On 19 February 1953 the State Protection Authority (ÁVH) proposed the arrest of a 40-year-old Jewish woman from Budapest, Dr Ilona Benoschofsky, on suspicion of ‘illegal Zionist activities and espionage’.[1] Though her name is little known today, Benoschofsky was once a significant figure in the Hungarian–Jewish community and Holocaust research—and the sister of the Chief Rabbi of Buda, Imre ‘Beno’ Benoschofsky.
Ilona Benoschofsky was born on 19 January 1913 in Budapest. She earned a humanities degree from Pázmány Péter Catholic University and was qualified as both a teacher and psychologist, though she never practised these professions. Before the Holocaust, she ran her own kindergarten and worked as a librarian for the Jewish community of Pest. Later, she became the Hungarian secretary of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and, in the 1950s, co-edited two major Holocaust source publications alongside Elek Karsai (Indictment Against Nazism, Volumes 1 and 2).
From 1964 to 1993, she served as the director of the Budapest Jewish Museum. And—last but not least—as numerous scholarly works have documented,[2] she was a secret agent for state security under the codename ‘Xavér’. In this capacity, she became a malicious and unscrupulous informer against numerous Hungarian Jewish public figures, rabbis, and scholars—including Sándor Scheiber.
In recent years, articles mentioning this aspect of her life have almost exclusively referenced ‘Xavér’ in this context. While we do not intend to question this moral judgment of her activities as an informant, it is important to recognize that before she became ‘Xavér’, Benoschofsky was also a victim of the Rákosi regime. Her arrest and interrogation left behind a chilling 284-page dossier. To the best of our knowledge, this material has only been cited by historian Tibor Zinner in a very brief summary of just a few lines.[3] The following does not absolve ‘Xavér’ of her later actions, but it does help provide context for the genesis of her informant alter ego.
‘During her arrest, Benoschofsky remained calm and cooperative; nevertheless, she was taken into custody’
The State Protection Authority’s proposal cited above was approved within a few days, and on 28 February ÁVH officers conducted a search of Benoschofsky’s apartment and her office at 12 Síp Street. They confiscated official documents, lists of names, character assessments, foreign-language materials, newspaper articles, and WJC-related documents. During her arrest, Benoschofsky remained calm and cooperative; nevertheless, she was taken into custody the same day. According to the deposit inventory of the State Security’s Central Detention Facility (Gyorskocsi Street), she had a small amount of cash and a women’s wristwatch, which she was allowed to reclaim upon her release.
On 2 March she was made to write a multi-page, handwritten account of her life. In it, she noted that her father was an official at the editorial office of Pesti Hírlap but passed away in 1935, forcing her to start working. After university, she opened a kindergarten, but, as she wrote: ‘the German occupation changed my life—the kindergarten shut down immediately, and not a single child came the day after the occupation.’ (Interestingly, another infamous Socialist-era figure in the Jewish community, Mrs Géza Seifert, was also originally a kindergarten teacher for the congregation.) During the German occupation, the Arrow Cross took her for trench-digging labour, but she escaped and found refuge in the ‘clothing collection unit’ on Abonyi Street under the famous rescuer Captain László Ocskay.[4]
During this time, her brother was in forced labour (munkaszolgálat) in Transdanubia but managed to return to Budapest by December 1944. Their apartment was destroyed during the siege, so they lived at the Rabbinical Seminary until August 1945, after which they moved into a congregation-owned apartment at 49 Frankel Leó Street. Until the fall of 1945, she collected clothing for the Red Cross, then joined the World Jewish Congress (WJC), where she compiled a book from the works of Jewish poets on behalf of Zionist leader Béla Dénes. In 1947, she spent three weeks in Palestine attending a Yad Vashem conference, where she both brought and received historical data concerning war criminals.
Benoschofsky had the misfortune of being a prominent leader of Hungarian Jewry at a time when the Communist anti-Zionist campaign was escalating. In 1951 Zionist trials began in the Soviet Union, followed in 1952 by the Czechoslovak Slánský trial. In Hungary, Zionists had already been arrested as early as 1949 (including Béla Dénes), but in January 1953, the show trials gained new momentum. Lajos Stöckler, president of the National Representation of Hungarian Jews (MIOK), along with several other Jewish leaders, was arrested.
‘She had the misfortune of being a prominent leader of Hungarian Jewry when the Communist anti-Zionist campaign escalated’
It appears that Benoschofsky’s name was first mentioned during an earlier interrogation of Dénes, though not in a significant role. In fact, six out of seven arrested Zionists testified that they ‘did not know Ilona Benoschofsky and had never even heard her name’, while the seventh admitted that, although he did not know her personally, he read her book on child psychology. The interrogators were particularly interested in her time at the WJC, as they regarded the organization as a ‘front’ for Israeli intelligence.
At first, Benoschofsky clearly did not understand what was expected of her, as the charges against her were not explicitly stated. She wrote that after Stöckler’s arrest, she had wanted to emigrate—but not to Israel—because her visit to Palestine had made her realize that Jews there were suffering greatly and that Zionism was ‘dragging the people into war’. She insisted that the WJC ‘did not engage in any illegal activities’ and that her colleagues were ‘good communists’. Her initial interrogation records contain some peculiar statements. It is doubtful that she herself phrased it as: ‘I volunteered for labour service in response to the Szálasi government’s call.’ Equally strange is her ‘confession’ that: ‘I was aware of the Zionist movement’s goal—the establishment of an independent Jewish state—even before 1945.’ However, she claimed that she had not been a Zionist at that time. The interrogator’s response was immediate: ‘You are not being honest! I warn you to give a truthful confession!’ At this point, Benoschofsky changed her statement: ‘Contrary to my previous testimony, I confess that through the pro-Palestine Zionist association, I had been actively engaged in Zionist activities since 1941.’
At this stage, it is evident that she was being pressured to testify about the alleged collaboration of Jewish leaders during the German occupation. She stated—or was compelled to state—that the members of the Jewish Council had ‘served the Germans and the Arrow Cross’. She then provided the names of Béla Berend, Samu Stern, Lajos Stöckler, Miklós Szegő (who was murdered during the occupation), and ‘a Jew named Müller’—most likely Rezső Müller. Here, she was being forced to list all Hungarian Jewish leaders—active in the past or the present, dead or alive—as Gestapo agents.
‘According to the records, Benoschofsky was interrogated almost daily for several hours at a time’
The interrogation soon shifted focus to her connections with the Israeli embassy. According to the records, Benoschofsky was interrogated almost daily for several hours at a time. It is unclear exactly how long these sessions lasted or at what times of day they were conducted, but at one point, she mentioned that each ‘session’ lasted for more than ten hours—the second digit is unfortunately illegible. During these sessions, she was asked ‘the same three questions’ repeatedly. The interrogation transcripts are highly repetitive, with aggressive and sometimes nearly nonsensical questions. To the reader, they give the impression that the goal was to make the accused slip up by the 100th repetition.
Benoschofsky stated that, at Stöckler’s request, she had reported to the WJC on the number and economic situation of Hungarian Jews. She admitted that she was aware of the organization of illegal aliyah for children but had not reported it to the police. She also mentioned that at Yad Vashem, she had met Mordechai Shenhabi—one of Yad Vashem’s founders—, who told her that the Hungarian government had ‘promised a huge sum’ to the Holocaust Museum. How exactly this was a crime remained unclear. Finally, she confessed to maintaining contact with individuals from the Israeli embassy, whom she accused of engaging in ‘dirty dealings’ aimed at ‘smuggling out the wealth of Jewish capitalists’.
By this point, her ordeal had lasted nearly two months. While we will not list every single interrogation date, it is worth noting that in April alone, she was interrogated on 14 different days—usually twice a day, for several hours at a time. Eventually, Benoschofsky broke and stated: ‘I confess that I have lied throughout my previous interrogations. Since August 1952, I have been a recruited agent of the Israeli embassy in Budapest. Until my arrest, I carried out intelligence activities on behalf of the embassy.’
She named a certain Mrs Pál Róbert as her recruiter, describing her as someone who had worked for the Israelis but had recently committed suicide. She also identified Irén Herskovits—the sister of Rabbi Fábián—as a spy, prompting the ÁVH to immediately request her records, only to discover that she had already emigrated. However, her interrogator, State Security Captain János Kujalek, was not satisfied. He recorded in his notes that the suspect ‘displayed strikingly insolent behaviour during questioning’. For context, Kujalek had originally worked as a weaver before joining the secret police. By 1989, he retired as a highly decorated officer of the Interior Ministry.
Benoschofsky’s only joy came at the end of April, when, during a reorganization of the cell assignments, she was finally given a cellmate, Mrs György Demeter (née Róza Weisz). Demeter had been a Zionist herself and had been arrested on 16 May 1949 as part of a communist internal purge. After they moved in together, the two women soon became friends. After nine weeks of isolation, Benoschofsky was particularly happy to have someone to talk to finally. She said she had ‘wanted just such a companion’ and confessed that she ‘desperately needed to talk things through with someone’, adding that if Mrs Demeter would be willing to listen, she wanted to tell her the whole story and seek her advice.
Mrs Demeter initially hesitated but eventually agreed. This is known because Mrs Demeter was not just a fellow prisoner; she had been assigned to Benoschofsky as part of the ‘prison network’ tasked with reporting on fellow inmates in exchange for various privileges. Mrs Demeter had been employed in the role elsewhere before and was described as a ‘well-mannered agent who could easily gain others’ trust’. They only requested her not to speak about ‘outside matters’ to avoid being busted.
‘Since one can’t survive without food, she will gradually fade away’
Benoschofsky shared all her fears and hopes with her cellmate, so her interrogators were always able to tailor the interrogation to her current state. One of Mrs Demeter’s first reports noted that ‘physically and mentally, [Benoschofsky] is in very poor condition. She thinks that since her arrest, she has lost eight–ten kilograms. She doesn’t even mind because it seems that there is no way out of this situation for her except death. She can’t prove her innocence; confessions and revelations are expected of her, which she can’t provide, so she may sit locked away from the world in terrible conditions for the rest of her life. The only thing she can do is bring the end of her life closer. This shouldn’t be difficult for her because it is already a great struggle for her not to vomit out the food, and eventually, she will simply stop fighting. Since one can’t survive without food, she will gradually fade away.’
Benoschofsky told Mrs Demeter that Sándor Scheiber had been mentioned, and ‘she hopes they won’t come back to it later because she knows that Scheiber could get into trouble because of it, even though she knows that Scheiber is just as innocent and well-meaning as she is.’ After this, they naturally interrogated her about Scheiber, and based on what they heard, the rabbi was ‘prioritized’ on 8 May, meaning all previous incriminating information was requested about him. Since they learned that Benoschofsky attached great importance to the mood of the interrogating officer in her case, they began playing a cruel game with her: during the morning interrogations, they spoke kindly to her, while in the evening interrogations, they threatened her aggressively. This shattered the woman, and ‘now there is absolutely no hope left for her’—her cellmate reported.
The background behind why she confessed to being a spy was also revealed: ‘She was greatly mistaken about the local circumstances. Based on the trials that had been made public so far, she thought that people here sign prepared confessions and are either beaten to death or they are made to sign. So, when they wouldn’t believe in her innocence, and she learned that they suspected her of spying, she thought they were trying to force this into her mouth and expected her to confess. Therefore, since she saw no way out, she invented a story, which she later got tangled up in, and then admitted that it was all just a story. However, they no longer believed her.’ It was also added: ‘If only she knew how spying is really done, she would come up with something she could stick to.’
At this point, it is worth considering what the actual purpose behind Benoschofsky’s months-long torturous interrogation was. At the end of the reports, the interrogating officer simply wrote that the goal remained to further expose the ‘intelligence activities’ attributed to her. What this actually meant, perhaps even he did not know himself. The interrogating officer was replaced at one point, and his successor became Captain Béla Berki. Benoschofsky felt that his predecessor was ‘sadistic, but very clever’ and knew she was innocent, while his successor treated her as guilty from the start. ‘He asks the same question all day long; it wears on your nerves and drives you mad.’ Benoschofsky usually endured this for the first one or two hours, after which she lost control. She often cried during the interrogations. She dreaded the interrogations, but she was even more afraid of not being called in. ‘She is terrified of the next interrogation because she feels that what she knows won’t be enough for them, and maybe this officer will make good on his threat that they won’t stop interrogating her until she gives an “honest” confession. When she thinks about this, she loses all hope again.’
Sometimes, Mrs Demeter was also taken for ‘interrogation’, during which she was, in fact, reporting. When she returned, Benoschofsky tried to comfort her: she gave her coat, noticing that her cellmate seemed worn out and pale, and she offered her comfort. As she had admitted earlier in May: ‘She felt very lost without me; it would be unbearable for her now to be alone again…Since being with me, her appetite has improved, and she hasn’t vomited once.’ Demeter also gained Benoschofsky’s trust by sharing her meaty food with her because she only received mashed food. At one point, Benoschofsky asked her that, if she died in prison, she should find her brother and tell him what had happened, assuring him that she had ‘behaved well and tried not to drag anyone down with her’.
By mid-May, Benoschofsky’s condition worsened. ‘She is very desperate and once again wishes to die. She bursts into tears several times a day, asking why they won’t let her die, why she has to continue living so hopelessly.’ Her cellmate observed that she was slowly ‘losing her mind’ and ‘becoming disturbed’. This was exacerbated by the fact that her interrogator ‘constantly threatened to throw her into the basement and leave her there for months without anyone looking at her’. She was also threatened with ‘beating’. The psychological warfare intensified. They lied to her, claiming that her brother had been arrested and that ‘her brother is behaving much more intelligently than she is, admitting everything about himself and her’. This was untrue, as there was no evidence that her brother Imre had been arrested. During this time, her brother was publishing in the Jewish journal Új Élet and attending Jewish community events. According to Új Élet reports, their mother, Gizella Haas, passed away in early May. Ilona, Benoschofsky’s daughter, would only learn of her mother’s death after her release, never having had the chance to say goodbye.[5]
‘I’m so tired of her always whining and complaining, so…I would allow her one hour a day to whine’
The stress also took a toll on Ilona’s health while in prison. According to Mrs Demeter, she complained of severe heart pain, lost more weight, and vomited frequently. ‘Before every interrogation, she says goodbye to me…She cried a lot and had hysterical outbursts. She declared that she was on the path to madness.’ At one point, she concluded that ‘it would be better if…she somehow committed suicide. She even figured out how to do it, but she wouldn’t tell me, saying it would be my duty to report it.’ Mrs Demeter, however, was only pretending to be friends with her; in reality, she was annoyed by her cellmate: ‘I’m so tired of her always whining and complaining, so I made an agreement with her that I would allow her one hour a day to whine. She agreed.’
Meanwhile, the interrogations continued almost daily, often multiple times a day. At the end of June, there was a week without any questioning, but on 1 July, they called her in again. This time, likely due to the psychological terror, they managed to achieve a ‘result’. According to Mrs Demeter: ‘She stated that she felt very strange because until now she felt that she was being held here completely innocently, but now the investigator had proven to her that she was guilty, and she had to admit it. However, she still found it terribly unjust that she was losing her freedom and all her hard-earned belongings for such a trivial matter.’
They managed to achieve this by getting her to admit that she had distributed foreign Jewish newspapers in Hungary, which they labelled as ‘anti-democratic propaganda’. Finally, around 7 July, Mrs Demeter persuaded her not to cover up for her acquaintances anymore. We don’t know what Benoschofsky told the interrogators about her contacts, but it is certain that on 9 July, Mrs Demeter was removed from the shared cell and received privileges for her good work. On 11 July, they granted Benoschofsky’s previous request for a needle, thread, pen, and paper. Benoschofsky was eventually released on 5 August at 5pm.
It is not entirely clear when ‘Xavér’ was recruited, but according to a document from 1961, she was already an agent before the 1956 revolution. Therefore, her recruitment likely took place either during or after the above-mentioned interrogations and before the 1956 revolution. It doesn’t seem far-fetched to assume that her recruitment could have been linked to the 1953 Zionist case or possibly occurred at the end of the investigation. The above details do not justify her activities as an agent, but they show that there was a complex life story with tragic elements behind the ‘enthusiastic’ and malicious agent.
‘Xavér’ was not only active in domestic spying against ‘reactionary elements’ (BM III/III) but also worked in the BM III/II-4 division in the early 1970s (counterintelligence against intelligence services from Middle Eastern countries).[6] In other words, at one point, she was also involved in counter-espionage. (Ironically, her wish to be taught what it meant to be a spy was fulfilled in this sense.) Ilona Benoschofsky passed away on 14 January 1997. Mrs Demeter was released on 20 March 1954 and passed away in the spring of 2003.
[1] For all further quotes from the Benoschofsky case, unless indicated otherwise, see: Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Történeti Levéltára (ÁBSZTL), 2.1. VI/25 (V-105748).
[2] See among others: Szalai Ágnes, ‘A magyarországi kommunista diktatúra zsidó áldozatai (1949–1954)’, In: Tanulmányok a holokausztról, IV. vol, Ed Randolph L Braham, Budapest, Presscon Kiadó, 2006, pp. 217–267, here p. 265, footnote no. 107.; Novák Attila: ‘Elsötétítés. A zsidó intézmények állami kontrollja a Kádár-korszak első éveiben’, Rubicon Online, 2017. https://old.rubicon.hu/magyar/nyomtathato_verzio/elsotetites/
[3] Zinner Tibor, Gyorstalpaló, elvtársaknak. A bírói és ügyészi akadémia, 1949–1954, Bp, NEB, 2023, p. 428, p. 453.
[4] https://www.szombat.org/hirek-lapszemle/az-elfeledett-magyar-embermento
[5] Új Élet, 1 May 1953.
[6] ÁBSZTL, 3.1.5. O-17169/4, 271.
Related articles:
