#$ Volume 1, Issue 2 (2002) 209229

+,6725<

Some details for the judgment on the higher military leadership of the Hungarian home defence forces (19201945)
FERENC LENGYEL
Mikls Zrnyi National Defence University, Budapest, Hungary

The author tries to answer the question what role was played in the higher military leadership by the serving General Staff officers between 1919-1945, who they were and why they could play so determinant role in leading of military politics. 58 persons were selected for analysis their careers and work. From different charts you can get information about their origin, religion, career, general and special education and at last about their special status. Introduction The imperial or great power influence can be observed the best of all in the selection of the higher military leadership. In the period of dualism the selection and promotion manipulations had double objectives. On the one hand, they were aimed at raising a social layer ready to follow imperial ideas, on the other hand, at dividing the officers corps, weakening its national will, readiness to act. After the disintegration of the AustroHungarian Monarchy, the preconditions though very limited were given for creating a new, national armed forces. Following the withdrawal of the Romanian troops, the organization spread to the whole country within the demarcation lines. The private staff of the prospective army was totally Hungarian but its officers corps was not. During the evaluation procedures each and every officer was taken into the new defence forces who considered himself Hungarian and was not a member of the Communist Party. Thus this officers corps was just a multinational remainder of that of the former AustroHungarian Monarchy, with various motivations. It had ex-Imperial and Royal officers, Honvd officers, royalists and republicans, Hungarian speakers and those without any knowledge of Hungarian, well-trained and World War I reservists, former warrant officers and General Staff officers, coming from Hungary or the annexed territories, active in the Hungarian Soviet Republics Army or in the Szeged counter revolutionary group.

Received: September 17, 2002 Address for correspondence: FERENC LENGYEL Mikls Zrnyi National Defence University, P. O. Box 15, H1581 Budapest 146, Hungary E-mail: kekesi@zmne.hu

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

These factors posed a significant problem mainly in the 1920s, leading to a split among the officers and culminating in formation of conflicts. The majority of these tensions ceased during the later years but the opposition between the Germans and the Hungarians or General Staff officers and line officers remained constant. In the 1920s the General Staff officers were considered as foreigners because the great majority of them graduated in Austria and had been commissioned in the Imperial and Royal armed forces. The situation did not change even after the launch of training at the Hungarian Honvd Military Academy and the graduates received a totally Hungarian training from 1927. The conflicts rooted in the structure of the AustroHungarian Monarchy and in the fact that due to their high level qualifications, those officers, together with others commissioned in the Imperial and Royal Armed Forces took the highest positions. Moreover, until 1928 German language was a compulsory subject of the entrance examinations to the Academy which gave the German-speaking ethnic Schwabians and other German-speaking officers from the annexed territories a great advantage, having another negative effect on the training. That was a huge disadvantage for the Hungarian officers because between 1920 and 1927 nearly 50% of the officers corps came from behind the Trianon borders. No wonder that during World War II the majority of the Hungarian top level military leadership and the General Staff officers supported the strengthening of the relationships with Germany. This a significant fact, even though it is well known that the most important decisions were made not by them but by the supreme political leadership. In the period between the two world wars, the structure of the Hungarian officer education followed the traditions inherited from the Monarchy producing a mixture of the Hungarian and German models. While the military schools and the Ludovika had a Hungarian teaching staff, following pure Hungarian ideals, the General Staff Academy was strongly influenced by the German traditions. Due to its education received in military schools and the Ludovika Academy from 1920 the new officers generation could be considered as national. Its polarization began with graduating from the War Academy. Officers graduated from the General Staff College were commissioned in the General Staff, while the rest comprised the line officer corps. Both groups had their own systems of promotion and further education but the opportunities and conditions were far from similar.

210

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

General Staff officers This part of my study focuses on the questions of working principles of the body of General Staff, its members and their roles in the Royal Hungarian Defence Forces, their exceptional status, and their rapid and impressive career. All the research is based on registers, service regulations, affairs of honour, promotion and qualification regulations stored in the military archives and also the relating measures. The most informative personnel files were those without any re-entering and with continuous registration. Besides the usual particulars these original files had exact information on a given persons assignments, promotions, academic studies, knowledge of foreign languages, health status, General Staff assignments, relationships to social organizations, and all changes in his private life. Unfortunately during two world wars and the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 a lot of files disappeared and the political and social impacts of the post-1920 and -1945 years were also significant. Thus the amount of intact files is rather limited. The processing of findings was based on the professional-sociological methods applied by military historian Sndor Szakly but only to the extent required by the topic. New approaches, however, had also to be used. In order to minimize the margin of errors and select only the officers who did in fact belong to the General Staff between 1920 and 1927 the research could not be based merely on the personal files of the contemporary military elite. That is why the samples were taken from contemporary documents. The names of 182 then General Staff officers (overt and covert so called administrative staff members) were selected from various rosters, registers of courses, training catalogs. The materiel books of 127 of them were found but it was possible to evaluate only 58 of them. The list of names below indicates the changes of the names of the officers, their nobility and the title of valiant vitz. The first of the two ranks shows the highest reached during a military career while the second marks the 1927 situation. Titles of valiant were awarded from 1920 on that is why they are put without an exact date. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Aladr ASZTALOSSY (Asztalovszky), major general 1890. Pernek valiant (captain) Oszkr BAITZ, major general 1893. Budapest, valiant, noble from Beodva (major) Szilrd BAKAI, lieutenant general, 1892. Valiant, (captain) Ferenc BARDCZI (Bder), lieutenant general 1895. Apatin, valiant (captain) %pOD%(1.major general 1891. Zsib (?) Kroly BEREGFY (Berger), general, 1888. Cservenka (major) Bla BERZEVITZI, lieutenant general 1870. Nagylomnic, noble (general)

