Holocaust Studies

A Journal of Culture and History

ISSN: 1750-4902 (Print) 2048-4887 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhos20

Abandoned, confiscated, and stolen property:

Jewish–Gentile relations in Hungary as reflected in
restitution letters

Borbála Klacsmann

To cite this article: Borbála Klacsmann (2016): Abandoned, confiscated, and stolen property:
Jewish–Gentile relations in Hungary as reflected in restitution letters, Holocaust Studies, DOI:
10.1080/17504902.2016.1209836

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17504902.2016.1209836

Published online: 25 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhos20

Download by: [84.224.112.178] Date: 22 August 2016, At: 05:12

HOLOCAUST STUDIES, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17504902.2016.1209836

Abandoned, confiscated, and stolen property: Jewish–Gentile

relations in Hungary as reflected in restitution letters
Borbála Klacsmann
Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Israel

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article deals with Jewish attempts to reclaim previously Restitution; Hungary; Jewish–
confiscated private property in Hungary in the aftermath of the Gentile relations
Second World War. Through the comparative analysis of two
different localities, Monor and Újpest, the article maps the various
situations faced by those liberated from camps or returning from
military labor service, their chances of regaining their valuables,
and the attitudes of the authorities. The article therefore provides
insights into the postwar fate of Jewish property and reveals how
the Holocaust affected the lives of people even after the war.

The main focus of this article is the question of how the post-Holocaust Jewish–Gentile
relations in Hungary were affected by the fate of the confiscated and looted Jewish prop-
erty when Jewish survivors returned home from military labor service or camps set up by
the Nazis and their local collaborators. Through the comparison of two micro-historical
studies, based on individual stories from Monor and Újpest, this article demonstrates
the effect the Holocaust had on the lives of people after the war. It sheds new light not
only on the legacies of the Holocaust, but also on certain problems that accompanied
the postwar reconstruction in Hungary. The two case studies show a range of behavioral
patterns and highlight the similarities and differences between the attitudes of local Jews
and non-Jews, as well as the difficulties with the official administrative processes. The
main argument is that the Holocaust, as a process, did not come to an end with the lib-
eration, and thus contributes to the current historiographical efforts – promoted also in
this volume – to cross conventional chronological boundaries and consider the aftermath
an integral part of Holocaust studies. The previously appropriated property played a
central role in the postwar relations between Jews and Gentiles in (but not only in)
Hungary. An analysis of their interactions provides social context to the case and
unveils the heterogeneity of the Holocaust and its aftermath.1 In this way, the article
brings the historical debates of the Hungarian Holocaust from the analysis of the political
elites’ involvement in the persecution of the Jews to the lower levels of society.
It is a well-known fact that during the Holocaust, due to legal regulations and personal
aspirations, non-Jews were involved in the confiscation and later redistribution of Jewish

CONTACT Borbála Klacsmann bklacsmann@gmail.com

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. KLACSMANN

property; however, the topics of restitution and compensation, and how the returning Jews
attempted to reclaim their property, have mostly remained at the margins of scholarly
research. Drawing attention to this deficiency is one of the main aims of this article.
Another objective is to contribute to the general Holocaust history of the Hungarian
town of Monor.
Monor, despite being a small settlement, played a significant role during the Holocaust
in Hungary. It was the site where about 300 local Jews were forced into the ghetto and
where one of the major transit camps of the sixth deportation zone was built (Hungary
– together with the territories it had annexed before and during the war – was divided
into six deportation zones). The history of the Jewish community of Monor and the settle-
ment’s role in the Holocaust is well documented by the Dr. László Miklós Jewish Foun-
dation of Monor2 and by the 71 boxes of documents produced by the local prefecture.3
Due to the long-term effects of the confiscation of Jewish property and its later manage-
ment (i.e. retribution against the perpetrators, individual and collective restitution, insti-
tutionalization of compensation, and so forth), this issue is still relevant today. Both
Holocaust survivors and perpetrators are still alive. The Hungarian state is also paying
a pension to survivors through the Hungarian Jewish Heritage Foundation.4 Authors
dealing with the topic of restitution and compensation of Hungarian Jewish survivors
usually follow one of the two main approaches: legal or historical. The legal approach
focuses on the bureaucratic side of the compensation (laws, decrees, and founding and
functioning of relevant institutions), while the historical approach stresses the institutional
background and the attitude of those affected by the laws. An example of the first approach
is Herbert Küpper’s article “A zsidóknak járó kárpótlás, jóvátétel Magyarországon és
Németországban” [Restitution and Compensation of Jews in Hungary and Germany] pub-
lished in 1997.5 This article follows a purely legal aspect by explaining relevant legal
expressions and describing the most important judicial decisions, laws, and decrees that
regulated the restitution and compensation. Ágnes Peresztegi analyzes the compensation
in her 2005 article “Reparation and Compensation in Hungary 1945–2003,”6 which lists a
number of significant regulations enacted from 1945 until 2003.
The historical approach is represented by, among others, contributions of two Holo-
caust researchers, Gábor Kádár and Zoltán Vági. Their monographs entitled Aranyvonat:
fejezetek a zsidó vagyon történetéből [Golden Train: Chapters from the History of Jewish
Wealth]7 and Hullarablás. A magyar zsidók gazdasági megsemmisítése [Robbing the Dead.
The Economic Annihilation of Hungarian Jews]8 investigate the fate of the confiscated
Jewish property during and after the war. The first book focuses especially on the so-
called Golden Train, on which art pieces, gold items, and other valuables were collected
and transported to Germany. The second monograph deals with the various stages of con-
fiscation. Although both books are relevant as historical accounts of the preceding events,
only Hullarablás addresses the question of reparations after the war and it does so only in
one brief subchapter. Furthermore, the historians focus only on the attempts by the
postwar Hungarian governments to sabotage the whole process.
For my research I have mostly adopted the historical perspective, which is complemen-
ted by an introduction to the institutions that handled the restitutions. The primary
sources constituting the basis of this contribution come mainly from the Pest County
Archives and the Budapest City Archives,9 which holds the documents of Újpest. The
two case studies are predominantly based on restitution letters and appeals against the
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 3

official decisions. Additionally, I consulted testimonies collected by the National Commit-

tee for Attending Deportees,10 documents produced by the Hungarian Jewish Commu-
nities11 and testimonies, recollections, and articles published by the Dr. László Miklós
Jewish Foundation of Monor.

