Viktor Orbán’s use of history in the European refugee crisis

The Faculties of Humanities and TheologyCentre for Languages and LiteratureMaster of Arts in European Studies

Author: Ibrahim KareemSupervisor: Sanimir ResicSubmitted: August 2017

Abstract

Viktor Orbán as the Prime Minister of Hungary is a figure that dominates headlines both at home

and abroad. During his time in Hungarian and European politics, he has never shied away from

using history to bolster his political message.  Following the ongoing refugee crisis of 2015, he

has employed history as tool against refugees. This paper aims to investigate which aspects of

Hungarian history Orbán focuses on in his rhetoric against the refugees coming to Europe, and

how he uses it. The hypothesis of this research is that Orbán focuses on the historical trauma of

Hungary to stigmatize the incoming refugees, helping him to achieve his political goal of

keeping refugees out of Hungary. With shifting demographics in Europe, anti-EU sentiment, a

rise of nationalism, and global instability, this Hungarian example of how a politician can use

history is an important example going forward. Such tactics may be used again by politicians

causing further divisions and furthering a us vs them mentality in Europe.

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Research questions and hypothesis .................................................................................................. 6

Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Theoretical framework ..................................................................................................................... 8

Methodology and sources .............................................................................................................. 12

Historical background .................................................................................................................... 13

Foundation of Hungary and the Christian Kingdom.................................................................14Ottoman wars and occupation...................................................................................................15Habsburg Hungary to Austria-Hungary.....................................................................................18Hungary in the World Wars.......................................................................................................22In the Soviet shadow and the 1956 Revolution.........................................................................25From “People’s Republic” to the “Republic of Hungary”.........................................................28

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 29

“If we do not protect our borders, tens of millions of migrants will come”..............................30“Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March”..........................................................32“Are You Opposed to Peace?”..................................................................................................35“Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn”................................................40“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the official ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution”.............................................................................................................43

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 46

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 49

3

Introduction

2015 marked a dramatic year in Europe and the world.  During the year, over one million people

– including refugees, displaced persons and migrants – fled to Europe in search of safety. More

than seventy-five per cent of those arriving in Europe were coming from the active conflict zones

of Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.1 These people were trying to escape violence, persecution, war and

were in search of a better life for themselves and their families.2 Though the number of people

fleeing their countries to come to Europe has significantly decreased since 2015, the refugee

crisis remains an important issue and monumental challenge for not only the European Union but

also the world. The crisis has been one of the most serious tests of the European Union to date,

testing unity and ideals in a way few crises have before it.

The crisis has become a point of contention between the member states as the situation escalated

in 2015 onwards, making coming to a unified European solution between twenty-eight (twenty-

seven as the UK leaves the union) to the issue near impossible. Some member states have been

disproportionally due to geography, as they are located on the external borders of the European

Union where they are often times the first point of entry for asylum seekers. Other members have

been impacted by the number of people they have taken in relative to their populations as the

asylum seekers mobilized to other EU member states further away from the borders. The systems

in place for refugees and asylum seekers became overwhelmed on both national and European

levels in 2015.

One of these systems, part of the much larger Common European Asylum System (CEAS) in the

EU is known as the “Dublin regulation” which establishes which member state is responsible for

examining and granting the applications for asylum of people seeking protection in the EU under

the Geneva Convention.3 This includes a wide range of criteria such as family ties or previously

1 Spindler, William. "2015: The Year of Europe’s Refugee Crisis." UNHCR Tracks. December 8, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/12/2015-the-year-of-europes-refugee-crisis/.2 "Refugee crisis in Europe - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations - European Commission." European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/echo/refugee-crisis_en 3 "Country responsible for asylum application (Dublin)." Migration and Home Affairs - European Commission. December 06, 2016. Accessed June 27, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en.

4

holding a visa in the member state, but often times it is the first member state an asylum seeker

enters as they enter the EU. The Dublin Regulation dates back to 1990, and has gone through

amendments, changes, and reform up to 2013. From July 2013 the regulation, known as “Dublin

III” was in place during the refugee crisis of 2015. In that year, as many refugees came by sea

across the Mediterranean or through land routes from Turkey to the EU, the first countries they

would enter were those on the external borders of the EU. In the fall of 2015 the regulation was

partially suspended for Syrian refugees so they could pass into Europe. This was due to the

number of asylum seekers entering that could not be processed and registered as required by

European and international law.4

Hungary was one of the external border EU member states which experienced a large number of

asylum seekers. This was due to Hungary’s geographic position on what would become known

as the “Balkan route” into the EU. Turkey and fellow member states Greece and Italy could not

keep up with the large numbers of refugees in need of assistance. As a result, a number of

refugees continued migrating by taking a land route to pass through Hungary to get to northern

European countries that seemed to signal friendlier policies towards asylum seekers, such as

Germany, Austria, and Sweden. Due to this group of countries’ geographic positions, it was

difficult for asylum seekers to arrive by land or sea without first crossing into or through other

EU countries.

Compared to the previous year (2014), Hungary saw the highest number of first-time asylum

applications after Germany of 174,400 people or 14 per cent of all applications in the EU.5

Hungary also saw one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers relative to its population behind

Sweden.6 These numbers, of course, just account for officially recorded information. The actual

numbers may be even higher. This large number of people coming into the country became very

visible, with dramatic scenes of unrest on the borders to the central train station in Budapest in

4 "Germany suspends 'Dublin rules' for Syrians | News | DW | 25.08.2015." DW.COM. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.dw.com/en/germany-suspends-dublin-rules-for-syrians/a-18671698.5 "Record number of over 1.2 million first time asylum seekers registered in 2015." Eurostat. March 4, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed66 Ibid.

5

2015.7 Some member states wanted to help as they could, others were much more cautious and

reluctant to take in large numbers of people from other countries into their own.

Viktor Orbán, the current prime minister of Hungary, took a hardline against those coming to

transit through or asylum in not only his country, but in all the European Union. Orbán was

known for his fiery speeches and rhetoric before the crisis in domestic level politics, but with

issues of mass migration Orbán found a new target and rallying cry for his speeches. Under

Orbán, the goal was to stop migration to Hungary by the refugees and migrants. By using his

public addresses, Orbán found a highly visible platform to warn Hungary and the European

Union about dangers they could face from such unregulated mass migration. For those who agree

with his platform, he is a man with vision looking ahead to safeguard Europe. For those who

disagree with him, his ideas and actions run counter to European ideals.

Research questions and hypothesis

In this study, I will analyze Viktor Orbán’s use of history in official speeches, statements, and

interviews, specifically in instances in which refugees and asylum seekers are mentioned. The

period of analysis will span a specific period in the crisis, from 2015 to 2016, when Hungary first

saw a large influx of migration and was experiencing the immediate aftermath. This window of

time will not only provide current information, but also help in limiting the scope of the study.

The research questions pursued in this study were,

Which aspects of Hungarian history and memory does Orbán emphasize to legitimize his

policy towards refugees during the crisis?

Why does Orbán chose to emphasize the history he does?

What goals does Orbán hope to achieve from his use of history or memory?

7 "Thousands of refugees in limbo at Budapest rail station." Thousands of refugees in limbo at Budapest rail station - Al Jazeera English. September 2, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/refugees-standoff-budapest-rail-station-150902020744649.html.

6

The hypothesis of this research is that Orbán uses historical trauma to help him achieve his

political goal of gaining support to keep refugees out of Hungary. Much of his historical trauma

comes from previous occupations of Hungary. For Orbán, this is to show a backlash to growing

multiculturalism in some parts of Europe from people from so called “third countries” or

countries not in the European Union, and in this case, those with a different ethnicity or religion.

Orbán has a specific vision for Hungary, and he has stated before that part of this vision includes

the idea of “Hungary for Hungarians” first and foremost.8 While the idea of the leader of their

country to look out for their citizens interests first is not unusual, a leader of a country prompting

fear against a group people is. This research focuses on how, through history or memory, Orbán

attempts to create a narrative against the incoming refugees or migrants.

This research does not aim to examine the migration crisis from an economic or security point of

view. It will not be a concise summary of the crisis. Rather, it aims to examine from a humanities

point of view how history is used by Orbán and the current Hungarian government towards this

group of people to create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. By analyzing his addresses using

the lens of history and memory, we can examine how he tries to relate the current crisis to past

historical crises in Hungary. In doing so he can send a clear, calculated message – we have been

here before and we do not want to go there again.

Structure

This paper will start with an introduction into the theoretical approach that will be used to

examine a selection of Orbán’s public addresses. Common terms or themes to be explored will

be explained here as they will apply to the speech analysis section of the thesis. Next, the

methodology will be discussed to as how these speeches are analyzed. There will be a brief

discussion of the literature and sources that will be used in the research. This research will

provide a background to some of the traumatic and important events in Hungarian history as to

help “set the stage” for the analysis and discussion on the texts themselves. Sections or specific

quotes of selected public addresses by Orbán will be present and analysis will follow.

8 Clibbon, Jennifer. "Hungary's Viktor Orban, the sly leader who wants refugees kept out of Europe." CBCnews. September 17, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-s-viktor-orban-the-cunning-leader-who-would-keep-refugees-out-of-europe-1.3230749.

7

Theoretical framework

In order to try to understand Orbán’s use of history in his speeches, this thesis will draw on the

ideas in the field of history and memory for its theoretical framework. The historical aspect is

based on the ideas put forth on the use of history by Klas-Göran Karlsson and Ulf Zander in their

book Echoes of the Holocaust: Historical Cultures in Contemporary Europe. As the title

suggests, the ideas used are applied to the Holocaust, however for the purposes of this research

they will help to offer insight into analyzing some of the historical context of Orbán’s speeches.

The concepts discussed in their research on the Holocaust that will be explored are the ideas of

historical consciousness and cultural trauma.

Before talking about historical culture or collective memories, let us first define culture. There

are numerous definitions of what culture is or could be. For the sake of narrowing down the

definitions, if we look at culture broadly as a “container of concepts, experiences, meanings,

beliefs, conceptions of justice and morals, manners and practices and other attainments”9 then

history is certainly part of the cultural experience. A group of people, or country’s historical

culture is the place of history in daily life.

The idea of historical consciousness can be thought of as how people (individuals or groups of

people) understand the past. Historical consciousness as described by Karlsson is:

“a mental process that connects contemporary human beings to what they apprehend as

“their” past and “their” future, but also to various larger histories or “imagined

communities” which are of longer duration than an individual life and therefore are

considered existentially or ideologically precious. Informing the present and implanting

hopes for and fears about the future, history as consciousness peraforms the same

function as the mirror of Snow White’s stepmother, telling you who you are in relation to

other generations and to the world.”

