Zsolt Nagy's Great Expectations and Interwar Realities examines Hungary's attempts to promote Hungarian culture abroad during the interwar period. After World War I, Hungarian leaders blamed the country's significant territorial loss on the failure of outsiders to understand Hungary. As a result, politicians sought to assert Hungary's role as “‘first among equals’ in the field of cultural achievement in East-Central Europe” (9). Nagy analyzes these activities, which he somewhat inconsistently terms “cultural diplomacy,” to answer two questions: What value did these activities have in a country with diminished political power? And, perhaps more compellingly, how did the need to project a specific type of “Hungarianness” shape Hungary's national identity in the face of the new geopolitical reality?

The book comprises five chapters that fall into two groups. The first two chapters provide an overview of Hungarian politics and the debates surrounding Hungarian national identity. Chapters three through five examine Hungarian cultural campaigns in three different areas: cultural and academic institutions, tourism, and radio and television. These latter chapters are at the heart of Nagy's analysis and offer a thoroughly researched, detailed account of Hungary's external-facing cultural activities. Nagy chronicles the Hungarian government's efforts to sway the opinion of different international publics across various cultural landscapes. After losing a significant portion of their territory to neighboring countries, the reactionary right regime of Miklós Horthy pursued a foreign policy focused almost entirely on irredentism. Due to internal upheaval and the circumstances of the moment—Hungary's ratification of the Trianon Treaty, desire to join the League of Nations, and need for international loans in the wake of the world war—the Hungarian government could not overtly pursue a revisionist policy, although they supported many organizations that did so (52). Rather, the government promoted Hungarian culture to brand Hungary as a Europe-oriented country with a rich history that made it more capable of leading than its neighboring countries.

Other East European countries also conducted cultural activities beyond their borders. Nagy describes the efforts of Romania and Czechoslovakia in particular, noting that each country competed for international presence, often with goals that were directly counter to those of the Horthy government (155). The primary impediments to Hungary's cultural efforts, however, were internal contradictions and the political reality of Hungary's position after the war. In particular, Nagy's case studies highlight the way in which Hungarian cultural efforts failed to reflect a cohesive vision of Hungary and “Hungarianness” that combined Hungary's historical legacy and Eastern origins with the (Western) Europe‒facing, modern Hungary that was required to secure the nation's success in the postwar European context. This tension—represented by the historical figures of Árpád (the Hungarian chieftain who led the Magyar tribes who settled in the Carpathian Basin) and Saint István (the Hungarian king who brought Roman Catholicism to Hungary and was therefore associated with Western orientation)—was never fully adjudicated (106).

In his conclusion, Nagy argues that Hungary's cultural efforts ultimately failed because the Horthy government's foreign policy aims were unrealistic considering the geopolitical reality of interwar Europe. Whether Hungary's cultural policy changed international perception is immaterial given that Hungary was a small country in a world of great power politics. Even Czechoslovakia, which seemingly enjoyed great success in the international cultural terrain, was subject to the whims of the larger geopolitical aims and self-interest of larger nations (299). As Nagy concludes, while cultural activities were among the few tools Hungary had during the interwar period, “no amount of quality politics, tourist sites, or films can substitute for a foreign policy informed by the realities of international relations in which it is ultimately power that matters” (306).

Nagy's analysis is hindered by the stand-alone nature of the individual chapters in this book, which can sometimes read like a collection of ideas more suited for independent journal articles. Several topics repeat and are not integrated into the full analysis effectively. Similarly, arguments and analyses from the introduction and conclusion are not integrated fully into the book's main chapters, particularly Nagy's concluding remarks on the geopolitics of Hungary's interwar foreign policy. Integrating this analysis and including more description of Hungary's cultural relationships with non-U.S. countries—particularly Germany and Italy, which were seemingly more sympathetic to Hungarian foreign policy aims—would have provided a fuller picture of Hungary's interwar cultural efforts.

Nagy's use of the term “cultural diplomacy” to describe Hungary's cultural outreach efforts obscures some key elements of his argument. His choice of this term is deliberate, as it is what the Hungarians termed their activities. However, Nagy uses cultural diplomacy seemingly interchangeably with other terms, including “public projections,” “soft power,” “public diplomacy,” and, in some cases, “cultural propaganda” (2). While the general character of these terms is clear, the analysis would have benefitted from a more thorough delineation of the distinctions between these terms and stronger theoretical underpinnings for his ultimate choice. In particular, a review on the use and literature on “cultural diplomacy,” “cultural propaganda,” and “public diplomacy” may have added a more solid theoretical framework to place Hungarian interwar activities.

Nonetheless, Nagy's study is a thoughtful, well-researched contribution to the field and will be invaluable to any scholar interested in culture, foreign policy, or national identity in Eastern Europe after World War I. The analysis in Great Expectations and Interwar Realities highlights the complexities of forming strong national identities and cohesive foreign policy agendas in the face of political reality, particularly for small countries.