Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Soviet perspective

The Soviet-perspective in the article of 1956 revolution is similar morbid as nazi-perspective in Holocaust aticle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never. The Soviet account is what it is. For example, guardians of the Soviet legacy insist Czechoslovakia freely chose to become a Soviet satellite. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talking about removed content in 'International relations'

There were complaints[1] concerning removal of material recently recently inserted by an editorial newcomer. When I read the section on international relations, it talked about only Hungarian-Soviet relations, so I added some material from an existing ref discussing US-Hungarian relations at the time. The article is specifically about this historic event from a POV that had yet to but included in the run-up discussion; it is admittedly couched in more general Eastern European terms, because that was the state of the world condition at the time. Yet in the international reactions section, after the fact, the only thing previously noted was that the US/UN did nothing until after the 2nd invasion. I added there a very well sourced why (because the Suez Crisis happened). Now, if there are problems that this is addition in an earlier section is somehow geographically inappropriate, as stated, then one could modify the first sentence by adding toward Hungary and the Eastern bloc generally. I believe that would properly address the editorial complaint in the edit summary. If that reason is not sufficient, then I do not understand. I do question, if the edit summary is valid, why the last 3 sentences (starting 'In the summer of 1956,...) were also deleted; that seems very Hungary specific. If most of the international post-event mostly discusses what the US/UN was doing, I considered that the international pre-crisis discussion should include some discussion of what was going on at the time on that front. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In reviewing your two edits that were removed by Paul, my opinion is that the first edit (regarding the reaction of the US to Soviet intervention being influenced by the Suez crisis) is right on target and belongs in that location. There is a minor issue in that the cited article is only freely available as an abstract at the link, although this is not contrary to Wikipedia policy (WP:SOURCEACCESS). As far as the second paragraph, discussing the changing relations between the US and Hungary in the run up to the uprising, I think the placement in the International events section is again correct. I understand the reason for the initial several sentences, although perhaps this could be more concisely stated by a single statement on US policy to Eastern Europe, with a Wikilink to the rollback article. Nevertheless, the last few sentences are very topical and I think should be restored.
Maybe Paul and some other editors could look at this again and comment. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
After considering these comments, and not wanting to wait longer, I have edited the text to incorporate those and re-inserted it in the same location. A linked Cold War was also added, since I noted that (despite being included in the visual-glitz Military Conflict info-box at the top right) it had only received mention unlinked in the 11th sub-section of the article. This seems improperly weighted. While not willing to push it, I do note that the briefest linked mention in the lede paragraph is appropriate per notability; it would provide the broader contemporaneous world-view-context that a Wiki-article should present, and that would be ‘for the benefit of the readers’, as some say. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit and comments. I think it is a good addition to the article. Ryanjo (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

revolutionary councils edit by DeepQuasar

I have removed the edit by DeepQuasar for several reasons:

  1. This detail is already covered in the existing sentence about the local revolutionary councils already in the lead paragraph,
  2. Length is not appropriate for the lead paragraph, which is meant to be a brief outline,
  3. The statement makes POV comments that are not supported by the reference cited (specifically thus establishing a socialist economy free of rigid party control ),
  4. This detail about the workers councils is already mentioned, with cites, under the section The New Hungarian Govenment.

As always, I support discussing any new material added to this article here before making changes. Ryanjo (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

first sentence is about 50 years out of date

the first sentence "the Hungarian Revolution[4] of 1956 (Hungarian: 1956-os forradalom) was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956" is laughably out of date. Obviously I'm referring to the connotation of this particular phrasing. The great thing about history is, in less than 20 more years (I will be in my mid-forties) everyone who would use this ridiculously outdated phrasing will be dead. So I don't have to waste my breath on any debate, but just let time do its work. (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that the OP is complaining about the term "People's Republic of Hungary" which is the correct name at the time of the revolt. So no actual problem. (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


THIS, this is worth keeping FOREVER: Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956#Soviet_version_of_the_events I'm not going to mention why it's worth keeping forever. Anyone who reads this can see that this is pure gold ;-) (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fascist, Hitlerite, reactionary, counter-revolutionary hooligans financed by the imperialist west" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn...oh, sorry, was that you ranting? Ryanjo (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Weighting & Sourcing in relation to Workers Councils

