Based on the long-term, demographic forecast, Hungary faces a significant population loss. This paper examines the continuing low level of Hungarian fertility, as well as the marked decline of population due to out-migration beginning in the mid-2000s. First, I will discuss the role governmental family policies play in halting fertility decline before 1989, the demographic post-transitional period of 1960-1980 and the past thirty years since 1989. Second, this paper particularly aims to highlight the impact of the new family policy since 2010, a reverse redistribution of resources from poor to the better-off families which did not result in a marked growth of birth rates. The new family benefits possibly further contribute to the existing polarization of Hungarian society without altering Hungary’s demographic data. Finally, the paper also compares the recent changes of family policies in Poland, Hungary and Romania since 2004.
The volume Vallomások [‘Testimony’], published posthumously in 2010, is the folklorist Olga Nagy’s (1921-2006) last book. In this paper I will analyze Nagy’s academic significance in the light of her own last self reflection presented in Vallomások. This volume provides an exciting overview of the internal dynamics of East-Central European culture and interethnic relations. While I examine Nagy’s life work, especially her academic work on rural women and her new ideas regarding the alive folklore, I will also reflect on the ideology of so called Transylvanianism that constitutes the framework of many Hungarian writings from Romania. Transylvanianism is a complex ideology rooted in the Hungarian national movement of the nineteenth century, one that later turned into a complex manifestation of the Hungarian minorities in Romania through literature, culture, politics and self-definition. Elaborated by writers, historians and journalists, Transylvanianism after 1918—and even more vehemently after 1947—aimed to preserve and reinforce Hungarian national pride and identity in the region through cultural activities, education and political action.
After World War I, which resulted in Hungary surrendering approximately two-thirds of its territory, strong support was given to “Hungarian Studies” aimed at strengthening Hungarian identity and justifying revisionary attempts. This paper investigates how geography in general, and statistical and mapping methods in human geography in particular, contributed to the revisionist project in interwar Hungary. To put the story in its disciplinary context, the paper begins by presenting the links between power, territorial politics, and geography that have existed in Europe since geography was institutionalized as academic discipline. Second, the paper investigates how geography and political power became intertwined in Hungary in the decades between 1867 and the end of the peace negotiations after World War I. Third, the main section of the paper employs some case studies to explain how human geographers in Hungary deployed some of their central arguments during the interwar period to delegitimize the post-WWI European order and to substantiate the righteousness of Hungarian revisionist goals.
When the economic reform (NEM) was introduced in Hungary in early 1968, it was announced that political reforms aiming at the "democratization of the socialist system" would also be made. The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) and the government stated that economic decentralization would be accompanied by the "strengthening of socialist democracy and the broadening of the participation of the masses in political activities." Several measures were taken to promote this objective through discussion and debate–but not through dissent or decision-making. After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, which seriously affected the entire East European bloc, Hungary's move toward democratization became less pronounced and the government's policy definitely more cautious both in words and deeds. In this study I attempt to analyze the meaning and scope of the political changes that took place in Hungary in the aftermath of Czechoslovakia, giving special attention to the concept of democracy, the organization of the party and government, the position of the mass organizations, and the meaning of the increasing group conflicts.
During the 16th–17th centuries, Europe was in conflict between the Ottoman Empire and a coalition of European powers, led by Austria. The Ottomans sought to gain control over all of Hungary, conquer other territories, and force European monarchs to recognize their dependence on the Porte and pay tribute. The Europeans, in turn, tried to oust the Ottomans from Europe and stop the latter’s expansion. In order to wage a long-term confrontation with virtually an entire bloc of states, the Porte needed a huge army, so the sultans involved their vassals and allies in the fighting, including the Crimeans. The light cavalry of the Crimeans provided the Ottomans with enormous support, striking at enemy convoys and rears, devastating enemy territories, and conducting tactical reconnaissance. As a rule, military campaigns involved detachments of Crimean Tatars numbering several thousand soldiers led by a kalga or nurreddin, and in some cases, several tens of thousands, who could be personally led by the khan. The prominent role of the Crimeans in the military campaigns of the Porte is noted by researchers B. Williams and M. Ivanich, who emphasize the effective tactics of the Crimean Tatar light cavalry. At the same time, researcher W. MacNeil points out that in Europe, the mobility of the Crimeans was limited by stone fortifications and features of the relief, in particular, forested or mountainous terrain. Researcher K. Schimmer emphasizes the large losses of the civilian population of European states as a result of the plundering raids of the Crimeans. The Crimeans distinguished themselves in the campaign of 1532 when they devastated Styria and Carinthia, in 1543 they helped the Ottomans storm Székesfehérvár, saved the Ottomans from defeat in the battle on the Mezékeresztés plain in 1596, conducted a large-scale plundering raid on Hungarian lands in 1658, etc. The Crimean contribution to the supply system of the Ottoman army is underestimated, because thanks to their rapid movement over long distances, the Tatars could deliver food and other things, both from territories controlled by the Porte and from enemy lands, by means of banal robberies. It has been established that the Ottoman rulers often involved lightly armed Crimean Tatars as tactical and field reconnaissance units. It is noted that in the above-mentioned military campaigns, the Crimeans practically did not use field artillery, since it slowed down the movement of the troops, the Tatars did not have their own armories, but used samples brought from the Porte, and the loud sound of cannon shots frightened the Tatar horses. The Austrians, having no experience in fighting the Crimeans, like, for example, the Poles or Muscovites, could not counteract the effective tactics of the nomads for a long time. At the same time, unlike the campaigns against the nomadic peoples — the Nogais, Circassians or Safavids, in Europe the Crimean Tatars faced quite powerful stone fortresses, the enemy army, which was armed with a sufficient number of firearms and artillery, and were forced to operate in forest-steppe and mountainous areas, which significantly limited their maneuvering and tactics.