Historical background – the fate of the Jewish wealth

The effort to establish the actual number of Holocaust survivors in Hungary is hindered by
the fact that many Jews went into hiding before the deportations, many liberated Jews
never returned to their country of origin, military laborers fell into captivity, and the emi-
gration rate among those who returned was very high. Moreover, Hungary’s territory
changed significantly during and after the war. According to Tamás Stark, the number
of Jews living in the territory of postwar Hungary was between 190,000 and 260,000.
Approximately 90–120,000 Jews survived in Budapest; the rest returned from the camps
or military labor service.12 This number does not include 80,000 survivors who lived in
Northern Transylvania, Carpathian Ruthenia, and southern Czechoslovakia, territories
that Hungary had annexed before and during the war, but then lost again in the Paris
Peace Treaty of 1946–7. During the Holocaust, some 80% of the Jewish population of
rural Hungary perished.13 The total number of victims is between 440,000 and 550,000,
out of the approximately 780–820,000 Jewish inhabitants (5.6% of the population) in
the territories that formed Hungary in 1941.14
The destruction of the Hungarian Jewry was, in fact, the final step of a long process,
which started with the introduction of the so-called numerus clausus law in 1920.15
This law restricted the attendance of students from minority groups in higher education
to their proportional number in society (6%).16 Through emancipation, the Jewish min-
ority became quite affluent in economic terms: they took a lion’s share in the capitalist
transformation of the country’s economy and as a result, by the beginning of the twentieth
century, their economic elite owned about 20–25% of the national wealth.17 This success
did not go unnoticed by non-Jewish politicians and the majority of the population, and
this was the main reason the Hungarian Jews were entirely deprived of their property
during the Holocaust.
Even though the numerus clausus law was modified in 1928, it was followed a decade
later by the stricter and more explicit so-called first and second anti-Jewish laws in 193818
and 1939.19 These laws restricted Jewish presence in certain economic and intellectual
fields first to 20%, then to 6%, and, as a result, approximately 90,000 people lost their
jobs.20 This was the first step towards the confiscation of Jewish wealth, since the
source of maintenance for several thousand families ceased to exist and the positions of
Jews working in the above-mentioned fields of employment were taken over by non-Jews.
Historians divide the process of confiscation into three major phases. The first phase,
the state confiscation, took place through anti-Jewish measures both before and after
the German invasion of 19 March 1944. The collaborating Sztójay government issued
decree no. 1600/1944 on 14 April 1944, which obliged Jews to declare their valuables
that were to be confiscated.21 The ghettoization started on 16 April 1944, and the Jews
were allowed to bring only 50 kg of personal belongings22 to the ghettos. The authorities
appropriated the property left behind. Later, during the deportations to Auschwitz-Birke-
nau, the Hungarian gendarmerie, police, and the German forces robbed their Jewish
4 B. KLACSMANN

victims of their last valuables. All “abandoned” belongings and real estate became state
property and were utilized for public causes or distributed among non-Jews.23 In many
cases Jewish property left at home or in the ghettos was looted by the Gentile population
after the deportations. This is considered to be the second stage of the confiscations.24 In
the course of the deportations, according to the Kassa list,25 between 15 May and 9 July
1944, 437,402 individuals were brought to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The majority of the Hun-
garian Jews were robbed of their last belongings in this camp, immediately after they had
left the trains: before the selection they were told to leave their bags behind, which were
then taken away by the so-called “Canada” commando.26 This was the final step of the
confiscations.
After the war, returning Jewish survivors found their homes empty or occupied by non-
Jews, and their property stolen. However, only a stable economic basis could enable them
to restart their lives, therefore many of them tried to regain their confiscated belongings,
some even through legal processes. Between 1945 and 1949, restitutions were only partial,
with many survivors being unable to find their property that had been stolen during the
wartime looting. As a consequence of the previous redistributions, it was almost imposs-
ible to make just decisions concerning the real estate of the Jews: there were no systematic
repayments for survivors and regaining property was often made even more difficult by
the official institutions. In the postwar economic circumstances, the Hungarian govern-
ments did not pay attention to appropriate compensation to the Jewish survivors; in
many cases valuables returned by other countries that had obtained them during or
after the war were simply embezzled by the Hungarian state.
The Hungarian state assigned two major institutions the task of handling and taking
care of the “lost” or “abandoned” property: the so-called Housing Office (Lakáshivatal)
and the Court of Chancery (Árvaszék). After the deportations, these institutions distrib-
uted the confiscated Jewish property among the non-Jewish population. Later on, the sur-
vivors could turn to them if they were aware of the identity of non-Jews who had
appropriated their belongings or if they wanted to regain their real estate. In some
cases, the real estate previously owned by the Jews was entrusted to “caretakers” – over-
seers who were usually close members of the family.
In 1945, the government of Miklós Béla Dálnoki set up the Office of the Commissioner
of Abandoned Property (Elhagyott javak kormánybiztossága), and repealed all previous
anti-Jewish laws and regulations. Decree no. 727/1945 regulated the commissioner’s func-
tions: to help those deprived of their possessions, to search for those deported and bring
them back home, and to compensate the survivors. The office was organized in the insti-
tutional framework of the Prime Minister’s Office. However, it did not differentiate
between Jewish and non-Jewish valuables, which led to dissatisfaction among the clai-
mants. In 1948 the office was abolished and the National Jewish Restitution Fund (Orszá-
gos Zsidó Helyreállítási Alap), founded in 1947, was appointed to handle the lost and
abandoned Jewish property.27 The main responsibility of the National Jewish Restitution
Fund was to take care of the property and heritage of Holocaust victims, as well as to make
legal decisions concerning the issues of potential heirs. The foundation operated under the
supervision of the government and the Jewish communities. It was nationalized in 1954
and merged with the State Office for Church Affairs (Állami Egyházügyi Hivatal).
During the following years of socialism, restitution or compensation for the stolen or con-
fiscated Jewish property was mostly withheld or neglected. Finally, after the fall of
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 5

communism in Hungary, the foundation was abolished and its assets were transferred to
the Alliance of Hungarian Jewish Faith Communes (Magyar Zsidó Hitközségek
Szövetsége).28

