…whoever is ready for heroic death
Will be triumphant.
(Sándor Petőfi, “Lost Battles, Ignominious Flights”)
The hero is one of the oldest topoi of European culture. A number of stories in Greek mythology deal with heroes having outstanding qualities and performing extraordinary deeds. They are almost divine and their physical and/or spiritual qualities rise above ordinary humanity. Because of their good and noble qualities their memory remains and thus they become immortal. Their opponents generally represent “evil” and if they do their deeds at a high level they become negative heroes.
The image of the heroes of Greek mythology has been inherited, in a somewhat altered form, by the world of Christianity. We can regard a significant number of the saints as heroes. They became saints because they proved to be good and noble and have performed deeds that ordinary mortals could not do.
The prevalence of secular thinking has not eliminated the hero but might have endowed him with new characteristics. The secular communities, the nations, also need their heroes. They are the ones who, like the saints, make a sacrifice for their community and this sacrifice, on occasion, might be their life. They give their life for the good of their nation and their deeds are confirmed by the mysticism and sacredness of death.
The sacrifice of life takes us back again to the traditions of pre-Christian cultural history. It appears that the European culture can integrate flexibly everything that it specifically needs from the past.
The most obvious site for a sacrifice of life is an armed conflict, a battle and a militarized world. For whoever sacrifices his life for his country as a soldier the gates of heroism are open and the death is likely to be a heroic one.
Hungarian Hero — Hungarian Fallen Hero
In Hungary heroism and the heroic sacrifice of life, going beyond the framework of feudalism, evolved after the concepts of the modern nation came into being. History was analyzed on this basis retrospectively at this time and the role of hero and the concept of heroic death was attached to persons who had lived in the past and who had no idea about the modern concept of nation.
A good example is Miklós Zrínyi, the defender of Szigetvár and who chose death by breaking out from the besieged fortress. His contemporaries thought of him as a defender of Christianity but in the nineteenth century a national role was attached to him. Beginning with the Age of Reform Zrínyi became a hero of the nation and his death became a heroic one. His sortie was made immortal first by the Austrian artist Peter Kraft whose painting was done between 1820 and 1825. He was followed by Bertalan Székely (1885), Simon Hollósy (1896) and finally Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry (1903). The last one shows Zrínyi’s sortie and the motif of the heroic death, in his own style, as somewhat surreal and grotesque.[1]
From this point on it became clear in national consciousness to identify the heroes among contemporaries and the fallen heroes who had sacrificed their lives.
The fighters in the 1848–1849 Revolution were urged to the battle by Petőfi with the admonition that a heroic death was something wonderful. In his emigration Lajos Kossuth, in the spirit of Greek mythology, called the troops “anonymous demigods.” In the case of the executed military leaders of the defeated Revolution, the Arad martyrs, the concept of martyrdom prevailed but nobody would be surprised if they were referred to as self-sacrificing heroes of the Hungarian nation.
It was during the last thirty to forty years of the nineteenth century that Hungary embraced a practice, introduced earlier in Western Europe, namely the erection of lay memorials and statues.[2] It was to be expected that the evolving concept of the hero and of the fallen hero sooner or later are attached to the trend of erecting secular memorials and that the military memorials become associated with the concept of the hero and the fallen hero.
The Hungarian state first became aware of the nationalization of the “hero” concept through the funerary culture. In 1903, in the new Rákoskeresztúr Cemetery, a Heroes’ Cemetery was set up and this is where the veterans of the 1848–1849 Revolution and War of Liberation were buried, the heroes who had survived the war.[3]
The real change in the governmental actions came with World War I. Baron Ferenc Ábele, a major on the General Staff , made a recommendation in 1915 that a law should be enacted according to which every community should erect a monument for its soldiers—fallen heroes—killed in the world war. The law was enacted in 1917 (Act 8) and reads:
“On the Preservation of the Memory of the Heroes Fighting for Their Country in the Present War
Article 1. All who have performed their duties faithfully in the army engaged in the present war deserve the undivided grateful recognition of the nation. Let the future preserve with grateful respect the blessed memory of those who gave their lives in the defense of their endangered country.
Article 2. According to their economic condition every community (city) should memorialize the name of all of their former inhabitants who had sacrificed their lives in the presently raging war.
The detailed regulations will be established by a decree of the minister of the interior.
Article 3. This statute will be enforced by the minister of the interior.”[4]
In response to this law fallen heroes memorials and tablets were erected in many places. It became evident that the fallen heroes were all those who served faithfully in the armed forces and who gave their lives in defense of the country.
This same idea of hero and heroic dead is the basis of Act 14 of 1924. It reads:
“On the Commemoration of the Fallen Heroes of
The World War of 1914–1918
Article 1. The Hungarian nation remembers with deep love, laudatory recognition and gratitude those heroic sons who during the 1914–1918 World War sacrificed their lives during the intense battles thereby producing glory and fame for the Hungarian nation. As a sign of its eternal gratitude and recognition and for the permanent instruction of the present and future generations and to the glory of its fallen heroes we declare the last Sunday of May of every year to be a national holiday. This holiday – “The Memorial Day of the Fallen” – will be consecrated to its fallen heroes.
Article 2. This law will take effect on the day of its proclamation; its enforcement will be the responsibility of the Ministry.”[5]
The heroes had first a cemetery, then memorials and finally a holiday. The new law’s use of terminology made it clear that the heroic dead had to be a male.
The societal acceptance and spread of the hero cult surrounding the victims of World War I was made easier by the fact that World War I, or as contemporaries referred to it “the Great War,” affected a large number of people and very many families directly. Hungary, as part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, lost more than six hundred thousand soldiers, more than seven hundred thousand were wounded and very many became prisoners of war. Thus the war was not simply a military historical event but became a societal life experience. Millions of family members had a cause for grief and for the suffering caused by a loss. The hero cult was not a remedy but a consolation. It sent a message: “It is true that we may have lost a head of the household or a beloved son and the war as well but our soldiers became heroes by their death, became morally glorified and we have every reason to be proud of them.” The concept of the “heroic dead” meant that the loss and the defeat could be borne with dignity and be to some extend compensated for it. Our sons have not died in vain, they the heroes of our political community and of our nation.
In many places “Heroes’ Cemeteries” were established. In 1929 the memorial stone in front of the Millennial Monument was dedicated and the square was called the Heroes’ Square after 1932.[6] The legislatures repeatedly issued publications called “Heroes’ Album.” The Catholic bishops ordered that on the evening of every May 2 the bells shall be rung for fifteen minutes in memory of the fallen heroes of World War I. [7] It was during the same year that the Heroes’ Church was erected immediately next to the synagogue on Dohány utca to serve as a memorial to the thousands of Hungarian Jewish soldiers killed in World War I. In Szeged the Heroes’ Gate was set up in 1936 on which statues of soldiers keep up the memory of the World War I. We could add a long list of the manifestations of the societal heroes’ cult, but even the above will show to what extent the concept of the fallen hero, proclaimed in the laws, had become fixed.
The next two stops of the heroes’ and fallen hero cult are the two ordinances issued in 1942. Both deal with the preservation of the memory of the fallen hero of the ongoing war. The minister if the interior issued his ordinance on April 7, 1942, and the minister of defense issued his very similar ordinance on April 5. The minister of the interior’s ordinance no. 28,282 of 1942, “On the Immortalization of the Fallen Heroes” reads:
“Already during the last World War the law saw to it that the gratitude, respectful love and appreciation of the fallen hero of the nation be expressed in suitable form and that the blessed memory of those who gave their lives in the defense of their country in danger is perpetuated for the future generations. The law required that every community (city) according to their financial ability, memorialize the name of those of its inhabitants who gave their life for their country with a proper memorial.
Most cities and communities over time established the heroes’ memorial according to the several ministerial ordinances issued about the compliance with the law.
In the military actions since 1938 new heroes have sacrificed their lives in defense of their country. Their precious memory is surrounded by the same grateful appreciation, respect and love as is the memory of the heroes of World War I. Their name must be among the names of the heroes of World War I immortalized on the memorials.
Instructions must be issued without delay so that the names of our soldier having died a heroic death during the military actions since 1938 are immortalized by the communities and cities on the World War memorials of their domicile. On the thus completed expanded memorials (memorial tablets) the fallen heroes must be ceremoniously recorded.
The day of this festivity to be announced is the next Memorial Day of the Fallen (May 31, 1942) in order to make certain that the memorial activity is performed in an appropriately dignified fashion.
In expanding the memorial (memorial tablet) great care must be taken that reference be made on the memorial (memorial tablet) to the military activities subsequent to the year 1938 so that it should not appear as though the heroic dead, whose names are added to the memorial tablet, had died during the 1914–1918 World War.
The greatest attention must be paid so that the carving of the additional names on the monuments is done without any damage to the attractiveness of the monument.
Where there is no memorial yet to the heroes the erection of such a monument must be undertaken with the greatest haste and the instructions for such action must be issued without delay. In the establishment of the memorial the contents of the ministerial directives, issued in regard to the implementation of Act 8 of 1917, must be rigidly adhered to and the Heroes’ Monuments Judging Committee must be consulted. Care must be taken so that next to the names of the fallen hero of the last World War the names of fallen hero of the military actions since 1938 are properly recorded.”[8]
The 1942 ministerial ordinance contains two interesting items. In contrast to the 1917 law it no longer refers to the obligation of faithful service even though the issued ordinance is viewed unmistakably as the continuation of the 1917 law.
The other noteworthy element is that the ordinance regards the “present war” to have originated in 1938. This is surprising because the new world conflagration, known by such name in 1942, began with the German attack on Poland on September 1, 1939. The use of 1938 presumably refers either to the beginning of infiltration of Czechoslovakia by paramilitary formations on October 1. These were charged to set off explosives and engage in personal assaults or later to facilitate the entry of Hungarian troops into the Slovakia and into the southern tier of the Subcarpathia, beginning on November fifth, under the mandate of the First Vienna Award. The first action was unofficial but the second one was an internationally sanctioned military action.
The 1942 ordinances ordered an immediate start for their implementation. This remained a pious wish and only in very few places were the names of the fallen added to the list on the World War I memorials. Those responsible for the implementation apparently thought they should wait until the end of the war so that the roster of the fallen heroes would be complete.
The outcome of the war was different from what the drafters of the 1942 ordinances expected. Already in 1945 the country no longer wanted to celebrate the national memorial day of the fallen heroes and the system turning into a Stalinist dictatorship had no interest in viewing the dead of the Hungarian armies defeated by the Soviets as heroes. It would truly have been strange that when all over the country monuments were erected to honor the Soviet heroes the same vigor would have been addressed to erect memorials to the Hungarian soldiers who fought against them.
The memorials to World War I were generally left in peace but there was no chance of adding the names of the soldiers who were killed during World War II.
The feeling about the Hungarian fallen hero is shown by two particular episodes. In 1955 the Heroes’ Cemetery at Rákoskeresztúr that gave a resting place to the victims of World War II was almost completely demolished. In front of the Millennial Monument the National Memorial Stone of the National Heroes that was a memorial to the soldiers who died during World War I and had the inscription on the back: “for the millennial borders” was removed. Presumably it was not the 1914–1918 date that was troubling but the reference to historic Hungary. In 1956 a new memorial stone was placed, the Memorial of National Heroes. This does not refer to either World War but considers those to be heroes who “sacrificed their lives for the independence and freedom of the Hungarian people.”
