Selected text
I remember my parents’ shock when the Germans marched in [see: German occupation of Hungary] and how they said, "We have a very serious problem." Not quite a month later, a letter came:
"The plenary meeting of the Board of the Budapest Bar Association held on 14 April 1944, pursuant to § 5 of Decree No. 1210/1944 of the Hung. Royal Ministry of Justice hereby removes Dr. József Varsa, attorney-at-law, from the register of lawyers as recorded by the Budapest Bar Association. The decision ordering his removal shall be published in the Budapest Gazette after it becomes final.
REASONS
The Board of the Budapest Bar Association has established that the lawyer named in the operative part of this decision is a person to be considered a Jew pursuant to Article 9 of Act XV of 1941, and therefore, pursuant to Article 5 of Decree No. 1210/1944 M.E., he should be removed from the register of lawyers kept by the Budapest Bar Association."
I have a copy of a letter my father wrote to one of his clients on April 20th 1944:
"Highly esteemed Mr. Rocskay,
If I remember correctly, in 1938, but in any case, at the very beginning of our business relationship and in several subsequent discussions, you, Mr. Rocskay, made generalizing statements about the unreliability of Jews in general. Whether out of conviction or based on unpleasant experiences, I do not know, but doubtless in the belief that I am not a Jew.
For the sake of sincerity, however, I must also state that on more than one occasion during our various discussions, you, esteemed Mr. Rocskay, made remarks which proved, if not your pro-Jewish sentiments, at least your humanist mindset. Because, as you, Mr. Rocskay, emphasized, a man should never be judged by his origin, nationality, or religion but by his deeds.
Your statement about the unreliable character of Jews also applied more specifically to Jewish lawyers; however, as I said, in a generalized way. I did not want to refute it at that time for many different reasons.
One reason was that I had never engaged in political or ideological debates with my clients or others. Another was that I considered such debates pointless. First of all - I am convinced - it was not by words but deeds that such beliefs and statements, which I thought to be misconceptions, had to be refuted. Also, I considered it pointless to enter into such a debate because any argument, agitation, or proof against such misconceptions would appear to be a futile struggle.
And finally, I had not refuted such statements because I had adopted such a stance. I could not have spent the last 30 years or more on anything other than the perpetual and fruitless pursuit of such arguments.
During my career as a lawyer, my years as a volunteer, the First World War, and the long years of captivity, I considered all refutations unnecessary. On the contrary, if I had chosen to argue against the ill accusations, I would not have followed my conviction to refute them by deeds, not words.
Whether this perception was right or wrong is not for me to decide. Still, the fact is that my most insistent clients were those who – at the beginning of our acquaintance - uttered views similar to yours, Mr. Rocskay, even though I later told them the truth about my status.
However, I do not want you, Mr. Rocskay, or anyone else who may read this letter, to be misled and think my silence was intended only to attract and keep clients. On several occasions during my practice, the condition of the engagement was that the lawyer must not be Jewish. In such cases, I have regretfully declined my engagement, without regard to any financial or other advantage and with a statement of my religion.
Not so very long ago, while we were still in contact, I was recommended by a high-ranking state functionary as legal adviser to a large Dutch firm here. However, when I learned the Dutch firm sought a Christian lawyer, I immediately informed my patron that I did not meet this condition. I did not visit the director of the Dutch firm at the arranged time and place for the reason I have just mentioned. I was then given the advice I did not follow: to take the case because they would waive the condition above after seeing my work. But I did not apply, even though I knew that this firm alone would have provided me with more income than my entire clientele, as it was.
Generally speaking, I declared my religion to the client if the case was of significant financial interest, especially if it was an out-of-court procedure. If asked, I would tell the truth in cases of minor benefits or economic advantages. Still, as in your case, if I was not asked, I almost made a sport of my conduct, not referring to my religion. Indeed, such cases often resulted in strange situations, but I followed the principle that deeds are the proper arguments against untrue accusations instead of words. After the cases were closed, I told them I was not a Christian, whereas the clients told me not to make a fool of them because they would not believe it.
