When Géza Seifert Stood Against the Party — A Forgotten Chapter of the 1956 Uprising

Although at one time it was more or less well known that lawyer Géza Seifert was the chairman of the ‘revolutionary committee’ of the Budapest Israelite Congregation (BIH) during the days of the 1956 revolution, the topic has so far not been addressed in the scholarly literature. Seifert, who at the time was vice president of the BIH, is remembered much more as the later president of MIOK (National Representation of Hungarian Israelites) between 1966 and 1976—a hardline Communist collaborator, and—as the scholarly literature has already documented—an agent of the Communist state security under the cover name ‘Sárosi’. The possibility that he played any role at all in the 1956 revolution has until now been completely overlooked, and so it is worth examining the matter based on archival sources.

In October 1956, the terror and abuses of the preceding ten years sparked the revolution, which ultimately failed—its general history is well known. This article does not attempt to present in detail the role of Jews in the uprising, though they participated on both sides of the barricades. At the time, the president of MIOK was Lajos Heves, son of the late Kornél Heves, the former neológ chief rabbi of Szolnok. Heves had held the position since 1953, but according to records from the ÁEH (State Office for Church Affairs), the authorities were dissatisfied with him allegedly because he did not represent the anti-Israel line strongly enough. It is important to clarify from the outset that regarding Seifert’s alleged involvement in the revolution, we possess virtually no contemporary documentation; most of the available information comes from the accusations of Endre Sós, who served as MIOK president from 1957 to 1965, and from a later state security investigation.

Although Seifert did not replace Sós as president of MIOK until 1965, it is clear that Sós had already sensed years earlier that the ruling party’s trust in him was faltering. As early as 1962, he began undermining his designated successor in a series of letters addressed to the leaders of the ÁEH. The earliest of these letters date from April 1962. In them, after promising that he would fully support Seifert if he were elected to lead MIOK, Sós immediately turned to attacking the lawyer: ‘It is my conscientious duty to confidentially point out that it would be a much better solution if Dr Géza Seifert were to serve only as first vice president or executive president, because the perception of him within the Jewish public opinion of the country remains consistently unfavourable. Let us not forget that in the winter of 1956 and early 1957, dozens of rural Jewish communities condemned the behaviour of Dr Géza Seifert and his clique.’[1]

This was followed by Sós’s account of Seifert’s role in 1956. According to Sós, ‘Dr Géza Seifert shouted at Lajos Heves, calling him an “ÁVH (state security) agent” and “the adjutant of ÁVH Colonels”.’ Beyond this, he presented several versions claiming that the ‘revolutionary committee’ of the Jewish congregation had taken power from Heves by force during the revolution. In one letter, Sós wrote: ‘Dr Géza Seifert pulled a pocketknife on Dr Lajos Heves in the office of the president of the Budapest Jewish Congregation. There were ten to twenty witnesses to this,’ including Rabbi Imre Benoschofsky. In another letter, he offered a different version: ‘the Seifert clique almost killed Lajos Heves’ when ‘Szilágyi-Spitzer pulled a knife,’ and furthermore, ‘he (Imre Benoschofsky) also swore under oath that Seifert Géza’s brother-in-law also had a knife in his hand.’ ‘All the staff at Síp Street (the BIH headquarters) are aware of these events. What will people say if the former chairman of the “revolutionary committee” is considered for president of MIOK?’ Sós closed this letter by stating: ‘I follow the voice of my conscience when I report and present all of this to you. I repeat: otherwise, I follow the authorities’ instructions with discipline.’[2]

Sós clearly did not stop there. Through his supporters—primarily Tibor Péner, MIOK’s secretary-general—he sent a warning letter to Seifert in May. Referring to the revolution as a “counterrevolution”, using Communist terminology, the letter threatened Seifert: ‘We have learned that you are applying for Sós’s position. Don’t even think about it, because it will lead to a major scandal. Have you forgotten what role you played in the BIH building during the outbreak of the counterrevolution in 1956? You summoned all the staff, and together with your makeshift leadership, in the main hall, as chairman of the counterrevolutionary workers’ council, you made unlawful, illegitimate, and unforgivable decisions. You immediately dismissed President Dr Heves from his position. And then your hired thug gave President Heves two huge slaps and threw him out of the building.’ Sós made no effort to hide his manoeuvring—he sent a copy of the letter to the ÁEH as well.[3]

In light of the above, it is necessary to clarify: what do we know about the activities of the Jewish Congregation’s ‘revolutionary committee’ during the days of the revolution? The committee certainly issued a radio statement declaring their support for the revolution. Whether they did more than that is uncertain. The closest thing to a ‘contemporary document’ is the minutes of the MIOK Social Committee from 10 December 1956, in which Heves—who briefly returned to his position—gave an account of the events of the previous six weeks. According to this: ‘after the irregular and forceful formation of a revolutionary committee at the BIH and MIOK…on 1 November, Dr Seifert, the leader of the BIH revolutionary committee, visited me and declared that they had taken over leadership, and he requested that I disburse the denominational (illegible) subsidies. I replied that I did not recognize the revolutionary committee, but I would, of course, continue to disburse the subsidies approved for the maintenance of social institutions.’ According to the account, Seifert accepted this and went home. So here, there is no mention of any armed incident.[4]