The case study of Monor

Monor is a small town in Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun County, 25 km from the capital. Approxi-
mately 16,000 inhabitants lived here in the 1940s. The first Jews settled down here after
1830. Their number increased to 445 by 1930, when they formed 2.6% of the local popu-
lation. The local community belonged to the Neolog branch of Judaism29 and in 1863 they
built the main synagogue (which was torn down after the Second World War).30 From
1938 onwards, the Monor Jewish population was exposed to the effects of the anti-
Jewish laws. The so-called second anti-Jewish law prohibited Jews from obtaining Hungar-
ian citizenship,31 and the authorities investigated whether all local Jews complied with the
new strict citizenship law. Those who could not prove that their family had lived in the
Hungarian territory for at least two generations were expelled from the country. Jews
without citizenship were obliged to obtain a confirmation of their local residency.32 In
the coming years the situation of the Jews became increasingly difficult due to the
effects of the anti-Jewish laws, and some of the Jews were even interned.33 From 1939
all Jewish men of military age were called to unarmed military labor service.34 In response,
some Jews obtained passports and left the country.35
Izsák Pfeiffer (1881–1945), a respected and educated man, was the rabbi of the Monor
Jewish community at the time of the German occupation (1944–5). He published his
poems under the name Izsák Pap. Izidor Hermann (1886–1944) was the chairman of
the community. According to the information of the Central Council of Hungarian
Jews, 254 Jews lived in the town.36 The local notary offered slightly different estimates,
and put this figure at 318, which included 130 Israelite and 12 Christian families who qua-
lified as Jews.37
On 28 April 1944 the Sztójay government issued a decree on the setting up of the
ghettos. According to order no. 27409/1944 of the alispán38 of Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun
County, ghettos had to be set up in the county between 22 and 30 May. Jews living in
the Monor district were to be concentrated in Monor and Vecsés.39 This process was
organized under the administrative guidance of Kálmán Egedy and Bajor, a major in
the gendarmerie. The ghettoization in Monor, however, was carried out earlier. As
stated in reports written by the Jewish community and the notary, at the end of April
the local authorities identified the houses in Pesti, Gözmalom, Verböczy, and Deák
Ferenc Streets, where most of the Jews lived. Jews who did not live in Monor and
who were to be concentrated in the town’s ghetto had to move to Kölcsey Street and
the Polacsek timber yard. At the same time, the list of emptied Jewish homes, which con-
tained the addresses of 54 properties, were handed over to the authorities.40 The “aban-
doned” Jewish properties and belongings were listed in an inventory and they were
collected in the Derera House, in Virág Street. The Monor document collection in the
Pest County Archives contains several letters written by non-Jews who applied for
certain pieces of the abandoned property. The gendarmerie, the Catholic and Calvinist
Churches, and the local officials also profited from the distribution of the confiscated
assets.41
6 B. KLACSMANN

At the end of June 1944, the Jews living in the neighboring areas were concentrated in
the Monor brick factory, which was assigned as one of the major transit camps in the sixth
deportation zone. The Jewish communities of Alsódabas, Gyömrö, Nagykáta, Jászberény,
Jászfényszaru, Jászkisér, as well as those of the satellite towns of Budapest, such as Kispest,
Szentendre, and Pestszentlörinc, were brought there. In the first days of July, around 9000
prisoners were kept in the brick factory.42 The Jews were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau on 6
and 8 July, just as regent Miklós Horthy officially halted the deportations on 6 July.
According to the Kassa list, 3549, 3065, and 3079 people were deported on three trains,
with 80–100 people crowded in each of the carriages. Some of the deportees died on
the way.43 On 11 November 1944, the Red Army drove the German and Hungarian sol-
diers from the town. About 280 of the Monor Jews died during the Holocaust and the
number of survivors is unknown.44
According to a report written by the notary of Monor in March 1947, out of the 318
members of the prewar local Jewish community, only 22 returned to the town. Their
fate after arrival differed. Some were fortunate as their non-Jewish neighbors or friends
helped them, while others had to deal with bureaucratic procedures initiated by the
Court of Chancery or the Housing Office. The complexity of the relations between local
Jews and Gentiles can be followed through various sources and recollections. Testimonies
collected by the Dr. László Miklós Jewish Foundation of Monor document not only such
cases when the intervention of non-Jews saved the property of local Jews, but also stories of
non-Jews during the war who attempted to rescue local Jews. For instance, more than one
person attempted to save the life of Rabbi Pfeiffer. The Catholic priest and the Lutheran
and Calvinist pastors visited the head – major – of the local gendarmerie unit, and asked
him to let them take responsibility for the rabbi. The major rejected the request. Later on,
according to a letter written by the rabbi as testimony, the new captain of the gendarmerie
offered him a chance to escape, but the rabbi declined. The rabbi was deported to Dachau,
where he died shortly after the liberation of the camp.45 However, other Jews were able to
survive the Holocaust with the help of non-Jews. Zoltán Szabó Szentjóby hid four Jews;
Katalin Csáki sheltered Sándor Goldstein, while Imre Rosinger and his family escaped
to Tete-puszta at the time of the round-ups, where the Ács family hid them until the
end of the war.46
There were also cases of non-Jews who took the Jews’ property for safekeeping and
returned it after the end of the war, or advised them where to look for the confiscated
assets. The previously escaped Rosinger family entrusted József Méhész with their most
precious valuables, while the property left in their home was looted by local non-Jews.
The family returned on 11 November 1944 to find their house empty. However, their
neighbor, Mihály Gazsi, informed them about who took away the furniture and other
property. Vilmos Kugel, a former military laborer, received help during his service: his
neighbors, the Kaszás family, sent him a list of those who stole his valuables.47
Yet many other Jews had no choice but to turn to the Commissioner of Abandoned
Goods, the Housing Office, or the Court of Chancery. At least 19 survivors wrote
letters to the authorities and attempted to reclaim their property. In these documents
they frequently mentioned how they had been treated by their non-Jewish neighbors
and by those who took over their houses. These descriptions make the letters a significant
source not only for the reconstruction of the difficulties survivors faced while trying to re-
establish their lives, but also for an analysis of their relations with non-Jews, both during
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 7