The post 1956 world was not favorable toward the Hungarian “fallen hero” concept formed between 1917 and 1944. The Socialist system was stymied about what to do with the fact that a significant percentage of the military casualties in the twentieth century occurred during an anti-Soviet war. The concept of the fallen hero was superseded by the category of having died for the “wrong cause” even though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Hungarian role during World War II might be considered a wrong cause but one can still recognize the willingness of the Hungarian soldiers to make sacrifices. This could have been possible only if there had not been a Soviet type political system in control of the country, based on an occupation.
The change in regime created a new situation in this regard. The country realized in 2001 that something had to be done about the fallen hero. Act 63 of 2001, carries the following title: “On the Preservation of the Memory of the Hungarian Heroes and about the Memorial Day of the Hungarian Heroes.” The act reads:
“During its long and difficult history, particularly since the establishment of the state by Saint Stephen one thousand years ago, innumerable sons and daughters have fought with weapons or without them for the protection of the country and also died a heroic death for the nation. Their deeds are largely responsible for the survival of Hungary and the Hungarian nation.
The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic considers it to be its duty to pay homage to the memory of those who shed their blood, risked their life or sacrificed it for Hungary. In order to preserve their memory and to show their example to present and future generations the following law is enacted:
Article 1.The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic, owing respect to the memory of the heroes, immortalizes in this law the memory of the patriots who had fought for the freedom and independence of the country and for the survival of the nation.
Article 2. The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic, to show the eternal gratitude of the Hungarian nation, for the edification of present and future generations and to the glory of the heroes declares the last Sunday of the month of May to be the Memorial Day of the Hungarian Heroes.
Article 3. The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic expresses its conviction that the state organizations, the local self governments, the churches, the social organizations and the sons and daughters of the Hungarian nation will show their gratitude and respect to the Hungarian heroes of the past millennium every year on the Memorial Day of the Hungarian Heroes.
Article 4. (1) The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic owes recognition to its predecessors who, by erecting the Millennial Memorial and the Heroes’ Memorial Stone on Budapest’s Heroes’Square, established a suitable memorial to the saviors, preservers and heroes of the nation.
(2) The National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic declares that the Millennial Memorial and the Heroes’ Memorial Stone form a national place of remembrance.
(3) The Capital City Assembly is empowered to regulate by ordinance the public use in such a fashion that the week-day, holiday, tourist and formal use of the square is in harmony with the protection of the square as a monument, with the spirit of a national place of remembrance and also expresses the nation’s respect for its heroes.
Article 5. This act takes effect on the day of its proclamation.”[9]
Compared to all of the texts composed on this subject this law contains new elements and defines the concepts of heroic death and of hero in a much broader context.[10] First of all it admits that a heroic death is not limited to males. Secondly, it raises the martyrdom to the level of heroism and heroic death. Thirdly it does not consider armed service to be an exclusive criterion and that somebody can die for Hungary without carrying arms.
There was a memorial day between 1924 and 1944 and since 2001 there is one again. Just like in the past it venerates the memory of the national heroes and on the occasions organized for this purpose the country leaders must show their respect for the fallen hero of the Hungarian past.
Since the change of regime different governments have done much to have the Hungarian military dead rest in peace and that their memory be preserved. Appropriate and properly maintained military cemeteries have been set up in Russia and, since 2011, data about the death of more than seventy thousand Hungarian soldiers and labor battalion members have become available on the internet.[11]
It is also the result of scholarly research that the list of the posthumously decorated fallen heroes of the World War II, containing more ten thousand names, had been widely published.[12]
We have therefore a concept of the fallen hero, produced since 1917, and temporarily suspended, according to which a fallen hero is the man who, in the army, faithfully did his duty and gave his life in defense of the country. We have a broadened fallen hero concept sine 2001, that does not deny the above but included unarmed service and martyrdom, including women, to the circle of the fallen hero. We have a free Hungary where the dead of any war may be regarded as heroes and fallen heroes. There are also concrete instances when it must be decided whether a given person should be regarded as a fallen hero.
Massacre on the Slopes of Gac Mountain
There are various calculations, based on a variety of data, about the losses suffered in Hungary during World War II. Limiting the loss to those who under the contemporary laws and also under the new concepts introduced in 2001, can be considered as “fallen hero” we come with approximately hundred and twenty to hundred sixty thousand names.[13] This number includes those who gave their life during the war as members of the Hungarian army or of the labor battalions.
The fallen heroes group includes the 159 Hungarian soldiers who on September 7, 1944, died on the slopes of Gac Mountain in Gyergyószentmiklós [Gheorgheni].
By the end of August, 1944, it became entirely clear that Germany, and Hungary allied with it, would lose the war. The events between August and September were a clear indication. From April until September 1944, nineteen aerial attacks were launched against Hungary and the illusory peace on the Hungarian homeland had come to an end. On August 23, the Red Army broke through the German-Romanian positions. Romania requested an immediate cease fire and switched allegiance that same day to the Soviet side. Bulgaria asked for an armistice on September 4. Romania’s changing sides meant that it opened its defensive lines to the Soviet forces and thus the road toward Hungary stood open. This also made it clear that Northern Transylvania, given to Hungary the Second Vienna Award at the end of August, 1940, would be returned to Romania.[14] Romania’s armistice with the Soviet Union became official on September 12. The armistice agreement stated that the Vienna Awards were invalid.
On August 25, Charles De Gaulle marched into Paris at the head of the French troops, on September 3, the British occupied Brussels and on September 11, the American army reached the German border at Trier. The German positions in the western, central, and south European theaters became increasingly weak and on the eastern front the Red Army advanced to near Warsaw.
