1. 1
The Flourishing, Economic Plunder and Destruction
of the Dioszeg Jews during the Holocaust
Dr.Tomas Lang, PhD., Associated Professor,
University of Jewish Studies, Budapest
Reviewed by Dr.Attila Simon, PhD., Associated Professor,
Dept. of History, Hans Sellye University, Komárno, Slovakia
As the development of economic and social life in today’s Sládkovičovo1
is linked to
the establishment and development of the sugar industry, it was similarly the case in the
settlement of Jews into the community. The establishment of the Jewish religious
neighbourhood and its institutions, according to Jewish tradition are inseparable parts. It
contained a separate, independent religious community, school, ritual bath and cemetery.
However, it was still closely linked to the foundation of the Diószeg sugar refinery and its
development. Its collapse and eventual extinction was not witnessed by the Jewish commu-
nity for they had been murdered and liquidated during three generations. The industry had
brought their ancestors to the town and to assist with its development of which the Jewish
community contributed to a very large extant. In this article we shall investigate the last pe-
riod of their existence and the circumstances that led to their gradual discrimination, social
marginalization, and deprivation of civil and political rights, property and ultimate genocide.
We are talking about what was then Hungary2
. As a result of the 1st
Vienna Accord3
the fate of Jews in the former Czechoslovakia South of the arbitration line, saw approxi-
1
The municipality name Dioszeg, which was re-named in 1948 to Sládkovičovo, we are using until 1948 in the form of
Dioszeg, although the name changed in the sequence of time. In 1773 the village was called Dioszegh, in 1786 Dioszeg
and from 1873 Diószeg. After dividing the village from 1895 the names Magyar-Diószeg and Német-Diószeg (Hungarian
Diószeg and German Diószeg) were used, from 1918 to 1920 Maďarský Dióseg and Nemecký Dióseg translated to Slovak
language, from 1920 Diosek Veľký (Great Diószeg) and Diosek Malý (Small Diószeg) and from 1938 Magyar Diószeg and
Német Diószeg again. In 1943 the two parts merged again under the name Diószeg and from 1945 Diosek, which in 1948
was renamed to Sládkovičovo. In: Sudová 2012, p.4;
2
Under this term here and now we mean the Hungarian Kingdom within its borders in 1944, i.e. including the territo-
ries returned due to the 1
st
Vienna Award on 2
nd
November 1939, which got under Hungarian jurisdiction by separation
from the post-Munich Czechoslovakia, rest of Subcarpathian Ruthenia territories have been occupied by the Hungarian
Kingdom on 15
th
March 1939, North Transylvania seized by Kingdom of Hungary as a result of the 2
nd
Vienna Award on
30
th
August 1940 from Romania and territories in Bácska and Mura region was seized from Yugoslavia on 11
th
April
1941 when the Nazis occupied the northern part of disintegrated Yugoslavia.
3
The First Vienna Accord was a treaty signed on November 2, 1938, as a result of the First Vienna Arbitration. The
Arbitration took place at Vienna´s Belvedere Palace. The Arbitration and Award were direct consequences of the Mu-
nich Agreement the previous month and decided the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
sought a non-violent way to enforce the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary and to revise the Treaty of Trianon
of 1920. The First Vienna Award separated largely Magyar-populated territories in southern Slovakia and southern

2. 2
mately 40,000 Jews subordinated under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Hungary. The first
so called [anti]Jewish law No. XV/1938 comes into force immediatel4
y.
The following map shows the territorial gains of Hungary in the years 1938-1941:
Fig. 15
: Territorial gains of the Hungarian Kingdom after revisions 1938-1941
State borders ran in the immediate vicinity of the discussed area. By the resolution of
the Government of the Hungarian Kingdom 6
the towns of Berehovo, Levice, Nové Zámky,
Lučenec and Rimavská Sobota became county administrative centres. The Bratislava - Ni-
tra county administrative resided in Nové Zámky was then divided into the districts of Nové
Subcarpathian Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia and awarded them to Hungary. Hungary thus regained some of the terri-
tories in present-day Slovakia and Ukraine lost in the Treaty of Trianon in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Em-
pire after World War I. In mid-March 1939, Adolf Hitler gave Hungary permission to occupy the rest of Subcarpathian
Ruthenia, taking territory further north up to the Polish border, thus creating a common Hungarian-Polish border, as
had existed prior to the 18th-century Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After World War II, the 1947
Treaty of Paris declared the Vienna Award null and void.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vienna_Award/ Downloaded April, 19, 2016;
4
The 1938 Act XV. on Effective Balance Sustainability of Social and Economic Life (first [anti-]Jewish law). According to
this act, small businesses as well as trade, financial and industrial enterprises - employing more than 10 white-collar
workers - are not allowed to hire more than 20% of Jews. This percentage was set to be achieved over the next five
years. According to these measures, there was an exception for those who received honors for bravery in battles of
World War I and also during counter-revolutionary events in 1919-1920 (downfall of the Hungarian Republic of Coun-
cils) and for widows and children of those who had fallen in these fights. Everyone who converted to Christianity before
August 1919 and their children were granted this exception as well, provided they did not convert back to Judaism.
Although the law defined a Jewish person on account of their religion, those who converted to Christianity after 1 Au-
gust 1919 were still considered Jewish.
5
Source: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9csi_d%C3%B6nt%C3%A9sek , text adapted by the author;
6
By the resolution of the Hungarian Royal Government No. 6460/1939 of 23 June 1939 with effect from 15 July 1939
the town of Nové Zámky was declared as the seat of the temporarily united (Hung. Közigazgatásilag egyelőre egyesített)
Bratislava-Nitra county. The resolution was communicated to the municipal council at its meeting on 8 July 1939 and
was received with great applause. ŠOKA Nové Zámky, fund of Župné mesto, cart. 1 and 4;
Revisionist territorial gains
of the Hungarian Kingdom 1938 – 1941:
I.First Vienna Award 11 927 sq.km
Subcarpatian Ruthenia 12 208 sq.km
II.Second Vienna Award 43 615 sq.km
Bácska, Mura-region 11 402 sq.km
Trianon territory 1920 79 100 sq.km
After revisions and
annexations 1938-1941 172 200 sq.km

3. 3
Zámky, Galanta and Šaľa. The northern margin is the arbitration line that formed the state
border.
Fig.2 The Temporarily and Administrative United Pozsony – Nyitra County 1939 - 19457
It can be seen that North of the arbitration line - First in the autonomous Slovakia with-
in the 2nd
Czecho-Slovak Republic from 2nd
October 1938, which had its own autonomous
government headed by a catholic priest Msr. Jozef Tiso, and followed by the independent
Slovak state from 15 March 1939 remained approximately 75 to 80,000 Jews, and their fate
unfolded depending on the will of the anti-Jewish legislation of the Slovak State.
Unfortunately according to existing practice, under the term Holocaust in Slovakia only
the process of the gradual liquidation of Jews taking place in the years 1938 to 1945 exclu-
sively on the territory of the then Slovak Republic has been discussed. Till last decade Slo-
vak historiography has systematically failed to address the fate of Jews on the territory giv-
en to Hungary through 1th
Vienna Award.
One of the key notions in the fate of the Jews in the then Slovakia, is the forced work8
camp and later the concentration camp in Sereď. In connection with today's topic, we must
7
Randolph L. Braham: A magyarországi holokauszt földrajzi encyklopédiája (Geographical Encyclopaedia of the Holo-
caust in Hungary), PARK Könyvkiadó Budapest 2007, ISBN 978-963-530-740-1, vol. 2, p. 120 and on; (henceforth Braham
2007); information concerning the transfer of Jews of “unknown number“ from Nové Zámky to Dunajská Streda, where
they should have been joined to the second transport dispatched from there, is not confirmed by any other source;
8
The existence of the labour camp in Sereď as a form of protection against the deportation of Jews was also supported
by the Centre of Jews (Ústredňa Židov) with the efforts to show the usefulness of work realised there for the economy
including various state contracts. Basically, forced labour really contributed to economic prosperity and to the Sered
area itself. The stationmaster of the railway station in Sereď in his Annual report on the evaluation of the transportation

4. 4
be aware that despite the geographical proximity of the two towns - Dioszeg and Sereď -
examining the Holocaust we are talking about two different, mutually varying processes in
terms of time and space. That is, the period of 1938-1945 of the state border in the King-
dom of Hungary and the Slovak State (since the adoption of the Constitution on July 21,
1939: Slovak Republic) was running between the two towns. In the vicinity, the state border
ran on the northern side of the villages of Veľká Mača, Hody, Nebojsa and Váhovce.
On both sides of the border the trajectory and dynamics of the Holocaust had their
respective specifics, time periods and sequence of measures. On both sides of the border
measures were implemented to remove Jews from their positions in political, economic and
cultural life. They were deprived of their civil and political rights, property, followed by pau-
perisation and finally deportation outside the territory of their home country with prompt ex-
tradition to foreign powers with the clear central purpose of genocide. The most visible dif-
ference is that deportations from Slovakia had already begun on 25 March 1942 with the
first transport of 1,000 girls from eastern Slovakia, who were deported from Poprad. The
first transports from Hungary were dispatched on May 14, 1944 from inner Hungary town of
Nyíregyháza and from occupied Mukachevo in Subcarpatian Ruthenia.
In both countries the deportations were carried out based on sovereign decisions by
the powers of their own state apparatus. Despite of that we have to highlight some major
political, circumstantial, and time differences in practices, as well as consequences.
In the case of Slovakia – during the so called first deportations wave – it was as deci-
sionmaker the Parliament and the government and Hlinka Guard as the executive body in
cooperation with all state and local components of the power apparatus. The second wave
of deportations from Slovakia took place in the fall of 1944. It was carried out by SS units,
which entered the territory of Slovak Republic upon its own request. Their task was to sup-
press the Slovak National Uprising. SS units and Einsatzgruppen arrived along with the
Wehrmacht units. Their objective was to carry out final stage of the “Final Solution” to the
Jewish question in Slovakia. Special units of Hlinka Guard were actively assisting them.
outputs of Sereď Station for 1943 writes: "A remarkable achievement in the industry we can observe in all fields in the
"Jewish camp". Its management is done by the Hlinka Guard. Thus, for example, the camp performs production of build-
ing, wooden, concrete and iron materials. The furnishing of 48 rooms in Sliač spa was realized by this business. This
company supplies the Slovak Railways into its storehouse and warehouse in Vrútky. Clothing also has a remarkable place
here. Manufacture of knitted and crocheted clothing, further production of men's suits and ladies’ costumes and hats
etc. have a considerable importance, too.“ Cited and translated from: Archives of the Slovak Railways, Bratislava, fund of
Memorial books of railway stations (Pamätné knihy železničných staníc) 1938-1944;