9 Karlsson, Klas-Göran, and Ulf Zander. Echoes of the Holocaust: historical cultures in contemporary Europe. (Lund: Nordic Acad. Press, 2003), 31.

8

Historical consciousness changes over time, and we are “more or less constantly and consciously

interpreting, representing and using history for various aims and purposes.” It uses history to

look back and also ask a guide to help look forward. This very concept is something Orbán

returns to in his rhetoric on how to guide Hungary through the crisis.

The idea of cultural trauma is closely associated with the human emotions of trauma and crisis.

Sociologist Neil Smelser looks at the idea of cultural trauma as a memory (or memories)

accepted by a group or groups of people that evokes an event or situation that has a negative

connotation to that group. German historian Jörn Rüsen highlights that crisis can form the base

of or even constitute historical consciousness. 10 Bringing up traumatic periods of history are

common throughout political speeches, and can be an effective tool to persuade an audience.

With that being said, how can a person or a group of people make use of history? History can be

used when parts of a historical culture are “activated in a communicative process in order for

certain groups in a certain society to satisfy certain needs or look after certain interests.” This

research will use some of the typology Karlsson discussed – specifically focusing on what was

described as an existential use of history and a political-pedagogical use of history.

An existential use of history occurs when a group of people tries to preserve the memory and

lessons of a tragic event, or series of events, and is “normally well developed among individuals

and groups in a society where the function of memory has been strengthened as a result of

external pressures and/or potent intracultural homogenisation.” A political-pedagogical use of a

history is described as “deliberate comparative, metaphorical, or symbolic use of [the Holocaust]

in which the transfer effect between “then” and “now” is rendered simple and unproblematic.”

This comparison between “then” and now “is made not to do full justice to historical

specificities, but to stir up a moral-political debate.” These different uses are not necessary set

individual uses however, there is often overlap between these definitions of use of history.11

Greater explanation of these concepts will be provided when they are used in the texts. The

10 Karlsson, Klas-Göran, and Ulf Zander. Echoes of the Holocaust: historical cultures in contemporary Europe. (Lund: Nordic Acad. Press, 2003), 11,12, 26, 27, 31.11 Ibid, 38, 39, 40.

9

difference uses will be applied in the context of further explaining Orbán’s speeches – when he

uses history, what is his goal at the time?

Other research which was helpful for this study was the work “Twenty Years After Communism”

by Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik which examines the political use of memory after the

collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe. The memory described in their research is

collective memory. Collective memory is “a memory or memories shared or recollected by a

group, as a community or culture.”12 Memory is similar to the previously mentioned historical

consciousness. However, rather than looking to the past and the future as historical

consciousness, memory is only concerned with looking directly to the past and lacks the dual

nature of historical consciousness. Karlsson notes that this gives memory an instrumental

character, that an actor serving as a “memory agent,” can use by applying several different

memories to different communities or audiences in political contexts.13

The model of “mnemonic actors” and the typology used to describe them in their research was

helpful in understanding what Orbán hopes to achieve in his speeches when he brings up the

past. A mnemonic actor, as described by Bernhard and Kubik tries to “treat history

instrumentally, as they tend to construct a vision of the past that they assume will generate the

most effective legitimation for their efforts to gain or hold power.”14 These politicians, political

groups, or organizations can at times purposefully use history or memory for their own political

gain. Four different types of mnemonic actors are described in their research – but one in

particular fits Orbán in this thesis, that of the “mnemonic warrior.” As described by Bernhard

and Kubik,

“Mnemonic warriors tend to draw a sharp line between themselves (the proprietors of the

“true” vision of the past) and other actors who cultivate “wrong” or “false” versions of

history. They usually believe that the historical truth is attainable and that once it is

12 "Collective Memory." Dictionary.com. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collective-memory.13 Karlsson, Klas-Göran, and Ulf Zander. Echoes of the Holocaust: historical cultures in contemporary Europe. (Lund: Nordic Acad. Press, 2003), 46,47.14 Bernhard, Michael H., and Jan Kubik. Twenty years after communism: the politics of memory and commemoration. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2014) p.4

10

attained it needs to become the foundation of social and political life. So, for them the

contest in the field of memory politics is between “us”—the guardians of the truth—and

“them”—the obfuscators, perpetuators of “falsehoods,” or the opportunists who do not

know or care about the “proper” shape of collective memory. The content of collective

memory appears to warriors as largely non-negotiable; the only problem is how to make

others accept their “true” vision of the past. Mnemonic warriors tend to espouse a single,

unidirectional, mythologized vision of time. In this conception, the meaning of events is

often determined by their relation to some “paradise lost” or—negatively—an “aberrant

past.” Additionally, in such mythical constructions of time the distinction between the

past, present, and future is sometimes collapsed. The present is construed as permeated

by the “spirit” of the past, and if this spirit is defective, the foundations of the polity are

corrupted.”15

“Twenty Years After Communism” focuses on commemoration of the fall of state socialism in

Eastern Europe in 1989/1991. Though a different focus, the research they conducted on Hungary

show that using the memory of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the collapse of communism, and

the start of the Hungarian Third Republic in 1989 Fidesz, the political party Orbán belongs to,

and other actors were able to leverage memory to gain political power and eventually defeat the

opposition party Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party (MSzMP). Fidesz and Orbán used the

memory of the 1956 revolution to harden political identities and further ideological divisions.16

Given his past experience and successes in using history to defeat domestic political opponents,

Orbán certainly has the ability to use these tactics against refugees in the crisis now.

Methodology and sources

To answer my research questions, I will conduct an analysis of public speeches or interviews

given by Viktor Orbán from 2015 to 2016. This will follow a critical discourse analysis (CDA)

15 Ibid, 12,13.16 Ibid, 40.

11

approach. Discourse looks at spoken or written language. CDA in particular is concerned with

not only the study of communications but the socio-political meanings behind them. It looks at

discourse from a multidisciplinary approach exploring themes such as power, dominance, and

inequality in communications.17 An important aspect of these themes is that the speaker will try

to persuade listeners or readers to change their minds or to employ strategies that will get an

audience to think in a similar way to the speaker. Using CDA, a researcher is able to take a

closer look at the text and understand that words are never really neutral but have a context to

them – whether they be historical, social, and/or political.18

Prime Minister Orbán is a member of the political elite in a position of power to make his

communications heard and available to a large audience, that is in this case the Hungarian

people, and to a larger extent EU citizens that disapprove of certain immigration policies. In this

position of power, Orbán is able to legitimize and normalize anti-refugee and anti-migrant

feelings in his speeches.

These speeches will not be analyzed in a way which focuses heavily on the syntax used like

some applications of CDA, but rather focus on a macro level at the greater historical meanings in

the context of Orbán’s speeches. The goal will be attempting to understand the social context of

the refugee crisis in Hungarian society with some of Orbán’s intended historical meanings.

This main source of the literature for this research comes from Orbán’s public addresses

themselves. They serve as the guiding factor for which aspects of Hungarian history to research

as well as for the analysis. These speeches were all given in Hungarian, however translations of

these speeches and public statements in English are readily available from the official Hungarian

government website. This will assure that correct translations will be used in this study.

In addition to using these speeches, this research used various print and digital sources from

Hungarian history to better provide historical background for certain periods of time. To better

17 Van Dijk, T.A. "Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis." Japanese Discourse 1, no. 1 (1995): 17-27. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://discourses.org/OldArticles/Aims%20of%20Critical%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf. 18 McGregor, Sue L.T. "Critical Discourse Analysis- A Primer." Critical Discourse Analysis: A Primer. Accessed June 27, 2017. https://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html.

12

understand the context of the refugee crisis, international news outlets were used to report

developments between 2015-16. An issue with the literature and sources for the research for this

study was language, this study relies on English language translations or text for its research on

Hungary. Even with this language limitation there was enough literature on Hungarian history,

the refugee crisis in relation to Hungary, and Orbán’s public addresses for research and analysis.

Historical background

As this research will focus on the historical references used by Orbán, this section will go over a

brief section of the long history which leads up to modern day Hungary. The particular areas of

interest of Hungarian history that will be focused on in this summary are the medieval Christian

foundation of Hungary, the wars and following occupation of Hungary by the Ottoman Empire,

Hungary’s role in the dual monarchy system of the Hapsburg Empire, the World Wars, post war

Hungary, and post-communist Hungary leading up to the nation which Orbán leads.

The subject of Hungarian history is so expansive and vast, that a short summary in this research

could not do it justice. History has different points of view, and the view presented here is a

Hungarian centered narrative. Of course, no nation’s history is isolated, but given the space and

scope of this study to focus on every detail of Hungarian history could not be completed.

However, it is important to understand the basics or a framework of what Orbán discusses and

evokes in his public addresses is rooted in ideas of history, legend, myth, and identity. These

short summaries will help the reader understand the context of the speeches and have been

specifically chosen for the references made by Orbán in his anti-refugee rhetoric.

Foundation of Hungary and the Christian Kingdom

Medieval European history is full of dramatic changes in Europe, and the area of historic

Hungary is no different. During the time period of the late ninth century, the creation of the

Hungarian “state” and later its establishment as a Christian kingdom would occur under the

Árpád dynasty.

13

The dynasty was named after Árpád, a Hungarian leader chosen by the seven Hungarian tribes of

the time. Under his leadership and a number of battles with their neighbors, the Hungarian tribes

settled the area of known as the Pannonian, or Carpathian Basin.19 This conquest, known in

Hungarian as honfoglalás (conquest of the homeland) would mark a change from Hungarians as

a lose band of tribes to settling into what would eventually become the Hungarian state.20

Árpád’s great grandson, Prince Géza became the leader who governed the Hungarians by 972.

