No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2012
The present article investigates how everyday people shaped the outcome of discriminatory measures during the Nazi persecution of Budapest Jews, primarily by looking into micro-level social interactions between superintendents and confined Jews during ghettoization in the Hungarian capital (1944). I argue that besides a multiplicity of relevant political, social and military reasons determining the fate of Budapest Jews, the urban specificity of the Holocaust also needs to be taken into account, given that location and access to urban space enabled different personal strategies to contest or aggravate anti-Semitic persecution. Especially older, nineteenth-century apartment buildings fostered the autonomy of superintendents, who could act independently of various authorities, exploiting certain Jews while aiding others. The article demonstrates how many superintendents made use of this power effectively as the successive regimes toughened their anti-Semitic policies. In addition, the investigation of individual motives and the micro levels of segregation and discrimination highlight major differences between and within apartment buildings, despite the supposedly homogeneous discrimination against Jews envisaged by Nazi policy makers.
1 ‘143.451/1945–IX. sz. polgármesteri rendelet’, Fővárosi Közlöny, 56, 26 May 1945, 246–8; Gáspár, F. and Halasi, László (eds.), A Budapesti Nemzeti Bizottság jegyzőkönyvei, 1945–1946 (The Minutes of the Budapest National Committee, 1945–1946) (Budapest, 1975), 53Google Scholar. All translations are my own.
2 Gáspár and Halasi (eds.), A Budapesti Nemzeti.
3 Schönwald, P., ‘Igazoló eljárások 1945–1949’, manuscript, Budapest Főváros Levéltára (Budapest, n.a.)Google Scholar; Zinner, T., ‘Háborús bűnösök perei. Internálások, kitelepítések és igazoló eljárások 1945–1949’, Történelmi Szemle, 1 (1985), 118–40Google Scholar; Romsics, I., Hungary in the Twentieth Century (Budapest, 1999), 227Google Scholar.
4 Rothschild, J. and Wingfield, N.M., Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe since World War II (New York, 2000), 97.Google Scholar
5 See Cole, T., Traces of the Holocaust: Journeying in and out of the Ghettos (New York, 2011)Google Scholar; Gunn, S., ‘The spatial turn: changing histories of space and place’, in Gunn, S. and Morris, R.J. (eds.), Identities in Space, Contested Terrains in the Western City since 1850 (Aldershot, 2001), 1–14Google Scholar.
6 Bender, S., The Jews of Białistok during World War II and the Holocaust (Waltham, 2008)Google Scholar; Cole, T., Holocaust City: The Making of a Jewish Ghetto (New York, 2003)Google Scholar; Engelking, B. and Leociak, J., The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City (New Haven, 2009)Google Scholar; Horwitz, G.J., Ghettostadt, Łódź and the Making of a Nazi City (Cambridge, MA, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Cole, Holocaust City.
8 Lüdtke, A., ‘Introduction: what is the history of everyday life and who are its practitioners’, in Lüdtke, A. (ed.), The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life (Princeton, 1995), 4.Google Scholar
9 Deák, I., ‘A fatal compromise? The debate over collaboration and resistance in Hungary’, East European Politics and Societies, 9 (1995), 209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Rév, I., Retroactive Justice: Prehistory of Post-Communism (Stanford, 2005), 202–39.Google Scholar
11 See Hanebrink, P., In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism, and Antisemitism, 1890–1944 (Ithaca, NY, 2006)Google Scholar; Péter György's recent series of thought-provoking essays successfully point out the intricate network of victimizations experienced by various groups of Hungarian society between 1938 and 1989, and he also draws parallels between the Holocaust in Hungary, 1956, and the politics of (non)-memorialization of the past during the Kádár regime (Apám helyett (Budapest, 2010)).
12 Gross, J.T., Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz: An Essay in Historical Interpretation (New York, 2006)Google Scholar; Gross, J.T., Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community of Jedwabne (New York, 2002)Google Scholar.
13 Braham, R.L., The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, vol. II (New York, 1994), 850–3.Google Scholar
14 See Gyáni, G., The Parlor and the Kitchen (Budapest, 2002), 37–116.Google Scholar
15 Hanák, P., The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on the Cultural History of Vienna and Budapest (Princeton, 1998), 6–7, 20–1.Google Scholar
16 See Déry, A., Terézváros – Erzsébetváros, VII–VII. kerület (Budapest, 2007)Google Scholar, and his Belváros, V. kerület (Budapest, 2005).
17 Zeke, G., ‘A budapesti zsidóság lakóhelyi szegregációja a tőkés modernizáció korában’, in Zeke, G.et al., Hét évtized a hazai zsidóság életében, I. rész (Budapest, 1990), 162–99Google Scholar; Lackó, M., ‘A két világháború között’, Budapesti Negyed, 6, 2–3 (1998), 173–240Google Scholar, http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00003/00016/lacko.htm, accessed 19 Dec. 2009.
18 Gluck, M., ‘The Budapest flâneur: urban modernity, popular culture, and the “Jewish question” in fin-de-siècle Hungary’, Jewish Social Studies, n.s., 10, 3 (2004), 1–22.Google Scholar
19 Zeidler, M., Ideas on Territorial Revision in Hungary, 1920–1945 (Boulder, 2008)Google Scholar; Romsics, Hungary in the Twentieth Century, 117–26.
20 The numerus clausus was enforced between 1920 and 1928. See Law XXV of 1920 and Law XIV of 1928; Kovács, M.M., ‘The politics of emancipation in Hungary’, in Pető, A. and Pittaway, M. (eds.), History Department Working Paper Series (Budapest, 1994), 80–5Google Scholar; Romsics, Hungary in the Twentieth Century, 117–26.
21 Case, H., Between States: The Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during World War II (Palo Alto, 2009), 185–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Lackó, ‘A két világháború között’; Zeke, ‘A budapesti zsidóság lakóhelyi szegregációja’, 187–92.
23 Mendelsohn, E., The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars (Bloomington, 1983).Google Scholar
24 Braham, R.L., The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (Detroit, 2000), 25.Google Scholar
25 Kádár, G. and Vági, Z., Self-Financing Genocide: The Gold Train, the Becher Case and the Wealth of Hungarian Jews (Budapest, 2004), xxi–xxviGoogle Scholar; Braham, The Politics of Genocide, vol. II, 595–604.
26 Cole, Holocaust City, 169–90.
27 Braham, The Politics of Genocide, 880–2.
28 Ibid., 415.
29 Cole, Holocaust City, 101–5.
30 I have replaced the original names of superintendents and residents with fictitious ones, except in the case of well-known public figures. Budapest City Archives (BFL) XVII/997, documents of the 291/a vetting committee of Hungarian superintendents and assistant superintendents, the case of Mrs Sándor Dobozi.
31 See Gyáni, G., Család, háztartás és a városi cselédség (Budapest, 1983).Google Scholar
32 Kósa, J.N., ‘Várostörténet 1956 után’, Budapesti Negyed, 6, 2–3 (1998), 287–314.Google Scholar Besides social historical studies, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards superintendents featured prominently in urban, mostly Budapest-related literature as well. See for instance Nagy, I., Uracsok, arszlánnők, Budapesti életképek, 1840–1848, ed. Szigethy, G. (Budapest, 1980)Google Scholar; Jókai, M., Poor plutocrats, trans. Bain, R.N. (New York, 1899)Google Scholar; Krúdy, G., The Adventures of Sindbad, trans. Szirtes, G. (Budapest, 1998)Google Scholar; Krúdy, G., The Crimson Couch, trans. Tabori, P. (Budapest, 1967)Google Scholar; Gergely, M., A házmester beleszól (Budapest, 1940)Google Scholar.
33 Á.E. Tausz, ‘Kapuzárás után’, Házfelügyelő, Aug. 1947, 3.
34 Both házmester and házfelügyelő mean superintendent and the two words had been used interchangeably to denote the profession. According to the article, the change was necessary given that by 1945 the word házmester took on a pejorative meaning. As of 1945, Communist papers such as Szabadság and Szabad Nép featured superintendents as acolytes of the capitalist owner, while the residents were seen as the representatives of the exploited masses. See É.B., ‘Háziúr az újjáépítési kölcsönből leszedette a háztetőt’, Szabad Nép, 20 Dec. 1945, 3; Nagy, Á., ‘Lakóközösség kontra háztulajdonos, házmegbízott kontra házfelügyelő: osztályharc a bérházban: a budapesti házfelügyelők igazolása 1945-ben’, Budapesti Negyed, 17, 1 (2009), 163–88Google Scholar.
35 ‘A mi hőseink’, Házfelügyelő, 21 Jan. 1948, 4.
36 ‘Halál a nép ellenségeire’, Házfelügyelő, Jun. 1947, 3, quoted in Bíró, Judit, ‘Házak és mesterek, szemelványek egy újságból’, Budapesti Negyed, 1, 2–3 (1993), 137–58Google Scholar.
37 BFL XVII/997.
38 See for instance BFL XVII/997, the case of Mrs Dénes Koros.
39 Ibid., 28.
40 Illyefalvi, L.I., Budapest Székesfőváros statisztikai és közigazgatási évkönyve, vol. XVII (Budapest, 1929), 8.Google Scholar
41 See Rév, Retroactive Justice, 202–39.
42 In an article that appeared in Szabad Szó (Free Word), the official paper of the governing National Peasant Party, a leading journalist welcomed the decision to let Arrow Cross men out of prison, who were none other than the bewildered and deceived poor workers and peasants. The article suggested that instead of them, the still thriving bourgeoisie should be interned. See Standeisky, É., ‘Erkölcsök 1945-ben’, Mozgó Világ, 2 (2006)Google Scholar, www.mozgovilag.hu/2006/02/04standeisky.htm, accessed on 11 Dec. 2009).
43 In some cases, superintendents were vetted along with their spouses, even though officially only one member of the couple held the position.
44 See Nagy, ‘Lakóközösség kontra háztulajdonos, házmegbízott kontra házfelügyelő’.
45 Ibid.
46 See, for instance, ‘Több nagyértékű kép hiányzik’, Esti Újság, 23 May 1944.
47 BFL XVII/997, the case of Mrs Sándor Dobozi.
48 Ibid.
49 BFL XVII/997, the case of Mrs Sándor Dobozi.
50 ‘Ms. Györgyike Haskó interviewed by Judit Réz’, Budapest, 2005, Centropa Hungary Database, www.centropa.hu/object.cb5c417c-3df0–48a5-b96b-30fa79c1cfd9.ivy?full=true, accessed 10 May 2009.
51 Ibid.
52 Soros, T., Maskerado: Dancing around Death in Nazi Hungary (Edinburgh, 2000)Google Scholar; Szép, E., The Smell of Humans: A Memoir of the Holocaust in Hungary (Budapest, 1994)Google Scholar.
53 Soros, Maskerado, 127.
54 Ibid., 110.
55 BFL XVII/997, District VII, the case of Mrs Dénes Koros.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Gellately, R., Backing Hitler: Conflict and Coercion in Nazi Germany (New York, 2001), 139–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kershaw, I., Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria, 1933–1945 (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.
60 Caron, V., ‘French public opinion and the “Jewish question”, 1930–1942: the role of middle-class professional organizations’, in Bankier, D. and Gutman, I (eds.), Nazi Europe and the Final Solution (Jerusalem, 2003), 374–410Google Scholar; Kovács, M.M., Liberal Professions and Illiberal Politics: Hungary from the Habsburgs to the Holocaust (New York, 1994)Google Scholar; Case, Between States.