Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 1

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

I think we should write about the Petofi Circle (Petofi Kor)

Article name

I don't see why we needed to move the page from Hungarian Revolution, 1956 to 1956 Hungarian Revolution. The former is the Library of Congress entry for the subject and conforms to the preferred style listed in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(years_in_titles). The latter is not a standard indexing term--the plain text version is usually The Hungarian Revolution of 1956--and is less recommended in the style guide. User:fifelfoo

That is not an accepted convention. It is a "Conventions under consideration" see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Hungarian Revolution, 1956 is not a natural term that would be linked to within the running text of an article, while 1956 Hungarian Revolution is. --mav 02:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

25-50 thousands Hungarian deaths?

The page listed 25 to 50 thousand Hungarian deaths. It did not specifically state if they are revolutionary deaths or a combination of revolutionary and civilian deaths. If the casualties refer to revolutionaries only, how did so many die from 10/23 to 11/03? Were they killed in action or death as a result of executions afterwards, if any?

Before the revolution's brief one-week victory the communist secret police paramilitary killed circa 700 protesters with barrage fire in several hungarian cities. About 150 (I think) communist party officials and secret police members were lynched during the revolution. In the fights of the November 4 invasion the soviets lost 2000 troops, about half of them dead and the other half wounded or defected. I have no figure for hungarian civilian and army/insurgent losses to counter that, but 25-50k seems too high. (In comparision the entire Red Army siege of nazi held Budapest in 1944-45 took 20k dead in civilians and that was serious street-by-street ground fighting for two months uninterrupted, a lot of the city was demolished.)
However, at least 200k magyar people fled Hungary when they saw the revolution being crushed. The communist Kádár then came into power and the "blood-triumvirate" of "Kádár-Apró-Dögei" ordered circa 500 revolutionary figures (leaders and street-fighters alike) to be sentenced to death, about 300 of them were actually hanged, the rest were commuted to lenghty imprisonments.
Gyurcsanyi, an ex-communist youth leader and current PM of Hungary took the granddaughter of Antal Apro for wife and he continues to live in the same luxury villa where the purge list meetings of the triumvirate were held, where death sentences were pre-assigned for staged trials. A stupid country we hungarians are...
You're still a bit short. The period of NKVD direct persecution of the councils / councillists accounted for 1500 *media announced deaths* in impeccable party-controlled sources (see Congress of Captive Nations reports i-iv). Summary and "on-the-spot" executions for striking, bearing arms, or suspicion of sedition would of course be higher. Remember that striking (&tc) were summary offenses in to mid-1957. Fifelfoo 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
25-50K dead is almost certainly overstated. Many refugees who fled Hungary during and after the revolution had strong motive to dissapear as completely as possible and would not have dispelled rumours of their deaths - indeed would have cultivated them. Even today, there are many 1956 refugees who still refuse to even visit Hungary lest they encounter certain people. The wounds of this glorious tragedy run deep and will only dissapear with that and the following generation. Istvan 19:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

According to my sources (Rudolf Pihoya), casualities were: Hungarians: 1250 - killed; 19226 - wounded Soviet troops: 720 - lost; 1540 - wounded --Nixer 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of Socialism demand debate

An IP user changed "continuation of socialism" into "discontinuation of socialism". I have reverted it. Reverting requires some citation. cites: Aczel & Meray /Revolt of the Mind/ 1959. Mitchener /The Bridge at Andau/ 1957. Sza'sz /Volunteers for the Gallows/ ~1960s (Sza'sz was a Smallholder politician and revolutionary mayor of Budapest). Cardinal Mindzinsky's Radio address on or about 2 November 1956, RFE/RA Transcripts. Bone /Seven Years Solitary/ ~1957. Fryer /Hungarian Tragedy/ 1956. Woroszylski "Hungarian Diary", article in Po Prostu. Also see the extensive and multi-party perspective reporting from the Imre Nagy Research Institute 1957-

As far as the workers council demand of the Hungarian working class, read the demands in Lomax /Workers Council/ which is /the/ exhaustive English language source, mostly derived from Samizdats from the Hungarian opposition movements in the 1960s and 1970s plus refugee reports. If people still think this isn't enough I'll fair use a major demand sheet to demonstrate. Or just read Nagy, Bala'zs "Budapest 1956: The Central Workers Council" in Lomax /Eyewitness in Hungary/.

While contemporary right wing Hungarians, and Americans throughout the ages, have a firm desire to believe in 1956 being anti-socialist, the central demands of every free collective was the maintenance of socialism. Fifelfoo 21:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What are the sources for the Soviet soldiers' mindsets? The reference that some thought they were in Berlin or *Egypt* feels a bit odd; could someone corroborate that?

The corps of Soviet soldiers who did not stop the revolution in its first days were replaced by allegedly uneducated soldiers from the Soviet interior who would be more obedient and effective. It is postulated by many Hungarians that Red Army commanders misled them into believing they were mobilising to fight a counterrevolutionary uprising of Germans (anti-German sentiment among Russians was still very high) or in the Suez - where military action was then taking place - instead of putting down a(n embarrasing) popular uprising in a brother socialist state. This may be to some large extent propoganda to dehumanize the enemy, but it is true that the units which broke the revolution on 4 Nov. originated from within the Soviet Union proper. Certainly, the ruse was short-lived, and if true then any culpability lies with the Soviet commanders. As for an assessment of the soldiers' collective geographical gullibility, we have only anecdotal evidence. Istvan 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Having to spoken to my dad and granddad over the years, both of whom fought in the Hungarian revolution. They have on occasion mentioned a Russian soldier who was captured, who believed he was in Hungary to fight against German Nazi’s who had come to Hungary. My dad mentioned another one who thought he was in Syria.

Hungarian Radio Commentator

Apparently at the time of this revolution BBC World Service rebroadcast the reports of a commentator who informed people what was going on. My informants in County Wicklow who heard these broadcasts in 1956 do not remember her name, but it may have been Ilona or Elona. She seems to have been a spokesperson on a reactionary native Hungarian radio station. She described the resistence people in front the tanks quite explicitly, and very shortly thereafter these reports through the BBC World Service ceased. Does anyone know more about this? It seems fitting that she should be remembered by the Wikipedia. Evertype 18:42, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Wotcher. Radio Free Europe / Radio America published two transcriptions of radio broadcasts originating from Hungary. The first in Hungarian (complete). The second in English (extracts). The English extracts contain a number of reports of tanks &tc., memorably the revolutionaries' reports of fighting in Parliament Square on the 6th, and fighting in Cspel. Around the 28/29th October Radio Kossuth was occupied by its employees and broadcast as Radio Free Kossuth for a while. If you'd like I could probably dig up some RFE/RA transcripts and add one or two. Unfortunately the translators (US Government) would still hold copyright. Fifelfoo 23:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that information about these commentaries would be a good addition to this article. In particular if the name of the commentator could be found, since here career as a commentator was cut short one way or another. Evertype 08:47, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