#$ 1(2) (2002)

211

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Ferenc BISZA, lieutenant general 1890. Pola (captain) /iV]Oy'(6('H]Vmajor general, 1893. Srospatak, (captain) Dniel FBRY (Olh), lieutenant general 1889. Srospatak, noble, valiant (major) Ferenc FARKAS, general, 1892. Kismarton, valiant, noble (major) Ott FERJENTSIK, general, 1873. Jekefalva, (general) Lszl GERLCZI major general 1892. Kassa, valiant, noble from Alsviszoka (captain) Lszl HORVTH lieutenant general 1888. Zalaegerszeg, (major) Mihly IBRNYI lieutenant general 1895. Debrecen, valiant, noble from Vajna and Ibrny (captain) Sndor ILLY major general 1898. Budapest, (captain) Kocsrd JNKY major general? (general) Kamill KRPTHY, general, 1876 ? valiant, (general) Lajos KERESZTES-FISCHER, general, 1884. Pcs, valiant, (colonel) Jzsef KERESZTES 1883. Nagyenyed, (lieutenant colonel) Klmn KERESZTES major general 1881. Nagyenyed, (lieutenant colonel) Gyula KOVCS lieutenant general 1893. Tordatr, valiant, (captain)
'H]V /6=//DXFVHNJHQHUDO/RYiV]SDWRQDYDOLDQWFDSWDLQ

Andrs LITTAY (Lichtneckert), general, 1884. Szabadka, valiant (?) *\]/25;JHQHUDO,JOyJHQHUDO Jzsef MAKAY lieutenant general 1887. Eger, valiant, (lieutenant colonel) Lszl MALLER 1891. Dad, (captain) Jnos MARKCZI lieutenant general 1890. Nagyszeben, valiant (captain) Bla MIKLS, general, 1890. Budapest, valiant, noble from Dlnok (captain) Istvn NDAY, general, 1888. Nagymihly, valiant, Pl ORDASI (?) 1889. Gomba (?) Bla RKOSI lieutenant general 1889. Temesvr, noble (captain) -HQ57=JHQHUDO1DJ\EHFVNHUHNYDOLDQWQREOHIURP1DJ\ODN Ferenc RCZEY major general 1896. Budapest, (captain) Ferenc RVHEGYI 1888. Budapest, (captain) -HQ5'(5major general 1889. Ppa (major)
9LOPRV5

'(5JHQHUDO"3pFVFRORQHO

Istvn SCHWEITZEP, general, 1887. Nmetszentpter (lieutenant colonel) Kroly SOS lieutenant general 1869. Nagyszeben, (general) Jzsef SOMKUTHY (SCHITLER), general, 1883. Folt, (colonel) Endre SOMOGYI lieutenant general 1891. Cserpfalu, valiant (captain) 6iQGRU6=$%OLHXWHQDQWJHQHUDO.OVE|FVYDOLDQWJHQHUDO

212

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

Jnos SZKELY lieutenant general 1888. Pcs, valiant, (captain) Tams SZIRMAY 1840. Kassa, (captain) )HUHQF6=20%$7+(/<,.1$8=*\UYDOLDQWOLHXWHQDQWFRORQHO Lajos SZIRMAY major general 1888. Vienna, valiant, (captain) Lajos TAKCH 1893. Lajtafalu, (captain) Bla TANT major general 1881. Somorja, (captain) Jzsef TYLL 1890. Szeged, (?) 'H]V72/1$<7ROQDL7+20$1major general 1891. Trkszentmikls, (captain) Kroly UNGR major general 1842. Budapest, valiant, baron of Bukowe-berd and Ujscie (captain) Lajos VERESS, general, 1889. Sepsiszentgyrgy, noble from Dlnok-primor (major) Jnos VRS, general, 1891. Csabrendek, valiant, noble (captain) Gyrgy VUKOVRY (VUKOV) major general 1842. Boldogasszonyfalva, (captain) Henrik WERT, general, 1881. Rezshza, (colonel) Emil ZCH (NACK), general, 1883. Nagykikinda, valiant, (colonel) Zoltn ZELENKA lieutenant general 1884. Losonc, noble from Kutna and Ervistye (lieutenant colonel) Sndor ZSOMBOLYAY (KRAUSZ) major general 1840. Budapest, noble, from Zsombolya (captain)

