Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 3

Historical debate section

This section of the article is almost competely unreferenced, and frankly, anyone getting to that point in the article after reading all the meat above will think they have stumbled down a rabbit hole and are now attending the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The arguments presented are strongly POV and revisionist to the point of departing from reality. I think the section should be drastically cut back to mention that there are alternate/revisionist views of these events and to provide a footnote or two pointing the interested reader to appropriate sources for further reading.--Paul 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, what a wreck. Forgot about that mess....I'll see what I can do in a bit. K. Lastochka 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul has a good point, since such analysis is not usually essential in a historical account. I had tried to get this section a few citations some time ago by posting a message on the original contributor's Talk page (User:Fifelfoo), but no response (and no activity there since June 2006). There are some online links to such historiographical positions, but all are very uneven and poorly referenced. So I would support just dumping the whole section. Ryanjo 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. :) If we feel the need, we can maybe write a completely new better version of that section, but the current incarnation had to go. K. Lastochka 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

and good riddance. One of the biggest points to be made in telling this story is how spontaneous it was; projecting a list of after-the-fact justifications as causative reasons only misleads the casual reader into thinking the whole thing was somehow orchestrated, which it was clearly not (Fryer). Istvan 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A question: at what point does a 'revolt' become a 'revolution?' I feel that this title is biased. I understand that there have been billboards up in Times Square calling it a revolution, but surely the definition of revolution does not fit what happened in Hungary in 1956. The Wikipedia definition: "A revolution is a drastic change that usually occurs relatively quickly." Altho this should actually be modified by 'social' or 'political', since a heart attack would not be called a revolution, it's not a bad definition. In Hungary there was a drastic change but it almost immediately went back to status ante. And worse. the American or French revolutions would not be called so if they had ended in French or Royalist victory respectively. They would be called 'rebellions' or 'revolts.' I feel that the title of this article should be changed. The encyclopedia cannot have its language be skewed by political partisanship, however much one may actually sympathize with those who suffered under and struggled against Soviet rule. [Kenvyn, Oct. 23/06]

While technically it was a revolt, the events are known to Hungarians as the Hungarian Revolution. The Boston Tea Party wasn't really a tea party, but that doesn't mean we need to change the name of what it is commonly referred to. Attila226 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all

In a few short months this article has gone from being the most piss poor history of the revolution I had ever seen to being something worth reading!! I have to apologize for not having contributed anything (life has a nasty habbit of getting in the way of academics). I was in Budapest during the most recent political upheaval. It will be interesting to see how things play out 50 years later.10/18/06

Prior version

I love the way this article looks now, but if we look at an edit from about a year ago, we find two things. One, the improvement has indeed been dramatic. But two, I like the last section and especially the "historical debate" section. I think the current version doesn't present enough interpretive viewpoints on the matter. Of course we must remain neutral, but might it not be a good idea to restore such a section, with proper citation, and give readers an idea of historians' debates on the subject? Biruitorul 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We debated that "historical debate" paragraph. Finding the citations would have been too much of a pain and the section wasn't really all that informative, at least not enough to be worth the effort of cleaning it up. K. Lastochka 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision on the "Historical debate" section is topic # 7 # 1 [just] above. It might be worth an article of its own, if some refs/quotes could be found. Ryanjo 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame

Yes, very soon. Lets make a list of things we need yet (but not in the official to-do box)

• Tighten references - Ive found some that didnt link directly to the page in question, or which were either more or less precise than the text. I have not, interestingly, come across any references that were not germaine (congrats to all) this is a herculean task for 120+ refs.
• Audio - the Nagy Imre radio clip from the AHF would be a great piece but it needs to be in either OGG or MIDI format. The Commons has some codices to convert but it requires expertise that I dont have.
• Video - There is also a great video clip on the AHF (5 days of freedom) but it also needs converting (if at all possible)
• Photos - I think a good shot of Kruschev and one of Andropov would fit well in the "Soviet Perspective" section. Trouble is that the commons images have big deletion notice tags on them and I wouldnt want to draw fire onto the page over copyvio Its hard enough explaining the AHF premission, even though they have liked their website directly to our 1956 Wikipedia page (yes, our work is being noticed)
• Inclusions - I wouldnt slap a ban on them but would instead request that if you put something in, please try to trim out an equal amount of text (there are still some verbose passages)
• Lobbying - The time is now. Its a great idea to approach the opposers and ask for a new review. Any other ideas?
• FA on 23 Oct (the goal) Does anyone here understand the mechanism by which FAs are chosen on a specific date? Long ago I left a message on Oct 23's talk page of the Feature schedule requesting that date, but have heard nothing. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AS THE FA QUEUE EXTENDS NOW TO 22 OCTOBER. I think we need to get a snap decision and lobby whomever we can to get us in that queue. If you have specific advice to share on this, please post sooner rather than later. Istvan 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to NCurse, we have requested a judgement, and know exactly what we need to do. The very moment we (God willing) are successful, we may put it up for nomination here. I have put up the AID and FAC noms, would someone else like to do the honours this time? The actual nom follows a certain format - Ive built out one on the sandbox its Test 1. (though anyone could delete it. Please look and edit. Istvan 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) I had to move it to my talk page as it was getting deleted (figures!) Istvan 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Based on no information whatsoever, I believe Raul654 is holding open Oct. 23rd waiting to see what will happen on the FAC nomination page. It would be nice if Tutmosis revisited the page today and changed from Comment to Support, and if Everyking and Ghirla would either support or remove opposition, we'd have a chance to reach FA status tomorrow, which is when Raul usually cleans up the nominations. It would also be very nice to get something concrete from the AHF on the photos.--Paul 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahm I came to my computer too late to give my support, its featured! But yes I did revisit the article today and would definetely have given my support if the FAC wasn't closed. Sorry about that but I'm sure you guys didnt try to please my comments in vain but rather to improve the article. So I guess I wish to say congratulations to all that helped bring this article to FA. - Tutmosis 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutmosis, thank you very much for your help and your support. Your detailed list of suggestions and your edits were both very helpful in achieving the FA goal.--Paul 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all and my suggestions are only a decimal fraction of the process to getting an article to featured status. So the real thanks goes to you and everyone else who helped make this happen from the start. - Tutmosis 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

totalitarian

Please at least look up the word totalitarian before you throw it around. It's a problematic term because it has so many definitions, making it vague and incredibly POV. How can a government that controls every area of life be subject to a widespread revolution? -- TheMightyQuill 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian seems a perfectly good word to use in describing Hungary under Mátyás Rákosi. From the totalitarian article:

Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties.

The fact that there was a revolution doesn't negate the use of this word to describe the government. People still fall aleep under a totalitarian regime, the "total" is always relative. The fact that there was a revolution (and note it wasn't under the Rákosi regime), just means that there weren't enough State Police. Rákosi called himself "Stalin's best pupil." I'd say there is a better case to be made against calling Rákosi a "dictator." But totalitarian seems perfectly correct to me. (... and if "totalitarian" isn't right, and "dictator" isn't right, what words are we supposed to used to distinguish folks like Rákosi from Jimmy Carter? They were both "government leaders.")--Paul 11:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume the issue is the replacement of "totalitarian" by "authoritarian" in the lead paragraph (first sentence) and the "Political repression and economic decline" subsection of the "Prelude" section. The Prelude "authoritarian" is already enhanced by the sentences that follow; there is little doubt that the reader will think that the Rákosi government was simply "strict". As a compromise position, and using the same logic (that the reader can understand from the context without being banged over the head with a "strong" word like "totalitarian"), leave it as authoritarian but add the second sentence, putting the word "authoritarian" in the context of policies that would incite a rebellion. Something like a mini-version of the Prelude section, that hits the points of occupation, economic failures of collectivism, show trials, etc. Again, not too blustery, just the facts. Ryanjo 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "repressive" ? The descriptor is immediately backed up by the text that follows. Istvan 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian seems a perfectly good word to use in describing Hungary under Mátyás Rákosi.

Sorry. Totalitarian is blatant violation of NPOV. Hungary was a multi-party socialist democracy during Matyas Rakosi. Parties within the Hungarian government at the time included Független Kisgazda-,Földmunkás és Polgári Párt and Nemzeti Parasztpárt

The preceding unsigned comment was added by the same IP user who has repeatedly posted revisionist "statistics" on other pages dealing with other crimes of the Soviet era. (check the page history and the IP user's previous contribs.) The People's Republic of Hungary was by no stretch of any sane imagination a "multiparty socialist democracy"--you make it sound like Sweden. K. Lastochka 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Also, the other claim that the PRH was not "totalitarian", that a revolution couldn't happen in a totalitarian state, well, that's just silly. Tsar Nicholas II was pretty damn totalitarian, and look what happened to him. K. Lastochka 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia, such deranged points of view are not tolerated. You are incorrect about conditions of the People's Republic of Hungary as its constitution specifically as a socialist democracy in which power was exercised by the people. I don't know about you, but I think Hungarians would be more informed of conditions of their country rather than some CIA controlled western outlet.

The characterization of Sweden as a democratic socialist state simply laughable as the means of production in that country do not belong to the people. The comparison of the Tsar to the socialist democratic Hungarian People's Republic is also completely inappropriate as Hungary has been liberated from the monarchy since 1918. All of these simpleton buzzword adjectives like "totalitarian" are superfluous and are more importantly a violation of POV.

Power exercised by the people? Don't make me laugh! Whoever you are, you CLEARLY are not on the side of "the people." And I'm not some CIA-brainwashed Western pig, I HATE imperialism...whether it's the USA propping up dictatorships or the USSR propping up the dictatorships!! The Hungarian people clearly were unhappy with their "socialist democratic people's republic", that's why there was a friggin' REVOLUTION. Oh, and don't give me any bullshit about the revolution being backed by the CIA or something. The Americans did not lift a finger to help the PRO-DEMOCRACY rebels, even though they told them over the radio that they would help. Grrr...K. Lastochka 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastochka, by your very example of the Russian Tsar, you prove how ridiculous using the term totalitarian is. The Russian Tsar certainly doesn't even match the basic criteria that Paul suggested above. (Which entire population did he attempt to mobilize?) The word is simply used to label hated (often legitimately hated) people far more than it is useful in accurately describing a regime/dictatorship.

The fact that there was a wide-spread anti-communist revolution meant (of course this is my opinion) that the Hungarian population had NOT accepted communism as a legitimate political ideology. This is what makes it different from say Prague 68, in which most of the actors wished for reformed communism of some kind. Rakosi clearly patterned himself after Stalin, repressive, authoritarian, violent, etc. But as Ryanjo has said, you can describe people better with the history than using a controversial (in its very definition, not just its applicability to this case) words like totalitarian. Personally, I have no problem calling Rakosi a dictator, but other people seem to.

As for the wacko communist (oops, sorry, no personal attacks) whose edits were thankfully reverted, I think the less POV this article can be, the less likely it will be to attract attention like that. Looking through the edits, most were not the addition of false statistics, but simple wording changes. -- TheMightyQuill 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps Nicolas II wasn't exactly the best example to use. I still don't quite understand your political rationale for not calling him a dictator/totalitarian, but I can agree that maybe using less "inflammatory" words is in the best interest of the article (so it won't attract any more komcsi trolls!) :) Cheers, K. Lastochka 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was fine when it went featured, why persist in trying to add adjectives and descriptive terms and starting the POV issue again. The article already states what happened and how everything was, there is no point in throwing in terms like "totalitarian". Lastochka, wikipedia is not here to describe terrible times with harsh words (how you responded on the fac) but to give facts and since communists dont call themselves totalitarian then you cannot call them "totalitarian" here (unless a notable relevant person said so) because that would constitute as analysis (Wikipedia:No original research). - Tutmosis 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Read what I just said: "I can agree that maybe using less "inflammatory" words is in the best interest of the article." I am not advocating adding harsh adjectives. I was disagreeing with OTHER rationales offered for not using words like dictator and totalitarian. I know perfectly well why Wikipedia is here, and as for my comments on the FAC, we were ALL a little stunned at first by the number of POV complaints we were getting. I have since achieved a better perspective. As for my angry responses to the "comrade" who "contributed" yesterday, responses that were probably ill-conceived as I seem to have now lost credibility and painted myself as a flaming nationalist troll, I apologize for losing my head but in my defense, I doubt I'm the only person in the world who gets a bit touchy when dealing with blatant and ill-informed revisionists, especially those of a pro-Soviet variety, especially in this context.

By the way, I never thanked you for your advice and assistance since we went up for FAC. I would like to take the opportunity now to do so. :) You've been quite helpful! K. Lastochka 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ment me above then "your very welcome"! Well I dont know what else to say, hopefully we all in agreement now. - Tutmosis 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant you, Tutmosis. :) Sorry again for repeatedly losing my temper yesterday and today, been under a lot of stress in the real world lately. I'm really not usually THIS excitable...:) So we're cool? K. Lastochka 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Definetely, even though I never was angry at you. :) - Tutmosis 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! :) K. Lastochka 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

wait... how many executions?

20,000 post-revolution executions is the number I'm most familiar with, and although that number is alleged in the infobox, it isn't referenced. Later, in the aftermath section, even the CIA estimates only 1,200 (which seems low to me). We should definitely get a reference for this, but at very least, the numbers should be consistent. Or maybe I somehow read this wrong, since I've been staring at it for too long. I hope I'm wrong, because this is a pretty big foul up for a FA. -- TheMightyQuill 07:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Regardless of the accuracy, it was unsourced, so I removed it and replaced it was a sourced estimate of wounded - which parallel's the killed/wounded report for the Soviet side.

Edit to-dos

Edit ideas and references this week

At this point, Its important to keep the page within its scope - i.e. covering the same ground as it did when it was declared FA. There are, however some edits which, IMHO are certainly fair game: Tightening references (as did TMQ and Paul) is of course important - Ive been combing the bibliography too, and working on articles linked from this one. Photoedits (without introducing POV in the captions) - (resisting comment on Khruchshev's barnstars was difficult) now that the AHF has declared them public domain, we may "upgrade" or move around some photos. Audio - having the audio clip of Nagy Imre's last radio broadcast would be big. However, it must be converted to OGG format. (its on the AHF 56 portal).Istvan 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit ideas for after October

Im not suggesting following any of these before the anniversary, only afterwards: See Samantha Smith (another FA article) - its a "spoken article" (swanky!) too bad I cant get it to play - perhaps worth emulating. See Warsaw Uprising (also FA) they have a template Template:Warsaw Uprising which links to several sub-articles. This might be a good place to put sub-sections (photogallery, the UN report, quotes from famous people about 56, maybe even a POV/editorial debate (basically all ancillary stuff that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia article). It may be a good release valve for all the POV language if people have a place to vent their spleens about it - like a newspaper giving a big story both a lead article plus a separate editorial. Istvan 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea about the template! I unfortunately have no idea how to create templates--anyone know? K. Lastochka 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. In the main article I'd still like to incorporate the part about the revolution outside Budapest that I highlighted here. In the template, we could have one article on historical interpretations, that I alluded to here, and one on cultural representations–monuments, celebrations, portrayals in Communist and post-Communist Hungary, but also its reflection in art, as a number of novels, poems, films, songs, paintings, etc. have dealt with the Revolution. So I endorse the idea of post-October 23 expansion in a number of directions. Biruitorul 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As for its reflection in art, I just remembered that there is speculation that Shostakovich's 11th Symphony, despite being subtitled "The Year 1905" and purportedly describing the ill-fated popular uprising in Russia in that year, was actually inspired by the 56 revolution, if not an outright musical depiction thereof. Will have to give that one another listen, maybe it's worth including in a list of cultural representations? K. Lastochka 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a possibility. This article idea has great potential. Do report back when you've listened. Biruitorul 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just been listening to it. :) Great piece, Shostakovich at his best. I have a very good book about him ("Shostakovich: A Life Remembered", by Elizabeth Wilson), and it is pretty clear that 56 was why he wrote that symph., will post some quotes later. It is not specifically about 56--it is meant to describe (on one level) the failed democratic revolution in Russia in 1905, but also in a much more universal sense, the tragedies of all suppressed freedom fights, all oppressed nations etc, and 56 was pretty clearly the impetus. K. Lastochka 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind've like how M*A*S*H was about Korea (Vietnam)? There is a great poem that starts Ede Király, Angol Király - that was about the English King (and not the Hapsburgs).... Putting some sound on the page (even a brief clip) would greatly improve it - not that it isnt stellar already (literally) but the Nagy Imre soudnbyte from the AHF and the "spoken page" concept from Samantha Smith are both worth thinking about. If anyone is good with sound files, etc. then please have a go at it. Till then we have to stay vigilant and keep this page in tip-top shape. Istvan 03:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm horrible with sound files--tried to e-mail an iTunes file to a friend once and nearly crashed both our computers. :) Although if anyone is better than that, the Nagy Imre clip would be fabulous to have. Anyone? (maybe there are some guidelines on the commons?) I'm toying with the idea of setting up a whole auxilliary page to this article, specifically about various perspectives and cultural reactions to 56--we can put a bit about the symphony, some poems (if there are any good ones...there seemed to be some on the AHF but didn't get a chance to read them closely), novels, movies etc., maybe also links to various international newpaper editorials about the uprising. (Nice analogy about M*A*S*H by the way!) Your comment about "stay vigilant" reminded me, I think it would be prudent to fix whatever little details we can tomorrow and Saturday, then lock the page on Saturday night to prevent any possible last-minute vandalism--I've been a bit nervous about that since the komsci-troll incident of a few days ago. :) After all our work, I'd hate to see something ridiculous up on the main page...K. Lastochka 04:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW I will not be around at all tomorrow (Friday) but on Saturday will be able to help out. Cheers! K. Lastochka 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be developing nicely. I haven't read any novels on the revolution, but I have seen two great films that touch upon it. One is Szerelem by Károly Makk, which features a man imprisoned during the revolution returning from prison, and mainly explores the effects of his imprisonment on his wife and mother. The other is Peter Watkins' The Forgotten Faces, in which Watkins recreated scenes from the revolution on a street in Canterbury, England. I can tell you it's so realistic that, until the credits rolled, I kept asking myself, "How did he manage to film this stuff?" It really is quite authentic in feel. I'm sure there are other films – does anyone know of more? Biruitorul 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's "Freedom's Fury", but I somehow doubt that one will be any good...K. Lastochka 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but depending on how we structure the article, we may have to make mention of it for the sake of NPOV. Biruitorul 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course we'll mention it! :) K. Lastochka 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just started the page Cultural representations of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Needs a LOT of work. K. Lastochka 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Good start! I'll see what I can do for now, with more to be added later. Biruitorul 03:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

It looks as if the the Andropov and Khrushchev photos have been deleted.--Paul 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're completely gone. There's absolutely no Andropov photo on the Wiki, and the only good Khr. photo is also under threat of deletion. I think especially the Andropov photo would work well there since most people find it interesting that he was Soviet ambassador to Hungary in 1956. If anyone can get another photo (that's not copyvio) then please put it up. Istvan 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one photo of Krchs. showing him as the Time Man of the Year for 1958, if there isn't any other pictures, maybe you could use that (possibly cutting out, the red Time border)--Dami 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I found an Andropov photo [1] on a Marxist website that claims that all of its content is "Creative Commons". So I presume that its OK for Wikipedia. (The only "problem" with the photo is that he's giving a quite friendly wave, for a KGB guy.) There may be some Khrushchev photos too, I didn't spend time looking through their gallery [2] and photo album [3]. - Ryanjo 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A fundamental error!

There is irrefutable evidence that marchers and demonstrators were already armed as early as 3 p.m. on 23 October. Ironically, the evidence for this is in a book entirely sympathetic with the revolution, and fully on the side of the freedom fighters.

A large photograph, spread over two pages, shows four demonstrators, 3 men and a woman, marching side by side at the head of a very large procession, entirely filling the bridge and the sidewalks (the university students' march from Pest to Buda, on their way to the Bem statue). The weapons (rifles) are being carried openly, even demonstratively, by the four at the head of the procession. It is, therefore, historically incorrect to state or to imply that AVH forces opened fire on 'unarmed marchers' or 'unarmed demonstrators'. (This is, however, not a justification of the bloodshed that followed and it should not be taken as such.)

Reg Gadney: Cry Hungary! Uprising 1956 (Introduction by George Mikes), publ. Weidenfeld, London (1986) photograph on pp. 20-21. ISBN 0-297-78960-0 Gk1956 14:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting! Is it only those four at the head of the parade that are armed, or is everybody packing heat? It's quite conceivable that those four armed protestors weren't actually AT the rally outside the broadcasting station, and that crowd that the AVH fired on WAS unarmed. Good catch though... K. Lastochka 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be missing the point. The point is not whether the same four were or were not at the radio building later that afternoon. (The answer to that is probably unknowable!). No, the point is that whatever the source of those rifles, the same source may have supplied more (and it is theoretically possible that proof of this exists, or may come to light, whilst it is impossible to prove a rebuttal, because one cannot prove a negative.) My inference is that one should perhaps tone down the rhetoric about firing on unarmed students / demonstrators / marchers. (Does the article need this?) Gk1956 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should say "peaceful" demonstrators instead of specifically saying "unarmed"? K. Lastochka 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Who can vouch for the authenticity of the photo, as to the date and place? And, saying that four people had guns (were they loaded?) at sometime on the 23rd does not disprove that later the crowd at the radio station was "unarmed." Without a good source coming up with some proof that there was arming of the students or writers before the evening of the 23rd, we can't just assume this for ourselves, as that is original research. How many sources do we already have that say "unarmed?"--Paul 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unarmed" is quite correct, and well-referenced. The UN reports at least three separate occasions where ÁVH fired upon unarmed people - among them are: The radio station building on 23 Oct, the Newspaper (Szabad Nép) office on 24 Oct. and the parliament building massacre of 25 Oct. The UN report (very carefully worded) states that "the demonstrators acquired their first arms" - ironically in paragraph 56) on 23 Oct at the radio station *after* the ÁVH had fired upon the crowd, as they intercepted an armnaments-laden "ambulance" sent to relieve the ÁVH. At the Szabad Nép, the UN report states explicitly "unarmed" demonstrators were fired upon (para 57), and on 25 October, the report states again explicitly that Soviet troops opened fire on "unarmed deomonstrators" (paragraph 64). The statement "ÁVH fired into the crowd of unarmed demonstrators" is very well referenced. Istvan 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The memory and the reputation of the AVH are black-enough as it is and rightly so. But is there anything to be gained by making it a darker shade of black at the price of deviating, or perhaps deviating, from historical truth? In any case, would it really detract from the honour and the spirit of the revolution if some in the crowd were armed? I don't think so.

Over-reliance on the U.N. Report is unsafe. By its own admission the U.N. Committee was overwhelmingly handicapped by being able to taking depositions mainly only from people, who, understandably and justifiably, were hostile to the Kadar regime.

A photograph is as good an evidence as any oral description of an event, if not better. The copyright to the photo is held by Popham (renamed since to TopFoto, I think). They are an internationally recognised and respected photo agency (see: http://www.topfoto.co.uk/contactus/contactus.htm ), and Weidenfeld's reputation needs no proving.

To suggest that the photograph may be a fake, or to digress into whether they were loaded with live ammunition, is, at best, no more than infantile drivel; at worst - … words escape me. It seems to me you are more interested in jingoism than in following a reasoned line of argument and analysis. Be careful in what you wish for - you may yet get it. Gk1956 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reasoned response. I'm sorry that you weren't able to find the words to complete it. Please explain how extrapolating conclusions from a photograph, reasoning "whatever the source of those rifles, the same source may have supplied more (and it is theoretically possible that proof of this exists, or may come to light" is not original research? Why should such theorizing trump existing secondary sources that claim the demonstrators were unarmed?--Paul 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is primary source, not secondary, proving that at least some of the demonstrators were armed. What primary source are you relying on to prove that none of the demonstrators were armed? Gk1956 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Except, the photo does not show the event in question--that is, the protest outside the broadcasting headquarters, where the ÁVH fired on the protestors. According to your description, the photo shows the march across the city earlier that afternoon. Unless someone can produce a photo of armed demonstrators at the broadcasting station, the article must stay as it is. K. Lastochka 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with K. Lastochka: We have the UN report, testimony from contemporary witnesses, even if they were refugees, and then a photograph, which is not taken at the radio station. How can we presume to overturn the document we are using as a reference, using a picture that doesn't even refer to the event? I would suggest a footnote at "unarmed demonstrators", which mentions that there is photographic evidence that some demonstrators at the earlier protest march carried firearms, but that the UN report specifically reports that the radio crowd was unarmed, until supplied from the ambulance. This detail is important, since is was an inciting event for the widespread armed resistance. Ryanjo 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say disregarding a (primary source) completely because there is secondary source that conflicts would be a little sketchy. Perhaps we could change the text to read peaceful while we look for another source that mentions the photo or arms being present generally? If the photo exists, it's clearly right. We can't include original research (which extrapolating from a photo arguably is), but simply ignoring what seems to be an inconvenient fact doesn't sound like a good idea to me. -- TheMightyQuill 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The procession from Petõfi > Bem is not described in the article. The procession from Bem > Parliament is described as "peaceful", not "unarmed". There is no conflict btw the photo and the article. To impune or defend either the photo or the UN report is a moot point - they do not contradict each other. (that photosite has some great shots, btw) Istvan 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The protestors marching to the parliament were completely unarmed, even the soldiers marching with them were unarmed as the Hungarian army was banned from public displays of weaponry.

To some events there is now a better source than the UN Report - the recording of the Hungarian Radio. It is pretty clear, that there was about 30 minutes between the first shots by the AVH guards (whether these first shots were aimed at the demonstrators or not cannot be deducted from the recording of course) and the first shots from the demonstrators. In any case, by 9 p.m. the first AVH officer was shot dead.

The recording of the Hungarian Radio also clearly shows that Gerő did not call the demonstrators mob (csürhe). The word was actually used by Nagy at arriving to Parliament in the evening (and also called them counter-revolutionaries). However, I cannot source this, though the information is reliable. However, anybody can listen to Gerő's speech and hence the statement in the article is inaccurate.

As to Kossuth Square, there is still no evidence about the people who shot from the roof of the Ministry of Agriculture, thus the definitive statement is highly problematic in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, listening to the Hungarian Radio recording and using it as a source would be regarded as original research which is prohibited for Wikipedia articles. We'll have to wait until someone writes a book or article based on this new evidence.--Paul 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. Unfortunately, the Hungarian Radio sometimes puts on media files, then takes them off, let's hope that eventually it will have a permanent section. Also, most of the people was convinced that Gerő used the word, though he couldn't, as he read a written speech agreed in the Politbureau (though not all members were present). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Telegram to Soviets?

An editor just added the following text:

On November 2, 1956, the Eisenhower administration issued the statement "The government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union." [4] [5]

This is third-hand information from someone not in a position to know. If there were such telegrams with such language, I would think there would be a copy of of same in the National Archives or the Soviet Archives. It seems to me unwise to include this claim without a better quality source. Other comments?--Paul 18:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: these quotes are very much "hearsay". A better reference for this telegram is needed. I have looked through two of the most recent books on the revolution (Gati and Bekes), and there is nothing referring to any such telegram. In fact, Bekes has a summary [6] about new information from Eastern Bloc documents on the 1956 Revolution, and there is no such revelation. Ryanjo 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am closer to finding the source. Susposedly it is mentioned in the Congressional Record Volume 106, Part 14, Eighty-sixth Congress, Second Session. 31 August, 1960. 18783-18790. I haven't been able to find an online method to search this yet, or find a library with Congressional Records which go that far back, to verify it myself. Susposedly it is also mentioned in Gergely Pongrátz's book Corvin Köz 1956 (not just the interviews referenced above) but I also do not have a copy of that. Rearden9 15:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading through the two interviews with Gergely Pongracz, I further doubt that any telegram (if it existed) was influential in Khrushchev's decision to end the Revolution:

• There is ample evidence from Presidium transcripts[7] of the October 31 meeting, that the decision to intervene was made then, and the reasons. As the minutes report, Khrushchev was actually planning meeting with Tito in Yugoslavia, to inform him of the attack--and yet this is where the "telegram" supposedly reached him on November 2. The decision was made days earlier.
• Could it be that this "statement" or "telegram" was actually a misinterpretation of a number of American statements at the time of the Revolution? János M. Rainer, in his analysis Decision in the Kremlin, 1956 -- the Malin Notes [8], reports the following:

"Following the long meeting of the 28th, the most important of the Soviet leaders attended two receptions on the 29th. One was in celebration of the Turkish national day, the other on the occasion of the visit to Moscow of the Prime Minister of Afghanistan. At the first, Ambassador Bohlen of the United States had an important conversation with Marshal Zhukov; Bohlen once again called attention to Secretary of State Dulles's speech delivered two days earlier in Dallas. Dulles had said that the American administration would not consider a Hungary liberated from Soviet rule as a potential ally. (Foreign Relations of the United States 1955-1957, Eastern Europe, Vol. XXV (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990. 336.)"

Here is a longer extract of Dulles comments in Dallas on October 27 [9]. In addition, another well-referenced analysis of Soviet and American interplay over the response to the Revolution (Csaba Békés: The 1956 Revolution and World Politics, see the section titled "The United States"[10]) has a detailed discussion on what the US State Department said to the Soviets and why Dulles said: ‘We do not look upon these nations as potential military allies.’ It is unlikely that the Hungarians were able to hear the complete context of Dulles statement. Could a misunderstanding of this context be the source of the comments by Gergely Pongracz? Ryanjo 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the source that the Dulles quote was given out of context - I have removed it from the text, but am happy if you re-insert it in proper context as you wish, with ref. We're up in less than 24 hours now. Best to pick the nits now. Istvan 04:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Politburo reversed itself" ??

The statement in the lead, which reads: "Although it had previously agreed to a ceasefire, the Politburo reversed itself and now moved to quash the revolution." Is unsourced and I believe it to be mistaken. Neither the Politburo nor any other Soviet authority had agreed to a cease-fire; there is no such Agreement! It is true that Nagy had "ordered" a cease-fire [note the word "ordered"] but that order was always meant to be an order issued to the AVH, the Hungarian Army, and the civilian freedom fighters. Nagy had no authority over the Soviets. The UNITED NATIONS REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROBLEM OF HUNGARY, in section 67, states: " On 28 October, Mr. Nagy’s Government ordered a cease-fire.". Subsequent references in the Report to cease-fire are all based on this reference. I have placed a {{fact}}tag on this sentence in the lead. Please do not remove it without first making clear what you are relying on for the staement that the Politburo reversed itself. The Soviet's withdrawal of forces from Bp was no more than a tactical withdrawal from the city, to lick their wounds and to regroup their forces. That's a long way short of "Politburo reversed itself". Gk1956 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In "Soviet Intervention in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956" by Sarah Streicker, University of Michigan we find the following:

In order to prove its dedication to peace to the world, the Soviet Union issued the Declaration of the Government of the USSR on the Principles of Development and Further Strengthening of Friendship and Cooperation between the Soviet Union and other Socialist States on October 30, 1956. This document illustrates the lengths to which Khrushchev destalinized foreign relations. In it, the Soviet Union admits that Moscow had made not only errors but "egregious mistakes" in Eastern Europe and that it committed "violations of the principle of equality in relations between socialist countries." It even suggested the removal of Soviet troops from Warsaw Pact countries. In conclusion, the Declaration pledged to "observe the full sovereignty of each socialist state."

Under the auspices of the October 30 Declaration, there was a Presidium meeting in which the leadership in Moscow considered a withdrawal from Hungary. Khrushchev, Zhukov, Molotov and others conceded in a Presidium meeting on October 30 that "the peaceful path - the path of troop withdrawals and negotiations should be followed in Hungary" (Kramer, Mark. “New Evidence on Soviet Decision-Making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Cold War International History Project, www.cwihp.si.edu). Thus, it appeared that the Soviet Union was ready to allow events in Hungary to take their own course."

Perhaps "agreeing to a ceasfire" is an imprecise way to state the facts, but the Presidium does appeared to have "reversed itself" from a policy of relative laissez-faire and withdrawal. Would you care to suggest a better wording?

This probably should be explained more in the Soviet reaction section and we really should have a link/reference to the "Friendship and Cooperation" document.-Paul 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

At last, we seem to agree on something. The current wording of the sentence is admittedly wrong. The Soviets were never a party a Cease-fire Agreement, ergo: they could not possibly have reversed out of it. What they DID reverse was their initial intention to cut their losses and get out. To avoid further misunderstandings over this sentence, I suggest you cut out the phrase "Although it had previously agreed to a ceasefire" and rephrase the sentence, to indicate the shilly shalling within the Kremlin, if you think it is needed. Gk1956 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Declaration of Friendship &etc..." and its statement about being willing to enter into negotiations on the withdrawal of Soviet troops certainly had an effect on the dynamics of events. The two sentences in the lead say By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normalcy began to return. (para.)Although it had previously agreed to a ceasefire[citation needed] , the Politburo reversed itself and now moved to quash the revolution. How about: By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normalcy began to return. (para.)Although it had previously announced a willingness to negotiate the complete withdrawal of troops, the Politburo reversed itself and now moved to quash the revolution. --Paul 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very neat. Do however consider "indicated" instead of "announced", unless you can cite the "announcement". Gk1956 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I substituted the suggested wording including a reference to the fact that Pravda published the "friendship declaration" on October 31. --Paul 00:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

Anyone here already adept at Wikisource? There are at least two articles that belong there - Albert Camus' The Blood of the Hungarians and Bibó István's For Freedom and Truth (both linked from this article, and both now on the EnWiki) - and there may be others... as such, I anticipate that on 23 Oct, we would get tons of comments about these being in the wrong place, maybe even moving or deleting them, etc. If any of the editors here is good on Wikisource, could you please move those over? Istvan 06:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the advice in {{move to wikisource}}, I've moved For Freedom and Truth. No time for the other one right now... KissL 10:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

False citation

The reference provided for the sentence: "it [the Politburo] had previously announced a willingness to negotiate the complete withdrawal of troops" does not support the sentence.

What the reference cited states is: "[T]he Soviet Government is prepared to enter into the appropriate negotiations with the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and other members of the Warsaw Treaty on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary."

False, corrupt, and misleading citations, once the staple wares of Szabad Nép and Pravda, were wares the Hungarian freedom fighters despised and fought against. Gk1956 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"it [the Politburo] had previously announced a willingness to negotiate the complete withdrawal of troops" Better? (See also: Working Notes from the Session of the CPSU CC Presidium on 30 October 1956 --Paul 13:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The reference you are relying on says nothing about "withdrawal of troops" ("presence of troops", as quoted from Pravda, may mean anything!) Why not just quote the real McCoy, as per your citation? i.e. "... announced that the Soviet Government was prepared to enter into negotiations on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary. ..." Gk1956 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Read the notes on the Oct 30 meeting of the Presidium (linked above)... you will find this statement by Khrushchev: We should adopt a declaration today on the withdrawal of troops from the countries of people’s democracy (and consider these matters at a session of the Warsaw Pact), taking account of the views of the countries in which our troops are based. The entire CPC CC Politburo supports this position. One document for the Hungarians, and another for the participants of the Warsaw Pact. On Rokossowski—I said to Gomulka that this matter is for you (the Poles) to decide. Then the declaration was issued. Many references mention that "statement of friendship..." and its offer to negotiate the withdrawal of troops was received with great relief in the Budapest and west. Everyone thought the revolution had succeeded. Then Khruschev went home and couldn’t sleep, saying that “Hungary was like a nail in my head.” The next day the Presidium met again, reversed itself and decided to use military force to put down the revolution. All of this really happened. The sources provided prove it. The statement “it [the Politburo] had previously announced a willingness to negotiate the withdrawal of troops” is absolutely true. Please read the references and you will see that this is so.--Paul 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets DID enter into these negotiations - they "observed" the cease-fire (UN para 70) and on 3 Nov. "invited" the delegation of Maléter, Erdei, Kovács and Szũcs to Tököl to negotiate "final technical details" of Soviet withdrawal from Hungary, where they were arrested by the NKVD that midnight (UN para 75). The scope of withdrawal is not the issue - it cannot be, because it did not happen. The Soviet head-fake, i.e. inviting diplomats to negotiate and then arresting them 2 hours later as your army is invading *is* the issue, and is a very important part of the story of 1956. Istvan 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take note that the above issue has altered the structure of the article - previously, the summary paragraphs bore no references, and as such, simply summarised the text below. Now, we have a ref and a tag. I would recommend removing both, and rewriting the text to accurately reflect the body of the article below. I would recommend using the sentence "Although the Soviet army observed the ceasefire and began negotiating a withdrawal of forces from Hungary,...". The text body below must also be altered to include the referenced statements - (the Soviets observing of the ceasefire, the Pravda editorial and announcement, the invitation to Tököl, etc.) to back it up. But it should stay a summary of the text itself. I will make the changes in a few hours unless someone objects.Istvan 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"observed the cease-fire" is inappropriate wording. The cease-fire was ordered by Nagy. It could only have applied to AVH, Hungarian Army, and freedom fighters. Had Nagy had any authority over the Soviet forces, i.e. to order a cease-fire, history would have turned out otherwise. What one can say, without ambiguity, is that "Soviet Army ceased aggressive moves and began negotiations for the withdrawal of Soviet forces". But one must leave out any allusion to an agreed cease-fire, because there was no such Agreement. Gk1956 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Observed" is accurate and referenced. The text does not assert intent ("agreement"), and Nagy's "ordering" a cease-fire does not speak to the issue of whether the Soviets observed it or not - the UN report (para 177), et al. states they did "observe" it. Istvan 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence is morphing and wandering. The original point, and the clarified point is that the Soviets first decided to use diplomacy and withdrawl troops, then they changed their minds and crushed the revolution. This is what the original text meant, and what the modified text says. Keeping this in mind and leaving the details for the body of the article, the following text is true and should be left in the intro: Although it had previously announced a willingness to negotiate the withdrawal of troops, the Politburo reversed itself and now moved to quash the revolution.--Paul 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The above text is fine with me. I would suggest removing both the reference and the tag from the summary paragraphs at the top and altering only the text in the body of the article to correspond to the statement. Istvan 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Politburo did not announce its willingness to negotiate the withdrawal of troops; what it announced was that the Soviet Government was prepared to enter into negotiations on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary [exact words!]. See your own ref., the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book Gk1956 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several references which do not contradict each other. The Soviet Union, whether simply "prepared to", or "willing to" or "reluctantly" or whatever, not only declared negotiations for a troop withdrawal, and in fact DID enter them (they lasted for exactly 2 hours until the Hungarian party was arrested). No matter how you slice it, there was a change of direction in the Politburo and the task at hand is to accurately reflect this in the text. Istvan 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a significant difference between "willingness to negotiate the withdrawal of troops" and "prepared to enter into negotiations on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary."? Also, there is this statemement from Khruschev from the 1956-10-30 Presidium meeting notes: "We should adopt a declaration today on the withdrawal of troops from the countries of people’s democracy." What do you make of that?

Then there is this excerpt from the Stricker reference(linked above)

"Under the auspices of the October 30 Declaration, there was a Presidium meeting in which the leadership in Moscow considered a withdrawal from Hungary. Khrushchev, Zhukov, Molotov and others conceded in a Presidium meeting on October 30 that "the peaceful path - the path of troop withdrawals and negotiations should be followed in Hungary" (Kramer, Mark. “New Evidence on Soviet Decision-Making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Cold War International History Project, www.cwihp.si.edu). Thus, it appeared that the Soviet Union was ready to allow events in Hungary to take their own course."

This is pretty clear, isn't it?

This sort of disagreement is unfortunately the downside of working with primary documents, but aren't you really being a bit too strict here? If these statements together don't mean that the Soviets were willing to negotiate withdrawal of troops from Hungary, what do they mean? Do you have references saying the Soviets weren't interested in negotiating the withdrawal of troops, and that the Presidium didn't change it's mind between Oct. 30 and 31? --Paul 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your question.: "Is there really a significant difference between "willingness to negotiate the withdrawal of troops" and "prepared to enter into negotiations on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary."?

Answer: YES, there is. Gk1956 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter. We are here to record a history from historical references; not read tea leaves, psychoanalyse or guess intent. There are ample references which show that the Soviet Government announced not only an intent/preparation/willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of forces from Hungary, but also actually entered into these negotiations, as it prepared to crush the revolution. There are the above citations to which must be added the Nagy-Andropov communications. To be as generous to the Kremlin as possible is to call this a "reversal", to be less so is to call it "deception" (which certainly worked - defenses were unprepared, and the Hungarian chiefs of staff were under arrest from the outset) But the fact remains - Soviets intitially hesitated, and then were talking peace as they put their military into position to attack Budapest. Remember the Soviets had surrounded Bp 30 mins before the Hungarian delegation even arrived at Thököl. Istvan 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are preaching to the converted, I am not concerned about whitening the Politburo's black image. What I am concerned about is not accusing them of what they have NOT done, i.e. agreeing to a cease-fire and then breaking it. I say this not because I think they were incapable of deception, but because editorial integrity demands that if an accusation or an implication of a specific accusation is levelled against the Politburo, it should be supportable by appropriate citations without leaving it open to various interpretations.

Lets try resolving this editorial problem buy concentrating on what we agree on. We agree that the Politburo debated the issue to and fro and came down in favour of re-examining their presence in the satellite states. This was made public through Pravda, as per the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book notes. We also agree that subsequently, the Politburo reversed its earlier decision. So why not state the undisputable facts: after debating the issue the politburo made a decision that it was prepared to enter into negotiations on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary, and then it changed its mind. Simple! Gk1956 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that you put it that way, it seems clear and reasonable. Lets create a precisely correct statement, amend the text body (under "Soviet perspective" and "Soviet intervention" and then in the top paragraphs, summarise this and remove the tag and reference (the references belong in the body). Istvan 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of 2nd Soviet Intervention

The article currently states: Although it is widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet military to crush the Revolution, minutes of the October 31 meeting of the Presidium of the Soviet Party indicate that this declaration was only one of several contributing factors. This appears to have the chronology wrong. The CPSU decided to "restore order" on October 31st. On Nov. 1st, alarmed by reports of troop movements into Hungary from the Soviet Union, Nagy declared neutrality and withdrew from the Warsaw Pact. So, unless I am reading the sources and documents incorrectly, withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact was a reaction to hostile moves from the Soviets, not the other way around. Agree, disagree? Further, since the Warsaw Pact announcement was made on November 1, it could not have been a topic of discussion at the Oct. 31 Presidium meeting. Does the article need rewording?--Paul 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, the Warsaw Pact withdrawl wasn't a factor. A detailed and referenced analysis of the Presidium debate between 28-31 October has been published by János M. Rainer.[11] Rainer makes the point that, at the time Khrushchev argued for reversing the non-intervention policy that he himself had proposed on October 28th, he had these reasons for changing his mind:

There was a single thing that Khrushchev spoke about at length and repetitiously that was protecting the prestige of the empire. A military pullout from Hungary would give evidence to the weakness of the Soviet Union, and the Western powers would take advantage of that. “If we depart from Hungary, it will give a great boost to the Americans, English, and French -- the imperialists. They will perceive it as weakness on our part and will go onto the offensive. ... To Egypt they will then add Hungary.”(47) Interestingly enough Khrushchev considered the Suez case being decided already at this moment. He also emphasized the domestic political effects of a grave loss of prestige. "[By withdrawing] we would then be exposing the weakness of our positions. Our Party will not accept if we do this."(48) The reference was much rather to the "circles" capable of influencing the leadership than to the grass roots party members, mainly to the army, to state security and the apparatus. What turned out to be fundamentally important was the protection of the Soviet Union's position as a world power and the retaining of the unity of the leadership. Apparently, none of the other issues influencing the decision (ideology, the maintainance of the image, pure military and strategic considerations) had sufficient weight in Khrushchev's thinking to justify a hard-line decision.

I seems that the other factors mentioned in this section are correct reasons that the Soviets attacked, however. So the lead sentence should be revised, perhaps:

Although it is widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet military to crush the Revolution, minutes of the October 31 meeting of the Presidium of the Soviet Party indicate that this declaration was only one of several not a contributing factors.

Ryanjo 02:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch - The sentence is best off stating that the mistaken belief (neutrality caused invasion) is wrong because the decision for invasion came before the decision for neutrality, therefore it couldnt have caused it. How about:

Although it is widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet military to crush the Revolution, minutes of the meeting of the Presidium of the Soviet Party reveal that the Kremlin had decided on October 31 to invade, one day before Hungary declared neutrality on November 1.

or something like that. (are you sure about the title "Presidium of the Soviet Party"?) That settles it pretty clearly. Istvan 04:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia link Presidium, this was the name that the Politburo was called from 1952-1966. And of course, this is the title of our reference as well ("Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting, October 31, 1956").

The change has already been made in the "mistaken belief" sentence. We are now left with an inconsistency in the last of the bulletted points:

Hungarian neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact represented a breach in the Soviet defensive buffer zone of satellite nations.[71] Soviet's fear of invasion from the West cemented their insistance upon a defensive buffer of allied states on her borders.

Should we take off the bullet, and say the following:

Although Hungarian neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact might have caused a breach in the Soviet defensive buffer zone of satellite nations, [71] fear of invasion from the West did not influence the decision to move against Hungary.

The reason to leave the "buffer state" sentence here is that it also corrects a common assumption that fear of Western invasion was an immediate cause of the 4 November attack. Ryanjo 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nagy Imre clip

I have uploaded a file of Nagy Imre's appeal. Peter O. (Talk) 02:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Score! and thank you. Now if I could just figure out how to play it... I plan to put it right below his radio broadcast photo. Istvan 04:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Real Player will play it (but only from my desktop, not the wikipedia!) This is a very very powerful clip, especially for Hungarians (its his voice in Hungarian followed by an English translation) and it should go up on our page. Trouble is, getting it there and getting it to work... I cant get the file to play via linking it into the caption of the Nagy Imre pic. It keeps displaying the filename which links to the file page, not the file itself. Anyone know a workaround? Perhaps getting a small speaker icon onto the caption of the Nagy Imre image (at the radio desk) that opens the sound file in Real Player? Tall order I know, but Im sure someone knows how to do it easily. Istvan 05:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK again, got it up there, but cant play it. Can anyone else? For me, it loads the file and opens real player, but the program requres "additional software" that it cant find on the web. Saving and double-clicking will play it fine (but most readers wont have the patience for this). Can anyone else hear the clip? Istvan 05:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an OGG file, not a RealPlayer file. I don't believe Real Player can play OGG files. Try searching Google for "Media Player Classic", which is what I use. Peter O. (Talk) 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Templates Listen(more standalone, better into the text body) or Audio(for inline use, like image caption use):

{{Audio|ImreNagy.ogg|Imre Nagy Speech}}:

{{Listen|filename=ImreNagy.ogg|title=Imre Nagy Speech|description=Radio speech of Imre Nagy in Hungarian and English translation|format=[[Ogg]]}}:

--Dami 12:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great clip! I wish to God I understood Hungarian better, I can only pick out about a third of what he's saying, but it's so great to have it! Thanks so much Peter O.!!!K. Lastochka 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dami, I switched from your version A to your version B but could never get that little speaker icon to pop up. If someone, anyone, could get that little icon to appear on the page, then please do so as this really puts this article over the top. Istvan 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be an overlap problem with the picture. I put the picture on the right, so now I see the icon, hope I didn't ruin the "composition" of the pictures this way.--Dami 16:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to stick that clip in the box with the picture of Nagy Imre? As is, it's just sort of out there floating around randomly--looks pretty sloppy, but my (botched, subsequently cancelled) attempt to put in in the picture box looked even worse. :) K. Lastochka 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, that seems to see that clip being in the right place all the time after the section discussing his speech and before the next section. I admit the image on the other hand seems to be where it finds its place, but actually its always between the same two words. The result is that at 1024*768 resoulution its right next to the paragraph discussing the speech, in other resolutions its in a way different paragraph. Putting the image in the right paragraph might have the negative consequences of it overlapiing the "sound icon" of the clip, but if the image is made smaller it just might be right.--Dami 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point it still worked...--Dami 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The clip and image should be put in a 1x2 table. I'll have a try a bit later.--Paul 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not working for me. Can anyone else hear it? Istvan 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh, not working for me either...K. Lastochka 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I get this error message each time:

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in /home/gmaxwell/public_html/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php on line 31

Couldn't connect to database: Lost connection to MySQL server during query

Looks like the in-browser audio playback isnt working properly. Istvan 03:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Same error message for me. HELP! K. Lastochka 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I cant get the "play in browser" to work, but clicking on the main link ("Imre Nagy Final Broadcast") will play in windows media player, if you get the .ogg codecs plugins from http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ (It plays just fine). But the "play in browser" not working is really rotten luck because its such a powerful clip. Istvan 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's really weird though, "play in browser" worked just fine earlier when I clicked on it here on the talk page. K. Lastochka 05:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

of course NOW it works.....typical! Istvan 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't THAT just the luck of the Hungarians....ridiculous. :) K. Lastochka 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian postscript 50-years on

On 20 October, 2006, The Upper House of the Russian Parliament held an Extraordinary Session and issued the following statement: "Whilst we are not answerable for the actions of the Soviet leadership half a century ago, we accept a moral responsibility for the consequences of our past, and we trusts that present-day Hungarian society will appreciate our sincere regrets for the events of October 1956". The statement was carried by 118 votes (120 in favour, 2 abstentions). The statement goes on to pay tribute also to Hungary's "efforts and human sacrifices in pursuit of its right to justice and independence". Gk1956 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Too little too late, of course, but it's appreciated for what it is. K. Lastochka 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They should have written "November" instead of "October". Istvan 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh--good catch. Wonder if that little slip was not accidental? *Sigh*....K. Lastochka 18:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exact site of Stalin statue

The Stalin statue was on Stalin Square. Stalin Square was on Dozsa Gyorgy ut, (XIV district), about half way between Heroes Square and Thokoly ut. The statue was erected in 1951, on the site of the former Catholic Regnum Marianum Church, which was demolished to make room for the statue. Gk1956 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

site of the former Catholic Regnum Marianum Church, which was demolished to make room for the statue. What a marvelous and telling detail. Does anyone know if the Church was in use, or perhaps a damaged shell from the war?--Paul 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chief defendant was Father László Emödi, 45, former rector of Budapest's Regnum Marianum Church, which was razed by the Reds in 1950 to make room for a huge statue of Stalin." From the Jul 23, 1965 issue of TIME magazine. Retrieved on 23 Oct. 2006. [12] Gk1956 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

16 Points for sure, from 14 to 21 Demands

Reading the students 16 points, one may find 21 demands by counting each sentence that begins with "we demand" Points 5, 8, 9 - 12 and 14 all carry two such demands. (points 15 and 16 are not demands but statements) Point 3 does not use the word but is a demand nonetheless. Still, "16 Points" is *most* correct as it is unquestionably accurate. I would not stand on "14 demands" however, and will edit that page accordingly. Istvan 16:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why complicate things. This is know as the "16 points" in almost all of the literature. Why depart?--Paul 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gati, Charles: Failed Illusions please check

Someone please check this reference and remove it if inappropriate: "Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804756066. (page 64)." This reference is cited in support of an earlier the statement (now edited) that " By January 1955, he [Rakosi] had Nagy discredited and removed from office."

Nagy was not stripped of Office until April 1955! If the citation is inappropriate please remove it. (I can't check as I have no access to the book.) Gk1956 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference and the page number are still fine. Gati says "It took Rakosi and the Soviet Politburo three months to consummate Nagy's dismissal as head of the government."--Paul 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Gk1956 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image sizes

Depending on the browser and display, the image sizes can screw up the layout (as I only recently discovered). The samller they are, the safer they are (esp. for widescreen layouts). I had increased their size to be more impactful, and it worked well, as long as I had a sidebar (bookmarks) taking up 20% of the screen, but at full screen they stick out into the next sections, dirupting the flow. At this point (less than 2 hours till curtain) if you see an image thats too big then make it smaller, but if you think its too small please just leave it. Istvan 21:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I shrank a few a little bit, nothing drastic though. K. Lastochka 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We're up now....

OK guys, great work. Curtain's up. Let's keep it all together over the next 24h. Istvan 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We did it!! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :) Hajrá Magyarország! All for you, 56'ers!K. Lastochka 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone who worked on getting this article up there! Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your help early on, Kirill! K. Lastochka 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Having avoided a clash with WP:SA, this article is mentioned in one of my WP:DYKs that is currently on the Main Page! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. That's certainly funny. One quick question to the article's editors, though:

Responding to popular demands, the Polish government granted broad powers to Gomułka to negotiate trade concessions and troop reductions with the Soviet government; after a few tense days of negotiations, the Soviet Presidium conceded.[30] Support for Gomułka led to widespread pro-reform sentiment among many Hungarians, which directly precipitated events leading to the revolution.

Is that Presidium the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet or the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party? Titoxd^(?!?) 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, a translation of the names of the student unions, as well as the meaning, like I did for the ÁVH, would be much appreciated... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Titoxd, I clarified the ambiguous link to point to the CPSU CC Presidium (later "politburo"). As for DISZ, MEFESZ, and the later KISZ, these Hungarian names (DISZ - Dolgozó Ifúsági Szövetség, roughly "League of Working Youth") it was felt that their inclusion would only make the article a more difficult read, as, e.g. this one is already introduced as the "official communist student union" which already tells 99.9% of the story for 99.9% of readers. Istvan 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense... do they have articles about them? If they have, a wikilink would suffice for all, I think. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither have pages on the English Wikipedia - The MEFESZ (Magyar Egyetemisták és Főiskolások Szövetsége) has one on the Hungarian Wiki, but the DISZ does not.Istvan 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all right, then. Perhaps the next thing on MILHIST's to-do list? ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the MEFESZ might merit something, but I couldnt imagine it anywhere near the top of that list. The DISZ was pretty discredited every day of its existence and non-notable except for the part it didnt play in this revolution. Istvan 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to congratulate everyone who worked on this article. I came across it a couple of weeks ago after reading about the revolution in a newspaper article, and I was happy to find all the basic information I was after. You've done a great job! Spebudmak 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed Link

The link that leads to the BBC website concerning Nagy's reburial no longer works.

It seems to be a problem with the BBC server - I backed it up to the intro page (all the other links work fine) but the Nagy link is broken. I suppose the Beeb will just have to up the license fee yet again next year. Istvan 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP Camus Letter

Someone copied the Camus letter "Blood of the Hungarians" over to Wikisource, but did not amend the link from the article (I knew this was going to happen). I dont know how to link from there. Could someone please repair it? Thanks. Istvan 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) K. Lastochka 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Istvan 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually looks like what I did wasn't quite right--somebody fixed it though. K. Lastochka 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit got reverted, I couldnt fix it properly, so I just restored the text in the wikipedia article (no harm in having it in both places) (you'd think) Still, it would be best if someone could link it inline directly to the Wikisource. Istvan 02:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I tried to do, why did it get reverted? K. Lastochka 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert Camus would call it absurd, for sure (pa-da-bing). Your edit wasn't really reverted, so much as restored to the previous (unsatisfactory) structure (not by me). If nobody could help with the interwiki link, then I figured its best to put the text back in the wikipedia article. No harm no foul. Istvan 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, interwiki edits on the prose of the text are generally discouraged, as mirrors and forks choke when they read them, and don't have a clue as to what to do about them. So, we include them on a pretty {{wikisource}} box that can be removed by mirrors that don't want it, and kept by mirrors who know how to handle it correctly. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Argh!

Can someone please block all these anonymous IP vandals from messing with the article?! It's getting really annoying! K. Lastochka 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't block because they haven't got even a test1 template. I warned some. NCurse _work 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we just have to keep going through cleaning up the mess - just like other days, but at 100x the rate. Istvan 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Would all vandals please be so kind as to make your mischief somewhat CLEVER, so we can at least have a laugh while we're cleaning it up?! I fail to see what's so hysterically funny about the word "penis". K. Lastochka 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about vandals...if they were clever, they'd be editors Ryanjo 23:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True, true...just some wishful thinking. :) K. Lastochka 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why NPOV?

While I believe that the uprising was justified, I do NOT think that it was part of the Cold War, unless one counts some kind of covert CIA involvement. The Cold War was between Soviet and US allied forces. This was between the Hungarian populace and Soviet Union. Also I haven't heard it referred to as a Revolution, but if it is, then surely the Spanish Civil War and the Irish Uprising must be counted as one. Not to mention the Intifada.--MacRusgail 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most any definition of the "Cold War" would include many more countries than just the US and the USSR. It was important to the Cold War just as much as the expansion of the ideology of either of the two (Free Market, Communism) to other countries are considered part of the cold war.

I have not heard it referred to as anything other than a "Revloution" and it seems to fit the definition of "revolution" quite nicely. Rearden9 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit naive to talk of "free market" (certainly not "free") vs "Communism" (if the Soviet Union actually was!), because it was, in my view as much to do with power bases and territorial control. it's about as meaningful as the two convenient lies that the US Civil War was about slavery, and WWII was about the Holocaust. --MacRusgail 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Revolution was crushed long before those points could even begin to be clarified. During its short tenure, activities focused mainly on survival and defense. The above reasons are not valid justification for an NPOV tag.

OK, call the opposing views what you want, that is imaterial to the discussion. How could the Soviet military arriving in force in another country to enforce/support/(re)establish a pro-Soviet government not be considered part of the Cold War? Rearden9 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Though the uprising apparently started without any CIA involvement, it would be naive to think that the US wouldn't try to make use of the situation against the USSR. And the article mentions that the fear of Moscow that Hungary would fall in the hands of the West was one of the reasons for Soviet invasion, i think it also proves that the issue was a part of Cold War.--Shakura 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the top comment. The Cold War is a reference to the post-war East-West conflict. The Hungarian uprising of 1956, was an internal revolt and had nothing to do with the Cold War, other than it happened to take place in an era so labelled. I also agree entirely with the observation that the term Revolution is inappropriate, prising or insurgency are better descriptions. The problem with this entire article is that, so far at any rate, it had been edited mainly by "cheerleaders" (as evidenced by some of the discussions on the talk page), rather than editors capable of writing an NPOV encyclopaedic article. Nor do the editors seem to have a decent grasp of what source referencing is about. Nonencyclopedic Analysis Patrol 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Hungarian Revolution was part of the Cold War. Please read the documents relating to Soviet deliberations on how to respond to the revolution. You will see they are infused with Cold War considerations. Besides that, it should be pretty clear that the Communist government, the statute of Stalin, and the Soviet troops in Hungary would not have existed were it not for the Cold War. Search the article for "Cold War." You will find that most hits are in the reference section referring to Cold War studies. Why were all of those people wasting their time researching this event?--Paul 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• This article has received a peer review from MilHist, and a general peer review. It has been the subject of a wiki-wide article improvement drive, it was nominated for FA and underwent significant changes during that review period, many of them addressing POV concerns. As to not having a decent grasp of "what source referencing is about," can you please provide some examples of your concerns? It looks to me, like this article is one of the most thoroughly referenced articles on Wikipedia.--Paul 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Hungary '56 altered the Cold War to a much greater extent than most other Cold War events. The only reason to exclude it from "Cold War" is that there was actual shooting taking place, but that is mere semantics. The above reasoning, even if accepted, is no reason to place an NPOV tag.Istvan 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cold War thing has absolutely nothing to do with shooting. There was plenty of that in Cuba, Korea and Vietnam. Hungary was not a spat between the Americans/NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact, it was an internal revolt, by the Hungarians themselves who saw their government as oppressive, and that was more important to them than the so called "Cold War". --MacRusgail 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Revolution" is appropriate (see footnote 3) as the government was indeed replaced (vs. uprising, revolt) by the masses (vs. putsch, coup-d'etat) with one favorable to the revolutionaries. It is also common usage in both English and Hungarian. Istvan 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard "uprising" used far more frequently in English. Don't know Hungarian. --MacRusgail 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In Hungarian its always revolution, but could you give a source where it is not called a revolution, as opposed to being called a revolution, but the events are being referred to as an uprising or a revolt. --Dami 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick search produces the following:

"Explosion: The Hungarian Uprising of 1956" by John P. C. Matthews

"The Hungarian Uprising" by Alan Blackwood

"Seven days of freedom: The Hungarian uprising 1956" by Noel Barber

"Lidike: Details from the Hungarian uprising 1956" by Sándor Lajossy --MacRusgail 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still on Google Books there are twice as many books with Revolution than with uprising (though some might overlap). Also the American House of Representatives used Revolution in 2005.--Dami 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And BELIEVE me, we debated what to call it. We settled on "Revolution."K. Lastochka 16:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shakura that it makes sense to consider the 56 revolt part of the cold war. I do not agree with Nonencyclopedic that the article has been written by "cheerleaders" "incapable of writing an NPOV article" with "no decent grasp of what source referencing is about." It's true that some very proud Hungarians have been working on this page, I am not ashamed of that. But we have been very diligent about citing sources, and except for some minor battles, have addressed the NPOV concerns that have come up to this point. K. Lastochka 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to remove the NPOV tag has my support. The user that placed it (twice now) has yet to give a compelling reason, IMHO. Istvan 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

IYHO indeed. The fact is that I'm not wanting a pro-Soviet article, but one that reflects the fact that this can't be called "Cold War".--MacRusgail 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How would including this event in "Cold War Events" show a bias, especially enough of one to get into a NPOV dispute with editors who have worked on this article for a long time on it the day it is a featured article? Rearden9 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

During the AID tenure, the two peer reviews, and FA candidacy not once was Hungary/56 inclusion as a "Cold War" event ever challenged. If the poster were just another SPA, we should just ignore the point. However, to back up the argument for inclusion - Hungary's inclusion and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, Soviet Invasion and increased troop presence, United Nations resolutions being vetoed, are all evidence that Hungary/56 was definitely a Cold War event. Westerners may overemphasise the US-USSR rivalry angle (as they habitually do) but that is not to say that it doesnt play a role.Istvan 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

front page article vandalized?

I thought these were supposed to be locked when featured.....

images in the article are 'POVed'

Most (if not all) of the images in the article portray the rebels exeptionally from the good side (not suprisingly though, if you take a look at the name of the organization they were taken from). I believe some photos like this and this, which depict bad actions comitted by the rebels, should be added. I'm not sure if these images are copyrighted, I've just tried to connect the archive, will be waiting for their reply now.--Shakura 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuck, should we really put such gruesome pictures on a public internet site? We mention that some Soviet troops and communist sympathisers were brutalized by revolutionaries, do we really have to hit people over the head with it? K. Lastochka 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but still i think the current images represent only one side in this uprising. Anyway one can't upload them now.--Shakura 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They could be uploaded to commons surely, but they might be too much in the article--Dami 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why the {{NPOV}} tag appeared? It wasn't there when the article became FA. If there is no other couse for the {{NPOV}} tag, we should remove it. --V. Szabolcs 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Images of mutilated corpses are almost always inappropriate for Wikipedia articles.

Separately, please heed the difference between NPOV and "forced moral equivalency". I see nothing in the images outside of hisorical illustration - i.e. nothing that bends the truth of the event. The only image that has any artificially persuasive propoganda value is the TIME Magazine cover, which is, in itself historically significant. If someone wishes to remove the NPOV tag, then I "pre-support" the decision. Istvan 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The leaders of the revolution

Imre Nagy, Pal Maleter and Géza Losonczy have their articles - could Miklos Gimes be translated from the Finnish and Attila Szigethy be given one (and some photos for several). Jackiespeel 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

dates

The article starts with the format "month date, year,", but then moves to "date month." I began scrolling from the top and changing them to the former format for consistency (and also to remove the excessive date wikilinks). I'm just letting people know it has nothing to do with personal preference, I really don't care which format is used, just because I started from the top in editing the article. - IstvanWolf 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that all dates are wikified in order to allow date preferences to work. The formatting of the dates makes no differece to folks with a date preference set, so long as the dates are wikified. (all of the dates in this article WERE correctly wikified yesterday). --Paul 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome namesake, and thank you for the standardisation work. Believe it or not, at one time they were (almost) all standardised, but have been revised, and revised again piecemeal over the last 22 hours. Please post carefully to make sure nobody has vandalised the page, so as to not bake-in the vandalism (ive been going through removing them by hand). Thanks Istvan 22:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the dates were wikified correctly then, but they weren't when I accessed the article. According to the Manual of Style, only "relevant dates" should be linked. Dates such as "June 22, 2006" are not particularly relevant to understanding the article, and neither are the dates that certain files were accessed (in the references). However, understanding the state of communism, on the brink of collapse in Europe in 1989, is contextually relevant. (1989 was unlinked) Also, once a date has been wikilinked, it need not be wikilinked every time it is used. - IstvanWolf 22:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. Dates are wikilinked so that date preferences can work. Someday a different technical solution may be implemented for date preferences, but for now, full dates should be linked. 24.177.112.146 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, not all the dates were linked in the article to begin with. So wikilinking dates will affect the way they are displayed on a computer? By "full dates" do you mean day, month, and year, or does that apply to just month/day combinations? - IstvanWolf 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Month Day & Month Day, Year. Go to "my preferences -> Date and Time," change your display preferences and try it out.--Paul 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

cool, it works! (unlike the Nagy Imre clip again) Istvan 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's body

why is there a picture of stalin's dead body in this article?

Stalin's death was the start of a period of turmoil that fostered revolts in Poland, East Germany and Hungary, as more authoritarian rulers lost influence when Khrushchev and others criticized Stalinist controls. His body lying in state is an icon for this transition. Ryanjo 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a bad point. Perhaps this could be made clearer? - TheMightyQuill 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What a Ride!

Well, we set out to do something big and accomplished it precisely as planned. Special thanks to Paul h and Ryanjo for doing so much of the work - checking refs, editing, answering challenges, etc. Thanks to K Lastochka for being the spark plug and drivetrain and getting the word out. Also to Alensha for help in publicising this project. Thanks to our first magyar admin NCurse for intervening in a very timely manner to safeguard our photos from deletion on the Wiki Commons (they almost all got taken down!) Thanks to Mr. Bagdi and Mr. Kocsis of the AHF for providing those photos and putting the permission blurb on their website. Thanks to Dami and Peter O. for helping for several reasons, especially getting that Nagy Imre clip up and going. All those who helped in the review process, esp. Kirill Lokshin. TMQ, Tutmosis, Raul654, Biruitorul and (Im sorry if I forget anyone) without whom we would have simply made "just another very good article" somewhere in the background. But remember, the main credit goes to those who fell doing something that very few have ever been brave enough to do, and it is right and good to remember them, and for they and their families to feel our admiration and know that we do not forget them. Thanks guys (and gals). Istvan 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Ryanjo 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just said pretty much the same thing on the magyar noticeboard, although not as eloquently. :) It's been so much fun! You guys have been great to work with and I hope we can do this again sometime (1848 article, anyone?) IT WAS ALL FOR YOU, 56'ERS!!!!!!!! WE WILL NEVER, EVER FORGET YOU!!! K. Lastochka 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, for someone who just denied the page was written by cheerleaders... --TheMightyQuill 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

now is the time for cheering (and a break)Istvan 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Istvan, nice joke TMQ. :) I can be POV when the whole thing's over, right? ;) Don't worry, I'll settle down in time for our next collaboration (whatever that will be.)K. Lastochka 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done, gentlemen (and ladies, if any). This was a good experience and the article does honour to the heroes of 1956. While I can't share your patriotic joy at this particular event (since I'm not Hungarian), I will note that it gave hope to Romanians as well, as alluded to here, and I will try to start up an article on those events too. Of course, many of the participants in the Romanian events were probably ethnic Hungarians, as Cluj/Kolozsvár was fully half Hungarian at the time, and it was Hungarians who would have understood the radio broadcasts. So I warmly and unequivocally salute the great courage of those in Hungary who, notwithstanding even more abortive attempts in the DDR and Poland, showed the captive peoples that it could be done, that freedom from the deadly, vile grip of Moscow was an achievable dream, and showed the whole world once and for all that more than anything else, we resented our "liberators", who held us in a form of bondage every bit as as pernicious as what had come before. Biruitorul 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well done gentlemen (and ladies if any)"--yep: me and Alensha, for two. Military/political history is no longer an exclusive mens' club! :) K. Lastochka 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I covered myself! Biruitorul 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

tessék, Go ahead and share all the patriotic joy you want - 56 goes beyond Hungary, its a defining moment for Humanity, esp. Western Culture. In every corner of the world people can identify with 56 - and in some more than others - Yes, we know that (maybe except for the 1950s) Romania had it worse. Hungarians cant complain too much before someone else writes "hey, I wish we had a gulyás communism instead", and with reason. And now Central Europe is full of 20 year-old adults who dont remember socialism at all, who dont hesitate to air strong opinions, to have ambitions, and who stand on the other side of maybe the widest chasm ever to split two generations. They too need to hear these stories. They need to know that 56 did succeed....in 1989 - just in time for them to enjoy superabsorbent diapers and Dr.HiPP baby food. Istvan 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, one might say the 20 year-old "adults" have been so bombarded with the tales of heroism and violent reaction to communist oppression that they felt the need to re-enact these acts of violence in the streets of Budapest, foolishly equating the bumbling incompetence/arrogance of the current prime minister with the cruel dictatorship of Rákosi. Beware, although history is of utmost importance, the lessons imparted are not always the ones that are intended to be taught. -- 70.71.155.24 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

quite right - its sad what is happening in Budapest right now (and embarassing) but it will pass and is not as dire as CNN portrays (though it could get ugly in a number of ways). The people rioting are more apathetic than indoctrinated (I recognise the rowdies on CNN by sight, they arent the flower of Hungary's intellect) yes, you are very right that 56 is definitely in the mix, turning in the windmills of these minds incapable of understanding it - but these rowdies are acting more out of boredom than idealism - the ones out burning cars don't remember anything about socialism. Istvan 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing that really bothers me about the mess in BP is, the dumb hooligans who have been making all the trouble are discrediting the legitimate complaints of the peaceful/not far-right protestors out there. If I were in BP I would be at the peaceful protests, just not in with the hooligans. Unfortunately, it seems that in the eyes of the world, ALL the events in BP are considered to be the work of hard-right wackos and rowdies. Grrr....K. Lastochka 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism everywhere

An editor has changed "communist" to "socialist" in this sentence: "as well as the role of Hungary in providing refuge to East Germans during the 1989 protests against that socialist government," and pointed to the article on the GDR for backup. The GDR article currently refers to "socialist state," but on the talk page there is voluminous discussion and absolutely no consensus. As the lawyers might say, "socialist" is a necesary part of the description, but is not sufficient. The GDR was socialist, but it was effectively a one-party state with a repressive and totalitarian political climate enforced by the hated secret police. East Germans didn't risk being shot at the Berlin Wall because they were unhappy with the results of the last free election. And finally, the sentence above makes no sense with "socialist." What were these people fleeing from? Confiscatory taxation? I'm changing it back to "communist."-- Paul 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The GDR was socialist, but it was effectively a one-party state with a repressive and totalitarian political climate enforced by the hated secret police.

You have demonstrated ignorance in regard to political science. If you knew anything about communism, you would know that it has no government and has no social classes. This was not the case in DDR. The DDR constitution as well as the constitution of other socialist states including USSR distinctly identified themselves as socialist. Communism was only ever spoken in the future tense e.g "on the road to communism".

You my friend are a liar. DDR was not a one-party state. The following political parties were present in the legislature of DDR:

Socialist Unity Party

Christian Democratic Union

Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany

Liberal Democratic Party of Germany

National Democratic Party of Germany

Jacob Peters

Stasi officers singing about communism socialism.

File:Berlin Wall graffiti and death strip.jpg

"Welcome to the DDR"

Revisionists and liars, wow, you really only get a chance to be called that on Wikipedia!

• So if the Soviets said they were socialists in their constitution, they must have been socialists. Those political words can be tricky - hmm...German Democratic Republic. But it must have been democratic, since it says it in the name of the country, right?
• Did each of these parties also have their own secret police, or did the Stasi monitor politically incorrect behavior for these groups too? Ryanjo 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! JP, you get the Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler Award (Ive run out of stahanovista medals). Say, were the CDU, NDP and FDP ever able to pull together a coalition government? When I visited friends there I was required to register my name in their police Housebook and was urged not to say anything about police (of course I had to be told...) The huge crowds that overran Stasi archives picking through files for news of relatives who had been "disappeared", or sent to Rummelsberg (where nobody was ever tortured) or Bautzen - do their opinions of the Stasi not count? Is it now off-limits to repeat them?Istvan 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Propaganda

This article does not at all hide its sympathy for the terroristic, fascistic rebels who destroyed Hungary in 1956. While I myself have a POV of the events, it would be appreciated if there was a balanced tone to this. To call the 1956 violence in Hungary a revolution is just as POV as calling it a counter-revolution.

Evidence shows that this movement was in fact staunchly sympathetic to the reactionary Mindzenty and hugely anti-Semitic against Matyas Rakosi and Erno Gero. Here is what the prominent French politician Maurice Thorez whose party controlled 25% of the legislature had to say:

After the collapse of Hitlerism the Hungarian people had established the foundations of a socialist system. But errors in economic organization, and errors that compromised the links between the government and the popular masses had been committed by the former leadership of the Worker’s Party. In addition, a clique of traitors, grouped around Nagy, took advantage of the circumstances to openly play the enemy’s game and deliver Hungary to the counter-revolution, which had been plotting in the shadows. In fact, reactionary elements had maintained ties in a country that had suffered for a quarter of a century — from 1920-1945 — the fascist dictatorship of Horthy. Under slogans aimed at fooling the people, Hungarian fascists in Budapest massacred militant Communists, sacked Party offices, burned books, and attacked public buildings...Some of these fascists were to participate as activists in the plot of Algiers, as well as in attacks against worker’s organizations in France.[1]

The return of the capitalists and the large landowners, the reconstitution of a reactionary and revanchard base in the heart of the Danube basin, the threat of aggression against the socialist states and of war in Europe: such was the program of Hungarian counter-revolution, encouraged from without by the imperialist powers — in the first place by American imperialism — and acting within by trickery, violence, and betrayal of the national interests. By responding — in conformity with the Warsaw pact — to the call for assistance sent out by the worker and peasant government of Budapest, in lining up at the side of the workers of Hungary, in aiding them in putting down fascist barbarism, the Soviet Union was being faithful to the principles of proletarian internationalism. The Red Army fulfilled its class obligations.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/thorez/1960/1956.htm#n1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.128.113 (talk • contribs) .

Um...who ARE you? K. Lastochka 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what the heading says. I wonder how it belongs to this talk page, though! :o) KissL 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it when I see the world "fascistic" used everywhere, in most of the cases those who write it don't even know what it means. The 1956 events are accepted to be a revolution even by the now socialist government of Hungary. --V. Szabolcs 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Very Best Evidence

The best possible testimony to this Featured Article's impact is given both directly above, and by the many (even by Wiki standards) hits from trolls and vandals both during and after its time upon the world stage.

It is interesting that the trolling seemed very vörös and not nationalistic (neither T, J, nor P who usually haunt Hungarian topics - showed up) - its seems we DID find the last of the English-speaking Stalin apologists and pulled them out of the shadows kicking and screaming.

Of further interest are the type of objections raised - e.g. "this was not a revolution", "this was not part of the cold war", "they were not communist/dicatatorship/totalitarian/neo-Stalinist/authoritarian" - which might be called by some "inane" (by those in command of proper English, that is) and anti-WP:SNOW by others.

Finally, and most deliciously, (I swear I couldnt have written a better segue) in two thoughtfully-composed passages above are found the two endstations of the red apologists' argument: The anonymous one could have been copied verbatim from the UN report, i.e. the revolution was coopted by fascists, clerics, restorationists, western spies and capitalists and the USSR responded (alone) to the plea of the new worker peasent government (that was founded minutes after Soviet Tanks opened fire on Budapest) and it was, in the considered judgement of the UN "contradictory" and as far as they could judge, mostly "without basis".

At the other end is pure muddle and fog: the semantic argument whose only conclusion is that communism never existed. Ive heard this one at least a million times in parlor conversation, always arising when a soviet-apologist both 1)is loosing an argument, and 2)hears a Westerner utter the word "socialism" or "communism" (in *any* context) there follows, automatically, a dogmatic monologue on how the USSR and every Warsaw pact country was socialist and not communist because communism was an ideal that never existed, but rather was to be attained in the perfect world blah blah blah blah puke. Sorry tovaris, but this is the English Wikipedia and we speak English. We get our definitions from the OED, Webster's and history as it *happened*, not as mis-predicted in the Diamat. Helmut Schmidt was a socialist. Erich Honnecker was a communist. Please stop the buffoonery and learn the language, and instead of expecting westerners to appreciate the finer semantical points of marxism (or any other dead language), first envy their inexperience. Istvan 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent post as usual Istvan! :) K. Lastochka 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Istvan, I don't think it's at all surprising that the complaints and trolling were coming from the left, not from the right, after all, 90% the NPOV complaints during the run-up to the the FA status were coming from the same angle. This was exactly my point earlier on, when I said the anti-communist slant of the article needed to be removed, which for the most part it was. Luckily, POV statements like the one just posted on the talk page "The GDR was socialist, but it was effectively a one-party state with a repressive and totalitarian political climate enforced by the hated secret police" were effectively removed from the main article, or there likely would have been a lot more attacks of this kind.

As for calling groups socialist vs communist, the point isn't entirely invalid. Certainly from the point of view of communists, communism was never attained, and thus, neither Hungary nor the GDR were communist states. To deny the validity of that claim, or simply brush it off was newspeak, is to favour the non-communist POV over the the communist one. It's not an issue of language or East/West either, as there are (sadly) plenty of Western English-speaking Marxists (and even more sadly, Marxist-Leninists) that hold the same view on communism/socialism. On the other hand, the most commonly used term to describe the political system in Eastern Bloc counties is "communism", even if it isn't perfectly accurate. For that reason, using communism, rather than socialism in general history articles makes far more sense, and is far less confusing.

As for the accusation that the 1956 Uprising was an anti-semitic one: While maybe not 100% without basis (as anti-semitism has long been present in Hungary and still is, and many Jews were communist), what's particularly strange is that this ridiculous myth was promoted by holocaust denier David Irving in his 1981 book on '56. -- TheMightyQuill 00:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps the point should be stated more succinctly - if one wonders whether this undertaking has made any impact or positive difference in the world, then the evidence says YES - and this is soooo important to those - Ph, R, KL, etc. who worked very hard on it for so long. Evidence - 23 Oct. complaints from the left were not from the "logical left" but rather the "loony left". The shrill, thin squeals say it made an impact. The silence of the reasoned left says it was done fairly and reasonably. (as for the absence of "nationalist" trolls, I was thinking not of right-wingers, but of three particluar ones who often lurk on Hungarian sites making trouble and was suprised they didnt disrupt 56). As for communism/socialism we see it the same way but perhaps from different angles. People who were force-fed dialectical materialsim tend to gag whenever someone distatefully uses its smokescreens to obscure an indefensible position (this was SOP back then) - this editor much prefers the pragmatic English-language system of practical distinction. However, if one grew up in the West and were now reading marxism afresh it may be quite interesting to learn that communism never existed, and one may even feel compelled to go out and share this fact with others. just not with me. About anti-semitism - who ever made that accusation? I've been plugged into this topic pretty deep but dont remember that card ever being played - did I miss something? Apropos David Irving, (I wonder if he wasnt one of the SPAs) his book was discussed on this topic three times over the past year (pre-AID) and each time got a "speedy delete" - notice we were able to make all points without using DI as a reference (we would not have been able to survive FAC otherwise). Summa summariumm - We are not POV (but probably needed some help during FAC getting that way), accomplished the objective, and exceeded expectations. Istvan 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the above consists of amateurish liberal ranting disseminated by imperialist institutes and the corporate press. In order to compensate for their lack of arguments, the liberal liars above use such absurd ad hominem attacks plucked from the asshole such as "red apologist", "Neo-Stalinist", and whatever nonesense they were able to think of at the moment. To have a different view on history does not render one "apologist" or "revisionist." Using this same sort of logic, I could just as easily call you "white guard", "McCarthyist" "fascist", "contra" "Hitlerist", etc for your opposition to communists. These sorts of superifical labels do not amount to any constructive discussion.