the ghettoization and deportation and after the war. Most of the letters follow two strat-
egies: some of the Jews referred to the hardships they had to bear, thus legitimizing their
restitution claims, while others briefly – in two or three lines – summarized their fate and
asked for their property. They did not feel the need to support their claim with any jus-
tification, most probably because they felt it was obvious that their own property would
be returned to them. Letters written by those returning from military labor service form
a major group of sources. They found their houses looted and often destroyed, their
families deported, missing, or murdered. Therefore, their main intention was to regain
their property in the hope that they could welcome their returning family members in a
new home.
István Szántó, a First World War veteran who had run a textile shop before he was
called up, wrote three letters. He sent the first letter, on 17 April 1945, to the Housing
Office.48 Szántó claimed his two-bedroom house in Kossuth Lajos Street. It was the prop-
erty of the Bank of Monor District, which at that time rented it out to a certain Sarolta
Idakéry. In his letter Szántó mentioned that his own rental agreement was still valid,
even though he had been forced to move out in 1944. On 27 June 1945 he had to
repeat his request, since the attachments of the previous letter “got lost at the post
office,” as he suggested in the last paragraph. The contents of this letter give a more
detailed picture of Szántó’s situation. The current inhabitants of his previous house in
Kossuth Lajos Street had another house in town, without any war damage, and still at
their disposal. Another argument Szántó used was that the house was attached to his
shop, which he also tried to restitute, and he stressed again that he had been forced to
leave his house by the previous authorities and because of his origins.
As the Housing Office rejected Szántó’s claim, he submitted an appeal to the Ministry of
Social Welfare.49 In this letter Szántó referred to the fate of his family: his wife and two
daughters were deported “together with the other innocent Jews of Monor.” Decree no.
34/194550 declared that people – even the rightful owners – were not allowed to sell
houses abandoned under war circumstances. According to this decree, the Housing
Office was obliged to return the property if the former owner returned. This applied
even if the property had formerly been granted or rented to someone else. Szántó empha-
sized that “the measures of the Housing Office are incomprehensible and groundless as
they go against the decrees and against human dignity.” He argued that in this way the
Housing Office maintained the measures adopted by the former regime, under which
his family suffered so much. Finally, he referred to his expectations regarding the “new,
humane and just system” of democracy, which, according to him, should not allow
such an injustice to happen.
István Szántó’s case – even though its outcome is not documented – not only reveals the
administrative and legal processes behind the restitution of Jewish property, but also sheds
light on the positions that non-Jews adopted when facing Jewish survivors. One such pos-
ition is the attitude of the inhabitant of Szántó’s house, Sarolta Idakéry. Even though,
according to Szántó, she had another house in Monor, she was not willing to leave the
house assigned to her by the Housing Office; moreover, the Housing Office decided in
her favor. The case is even further complicated by the fact that originally the real estate
belonged to the bank and was only rented, not owned, by Szántó. The three letters
depict the confusing situation after the war and the complexity of the official decision-
making process.
8 B. KLACSMANN

The Popper printing house was founded in 1906 by the local Popper family and it still
exists in Monor. The printing house and stationery and bookshop attached to it were oper-
ated by Ernö Popper.51 According to a certificate issued on 18 October 1945, Popper was
“deported to an unknown place”52 and therefore the printing house was administered by
his son, László and his son-in-law, Dezsö Nagy. The certificate also mentioned that the
building was damaged during the war. László Popper was called up to military labor
service four times between 1939 and 1944, and he was ill when he finally returned. His
parents perished in the Holocaust.53 He stayed in Monor, continued to run the printing
house, and later opened a stationery shop. At the end of 1949 the printing house was natio-
nalized by the communist Hungarian state. It remained open in the following years, but its
equipment was confiscated in 1951. László Popper became an employee of a stationery
shop until his retirement; he was not employed in his own shop. He received honorary
citizenship of Monor on 15 March 1993.54
László Popper’s uncle and aunt, Sándor Popper and Erzsébet Eibenschütz, died in Ausch-
witz-Birkenau. Their only son István disappeared in Ukraine during his military labor
service.55 A request written by Mrs Popper (wife of István Popper, née Cecília Bergmann)
on 4 May 1945 was submitted to the Housing Office.56 She described her fate as follows: she
had been deported together with her whole family, and had been forced to work as a slave in
the Nazi camps. After the liberation she returned and claimed her house and the shop, which
could provide her living. When she returned, a certain Ferenc Sallai was living in their family
house, and he was also in charge of the shop. Even though the housing decree ensured 15
days for the new owners to leave the house when the original owner returned, Mrs
Popper wrote that she would be willing to wait until August in order for Sallai to have
enough time to look for another home. Factors that could affect Mrs Popper’s attitude
were her relations with Sallai, her possible knowledge of the fate of her family, and the
fact that she received help from others after her return. Since survivors were only gradually
coming back from the front or from the concentration camps, it often took many months
before survivors learnt that their family members had died.
Not every survivor was patient with those non-Jews to whom their homes had been dis-
tributed, however. The appeal of Mrs Seres is a document that effectively highlights the
nuances of Jewish–Gentile relations. The three-page letter, written to the Ministry of
Social Welfare in April 1945,57 makes reference to a previous decision (no. 689/1945)
of the Housing Office. From the letter it is clear that according to the Housing Office
Seres’s mother had leased their house to the present inhabitant, Mrs Szücs, who had
proved this with appropriate documents. However, the Housing Office did not ask Mrs
Seres to confirm their validity, and made a decision based solely on the account of Mrs
Szücs and without analyzing the alleged signature of the mother on the rental document.
Mrs Seres therefore asked the minister to investigate whether her mother had really signed
the document. Even if its authenticity could be confirmed, according to Mrs Seres, her
mother must have signed it at the time of the ghettoization, when she was forced to
leave her house. She also stressed that Mrs Szücs referred to the wartime decision of the
municipality, which had allocated the house to her, and this also proved that the
mother was forced to leave the house by the authorities. Moreover, when the mother
was forced into the local ghetto, Mrs Szücs did not even wait for her to leave, but occupied
the house immediately and threw her property out into the courtyard. This behavior
makes it unlikely that the mother would have signed the rental contract of her own free
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 9

