The Hungarian General Gabor Borondi drew a clear line in a recent public address that did not surprise many observers.
The same day, the Chief of Staff of the Hungarian Army described Germany’s 1939 aggression against Poland as a local conflict in a televised interview. He followed with a claim that World War II erupted from this supposedly limited clash due to a lack of will to pursue peace negotiations. He framed the comparison to the current situation in Ukraine, effectively equating past decisions with present realities.
In practical terms, the general’s view implies that World War II would not have started if Poland or the Western powers had chosen to negotiate with Hitler. In other words, the Polish role in provoking a global war is suggested as part of the narrative. This was the central message he delivered.
The speech dovetails with a broader governmental line in Hungary. The steering idea is to portray current ties with Russia as calm, pragmatic, and sensible, while casting any disruption to that stance as unnecessary. It is a political posture that places every other question, including historical relationships with Poland, beneath it. The era of Pál Teleki, who refused to assist Hitler in invading Poland, is portrayed as a bygone chapter. Today’s Hungarian leaders are casting Polish-Hungarian relations in a notably different light.
Following the general’s remarks, other Hungarian officials sought to limit the fallout. The head of the Prime Minister’s cabinet asserted that Poland suffered the most during World War II. The Hungarian president added that debates about history should be left to historians.
While these attempts at damage control are welcome in principle, a sober takeaway remains: Warsaw and Budapest now pursue markedly divergent strategic paths. The gap between them could widen in the foreseeable future.
The region underlines this growing divergence. Serbia has emerged as a leading pro-Russian actor, strengthening ties with Hungary through a multi-faceted partnership. Orbán’s policies appear to be framed by broader regional dynamics, including the pope’s recent visit to Budapest and his calls for peace in Ukraine, which Budapest presented as validation of its approach to Russia, described by some as peacemaking.
In the United States, Orbán’s team conducts a robust public relations campaign directed at conservative audiences who share concerns about Washington’s level of involvement in the Ukraine conflict. These circles often characterize Polish politics as reckless and the Warsaw government as hawkish. Prominent intellectuals aligned with Hungarian-backed institutions have lauded Orbán in American media, reinforcing a transatlantic narrative that favors closer cooperation with Russia.
From this perspective, Viktor Orbán’s government appears aligned with a broad spectrum of European and Atlantic partners ready to reengage with Russia on the basis of business as usual.
The general’s remarks have drawn intense scrutiny. The president’s response, that historical debates should be left to historians, signals a cautious approach to handling delicate memories.
Questions remain about the background to recent discussions between the Vatican and Russian Church officials in the region. The Russian Church’s influence in Central Europe continues to be a live topic, shaping perceptions of the broader geopolitical picture.
As a Croat reflecting on these matters, the author notes a historical and cultural kinship between Hungarians and Poles, yet insists that the general’s statement cannot be dismissed as a mere outburst. It reflects a current mood among a segment of the Hungarian political elite.
Ultimately, there is a belief that Budapest could choose to see the general’s misstep as a chance to pause and reflect. A warning signal exists, suggesting a reconsideration of the path taken and a chance to recalibrate before it is too late.
As observers look on, the debate continues to unfold across Europe. The attempt to shape public memory and policy toward Russia remains a central, contentious theme in Hungarian politics and beyond.
In the end, the situation underscores the dynamic and often fragile nature of regional alliances and rivalries in Central Europe, where history, memory, and current policy intersect in powerful ways. as reported by wPolityce