Horthy era right-wing Zionist (Revisionist) journalist László G. Gerő, translator of most of Theodore Herzl’s works to Hungarian, is an almost entirely unknown figure even to researchers of Hungarian Jewish history. This is not surprising, as his activities have only been briefly mentioned in a single footnote in a study by historian Anna Szalai.[1] Szalai was unable to determine G. Gerő’s date of death, but this is not her fault: after the war, G. Gerő essentially started a new life. He omitted his earlier activities from his autobiography, changed his name, and ended his career as a Marxist literary historian.

László G. Gerő was born on 2 June 1905 in Budapest as László Miklós Gerő. His father, Alfréd Gerő (Graus), was a clerk; his mother was Janka Germanus. (Her surname may sound familiar to our Hungarian readers. In fact, Gerő was the nephew of the renowned Islamologist Gyula Germanus, but the Graus and Germanus families were not on good terms.[2] ) His younger brother, György, was a musician, and they appeared together at several Zionist events.[3]

When G. Gerő was two years old his family converted to Roman Catholicism. His father fought in World War I and was discharged with honours. However, from his early twenties, G. Gerő began being featured in the Hungarian Zionist press with interviews, articles, and translations.

The Ardent Zionist

In 1929 G. Gerő conducted several important interviews with non-Jewish figures of Hungarian public life about Zionism. For example, Dezső Kosztolányi told him that he sympathetic towards the Jewish national movement ‘because they are nationalists, and I am a nationalist, too.’[4]

Even more intriguing was the interview he did with Dezső Szabó in 1929. In this conversation, Szabó made a clear distinction between the Zionist Zsidó Szemle and the assimilationist Egyenlőség. By this time, he had somewhat softened his early, 1920s antisemitism, stating that dialogue between Zionism and Hungarian nationalism was possible as long as it was based on a stance of cool detachment.[5]

G. Gerő presented himself as a hardline Zionist in his line of questioning, including his own dissimilationist views in an interview with Jewish mathematician Mihály Fekete, a professor at the Hebrew University. This was evident in his choice of title: ‘Where There Is No Numerus Clausus and No Tuition Fees’.[6] G. Gerő was obviously referring to the antisemitic numerus clausus law of 1920 that barred most Hungarian Jewish students from universities.

From the early 1930s onward, G. Gerő published a series of books and translations on Zionist and Jewish themes. In 1930, he released the volume Modern Jewish Poets, which included works by Avigdor Hameiri, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Edmond Fleg, André Spire, József Holder, Morris Rosenfeld, Uriel Birnbaum, Iwan Goll, Heine, Zuckermann, Max Brod, and Franz Werfel.[7]

This was followed in 1932 by his translation of Theodor Herzl’s foundational texts, Zionist Writings,[8] and in 1933 by another translations of excerpts from Herzl’s diary under the title From Theodor Herzl’s Diary. He also translated works by Zygmunt Föbus Finkelstein on Herzl’s life (1935).[9]

His first original booklet, What Is Zionism?, appeared in 1932 and was just 32 pages long (we will return to its content later).[10] Two years later, he published another book, , a 114-page publication titled The Land, People, History, Cities, Economy, and Culture of Palestine, which essentially summarized contemporary Zionist pamphlets about Palestine.[11]

In 1934, he authored another small book, Jewish Mystics.[12] This work is particularly notable because it identifies Yeshuah’ as a ‘Jewish mystic,’ a perspective that also appears in the 1921 book by Joseph Klausner, a Hebrew writer from Palestine associated with Revisionism. No other books were published under the name László G. Gerő.

The journal Zsidó Szemle, where G. Gerő was publishing at the time, was closely aligned with the right-wing Zionism (Revisionism) founded by Jabotinsky. Gerő’s admiration for the Revisionist leader was evident in his choice to include Jabotinsky’s poetry in his translations. Beyond poems, Gerő also translated an essay by Jabotinsky for the journal about the Jewish Legion in World War I. By 1929 the publication had started referring to him as the ‘little Jabotinsky’.[13]

G. Gerő’s views were most concisely expressed in his 1932 pamphlet on Zionism. He immediately clarified that Zionism was not ‘retrograde,’ ‘fanaticism,’ or ‘Jewish antisemitism,’ and lamented that even in Herzl’s homeland, there was still a need to explain what Zionism truly was.[14]

According to Gerő, Zionism’s goal was simply to solve the ‘Jewish question’, and in this sense, it was as ancient an idea as galut, the diaspora itself. He saw Judaism not only as an external national identity but also as a shared fate. For Jews who could not accept this, he believed there were only two paths: assimilation—what he called ‘hyper-nationalism,’ a desperate attempt to conform to the expectations of the ‘host nation’—or radicalism (Communism), which ‘hates and seeks to destroy the entire world out of its own misery’.

Zionism, he argued, could emerge from two sources: either the Eastern European Jews’ enduring attachment to their ancestors’ faith and land, or the Western emancipated Jews’ realization that no matter how much they assimilate, they will always be seen as Jewish. ‘Both movements share the same moral foundation: the awakened Jew, once a trampled upon worm, wants to become a human being. Neither the ghetto Jew nor, even less so, the assimilated Jew is a whole or healthy person,’ G. Gerő wrote.

In his view, Zionism aimed to put an end to hiding, self-denial, self-contempt, internal conflicts, and ‘spiritual misery.’ He fundamentally questioned the sincerity of assimilation and ‘hyper-nationalism,’ declaring that ‘a Jew who renounces and denies thousands of years of Jewish identity cannot be a sincere patriot either.’ He also believed that failed assimilation ultimately led to ‘red assimilation’—Communism.

His argument was striking: ‘After the initial, superficial flare-up, national assimilation failed. However, those in the second or third generation who had lost any meaningful connection to Judaism and became disillusioned with national assimilation did not blame assimilation itself for their failure and inner turmoil. Instead, they turned away from the national ideal altogether. Under different slogans but with the same motivations as their fathers, they continued the assimilationist program.’ G. Gerő eventually argued that an assimilationist father will have a Communist son.

Ultimately, Gerő concluded that whether assimilation was ‘hyper-nationalist’ or ‘red,’ it made no difference: ‘From the perspective of the Jewish people, assimilation means death. And death is not a viable program. Therefore, we must live. And the path to life is Zionism.’

G. Gerő’s significance is evident in his election as Secretary-General of the Hungarian Zionist Association from September 1931 to August 1933. During this period, he participated in a Zionist lecture tour across the countryside. The Múlt és Jövő cultural Zionist journal advertised three of his books and translations in its May 1934 issue alone.

Throughout the 1930s, G. Gerő published numerous articles in Új Út and Világvándor, both closely linked to Jewish journalist Aladár Márkus and the Revisionist movement. These writings, while interesting in their own right, also provide deeper insight into his views on various aspects of Zionism.

In his article ‘Ghetto and Chinese Wall’, for example, he argued that the medieval ghetto held a certain value, and he saw Judaism as the key to Jewish survival. ‘The 19th century tore down the walls of the ghetto, and suddenly, the sacred faith and traditions of the Jews, upheld for millennia, turned to ashes and became objects of ridicule. Great Jewish scholars were called backward fools, and Jewish life was no longer governed by law and morality…It is a lesson for all nations and all eras that rigid conservatism is just as much a force as the revolutionary spirit that seeks to overturn everything.’[15] This is particularly interesting because Revisionists typically had little regard for the doctrines of Judaism.

At the same time, in an article marking the tenth anniversary of Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am’s death, G. Gerő revealed his belief in the concept of Zionism’s ‘new Jew’—a character who embodied strength and action rather than the ‘theoretical, intellectualizing’ spirit of the ‘learned philosophers’. According to him, this was the type of person Zionism should foster—someone who, ‘with both hands, seizes the work ahead.’ He considered Herzl and Jabotinsky to be prime examples of this new character, noting that Jabotinsky, in addition to his activism, had developed ‘his own philosophical system.’[16] True to his right-wing Zionist views, Gerő also contributed to smaller publications of the Revisionist youth organization Betar. In 1937, Bne Betar published his short story ‘The Brother’, while as early as 1935, Kék-Fehér (Blue and White) declared that they considered his books as their own.[17]

After this period his activities became somewhat obscure. According to his curriculum vitae written after 1952, he had been ‘interested’ in communism since 1941—though this claim is questionable, as he simultaneously denied his entire previous Zionist work. Regarding his past, he merely stated that ‘until the liberation, I was an intellectual proletarian with a difficult fate,’ and since then, ‘I have devoted my entire work to serving Marxism.’[18]

A Devoted Marxist?

Some missing details of his life can be reconstructed from his bar association records. G. Gerő was a lawyer by profession, having completed his studies at the University of Pécs, where he earned his doctorate in 1931. Five years later, he passed both the bar and judicial exams. Between 1931 and 1936, he worked as a trainee lawyer, and from 1936 to 1944, he had his own law practice.

According to his bar association file, in September 1945 he appeared before the lawyers’ vetting committee, as did all attorneys at the time. He used the name László Geréb Gerő, which explains why he had published under the name ‘G. Gerő’ earlier. Before the committee, he stated that he was enlisted in labour service units of the army three times: from 27 November 1942 to 2 March 1943; then from 4 August to 21 October 1943; and finally from 19 April to 30 December 1944.[19]

In 1945 he joined the Communist Party and appears to have remained a member of it until his death. At the same time, he began writing under the name László Geréb (and once as László Gereben), primarily on literature related to the workers’ movement and literary examples of the class struggle. He wrote monographs about proletarian literature, and the peasant uprisings in Hungary, among others.

Between 1945 and 1946 he served as head of the Zala County Land Office, which was responsible for the nationalization and redistribution of big land owners’ property to the peasantry. At this point he closed his law practice. From 1946 to 1952, he worked as a research associate at the Metropolitan Ervin Szabó Library (Fővárosi Szabó Ervin Könyvtár), focusing mainly on Soviet literature. In addition to his studies, he published Soviet literary translations and even tried to promote a Kazakh anthology at one point.

Despite his efforts to conceal his past, it is beyond doubt that László G. Gerő and László Geréb were the same person. Both were born on 2 June 1905, both opened their law offices in 1936, both did labour service in 1943, and their signatures—particularly the way they wrote ‘László’—are nearly identical. The bar association records and the CVs also leave little room for doubt that the two persons were in fact the same.

This transition from Zionism to Marxism was clearly not very successful, as evidenced by the constant complaints and feelings of being misunderstood in his letters. In 1953, he wrote to Communist author Béla Illés: ‘My works are not published, those that are published are crudely and falsely dismissed, or rather: silenced.’[20] It’s unclear exactly what he was referring to, as his name doesn’t come up in any public debates in the contemporary press.

In 1954, he wrote to literature historian István Sőtér, describing—in a somewhat paranoid tone—a ‘clique’ that, in his view, was talentless, not truly Communist, yet whose every ‘cough’ was eagerly praised by the press, as if orchestrated by a conductor’s baton. He believed they merely translated Russian literature but failed to understand it, since they could only view it ‘through Hungarian eyes’.[21]

In the summer of 1956 he complained to politician and president of the Hungarian Writers’ Association Péter Veres that he had written a letter to the infamous Communist historian Erzsébet Andics who didn’t even bother to respond. ‘It’s terrible to be alone like this, without any support, for no one claims my work as their own.’[22] He further lamented even in his CV that ‘I have to beg, to plead, and the Party has never helped.’

Whether this frustration was at the source of his feelings during the 1956 revolution and whether he truly never felt connected to Communism is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that on 24 October 1956 he wrote to Jewish writer Aladár Komlós from the hospital, saying: ‘Unfortunately, I only learn about the outside world’s noise from the radio, newspapers, and visitors. If I were outside, I would organize meetings, submit resolutions demanding the abolition of the censorship system, the liquidation of the Academy’s monopolies, and the sweeping away of the upstarts ruling over scholarly life.’[23]

Geréb, who had been seriously ill and retired since 1952 due to heart disease, passed away in December 1962. His obituary described him as a Marxist literary historian and a researcher of the class struggle. Perhaps by then no one remembered that Geréb, once known as László G. Gerő, used to be a promising Hungarian Jewish Zionist publicist and journalist.

[1] Anna Szalai: Previously Unexplored Sources on the Holocaust in Hungary. A Selection from Jewish Periodicals, 1930-1944. Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, 2007, 39–72.

[2] Zsolt András Udvarvölgyi, Kelet igézetében. Germanus Gyula élete és munkássága, Miskolc, Miskolci Egyetem BTK, n. d., 90–91, 96–97.

[3] Péter Bársony, ‘Hiányzó láncszemek. Emlékezés a Holokauszt áldozatául esett magyar zeneművészekre’, Parlando, 1/2013, https://www.parlando.hu/2013/2013-1/2013-1-08-Gero.htm and Ujság, 7 Feb. 1934, 9.

[4] Zsidó Szemle, 29 Nov. 1929, 8.

[5] L[ászló] G. G[erő], ‘“Az asszimiláns zsidó minden fogalom tövében csal…” Beszélgetés Szabó Dezsővel a Philadelphia-kávéházban’, Zsidó Szemle, 1 Nov. 1929, 5.

[6] László G. Gerő, ‘Ahol nincs numerus clausus és tandíj. Dr. Fekete, a jeruzsálemi egyetem tanára Budapesten’, Zsidó Szemle, 16 Aug. 1929, 7–8.

[7] László G. Gerő, Modern zsidó költők, Budapest, Rechnitz, 1930.

[8] Tivadar Herzl, Cionista írások, translated by László G. Gerő, Budapest, S. Gondos, 1932.

[9] Herzl Tivadar naplójából: az első konstantinápolyi út. Translated by László G. Gerő, Budapest, Fórum, 1933, and Z. F. Finkelstein: Tövises úton: elbeszélések Herzl Tivadar életéből, translated by László G. Gerő, Budapest, Sawitra Verl., 1935.

[10] László G. Gerő, Mi a cionizmus, Budapest, Magyarországi Cionista Szövetség (Zionist Federation of Hungary), 1932.

[11] László G. Gerő, Palesztina földje, népe, történelme, városai, gazdasági élete, kultúrája, Budapest, Fórum, 1934.

[12] László G. Gerő, Zsidó misztikusok, Budapest, Fórum, 1934, 6 –11.

[13] Zsidó Szemle, 19 Sept. 1929, 7.

[14] G. Gerő: Mi a cionizmus?

[15] Dr. László G. Gerő, ‘Gettó és kínai fal’, Világvándor, 3/1937, 15–16.

[16]: Dr. László G. Gerő, ‘Achad Haam halálának tizedik évfordulójára’, Világvándor, 2/1937, 13–15.

[17] Bne Betar, March 1937, 56–57. and Kék-Fehér, June 1935, 7–8.

[18] Manuscripts Archive of the National Széchényi Library (OSZK Kézirattár), Fond 127–563.

[19] Budapest City Archives, IX.282.b.7651

[20] Petőfi Irodalmi Múzeum (PIM), V.4506/3.

[21] Department of Manuscripts of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTAK Kézirattár), Ms. 5972/409.

[22] MTAK Kézirattár, Ms. 5494/61.

[23] PIM V.4139/55/1-4.