5. 5
In the case of Hungary – two years later - it was both Houses of the Parliament, the
government, gendarmerie and local authorities. Altogether, a total of 285,000 people were
involved in erasing the Jews in Hungary, including Miklós Horthy9
through the mayors of
cities and towns up to the authorities of the smallest villages where even a Jew lived.
Adolf Eichmann during his trial in Jerusalem stated that in some cases the members
of his special unit were shocked by the inhumane methods of Hungarian authorities, gen-
darmerie and police. Randolph Braham thinks that the reason for this behavior naturally
emerged from the twenty years of systematic propaganda of anti-Semitism. After the Sup-
pression of the Hungarian Republic of Councils and the victory of the counter-revolution in
1920, anti-Semitism was growing in strength and penetrated all areas of social, economic
and political life. The adoption of the anti-Jewish laws caused a wide-spread anti-Semitism
among the majority of the nation and an earlier anti-Judaism was now connected with Nazi
racial ideology. When Eichmann took over, he was very pleased with the diligence, enthusi-
asm and swiftness of Sztójay’s administration which carried out the “Final Solution”. Eich-
mann said that it was “a pleasant surprise”. They were in a hurry, because they knew that
Soviets were approaching the foothills of Carpathian Mountains and from there the way to
Hungary was open. Deportations were managed by the official Hungarian government until
15 October 1944, and everything was carried out according to their regulations. Stealing of
Jewish property became a legal path towards enrichment and it motivated many people to
approve of legalization of deportations and the following consequences.10
9
Nicholas Horthy de Nagybanya, Hung. Nagybányai Horthy Miklós, 1868 - 1957, Hungarian admiral and regent. He
commanded the Austro-Hungarian fleet in World War I. After Béla Kun seized (1919) power in Hungary, the counter-
revolutionary government put Horthy in command of its forces. When the Romanian forces that had defeated Kun
evacuated Budapest (Nov., 1919), Horthy entered it and in 1920 was made regent and head of the state. He checked
two attempts (March and Oct., 1921) of former Emperor Charles I to regain his throne in Hungary, once by persuasion
and once by armed force. Charles was then formally barred from the throne and exiled, and Horthy found himself re-
gent of a kingless kingdom. A nationalist who was distinctly inclined toward the right, he guided Hungary through the
years between the two world wars. After the suicide (1941) of the premier, Paul Teleki, Hungary entered World War II
as an ally of Germany. Despite Horthy's opposition, German troops invaded Hungary in Mar., 1944. When Russian
troops entered Hungary, Horthy sent an armistice commission to Moscow and announced (Oct., 1944) the surrender of
Hungary. The Germans immediately occupied Hungary and forced Horthy to countermand his order and resign. He was
taken to Bavaria and later was freed by U.S. troops. After appearing as a witness at the Nuremberg war-crimes trial
(1946), he settled (1949) in Portugal, where he died. His memoirs appeared in English in 1956.
10
Rényi Pál Dániel: Interviewing Randolph Braham; Magyar Narancs, OCT., 10, 2011; source:
http://magyarnarancs.hu/belpol/egy-dicso-nemzetkep-erdekeben-
77380?fb_action_ids=10151754204836831&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&acion_object_map=[
10150499582184919]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[] ; downloaded May. 14, 2016;

6. 6
POLITICAL ANTAGONISM AND RIVALRY OVER HITLER’S FAVOUR AND
INFLUENCE ON THE FATE OF JEWS LIVING ON THE ARBITRATION
TERRITORY
On the subject of borders it is necessary to add that the governments of both coun-
tries did not reveal to each other much sympathy. Hungary was not satisfied with the result
of the arbitration, as it did not receive either Bratislava or Nitra. Both governments closely
monitored the status of their minorities as neighbors, whereas the Slovak Constitution of
1939 enshrined an institution of reciprocity11
directed primarily against Hungary.
Hungary was not satisfied with the results of the arbitration, as it did not receive ei-
ther Bratislava or Nitra. The dissatisfaction with the arbitration and the resulting political ef-
fort to regain arbitration territories was a central theme of the Slovak State’s politics during
this period. After the initial unsuccessful attempts to change arbitration lines by trading
Šurany, Komjatice and several other villages between Nové Zámky and Nitra for territories
in western Slovakia, Slovak administration never gave up its effort to gain at least part of the
arbitration territory. This effort was always emphasized by their propaganda methods.
Rivalry over the favor of the Nazi Germany is a common feature of both govern-
ments. Their objective was to win Germany’s support for a proposal, which was their ulti-
mate political goal - dissatisfaction with the results of the arbitration and a desire to gain ar-
bitration territories in their favor. Both governments were carefully monitoring ways their mi-
norities were treated. Reciprocal relationship was placed into the Slovak Constitution in 21
July 1939 and it was aimed specifically against Hungary12
.
The relatively strong Slovak minority was ensconced there. Despite the permanently
tense mutual political relationship the borders were relatively permeable and monitored on
both sides by patrols along the border line. A common feature of both governments is a ri-
valry for the favour of Nazi Germany.
Prominent Slovak historian, Ľubomír Lipták refered to this rivalry between the two
satellite states as “a pathetic tug-of-war over the title of the biggest political dwarf”. However
11
Principle of reciprocity was enshrined into the Slovak Constitution in the Article 95: “The fundamental rights, stated
in the Constitution, of ethnic groups living in Slovak State are valid only if the same rights are applied to Slovak minorities
living on a territory of the respective ethnic group”.
12
Member of the Hungarian Party Assembly, Count János Esterházy raised an objection during the discussion against
the Article 95 and reminded the assembly that Hungarians, living in Slovakia, consider themselves equals and a state-
building nation just like Slovaks are. Esterházy’s speech is quoted by Molnár 2010, p. 155; to learn more about bilateral
agreements, see for example: István Janek, 2011;

7. 7
these dwarves were fighting for survival - Slovak politicians were not sure whether Hitler
would let Hungarians occupy to whole Slovak territory - as a part of his political scheme - or
whether he himself would not take over the country and proclaim it his protectorate - similar-
ly to Czech Republic and Moravia.13
The Kingdom of Hungary in their revisionist objectives were willing to provide a
number of possibilities for the coming war. For example, the preparation of the trade
agreement between the two states as early as in 1937, when the minutes of 18 November
stated: "The purpose of a [trade] agreement is to promote the export of agricultural products
from Hungary to Germany for counter-deliveries of goods of clandestine nature." – see: mili-
tary supplies. The text expressly stated: "We must remember that recently Hungary has
purchased large amounts of armaments to which Germany willingly provided long-term
loans. 14
"What these armaments were good for, was explained by the head of the Cabinet of
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, later foreign minister, Count Csáky during talks
with State Secretary of the Reich, Mr. Bohle, during his visit of 23 to 27 January 1938 in Bu-
dapest.“ “Both Germany and Hungary have legitimate territorial claims against Czechoslo-
vakia. ... According to [Csáky] an actual Hungarian attack would provide substantial relief for
Germany." This is of course a masterful diplomatic expression for the conviction of the stra-
tegic value of his country and a further expression of the expected gratitude and affection of
Germany in its ambitions towards the revision of Trianon.
The head of the Hungarian Royal Government Count Teleki confirms this idea in a
subsequent memorandum to the Reich Government emphasizing the strategic value of his
country at the achievement of the aggressive intentions of the Reich. He points out that "...
concurrent German-Hungarian action against Czechoslovakia would make it impossible for
the Russian air force to land on the territory of former Upper Hungary from the beginning."
We see here the unconcealed fawning over the interests of Nazi Germany and at the same
time seeking to create political conditions for the realization of their own revisionist objec-
tives. This was the first fiddle in Hungarian foreign policy throughout the interwar period.
The agile foreign policy of the Reich did not let these expectations remain unnoticed.
The Secretary of State von Weitzsäcker on March 31, 1938 assured Sztójay, the Royal En-
voy:
13
Hajko 2009, p. 316;
14
Bolgár 1950, p.6;

8. 8
"The Führer consistently holds the view that all the territories that once be-
longed to Hungary and are now held by Czechoslovakia, must be returned to Hun-
gary. He, the Führer, is not even interested in Bratislava." 15
This - at least partially - occured, Hitler did not fail to point out with special emphasis
on 16 January 1939 to Count Csáky, by then Minister of Foreign Affairs, that " ... achieving
the first revision of borders [of Hungary] was allowed by Germany "
16
.
Mutual antagonism and rivalry between Hungary and Slovakia was very convenient
for Hitler and he kept it alive by increasing his demands, emphasizing that the failure to
meet these demands might cost them the loss of his favor. This situation reached its climax
in the summer of 1943, when Hitler repeatedly demanded Hungarians to participate in the
occupation of Serbia.
During the first visit of the new Hungarian Secretary of Defence Gen. Lajos Csatay17
to Berlin in August 1943 the German command presented him with a tirade about the excel-
lent prospects of warfare, despite the loss of the Italian allies, and also the demand that
Hungarian forces take over the occupation tasks in Serbia and the protection of German
troops in the Balkans against the partisans of Josip Broz Tito. To negotiate these details
they are expecting an urgent visit of the Chief of Staff Ferenc Szombathelyi18
. Szombathe-
lyi interceded during the formal meeting of these German demands in exchange for the op-
portunity to withdraw the remnants of the defeated and dismantled Hungarian army from the
15
Bolgár 1950, p.44;
16
Bolgár 1950, p.8;
17
Vitéz Lajos Csatay, Lieutenant General (real name Tuczentaller, 1st August 1886, Arad, today Romania –
16th November 1944, Budapest), fought in WWI, in 1919 joined the Red Army of the Hungarian Soviet Re-
public; from 1st February 1943 Lieutenant-General, from 12 June 1943 Defence Minister of the Hungarian
Kingdom in the government of Miklós Kállay and consequently after the German invasion until 16 October
1944 also in the government of Döme Sztójay, when he was arrested by the Gestapo in connection with
participation in organizing the failed breakaway of Hungary from the war. He and his wife committed sui-
cide together.
18
Ferenc Szombathelyi , Colonel General (born as György Knausz, according to some sources Knauz on 17the
May 1887 in the family of a Swabian shoemaker in Győr, Szombathelyi was the maiden name of his mother);
in the period of 1914-1948 served as a staff officer. In 1919 member of the intelligence and counterintelli-
gence department of the army of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. From 1939 to 1941 commander of the VIII.
Army Corps in Košice, after Hungary entered the war against the Soviet Union commander of the Carpathi-
ans Army Goup, from September 1941 to March 1944 Chief of Staff of the Hungarian royal army; his views
were similar to the views of the Prime Minister Miklós Kállay and helped find contacts with the Western
Allies actively. After the coup of Ferenc Szálasi arrested and imprisoned in Sopronkőhida, later in Germany,
from American captivity extradited to Hungary. Here he was in 1946 sentenced by the People's Court to 10
years in prison and then in connection with the bloody events in Novi Sad in 1941, along with other officers
of the occupying army extradited to Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav tribunal sentenced him to death and on No-
vember 4, 1946 in the Petrovaradin fortress (urban part of Novi Sad) executed by shoot. The Supreme Court
of the Republic of Hungary on 16 March 1994 annuled the judgment of the People's Court from 1946 in its
entirety.