I'm still disappointed in the weighting regarding the workers councils. It was one the key objects of note, the reason for CP splits in the UK and Australia, a main motivator for intervention, and the central narrative structure of left wing accounts of the revolution. "Social unrest builds" more or less elides the Petofi Circle and Julia Rajk's campaign. The section on the workers' councils in the New Government doesn't note the planned Parliament of Workers Councils which had its eye very firmly on the industrial economy (though considered itself apolitical). The section on the Soviet Intervention and Aftermath also downplays the fact that the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest was functional into December, called off the armed resistance at its formation, and conducted direct negotiations with Soviet authorities despite repeated total arrests (they kept going well after the violation of the Yugoslavian embassy acting as a counter government to Kadar). I mean Gyula Háy had been arguing for workers councils at public meetings in regional areas for about a month prior to 23 October as the Writers Union president, and the first workers councils were established prior to 22 October, some before MEFESZ got off the ground. Given the current sourcing, these could be pulled directly from a combination of biographies (Háy, Aczel & Meray), post war reports, and official council documents collected in English. (I'd estimate a sentence cost of about five sentences added to existing paragraphs). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


One of the demands of the Hungarian 'revolutionaries' was the ability to sell uranium to the Americans, during the Cold War. Also, it should not be discarded that until 1945 Hungary was a fascist state, no matter how harsh the post-war repression, there was literally still thousands of former card-carrying fascists free in the country, and during the 56 'Revolution'. Do you think these guys, who were mostly armymen too, just stood around? That's why it's also not surprising that another one of the demands was the in-statement of new 'national' military uniforms, which is obviously code for reinstating the former fascist army uniforms.

The Nagi government was unable, or unwilling, to curb the activities of these 'revolutionaries' (actually formers fascists and nazi collaborators), who were openly murdering socialists in the streets.

This article is a whitewash for fascism and Nazism, which was the entire basis of the Hungarian 'Revolution' of 56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungary was, during WWII, a fascist state and an (increasingly reluctant) Axis power. Ok. what? Brutal and exploitive postwar communist oppression is justified if it is a cure to 'fascism?' West Germany was also full of ex-fascists (even worse, ex-Nazis) but whaddya know, the West managed to avoid a Fourth Reich without cruel repression and repeated invasions. Whether the Hungarian rebels were left-leaning or right-leaning, they had a right to take their country back from the Russian hegemony. Take your deranged Soviet apologetics elsewhere. (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  One of the demands of the Hungarian 'revolutionaries' was the ability to sell uranium to the Americans, during the Cold War

haha do u really believe this? never ever heard it in my life. did Hungary had some great deposits of uranium that weren't available all over the world at similar price? let me guess, U.S. fomented the uprising to get Hungary's precious uranium, lol. and all of Hungary was going to get rich selling a few million dollars worth uranium to u.s., lol. what world are u living in?

oh, i see now. the Soviets were stealing Hungary's uranium for themselves. The lousy Hungarians had the gall to demand that they sell their own minerals to the highest bidder on the free market, whoever that might be. Understand that thru 2008, CANADA AND THE U.S. HAD PRODUCED AS MUCH URANIUM AS THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. so i doubt that the U.S. was terribly interested in Hungarian uranium in particular. you really have to have a perverted socialist/communist totalitarian mind to blame the soviet slaughter of hungarians on the fact that the hungarians might sell some of their own uranium to the u.s. "what's yours is mine"

Thinhun's recent edits

In relation to this diff ought we accept blog posts, and original research derived from photographic interpretation, in a featured article? Ought we accept unsourced speculation such as, "This massacre compelled the Soviet Politbureau to reverse their previous decision to withdraw from Hungary, thus they sent in new troops to reoccupy Hungary." in a featured article? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I support your reversion of Thinhun's edits. The absurd number of Soviet forces was clearly careless, and some of his changes ("Hungarian Working People's Party members" members to "communists") actually diminishes the accuracy of the account. The photo blog by Mr. Holmes is unreferenced narrative describing historic photos (which are likely lifted from some copyrighted source -- not very Wikipedian). The guidelines on blogs (WP:SELFPUB) limit their use as sources to "sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves". Clearly not the case here. The blog reference of 230 deaths has the dual issues of being a personal blog post and being untranslated Hungarian. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

from thinhun on 30 October 2011 : I do not understand why you reversed my additions. The number of executions between 1957 and 1961 (230) comes from an article written by a historian in the magazine Historia. Janos Kadar is quoted as saying that the number of executions should match but should not exceed the number of "our" lynched and executed, and this is what his regime did. (By the way, not all lynched people were Party members, their numbers included conscripted troops on Koztarsasag square, for instance). Mr Jeszenszky, who comes up with a higher number is a politician. The whole issue is fraught with current Hungarian politics, and this is what one should avoid. I prefer researched data to myths. If you read the protocols of the Soviet Politbureau meetings, you see that it was really the lynchings on Koztarsasag square on October 30 that pushed them next day to reverse their previous decision to withdraw and to order the reinvasion of Hungary. —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