During his reign, he made peace with the Holy Roman Empire and shifted his focus westward. In

order to show his commitment to this peace, Géza was baptized and became a Christian himself

in 973 and would start to convert his subjects to Christianity.21 Géza still engaged in pagan

practices after his baptism, but he ensured that his son would be raised as a Christian.22

Géza’s son, Vajk, was born sometime between 970-975 according to records. Vajk like his father

was born a pagan, but after his baptism took the name Stephen.23 Géza would arrange for

Stephen to marry Gisela, the daughter of the Duke of Bavaria in 996. This would further solidify

ties to the Holy Roman Empire through family bonds. The following year, 997, Géza died. After

a power dispute with his older cousin Koppány on succession, Stephen would be anointed as the

King of Hungary on 25 December of the year 1000 (possibly January 1001 – the exact date is

unknown).24

Pope Sylvester II and the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III sent their blessings and approval to

King Stephen as the first Christian king of the Hungarians. Stephen would be influenced by the

19 "Árpád dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 07, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arpad-dynasty.20 Roman, Eric. Austria-Hungary & the successor states: a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present. New York: Facts on File, 2003. (p.145)21 Engel, Pál. The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. (p.26,27)22 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.29)23 "Stephen I." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stephen-I-king-of-Hungary.24 Engel, Pál. The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. (p.26,27)

14

institutions of neighboring areas in Germany. He worked quickly for the “installation of the

institutional infrastructure of a national Christianity—a network of bishops, the foundation and

endowment of monasteries in which communities of men or women led a disciplined life of

austerity and prayer, the training of local priests in ritual specialisms and the Latin language.”25

Stephen would use these institutions and the conversion of subjects to solidify his authority as

king and Hungary’s role as a new Christian kingdom in Europe.26 King Stephen died on 15

August 1038.27 When he was canonized on 20 August 1083, “Stephen’s role as national founding

father was formalized and commemorated.”28 This date is celebrated to this day in Hungary as Az

államalapítás ünnepe or State Foundation Day.29 In just a few generations from Árpád to King

Saint Stephen in a time of instability for Hungarians, there was a rapid formation of a structure

for the Hungarian state.

Ottoman wars and occupation

Following the era of Stephen I, Hungary went through periods of instability, consolidation,

expansion, stability and eventual invasion by the Mongols. This invasion would have a

disastrous impact on the region as a border land to Western Europe. But Hungary would survive

through all this and return to a path of periods of instability, consolidation, expansion, and

stability. It would gain and lose territory, but was often battling its neighbors for territory and

power. One of these neighbors which grew greatly in strength over the centuries was the

Ottoman Empire.

The battles between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire began around the fourteenth century.

Following the Ottoman victory at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, the danger the Ottoman Empire

25 Smith, Julia M. H. Europe after Rome a new cultural history 500 - 1000. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011. (p.218, 229)26 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.35)27 Engel, Pál. The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. (p.29)28 Smith, Julia M. H. Europe after Rome a new cultural history 500 - 1000. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011. (p.228)29 "Public Holidays in Hungary in 2017." Public Holidays in Hungary in 2017 | Office Holidays. Accessed July 08, 2017. http://www.officeholidays.com/countries/hungary/index.php.

15

posed to Hungary grew. Over the centuries many Hungarian Kings and military heroes would

emerge fighting back Ottoman expansion into Hungary. But changes in geopolitics and political

instability in Hungary would eventually lead to the disastrous defeat of the Hungarians at the

Battle of Mohács in 1526. 30

The Battle of Mohács was a decisive victory for the Ottoman Empire. Confusion about battle

plans and little time to rally more forces led the Hungarian King Louis II to being outnumbered

against the Ottoman forces. An estimated number of 24,000-26,000 Hungarian forces faced off

against an estimated 60,000 Ottoman forces. In addition to huge losses of life on the Hungarian

side, during the battle King Louis II was thrown off his horse and killed. 31

This defeat was the start of the end of Hungary as a united kingdom. With King Louis II dead, a

civil war between two factions of Hungarian nobility erupted from 1526-1538. Two kings were

elected by the nobility, on one side János Szapolyai, Hungary’s richest landowner at the time. On

the other side was Ferdinand of Habsburg who claimed succession from past royal agreements.

Neither side won full authority over Hungary, and the infighting made a defeated Hungary

weaker.32 By 1541, the Ottoman Empire seized and occupied Buda and Hungary would be

partitioned into three sections.

The country’s western and northern areas would become “Royal Hungary” ruled by the

Habsburgs. The eastern area would become the Principality of Transylvania ruled by elected

Hungarian princes and the central and southern areas (including the former capital of Buda) were

ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans would occupy Hungary from 1541 to 1699. There was wonton destruction of

villages, towns, arable land, livestock, as well as famine, slave raids, deforestation and

30"History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.31 "Battle of Mohács." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 9, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Mohacs.32 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.95)

16

depopulation all over the territory. The sustained occupation by the Ottoman Empire left a

lasting impact on the number of ethnic Hungarians. 33

From the time of St. Stephen and the creation of the Christian Hungarian Kingdom to prior to the

Ottoman occupation, Hungary grew into a large multi-ethnic kingdom. Before the Battle of

Mohács, the Magyars (the Hungarian word for ethnic Hungarians) were estimated to be 75-80

per cent of the population (or 3.5 to 4 million) and by 1600 the population was estimated to be 2

million. Mass migration due to war by other groups of people, such as the Serbs, Slovaks, and

Romanians from areas meant a further decrease in percentage of Magyars compared to those

groups in the partitions of Hungary. The depopulation continued during the occupation. In the

administrative capital Buda, Turkish officials recorded 58,742 tax paying households in 1577/8.

By 1661/3 that number would decrease to 12,527.34

The Ottoman administration was set up in a way to extract the most resources from the territory

and to act as a buffer between the Ottoman and European forces. Journalist and author Paul

Lendvai notes of this time that:

“Pope Pius II described Hungary as "the bulwark and shield of Christianity". Now,

however, this Central European great power, for almost 150 years a brake on Turkish

expansion and the spearhead in the Balkans of resistance to Ottoman rule, became a no-

man island before the gates of Vienna, as well as a battlefield for the constant struggle

between Habsburgs and Ottomans and its alternating fortunes.”35

33 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.34 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.99, 101)35 Ibid, 95

17

Hungary in 1568 (Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.)

Habsburg Hungary to Austria-Hungary

The Ottomans would occupy large parts of Hungary until 1699. During the occupation, the

Ottoman Empire clashed with the Habsburg Empire and other European powers for territory,

power, and influence. One of the biggest campaigns the Ottoman Empire would take part in was

the Battle of Vienna in 1683, attempting and failing to take the city. Following this Ottoman

push westward, Pope Innocent XI created The Holy League in 1684. The Holy League was an

alliance between the Holy Roman Empire (ruled by Habsburg Emperor Leopold I), the Polish-

Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Papal States, and later would include the Tsardom of Russia and

the Venetian Republic. The alliance was formed as a united front against the Ottoman Empire. 36

The Holy League launched campaigns to retake territories the Ottomans conquered. Western and

central Hungary, including Buda were conquered by the Holy League by 1696. In 1697, Leopold

36 "1684: The Holy League of Blessed Pope Innocent XI." History.info. February 29, 2016. Accessed July 15, 2017. http://history.info/on-this-day/1684-holy-league-blessed-pope-innocent-xi/.

18

I, Holy Roman Emperor, changed the Hungarian constitution so that his successors would be

crowned King of Hungary.37 By 1699, the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League signed the

Treaty of Karlowitz, which ended Ottoman rule in Hungary and transferred control of Ottoman

Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania to the Habsburg Empire. 38

Though free from the Ottomans, the three previously divided sections of Hungary were now part

of a much larger empire. As the Habsburgs gained control of Hungary and joined it to the

Austrian Empire, they imposed taxes and a military draft on the residents.39 There was initial

rebellion and protest against the Habsburg Empire by different regions of Hungary, such as

Transylvania. Ferenc Rákóczi II, a prince of Transylvania led an unsuccessful eight-year

rebellion against Leopold I.40 As the decades went on Habsburg power was consolidated through

force and the territories of Hungary became important for the economic stability of the empire.

In addition to the depopulation of Hungarians during the Ottoman period, during Austrian rule

there were mass immigrations by different groups into Hungary. In 1720 Hungarians were 35 per

cent of the population of Hungary. By 1780, this only rose to around 40 per cent. The role of

Hungarians was further diminished in the empire with marginalization of their language and

culture as Latin and German became the languages of administration or business, turning

Hungarian into a “peasant language.”

External and internal pressures on the Austrian Empire lead to a period of reform in Hungary

from 1825-1848. Influenced by the events of Europe in the early nineteenth century, Hungarian

nationalism and national identity increased along with demands of modernization, social and

economic reform. Concessions were made in order to hold the peace in the empire, but they were

too little too late.

37 “History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History38 "Treaty of Carlowitz." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Carlowitz.39 Sowards, Steven W. "Lecture 4: Hungary and the limits of Habsburg authority." Hungary and the limits of Habsburg authority. November 4, 2008. Accessed July 20, 2017. http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html.40 "Ferenc Rákóczi, II." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 18, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferenc-Rakoczi-II.

19

In 1848 revolutions were spreading throughout Europe, including Paris and Vienna, and this

fervor came to Hungary. While the Habsburg Empire dealt with its own internal uprisings,

Hungarian reformers and young intellectuals in Buda and Pest prompted the revolution March of

1848 through mass protests and huge crowds. Those young intellectuals and reformist in

government worked towards a list of demands of the Hungarian nation dealing with economic,

civil rights, military, and political reform. Though led by young intellectuals and political

reformist, the movement had broad support among the population, both from ethnic Hungarians

and the diverse range of minorities in Hungary.

Dealing with problems in other regions that could lead to the collapse of the empire, the Austrian

Emperor Ferdinand I was forced to accept these demands in 1848, leading to an independent

Hungarian government which seceded from the empire. The revolution at the start was

bloodless.41 But it would not stay that way. Other groups of people living in the new Hungary,

such as the Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, and Romanians had their own ambitions of nationalism just

like the Hungarians. As 1848 went on, there were uprising in Hungary led by these groups

against the new Hungarian government. As uprisings were suppressed in the Austrian Empire,

Emperor Ferdinand I abdicated to Emperor Franz Joseph I in 1848. Franz Joseph did not

recognize the reform laws and sovereignty of the new independent Hungary. By the end of 1848

Franz Joseph ordered his army to attack Hungary.

The Austrian Empire’s army and the Hungarian army did battle for months. The Austrians

managed several quick victories but were later pushed back by the Hungarian forces. As time

went on, Emperor Franz Joseph appealed to Czar Nicholas I of Russia for help to defeat

Hungary. As the balances of power were shifting in Europe, Czar Nicolas came to the aid of

Franz Joseph. The Hungarians now were being attacked from all sides – from internal uprisings

for minorities in Hungary who wanted the same freedom as Hungarians, from the Austrian

Empire, and now from the Russian Empire. The Hungarians would be defeated and back under

Austrian control by October of 1849. Hungarian leaders that did not flee into exile were killed, to

send a message to both the Hungarians and in Europe by the Austrians. 42

41 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.42 Szabó, János B. "Hungary's War of Independence." HistoryNet. June 23, 2016. Accessed July 20, 2017. http://www.historynet.com/hungarys-war-of-independence.htm.