Taking into account the number of the listed persons this can be a good proportion since the official number of the General Staff officers in 1927 totalled at mere 82. The 1927 yearbook of the Royal Hungarian Defence Forces contains the figures of Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. The complexion of the officer corps of the R. H. H.D.F. in 1927 Col. Gen. Gen. G. St. a. Inf. Cav. Arty Eng. Signal Motor. Train Total 2 Lt. Gen. 13 Gen 8 Col. 19 26 8 13 2 1 1 1 71 Lt. Col. 13 14 4 9 4 1 3 48 Maj. 18 98 23 21 12 7 5 5 189 Cpt. 23 338 60 83 17 18 7 14 560 Lieut. 596 84 118 24 22 8 7 859 Total 23 73 1072 179 244 59 48 22 30 1750

12

general General-Staff-assigned

#$ 1(2) (2002)

213

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Table 2. The officer corps of the Presidential Department D in 1927 General Gen. St. a. Infantry Cavalry Artillery Total Lt. Gen. 1 General 1 Colonel 1 1 1 1 1 3 Lt. Col. 1 1 1 3 Major 2 1 1 4 Captain 1 6 6 5 18 Total 2 5 9 8 6 30

Naturally the real strength was significantly higher than the above quoted. It is extremely difficult to give a precise number of the administrative employees in General Staff. Approximate estimations could be made on the basis of lists of names set up on various qualification courses. Since the registration was compulsory on these centrally organized events these data can be regarded genuine. In 1923 for example there were 76 General-Staff-commissioned persons on in the Ministry of Defence, General Staff, Military Archives, Institute of Cartography, Budapest District Command, and the Budapest brigade of all arms.1 This was 46 persons more than the strength registered in the 1927 regulation for these organs. This roughly 230% difference cannot be generalized because the provincial brigades of all arms did not have such favourable conditions for a covert staff as those in the capital. In my opinion, however, taking into consideration other data as well the number of overt and covert General Staff officers totalled around 140150. This is an 88.5% difference on the basis of the 1750 strength and 56% if the covert line officers are also included. Based on his researches Szakly estimates this figure around 24%.2 This discrepancy is due to the difference in the examined period of time. He based his research on the entire period of time and then calculated an average. Because of the Trianon strength limitations, until 1927 maintaining quality could be the only concern in a way that General Staff, as the most important organ of Supreme Command, was able to properly function from the very beginning. Later, when quantitative development became high priority this proportion decreased in reality. Social background of General Staff officers After registering birth data, origins, civil and military education a relatively correct picture could be drawn on the background and ways of becoming a General Staff qualified officer. Other important aspects were: any exceptional factors and their roles and effects on a military career.

214

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Date of birth is a starting point of any kind of survey. On its basis it is possible to determine the period of time of processes. This is the only opportunity to compare a social background and a persons (or groups) career with all the major turning points. Table 3 is significantly different from the usual schemes because it consists not only dates of birth but also military ranks. Although this is a kind of projection I considered it necessary to introduce who actually were surveyed in fact. This solution has certain advantages: it is possible to reduce the number of tables while the different data side by side let us draw unique conclusions.

Table 3. Age and rank of General Staff officiers Year of birth 1869 1870 1873 1876 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1895 1896 1898 No year Total Age 58 57 54 51 47 46 45 44 43 40 34 38 37 36 35 34 32 31 29 Persons 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 5 6 7 6 5 5 2 1 1 2 58 General 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 Colonel Lieut. Colonel Major Captain Unknown

2 4 1 1 1

2 1 4 5 4 4 2 1

1 2 1

1 8

23

1 1 6

These data give an overall picture of the General Staff with its various age and rank groups. The dates of birth indicate that each General Staff officer started his military career in the AustroHungarian Monarchy. All those born before 1887 an overwhelming majority of the General Staff officers and senior officers were experienced officers at the outbreak of World War I. The rest of them had hardly any peace-time service experiences so that their career practically began on the battlefield. Those born after 1895 could not have any important war experience.

#$ 1(2) (2002)

215

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

The general-turn former General Staff officers belonged to the first postCompromise generation and were raised in that spirit. Their fast rise in ranks was ensured by World War I which also meant that they had the chance to take up the leading top positions in the reorganized Royal Hungarian Defence Forces. Thus, unfortunately, all preconditions were provided for the survival of the spirit of the old joint army. Senior officers had similar motivations and roles. Their younger age ensured a change of leadership in the 1930s and simultaneously secured continuum. Their great majority had accomplished General Staff service as early as the 1930s and as generals took part in World War II. The backbone of General Staff was comprised by those born after 1888. In 1927 their ratio topped 67%. This phenomenon was due to the fact that the new army provided the older generation with fast promotion. The correct proportion of the three generations began establishing only from 1930 on. Place of birth and belonging to the Hungarian ethnic nationality always played an important role in joining officer corps. In accordance with the contemporary approach a national officer corps whose majority did not stand on national basis was unacceptable. In the early 1920s a rather specific situation could be observed. After the collapse of the Monarchy and founding new independent states the existing and considering themselves Hungarian officer corps in theory became of alien origins. This posed a rather big problem for the military leadership too. As early as in 1921 the Minister of Defence called on the commanders to make a very precise and detailed survey of officers coming from the annexed territories. He stressed the importance of scrutinizing their patriotic feelings and attitudes to Hungary. A separate registration was ordered to be set up on their knowledge of Hungarian language and which county of the newly formed states they were born in.1 There were some other reasons for the exact registration of places of births. The number of soldiers coming from a particular region has always given an opportunity to draw conclusions about the economic, social, and political environment of the population as well as their patriotism and relations to the army. That is why registering counties is considered of great importance.

216

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Table 4. Register of the places of birth of General Staff officers Surveyed: Known: Unknown: Country * Hungary 58 persons 53 persons 5 persons Persons 29 100% 91.37% 8.63% % 53.78 From which counties Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun Veszprm Baranya Borsod Szolnok, Csongrd, Abaj-Torda, Heves, Komrom, Zala, Hajdu, Bks, *\7 Szeben Als-Fehr Hunyad, Hromszk, Aranyos, Szilgy, Temes Szepes Abaj-Torda Pozsony, Ngrd, Zempln Torontl Istria Peninsula Burgenland Lower Austria Persons 12 3 3 2 % 41.37 10.34 10.34 6.89

Romania

16.66

9x1 2 2

9x3.44 2.22 2.22

Czechoslovakia

14.81

5x1 3 2 3x1 3 1 2 1

5x11.11 37.60 25.00 3x12.50 75 25 66.66 33.34

Yugoslavia Austria

4 3

7.40 3.55

* Country: It is about geographical national status after 1919.

These data indicate that nearly 47% of the General Staff officers came from the annexed territories. Although no survey has been done relating to the entire officer staff this 47% nationality rate of the General Staff officers shows that the overall situation must have been rather similar. The ethnic features of the officer staff were inherited from the AustroHungarian Monarchy. The interest of the Empire required that ethnic national strives should be killed in their germ. That is why national units were commanded by officers coming from other regions of the Empire. In any case, it can be stated that origins in the annexed territories were not and could not be an obstacle of commissioning in General Staff. A Hungarian identity was a basic requirement for keeping officers ranks and belonging to the career officer staff so that its further analysis seems useless. From the second half of the XIXth century military reforms, bourgeois civilization, and mass armies rearranged the origins of officer staff. At the turn of the century just 22% of the Imperial and Royal officer staff were noblemen.3 An increasing number of

#$ 1(2) (2002)

217

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

bourgeois, clerks, artisans, and well-off farmers oriented their sons to military career believing in a better life style. This layer, however, was unable to keep up with those from rich families. Their attempt to reach to the top largely remained a daydream since even that time more than 70% of the generals came from noble families.3 This process in the Hungarian Honvdsg was much slower because the middle classes in Hungary had different features and were not big enough to take up military positions. Another typical feature was that the majority of high ranked officers was of new or military nobility. Not long before World War I most of the active generals were of lesser nobility who were awarded their titles for their military services. In the Supreme Military Command the aristocracy was only represented by two Major Generals.3 World War I further accelerated the regrouping because the severe lack of officers gave chances to the lower classes. In the 1920s however military career lost a lot of its attraction. It became a sort of job in which expertise acquired during long studies became dominant. The upper classes of society did not prefer it due to the terrible war experiences and various constraints. Out of the surveyed General Staff commissioned officers between 19201927 just General Berzeviczi came from an ancient aristocratic dynasty. The other 12 men were awarded nobility after the Compromise of 1867 for their military deeds.
Table 5. Professions of fathers of General Staff officers Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 58 persons 37 persons 21 persons 100% 63.79% 36.21% Persons 1 9 3 4 2 1 5 3 2 3 1 1 2 % 2.70 24.32 8.10 10.81 5.40 2.70 13.51 8.10 5.40 8.10 2.70 2.70 5.40 Comments

