Twentieth Century], ed. Romsics, Ignác (Budapest, 2002), 206–33Google Scholar. On monarchical dictatorhip, see: Wippermann, Wolfgang, Faschismus (Darmstadt, 2009), 146–67.Google Scholar

³⁸ See: Temessy, Vitéz Győző, Országgyarapító Horthy Miklós [Miklós Horthy, the Conqueror] (Budapest, 1941)Google Scholar; Csikszentgyörgyi-Jósa, János, Horthy Miklós, a magyar nemzet atyja. Gondolatok az Apák napjáról [Miklós Horthy: the Father of the Hungarian Nation. Thoughts on Fathers' Day] (Szeged, 1943), 1–7 Google Scholar; Mrs. Béláné Unger neé Boriska Asztalos Királydaróczi, A Hongyarapító [The Conquer] (Szatmárnémeti, 1941), 1–16 Google Scholar. On the change of the Horthy cult during the war, see: Romsics, “A Horthy-kép változásai,” 18–19.

³⁹ Szabó, László, Horthy Miklós: A Nemzet Első Munkása [Miklós Horthy: The First Worker of the Nation] (Budapest, 1941), 1–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Edgar v. Schmidt-Pauli, Nikolaus von Horthy: Admiral, Volksheld und Reichsverweser (Hamburg, 1943), 157–61.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See, for example: Memorandum by the Hungarian Embassy to the German Foreign Ministry, 2 Dec. 1942, Berlin, in Ránki, György, ed., A Wilhlemstrasse És Magyarország: Német Diplomáciai Iratok Magyarországról [Wilhlemstrasse and Hungary: German Diplomatic Documents about Hungary] (Budapest, 1968), 701–2.Google Scholar

⁴² Veesenmayer's report on the political situation in Hungary, Berlin, 10 Dec. 1943, in Ránki, ed., A Wilhlemstrasse És Magyarország, 743–45.

⁴³ For the destruction of the statues, see: Pótó, János, Az emlékezés helyei: Emlékművek és politika [Places of Memory: Memorials and Politics] (Budapest, 2003), 50–51.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Known locally as “Iron Mary” (Vasmarcsa), the intimidating statue of a female warrior, a typical example of this form of political art, stood next to Cifrapalota (Gaudy Palace), a beautiful secessionist building, in Kecskemét between 1959 and 1991. The statue was dedicated to the memory of the victims of the White Terror. Unsurprisingly, local inhabitants failed to perceive any connection between the monument and what had happened in their town and its vicinity in 1919. The statue remained a symbol of Communist repression after 1956 and thus an abomination to the majority of the population. See: http://kecskemeten.hu/nagyapaink-naplojabol/Reflektorfenyben-Vasmarcsa-Lenin-es-toebbiek.

⁴⁵ On Andics's career, see: Romsics, Ignác, Clio Bűvöletében: Magyar történetírás a 19–20 században—nemzetközi kitekintéssel [Under Clio's Spell: Hungarian Historiography in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries—In Its International Context] (Budapest, 2011), 356–57Google Scholar; 370–77.

⁴⁶ See: Andics, Erzsébet, Ellenforradalom és bethleni konszolidáció [The Counterrevolution and the Consolidation of the Bethlen Regime] (Budapest, 1946)Google Scholar, esp. 5–24.

⁴⁷ Nemes, Dezső, ed., Az ellenforradalom hatalomrajutása és rémuralma Magyarországon 1919–1921 [The Victory of the Counterrevolution and Its Reign of Terror in Hungary] (Budapest, 1953)Google Scholar; Nemes, Dezső, Az ellenforradalom története Magyarországon, 1919–1921 [The History of the Counterrevolution in Hungary] (Budapest, 1962)Google Scholar. On Nemes's life and career, see: Romsics, Clio Bűvöletében, 357; 358; 369–72; 387–90.

