Fascists in the 1956 "Hungarian Revolution"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Was the "tankie"-ism of the post-Stalin Soviet regime (notwithstanding Trotskyist and "anti-revisionist" criticisms) indeed justified? Here was an interesting note by Paul Cockshott in a recent essay of his:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0809/att-0160/leadershipconcepts.pdf (p. 17)


The Hungarian uprising was a much clearer cut counter revolutionary insurrection than Kronstadt, with widespread participation by ex-Horthyite fascists in the assasination of communist officials in the latter case.

Specifically, was there indeed fascist involvement in 1956?

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yes, i should respond to this after i grab my sources. But i'm grabbing them now and will give my official response :p.
Ohw, and on anti-revisionists: Both the CPC and the LPA recognized the Hungarian 'insurrection' to be a Fascist counter-revolution.

[VukBZ2005]

To answer your question, Jacob, there was no major Fascist involvement in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956-1957. That is just a lie that was put forth by the Union of "Soviet" "Socialist" Republics and its various supporters to discredit the working class or Proletarian character of that revolution and, to confuse people in the other "people's democracies", as so to prevent them from thinking the same thoughts that led to that revolution.

[PRC-UTE]

it probably had more to do with the Soviet obsession with calling every opposition force fascist.

[Tower of Bebel]

What might make it "clearer cut" is the lack of all kind of anarchist impulses, instead of the participation of (a few) fascists?

[Mister X]

To the poster of this thread:

Comrade how can you think that it was a fascist revolution out of the blue and without material conditions for fascism? I think you are intelligent enough to know why fascism comes about and under which conditions and post-capitalist Hungary did not have these conditions.

Besides every Hungarian that lived these events and was not a puppet of the Stalinist regime there would tell you that it was a genuine workers uprising. It is not by coincidence that the uprising begun from the poorest neighborhoods of the capital.

Furthermore the fact that they did not dare to bring Russian troops under the fear of communication between the troops and the insurgents(and a possible alliance between them), but they rather brought far Asian troops with no knowledge of Russian so they cannot communicate with the Hungarians is in itself suspicious. They even told those Asian troops that they were fighting in Germany!

I had an excellent account of the events by eyewitnesses (some of them in the Communist party of another country which latter left their parties due to that event) .
Unfortunately I've lost it but I am sure it was on marxists.org , in fact i was trying to find it before i posted in this thread but my quest was futile. Maybe another day I can link you to it.

[Comrade_Red]

I just wondered how exactly that was a "genuine workers uprising," given that the Soviets would have had a planned economy and a guaranteed job for everyone, especially in comparison to being a pro-West country.

It seems to me they would have been how Georgia is today, a pathetitc puppet government.

[genstrike]

I recall reading somewhere (I can't seem to find it again) that the accusations of fascism in the Hungarian Revolution being thrown around were mostly based on little evidence and a very wide definition of fascism. For example, if you were a member of the Hungarian equivalent of the boy scouts during the Horthy era, you were accused of being a fascist.

I had also read that the secret police used to crush the revolution was also partially recruited from wartime fascists (hmmm... this sounds familiar. Freikorps, anyone?).


I just wondered how exactly that was a "genuine workers uprising," given that the Soviets would have had a planned economy and a guaranteed job for everyone, especially in comparison to being a pro-West country.

It seems to me they would have been how Georgia is today, a pathetitc puppet government.

Because the Soviet union and other Eastern Bloc countries were not "genuine workers states"

Despite capitalist revisionism, for the masses of workers (although perhaps not the intellectuals) the Hungarian revolution was not about bringing in capitalism, it was about workers demands for self-management and actual control of industry as opposed to bureaucratic state control.

[Mister X]

I just wondered how exactly that was a "genuine workers uprising," given that the Soviets would have had a planned economy and a guaranteed job for everyone, especially in comparison to being a pro-West country.

It was a political revolution just like Trotsky described it in 1936. There's no argument about that. It was the proletarian forces that led this struggle for political freedom, for workers democracy.If you examine their demands you'll understand that.

This confirms Trotsky's perspectives , and his theory of degenerated workers states and political revolutions as correct, and we need to understand this in order to have a correct analysis when it comes to Cuba , the DPRK and maybe other degenerated workers states in the future.

For historical evidence , read some documents on www.marxists.org

[Panda Tse Tung]

This far all of the proof against the Fascist participation (guiding actually) has been mere rhetoric.


Comrade how can you think that it was a fascist revolution out of the blue and without material conditions for fascism? Perhaps the little minor detail that Hungary already had a Fascist Horthyite government before the Communist one.

There had already been fascist plots before the Hungarian counter-revolution. But these we're with no success. For example the coup-attempt in December 1946 by the Magyar Kozosseg. The whole structure of tht organisation was based on primitive entity's like family's, clans and tribes and was led by a council of 7.
Amongst the leaders of this coup-attempt we're:
Gyula Gombos (in the fascist government in between 1933 to 1936)
Miklos Kallay (" " 1942 - end of government)
Andras Szentivanji (staff-officer under Horthy)
Balint Arany (National secretary of the independent Party of Small owners - a fascist organisation originating from the Horthy government)
The heads of the coup we're:
Bela Verga - head of the Party of Small Owners
Ferenc Nagy - head of the Ministery at the time. This last one had an agreement with the U.S. government over this matter.
This is where the ties between the Horthyites and the Americans we're formed.
(source: Boldizsar Ivan, L'imperialisme americain contre le peuple hongrois – indirect source: USSR, the velvet counter-revolution by Ludo Martens)

One of the persons i am fond of mentioning is Mendsintzy and his participation in the matter. I will quote a CWI article first:

Released from the ‘Communists’’ vile prisons, even the reactionary Cardinal Mindszenty, in his broadcast of 3 November, insisted:
“We want a classless society!”. (source: http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/10/21hungary.html)
Sure, of course the Fascists had to use that kind of rhetoric. They could hardly say: Fuck the workers! After these same workers had build Socialism with great enthusiasm for years. As we all know, capitalists will pose as reformers and progressives if this is what is neccesary to achieve this goal. He himself stated that he sees himself as a politican whos first call is the anti-Communist struggle. He also sympathized greatly (as is to be expected) with the monarchy.
This same person who was released from the “vile prisons” was also a supporter of Horthy and had been the head of a small Christian party before. I quote (albeit a translated version): “No state has ever lasted if it was not based on justice and morality. But the basis of morality, that is the Church.”.
In 1945 he had already been in contact with American kardinals who we're upset over the alliance between Russia and the U.S.. They promised him financial and material aid.
He was extremely interested in the following subjects:
The dissapearing of certain 'classes' thanks to the agricultural reform,
the dissolution of the Monarchy &
the faith of those who they called 'war-criminals'.
(source: Mindszenty's memoires)
The reason why the man was send to jail though was different from all that, even his extremely clear sympathy's with the Fascist regime of Horthy we're no reason to imprison him.
The man was passing along information to Selden Chapin and Kocsak, two American diplomats. During his trial Mindszenty simply confessed that he had asked for a plane and car from Chapin to flee the country. One of his followers Kannunik Mihalovics fled to the U.S.. where he wrote in a letter to Mindsenty that he was using his newly gained status to gain political and material support in their anti-Communist struggle.
(source: Boldizsar Ivan, L'imperialisme americain contre le peuple hongrois – indirect source: USSR, the velvet counter-revolution by Ludo Martens)
Of course him confessing was quite embarrising to the West, but thats another story.
Mindszenty commenting on the trials (free translation): “I feel guilty in the sense that i have commited the burdened facts. Of course this does not mean i recognize the consequenses of the allegations”.
(source: De Seydouy Alain en Roland Varaigne, indomptable Hongrie – indirect source: USSR, the velvet counter-revolution)


I will get back to this man as soon as i get at the counter-revolution itself. First the CIA:
There we're elements within the right-wing of Social-Democracy which we're spying for the U.S. Government. Amongst these are:
Karoly Freyer and Frigyes Pisky-Schmidt.
(source: Boldizsar Ivan, L'imperialisme americain contre le peuple hongrois – indirect source: USSR, the velvet counter-revolution by Ludo Martens)
By June 1949 this doesn't matter much anymore though since the right-wing of the movement was kicked out and the CP as well as the left Social-Democrats formed the labor-party winning 22% of the votes (contrary to the 12% of the Social-Dems).
(source: De Seydouy Alain en Roland Varaigne, indomptable Hongrie – indirect source: USSR, the velvet counter-revolution)


Fuck it i'm too lazy. I'll continue my little story next time :p.

But before i go, there's this:


Bella Kovaks, leader of the Smallholders’ Party:
“No one must dream of going back to the world of counts, bankers and capitalists: that world is gone for ever”.
Anna Kethley, leader Social Democratic Party:
“Let us watch over the factories, the mines and the land which must remain in the hands of the people”.

(Source: http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/10/21hungary.html)

Again, both Horthyite and CIA-sponsored organisations. Quoted by Trotskyites so to back up their claims that it was a 'genuine workers revolution'.

edit:


"Furthermore the fact that they did not dare to bring Russian troops under the fear of communication between the troops and the insurgents(and a possible alliance between them), but they rather brought far Asian troops with no knowledge of Russian so they cannot communicate with the Hungarians is in itself suspicious. They even told those Asian troops that they were fighting in Germany!I just thought this was a nice example of the bullshit being send out in the world by Trotskyites about the Hungarian counter-revolution. I quote in specific:

They even told those Asian troops that they were fighting in Germany!Sure, cause Asians are retards (your words, not mine).
Ohw, and next time you want to spread Trotskyite propaganda at least do it correctly: It's the Suez-Canal (or so Trotskyite sources say)!

[VukBZ2005]

Mao Chi X, your poorly-articulated attempts to paint the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 with the brush of Fascist Counter-revolution are both atrocious and dishonorable. While it is the truth that both individuals such as "Anti-Fascist" Cardinal Mendsintzy and political organizations such as the Social Democratic Party and Independent Smallholders' Party did happen to re-emerge during the course of the revolutionary struggle, those forces do not automatically make that struggle a Fascist Counter-revolution, as it was the Proletariat, not they, who were the main actors, which is why I stated, in my first post, that there was no major Fascist influence in that situation.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Mao Chi X, your poorly-articulated attempts to paint the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 with the brush of Fascist Counter-revolution are both atrocious and dishonorable.

Ohw i'm sorry Mr pseudo-intellectual, but we're not discussing articulation. Next to that is the simple fact that i am not native-tongue English, so trying to take me down on that is bull-shit.


While it is the truth that both individuals such as "Anti-Fascist" Cardinal Mendsintzy and political organizations such as the Social Democratic Party and Independent Smallholders' Party did happen to re-emerge during the course of the revolutionary struggle, those forces do not automatically make that struggle a Fascist Counter-revolution, as it was the Proletariat, not they, who were the main actors, which is why I stated, in my first post, that there was major Fascist influence in that situation.

I hadn't finished my story jet, i wasn't even at the counter-revolution itself, so just wait till i finish mmmkay. I could respond but it will merely result in a:
Yes it is! No it isn't! situation.

edit: fuck it, you know what i'm going to respond.


While it is the truth that both individuals such as "Anti-Fascist" Cardinal MendsintzyUhm, the guy was 'liberated' from the 'vile Communist prisons'...


those forces do not automatically make that struggle a Fascist Counter-revolution, as it was the Proletariat, not they, who were the main actors,Thats bull-shit, the progressive forces which we're present had almost no influence in the matter whatsoever. Why? Because the American government had great influence on the entire thing (i could be wrong on this specific part, still the first remains a fact). You still to this point havent provided any data to back this claim up either.
Even still the estimation of the amount of 'freedom fighters' was no higher then 15,000 (must have been a massive proletariat >_>).

And let us of course not forget the fact that besides Communist Party members and sympathizers, Jews we're also persecuted and lynched by the new 'liberators'.
(source: Charles Gati - Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt)

[jaffe]

since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

[Panda Tse Tung]

since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

Why was i never informed over the fact that one-liners had replaced a Marxist analyses?

[Lamanov]

There were no fascists involved in the revolution; at least not as groups of people. By the 50's such groups lost all their credibility, as well as the clergy that was on fascist side. Even though revolution was considered to be national, and one of the demands were the return of Kossuth symbols, there was no actual nationalism; out of 24 magazines that were being published during those 13 days of freedom, only 1 or 2 had chauvinist content, and no-one read them.

On the other hand, ex-Horty-men were largely represented in the "Allamvedelmi Hatosag" (AVS), the state secret police, pigs that caused the fighting on 23rd October, along with other NKVD types. AVH cops were the only "communist officials" that were being assasinated.

[Bilan]

Why was i never informed over the fact that one-liners had replaced a Marxist analyses?


If you can't contradict his claims with solid evidence, rather than just rhetoric, then I suggest you leave it.

[Lamanov]

He doesn't have any evidence. It's typical for "New Communist" types.

I've scrolled over his posts, and there he claims how Mindszenty was a fascist - even though he was imprisoned by fascists on several occasions for his opposing stance - and how CIA financed "counter-revolutionary" groups, even though CIA had only one employee in Hungary.

[Panda Tse Tung]

If you can't contradict his claims with solid evidence, rather than just rhetoric, then I suggest you leave it.

This far all the evidence against teh fact that there was obvious fascist involvement has been countered by un-sources one-liners. Whilst if you read my un-finished post, you can see that everything i said was sourced.

I an not finish the post just jet because my own computer has crashed. So just stop *****ing and either contribute like your friend here did, or leave it (since the only person who hasn't contributed shit to this thread is you).

[Herman]

He doesn't have any evidence. It's typical for "New Communist" types.

What are you talking about? He sourced everything. That's very dishonest of you to just accuse someone of having no evidence, when the person has presented evidence (even from second-hand sources).

[Red October]

The Hungarian Revolution was a time when the central government's authority collapsed, so of course the suppressed fascist and right-wing organizations would re-emerge. That doesn't mean they had any real influence over the revolution or the Hungarian working class. The theory that Hungary in 1956 experienced a fascist counter-revolution would have to rely on the assumption that the masses of workers and common people who fought the government were all a bunch of fascists who had been hiding since 1945, something which I find hard to believe. When the workers in Hungary seized the factories, prisons, and police stations, it showed that there was a hell of a lot wrong with "socialism" in Hungary and the working class did not support the regime there. Calling it a fascist counter-revolution is pure bullshit. It's similar to the Communist Party of Spain accusing the POUM of being fascist spies and suppressing the revolution there.

[Comrade_Red]

Yeah. Right. You people honestly expect me to believe that all the people who had participated in the Hungarian revolt were Marxists and Trotskyists who read the works of the beforementioned? Pure nonsense. it seems to me like it was just a nationalist (though not necessarily fascist) uprising, and the last time i checked, you guys opposed nationalism in all forms.