9. 9
eastern front and to maintain them for the post-war period, when, "... the interests of Hun-
gary will be under threat from all sides ...". By these interests he meant retaining the territo-
rial gains as a result of the 1st and 2nd Vienna Arbitrate as well as the occupation of Ruthe-
nia in 1939 and Vojvodina in 1941. He held the view of the current efforts "... to apply wait-
ing tactics until the time till we make it into some acceptable form of peace."19
However, Hungary was not sure about maintaining the territories gained through Hit-
ler's favour, even during the war. The first version of Margarethe20
plan elaborated by the
OKW21
on 30 December 1943 envisaged the participation of the Slovak army in the occupa-
tion of the northern and north-eastern areas of Hungary, which in plans were defined as the
so called 3rd
territory north and north-east of the Tisza River22
. These incorporated the east-
ern part of the arbitration territory and also Ruthenia.
In case the Hungarian government would have been reluctant to meet German re-
quirements and would insist on the withdrawal of its occupying forces from the eastern front,
Reich Ambassador in Budapest Dietrich von Jagow23
suggested to the Foreign Ministry in
Berlin to pull out the Slovak - Hungarian card and use it for a draconian extortion in the fa-
vour of Germany. This proposal lied in the possibility of threatening Hungary with depriva-
tion of lands acquired after 1938 from the benefaction of the Reich, and to achieve a
change of position of the Hungarian government. In a telegram addressed to state secretary
Steengracht24
dated 17 September 1943 he recommended the Foreign Ministry notify the
Hungarian government that
"... the German leadership explains [the standpoint of Hungary] so that they
do not wish to continue the fight in the interests of Europe and thus are taking par-
tially the position of neutral countries. Such an opinion affects their relationship with
Germany in principle. Their withdrawal from the fights can be explained so that Hun-
gary thereby waives their territorial claims, which practically means the restoration of
the pre-war Trianon borders. From this we are deducing the appropriate conclusions
and we will occupy and subordinate the territories assigned to Hungary after 1938 as
19
Dombrády 1986, p. 327;
20
Code name of the operation of occupancy of Hungary by Wehrmacht troops;
21
OKW – Oberkommando der Wehrmacht – the supreme command of the Wehrmacht;
22
Dombrády 1986, 333. p.
23
Jagow, Dietrich von (Frankfurt a. M., 29. February 1892 – Merano, 26 April 1945), German diplomat, very soon he
joins the Nazis, in 1933 SA-Obergruppenführer (General), consequently leader of the SA in Berlin, from 20 July 1941 to
19 March 1944 Reich ambassador in Budapest;
24
Gustav Adolf Steengracht von Moyland (*15 November 1902, castle of Moyland – 7 July 1969 Kranenburg, Lower
Rhine), diplomat, the last Secretary of State in the Reich Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

10. 10
a result of German decisions or as a result of military operations of German forces to
German administration25
for security reasons. "
Exploiting the political ambitions of both countries and keeping them in uncertainty
and dependence was part of the policy of Nazi Germany in the spirit of divide et impera -
divide and rule.
SLOVAK-HUNGARIAN BORDERS CLOSLY ALONG DIOSZEG
Since the spring of 1942, when Slovakia threatened deportations, about 5,000 Jews
passed illegally through the borders to Hungary, where they lived illegally covered mostly
with false personally documents till the spring of 1944. Their survival was helped by a very
well-organized Zionist movement that provided them with those false documents and semi-
legal employment. After the Nazi invasion of Hungary on March 19, 1944 conscious of their
life-threatening hazards they wanted to return to Slovakia on the same route, and the Slo-
vak authorities promptly doubled their patrols in order to prevent their own citizens from re-
turning. The majority became victims of the Holocaust in Hungary and of the Nyilas26
terror
that seized the government by the Nazi-supported coup on October 15, 1944.
In this aspect, one of the busiest sections of the borders was the space between
Sereď, Dioszeg27
and Galanta.
Let us now get acquainted with a testimony written by Gerta Vrbova28
, a native of
Trnava. She describes her illegal escape through this section of the border from Slovakia to
Hungary, where her family had relatives, as follows:
25
Willhelmstrasse, doc. No. 554, telegram No. 1741 from 17 September 1943, p. 732; also cited by
Dombrády 1986, p.330; highlight in the cite: author;
26
Members of the Arrow Cross Party – Nyilaskeresztes Párt; a far-right party led by Ferenc Szálasi, they declared a Hun-
garian form of Nazism – called hungarism. Ideology of hungarism was developed by catholic bishop of Székesfehérvár
Otokár Prohászka; with the direct help of Nazi Germany the party seized power through a coup on 15 October 1944. The
party introduced a reign of terror and murder of Jews and political opponents. Only in Budapest they killed au to 6.000
Jews shooting them into the River Danube. It remained the ally of the Nazis until the last moment;
27
The second similarly busy place was the space between Ivanka pri Nitre and Branč; see in: Ladislav Zrubec – Milan
Nemček: Šurany. Bratislava 1968, p.207; details see also: Ladislav Deák: Viedenská arbitráž 2.november 1938.
Dokumenty I.-III., (Vienna award on Nov. 2, 1938. Documents), Published by Matica Slovenská 2005, ISBN 80-7090-795-
9;
28
Gerta Vrbová, née Sidonová after the war married Rudolf Vrba, who with Alfred Wetzler in the spring of 1944 es-
caped from the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau and gave evidence of the there ongoing industrial murder of Jews;

11. 11
"My mother was an extremely practical woman and always knew what to say or
do. Now out of her bag she took a blue notebook with addresses. "We have to get to
the house of auntie Mariska, who lives in Diószeg. Perhaps she will help us get on
the train to Budapest and also gives us some Hungarian money. But on the way to
her house nobody can see us, so that we do not put her in danger. ... During daytime
we cannot just walk down the street, we could arouse the suspicion of gendarmerie
or border guards. We need to get quickly to Mariska´s home. ... ". The railway station
and the train made me rather worried, because the train stations near the border
were closely guarded by the police."29
Talking about their back escape in 1944 she is writing as follows:
"Me and my mum had a still living memory of our transition from Slovakia to
Hungary two years ago and we remembered well the tricks used by our smuggler: for
example, quietly wait for the border guards to complete their tour of the place where
we wanted to cross the border. We believed that we would find the way even without
him. We waited until it got dark, and then, amid the dark spring night, like two years
before, when we were crossing the border into Hungary, we got back in our footsteps
back to Slovakia. We arrived in Sered before dawn.30
Rightly we must ask: What led to this unprecedented and incomparable mass murder
in human history the Holocaust, which only had one goal: to exterminate the Jewish people
in Europe in the name of a pseudoscientific racial theory?
As a starting point we shall get familiar with the attainable resources detailing the his-
tory of the Diószeg Jewish community. The discussed events took place at a time when the
town bore the name Diószeg, so we shall adhere to historical facts, on practical grounds yet
still dealing with the supporting opinion of Eva Sudova31
. We will not deal with the personali-
ties of the founders of the sugar factory the Kuffner family. The personality and work of Bar-
29
Vrbová Gerta: Komu věřit, koho oklamat (Whom to trust, whom to deceive). Published by GplusG 2008. ISBN 978-80-
87060-10-0, p. 47 and further; henceforth Vrbová 2008;
30
Vrbová 2008, p. 85;
31
Eva Sudová (edit.): Peter Buday – Monika Chalmovská – Petra Kalová – Naďa Kirinovičová – Alžbeta Rössnerová –
Róbert Sekula – Eva Sudová – Lóránt Talamon – Jana Váňová: Kuffnerovský hospodársky complex (The Kuffner economic
complex). Published by the town of Sládkovičovo 2012, ISBN 978-80-971211-5-0; p. 4; henceforth Sudová. 2012;

12. 12
on Karl Kuffner de Diószegh32
and his family is the subject of a monograph written by histo-
rian Ľudovít Hallon and his team, edited by Eva Sudova33
.
Even today the professional ethics of the sugar industry assesses the then methods of Karl
Kuffner34
.
The history of the sugar refinery itself is portrayed by another monograph in the edi-
tion of Eva Sudova, written by a collective of authors called Kuffnerovský hospodársky
komplex35
.
The ethnic composition of the population in the historic Bratislava and Nitra counties
within the Austrian Empire and after the Austro-Hungarian settlement, in the times of the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is characterized by its variety. This area, which is geograph-
ically close to today's Western Slovakia, was inhabited by two dominant ethnic groups: the
Slovaks, who were dominantly Roman Catholics and Hungarians, also mainly of
Roman Catholic religion, who, however, were influenced by the reformation more signifi-
cantly than the Slovaks. In addition, to these two ethnic groups a large Jewish community
lived amongst them, who were then strongly concentrated in urban settlements of both
counties.
The settlement of the first Jewish families in the region dates back to the first wave of
modern Jewish immigration in the regions of today's Western Slovakia in the third period of
32
Eva Sudová (edit.): Ľudovít Hallon – Juraj Pekarovič – Hildegarda Pokreis – Lóránt Talamon – Katalin Vadkerty –
Ásgota Varga: Barón Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh a Dioszegský cukrovar (Baron Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh and the Dioszeg
sugar factory). Published by the town of Sládkovičovo 2009, ISBN 978-80-970205-1-4; henceforth Sudová 2009;
33
Eva Sudová (edit.): Ľudovít Hallon – Juraj Pekarovič – Hildegarda Pokreis – Lóránt Talamon – Katalin Vadkerty –
Ásgota Varga: Barón Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh a Dioszegský cukrovar (Baron Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh and the Dioszeg
sugar factory). Published by the town of Sládkovičovo 2009, ISBN 978-80-970205-1-4; henceforth Sudová 2009;
34
Eva Sudová: Barón Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh a diószegský cukrovar ((Baron Karl Kuffner de Dioszegh and the Dioszeg
sugar factory). Published in Listy cukrovarnické a řepařské, 126, No. 9-10, September-October 2010; henceforth Sudová
2010;
35
Sudová 2012, p.4;