⁴⁸ See: Markovits, Györgyi, Magyar Pokol. A magyarországi fehérterror betiltott és üldözött kiadványok tükrében [The Hungarian Hell: The Hungarian White Terror in the Mirror of Proscribed and Forbidden Publications] (Budapest, 1964)Google Scholar; Szabó, Ágnes and Pamlényi, Ervin, eds., A határban a halál kaszál: fejezetek Prónay Pál feljegyzéseiből [The Death Is among Us: Chapters from Pál Prónay's Diary] (Budapest, 1963)Google Scholar; and Borsányi, György, ed., Zadravecz páter titkos naplója [The Secret Diary of Father Zadravecz] (Budapest, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Pintér, István, Ki volt Horthy Miklós? [Who Was Miklós Horthy?] (Budapest, 1968), esp. 54–59 Google Scholar; Vas, Zoltán, Horthy (Budapest, 1969).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ On Hollós's career, see: Haraszti, György, Kovács, Zoltán and Szita, Szabolcs, eds., Vallomások a holtak házából: Ujszászy István vezérőrnagynak, a 2.vkf. osztály és az Államvédelmi Közpönt vezetőjének az ÁVH fogságában írott feljegyzései [The Confessions from the House of Death: The Prison Notes of General István Ujszászy, the Head of Hungarian National Security Service] (Budapest, 2007), 16.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Hollós, Ervin and Lajtai, Vera, Horthy Miklós: A fehérek vezére [Miklós Horthy: The Leader of the Whites] (Budapest, 1985)Google Scholar; Hollós, Ervin, Kik voltak, mit akartak? [Who Were They, and What Did They Want?] (Budapest, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵² Tokes, Rudolf L., Hungary's Negotiated Revolution (Cambridge, 1996), 296–98.Google Scholar

⁵³ Mihály Francia Kiss was one of the subcommanders of the infamous Héjjas militia, which had killed hundreds of people in 1919 and 1920. In 1948, Mihály Francia Kiss was tried and sentenced to death in absentia for his role in the White Terror. By adopting various aliases and changing jobs and residences frequently, Francia Kiss was able to escape punishment for more than a decade. Betrayed by a friend, the elderly ex-militia leader was finally captured in March 1957. He was re-tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for the torture and murder of 66 people, as well as for forgery and the illegal possession of weapons, on 13 June 1957. The sentence was carried out on 17 Aug. 1957. Mihály Francia Kiss's remains were buried in Plot 301 of the Rákoskeresztúr New Public Cemetery in Budapest. This mass grave was in use in the late 1940s and early 1950s; more importantly, it contained the remains of the leaders of the 1956 Revolution. The grave became a national shrine after 1990. For a summary of the trials in English, see: Rév, István, “Covering History,” in Disturbing Remains: Memory, History and the Crisis of the Twentieth Century, ed. Roth, M. S. and Salas, Ch. G. (Los Angeles, 2001), 231–51Google Scholar; on the burial place, see: Ungvári, Krisztián and Tabajdi, Gábor, Budapest a diktatúrák árnyékában: titkos helyszínek, szimbolikus terek és emlékhelyek [Budapest in the Shadow of Dictatorships: Secret Localities, Symbolic Spaces and Memorials] (Budapest, 2012), 172–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Kajetán, Endre, A második Mohács/Három év 1918–1919–1920 krónikája (The Second Mohács: The Story of Three Years: 1918–1919–1920] (Budapest, 1992)Google Scholar; see also: Kajetán, Endre, Fehér Terror? Vörös Terror... Azóta Is!! [White Terror? Red Terror … Ever Since!!] (Budapest, 2000), 52–67.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For the rise of the Jobbik as an important political force, see: Karácsony, Gergely and Róna, Dániel, “A Jobbik titka: a szélsőjobb magyarországi megerősödésének lehetséges okairól,” [The Jobbik's Secret: The Possible Reasons behind the Rise of the Extreme Right in Hungary] Politikatudományi Szemle 19/1 (2010), 31–63 Google Scholar. For a good comparison between the Jobbik and the MIÉP, see: Hajdú, András, “A magyar radikális jobboldali képviselők két generációja: a MIÉP és a Jobbik parlamenti képviselőinek összehasonlítása,” [The Two Generations of the Hungarian Radical Right: A Comparison of the Parliamentary Representatives of the MIÉP and the Jobbik] Politikatudományi Szemle 22/2 (2014), 59–87.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ On the “politics of regret” as the main characteristic of Western, esp. German, historiography, see: Assmann, Aleida, Das neue Unbehagen an der Erinnerungskultur: Eine Intenvention (Munich, 2013), 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ See note 32.