Profession Landowner Commissioned officer Professional NCO Rail official Military official Mine director Artisan Retailer town clerk Bank officer Engineer Teacher Worker

tailor, restaurant owner, shoemaker restaurant owner, grocer

grammar school

218

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

As it can be observed there are many whose profession could not be found out. This is caused by the system of registration: after enrollment a fathers job and financial position were certainly of significance but after commissioning these factors became indifferent. That is why registration files do not contain such data. Only those files have such information which had to be completed later or a new one had to be filled in due to some reasons. This mixture of jobs proves that the officer corps lost its noble, aristocratic character. As the survey shows General Staff was not different from the military elite. Its great majority came from middle classes and there were a few talented officers representing lower classes too. Religion formed a spiritual and mental basis for moral education in the Royal Hungarian Defence Forces so that General Staff officers survey cannot be indifferent in this aspect. (Table 6.) According to Szakly religion did not have significant role in military career.2 Except for Jewish religion his surveys justify this and I have not met any cases that contradicted to these findings. However this kind of judgement is too general and simplifies the entire cluster of problems. That is the Christian religion practiced and officially supported in the country had always had a sometimes stronger sometimes weaker role. Although there were not any acts or ministerial decrees issued blocking members of any religious groups from military career but in the spirit and inner automatism of the army such previous laws could be clearly observed. Not surprisingly that on the basis of Szaklys surveys 100% of the military elite and General Staff officers belonged to the three most important churches despite the fact that there were much more denominations in the country.

Table 6. General Staff officers belonging to different churches Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 58 persons 53 persons 5 persons Persons 45 7 3 53 100% 91.37% 8.63% % 84.90 13.20 5.66 100.00

Religion Roman catholic Protestant Evangelistic Total

#$ 1(2) (2002)

219

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Preliminary military training and ways to General Staff When examining the system of entrance requirements it could be seen that the officers had rather different preliminary training. This situation was created mainly by the multi-channel system of education in the AustroHungarian Monarchy and the adverse effects of World War I. In order to form a relatively real notion we should go back to the beginnings, the preliminary comprehensive education and military training of officers. The aim of present essay is not presenting the entire educational system because there are numbers of excellent analyses on this topic (e.g., Ref. 2). However, it seems useful to determine the most ideal way because the extent of difference between that and reality can be an indicator of qualitative differences.
Table 7. Ideal way of studies until assignment to General Staff before World War I Elementary school Military prep school Military high school War college prep course War college 4 years 4 years 3 years 1 year 3 years by 10, 11 years of age by 14, 15 years of age by 17, 18 years of age by 26, 27 years of age by 27, 30 years of age

Table 8. The highest degree preceding military career Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 58 persons 53 persons 5 persons 100% 91.37% 8.63% % 43.39 18.86 3.77 1.88 67.90 German language 11 5 1 17 % 20.75 9.43 1.88 32.10 Total 34 15 3 1 53 % 64.15 28.2 5.65 1.88 100.00

Type of school Military Academy Cadet School Volunteer School Reserve Officer Total

Hungarian language 23 10 2 1 36

As Table 8. indicates, a mere 64% of General Staff officers were graduates of military academies. The list of cadet school graduates is not complete because a lot of them were admitted to one of the military academies after the 3rd or 4th year. The level of quality of ensign and warrant officer training schools lagged far behind that of the above mentioned establishments not to mention the crash courses, volunteer, and reservist courses.

220

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Without further scrutiny it can be seen that just a mere 20% of those surveyed chose the previously drafted ideal way of becoming an army officer. The number of those who started their military studies in cadet schools is strikingly high. A possible explanation can be that their parents simply were not able to afford their long education. In ideal case a cadet school graduate could be a breadwinner at the age of 18 and as an officer candidate had a 24-year long practice time advantage over academy graduates. Besides, many young men decided to choose military career only after leaving secondary grammar school. One of the most important reasons could be the strict order, military spirit of the military primary and secondary schools which took almost the entire childhood (Tables 911). The Vienna War College was three years long but after World War I had broken out the second year also graduated. Those who received an even shorter training there are registered above at the Royal Hungarian Military Academy because that is where they were awarded their diplomas. Consequently those who participated in a half- or one-year long retraining had begun their War College studies in Vienna. Thus the percentage ratio can even be reversed as well (see also Table 12).