[jaffe]

Yeah. Right. You people honestly expect me to believe that all the people who had participated in the Hungarian revolt were Marxists and Trotskyists who read the works of the beforementioned?
:lol: ofcourse you're only a proper revolutionary after you've read dA w0rKz of Marx and Trotsky.


Pure nonsense.
indeed


it seems to me like it was just a nationalist (though not necessarily fascist) uprising, On the question if there were reactionary forces in the Hungarian uprising. Yes conservative partys who were underground came back, but was the revolt from students and workers in itself fascist?
No.

It's similar to the Communist Party of Spain accusing the POUM of being fascist spies and suppressing the revolution there.

[Bilan]

This far all the evidence against teh fact that there was obvious fascist involvement has been countered by un-sources one-liners. Whilst if you read my un-finished post, you can see that everything i said was sourced.

I an not finish the post just jet because my own computer has crashed. So just stop *****ing and either contribute like your friend here did, or leave it (since the only person who hasn't contributed shit to this thread is you).

What more can be said?
calling it a fascist counter revolution is totally dishonest, and doesn't contain an ounce of truth, or any 'marxian analysis'. I mean, as said before, since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

I don't really give a shit what CCCP sympathizers have to say on the matter. They tend to find it easier to just label everything 'counterrevolutionary', 'fascist sympathizers' or bourgeois if it didn't coincide with the actions of the CCCP. In this sense, they can fuck off.

[Leo]

Here's an article trying to present a marxist analysis of the events in Hungary: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/hungary-1956

[Bilan]

That article was pretty bloody long, but very good.


Contrary to all the lies that the bourgeoisie has continued to heap on the memory of the 1956 insurrection in Hungary, what took place was a workers’ struggle against capitalist exploitation. Certainly the period was not a propitious one. The whole working class was no longer directed towards the perspective of an international revolutionary wave as in 1917-23, which had produced the shortlived Hungarian Republic of Councils in March 1919. For this reason the Hungarian workers could not clearly raise the need to destroy capitalism and to take power. This explains their failure to understand the highly political and subversive nature of the councils that they had produced in their struggle. Nevertheless, what was so courageously demonstrated by the revolt of the Hungarian workers and their organising themselves into councils, was the revolutionary nature of the proletariat. They reaffirmed the historic role of the proletariat as Tibor Szamuelly[7] (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/hungary-1956#_ftn7) formulated it in 1919: “Our aim and our task is the destruction of capitalism”.

Indeed

[Louis Pio]

Looking at the demands put forward in 1956 I think one would have to be very confused to describe them as fascist.




Socialist ownership of the industries.


The maintenance of workers' councils and the restoration of free trade unions.


The right to strike and to assembly, freedom of the press and religion, etc.


The factory belongs to the workers.


The workers' council is the supreme controlling body of the factory and is democratically elected by the workers.


The workers' council elects it own executive committee composed of 3-9 members, which acts as the executive body, carrying out the decisions and tasks laid down by it.


The director is employed by the factory. The director and the highest employees are to be elected by the workers' council. This election will take place after a public general meeting called by the executive committee.


The director is responsible to the workers' council in every matter which concerns the factory.


Complete and unconditional independence


Political democracy on the basis of the free activities of the workers' councils, revolutionary committees and political parties


The maintenance of the land reform and the social ownership of the factories, mines and banks.

http://www.marxist.com/1956-hungarian-revolution50.htm

[Leo]

That article was pretty bloody long, but very good.

There are a few shorter articles but I put up the longest one because I though it was cool :blushing:

Anyway, here's links to shorter articles:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/298/october1917
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/009_hungary56.html

[Pogue]

Looking at the demands put forward in 1956 I think one would have to be very confused to describe them as fascist.


http://www.marxist.com/1956-hungarian-revolution50.htm

I think this argument is now over. This is the final proof that this was not a fascist/bourgeoisie 'counter-revolution' (as if Soviet Hungary was particularly revolutionary) or anything of the sorts.

[Bilan]

There are a few shorter articles but I put up the longest one because I though it was cool :blushing:

It was! I liked it. :)

[Das war einmal]

Just curios, how many of you are familiar with the fact that jewish people and members of the communist party, where hanged in this 'proletarian revolution'?

[Bilan]

Substantiate please?

[Yehuda Stern]

So what if a few fascists took part in the revolution? Does the participation of Hamas and even more radically reactionary and anti-Semitic groups in the Palestinian struggle for liberation delegitimize the struggle against Zionism? What about Farrakhan and black liberation? These are actually the arguments used by the supporters of western imperialism to justify national oppression. I guess it's only natural that supporters of Soviet imperialism would use similiar arguments to delegitimize revolutions against the Stalinist puppet regimes.

[Das war einmal]

That 'soviet imperialism' delivered the needed support for revolutios throughout the world. From Cuba to Angola. If it wasnt for 'soviet imperialism', there is a good chanse that we still would be stuck with fascism. Is it known to you people that the Soviet Union considered letting Hungary decide for themselves unto the point the 'freedom fighters' were using extreme violence against communists and supporters?

[Bilan]

You still haven't proved your claim about them hanging jews and communists.

Furthermore, supported my arse. Ask the cnt.

[Louis Pio]

Furthermore, supported my arse. Ask the cnt.

Or one could ask the greek communists that was left to their own fate by the soviet union aka execution by the british after WW2.

[Yehuda Stern]

Or one could ask any working class that rose up against capitalism at any point after WWII.

[Pogue]

Or one could ask any working class that rose up against capitalism at any point after WWII.

This

[Das war einmal]

You still haven't proved your claim about them hanging jews and communists.

Furthermore, supported my arse. Ask the cnt.

Its in a book a read, 'In Europa' ('In Europe') a book that isnt communist at all, but reflects on the whole 20st century.

[Bilan]

And so I'm just to take your word for it?
This has never been mentioned anywhere else. There's no mention of it in communist papers, or even on places like Wikipedia.
So please, substantiate properly.

[jaffe]

haha :lol:
Geert Mak the writer of In Europa also made a docymentaryserial about his book. Tonight the television is broadcasting his episode about Budapest 1956 http://weblogs.vpro.nl/ineuropa/2009/01/09/geert-mak-over-zondag-11-januari/

[Lamanov]

What are you talking about? He sourced everything. That's very dishonest of you to just accuse someone of having no evidence, when the person has presented evidence (even from second-hand sources).

He reproduced opinions of Ludo Martens, and some un-backed data from his book. He's also adding his own opinions on certain direct quotes, quotes that by themselves prove nothing.

[Das war einmal]

haha :lol:
Geert Mak the writer of In Europa also made a docymentaryserial about his book. Tonight the television is broadcasting his episode about Budapest 1956 http://weblogs.vpro.nl/ineuropa/2009/01/09/geert-mak-over-zondag-11-januari/


Yeah and my claim was supported by video images.

[jaffe]

:crying: indeed they showed that soldiers were lynched after they killed more than 50 people who were protestesting against their regime. O yeah and let's not forget about about heroic innocent AVH secret policemen ofcourse:thumbup:. Maybe you should watch it a few more times. did you also watched the guy who was thrown 8 years in jail while he was innocent, the secret police saying I was doing my job? JWT befehl ist befehl.:unsure:

edit:and they didn't mention anything about jews.

[Comrade_Red]

:lol: ofcourse you're only a proper revolutionary after you've read dA w0rKz of Marx and Trotsky.

indeed
On the question if there were reactionary forces in the Hungarian uprising. Yes conservative partys who were underground came back, but was the revolt from students and workers in itself fascist?
No.


i was talking to this guy, whose screenname i cannot remember, who was making a Marxist/Trotskyist analysis of it, and was saying something along the lines of them fighting the USSR bureaucracy that Trotsky spoke about.
i highly doubt the Hungarians were protesting because they 'were against the Soviet bureaucracy and favored a true socialist state.' or something like that.
i was never asserting that there were reactionary elements in the uprising, but nationalistic elements; because i highly doubt that the Hungarians were revolting in the name of what you consider to be true Marxism or Trotskyism, the only thing it seems it could have been, to me, is a nationalist revolt.

and i bet you a million bucks they would have been a pathetic Western puppet state, whether or not it was about bringing in capitalism.

[Comrade_Red]

[/I]I don't really give a shit what CCCP sympathizers have to say on the matter. They tend to find it easier to just label everything 'counterrevolutionary', 'fascist sympathizers' or bourgeois if it didn't coincide with the actions of the CCCP. In this sense, they can fuck off.[/i]


Nor do i give two shits what you "Yo wassup foo? Fight da power!" guys have to say, who analyze everything from behind your keyboards with your rise-against mentality.

[Pogue]

[/i]I don't really give a shit what CCCP sympathizers have to say on the matter. They tend to find it easier to just label everything 'counterrevolutionary', 'fascist sympathizers' or bourgeois if it didn't coincide with the actions of the CCCP. In this sense, they can fuck off.[/i]


Nor do i give two shits what you "Yo wassup foo? Fight da power!" guys have to say, who analyze everything from behind your keyboards with your rise-against mentality.

Says the guy who is posting this on an internet forum while having a reference to the Texan-SSR in his name. Tankie anyone?

[manic expression]

Or one could ask any working class that rose up against capitalism at any point after WWII.

Yes, one should ask Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Chile... Belittling the USSR's indispensable contributions to revolutionary struggles around the world is inexplicable.

On the Hungarian Revolt, the basic principle of the incident is that it was counterrevolutionary and done in cooperation with American imperialist aid. That is the first fact that needs to be recognized, because everything else is secondary IMO. The revolt was trying to topple the socialist system that had been implemented since the end of WWII, and this is made all the more apparent by the fact that the US was doing everything it could to support the effort.

What is also important is that the Soviet Union did not intervene for a considerable amount of time, and was trying to find a reasonable solution to the situation without military action. However, the militias continued carrying out cold-blooded killings of socialists and leftist sympathizers, and the USSR was left with very little choice.

[Das war einmal]

:crying: indeed they showed that soldiers were lynched after they killed more than 50 people who were protestesting against their regime. O yeah and let's not forget about about heroic innocent AVH secret policemen ofcourse:thumbup:. Maybe you should watch it a few more times. did you also watched the guy who was thrown 8 years in jail while he was innocent, the secret police saying I was doing my job? JWT befehl ist befehl.:unsure:

edit:and they didn't mention anything about jews.

Did you watch that part when one of the organisers admit that a significant part of the protesters existed out of pure scum, like criminals? I am not justifying the shooting anywhere but if you think this 'proletarian revolution' was a peacefull protest then you are naive. The were not just lynching a few soldiers but nearly every soldier they could find including those who were lying in the hospital, without any form of judgement or something like that.

So you didnt read the book, cause thats were he also states that jews were being hanged, but just in case you did not understand, he only has half an hour. People like you dont get it that you are actually helping anti-communist. Thats what bothering me and others, you cant see that there were forces at work who abused this protest to entirely dismantle socialism. Its not the case that all who joined this protest where fascist, but there were fascists/countrarevolutionairies at work.

[Lamanov]

On the Hungarian Revolt, the basic principle of the incident is that it was counterrevolutionary and done in cooperation with American imperialist aid.

That's bullshit.

You do realize that you can't back up this claim?


That is the first fact that needs to be recognized, because everything else is secondary IMO. The revolt was trying to topple the socialist system that had been implemented since the end of WWII, and this is made all the more apparent by the fact that the US was doing everything it could to support the effort.

There was nothing socialist there. In return, the goal of the uprising as recognized by most Hungarians as well as politicians active in that revolt was socialism, real one.


What is also important is that the Soviet Union did not intervene for a considerable amount of time, and was trying to find a reasonable solution to the situation without military action. However, the militias continued carrying out cold-blooded killings of socialists and leftist sympathizers, and the USSR was left with very little choice.

That's also bullshit. The same hour when fighting began in Budapest Soviet troops were on alert and they were sent to attack.

[Lamanov]

The were not just lynching a few soldiers but nearly every soldier they could find including those who were lying in the hospital, without any form of judgement or something like that.

Actually, only AVH officers were lynched. All of the soldiers almost immediately crossed over to the rebellion and gave their guns to the people. One of the "leaders" of the rebellion was Pal Malater, Communist colonel who fought in Spain. He and his unit immediately joined forcer with the 'freedom fighters'.


Thats what bothering me and others, you cant see that there were forces at work who abused this protest to entirely dismantle socialism.

The vast majority of people that took a part in Hungarian revolt wanted real socialism. This has been proven over and over. Not even conservative bourgeois historians can deny this fact. They can only ignore it.

You may search for some phantom "counter-revolutionaries", but this is the fact.

[Das war einmal]

The Soviets invaded not when the protest broke out but after the new government under Nagy stated that they were gonna leave the Warsaw pact. The Soviet Union could never approve something like that, the soviet citizens would not approve of that, the USSR had been invaded 15 years before not only by Nazi Germany but also by the fascist forces of Hungary (under the Horthy regime), they lost more then 20 million soviet citizens and after the defeat of Nazi Germany, the USA was banging on the gates of socialism and you find it strange that the Soviets werent too happy about the possibility of Hungary being used as a future staging area for capitalist imperialism? Take a good look at the situation nowadays, for example Georgia. The US is giving billions to build up an combined force in Georgia and other ex-Soviet states.

[Das war einmal]

Actually, only AVH officers were lynched. All of the soldiers almost immediately crossed over to the rebellion and gave their guns to the people. One of the "leaders" of the rebellion was Pal Malater, Communist colonel who fought in Spain. He and his unit immediately joined forcer with the 'freedom fighters'.



The vast majority of people that took a part in Hungarian revolt wanted real socialism. This has been proven over and over. Not even conservative bourgeois historians can deny this fact. They can only ignore it.

You may search for some phantom "counter-revolutionaries", but this is the fact.

Right, just like Solidarinosc wanted 'real socialism' after the fall of socialism in Poland, they showed their true face. Your statement also doesnt clear up the fact why these people tore down genuine socialist symbols like the red star or hammer and sickle. It was not a fight for socialism but for nationalism, which is much easier to call upon

When in The Netherlands, communist where also beat up because of the Hungary revolution (the anger that was fed by the catholic church, just like in Hungary) , there were also former communist who joined in the near-pogrom. It was not until some former members of the communist resistance in The Netherlands threatened to use explosives when the police finally started protecting the headquarter of the Dutch Communist Party.

[Lamanov]

The 1956 does not anticipate 1989, so don't give me that crap. Solidarnosc is a different story; and even there it isn't all 'black and white'.

The Hammer and Sickle and Red Stars are just the form. The form can be changed. At one time it represents socialism; at a different time and in a place where it was used in a different context it no longer represents real socialism. If I were you, I would pay more attention to the content.

The "anger" in Hungary, by the way, wasn't "fueled" by the Church, which was in no position to dictate political preferences of the people. It was fueled by the AVH and "Rakosi-Gero clique".

[Das war einmal]

The 1956 does not anticipate 1989, so don't give me that crap. Solidarnosc is a different story; and even there it isn't all 'black and white'.

The Hammer and Sickle and Red Stars are just the form. The form can be changed. At one time it represents socialism; at a different time and in a place where it was used in a different context it no longer represents real socialism. If I were you, I would pay more attention to the content.

The "anger" in Hungary, by the way, wasn't "fueled" by the Church, which was in no position to dictate political preferences of the people. It was fueled by the AVH and "Rakosi-Gero clique".

The influence of the RK church was huge. The socialist government had nothing to gain by fueling the riots.

[manic expression]

That's bullshit.

You do realize that you can't back up this claim?

Please. It's a documented fact that the "revolutionary" councils sent agents to contact the western powers, and in many cases they contacted the CIA for this purpose.

I quote from a CIA document: "…the mentality of the revolutionaries shows that almost anyone from the West, of whatever nationality, color or purpose would have been received with open arms by any of the revolutionary councils in the cities of Hungary during the period in question."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf)
(pages 83, 84, 85 and most especially 86 illustrate this, the quote comes from page 86)


There was nothing socialist there. In return, the goal of the uprising as recognized by most Hungarians as well as politicians active in that revolt was socialism, real one.

Yes, there most certainly was, as private property had been abolished and capitalism itself had been overthrown. Was it healthy socialism? No, but that has no relevance to the reactionary, anti-socialist nature of the revolt.

The politicians of the revolt said many things, but the fact is that they were more than willing to work with imperialist contacts and mostly occupied themselves with carrying out vendettas against socialists. Actions speak louder than words. More importantly, such promises of "real" socialism have been made before, and they all come to the same horrifying end. I'll deal with this below.


That's also bullshit. The same hour when fighting began in Budapest Soviet troops were on alert and they were sent to attack.

You must have forgotten that they then withdrew troops and tried to figure out how to solve the problem without undue bloodshed. This proved futile, and so there was little choice left to them but a military action against the revolt. The Soviets WERE willing to genuinely negotiate, but this fell on deaf ears and dumb tongues.


The 1956 does not anticipate 1989, so don't give me that crap. Solidarnosc is a different story; and even there it isn't all 'black and white'.

It certainly followed similar patterns, as did the Prague Spring. In all three cases, the anti-Soviet forces worked with the imperialists; in all three cases, decidedly anti-socialist elements were heavily involved. Most importantly, however, is that in all three cases, the promise of "real" socialism was little more than petty rhetoric coupled with diametrically opposed policies.

The Hungarian revolt saw the general murder of socialists throughout the country and the influence of imperialist interests grow in strength. This was no revolution.

[Das war einmal]

Yeah 'real socialism' was also a promise of the reformers in 1989. However, there was no open attack on Lenin or Leninism, as they did on Stalin, but they tore down Lenin statues anyway. There was never a plan to go back to the 'roots of communism' or achieving 'real socialism', it was just another attempt to bring back capitalism as they finally achieved.

[Bilan]

Nor do i give two shits what you "Yo wassup foo? Fight da power!" guys have to say, who analyze everything from behind your keyboards with your rise-against mentality.

Boohoo. Although, cheers for the appalling rebuttal. I almost sore a hint of wit, but it was countered by the absence of accuracy. Better luck next time.

[jaffe]

Did you watch that part when one of the organisers admit that a significant part of the protesters existed out of pure scum, like criminals?
http://www.ineuropa.nl/programmas/36788896/afleveringen/40215700/
That was the soldier who fired at the crowd. :rolleyes:
the organiser mentioned that when he woke up he felled a tension to reform the society. At night he said, revolution was in the air. Stop lying.



I am not justifying the shooting anywhere but if you think this 'proletarian revolution' was a peacefull protest then you are naive.
I've never said it was a peacefull uprising. You on the other hand states that jews and communists were hung.


The were not just lynching a few soldiers but nearly every soldier they could find including those who were lying in the hospital, without any form of judgement or something like that.
did the soldiers shoot with judgement?


So you didnt read the book, cause thats were he also states that jews were being hanged, Where exactly does he state that jews were hanged?


People like you dont get it that you are actually helping anti-communist. Thats what bothering me and others, If shooting with tanks on the proleteriat is communism than I'm anticommunist.


you cant see that there were forces at work who abused this protest to entirely dismantle socialism.
which socialism?


Its not the case that all who joined this protest where fascist, but there were fascists/countrarevolutionairies at work. So it was proletarion revolution were indeed some right wing partys came back to the extinse. But they were in no way part of this revolution. So saying that the Hungarian uprising was led or staged by fascists/CIA is wrong.

[manic expression]

did the soldiers shoot with judgement?

A lot of times they were shooting because their lives were on the line. If they were captured, there was a good chance they would be executed regardless of their actions. Hungarian socialists and their sympathizers were essentially being hunted down and murdered for their politics, and you're sitting here trying to rationalize these crimes.

And I'll try to find a source on who shot first, because I'm quite sure that no one is quite sure what happened in that moment. Even if a soldier did shoot first, it was a confusing situation and that does not even remotely justify any of the anti-socialist killings that took place afterwards. Further, socialism itself was being challenged and dismantled, and that is perhaps the most egregious act.


which socialism?

The abolition of private property, the suppression of the capitalist class, the lack of commodity production. That socialism.


So it was proletarion revolution were indeed some right wing partys came back to the extinse. But they were in no way part of this revolution. So saying that the Hungarian uprising was led or staged by fascists/CIA is wrong.

As my source from the CIA has shown, the "revolutionaries" were ready and willing to work with the CIA and other imperialist forces to further their ends. While it was not planned or staged by the CIA, the "revolutionary" militias went through a considerable effort to contact and cooperate with the imperialists.

[Wanted Man]

I personally met someone whose Jewish family fled from Hungary because people were hunting down commies and Jews (as usual, counter-revolutionaries did not make any difference between commies and Jews). But I guess she's a communist liar too. :rolleyes:

[jaffe]

I personally met someone whose Jewish family fled from Hungary because people were hunting down commies and Jews (as usual, counter-revolutionaries did not make any difference between commies and Jews). But I guess she's a communist liar too.
I think that anti-semitist incidents occured during the 1956 uprising but sofar nobody has proven that the revolt was fascist. Neither that it was staged by CIA.

[manic expression]

I think that anti-semitist incidents occured during the 1956 uprising but sofar nobody has proven that the revolt was fascist. Neither that it was staged by CIA.

It has been proven that the revolt was acting in cooperation with the CIA, and willingly so. Please read the link I posted. And note that I never claimed the revolt was "staged" by the CIA, so please refrain from putting words in people's mouths.

In addition, it has been proven that the revolt involved a great deal of anti-semetic violence. Similarly, we have no evidence to suggest that the militias made any significant efforts to curtail these despicable acts. They managed to contact the CIA and ask for weapons and support, they managed to conduct witch-hunts of socialists and their sympathizers, and yet during all this (reactionary) activity, we find no real effort to stop attacks against Hungary's Jewish population. That's not a coincidence. You're trying to dismiss anti-semetic violence as the doings of some supposed "bad apples", but you have absolutely no concrete support for this assumption, whereas everything shown here points to the opposite conclusion, that the militias were engaged with or complicit in such atrocities. Downplaying this is just ridiculous.

[Herman]

I personally met someone whose Jewish family fled from Hungary because people were hunting down commies and Jews (as usual, counter-revolutionaries did not make any difference between commies and Jews). But I guess she's a communist liar too. :rolleyes:

Although it's interesting to see personal proof, it will probably fall on deaf ears.

[jaffe]

They managed to contact the CIA and ask for weapons and support, they managed to conduct witch-hunts of socialists and their sympathizers, and yet during all this (reactionary) activity, we find no real effort to stop attacks against Hungary's Jewish population. That's not a coincidence. So CIA is to blame?:rolleyes:

You're trying to dismiss anti-semetic violence as the doings of some supposed "bad apples", but you have absolutely no concrete support for this assumption, whereas everything shown here points to the opposite conclusion, that the militias were engaged with or complicit in such atrocities. Downplaying this is just ridiculous. You're saying it was a racist uprising staged against Jews?

documentary about antisemitist happenings during Hungarian Uprising.
http://www.vimeo.com/2235890



since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

[manic expression]

So CIA is to blame?:rolleyes:

Where did I ever claim that? I simply stated the fact that while the militias were busy actively soliciting CIA support, Jews were being attacked. They obviously thought one activity was more important than stopping the other, which should tell you a thing or two about their political tendencies.


You're saying it was a racist uprising staged against Jews?

There you go, putting words in people's mouths again. I stated the uprising involved a great deal of anti-Semetic violence, and that, at the very least, there was absolutely no significant attempt made by the militias to stop such crimes. In fact, there is abundant reason to believe the militias themselves were engaged in these pogroms, but for now I am claiming what has been fully demonstrated: that they were complicit in racist violence.


documentary about antisemitist happenings during Hungarian Uprising.
http://www.vimeo.com/2235890

Well, at least you refrained from making a straw-man trifecta. However, I hope you understand that I can't instantly download and view a documentary. I'll try to get around to it. In the meantime, however, the facts are there in front of you (cooperation with the CIA, anti-Semetic atrocities), and the most you've managed to do is attempt to misrepresent my arguments.

[jaffe]

since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

But why was there never an invasion by the USA when all soviet troops were either forced out of the country or joined the workers?

[manic expression]

since when is control over the means of production(forming councils), fighting back against state intelligence and russian war taxes exactly fascist?

Oh, you wanted me to respond to that. Fair enough. The thing is I never called it "exactly fascist", and the whole premise of this thread is to pinpoint fascistic elements in the revolt, which is quite a different matter. By the way, you just put words in my mouth for the fourth time if I recall correctly.

Now, the fact that the revolt formed councils does not mean it was progressive. It has been proven beyond any doubt that these councils sent out agents to contact the CIA, and we know that these same councils did nothing as socialists and Jews were murdered. All this points to the conclusion that these councils, which were attempting to take control of society, were downright reactionary.

"Fighting back against state intelligence"? Which intelligence? You mean the CIA agents they were cooperating with?

On "Russian war taxes", the struggle to destroy Nazism took millions of Soviet lives and wreaked indescribable destruction upon the Soviet Union. The Hungarian government, for its part, essentially cooperated with Hitler's forces, volunteering men and material in the Nazi's effort to enslave eastern Europe. In light of this, it is silly to complain about reasonable and much-needed reparations which helped re-build the Soviet Union and other states in the Warsaw Pact. Read your history.


But why was there never an invasion by the USA when all soviet troops were either forced out of the country or joined the workers?

Not only would it have been extremely difficult from a practical perspective, it was the Cold War and the USSR had developed the nuke, making such an invasion a geopolitical nightmare. The US imperialists knew it couldn't openly invade Hungary because it would have sparked a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations, basically causing WWIII (this time with nukes). In addition, they couldn't get through neutral Austria anyway, making a significant invasion nearly impossible. The only feasible option left to the imperialists was covert operations, and so as the CIA report I posted shows, they tried to work with the militias and give support in different ways.

[Lamanov]

Please. It's a documented fact that the "revolutionary" councils sent agents to contact the western powers, and in many cases they contacted the CIA for this purpose.

I quote from a CIA document: "…the mentality of the revolutionaries shows that almost anyone from the West, of whatever nationality, color or purpose would have been received with open arms by any of the revolutionary councils in the cities of Hungary during the period in question."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf)
(pages 83, 84, 85 and most especially 86 illustrate this, the quote comes from page 86)

That's it? That sentence says nothing. It's saying they were good hosts to people from the "West" (just like they were good hosts to people from the "East" who came to their side). And what else? Four people claimed to be in the councils spoke to some border personnel. And what else? Some people were sent by councils to "deliver the news". Now there's the smoking barrel!

:rolleyes:


As my source from the CIA has shown, the "revolutionaries" were ready and willing to work with the CIA and other imperialist forces to further their ends.

Sources from the CIA show that there was only one CIA officer present in Budapest at the time. He spent most of his time "purchasing envelopes and stamps", and interviewing visitors to the embassy. Look at the first sentence of the document you presented (and while you're at it look at all other CIA documents concerning Hungary 1956).

It's also documented that Trans-Danubian Council refused to ask for any help from anyone, holding on to neutrality proclaimed by the revolutionary forces.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I will not even bother to respond to other parts of your post. They are just stupid.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There were fascists - but that alone does not discredit the event as a 'counter revolutionary'. It was a political tradition of Moscow to ignore potential liberatory elements that were in armed attacks against the Soviet state. It was obvious to the international communist movement what was going on in Hungary.


We require some things from the top to the bottom, such as government directives and orders, regulations and systems, but the masses must undertake a large number of things. We are opposed to favoritism and peaceful land reform. We call the method of Eastern Europe and North Korea favoritism. Peaceful land reform, without class struggle and without struggling against the landowners and capitalists, ...[is] the wrong line and will produce harmful results

[manic expression]

That's it? That sentence says nothing. It's saying they were good hosts to people from the "West" (just like they were good hosts to people from the "East" who came to their side). And what else? Four people claimed to be in the councils spoke to some border personnel. And what else? Some people were sent by councils to "deliver the news". Now there's the smoking barrel!

:rolleyes:

Obviously you didn't read it close enough: the CIA said that the "revolutionaries" were more than open to western imperialist support. Their cooperation with imperialist forces is what is being discussed, and this CIA report proves it.

And the councils didn't just send people to talk to border guards, they sought out CIA contacts and tried to solicit weapons and other materials. Read a little closer next time before you make claims.


Sources from the CIA show that there was only one CIA officer present in Budapest at the time. He spent most of his time "purchasing envelopes and stamps", and interviewing visitors to the embassy. Look at the first sentence of the document you presented (and while you're at it look at all other CIA documents concerning Hungary 1956).

No, the CIA had only one case officer in Budapest when the revolt BROKE OUT, after which they quickly assigned as many agents to the country as they could, and they most certainly did not purchase envelopes and stamps. The CIA didn't see the revolt coming, and I have never claimed the CIA staged or incited the incident, it simply responded to it; however, what is also made clear by these records is that the militias WERE willing to work with the CIA.

Go ahead and post some documents if you think they're relevant.


It's also documented that Trans-Danubian Council refused to ask for any help from anyone, holding on to neutrality proclaimed by the revolutionary forces.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I will not even bother to respond to other parts of your post. They are just stupid.