will, or, as Mrs Seres put it, she had done so “in the forced situation of that yellow star
world.” The last argument Mrs Seres used was that Mrs Szücs did not even live in their
house, but that she “smuggled” her brother-in-law there and left for the countryside. At
the same time, Mrs Seres’s own house was destroyed during the war and in any case
she claimed to own a third of her mother’s real estate.
The appeal, as the style testifies, was written in a tense way. Mrs Seres even underlined
some key words (“one-sided decision,” “ghettoization,” “threw out my mother’s things,”
and so on). A report is attached to the letter, which includes the testimony of Lajos
Décsei, the local delivery man. He brought the original decision of the Housing Office
to Seres, who, after reading the letter, “attacked the delivery man” with her husband,
and said that the decision was an “atrocity.”58 According to the woman, the system had
not changed at all, and “the same old fascists are sitting in power [ … ] doing the same
things.”59 The Seres case – even though the reader is made familiar only with her perspec-
tive – clearly demonstrates the emotional aspects of the restitution process. Those Jews
whose belongings were looted or taken over by their neighbors had to undertake an
emotional and bureaucratic struggle in order to regain their property, which did not
always lead to an optimal solution for those concerned.
The Ákos brothers also had to face hardships when they attempted to claim their
parents’ house. Sándor Ákos and his wife died in the Holocaust. Their two sons Péter
Ákos, a lawyer, and Pál Ákos, a physician, were called up to military labor service
during the war and survived.60 Their parents’ house was damaged when they returned,
but they still needed it in order to continue their professions.61 However, the Housing
Office decided against the claim, and the brothers sent an appeal to the Minister of
Social Welfare. They enumerated several reasons why they should get the family property
back, including the fact that they had not been allowed to come home for two years while
in military labor service. In the meantime, the real estate became the property of the Red
Army, and later of the local police. They referred to the housing decree (no. 34/1945) and
stressed that they were without any accommodation at the present time. They also men-
tioned that it was the duty of the Housing Office to reinstate them in their property.
However, in its decision the Housing Office brought up only one argument: that there
were no other buildings at the disposal of the police, showing that even the local bureauc-
racy had an interest in hindering the restitution process. The brothers refuted this justifi-
cation by stating that, according to the decrees, their claim did not depend on the interests
of those to whom the house was allocated.
The emotional component of the case is apparent by the brothers’ underlining of a sen-
tence in their letter: “It is important and of our vital interest to take the possession of our
own family house as soon as possible!!!” They also pointed to the emotional aspect and
emphasized that they had been working in the same house together with their father,
also a lawyer, before the war, and that they clung to living together, since the house
was their only possession and they had no other living family members. The Housing
Office had allocated them another house, which, according to the brothers, was not fit
for habitation. The last argument they used was that they wished to be useful members
of “the new democratic era,” for which, however, they needed a proper existence.62
A complex picture evolves from the discussed examples. Even though there are records
that some non-Jewish civilians, members of churches, and officials helped the Jews, others
exploited the situation and looted, appropriated, or claimed Jewish property. The
10 B. KLACSMANN

returning survivors faced hardships both emotionally and bureaucratically. Moreover, the
behavior of certain non-Jews and the institutions dealing with the abandoned property
seemed to the survivors to be simply a continuation of the measures adopted by the pre-
vious regime. Maybe this is the reason why many of them in their letters stressed their
expectations regarding the new democratic system. The Jewish community that could
potentially support the restitution claims was never revived in Monor. The small
number of survivors did not facilitate united action, and the authorities handled their
cases seemingly without empathy.

Újpest – a comparative perspective

Újpest was not part of Budapest at the time of the Second World War. Among the city’s
founders there was a Jewish family, the Löwys, who built a factory there. According to the
1941 census, the number of inhabitants of this modern, industrialized settlement was
76,000, of which 10,882 were Jews.63 By 1944, this latter figure had increased to
14,000.64 The majority of the Jews were members of the Neolog congregation. In 1944,
Elek Mezei was president of the Neolog community; its rabbi was Dénes Friedman. The
community had two associations: Chevra Kadisha and the Association of Israelite
Women. Apart from these, several institutions worked under the aegis of the community:
a home for the elderly, two schools, and two foundations. The small Orthodox community
had only 460 followers. Lipót Goldmann was the rabbi, and Zsigmond Weingarten the
chairman.65
During the Holocaust, the story of the Újpest Jews resembled that of the Jews in
Monor: Jewish artisans and intellectuals had to give up their careers or retire and
after the German occupation a ghetto was established in Attila, Beniczky, Baross,
Fiume, and Toldi Streets. Approximately 6000 Jewish inhabitants were relocated to
this area. Yellow star houses were assigned to the remaining Jews.66 A curfew limited
the hours when Jews were allowed to leave the ghetto; moreover, their lives were
made more difficult by the local gendarmerie units that organized raids, during which
they confiscated the Jews’ valuables. All confiscated Jewish property was collected in
the local synagogue.67
In the end of June and at the beginning of July 1944, Jews were brought from the ghetto
to two major transit camps: Békásmegyer and Budakalász. In both places brick factories
were transformed in order to accommodate the victims, who were assembled there not
only from Újpest but also from Kispest, Pestszenterzsébet, Pestújhely, and other places.
The Kassa list enumerates two trains that deported the Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau:
one train departed from Budakalász with 3072 people and one from Békásmegyer with
1924 people, both on 9 July.68
The Jewish community of Újpest was revived in 1946. The new chief rabbi was Miklós
Murányi, and Jenö Schwartz became the chairman. The most important institutions, the
Women’s Association, the school, and even a youth association were re-established.69
According to the available documentation, several individuals saved Jews during the
war in Újpest. Károly Jahoda and his wife, for instance, hid 86 Jews in their factory. At
the time when the local partisans fought against the units of the Arrow Cross Party
(the Hungarian national socialist party in power between 15 October 1944 and 1 May
1945), Gyula Balla saved several Jews in his home.70 Returning survivors faced a more
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 11