Table 9. Types of schools attended before a military academy Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 34 persons 32 persons 2 persons 100% 94.11% 5.89% Number of graduates 13 8 11 32 % 40.62 25.00 34.38 100.00

Type of School Military secondary school Cadet school Secondary grammar school Total

Table 10. Preliminary studies before cadet school Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 23 persons 21 persons 2 persons 100% 91.30% 8.70 % Number of graduates 1 5 9 6 21 % 4.67 23.80 42.85 28.57 100.00

Type of school Military secondary school grades 12 Military school grades 14 Secondary grammar school grades 14 Higher elementary school grades 14 Total

#$ 1(2) (2002)

221

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Table 11. Courses and schools preceding General Staff service Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 58 persons 55 persons 3 persons 100% 94.82% 5.18% Place Vienna Budapest Budapest 0.5 year 9 3 12 1 year 15 15 2 year 4 9 13 3 year 13 2 15 Total 17 35 3 55 % 30.90 63.63 5.45 100.00

Name War College War Academy Staff officer examination Total

only three months long

Table 12. Courses taken immediately before enrolling to the Royal Hungarian War Academy Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 35 persons 34 persons 1 persons 100% 97.14% 2.86% Number of graduates 5 13 9 4 3 34 % 14.70 38.23 26.47 11.76 2.82 100.00

Type of course Vienna War College War College Course Imperial and Royal officer course Preparatory course of the Vienna War College Dropped out Total:

Two persons out of them had already graduated from the three-year military academy while one of them did two years without any preliminary studies.

In the following I wish to examine the higher education and training of officers assigned to General Staff between 1920 and 1927. The Vienna War College was three years long but after World War I had broken out the second year also graduated. Those who received an even shorter training there are registered above at the Royal Hungarian Military Academy because that is where they were awarded their diplomas. The General Staff and the main regulations of its activity It is extremely difficult to give a short moreover precise definition of the General Staff as an idea. As early as 1920 there were certain attempts to create a unified staff and elaborate its regulations which could not be realised due to the resistance of the

222

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Ministry of Defence and the restrictions introduced meanwhile. Thus the organization of General Staff was accomplished in a spontaneous way by written and unwritten regulations. At first the idea itself was interpreted variously. According to one of them General Staff consisted of officers and civil employees serving at General Staf, heads of MoD Departments, commanders of military academies, and their students. Later unit headquarters and covert General Staff officers were also included. According to a more limited interpretation General Staff was comprised by captains, majors, lieutenant colonels, colonels, and ROSKAs (which was the code name of the covert officers) of similar status who were assigned to General Staff for service. From 1923 a third, final scheme began to take shape. According to this one the limited version was extended and included the Chief of General Staff, certain selected heads of MoD Departments, and line and institute officers who were considered as worthy and were planned to be assigned to higher positions. This last statement significantly re-shaped the image and inner structure of the body. On the one hand there were more people involved but on the other hand it raised a filter for officers wishing to take higher posts (general ranks) through which the ways of passing was not regulated. In practice this resulted in creating an upper level clique (of generals) in which not even General Staff colonels were able to be automatically admitted. Those who did not belong to this circle had just a limited range of opportunities and their careers practically came to an end. Occasionally, however, there were line and institute officers admitted who did not belong to the body previously but thanks to their special merits were close to the top leadership. All this is depicted in the secret diary of Klman Shvoy: There had already been a strong system of cliques in the old General Staff the so called Wiener Platte.* This was the nickname of that clique which was created under Beck and later Conrad and whose members were strongly supported. A good Vienna assignment or leading General Staff position could only be given to a Wiener Platte man. The same sort of clique was created within the new Honvdsg too by a couple of old Vienna General Staff officers ZKR UXOHG WKH *HQHUDO 6WDII 7KH KHDGV RI WKH FOLTXH ZHUH %HU]HQLF]\ 6RyV 5GHU Krpthy, Werth, Keresztes Fischer, and Rtz. Not only did they establish the whole ivory league but also directed it and decided the order of taking certain positions by certain men. Thus it was coordinated that Chief of General Staff and his deputy would EH HLWKHU 5GHU RU 5iW] RU :HUWK RU .HUHV]WHV )LVFKHU DQG DOO WKHLU DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH aimed at that objective. They suppressed everybody they thought might be a rival4
*

That is the Vienna clique.

#$ 1(2) (2002)

223

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Although there is a certain element of truth in these sentences the basic message is reflecting Shvoys hard feelings. When serving beside the commander of Honvdsg he made a number of attempts in order to be admitted into General Staff. As he was not able to receive any precedence he got into conflicts which forced him to give up his Budapest assignment. His conduct and the fact that he pushed his brother into General Staff justify his selfishness and subjectivness. His claim that the old Vienna clique took over power is not a decisive opinion since every General Staff officer graduated there. Nevertheless it is undeniable that General Staff was a relatively closed, elite-forming and career-supporting body. It is understandable that the privileges of its members, their opportunities to get a high position generated hard feelings or envy. At young age the possibilities were given to every one but there were many who chose easier line officer careers due to the great burdens and restrictions related with General Staff assignments. The brighter and more diligent line officers could relatively fast reach colonel rank because one or another out of turn promotions could let them catch up with those in General Staff. For further promotions, however, it could be very useful to have a precedence. Those who were not able to acquire it could be preceded by younger (and General Staff) officers and the vacant positions were gradually occupied. The official regulations of commissioned officers were comprised by qualification, promotion, affairs of honour, and special affairs rules and orders. In them General Staff officers formed a separate group and separate points and paragraphs referred to them. Until 1923 there was no unified regulation of officers promotion which served as a basis for a lot of corrupt practices. The introduction of a unified ranking system posed a particularly serious problem as the rules of promotion significantly differed in the joint army and Hungarian Honvdsg. Thus, only in 1923, after harmonizing the ranks and assignments of the similar age groups was it possible to introduce promotion regulations.5 The general part of the promotion regulations stated that ranks and assignments had to correlate. In order to ensure this correlation officers assigned to groups had to be lieutenants or first lieutenants, commanders of groups captains, commanders of divisions majors or lieutenant colonels, while the army corps commanders had to be colonels or generals.5 An officer could only be promoted if he had proper skills and there was a vacant position suitable for a higher rank. In that case, however, it was impossible to select because in accordance with the regulations the next in line had to be promoted. The ranks and rules of promotion were compiled in a way that a commissioned officer could reach the rank of a major after 20 years of service and if he was worth it he could be promoted to major-general after 34 service years (Ref. 5, 3).

224

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

In the Regulations of Promotion officers were split into eight groups. General Staff officers belonged to the first one. Point 1. An officer with necessary skills for General Staff assignment should be given a one-year precedence Point 2. he can precede one year each an infantry line officer in similar ranks at promotions to captain, major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel. An infantry line officer never can precede a General Staff officer, not even by an out of turn promotion. (Ref. 5, 1).* This part of the Regulations provided a four-year precedence for General Staff officers during their careers. Practically, however, this could be much more as the number of vacant high positions was much larger than that of the candidates. It was not quite infrequent that a General Staff officer had generals rank while a line officer of his age was still a major or lieutenant colonel (Ref. 5, 4. Special resolutions). Now it should be examined what the promotion rules and precedence meant in practice (Tables 13, 14).
Table 13. In the case of promotion to major A Surveyed: Known: Unknown: Reached: Did not reach: Service years 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Total: 58 persons 47 persons 11 persons 46 persons 1 person Persons 1 2 4 3 10 12 11 1 1 1 46 100% 81.03% 18.97% 97.83% 2.17% % 2.17 4.34 8.69 6.52 21.73 26.08 23.91 2.17 2.17 2.17 100.00

The further order of groups of officers - 2. Infantry, 3. Cavalry, 4. Artillery, 5. Engineer, 6. Signal, 7. Automobile, 8. Train

#$ 1(2) (2002)

225

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

Table 14. In the case of promotion to general B Surveyed: Known: Unknown: Reached: Did not reach: Service years 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 Total: 58 persons 58 persons 52 persons 6 persons Persons 1 4 8 15 12 7 3 1 1 52\46 100% 100% 89.65% 10.35% % 1.92 7.96 15.38 28.84 23.07 13.46 5.76 1.92 1.92 100.00

As the tables unambiguously prove the majority (6070%) of General Staff officers had a 36-year precedence. At the same time there was a strong dispersion among them due to the consequences of the opportunities and natural selection. That is why a fortunate course of things played a very important role in military career. It was not insignificant where somebody was in the line, how long he had to wait for a particular assignment. For example if there was a much younger officer before him, who was not removed from the position the next candidate had to wait for long years. In the case of majors a much larger dispersion can be seem. As Table 13. shows seven persons practically did not have any precedence. Its possible cause could be that several older line officers were also commissioned in General Staff. However, the precedence of those who had reached ranks of major within 16 years or less should be considered as exceptional. Its possible reason could be not only the advantages provided by the Regulations but also war experiences and many vacant positions requiring relatively high ranks. In the case of generals a 36-year precedence can be accepted as realistic. The order of ranks and other data necessary for promotion were registered in the so called rank and assignment tables.6 The forms were unified but those of the General Staff officers and were handled separately in accordance with the inner order of the body. The personnel was divided into arms groups here too. Infantry officers belonged to the first group followed by cavalry, artillery, engineer, signal etc. General Staff officers.