If you want to show this, you'll need to post a source.

And of course you would think my post was stupid, you didn't even bother to comprehend its contents.

[Lamanov]

Obviously you didn't read it close enough: the CIA said that the "revolutionaries" were more than open to western imperialist support. Their cooperation with imperialist forces is what is being discussed, and this CIA report proves it.

Er, no, the report simply states, as far as "members of the councils" go, is that they were willing to work with anyone who came from the west, and that councils sent people to deliver news.

The only concrete thing that CIA reports prove is that there were four to five people from Gyor who had plans to use westerners in order to obtain weapons and telecom equipment.

This proves nothing in regards to the whole uprising and its character. You do realize that?

It doesn't even prove that these people were anti-socialist.

Further more, CIA report also proves that they had no real contacts and they were getting no detailed news from other parts of the country or Budapest, beside western parts where Gyor and Sopron are located (page 83).


And the councils didn't just send people to talk to border guards, they sought out CIA contacts and tried to solicit weapons and other materials. Read a little closer next time before you make claims.

Oh, for fuck's sake, now you have to lie.

CIA report: "For the record, our main contacts were people picked up at various border points from following places..." Those people weren't even members of the councils, since they suggested that they "return to Koeszeg and bring back member of district council."

The only claim of official dispatch by the council is this one, one I already mentioned: "In some cases they been sent out by their councils to give news to the West."

This is a joke.

Four people from Gyor ask for guns from agents at Austrian border-post and all of the sudden it's a "counter-revolution". Lenin had Russian workers make guns for the Wiemar Republic and that is "clever politics".

So, provide some valuable and concrete evidence or fuck off.

[Comrade_Red]

Something i typed last night,
"The truth of the matter is, the people of Hungary were not 'true Marxists' or Trotskyists fighting against the Soviet bureaucracy in the name of 'true Socialism.' it was most likely a nationalist (thought not necessarily fascist) protest. Had Hungary won, it would've become a pathetic puppet state like Georgia is today, and a very valuable intelligence outpost against the Soviets. The Soviets simply had no choice but to do what they did when considering this. Furthermore, it would have been a capitalist pro-west state, and would have contributed to the eventual making of Eastern Europe into, as Noam Chomsky put it, an easily exploitable part of the Third World.

You people get locked into your "fight da power!" "rise against!" mentality that you get illusions about any riot or protest. you think that anything that was anti-CCCP was a "genuine worker's ______ (fill in the blank.)"

[Lamanov]

The sole fact that you're starting your post with "it was most likely" means that you are not very well informed, and thus moving through a cloud of speculations.

Did you actually read anything on Hungarian revolt?

Here, in this paragraph of the UN special committee report, based on documents from the revolution and 111 witnesses, is the summary of the goals, demands and aspirations that lead to the revolt of 23rd October 1956:

"Among the first written demands put forward by student organizations were demands for political changes in Hungary, for real Hungarian independence, and for attention to the grievances of workers. The students thus became, with the writers, a mouthpiece for the Hungarian people as a whole. Their objective was not to criticize the principles of Communism as such. Rather, as Marxists, they were anxious to show that the system of government obtaining in Hungary was a perversion of what they held to be true Marxism. The first protests of such writers against the prevailing repression of thought brought them closer to the Hungarian people as a whole, since they found them to be suffering in an inarticulate way from the same lack of freedom." (par. 397; my underlines)

[Pogue]

Something i typed last night,
"The truth of the matter is, the people of Hungary were not 'true Marxists' or Trotskyists fighting against the Soviet bureaucracy in the name of 'true Socialism.' it was most likely a nationalist (thought not necessarily fascist) protest. Had Hungary won, it would've become a pathetic puppet state like Georgia is today, and a very valuable intelligence outpost against the Soviets. The Soviets simply had no choice but to do what they did when considering this. Furthermore, it would have been a capitalist pro-west state, and would have contributed to the eventual making of Eastern Europe into, as Noam Chomsky put it, an easily exploitable part of the Third World.

You people get locked into your "fight da power!" "rise against!" mentality that you get illusions about any riot or protest. you think that anything that was anti-CCCP was a "genuine worker's ______ (fill in the blank.)"

The Soviet leaders were already exploiting this area. Thanks for your opinion but its bollocks because its made up, not based on anything, pure tankie drivvle.

[manic expression]

Er, no, the report simply states, as far as "members of the councils" go, is that they were willing to work with anyone who came from the west, and that councils sent people to deliver news.

Yes, they were willing to work with anyone who came from the west. And who was coming from the west? It wasn't RAAN, that's for sure...it was the CIA and other such operatives. Your desperate attempt to paint imperialist collaboration as some innocent activity is beyond pathetic.


The only concrete thing that CIA reports prove is that there were four to five people from Gyor who had plans to use westerners in order to obtain weapons and telecom equipment.

Yes, because they were only able to make sufficient contact with these militia-members. The councils in Koeszeg, Szentgotthard, Sopron, Gyor and Veszprem sent out members to contact imperialist agents, solicit weapons and material and plan with the CIA. The fact that you aren't comprehending the gravity of this is really quite astounding.


This proves nothing in regards to the whole uprising and its character. You do realize that?

It doesn't even prove that these people were anti-socialist.

Right, if I go out and get weapons from the CIA in order to overthrow a socialist society (while lynching socialists and murdering Jews), that proves nothing about my political tendencies. Yeah, OK, good argument. :rolleyes:

Their willful cooperation with the CIA proves everything we need to know about their character: they wanted to collaborate with imperialists. But keep denying the facts, it's what you decided to do a long time ago.


Further more, CIA report also proves that they had no real contacts and they were getting no detailed news from other parts of the country or Budapest, beside western parts where Gyor and Sopron are located (page 83).

Yes, but that is simply because of logistical difficulties, not a lack of cooperation on the part of the militias. Let me quote again, since you didn't get it the first time:

"…the mentality of the revolutionaries shows that almost anyone from the West, of whatever nationality, color or purpose would have been received with open arms by any of the revolutionary councils in the cities of Hungary during the period in question."


Oh, for fuck's sake, now you have to lie.

CIA report: "For the record, our main contacts were people picked up at various border points from following places..." Those people weren't even members of the councils, since they suggested that they "return to Koeszeg and bring back member of district council."

The only claim of official dispatch by the council is this one, one I already mentioned: "In some cases they been sent out by their councils to give news to the West."

At least two revolutionary councils contacted the CIA and asked for arms and medical supplies, others asked for transmission equipment. Further, like I said, the report clearly states that the CIA found most of the "revolutionaries" in Hungary to be open to imperialist support.

And yet you're ignoring this pro-imperialism on the part of your beloved "revolutionaries", "revolutionaries" who did nothing as Jews and socialists were murdered in cold blood.

Which is why:


This is a joke.

You can say that again.


Four people from Gyor ask for guns from agents at Austrian border-post and all of the sudden it's a "counter-revolution". Lenin had Russian workers make guns for the Wiemar Republic and that is "clever politics".

So, provide some valuable and concrete evidence or fuck off.

That's quite possibly one of the most toothless comparisons I've ever seen. For you to talk of "valuable and concrete evidence" is laughable when you throw out that kind of claim.

Anyway, it wasn't four teenagers from Gyor who wanted to go hunting, those contacts represented the "revolutionary" councils in Hungary, and they were enthusiastic in their wish to attain imperialist support. Further, the report also states that this was the mentality of the "revolutionaries" throughout Hungary. But again, misrepresenting the facts is your only defense, so if you want to sustain your ridiculous position, keep it up.

[Lamanov]

The councils in Koeszeg, Szentgotthard, Sopron, Gyor and Veszprem sent out members to contact imperialist agents, solicit weapons and material and plan with the CIA.

No, they didn't. You failed to prove this. CIA documents don't claim this.


The fact that you aren't comprehending the gravity of this is really quite astounding.

"Gravity" of the stuff you so hastily "read between the lines." Right.


Right, if I go out and get weapons from the CIA in order to overthrow a socialist society (while lynching socialists and murdering Jews), that proves nothing about my political tendencies. Yeah, OK, good argument. :rolleyes:

Their willful cooperation with the CIA proves everything we need to know about their character: they wanted to collaborate with imperialists. But keep denying the facts, it's what you decided to do a long time ago.

You're still talking about individual unofficial small groups from Sopron, Gyor and other bordering towns, and you're still using isolated incidents to generalize. You're also lying: there was no lynch of the Communists, only AVH agents. You're also talking of pogroms: never proven. Guess what: it's not working.


"…the mentality of the revolutionaries shows that almost anyone from the West, of whatever nationality, color or purpose would have been received with open arms by any of the revolutionary councils in the cities of Hungary during the period in question."

A sentence that means nothing. Let me bold it out for you, the critical part.


At least two revolutionary councils contacted the CIA and asked for arms and medical supplies...

No, they didn't. Individuals from Gyor and Sopron contacted agents at the border posts; they also said that they would "bring back council member from Koeszeg". You're twisting and inventing stuff again. In other words: lying.

There were 11.000.000 people in Hungary. There were no restrictions in those 13 days; some people wanted to work with the CIA. Most people wanted socialism. Get over it.


Anyway, it wasn't four teenagers from Gyor who wanted to go hunting, those contacts represented the "revolutionary" councils in Hungary...

And yet only you know this, since it is stated nowhere else.

[manic expression]

No, they didn't. You failed to prove this. CIA documents don't claim this.

You can repeat that all you want, but you're still completely wrong.

From page 84:

"For the record, our main contacts were people picked up at various border points from the following places: Koeszeg, Szentgotthard, Sopron, Gyor and Veszprem. The 4-5 contacts in question not only delivered hard intelligence but were all momentarily engaged with us in some operational plan (however impromptu) which involved future contact and action."

There you have it. Your beloved "revolutionaries" unabashedly collaborating with the CIA.


"Gravity" of the stuff you so hastily "read between the lines." Right.

Maybe if you were able to read the lines themselves we could get somewhere.


You're still talking about individual unofficial small groups from Sopron, Gyor and other bordering towns, and you're still using isolated incidents to generalize. You're also lying: there was no lynch of the Communists, only AVH agents. You're also talking of pogroms: never proven. Guess what: it's not working.

There was no official group in the revolt. Saying that these councils were "unofficial" is a circular argument that's patently irrelevant.

And as much as you'd like to sneer at the experiences of people targeted in the violence, we have someone who has personally met a refugee of those pogroms. Tell them they weren't targeted.

And yes, communists and their sympathizers WERE lynched. The most notable incident took place outside of the Hungarian Working People's Party.

Oh, and are you REALLY trying to justify vigilante LYNCHINGS? Yes or no?


A sentence that means nothing. Let me bold it out for you, the critical part.

Anyone? "So they would have worked with pro-socialist westerners? Find me an example of it and you MIGHT have an argument.


No, they didn't. Individuals from Gyor and Sopron contacted agents at the border posts; they also said that they would "bring back council member from Koeszeg". You're twisting and inventing stuff again. In other words: lying.

In many cases, those individuals sent by their councils. Read the document. Calling me a liar isn't going to make up for the fact that your argument is entirely reliant on you not reading the facts.


There were 11.000.000 people in Hungary. There were no restrictions in those 13 days; some people wanted to work with the CIA. Most people wanted socialism. Get over it.

And what did this "socialism" entail, precisely? The general murder of socialists and Jews? The complete dismantlement of the socialist system? Collaboration with the CIA? Is that your "socialism"? I'd like to hear more about your "socialism", because it sounds a lot like Lech Walesa's.


And yet only you know this, since it is stated nowhere else.

Except the CIA document I posted, the same one you've refused to comprehend. Make sure you put your next denial of the facts in bold, I'm sure it'll give you a ton of validity.

[Pogue]

Claims of anti-semitism coming from supporters of a regime with was openly and actively anti-semetic? Claims of collaborating with a capitalist imperialist power coming from supporters of a regime which was at the same time putting down a genuine workers movement and had betrayed the Spanish revolutionaries in 1936 in order to appear 'respectable' to the western capitalist powers?

I smell Stalinist hypocrisy and lies! To the batmobile!

[The Author]

1956 certainly was a nationalist uprising, that's for sure. Workers may have participated, but they sure as hell didn't lead it, that was where the nationalists had the advantage.

I mean, in 1989, Imre Nagy was buried as a "national hero,"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5DD1530F934A25755C0A96F9482 60


Victor Orban, a spokesman for the Federation of Young Democrats, paid tribute to Mr. Nagy as a man who, although a Communist, ''identified himself with the wishes of the Hungarian nation to put an end to the Communist taboos, blind obedience to the Russian empire and with the dictatorship of a single party.''
Sandor Racz, who led the Budapest Workers' Council during the uprising and spent seven years in prison, condemned the Soviet Army and the Communist Party as ''obstacles for Hungarian society.''


Looking toward the coffins, covered in wreaths and bouquets, as well as single flowers laid on them by a long procession of mourners, Mr. Racz said, ''These coffins are a result of the presence of Russian troops on our territory.''



He said the party was ''clinging fearfully to power,'' although it was clear that ''what it failed to achieve in the last 44 years cannot be remedied now.'' He continued, ''They are responsible for the past. They are responsible for the damaged lives of Hungarians.''
Those who say 1956 doesn't relate to 1989 at all are talking out of their asses.

Also, anybody care to remember this?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rightist-revolution-hungary-t51213/index.html?p=778895&highlight=2006%2C+hungary#post778895

October 2006 in Budapest ring any bells? Notice how that correlates to 1956, too? I mean, odd how it happened 50 years after the "revolution," didn't it?