⁵⁸ See, for example: Botlik, József, Nyugat-Magyarország sorsa. 1918–1921 [The Fate of Western Hungary] (Vasszilvány, 2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Földi, Pál, Rongyos Gárda [The Ragged Guard] (Budapest, 2012).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See: Pótó, Az emlékezés helyei, 242–46. The wanton destruction of political monuments built in the Socialist era was not confined to Hungary: in every country in East Central and Eastern Europe, demonstrators abolished not only the symbols of totalitarianism, but also monuments whose meanings were ambiguous. Jaworski, Rudolf, “Alte und neue Gedächtnisorte in Osteuropa nach dem Sturz des Kommunismus,” in Gedächtnisorte in Osteuropa, eds. Jaworski, Rudolf and Kusber, Jan (Frankfurt, 2003), 11–26 Google Scholar; Williams, Paul, “The Afterlife of Communist Statuary: Hungary's Szoborpark and Lithonia's Grutas Park,” Forum for Modern Language Studies, 44/2 (2008): 185–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ In the early 1990s, 68 out of 80 statues and plaques devoted to the history of Council Republic were removed. The majority of the 80 Council Republic statues were political monuments, making no reference to local events; only a minority, about 15 out of 80 statues and plaques, served to celebrate the martyrdom (thus functioning as mourning memorials) of local leaders and supporters of the Soviet experiment.

⁶² http://tortenelemportal.hu/2011/04/harmadszor-avattak-fel-a-hollan-emlektablat-a-lanchidon; http://www.kozterkep.hu/~/14885/1919_es_aldozatok_emlekere_szolnok_pogany_gabor_beno_2004.html.

⁶³ See: http://magyarokforrasa.hu/francia-kiss-mihaly.html.

⁶⁴ See: Béla Bodó, “The Memory of the White Terror and the Rise of the Radical Right in Hungary, 1990–Present.” Forthcoming.

⁶⁵ Pál Prónay, “Tótprónai és Blatniczai Prónay Pál alezredes naplójegyzetei az 1921. év szeptember 1–től 1922. év végéig lefolyt fontosabb eseményekre vonatkozólag” [Notes in the Diary of Deputy Colonel Pál Prónay von Tótpróna and Blatnicza Dealing with the Events That Had Taken Place between 21 September 1921 and the End of 1922], ÁBTL, 4.1. A-738, 422/16 (2/1), 333–37.

⁶⁶ Bálint, ed., A Rongyos Gárda Harcai, 11–17.

⁶⁷ On legitimism, see: Békés, Márton, “A legitimisták és legitimizmus,” [The Royalists and Royalism] in A magyar jobboldali hagyomány [The Tradition of the Hungarian Right], ed. Romsics, 214–42.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On the life of Franz Lehár, see: Linke, Norbert, Franz Lehár (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Broucek, Anton, ed., Anton Lehár. Erinnerungen. Gegenrevolution und Restraurationsversuche in Ungarn 1918–1921 (Vienna, 1973), esp. 8–22.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ “Ostenburg zászlóalj története,” [History of the Ostenburg Battalion], The Ministry of War Archive (Hadtörténeti Levéltár or HL), Horthy kori csapatanyag, Székesfehérvári vadászzászlóalj (Ostenburg 1919–1921), 133 doboz; http://hu.metapedia.org/wiki/Ostenburg-Moravek_Gyula; http://mek.oszk.hu/00300/00355/html/ABC11371/11519.htm.

⁷¹ The goals of the conspirators were to grab power, establish a military dictatorship, and institute important social, including land, reforms. The conspirators wanted to occupy the military bases and police headquarters in Budapest, arrest the members of the governments, and send a delegation to Horthy requesting that a new government be appointed on the basis of a prepared list. The conspirators included many members of the Prónay and Héjjas detachments, such as Árpád Raád, Endre Kürti, Ferenc Gy. Molnár, and Mihály Francia Kiss. Additional support came from the ÉME and the Turan Hunters (Turáni Vadászok), an irredentist and anti-Communist organization (headed ironically by Horthy's son, István). The conspirators hoped to lead a peasant army recruited in Kecskemét and vicinity against the capital. In Budapest, they sought to obtain the support of the poorest section of the population. The conspiracy was very poorly organized and barely went beyond the planning stage. See: “Méltóságos Főkapitány Úr” [Dear Police Captain], Memorandum, 5 Dec. 1931 in Vannay Puccs [Vannay Conspiracy], ÁBTL, A-718.