or less similar situation to the Jews in Monor. However, the pattern of the restitution
process and the attitude of the local institutions took a different shape.
Generally, the official process of restitution seemed to be better organized and more in
favor of the returning Jews in Újpest than in Monor, most probably because of the close
proximity of the capital and because the significant number of survivors enabled the
Jewish community to put more pressure on the authorities. This seems to be proved by
the existence of official forms that were issued to be filled out in order to reclaim the
stolen or confiscated property, which implies that a more systematic procedure was put
in place. A council was formed, with the task of handling the restitution cases with the
participation of the mayor, Sándor Szalay, representatives of the local political parties,
the town’s prosecutor (Pál Magyar), the Jewish community, and the Association of
Jewish Military Laborers. The first regulation of this council was signed as early as Febru-
ary 1945.71 It prescribed careful investigations of Jewish real estate and valuables, and also
how the property was transferred to non-Jews. The council planned to distribute the
“abandoned” property (the assets whose owners had died during military labor service
or in the Nazi camps) to survivors, but also to non-Jews.
In the archival material, every case is documented by reclaiming letters, records, official
forms, inventories, and official decisions. In some cases, the Jews themselves sent hand-
written inventories, listing their former property. All cases were initiated by letters
written by survivors, and were then taken over by the municipality. The first letters
were written in early 1945, shortly after the first survivors had returned.72 Some of the
letters mention cases when non-Jews helped the survivors find their property. Others
were sent simply with the intention to announce that Jews and non-Jews had arranged
the case with a mutual understanding and in a peaceful way.73 However, bureaucratic pro-
cedures were set back by certain factors. For instance, the mayor refused to return some
property to the original owners by referring to the former decisions of the Housing Office
or the municipality.74
The situation of local Jews improved after the establishment of a new office, which was
initiated by Sándor Jakobovits, a survivor who returned from military labor service. On 12
February 1945, Jakobovits wrote a letter to the mayor, in which he explained that while he
had been looking for his family’s property, he had found a lot of other Jewish property at
the homes of non-Jews: “In the course of [my search] in many cases I experienced that as a
result of an appropriate investigation many valuables of Jewish owners could be discov-
ered.”75 According to him, the appointment of an “intelligent, diplomatic” official com-
missioner, who would reveal the location of this property, would provide a “huge moral
service” to the city. Jakobovits offered to undertake this job if the municipality would auth-
orize him. In his agreement letter, the mayor officially nominated him for the position and
emphasized that “despite my call certain persons have not yet declared those valuables in
their possession which had been Jewish properties.”76 Jakobovits was obliged to report his
findings to the municipality.
In September 1945, an association called Help for the Returnees was founded by the
local prosecutor, in cooperation with the Jewish community, the local Court of Chancery,
and the Commissioner of Abandoned Goods.77 The main goal of the association was to
defend the interests of those Jews who had not yet returned to Újpest and to administer
their real estate. They also aimed at compiling a final account of the income of the houses
previously owned by the Jews who were still missing. They also paid attention to the
12 B. KLACSMANN

responsibilities of “caretakers” and provided the returning survivors with food, clothing,
and lodging.
It is thus evident that a whole institutional and communal background assisted the
Jewish survivors of Újpest, a background that did not exist in Monor. Additionally, the
local authorities not only facilitated the restitutions, but embraced the ideas initiated by
the survivors, and founded an association to help those in need. It seems that the legal pro-
cedures ran more smoothly and while some non-Jews tried to keep the appropriated
Jewish property, in most cases survivors received help in searching for their assets.

Conclusion
Even though the economic aspects of the Holocaust (including postwar restitutions) form
only one aspect of Jewish–Gentile relations, they remain relevant as they provide valuable
insight into the Holocaust and the aftermath on the local level. Obviously, archival
materials cannot reveal many personal details or the nature of help offered by non-
Jews, but they still paint an overall picture of the situation during and after the war.
Letters written by non-Jews in which they claimed Jewish belongings and by those non-
Jewish neighbors who had taken care of Jewish valuables and returned them to the survi-
vors might shed further light on such cases, but fall beyond the scope of this article.
The letters analyzed here show that surviving Jews had to claim previously owned pos-
sessions as if they were not theirs. This also implies that the state authorities successfully
implicated non-Jews in the confiscation process during the Holocaust. Jewish property
and real estate that was stolen by, looted by, or assigned to non-Jews rarely found its
way back to its original owners. Often the state-appointed institutions, which were sup-
posed to distribute or handle the “abandoned goods,” did not decide in favor of the
Jews due to their previous decisions in which they had allocated the assets to local Gentiles.
The language of the letters and official documents is also telling: bureaucracy tended to
euphemize (for instance by calling Jewish assets “abandoned properties,” or deportations
“transportation,” and so forth), while the returning Jews wrote more objectively, though
also emotionally, about their experiences.
The differences that can be observed between the case studies of Monor and Újpest may
be explained by the fact that the latter was closer to the capital, it was a more industrialized
and more modern city, and in addition it had a much bigger Jewish community. All these
factors contributed to the fact that the restitutions were handled differently and that there
was more willingness to help the Jews in Újpest. The Jewish community of Újpest was
better organized, while in Monor the members of the small community had to face the
rather cold and bureaucratic attitude of the authorities. For a long time after the Holo-
caust, the fate of Jewish property shaped the relations between Jews and Gentiles in
Hungary. Researching restitution and compensation is a crucial step towards a deeper
understanding of an issue whose legacy is not fully resolved even today.

