Fraternity-Testvériség, 1950 (28. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1950-02-01 / 2. szám
4 TESTVÉRISÉG THE RISING TIDE OF PAN-SLAVISM ENDRE SEBESTYEN Free Magyar Reformed Church Leechburg, Pennsylvania “The Calvin Forum” XV. 1-2. JOHN F. MONTGOMERY, former U. S. A. ambassador to Budapest, observes in his postwar treatise, “Hungary, the Unwilling Satellite,” that: “The Magyars, neither Teuton nor Slav, were always aware of being between the two fires of Germany and Russian imperialism. During those years most of us saw only one fire, the German one. Hungary’s vision was far ahead of ours. Had we listened to Hungarian statesmen, we should perhaps have been able to limit Stalin’s triumph in the hour of Hitler’s fall.”1) What follows here, may be regarded as a brief statement of the Magyar view on what we commonly call Russia’s Red Communism. The main idea in this view is that the all- important requisite to the correct appraisal of Red Russia is the emphatic recognition of the fact that, contrary to generally accepted views, there is no Communism in Russia. A man in excellent position to know, Thomas G. Masaryk, founder of Czechoslovakia, stated to his biographer: “Lenin’s Russia was not communistic. Looking at it from the economic point of view, Bolshevism is at best State Capitalism”2 *) In his work, “The Making of a State,” Mr. Masaryk observed: “They managed to get rid of the Tsar, but not of Tsarism. They still wear the Tsarist uniform, albeit inside out.” The acceptance of this premise leads to the question: What have we then in Russia? In our effort to answer this question, let us cast a glance at a picture of Russia as of a century ago, during the reign of Tsar Nicholas I, drawn by a noted American historian: Tsar Nicholas (1825-1855) ruled “Holy Russia” as a military camp, in which disobedience was treason, and a desire for liberty, sedition. He loved Russia with a mad passion, and planned to make her great and famous not by imitating the dangerous western democracies, but by developing her own popular institions through a process of ‘Russification’... The Russian people were inspired to patriotism by a stirring national anthem; amused by a strictly national Russian opera; educated in national schools with a limited course of study; encouraged to perpetuate their own social and economic customs and practices. Hence, a high wall had to be built up against all pestilential ideas from liberal countries. Tsar Nicholas out Metterniched Metternich in stopping travelers at the frontiers, and in ordering all books carefully examined before being admitted to the country. Nor could Russians go abroad for business, pleasure or study without permission. The press, music, the theatre, and the universities were all censored and watched by 1) J. F. Montgomery, Hungary, the Unwilling Satellite, New York: The Devin-Adair Co., 1947, p.ll 2) Emil Ludwig, .Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, New York: R. M. McBride & Co., 1936, p. 242. paid spies to prevent their inculcation of dangerous western doctrines. An army of secret police, called the ‘Third Section’, authorized to make arbitrary arrests and to afflict punishments at will, preserved and perpetuated the autocratic regime. The Orthodox Church was simply one of the strong arms of the autocratic regime and, consequently, effort to win converts from that Church to another were severely punished.”3) Considering the fact that this presents Russia as of a century ago, it must be admitted that it is a pretty accurate picture of the Russia of today. If we substitute the name of Josef Stalin for that of Tsar Nicholas I, no one will be able to tell that the picture was not drawn yesterday. It must also readily be admitted that there is no trace of Communism in that picture. This, however, is only a partial view of the Russian situation. Let us complete our view. Russia has gone through tremendous up- heavels in the course of her history and particularly in our own days. Yet, fundamentally there has been no change in the Russian outlook on life. Basically it is today what it was a century ago or, for that matter, what it had been during the reign of Mongolian Khans: Jenghitz, Ogdal, Mangu and the rest, seven hundred years ago.4 5) As Mr. Winston Churchill pointed out in this masterly oration delivered at Boston, March 31, 1949: “Europe seemed about to be conquered, four or five hundred years ago, by the Mongols. Two great battles were fought almost on the same day near Vienna and in Poland. In both of these the chivalry and armed power of Europe was completely shattered by the Asiatic hordes. It seemed that nothing could avert the doom of the famous Continent from which modern civilization and culture have spread throughout the world. But at the critical moment the Great Khan died. The succession was vacant and the Mongol armies and their leaders trooped back on their ponies across the 7,000 miles which separated them from their capital in order to choose a successor. They never relumed till now.”5) The Warnings of Kossuth In order to gain a comprehensive view of the whole of Russia’s picture, let us again go back a century. Lajos Kossuth, the Magyar pat31 A. C. Flick, Historian of New York, Modern World History, New York: F. S. Crofts & Co., 1935, p. 267. 4) See article “Mongols” in Encyclopedia Britannica. 5) As reported in the Christian Science Monitor, April 1, 1949. Mr. Churchill’s chronology is slightly erroneous. The Mongolian invasion of Europe occured in the XIII century. Having annihilated the army of King Béla IV on the wide heath of Mohi, Hungary, they crossed the frozen Danube on Christmas Day, 1241, and laid waste western Hungary. From there they returned to their homeland.