Here's some quotations that caught my eye from the second page of the thread:


The democrats of the oppostion seemingly condemn the bloody events in the streets, but in secret they back the revolters, who are usually fired up by fascist organizations like Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom (Movement for Right Hungary), 64 Vármegye Ifjúsági Mozgalom (64 Hundreds Youth Movement). On the other hand, they got frightened because they lost control over the right-wing mass and the result led to struggles between the fascists and the state. The voice of the real class struggle is dampened by the nostalgic nationalism of the Székely-hymn and for the present the outlet of exploitation is dissolving into pseudo-revolutionary nationalist comedy. Fascism is using those members of the working class who are demanding an immediate change of régime/power to lengthen the counter-revolutionary period. Pseudo-Mussolinis are roaring their speeches. The people don't reject them but neither do they identify themselves totally with these spokesmen. Thousands of people demonstrated, but there were serious street fights with the police only on Monday and Tuesday. By now, only the reformist demands of the trade unions, the democratic demonstrations of the student self-government and the actual nationalist-fascist events answered the present situation - while the exploited people are in the streets after all. On the other hand it is conspicuous that there are no social demands, protest voices at all, thus the conflict deflects from direct exploitation and only focuses on the clash between the government and the opposition. The demonstrators have declared that they would use roadblocks and civil disobedience to exert an influence on the government.
The mass, directed by boneheads (fascist skinheads), laid siege to the building. Various groups of football hooligans, who are usually irreconcilable enemies, united their strength. They inveighed against Jews and most of the people shouted together: "Down with the Trianon peace treaty!", "Down with the Trianon peace treaty!". The singing of the national anthem, nationalist slogans from the 1956 revolution and national flags marked these events. There were a lot of Hungarist flags with the colours of the House of Árpád (the crest of the first Hungarian dynasty, later used by Hungarian nazis in the time of World War II). Nearby, demonstrators damaged the Soviet memorial too. They were not monolithic, because some of them observed that it should not be done. The police were totally unprepared, standing blankly and trying to defend the offices of the state television, but they were not able to arrest the fuglemen. They were not so full-mouthed as usually, because they were not superior in numbers.
The politicians and the media are continue to manipulate when they state that "anarchist ragbags" are rampaging through the streets. The fascists, their own bourgeoisie behind them, have come alive. They are spreading illusions about 1956 because they want to expropriate the heritage of the communist revolution in order to make it out as a nationalist event. They are shouting their slogans with this in view. The right-wing politician and the "heaven-born peoples" are hoping together for the promising future of the nation while the government and the opposition continue with their electoral campaign. The situation has livened up, there remains no more but to awaken the proletariat during the "nights of the long knives"...Despite the contradiction between the second and third quotes over the remark of nationalist slogans being used in 1956 in a supposed "communist revolution," otherwise it gives one a nice impression that 1956 was more certainly a nationalist led revolution with grieved workers at the tail, than grieved workers at the head fighting revisionism and replacing the Nagy regime with something that didn't smack of "self-management" and "autonomism" but actual integrated socialist planning which was being liquidated by the Hungarian revisionists.

[Lamanov]

There you have it. Your beloved "revolutionaries" unabashedly collaborating with the CIA.

Yes, individuals; where are the councils besides that one sentence I presented?


There was no official group in the revolt. Saying that these councils were "unofficial" is a circular argument that's patently irrelevant.

No, councils were "official". "Four to five people" mentioned were not council delegates; they are "not official". That's what I'm saying. But councils have nothing to do with the fact that four people saw some guys from the CIA. Are you a retard? Do I have to draw? OK, I will:

http://xs435.xs.to/xs435/09034/untitled359.gif


And yes, communists and their sympathizers WERE lynched. The most notable incident took place outside of the Hungarian Working People's Party.

That was I believe two people, and they were AVH. I'd have to check the documents, but I believe that was it. In any case, that's not solid enough to claim how "communists were lynched". On the contrary, there was much more people from the Party who took part in the uprising. I've read testimonials of two DISZ members who were active fighters.

You have no case here.


Oh, and are you REALLY trying to justify vigilante LYNCHINGS? Yes or no?

Lynch of AVH officers? Sure.


Anyone? "So they would have worked with pro-socialist westerners? Find me an example of it and you MIGHT have an argument.

I don't know about your "four to five people" you base your entire history of these events upon, but here, socialist demands and sentiment were recorded and pronounced on many occasions. Here's one:

"Nobody who was in Hungary during the revolution could escape the overwhelming impression that the Hungarian people had no desire or intention to return to the capitalist system." (New Statesman and Nation, November 17th 1956.)


In many cases, those individuals sent by their councils. Read the document. Calling me a liar isn't going to make up for the fact that your argument is entirely reliant on you not reading the facts.

And yet this is stated nowhere.


And what did this "socialism" entail, precisely? The general murder of socialists and Jews? The complete dismantlement of the socialist system? Collaboration with the CIA? Is that your "socialism"? I'd like to hear more about your "socialism", because it sounds a lot like Lech Walesa's.

So you basically read nothing relevant on Hungarian Revolution?

There was no official collaboration with the CIA: we have proven this. There was no dismantling of the "socialist system", but a demand for a real one. All the councils wanted this. Govenments, both Nagy's party government and coalition government, confirmed this request. All major political parties that became active again supported this cause, otherwise they would be left behind the course of events. Unions (taken over by their membership) and workers' councils requested worker-managment of industry. This is all documented.


I mean, in 1989, Imre Nagy was buried as a "national hero,"

And this is relevant in what way? Recently, the Society of Spanish Fighters of Serbia (people who fought in Spain) was taken over by liberals, and they claim that those people fought for the system that is today present in Spain. Does it mean they did? No it doesn't. No it doesn't.

[manic expression]

No, councils were "official". "Four to five people" mentioned were not council delegates; they are "not official". That's what I'm saying. But councils have nothing to do with the fact that four people saw some guys from the CIA. Are you a retard? Do I have to draw? OK, I will:

Obviously you're frustrated, but that doesn't mean you have an ounce of reason behind your claims. The document I posted specifically mentions that councils sent out people to contact the CIA, but since you've refused to read that document at every turn, I guess I have to post it again, do try to pay attention:

From the CIA document:

In some cases they had been sent out by their councils to give news to the West.

On page 83.

Later, the document goes on to say how these representatives participated in operational planning, solicited weapons and equipment, went to bring other council members to the CIA agents and tried to set up a radio connection with the CIA. That's all on page 84.

So, for all your antics and insults, you are still utterly wrong when faced with plain facts.


That was I believe two people, and they were AVH. I'd have to check the documents, but I believe that was it. In any case, that's not solid enough to claim how "communists were lynched". On the contrary, there was much more people from the Party who took part in the uprising. I've read testimonials of two DISZ members who were active fighters.

You have no case here.

And that incident is no problem for you, because you have no problem seeing socialists killed in cold blood. Charming.


There was no official collaboration with the CIA: we have proven this. There was no dismantling of the "socialist system", but a demand for a real one. All the councils wanted this.

:lol: Once again, you're dancing around the issue better than Fred Astaire could. If the uprising tells us anything about your supposed "real socialism", it tells us it's not socialism. In Hungary, private property was abolished, collectivization had been carried out and commodity production had ceased in all practical terms. How is this not socialism? Further, what is "real socialism"? You have consistently failed to even define what you've been slavishly defending, which is unsurprising given your refusal to deal with facts.

And the fact that you claim to know what "all the councils" wanted, while denying the CIA-collaboration of multiple councils just shows your position is beyond absurd.

On "official" collaboration, I already dealt with this. Please go back and read my last post, because you obviously didn't this time around.

It seems this argument has two sides: those who comprehend the situation and those who are living in a fantasy world. When you know what socialism means, let me know.


I don't know about your "four to five people" you base your entire history of these events upon, but here, socialist demands and sentiment were recorded and pronounced on many occasions. Here's one:

"Nobody who was in Hungary during the revolution could escape the overwhelming impression that the Hungarian people had no desire or intention to return to the capitalist system." (New Statesman and Nation, November 17th 1956.)

The New Statesman and Nation was run by left-wingers who were anti-Soviet by that point. That position fits their slant quite well, which shouldn't be a coincidence.

What's actually damning is that the party of Independent Smallholders and National Peasants' Party were legalized, which were far from anything socialist. Meanwhile, many militias fought on because Radio Free Europe told them western (imperialist) support was forthcoming (see below). Nagy was, in the course of these events, condemning the Warsaw Pact and beginning the same exact counterrevolutionary pattern seen in the Prague Spring and throughout Eastern Europe in the late 80's.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/doc10.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/doc10.pdf)

Sure, keep talking about your "real socialism" when you can't even tell me what it entails.


And yet this is stated nowhere.

You're wrong, again. Tell you what. Go and read the passages I outlined, then go and read the pages I specified. Then, come back and we'll talk. Until then, you have nothing.

[Lamanov]

Obviously you're frustrated, but that doesn't mean you have an ounce of reason behind your claims. The document I posted specifically mentions that councils sent out people to contact the CIA, but since you've refused to read that document at every turn, I guess I have to post it again, do try to pay attention:

From the CIA document:

In some cases they had been sent out by their councils to give news to the West.

On page 83.

Later, the document goes on to say how these representatives participated in operational planning, solicited weapons and equipment, went to bring other council members to the CIA agents and tried to set up a radio connection with the CIA. That's all on page 84.

No, it doens't. It does not "specifically mention" that.

Those are not the same people.

Read the document more carefully.

I've stated this 7 times by now. What is wrong with you?

Further on: commodity production was not abolished. I see you still didn't learn what a commodity is.


The New Statesman and Nation was run by left-wingers who were anti-Soviet by that point. That position fits their slant quite well, which shouldn't be a coincidence.

Ah, so you have to be pro-Soviet in order to speak the truth. Ingenious. So, if I were a worker from Csepel and gave a statement to - mind you - pro-Soviet Daily Worker (dated 19th November 1956), it could be considered truthful by his red-majesty Manic, yes?

"The West should not believe that the workers fought to bring back Horthy or the landowners and counts. We shall not give back the land or the factories or the mines."


Sure, keep talking about your "real socialism" when you can't even tell me what it entails.

Meh, I don't feel like it. :)

I'm doing this to prove you can't read a simple document because your brain is messed up by "party line".

[manic expression]

No, it doens't. It does not "specifically mention" that.

Those are not the same people.

Read the document more carefully.

I've stated this 7 times by now. What is wrong with you?

You keep stating it, but it doesn't make it any less incorrect.

The contacts the CIA made at the border DID solicit weapons, some were sent out by councils and others went to bring council members to the CIA agents. Prove me wrong if you wish, but you won't, because you can't.


Further on: commodity production was not abolished. I see you still didn't learn what a commodity is.

I see you didn't read the post in which I proved Cuba has no such thing.

At any rate, I'm all ears: how did Hungary have commodity production at this point?


Ah, so you have to be pro-Soviet in order to speak the truth. Ingenious. So, if I were a worker from Csepel and gave a statement to - mind you - pro-Soviet Daily Worker (dated 19th November 1956), it could be considered truthful by his red-majesty Manic, yes?

"The West should not believe that the workers fought to bring back Horthy or the landowners and counts. We shall not give back the land or the factories or the mines."

No, but you have to take reality into account. Which I don't think you're doing.

CriticizeEverythingAlways already demonstrated how workers participated in the uprising, but were never in control of it. This quote shows only a small and marginalized tendency within the uprising. The hunting down of socialists, the attacks on the socialist society in Hungary, the collaboration with the CIA and the pogroms all show what I've been saying.


Meh, I don't feel like it. :)

Didn't think so. I'll take it your point is moot.


I'm doing this to prove you can't read a simple document because your brain is messed up by "party line".

I have no affiliation with any party, but don't let that stop you from thinking otherwise. Your comment is cute coming from someone who bases their entire premise on not reading what's in front of them. I wonder what irrelevant insult you'll lob at me next...the anticipation almost makes me forget that you haven't made a reasoned argument.

[Lamanov]

Ah, so the workers were marginal in the uprising but your "4-5" guys were the clear-cut representation of it. Great.

Let me repeat for an 8th time now: people sent by councils to deliver the news and people asking for weapons are nowhere identified as the same.

And these pages are only speaking of few small towns near Austrian border, like Sopron and one mid sized city of Gyor. There's nothing about Budapest, Borsod county, Pecs, Debrecen, etc.

Keep inventing that "lynching of socialists" now.


Didn't think so. I'll take it your point is moot.

Riiight...

[manic expression]

Ah, so the workers were marginal in the uprising but your "4-5" guys were the clear-cut representation of it. Great.

Those 4-5 contacts were the only ones the CIA was able to work with during that time. Does that mean the other councils were anti-CIA? Not by a long shot, but nice try on the considerable leaps in logic.


Let me repeat for an 8th time now: people sent by councils to deliver the news and people asking for weapons are nowhere identified as the same.

You're completely in denial. Read it rationally and you'll agree.


And these pages are only speaking of few small towns near Austrian border, like Sopron and one mid sized city of Gyor. There's nothing about Budapest, Borsod county, Pecs, Debrecen, etc.

No, there isn't anything about them, because the CIA wasn't able to reach them. Does that mean they weren't open to cooperating with the CIA? No, it doesn't, and actually the document plainly states that they were willing to work with imperialist forces from the west.


Keep inventing that "lynching of socialists" now.

Unlike you, I don't resort to making asinine drawings, there are clear pictures of those lynchings, and you're more than welcome to deny them, too. I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize a documented case of anti-socialist murder.


Riiight...

You're refusing to define what you're talking about, which pretty much sums up how ridiculous your entire position really is.

You wax poetic about "real socialism", and yet evidently you can't name the first thing about it. That doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Comrade_Red]

The Soviet leaders were already exploiting this area. Thanks for your opinion but its bollocks because its made up, not based on anything, pure tankie drivvle.

How were they exploiting them?

You're just one of these guys who thinks they know everything.

[Comrade_Red]

Claims of anti-semitism coming from supporters of a regime with was openly and actively anti-semetic


Stalin was anti-semitic. The Soviet Union was anti-Zionist. (which was their intention, since they had first supported israel.)

[jaffe]

How were they exploiting them?

War taxes.
Making the country into a great country of steel and coal while there weren't enough recources for it.

[manic expression]

War taxes.
Making the country into a great country of steel and coal while there weren't enough recources for it.

War taxes? You mean reparations after Hungary contributed significantly to the cause of Nazism? Are you saying the USSR should have just ignored the unfathomable amount of destruction wreaked upon its people and economy? Please.

Oh, and you should look up what "exploitation" means. Who was profiting from this? Was it done through private ownership of industry? Answer questions like those and then formulate an analysis.

[Labor Shall Rule]

War taxes? You mean reparations after Hungary contributed significantly to the cause of Nazism? Are you saying the USSR should have just ignored the unfathomable amount of destruction wreaked upon its people and economy? Please.

Oh, and you should look up what "exploitation" means. Who was profiting from this? Was it done through private ownership of industry? Answer questions like those and then formulate an analysis.Capitalist ownership, private property itself, and even the state can take different forms. It's superficial to deny the existence of capitalism based on appearance, instead of evaluating the underlying laws of motion in society in question. A dictatorship of the working class is still part of the capitalist stage of history. The decisive element in the economy is scarcity, and until this is overcome through a build up of the productive forces, the bourgeois nature of production will remain.

According to Bureaucracy and Revolution, the reparation payments made up a quarter of Hungary's state budget. The Soviets dismantled factory parts and shipped them to the Urals and Donetsk, and they took the Danubian delta as their own, which gave them access to rich minerals that they could sell below the original market price. It could only be accurately described as social-imperialism.

The “liberators” used a national chauvinist argument similar to your's when they were looting the country. The misery of the Hungarian working class was somehow remuneration for what their fascist compradors did.