13. 13
the 17th century. This wave was substantially affected by the decree of Emperor Leopold I
in 1670, under the guise of concern for the possible collaboration of Jews with the expand-
ing Ottoman Empire. The Jews were expelled from Vienna and the eastern part of the so-
called hereditary possessions, i.e. Burgenland and Lower Austria.
A significant proportion of these exiled Jews took a course to the west, to the German
principalities and Prussia, and also east to the western regions of today's Slovakia and the
Trans-Danubian part of Hungary, where they were allowed to settle on feudal estates36
.
One such settlement was at Dioszeg and Galanta37
.
The second wave of modern Jewish immigration, especially after 1726 was generat-
ed by the proceedings of Emperor Charles III (father of Maria Theresa) called
Familiantengesetz38
. According to this decree in every Jewish family living on the territory of
Bohemia and Moravia only one son was allowed to marry and establish a family. In case
there were more sons, they were deprived of the right of the home, which was the only man-
ifestation and wearer of then Civil Rights. This decision of a bigoted Catholic believer of the
House of Habsburg in an effort to limit the number of Jewish population was in content mo-
tivated by economic considerations and in its form traditional theological anti-Semitism. The
consequence was intense migration of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia to territories, that
is now western Slovakia, and saw scattering into the Hungarian inland. Known migratory
flows are the Kolín and Třebíč areas and other towns with old Jewish settlements to the riv-
er Váh valley, where as a result of forced migration Jewish communities were established or
significantly strengthened. They then settled exclusively on feudal properties39
or in free
royal towns such as Trnava, or Šurany lying a little more to the east. The significant Šurany
Rabbi, Filip Feigl Plaut was also a native of the Czech Kolín. In addition, to so called "legal"
reasons, significant causes of Jewish migration or rather escapes were the pogroms. The
anti-Habsburg invasion of resistance troops of Imre Thököly40
to Uherský Brod in 1680 cul-
36
Encyklopédia židovských náboženských obcí na Slovensku (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religious Communities in Slo-
vakia), Published by SNM – Múzeum židovskej kultúry (Slovak National Museum - Museum of Jewish Culture) 2009,
edition Judaica Slovaca. Bratislava, p.59; vol. 1, p.120 and on.; ISBN 978-80-8060-229-1, (henceforth only Encyklopédia);
37
Braham 2007, vol. 2, p. 120 and on.;
38
Family Code;
39
Such are e.g. Piešťany, Vrbové owned by the Count Erdődy family, Dunajská Streda owned by the Count Pállfy family,
Galanta and surrounding owned by the Count Eszterházy and Pállfy families etc.;
40
Imre Thököly, *25 September 1657, Kežmarok, †13 September 1705, Izmir, Turkey, since 1906 buried in Kežmarok,
leader of the anti –Habsburg uprising; In 1682 he became rival-ruler to the Habsburgs – king resp. prince (the Ottoman
Empire titled him king, he called himself as prince) of Upper Hungary, vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, which origi-
nally covered roughly today´s Eastern and Central Slovakia (up to the river Váh), later also Western Slovakia, but in the
years 1683 to 1685 it was gradually conquered by the Habsburg troops.

14. 14
minated in anti-Jewish pogroms and the extermination of a large part of the local communi-
ty. Survivors fled en masse to what is now western Slovakia. Most of them settled in nearby
Dunajská Streda41
or joined the Jewish communities in the towns of the southern river Váh
region.
Feudal lords, with profit-seeking economic reasoning supported the establishment of
not only individual families, but also of larger communities. In addition, to the contribution to
economic life they had to pay a specific, so called tolerance tax, determined by the lord.
Jewish communities that arose at that time with the consent of feudal privileges in the 18th
century, enjoyed a boom in Dubnik, in Galanta, in Jelka, Kolta, Šurany, Reca and Veča42
.
Despite this forced migration the Jews settled on the feudal estates with significant
dispersion. In the individual villages there were only a few families. There were initially very
few communities that would consist of a hundred or more members. For example, Galanta,
Senec, Šaľa and exceptionally in Šurany, this was a free royal town. In Nové Zámky, which
was the property of the Roman Catholic Church, the Jews began settling down almost a
century later, after 185043
. Religious life was concentrated in these larger centres where
Jews came from smaller settlements on Saturdays and religious holidays. Migration from
villages to urban settlements is more significantly noticeable in the last decades of the 19th
century in connection with the accelerating process of urbanization in the Millennium period
and especially during the two decades of duration of the first Czechoslovak Republic. Later
a substantial part of the Jewish population, particularly the young generation, moved to
towns and cities in search of better careers and safer life. An accompanying phenomenon is
the gradual release of internal links of life which until then was that of a socially relatively
closed community. Their previously purely economic ties and cooperation with the majority
population gradually grew into broader communication links in a wide range of social life. In
terms of Jewish life itself an accompanying feature is the weakening of respect for the strict
compliance with religious laws and limitations, an obvious pre-condition of assimilation re-
quired and expected by the majority population.
The emerging Jewish communities contributed to the development of economic and
social life significantly. In an area that is characterized by intensive agricultural production,
41
Braham 2007, p. 619 and on;
42
Today part of Šala nad Váhom on the left bank of the Váh River;
43
Lang T. – Strba S.: Holokaust na Južnom Slovensku na pozadí histórie novozámockých židov (Holocaust in South Slo-
vakia on the background of the history of Nové Zámky Jews). Published by KALLIGRAM Bratislava 2006, 608 pages., ISBN
80-7149-898-X; (henceforth Lang-Strba 2006);

15. 15
they became a significant link between agricultural primary production and consumption. In
one direction they ensured the sale of agricultural production, in the other one they supplied
the basic producers with all the goods and supplies that were necessary for agricultural pro-
duction. At a later stage of urbanization and industrial development they contributed signifi-
cantly to the improvement of agricultural production by processing on the ground and con-
sequently ensuring a significant increase – using today's terminology we would say – “Added
Value” of the sugar mill in Diószeg.
In terms of legal restrictions in force in the 18th century which later limited mobility
and the settling of the Jews in Dioszeg this was the domain of the town44
landlord who de-
cided on all issues.
From the 18th century it was owned by the family of Count Pálffy, during the reign of
Joseph II it belonged to the Hungarian royal chamber, from 1806 to the Esterházy family
and from the mid 19th century to the Count Ferenc Zichy. All these owners, especially the
Esterházy family tolerated and skilfully used the services of Jewish merchants and crafts-
men on their properties. Their motives were not of philanthropy, for they had this “tolerance”
paid by special taxes.
In social life conditions and in the mobility of Jews in Hungary there was a change
due to the adoption of Act XXIX of 1840. This did not otherwise bring general equality with
other citizens of the Kingdom, however it was an important step and a harbinger of signifi-
cant changes. It is this law that allowed the settling of Jews throughout the country, although
the restriction “... except mining towns and other towns mentioned in the paragraph of the
Act XXXVIII from 1791, from which the Jews are also currently excluded under the old hab-
its of miners and mining institutions" that remained in force. The law allowed Jews to enter
the business environment by providing that "...Jews can build factories, too, and can trade
and be active in crafts ... ", but only "...together with auxiliary workers and apprentices of
their own religion ..." 45
. They could not receive Gentile apprentices, the law limited this
expressis verbis to only Jewish apprentices: "...they can tutor their offspring at this ...".
The exact date of the establishment of the Jewish religious community in Dioszeg is not
known, no written document has been preserved. The first written reference of residing
Jews comes from 1728, which, however is regarded as a transitional episode in the history
44
The rank of the town – oppidum – and the right to hold markets was given to Dioszeg by Emperor Rudolf II. in 1582;
see: Encyklopedia, vol. 1., p. 120 and on;
45
Lang – Strba 2006, ps. 20 and on;

16. 16
of the subsequent settlement. Among the Jews who immigrated to the town, in 1860 was
the family of David Wollner from Jelka (then Jóka), originally peasants. Opposite the sugar
mill in a rented house he set up a tavern. David Wollner was the founder and first chairman
of the Jewish religious community. After his death this position was followed by his son
Géza. The last chairman of the community till the deportations in 1944 was Armin
Wohlstein46
. In terms of management of religious life the Jewish community was subordi-
nated to the rabbinate in Galanta and was managed strictly in the orthodox rite of Judaism.
Records show that after 1868 the Dioszeg community and its close surroundings, a total of
37 families, 19 of which lived in Dioszeg, continued to belong to the supervisory powers of
the rabbinate in Galanta. An independent rabbinate - still subordinated to Galanta – existed
in Diószeg from 1867. Its first rabbi in 1867 was Joel Margulius, followed by the rabbinical
assessor and Dayan47
Smaja Gutmann and from the late 19th century Benjamin Wolf
Kohn48
. His successor was Hirsh Shalom Adler, author of the dictionary of the Ancient He-
brew language.
As we will see the dynamics of the number of Jews permanently settled in town has a
close connection with the development and prosperity of the sugar mill.
It reached the peak of its heyday in the years just before the First World War. At that
time the village had its synagogue49
, a 5-classroom primary school, a ritual slaughter, socie-
ty of Chevra Kadisha focusing on charity, care for sick and care for funerals, a women's
charity and youth association Bikur Cholim which was quite active in Diószeg. In the inter-
war period a branch of the Zionist movement was established here in line with the trends of
the Jewish youth movement in Czechoslovakia.
Significant and lasting monuments of Jewish communities are cemeteries. In Slo-
vakia currently we can register about 750 Jewish cemeteries as memorials for the communi-
46
Armin Wohlstein and wife are listed under No. 94 and 95 of the name list of Dioszeg Jews transferred to the ghetto in
Galanta;
47
Dajan – judge oft he rabbinical court;
48
Encyklopédia, p. 59-62;
49
Information on the fate of the synagogue in Dioszeg differ; according to the Encyklopédia, p.59, the town of
Sládkovičovo had the building demolished in the first half of the 1970s.; by personal testimony interpreted to the author
in a discussion after a lecture in Sládkovičovo on 13 November 2014 the building of the synagogue was severely dam-
aged by bombing, the aim of which was the sugar mill and refinery, but the scattering effect hit several buildings in the
residential part of Dioszeg; according to the testimony of the informer on the site of the synagogue already in 1947 a
detached house was built, in which she lived her childhood; according to the source Pataky Iván – Rozsos László –
Sárhidai Gyula: Légi háboró Magyarország felett (Air War over Hungary), II., Zrínyi Publisher Budapest 1988, ISBN 963-
324-163-0, ps. 303-307 Dioszeg was bombed by Allied Air Force twice: on 6 December 1944 eight B-24 bombers
dropped 17,6 t and on 15 January 1945 one B-24 dropped 2,2 t cluster bombs;