April 21 edits

  1. "The revolt was suppressed by the ÁVH assisted by Soviet troops." I reversed the order of the organisations. My historical reading, particularly of the official Kadar "White Book" series, and on Budapest Central Workers Council/Soviet negotiations place much more emphasis on the role of Soviet troops in supressing the revolt. The AVH appears to have been completely dysfunctional from the 25th. Additionally the (effectively) AVH battalions set up after November 6 were irrelevent. Thus I reversed the word order to correct the emphasis.
  2. Caused "revolt" and "rebels" to agree, thus "revolt" and "revolters" in my edit.
  3. "firm up pro-Warsaw pact governments" is better expression. I still believe "Moscow line" is more accurate, but this is more elegant and simply expressed.
  4. Credibility of the Soviet/Chinese historiography of the revolution. It isn't. It should be stated. Its a historiography that's explicitly rejected by most specialists. Rephrased the POV to indicate that it is the POV held by professional historians of Hungary 1956.Fifelfoo 06:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


How come the picture subtitle is "Hungarians investigate a disabled Soviet tank" but the filename of the picture is "Hungarians_attack_tank_.jpg"? I think the subtitle should be changed.

The file name is wrong and should be changed. The caption is correct and should remain. They're not attacking it. The Hungarian attacks on tanks in 1956 look very different. For one, the people in the photo are milling aimlessly around, not trying to hit the exposed fuel cap with molotov cocktails. Fifelfoo 05:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This picture of the soviet T-34 Tank is indeed, not getting attacked by the hungarians. The picture is actually used on several other pages on wikipedia such as; T-34. In those pages it is discribed as being examined by curious citizens. Johny Bravo 19:53, 15 Nov 2005

Role of the AVH in the revolution

Items in debate

  1. Number of deaths at the Radio station caused by AVH
  2. Number of deaths at Parliament square massacre caused by AVH
  3. To what extent the AVH was a force in being after Nagy's release from Party captivity around the 26th
  4. To what extent was the AVH a force in being after the renewal of battle on November 4
  5. Of the AVH, Soviet Military, and Soviet State Security forces; which were responsible for the majority of arrests after the second ceasefire?

More than three people were killed at the Radio Station on the 23rd, the battle lasting until early morning. Quite a number of people were killed at Parliament square, but I'd have to dig out eye witness accounts to give a number better than my recollected 50-200. After 26/10 the AVH collapsed along with the party. After November 4, remaining AVH forces were scraps, and barely organised. The Soviet Military, and Soviet State Security forces were primarily responsible for the period of reaction, mainly due to the total disintegration of the AVH, see, for example, the arrest of the Greater Budapest Workers Council. Fifelfoo 04:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Terms

Although personally, I think the uprising is justified given the dictatorship. However, should we remove some of the potentially NPOV terms? For example, the term freedom fighter should be replaced with revolutionaries instead. --Hurricane111 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

May I chime in on this idea of renaming the freedom fighters to revolutionaries? Time magazine in 1956 chose the Hungarian Freedom Fighter as its Man of the Year. In 1986, President Reagan designated October 20th National Hungarian Freedom Fighter's Day in his Proclamation 5555. Although 'revolutionaries' isn't necessarily incorrect, we've called them 'freedom fighters' for the past 50 years. Mrsilona 06:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
And for quite some time in another part of the world they were publically known as "Horthyite Clerical-Fascist Arrow-Crossers", should we use that too? Ronald Reagan, a former US actor suffering the development of a serious degenerative condition, is not an appropriate source to determine naming conventions. Fifelfoo 22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting and quite rude, Fifelfoo. You seem to be a strong proponent of revisionist history -- or you have a problem with the facts. What say you to the BBC? Is their usage of the term 'freedom fighter' also wrong? Because that's what they called these people as events were unfolding. Or CNN. Do you have a problem with CNN as well calling them 'freedom fighters'? Or the Embassy of Hungary. You must have a problem that they call them 'freedom fighters' as well. Or even's description of the Hungarian Revolution Memorial in Boston. 'Freedom fighters' there as well. Or perhaps you care to quibble with Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said, "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." And, again, you left off Time. magazine -- who proclaimed 1957's man of the year to be the Hungarian FREEDOM FIGHTER, not revolutionary. I could go on and on. Care to try again?
Yes, IP user, I have a big problem with the term Freedom fighter. Its a US term. Strangely enough the revolution happened in Hungary. I wouldn't trust the BBC's description of the revolutionaries at all. Nor would I trust a memorial erected by the US sponsored Council of Captive Nations in the US. You're exhibiting a peculiar parochialism centred in the United States. Read more Hungarian accounts by people who were there.Fifelfoo 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is this a debate? 'Freedom Fighter' is obviously a POV term. 'Revolutionary' is obviously a NPOV term. Why is it relevent what Reagan, Time or anyone else said as propaganda at the height of the Cold War? I am genuinely perplexed. This is an encylopaedia, not a soapbox. Badgerpatrol 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the term freedom fighter is accurate and should be used since it wasn't coined by Time or Reagan, but is a literal translation of what the Hungarians called themselves. They called themselves "szabadság harcosok", szabadság meaning freedom and harcosok meaning fighters. While revolutionaries is also correct, the two terms should be used interchangeably. SarcasticBard 08:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the version I reverted to is more NPOV because:

  • It is true that the revolt was primarily an anti-Soviet one, but without going into too much detail about what else it was, I think it's best to just say "a revolt".
It is clear, the revolt was anti-Soviet--Nixer 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pro-Nazi" is inflammatory. "Extreme nationalist right-wing" gives the idea to everyone.
Ok, may be "ultra-nationalist" or "ultra-right nationalist" ? --Nixer 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of the population was motivated by left-wing ideology. I see no reason to remove that.
Yes, they may be was motivated by the left-wing ideology, but this has no connection with the use of word "revolution". Revolution can be right-wing, for example, modern revolution in Ukraine.--Nixer 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless there are contemporary professional sources which contemplate a clerical and fascist revolution (which I greatly doubt), I see no reason to remove the clause at the end of that paragraph either.KissL 19:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Why contemporary? It is not so interesting matter now. There could be different points of view, and all of them mentioned. And what a connection with the censorship in the USSR?--Nixer 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The connection is with censorship in Hungary not in the USSR. Primary sources that consider this option seriously (in fact all primary sources until 1989) were subject to censorship (to say the least; to say they were products of the propaganda machine wouldn't be much farther from the truth). This is definitely not something we can leave out.
And as for "it is not so interesting now"... this article is about this event, so whatever is relevant is interesting too. Also, we in Hungary think it is still interesting...
KissL 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
This is, by far, the most putrid account of the revolution that I've ever read. The political correctness of this article makes me want to puke. Revisionist or not, it is a simple fact that the Soviet Union was the aggressor for a wide variety of geo-political reasons, and "freedom fighters" has become a very accepted term for the heroes who made "the ultimate sacrifce" (to borrow an american term) for their country's freedom. I find it strange that those who can so vehemently support George W. Bush's position on Iraq have an issue with any movement past or present that wants to promote "liberty and justice for all". Rik 08/23/06


I changed the entry "Soviet troops were invited into Hungary on two occasions, " into Soviet troops were sent into Hungary on two occasions, " but the change was reverted. That's okay since I'm just not as experienced as the others, I just wanted to explain that I did so because in my opinion "invited" might not be correct. True they were invited by the pro-Moscow government, but hardly by Hungarians citizens. After all it's all matter of semantics, but I thought that 'sent' word would have been better since it's always true no matter the point of view.