Because of the Romanian’s switch of sides the Russians could reach the Romanian-Hungarian border in a relatively short time. The king of Romania and the General Staff ordered the Romanian troops to occupy those formerly Romanian territories which had been transferred to Hungary. Smaller Romanian units crossed the border on August 25, but were expelled by Hungarian border guard formations. Briefly Soviet battle groups also set foot on Hungarian territory on August 26.
Hungarian reaction was prompt. On August 29, the Regent Miklós Horthy disolved the government led by the firmly Germany-oriented Döme Sztójay and appointed Colonel-General Géza Lakatos as prime minister. Incidentally, in pro-German Slovakia a national uprising also started on the same day.
Everything that seemed to be so certain fell apart and everything that the Hungarian decision makers had feared became reality. Their worst nightmare became reality.
The Lakatos government decided to take a desperate step: on September 5, the Second Hungarian Army was ordered to occupy Southern Transylvania to ward off the Soviet and Romanian troops. Even though the Hungarian troops fought bravely the campaign ended in defeat and, after the so-called battle of Torda [Turda], they had to retreat. On September 13, the Third Hungarian Army started an attack in the direction of Arad but after ten days this action also came to a halt. In the mean time, on September 10, the Crown Council met and Regent Horthy announced that he was signing a cease fire with the Soviet Union. It was on the same day that Bulgaria declared war on Germany and Finland sued for an armistice with the Soviet Union. On September 23, the Soviet troops crossed the Hungarian-Romanian border and remained in Hungary until 1991.
These developments could not be foreseen when, on September 5, the Hungarian soldiers arrived in Gyergyószentmiklós. Two days later 159 of them were dead.[15] Units of the Twenty Fifth Soviet Guard Rifle Division had reached the Hungarian border here on September 3, and thus the Hungarian soldiers had entered a battle zone.
According to their enrollment they belonged to the Third Székesfehérvár Reserve Regiment. The career officer, First Lieutenant János Szádvári, wrote the following about this regiment:
“In numbers, military training, arms and equipment the Reserve Regiment was considerably weaker than a combat regiment. When mobilized it consisted of three battalions and battalion irregulars but the First Battalion consisted of only two rifle companies, one heavy weapon company and some battalion irregulars, such as messengers, etc. The troops were armed only with rifles and there were no submachine guns and the three machine guns had been received from the Germans who no longer wanted them. The heavy weapon company had three machine guns, two mortars and one anti-tank gun. Eighty percent of the officers and non-commissioned officers were reservists. One half of the rank and file were reservists who had seen some action and the other half were young reservists, who received only paramilitary training.”[16]
Paraphrasing Lieutenant Szádvári’s words, we can say that these soldiers were inadequately trained and their weapons were less than adequate. We must say that the troops were unsuitable for military action. Still, they were ordered into a battle zone.
This was the first step on the path leading to a heroes’ death. It is a great responsibility, or rather irresponsibility, for those who ordered these untrained, poorly armed men to face up to the battle-trained Soviet frontline fighters.
The soldiers arrived in Gyergyószentmiklós on September 5. Other units of the Third Reserve Regiment made contact with the Soviet forces the same day. Following an about five-six hour engagement Lieutenant Szádvári reported: “they were facing an enemy many times their number and much better armed.”[17]
The Third Battalion of the regiment was in Gyergyószentmiklós. Its commander was Lieutenant Colonel Gyula Fűrész. This battalion had never been in a fire fight but it was likely to enter soon into one. For this reason the battalion commander wanted the soldiers to have a rifle practice with live ammo in order to calibrate their weapons. Because of the haste of getting them to the front line, they had never shot their rifles before their arrival.
We have now reached the second step of the heroes’s death. The soldiers were not only untrained, they were not only poorly armed but they were unfamiliar with their rifles as well since they have never once fired them. This is also the irresponsibility of the commanders who sent them there: how can one send somebody into a battle who does not know how to use his weapon?
Let us now see what happened on September 6 or rather at dawn on the 7th. In his report Battalion Commander Fűrész stated as follows:
“It was after midnight when the company commanders reported that all of the soldiers had been billeted. I ordered that at nine o’clock in the morning they should practice shooting in the mountains to the east since we were given German weapons in Székesfehérvár but had no chance to fire them. It is not good to fight in a war with unfamiliar weapons.
Then I went to bed. About ten o’clock the company commanders came and reported that they tried to calibrate the weapons in the mountains but that the fire was returned.
Since I headed a detached battalion I ordered that the mountain to the east of Gyergyószentmiklós be occupied. The attack began. It was reported that during the attack some of my sargeants were killed. I ordered that the attack be stopped and a withdrawal to the starting point, the area around the chapel. At this time a General Staff major arrived. He ordered all the Hungarian soldiers in the village to leave their offices and move into a defensive position under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Dr. [László] Veres.
In the mean time a German battalion arrived and wanted to show us that they could recapture the hill from the Russians. The Germans were beaten back. Because of heavy losses they discontinued the attack.
General Staff Major [Miklós] Répási directed me to enter the nunery to discuss there with the commander of a German battalion a joint attack on the following morning. The Germans never came. At dawn I went out to the battalion. It was getting light. All of a sudden there was an ungodly amount of firing from the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Veres’s troops.
I told Major Répási that the Russians were attacking. He said that it was our troops who were attacking. I thought this was impossible. We waited and waited.
I saw that the Russians, overcoming the defenders, were forging ahead. I ordered that the attacking column be split in half and designated a distant mountain as the assembly point.
It turned out later that we had been attacked by a Russian-Romanian reconnaissance unit. The attackers made the mistake of attacking in a closed formation. Those on our right were captured before the town and we captured the others. The Germans put the Russian prisoners into one corner of the monastery and the Romanian captives into another corner. Then they shot them all.