⁷² Fekete Iván, Jelentés. Az angolszász államok ellen felkutásra és beszervezésre vélt egyének [Ivan Fekete, Report. Individuals Deemed Suited to Be Employed as Spies against the Anglo-Saxon Powers], in Vallomások a holtak házából: Ujszászy István vezérőrnagynak, a 2. Vkf. Osztály és az Államvédelmi Központ vezetőjének az ÁVH fogságában írott feljegyzései [Confessions from the House of the Death. The Notes of General István Ujszászy, the Head of National Security, Prepared during His Time in the Prison of the Communist Police], ed. Haraszti, György, Kovács, Zoltán and Szita, Szabolcs (Budapest, 2007)Google Scholar, 558, 586.

⁷³ On Prónay's role in the defense of Budapest, see: Ungváry, Krisztián, A magyar honvédség a második világháborúban [The Hungarian Army in World War II] (Budapest, 2004), 418–20.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Földi, Pál, Rongyos Gárda [The Ragged Guard] (Budapest, 2010)Google Scholar, 111.

⁷⁵ Zoltán Barotányi, “A többi kegyelem. A Prónay ügy,” [The Rest Is Forgiven. The Prónay Affairs] Magyar Narancs, 31 Oct. 2003; on Prónay's life and character, see: Bodó, Béla, Pál Prónay: Paramilitary Violence and Anti-Semitism in Hungary, 1919–1921, Carl Beck Papers 2011 (Pittsburgh, 2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Rátz, Kálmán, Az oroszországi cseh-szlovák légió története [The History of the Czechoslovak Legion in Russia] (Budapest, 1930).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ A mátészalkai gyalogezred III zászlóalj tisztikara. Méltóságos Soós Károly tábornok, honv. Miniszter Urnak [The Officer Corps of the Third Battalion of the Infantry Regiment of Mátészalka to General Károly Soós, The Minister of Defense], Budapest, June (?) 1920, The Ministry of War Archive (Hadtörténeti Levéltár or HL), Horthy-kori csapatanyag, Szegedi vadászzászlóalj (Prónay), Kt. 2439–2947, 121 doboz; Szilágyi István községi biró, Kegyelmes Urunk! [Mayor István Szilágyi to The Minister of Defense], Fehérgyarmat, 29 May 1920, HL, Horthy-kori csapatanyag, Szegedi vadászzászlóalj (Prónay), Kt. 2439–2947, 120. doboz.

⁷⁸ Adatok Rubin vk. Ezredesről. Aláirás Lékány és Prónay [Information on Colonel Rubin. Signed by Lékány and Prónay], Budapest June (?)1920, HL, Horthy-kori csapatanyag, Szegedi vadászzászlóalj (Prónay), Kt. 2439–2947, 121 doboz.

⁷⁹ Prónay Pál, “Ellenforradalmi naplójegyzeteim 1918–1921,” [Notes from My Diary Prepared during the Counterrevolution] ÁBTL 4.1. A-738/1, 451.

⁸⁰ Rátz, Kálmán, Oroszország története ősidőktől 1917 november 6.–ig [The History of Russia from Ancient Times to 6 November 1917] (Budapest, 1943).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Rátz, Kálmán, Utópista szocialisták: tanulmány [The Utopian Socialists: A Study] (Budapest, 1941).Google Scholar

⁸² Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon, http://mek.niif.hu/00300/00355/html/index.htm; Seres, Attila and Renfer, Ágnes, “Egy nyilas képviselő hihetetlen kalandjai a Szovjetunióban” [The Unbelievable Adventures of an Arrow-Cross Representative in the Soviet Union] ArchívNet: XX.századi történeti források, 9 (2009/2): 1–7.Google Scholar

⁸³ The militias had brutally tortured and subsequently killed more than a dozen people in the villages of Tiszaujlak, Tiszakeresztúr, Tiszaujhely, Salánka, and Tornyospálca during the preparation for, and the invasion of, Czechoslovakia in Oct. 1938. At least half of their victims were Jews. At the end of Dec. 1938, the Vannay Detachment pillaged the Jewish Temple in Salánk. See: “Vizsgálati Dosszié. Drankóczi László és társai,” [Examination File. László Draskóczi and His Accomplices] ÁBTL 3.1.9. V-151578. For a favorable account of the the militia's activities, see: Bálint, ed., A Rongyos Gárda Harcai, 208–309; Haraszti, ed., Vallomások a holtak házából, 180–181; 182–83; 400; 521.