17. 17
ties that perished during the Holocaust. From tombstones dating from the local Jewish cem-
etery we can conclude that the first Jews settled permanently in Diószeg in the mid-19th
century. The oldest stone50
is from the second half of the 19th century. The material and
shape of tombstones used do not suggest any general wealth in the Jewish community51
.
According to some sources even during the greatest boom about 80% of the Jews were
employed in the sugar mill and refinery. Exceptions among the tombstones were the pre-
served monuments of the families of David Wollner and his descendants, as well as those
of Oscar Pfeffer52
.
According to available census data, the development of the population was the following:
Great (Hungarian) Dioszeg and Small (German) Dioszeg
year
number
of inhabitants
from that
of Jewish religion
proportion of
Jewish in %
a 1 2 3 4
1728 6 6
1828 1 465
1880 2 235 147 147 6,6
1900
2 722 131
166 4,80
737 35
1910 2 997 220 220 7,34
1919
3 345 184
240 5,72
845 56
1921
3 279 182
245 5,91
866 63
1930
3 587 135
170 3,79
887 35
1938
3 760 113
152 3,16
1 048 39
1941 4 725 110 110 2,32
50
Bárkány Eugen –Dojč Ľudovít: Židovské náboženské obce na Slovensku (Jewish Religious Communities in Slovakia.
Publ. VESNA Bratislava 1991, p.138; henceforth Bárkány-Dojč 1991;
51
Bárkány-Dojč 1991, p.39;
52
Oskar Pfeffer was from 1916 chairman of the board of sugar mill and refinery;

18. 18
1948 4 782 24 24 0,50
Development of the population in Dioszeg, of Jewish religion:
0
1250
2500
3750
5000
6250
1728 1828 1880 1900 1910 1919 1921 1930 1938 1941 1948
0
75
150
225
300
1728 1828 1880 1900 1910 1919 1921 1930 1938 1941 1948
Number of inhabitants of Jewish religion in
both parts of Dioszeg
all inhabitants
of them: Jews
Židia
Jews according to nationality or religion

19. 19
According to the census of 1930, there were 170 Jews in Dioszeg, and of them 76
people declared to be of Jewish nationality53
, which is 44.4%, whereas in 1921 it was only
9.3%. This tendency and proportion correspond to the data of other communities of western
Slovakia at the time.
Data from various censuses carried out in different historical, social and geopolitical
conditions with differing methods of counting and evaluation are not consistent or compara-
ble particularly in their respective dynamics. In terms of the First Czechoslovak Republic,
declaring to be a member of this or that nationality depended solely on the free decision of
the citizens. The first census conducted in 1941 after the southern territories were seized by
Hungary, when anti-Jewish discriminatory laws were in force, saw that this declaration was
not possible. For every citizen who according to the racial definition contained in particular
in the second anti-Jewish law, was under their effectiveness and was obligatorily counted as
a Jew.
The second anti-Jewish law, which went into the law of the Hungarian Kingdom as a
legal article IV / 1939 defines a Jew on racial principles and limits their participation in law-
making, legislation, local councils, as well as in the performance of both active and passive
right to vote ("... a Jew may not be elected a member of the upper house of parliament ... "),
and moreover, deprives the Jews in general, of the possibility to apply for representation in
public administration ("...a Jewish can not enter the state services, public services and mu-
nicipalities ...").
We must be aware that in 1910 with minor exceptions Jews across what was then
Hungary, overwhelmingly reported to be of Hungarian nationality. The huge dissimilation
after 1918 consisted of three main reasons:
1. The Czechoslovak government, to reduce the proportion of Hungarians and Ger-
mans in the census in 1921, lifted the Jews up to the level of equal nationality.
2. In Hungary, Numerus clausus, the first ever anti-Jewish discriminatory law in Eu-
rope was introduced in 1920 against the Jews. On the contrary, the establishment of
the first Czechoslovak Republic reflected a maximum level of understanding towards
them.
53
The liberal minority policy of the 1
st
Czechoslovak Republic allowed the Jews to avow themselves to the Jewish na-
tionality. For cause we can assume, that providing this opportunity was motivated by political considerations, too. Be-
cause a significant portion of Jews in Upper Hungary at the census in 1910 – immediately after the period of the peak of
Magyarization – reported to be of Hungarian nationality, providing this option could also be an effort to reduce the
number of citizens reporting to be of Hungarian nationality in a state where a third of the population claimed to be of
minorities;

20. 20
3. We can mention the fact that Jews making their living mostly as tradesmen had to
face many persecutions over the centuries yet they were largely capable of adjusting
to the expectations of the majority nation.54
The decrease in the number of Jews represented in 1941 compared to 1938 is due to
the fact that men aged 18-60 years were taken to forced labour units serving the needs of
the army.55
.
The mass extermination of Jews in terms of forced labour units began with Hungary
entering the war alongside the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis. 17 to 18 thousand members of the
forced labour units were ordered to the Russian battlefields as troops of the 2nd
Hungarian
army composed mostly of Jewish origin, which amounted to about 9 percent of the overall
state of the army (207 thousand). In the autumn of 1942, this number increased to 30 thou-
sand. Before the Soviet offensive of the river Don and their breakthrough at the bridgeheads
of Shchuchye and Uriv on 12 and 15 January 1943 the loss was relatively lower (2149), but
after the military collapse of the Hungarian 2nd Army under the massive attack of the Red
Army their losses significantly increased (to about 15 thousand). About 10 thousand mem-
bers of these forced labour units fell into Soviet captivity. After the destruction of the 2nd
Hungarian army and the exchange of command, the living conditions in terms of forced la-
bor units – especially thanks to the new defence minister Vilmos Nagybaczoni Nagy56
- tan-
54
Lajos Turzczel: Holota János és Érsekújvár. Emlékezés egy elfelejtett csehszlovákiai magyar politikusra. (János Holota
and Nové Zámky. Remembering a forgotten Hungarian politician in Czechoslovakia), In: Irodalmi Szemle, Budapešť 1998,
No.5/6/7, pp. 137-138
55
Forced labour was introduced by the Clause II of the Act II/1939 from 1939. The act was published on March 11, that
is prior to the second Jewish law, so it did not constitute a disadvantage towards the Jewry, but paragraph 87 enabled
the General Staff of the Hungarian army to commit persons aged 14 to 70 “…in the interest of home defence to work
corresponding to their physical and mental abilities“, further par. 23 determined that people incompetent of military
service – at one time for maximum 3 months – -"…may be committed to community service in labour camps." After the
release of the second Jewish law, however, there was a long and stormy dispute within the army, whether Hungarian
Jews should serve in the armed or the labour service. Finally, Defence Minister Károly Bartha adjusted this question in a
regulation so that due to the second Jewish law Jewish conscripts cannot reach officer’s or non-commissioned officer’s
rank, also, conscripts able to serve in arms should be proportionally distributed among the fighting components (with
the exception of the Air Force and Armoured Corps), but in case of war can be exclusively assigned to frontline service,
finally men unable to military service will be sent to labour units. (...)
56
Nagybaczoni Nagy Vilmos (Parajd, May 30, 1884 – June 21, 1975, a soldier by profession, minister of National Defence
from 21 September 1942 to 8 June 1943. The only one in the line of military ministers of his time, who "remained hu-
man even in times of inhumanity“. He resigned from the post of minister on pressure from the far-right Hungaristic
movement, subsequently was sent to retirement. He tried to prevent inhuman treatment and versatile bullying of
members of the Jewish labour battalions. After the fascist coup of the Arrow Cross Party on 16 November 1944 he was
arrested and taken to jail in Sopronkőhida. Before the advancing Red Army he and the other detained personalities

21. 21
gibly improved. For example, one of the regulations of the new minister of 9 March 1943
forbade harming, swearing and bullying and relieved the recruits of the grossest duties
against human dignity. This regulation however, applied only to the members serving within
the country's borders. Those who served in territories outside the country for example, Bu-
dapest and the Department of Defence fared quite badly. The loss also includes the 15 units
of forced labour, which at the request of the German organization TODT were transferred to
copper mines in the Serbian Bor. Inhuman conditions, the cruelty of guards and eventually
the death march in the autumn of 1944 cost the lives of the majority of these units - among
them the famous poet Miklós Radnóti. Many in the summer of 1944 before closing into the
ghetto and before deportation were called into forced labour battalions, thus avoiding depor-
tation, concentration and extermination camps.57
.
Jews in forced labour battalions were deployed in the most dangerous army engi-
neering assignments without accessories or training, such as mine clearance in no man's
land between the positions of warring armies, building mountain roads, bridges and such
like. They performed services in their own clothes which they were wearing at the time of
recruitment. 58
Inhumane treatment was directly encoded in the instructions to the guards. E.g. the
commander of the recruitment centre in Nagykáta, col. Lipot Metz-Muray in his speech to
the front commander, when these units were leaving, said goodbye to guards with the fol-
lowing words:
were carried off to Bavaria, where he lived till the liberation. He returned to Hungary in 1946; in 1948 he was deprived
of his pension, earned his living by manual labour in wood-industry. In December 1965 he was the first one in Hungary
who was awarded the honors of The Righteous Among The Nations by Yad Vashem Holocaust Remembrance Authority
in Jerusalem;
57
A strange turn in the history of Hungarian forced labour was that the Ministry of Defence (which was considered in
the previous 4-5 years to be the main cause of the suffering of Jews) from the summer of 1944 became a government
institution, whose individual components participated in saving Jewish lives. To explain the motive we do not have any
documentation. It is possible that many government and military authorities – who had more or less clear ideas of the
aims of deportations and the ghettoization program of the Nazis and their Hungarian vassals – acted with the intent to
save people. For example on 4 and 5 June 1944 lieutenant general Béla Aggteleky gave a mobilization order for men
aged 18 to 41 of Jewish origin to enlist in the 1st battalion of forced labour service in the town of Vác and in the XI bat-
talion in Felsőhagony. In his report of 20 July László Endre, Undersecretary of Interior quantifies a number of 80-
thousand Jewish men, who avoided deportation thanks to their enlisting. In: Szita Szabolcs: Halálerőd (Death Fortress),
publ. Kossuth, Budapest 1989, p. 236.
58
On 16 April 1941 the Bárdossy government issued a regulation amending this question: these new regulations got rid
of the Jews qualified under Jewish laws of the possibility to carry out armed military service and from then on they
could only do auxiliary services, that is work service, that in its essence was slave labour for the army. Officers and non-
commissioned officers of Jewish origin were deprived of their rank and distinctions, their military documents were
withdrawn and identity cards were stamped with the letter "J". And soon the Jewish members of the units of forced
labour – in a great extent due to German intervention – were deprived of their uniforms, later they were forced to wear
a yellow ribbon on the shoulder.

22. 22
"Please bear in mind that you will get back home or take a leave only when
they all snuff it there."
Not just one battalion commander (from 256 people) took it to heart literally and after
returning boasted that they "brought home" the entire unit in their briefcase 59
.
Only old men, women and children remained at home.
The Nazi Invasion of Hungary and Its Consequences
Three days after the Nazi invasion on March 22, 1944 the government of Miklos
Kallay was dismissed; its chairman Miklos Kallay hid at the Turkish embassy escaping the
Gestapo. Nazi interests in Hungary were fully ensured by the personal representative of the
Führer and the Reich Edmund Veesenmayer, who demanded Regent Horthy appoint Béla
Imrédy as prime minister, a an utmost Germanophile politician, which Horthy refused to do.
The government was put together three days later by Döme Sztójay (Sztojakovics), until
then ambassador in Berlin, and eventually accepted by the Nazis.
For the subsequent tragic climax of the fate of Jews it was crucial that Andor Jaross60
became interior minister with the addition of state undersecretaries László Endre61
and
László Baky62
.
59
Understand it so that all Jews had perished, in his briefcase he carried back only the written records. They are now
stored in the Hadtörténeti Levéltár (Military-historical Archives) in Budapest.
60
Vitéz Andor Jaross, interior minister in the Sztójay government installed on German bayonets in March 1944. (*23
May 1896 Čechy, Nové Zámky District – 11 April 1946, Budapest). In World War I he served as a reserve lieutenant. in
1916 wounded, awarded five times. In 1921 in Czechoslovakia he entered the Magyar Kisgazda Párt (Hungarian Party of
Small Farmers), where he was co-chairman from 1923 of the department of agriculture. From 1925 vice-chairman of the
Magyar Nemzeti Párt (Hungarian National Party), created by the fusion of the Magyar Kisgazda Párt (Party of Small
Farmers) and the Magyar Jog Pártja (Party of Hungarian Law). From 1926 chairman of its agricultural department. In
1929-1930 he attended the Conference of National Minorities in Geneva. From 1929 representative of the State Assem-
bly of this party, from 1933 in Levice at the republic congress became executive chairman of the Magyar Nemzeti Párt
(Hungarian National Party). From 1935 Member of Parliament of Czechoslovakia in Prague, from 1936 chairman of the
Egyesült Magyar Párt (United Hungarian Party), founded in Nové Zámky by the merger of the Magyar Nemzeti Párt
(Hungarian National Party) and the Keresztényszocialista Párt (Christian-Socialist Party). After the 1st Vienna Award
from 15 November 1938 to 1 April 1940 member of the Imrédy and later of the Teleki cabinet as a minister without
portfolio responsible for administrative integration of the newly re-connected territories. In 1939 as previously MP for
the Hungarian National Party in the Prague Parliament, by cooptation becomes MP of the Lower House of the Hungari-
an Parliament. In 1940 together with Béla Imrédy founds the ultra-right Magyar Megújulás Párt (Party of Hungarian
Revival), remains member of the Lower House and in Nové Zámky has regular MP days. From 22 March to 7 August
1944 Minister of Interior in the Sztójay government. He resigned on 7 August 1944. After Szálasi’s fascist coup played a
major role in the establishment of the fascist National Union of Legislators (Törvényhozók Nemzeti Szövetsége), which
united the ultra-rightwing parliamentarians in order to impart a semblance of legitimacy for the takeover of the Arrow
Cross Party of Ferenc Szálasi. From December 1944 to March 1945 serves as chairman of this Union with its evacuated
seat in Sopron. During his political career he became an honorary citizen of the towns of Békés, Kiskunhalas, Bóri,
Mukačevo, Levice, Komárno, Šahy, as well as the municipality of Dvory nad Žitavou in the Nové Zámky district. In 1944

23. 23
The collaborationist government of Döme Sztójay began making arrangements for
the total deprivation of Jewish property in two ways. After the Prime Minister on the first,
inaugural meeting informed the government that
"66th (Government) acknowledges that his highness Regent Miklós Horthy in respect
of all anti-Jewish regulations provides the government a free hand in these matters
and does not want to interfere."63
;
It adopted fundamental measures for the preparation of Regulation No. 1600/1944.
The regulation after its publication on April 14, 1944 set the Jews the obligation of notifica-
tion of all their respective properties, assets and property rights, product inventories, insur-
ance policies and restricted their right to dispose of them. This document has become an
essential reference for all the follow-up measures to loot Jewish property. In parallel, the
Ministry of Interior began intensive preparations of ghettoization and subsequent deporta-
tions. This regulation was delivered to the authorities of gendarmerie, the police and the
leading dignitaries of state and local governments as strictly confidential and was published
with the launch of the first dispatch of transports on May 14, 1944.
We shall come back to both documents in a systematic manner.
Restricting civil rights, displacement of Jews from social and economic life, confisca-
tion of their property before and after March 19, 1944 was qualitatively different from the
state-organized robbery over the next few months. In the period from late 1938 till the spring
of 1944, reducing or displacing the Jews, their marginalization in all spheres was not asso-
he became chairman of the FTC (Ferencvárosi Torna Klub – Ferencváros Athletic Club, Budapest), a sports club, which
was founded in the late 19
th
century jointly by Hungarians, ethnic Germans living in Hungary and Jews. By People’s
Court sentenced to death by shoot, executed.
61
László Endre (Abony, 1 January 1895 – Budapest, 29 March 1946) a public official. From 1919 juridical judge in
Gödöllő, from 1923 chief juridical judge. He was member of various racist, ultra-rightwing organizations (Ébredő
Magyarok Egyesülete, Kettőskereszt Vérszövetség, etc.) In June 1937 founder of the Fajvédő Szocialista Párt (Racialist
Social Party). At that time enters into a "contract for life" with Szálasi and they found the Hungarian National Socialist
Party (Magyar Nemzetiszocialista Párt). From 8 April 1944 state undersecretary of the Interior Ministry, one of the main
organizers of the deportations. During the Szálasi regime on the temporarily regained territories attempts to reorganize
the public administration of the Arrow Cross Party. By People’s Court sentenced to death by rope, executed.
62
László Baky (Budapest, 13 Sept 1898 – Budapest, 29 March 1946) gendarmerie major, member of the Szeged Ring led
by Miklós Horthy. From 1925 is an active member in the services of gendarmerie, in 1938 goes into retirement and joins
the Hungaristic Movement (Hungarista Mozgalom) of the Hungarian National Socialist Party (Magyar Nemzetiszocialista
Párt). From 1939 Member of Parliament for the Arrow Cross Party. Because he was an even greater proponent of de-
pendence from Nazi Germany than Szálasi, he leaves the Arrow Cross Party. In the Sztójay government from 24 March
1944 is a State Secretary of the Interior Ministry, is the main and direct organizer of deportations. His authority covered
the VI. Police, VIII. Criminal Police and XVIII. Administration of the Interior Ministry. After the coup of the Arrow Cross
Party Szálasi posted him at the head of National Security Office, which was completely without competences. By Peo-
ple’s Court sentenced to death by rope, executed.
63
The minutes of the cabinet meeting on 29 March 1944, point 66 of the program;

24. 24
ciated with physical violence. In the real sense of the word “Robbing” started in 1941 and
greatly affected the Jews deployed in forced labour battalions. As a result of the emergence
of military components as active players in the fate of the Jewish population it often oc-
curred that in addition to appropriating buildings such as schools and other buildings they
forced the Jewish community to the payment of various amounts generated by contrived
motivations. After March 19, conditions changed dramatically
The systematic dispossession of their properties, ghettoisation and apart from the ac-
tual capital, Budapest deportation to the extermination camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau com-
menced.
After March 19, 1944 a practically endless series of regulations restricting the rights
of Jews followed in all spheres of social life.
On the same day with a deadline of three days Jews were deprived of their tele-
phones64
.
Two days later the prohibition on the employment of non-Jewish persons in house-
holds of Jews65
is published. On the same day employment of Jews in the public service is
abolished and their advocatory practices prohibited66
.
In the issuing of regulations and restrictions a chaotic condition occurred when the
individual ministries are overtook one another in these activities. The Ministry of Defence
issued a ban on the wearing of military uniform by all persons covered by the obligation of
wearing the distinctive yellow star67
, although the command itself for any Jew older than six
years to wear a distinctive hexagonal stars 10x10 cm of "canary yellow colour" on their
outer garment is issued by the government only four days later68
. On the same day, how-
64
Regulation of the Hung. Royal Government No. 1.140/1944 of 29 March 1944; see in: Magyarországi zsidótörvények
és rendeletek 1938-1945 (Anti-Jewish laws and regulations in Hungary 1938-1945), PolgArt Budapest, 2002, comp. by
Robert Vértes, ISBN 963-9306-04-5, p.324; henceforth only “Laws 2002“;
65
Laws 2002, p. 325; Regulation No. 1.200/1944 M.E. of 31 March 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 256-257;
66
Laws 2002, p. 325; Regulation No. 1.210/1944 M.E. of 31 March 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 257-260;
67
Laws 2002, p. 330; Regulation No. 26666/1944 H.M. of 1 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., p. 517;
68
Laws 2002, p. 325; Regulation No. 1.240/1944 M.E. of 5 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 263-264;

25. 25
ever, it issued an addendum to exclude from the force of regulation Jews active and retired
priests, monks, deacons and foreign citizens. 69
The government could not be satisfied with the speed or consistence of introducing
the distinguishing sign, so a week later they hardened and ordered the immediate intern-
ment of all who sinned against the regulation70
.
On April 7, 1944 the interior minister issued a strictly confidential order on the deter-
mination of the place of residence of Jews: this euphemism covered the establishment of
the ghetto at each settlement, which has more than 10,000 residents. The regulation began
with the ominous formulation:
„The Hungarian royal government will cleanse the land from the Jews shortly. I
order the cleaning to be carried out gradually according to defined areas, the aim of
which is the removal of Jews, regardless of gender and age, to the specified collec-
tion camps. In towns and larger villages, part of the Jews will be placed in specific
buildings or ghettos. ... The concentration of Jews will be carried out by the police
and the Hungarian Royal Gendarmerie. ... The German security police71
will be pre-
sent on site as an adviser; particular emphasis should be given to undisturbed coop-
eration with them. ... Parallel to concentrating and transporting of Jews local authori-
ties appoint commissions, which, in cooperation with the police and the gendarmerie
forces lock Jewish homes and shops. They hand over the keys to the commandment
of the collection camp in a sealed envelope bearing the name and exact address of
the Jew. ... Perishables and live animals that do not serve productive purposes are
taken over by local municipal authorities. These need to be utilized primarily for the
needs of the army and organs of public order, secondly for public supply. ... Money
and valuables (gold, silver articles, shares etc.), accompanied by a short list, need to
be submitted to the branch of the National Bank within three days. ... Jews deter-
mined to be removed are only permitted to have clothes they are wearing, linen for
two exchanges, food for at least 14 days per person and a maximum of 50 kg of lug-
gage, money, jewellery, gold and other valuables excluded”.
This regulation was deliberately issued as strictly confidential and well in advance so
that the authority in chief of the town or village could prepare its swift and effective imple-
mentation at the declared date. This is also confirmed by its final formula:
69
Laws 2002, p. 330; Regulation No. 1.450/1944 M.E. of 5 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 292-293;
70
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 172.068. VII/and B.M. (Interior Ministry) from 12 April 1944;
71
SD, Sicherheitsdienst; armed forces of the NSDAP set up already in 1931 under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler.
After the takeover in 1933 they gained practically unlimited competences, played a decisive role during the “Night of
the Long Knives” on 29-30 June 1934 and during the Cristal Night on 9-10 November 1938. From June 1936 together
with the SS they were liable to Reinhardt Heydrich, from 1942 to Ernst Kaltembrunner. The Nuremberg Tribunal tagged
the SD as a criminal organization and allowed the prosecution of its members.

