On the occasion of the memorial year (which was to run until February 25th, 2017), the GULAG-GUPVI Memorial Committee, chaired by Zoltán Balog, Minister of Human Capacities, had held its first meeting in October last year. The participants, mainly historians, had come to a consensus that the goal of the Gulag Memorial Year should be to shine a light on what was political propaganda, thereby differentiating it from fact, and to erect a memorial to all those who, during the “decades of propaganda”, could not share their stories about what had happened to and with them.
Hide
At the first open forum of the GULAG-GUPVI Memorial Committee, primarily historians knowledgeable of the era, among them the researchers of the VERITAS Institute, had participated, and had unanimously reached the conclusion that in order to break through the decades-long wall of silence surrounding the subject, there was a crucial need to collectively acknowledge and honor the memory of those many hundreds of thousands of victims of political terrorism. To those victims, Hungarian and German alike, who had lived in either Hungary (specifically, what had belonged to Hungary between 1938 and 1944) or one of the neighboring states, a centrally-located, funerary monument / memorial had to be devised, so that the “unburied dead” could finally be attended to in such a way that properly honored them.
To the second forum, artists of a creative bent or with a flair for performance, historians and public figures were invited by the committee. They were welcomed by Dániel Bene, Director of Human Resources Support Management, an institution supporting the Ministry of Human Capacities.
We must make a decision as responsible Hungarian intellectuals!
In his introductory comments, Attila Pók insisted that even though historians had started the process of objectively uncovering the facts well before 1989, the politics of collective memory nonetheless either did not work or did so improperly. And most worrisome was that until then, the least amount of attention had been paid to the victims themselves. He warned that the time had come to think and act as responsible Hungarian intellectuals. As an indication of where to begin, he emphasized that it was important to collectively clarify whom to memorialize, what to bestow and what to convey via the memorial.
Tamás Stark, Senior Research Fellow for the Institute of History, Research Center for the Humanities at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, was next to speak, hinting that a sense of national martyrdom focused on self-pity was not a proper politics of collective memory. A nation of course had a need for memorials, without which the events of the past (and their adherent lessons) would fade from the public’s consciousness. It was a huge problem if, in the minds of the youth, the historical events of the past became jumbled. He also remarked that since the victims of the 1944/45-1991 era had come from various backgrounds (political, religious, ideological, intellectual, civilian and non-civilian, German-speaking / German-surnamed, and also included a significant number of female victims), there was substantial overlap, mainly because the victors’ main concern was procuring a slave workforce. Moreover, it was an undeniable fact that those who eventually had made it home alive were also victims, as they were treated as second-class citizens forced to remain silent for decades.
In his comments Miklós Réthelyi, former Minister of National Resources, underscored that one occupation had led to the other;and as the Soviet deportations targeted primarily German nationals, then the expulsion of the Swabians must be included in the Gulag question. Nor should we ignore the utter certainty of the memorial generating further debate, inasmuch as it would serve as a counterbalance. Also in need of clarification was the question of who had benefited from the deportations, and what were the lessons of the Gulag era for today?
Actress Ilona Ivancsics also emphasized that parents, the educational system and the art world, including the performing arts, all had a role to play in transmitting these lessons. In other words, the Gulag should not be treated as something to be checked off a list, never to be considered again!
The memorial and its location are symbolically important.
András Szőke, an underground filmmaker, asserted that the memorial was symbolically important. So it had to depict the faces, the names, the uprooted experience and the state prohibition on open discussion of what had happened. Likewise there was a need to have local memorials. He also raised the need for a “light cavalry approach” in terms of raising awareness, one that was effective in getting the message out and easy both to understood and relate to.
László Csorba, curator and Director of the Hungarian National Museum, believed that the proposed memorial should provide a kind of perspective to the people of the painful and trying 20th century, tying the individual to the collective nation via one of the most important events in the nation’s history. In other words, the memorial should attempt to provide a fundamental and emotional relief, helping the nation come to terms with something that in many ways remained an open wound to that day.
József Finta, award-winning (“The Nation’s Artist” and Kossuth Award) Hungarian architect and member of both the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Academy of Arts, pointed out that compared to other nationalities, Hungarians unfortunately did not feel the same sense of ownership of their past, and as such, memorials and statues perhaps could help change that. Unfortunately the number of good Hungarian statues was small. Most of them were ambivalent in what they conveyed of the past…
Finta stated that the memorial would need some leeway in order to evolve properly. Therefore instead of the consciously planned Szabadság Square location perhaps a more ideal spot would be, for example, Vérmező (a park in Budapest’s I district, near the Southern Train Station). The memorial should be clear and unequivocal in its message. Concerning the bidding process itself, he expressed his hopes that it would be very specific in its expectations and made available to a wide range of potential bidders.
May remembering spur thought and action.
Zoltán Lomnici, former Council President of the Curia of Hungary and current President of the Council of Human Dignity, emphasized that since 20th-century Hungarian history was a series of tragedies resulting from significant violations of the law, one of the most important responsibilities of National Remembrance was the building of memorials. Therefore, the memorial had to articulate a message and be thought-provoking at once since only a small segment of our society was curious about history, while at the same time an alarmingly large number of people had a lack of historical knowledge or, more commonly, felt indifference to questions of historical import.
Róbert Hermann was next to share his thoughts. He stated that a narrow historical interpretation made more sense, which was to say that in this case, the memorial should memorialize the victims of the Soviet deportations. The memorial itself should be concrete, interactive and personal, especially the latter, by tying the memorial to real historical locations. He did not think that there was the necessary space available on an already crowded Szabadság Square for the memorial. In a related matter, he mentioned that a memorial to honor the victims of WWI would also generate its share of controversy if the proposal were not done with experts’ (i.e. historians’) deliberation. Moreover, neither the victims of the Ottoman Occupation nor those of Rákóczi’s War of Independence had a memorial in their memory yet.
At that point Erzsébet Menczer, President of the Organization of Soviet-Deported Hungarian Political Prisoners and Forced Laborers (Szorakész), asked for permission to speak. She said that she felt the construction of a centrally-located memorial was a worthy endeavor, and as Szabadság Square was an emblematic location, that was where the monument belonged. In agreement with Szorakész were the following organizations: The Community of Hungarian Political Prisoners, the Pécs-Baranya County Community of Hungarian-Germans and various organizations tied to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. On behalf of the World Alliance of the Freedom Fighters of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Gábor Sándor reiterated his organization’s support for Menczer’s stance, while stating that he also expected steps to be taken soon.
Openness, dignity and understanding…
A specific concept for the Hungarian memorial did exist: a tall black obelisk, the four sides of which would symbolize a different subset of victims: 1.) Gulag prisoners; those who had been deported based on their ethnicity: 2.) the Germans of Hungary and 3.) Hungarians living in the bordering countries; and 4.) POW’s. In lieu of victims’ names, the towns and villages from where they had been taken would be listed.
In his closing remarks, Attila Pók stated that the victims, the survivors, the historians, the teachers and the artists had to come to an agreement that approached consensus, the key words being understanding and dignity, remembrance and reverence. As responsible Hungarian intellectuals they had to avoid conflict. For example, if Szabadság Square was the answer in the end, one half of the square could not be a “counter response” to the other. If the government was open to the possibility of this memorial and the concomitant public debates in order to achieve a consensus, then society had to be just as open. To that end the participants called upon the government to organize additional community forums for an ever wider audience where there was room for every opinion, perspective and proposal.
OSZTT