226

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

The order of ranks was also elaborated for arms and age groups so that no groups could precede one another. A Completing Instruction issued in 1925 shows that there was a big uncertainty and chaos about the registration of personal files and last promotions. A lot of official papaers were missing so that certain columns were filled in by the claims of those concerned (Ref. 6, pp. 164165). Qualification files belonged to the most important documents of an officers personnel files. The first MoD order concerning their introduction was issued in 1922.7 It deals practically with all significant personal and military information, including dates of birth, data on family and social background, marital status, living conditions, characteristics, decorations and awards, and leadership qualities. An amendment to that order regulated the responsibility of preparing General Staff officers qualification files. This complex job was the responsibility of the Chief of General Staff, heads of departments, commanders of military academy, commanders of military districts, commanders of brigades, commanders of units. As far as ROSKAs were concerned the principles were similar. At civil services (such as Royal Mail, Press, Ministry of Welfare) a senior clerk was assigned to deal with this activity but the personal files compiled by him were to be presented to the commander of the military organization of the officer for reporting further opinion.8 Regulation A-7-3 on compiling qualification reports was issued in 1924.9 That was outdated even in the year of its issuing because it was based on the old principles applied in the joint army and did not take into consideration the Hungarian circumstances or any changes. A lot of orders and decrees were issued later on by the Minister of Defence warning the officials about the negligent and perfunctory compilation of the qualification reports and holding out the prospect of issuing a new Regulation.10 There was little difference between the qualification reports on individual General Staff officers. These included good physical fitness necessary for any assignment, single marital status, precise definition of foreign language skills and knowledge, and other important qualities for General Staff service such as diligence, longevity, combination capabilities etc. In principle, General Staff officers were not allowed to get married, however, this restriction was rarely respected. A number of officers made their service in General Staff dependent on the permission to get married. On the other hand married officers were reluctant to live apart from their families, to accept any relocation or a tour of duty abroad. The Chief of General Staff criticized the large number of married officers as early as 1923. He pointed out that while a mere 47% of the total number of officers

#$ 1(2) (2002)

227

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

were married this ratio in the General Staff was 72%. He was concerned that all that might oppose the interest of service. In principle, he did not wish to prevent any one from marriage but he held on the prospect of a radical cutback. General Staff officers were warned that marital status would not be taken into consideration at assignments or dislocations in the future.11 Information on knowledge of foreign languages was also an important detail of qualification reports (Table 15). Thus, an average General Staff officer knew roughly three foreign languages. This is a very good index even if ethnic origins, and German-language education are taken into consideration. It must not be forgotten either that the level of language knowledge and skills could only be estimated by deductions.
Table 15. General Staff officers knowledge of foreign languages Surveyed: Known: Unknown: 58 persons 53 persons 5 persons 100% 91.37% 8.63% % 11.32 39.62 28.30 7.54 5.66 100.00

Number of languages one two three four five Total: Surveyed: Known: Unknown: Languages German French English Italian Serbo-Croatian Romanian Czech Slovakian Russian Turkish Total:

Persons 6 21 15 7 3 53 100% 91.37% 8.63%

58 persons 53 persons 5 persons Persons 51 23 17 11 7 13 4 7 3 1 137

% 96.22 43.39 32.07 20.75 13.20 24.52 7.54 13.20 5.66 1.88 258.45

228

#$ 1(2) (2002)

F. LENGYEL: Higher military leadership in Hungary (19201945)

General Staff officers were separated and had a special standing in other fields of service life too. No outsiders were allowed to get acquainted with the disciplinary and affair of honour cases in that body. Inquiries and officers meetings were conducted within exclusive circles with full respect to the ranks of those who were concerned. The Code of Conduct regulated the complexion of the steering committees in a very interesting way. Three personnel groups were determined: senior officers; staff officers; and generals. In the case of senior officers the president of the steering committee was a General Staff officer but as members General Staff officers were present in the steering committee of generals too. As for the staff officers, in their steering committee only General Staff officers could be represented.9 In all, General Staff was an exclusive organization to which an ordinary line officer could not have much access. Never was a General Staff officer exposed to outsiders. Even those serving in field units remained in double subordination, that is they were in direct subordination to their commanders but they also had the opportunity to submit reports to the Chief of General Staff of the Royal Hungarian Honvdsg. References
1. Institute and Museum of Military History (HIM). Ludovika Academy (LA.) 1923 Box 33 No. 65. 2. SZAKLY S.: Hungarian Military Elite 19381945.0DJYHW.LDGy%XGDSHVWS 3. HAJD T.: Social status, combination and prestige of Hungarian officers corps before and after the compromise of 1867. Trtnelmi Szemle, No. 34, 405 (1986). 4. SHVOY K.: p. 64. 5. A-7-1 Manual of Promotions. No. 1426. Pallas Kiad, Bp. 1923 (HIM Library). 6. HIM General Staff (VKF) 1925. Div. 1. Box 73. Amendment 157. 7. HIM LA.1922. Box 33. No.165. 8. HIM LA.1922. Box 33. No.165. Amendment 1. 9. HIM Library: Officer Qualification Regulations, 1924. No. 1778. 10. HIM VKF. 1925. Div. 1. Box 72. No. 122. 11. HIM LA. 1923. Div. VI/4. Box 33. No. 165. 12. HIM Library: Affairs of Honour Regulations for the Royal Hungarian Home Defense 13., 14.

#$ 1(2) (2002)

229