'Invited' is indeed truly bizarre. Especially in the context of Kadar, who wasn't even in Budapest (where the original government was still seated) when he got appointed secretary-general (wasn't he in Russia at the time?).

-- 05:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK "Invited" is correct. While Soviet preparations for an intervention, Andras Hegedeus and Enro Gero invited the Soviet troops in to assist in restoring order on the night of the 23rd. At that time they were the legitimate government. On 3/4 November Janos Kadar went missing from the Nagy cabinet, and people were worried. It appears that he was involved in negotiations with the Soviet party, inside Hungary. Kadar made his invitation while still a member of the Nagy cabinet, and, after having been appointed by the legal President. For these reasons invite is correct. Fifelfoo 22:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
'Invited' would imply being asked to assist by a governmental body (or a person) in the position to ask such things. Kadar being appointed as *deputy* PM by the president was clearly not in the position to speak for the entire government in that position. He was in fact speaking on behalf of the counter-government which he lead and which only got legitimacy by the 'invited' intervention by the Soviets and the rest of the Warsaw pact. I think "invited" is an awfuly cynical term for what really happened: the Soviet Union obviously wanted to re-establish a government friendly to it by force and Kadar provided them with it. It would be similar to saying that US forces entered Iraq on invitation by Ahmed Challabi.
I'd suggest changing the sentence to something like: 'Soviet troops entered Hungary on two occasions, both times to firm up pro-Warsaw Pact governments that nominally invited them. --Isk s 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"Nominally" beautifully captures the formalism and bureaucracy involved in both "invitiations." We should retain the word "invitation" however, as the Party spent alot of effort achieving those purely formal invitations to hide its shame. Fifelfoo 04:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, feel free to edit me mercilessly :) if I did something wrong. KissL 12:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Isk s

Dear Anon, could you cite some sources and discuss things first if you want a huge section on entirely relevant, neutral and encyclopedic information on the "... eruption of nascent and violent Hungarian antisemitism" and "a nation cooperating in the deportation and murder [...]". Alternatively, just go learn some basic culture: labelling an entire nation like this is not acceptable anywhere in the English-speaking world, let alone in an encyclopedia. KissL 10:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fiftieth anniversary

Will anything be done to develop this article for the 50th anniversary next year?

There are areas that could be developed - links and references to the parallel events in Poland which led to Władysław Gomułka being returned to power, the Suez Crisis (which definitely complicated matters), the reburial of Imre Nagy in 1989 and pre- and post-1989 views of the Revolution.

Horthy and Holocaust: not related

I really can't see why the Horthy regime has to be mentioned here. I don't think the events before WWII are in such a strong connection with 1956 that they have to be mentioned in this article; however, the first paragraph of the overview was about that. Now I've commented out that paragraph and moved with the second one to Why it happened. As Wikipedia is free, you can revert if you disagree. But I'd rather suggest discussing it. --torzsmokus

I concurr with your edit Fifelfoo 23:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What the revolutionaries wanted

Is there any statistical data or the section constitutes an original research?--Nixer 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Statistical research is generally not considered to be historically significant, see hermeneutics, historical and historiography. Literary sources (ie documents written at the time) are very clear on what the revolutionaries wanted. They were, after all, demands written and published by revolutionaries. Fifelfoo 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Yes, there maybe was a censorship in Hungary, but there are other countries, where participants of the events could publish.--Nixer 21:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe Advice

This counter-revolution was encouraged by the CIA's propaganda outlet and falsely asserted that western aid would be delivered.

"Counter-revolution" is perjorative, 1956 was an uprising. Eyewitnesses describe the uprising of 23 Oct. 1956 as completely spontaneous, broadly supported by many and for many reasons. It is true that the West behaved shamefully, in a lethally inept way at every step. Certainly the West was not so competent as to orchestrate a successful uprising on one day and then promptly be so incompetent as to misread, mishandle and mislead the entire affair from that point onward - this talent would not appear until decades later ;) - The above is an often-heard accusation, but it is wrong - you simply cannot have it both ways. Istvan 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand your position on this, but I've heard tapes of the RFE broadcasts and, from a native speaker of English POV, it is pretty obvious that the west (USA) was encouraging the uprising and promising support. Unfortunately, oil (aka the Suez Canal) diverted them from their ideals and they decided to look after their own economic interests instead. The Hungarians were forgotten again and communism prevailed for another 33 years. Rik 08/23/06

Crushing the Revolution

I have added a cause to why The Soviets didnt allow a revolt to happen and I do believe that it is very relative and needs to be added.

The lines I have added are these

Another significant cause was that during World War 2, Hungary was Germanies ally. On the day of the invasion of the Soviet Union no less then 400,000 hungarian troops invaded the Soviet Union. Almost ever aspect of Soviet policy following World War 2 would be based on the lessons learned during the war. The Soviet Union hade learnt the hard way what happens if you neglect or ignore curent events. And it was not going to give a former invader any chans what so ever to attack the Soviet Union in any way again.

You must look to it from a Soviet perspective. And that is :

Hungary was a huge ally of the germans and hade played a significant part in the war. A war which hade the objective to inslave the whole Soviet Union and turn its people into a slave labour force to serve the Master race. The Axis went forward with such brutality and commited such massive acts of atrocities that ALL Soviets vowed that it must never happen again. The Axis during the war took as many Soviet women between the ages of 15-25 they could get their hands on and sent them all to brothels or slave camps or factories in greater Germany. Where little children were used by the axis to clear mine fields. Were people where executed just for being born. And where Huge parts of the country was destroyed. Concentration camps and furnaces and bonfires, this was what the Axis showed the Soviet people, this is what the Axis knew that the Soviet people deserved for being bolshevistic jews. Whole towns and cities were burnt to the ground. People were starved, rapied and beaten on an industrial scale. No war hade such hatred. No war hade such absolutism. No war hade such brutality as the war between the Axis and the Soviets.

After living through such a war were there was nothing but destruction and death, hatered and more hatered. A war where 28 million Soviets would died. It becomes very clear why The Soviet Union did not want to repeat such a thing. They did not want to give the smallest chans of it hapening again. And this is why they could not let a former invader roll out of the Soviet sphere of influence.