You cite works which are not acceptable in a featured article: blogs. Your citations do not allow verification: Historia, as you cited it, doesn't appear to exist; you miscited the Hungarian government white book, and didn't provide page numbers for your claim. You conducted original research: drawing a supposition from a photograph at Koztarsasag square; reading the Presidium minutes. These practices aren't acceptable on wikipedia. You need to find claims in scholarly secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

from thinhun on 30 October 2011 : is a quotation from an article in a journal considered a blog? I do not get it. "Historia" is a monthly magazine in Hungary, it definitely exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinhun (talkcontribs) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

from thinhun on 30 October 2011 : I just found the article online. Go to, find the old issue from 2006/10, select Janos M. Rainer's article, scroll down and you will see the number of executed (230) for participating in the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinhun (talkcontribs) 23:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Thinhun (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There are more than 25 academic journals called "Historia," do you mean ISSN 0139-2409? The Rainer article covers 230 judicial killings. Extrajudicial and summary killings also need to be accounted for. To cite Rainer, you'd need to cite him as John M. Rainer (2006) "Restauráció és megtorlás 1956 mártírjai" [Restoration and retribution 1956 martyrs] Historia (Hungary, ISSN:01392409) 10: [page numbers]. Or if you're citing the web version only it is at paragraph 17. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
An example of a useful citation, from the same issue of História as the Rainer article, is, "György Litván (2006) "Mítoszok és legendák 1956-ról" [Myths and Legends 1956] História (Hungary, ISSN:01392409) : ¶¶1–22 in the online edition." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Quality

I see there's a bit of a to-do. Unfortunately we appear to have lost some citations in the occupation section. If we wish to maintain FA status, we need to have that fixed. Also, let's all discuss changes here first. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 00:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of breaking this into its own section. I've been disappointed in the quality of sourcing since my ill advised attempt to FAR the article to get improvement. We have lost some citations:
  • LOC country studies aren't high quality reliable sources; the claims they're cited for are indisputable (unless we've got some unreconstructed members of the CPSU(b) who are stuck in December 1956). If any claims are disputed we ought to be able to cite them readily from scholarly monograph histories of Hungary post 1944 (of which there are many, Litván's short book might be a good high order summary from a "respected" scholar).
  • We have lost, and will lose, the blogs, material published in the immediate aftermath which wasn't subject to vigorous review (ie: the primaries), newspaper articles (they're not HQRS, a central FA Criteria) etc. Almost all of the content produced from these is either unlikely to be disputed (by anyone with sense), and should be referenced against HQRS (again, Litván for the non-specialist sections).
  • Eventually we need to back up the UN report. I am willing to accept that the vigorous review process of the day covers both the UN report, and the HSWP "White Book" for _facts_. The various parties to the cold war were in the habit of ripping each other to shreds over facts. I'm much less willing to accept the analyses of either of these, or similar works. Similarly, I'm willing to accept Litván's critique of Lomax's over emphasis—I'd agree with Litván's 2006 assessment that we should rely primarily on the new historical scholarship. Another "eventual" for me would be to enhance the emphasis placed on workers councils and the national councils, our article reflects the "national unity" and "pure revolution" myths far too much at the moment—but I'd rely on the focus present in Litván for weighting that eventuality. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't checked the article in a while. I'd suggest Paul Lendvai's account of the revolution as another source to round out the article. Might review the lengthy not applicable sources list to see if it throws the baby out with the bathwater anywhere—I didn't have the energy to dissect it all at the time (but a lower priority). PЄTЄRS J V TALK 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
While I hate to suggest anyone's reading material is dodgy, This review in IRSH is actually rather scathing for the generally quite polite discourse amongst Eastern European historians (compare to Litván's gentle chiding of Lomax's over emphasis). In particular the review slams Lendvai's lack of complexity in competition and cooperation within Soviet, Revolutionary and Counter-revolutionary forces. Regarding evaluative judgements, "tendentious…and at worst could be considered unscholarly." However, the review is quite favourable about the book's account on post-revolutionary myth making and post-revolutionary historiography. Possibly the strongest criticism made is that this reflects a pre-1989 mode of scholarship in its fact and opinion, and that scholarly and non-scholarly opinion are blended. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Yes, it's a good idea to have a historiography section, but not one based on revisionism/myth-busting by a single author, so I've removed it until someone can write a much more complete and nuanced section.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The enemy

I am Hungarian and I taught in school that all of the Hungarian revolution was only on the side of the Soviets was a war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutheran5 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)