[manic expression]

Capitalist ownership, private property itself, and even the state can take different forms. It's superficial to deny the existence of capitalism based on appearance, instead of evaluating the underlying laws of motion in society in question. A dictatorship of the working class is still part of the capitalist stage of history. The decisive element in the economy is scarcity, and until this is overcome through a build up of the productive forces, the bourgeois nature of production will remain.

According to Bureaucracy and Revolution, the reparation payments made up a quarter of Hungary's state budget. The Soviets dismantled factory parts and shipped them to the Urals and Donetsk, and they took the Danubian delta as their own, which gave them access to rich minerals that they could sell below the original market price. It could only be accurately described as social-imperialism.

The “liberators” used a national chauvinist argument similar to your's when they were looting the country. The misery of the Hungarian working class was somehow remuneration for what their fascist compradors did.

Please, this is the same theory that allowed Mao to justify his support of Pinochet and the Khmer Rouge.

You talk of my "superficial" analysis, but what do you offer in turn? You say nothing of the abolition of private property, of capitalist property relations, of commodity production. In short, you ignore materialism. Your only point is really about scarcity, which is simply ridiculous because socialist relations can exist and have existed in times of scarcity. And what are your charges? The Soviets imported industry from Hungary to the USSR because it had been crippled by the fight against Hitler (and was now facing imperialist threats from NATO, to say nothing of its contribution to the struggle against imperialism in Korea), and then they somehow stole the Danube Delta from Hungary, even though it's in Romania. Pretty clever, those "social imperialists".

What, in the end, was the result? The Hungarian working class was liberated from Nazism, from the horrifying massacres being carried out by the Arrow Cross, and was then liberated from capitalism by the subsequent string of events. Until you can actually provide a significant argument that shows how the USSR was capitalist (which means getting around the whole material circumstances thing), you have nothing.

And after all that, you're off topic.

[jaffe]

which is simply ridiculous because socialist relations can exist and have existed in times of scarcity.
You're doin it wrong.


And what are your charges? The Soviets imported industry from Hungary to the USSR because it had been crippled by the fight against Hitler (and was now facing imperialist threats from NATO, to say nothing of its contribution to the struggle against imperialism in Korea), Indeed a valid reason to steal from the people.
[/quote]

[Labor Shall Rule]

Please, this is the same theory that allowed Mao to justify his support of Pinochet and the Khmer Rouge.

You talk of my "superficial" analysis, but what do you offer in turn? You say nothing of the abolition of private property, of capitalist property relations, of commodity production. In short, you ignore materialism. Your only point is really about scarcity, which is simply ridiculous because socialist relations can exist and have existed in times of scarcity. And what are your charges? The Soviets imported industry from Hungary to the USSR because it had been crippled by the fight against Hitler (and was now facing imperialist threats from NATO, to say nothing of its contribution to the struggle against imperialism in Korea), and then they somehow stole the Danube Delta from Hungary, even though it's in Romania. Pretty clever, those "social imperialists".

What, in the end, was the result? The Hungarian working class was liberated from Nazism, from the horrifying massacres being carried out by the Arrow Cross, and was then liberated from capitalism by the subsequent string of events. Until you can actually provide a significant argument that shows how the USSR was capitalist (which means getting around the whole material circumstances thing), you have nothing.

And after all that, you're off topic.

I'm 'unmaterialist'? The achievement of actual socialism to Lenin depended on the successful internationalization of the revolution, not on the completion of collectivization.

If you are really going to deny the looting of Hungary, then what's the point of arguing? You don't understand why the political and economic demands of Nagy (and eventually of revolutionary worker's and farmer's) arose in the first place. It's easy to become an apologist of social-imperialism by systematically denying the world events that reveal how vicious it is.

[Lamanov]

In order to avoid back and forth discussion where everything was already said, I'll basically sum up the conclusions of this thread:

- Some active fighters from western towns of the country cooperated with CIA agents. According to CIA documents we could speak of 15 people max. No actual connection between the councils and the Westen agencies was established.

- No evidence of organised lynchings of Communists (and "socialists") were presented. We all know about the lynch of AVH officers.

- No evidence of "fascist participation", organized or otherwise, was documented. 2 out of 24 newspapers that appeared during 12 days may have had chauvinist content. Other ones did not.

- Starting with all the demands presented to the public and picked up specifically by the workers' councils of the Borsod county and later by demands of those of Budapest, and with evidence and testimonials presented to the UN (http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01274/01274.pdf) and allot of statements to the press of people who were active, including the principles published by the coalition government, the request to maintain the socialist system, as it was seen, was the most important demand put forward next to real independence from the USSR, democratic demands and international neutrality.

[manic expression]

You're doin it wrong.

Care to elaborate? Or make a point? At all?


Indeed a valid reason to steal from the people.

It's all very well and good that you like hearing yourself make such high-sounding statements, but it's not really pertinent. Who really lost out on the reparations? Hungarian capitalists and their nationalist cronies, that's who. The Hungarian working class was liberated from wage slavery and all you can blabber about is how they were "stolen from" with nothing but platitudes.


I'm 'unmaterialist'? The achievement of actual socialism to Lenin depended on the successful internationalization of the revolution, not on the completion of collectivization.

For socialism to survive, yes, that was very important to Lenin. However, after the German Revolution failed, Lenin didn't just throw his hands up and give Russia back to the capitalists, he adamantly defended the conquests of the proletarian revolution.

They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded,[/URL] and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters — I think it was in 1856 — expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm#B"] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm#A) — they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm


If you are really going to deny the looting of Hungary, then what's the point of arguing? You don't understand why the political and economic demands of Nagy (and eventually of revolutionary worker's and farmer's) arose in the first place. It's easy to become an apologist of social-imperialism by systematically denying the world events that reveal how vicious it is.

Like I said above, who really lost out on the reparations? The Hungarian working class was not being exploited, for there were no mechanisms for economic exploitation within Soviet society. The people who really lost out were the expropriated capitalists. And ignoring that, you ignored all the reasonable reasons I gave for the reparations, which isn't surprising (especially seeing as you ignored how your theory of "social-imperialism" was just a petty attempt to rationalize Maoist support for the most abhorrent reactionary regimes on the planet).

Contrary to what you may think, it is far easier to analyze the events as they arose, as I have, instead of making empty declarations about the USSR without a shred of materialist analysis.

[manic expression]

- Some active fighters from western towns of the country cooperated with CIA agents. According to CIA documents we could speak of 15 people max. No actual connection between the councils and the Westen agencies was established.

Wrong, the CIA contacted representatives from multiple councils. Your continued attempts to ignore and belittle the facts doesn't count for much.


- No evidence of organised lynchings of Communists (and "socialists") were presented. We all know about the lynch of AVH officers.

Wrong. We have seen evidence that general violence against "communists" was taking place, and the lynchings of AVH officers without any sort of fair trial or just procedure (a horrifying crime that you have inexplicably defended, it should be noted) were just the most prominent. Your attempt to twist the evidence shown is quite telling of your inability to show your own.


- No evidence of "fascist participation", organized or otherwise, was documented. 2 out of 24 newspapers that appeared during 12 days may have had chauvinist content. Other ones did not.

That's a desperate straw-man argument. I suggest you re-read the thread.


- Starting with all the demands presented to the public and picked up specifically by the workers' councils of the Borsod county and later by demands of those of Budapest, and with evidence and testimonials presented to the UN (http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01274/01274.pdf) and allot of statements to the press of people who were active, including the principles published by the coalition government, the request to maintain the socialist system, as it was seen, was the most important demand put forward next to real independence from the USSR, democratic demands and international neutrality.

As has been demonstrated, these demands to "maintain" socialism were nothing but paper-thin rhetorical devices. Show us HOW they were trying to maintain socialism and you might have something. Further, we have demonstrated that the councils WERE working with the CIA, and that they WERE eager to receive "western" support. To say that these rioters wanted neutrality is quite dubious, to say nothing of the fact that a neutral Hungary would have significantly tilted the balance of power in Europe toward the imperialists. You, however, are apparently incapable of grasping such realities.

As it is, the rioters were revolting against a socialist system and a socialist society, and they were murdering socialists as they went about it, coincidentally enough. As always, the anti-socialist side clothes itself in innocence and purity, while the facts suggest otherwise.

[Lamanov]

:lol:

[manic expression]

:lol:

And that basically sums up the evidence you've presented so far.

[jaffe]

but's why would the masses revolt if they lived in great socialism?

[Lamanov]

Obviously because their living standard, as great Rakosci said, got "dangerously high".

[Comrade_Red]

but's why would the masses revolt if they lived in great socialism?


Argument of the year, bro. Really.

See: Nationalism.

[jaffe]

uh but why? there was great socialism, so there was no need for nationalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Looking at the demands put forward in 1956 I think one would have to be very confused to describe them as fascist.


* Socialist ownership of the industries.
* The maintenance of workers' councils and the restoration of free trade unions.
* The right to strike and to assembly, freedom of the press and religion, etc.
* The factory belongs to the workers.
* The workers' council is the supreme controlling body of the factory and is democratically elected by the workers.
* The workers' council elects it own executive committee composed of 3-9 members, which acts as the executive body, carrying out the decisions and tasks laid down by it.
* The director is employed by the factory. The director and the highest employees are to be elected by the workers' council. This election will take place after a public general meeting called by the executive committee.
* The director is responsible to the workers' council in every matter which concerns the factory.
* Complete and unconditional independence
* Political democracy on the basis of the free activities of the workers' councils, revolutionary committees and political parties
* The maintenance of the land reform and the social ownership of the factories, mines and banks.

http://www.marxist.com/1956-hungarian-revolution50.htm


Despite the contradiction between the second and third quotes over the remark of nationalist slogans being used in 1956 in a supposed "communist revolution," otherwise it gives one a nice impression that 1956 was more certainly a nationalist led revolution with grieved workers at the tail, than grieved workers at the head fighting revisionism and replacing the Nagy regime with something that didn't smack of "self-management" and "autonomism" but actual integrated socialist planning which was being liquidated by the Hungarian revisionists.



Some post above on the very suspect demands has somehow reminded me of some of the "socialist" demands in the Nazi party's platform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program


11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

[Lamanov]

Where do you see the resemblance? I see none. Not one point is similar.

It's like saying "that elephant reminds me of that space-ship".

[Vendetta]

Some post above on the very suspect demands has somehow reminded me of some of the "socialist" demands in the Nazi party's platform:

Why are they 'very suspect?'

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where do you see the resemblance? I see none. Not one point is similar.

It's like saying "that elephant reminds me of that space-ship".

The resemblance is where fascists call for socialist demands to woo over workers.

[Lamanov]

Workers' demands issued by workers contain working class and their organs - workers' councils - in the center. They contain socialism as a cornerstone. In this case, no "fascists" took part in drawing out these demands. They were drawn up by the unionized workers.

Nazi programme calls for bureaucratic control over capitalist industry and a "healthy middle class".

There's no resemblance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The triangle comes into place. Two demands raised by the suppressed peasant-soldiers in the Kronstadt tragedy dealt with something similar to a "healthy middle class."

Indeed, it can be said that the Nazis were both farce (betrayal of their program vs. the SPD's betrayal of its Erfurt program) and tragedy (leading to the farce in Hungary, with "socialist" demands being raised in both).

[Lamanov]

The triangle comes into place. Two demands raised by the suppressed peasant-soldiers in the Kronstadt tragedy dealt with something similar to a "healthy middle class."

What?


Indeed, it can be said that the Nazis were both farce (betrayal of their program vs. the SPD's betrayal of its Erfurt program) and tragedy (leading to the farce in Hungary, with "socialist" demands being raised in both).

I'm sure we've all read Eighteenth Brumaire, and this is why this ... shall we say - farce - of its introductory lines leaves us wondering: what in the world are you talking about?

Are you about to back up your poor-witted remarks with an argument?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What?

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append42.html

Two demands for, in the words of that Nazi program, "a healthy middle class":

"The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour. "

"We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour."

[Lamanov]

So, on the one hand, we have a demand for the peasants to use land as they please, together with their own cattle. We also have a demand for free usage of tools, independent of bureaucratic commands, in order to satisfy local needs of the people and people's economy. There's, of course, a clause which disables any exploitation of labor by other individuals.

Given that "war communism" command-economy was falling apart, this was a pretty logical demand, and there's nothing anti-socialist about it; on the contrary. It opened up a way for institutions of 1917 - freely elected soviets and factory committees - to be reestablished.

What Lenin did with NEP was far more similar to Nazi state-controlled trustified economy than anything you can ever dig up on Kronstadt or Hungary.

Nazi "middle class", on the other hand, means petit-bourgeois employers, shop owners, well-paid doctors, lawyers, "white collar workers" within the state apparatus. This demand is talking about small businesses and administrative bureaucracy.

I don't know how you come up with these "connections", but in reality, there are none.

Besides, what about Hungary?

I've asked for an argument - or at least an attempt of it.

[The Author]

Some post above on the very suspect demands has somehow reminded me of some of the "socialist" demands in the Nazi party's platform

Here's another platform for comparison and contrasting, the "Burmese Way to Socialism":

http://burmalibrary.org/docs/The_Burmese_Way_to_Socialism.htm

[S. Zetor]

Sorry for coming in so late into the discussion, but I had to read a few books first to have at least somewhat informed opinion on the matter; my sources are:

Charles Gati: 'Failed Illusions. Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian Uprising' (2006)
Sakari Selin: 'Kapina joka kukistettiin' (2006)

The latter is a Finnish communist journalist's account, who was a correspondent in Hungary already for several years before 1956.

Of the two books, Gati's is the better one, not without problems IMO, but better nevertheless. Selin's account has all the weaknesses of an "eyewitness" account, which is good to remember as "the eyewitness" is often thougt to be in possession of a deeper understanding of what happened, because "s/he was there".. but it's often impossible to get a good grasp on the totality when you're watching history in the making.

Gati, too, was a young journalist, in a Budapest newspaper, during the revolt. He fled the country a few weeks after the Soviets invaded. My impression of him (as the writer of the book) is that he is a (bourgeois) nationalist, but naturally it doesn't prevent one from doing good research on the matter, or being realistic or honest about things. I think he's good enough to deserve to be read, and unless I'm pointed to comparable sources that show otherwise, I think Gati's account will be the one that I will believe in. Most certainly I'm not going to believe in articles like the one referred to here, on the International Communist Current website, which, besides making no references to any sources of worth, is full of empty but very r-r-revolutionary phrase-mongering.

I'll summarise Gati's argument, and then, based on that, I'll make a few comments on what has been said during the discussion.