None of this comes up in the minutes of the relevent Presidium meetings. Zhukov, who could be expected to run a GPW line was actually anti-intervention (due to his broad reformism, and dislike for unnecessary military action where the SU would be unable to deploy overwhelming force). The anti-Nagy line ran in the Presidium was a Molotov line following core stalinist interests, not a nationalist line. Khrushchev's own opinion (regardless of his votes which were opportunist) can be read in his liquidation of the Molotov anti-reformist group in 1957.Fifelfoo 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiflefoo your rewrite is very nice and i think it more then enough explains the reason for a Soviet intervention. But here in this discussion it should be absolutely clear that all Soviet policy after ww2 was based on the experience of the war. When people die left and right of you, when mass extermination is commited when there is nothing but hate, it will leave an impresion on you and your way of thinking. Be it directly or indirectly the war and the reality of the absolutism in it played a huge part in the minds of all the involved on the Soviet side during this conflict. Deng 07-02-06 07.35 CET

I assume you mean the 3rd eschelon east asiatic divisions in the second intervention, recruited from population centres which never saw German occupation? Or perhaps you mean the 1st and 2nd eschelon European Russian divisions which negotiated spontaneous ceasefires during the first intervention? Fifelfoo 07:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No no you miss understand. It dosent matter who saw battle in ww2 the people all knew what hade happened, everyone was affected by what hade happened. No one didnt know what hade happened. All the brutality that hade be shown by the Axis to the Soviets during the war was known by everyone. If you cant uderstand that then I cant explain it to you. All Soviet policy after the war was based on the reality that was experienced during the war.

Deng 07-02-06 18.50 CET

Please don't talk about and edit articles on things you clearly have no idea of. "Fascist" Hungary in 1941??? Learn history again if you were tought from Stalinist books... And just FYI, Russia has apologized for 1956 since then.... 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is you who must study Hungary added 400,000 troops on the day of the invasion of the Soviet Union 400,000 is the same nummber of US soldiers killed during ww2 and I have studied in Sweden I think maybe it is you who hasent studied enough.

Deng 07-02-06 22.25 CET

What has the definition of fascism do with the invasion of SU? Hungary was not a fascist state in 1941, and it's just basic (kindergarten level) history. Noone says invading SU was a good thing, in fact it was the biggest mistake of Hungarian foreign policy in the 20th century, but your statements are false, and what's more, the contemporary Soviet leaders cleary did not think of Hungary's ww2 role. I won't revert your text any more (I guess someone else will do soon), only the word "fascist". 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all I wasent the one who put the word facist there so your anger is waaaaaaaaay missdirected all i wanted to post as one of the causes was that after the war all Soviet policy was based on leassons learnt during the war.

Deng 07-02-06 22.40 CET

Death Toll

I'm sorry, but 25,000 to 50,000 dead Hungarians and 7,000 dead Sovets is completely false.

According to "The Soviet Union and the 1956 Crises in Poland and Hungary: Reassessments and New Findings" in Journal of Contemporary History by Mark Kramer, the casualities are as follows:

Hungarians: 2502 dead and 19,226 wounded

Sovet Army: 720 dead and 1540 wounded

The anonymous user who posted these 'revisions' is also busy trying to 'revise' the Holodomor page. It's necessary to watch this character and prevent his agenda pushing. Dietwald 09:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the data he posted is correct. Clearly, you have not even checked the sources provided above. This page will be reverted back to the correct data.
Above anonymous comment was written by the same person as the original entry. This user, also known as Zvesda, is busy trying to revise down any numbers that indicate the extend of mass murder by totalitarian governments. He is currently active at the Holodomor page, where he has also been sanctioned for violating the Thre Revert Rule for whole-sale page vandalism. Dietwald 09:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1956 Olympic boycott, Soviet-Hungarian water polo game, defections

Without posting or discussion, anonymous User: ("Revert to correct information") deleted the following paragraph:

The Melbourne Olympics were underway in November and December 1956. The Soviet handling of the Hungarian revolution led to a boycott by Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Many Hungarian athletes vowed never to return home, and received much spectator support at the games. The eventual Hungary-Soviet Union confrontation occurred in the semi-final game of the water polo tournament; the match was extremely violent, and the pool reputedly turned red with blood. The Hungarians led the Soviets 4-0 before the game was called off in the final minute to prevent angry Hungarians in the crowd from rioting. The Hungarian team continued to win the Olympic gold medal. In total, 45 Hungarians, half the delegation, defected to the West after the Olympics.

I contributed the above paragraph. I anticipated that it needed editing; it's too wordy, now that I read it over, given the placement between two brief sentences. Or perhaps placement in a different section (although these sections are chronological, not topical). But what reasons to delete?

  1. Off topic? Three European countries boycotted the Olympics due to the Soviet actions. Wikipedia references the Olympic boycott of 1990 in the Soviet war in Afghanistan article, with a link to American-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics.
  2. Sport is not significant? The water polo match was a Soviet-Hungarian confrontation on an international stage. It represented a response to the crisis, from citizens of each side, and a diplomatic response. As a result, began the tradition of the athletes mingling at the closing ceremony, not marching in as teams.
  3. POV? So, add a Soviet version of the incident...
  4. Verifiable? ABC news, Sunday Times of London, CNN. The world press still remembers, so maybe it belongs in Wikipedia.

I propose something along the lines of this:

At the Melbourne Olympics, the Soviet handling of the Hungarian uprising led to a boycott by Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland. A confrontation between Soviet and Hungarian teams occurred in the semi-final game of the water polo tournament; the match was extremely violent, and was called off in the final minute to quell fighting among spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games.

I would appreciate comment (even if from anonymous IP addresses). -- Ryanjo 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another delete without discussion by anonymous User: I'll just keep reverting until the nameless ones provide more information... -- Ryanjo 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryanjo, the paragraph you've suggested:
"At the Melbourne Olympics, the Soviet handling of the Hungarian uprising led to a boycott by Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland. A confrontation between Soviet and Hungarian teams occurred in the semi-final game of the water polo tournament; the match was extremely violent, and was called off in the final minute to quell fighting among spectators. Some members of the Hungarian Olympic delegation defected after the games."
is excellent and, in my opinion, completely neutral. Rik 08/23/06

...the myth that Eastern Europe..chose Communism

Greetings, I am an infrequent editor of 1956 Hungarian Revolution. I have some concern with ThePartyVan's edit: The myth that the Eastern European nations chose Communism for themselves was shattered, at the end of the Overview section. As a result, I have temporarily commented it out, and invite discussion. I think that the "myth" and "shattered" may be an overstatement. As this talk section, the article itself, and the references state, there remains some controversy about whether the Hungarian revolt was anti-Soviet, anti-Communist, nationalistic with a socialist political agenda, or a mixture. The Soviet contention that they were "invited" by their puppets has already been debunked in the article in a less contentious way. I think that the same idea could be restated by something like: Soviet actions clearly showed that, regardless of the national ambitions of the Warsaw pact client nations, armed force would be used to maintain regimes that reflected monolithic Soviet-style communism. (Somebody clean it up for sounds too academic...)--Ryanjo 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I was just trying to show how the Soviet Union was trying to impose their influence on other nations. --ThePartyVan 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks --Ryanjo 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