26. 26
„This decree is strictly confidential. Heads of all organs and headquarters are
responsible that no one can know anything about it before starting the clean-up ac-
tion.“ 72
Two weeks later all involved authorities and offices were warned to prevent the Jews
to save their valuables in pawnshops or any other similar places. On the day of departure of
the first transports State Undersecretary of the Interior László Endre sent out detailed in-
structions for the receipt, recording and storage of property of Jews in the collection centres
and ghettos73
. Of the several measures and guidelines listed, it is clear that their aim was
the total appropriation of private and corporate Jewish property74
with the cooperation of all
organs of the state and local governments and their enforcement units.
In order to be able to locate and concentrate Jews a general ban on travelling by
train, land and river public transport was issued75
. An amendment to Regulation 6163/1944,
which saw the light of day on April 28, 1944, determined that a ghetto is to be set up only in
settlements with a total population of over 10,000. From the smaller ones the concentrated
Jews had to be transported to the ghetto in the nearest town76
. In parallel, as a first step to
ban activities of Jews an inventory was carried out of all Jewish associations and organiza-
tions77
.
The effort to control the movement of the population affected non-Jews as well. On
April 22, 1944 a call was published to report the residence of all refugees within three days,
who for any reason are staying in the town and their permanent address is elsewhere78
.
Simultaneously, the authorisation of the gendarmerie to use weapons and other force was
significantly extended79
.
72
Laws 2002, p. 325-327; Regulation No. 6163/1944 M.E. of 7 April 1944; MOL, M.K. 6/100.
73
Laws 2002, p. 335; Regulation No. 147.3797/1944 P. M. of 15 May 1944;
74
János Botos: „Ez a kifosztás lessz a végső!? Az 1938-1945 között elkobzott magyar zsidó vagyon értéke“, Attraktor Kft.
Budapest 2011, ISBN 978-963-9857-83-4, p. 75; henceforth only Botos 2011;
75
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 1.260/1944 M.E. of 7 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 412-414;
76
Regulation 1.610/1944 B.M. of 28 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of Regulations), vol. I, ps.
475-479; reprint also in: Lévai Jenő: Zsidósors Magyarországon, Magyar Téka Budapest 1948, ps. 97-99;
77
Laws 2002, p. 337; Regulation No. 174.289. VII/b B.M. of 25 April 1944;
78
Érsekújvár és Vidéke, volume 63., 22 April 1944, p.5;
79
Ibidem;

27. 27
To ensure that Jews are cut off from information broadcast by foreign radio transmit-
ters, the Jews were forced to abolish their radio concessions within three days80
and within
the next 14 days they were ordered to hand them over to the army81
or the post office82
. A
radio set in those days was not a requisite of all households, so the population showed
enormous interest in them and "good neighbours", not excluding good-natured offers, of-
fered to take over or keep them for their own use. There was also a risk that the state would
lose substantial revenue value in such a dispersement. Therefore, it was immediately or-
dered that anyone who in any way acquired a radio receiver from a Jew or a person treated
as a Jew by law, shall notify the authorities of this fact in writing83
. The government attribut-
ed great importance to the operation of radio receivers especially as a means for quick in-
formation of the population, therefore it ordered distributing the receivers withdrawn from
Jews to “nationally reliable" candidates listening to broadcasts in their respective surround-
ings and should pay an amount of 50 to 300 Pengő depending on the quality of the device84
.
It is characteristic of the chaotic state of competences in the ministries that the men-
tioned and objectively related regulations of the radio receivers were issued by various cen-
tral bodies of state administration for example, the Government Presidency, Ministry of De-
fence and Ministry of Commerce and Transport. This chaos of not only issuing the regula-
tions restricting Jews, in which the individual central authorities directly mutually competed,
is also supported by the fact that their publication in the Collection of Regulations or in the
Journals of the Ministries were published not in chronological order but also with significant
delays in the date of coming into force and effect. The administrative apparatus could not
keep pace with the executive!
Not only the issue of regulations was chaotic, their implementation was chaotic and
inconsistent as well. Even three months later, at the end of August 1944, when the deporta-
tion of rural Jews was completed at an unprecedented and dizzying pace - Adolf Eichmann
after his arrival in Budapest, following closely by the arrival of invading armies told Edmund
Veesenmayer that in the case of erasing Jews from Hungary he wanted to achieve a record
80
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 1.300/1944 M.E. of 7 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 402-403;
81
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 33.000/1944 H.M. of 21 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 547-548;
82
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 217.300/1944 K.K.M. of 21 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection
of Regulations), vol. I., ps. 602-603;
83
Laws 2002, p. 331; 1.490/1944 Government Presidency, of 21 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collec-
tion of Regulations), vol. I., ps. 459-461;
84
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 39.089/1944 Ministry of Interior of 15 May 1944;

28. 28
– in the case of radio receivers the Ministry of the Interior states the inefficiency of the regu-
lations and poor consistency in their implementation. The case highlights the competences
of the government commissioner for dealing with property rights issues of the Jews, and
furthermore orders these to the business of sale with the fact that the claims of private indi-
viduals will not be satisfied until all the requirements of public institutions have not been met
85
.
As a result of calling up the vast majority of Jewish doctors to forced labour service
the country suffered from a fatal lack of doctors. Similarly, it was the case for pharmacists
as well. Nevertheless, the authorisation of pharmacists, who were covered by the so-called
2nd
Jewish Law, was immediately withdrawn and the resumption of the authorisation
through any legal process, including inheritance, was ruled out.86
By the withdrawal of business licenses of Jewish merchants and craftsmen a new
way was opened to stealing their property and storage of commercial stocks was lucrative
and profitable. These were re-purchased by non-Jewish craftsmen and traders not for an
acquisition price, but for the price determined by expert assessment. The expert was ap-
pointed by the respective County Chamber of Commerce, which in many cases set the
price, which the Jew was obliged to accept and often it was a payment by installments. This
is confirmed by the authors’ archival research in the Nitra State Archive, branch of Nové
Zámky, where such cases are documented.
The implementation of ghettoization began on April 16, 1944 and throughout the
country87
. The first ghettos were established in three towns of Subcarpathian Ruthenia88
:
Uzhgorod, Mukachevo and Hust. It was necessary to take care of the movable mobile prop-
erty of Jews taken to ghettos and to make out a quadruplicate inventory of the movable
property left in abandoned apartments and for the State Treasury to ensure above all mon-
85
Laws 2002, p. 333; Regulation No. 192.500/1944 Ministry of Interior, of 25 August 1944;
86
Laws 2002, p. 333; Regulation No. 1.370/1944 Government Presidency of 14 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára
1944 (Collection of Regulations), vol. I., ps. 424-428;
87
Vádirat a nácizmus ellen – Dokumentumok a Magyarországi zsidóüldözés történetéhez (Indictment of Nazism – doc-
uments on the persecution of Jews in Hungary), vol. II, MIOK Budapest 1960. Compiled by Ilona Benoschofszky and Elek
Karsai; p.267, doc. 80/d;
88
Subcarpathian Ruthenia was occupied by Hungary arbitrarily on 15 March 1939 during the second government of
Count Pál Teleki; 12% of the population were Magyars, so justification by the ethnic principle would not have held up in
any case. The Prime Minister, who was a geographer by profession, a university professor and member of the Academy
of Sciences, argued this decision by the need of bringing under control the rich water resources of the right riverbank
catchment area of the Tisza River. According to Teleki potential “ruthless exploitation“ of Slovakia in the Carpathian
forests would expose the East-Hungarian Lowlands to the threat of uncontrolled influx of water and would expose it to
“mortal danger“;

29. 29
ey, valuables and securities were documented. The Ministry of Finance sought to provide
this through a regulation with exceptionally strict wording and issued on the same day.89
Special interest in the regime in Jewish movable property was confirmed by the Min-
istry of Interior. It bound any provision of Jewish property to a special permit with the excep-
tion of the provision of apartments for non-Jewish citizens who lost their housing due to
bombing or were displaced from areas on which ghettos were created, and all this for a
fee90
. These measures also concerned all Jewish craftsmen and traders - at that time al-
ready just in the west of the country, in Trans-Danubia, who by virtue of any exception had
not lost their privileges however they still were obliged to close their businesses, report their
inventories and hand over keys. That included Jewish individuals as well as companies or
business associations of any kind91
, in which the absolute majority of shares was owned by
Jews.
Special attention was also paid to the confiscation and inventory of works of art92
,
and also to the content of valuables stored in bank vaults and leased containers which have
been opened93
.
Everyday life in the ghettos was marked by the deliberate short supply of food, lack of
drinking water, basic sanitation conditions and hygienic needs. The doctors collected in
ghettos were in case of any disease absolutely helpless. They were not entitled to drugs.
State power was aware that Jews had not a long future ahead, thus in terms of wartime ra-
tioning of food products their rations were significantly reduced. By the regulation of the Min-
istry of supply the determined monthly allocations were 10 dg of beef or horse meat (!), 30
dg sugar and 30 dg edible oil, and from case to case 5 dl milk to infants. Hardworking Jews
were deprived of an entitlement to food supplements. Jews could not continue to receive
ration cards, and eventually tickets already taken for May had to be returned to May 394
.
And according to the principle who does not eat, let him not work, came into effect from 25
89
Laws 2002, p. 335; Regulation No. 147.379/1944 P.M. of 15 May 1944;
90
Laws 2002, p. 335; Regulation No. 1.180/1944 Ministry of Interior, of 20 May 1944;
91
Laws 2002, p. 333; Regulation No. 58.000/1944 K.K.M. of 21 May 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection
of Regulations), vol. II., ps. 946-945;
92
Laws 2002, p. 336; Regulation No. 1.830/1944 M.E. of 25 May 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. II., ps. 797-800;
93
Laws 2002, p. 336; Regulation No. 1.1.290/1944 M.E. of 28 May 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. II., ps. 1017-1019;
94
Laws 2002, p. 333; Regulation No. 108.500/1944 K.M. of 22 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection
of Regulations), vol. I., ps. 679-682;

