Richard Schüller’s Review of Hungary, To Be or Not To Be (1948)

Richard Schüller’s journal book review assesses Rustem Vambery’s account of Hungarian history and his hopes for Hungary’s postwar reconstruction. Its central judgment balances admiration for Vambery’s attack on nationalist mythology against criticism of his historical simplifications and his tolerance of Soviet-backed restrictions on democracy. Schüller proceeds from Hungary’s interpretation of its past to the territorial, institutional, and geopolitical obstacles facing its future. The review’s underlying question is whether dismantling chauvinist historical claims supplies an adequate foundation for a workable regional order.

Schüller first presents Vambery’s challenge to the nationalist image of Hungary as an ancient, continuously independent, liberal country. Against claims of constitutional antiquity, he recalls Turkish domination followed by incorporation into the Austrian Empire and, subsequently, Austria-Hungary. Against claims of democratic tradition, he recounts Vambery’s indictment of the great landowners who monopolized political power. Vambery’s intervention is therefore both historical and political: Hungary’s future requires discrediting national self-glorification and removing the ruling class from power. Schüller recognizes the courage this demanded from someone liable to be denounced as a traitor.

The disagreement begins with Vambery’s explanation of the relationship between the Magyar landed elite and Habsburg authority. Vambery depicts the landowners’ submission to imperial rulers as a bargain that preserved their domination over subordinate classes and national minorities. Schüller regards this account as a corrective that becomes reductive in its turn:

It seems to me that Vambery, after having exploded the chauvinist Magyar propaganda, presented in his over-simplified version another propaganda fallacy.

For Schüller, the missing consideration is the Magyars’ position between Germans and Slavs. He argues that Vambery acknowledges this geopolitical vulnerability without giving it sufficient weight when assessing the Austrian Empire. The criticism becomes sharper because Vambery’s proposed remedy—a Danubian federation and customs union—would reproduce a regional integration that the empire had already provided. Schüller thus questions both the explanatory adequacy of Vambery’s anti-Habsburg account and its consistency with his preferred postwar solution.

The review next tests these federal hopes against the settlement of frontiers and the treatment of minorities. Vambery expects international management of territorial disputes to help Hungary and its neighbors escape destructive nationalism. Schüller instead emphasizes the continuity between the new peace treaty and Trianon, together with the worsening position of Magyars outside Hungary:

The earlier treaty necessitated the transfer of more than two million Magyars to the neighboring countries. Now the Magyar minorities are being expelled by these neighbors.

These developments undermine Vambery’s confidence that regional cooperation will overcome nationalist antagonism. Schüller’s objection is not simply that federation is undesirable, but that the political conditions needed to sustain it remain unfulfilled.

The final substantive movement examines the democratic character of the anticipated settlement. Schüller contrasts Vambery’s application of modern democratic standards to imperial administration with his accommodating assessment of Soviet influence. He highlights Vambery’s expectation that the Soviet Union would control Hungary’s foreign policy and army, his qualified reassurance about interference in domestic affairs, and his acceptance of measures against opposition politicians and the press. The admission that purged Small Holders were not necessarily reactionaries, alongside the resemblance between the new press law and that of the Horthy regime, makes this reassurance particularly troubling.

Schüller nevertheless closes with a measured endorsement:

Despite its shortcomings Vambery's book is an honest, courageous work and contains much well-founded criticism of Hungary's past regimes and of Magyar megalomania.

The review’s relevance lies in this refusal to equate justified criticism of an old regime with confidence in its successor. Vambery’s inconsistencies become evidence of the difficulty of reconciling regional organization, minority protection, national independence, and democracy. For Schüller, these are interdependent problems whose unresolved conflicts also threaten international peace.