The article starts with the event itself: "On 23 October 1956..." This ignores the recent history and motivations of the rebels. Could someone knowledgeable add some information on the background and causes for the revolution? Twinxor t 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Overview section is a only quick outline of the sections that follow. Starting with a brief sentence might help, such as: Political changes in the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, nationalist movements in the socialist parties of eastern Europe, and social unrest due to poor economic conditions for the Hungarian populace created conditions for a popular uprising in October 1956.
Most of the details are already there: the Causes section that follows the The revolution section tries to cover the dissent in different segments of the population that led to the revolt. The Prelude section includes political events that led up to the uprising in Hungary. So I think that the inciting events are covered. You could make a case that the "Causes" section should preceed "The revolution" timeline, but it could also be said that introducing the groups and their actions first (the Soviets, the Hungarian party, the students, etc.), and then explaining motives after in the "Causes" section, is a common practice in historical works.
I suggest adding a sentence to the "Overview", and leaving the rest the same, or move the "Causes" section, or expand it...okay with me, either way. Regards,--Ryanjo 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


This article seems to downplay the fact that the major reason for the revolt was due to the fact that the country was under Soviet occupation. The entire article seems to have been edited to downplay this and overall the article missed the essence of what the revolution was about. I would argue that this in itself if a form of inserting POV. Attila226 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the first sentence: "The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, also known as the Hungarian Uprising or simply the Hungarian Revolt, was an anti-Soviet revolt in Hungary..." The article goes on to detail killing of Soviet symapthizers and soldiers by the populace. The rest of the article is in the details of the revolt: actions of the partcipants, their probable motivations, world events that influenced and resulted from the 1956 uprising. So it really isn't necessary to restate the obvious, since the anti-Soviet nature is a given. To bring it up as the root cause of every action would be repetitive and more suitable to a propaganda piece.
Also, it is customary to Place new comments after existing ones as the box at the top of this page recommends. Ryanjo 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I will make sure to add future comments to the bottom of the discussion area.
As for the article itself, it is rather obvious to state that it was an "anti-Soviet revolt". However, I don't see any mention that the Hungarians were under Soviet occupation. Instead the article mentions "Political changes in the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, nationalist movements in the socialist parties of eastern Europe, and social unrest due to poor economic conditions for the Hungarian populace created conditions for a popular uprising in October 1956." This completely ignores the root cause of the revolution. Attila226 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the words in the article that say "that the Hungarians were under Soviet occupation" are less direct than yours. But is it "downplaying" to state (quotes from the article):
  • Soviet actions clearly showed that, regardless of the national ambitions of the Warsaw Pact client nations, armed force would be used to maintain regimes that reflected monolithic Soviet-style communism.
  • Soviet troops had occupied Hungary since 1944; firstly as an invading army and occupation force, then at the nominal invitation of the Hungarian government, and finally as required by their membership in the Warsaw Pact.
  • Although widely believed that Hungary's declaration to exit the Warsaw Pact caused the Soviet military to crush the Revolution, minutes of the meetings of the Presidium of the Soviet Communist Party indicate that this declaration was only one of several contributing factors.
  • The Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union sought to maintain a Hungarian government which was controlled by a like minded party.
  • Soviet international relations in central Europe were not only dictated by a desire for empire, but by a fear of invasion from the West.
My understanding is that one of Wikipedia's principle is NPOV - neutral point of view. So I think that statements such as those above are not "downplaying" the facts, they are expanding and explaining the details (perhaps a bit academically).
My suggestion is that you make an edit to clarify or emphasize what is mis-stated, and see what others do with it. Regards, --Ryanjo 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Throughout the events of 1956 the MEFESZ played an important role in the uprising/revolution. Why is there no mention of it anywhere in this article?? Rik 08/23/06

I know it was a student organization, one of the few independent of the party, but not much other information. Please provide some content and references for the article. Ryanjo 02:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to an interesting article:
This should provide some perspective on the integral role that MEFESZ and other student organizations played during the revolution. Unfortunately, a great deal of the information I have is anecdotal from people who were actually there, but I've got enough non-primary source information to put something together. I'll post it here first for feedback. Rik 08/29/06

Rewrite of the Prelude section

Fellow Editors: I have just replaced the entire Prelude section with a section called Prelude to the uprising. I have attempted to keep all the content that was contributed earlier, although in different places due to new subsections. Since this was such a large edit, the previous section is intact below the new section, just "commented out", to allow anyone to easily review or restore any of the old section's information. My motivation for this extensive edit was several recent comments (read the above topics) that the article lacked clarity as to the real reasons for the uprising. Trying to adhere to NPOV is very tough here -- I am not Hungarian (not even European), but the intensity of feeling in the references available is remarkable. So edit away (just have references). Regards, Ryanjo 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine, and you have properly incorporated all the relevant information from the previous version. I have removed the old version you had commented out: anyone interested can still view it by looking at the revision before your edit. KissL 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits are good; more narrative and less choppy (and they left my stuff in - good work! ;)Istvan 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Rik 08/29/06

Article Improvement Drive

OK, you all know we have an important anniversary coming up. I believe it right that this article have a shot at being featured article on 23 October, 2006. Rather than wait till the last minute to petition this status, it may be wise to start a more concerted process of improvement now, 2 months ahead of the anniversary, when we have the opportunity to build on recent momentum. Please visit Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive and register your vote so that this story can be told properly on its 50th anniversary. Istvan 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I think both the Causes and Historical debate sections need references. I put it in the "to do" section. But I don't know much about the Historical debate topics, so could someone suggest where to look for supporting citations? Also need more detail and less disjointed narrative in 10 November onwards. Ryanjo
I asked for a peer review by the WikiProject Military history project. If the article was moved up to "A" status with their advice, it might have a better chance at Featured Article for 23 October 2006. Ryanjo 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to carry out a few preliminary changes suggested by the the Military History Wikiproject reviewer, to give everyone some time to review the recommendations. Ryanjo 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to "Revolution begins", "23 Oct to 4 Nov" and "10 November onwards"

I have added subsections, content and some edits to these sections, using the existing content as a framework, although the order is sometimes changed. The most obvious is that I moved the "Soviet resistance" subsection into "23 October to 1 November", and renamed it "First Soviet intervention", to more clearly differentiate the two stages of the Soviet response. I added references to translations of some primary documents available on the web as well.

As a result of these edits, the "Revolution begins - 23 October" section is smaller, with few details of what must of been one of the most dramatic days in modern history. Could someone add some verifiable details about the day's events? Where was the Stalin statue in Budapest and how did it come down? Did students "take over" the radio station and broadcast their demands? How did newspapers report the day's events?

Despite only rating a "B" from the Military history WikiProject (who are those people, anyway?), 1956 Hungarian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the top of the search results for "Hungarian Revolution" on English language Google. The people have spoken. Regards, Ryanjo 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

UPRISING! by D. Irving

A link to David Irvings book UPRISING! which I have added to the 'External Links' section of the article was excised. The book does, I believe, give a very detailed hour by hour, day by day, event by event record of the 1956 uprising. I do not agree with everything in Irving’s book but that’s irrelevant to the argument which is that I do believe his book contains significant details to make it worth offering an external link to those who may be interested in what he has to say. I believe this is what ‘freedom of choice’ is all about. Excising a mere link from the ‘External Links’ section is nothing short of ideological censorship; a very ridiculous one at that, considering that we are talking only about a link.
This is what was excised from the external links section: "*UPRISING! by David Irving. Free unabridged downloadable PDF file in English and Hungarian."
I would be interested to to read your reasoned views on this; not so much on the book itself as on the censorship issue.Bardwell 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bardwell, please let me explain the goal and reason for the edit. The issue is not the work but the author; and equally not its inclusion or exclusion (aka censorship) (a decision taken on each item in the wiki) but perhaps the proper *place* of its inclusion. Like it or not, David Irving is controversial to all and offensive to many, even though 95% of his work isnt. His ideas are also to be found in other's works, he has not contributed much original thought beyond what would arguably fall under the umbrella of zealous apology for the NSDAP and eugenics, and he is in jail. These are, I believe, dispassionately rational reasons to consign Irving to the talk page and to reference other historians' works for the same insights given in his book. As Cicero put it, "No-one believes a liar, even when he tells the truth". Istvan 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"David Irving is controversial to all and offensive to many, even though 95% of his work isnt" - you say.

My response to that is that it is the 95 per cent that makes the book deservedly worth reading. But even if the figures were the other way around, excising this link could not be justified any more than excising a link to Hitler’s Mein Kampf could be even if one disagreed with it 100%. This is what’s called intellectual freedom; freedom to allow people to read what they like and to allow them to make up their own minds about it. It is a dangerous dogma to believe that you, or me for that matter, know best what information someone else should or should not have. And excising another editors reference to a book that by your own admission is 95% relevant to the topic, is, I think, very odd - to say the least.

And as for your comment: "The issue is not the work but the author; and equally not its inclusion or exclusion (aka censorship) (a decision taken on each item in the wiki) but perhaps the proper *place* of its inclusion." - well, where else would you put an external link if not under "External links"?

I have not the slightest doubt that your intentions are well-meaning. But I question your interpretation of what works should or should not be accessible and whether disapproval of an author is sufficient reason to excise a reference to his book. Bardwell 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bardwell, please be aware that Irving's UPRISING! has been inserted and immediately removed from the external links section twice in the past year, specifically:
  1. (cur) (last) 2006-01-04T23:00:21 Fifelfoo (Talk | contribs) (Revert to MaxRspct's version. Irving's work is discredited, including his /Uprising/. There might not be a *correct* interpretation, but there are many *incorrect* interpretations, such as Irvings.)
  2. (cur) (last) 2005-11-16T11:56:58 Squiddy (Talk | contribs) (→External links - removed link to book by discredited fascist pseudo-historian David Irving)
The issue is consensus, not censorship. Things are put in to and taken out of the wikipeadia millions of times per day, ultimately based upon consensus and this is no different. I may be kinder to Irving's work than the above two editors but see that the valuable part of it is not unique to him, and anyone with any affinity for his point of view (minus the extreme bits) would certainly not want them discredited simply by being presented by someone who advocates genocide. You are right in that this ad-hominem defense of this edit (let me word this carefully) is no more valid than an ad hominem attack on Irvings work (at least the acceptable parts) but it is sadly taken as such in the world we live in, and therefore consensus must define these gray areas of inclusion and exclusion. Not by you, not by me, but by the group collectively (and specifically on the talk page). Istvan 18:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

István, Think carefully about the full implications of what you are saying. Taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion the vociferous and the persistent will always prevail regardless of the merit or rather lack of merit to their case. I can understand someone not wanting to read a book by a given author, whatever their reason may be; it is their decision and they are entitled to it. But I cannot for the life of me understand on what grounds could anyone justifiably insist that another person should not even be allowed to see a reference to that author’s work. Upholding and supporting that kind of blind intolerance is not consensus, it is appeasement. I am not an apologist for Irving, in fact, I think he is a fool for ruining a brilliant career by giving voice to his anti-Semitic sentiments. But the fact remains that I have not yet come across any serious and unbiased book on the uprising that comes anywhere near Irving’s, minus his ill-disguised anti-Semitic outbursts which any intelligent reader will just ignore. Perhaps the vehement opposition in Hungary to Uprising! is due in equal measure to his obviously anti-communist sentiments as well as ... . But that’s no sin, not even in the former Soviet Union. And it certainly was not seen as a sin by the hundreds of thousands in Hungary, who in 1956 supported the uprising.
Bardwell 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bardwell, please consider the issue at literal face value - its a question of reasoned consensus, by which all such questions are (or should be) decided on the wikipedia. One can always label consensus as rule by the vociferous and persistent, and being reverted as being censored - but in this case there are *reasons* that consensus has repeatedly reverted Irving's work. In fact, Irving is often most repugnant to those who generally accept his historical POV minus his racism and sympathy for genocide.
Here's an offer to settle the point rather than using up even more cheap disk space - go ahead and re-post the link today if you wish, I will not revert it again, but will let it stand. If another registered user reverts it before the weekend is out (and gives a reason) then please confine Irving to the talk page. Whaddaya say? Istvan 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do I say? - I say that I do not doubt your sincerity, as I have already said, but the more I see of wikipedia the less I like it. There must be something inherently wrong, conceptually, with a system the structure of which favours and rewards intolerance in the name of ‘consensus’. I won’t insult your intelligence by spelling out to you the meaning of the word. But will just say that ‘consensus’ is definitely not a synonym for x number of user out of y excising an item, when the value of y is an unknown quantity and z number of users won’t bother to engage, perhaps rightly so, because life is to short to waste any of it on wiki reverts. As for the link to Irving’s UPRISING! – thanks for the offer but I couldn’t care less whether it is there or not. I wish you all the best.
Bardwell 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Causes section

The Causes section concerns me. It is quite brief, and much of the material has been covered in the Prelude section. Should it be distributed to the appropriate sections above it, left alone, or expanded as a summation? Ryanjo 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


The revolution led to a significant drop in support for Marxist-Leninist ideas in Western countries.

Very typical of Wikipedia to be making the most baseless of statements derived from liar propaganda outlets like BBC. There is no evidence whatsoever that that the suppression of the Hungarian counter-revolution led to a reduction for support of Marxism-Leninism in the West.

In fact, the suppression of this fascistic counter-revolution at the request of Janos Kadar had helped to strengthen Marxism-Leninism in the western countries. In 1953, Communists in Italy received 6.1 million votes which was 22.6% of all votes cast. In 1958, the Italian Communists actually increased their amount of votes to 6.7 million which was 22.7% of all votes cast. In 1963, Italian Communists received 7.7 million votes, 8.5 million votes in 1968, 9 million votes in 1972, and finally peaked at 12.6 million votes in 1973.

In Finland, the Communist-dominated People's Democratic League received 483,958 votes in 1954. In 1958, they received 450,506 votes. In 1962, 507,124 votes. In 1966, 502,635 votes. Up to 1979, they received 516,276 votes.

In January 1956, French Communists received 5.51 million votes. In 1958, the Communists received 3.90 million votes due to the rise of De Gaulle. In 1962, Communists received 3.99 million votes, 5 million in 1967, 4.4 million in 1968, 4.4 million in 1973, 4.7 million in 1977, and 2.7 million in 1986. In 1997, they still received 2.5 million votes which was 10% of the total. This decline in electoral performance, however, hade nothing to do with the events of 1956.

Actually, the figures above suggest that popular support dropped for the Communist parties of the West immediately after the events of 1956: in Finland down 30,000 votes, in France down 1.5 million votes, and despite a small increase in votes, the Italian PCI lost seats for the only time in its postwar history (from 143 to 140), as other parties gained seats. In addition, Giuseppe Di Vittorio , chief of the communist trade union CGIL, repudiated the party leadership over this issue, as did prominent party member Antonio Giolitti and Italian Socialist Party national secretary Pietro Nenni, a close ally of the PCI -- and Giolitti went on to leave the PCI over this issue. In France, moderate communists, such as historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, voiced public disappointment with the silence of the Parti communiste français over Soviet actions and resigned. And I think that the story of Peter Fryer is well known. So replacing the prior statement with one stating that support for Marxism-Leninism did not decrease is also incorrect. So I have replaced it with another, hopefully more accurate.
I looked for a place in the article to insert "baseless rubbish" , "liar propaganda outlets", and "fascistic (sp?) counter-revolution" but couldn't find anyplace suitable. Ryanjo 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ryanjo, the evidence is not decisive. In most of Western Europe, the Communist vote often moves countertrend to that of the Social Democrats. One must consider it from a mainstream, not fringe point of view. Although France and Italy had Communist Parties which could poll significant results, elsewhere Communist votes were miniscule and marxist politics were sometimes championed by social democratic parties which would wobble from hard left to center left and back. The election results 1950 for the UK show parity between Labour and Tories at about 300 seats each, but by 1960 the Tories had opened a 100 seat lead. In Germany, the SPD adopted the Godesberg Program monumentally renouncing their marxist roots. Of course, these election results do not imply that 1956 is the *cause* of this, after all, Social Democrats and Communists often gain votes at the other's expense - but it is certainly not disproven. It is apparent that after 1956, Soviet influence in Europe stopped its expansion and perhaps began to retreat. Perhaps a more erudite Cold-War wonk could make a more comprehensive and reasoned case one way or the other. Until then, I would support reverting to the original statement ("support dropped") since there is no reason to disbelieve it, as posited by unsigned (but bravo for giving evidence, it almost compensates for the hyperbole). Istvan 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Istvan, why is 'no reason to disbelieve' sufficient grounds for inclusion? If it cannot be verified then it should not be included. Perhaps "It is difficult to gauge the impact of the Soviet intervention on western Communist parties; as such, some sources [1] suggest that there was no significant effect while others [2] suggest a significant drop in support. In any event, there is evidence of negative western reaction in the actions of some prominent communist intellectuals and leaders; some examples include those of Giuseppe Di Vittorio, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Peter Fryer." If you can give me references for the information you cite above (on support rising, on support dropping, on Giuseppe Di Vittorio's reaction and on Ladurie's reaction) I would be happy to implement this change on this page and on the pages for Vittorio and Ladurie. Inane Imp 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I have looked (briefly) and cannot find a current consensus among researchers or historians about an increase or decrease in the support in Marxism after the 1956 uprising. Certainly, the voting figures can be interpreted in various ways, as Istvan points out. However, there are many reports of prominent communist intellectuals in the West leaving their parties due to the events of 1956 in Hungary. The Wikipedia editors of these pages have provided adequate references in most instances, is it really necessary to provide additional references? I have placed some addition edits and wikilinks in the International subsection. Ryanjo 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations of peer reviewer

After my request for a review, Kirill Lokshin, who is Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject, replied:

"This is pretty good. Some points that need work, though:

  • The lead section should be ~3 full paragraphs, and needs to summarize the entire article; absorbing most of the "Overview" section may be appropriate. Having footnotes in the lead is generally a bad idea, as everything there should be present—and cited—deeper in the article.
  • Is the title correct? I would have placed the article at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or Hungarian Revolution (1956); starting the title with a number is rather clunky, particularly if it's just a way of getting the date in there for disambiguation purposes.
  • More citations throughout would be good for an article of this size. The "Historical debate" section, in particular, needs to be thoroughly cited.
  • Can the "Causes" section be rolled into the prelude or historical debate sections? It's rather stubby on its own.
  • The "The revolution" header is redundant; I suggest removing it and bumping its sub-headers up a level. (Note: done Ryanjo)
  • The dates in the headers should be linked so that date preferences work properly. (Note: done Ryanjo)
  • I'm a bit surprised at the sourcing, as much of it seems to be isolated articles and papers; are there no full-length books published on this topic?
  • The "See also" and "External links" sections should be trimmed as much as possible.
  • The gigantic template at the bottom has grown to the point where it's utterly unacceptable. I strongly suggest linking to Portal:Cold War instead.

Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks for your rapid response to the peer review request.
  • Regarding 1956 preceeding Hungarian Revolution, this was discussed early in the article history, and done to comply with several other Hungarian Revolutions (disambiguation page). I think it may be acceptable format in Wikipedia, such as 2000 Summer Olympics. I am going to start a discussion about changing the name to Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which I agree is a better title, and amend the disambiguation page..
  • Can you refer me to an example of the suggested place to put the link to the Portal:Cold War? Regards Ryanjo 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The portal link should just replace {{Cold War}} with {{portal|Cold War}}; but you might want to wait on the outcome of the discussion here about a general way of handling these templates.
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to take on converting the Overview to a lead paragraph, but would everyone weigh in on the proposed move to Hungarian Revolution of 1956? Ryanjo 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Ryanjo for your excellent and proactive work on this topic. I would strongly suggest not changing the title until it has been selected for the Article Improvement Drive (AID) which, it seems it should win in about two weeks if it can keep its momentum. Not only could a rename cause some logistical glitch, and 1956 to fall through a crack, but I remember months ago there being a debate on this very same topic - it may be best for the issue to be settled during its AID term (like the event itself, everyone had at least one stong opinion). Im not against a rename per se, only one right now. Istvan 03:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

If this page is to be renamed at all, perhaps the appropriateness of the title as a whole should be considered at the same time, not just the relative position of the year (1956). Let me quote:

Historians and politicians usually give the name of spontaneous insurrection to a movement of the masses united by a common hostility against the old regime, but not having a clear aim, deliberated methods of struggle, or a leadership consciously showing the way to victory. [Leon Trotsky: History of the Russian Revolution].

An interesting quote right out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Irrespective of Trotsky’s views, aren't the events of 1956 better and more accurately categorised, by their own dynamics, as insurrection / uprising rather than revolution? Wouldn’t a more appropriate title be Hungarian Insurrection - 1956 or Hungarian Uprising - 1956 ?
Bardwell 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, its not the time to change the title, so close to 23 October. (Trotsky may have a point, he was certainly an expert on the topic.) When the time comes to consider re-naming, it will be important to have redirects for all these terms, whatever the article is titled. We may stick with "revolution" after all is said and done -- there are articles in WP on insurgency or insurrection, rebellion, revolution and uprising, but definitions seem (to me) to overlap on which term covers the events of 1956. Ryanjo 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

50-years old echo

For a 50-years old echo read: Bardwell 09:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the past 100 years of Hungarian history, I understand why they are passionate about their politics. Ryanjo 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Post-Stalinist Liberalization section

I have the following editorial observations to make:

The 2nd paragraph, relating to events in 1953 (East Berlin), should be excised. It breaks the chronology between paras. 1 and 2 and, in any event , it does not belong to a page dealing with 1956 Hungary. Unlike the events in Poland in 1956, the events in Berlin in 1953 had no direct bearing on the Hungarian Uprising.

More emphasis should be given to the fact that, encouraged by Kruschev’s February speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, there were intense debates taking place in Hungary, mainly in intellectual circles such as the Hungarian Writers Union, (see copies of “Csillag” for 1956) and in university student circles, in a tone increasingly vocal and open, about the implications of Khrushchev’s speech. Rákosi’s forced resignation as General Secretary of the party added further impetus to the debates. The student demonstration were, first and foremost, a show of solidarity with events in Poland. This is an important historical fact which is generally overlooked and it should, I think, be given greater emphasis.

3rd para. Strictly speaking, the 1956 Poznan riots were anti-government rather than anti-communist. There is a subtle but important difference in this, which is not negated by the fact that members of the Polish Government were hand-picked communists, as indeed was Gomulka himself, albeit rehabilitated. I can see other problems with this para. I am not sure about Gomułka's reinstatement inspired hope across Eastern Europe for greater reforms and increased autonomy Can this be authenticted by citations from comtemporary sources? Is there any evidence of an October 1956 Spring in the other satellite states? Is there any concrete evidence for this or is this just a rather loose unfounded generalization? Bardwell 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree with your plan to excise the sentences on the 1953 East German uprising. Should it be placed as a brief reference in the Soviet political reaction section, as another reason that the Soviet Union chose to intervene?
  • Agree with your emphasis on the impact of Nikita Khrushchev's "Secret Speech". There is a brief reference in the 1st para of this section, but your expansion of the details is most welcome.
  • As far as contemporary evidence on the influence of events in Poland, the 1957 report of the UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary is available here. On page 19, speaking of developments before the uprising: "...on October 19, news of Poland's move toward greater independence of the USSR was received in Hungary with enthusiasm." Ryanjo 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

Thanks RyanJo, My query about the words "inspired hope across Eastern Europe" was meant to question wheather there is any evidence that other satelilite states, i.e. other than Hungary, were "inspired" by what was happening in Poland. If there is no such evidence then the phrase is misleading and should perhaps be excised. Bardwell 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand your point, and agree. Rather than eliminating the statement, I changed it to reflect the UN report, which I believe is derived from interviews of contemporaries to the events.
I placed the DDR and Poznan protests into the "Soviet political reaction" sub-section.
I think the Causes section at the end of the article can be eliminated and additional information about the impact of the Khrushchev speech added in the Prelude section. Ryanjo 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External links section

I reorganized the "External links" section (links in parentheses were removed):

Please edit, add to, and revise my organization or descriptions of each link. I'm sorry if I removed anyone's favorite link, but I was advised that organizing and cutting down the "External links" would improve the article. Ryanjo 20:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

More about Gomulka?

Hi, I actually don't know very much about this revolution (!) but I'm doing my best to learn, both so I can help with this article and because as a patriotic part-Hungarian I feel I have to know my history better. :) One thing I have learned is Wladyslaw Gomulka's somewhat reformist regime in Poland was a big influence on the Hungarian revolutionaries. Can we perhaps expand the brief section about Gomulka, make it clear how events influenced each other? I'll see what I can find out and anything else anyone can contribute would be great. K. Lastochka 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AID votes

1956 Hungarian Revolution (46 votes, stays until November 28)

Nominated August 29, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by November 28, 2006
  1. Istvan 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. KissL 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ryanjo 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Felixboy 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. mirageinred 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Duran 05:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. TestPilot 07:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. JQF 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ehjort 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. fz22 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Green caterpillar 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Andromeda321 03:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Hawkestone 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Argos'Dad 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. HawkerTyphoon 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Voici 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Cripipper 11:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. K. Lastochka 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Cserlajos 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Fifelfoo 05:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Alensha Fiore 01.svg talk 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Gubb     2006. September 18 14:12 (CEST) 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Puncsos 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. --Dami 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. --Korovioff 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. --Mt7 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. VinceB 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Al345 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Druworos 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Frigo 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Hehehe, I'm the 32th :)
  33. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Serinde 07:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. Paul 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Davodd 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. Jammy simpson 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Bdanee 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Kdano 16:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  40. --Hunadam 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. --Hkoala HU 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  42. NCurse work 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  43. Cunya 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  44. Ixistant 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  45. --Burumbator 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  46. Kiscica 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  47.  – Glanthor  13:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed votes
  • October 23, 2006 is the 50th anniversary of this momentous uprising when Hungarian citizens bravely dared to expel the Soviet military; it was one of the bravest acts of the 20th century. It would be an appropriate featured article for 23 Oct 06, but needs lots of outside help first. People close to the subject matter are often still too passionately invested in the event to objectively evaluate different points of view, thus the page has seen more than its share of argument, revisionism (its arguably the most embarrassing of subjects to diehard communists), and rancour. The wider wiki community could do it some good and put this article up as featured on its 50th anniversary. Istvan 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to get this article all cleaned up and ready for Featured status on Oct. 23....a Wikipedia salute to the memory of those brave Hungarian citizens. :) K. Lastochka 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes, it would be great! Gubb     2006. September 18 14:11 (CEST) 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. KÖSZÖNÖM SZÉPEN (thank you very much) to EVERYONE who voted!!! I hereby award all of you the Magyar Barnstar of National Merit in sincere gratitude! K. Lastochka 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC) BoNM-Hungary.jpg

My review

For first (fast) read:

  • lead is too long
  • more images are needed
  • Notes section should be References section

In the next few days I'll read it sentence by sentence and search for faults, unreferenced statements. I hope it'll become FA soon. :) Good work! NCurse work 11:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes & References sections are appropriately labeled, they just are (were) out of order per Wikipedia:Guide to layout.--Paul 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What about Notes and references per Wikipedia:Guide to layout? NCurse work 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to "4. References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)," the article has both "References," being a list of reference sources used, and "Notes," in-line citations to specific references & sections of references that support a fact in the text. The "References" section should be expanded into a better Bibliography by extracting a list from the text sources cited in the Notes section. A "Further Reading" section might also be useful, but we'd need some experts to help with the list.--Paul 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

casus belli

The wording in that sidebox for casus belli was a bit strange, it said "popular Hungarian threat to Soviet influence". I changed "threat" to "opposition"...isn't that a bit more accurate/less confusing?K. Lastochka 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ ?
  2. ^ ?