20

Though the Austrian Empire was victorious against the Hungarians in battle, it was clear that

reforms were needed. Following the war in 1849, Hungarian politicians looked towards

compromise with Austria. After several military defeats, particularly against Prussia in 1868, the

Austria Empire sought a compromise with Hungary. In 1867, a compromise was reached and the

dual monarchy system was created and with the new country of Austria-Hungary was born.

Following the reforms of 1867, the Austria-Hungary had two capitals (Vienna and Budapest)

with a common monarchy, foreign policy, and military policy. Besides these shared aspects, each

member had control of their own domestic government policies. Austria-Hungary became a large

multinational country, the second largest in Europe after Russia. 43 This compromise brought

back a sense of territorial integrity and stability to Hungary that it didn’t have since the Ottoman

wars.

After the compromise, Hungary passed the “Nationalities Law” of 1868. The law stated that all

ethnicities were part of the new Hungarian nation. But in practice, the goal of this law was to

strengthen the role of the Hungarian language on the institutional and social level. This would

officially start a process of so called “Magyarization” with the goal of assimilating all minority

groups with Hungarian culture and language. Hungarians and their culture and language became

dominant, often at the expensive of the many other ethnic groups in the country. Minority

languages became banned on government levels and Hungarian became the language of politics,

business, and public social life. As they got power, the Hungarians treated other ethnic groups

the same way the Austrians treated them. The number of native Hungarian speakers rose from

46.6 per cent in 1880 to 51.4 per cent in 1900. Though social reforms were contentious, Austria-

Hungary experienced high levels of economic growth. Hungary saw increased industrialization,

urbanization, advancements in agriculture, and huge population growth. 44

43 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.44 Ibid.

21

Austria-Hungary in 1914 (Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.)

Hungary in the World Wars

When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28 June 1914, the bells of war were

ringing in Europe. Diplomatic efforts by Hungary failed to stop the war, and just a month later

on 28 July 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.45 As the war expanded, Austria-

Hungary fought on the side of the Central Powers which included Germany, Bulgaria and

Ottoman Empire against the “Entente” (or the Allies).

The war was disastrous for the Central Powers. Hungary mobilized almost four million troops,

and suffered 661,000 deaths. The Hungarian economy was in ruins and on the brink of collapse.

The war and internal pressure brought about the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary in November

of 1918. Following the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Hungary experience revolution and

45 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.357)

22

counter revolution from 1918-1920. In war time atmosphere, with troops from the allies

surrounding it, and Romanian troops occupying parts of it, Hungary was in complete chaos.

The Aster Revolution occurred in 1918 and it created the Hungarian People’s Republic from

1918-1919, which was then overthrown by the Communist Party of Hungary that created the

Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. The actions of the communist government led to the

imprisonment and murder of political opponents in what would be known as the “red terror”. In

response to this unrest counter revolutionary forces established themselves in Szeged (southern

Hungary) and began attacks on the communists in what would be known as the “white terror.” A

government was formed by the counter revolutionary forces in November of 1919. In 1920 one

of the leaders of the counter revolutionary movement Miklós Horthy, the former commander in

chief of the Austro-Hungarian Navy was elected as temporary regent, and Sándor Simonyi-

Semadam became prime minister.46

With the new government in Hungary, the Allies created an agreement with the successor state

of Hungary to formally end the hostilities of World War I. Known as the Treaty of Trianon, the

peace treaty would redraw Hungary’s borders. The Allies drew the new borders of Hungary (and

its successor states) with the idea that the large groups of minorities in Hungary should be given

their own national states. Under the treaty Hungary would lose huge parts of its territory, pay war

reparations, and limit its army size to just 35,000 soldiers.

Hungary became a landlocked state; its territory decreased from 325,408 square km to 92,962

square km. It went from a population of 20,866,447 (according to the 1910 census) to 7,615,117.

More than three million Hungarians now lived in the successor states of Romania,

Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Austria.47 Not only did Hungary lose human resources, but

important economic and natural resources were in areas of Hungarian land seceded away.

Hungary was forced to sign the treaty and had no negotiating power after the war. To

46 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.47 Ibid.

23

Hungarians, the Treaty of Trianon was the “death certificate of the 1,000-year realm of St

Stephen.”48

Division of Hungary in the Treaty of Trianon 1920 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

After the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary was filled with confusion. Between 1920-1941, Hungary

tried to rebuild inside its new borders. Hungarian politicians tried to reform social, economic,

and political policies in the country. The revision of the Treaty of Trianon was an important issue

for Hungarian politicians and the people, but Hungary was still weakened after the war and not

in a position to negotiate. The economic situation in Hungary was so dire that there was a rise in

right wing radicalism in politics.49

48 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.373)49 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.

24

Hungary developed increasing economic ties to Germany to help relieve its problems. Some

elements of Hungarian leadership did not want to ally with Germany, but towards the end of the

1930s, Hungarian foreign policy became very pro-Germany and pro-Italy. It seemed that both

Germany and Italy, unlike the Western European powers were sympathetic to Hungary’s claims

over the lands it had lost in the Treaty of Trianon. As Germany and Italy were changing

boundaries in Europe, the first and second “Vienna Awards” returned some territory lost by

Hungary in Trianon. The first Vienna Award (1938) gave Hungary part of southern Slovakia and

the second Vienna Award (1940) gave Hungary part of northern Transylvania in Romania.

But regaining lost territory did not come without any strings attached. As the alliance between

Germany and Hungary grew closer, Hungary signed the Tripartite Pact (the alliance between

Germany, Italy, and Japan) in 1940 and would soon after be obligated to enter World War II.

When Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Hungary mobilized its troops to help attack.

Hungary became increasingly reliant on German economic help during the war. By 1943, the

Hungarian military had suffered numerous defeats on the Eastern Front and Hungarian

leadership started back-channel talks with the British and Americans. As Hitler suspected

Hungary may back out of its pact and turn to the Allies - Germany occupied Hungary in March

of 1944. Soon after the German occupation, the Soviet Union was pushing westward to attack

Germany. The Soviet Union would soon be in Hungary, and by September of 1944 the Soviet

Union occupied large parts of Hungary. By April of 1945 the Soviet Union had pushed all the

Germans out and then occupied the country. As World War II ended, Hungary signed the 1947

Treaty of Paris, where it lost the land in gained between 1938-1941.50

In the Soviet shadow and the 1956 Revolution

As the Soviet Union occupied Hungary, they had ambitions to add Hungary into the Soviet

sphere of influence. Though it didn’t start off as a full political takeover, it evolved into one over

the years. In 1944 as World War II was still going on, the Soviet Union had planned into slowly

install a friendly communist regime in Hungary. By 1945 there were elections in Hungary where

Hungarians voted not for politicians but political parties. A Hungarian party known as

50 Pike, John. " 1939-1945 - Hungary in World War II." Global Security. Accessed July 23, 2017. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/hu-history-25.htm.

25

“Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party” won about 57 per cent of the

vote, compared to the communist party which only won about 17 per cent of the vote. This was

not the reaction the Soviet Union wanted or expected. The next election would be held in 1947,

where the communist party would not increase their percent of their vote by much. In 1949

during the next elections, after past attempts of voter fraud and intimidation, the communist party

forced the Social Democrats and other political parties to merge together to form one political

bloc. They would win a majority of the seats in parliament and by summer of 1949 had unveiled

a new constitution modeled after the Soviet Union’s, turning Hungary from a republic to a

“people’s republic.”

With Mátyás Rákosi as the leader of the Hungarian Communist Party and now the nation seizing

power, the new government made sweeping changes. Secret police, the “State Protection

Authority” (Államvédelmi Hatóság or ÁVH) was established, opposition parties were dissolved,

and dissidents to the new government were imprisoned or murdered. Education systems and the

economy were nationalized. Policies of collectivization and attempts to turn Hungary into a fully

industrialized nation did not have the infrastructure to succeed, leading to more economic

problems. The role of the church in society changed under political pressure. After the

destruction of two World Wars, these policies and the government were deeply unpopular with

the people.51

In 1953, Joseph Stalin, the Primer of the Soviet Union died and was replaced with Nikita

Khrushchev. This caused a great deal of uncertainty in both the Soviet Union and countries in its

sphere of influence such as Hungary. In 1956 Poland had been granted more rights and freedoms

as a way to stop mass protests. Hungary would try a similar route. On 23 October 1956, students

organized a peaceful demonstration with a list of demands for change in Hungary. 52 The

leadership in Hungary responded to the demonstration with arrests and tear gas. People began

tearing down Soviet icons in the city, such as a large statue of Joseph Stalin. The situation

51 "History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.52 Trueman, C. N. "The Hungarian Uprising of 1956." History Learning Site. Accessed July 24, 2017. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/the-hungarian-uprising-of-1956/.

26

worsened and the police fired into the crowd, killing some.53 This turned what started as a

peaceful protest into a revolution.

In response to the police firing on the students, the army joined the side of the students. Soon

after the military had open its arms depots and the citizens of Budapest began to arm themselves.

The protesters yelled anti-Russian chants and called for the return of the Hungarian political

leader Imre Nagy, who severed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic

of Hungary for two years (1953-1955) and attempted to make reforms for Hungary. His brief

time in power followed the previously mentioned unpopular Mátyás Rákosi. Nagy was replaced

in 1955 by another unpopular pro-Soviet hardliner, Ernő Gerő.

By 24 October 1956 Soviet tanks were rolling into Budapest in response to the unrest at the

request of Ernő Gerő to keep the peace. The peace was not kept as Soviet tanks fired on to

crowds and there were armed clashes between the Hungarians and Soviet troops. As a response

to the quickly escalating situation the communist party officials replaced Gerő with Nagy on 25

October and withdrew Soviet troops a few days later. As the Soviets left, Imre Nagy pushed for

political reform and to get rid of the one-party system Hungary had following World War II.54

There were appeals for assistance from Western European countries as well as the United States

to help recognize Hungary’s position, but these calls went unanswered save for a few speeches

and kind words towards the Hungarians. On 31 October Nagy broadcast over the radio that he

planned for Hungary to withdraw from the “Warsaw Pact” which was a defense treaty between

the Soviet Union and seven other European countries that put the Soviet military in charge of

these militaries in time of attack.55

Nagy’s goals of political reform and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact seemed to be too much

for Soviet leadership to allow. A few days later, on 4 November Soviet tanks and troops would

again enter Budapest. The Soviet military came in to crush the revolution, and in the process an

estimated 2,500 Hungarians were killed. The fighting creating a refugee crisis as an estimated 53 "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 - a summary." History in an Hour. October 23, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2017. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/02/21/hungarian-revolution-of-1956-summary/.54 Ibid.55 "The Warsaw Pact is formed." History.com. Accessed July 22, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-warsaw-pact-is-formed.

27

200,000 Hungarians fled Budapest towards Austria, Western Europe, and the United States to

escape death or imprisonment. Imre Nagy was captured and imprisoned in 1956, later to be

executed for treason in 1958. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution only lasted from 23 October 1956

to 10 November 1956 but the brutal response to it became ingrained into Hungarian collective

memory.56

From “People’s Republic” to the “Republic of Hungary”

Following the revolution of 1956, the country remained in the Soviet shadow. The new leader

replacing Nagy was János Kádár, who ruled the country from 1956 to 1989. Initially starting a

campaign of retribution against those who participated in the 1956 revolution, Kádár changed his

leadership style in the 1960s. From the 1960s Hungary started its “slow evolution” into a more

open country in comparison to others behind the “iron curtain.” The clamp down and

imprisonment towards opposition that occurred after World War II to 1956 eased slightly, with

Kádár embracing the idea of “he who is not against us is with us.” Over decades of Kádár’s rule,

Hungary went through evolutionary political, economic, and social reform. There were more

exchanges between Western Europe and Hungary, and exchanges between The Vatican and

Protestant churches outside of Hungary.

This slow evolution paved the way towards Hungary becoming a democracy in 1989. Under

domestic political changes in the 1980s, the Hungarian government adopted changes that

included a number of social and political reforms. This would lead to a new constitution,

changing the country from a “People’s Republic” to the “Republic of Hungary.” The constitution

was presented on 23 October 1989 (the anniversary of the 1956 Revolution) and “was based on

the principle of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers and also included

guarantees of individual and civil rights.” Hungary changed into a democratic multi-party

system. There was a peaceful transition from communism to democracy, communist leadership

did not attempt to block the changes being made to the government and there was no interference

from the Soviet Union. Hungary had its first free parliamentary elections in two rounds in March

and April of 1990. The Soviet troops would leave Hungary the same year. Hungary became a

56 "Soviets put brutal end to Hungarian revolution." History.com. Accessed July 26, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-put-brutal-end-to-hungarian-revolution.

28

prime example of a non-violent, peaceful transition to democracy. Following the transition to

democracy, Hungary moved towards Europe in alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization or NATO by joining in 1999. Hungary joined by the European Union in 2004.57

This historical background brings us almost up to date to modern Hungary. There have been

domestic and international political changes in Hungary since transitioning into a republic, but

this background aims to focus on historical themes such as the foundation of Hungary, invasion,

occupations, and political repression to understand some context in Orbán’s public addresses on

refugees and the refugee crisis.

Analysis

This section will focus on analyzing Orbán’s public addresses concerning the refugee crisis. As

previously mentioned, the selection of public addresses was made from 2015-2016. Orbán has

given a large number of speeches, interviews, addresses, and comments on the refugee crisis

during this time, so an issue was deciding which to choose for the study. This study focused on

narrowing down this large number to a selection of five speeches, interviews, or press

conferences.

Each of these were carefully selected for their historical content and the use of history by Orbán.

What started as a large list of almost twelve speeches was narrowed down to these five. The

public addresses will be presented in chronological order, starting from September 2015 ending

in October 2016.

There will be some background on the addresses followed by an analysis of sections of the

address and the overall meaning. This is meant to be a sample size of historical use by Orbán

against the refugees and aims to help the reader understand some of his tactics and intended

meanings to the greater Hungarian and European context of anti-refugee sentiment. This list of

speeches shows some of the common reoccurring historical themes Orbán used and continues to

use in his speeches against refugees.

57 Ibid.

29

“If we do not protect our borders, tens of millions of migrants will come”

On 4 September 2015, Prime Minister Orbán conducted a radio interview with Éva Kocsis for

Kossuth Rádió’s program “180 minutes.” Kossuth Rádió is a national radio station in Hungary. It

is one of the most popular radio stations, with 1.38 million daily listeners (14 per cent of the total

population).58 The main purpose of Orbán’s interview was to stress border security in a time

when records numbers of refugees were crossing into Hungary during the summer of 2015. In

June 2015 announced Hungary would fence off its southern border with Serbia with a four-meter

(13 ft) tall and 175 km (110 miles) long fence.59 Orbán’s position was the fence was necessary to

stop the inflow of people, which at the time numbered 57,000 (from January – June 2015).

Most of these people did not intend to stay in Hungary, but rather wanted to travel through

Hungary to travel to countries such as Austria, Germany, or Sweden among others. In Orbán’s

point of view, refugees no longer should be allowed entry in Hungary or any other European

country because in fleeing their own countries had passed through designated “safe” countries,

such as Turkey, or its neighbor Serbia. This relates to the previously mentioned “Dublin

Regulation.” At this point the idea of a quota system was being discussed on a European Union

level in a way to more equally distribute and care for the refugees. In the quota system, each

European Union member would take in a number of refugees based on their population,

economy, and other criteria. It was in this context that Orbán and other European leaders

disagreed and Orbán gave this interview.

At the start of the interview Éva Kocsis and the Prime Minister discussed the political

atmosphere in the EU, the quota system, and the role of countries such as Italy or Greece in

curbing the number of people coming into Europe. Orbán was asked by Éva Kocsis, “Broadly

speaking, why do you disagree with the idea of people from different cultural and social

backgrounds coming to Europe in large numbers?” His response was:

58  Nt. "Nyáron is tarolt a Class FM." MNO.hu. March 05, 2017. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://mno.hu/media/nyaron-is-tarolt-a-class-fm-1183816. (Translated)59 "Hungary to fence off border with Serbia to stop migrants." Reuters. June 17, 2015. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-immigration-idUSKBN0OX17I20150618.

30

“We all have different ideas about life; I do not know what the majority of Hungarians

think about this. No doubt we shall have the chance to talk about this, too, as part of a

consultation. I personally believe in a Europe, would like to live in a Europe, and would

like my children to live in a Europe and in a Hungary which is a continuation of the one

thousand-year tradition maintained by our parents, our grandparents and our great-

grandparents. This could change: they could occupy Hungary – something not

unprecedented in our history – or they could introduce communism. But the profile of our

population could also change slowly, by degrees, without our even noticing. I believe that

we must respect the decisions of countries which have already decided that they wish to

live with large Muslim communities: the decisions of countries such as France or

Germany. We cannot criticise them – this was their decision. But we, too, have the right

to decide whether we want to follow their example or not. I, for one – and this is my

personal opinion – would advise the Hungarian people not to follow suit. Now we are

still able to decide not to follow their example. If we do not keep our wits about us now,

later on this will not be a matter for deliberation: it will be a fait accompli which we are

forced to live with.”60

In a political-pedagogical use of a history, Orbán brings up the one-thousand-year tradition of

Hungary (an allusion to the time dating back from St. Stephen), its past occupations, and

demographic issues. In his answer, he frames people “from different cultural and social

backgrounds” as not only a threat to the hard-fought continuation of Hungary’s thousand-year

tradition, but also an occupying force. This kind of occupying force is not unprecedented in

Hungarian history as we look back on to a series of past occupations by empires and nations. In

order to channel this message further to the radio listener, Orbán brings up the possibility that the

refugees and migrants could bring communism with them to Hungary. By bringing up the past

occupation of the Soviet Union and the version of communism forced on Hungary, Orbán tries to

connect the refugees as people that in such large numbers could overthrow the Hungarian

government and introduce communism. Though this historical reference may be far-fetched, it

seems to be an attempt to strike up fear in the heart of a listener by using a buzzword such as

communism.

60 Ibid.

31

Orbán also brings up demographics in Hungary. As we have seen through historical background,

Hungarians have dealt with huge demographic issues since the time of the Ottoman Empire. But

what is the situation in modern day Hungary? According to the 2016 estimates, Hungary’s

population was 9,874,784. Of this number, 85.6 per cent identity their ethnicity as Hungarian.61

In comparison to our past historical examples of the number of ethnic Hungarians for population,

this number has increased as a part of the total population of Hungary. Hungary’s birth rate has

decreased like other European countries as is estimated to be 1.44 children born for each

woman.62 But these figures do not show the historical population or demographic changes seen in

the past such as the Ottoman era. Hungary’s demographic future may be impossible to predict,

but, as many of the refugees transit through Hungary on their way to other European countries,

statistics do not seem to show them significantly altering the population without notice.

“Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March”

In the time between September 2015 and March 2016 the refugee crisis became worse on

Hungary’s borders. Some important events in the time frame include: Hungary unilaterally

closed its borders with Serbia and Croatia, EU attempts to secure a deal with Turkey to host

more refugees, the European Council trying and failing to produce a clear solution to border

defense, Hungarian rejection of a migrant quota system, and increased Hungarian police powers

to arrest and detain refugees crossing the border, to name a few of the many developments.63

A state of emergency was declared in Hungary due to migration on 9 March and 1,500 members

of the Hungarian Defense Force and police were sent to Hungary’s borders.64 On edge and

61 "The World Factbook: HUNGARY." Central Intelligence Agency. August 01, 2017. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hu.html.62 Ibid.63 Lyman, Rick. "Hungary Seals Border With Croatia in Migrant Crackdown." The New York Times. October 16, 2015. Accessed August 02, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/world/europe/hungary-croatia-refugees-migrants.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0.64 Vinograd, Cass. "Europe's Refugee Crisis: Hungary Declares State of Emergency Over Migrants." NBCNews.com. March 09, 2016. Accessed August 02, 2017. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/europe-s-refugee-crisis-hungary-declares-state-emergency-over-migrants-n534746.

32

engaged in a war of words for months about the refugee crisis, Orbán continued to make it clear

to the EU that neither he nor the Hungarian government would be compromising in their stance.

15 March 2016 was a national holiday in Hungary and the one hundred sixty eighth anniversary

of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution. On this day, Orbán gave a speech in Budapest in from of the

parliament building to mark the anniversary but also as a platform for his anti-refugee historical

rhetoric.

As a national holiday celebrating Hungarian history, Orbán used history in this speech to justify

his actions towards refugees and to the European Union and to lash out at those who disagree

with his view. In order to further his rhetoric, he links the refugees and migrants as a tool against

those who oppose him politically. He further pushes the invasion narrative in his speech. In the

context of Hungary’s fight for freedom in 1848, Orbán tells the crowd that Europe is no longer

free. He says:

“Europe is not free, because freedom begins with speaking the truth. In Europe today it is

forbidden to speak the truth. A muzzle is a muzzle – even if it is made of silk. It is

forbidden to say that today we are not witnessing the arrival of refugees, but a Europe

being threatened by mass migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready

to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and

terrorism to our countries. It is forbidden to say that the masses of people coming from

different civilisations pose a threat to our way of life, our culture, our customs, and our

Christian traditions. It is forbidden to say that, instead of integrating, those who arrived

here earlier have built a world of their own, with their own laws and ideals, which is

forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to say that this is

not accidental and not a chain of unintentional consequences, but a planned, orchestrated

campaign, a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels

they are constructing schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to

settle them here among us. It is forbidden to say that the purpose of settling these people

here is to redraw the religious and cultural map of Europe and to reconfigure its ethnic

foundations, thereby eliminating nation states, which are the last obstacle to the

33

international movement. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is stealthily devouring ever

more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels today many are working on a

plan for a United States of Europe, for which no one has ever given authorisation.”65

In one of his many attacks of the EU during the refugee crisis, Orbán speaks about the European

Union in similar historical disdain as someone describing the Hapsburgs or Soviets during a time

of occupation– as an empire dictating to Hungary. Like our first example, Orbán references the

thousand-year-old structure of Europe and its Christian foundations. Fulfilling his role as a

“mnemonic warrior” he sees a mythologized vision of history spanning from the time of St.

Stephen now under attack by Brussels, who has in Orbán’s view orchestrated waves of people to

further destroy the nation state by redrawing the religious and cultural map of Hungary. He

continues with this EU empire language as he warns Hungarians:

“Today’s enemies of freedom are cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial

rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system; they use a different set of tools to force

us into submission. Today they do not imprison us, they do not transport us to camps, and

they do not send in tanks to occupy countries loyal to freedom. Today the international

media’s artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail are enough – or

rather have been enough so far.” 66

His strongly worded description of the Soviet occupation and brutality after World War II and

during the 1956 revolution here show that to Orbán, he is fighting for Hungary in the same way

the heroes of 1848 he mentioned in his speech have. His references to imperial rules and military

vocabulary add to the overall message he is trying to convey. As Orbán finishes his speech, he

adds to this idea:

“In 1848 it was written in the book of fate that nothing could be done against the

Habsburg Empire. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have

65 "Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March." Government. March 16, 2016. Accessed August 02, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/speech-by-prime-minister-viktor-orban-on-15-march.66 Ibid.

34

been sealed and the German sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. In 1956 it was

written in the book of fate that we were to remain an occupied and sovietised country

until patriotism was extinguished in the very last Hungarian. If then we had resigned

ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the Soviet sea would

have swallowed up the Hungarians. Today it is written in the book of fate that hidden,

faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old and

national. They will blend cultures, religions and populations, until our many-faceted and

proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. And if we resign ourselves to this

outcome, our fate will be sealed, and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of

the United States of Europe.”67

Here we can see an effort by Orbán to appeal to the historical consciousness of Hungarians – by

referencing the cultural traumas of foreign domination in 1848 and 1956 and appealing to them

that they must resist attempts to weaken Hungary and Europe as a whole. Using hindsight, Orbán

presents the moral right Hungary had during the 1848 and 1956 revolutions to resist and presents

the refugee crisis as a danger in the same vein. By attacking the EU and those in it who have

taken a difference stance on the refugee crisis than himself, Orbán seems to not only use history

here to attack the refugees but also his opposition with a goal of casting the EU as a new evil

empire using refugees as a weapon against Hungary.

“Are You Opposed to Peace?”

On Monday, 11 July 2016 Prime Minister Orbán published an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung, described as a “conservative-liberal daily” that appeals to business circles and

intellectuals.68 This article was written in German for a German audience and seems to reach out

to German public rather than politicians. As the refugee crisis went on, the German leader,

Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Orbán clashed on their views. Chancellor Merkel

would be allied with the side of European nations open and welcome to the refugees, the very

side Orbán blasted in his speech reviewed above. In an attempt to speak to the German people,

67 Ibid.68 "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung." VoxEurop.eu. Accessed August 03, 2017. http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/source-profile/555-frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung.

35

Orbán published this article, titled “Are You Opposed to Peace?” to appeal to both Hungary and

German history to justify his views on the refugee crisis.

This article was published in the tense atmosphere of summer of 2016 – not only was the refugee

crisis still a major issue, but the United Kingdom had voted to leave the EU on 23 June. In this

blow to European unity, Orbán appeals to the reader to see things his way. He opens up using

German history:

“In communist East Germany, if someone even discreetly tried to talk about obvious

problems, the doubter was confronted with a stupid – but apparently conclusive –

argument: “Comrade, are you opposed to Peace?” A crisis-prone EU cannot shut down

debate on some fundamental issues by saying that people who doubt the great project

should visit Europe’s military cemeteries. The recognition of historical truths will not be

enough to ensure the survival of the EU.”69

He goes on to say that though European integration has not always been smooth, it has always

progressed. He connects the unification of Germany in 1990 and 2004 expansion of the

European Union – which added Hungary to the union as two highlights of further European

integration. His tone of friendship continues:

“In 1989 we wrote European history – together. In 2015 we found ourselves at the centre

of a European debate – together, once again. Only we can explain this to ourselves and

our European partners – and yet again, together. Hungary is not a large Member State,

but God has put us in a place on the map where History sometimes arrives in transit.”70

As mentioned before, Orbán sees the refugee crisis as a historical event on par with past

occupations and invasions of Europe. Acknowledging the difference here between himself and

some German leaders, he tries to explain the fence that was placed on Hungary’s border in the

context of the Berlin Wall.

69 "“Are You Opposed to Peace?”." Government. July 13, 2016. Accessed August 03, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/are-you-opposed-to-peace.70 Ibid.

36

“I understand how German society, which for decades was divided by walls and barbed

wire, dislikes the fence. But if anyone has the moral standing to explain this to their

German friends, surely the Hungarians do. After all, it was Hungary that cut through the

Iron Curtain which divided Europe – and the German people – in the decades after the

Second World War. The decision for Hungary to allow East German citizens to leave en

masse for the West was withdrawal from a bilateral intergovernmental agreement signed

with East Germany in the nineteen sixties – an agreement which followed on from the

building of the Berlin Wall. The decision to break that agreement enjoyed consensus

across the whole of Hungarian society: in the democratic opposition and the reform

communist government alike. Hungary used international law to knock the first brick out

of the wall. This led to the unification of Germany, and thereafter to the unification of

Europe. This was also a matter of self-interest. German unity is therefore integrally

linked to Hungarian independence and freedom. Both are inseparable from the unity of

Europe.”71

Orbán here appeals to the historical trauma of the Germans this time, highlighting their division

and Hungary’s past role in helping Germany. The decision Orbán references here was made in

September 1989, when the Hungarian government announced it would let around 8,000 East

Germans go to West German by crossing from Hungary into Austria. This started a chain of

events where East Germans fled their country to seek asylum in West Germany through

neighboring countries including Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia as it became known they

could transit through those countries into West Germany. In November 1989, the Berlin Wall

came down and Germany was starting the process of reunification.72 Due to Hungary’s past

actions in helping with the reunification of Germany, Orbán explains Hungary is a unique moral

position to help explain to Germany the fences it put up to stop the refugees from coming into

Europe. He goes on to say:

71 Ibid.72 "Hungary allows East Germans refugees to leave." History.com. Accessed August 03, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hungary-allows-east-germans-refugees-to-leave.

37

“In 1989 we dismantled a fence which divided the peoples of Europe. In the early autumn

of 2015 we erected a fence on the external green border of the Schengen Area, to protect

the European Union’s greatest achievement: free movement within the common area of

the internal market”73

Orbán further tries to use history to link 1989 and 2015, by comparing both fences as important

to Europe - one which divided people and the other to protect the people. Orbán elaborates on

Hungary and his role in the protection of these borders by saying that:

“As a result, we have been protecting the European people’s way of life and economic

model – at least on the section of Europe’s external border for which we are responsible.

And, no less crucially, we have been protecting their security. We did this as good, law-

abiding Europeans. The protection of the external border is not a thing of beauty, it is not

a matter of aesthetics, and it cannot be done with flowers and cuddly toys. In Banz, when

I told politicians from the Christian Social Union in Bavaria that I am the captain of your

border fortress, I wanted to express the essence of Schengen. The external borders of

Germany and the central Member States are in fact many hundreds of kilometres from

their territories. These countries have placed their faith in the Member States on the

external borders, trusting that they will perform their duty. And Hungary has done this.

Hungary is protecting the Germans – along with the Swedes, the Dutch and all its other

European partners.”74

The way Orbán describes himself as the “captain of your border fortress” and protector of

Europe has echoes in Hungary’s past as a defender of Europe from the Ottoman Empire. As

previously mentioned about this time period in Hungarian history, Hungary, among other

countries, served as "the bulwark and shield of Christianity"75 in the fight against the Ottomans

as they tried to push into Europe. Eventually Hungary would fall, and be left to defend itself as a

buffer between Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire. This is one version of the historical 73 "“Are You Opposed to Peace?”." Government. July 13, 2016. Accessed August 03, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/are-you-opposed-to-peace.74 Ibid.75 Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z. (p.95)

38

narrative, and one which Orbán seems to agree with. It is not fart fetched to say he believes this

applies to Hungary’s position in the refugee crisis as well. Eva S. Balogh, former professor of

East Europe history, notes that Orbán has referred to himself as a knight of a border fortress and

has even called himself a modern János Hunyadi in the past in Hungarian media.76 János

Hunyadi references the Ottoman war period in Hungarian history. He was an important general

and governor during the fifteenth century most famous for his role in the Battle of Belgrade

(1456) against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were defeated at the battle, however Hunyadi

died shortly after the battle due to an epidemic. But his role in keeping away the Ottoman

occupation for at least seventy years was never forgotten and he was made a national hero. It

continues to this day to be a strong nationalist story of Hungary sticking up for itself in the face

of great odds.77

By claiming himself as the captain of Europe’s border fortress and trying to link the German

experiences of 1989/90 with Hungary’s current fence, Orbán’s goal is to use this history to help

better state the existential threat he sees the refugees and migrants pose to Hungary and Europe.

“Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn”

On 30 September 2016, Prime Minister Orbán had an interview with Zsuzsa Fekete for the

Hungarian Reformed Church news portal reformatus.hu. The Reformed Church in Hungary is

the largest Protestant Church in the country. Its formation dates back to the sixteenth century and

the Ottoman occupation of Hungary. During this time, the Ottoman Empire did not force

conversion to Islam on to the population, allowing this branch of the Reformed Church in

Hungary grow during their occupation.78 During his talks about the refugee crisis Orbán

frequently brings up its Christian identity and history, as seen in some of our previous examples.

76 Balogh, Eva S. "Viktor Orbán’s claims of historical antecedents." Hungarian Spectrum. September 28, 2015. Accessed August 04, 2017. http://hungarianspectrum.org/2015/09/27/viktor-orbans-claims-of-historical-antecedents/.77 "János Hunyadi." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 03, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Janos-Hunyadi#toc326256.78 "History of the RCH." Reformatus.hu | History of the RCH. Accessed August 08, 2017. http://www.reformatus.hu/mutat/6823/.

39

Though a short interview, Orbán frequently talks about the roles of Christians and Muslims in

the context of the refugee crisis and Hungary. By selecting this website for his interview, Orbán

seems to have found an interviewer sympathetic to his views – the questions asked seem to be

very pointed as will be shown. Orbán is trying to reach an intended audience by combing

politics, religion, and history. He connects Christianity with the foundation of the state in the

same vein of St. Stephen, and connects Islam with the Ottoman Empire.

The interview begins with questions and answers on the refugee crisis, specifically on integration

of refugees and the proposed EU quota system to distribute migrants in different member states.

In his answer Orbán states that he does not think integration is possible due to civilizational

differences and the refugee’s inability to follow laws in a Christian based legal system. In

reference to the migrant quota system:

Zsuzsa Fekete:“Can you imagine a Hungary which bows to the will of the centre and

admits the migrants?”

Prime Minister Orbán: “I don’t want to imagine something like that. If I wanted to think

about that I’d read “Eclipse of the Crescent Moon”” 79

Orbán responds to this question with an answer referencing the children’s historical fiction novel

Egri csillagok or “Eclipse of the Crescent Moon.” The novel was written by the Hungarian writer

Géza Gárdonyi, and first published in 1899. The book is well known and read by Hungarian

school children, and would be known by the adult Hungarian population. The book revolves

around a romanticized account of Gergely Bornemissza, a Hungarian solider and national hero,

and the Siege of Eger in 1522 by the Ottomans. The novel is set during the time of on-going war

with the Ottomans, showing the effects of war in Hungary during the 16th century. In the main

event in the novel, 2,000 Hungarian men, women, and children defend the castle at Eger from

80,000 Ottoman soldiers. They are successful in holding back the Ottoman soldiers and drive

79 "Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn." Government. September 30, 2016. Accessed August 08, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/provided-there-are-christians-there-will-be-a-spiritual-upturn.

40

them away.80 The number of Ottoman soldiers was inflated in this book for dramatic effect – but

the siege in both real history and this historical fiction are a symbol of Hungarian resistance to

the foreign invaders. It also tells the reader about the situation of a Hungary under siege by

outside forces.

With some context to this popular Hungarian novel, Orbán’s use of history becomes easier to

understand. A Hungarian audience would understand what he meant by appealing to historical

consciousness referencing a nineteenth century novel about the sixteenth century. Orbán suggests

a historical connection to the Ottoman invaders that came for Eger and the threat of refugees and

migrants coming to Europe now.

As the interview ends, the final question again references the refugee crisis in a historical

context:

Zsuzsa Fekete: “Sociologist Elemér Hankiss wrote that the world saw the true face of

Hungary in 1956, and then again during the fall of communism. Can the world see us

now, do you think?”

Prime Minister Orbán: “We are certainly the subject of attention – not like in 1956 or

1989, but in a way which involves much incomprehension. This is a result of Europe’s

divided fate following the Second World War. In 2004 we joined the European Union

and sewed the “severed limb” back in place. But the scars are still there. Under

communism we didn’t let them turn us into Homo Sovieticus and eradicate our culture.

When the Russians left we found Europe again, but the scars are still here, and now

people in the Western half of the world look at us with incomprehension, because they

cannot understand why we are clinging so hard to national independence, sovereignty and

Christianity, and why we aren’t more sympathetic towards the foreigners who are

arriving in large numbers. But in the meantime we know that we have struggled for

decades to prevent them from changing us and depriving us of our national and cultural

80 "Eclipse of the Crescent Moon." Goodreads. Accessed August 08, 2017. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/420692.Eclipse_of_the_Crescent_Moon.

41

identity. What is in our souls, I believe, is much stronger and more important than that

which drives our opponents.”81

Here Orbán offers insight into his position on allowing refugees or migrants into Hungary

through the cultural trauma of Hungary. To him, there is a disconnect between the Central and

Eastern European experience following World War II and the Western European experience.

Noting the Soviet occupation and the resistance to “Homo Sovieticus” Orbán rationalizes the

refugees and migrants arriving in large numbers to Hungary as a direct threat to Hungary’s

national and cultural identity along the same lines of the Soviet Union. If the world saw the true

face of Hungary as the resistance against communism, only to be attack and left to defend itself –

then in 2015 Hungary is just standing up for itself again, left again to defend itself.

Orbán frequently mentions Christianity as an integral part of Hungary’s history and identity. He

makes a clear connection between sovereignty and Christianity as being inseparable. Given that

most of the refugees coming to Europe now are Muslim, Orbán continues to reference the

Christian identity of Hungary as incompatible with those from a Muslim cultural background.

Earlier in this interview he mentions,

“In states with traditional Christian-based legal systems there are Arab families who may

comply with the law on the surface, but who in reality live their private lives according to

the culture and legal system of their country of origin.”82

In Orbán’s interpretation, the people coming to Hungary and Europe will not integrate but rather

form “parallel societies” and parallel legal system where they do not follow the traditional

Christian based state laws or norms. Using this speech as a platform to appeal to a Christian

audience who may read or follow this website, Orbán is able to connect historical trauma of the

communist regime where Christianity did not enjoy the same standing as it does in modern

Hungary. Happy to fill the role of a mnemonic warrior, Orbán ends his answer by drawing a

81 "Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn." Government. September 30, 2016. Accessed August 08, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/provided-there-are-christians-there-will-be-a-spiritual-upturn.82 Ibid.

42

clear line between himself as a guardian of truth and his opponents in the EU who are in support

of accepting and settling refuges.

[…] in the meantime we know that we have struggled for decades to prevent them from

changing us and depriving us of our national and cultural identity. What is in our souls, I

believe, is much stronger and more important than that which drives our opponents.”83

Historical trauma of Hungary to Orbán is what preserves its national and cultural identity.

“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the official ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution”

23 October 2016 was the sixtieth anniversary of the 1956 revolution, and on this day Orbán gave

a speech commemorating the event. During this special occasion, the President of Poland

Andrzej Duda was present. Orbán spoke of the Hungarian-Polish friendship and their

experiences under Soviet rule. Like he did on the 15 March speech for the 1848 revolution

anniversary, Orbán used this occasion to make historical comments on the refugee crisis. In the

context of the Soviet and past occupations of Hungary, Orbán says:

“If our homeland is not free, neither can we be free. A person alone can perhaps know

solitude, but never freedom. The fate of peoples which have vanished into the mist serves

as a warning. If a nation surrenders its freedom, then it can at any time slide back to

simply being a minority. Only our own national independence can save us from the all-

consuming, destructive appetites of empires. The reason we stuck in the throat of the

Soviet empire and the reason it broke a tooth when it tried to bite on us was that we

asserted our national ideals, that we stood together and did not surrender the love of our

homeland. This is also why we shall not accept the EU’s transformation into a modern-

day empire. We do not want them to replace the alliance of free European states with a

United States of Europe. Today the task of Europe’s freedom-loving peoples is to save

Brussels from sovietisation, and from their aim to decide instead of us whom we should

live with in our own homeland. We Hungarians want to remain a European nation, not a

83 Ibid.

43

minority in Europe. As the heirs of 1956, we cannot accept that Europe wants to sever the

roots which once made us great and which also helped us survive communist oppression.

There can be no free, strong, authoritative and respected Europe without the life-force of

its nations and the two thousand-year-old wisdom of Christianity. And we also cannot

simply look on and do nothing while others work openly and systematically to replace the

subsoil from which the shoots of European civilisation sprang forth. And although our

size and weight does not enable us to shape the fate of Europe, we must take

responsibility for our own fate. Even if the majority of Europe does restructure the

foundations of its own civilisation and blend its own ideals and population, we must

remain capable of protecting this piece of Europe the size of Hungary, which has always

put fire in our hearts and inspired the Hungarian people.”84

In this section of his speech, some of the previously discussed theme of foreign occupation is

used again by Orbán. Again, he compares the European Union to the Soviet Union. He contends

that in 1956 Hungary asserted its national ideals, and must do so again. Orbán compares the

actions the EU has taken, specifically the refuge quota system to the sovietisation of Brussels,

something which only freedom-loving peoples can stop. Presumably these freedoms loving

Europeans are the same who agree with his historical narrative.

In some ways, he also seems to allude to the Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire, here he

discusses the idea of being a minority in one’s own country, and being “told who to live with” as

Hungarians dealt with different population during the Hapsburg and Ottoman times. By

appealing to these sentiments to his national audience in this speech, it would seem Orbán’s goal

is to delegitimize the EU for what he sees as siding with the refugees in this crisis. As his stance

of the refugee crisis has made him increasingly unpopular in some European circles, Orbán states

that if those who disagree with him blend its ideals and population, Hungary will protect itself to

remain in Orbán’s historical image.

84 "Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speech at the official ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution." Government. October 25, 2016. Accessed August 09, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/prime-minister-viktor-orban-s-speech-at-the-official-ceremony-marking-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-1956-revolution.

44

Orbán continues to link the cultural trauma of Hungary in the twentieth century to the current

refugee crisis:

“…perhaps our geographical position every thirty years causes history to suddenly thrust

us into the main current of debate on the future of Europe. In 1956, after the Soviets

pulled out of Austria, we sought to push the Iron Curtain back beyond our eastern border.

We were brave and attacked the Soviet tanks with mere Molotov cocktails. In 1989 it was

we who had to open our border, to let Germans find their way to other Germans. We

were courageous and did this, despite the fact that Soviet forces were stationed here. And

now, in 2015–2016, it is we who have had to close our border to stop the flood of

migration from the South. Not once did we request the task – it was the work of history,

and was brought on us by fate. All we have done is not run away and not back down – we

have simply done our duty. We have continued to do our duty, even while being attacked

from behind by those who we have in fact been protecting. We have the courage to face

up to injustice, because on Hungarian soil injustice does excuse one from fulfilling one’s

obligations; and therefore Europe can always count on us.”85

In this part of his speech Orbán mentions three events and the actions taken after the events, he

focuses on 1956, 1989, and finally 2015. In putting 2015 and the refugee crisis in the ranks of

1956, and 1989, explains that every thirty years or so Hungary faces a crisis. As he rails against

the Soviet Union and communism, he attacks the European Union and the refugees with the

same level of fervor. Orbán plays into the victim mentality of the cultural trauma of 1956 at the

end of this section, explaining to the listener that Hungary has simply done its duty. Hungary has

closed the border to “stop the flood” for the selfless good of Europe while at the same time being

attacked by other European leaders for protecting Europe.

Conclusions

This study has looked at different forms of public addresses including two speeches, two radio

interviews, and one newspaper article by Prime Minister Orbán. In these different forms of

85 Ibid.

45

public address, Orbán used a Hungarian national radio station, a Hungarian Christian radio

station, a German newspaper, and the public anniversary ceremonies of two of Hungary’s

revolutions as a platform promote historical rhetoric against refugees. In all instances, his

intended audience are the Hungarian people, except for the article in the German newspaper

which appeals to both German and Hungary historical trauma. Regardless, the message conveyed

through his addresses resonates throughout Europe and beyond.

Orbán emphasizes five main historical periods of Hungary to appeal to historical trauma of his

given audience. These are the Christian Kingdom of St. Stephen, the Ottoman wars and

occupation, Hapsburg Hungary and Austria-Hungary, the World Wars, and finally communist

Hungary. In each of these historical periods, Orbán can draw on Hungarian identity by using

common themes such as invasion, occupation, and war. Each of these time periods becomes

revised in some way to serve as a link between the present and now as it relates to the refugee

crisis. The examples in this study show that there is a clear, reoccurring political use of history

by Orbán against the refugees.

This study observes that the reason Orbán emphasizes these different aspects of Hungarian

history is to strike up fear against refugees coming to Hungary from outside of Europe. This is

done by claiming civilizational differences but also comparing them to an invading army. By

doing so, he is fomenting an atmosphere of mistrust in domestic-level politics and seek the

public’s approval to use as leverage for achieving his goal: a zero-refugee policy in Hungary. His

goal in using history as a tool against refugees is to not only reject all attempts to settle refugees

entering his country but also to further solidify himself in Hungarian politics as someone who is

able to see the “true” vision of the past and play the role of a mnemonic warrior. By using history

as he does, it can be crafted as a tool against any opposition. In the refugee crisis Orbán has

found a target to use historical memory against that is not able to fight back as a Hungarian or

European political opponent would. By targeting refugees Orbán is also able to revise history in

his image, presenting the refugee crisis as part of a reoccurring theme of Hungary being a victim

to greater powers. Orbán has found that taking a hard stance against refugees has gained him

notoriety and can be politically beneficial in domestic politics, European politics, and even

international politics.

46

This study looks at a small sample size of Orbán’s public address from 2015-2016 and is limited

in its scope but allows for several options for further research. As mentioned before, one of the

biggest constraints of this study was the language of the research. This study relied on English

language sources which were helpful in the actual addresses themselves but lacked the insight of

the Hungarian media’s coverage of these public addresses. Further research on this topic could

examine the Hungarian public sphere’s commentary on these addresses as they compare to other

English language sourced commentary. Knowledge of Hungarian would allow more access to

public addresses that are not translated to English that share themes of history referenced in this

study. This would be beneficial in further understanding the media and public’s opinions on how

effective Orbán’s use of history is to his audience. Research examining Orbán’s use of history

could also track some statistics such as Orbán’s popularity, approval ratings, or the public’s

attitudes towards refugees. These figures have no doubt shifted between 2015 and the time of

writing, and they could coincide with some of Orbán’s historical claims in the public addresses.

To summarize, this study aimed to provide the reader with the historical background needed to

analyze public addresses by Prime Minister Orbán, with the goal of understanding the narrative

he has crafted and continues to use against refugees and migrants fleeing their countries to safety

in Europe. As the refugee crisis continues in Europe, this will be an important example to follow

for further research.

47

Bibliography

Books and Book Chapters

Bernhard, Michael H., and Jan Kubik. Twenty years after communism: the politics of memory and commemoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2014

Engel, Pál. The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005.

Karlsson, Klas-Göran, and Ulf Zander. Echoes of the Holocaust: historical cultures in contemporary Europe. Lund: Nordic Acad. Press, 2003

Lendvai, Paul and Ann Major. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/j.ctt5vjv0z.

Roman, Eric. Austria-Hungary & the successor states: a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present. New York: Facts on File, 2003.

Smith, Julia M. H. Europe after Rome a new cultural history 500 - 1000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Journal Articles

Van Dijk, T.A. "Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis." Japanese Discourse 1, no. 1 (1995): 17-27. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://discourses.org/OldArticles/Aims%20of%20Critical%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf.

Newspaper Articles

Clibbon, Jennifer. "Hungary's Viktor Orban, the sly leader who wants refugees kept out of Europe." CBCnews. September 17, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-s-viktor-orban-the-cunning-leader-who-would-keep-refugees-out-of-europe-1.3230749.

"Germany suspends 'Dublin rules' for Syrians | News | DW | 25.08.2015." DW.COM. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.dw.com/en/germany-suspends-dublin-rules-for-syrians/a-18671698.

"Hungary to fence off border with Serbia to stop migrants." Reuters. June 17, 2015. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-immigration-idUSKBN0OX17I20150618.

48

Lyman, Rick. "Hungary Seals Border With Croatia in Migrant Crackdown." The New York Times. October 16, 2015. Accessed August 02, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/world/europe/hungary-croatia-refugees-migrants.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0.

"Thousands of refugees in limbo at Budapest rail station." Thousands of refugees in limbo at Budapest rail station - Al Jazeera English. September 2, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/refugees-standoff-budapest-rail-station-150902020744649.html.

Vinograd, Cass. "Europe's Refugee Crisis: Hungary Declares State of Emergency Over Migrants." NBCNews.com. March 09, 2016. Accessed August 02, 2017. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/europe-s-refugee-crisis-hungary-declares-state-emergency-over-migrants-n534746.

Websites

"1684: The Holy League of Blessed Pope Innocent XI." History.info. February 29, 2016. Accessed July 15, 2017. http://history.info/on-this-day/1684-holy-league-blessed-pope-innocent-xi/.

"“Are You Opposed to Peace?”." Government. July 13, 2016. Accessed August 03, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/are-you-opposed-to-peace.

Árpád dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 07, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arpad-dynasty.

Balogh, Eva S. "Viktor Orbán’s claims of historical antecedents." Hungarian Spectrum. September 28, 2015. Accessed August 04, 2017. http://hungarianspectrum.org/2015/09/27/viktor-orbans-claims-of-historical-antecedents/.

"Battle of Mohács." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 9, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Mohacs.

"Collective Memory." Dictionary.com. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collective-memory.

"Country responsible for asylum application (Dublin)." Migration and Home Affairs - European Commission. December 06, 2016. Accessed June 27, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en.

"Eclipse of the Crescent Moon." Goodreads. Accessed August 08, 2017. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/420692.Eclipse_of_the_Crescent_Moon.

49

"Ferenc Rákóczi, II." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 18, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferenc-Rakoczi-II.

"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung." VoxEurop.eu. Accessed August 03, 2017. http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/source-profile/555-frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung.

"History." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Hungary/History.

"History of the RCH." Reformatus.hu | History of the RCH. Accessed August 08, 2017. http://www.reformatus.hu/mutat/6823/.

"Hungary allows East Germans refugees to leave." History.com. Accessed August 03, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hungary-allows-east-germans-refugees-to-leave.

"János Hunyadi." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 03, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Janos-Hunyadi#toc326256.

McGregor, Sue L.T. "Critical Discourse Analysis- A Primer." Critical Discourse Analysis: A Primer. Accessed June 27, 2017. https://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html.

Nt. "Nyáron is tarolt a Class FM." MNO.hu. March 05, 2017. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://mno.hu/media/nyaron-is-tarolt-a-class-fm-1183816. (Translated)

Pike, John. " 1939-1945 - Hungary in World War II." Global Security. Accessed July 23, 2017. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/hu-history-25.htm.

"Public Holidays in Hungary in 2017." Public Holidays in Hungary in 2017 | Office Holidays. Accessed July 08, 2017. http://www.officeholidays.com/countries/hungary/index.php.

"Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speech at the official ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution." Government. October 25, 2016. Accessed August 09, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/prime-minister-viktor-orban-s-speech-at-the-official-ceremony-marking-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-1956-revolution.

"Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn." Government. September 30, 2016. Accessed August 08, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/provided-there-are-christians-there-will-be-a-spiritual-upturn.

"Record number of over 1.2 million first time asylum seekers registered in 2015." Eurostat. March 4, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed6

50

"Refugee crisis in Europe - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations - European Commission." European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/echo/refugee-crisis_en

"Soviets put brutal end to Hungarian revolution." History.com. Accessed July 26, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-put-brutal-end-to-hungarian-revolution.

Sowards, Steven W. "Lecture 4: Hungary and the limits of Habsburg authority." Hungary and the limits of Habsburg authority. November 4, 2008. Accessed July 20, 2017. http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture4.html.

"Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March." Government. March 16, 2016. Accessed August 02, 2017. http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/speech-by-prime-minister-viktor-orban-on-15-march.

Spindler, William. "2015: The Year of Europe’s Refugee Crisis." UNHCR Tracks. December 8, 2015. Accessed June 27, 2017. http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/12/2015-the-year-of-europes-refugee-crisis/.

"Stephen I." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stephen-I-king-of-Hungary.

Szabó, János B. "Hungary's War of Independence." HistoryNet. June 23, 2016. Accessed July 20, 2017. http://www.historynet.com/hungarys-war-of-independence.htm.

"The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 - a summary." History in an Hour. October 23, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2017. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/02/21/hungarian-revolution-of-1956-summary/.

"The Warsaw Pact is formed." History.com. Accessed July 22, 2017. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-warsaw-pact-is-formed.

"The World Factbook: HUNGARY." Central Intelligence Agency. August 01, 2017. Accessed August 01, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hu.html.

"Treaty of Carlowitz." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Carlowitz.

Trueman, C. N. "The Hungarian Uprising of 1956." History Learning Site. Accessed July 24, 2017. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/the-hungarian-uprising-of-1956/.

51