It turned out that the group under Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Veres’ command went into their defensive position fortified by bottles of wine. The Russians attacked them with anti-tank weapons captured from the Germans. The sleeping and drunk soldiers were all killed. They were buried in a mass grave behind their defensive position.”[18]
I can say that we can speak of the third step toward the heroes’ death. Poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers who had never used their weapons were sent to a slope of a mountain that was very hard to defend instead of placing them in much more defensible positions around the settlement. I could say but I won’t, because if the enemy is obviously lurking in the neighborhood it might be justified if the commander orders some of his troops to take a position outside the settlement in order to protect the community. Here the responsibility for the dead is not clear-cut because such a military maneuver can be judged in two ways.
The third step to the heroes’ death is, however, clear insofar that these soldiers, including those on guard, were drunk and thus facilitated the murderous intent of their attackers. In this instance there can be no question about the responsibility of the immediate commander Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Veress. As commander he could have seen to it that the soldiers serving as outposts did not get drunk and that in their drunkenness fall asleep.
Let us not judge on the basis of one source alone because Battalion Commander Fűrész might have had a reason to blame somebody else for the death of the 159 men. Perhaps it was not Répási who sent them to the slope of the mountain and perhaps they were not drunk at all. Let us examine the second matter and see what the residents of Gyergyószentmiklós, recalling the event, have to say.
The poet-journalist György Bajna, born in 1947, wrote:
“We could hear and read about the history of the night of September 7, 1944, in a variety of forms. I tried to clarify the events on the basis of the stories by Ignác Kereső, a disabled veteran sergeant of World War I and by my father. Over the years I gathered other data and I published several articles about the event in Hargita Népe, the journal that employed me, and in other publications.
In my childhood I could walk out to the slope of the Gac on a number of occasions. At that time it was called Újhely. Whenever we went we always visited the well maintained graves. My father only told us the highlights. That in those graves more than hundred and fifty soldiers rested, including members of a bicycle brigade.
After we grew up he told us more. Including that an irresponsible command group was responsible for the tragedy because instead of the safer resting area in the city they sent the troop to sleep out in the open. He talked about the drinks that came to the tired soldiers from the Estan Pál’s tavern, that this facilitated their falling into deep sleep and the inattention of the outposts. It was thus that many of them could be transfixed with their own bayonets resulting in a massacre. That is what it was.”[19]
Alcohol and drunkenness and the inebriation of the guards are featured here endorsing the information of the former battalion commander.
Bajna summarized what he had to say in an interview. Accordingly:
“After their arrival the soldiers went to the tavern of Pál István and drank. Later they moved to the slope of the Gac Mountain and there laid down to sleep. Two local people poured them pálinka and so very soon the guards posted on the perimeters were also sleeping.
Like all Sekler settlements Gyergyószentmiklós can be divided into three parts. On high ground is Felszeg, on low ground is Alsószeg, and in between is Középszeg.
- Who made the soldiers drunk?
- The locals know but because nothing can be proven no names are mentioned. It seems likely that two men from Felszeg betrayed the Hungarians and led the Soviet advanced guard, consisting of Ukrainian and Romanian soldiers, to the men from Székesfehérvár. Many of them were pinned to the ground with their own bayonets in a way that they did not die immediately. For three or four days one could hear screams, yelling: “comrade, comrade help me, comrade do not leave me!” If somebody tried to approach them they were fired upon. Furthermore there were no men of military age in Gyergyó at that time, only children and old people. After all of them were dead the Soviets ordered the locals to go and bury the already decomposing cadavers.
- Did the Romanians betray them?
- I cannot say.”
György Bajna reminds us that when the Romanians switched sides and became allies of the Soviets a number of volunteer troops came from the now opened prisons. Some believe that the attackers were Soviet partisans, but Bajna believed that this was not a tenable explanation because the partisans never left their homeland. The butchers were probably Ukrainians or Bessarabian Romanians. After the bloody events the Germans expelled the attackers from Gyergyó for a short time and many of the people who committed the atrocity died among the flames and explosions. Finally, on September tenth the Romanian Iron Guard appeared.
According to György Bajna the nationality of the guerrillas is revealed by the fact that the Seklers could speak to them which they could not have done with the Russians.
After the tragedy the slopes of Gac were covered by mushrooms but nobody picked them, they rather starved.
Imre Bajkó was sixteen years old in 1944. He recalls:
“Our house was at the foot of the Gac Mountain near a little stream. There were two other families near us and we dug a common shelter in the garden. I was sixteen years old and helped with the digging.
The Székesfehérvár battalion was camping near Gac since the end of August. I know this because one of their men was Sándor Mező, a soldier from Maros County who came to our home frequently for milk and we all knew him. This battalion occupied the slopes of Gac on September sixth, and prepared firing positions. In the evening they started carrying rum up the slope. Two or three of them came and went. I believe that they brought the rum from the Szilágyi tavern in the city. That evening the members of the three families slept in the shelter. Toward dawn we heard lamenting and screaming. Some of us risked going up the mountain. You can never forget that dreadful sight. Everywhere soldiers with their head bashed in or transfixed with bayonet. Next to them a pile of rifles, ammunition and hand grenades. Some of them were still alive but there was nothing we could do for them. The Russians had attacked the city and we heard the grenades and the chattering of the machine pistols. We hurried back to the shelter.”[20]
On the basis of his own investigations József Piroska, the journalist for the Romániai Magyar Szó wrote:
“Where did all that rum come from?… It is impossible that they took it from the Szilágyi tavern, five kilometers away in the center of the city and that a Russian officer in civilian clothes paid the bill. One thing, however, is very possible: a commissary with the units retiring from the Bicaz Canyon [Békás Szoros], seeing the soldiers preparing firing positions, might have given them a small barrel of rum from the cart out of the goodness of his heart. Then he said: “Here boys this is for you” (this happened frequently during a retreat). The boys started to drink thinking that they would be in a heavy fight the next day. Then, in the evening, they positioned outpost, put down their canvas sheets and went to sleep.