Gati summarises the argument in his book thus:

"First, relatively few Hungarians actually fought against Soviet rule, and their ultimate goal was to reform the system, not to abolish it. In a country less than 10 million, those who took up arms against the Soviet oppressors numbered no more than 15,000 (althought practically all Hungarians stood shoulder to shoulder with them). Because the revolution's main objective was independence from the Soviet Union, the freedom fighters were deeply nationalist, anti-Soviet, and anti-Russian - but not antisocialist." (p. 3.)

"Second, the revolution lacked effective leadership. On October 23, 1956, when the revolt began, the crowd, composed of students and demonstrating peacefully, demanded Nagy's return to power. [..] During the first few days of the revolt, Nagy disappointed his followers. Reinstated as prime minister, he initially opposed the freedom fighters' demands. Then, in effect going from one extreme to another in a few days, he fully embraced even the most radical demands - without telling the insurgents that quitting the Warsaw Pact and declaring Hungary's neutrality would almost certainly invite a Soviet military crackdown." (p. 4.)

"Third, the Soviet leadership in Moscow was not trigger-happy. [..] The Soviet politburo's now-available deliberations suggest that if Nagy [..] had calibrated the insurgents' demands and then convinced Moscow that its own interests would be better served by granting his government a modicum of autonomy - Hungary, in exchange for supporting Soviet foreign policy, might have obtained limited pluralism at home." (p. 4.) Gati lists three reasons in favour of such a possibility: 1) in 1955 USSR had decided to pull out of Austria; 2) Hungary (unlike Poland) had little strategic interest to the USSR; 3) general atmosphere of destalinisation.

"Fourth, the United States was both uninformed and misinformed about the prospects for change - even as its propaganda was very provocative. Documents made available to me in 2005 under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reveal that the outbreak of the 1956 revolt took Washington by surprise. Evan Thomas disclosed several years ago that in Vienna, the nearest Western European capital, the CIA had no Hungarian-speaking official. [..] Earlier in the 1950s, the CIA did not have an active program in or toward Hungary, which was assigned the lowest priority among the satellites of Central and Eastern Europe." (p. 5.)

Radio Free Europe, which was the most visible (audible) tool of the West in the revolt, had no idea of what was going on in Hungary. In RFE propaganda, Nagy was identified as a Kremlin stooge, which didn't reflect the reality of how people saw him (they demanded his return to power). RFE kept blasting out its maximalist message of total revolution against any compromise, and on the one hand it spurred many people on, but on the other, was quite out of sync with the reality. The US was in fact not very concerned of what the USSR did in Hungary. Then-vice president Richard Nixon even said, in July 1956, that "it wouldn't be an unmixed evil, from the point of view of U.S. interests, if the Soviet iron fist were to come down again on the Soviet bloc". (p. 69) Besides, president Dwight Eisenhower was in the last stretch of his presidential campaign, so he had more important matters at hand; indeed, he "saw the Hungarian uprising as a problem, not an opportunity". (p. 163.)

CIA and Hungary after the 2WW

"Classified information about U.S. actions, released at my request from the CIA's operational files, prompts the surprising conclusion that the United States often resembled a Big Bad Wolf huffing and puffing rather than a serious superpower depleting its Communist enemy's strenght. [..] Democrats promoted this tale [of rollback, liberation etc.] [..] also because of the need to counter Republican charges about their alleged inability to understand the gravity of the Soviet challenge. [..] The Republicans, to prove their superior resolve, outbid the Democrats from the beginning[.] (p. 71.)

"The United States mattered, not because of what Washington did but because of what it assured the East Europeans and others it was doing (but was not). [..] Thought the United states kept alive the Hungarians' hopes for freedom and independence, the records show no serious effort to make these hopes come true." (p. 72-73.)

After the war, the were several plans to influence developments in the Soviet bloc, but none of them turned out very well in Hungary (or anywhere else for that matter). For example, a massive plan for a body called OPC, Office of Policy Coordination, was created, to unstabilise Eastern Europe. "There were few officially stated limitations on what OPC could or could not do." (p. 83.) After having been fooled for four years by Polish counter-intelligence, the OPC decided in 1952 to cancel about a third of operations in Eastern Europe. There were plans to make use of Hungarian [probably fascist] paramilitary activities, but according to Gati, there is no evidence of anything coming out of plans like this. "In any case, except for Radio Free Europe (RFE) and its programs of information and propaganda, the CIA did not have any serious Hungarian operations on the eve of the 1956 revolt." (p. 95.)

"During the 1956 revolt [..] the CIA did not have a single Hungarian-speaking agent in a nearby Western European capital and only one in Budapest. It certainly did not have a fighting unit ready to enter Hungary and assist the revolutionaries. Moreover, if the CIA had chosen to transfer arms or ammunition ot Hungarian insurgents at that time, which headquarters on October 29 specifically and formally refused to permit, the transfer could not have taken place because - incredibly - the CIA did not know 'the exact location and nature' of weapons that might be available to it in Western Europe." (p. 95-96.)

Moscow and Budapest in 1956. The beginnings of the revolt

Changing leadership in the Hungarian party was, more than anything, a function of the post-Stalin power struggle in the CPSU. "As a result of a temporary hard-line alliance between Molotov and Khruschev at the turn of 1954-55, Malenkov lost out - and so Nagy, Malenkov's protégé, had to go too." (p. 113.) In a meeting in Moscow in January 1955, the Soviet politburo took Mátyas Rákosi's side against Nagy, who refused to engage in "self-criticism", and was soon dismissed from all his positions, and even expelled from the party. "Thought the Kremlin wanted to keep Nagy in reserve, Rákosi did not." (p. 126.)

But soon "support for Rákosi [..] began to fade in mid-1955 when Khruschev, despite Molotov's opposition, made up with Tito's Yugoslavia; support for Rákosi further eroded in the aftermath of the 20th CPSU Congress in 1956." (p. 135.)

In June, riots broke out in Poznan, Poland. This gave the Soviet leaders further reason to get rid of Rákosi, who was an old Stalin man. When Anastas Mikoyan stopped in Budapest on his way to Yugoslavia, he unofficially told Rákosi to resign. Ernö Gerö took his place, by unanimous vote in the Hungarian party CC. Nagy was admitted back into the party a few months later, in October, as Khruschev's show of goodwill to Tito. In exchange Tito agreed to receive Gerö in Belgrade. Nagy did not have to engage in "self-criticism". (p. 140.)

"The fires of the Hungarian revolution were set off on October 21, 1956, by students at the University of Szeged and then at Budapest's Technical University, who defied the authorities by re-establishing - for the first time since 1948 - an independent organization called the Association of Hungarian University Students, known by its Hungarian acronym MEFEZS. Then, on October 23, thousands of young Hungarians in Budapest walked to the statue of Jósef Bem, a revered Polish general who fought for Hungarian independence in 1848, to show solidarity with with the Poles' struggle for change." (p. 143.) The ministry of Internal affairs banned the rally at first when it was already in progress, but then a bit later lifted the ban. At this point, Nagy thought that the government should not have caved in under pressure.

About 200 000 people had gathered in the Kossuth Square, and Nagy was asked to speak to them. He addressed the crowd as "comrades", which drew disapproval; in the end he managed to get a few pity points by finishing his tangled speech with the national anthem.

Soon the party CC met to discuss personnel issues. Gerö was on the phone to Moscow talking about Soviet troops already stationed in the country helping restore order. With most CC members absent, "the Central Committee dismissed from the Politburo the worst Stalinists from Rákosi's entourage. Nagy, together with Szántó, joined the Politburo." (p. 148.)

"Before the opening of the archives in 1989 and the publication of new memoirs, it was possible to imagine that Nagy was guided by a sense of realism: that he shied away from supporting the insurgents because he knew his reformist agenda was the limit beyond which the Kremlin would not go. Given the archival evidence, that interpretation can now be dismissed. In fact, the Kremlin sent conflicting messages to Nagy, with its chied troublemaker, Anastas Mikoyan, eventually even approving the formation of a multiparty system." (p. 150.)

"In the morning of the 24th, Rádió Kossuth declared martial law in Nagy's name", but in reality Nagy had been the only one in the party headquarters who had not approved Gerö's request for Soviet intervention. In the end, András Hegedüs put his name in the paper retroactively. (p. 151.) The next day, János Kádár replaced Gerö as the chairperson. The police refused to side either with the party's old guard or with the insurgents.

Who were the insurgents?

Gati refers to the research by Lászlo Eörsi and his colleagues at the Institute for the Study of the 1956 Revolution for information on the nature and origins of the revolt. "What emerged from these studies was that the revolt was indeed completely spontaneous. Clearly, it began at Rádió Kossuth during the night of October 23, when student delegations were barred from entering the building and putting on the air their sixteen-point demands." "As to the outbreak of fighting, it began, partly because of the location of the radio station, in Pest, and that was the part of the city that witnessed the most intensive fighting throughout the revolt. From there, young men spread out in search of trucks and weapons. They had relatively easy time collecting what they wanted because they encountered little or no resistance at various depots and at nearby army barracks. in four depots, they sequestered some 150 trucks immediately." "The crowd, by then dominated by young workers rather than students, drove all around during the night, roaming the city's avenues and streets, some carrying national flags, others just shouting slogans like 'Down with Gerö!' When a group of angry people showed up at the Kilián Barracks, not far from the state radio headquarters, some 200 soldiers also joined them." "At one time or another during the revolt, an estimated 15,000 people took part in the armed insurgency. With very few exceptions, they were young [..] they were also - as in all modern revolutions - mostly uneducated and mostly unskilled workers. Though no reliable information is available about the background of all 15,000 (or even most) insurgents, in some units nine in ten had only eight years of education and nine in ten were physical workers. Almost 30 percent of the total number of the Széna Square insurgents whose past could be studied had a criminal record, but a third of those with a record committed 'crimes' for illegal border crossing, that is, attempts to escape from Communist Hungary, and similar political offenses against an oppressive state. Thus, while as many as about one in five had run into nonpolitical legal problems prior to 1956, allegations made by the Kremlin to justify the use of force - that the revolt was started by criminals - were nonetheless false. On the whole, the rebels were neither hooligans nor, for sure, upper-class elements trying to return the country to pre-1945 'feudal' or 'fascist' conditions. [..] Of the thousands of fighters identified, for example, only two or three were military officers in the prewar, authoritarian Miklós Horthy regime.(p. 156-157.)

On October 25, around 10 000 people gathered in front of the Parliament building. It is unclear who started the shooting, but the outcome was that 60-80 protesters ended up dead, shot by the army and militia, and 100-150 were injured. "Facing fire, the insurgents felt they had no option but to move on from trying to make improvements to trying to make radical changes. Products of a system that professed to build a new socialist economic, social, and political order, the insurgents initially rebelled against the failure of that ideal, not the ideal itself; they may have even rebelled against their own failed illusions about the promise of socialism. It was telling that their key original demand focused on the return to power of Imre Nagy, a man they learned to respect in 1953-55 as a Communist reformer - rather than Admiral Horthy, Jośef Cardinal Mindszenty, or even such leaders of Hungary's democratic interlude of 1945-47 as the Smallholders' Zoltán Tildy." (p. 159)

On this point I have to note one of the weaknesses of the Gati study. It focuses very much on the political upper level developments (in the government, in the CIA etc), and background material such as that above does not abound as much as one would hope for.

The Soviets had already been preparing for unrest in Hungary since July. The plan, codenamed 'Wave', "called for the restoration or order in less than six hours". (p. 160) The decision to send 30 000 troops (6 000 of which reached Budapest by the 24th) was made after fighting had broken out at the Rádio Kossuth building in Pest.

Over in the US, the administration was not so enthusiastic about the events. The presidential race was a few weeks from election day, and it was considered more of a problem. President Eisenhower's advisor Harold Stassen even suggested that "a message of assurance should be sent immediately to the Kremlin in which the United States would state its lack of interest in drawing Hungary into NATO but would consider the neutralization of that country on the Austrian pattern." This modest proposal was all that the US could do at this point, after years of rhetoric about "rollback" and "liberation". The CIA was just as clueless. (p. 163-165.)

The CIA, however, tried to get something going after having been woken up. "Sometime between October 26 and November 4, two CIA contact agennts entered Hungary" (p. 166.) When they cabled to Washington for orders, the reply they got said that "'we must restrict ourselves to information only, that agents sent to the border must not get involved in anything that would reveal U.S. interest or give cause to claim intervention, that [word excised] should try to get the identities of activists, and that there might be the possibility of passing in radio equipment a little later.' The next day, a subsequent instruction made it clear that 'it was not permitted to send U.S. weapons in.'" (p. 166-167.)

Meanwhile RFE was campaigning for the overthrow of Nagy's government - a slogan that was out of touch with the main demand of the insurrectionists.

The government and insurrectionists reach a modus vivendi of sorts

At the party Politburo meeting on 28th, Nagy argued, for the first time, vigorously for change. In his opinion, a popular uprising was taking place. Later the same day, Nagy delivered a radio speech, for which he had gotten green light from the Soviet Embassy. In it, he said that the insurgents were not counterrevolutionaries, but a "'broad democratic mass movement'. He put himself, and his government, at the head of a struggle that aimed at 'guaranteeing our national freedom, independence, and sovereignty, of advancing our society, our economic and political system on the way of democracy - for this is the only foundation of socialism in our country." He announcede a general cease-fire, amnesty for insurrectionists, and pledged to dissolve the secret police. (p. 173.)

On 30th, the announced the end of the one-party system. "And it came with Mikoyan's explicit approval". (p. 175.)

This proved to be one of the triggers that made Khruschev change his mind. As it happens, initially the CPSU politburo, on the 28th, "very reluctantly" chose to support the new direction of the Hungarians. Surprisingly, even Molotov was on board and accepted the politburo declaration, in which "the Soviet government stated its willingness 'to withdraw the Soviet military units from the city of Budapest as soon as this was considered necessary by the Hungarian government.' The declaration also affirmed that negotiations could begin about the whole 'question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary.'" The declaration was published in Pravda on 31st, and "As the minutes from Russian archives now prove [..] the declaration was indeed authentic. Deception was not the name of the game - not yet." (p. 180)

The US acknowledged the Soviet declaration, but that was that. The US administration had, in fact, become to doubt the usefulness of the kind change in the the European status quo that the Soviet declaration seemed to imply: if the Soviets were to pull out from a country in their sphere of influece, that would put pressure on the US to reciprocate.

Khruschev changes his mind

At this point, on 30th, the attack on the party headquarters in Budapest and the lynching of the people inside (also of ordinary people working in the building, not just members of the secret police) took place. (As it happens, both Gati and Sakari Selin were there to witness the scene of corpses being mutilated on the street.) "Two critical events of the day in Budapest - the lynching of secret police officers in Republic Square in the morning and announcing the reutnr to the multiparty system after lunch - appear to have convinced khruschev that Nagy and other Communists were too weak to maintain order. (Of course, Mikoyan, without his colleagues' full backing, had assured both Nagy and Tildy that the Kremlin had no objections to the formation of a multiparty political order.)" (p. 189.)