30. 30
April 1944 with the employment of all Jews employed in any intellectual activity was can-
celled95
.
The regime cared not only about living spiritual workers, but also about those, who
were beyond their physical reach. That is the Jewish writers, and in particular their work,
which in the future should not annoy the soul of the Hungarian man. The government pre-
sidium ordered the revision of the bookstock of all libraries and removed the works of Hun-
garian Jewish authors as well as third country Jews. The regulation nominally stated a list of
114 authors writing in the past or at the time in Hungary and 34 foreign authors whose
works had to be delivered to the stamp mill to be destroyed96
. The regulation in this case
was issued by a government commissioner for the press Vitéz Dr. Mihály Kolozsváry-
Borcsa97
.
This barbaric action destroyed the works of such authors as Béla Balázs (Bauer),
Béla Bernstein, Sándor Bródy, René Erdős (Ehrenthal), Jenő Fényes (Feuerwerker), Miksa
Fenyő (Fleischmann), Oszkár Jászi (Jakubovits) and many others, but also - for the Slovak
readers perhaps more popular Shalom Ash, Jean Bloch, Max Brod, Martin Buber, Ilya Eh-
renburg, Lion Feuchtwanger, Zigmund Freud, Egon Erwin Kisch, Ferdinand Lassalle, André
Mourois, Karl Marx, Max Nordau, Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Werfel, Otto and Stefan Zweig
and many others.
95
Laws 2002, p. 339; Regulation No. 1.540/1944 M.E. of 25 April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., ps. 466-471;
96
Laws 2002, p. 341; Regulation No. 10.800/1944 M.E. of 30
th
April 1944, original in: Belügyi Közlöny 1944 (Journal of
the Interior Ministry), No. 19, ps. 589-592;
97
Vitéz Dr. Mihály Kolozsváry-Borcsa (27 June 1896. Kolozsvár, now Cluj, Romania -6 December 1946 Budapest), jour-
nalist, politician, 1938-1939 head of the press department of the government presidium from June 1939. President of
the Chamber of Journalists April to August 1944. Government authorised representative for the press, radio, state news
agency and book publishing, 31 October till 27 December 1944 representative of the coup government of Ferenc
Szálasi. By people´s court sentenced to death by hanging, executed;

31. 31
Two weeks after the start of deportations the revision of all exceptions was ordered to
be completed by April 30, 194498
. All hope was now lost.
The trend of anti-Jewish regulations and measures continued. It is not the mission of
this dissertation to track it till the "victorious end", because the Dioszeg Jews were con-
cerned only by the horrific social and physical effects of ghettoisation. Therefore, let us turn
attention to them.
HOW THIS OCCURRED IN DIOSZEG
According to the above regulations all Dioszeg Jews in parallel with the establish-
ment of the ghetto in Galanta99
were initially collected in the building of the local synagogue
and subsequently they were transported to the Galanta ghetto on 5 May 1944.
A censored postcard has been preserved, written by Dezső Somogyi from the ghetto in
Galanta to his son, Tibor, who at that time was placed in a forced labour unit in Sashalom
municipality. The text reveals remarkable information that shows suspect relations between
Jews concentrated in the Dioszeg synagogue with despair and hopelessness that led to
suicide. The text of the card again reveals that
98
Laws 2002, p. 341; Regulation No. 1.530/1944 M.E. of 30
th
April 1944, original in: Rendeletek Tára 1944 (Collection of
Regulations), vol. I., pp. 464-465;
99
In Galanta the ghetto was established in the Synagogue and the streets directly around the Synagogue;
Dr. Vitéz Mihály Kolozsváry-
Borcsa throws the works of
Jewish authors writing in Hun-
gary or abroad in a paper mill.
Theirworks were removed from
all scientific and public libraries
of the country. The amend-
ment of June indicated a fur-
ther 127 Jewish authors from
Hungary and 11 from abroad,
whose works were to be de-
stroyed.

32. 32
„...the head of the [sugar refinery] office Braun and his wife the night before
moving [to Galanta gheto] committed suicide. They took poison and died.“
The given date May 16, 1944 by the sender indicates that at that time, the Jews of
Diószeg were staying in the Galanta ghetto.
The list of Jews moved from Diószeg to Galanta100
informs about this event quite dif-
ferently. Under the serial numbers 15 and 16 are listed Jozef Braun Jr, with his wife. At their
names there is a handwritten remark "... tried to commit suicide, the man died." The text
suggests that his wife survived and was transported to the ghetto in Galanta. The veracity of
this version appears to be more reliable, if we assume that the note in pencil written on the
list could have been written on on the spot and on the face of real-time approval of the reg-
ister of people transported from Diószeg to Galanta as it informs us upon the completed
suicide only of Joseph Braun Jr.
The Érsekújvár és Vidéke newspaper, issued in the seat of the county, informs on the
suicide of the Braun spouses with a three-week delay showing that "... while they were
transported to the local hospital, all attempts of the doctors proved ineffective. 101
"
In a yet unidentified unit of forced labor Géza Büchler, MD, was also included, who sur-
vived102
and after the liberation returned to Sládkovičovo103
.
100
Source: family archive of Ing. Pavol Polan;
101
Érsekújvár és Vidéke, volume 63, 27
th
May 1944, p.1;
102
See footnote No. 41;
103
Géza Büchler,MD (23.1.1899 – 22.10.1949), graduated in Brno in 1925, from 1928 general practitioner in
Sládkovičovo. After returning he was shortly chairman of the Jewish religious community;

33. 33
Correspondence card by Dezső Somogyi dated May 16, 1944 to his son Tibor104
.
Tibor Somogyi was placed in the forced labour battalion No. 102/14 stationed in the
municipality of Sashalom105
.
The text side of the same card dated 16 May 1944.
THE ROBBERY OF JEWISH PROPERTY
Restrictions and prohibitions, deprivation of rights and seizing the property of Jews
systematically spread to all areas of their lives during this period.
The deprivation of all property was based on a government decree106
that assigned
the Jews the obligation of notification of all property, assets and property rights, product in-
ventory, insurance policies and restrictions and the right to dispose of them. This document
has become the essential reference and template for all the subsequent steps and
measures of confiscating all Jewish property.
104
Source: family archive of Mr. Pavol Polan. Published with his courtesy.
105
Then a separate municipality, nowadays North-Eastern city part of Budapest as part of its XVI. district. From the pri-
vate archive of Mr. Pavol Polan by his courtesy.
106
Laws 2002 , ps.285-293; Regulation of the Hungarian Royal Government No. 1.600/1944 from 14
th
April 1944; due to
the special importance of this Regulation the entire text is cited in the source;

34. 34
For example, one specific regulation deprives the Jews of the right to possess a radio
and orders their confiscation.107
.
As it derived from the generally applicable laws and regulations, before leaving for
the collection places from where the journey continued into ghettos established in specified
towns, Every Jew had to draw up an inventory of their assets left in the flat and this, along
with the keys to the flat, had to be handed over to mayor’s office. These elaborated invento-
ries differed in terms of degree of detail and accuracy, and were restricted to movables and
furniture and in the vast majority did not include consumer goods such as clothing, food
supplies, cooking utensils and supplies.
More valuable items such as works of art were given by number of pieces and with
the indication "large" or "small", usually not mentioning the name of the author of the par-
ticular work of art. As long as the author is given, then only in the form of "... the image by
XY ...", in no case is the description or title of the work shown. Thus, even in the case of
works of famous masters these items can not be identified108
.
After the departure of the owners the mayor's office had to gather the home inventory
and the values recorded in a protocol were handed over to the Chief Financial Officer, who
in case of Diószeg was János Király.
In fact, the inventory was carried out at length and with a considerable lapse of time
from leaving the flats. The delay was not due to passiveness, but the inability of financial
institutions to perform the inventory consistently. Therefore, the mayors engaged active and
retired municipal officials as well as teachers in this work. Quite often the authorized inven-
tory commissions found emptied apartments on the site. Furniture, bedding, housewares
and clothing had been largely taken away by neighbours109
. The town notary from Hust in
Subcarpatian Ruthenia on June 21, 1944 in its report writes:
„...personal conditions of the financial authorities are insufficient, so the
inventory and emptying of flats will last for at least six more months, and in the
meantime a number of burglaries and thefts will happen. So far many flats
have been looted, which I am continuously reporting to gendarmerie, but they
do not have enough people.110
“
107
Laws 2002, p. 331; Regulation No. 1.300/1944 M.E. of 7
th
April 1944, Belügyi Közlöny (Bulletin of the Interior Minis-
try), 49, No.17. Reprint also in: Benoschofszky Ilona – Karsai Elek: Vádirat a nácizmus ellen, I., Budapest 1958, ps. 170-
181, doc. No. 83/a;
108
ŠOKA Nové Zámky (District Archive), fund of Župné mesto (County Town), carton 35;
109
Lévai 1948, p.102; cited by Kádár-Vági 2005, p.249;
110
Ibidem;

35. 35
According to the personal testimony of the son of the then employee of the financial
office in Nové Zámky the authorities in the seat of the county had a total of five employees,
who for the whole Nové Zámky district carried out the activities of tax executors111
, too. The
examined documents from Dioszeg are show that the local branch had two employees.
Before the property was brought into the custody of the financial office, at least half of
it was plundered by the population individually or during wild grabbing of abandoned flats.
The financial authorities had known about the danger of this from previous practices.
The Government Commissioner of Subcarpatian Ruthenia warned that the closure of Jew-
ish dwellings and their sealing was not a good solution. Based on experience with a similar
situation in 1941112
he feared that the population would plunder these homes. Finance Min-
ister Lajos Reményi-Schneller as early as on June 1, 1944 informed the government that
part of Jewish property left in the apartments' “… went to ruin113
."
The described conditions were typical for the whole country. When the Town Hall in
Kecskemét learned that "... Jewish homes are being taken without permission ...", the
Mayor made a call on "...citizens acting arbitrarily to immediately cease this conduct and to
empty the flats." In the municipality of Felsőbudak in Northern Transylvania the gendarmerie
reports a case recorded when
„ From the flat of Rudolf Grünfeld a local resident took a bicycle provid-
ing that he would not need this any more, because the Jews will be collected
nevertheless and the bike will be forfeited by the State.114
“
Chief financial inspector Sándor Madarász in Balassagyarmat made a report on 800
local residents who robbed Jewish homes. Looting in Berehove became the object of atten-
tion of the Nazis themselves. On 27 June 1944 Veesenmayer with reference to the sources
111
Personal information of Mikuláša S., son of then employee of the financial office in Nové Zámky, preserved by word
of mouth of his father. Recorded on 4
th
October 2015;
112
This was the very first deportation of 17,000 Jews mainly from the so-called Ruthenia with a so-called unexplained
right of domicile in 1941 to Kamenec-Podolsko; the Hungarian military authorities handed them over to the SS troops
Einsatzgruppe D, who murdered them within 3 days;
113
Records from the government session on 1
st
June 1944. With reference to Benoschofszky – Karsai E. 1960 cited by
Kádár-Vági 2005, p. 249;
114
Report of gendarmerie Lieutenant colonel Ferenczy, 7
th
May 1944. With reference to Karsai L. – Molnár 1994, 504 p.
Cited by Kádár-Vági 2005, p. 249;.