Also, there have been occasions when I have had to pocket the following remarks with bitter satisfaction: "Only a Christian lawyer can conduct a case so fairly and objectively."
Despite its irrelevance to the matter, our long and pleasant cooperation, Mr. Rocskay, requires that before you misjudge my conduct, I declare I have never denied my religion except in one case. When I was a prisoner of war in Russia, I had to choose whether to stay with my comrades with whom I was one and with whom I was lying on the front line in the Carpathians and then in the sands of Galicia. If I had not denied my religion, I would have ended up in a European camp and not in a Siberian one, but if I had denied it, I could have stayed with my comrades. Of course, I denied my religion without hesitation.
I know this is not a merit, nor do I wish to make it sound like one; I only bring it up because generalizations are always untrue. After all, it was not only I who denied my religion on this occasion but all my fellow officers of the Jewish faith in that camp, without any hesitation or discussion.
As for the mentality of Jewish lawyers, I can only say that many of my Jewish colleagues think as I do in the conduct of their cases. Still, I have no wish to prove this because I have already stated that fighting against this epidemic is futile.
Despite what I have said, you may still question, Mr. Rocskay: why I am only telling you all this now? Why not earlier? Perhaps the above explanation would be good enough. I want to add another thing: I have been preparing to tell all this - if not in such detail - for some time. On the one hand, I have been ill for about two years and spent most of the time in a sanatorium, so we hardly met.
On the other hand, you, Mr. Rocskay, had only two legal cases with me, one in 1937 (the naturalization) and the house purchase in 1939. In these two cases, if I remember correctly, I earned 1600 pengő, which is money for me, but not enough to explain my silence until today. The purpose of writing this letter is that on the 4th of this month, you, Mr. Rocskay, asked me to represent your interests in purchasing a new property on the proceeds of the house purchase.
In the shadow of the yellow star, I have not yet declined the commission because, although I am aware of your cautious attitude in these matters, I wanted to help with my advice. Even with this resolution, I decided that if the case came to completion, I would not bring the matter to a legal conclusion because, with a yellow star on my chest, I did not wish to be a member of a body that once had Kossuth, Jókai, Eötvös and other undoubtedly great Hungarians.
I came to this position not only in your case, Mr. Rocskay. I have decided not to take any case since 5 April because of my above resolution.
Whether Mr. Rocskay's planned transaction will become topical or not, I do not know, but if it does, I will not take the case even within the grace period (until 31 May) because, as I have said, I do not wish to act as a lawyer shamed and stigmatized.
However, based on fellow feelings for you, Mr. Rocskay, if the case is still on the table by 31 May, I will happily provide guidance free of charge. After that, I cannot advise you, not even free of charge. Although I would be happy to help some of my former clients, including you, I want to avoid even the appearance of conflicting with the law.
This matter would have needed a more detailed explanation. I chose to write because a meeting with you, Mr. Rocskay, would have brought you a startling surprise, which I wanted to avoid.
Mr. Rocskay, I have always respected men of honesty and faith like you. I have reached the point of saying all this and, in some respects, of putting an end to the conduct which I have practiced in some cases - again, whether rightly or wrongly, I do not know - but de facto have done so.
I hope you, Mr. Rocskay, will keep me in your good memory, just as I will keep you and your whole family in my memory.
I send my compliments to Madame and Gizike and extend my warmest greetings to you, Mr. Rocskay, and your sons.
Yours sincerely, … "
József Rocskay sent the following reply:
"To Mr. József Varsa.
Dear Mr. Varsa, dear Counselor, it is miserable to read the lines of your letter in which I seem to be hostile toward Jews. I will only state two facts. For years, my lawyer in Nice was Rozentál, and in Paris Salamon, both honest people, and my manager was a certain Mr. Kertész for nine years, all Jewish people. A faithful Roman Catholic considers all men brothers and could not even consider harming them. I learned to love you as much as if you were a dear brother to me, which is why your letter makes me sad. I only ask that in the future, if I need your advice, you allow me to show you the contract personally before signing it. Meanwhile, I also apologize if I have offended you in any way or other.