Notes
1. Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence, 8.
2. Dr. Miklós László Monori Zsidó Alapítvány, MOZSA, founded in 2004, seat: Monor.
Website: http://www.mozsa.hu/.
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 13

3. The documents used as sources for this article can be found in the National Archives of
Hungary – Pest County Archives, PML [Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Pest Megyei Levéltára],
reference number: PML V.1075 Cb and V.1075 Db.
4. Magyar Zsidó Örökség Alapítvány, MAZSÖK.
5. Küpper, “A zsidóknak járó kárpótlás.”
6. Peresztegi, “Reparation and Compensation in Hungary.”
7. Kádár and Vági, Aranyvonat.
8. Kádár and Vági, Hullarablás.
9. Budapest City Archives, BFL [Budapest Főváros Levéltára]. Reference number of the docu-
ments of Újpest: BFL V.675.C.
10. Deportáltakat Gondozó Országos Bizottság, DEGOB, founded in March 1945. Website:
http://degob.org/.
11. Magyarországi Zsidó Hitközségek, MAZSIHISZ, documents held in the Hungarian Jewish
Archives [Magyar Zsidó Levéltár], http://apps.arcanum.hu/milev1944.
12. Stark, “Adatok a holocaust magyarországi,” 11–12. Stark confronted the methods and
records of institutions and organizations that registered homecoming Jews in Hungary,
including DEGOB, the Israelite Denomination of Pest, and the Central Statistical Office.
13. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 2, 1248.
14. Stark, “Adatok a holocaust magyarországi,” 11, 13.
15. Act 1920, XXV.
16. Karsai, Holokauszt, 211–13.
17. Kádár and Vági, Hullarablás, 27.
18. Act 1938, XV.
19. Act 1939, IV.
20. Kádár and Vági, Aranyvonat, 23.
21. Ibid., 29. The text of the decree can be read here: Thesaurus of Decrees, http://www3.
arcanum.hu/rendtar/opt/a090217.htm?v=pdf&a=start. Accessed October 27, 2014.
22. According to decree 6163/1944, which regulated what sort of belongings the Jews were
allowed to keep, they were allowed to bring baggage weighing up to 50 kg. The baggage
could contain only clothes, food, and sheets. The text of the decree can be read here: Sófár
Jewish Media Portal, http://regi.sofar.hu/hu/node/13271. Accessed October 27, 2014.
23. See for instance DEGOB testimonies no. 239 (Löwinger Margit) and 3436 (Mrs Árpád Katz).
24. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 1, 529.
25. Ibid., vol. 1, 1358.
26. The so-called “Canada” commando that worked in Auschwitz-Birkenau was assigned to take
care of the belongings of the incoming Jewish prisoners and they sorted them in the area of
the camp that bore the same name. The camp slang named this area “Canada” because this
country was seen as a land of plenty.
27. Cseh, “Az Országos Zsidó Helyreállítási,” 119–20.
28. Ibid.
29. Due to the differences between the lifestyle of Jews living in cities and in the countryside, the
expectations of society, and the influence of the reform movements in Germany and in the
western areas of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Israelite communities split into three
branches in Hungary in 1868. One of them was the Neolog segment, specific to Hungary,
which was in the nineteenth century more inclined towards integration. They were influ-
enced by Frankel’s Positive-Historical school and their aim was the renewal of the Israelite
faith. Neolog sermons were delivered in the Hungarian language and changes were
brought about in certain traditions and in synagogue architecture. Even though the
branch’s emergence was inspired by the desire to be emancipated, the basic liturgical features
did not change.
30. Braham, A magyarországi holokauszt földrajzi enciklopédiája, 807.
31. According to the law, the Minister of Interior was entitled to invalidate the naturalization or
citizenship of those Jews who had obtained it after 1 June 1914 in cases where their “life cir-
cumstances do not necessitate them to stay in the territory of the country.” The invalidation
14 B. KLACSMANN

also applied to members of the families of those concerned. This law took the citizenship of
not only those Jews who had immigrated to Hungary after 1914, but also of those whose
ancestors and families had lived in the territory of the country but due to the border
changes they first lost and then reobtained their citizenships.
32. See for instance PML V.1075 Cb 8 640/1939, 641/1939, 1265/1939, etc.
33. Among those interned were József Szegö, Sándor Farkas, Jenö Schönwald, and István Weisz.
34. Military labor service existed from 1939 for those considered “unworthy” to bear arms and
fight in the army. Besides members of other minority groups and the “politically unreliable,”
able-bodied male Jews between the ages of 18 and 45 were called up. Many of them died on
the front, or due to the brutality of their commanders.
35. See for instance PML V.1075 Cb 9 2355/1939, V.1075 Cb 16 14240/1939, V.1075 Cb 18 1291/
1940.
36. Data according to the documents of the Hungarian Jewish Denominations. Accessed
November 24, 2014. http://apps.arcanum.hu/milev1944.
37. PML V.1075 Cb 59 4151/1944.
38. Vice-comes or vice-count, a leading administrational position in the counties of Hungary.
39. Katona et al., Emlékezz! 106–7.
40. PML V.1075 Cb 59 4151/1944.
41. See for instance PML V.1075 Cb 54 138/1944, V.1075 Cb 63 7325/1944 and V.1075 Cb 63
7550/1944.
42. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 2, 740–41.
43. Ibid., 1358.
44. A monori zsidóság története [The History of the Jews of Monor]. Accessed November 20,
2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/dynamic/tortenet_pdfhu_1.pdf.
45. Noémi W. Munkácsi, Pfeiffer Izsák, az ember [Izsák Pfeiffer, the Human]. Accessed Novem-
ber 20, 2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_6.pdf.
46. György Ajtai, Tibor Koltai, László Popper, and Péter Rosta, Monoriak, akik zsidó életeket
mentettek [People from Monor who Saved Jewish Lives]. Accessed November 20, 2014.
http://www.mozsa.hu/dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_10.pdf.
47. Ibid.
48. PML V.1075 Db 4 2065/1945.
49. PML V.1075 Db 6 4763/1945.
50. The text of the decree is available here: Thesaurus of Decrees, http://www3.arcanum.hu/
rendtar/opt/a090217.htm?v=pdf&a=start. Accessed November 24, 2014.
51. György Ajtai, Tibor Koltai, László Popper, and Péter Rosta, Név szerinti beszámoló a vész-
korszak monori zsidó áldozatairól és a csekély számú túlélőről [Account on the Jewish
Victims of the Shoah and on the Few Survivors from Monor]. Accessed November 26,
2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_9.pdf.
52. PML V.1075 Db 7 5322/1945.
53. Ajtai et al., Név szerinti beszámoló. Accessed November 26, 2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/
dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_9.pdf.
54. On the fate of László Popper and the printing house, see http://www.monor.hu/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=655:popper-laszlo-ny-koenyvkoet-nyomdasz&catid
=27:diszpolgaraink&Itemid=26. Accessed November 25, 2014.
55. Ajtai et al., Név szerinti beszámoló. Accessed November 26, 2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/
dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_9.pdf.
56. PML V.1075 Db 3 1454/1945.
57. PML V.1075 Db 3 1482/1945.
58. In Hungarian: disznóság.
59. PML V.1075 Db 3 1482/1945.
60. Ajtai et al., Név szerinti beszámoló. Accessed November 26, 2014. http://www.mozsa.hu/
dynamic/visszaemlekezesek_elem_pdfhu_9.pdf.
61. PML V.1075 Db 5 3191/1945.
62. Ibid.
 HOLOCAUST STUDIES 15

63. Szilágyi-Windt, Az ujpesti zsidóság története, 251.

64. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 2, 739.
65. Data from the Hungarian Jewish Archives. Accessed November 27, 2014. http://apps.
arcanum.hu/milev1944.
66. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 2, 739.
67. Szilágyi-Windt, Az ujpesti zsidóság története, 52.
68. Braham, A népirtás politikája, vol. 2. 1359.
69. Szilágyi-Windt, Az ujpesti zsidóság története, 224–5.
70. Ibid., 220. The Arrow Cross Party [Nyilaskeresztes Párt] was led by Ferenc Szálasi, who came
to power on 15 October 1944 and led the government until 28 March 1945. During this time
approximately 10–15,000 persons – most of them Jews – were murdered and 80,000
deported.
71. BFL V.675.C 744 1400/1945.
72. See BFL V.675.C boxes 746–47.
73. See for instance BFL V.675.C 751 3181/1945.
74. See for instance BFL V.675.C 753 3611/1945.
75. BFL V.675.C 750 2699/1945.
76. Ibid.
77. BFL V.675.C 757 4723/1945.

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to László Karsai and Francesco La Rocca for their help in
writing this article. I would also like to thank the Yad Vashem Archives.

Disclosure Statement
No Potential conflict of interest has reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Borbála Klacsmann received an MA degree in History (2008), a BA in Ethnography from Eötvös
Loránd University (2010), and an MA diploma in Comparative History with a specialization in
Jewish Studies from Central European University (2012). Between 2007 and 2012 she worked as
an exhibition guide and educator at the Holocaust Memorial Center (Budapest). In cooperation
with Professor Andrea Pető she organized three international conferences at Central European Uni-
versity and Sabanci University on gendered memories of war and Holocaust memorialization.
Between 2012 and 2015 she worked as the program coordinator of the Anne Frank House. Since
September 2015 she is doctoral student at the Department of History of the University of
Szeged, while at the same time being member of the Hungarian research group of Yad Vashem.

ORCiD
Borbála Klacsmann http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2913-3264

Bibliography
Braham, Randolph L. A népirtás politikája – A Holocaust Magyarországon [The Politics of
Genocide – The Holocaust in Hungary], volume 1-2. Budapest: Belvárosi Könyvkiadó, 1997.
Braham, Randolph L. A magyarországi holokauszt földrajzi enciklopédiája [The Geographical
Encyclopaedia of the Hungarian Holocaust], volume 2. Budapest: Park Könyvkiadó, 2010.
16 B. KLACSMANN

Cichopek-Gajraj, Anna. Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944-48.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Cseh, Gergő Bendegúz. “Az Országos Zsidó Helyreállítási Alap létrehozásának körülményei és
működése (1947-1989)” [Circumstances of the Establishment of the National Jewish
Reconstructional Fund and its Activities]. Levéltári Közlemények [Archival Bulletins] 65, no.
1-2 (1994): 119–127.
Kádár, Gábor, and Zoltán Vági. Aranyvonat: fejezetek a zsidó vagyon történetéből [Golden Train:
Chapters from the History of Jewish Wealth]. Budapest: Osiris, 2001.
Kádár, Gábor, and Zoltán Vági. Hullarablás. A magyar zsidók gazdasági megsemmisítése [Robbing
the Dead. The Economic Annihilation of Hungarian Jews]. Budapest: Hannah Arendt Egyesület
– Jaffa Kiadó, 2005.
Karsai, László. Holokauszt. Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2001.
Katona, Csaba, et al., ed. Emlékezz! Válogatott levéltári források a magyarországi zsidóság
üldöztetésének történetéhez, 1938-1945 [Remember! Selected Archival Sources about the
History of the Persecution of Hungarian Jewry, 1938-1945]. Budapest: Magyar Országos
Levéltár, 2004.
Küpper, Herbert. “A zsidóknak járó kárpótlás, jóvátétel Magyarországon és Németországban”
[Restitution and Compensation of Jews in Hungary and Germany]. Magyar jog [Hungarian
Law] 44, no. 7 (1997): 385–397.
Peresztegi, Ágnes. “Reparation and Compensation in Hungary 1945-2003.” In The Holocaust in
Hungary: A European Perspective, edited by Judit Molnár, 677–684. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó,
2005.
Stark, Tamás. “Adatok a holocaust magyarországi áldozatainak számáról” [Data on the Number of
the Hungarian Victims of the Holocaust]. In Visszatérés – újrakezdés [Return – Restart], edited
by János Botos and Tamás Kovács, 6–17. Budapest: Holocaust Dokumentációs Központ és
Emlékgyűjtemény Közalapítvány, 2007.
Szilágyi-Windt, László. Az ujpesti zsidóság története [The History of the Jews of Újpest]. Tel Aviv:
Lahav, 1975.