The Marathon Runner Historian: A Tribute to István Deák

The world of World War I, the world of the Hungarian middle class between the two world wars, the catastrophe of the Holocaust, the life of the emigrant young man in Paris and Munich, and the story of fitting into American academia come to life in the pages of István Deák’s memoirs, published by Kronosz Kiadó in Pécs in early June of this year.1 Although he spent seventy-four of his ninety-six years outside his country and met his wife in New York, and they raised their daughter there, he remained in constant contact with his family back home and, when circumstances allowed, visited Hungary. While his entire professional oeuvre is written in English, his last work, this autobiography, was written in Hungarian under the title Maratoni életem [My marathon life]. The front cover shows Deák dressed elegantly in a dark jacket and tie, while also featuring a photo of him in the background in a T-shirt, sweating and exhausted, having just completed the New York City marathon. These two pictures beautifully reflect the complexity of his personality: the determined fighter ready to struggle through all difficulties with enthusiasm; but also the witty charmeur, ready to celebrate achievements and enjoy the company of his family, friends, colleagues, and students.I first spoke to Deák at a conference on the minority problems of East Central Europe in Bucharest in 1985, and met him quite often on numerous occasions at various scholarly events inside and outside Hungary until the very end of his life. Our last encounter took place in a comfortable home for elderly people in California a couple of days before Christmas of 2022. He helped me professionally and personally in many ways, first of all by arranging my visiting professorships at the University of Chicago in 1993 and at Columbia University in New York between 1999 and 2013. He revised my manuscripts and advised me on the complexity of American academic life. My whole career would have developed differently had I not met him about four decades ago.Deák’s research interests were deeply rooted in his personal life. He experienced the functioning and the collapse of upper-middle-class assimilated Jewish family lives in Hungary, presciently recognized the lack of opportunity for an open-minded, freedom-loving young intellectual in Hungary following the communist takeover, and built a great academic career at Columbia. The university greatly appreciated his work as a most popular professor, a great public intellectual, and an outstanding scholar: a renowned expert on modern Central Europe and European aspects of World War II. This is why in 1998 Columbia initiated perhaps the most prestigious recognition it can offer to its professors, the establishment of a chair to be named after him. In preparation, the university supported a visiting professor for every academic year from 1999 to 2003. In addition to teaching, the visitor was also expected to help the fundraising process for the realization of this plan. The generous donation of Olivia and László Bitó (a Columbia researcher of ophthalmology who left Hungary in 1956) and a substantial revenue originating from László’s patent for an eye drop curing glaucoma were the financial basis of this endeavor. In 2003 the plan was slightly modified: instead of a chair, an endowment to finance a visiting professorship named after Deák was created. Since then close to twenty scholars (historians, economists, and political scientists) from four countries have occupied this position. Until Deák left New York in late 2019 to live in his daughter’s house in California, he made every possible effort to help the work of these visiting professors. I had the privilege of teaching ten semesters between 1999 and 2013 at Columbia supported by this visiting professorship.Deák’s scholarly achievements have three pillars: Weimar Germany’s intellectual life during the aftermath of World War I up to Hitler’s coming into power in 1933, the history of the Habsburg empire from 1848 to its collapse in 1918, and the European aspects of World War II. On all these issues he wrote without any pathos or any sign of prejudice. For example, when discussing the 1848 Hungarian revolution, he is both empathetic and critical of the leaders of the revolution. He praises the Hungarian revolution for setting an example with the liberation of the serfs in the Czech and Austrian provinces, and calls the failure to settle the relationship between the Hungarian political leadership and the imperial house and the non-Hungarian nationalities a true tragedy. Deák always tries to be as balanced as possible when evaluating Kossuth’s historical role: “He believed firmly in reason and the perfectibility of man . . . he gave hope to the oppressed; he opened the way to the modernization of his country, and by inspiring, causing, or provoking national revolutions, he changed the course of Central European history. But he burdened the shoulders of his compatriots with more problems than he was able to solve. . . . Yet there was in Kossuth no trace of the cynicism, callousness, and furious brutality of Napoleon I or of the twentieth-century dictators.”2Another example of Deák’s approach to complex situations is the argumentation in his last book published during his lifetime: Europe on Trial: The Story of Collaboration, Resistance and Retribution during World War II.3 Deák’s strongly argued position was that there could have been a way for the nations of Europe, large and small, to stop or at least to contain Hitler. In this book he deals with resistance and collaboration against the Nazis in a thought-provoking and far from high-handed manner, using numerous examples to show how easily the line between victim and perpetrator can be crossed. He explains, for example, that Germans and anti-German partisans in Eastern Europe shared the same intention of ethnic cleansing, which was not necessary in France, where the assimilation process was already well advanced. His broad horizons are reflected in his claim that the Romanian exit shortened World War II as much as the Normandy invasion, causing the German army extremely serious difficulties. Unlike the Romanians, he further argues, the Hungarians could not have pulled out of the war on their own because they were in a much worse position geographically, and, moreover, Horthy had honestly sought an armistice. King Michael and his generals were dishonest in this respect; they disgraced Germany, which they had praised only the day before, but they took this step.He was not only a great scholar and professor but also a public intellectual, who never joined any political party but had very clear views about key global, US, and Hungarian political issues in a humanitarian and liberal spirit. He played a decisive role in implementing President Carter’s decision to return the Hungarian Holy Crown, which had been confiscated by the American army after World War II.I find that the greatest joy and comfort for him was the success of his students, their loyalty, their love. Frequently disappointed by political developments inside and outside the US and Hungary, but never giving up his optimism, he followed the developments in world politics and American and Hungarian domestic politics. He remained an optimist until his last moment, because he always, everywhere, found individuals and groups who shared his vision of the world. His human and intellectual legacy in turn encourages us when we are close to despair.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.