⁸⁴ Debreceni Rendőrfőkapitányság. Nagy Béla. Feljelentés [Denunciation]. Január 28, 1946, Budapest City Archive (Fővárosi Levéltár or FL), Héjjas és társai, BpNb VII 5e 20630/49, 58–59.

⁸⁵ Haraszti, ed., Vallomások a holtak házából, 184.

⁸⁶ Perneki, Mihály, Shvoy Kálmán titkos naplója és emlékirata, 1918–1945 [The Secret Diary and Memoirs of Kálmán Shvoy] (Budapest, 1983), 235–37Google Scholar; Fekete Iván. Kormányzóhelyettes-választás 1941/42 telén [Ivan Fekete. Report. The Election of the Deputy Regent in the Winter of 1941/1942], 11 Sept. 1948, in Vallomások a holtak házából, ed. Haraszti, 428–29.

⁸⁷ Iván Fekete. Jelentés. Kisegítő Karhatalmak Felállítása 1943–ban [Ivan Fekete. Report. The Setting up of Auxiliary Units in 1943], 13 Sept. 1948, in Vallomások a holtak házából, ed. Haraszti, 296–300; 438–39.

⁸⁸ “Nagy.” Informer's Report. 19 Aug. 1959. Subject: Dr. Béla (Böllér) Somogyi. Dr. Somogyi Béla és társai [Dr. Béla Somogyi and His Accomplices], ÁBTL. 21.9.V-55004.

⁸⁹ Iván Héjjas. Ítélet [Verdict]. 13 May 1947. Bp-I NB IV.132/1947-5. sz. ítélet. 20630/49/III, Ítéletek [Verdicts]. FL, Héjjas és társai Bp. Nb VII5e 20630/49, pp. 1582–1589.

⁹⁰ On Héjjas's life and career, see: Béla Bodó, “Iván Héjjas: The Life of a Counterrevolutionary,” East Central Europe/L' Europe du Centre-Est, Vol. 37 (2010).

⁹¹ Budapesti Népbiróságtól, Végzés [Verdict]. Budapest, 15 Apr. 1947, FL, Héjjas és társai BpNb VII5e 20630/49, 1156; for an interview with Danics, see: Világ, 12 June 1924.

⁹² Magyar Államrendőrség Budapesti Főkapitányságának Politikai Rendészeti Osztálya. özv. Katzburg Fülöpné. szül. Schwarcz Róza. Jegyzőkönyvi kihallgatás[Interrogation Report], Budapest, 7 Jan. 1946, FL, Héjjas és társai. BpNb VII 5e 20630/49, 87.

⁹³ Pál Prónay, “Ellenforradalmi naplójegyzeteim 1918–1921,” 455; 487–88.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 130.

⁹⁵ Ladányi, Andor, Az egyetemi ifjúság az ellenforradalom első éveiben (1919–1921), [University Students during the First Years of the Counterrevolution, 1919–1921] (Budapest, 1979)Google Scholar, 201.

⁹⁶ His crimes included the murder of a Jewish merchant, Vilmos Kalmár, in the village of Pusztamérges (Csongrád County) and the execution of three members of the Gettler family in Dunavecse in 1920. See: Magyar Államrendőrség Budapesti Főkapitányságának Politikai Rendészeti Osztálya, Neumann Józsefné szül. Gettler René tanuvallomása. Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition]. Budapest, 6 Mar. 1946, FL, Budapest, Héjjas és társai BpNb VII5e 20630/49, p. 1038; Budapest Főváros Ügyészsége. Szembesítési Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition]. Budapest, 23 Apr. 1957, FL XXV. 4.a. 1798/57 FB Bttö, Fr. Kiss Mihály, 256–257; Francia Kiss Mihály. Tanukihallgatási Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition], Kecskemét, 7 June 1957, FL, Budapest, XXV. 4.a. 1798/57 FB Bttö, Fr. Kiss Mihály, 339–341.

⁹⁷ Belügyminisztérium Csongrád Rendőrfőkapitányság. Kérelmek, Panaszok [Applications and Complaints], Bejelentések Irodája. Rácz Jenőné szegedi lakos bejelentése. Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition], 22 Mar. 1957, FL, XXV. 4.a. 1798/57 FB Bttö, Fr. Kiss Mihály, 91–92.

⁹⁸ Belügyminisztérium. Tanukihallgatási Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition]. Budapest, 13 Mar. 1957, FL, Budapest, XXV. 4.a. 1798/57 FB Bttö, Fr. Kiss Mihály, 108–12.

⁹⁹ Dr. Kelemen Endre, bírósági orvos. A budapesti Fővárosi Ügyésznek (Dr. Endre Kelemen, Medical Expert, to the Crown Attorney], Budapest, 30 May 1957, FL, Budapest, XXV. 4.a. 1798/57 FB Bttö, Fr. Kiss Mihály, 425–27.

¹⁰⁰ Dombrády, Lóránd and Tóth, Sándor, A magyar királyi honvédség, 1919–1945 [The Royal Hungarian Army] (Budapest, 1987), 31–33.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Kádár, Gyula, A Ludovikától Sopronkőhidáig [From Ludovika to Sopronkőhida] (Budapest, 1978), 152–56.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Kiss István. Méltóságos Kormányzó Ur! [István Kiss to Regent Horthy] Egercsehi, 25 Sept. 1941, ÁBTL 4.1 A-881, 422/20, 1–6.

¹⁰³ The candidates had to fulfill residency, age, cultural and health requirements. Those who had served in the army would be admitted into the gendarmerie with the same rank and salaries, and fringe benefits (hot meals, uniform, promise of early retirement, state pension, long holidays) were meant to attract, besides professional soldiers, reserve officers and poor peasants. See: Felhívás! A csendőrségbe való önkéntes belépésre [Announcement.Voluntary Recruitment into the Gendarmes]. A M. Kir. Belügyminiszter 27863/VI e. 922.sz. rendeletére. Budapest, Feb. 1922, HL, Horthy-kori csapatanyag, Szegedi vadászzászlóalj (Prónay), Kt. 2439–2947, 123 doboz.

¹⁰⁴ Kaiser, Ferenc, A magyar királyi csendőrség története a két világháború között [The History of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie between the Wars] (Budapest, 2002), 21–32.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ránki, György, ed., Magyarország története, 1918–1919, 1919–1945 [The History of Hungary, 1918–1919, 1919–1945] (Budapest, 1976), 479.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ The Gallant Order was founded, at Horthy's initiative, by Prime Minister Pál in August 1920. The new “gallants” received a land grant; in return, they were obliged to Magyarize their family names and to serve as members of the auxiliary police in the time of crisis. The title served to honor the sacrifices of distinguished war veterans, reward fanatical counterrevolutionaries, and enlarge the social basis of the regime. The majority of “gallants” seems to have come from rural and lower middle-class backgrounds, and included farmers, agricultural laborers, and white-collar workers. Yet, the title was also popular among the members of the military elite and high-ranking civil servants. By 1936, the Gallant Order had more than 16,000 members, of whom at least 1,800 were officers. According to the military historian, Sándor Szakály, more than 50 percent of high-ranking officers on the eve of World War II were recipients of the gallant title. See: Szakály, Sándor, “Az ellenforradalmi Magyarország (1919–1944) hadseregének felső vezetése,” [The Military Elite of Counterrevolutionary Hungary, 1919–1944] Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 1 (1984), 31–70.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Prónay, “Tótprónai és Blatniczai Prónay Pál alezredes naplójegyzetei az 1921. év szeptember 1–től 1922. év végéig” [The Diary of Deputy Colonel Pál Prónay von Tóthprónai and Blatniczai], 334.

¹⁰⁸ Names of vitézek: Imre Makay; László Baky, Aurél Héjjas; Imre Kuthy; Endre Molnár; György Scheftsik; István Sréter; István Szegheő; Jenő Bors; István Forray; Lajos Kudar; Árpád Taby; Dénes Bibó; Zoltán Örményi; Béla Szabó; Zsigmond Szombath; László Molnár; János Sturm; Névjegyzék a zaszlóljnál szogálatot teljesítő tisztekről akik már Szegeden tagja voltak a zászlóaljnak (1919 augusztus hó 2-áig). M.ki. Szegedi vadász zlj. 120 doboz. Membership list is available at: http://www.hungarianarmedforces.com/vitezirend.

¹⁰⁹ Occupation of the so-called white terrorists: politician/parliamentary representative: 1; mayor: 3; head of the provincial administration: 1; middle-level administrator: 2; lawyer/judge: 3; army officer: 3; police officer/detective: 1; university professor: 1; high-school teacher/principal: 1; archivist: 1; journalist: 1; engineer/architect: 2; businessman/CEO: 2; landowner: 2 (1919–es fehérterroristák névsora. 1948(?)), ÁBTL 4.1 A-879, 422/20, 11–12.

¹¹⁰ Szilárd Tátrai, “A vitézi rend története a harmincas évektől a felszámolásig,” [The History of the Gallant Order from the 1930s until Its Dissolution], http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00012/07tatrai.htm.

¹¹¹ Reissman Márton Miklós. Tanuvallomási Jegyzőkönyv [Deposition], Budapest, 12 Sept. 1947, ÁBTL 4.1 A-830, 169–70.

¹¹² Social background of the recipients: middle- and upper-middle class: 606 (66 %); lower-middle class: 288 (31%); lower class (workers and agricultural laborers): 25 (3%). Based on “Kimutatás a Nemzetvédelmi Keresztesekről, 1941” [Information about the Recipients of the National Cross], ÁBTL, 4.1 A-877.

¹¹³ Miklós Kozma was the head of the Hungarian Information Agency in the interwar period. In 1941, he organized the deportation of about 18,000 “illegal aliens,” mainly Eastern Jews. The gendarmes transported these hapless deportees to the Southern Ukrainian towns of Kamenets-Podolsk, Stanislau, and Horodenka. Upon arrival, they delivered them over to a German Einsatzgruppe to massacre them. See: Pohl, Dieter, Die Herrschaft der Wehrmacht. Deutsche Militärbesatzung und einheimische Bevölkerung in der Sowjetunion 1941–1944 (Frankfurt, 2011), 256–58Google Scholar. Gyurgyák, János, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon (Budapest, 2001), 172–73Google Scholar. On Kozma's life and career, see: Ormos, Mária, Egy magyar médiavezér: Kozma Miklós. Pokoljárás a médiában és a politikában (1919–1941) [Miklós Kozma. The Story of a Torturous Career in the Media and in Political Life], vol. 1 (Budapest, 2000).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Colonel Jenő Ranzenberger (Ruszkay), the brother of Viktor (Győző) Ranzenberger, Prónay's deputy, became a National Socialist in the 1930s. In July 1940, he became the leader of the Hungarian National Socialist Party; a few months later, his party merged with Szálasi's movement to create the Arrow Cross Party. In 1941, he entered the service of the Gestapo, and for three years, he passed classified information on to his masters. Berlin put pressure on Horthy to appoint Ruszkay as the head of the General Staff after the German occupation of the country in Mar. 1944; Regent Horthy declined their request, however. After the Arrow Cross takeover of power in October, Ruszkay became the commander of the Hungarian units of the Waffen SS in Feb. 1945; he was the only non-German ever appointed by Hitler to command an entire SS Army afterward in Apr. 1944. The end of the war found him in American captivity; he was extradited back to back to Hungary, tried, found guilty, and executed in June 1946. See: Kádár, A Ludovikától Sopronkőhidáig, 133–36; Paksa, Rudolf, Magyar Nemzeti Szocialiták [Hungarian National Socialists] (Budapest, 2013), 216–17Google Scholar; 236, 250.

