After our recent trip to Budapest, I became curious about the extent to which Hungarians can be counted on to oppose the Islamicization of Europe. This curiosity was aroused by a visit to a small church where my wife pointed out to me an Islamic mihrab, and I recalled that Hungary had been under the control of the Ottomans for some time. Indeed, when they were expelled, it was considered a terrible tragedy by the Turks, so much so that one of them composed the following song:
In the fountains they no longer wash
In the mosques they no longer pray
The places that prospered are now desolate
The Austrian has taken our beautiful Buda. [cited in Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? p. 17]
As a result, I have now read two different books on Hungarian history, one (here) written in recent years, and the other (here) originally published in 1959, which I read so as to avoid any hidden political correctness I may have missed in the first one.
Based on what I’ve read, I think the answer is no, we probably can’t count on them. Here’s why.
1. The period of Turkish rule was also a time when the Hapsburgs of Austria were trying to dominate Hungary. (The two powers split up the country.) The Hungarians were caught between a rock and a hard place, with some of them actually deciding to ally themselves with the Turks so as to get rid of the Hapsburgs. Since the Turks were thrown out back in the seventeenth century, while the Austrians weren’t dislodged till 1918 (and with the Russians a more recent thorn in their side), it is hardly likely that they can be counted on to recall such an ancient feud.
2. The Hapsburgs weren’t any better at treating the peasants than the Turks were, and may have been worse.
3. The Hungarians have found throughout much of their history, going back to the Mongol invasion of 1241 and continuing right up into my lifetime with the Hungarian revolution of 1956, that help from others when they are invaded will not be forthcoming. This is what they experienced with the Mongols, with the Turks, and with the Russians twice (in 1849 and in 1956).
It is true that eventually a European army pushed back the Turks, but that was well over a century later and the point was more to protect Vienna than to liberate Hungary; likewise Hungarians’ lives were made much easier after Bismarck defeated the Austrians in 1867, but that wasn’t his purpose. And in the twentieth century, Hitler helped them out after they lost land due to the aftermath of WWI, but although he was consciously trying to help them, he also expected a lot in return.
Anyway, since Hungary hasn’t been flooded with Muslims the way that western Europe has been, they don’t feel the same way about them, and the historical considerations I’ve just mentioned mean they have little reason to help us out.
Some other thoughts:
1. While today we in America lump many different ethnic groups together into the category of “white,” that wasn’t the way things were seen in eastern Europe in the nineteenth century and in much of the twentieth century, when different ethnic groups were squabbling for freedom. Even in our own times, the different ethnic groups of the Balkans have erupted into, not just squabbling, but bitter fighting.
2. The Hungarians, while pushing for liberation from the Hapsburgs, were often completely indifferent to the same aspirations for ethnic minorities within Hungary (Croats, Serbs, etc.).
3. While I have thought of the 1848 outbreaks of revolutionary fervor in Europe as being about class, from the Hungarian point of view it was about national liberation from the Habsburgs.
I also learned about some curious people, such as Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln (see here), who was basically a con man who managed to get elected to Britain’s Parliament despite not quite being a citizen of Britain, and Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe (see here), who although she was part Jewish was also Hitler’s BFF. Sheesh.
And finally, there was this curious event. A Hapsburg general, Raimondo Montecuccoli, attacked the Turks on Hungarian soil and won a great victory, and then in the peace negotiations (the treaty of Vasvar) gave the Turks back all he had taken from them, plus some reparations. Incredible. The Hungarians were furious. It’s the sort of Monty-Python type of incident that one doesn’t expect in real life.
In the fountains they no longer wash
In the mosques they no longer pray
The places that prospered are now desolate
The Austrian has taken our beautiful Buda. [cited in Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? p. 17]
As a result, I have now read two different books on Hungarian history, one (here) written in recent years, and the other (here) originally published in 1959, which I read so as to avoid any hidden political correctness I may have missed in the first one.
Based on what I’ve read, I think the answer is no, we probably can’t count on them. Here’s why.
1. The period of Turkish rule was also a time when the Hapsburgs of Austria were trying to dominate Hungary. (The two powers split up the country.) The Hungarians were caught between a rock and a hard place, with some of them actually deciding to ally themselves with the Turks so as to get rid of the Hapsburgs. Since the Turks were thrown out back in the seventeenth century, while the Austrians weren’t dislodged till 1918 (and with the Russians a more recent thorn in their side), it is hardly likely that they can be counted on to recall such an ancient feud.
2. The Hapsburgs weren’t any better at treating the peasants than the Turks were, and may have been worse.
3. The Hungarians have found throughout much of their history, going back to the Mongol invasion of 1241 and continuing right up into my lifetime with the Hungarian revolution of 1956, that help from others when they are invaded will not be forthcoming. This is what they experienced with the Mongols, with the Turks, and with the Russians twice (in 1849 and in 1956).
It is true that eventually a European army pushed back the Turks, but that was well over a century later and the point was more to protect Vienna than to liberate Hungary; likewise Hungarians’ lives were made much easier after Bismarck defeated the Austrians in 1867, but that wasn’t his purpose. And in the twentieth century, Hitler helped them out after they lost land due to the aftermath of WWI, but although he was consciously trying to help them, he also expected a lot in return.
Anyway, since Hungary hasn’t been flooded with Muslims the way that western Europe has been, they don’t feel the same way about them, and the historical considerations I’ve just mentioned mean they have little reason to help us out.
Some other thoughts:
1. While today we in America lump many different ethnic groups together into the category of “white,” that wasn’t the way things were seen in eastern Europe in the nineteenth century and in much of the twentieth century, when different ethnic groups were squabbling for freedom. Even in our own times, the different ethnic groups of the Balkans have erupted into, not just squabbling, but bitter fighting.
2. The Hungarians, while pushing for liberation from the Hapsburgs, were often completely indifferent to the same aspirations for ethnic minorities within Hungary (Croats, Serbs, etc.).
3. While I have thought of the 1848 outbreaks of revolutionary fervor in Europe as being about class, from the Hungarian point of view it was about national liberation from the Habsburgs.
I also learned about some curious people, such as Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln (see here), who was basically a con man who managed to get elected to Britain’s Parliament despite not quite being a citizen of Britain, and Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe (see here), who although she was part Jewish was also Hitler’s BFF. Sheesh.
And finally, there was this curious event. A Hapsburg general, Raimondo Montecuccoli, attacked the Turks on Hungarian soil and won a great victory, and then in the peace negotiations (the treaty of Vasvar) gave the Turks back all he had taken from them, plus some reparations. Incredible. The Hungarians were furious. It’s the sort of Monty-Python type of incident that one doesn’t expect in real life.
Comments