It is incorrect to call the bloodshed perpetrated by the Horthyist fascists in Hungary a revolution because of the support it received from financial imperialists manifested by the propaganda organ Radio Free Europe. In addition, it was staunchly Russophobic with chants like "Russians go home" even though Russians were just 1 out of 100+ national groups of the USSR. Additionally, the statue of Stalin who liberated the country from fascist domination was torn down. Policies in Hungary influenced by Stalin had proven to be of enormous benefits to the Hungarian people: the feudal system was eliminated, women were liberated, there was massive enrollment in quality public schools, and drastic advances in medical care. The workers were given the means of production, social welfare was implemented, industrialization was pursued, and education was drastically expanded. Phenomenal success was made in each of these areas. In fact, the evidence shows that Hungary experienced economic decline due to the revisionist policies of Kadar.

Yet Washington's role in the Hungarian revolution soon became mired in controversy. One of the most successful weapons in the East-West battle for the hearts and minds of Eastern Europe was the CIA-administered Radio Free Europe. But in the wake of the uprising, RFE's broadcasts into Hungary sometimes took on a much more aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. The hopes that were raised, then dashed, by these broadcasts cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy that leaves many Hungarians embittered to this day.

The above was a blatant violation of international law in that it sought to overthrow a legally elected government. The CIA actively sought to overthrow a government in order for a quisling like Nagy to rise to power.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/

The workers in Hungary already controlled their means of production. The oppressive Catholic church had been effectively undermined; but the Horthyists sought to change this shown by the sympahty they employed towards the fascist Mindzenty. Society as a whole was given freedom but the demagogue Nagy would effectively have returned Hungary to the feudal conditions of the interwar period. Socialism would be rolled back and Hungary's population would have endured massive poverty starting not in 1989 but in 1956. The Horthyist fascists were easily defeated because they did not have the popular support of the proletariat. The counter-revolution was led by spoiled university students.

As for the accusation that the 1956 Uprising was an anti-semitic one: While maybe not 100% without basis (as anti-semitism has long been present in Hungary and still is, and many Jews were communist)

This anti-Semitism is quite disgusting particularly the mythology of "Red Bolsheviks". With the same logic, we can try and excuse the Holocaust on the basis that "many Jews were communist".

The evidence shows that the Horthyists unleashed violence because they were prmised assistance from the West. When the Soviet peacekeepers proceeded to Budapest, hooligans responded by hurling Molotov cocktails. Nearly 700 many young Russian boys conscripted into the army were killed in the savage violence.

"they were not communist/dicatatorship/totalitarian/neo-Stalinist/authoritarian"

Communist: There was not a party in Hungary called communist. Nowhere in Hungary's constitution was it stipulated that Hungary was in the communist stage. Although right wingers like to dismiss this simple fact, POV misinformation is not permitted here.

Dictatorship: Neither was it a dictatorship. A wide array of political parties from a proletarian background were directly elected to regional communes. In a country where feudalism had been abolished, dictatorship no longer existed.

Totalitarian: Neither was it totalitarian. There was always factional strife between the nationalists led by Janos Kadar and the orthodox Marxists led by Rakosi and Gero. Additionally, there were numerous political parties present in Hungary's legislature -- far more than what has been found in America.

Neo-Stalinist: Neither was there Stalinism because there is no such ideology as Stalinism. Stalin by 1956 had already been dead. Stalinism is a pejorative POV term propgated by Trotskyist losers who never got anywhere in the socialist movement. If anything is to be attributed to "Stalinism", it is modernization, social welfare, progress, and autonomy for minorities.

(that was founded minutes after Soviet Tanks opened fire on Budapest)

That is an absolute lie as party leader Janos Kadar as well as deputy prime minister András Hegedüs had requested for the Soviet peacekeepers to restore order. Hegedüs's ouster on 24 October 1956 was essentially a coup pulled off by right wingers under the influence of Nagyist demagoguery. Neither was there an invasion because thousands of Soviet peacekeepers had been deployed in Hungary long before October 1956. The coward Nagy then defected to Yugoslavia, leaving the country without a proper leader. Janos Kadar then assumed the position discarded by Nagy and proceeded to restore order. With the help of Soviet peacekeepers, the Horthyist fascists were crushed.

Janos Kadar, Radio Kossuth (24th October, 1956)

Workers, comrades! The demonstration of university youth, which began with the formulation of, on the whole, acceptable demands, has swiftly degenerated into a demonstration against our democratic order; and under the cover of this demonstration an armed attack has broken out. It is only with burning anger that we can speak of this attack by counter-revolutionary reactionary elements against the capital of our country, against our people's democratic order and the power of the working class. Towards the rebels who have risen with arms in their hands against the legal order of our People's Republic, the Central Committee of our Party and our Government have adopted the only correct attitude: only surrender or complete defeat can await those who stubbornly continue their murderous, and at the same time completely hopeless, fight against the order of our working people.

At the same time we are aware that the provocateurs, going into the fight surreptitiously, have been using as cover many people who went astray in the hours of chaos, and especially many young people whom we cannot regard as the conscious enemies of our regime. Accordingly, now that we have reached the stage of liquidating the hostile attack, and with a view to avoiding further bloodshed, we have offered and are offering to those misguided individuals who are willing to surrender on demand, the opportunity of saving their lives and their future, and of returning to the camp of honest people.

Jacob Peters

Wow. How long did you spend writing that? You know, if you really know as much about Hungary as you say you do, do you think you could bother to spell those names right? The names are spelled Kádár, Gerő, Hegedűs, Mindszenty, and Rákosi. And next time you call the 56ers "fascists", would you please be so kind as to supply some valid, verifiable evidence backing up that assertion? Also, I really doubt Horthy had any hand in the revolution, since he had been in exile in Portugal ever since his Nuremburg trial in '49. Also I just noticed this that you wrote: Stalinism is a pejorative POV term propgated by Trotskyist losers who never got anywhere in the socialist movement. LOL! It could also be said that "Trotskyist losers" is a pejorative POV term propagated by Stalinist creeps, but let's not go there. :) K. Lastochka 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JP for tirelessly confirming the point of this section. I will dig out an élmunkás medal for you too. Istvan 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, Istvan, you just sent me scrambling to my magyar-angol dictionary again. :) Now that all has been made clear I agree completely. :) Memo to all Reds, Communists, Socialists, Trotskyist losers and Marxists: no matter how strongly you believe in your ideas, you won't find a receptive audience for them here, so do us all a favor and don't bother posting. K. Lastochka 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Way to blatantly proclaim your intentions are POV, Lastochka. If you're trying to look as foolish as your opponent... well, no, you're not there yet, but you're headed in the right direction. The problem with the post-communist period is taht everyone likes to paint the issue as black and white, whic isn't accurate. To pretend like JP didn't utter a word of truth is to deny reality. For instance, "The feudal system was eliminated, women were liberated, there was massive enrollment in quality public schools, and drastic advances in medical care." The feudal system was indeed eliminated. The system that replaced it was discriminatory in altogether different ways, different people benefitted, but yeah, some people benefitted (and not just aparatchiks). I find it funny, however, that although many people are still angry about land confiscated and redistributed by the communists, not many are complaining about land confiscated and redistributed by the Smallholders Association (after the war, but before communists seized control). Enrollment in public schools did increase. The quality of that education was certainly debatable, but it's a tough argument that NO education is better than a ideologically indoctrinated one. Widespread medical care was increased, a feature of the system that, as far as I know, Hungarians have decided (thus far) to hold on to. As for women being liberated, judging from my relationship with a Hungarian woman, I'd say that's more or less BS, but that's my point of view. =) -- TheMightyQuill 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the point of talk pages is to be POV, and get POV off the article pages. So it's not wrong for someone to express opinions here. And another thing: NPOV does not mean we need to have a total lack of a moral compass in our articles. For instance, the article on The Holocaust very clearly makes the point that the Holocaust was evil, and rightly so. It makes no real attempt to "see both sides" or to "understand" the Nazis' motives, because only one side is right here. Similarly, it is absurd to argue that the repression of the Revolution was anything less than evil. Only someone with a warped mind would make that argument, and our article need not accomodate that POV. So yes, we are pushing a POV, a POV that is sane, ethical, moral and Christian in nature, diametrically opposed to the insane, unethical, immoral and godless Reds who perpetrated that horror and many others, and we see no need to apologise for it. Biruitorul 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, all I said was that communists are unlikely to find a receptive audience on this particular thread, which is true, and not just because of MY opinions. In my previous post, I corrected some spelling errors, requested that if he must call the 56ers "fascists" that he provide some explanation as for why he uses that term, stated my doubt that Horthy was involved in 56, and was amused by his comment about Stalinists and Trotskyist losers. I sincerely hope I am not in fact such a bad Wikipedian as you think I am. K. Lastochka 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

damn, now I'm worried. AM I a crappy Wikipedian?? K. Lastochka 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not a crappy wikipedian. In fact, from what I've seen, you're a very dedicated, hard-working, and intelligent wikipedian. You obviously feel strongly about this subject, and we're all biased when it comes to things we feel strongly about. While I think the editing of this article has reflected a bias, you (and others) have managed to keep it in check, which has made for a great article. Your comments above, seemed a little less restrained, that's all. I guess that's what the discussion page is for. Living for a couple years in the Czech Republic and Hungary has given me a greater appreciation for the devastation caused by communism, but it's also exposed me to the anti-communist attitudes there (particularly among the youngest generation which experienced little more of communism than I did in Canada) which sometimes felt like being thrown back in time to the red scare of the 1950s. It took the German public over 20 years to begin to deal with the Nazi period in a rational way, accept some responsibility etc... and even that is far from a dead issue. Maybe Eastern Europeans need more time to deal with their past.

I also have real animosity to nationalism, and Hungarian nationalism sometimes seems particularly strong to me. I mean, Hungarians sing their national anthem on New Years. That's almost as bizarre as wearing a maple leaf on your backpack all over the world. I've never looked at the Trianon discussion page looks like, but can only cringe imagining it. Contributors to this page, on the other hand, have displayed an incredible ability to discuss things amicably, and I don't see why a communist (or certainly, a socialist) shouldn't be able to enter the discussion constructively. A Stalinist... well, that might a bit much. =) -- TheMightyQuill 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments were definitely anything but restrained, and I actually just logged on to retract my earlier statement. :) I freely (and rather sheepishly) admit that it was a stupid and ill-considered thing to say, and not even really what I MEANT to say! What I would like to say is this: Socialists, communists, marxists etc are of course welcome to enter these discussions, provided they will PLEASE be so kind as to write calm, reasoned statements free of ad hominem attacks and terms like "Horthyite fascists". However, I don't think at this point we are about to make any big, sweeping changes to the article. (that was what I meant to say when I ended up saying "we won't listen, don't bother posting.") So, sorry for losing my head again! :)

As for nationalism, the way I see it there is good nationalism and bad nationalism. Good nationalism (also a good word for it is patriotism) means just being proud to be (insert nationality here), loving your country and doing what you can for its benefit, being a good citizen etc. These good nationalists/patriots are found all over the political spectrum and I am proud to include myself among them. Bad nationalists, also called xenophobes, are the type that express their, um, love of their country by declaring that they are the BEST people in the world and all others are inferior, behaving badly to (insert disenfranchised minority group here), getting militaristic etc. These bad nationalists are usually found on the edges of the right wing, and they make me feel rather ill. Hungary seems to have an abundance of both kinds of nationalists (and knowing us, whichever side we're on, we're really loud about it!). BTW--singing the national anthem on New Years might be a little strange, but it strikes me as good nationalism, not bad.

Well, OK, really long post over now. Cheers, everybody! :) K. Lastochka 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

TMQ (LOL) the kids with the maple leafs on their backpacks - many are Americans "from...um...Toronto, eh?". You circle a point first raised back during 56's peer review, but not picked up again till now, i.e. what separates accuracy from POV? On one end you have the garden-variety extremist who is perfectly happy to replace alleged POV with POV of his own. Another extreme cannot abide any perjorative, even thoroughly referenced and directly quoted. Yes, 56 started the process salted with POV and we responded either willingly to reasoned objection, or through gritted teeth to unreasoned, and wound up with a thoroughly-referenced gem that tells maybe two-thirds of the story. (The rest is POV hot potato.) Please consider what is not in this article: a book by David Irving, the antisemitic angle, the words "freedom fighter" and "russian" (ex."language"), and absolutely zero touting virtues of the West (who, lets face it, did nothing to tout about). So what's left to call us? Well, "Horthyite Neofascist liars" I suppose...

But the point of sorting POV from accuracy is tricky on any subject where people killed each other. We need a similar division to KL's "good nationalism/bad nationalism" (good=love your country, bad=hate everyone else's, especially your immediate neighbours) which should be written into some Wikipedian policy somewhere. What's needed is a similar litmus test for POV v accuracy. Istvan 06:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support of the revolution in Romania and the repression which followed

According to Evenimentul Zilei, a Romanian newspaper, thousands of Romanians in Bucharest, Timişoara, Cluj protested in 1956 in support of the Hungarian Revolution and against the Soviets. The result was that 1000 students were expelled, thousands were arrested, sentences given totaled 1400 years and 30 people got the death penalty, of which 24 were executed.

• Evenimentul Zilei, "24 de români solidari cu Budapesta au fost executaţi", 26 October 2005

Maybe we should integrate this in the article.bogdan 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've highlighted this angle above. A new article would probably be best. (But in Romania there was no revolution, just a failed attempt at one.) Biruitorul 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth a brief mention in the article, just not in great detail (create a new article for that.) K. Lastochka 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. In fact, at minimun, we only need link to it through a template à la the Warsaw Uprising one. Biruitorul 04:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

aha - yes you saw that too - that is a good tool for a page like this one that goes out in many directions.Istvan 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs - events in Romania and Hungary are often linked to some degree. Something on post-56 Poland would fit too. Id be happy to pick something up in your article, unfortunately I do not read Romanian. Istvan 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I already forgot about the template. It's a great place for articles about reaction in Romania Poland etc. Unfortunately I can also be of no help reading Romanian--I know about three words. Polish I might be able to figure out some, but don't count on it. :) Are there also connections w/ Prague Spring that would be worth writing about? K. Lastochka 05:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, let's try to work on that template. For some reason I can't access the Evenimentul article, but allow me to translate a portion of this Ziua article:

Communist Romania had a role to play in these events. Gheorghiu Dej's team immediately condemned the Hungarian Revolution and sent Valter Roman and Aurel Malnasan (see this for some Hungarian material on the subject) on a special mission. He contributed to the capture of Imre Nagy, who would be held at Snagov. The historian Florin Constantinescu summarizes the responsibility of the Romanian leader in these terms: "Gheorghiu-Dej fully deserved, through the ruthlessness he showed toward the Hungarian Revolution, the "certificate" decreed by Khrushchev, when he characterised his Romanian counterpart as "a true Bolshevik".

Events in the neighbouring country had an echo here as well. Catholic priests and Magyar intellectuals showed, one way or another, their solidarity with the insurgents. It is known that over a thousand Magyar inhabitants of Cluj were prevented, at the last moment, from organising a planned meeting in a cemetery. The most active were the students and pupils from the upper grades [ie, late high school]. In Timişoara, Cluj, Oradea, Bucharest and Târgu-Mureş students distributed manifestos and proclamations calling for the example of the Hungarian youth to be followed. After the leaflets were distributed, 39 students were arrested in Bucharest. In Timişoara, about 500 students protested in support of the insurgents. The Army and the Securitate occupied the university campus, arresting some 3000 youths, of whom 31 were condemned [to death]. The Securitate went on to begin a vast surveillance operation against the Magyar population of Romania, which later became state policy. Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and his colleagues in the PCR leadership saw in the events of 1956 an argument for intensifying repression. A relaxation of repression occurred only at the beginning of the 1960s. De-Stalinisation in Romania, which followed de-Stalinisation in the other states under the USSR's aegis, happened, over time, because of the Revolution in Hungary. The 1956 Revolution had a determining role in the change in nature of European Communism, in that it came to renounce its most abject practices. Biruitorul 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Some reference for this here [13] see point 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Istvan (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC).István 03:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AVH - Defense or Interior Ministry?

Does anyone know which ministry was officially in charge of AVH/AVO forces? Gk1956 11:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The ÁVH was created in 1944 by the Soviets and placed under the Interior Ministry in 1945/46. In 1949, the border guards and security police were placed under the ÁVH and reported directly to the government (leaving only the regular police under the interior ministry).(ref UN doc paras 426, 427) I dont see anything indicating their being under defense - in fact they were criticised for not being under any supervision at all. Istvan 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving ahead

The urge to do something has struck me, so I've ripped the Warsaw Pact template and rather crudely made it into the skeleton you see here. The question is: is such a thing desireable? Will those or similar red links be filled anytime soon? Discuss. Biruitorul 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I applaud the inclusion of a refined template box - I would include some items which were edited out of the article, like "historical debate" text, one for "notable quotes", "famous people" (sounds like jeapordy categories), 56 effects in other countries, perhaps a list of 56'ers (where anyone could add their name) and where they are now (not a bad use of cheap disk space) and perhaps a "POV Corner" (named "soapbox"?) where people could write more opinionated text - including the Kádár-apologist argument (these are also part of the story) I think we should put in some type of prominent link to the AHF since they provided the images and permission which really made this article shine. These are my ideas - any more? Istvan 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was getting the urge to do something, too. I don't think we need those first three categories, that look like they just redirect to different spots in the main article--a bit redundant. Otherwise very good ideas, I love the idea of putting up a list of 56'ers where people can list themselves if they were there--can you imagine if some of them have been following our progress here? :) The template is such a good idea, I remember having to delete a lot of quote lists, random facts, debates, and now we have a place to put them back! Maybe we can have a section of little stories from the resistance, I've heard stuff about, like, the revolutionaries threw pots and pans all over one street and from a distance they looked like land mines and scared the heck out of the Soviet troops. :) K. Lastochka 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(PS this is random but has anybody seen Szabadság, szerelem yet? Is it good? I want to see it but it hasn't hit theaters Stateside yet...K. Lastochka 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

OK, I've modified it accordingly. My idea is that before we go and create random additional articles about the Revolution, let's instead try and reach some consensus over here about what would be desireable, giving this project some structure. Of the five ideas I've put in, one already exists. Do the other four seem good to you? If you'd like to see others, by all means add them into the template. Biruitorul 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to again encourage the enthusiastic participants of this project to edit and improve the summary sections on History of Hungary and People's Republic of Hungary. They could both use some work and expertise. It's beyond my ability to pick out the most important details of the revolution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 1 November 2006.

My edit

I've removed a See also section (not recommended in featured articles) with one link pointing to Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising. I also AfD'd the latter. I believe that its content contains some encyclopedic info (which belongs here) and some not quite so encyclopedic stuff (which should be deleted). KissL 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - Ryanjo 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time that link has been deleted here. Perhaps the AFD will fix it this time.--Paul 03:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Lies

To start, ths title of this article is extremely POV in favour of the revisionist Nagyites. Encarta Encyclopedia calls this event Hungarian Revolt of 1956. For "1956 Hungarian Uprising", Proquest database puts forth 917 results. "1956 Hungarian Revolution" on the same database puts forth only 690 results by comparison.

Out of a population of ten million, no more than 15 thousand insulated reformists and fascists were part of this counterrevolution. It failed precisely due to its lack of popular support.

Compare this to the 10 million Frenchmen who in May 1968 went out on strike and organized councils for the administration of plants, debated political, social, and cultural questions endlessly, worked at establishing contacts with the farmers, and groped toward contact with the students. In a word, they set in motion what appeared to be a genuine workers' revolution.

On October 25, a mass of protesters gathered in front of the Parliament Building. ÁVH units began shooting into the crowd from the rooftops of neighboring buildings

According to Charles Gati: "Suddenly, indiscriminate shooting began. It is still uncertain who started it…

Real power was in the hands of Mátyás Rákosi, a Communist trained in Moscow.

This right here is fucking bogus. It is a ridiculous attempt to depict him as a puppet. Rakosi had been a people's commissar during the Hungarian Soviet Republic which was smashed in August 1919. He was then imprisoned from 1925 until 1940. Following his release in 1940, Rakosi sought refuge in USSR.

Jacob Peters

If that was true, why were the french police so easily able to suppress the paris "revolution" when tanks needed to be called in for a hungarian "revolt" without popular support?

As for Rakosi, I don't think that sentence suggests he was secretly russian, or even that he became a communist in russia. He was a communist. He was did receive training in the USSR (after escaping the "merciless terror" of Horthy). Which part do you disagree with? -- TheMightyQuill 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply because the French workers and students were not armed and did not resort to violence even after systematic police brutality.

Revolution was neither limited to students nor in Paris. It in fact kicked in when the students received the support of the workers went to strike numbering at 10 million or two thirds of the entire French labour force. Whereas the majority of French society supported the revolution, a small psychotic fringe in Hungary beared a similar characteristic.

In concern to Rakosi, his presence in the USSR is irrelevant. His Marxist political career started before the formation of the USSR. Josip Tito fought in the Soviet Russian Red Army during Russia's civil war. He even became a member of the Soviet Communist Party in the 1930s. This, however, is completely irrelevant seeing how Tito was to become major anti-Soviet politician. Jacob Peters

It is a sad thing, that now, when even the ruling socialist party, the successor of the communists recognizes it as a revolution, people are coming with the propaganda of the late '50s (nothing ever happened, all it was just a nazist counter-revolution, etc.) The mentioned 15 thousand or so were those who actively fought back. In the peaceful protests at the beginning, hundreds of thousands were on the streets. (I think in May 1968, if the French protests would have been crushed with machine gun fire, not all of them would dare to begin an armed resistance.)

By the way, the article should not be considered POV. There is a paragraph called Soviet perspective, you can find the soviet point of view there, so I think neutrality is not compromised.

And please, don't use the words "fascist", "Nazi", "revisionist", etc. if you don't know what they mean! --V. Szabolcs 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree Szabolcs. Mr. Peters, as long as you keep using your own POV statements to counter our own perceived ones, you're just wasting your breath. If you have something serious to say, by all means say it, calmly, rationally and well-sourced. As for our use of the word "revolution", if you look around a bit you'll find that we debated extensively what to call it. We finally settled on "revolution"--and one of the main reasons was, in Hungarian it is called a revolution ("forradalom"), also it is just common parlance in English. Honestly, if the title of the piece is the biggest thing you can find to complain about, than I think we're doing fine. Also please stop referring to all the 56ers as "fascists". It's very rude and insulting to their memory. K. Lastochka 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Mr. Peters, I just noticed another of your precious little phrases: the events in Hungary were supported by a "small psychotic fringe"?? Please, if you're telling US to get rid of "POV", get rid of your own first!! No one takes the pot seriously when he's calling the kettle black! K. Lastochka 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have still yet to address the POV nature of the title when the plurality of results on Proquest database is 1956 Hungarian Uprising. You still have yet to address this lie:

On October 25, a mass of protesters gathered in front of the Parliament Building. ÁVH units began shooting into the crowd from the rooftops of neighboring buildings

According to Charles Gati in "Failed Illusions": "Suddenly, indiscriminate shooting began. It is still uncertain who started it…

This uprising was fascist for the following reasons:

-Nagy’s rapid move to the right, towards accommodation with capitalist parties and NATO imperialists;

-the lynchings of communists;

-anti-semitic attacks against Jews.

And then there is also the worship by the rebels of that fascist scum Mindzenty. While you all claim that this was a revolution against authority, it was in fact accomodating the most oppressive authority that has ever existed.

There were no appeals to proletarian internationalism – nationalism, not internationalism, was the ideology that united all the rebels.

By contrast, the Cultural Revolution in China a decade later was mainly a revolt from the Left against revisionist leadership. So the Cultural Revolution is slandered, while the Hungarian revolt is lauded.

Right-wing capitalists, aristocrats, and Fascists had ruled Hungary for decades. These forces still had a following.

And please, don't use the words "fascist", "Nazi", "revisionist", etc. if you don't know what they mean!

Nagy was a revisionist who accomodated the NATO imperialists. The rebels who chanted Russophobic slogans and carried out anti-Semitic violence were fascists.

According to Gati: "The Soviet leadership in Moscow was not trigger-happy."

The key Soviet leadership documents, now published, show that Khrushchev would have settled for a multi-party system and a neutral Hungary. But they would not permit a right-wing regime such as had invaded the USSR in 1941 to return to power allied with NATO.

Gati: "More than anything else, hypocrisy characterized the U.S. approach to Hungary."

Rather than "liberating" Hungarians from socialism, the Republicans under Eisenhower and Nixon were "interested in liberating Congress from the Democrats." (p.218) They were actually "relieved when the Russians came back and squelched the Hungarian Rising." (p.181)

The last thing the US wanted was a belt of neutral countries in Eastern Europe, though both the Eastern Europeans themselves and the Soviet leadership did want it. Radio Free Europe was "sympathetic to the pre-1945 Horthy regime" – the fascists who had invaded the USSR.

''The Hungarian Revolution[3] of 1956 was a spontaneous nationwide revolt

This is false as it this was touched off both by the nationalist uprising in Poland and Khruschev's slanderous speech about Stalin. It received the active support from Radio Free Europe as Gati has documented. This was not spontaneous.

against the Communist government of Hungary

This phrase demonstrates the lack of education on the part of the contributors of this article. There is no such thing as a communist government. There is no government in communism. Moreover, there was in Hungary throughout duration of the People's Republic a multi-party coalition. When the USSR liberated Hungary in 1944, a genuine multi-party provisional government was formed that included 127 Communists, 123 Smallholders, 94 Social Democrats, 63 trade unionists, 39 National Peasants, 22 Democrats, 30 independents. The Government Bloc which won 60% in the elections of 1947 was composed of communists, social democrats, smallholders, and national peasants.

and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until November 10, 1956.

This here is further bullshit. Soviet policies comprised collective farming. There was not collective farming ever in the People's Republic of Hungary.

Jacob Peters

The rebels who chanted Russophobic slogans

If Hungary was under military occupation by the russians, then what were you expecting? Pro-russian slogans? :)

Why do you insist on citing old '60-s era soviet propaganda? Even the communists/socialists of today oppose it and recognize the events as described in the article. Even the now socialist government never called it a counter-revolution. Please think about it a little before other users find your mass far-left wing POV spamming in this and other articles disruptive. Think about it before blindly copy-pasting another 100 lines of soviet propaganda. Wikipedia is NOT the place to invent or promote a new world order or start a revolution, neither is to promote someone's political views. Don't take it as a personal attack, I was just trying to make you understand to not use your own POV to alter an article just to fit your political affiliations better. --V. Szabolcs 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear JP, Once again you fill the section with material exactly befitting its heading. Truth in advertising!

Its good to see you have read a book on the subject. If you read another one, and perhaps a third, you will quickly realise how messy a business is revolution (and history writing!). I applaud you for three things: firstly, keeping this page from getting too boring (I miss the excitement); secondly, confirming the article's NPOV by mustering only fringe, pedantic and regurgitated objections; and finally for turning the shrill ad-hominem down a notch and putting your objections into more succinct, organised form.

You are right that Moscow was not as "trigger-happy" as they might have been (e.g. Berlin June 17, 1952 comes to mind) and that the US behaved shamefully - whether the operative word is "hypocracy", "confusion", "ineptitude" or "negligence" is a matter of debate. Please note that the article does not laud the West; it accurately describes 56 as unfolding without much involvement from them.

But your playing the religion card (antisemitism, Mindszenty) is a complete non-sequiter. This article neither condemns nor credits any religious or ethnic group (even ethnic Russians) - you are in essence railing against anecdotes and others' writings, not ours. This article, and its cited references, tell the story quite well without all this. China's Cultural Revolution is also, just like the CDU in the DDR, irrelevant to 56.

And the other points are just plain wrong: Not being communist and lacking "proletarian internationalism" is not evidence of fascism (unless everyone to the right of Tito was a fascist). The regrettable episodes of "street justice" were perpetrated mostly against the ÁVH for being repressive monsters, not communist. And in the turmoil, everyone - even the ÁVH - settled scores. In fact, worker's councils often took people into protective custody to thwart the mob. And yes, the lynchings were wrong - there were many young kids in the ÁVH who may have been repulsive punks, but they did not deserve to die. Their deaths do not prove motive beyond the actions themselves which can only be interpreted at face value. And there is no evidence of NATO or the West exerting influence upon Nagy or the National Government - there is plenty of evidence of the newly formed "worker's councils" successfully exerting influence upon them.

And how on Earth do you figure the West didnt want to see Hungary Neutral, but the USSR did?!? Not even the Kádár apologists would dare put that one forward. In 1955, Austria's neutrality drove a big neutral wedge from Geneva to the Hungarian border giving NATO a logistical headache (look at the map and see how easy it was to move troops and tanks between Trieste and Nürnberg). A neutral Hungary would have extended that wedge into the East, creating a similar headache for the Warsaw pact - Good for NATO, bad for Moscow.

JP, you share most Westerners' compulsion to interpret events through the restrictive prism of East-West rivalry; any move which displeases Moscow is freely branded with any of the tired perjoratives - "imperialist" "nazi" "captialist" etc. - these are used indiscriminately. As far as using these perjoratives, I agree with Szabolcs - please understand them first. However, making up new ones, e.g. "Nagyite", is of course fair game as neologisms are always fun and interesting (you cant misuse something you just invented). BTW I'm happy to be called a "Nagyite". Istvan 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Nagyites unite! :)

JP, for whatever you post next, please try and get a handle on the various shadings and levels of intensity of certain words. I'm not asking you to be the next Petőfi Sándor, but please try not to throw inflammatory words around like confetti. It makes people take your arguments even less seriously. For example, a sampling of words you use interchangeably: capitalist, imperialist, fascist. "Capitalist" is just a descriptive term, a name of a particular economic system. Depending on who's talking it can be a pejorative (just like "Communist") but the word itself is not especially loaded. "Imperialist" is a lot stronger, and it's also not necessarily related to capitalism. A communist state (the USSR for example) can be just as imperialist as a capitalist one (the USA.) As for "fascist", hold your damn horses!! That's one of the strongest words you can use in political discourse and should not be used lightly. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, now THEY were fascists. They each murdered several million people, mainly because they dared to hold different political convictions than their rulers. They held complete dictatorial control over their countries, were extremely racist, forbade any sort of civil society, and generally were living nightmares. To directly compare Nagy Imre to those monsters is appalling. Sure, he may not have been Vaclav Havel or the Dalai Lama, but a FASCIST?? Good God, man! Get a grip on your vocabulary before someone gets hurt! K. Lastochka 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a serious question of whether the 1948-1955 government in Hungary was even repressive. What you people call "political persecution" in fact was directed towards phony opportunistic careerists within the Socialist Workers Party who were legally expelled rather than the workers and peasants who were the overwhelming majority of the country. According to Balasz Szallontai, from 1945 to 24 February 1951, 227 executions took place. Of the 227 persons in question, 146 had been sentenced for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Therefore, this left only 81 executions for truly political reasons between 1945-1951. In 1953, the number of prisoners convicted of political crimes stood at only 7,093. In contrast, right wing Greek thugs supported by the repressive right wing regime slaugtered 1500 civilians in 1946. Source: http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1555.html

Even the now socialist government never called it a counter-revolution.

A regime that lets malicious corporations steal the people's resources cannot possibly be considered socialist. It is an enormous insult to genuine socialists to call the phony capitalist neoliberals in eastern Europe socialists. Thanks to this rapacious privitization of the people's resources, Hungary is now in a state of massive impoverishment.

the shrill ad-hominem down a notch and putting your objections into more succinct, organised form.

What are you talking about? I did not make an ad hominem attack towards any contributor here. Interpreting a political movement as fascist when support for Catholic Church, Russophobic hatred, and display of demagogic nationalist Hitlerist slogans speak for themselves is a genuine political interpretation. It is a fact that the repressive Catholic Church represented by that scoundrel Mindzenty was worshipped by the rebels. It is a fact that this movement lacked any aim for international proletarian solidarity which is the essence of revolution. This was a counter revolution as Hungary had already been liberated from fascism and feudalism.

China's Cultural Revolution is also, just like the CDU in the DDR, irrelevant to 56.

That would be like saying the nationalist uprising in 1956 Poland was irrelevant to 1956 Hungary. This is not true because the Polish nationalist rebellion touched off Hungary's fascist resurgence.

Not being communist and lacking "proletarian internationalism" is not evidence of fascism

This movement did not seek to bring about any meaningful social change. As shown by Hungary's constitution, workers had control of the factories and other means of production. For this reason alone this is disqualified as revolution. The fact that the rebels lacked the popular support of the Hungarian people means that this was a botched coup attempt rather than a popular uprising.

And how on Earth do you figure the West didnt want to see Hungary Neutral but the USSR did?!?

This is not my view. This was written by Charles Gati in "Failed Illusions". The key difference is that the West wanted to force Hungary in the reformed Axis which they call NATO while the USSR negotiated a neutral, nonaligned Hungary. USSR proposed the exact same for Germany in March 1952 but was soundly rejected by power hungry Adenauer and the NATO imperialists.

any move which displeases Moscow is freely branded with any of the tired perjoratives - "imperialist" "nazi" "captialist" etc. - these are used indiscriminately.

This is shallow and inappropriate characterization on your part. China's Cultural Revolution displeased Moscow but I have not branded this movement as imperialist, nazi, or capitalist.

"Capitalist" is just a descriptive term, a name of a particular economic system.

Nagy undoubtedly wanted to overthrow the socialist system in order to restore capitalism. He made contacts with the NATO imperialists for this reason.

"Imperialist" is a lot stronger, and it's also not necessarily related to capitalism.

I never used this term to describe Nagy. You are making shit up.

A communist state (the USSR for example) can be just as imperialist as a capitalist one (the USA.)

USSR did not exploit the resources of its allies in the third world including India, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Vietnam, DPRK, and others in contrast to America whose corporations had de facto ownership of Latin America. In the 1960s and 1970s, the revisionist closet capitalists in Poland and Hungary traded with the West which brought their economies in crippling debt. Hungary by 1987 was in $16bn debt.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, now THEY were fascists.

Lumping Stalin and Mao is incendiary, fringe POV nonesense. Anti-racist and anti-capitalist Marxists like Stalin and Mao can't possibly be corporatist fascists.

They each murdered several million people, mainly because they dared to hold different political convictions than their rulers.

There is not any basis for such. Evidence from the archives shows that the excesses of the upheavels of the 1930s were primarily the work of local NKVD units and party officials trying to climb the political ladder by getting rid of their opponents. Yezhov also played a major role in this which is why he was punished. The likes of Zhdanov and Vyshinsky had frequently expressed concern towards the chaos of 1937-38. In all, 300 to 500 thousand mostly belonging to the party and burreaucracy were executed between 1937-38 in contrast to your fairy tale anecdotes about millions.

They held complete dictatorial control over their countries

That is a total lie. The events of 1930s USSR show that the country was far from monolithic politically. There existed numerous different perspectives within the Party leadership. The collectivization of the early 1930s is a clear example of tension between central and local government units. In China, this was also far from the case. The Cultural Revolution demonstrated sharp political sectarianism. Neither Stalin nor Mao had dictatorial control over their countries.

were extremely racist, forbade any sort of civil society, and generally were living nightmares.

The claim that either Stalin or Mao were racist is laughable nonesense considering equal rights for all national groups within USSR and China as well as firm proletarian internationalist outlook. According to opinion polls, most Russians particularly the elderly who lived during Stalin believe he was beneficial to the country and would rather have him back rather than live in today's capitalist nightmare. Stalin and Mao are marked as having been successful leaders who brought enormous benefits to their people while Nagy, Quisling, Dubcek, and others will go down as disgraced losers.

To directly compare Nagy Imre to those monsters is appalling.

Where did I compare Nagy to Stalin or Mao?

Sure, he may not have been Vaclav Havel or the Dalai Lama

Vaclav Havel has impoverished his country and brought it under the control of corporations while the Dalai Lama advocates slavery.  — [Unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.1 (talk • contribs).]

Two can play at this game, Mr. Peters. I will not even reply to your assertion that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Dalai Lama, who has been a tireless campaigner for the rights of Tibetan Buddhists, has ever advocated slavery, because it's totally ridiculous. Talk about fairy tale anecdotes.

Moving on then:

Lumping Stalin and Mao is incendiary, fringe POV nonesense. Anti-racist and anti-capitalist Marxists like Stalin and Mao can't possibly be corporatist fascists.

If I'm on the fringe, then it's a pretty big fringe! :) Stalin and Mao cannot be considered Marxists, because they twisted the philosophy of Marx beyond all recognition to serve their own political goals. Stalin was anti-racist? Tell that to the Jews, the Chechens, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, and especially the Ukrainians....

USSR did not exploit the resources of its allies in the third world including India, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Vietnam, DPRK, and others in contrast to America whose corporations had de facto ownership of Latin America.

American imperialists propped up puppet governments, Soviet imperialists propped up puppet governments, Americans exploited natural resources, Soviets stifled free speech and the aspirations of captive people to decide for themselves what sort of government they wanted. Both pretty nasty, IMO.

This movement did not seek to bring about any meaningful social change. As shown by Hungary's constitution, workers had control of the factories and other means of production. For this reason alone this is disqualified as revolution.

The 56ers wanted to get rid of an oppressive, authoritarian government (yes, it WAS a nasty regime, even though by your calculations "only" 81 political prisoners were shot.) and make Hungary a free democratic society finally independent of any foreign-backed puppet regime. First the Ottomans, then the Hapsburgs, then the Soviets....they wanted to put an end to all that. That's some meaningful change they wanted. "As shown by Hungary's constitution..."....that doesn't mean much, the Soviet constitution looks pretty utopian on paper, never mind that it was only followed as far as was convenient for the Party bigwigs. Governments all over the world have repeatedly shown that it's pretty easy to ignore a constitution. "For this reason alone this is disqualified as revolution." Huh? I don't get that one.

This game is fun, in a really sick, twisted way. Care to keep playing? K. Lastochka 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the Party's own official declarations for a proof against the executions and deportations is like using Hitler's own books for Holocaust denial. In both cases there is written something like "everything is fine, nothing bad happens, everything bad is just the propaganda of our enemy, the <<insert random pejoratives here>>"

It seems my little "prophecy" about another automatic reply fulfilled itself :( We could keep playing a lot in this way - replying to (an focusing on) the small citation from someone and discarding his other comments. Should I try to clarify again for you to try to understand what we want to say before blindly copy-pasting hundreds of lines of propaganda? We are here to discuss things, not to play chatbots with automated posts from a fixed database. Sorry for the (maybe) harsh examples, I will try to remain more neutral. --V. Szabolcs 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One must not forget that after 1945, Facsism as an ideology was dead in the water in Europe outside Spain, Portugal and Greece where watered down versions of it survived. So it is alarmist and absurd to suggest that had the revolution succeeded, Facsism would again rear its ugly head. The basic issue is that the country wanted to take its own course and for that to occur the Russians had to leave the country (as eventually occured in 1989). Arguments to the effect that the Russians 'stabilised' the situation is nonsense as their presence and the mismanagement of the country by their Hungarian proteges was the real underlying cause of so much of the frustration of the people, some of which unfortunately expressed itself in violence. People who are pro the Soviet invasion forget two things. What about the revolution of 1917? Can you not argue that it was a minority, the Bolshevists, who eventually hijacked that one? Was what occured after "democratic" in any way? Sure the tsarist system had to go, but one can argue that what occured after was just as extreme. The other issue is that 1956 set a pattern, repeated by the Communist systems in the other satellites of crushing any attempt to modify the system and call it revisionism, be it in Prague 1968 or in the events in Poland during the early 1980s with Solidarity. Not to mention brute Soviet force used when they did not want to relinquish their hold over the Baltic states in the early 1990s and again more recently in Chechnya. The only way these authoritarian systems dealt with dissent was by crushing it.  — [Unsigned comment added by 218.185.94.226 (talk • contribs).]

Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956

I have created a category for this important event. I am sure there are many more articles that should be added, so please feel free to do so. Thanks, Wachholder0 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Baseless Statement

These Soviet actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened Soviet control over Central Europe, cultivating the perception that communism was both irreversible and monolithic.

This is baseless. The event that alienated western Marxists was the suppression of the 1968 counter-revolution in Prague. Evidence shows that the communist parties in Italy, for example, increased its number of votes between 1953-58:

1953: 6,121,551 votes for Italian communists

1958: 6,704,763 for Italian communists

Jacob Peters

Since the end of WW2, the only time that the PCI lost seats in an election was after the turmoil (well-cited in the footnotes to that section of the article) in the PCI after 1956. The other Socialist parties, who denounced the Soviet invasion, all gained seats at the expense of the PCI. The data you provide is out of context to the results of the election. Ryanjo 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again JP (or rather IP) for filling the section with material precisely described by the title. Please contribute using your wiki account instead. Registered users (i.e. the rest of us) have to live with the consequences of what they write. It is not fair for you to continue to disrupt an FA and provoke very controversial discussion (even though it keeps things from getting boring) without sharing the same circumstance. István 03:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! When people post under IP accounts, it makes it look like they are trying to hide something, or they know, deep down, that the things they are saying are bogus. If you would like to have any chance of being taken seriously, please SIGN IN AND SIGN YOUR MESSAGES.

(By the way, Italy is usually a strange case. If you're trying to make a sweeping generalization about support for Communist parties in Europe, give us more than one country of examples please!?)K. Lastochka 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 11 Nov 2006 by 68.126.61.121 and 69.110.136.113

I have reverted an large number of edits by unregistered Users 69.110.136.113 & 68.126.61.121, since there were several problems with these edits:

1. The change to the number of Revolutionaries (from unknown to 15,000, acc to Gati's book) is not correctly referenced. On page 156 of Gati's book, footnote # 22 refers to a publication in Hungarian and states: "Gyurko... warned that it was impossible to know precisely how many took actively part in the revolt." Therefore, unknown is the correct estimate. If there is a direct information which supports Gati's estimate of 15,000, it is not referenced.
2. The issue of calling it a revolution has been discussed exhaustively in the discussions above and during FA proposal and the majority of editors have decided it will be called the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Unless a preponderance of opinion sees the need for change, it should remain as titled.
3. Excess detail is provided in the lead paragraphs which already exists in the sections below.
4. There is a distinct tone of POV: "fled as emigrants", is not supported by a careful reading of the Time article referenced[14]: "today the government claims that more than one-third of 1956's 200,000 refugees have come back home". There is no evidence that this happened or not.
5. The format of these references is not congruent with the style of reference already used in the article.

Edits to FA articles should be done with care and after review by other contributing editors, especially if substantial changes to such previously reviewed text is anticipated. That is the nature of discussions on this section. Ryanjo 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ryanjo and confirm that the issue of whether or not the event can be called a "Revolution" has been decided in the affirmative at least three separate times during the FA(C) and that any change should be summarily reverted. Numbering the revolutionaries at 15,000 is also counter to the historical record, also as referenced in the UN report which stated that soviet forces found it impossible to differentiate between civilian and military targets in Budapest. The number is accurately indeterminable, as Ryanjo points out and any change from this should also be reverted back to the FAC-version description of "unknown". Moreover, returnees are no where near the one-third claimed by the government unless they are engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand (i.e. counting visits) - I would also add the ref - the UN report chapter II.N page 31 point xii) only a small fraction of the 190,000 which fled as refugees have accepted the Government's invitation to return. Anything else should also be reverted. Finally, this article has seen more than its share of vandalism (especially on 23 October when it was TFA) and about 99% of it was from IP users. If any interested admin were to consider a partial protection (against unregistered users) I would certainly encourage it as this will almost certianly help preserve a good FA and allow the vigilant, perhaps overprotective editors more opportunity to work on other wiki areas. István 03:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree again. Sometimes I think IP users should be blocked, period--I'm sure it would seriously cut down on stupid vandalism. :) But I don't want to get into a big debate on wiki policy...so just let the record show that I also support a partial protection on this article. K. Lastochka 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The format of these references is not congruent with the style of reference already used in the article. Edits to FA articles should be done with care and after review by other contributing editors, especially if substantial changes to such previously reviewed text is anticipated. That is the nature of discussions on this section. Ryanjo 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ryanjo and confirm that the issue of whether or not the event can be called a "Revolution" has been decided in the affirmative at least three separate times during the FA(C) and that any change should be summarily reverted. Numbering the revolutionaries at 15,000 is also counter to the historical record, also as referenced in the UN report which stated that soviet forces found it impossible to differentiate between civilian and military targets in Budapest. The number is accurately indeterminable, as Ryanjo points out and any change from this should also be reverted back to the FAC-version description of "unknown". Moreover, returnees are no where near the one-third claimed by the government unless they are engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand (i.e. counting visits) - I would also add the ref - the UN report chapter II.N page 31 point xii) only a small fraction of the 190,000 which fled as refugees have accepted the Government's invitation to return. Anything else should also be reverted. Finally, this article has seen more than its share of vandalism (especially on 23 October when it was TFA) and about 99% of it was from IP users. If any interested admin were to consider a partial protection (against unregistered users) I would certainly encourage it as this will almost certianly help preserve a good FA and allow the vigilant, perhaps overprotective editors more opportunity to work on other wiki areas.

The change to the number of Revolutionaries (from unknown to 15,000, acc to Gati's book) is not correctly referenced. On page 156 of Gati's book, footnote # 22 refers to a publication in Hungarian and states: "Gyurko... warned that it was impossible to know precisely how many took actively part in the revolt." Therefore, unknown is the correct estimate. If there is a direct information which supports Gati's estimate of 15,000, it is not referenced.

First, you are incorrect in the claim that it is not correctly referenced. It was distinctly referenced that the source was from Charles Gati's latest work. Charles Gati is a more than qualified scholar who is a reliable source on this issue. While there was a critical approach to the number of active combattants, this is done in most cases. Most qualified scholars treat newly founded facts with a degree of criticism. Nevertheless, Gati's estimation that 15,000 directly fought is perfectly reliable. Similarly, it is impossible to know the exact number of people killed in the Russian Civil War, but most scholars have estimated it to be in the range of 7-10 million. The point is that it is impossible to know for certain the exact number of people died. For example, you'd never see something like "2,523,732 died in this and that war."

The issue of calling it a revolution has been discussed exhaustively in the discussions above and during FA proposal and the majority of editors have decided it will be called the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Unless a preponderance of opinion sees the need for change, it should remain as titled.

This does not change the fact that most sources including Gati's latest work refer to the event as a revolt. Gati himself was from a petit-bourgeois family employed as a journalist in 1956. He was one of the 200,000 or so who betrayed the country. A work by an ardent anti-communist like Gati should be the paradigm. Plus, you have yet to respond to the fact that most scholarly sources on Proquest database have more search results of "1956 Hungarian Revolt" than "1956 Hungarian Revolution". There was not a revolution because this movement had the support of the Catholic Church, Radio Free Europe, and was fiercely Russophobic. More importantly, this movement did not bring about any fundamental changes that were not already brought about in 1948-1953.

There is a distinct tone of POV: "fled as emigrants", is not supported by a careful reading of the Time article referenced[10]: "today the government claims that more than one-third of 1956's 200,000 refugees have come back home". There is no evidence that this happened or not.

What the fuck are you talking no evidence? This was reported by the Hungarian government. The reference to the obsolete, outdated UN report is not an appropriate source as it was disseminated in 1957 whereas the "Time" article was from the 1960s.

If anything, calling someone a refugee for simply leaving one's country is POV. The reverse POV is to call them defector. The neutral POV is to call them emigrant. People who flee the economic catastrophe of eastern Europe today are not referred to as "refugee". Yet those who fled an economically prosperous Eastern Europe pre-1989 are referred to as "refugee". These people were not fleeing from any devastating war or humanitarian crisis. Like Gati, they were simply bourgeois parasites.

Point 1: Whoever you are, PLEASE LOG IN AND SIGN YOUR MESSAGES.

Point 2: We're calling it "Revolution", we've been over this before, deal with it. Point 3: "Fled as emigrants" sounds silly. "Fled" goes with "Refugee", "emigrant" would work better with something like "left". Point 4: Mr. Gati is not a parasite.

That is all I have to say to you. K. Lastochka 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"An economically prosperous Eastern Europe pre-1989"...

"There was not collective farming ever in the People's Republic of Hungary."

More Nonsense and Lies, anyone?

JP, your cause is lost. We Hungarians actually know, you know – it's only a matter of time to find and cite the appropriate sources. It's not like you can beat us into letting you whitewash the oppressors by citing various copies of the same side of the story over and over. So just stop wasting everyone's time. If you come back with this bullshit after the page is unprotected, I for one will revert it on sight anyway. (And that's already spending more time on it than it deserves.) KissL 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Due to recent vandalism, maybe it should be semiprotected. Can I protect it? NCurse _work 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just put us up as a request for semi-protection, but apparently only an admin can actually do the protecting. That's why I asked you. :) K. Lastochka 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the recent edits may be annoying, but they are not numerous enough to warrant protection of the page.--Paul 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked it K. Lastochka. :) NCurse _work 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just a suggestion... :) K. Lastochka 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandal IPs are all from the same ISP in France, according to WHOIS. It's probably the same person. Ryanjo 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to block him (her??) if he keeps using different IPs? K. Lastochka 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I semiprotected it for some days. NCurse _work 05:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

political/historical repercussions

Hi, I just noticed Mieciu K's request on the "To Do" list, he asks that we write a paragraph about the unrest in BP last month on the 50th anniversary. Mieciu, thanks for your suggestion but this particular article is not the place to write about last month's events. Instead I would like to suggest to my various colleagues and co-editors that we write a "sister article" about the repercussions of 56 that continue to this day. We can talk in more detail about its influence on the Prague Spring, how and why it's often considered the "first nail in the coffin of Soviet communism", the various ways in which people have (rightly and wrongly) invoked the memory of the events to describe political situations in their own time and place, and of course the mess last month. (And then we can put it in that template we've been messing with!) What do you say, boys and girls? :) K. Lastochka 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe take a look here or link it through the template? (BTW, thanks to NCurse for actively defending this and some other 1956 articles)István 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping for us to maybe start on something about the influence of 56 from the day it all started up through the rest of the cold war and to today...may be a bit ambitious I know...K. Lastochka 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

if anyone has the energy to pull it off, its you KL ;-) but perhaps such a thing would be, if written to the same standard, a bona-fide interpretive history text - one or two orders of magnitude above an encyclopedia article. István 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Energy maybe, but time? :) I should spend less time on wiki and more time studying. :) I will take a shot at it in next few days though--I feel like I'm up to a little interpretive history! K. Lastochka 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Article?

I noticed there are some spoken articles on the Wikipedia. Does anyone have interest in at least looking into recording this one? (I would assume this would be a collaboration) Im sure it would require another round of polishing the text, and we'd have to have a think about how to ensure high recording quality. (any trained voices out there?) Look at Samantha Smith as an example - also FA, also spoken article. István 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'm definitely not the one to speak it but it's worth looking into. I'm just dying to get back to all this 56 stuff btw--I remember we left Biruitorul's template in mid-project. All stuff to consider...K. Lástocska 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, stop dying then ;-). Its really is a gem of an article, now that some time has passed one can see quite objectively that it compares very favourably with other FAs. Ive often wondered what is the most densely-referenced FA on the Wiki - its likely that this one is in the top echelon. In any case, yes, you are right that the template project should come first, now that there are some satellite articles out there lost in space. Recording the article would put it over the top. István 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Videos, For Freedom and Truth

The videos that Istvan linked to are a great addition to the article! The very young age of most of the demonstrators was something I hadn't realized--pictures worth a thousand words, etc. Also, we have several "red wikilinks" now, most prominently "For Freedom and Truth". What happened? Should we delete or link somewhere else? (This article just keeps getting better every time I take another look.) Ryanjo 01:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those films are superb. If anyone can figure out a way to link to any specific one (rather than to the whole page), they could be used as references (if a webpage, why not a video?) I was struck too by the mood of the crowd, it really comes across very clearly, even the weather; the videos certainly put the story into rich context. As for the Bibó page, I am working on a translation from source (public domain) material, as the previous one (translated by anon) was rejected for copyright status. There was a brief but spirited bruhaha about it, but finally we had to pull it down, cool our jets and we will put it up again shortly, perhaps within a week. Please bear with me on that one - The Bibó stuff really belongs and is an important part of the story. István 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those films are great! I only watched a few but they made quite an impression. Kösz, István! :-)

Ryanjo, I totally agree. Today was the first time in a while I looked at the article and I was left dumbfounded, scratching my head in bewilderment and thinking "how on Earth did we manage to write something this good??" The next step (besides For Freedom and Truth) is to finally pull together that template Biruitorul suggested. I already started the Cultural Representations bit, am about to throw together something from Biru's notes on events outside BP, then if I have lots of spare time maybe something about the political repercussions. (Somebody put the 2006 anti-Gyurcsi protests in the template--honestly don't think that quite belongs!) K. Lástocska 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I can say without one ounce of hyperbole that this article is eleventy jillion times better than all other FAs put together ;-). And as its now New Years eve I take the opportunity to say explicitly that it was a pure pleasure putting it together with you all, you did some great work and we achieved something quite important. I wish you all a happy new year and hope to see you around the Wiki in the future. István 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. :) This project was a lot of fun and very meaningful for me, despite the occasional squabbles and near-catastrophes (like when our pics almost got yanked!), and I can hardly think of a better group of people I would have wanted to work with. Now that WikiProject Hungarian Culture is all but created, I am eagerly looking forward to more collaborations like this one in the future. Dear friends and colleagues, a very very happy new year to every one of you! K. Lástocska 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is an alternate page where these films can be linked separately [15]. Notice the correspondent for the BBC film (the first one) is George Mikes, author of "How To Be An Alien". István 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Cow

Guys/Gal, did you see this? [16]

Wow....what a gold mine!! Do I sense that this article is about to get even longer, better and more thoroughly-referenced? ;-) K. Lástocska 03:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

and for the record, another (Gati used this for his book) here [17] Tells how the CIA has such poor intelligence at the time. Too bad they're still all so deeply redacted... István 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They just added some weekly intelligence briefings to this page. They are a better read and are less redacted, but not quite so in-the-trenches as the dailies. István 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

holy cow, 2

not as momentous as the discovery of the video archive and the CIA documents, but have you guys seen this? We're famous! :) [18] K. Lásztocska 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some additional links, even the BBC!

[19] [20] [21] --Paul 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

cleaning up the red links

Any of you good on the wikisource? Ive translated the Bibó document here but cant quite figure out how to do all the copyright verification stuff on wikisource, nor prepare that header at the top. Its greek to me, and I certainly dont want to set off another mob-bruhaha over copyright status. If any of you are good on wikisource then please be my guest and create the article and repair the red links on this page. Thanks István 06:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

...a decade of repression...Soviet imposed policies...

I have reverted an edit by User:Oleanna1104:

• old text: Writers and journalists were the first to voice open criticism, publishing critical articles in 1955.
• new edit: After almost a decade of repression, writers and journalists began to openly voice criticism of Soviet imposed policies, publishing critical articles in 1955.

I have a number of objections:

1. No edit summary
2. No posting on this discussion page.
3. The reference for this text ( UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) {{PDF|[http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01274/01274.pdf Chapter II.A (Developments before 22 October 1956), paragraph 49 (p. 18)) specifically mentions that the repressive policies began in 1949 and the criticism in 1955, not "after almost a decade". Also, there is no direct reference to Soviet control (I realize that the Soviets called the shots, but this is speculative; the reference attributes the repression to the Rakosi government).
4. This is a carefully-referenced article. If a reference exists that the writers' articles mentioned "Soviet imposed policies", then let's add it to enhance the article. Otherwise, I think that this new edit is not as accurate as what it replaced. The previous text is well-supported by the reference.

Ryanjo 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I can't help but notice that our revolutionaries-atop-Stalin's-boots picture just got yanked from the commons. Apparently there was a misunderstanding--it is the WEBSITE of the American Hungarian Federation which is copyrighted, not the images they offered in their 1956 gallery. Indeed, this very question came up back in October and after some communication with people from the AHF we were assured that all the photos we uploaded are in fact public domain and we have full permission to use them. K. Lásztocska 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading - two columns?

I have rearranged the Further reading section into two columns (something István had suggested some time ago). Could everyone take a look and comment? Ryanjo 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

{{portal|Cold War}}

• Arendt, Hannah (1951). Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt. pp. pp. 480-510. ISBN 0-15-670153-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Bekes, Csaba (Editor) (2003). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents (National Security Archive Cold War Readers). Central European University Press. pp. 600 pages. ISBN 963-9241-66-0. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Bibó, István (1991). Democracy, Revolution, Self-Determination. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. pp. 331-354. ISBN 0-88033-214-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Gadney, Reg (October 1986). Cry Hungary: Uprising 1956. Macmillan Pub Co. pp. 169 pages. ISBN 0-689-11838-4.
• Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt (Cold War International History Project Series). Stanford University Press. pp. 264 pages. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.
• Györkei, Jenõ (1999). Soviet Military Intervention in Hungary, 1956. New York: Central European University Press. p. 350. ISBN 963-9116-36-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kertesz, Stephen D. (1953). Diplomacy in a Whirlpool: Hungary between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN 0-8371-7540-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
• Michener, James A. (1985 (reissue edition)). The Bridge at Andau. New York: Fawcett. ISBN 0-449-21050-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Morris, William E. (Reprint edition (August 2001)). The Hungarian Revolt: October 23 - November 4, 1956. Simon Publications. ISBN 1-931313-79-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Napolitano, Giorgio (2005). Dal Pci al socialismo europeo. Un'autobiografia politica (From the Communist Party to European Socialism. A political autobiography) (in Italian). Laterza. ISBN 88-420-7715-1.
• Sebestyen, Victor (2006). Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. New York: Pantheon. pp. 340 pages. ISBN 0-375-42458-X.
• Sugar, Peter F. (1994). A History of Hungary: From Liberation to Revolution (pp. 368-83). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 448 pages. ISBN 0-253-20867-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• United Nations: Report of the Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary, General Assembly, Official Records, Eleventh Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/3592), New York, 1957 "(268 pages)" (PDF). (1.47 MiB)
• Zinner, Paul E. (1962). Revolution in Hungary. Books for Libraries Press. pp. 380 pages. ISBN 0-8369-6817-4.

I like it--looks pretty classy and doesn't take up as much space on the page. K. Lásztocska 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it too - it looks more scholarly.István 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

This article really helped me with a project i had to do on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. With the information from this article and other sources, i will most likely get a 100 on this grade in my World History AP class.User:Chris gonzalez March 2007

Hey, that's great! Glad we could help! :) K. Lásztocska 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Film section, under External links

I noticed that someone added a sentence on the 2006 Hungarian film Szabadság, szerelem (Children of Glory), about the 1956 Olympic water polo match between Hungary & Russia, right after the Revolution was crushed. The same paragraph also includes a reference to the film Freedom's Fury, on the same subject. I wonder whether it would be better to start a new section under Published accounts in "External links" for these films (and hopefully others of a wider scope on the 1956 events):

Film

• Freedom's Fury The 2005 documentary film depicting events surrounding the Hungarian-Soviet confrontation in the Olympic water polo tournament, now known as the "blood in the water match". Narrated by Mark Spitz, produced by Lucy Liu and Quentin Tarantino.
• Szabadság, szerelem (Children of Glory) A 2006 semi-fictional film by Hungarian director Kriszta Goda, depicting the effect of the 1956 Revolution on members of the 1956 Hungarian Olympic water polo team. A few weeks after Revolution was crushed, the Hungarian players find themselves up against the Soviet Union at a semifinal match.

Comments? Ryanjo 04:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on cultural influences, legacy and such should be created. And both of thsoe films are likely notable and should be stubbed...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We've already got a weird little split-off article, Cultural representations of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (for a template that never got finished) I think they're in there. K. Lásztocska 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cause - Władysław Gomułka?

Władysław Gomułka article states: A student demonstration in Budapest in support of Gomułka, asking for similar reforms in Hungary, soon sparked the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Would anybody have a reference for that? In related news, I have created articles on Polish '56 revolution(s): Poznań 1956 protests and Gomułka's thaw.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gomułka was certainly in the mix, as recorded in the UN report here[22] see page 145, para 441 - his name being invoked, and enthusiastically received, on the 22 Oct organisational meeting of the MEFESZ, and the Polish example was likely decisive in choice of venue for the 23 Oct demonstration meeting - they were trying to make a point. But the revolution had many many causes, including many shared by Poland. István 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One more Poland - related fact should be mentioned here: that the success of Polish October ows much to the Soviet preoccupation with more far going events in Hungary (ref, [23]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1956 hungarians flee.gif

The commons description of this page is "25 october 1956. Massacre at the Parliament: 200 dead, several hundreds injured." In this article, is is used much later, rather than near the events of Oct. 25.

Do we know for sure when this photo was taken? www.hungary1956.com doesn't state it, as far as i could see. We also don't have a source for the number of deaths/injuries at the parliament. - TheMightyQuill 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded that one, and I wrote the description as "Hungarian citizens fleeing Soviet attack as the 1956 Revolution is crushed." Somebody must have changed it to the Oct. 25 Parliament thing--as far as I remember, hungary1956.com said that was a picture from the second Soviet intervention in November. K. Lásztocska 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Decision to intervene

The article says: "Although it was widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet intervention, minutes of the October 31 meeting of the Presidium record that the decision to intervene militarily was taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact." The reference is this. It looks like the editor writing this drew his own conclusions, that is it's original research? According to this text, on October 31 "Nagy announces that the Hungarian government is prepared to leave the Warsaw Pact," that is it's the same day as the meeting. On November 1 Nagy "announces Hungary's withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, proclaims Hungarian neutrality, and asks the United Nations to put the Hungarian question on its agenda." Vints 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear. As to when the decision to intervene militarily was made, the UN Report (on page 56, paragraphs 179-182) reports that the build up of Soviet troops, and their deployment toward Budapest actually started on October 27 or 28. As to the timing of Nagy's purported statement that "the Hungarian government is prepared to leave the Warsaw Pact" in relationship to the Presidium's approval of intervention, 1) it would be nice to find a first-hand account of Nagy's October 31 statement, and 2) Moscow is two hours east of Budapest, so the timing of Nagy's pronouncement and the Presidium meeting becomes important. It is possible the Predsidium meeting was finished before Nagy's statements were reported. What is clear from the record is that Nagy announced the withdrawal from the Warsaw pact on November 1st, and the minutes of the October 31st, Presidium meeting approve the intervention which had been previously planned and the logistics for which had been underway for several days. Assuming that the Presidium had heard of Nagy's statement without any documentary evidence, seems to be a more dubious proposition than the one stated in the article. If we want to speculate about what really caused what, we might say that Nagy when informed of the true nature of Soviet troop movements (invading rather than withdrawing) decided to announce withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact in hopes of persuading the west to help repel the Soviets.--Paul 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, the decision by the Soviets to intervene was before the Nagy announcement to leave the Warsaw Pact. The usual presumption was that this was a factor in the Soviet decision. The rebuttal reference given by Vints is an account from 1958 ("Those Heroic Days . . . ," Facts about Hungary, Ed. Imre Kovacs [New York, Hungarian Committee, 1958), pp.83-68. Reprinted by permission of the Hungarian Committee.[24]), when the deliberations of the Presidium were still secret. But the release of the Presidium transcripts [25] in 1989 makes it clear that Khrushchev had reversed himself the day before Nagy's declaration, for several other reasons [26]. I don't think this is original research, since the facts are stated in the source documents. This edit is a change from many other historical accounts, as well as an earlier account in Wikipedia's version of this article, which is the advantage we have in updating Wikipedia articles (and why this article is what you'll find at the top of the list when googling Hungarian Revolution). Ryanjo 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is original research because the source doesnt say explicitly (at least I couldn't find it) that Hungary leaving the Warsaw Pact was not a factor.

This BBC article, which also mentions the Presidium minutes, says

"Mr Nagy's new government drew up its demands. One of these, probably a fatal one, suggested that Hungary might leave the Warsaw Pact, the military agreement under which Soviet troops were stationed in Eastern Europe."

"The Poles escaped intervention because they promised not to leave the Warsaw Pact."

"'Had Imre Nagy been loyal to the Warsaw Pact, the Russians might not have intervened.'"

Perhaps Nagy announced Hungary's intention to leave the WP even earlier than 31.

The Swedish Wikipedia article says (translated) "When Nagy on October 31 realized that the Soviets were preparing to invade, he requested that Hungary leave the Warsaw Pact, hoping that this would mean that the Soviet army's presence in the country is illegal and guarantee support from the West," that is what Paul says above. Vints 13:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

the source doesnt say explicitly...that Hungary leaving the Warsaw Pact was not a factor -- That isn't fair, someone could therefore say (for example) that the fact it rained in Moscow that day could have been a factor -- because it wasn't stated that it was not a factor.

The BBC article has the order of events wrong, from the source documents we have available. The BBC writer cites no references for his contention that Nagy announced withdrawal from the Pact before the Presidium made its decision. In fact, as Paul mentions, the UN report (a second source that confirms the Wikipedia article's timeline) states that Soviet units were mobilizing to enter Hungary for several days before the November 1st Nagy cabinet meeting. The BBC's quote from Sir Rodric Braithwaite, that "Had Imre Nagy been loyal to the Warsaw Pact, the Russians might not have intervened" is also unsupported by the source documents (can a politician understand history?).

Swedish Wikipedia may have merely carried over the earlier revision of this article, which incorrectly had the much repeated leave Pact..Soviets invade timeline. This was changed in this article between September & November 2006, when over 50 editors were involved in vetting this article for FA status. However, if Swedish Wikipedia has an undiscovered reference that supports the leave Pact..Soviets invade argument, lets examine it. Ryanjo 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that several sources mention leaving the Warsaw Pact as a factor but none mentions the weather in Moscow. Can you find a reference that explicitly says it was not a factor? Perhaps the Soviets made a final decision to invade later than October 31 but this is just a guess. Here the wording was changed from "Although it is widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet military to crush the Revolution, minutes of the 31 October meeting of the Presidium of the Soviet Party indicate that this declaration was only one of several contributing factors" to the current version. Vints 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Before the release in 1989 of the Politburo minutes, no one knew when the final political approval was given for the second intervention. This, everything written about the timeline before 1989 is speculation. And, lacking any specific documentation, anything written since 1989 that has the old causality, is still speculation, or the work of someone who hasn't done their research. Here's what the article says about November 1st.

On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest.[99] Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The Cabinet, with János Kádár in agreement, declared Hungary's neutrality, withdrew from the Warsaw Pact, and requested assistance from the diplomatic corps in Budapest and the UN Secretary-General to defend Hungary's neutrality.[100]

The actual attack took place three days later on November 4th. Without knowledge of the October 31 minutes, it is logical to assume that the Nov. 1st cabinet meeting actions caused the Nov. 4th attack. With knowledge of the minutes, it is a lot harder to make that case.--Paul 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion to change the sentence to the present wording is above, titled "Chronology of 2nd Soviet Intervention". Ryanjo 00:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In my comment in "Chronology of 2nd Soviet Intervention", I included a length quote from the October 31st meeting, in which Khrushchev expounds on his reasons for reversing his October 28th decision not to intervene. None of them make reference to a Warsaw Pact withdrawal (which had not been announced yet, according to any reference we have access to). Historian János M. Rainer comments, "Apparently, none of the other issues influencing the decision (ideology, the maintainance of the image, pure military and strategic considerations) had sufficient weight in Khrushchev's thinking to justify a hard-line decision." So here is at least one historian who supports the timeline of the Wikipedia article. (The complete text of Rainier's article is now here, the old link is broken.) Ryanjo 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the date when Mao put pressure on Khrushchev (see the new section I added) and of Khrushchev's visit to Tito. I couldn't find it in Short or Gaddis, but Gaddis wrote that Mao played an important role in Khrushchev's decision. There should be more information, at least about the visit to Tito, in William Taubman, Khrushchev: The Man and His Era (2003).Vints 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporting Paul and Ryanjo, see also the UN report [27] page 25, para 74 - records that Nagy received "authoritative information" of new Soviet units entering Hungary "in violation of the Warsaw treaty" (i.e. invasion, not troop rotation) and that "the Hungarian Government would denounce the treaty if the reinforcements were not withdrawn" (i.e. it had not yet decided to exit the pact at that point). Thus we have both the Soviet and Hungarian accounts in agreement that Soviet military invasion occurred before the Hungarian Government declared its intention to exit the Warsaw pact. The timeline is unambiguously clear and one cannot, by any rhetorical sleight of hand, make October 31 occur after November 1. I would support removing the "dubious" tag. István 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone finds a primary source that would somehow support the allegation that, at the point of deciding to intervene, the Presidium had heard that Hungary planned to leave the Warsaw Pact and this influenced the decision, the statement is in no way dubious (indeed, it is the opposite that would be both dubious and OR). This has not happened so far – all sources claiming this are based on speculations, not exhaustive analysis of primary sources. I went ahead and removed the tag. KissL 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree Ryanjo 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree as per above (not to be redundant...) István 03:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree per KissL. K. Lásztocska 04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of re-opening the" what caused the intervention?" question again, I reorganized several of the statements in this section, which i believe were not longer in the correct order. If I have got it wrong, please re-edit. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Banning of "God bless the Hungarians"

An IP editor claims it wasn't banned and thus the Hungarian olympic delegation didn't have to insist on its use. True or False? Here's a place to start, anyone read Hungarian? [Hungarian Wikipedia Magyar himnusz].--Paul 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Hungarian page there's nothing about it. But I don't think that there would be any change in the article. It sounds so nice, doesn't it? But it is the least important on this page in terms of factual inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it. You just need to see any newsreel from the 1950s about any major sporting event and you can see that the national anthem (Himnusz) is played. In 1952 in the Helsinki Olympic Games 16 times. All the events in Hungary started with this music (including openign of the school year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.230 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact it was compulsory in music classes in the elementary school... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Until the revolution, the Hungarian Anthem was not banned, it was simply not played (for fear or servilism). Neither in shool, nor elsewhere. This sentence All the events in Hungary started with this music (including openign of the school year) is not true. The only way to listen to it was during the Sunday mass in churches. --Hunadam 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I learnt it in the school choir (Budapest X. district) and sang it at the school opening day (beginning of September) in 1952 (having said that the other two songs were the Appeal (Szózat) and the International (there were variations, but these three featured). It is, of course, possible that there were differences between Budapest and the country or even between different Budapest districts. But these are about experiences. However, the point remains that the sportmen and women did not have to protest for having the Anthem played at the Olympic games, one simply has to look at newsreels of sporting events in which Hungary won, you will see that the Anthem is played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence claiming that the Anthem was banned at the games has been removed from the article.--Paul 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Political repression and economic decline section

The last paragraph in this section is extremely confused and inaccurate.

The hyper-inflation took place in 1946, well before the communist takeover, thus it is incomprehensible how the Rákosi clique can be made responsible for this. If anything, experts of the communists and the social-democrats worked out the way in which the new currency could be introduced (the propaganda slogan was that Rákosi was the father of the forint and Szakasits its mother), and it certainly created the image of economic expertise. Moreover, the sentence about the hyper-inflation follows the sentence on post-war economic recovery, increasing the confusion.

The paragraph goes on and on about the war reparations, without mentioning that in the war 40% of the national assets were destroyed (of which infrastructure (no bridge survived over the River Tisza and the Danube), vehicles, trains, railways (40% of the total rails), animals (about half of it), industrial raw materials were the most important).

By 1949, industrial production reached the output of 1938 (more or less). The disposable income was necessarily lower than the pre-war level as additional resources were needed for investment, rebuilding and international obligations. The big drop in disposable income in 1951-1952 was a result of the soaring military expenditure as a response to the Korean War.

Here are the figures for economic growth (it uses national income, which is GDP less depreciation and the "non-productive" sectors) - 1950=100
1951: 116
1952: 114
1953: 128
1954: 122
1955: 132
1956: 117
(Source: I. Pető and S. Szakács (1985): A hazai gazdaság négy évtizedének története 1945-1985. 1. Az újjáépítés és a tervutasításos irányítás időszaka, KJK: Budapest, p. 214)

Well, it was the industrial production (especially heavy industries) that led this - the common expression for 1950-1953 in the Hungarian economic history is "the period of forced industrialisation". The current statement in the article is just ridiculous (there was shortage of labour in industry, not unemployment!), not to mention that the reference is a 1953 book...

However, real income of the population did fall between 1951-1953, though nowhere close to the suggestion in the article (the figures below are for employees):
1949=100
1950: 102.8
1951: 97.8
1952: 87.5
1953: 91.0
1954: 115.0
1955: 121.8
1956: 129.3
(Source: ibid, p. 217)

Food consumption was more or less the same between 1950-1954 and 1934-1938 with the exception of sugar that was twice as high in 1950-1954 than in the pre-war period (source: ibid., p. 231. Nevertheless, there were shortages and the rationing was reintroduced in 1951 (abolished, in my view too early, in 1949).

Well, it is rather different picture than the one in the article. But at least it is not confused and fairly accurate (the book referenced here is fairly reliable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The hyper-inflation took place in 1946, well before the communist takeover, thus it is incomprehensible how the Rákosi clique can be made responsible for this. -- I removed the sentence referring to Rákosi government to correct this. Please insert a more accurate statement, if you wish.

The paragraph goes on and on about the war reparations-- There is a single sentence, directly quoted from a contemporary source, and referenced.

without mentioning that in the war 40% of the national assets were destroyed -- Well, the reference cited clearly states: "The cost of the physical damage done has been put at 40 per cent of annual national income". But I don't see the connection to reparations.

Ryanjo 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. In the text the war reparations are mentioned as a decisive factor (apart from the economic mismanagement). While they were important (but less so from 1950), the task of rebuilding the infrastructure, re-breeding the animal stock (after all, cattle has a pretty long breeding period), etc. were more important. The article's text actually does not mention the destruction by WWII. For many people in the West, the destruction (and the scale of losses of life) in the East is incomprehesible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Damage from the war was undoubtedly the most important factor in the fall in economic activity immediately after the war, but the article uses 1949 as the base. If personal income and industrial output fell from 1949 to 1953 how can that be the result of war damage? While the 1946 hyper-inflation clearly wasn't the fault of the Rákosi government, I remain unconvinced that the problems in 1953-54 weren't related to collectivization and economic mismanagement by the Rákosi regime. For perspective look at the economic performance of western Europe during this same period. Look at Germany. War damange and civilian displacement there was far worse than in Hungary.--Paul 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is with 1938 in the article (which is the first year of the Győr programme anyway). The main reason is the soaring military expenditure and the numerous heavy industry investment started at the same time (without proper plans - Sztálinváros [Dunaújváros] was built like this) that consumed the resources. Mismanagement played a significant role, there cannot be any doubt. However, the figures in the article are just plain wrong. Industrial production was significantly higher in the 1950s than in 1938 or 1949. The drop in output happens in Nagy's 1953 economic reorientation programme that aimed at reducing the expenditure in heavy industries by redirecting resources to light industries and stopping several large projects to ease political tensions. If one excludes the mismanagement cost, Hungarian industry was more productive than in the pre-war period because of the consolidation of the small and medium-sized companies.

Percentages are also interesting things. When it's said that by 1949 industrial production reached the 1938 level, it covers up the fact that light industries were extremely underdeveloped in Hungary. Just for the measure: Production of socks was 3-4 pairs per person in 1938... Thus even a 100% increase in this would have have yielded rather little. In both the 3-year and the first 5-year plan light industries received less resources (or resources were even taken away). This historic disadvantage couldn't be made up without either giving up the heavy industry or agriculture or both. Hence the tendency of the Hungarian economy to be dependent on foreign loans, resources for the last 150 years or so.

The comparison with Germany is not really appropriate as West Germany would take over not only the East in terms of economic growth and living standards, but all the Western Allies as well (with the exception of the US) by the mid-1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph is misleading and overly simplifies things. I have reorganized it and added some additional materials. See if it is an improvement.--Paul 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the sentence "By 1953, post-war Hungarian manufacturing output fell to one-third of pre-war levels." be removed as inaccurate, or at least exaggerated. It can be replaced with a statement more in line with the statistics above, such as "Industrial production, beset by mismanagement and redirection of resources to ease political tensions, declined in 1953. Ryanjo 22:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It reads much better and much more accurate (especially with the added reference of the forced savings ("Békekölcsön"), which is really a key issue as it really distorts most of the national statistics). The last sentence of the paragraph is really redundant as it repeats what's said before, with the exception of the reference to the discontent as a result of economic problems (the remark about the price difference for producers and consumers is not explained anywhere anyway, thus perhaps it is incomprehesible for the unitiated reader: it meant that the peasantry received less money for the surrendered grain than for which they bought it back.). Thus, in my view, it is sufficient to say: "all these fuelled discontent as foreign debt grew and the population experienced shortages" (with the reference). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Contributions by Redstar1987

Good to see the editorial team is still on the job. I agree with K. Lastochka, who relocated the contributions by Redstar1987:

• The links placed in the References section are incorrectly formatted for footnoted references.
• There is a link to a chapter of Hungarian Tragedy, which is already linked below in the "Published Accounts" section of "External links", so I removed this link as a duplicate.
• There is a link to a personal story on www.freedomfighter56.com. I have moved the link to that site under the "Commemorations" subsection of "External links". It bothers me a bit, however, that it seems that the site serves to promote a book of '56 anecdotes.
• The link to a literary site, sort of a multi-contributor blog, is still where KL moved it.

Also, the sentence added about atrocities was similar to some previously in the article. Besides being poorly phrased, it's unreferenced.

It always helps if contributors to a FA article discuss the edits here first... Ryanjo 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we're still on the job! This article has a special place in my wiki-heart. :) You know, it's been almost exactly a year since our FA campaign began in earnest! Good times, good times...

Thanks for tidying up my loose ends. About the Freedom Fighter 56 site, I understand your mild unease about commercial promotion, but I think in this case, it's such a good repository of stories that it's worth using anyway. K. Lásztocska 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Köztársaság Square

I think that the incident on Köztársaság Square (Republic Square) October 30 (see eg [28]) should be mentioned. According to Victor Sebestyen's book this was one factor to why the Soviets decided to intervene a second time. Vints (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I updated the to-do list. Vints (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

Hi all ! Can we add this to the article ? - [29]. The site is very nicely done and it is in 8 languages ! Greetings.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When I click on the link you provided, it requires a login and password. According to Wikipedia guidelines "sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided". Ryanjo (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday everything was ok, I don't know what happened... No password were needed, I'm sure about that.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not ask for any password from me either. --V. Szabolcs (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me too (proxy IP in Hungary). Ryanjo, I suspect that your ISP may be using the wrong DNS record. This is what I see; do you see anything similar? KissL 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my assumption that all couldn't link to the page. I still get the "sign on" at http://www.1956.pl/main,8.html. I have sent a query to my ISP (bellsouth.net). Ryanjo (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)