Magyar Egyház, 1957 (36. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1957-02-01 / 2. szám

10

MAGYAR EGYHÁZ

the Turks the help he received from the West was little more than that given Hungary two centuries earlier. In desperation Hunyadi wrote the Pope, “We are in the sixtieth year of the struggle against the Turk. Until now only one people has turned its arms against the enemy. We only, left alone, have endured the fury of the battle . . . We can either free Europe form the cruel Turk’s invasion, or we can fail for Christianity, earning a crown of martyrdom.”

Passing over the two centuries of Roman Catholic attempts to exterminate Magyars Protestantism when the latter often stood alone with Habsburg and Jesuit leagued against it, we turn to Hungary’s ill-fated war for independence from Austria in 1848. Having defeated Austria, the Magyar armies were crushed by Russia. Kossuth, the Hungarian leader, spent the remaining forty-six years of his long and brilliant career on foreign soil fighting for Hungarian freedom with the pen, his sword having been broken. Having learned English previously, during three years of solitary confinement in an Austrian prison whose jailor allowed him a copy of Shakespeare, a dictionary and a grammar, Kossuth was given a hero’s welcome in England, America and elsewhere. His reception in this country was the greatest ever given any foreigner with the possible exception of Lafayette. In spite of Kossuth’s eloquence and Hungary’s plight, however, the Magyars received no help from the West “except words” of sympathy and praise. And, at this present crucial juncture in Hungarian, and world history the West has spoken in behalf of Hungary, and that is all. The last message that went out from Hungary’s free radio in November adds pathos to this circumstance. It was “People of the world! Listen to our call. Help us—not with advice, not with words, but with action.”

We hasten to add that we do not desire to discount or minimize the very great importance of the recent moral and written condemnation of Soviet activity in Hungary. We desire only to point up the fact that this is where we have left the matter while the intolerable situation within the country remains as it was. It is our conviction therefore that we have not yet discharged our responsibility, that we have not done enough, that there is more that we can do and ought to do. Privilege means responsibility. America occupies a unique position of privilege the details of which need no elaboration here. Such a position in a moral world means a high degree of responsibility in the affairs of nations and before the Lord of nations. The way in which we respond to and discharge our present responsibility bears a direct relation, under God, to our position among the nations in the future.

The present moment in history, with international Communism having just received a mortal wound, as Vice President Nixon has informed us, is weighted with importance. The wound which Hungary has inflicted on the body of Communism may prove not to be mortal after all. The wish of Mr. Nixon, and of us all, may prove to have been father to the thought. It is important therefore that in this juncture of history we speak and act as we are morally obligated to do.

Our international policy, however, has been motivated primarily by considerations of self-interest. The Soviet Union rapes Hungary and we only speak against it, but if Russia were to attack England or a country in this hemisphere we would go to war. The freedom of these areas and of the Near East, we now say, is essential to our own interests. The bully beats up the

boy down the street and we talk about it. Only when he throws his weight around in our block are we stirred to decisive action and not until then.

President Eisenhower has said that “the world problems of our generation, although most apparent in their economic or political expression, are fundamentally moral and spiritual.” They are, indeed! What is it that makes a country great? Is it population or geographical magnitude? Happily not, for we would compare unfavorably with China and the Soviet Union respectively in those particulars. Is it industrial potential? Again our response is, or ought to be, a negative one. Is it natural resources and know-how? Again, the answer is obvious. As important as each of these advantage is, they are each and all superseded by a greater, a nation’s spirit. True greatness, as the future will show just as surely as God is in His heaven, is not measured in tonnage of air power, or in terms of industrial potential or military might. It is rather in terms of moral and spiritual values; in Christian faith in God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit; in willingness to work and sacrifice for a good cause; in a love for righteousness; in courage — the kind the Hungarian people have exhibited — and the ability to take decisive moral action. Therein lie the criteria by which men and nations one day will be judged. These are infinitely more desirable than material assets and ultimately more beneficial, even to a nation, than those military or economic resources in which many place their shortsighted trust. An ancient, inspired inscription informs us that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but (that) sin is a reproach to any people.” The ideals which motivate our foreign policy must be superior to mere self-interest; they must be Christian and they must, also by God’s grace, be made dynamic.

What then ought we to do? The following suggestions, in part, and others have already been offered. We make bold to repeat and specify those which appear to us to be a reasonable and moral course of action.

1. We should use our utmost influence to urge the UN (1) to order complete Soviet withdrawal from Hungary within 30 days of the order; and (2) to hold free elections in Hungary under UN supervision within 90 days of the UN action. It is probable that a majority within the UN would be in agreement with this two-fold proposal.

2. In the event that the Soviet Union would reject the UN order, both the puppet Hungarian and the Soviet representatives to the UN should be dismissed from the Assembly and the latter from the Security Council and order should be served on their respective governments that unless the UN mandate is complied with within thirty days they shall be dismissed from the UN.

Many may be shocked at this suggestion and would argue for its utter impracticability if not its sheer unreasonableness. Their position, however, is the unrealistic one and may be motivated by fear of possible Soviet retaliation and an immoral ignorance or oblivion of the wickedness of the Communist faith and practice. It is high time that we take another look at what Communism is and what its record has been. We all ought to read, to study that record. If the American people as a whole were aware of the terrible truth about Russia from 1918 to the present they would rise up as one man to insist upon the total