¹¹⁵ A military officer by training and a diplomat by vocation, Sztójay spent the better part of his professional life in Germany, first as a military attaché, then, after 1935, as Hungary's ambassador. Appointed as prime minister after the German occupation of the country, on 19 Mar. 1944, Sztójay oversaw, despite the protests by the Western powers and the Vatican, the completion of the Holocaust. After the war, he was executed as a war criminal. See: Sakmyster, Thomas, “A Hungarian Diplomat in Nazi Berlin: Döme Sztójay,” in Hungarian History—World History, ed. Ránki, György (Budapest, 1984), 295–305.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Paksa, Magyar Nemzeti Szocialisták, 174–96.

¹¹⁷ The cultural and political differences were, indeed, significant. The National Socialists were socially more progressive; they had an uneasy relationship with Regent Horthy and the conservative authoritarian elite. See: Gyurgyák, János, Magyar Fajvédők [The Hungarian Race Defenders] (Budapest, 2012), 204–11.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ In 1942 and 1943, the parliamentary representatives of the ruling Hungarian Life Party (Magyar Élet Pártja or MÉP), allegedly the party of conservatives, periodically declared their support for the German alliance; some of its members also seconded the Arrow Cross's demand to surrender their fellow citizens of Jewish descent to the Nazis. By the end of 1942, on the so-called Jewish question, the position of the right-wing of the ruling party had become virtually indistinguishable from that of the National Socialists. A secret report sent to Horthy by the Hungarian News Agency (Magyar Távirati Iroda or MTI) two weeks before the German invasion on Mar. 19 stated that “there are then those on the Right, and not a few of them, who are determined to deal with (elintéz) the Jews once and for all. It is not only the extremist members of the Arrow Cross but also, often enough, the followers of Imrédy who advocate pogroms openly. They say that we have to exterminate the Jews now because they would use the worsening crisis to create chaos and Communism. In these circles, the hatred of the Jews is stronger and bitterer now than it was during the debate over the anti-Jewish laws.” See: 14. Számú tájékoztató [14th Report], 10 Mar. 1944, Budapest, in A szakadék szélén: AZ MTI BIZALMAS JELENTÉSEI, 1943. JÚLIUS 22–MÁRCIUS 19 [On the Edge of the Abyss: The Confidential Reports of the MTI between 22 July 1943 and 19 March 1944], ed. Margit Balogh (Budapest, 2006), 191.

¹¹⁹ Fekete Iván, “Horthy Környezetében Feltételezett Magasabb Rangú Tisztek Jellemzése,” [Ivan Fekete: The Evaluation of the Officers' Characters in Horthy's Entourage], 1943(?) in Vallomások a Holtak Házából, ed. Haraszti, 443–59.

¹²⁰ Fenyo, Mario D., Hitler, Horthy, and Hungary: German-Hungarian Relations 1941–1944 (New Heaven, 1972), 171–73.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Braham, Randolph L., The Politics of Genocide: the Holocaust in Hungary, Vol. 1 (New York, 1981)Google Scholar, 62; http://www.ogyk.hu/e-konyvt/mpgy/alm/al939_44/323.htm.

¹²² Paksa, Magyar Nemzeti Szocialisták, 226; 228; 283; 289; 305; http://mek.oszk.hu/00300/00355/html/ABC07165/08617.htm.

¹²³ The KKVSZ was founded by Pál Prónay and István Zadravecz in Szeged in July 1919.

¹²⁴ “Endre László,” The Ministry of War Archive (Hadtörténeti Levéltár or HL), Hadtörténeti Könyvtár. Ny.sz,: 106. 486–91; Szirmai, Rezső, Fasiszta lelkek. Pszichoanalitikus beszélgetések a háborús főbűnösökkel a börtönben [Fascist Souls. Psychoanalytical Conversations with War Criminals in Prison] (Budapest, 1993)Google Scholar; first published in 1946, esp. 140–48; 265.

¹²⁵ http://www.ogyk.hu/e-konyvt/mpgy/alm/al939_44/124.htm; Szirmai, Fasiszta lelkek, 120–30.

¹²⁶ This statement should be understood metaphorically. It does not refer to the deportation of Jews from Szeged in 1944.

¹²⁷ Komoróczy, Géza, A ZSIDÓK TÖRTÉNETE MAGYARORSZÁGON II. 1849–TŐL A JELENKORIG [The History of the Jews in Hungary. Volume 2: From 1849 to the Present] (Pozsony, 2012), 422–28.Google Scholar