Sincerely,
József Rocskay
Budapest, 5 May 1944.
"The plenary meeting of the Board of the Budapest Bar Association held on 14 April 1944, pursuant to § 5 of Decree No. 1210/1944 of the Hung. Royal Ministry of Justice hereby removes Dr. József Varsa, attorney-at-law, from the register of lawyers as recorded by the Budapest Bar Association. The decision ordering his removal shall be published in the Budapest Gazette after it becomes final.
REASONS
The Board of the Budapest Bar Association has established that the lawyer named in the operative part of this decision is a person to be considered a Jew pursuant to Article 9 of Act XV of 1941, and therefore, pursuant to Article 5 of Decree No. 1210/1944 M.E., he should be removed from the register of lawyers kept by the Budapest Bar Association."
I have a copy of a letter my father wrote to one of his clients on April 20th 1944:
"Highly esteemed Mr. Rocskay,
If I remember correctly, in 1938, but in any case, at the very beginning of our business relationship and in several subsequent discussions, you, Mr. Rocskay, made generalizing statements about the unreliability of Jews in general. Whether out of conviction or based on unpleasant experiences, I do not know, but doubtless in the belief that I am not a Jew.
For the sake of sincerity, however, I must also state that on more than one occasion during our various discussions, you, esteemed Mr. Rocskay, made remarks which proved, if not your pro-Jewish sentiments, at least your humanist mindset. Because, as you, Mr. Rocskay, emphasized, a man should never be judged by his origin, nationality, or religion but by his deeds.
Your statement about the unreliable character of Jews also applied more specifically to Jewish lawyers; however, as I said, in a generalized way. I did not want to refute it at that time for many different reasons.
One reason was that I had never engaged in political or ideological debates with my clients or others. Another was that I considered such debates pointless. First of all - I am convinced - it was not by words but deeds that such beliefs and statements, which I thought to be misconceptions, had to be refuted. Also, I considered it pointless to enter into such a debate because any argument, agitation, or proof against such misconceptions would appear to be a futile struggle.
And finally, I had not refuted such statements because I had adopted such a stance. I could not have spent the last 30 years or more on anything other than the perpetual and fruitless pursuit of such arguments.
During my career as a lawyer, my years as a volunteer, the First World War, and the long years of captivity, I considered all refutations unnecessary. On the contrary, if I had chosen to argue against the ill accusations, I would not have followed my conviction to refute them by deeds, not words.
Whether this perception was right or wrong is not for me to decide. Still, the fact is that my most insistent clients were those who – at the beginning of our acquaintance - uttered views similar to yours, Mr. Rocskay, even though I later told them the truth about my status.
However, I do not want you, Mr. Rocskay, or anyone else who may read this letter, to be misled and think my silence was intended only to attract and keep clients. On several occasions during my practice, the condition of the engagement was that the lawyer must not be Jewish. In such cases, I have regretfully declined my engagement, without regard to any financial or other advantage and with a statement of my religion.
Not so very long ago, while we were still in contact, I was recommended by a high-ranking state functionary as legal adviser to a large Dutch firm here. However, when I learned the Dutch firm sought a Christian lawyer, I immediately informed my patron that I did not meet this condition. I did not visit the director of the Dutch firm at the arranged time and place for the reason I have just mentioned. I was then given the advice I did not follow: to take the case because they would waive the condition above after seeing my work. But I did not apply, even though I knew that this firm alone would have provided me with more income than my entire clientele, as it was.
Generally speaking, I declared my religion to the client if the case was of significant financial interest, especially if it was an out-of-court procedure. If asked, I would tell the truth in cases of minor benefits or economic advantages. Still, as in your case, if I was not asked, I almost made a sport of my conduct, not referring to my religion. Indeed, such cases often resulted in strange situations, but I followed the principle that deeds are the proper arguments against untrue accusations instead of words. After the cases were closed, I told them I was not a Christian, whereas the clients told me not to make a fool of them because they would not believe it.
Also, there have been occasions when I have had to pocket the following remarks with bitter satisfaction: "Only a Christian lawyer can conduct a case so fairly and objectively."
Despite its irrelevance to the matter, our long and pleasant cooperation, Mr. Rocskay, requires that before you misjudge my conduct, I declare I have never denied my religion except in one case. When I was a prisoner of war in Russia, I had to choose whether to stay with my comrades with whom I was one and with whom I was lying on the front line in the Carpathians and then in the sands of Galicia. If I had not denied my religion, I would have ended up in a European camp and not in a Siberian one, but if I had denied it, I could have stayed with my comrades. Of course, I denied my religion without hesitation.
I know this is not a merit, nor do I wish to make it sound like one; I only bring it up because generalizations are always untrue. After all, it was not only I who denied my religion on this occasion but all my fellow officers of the Jewish faith in that camp, without any hesitation or discussion.
As for the mentality of Jewish lawyers, I can only say that many of my Jewish colleagues think as I do in the conduct of their cases. Still, I have no wish to prove this because I have already stated that fighting against this epidemic is futile.
Despite what I have said, you may still question, Mr. Rocskay: why I am only telling you all this now? Why not earlier? Perhaps the above explanation would be good enough. I want to add another thing: I have been preparing to tell all this - if not in such detail - for some time. On the one hand, I have been ill for about two years and spent most of the time in a sanatorium, so we hardly met.
On the other hand, you, Mr. Rocskay, had only two legal cases with me, one in 1937 (the naturalization) and the house purchase in 1939. In these two cases, if I remember correctly, I earned 1600 pengő, which is money for me, but not enough to explain my silence until today. The purpose of writing this letter is that on the 4th of this month, you, Mr. Rocskay, asked me to represent your interests in purchasing a new property on the proceeds of the house purchase.
In the shadow of the yellow star, I have not yet declined the commission because, although I am aware of your cautious attitude in these matters, I wanted to help with my advice. Even with this resolution, I decided that if the case came to completion, I would not bring the matter to a legal conclusion because, with a yellow star on my chest, I did not wish to be a member of a body that once had Kossuth, Jókai, Eötvös and other undoubtedly great Hungarians.
I came to this position not only in your case, Mr. Rocskay. I have decided not to take any case since 5 April because of my above resolution.
Whether Mr. Rocskay's planned transaction will become topical or not, I do not know, but if it does, I will not take the case even within the grace period (until 31 May) because, as I have said, I do not wish to act as a lawyer shamed and stigmatized.
However, based on fellow feelings for you, Mr. Rocskay, if the case is still on the table by 31 May, I will happily provide guidance free of charge. After that, I cannot advise you, not even free of charge. Although I would be happy to help some of my former clients, including you, I want to avoid even the appearance of conflicting with the law.
This matter would have needed a more detailed explanation. I chose to write because a meeting with you, Mr. Rocskay, would have brought you a startling surprise, which I wanted to avoid.
Mr. Rocskay, I have always respected men of honesty and faith like you. I have reached the point of saying all this and, in some respects, of putting an end to the conduct which I have practiced in some cases - again, whether rightly or wrongly, I do not know - but de facto have done so.
I hope you, Mr. Rocskay, will keep me in your good memory, just as I will keep you and your whole family in my memory.
I send my compliments to Madame and Gizike and extend my warmest greetings to you, Mr. Rocskay, and your sons.
Yours sincerely, … "
József Rocskay sent the following reply:
"To Mr. József Varsa.
Dear Mr. Varsa, dear Counselor, it is miserable to read the lines of your letter in which I seem to be hostile toward Jews. I will only state two facts. For years, my lawyer in Nice was Rozentál, and in Paris Salamon, both honest people, and my manager was a certain Mr. Kertész for nine years, all Jewish people. A faithful Roman Catholic considers all men brothers and could not even consider harming them. I learned to love you as much as if you were a dear brother to me, which is why your letter makes me sad. I only ask that in the future, if I need your advice, you allow me to show you the contract personally before signing it. Meanwhile, I also apologize if I have offended you in any way or other.
Sincerely,
József Rocskay
Budapest, 5 May 1944.
Period
Year
1944
Location
Hungary
Interview
Vera Szekeres-Varsa