They knew little about the dangers facing the front lines. We could list a number of instances as to how frequent it was that at night, particularly between three and four o’clock “Russians infiltrated behind the line.” There was a great need for vigilance. Every ten minutes the outposts were checked to make sure that they did not go to sleep because if they did everybody could be massacred.
On the evening of the sixth the Soviets had enough troops at the foot of Császárhegy Mountain to conquer the city. They planned the attack for dawn because they knew from experience that resistance would be minimal at that time.… Only one thing bothered them: the Hungarian formation on the neighboring slope. They had some idea about their number. They knew that if they attacked the city they could easily be attacked from the rear by the Hungarians. They did not need captives. There was only one way to neutralize them: they had to be liquidated before dawn quietly and without shooting. Their identification papers would be taken, according to Soviet practice to keep them anonymous. Why? It is hard to comprehend with a clear mind.… Only a survivor could tell what happened then. The fact that the battalion raised no resistance can be explained only if by the time they woke up there were two or three enemies with bayonets in their hands standing over every soldier. They first took their identification documents and then they dealt with them in the usual fashion.”[21]
The recollections contradict each other to some extent. One talks about wine, another of rum and a third one of pálinka. One mentions a Hungarian purveyor in uniform, another speaks of two local men of unknown nationality and a third one considers the alcohol to have been a “gift” of a passing military commissary. There is one common element: they all agree that the troops, including the guards at the outposts, were almost certainly dead drunk at the time of the attack which rendered them helpless. There are other discrepancies in the stories but they are not pertinent to our theme.
It can be stated with confidence that the third step leading to a heroes’ death was the inability to defend themselves due to drunkenness.
The mass murder amounting to massacre was the fourth step.
To summarize: On September 7, 1944, on the slopes of the Gac Mountain one hundred fifty nine Hungarian soldiers perished. It cannot be said with any certainty how many of the attackers were parts of Soviet or of Romanian units but it is almost certain that the attack was a joint Soviet-Romanian cooperative affair. There is no doubt that those primarily responsible for the death of the Hungarian soldiers are those who murdered them, For all practical purposes the military action became mass murder. It is also evident that, according to the report of the Hungarian battalion commander, captured enemy soldiers were killed by the Germans even though the captured, incapacitated or surrendering soldiers were no longer enemies. We have no data on whether the Hungarian commanders complained to the Germans about killing the prisoners and about the massacre they had witnessed although at that time they could not have known about the massacre of the Hungarian soldiers.
We can go a step further in dissecting the question of responsibility. For the death of these men responsibility lies with Hungarian military leadership that sent them forward untrained and with inadequate arms and who could not make sure that the soldiers knew how to use their weapons. The immediate superiors are also responsible who under obvious war time military and battle conditions overlooked drunkenness on active duty and ignorance of elementary military discipline. Finally, responsibility lies also with the soldiers on the outposts who drank even though they knew that they were responsible for the safety of more than a hundred men.
The actual murderers are at the end of the chain of responsibility and their deed illustrates retrospectively what must have happened to the Hungarian soldiers earlier.
The Narrative of Remembrance
Until 1990 it was not possible to publicly discuss the 159 Hungarian dead. Romania was also a member of the Soviet bloc even though from the 1960, particularly in foreign affairs matters, it deviated from the line. The culture of remembrance in Romania was encumbered by the fact that the Romanian national feeling had difficulty in accepting the brief Hungarian occupation of Northern Transylvania. When a political democracy replaced the communist dictatorship the field of public remembrance opened up. Until then the locals could talk about these things only in whispers and among themselves.
After 1990 the slopes of Gac became a place of remembrance. First a wooden headboard, then a cross and finally a memorial was set up. The memorial was created in 1992 by the Gyergyószentmiklós teacher, artist and poet Emil Burján-Gál, born in 1947. In 2008 the City of Székesfehérvár donated a memorial which was then set up on the site. On the grey marble block, carved by the decorated sculptor Ferenc Richter, the following inscription appears: “Here on this slope in Gyergyó on September 7, 1944, murderous hands with inhuman cruelty took the life of 159 Hungarian soldiers defending their country. The earth accepted them crying because it knew that these were her children who died for her in order that we could remain here. Even though they went far away their memory remains forever.”[22]
The memorial services, held every September, are becoming annually more significant since the unveiling of the monument in 2008. The speeches are published by the local press.
The texts contain two forms of narrative methods which are linked and which strengthen each other.
According to one the soldiers buried here were primarily victims.
It is a different matter why they are considered to be victims. According to some, “their sacrifice was senseless, tragic and without purpose”. In this case we can talk of heroes who were murdered twice. First literally and then, after decades of silence, symbolically.[23] According to others their loss was due to treason and this made them victims. This narrative is represented not only in memorial texts but appears also in a documentary film made in 2007.[24] The role of victim, due to treason, can be translated into a national miracle, just like it was done in 2011 by László Tőkés, the president of the Transylvanian Hungarian National Council and a Hungarian-Romanian member of the European Union’s parliament who wrote:
“Sixty-seven-years ago 159 Székesfehérvár men and youths arrived in the marvelously beautiful Gyergyó to join the army defending our millennial borders after a brief rest. These 159 Hungarian soldiers confidently laid down their head to sleep as only soldiers and peasants trust mother earth. These brethren were villainously betrayed and basely massacred…. I am proud of the men from Székesfehérvár who were willing to sacrifice their life on the call of their country on the far borders. And I am proud of the people of Gyergyószentmiklós because even during the cursed communist dictatorship, when a remembrance could easily lead to a loss of liberty, they did not forget their brethren and lit candles every year in honor of the victims of mass murder. This is the Hungarian miracle and this is what we live in!”[25]
The strength of the narrative is shown by the fact that Duna TV, in the internet version of its September 12, 2011, broadcast, calls the event the “Transylvania Katyn” which is obviously a gross exaggeration because in Katyn[26] unarmed POWs were massacred.