On the morning of 1 November, Nagy received the news of Russian troops crossing the border. Once informed about the invasion, Nagy ordered a news blackout on the issue, and called the Soviet Ambassador Andropov who was unavailable for some time. Having reached him in the afternoon, Andropov lied to Nagy that everything was in order; Nagy didn't believe him, and said that he had no choice but to withdraw unilaterally from the Warsaw Pact and notify the UN of his decisions. On 8 PM, Nagy went on air to proclaim the "neutrality of the Hungarian People's Republic". He had the backing of his government (including Kádár). (p. 196.)

On the 4th, when the Russians were already attacking Budapest, its confused citizens not knowing what was going on, Nagy and several other reform-minded communists fled to the Yugoslav embassy. Meanwhile the Soviets had asked János Kádár to take over and replace Nagy, behind the latter's back. Kádár had been a strong supported of the multiparty system, but decided to change his mind when facing the option of Rákosi and his entourage taking over instead. He also led Nagy and others to believe that they could leave the Yugoslav embassy safely and go home, when in reality he set them up to be captured by the KGB and flown to Romania where he was sentenced to death in 1958. (p. 198, 234.)

"The ultimate Soviet decision to intervene was prompted primarily by the violence on Republic Square; by the emerging unity of purpose between most insurgents and the Nagy government; by the misunderstanding triggered by Mikoyan's acceptance of a Hungarian political order that brought about Nagy's declaration reinstituting Hungary's post-war multiparty system in the early afternoon of October 30, or about sixteen to eighteen hours before the Kremlin's change of policy the next morning; and by the Kremlin's fear of spreading disorder in the Soviet bloc." (p. 215.)

I think the danger of a fascist takeover seems more like an explanation that was arrived at post-hoc, when the Soviets needed a good reason for having done what they did. Sakari Selin's book - which is a collection of his diary and articles he wrote from Budapest during 1955-1957 - follows more or less the "official" line. He even says that the revolt was planned "down to its finest detail", something that I cannot believe in light of Gati's work, which I consider to be much better sourced; Selin doesn't offer any sources, apart from having been there and "seen it with his own eyes".

Now I don't mean to say that there was absolutely no fascist elements anywhere trying to do whatever nasty things, trying to return to prewar fascism etc. I just haven't seen any good evidence for that, not in this thread or anywhere else. I don't mean to imply that I'm well-read on the topic.. I'm not. But unless someone can point to a book like Gati's, with references to original sources or similar research, I'm afraid I won't be convinced of a real fascist threat in Hungary in 1956.

---

Then the comments. They are in no specific order, chronological or otherwise. Apologies.

Manic Expression:
The only feasible option left to the imperialists was covert operations, and so as the CIA report I posted shows, they tried to work with the militias and give support in different ways.

DJ-TC:
Sources from the CIA show that there was only one CIA officer present in Budapest at the time. He spent most of his time "purchasing envelopes and stamps", and interviewing visitors to the embassy. Look at the first sentence of the document you presented (and while you're at it look at all other CIA documents concerning Hungary 1956).

Manic Expression:
the CIA had only one case officer in Budapest when the revolt BROKE OUT, after which they quickly assigned as many agents to the country as they could, and they most certainly did not purchase envelopes and stamps. The CIA didn't see the revolt coming, and I have never claimed the CIA staged or incited the incident, it simply responded to it; however, what is also made clear by these records is that the militias WERE willing to work with the CIA.

S. Zetor:
In general I think Manic Expression is making too much of the CIA connections in Hungary at the time of the revolt. At least I'm convinced by Gati's research that the CIA didn't really have a clue what was going on, nor any influence to mention of there (apart from RFE, which did have an influence). On this point I'm with DJ-TC.

---

DJ-TC:
Here, in this paragraph of the UN special committee report, based on documents from the revolution and 111 witnesses, is the summary of the goals, demands and aspirations that lead to the revolt of 23rd October 1956:

"Among the first written demands put forward by student organizations were demands for political changes in Hungary, for real Hungarian independence, and for attention to the grievances of workers. The students thus became, with the writers, a mouthpiece for the Hungarian people as a whole. Their objective was not to criticize the principles of Communism as such. Rather, as Marxists, they were anxious to show that the system of government obtaining in Hungary was a perversion of what they held to be true Marxism. The first protests of such writers against the prevailing repression of thought brought them closer to the Hungarian people as a whole, since they found them to be suffering in an inarticulate way from the same lack of freedom." (par. 397; my underlines)

S. Zetor:
This captures my (and Gati's) understanding of the events as well.

Actually, a rather good account, which fits in with things in the Gati book, is found here:

http://wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hun1-o25.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/hung-o26.shtml

WSWS is the website of the ultra-sectarian Socialist Equality Party, and naturally this article too has the obvious "lessons" that the Hungarian revolution was just like the October revolution (with dual power and all, so it must be right!), and that the real truth was all the time proclaimed by the trotskyists, except of course for Ernest Mandel and Michel Pablo (we hates them forever!!!) Despite this in-your-face jehova's witnesses style trotskyism, I think the article is good, and I would be interested in reading more non-propagandistic accounts on the Hungarian workers' councils.

---

International Communist Current article posted by Leo:
On the night of the 23rd and 24th October 1956 the Budapest workers, followed almost immediately by those in the rest of Hungary, rose up in an armed insurrection involving the whole country.

S. Zetor:
Compared to Gati's (and others that he cites) estimate of around 15 000 people taking part in the fighting, this description is from another planet, and doesn't do very much good to the article's general credibility.

International Communist Current article posted by Leo:
It is no accident that to this very day the dominant class tries to turn Nagy and Maleter into mythical characters in the events of 1956. By presenting only these bourgeois “icons”, it gives credence to the lie that it was a “revolution for democratic and national liberation”.

CriticizeEverythingAlways:
1956 certainly was a nationalist uprising, that's for sure. Workers may have participated, but they sure as hell didn't lead it, that was where the nationalists had the advantage.

I mean, in 1989, Imre Nagy was buried as a "national hero,"

S. Zetor:
My impression is that Nagy is claimed by reactionary nationalists for his apparent "anti-communism" (i.e. anti-moscow) credentials. To me it seems rather ironic that they would appropriate a communist as their idol only because he wanted Hungary to be free from being subjected to Moscow. Seeing Nagy in this light looks more like a useless excercise in reading history backwards and attributing the past some characteristics from the present. In the same way I can't take very seriously present-day Russia's pride in having prevailed over Nazism.. objectively the significance is as progressive as ever, of course, but I suspect that the present-day content of the II world war victory celebration has more to do with national chauvinism than being against violent capitalist imperialism, even though the anti-fascist form is the same. The nature of these things change as a nation's position on the world stage changes. Finnish nationalism was justified once in the past, but nowadays it is just an excuse for maintaining imperialist privilege.

Everybody wants to claim the sacred symbols for themselves, but the content they want to pour into them can be totally different. Thus the Finnish soft left wants to save the welfare state by raising taxes and strenghtening public sector. The neoliberals want to save the welfare state, too, but they want to do it by lowering taxes and getting rid of state interference (except in times like these). The left wants to keep Finland outside Nato, because of Russia. The right wants to get Finland into Nato, because of Russia.

It's not the form of the argument but the content. If this is not paid attention to, we might just as well let our enemies make our decisions for us - we just have to see what they do and say, and do and say to the contrary. This way the enemy can control what we do and say.

---

DJ-TC:
Even though revolution was considered to be national, and one of the demands were the return of Kossuth symbols, there was no actual nationalism

S. Zetor:
I think there certainly was a genuine national component present in the 1956 revolt and, in my opinion, it was totally justified. DJ-TC's formulation about "no actual nationalism" sounds like nationalism is a cussword, and if so, I don't agree; I see nationalism having, in principle, two sides: either its an expression of (justified) feelings against national oppression (economic or otherwise), or it is an expression of chauvinist hatred towards those who are seen to be eating at our imperialist privileges (like e.g. immigrants from poor countries moving into imperialist heartlands).

---

Manic Expression:
On "Russian war taxes", the struggle to destroy Nazism took millions of Soviet lives and wreaked indescribable destruction upon the Soviet Union. The Hungarian government, for its part, essentially cooperated with Hitler's forces, volunteering men and material in the Nazi's effort to enslave eastern Europe. In light of this, it is silly to complain about reasonable and much-needed reparations which helped re-build the Soviet Union and other states in the Warsaw Pact.

Zetor:
This question is a moral one (whether they had the right or not), and in my opinion the real issue is rather that the Soviets were in a position to take what they did, against the wishes of the Hungarians, whether or not they had the moral right to do so. I'm not a proponent of "USSR social imperialism" because I haven't familiarised myself with it, but in general I certainly believe that even if it's not called "imperialism", the USSR was clearly in a position to influence other COMECON countries in a way they were not able to influence the USSR.

[Lamanov]

This captures my (and Gati's) understanding of the events as well.

What book is this and can it be found on-line?


I think there certainly was a genuine national component present in the 1956 revolt and, in my opinion, it was totally justified. DJ-TC's formulation about "no actual nationalism" sounds like nationalism is a cussword, and if so, I don't agree; I see nationalism having, in principle, two sides: either its an expression of (justified) feelings against national oppression (economic or otherwise), or it is an expression of chauvinist hatred towards those who are seen to be eating at our imperialist privileges (like e.g. immigrants from poor countries moving into imperialist heartlands).

Well, if "nationalism" fits latter description, Hungarian uprising had no actual "nationalism" in that sense.

Yes, it had a national character in both factual stance, as a "nation" liberating itself from the foreign oppression (note below), and symbolism (return of the Kossuth emblem, national flag, Petofy motives, etc.).

Of course, it was also socialist in character, because it overthrew "home-made" oppression as well: "No return to the age of landlords and bankers!"

But there was no "nationalism" in chauvinist, bourgeois sense (it was, of course, present, just like the "fascists", but it had no relevant role). There were no slogans like that, the movement was boosted by support for Poles and Polish workers, foreigners also joined the uprising, from Korean students to Russian conscripts who switched sides during the fighting.

[S. Zetor]

What book is this and can it be found on-line?

I don't think it's online (but what do I know).. I found out about it when I was googling around for material, and after consideration decided to buy it at Abebooks.co.uk 2nd hand. It's published by Stanford University Press.


But there was no "nationalism" in chauvinist, bourgeois sense (it was, of course, present, just like the "fascists", but it had no relevant role). There were no slogans like that, the movement was boosted by support for Poles and Polish workers, foreigners also joined the uprising, from Korean students to Russian conscripts who switched sides during the fighting.

Agreed.

[Lamanov]

I don't think it's online (but what do I know).. I found out about it when I was googling around for material, and after consideration decided to buy it at Abebooks.co.uk 2nd hand. It's published by Stanford University Press.

Oh, it's Failed Illusions. I know I've seen it somewhere: there's a description here (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/index.htm), at N.S.A. website.

1956 is my theses, so I'm looking for literature and sources.

[Leo]

The resemblance is where fascists call for socialist demands to woo over workers.

So socialists too must be fascists because they call for socialist demands to woo over workers. It all makes sense, calling for socialist demands is fascism, because fascists called for socialist demands :lol::rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

So socialists too must be fascists because they call for socialist demands to woo over workers. It all makes sense, calling for socialist demands is fascism, because fascists called for socialist demands :lol::rolleyes:

WTF? :confused:

Seriously, my central point is that the Hungarian "revolutionaries" really weren't "revolutionary" at all, and were coat-tailing on the gains made by the nationalist opportunists in Poland.

[Lamanov]

Coat-tailing? And yet they went miles further then Poles. :rolleyes:

A tip: putting commas doesn't disprove anything.

How can you make such bold claims while not putting forward any type of evidence? Where did you come up with an idea that Hungarians would accept a "Hungarian Gomulka" and move on? What makes you think Poles accepted their own?

This sort of argumentative free-styling is really getting tiresome.

[Leo]

WTF? :confused:

Seriously, my central point is that the Hungarian "revolutionaries" really weren't "revolutionary" at all

And you said they weren't as such because they had socialist demands, and so did the Nazis, and you said they were fascists because of this. I said that by this logic, all socialists are Nazis because all socialists have socialist demands also.


This sort of argumentative free-styling is really getting tiresome.

:lol:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

It is very well possible that fascists were among the counterrevolutionaries in Budapest.
There was a lot of reactionary, conservative, anti-communist and counterrevolutionary scum involved, so I wouldn't be surprised if the neonazis has also their part in it.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

uh but why? there was great socialism, so there was no need for nationalism.
Because there still are and always will be evil, moronic, idiotic, racist and reactionary people.

[Lamanov]

It is very well possible that fascists were among the counterrevolutionaries in Budapest.

Another voice from the grave, repeating what has been repeated.

Hundreds and hundreds of testimonials could deny participation of fascists, or at least reduce their role to extremely non-important.

Fascists were a non-issue in 1956 Hungary.

On the other hand, they were an issue in Poland at that time: the infamous ultra-stalinist clique also known as the "Natolin Group", headed by Ochab, was willing to work with "Pax", headed by fascist Boleslaw Piasecki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_Piasecki). In fact, the "Pax" clique was friendly with the regime and the "Natolin Group" (they were identified as "regime Catholics"), while the left-wing groups such as "Kryzwe Kolo" and "Po Prostu" were in opposition.

[Red Dreadnought]

Fucking Stalinists were the real "fascists" that repressed workers and people:mad:

[Honggweilo]

If you can't contradict his claims with solid evidence, rather than just rhetoric, then I suggest you leave it.
i can say the same for his "sources". Man the guy responds to a well sourced post with a rethorical one liner, a tad hypocritical to say that the OP should come up with solid evidence...

[Honggweilo]

I think that anti-semitist incidents occured during the 1956 uprising but sofar nobody has proven that the revolt was fascist. Neither that it was staged by CIA.
I suggest you read William Blum's "Killing Hope", CIA intervention since 1945 (chapter 7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor). Widely renowned scholar and author of Rouge State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_State:_A_Guide_to_the_World%27s_Only_Superpo wer), and himself not a proponent of the soviet intervention.

http://www.killinghope.org/

[S. Zetor]

Would you care to summarise his finding as regards Hungary 1956, if you've read the book and found it convincing?

[Honggweilo]

Would you care to summarise his finding as regards Hungary 1956, if you've read the book and found it convincing?
I will once i get it back from the guy who borrowed it :rolleyes: