Under the guidelines of Marxist historiography there was very little debate about the nature and role of the Gömbös regime. It was decidedly agreed that Gömbös was building a fascist regime. In his latest book József Vonyó seeks to offer a better understanding of the man. As the author states, it is the “why” rather than the “what” that guides his inquiry (11). There is hardly anyone better suited to undertake such a project, for Vonyó spent much of his scholarly career on the study of Gömbös and his regime. The volume under review is part of a series published by Napvilág that seeks to offer updated and practical biographies of some of the most controversial historical figures in Hungarian history (see Horthy Miklós by Dávid Turbucz and Ki volt Károlyi Mihály? by Tibor Hajdu).

Gyula Gömbös was born in the small village of Murga in Tolna County on 26 December 1886. The village, his education in Sopron, and his military schooling left a significant imprint on his thinking and, as Vonyó argues, led him to two fundamental ideas: the primacy of the nation (nemzet) and the agrarian idea (agrárgondolat). These two ideas, continues the author, were closely connected, for Gömbös saw the peasantry as the group that had the ability to secure a better future for the Hungarian nation (32–33).

After an injury sidelined him, the end of World War I and the dissolution of the monarchy found Gömbös in Budapest, where he became the president of MOVE (Hungarian National Defense Union). The association of former and active military officers and soldiers was a nationalist and counterrevolutionary organization that provided a place for Gömbös to fulfill his ambition for leadership, allowed him to utilize his skill as an orator, and gave him the opportunity to build lasting political connections. After the temporary dissolution of the organization and the takeover by Béla Kun he fled to Vienna, where, with many other conservatives and right-wing politicians, he contributed to the work of the Anti-Bolshevik Committee. In this capacity he met István Bethlen with whom he would have a complicated relationship that would last until Gömbös's death.

The fourth chapter, which depicts Gömbös's journey from military officer to politician, I found perhaps the most valuable, for as the author himself states, without understanding the origins of Gömbös's politics, one cannot understand and examine his role as prime minister (165). Showing considerable talent for organization, Gömbös restructured MOVE and took a leading role in other official and secret right-wing and antisemitic organizations, such as the popular ÉME (Awakening Hungarians). By 1921, agues the author, Gömbös became the “informal leader” of the Hungarian far right, which openly advocated for radical reorganization of Hungarian social, political, and economic life and did not shy away from violence—more often than not targeting Jews or Jewish interests (100). In order to transform his popularity to the actual political stage, Gömbös entered formal politics as a member of the Smallholders Party and then as a member of Bethlen's Unified Party. He remained committed to far-right and antisemitic ideology, making him and his faction a constant irritant to Bethlen, who was trying to consolidate government power based on his conservative Christian Nationalism. The rift between the two led Gömbös to leave the governing party and establish his Hungarian National Independence Party, which is better known as the Fajvédő Párt (Party of Racial Defense). From its 1923 establishment to its self-dissolution in 1928, the Fajvédő Párt promoted the “regeneration of Hungary under the egis of racial defense” and called for the rejuvenation of the Hungarian race's political and economic power and status (127). I can agree with Vonyó’s assessment that Gömbös's racial defense cannot simply be equated with antisemitism, for indeed it also called for comprehensive social, educational, and political reforms that mainly aimed to benefit the countryside and its population. Characterizing these policies as “positive” is problematic, however. Vonyó himself clearly states that the so-called positive elements of the Fajvédő Párt’s ideology necessitated the economic, cultural, and political restrictions of Hungarian Jewry (that is the negative component of the ideology). I would not want to argue over semantics, for Vonyó makes it clear that race defender ideology almost exclusively targeted Jews, but I still think that qualifying any portions of the Fajvédő Párt’s program as “positive” is problematic (126–27 and 139–40). It needs more careful contextualization because, as the author acknowledges, the ideology did legitimize antisemitism as a political agenda (266).

The last chapter looks at Gömbös's tenure as the prime minister of Hungary (1932–36). The author makes it clear that despite his grand “reconciliation” and “reconsideration” (revideál) speech in 1932, Gömbös remained committed to his earlier politics. His National Work Plan certainly included some reforms, but, as Vonyó noted, it would only benefit those who were seen as part of the nation (179). The chapter also seeks to examine Gömbös's domestic and foreign policy and argues that his tenure would have come to an end even if not for his untimely death in 1936.

The author returns to his original question: Was Gömbös a hero or Satan (hérosz vagy sátán)? Vonyó argues that he was neither. Indeed, we cannot examine the man in simple absolutes, thus I would argue that the question itself is problematic in its binarism. The problem is that most people—including scholars on both sides—often try to characterize him in these simplest of terms. Thus, Vonyó’s balanced and objective biography is a welcome addition for those interested in understanding the man and his time. I recognize the limitations put forward by the type (and length) of book the press asked him to write, but can only hope that Professor Vonyó—who might be the most qualified to do this—will follow up this work with a larger and more substantial biography that would discuss Gömbös's personal life in more detail, contextualize his popularity, and further investigate his domestic and especially his foreign policy. While we are waiting, it would be wonderful to see this work translated into English.