In the post 2008 memorial text that I have reviewed the sacrificial narrative style is always present and the only difference is in whether the sacrifice made sense or not. This, to some extent, is clear: the quality of the sacrifice is evident, undeniable and comprehensible. In addition the pain filled esthetics of the sacrifice strengthens the patriotic motif of having “died for their country.”
The other trend is the heroic narrative.
According to one of the heroic narratives whoever becomes a victim of hostile action while on active service is a fallen hero. Here the concept of heroic death, coined in 1917, appears.
According to another heroic narrative the soldiers become heroes not only because they had died but because they behaved like heroes before they died.
For us the first variation is of lesser interest: here we are dealing only with a response to a cultural convention. In memorial texts such use of heroic death and fallen hero is common place.
The second variety can, in every sense, rewrite what really happened with the Hungarian soldiers killed here. Let us look at two examples. One is an article written in the Vitézi Tajékoztató in 2010. It states:
“Standing in this sad spot we are thinking of the Hungarian soldiers killed in World War II. Today it is history talking about heroic life and heroic death. A whole line of heroes stand before us with a memory surviving death. Their life was worth while and their death was worth while because flowers grow from their blood promising ripe fruit. Their life and death made the principle of patriotism live and for this their death was not in vain. Every nation reveres its heroes of freedom because the example of heroes raises heroes. There are principles today as well worth fighting for and stand for with heroism.”[27]
According to this text it was not only their death that was heroic but their life as well. We could ask why but would get no answer.
At the 2010 memorial Deputy State Secretary Lajos Fodor stated:
“My mother was born in Gyergyószentmiklós and since 1956 I have spent the summers of my youth here. Only men mentioned what happened here in September 1944, and only in a close family circle. The recollection triggered serious sentiments in my heart. I was now confronted with the significance of the 159 Hungarian soldiers who had died as heroes’ death here. They came from Székesfehérvár as reservists. When the World War was approaching its end and practically everything seemed to be lost these soldiers self- sacrificingly defended the sector assigned to them and the area of Gyergyószentmiklós. If we look at this from a military point of view we must admit that they were not properly prepared to face the more “professionally” trained Soviet reconnaissance troops. This is why they became victims.
I consider all of this very instructive because it contains a message for future generations. The soldiers gave their life unconditionally for their country. The message for today is that we must look at this resistance as a model and that there is no truly lost cause. It is of the greatest importance for us that we again have to establish a national army and that we must achieve a change in the society so that the soldiers, the defenders of the country are respected!”[28]
The text from the state secretary and army general does refer to the poor training of the soldiers but in his view this just increases the significance of their self-sacrifice in respect of their defense of the sector of the front assigned to them and the area of Gyergyószentmiklós. Let us remind ourselves because we know: they should have been on the defense, but instead, including the guards on their posts, they were drunk and sleeping. It is curious that the former Chief of Staff of the Hungarian army could view this as a model of behavior.
It was their death that made them fallen heroes and not what they did before it.
The motif of heroic resistance appeared at the 2011 memorial celebration as well.[29] It seems that the motif had become perennial.
It was the sacrifice and the variations of the heroic narrative that make up the public worlds of remembrance.
No word is being said about responsibility.
* * *
The concrete history consists of three emphatic elements. The killed soldiers were victims because whoever is murdered is a victim. They are fallen heroes according to the established concept of heroic death. They were also responsible for their being victims and for their heroic death. The categories fit together well and none of them excludes any of the others.
Why do we forget and suppress the matter of responsibility? Probably because if we were to speak of it the heroic death and the victim role they would gain a different interpretation. If, according to the present stand of the culture of remembrance, a Soviet-Romanian outfit committed the murders and they are solely culpable, unless we raise the question about the responsibility of the Hungarians for the death of the Hungarian soldiers. As we have seen it was a whole series of irresponsible acts that led to their being murdered. The line goes from the Hungarian military leadership to individual commanders to the ones who were the direct victims of the event. Some were directly responsible and others only indirectly.
A heroic death and the role of the victim must not cover up the concept of responsibility. There must not be a cover up like in our story. The history of responsibility is just as valuable as the heroic death or the status of victimhood. Thus when we say that they died hero’s death we do not say it all and we suppress what could make a difference in the individual cases.
In our case while we pay the proper respect to the fallen hero we also pay tribute to forgetfulness on the altar of national amnesia. We do not want to acknowledge our role in this history of death. The victim, the fallen hero and the culpable. Three in one.
The totality of the nation’s fallen heroes is the sum of individual stories.
It is very likely that the “three in one” formula is applicable to other cases.
Only the uniqueness of the story can decide the general meaning of the story.
[1] The Zrínyi cult has become a part of the Hungarian hero culture particularly in military society.
[2] János Potó, Emlékművek, politika, közgondolkodás. Budapest köztéri emlékművei, 1945–1949 [Memorials, Politics and Public Thought. Monuments in the Public Spaces of Budapest] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1989); and János Potó, Az emlékeztetés helyei, Emlékművek és politika [Sites of Remembrance. Memorials and Politics] (Budapest: Osiris, 2003).
[3] The heroes’ cemetery was enlarged over time and grew from the original two sections to nineteen sections. About twenty-five thousand were buried here including the military dead and the civilian casualties of World War I and II. The dead include some from other nationalities. www.nekb.gov.hu/node/228; http://www.hadisir.hu/?bejegyzesek=temeto&temeto_azon=99
[4] Then text of the act can be found : http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=7380
[5] The text of the act can be found: http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m7597
[6] András Gerő, “The Altar of the Nation: the Millenium Monument in Budapest, in Imagined History (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2006), 173–212.
[7] http://lexicon.katolikus.hu/H/j%C5%91si%20halott.html
[8] Magyarországi rendeletek tára. Hetvenhatodik évfolyam. 1942 [Depository of the Hungarian Ordinances. Seventy-Sixth Year, 1942] (Budapest: Stádium Sajtóvállalat Rt. Nyomda, 1943). http://www3.arcanum.hu/rendtar/a090217.htm?v=pdf&a=pdfdata&id=1942&pg=0&l=hun
[9] For the text of the act, see http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=10004
[10] The dead of the present military are not always fallen heroes and the term “Hungarian military dead” is used for them. It is naturally not the same if a person is a fallen hero or not because this is a real distinction both from the perspective of respect and also from that of social contributions. At a memorial burial service, for instance, the fallen hero must be taken to the cemetery riding on a caisson, accompanied by a military band and, at least, a company of soldiers. Similar regulations, under different titles, pertain to the dead of internal security forces. http://www.complex.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A0800004.HM; http://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=99700039.BM
[11] See http://www.kormany.hu/hu/honvedelmi-miniszterium/hirek/interneten-kereshetok-a-masodik-vilaghaboru-hosi-halottai
[12] Roland Maruzs, Vitéz és önfeláldozó magatartásért—Hősi halált halt és posztumusz kitüntetett katonák adattára. 1939–1945 [For Heroic and Self-Sacrificing Behavior —The Register of the Fallen Heroes and Decorated Soldiers. 1939–1945] (Budapest: Puedlo Kiadó, 2009).
[13] Tamás Stark “Hungary’s Casualties in Worl War II,” in Hungarian Economy and Society during World War II, ed. György Lengyel (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1993), 179–180, 183–185.
[14] Balázs Ablonczy, A visszatért Erdély 1940–1944 [The Returned Transylvania. 1940–1944] (Budapest: Jaffa Kiadó, 2011). On the basis of this book it is surprising by that in Hungarian historiography some works speak of the success of the revision. This success lasted for only six years for the First Vienna Award and only four years for the second one. No mention was made of the cost of these “years of success.”
[15] There is only one brief work on this event. See János József Szabó, Felirat egy tömegsírra. Székesfehérvári katonák tömegsírja Gyergyószentmiklóson [Inscription on a Mass Grave. The Mass Grave of Soldiers from Szekesfehervár in Gyergyószentmiklós] (Székesfehérvár: Honvédség és Társadalom Baráti Kör, 2008).
[16] Szabó, Felirat egy tömegsírra, 32.
[17] Szabó, Felirat egy tömegsírra, 46.
[18] Szabó, Felirat egy tömegsírra, 49–50.
[19] György Bajna, “Vérük hullását nem feledve” [Not forgetting the spilling of their blood], Gyergyói Kisújság, no 35, September 2–8, 2010. 11. http://www.kisujsag.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99%3A35-sz-869-2010-szeptember-2–8-xvii-evf&limitstart=10
[20] Anita Miskei, “Jajgatva fogadta őket a föld” [the earth took them in crying], Fejér Megyei Hírlap, April 29, 2008. http://feol.hu/hirek/jajgatva-fogadta-oket-a-fold-1190505
[21] József Piroska, “A gyergyószentmiklósi tragédia. Adatok a második világháború székelyföldi eseményeihez” [The Gyergyószentmiklós tragedy. Data on the events of World War II in the Székely Counties], Romániai Magyar Szó. October 31, 1998. http://www.hhrf.org/rmsz/98okt/r981031.htm
[22] For the memorial, see http://www.minden-ami-magyar.hu/kep.php?file=2009/20090322-222012-a1ec.txd&view=1&SID&res= The erection of the memorial was a significant social event.
[23] Imola Baricz-Tamás, “Új emlékmű a Gác-oldalon, Szelei István beszéde” [The new memorial on the Gac slope. The speech of István Szelei], Gyergyói Kisújság, May 22–28, 2008. http://kisujsag.ro/Adatok/old_szam/regi_szamok/2008/21.html
[24] Massacre on the Gac slope. Nine minutes. Rex Video Studió. Gyergyószentmiklós. The members of the Rex Video Studio crew were Attila Zsigmond, Zoltán Bíró and György Bajna.
[25] For the message of László Tőkés on the Gac slope memorial service, see http://emnt.org/orszagos-hirek/tokes-laszlo-uzenete-a-gac-hegyi-megemlekezesre.html
[26] As known, detachments of Soviet secret police executed Polish POW officers in 1940. The number of victims was between fifteen and twenty two thousand. One of the sites for execution was the Katyn forest. The Duna TV report about the memorial is in http://www.hirado.hu/Hirek/2011/09/12/18/Megemlekeztek_a_szekely_katyni_meszarlasra.aspx
[27] Tibor László, “Tisztelgés 159 székesfehérvári hősi halott honvéd előtt Gyergyószentmiklóson” [Salute in Gyergyószentmiklós to the 159 fallen heroes from Székesfehérvár], Vitézi Tájékoztató., no. 3 (2010): 22.
[28] Gábor Szűcs:Szívünkben őrizzük (We guard it in our heart… http://www.kormany.hu./hu/honvedelmi-miniszterium/hirek/szivunkben-orizzuk
[29] Gyergyószentmiklós Memorial, September eleven, 2011. http://www.nekunkfehervar.hu/index.php/csapatunk/roth-peter/617-megemlekezes-gyergyoszentmikloson