Even more interesting is the letter from Rabbi Ernő Róth, who had previously been the co-director of the Rabbinical Seminary and fled abroad in December 1956. In 1961, from his Western exile, he recalled the events of the revolution within the Jewish community. Referring to those who overthrew Heves’s authority — in other words, the revolutionary committee — he wrote that ‘they were not “counterrevolutionaries”, they merely wanted to take advantage of the situation. The problems with Heves were already so well known that his removal could not be seen as a matter of state policy or a counterrevolutionary act. Those who took this step genuinely believed that it could have no political consequences.’ According to this account, Seifert’s actions were motivated far less by revolutionary sentiments than by internal power struggles.[5]

This may be further confirmed by the fact that Seifert was reappointed as vice president of the BIH as early as 19 July 1957—the same time Sós’s election as MIOK president was also countersigned. Interestingly, Seifert did not hide the role he had played in the attempt to oust Heves. According to a note found in the files of the ÁEH, ‘Dr Géza Seifert appeared before President Endre Sós on 10 November (1957) and stated that he had not tolerated Dr Lajos Heves’s dictatorship and that he would not accept the rule of Endre Sós’s clique either.’ None of this, however, prevented Seifert from co-authoring a denunciatory letter against Rabbi Sándor Scheiber with Sós in 1963—apparently, a common enemy was enough to unite these otherwise feuding collaborators.[6]

‘As long as I am the boss, Scheiber is obliged to follow my instructions!’ — The Story of a Yawn from 1976

Finally, in 1966, Seifert did indeed push Sós out with the effective support of the Ministry of the Interior (BM), and the hopes the Communist Party had invested in him bore fruit: they were never as satisfied with any other MIOK president as they were with him. While Lajos Stöckler, Heves, Sós, and later Seifert’s successors—Imre Héber and András Losonczi—were continuously criticized and sometimes obstructed from above in their activities, the Communist leadership was apparently almost completely happy with Seifert. Six years before his death, the ÁEH described him as ‘a staunch supporter of socialism who rendered many services to the Hungarian People’s Republic at home and abroad in his sensitive field of work.’ This was indeed the case: based on the available documents, he undermined Scheiber, sidelined Tamás Raj, assisted in the exclusion of the staunch Zionist Iván Beer from the Rabbinical Seminary, defended the party leaders in front of foreign guests, and—under the codename ‘Sárosi’—sabotaged his colleagues and reported on his friends. And unlike Sós, he did not steal any money.[7]

Returning to our initial question: was Géza Seifert really a misunderstood hero of 56? In theory, it cannot be ruled out that someone was recruited by being blackmailed with their 56 revolutionary past—such a case is also known from the Jewish community’s history. Unfortunately, the agent data of ‘Sárosi’ (the so-called ‘6-card’) has not been found, so we do not know on what grounds he was recruited. One thing is certain: since he was still accused by Sós even after Sós’s downfall, in 1967 the BM investigated the allegations and concluded that they had no factual basis: ‘Dr Géza Seifert was the president of the Israelite Congregation’s “revolutionary committee” in 1956, but according to the Ministry’s investigation, neither he nor the committee committed any crime. Dr Seifert is politically, morally, and financially reliable.’[8]

In light of the above, we can record as fact that Seifert was indeed the leader of the BIH’s ‘revolutionary committee’ in 1956, and on one occasion he informed Lajos Heves that he did not recognize his presidency. The rest of the story about an armed revolt is most likely just rumour. However, by 1966, it seems Seifert himself would have preferred to forget his role in 1956. That summer, Maurice L Perlzweig, an American rabbi and member of the World Jewish Congress, visited Budapest, where Seifert received him. Seifert then obediently wrote a multi-page report about the conversation for the ÁEH, in which he noted that the rabbi ‘bombarded me with a flood of provocative questions,’ for example asking how many Jews lived in Hungary and what life was like for Jews there.

‘He then asked whether it was good for the Jews that Soviet troops were still present here. My answer was that, considering the events of 1956, this was good for us Jews.’

It appears that by this time, Seifert no longer wished to remember that, for his own particular reasons, he had temporarily sided with the revolution nearly ten years earlier.[9]

---

[1] For both letters see: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (MNL OL), XIX-A-21-a-K-11-10/1962. and MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-K-2-29/1962.

[2] Ibid.

[3] MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-M-11-10/c/1962.

[4] MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-M-43/1957. (Box n 8.)

[5] MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-1-8-1961.

[6] MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-M-170-27/1957.

[7] MNL OL XIX-A-21-a-M-11-3/1970.

[8] MNL OL M-KS 288.f. 22/1967/1-22., here file n 20.

[9] MNL OL XIX-A-21-d. 0020/1-6/1966. (Box N 34.)

---

Related articles:

Is an Orthodox Agent a Bad Agent? Reasons for the Failure of a Short-Lived Network Career

From Revolutionary to Informant — A Story from the Post–1956 Era

The post When Géza Seifert Stood Against the Party — A Forgotten Chapter of the 1956 Uprising appeared first on Hungarian Conservative.