Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)


The number of casualties in the infobox is ununderstandable now to the casual visitor: please clarify!Super48paul (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC).


This forum user raised something I heard at school in the 1980's- that Mongolia helped the USSR crush the rebellion. Can this be resolved.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Revolt against their Jewish torturers

What this article completely omits is that the Hungarian revolution was initially an anti-semitic uprising. It was an uprising by Hungarians against their Jewish torturers. That's how it started out. When Soviet troops advanced into middle and western Europe destroying, raping and murdering everything and everyone in sight, they brought with them the Hungarian Jews that had gone to Moscow for training before the war began. These Jews got all the top jobs in Hungary after the war. Farkas, Gerö, Rákosi, Révai et al. were all Jews and they were the police chiefs and torturers of the Hungarian people.

CIA interviews with Hungarians that left Hungary revealed that the Hungarian people viewed their government as Jewish government, which essentially it was. This has been thoroughly researched and documented in David Irving's "Uprising! Hungary 1956: One Nation's Nightmare"

When wikipedia cover's this up it reveals a deep bias in all of its coverage of all similar topics (WW II, Isreali-Palestine conflict)Pgg804 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah! David Irving! Sorry, but that self-described historian is not taken serious over here.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously either. I heartily second Pgg804's comments above. You'll never find any admission of it in Wikipedia, but there was indeed an anti-Jewish aspect to the Hungarian uprising. Hungarians were deeply resentful of the Communists' heavy hand, and they were well aware of the prominence of Jews in the upper ranks of their nation's Communist regime. (Pgg804 names a few of them.) The hated secret services, in particular, were run by Jews. Say what you like about David Irving (personally, I think he's his own worst enemy), but if you're serious about learning about this fascinating episode you should read his book. Don't believe what the court historians want to feed you. And for heaven's sake don't take Wikipedia's word for anything! No, not even this. (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)HelenChicago

I have herd in the UK's media that a mixture of oppressed, open-minded, pro-democracy students; Slav-phobic, fascist, anti-Semitic, World War 2 political veterans and "Horthyite Clerical-Fascist Arrow-Crossers" had started it, but that the students had most public support by the end. (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for an Administrator to "hat" this discussion as it adds nothing of value to the article and reeks of anti-semitic bile. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, there are strong anti-semitic views in Hungary, whether anyone likes it or not. Also in our times. Hungarian soldiers fought with Nazi Germany on the East Front free-willingly and out of a strong ideological commitment. If I remember correctly Hungary even had panzer divisions at Stalingrad. Omitting both anti-semitic and fascist fractions when describing this uprising (or anything political in Hungary for that matter), is both foolish and very wrong. It is historical fraud. RhinoMind (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is a wiki-link to start with: Hungary in World War II. RhinoMind (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Communist revolution?

Couldn't this be considered a communist revolution? The narrative seems to suggest that the revolutionaries were calling for a socialist system free of strict party controll, a soviet democracy, something along the lines of council communism. Charles Essie (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I just read, during the 50s and 60s the tendency among Soviet dissidents was to defend "socialism with a human face" and so not question the ideal of communism altogether (this changed during the 70s when the ideas of human rights, civil society and totalitarianism gained ground). Therefore you could call them "communist", as long as you don't identify it with the existing Russian/Stalinist regime. Ogoidbr (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It was a mumbo-jumbo of political leanings and some fractions didn't had any political interests whatsoever. What Charles Essie describes was true for some people and with regard to Ogoidbr's comment, I would dub them socialist rebels. But they were not in control of things and poorly organized politically, if at all. In fact I think it is wrong to call this uprising a revolution at all. First of all because there wasn't any revolution taking place, but also because the people engaged, wasn't striving for anything in particular, when viewed in total. RhinoMind (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Soviet version of events

It is interesting that the Soviet view: "Fascist, Hitlerite, reactionary, counter-revolutionary hooligans financed by the imperialist west took advantage of the unrest to stage a counter-revolution" sounds remarkably like the line the Kremlin is using with respect to the recent events in Ukraine.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point. And it is not coincidental. Russia and in particular Putins regimes, are still living in the power struggles of the Cold War era. It is part of Russia's modern identity as a nation and as a people as well. It does not have much to do with political ideologies any more, even tough that was what started it all. nowadays it is just the power struggle itself that is left. And it is a very important aspect of the mindset and attitudes of Russia and Russian people of today. I do not think we could blame Russia much in this respect, as USA and Europe are still actively proceeding the political agendas of containment towards Russia, just as they did during the Cold War. Nothing has changed with regard to this continuing power struggle. Now the ideologies are just not there anymore, it is just about money, power and control.
Lesson: It is always rewarding to understand a conflict from as many viewpoints as possible.
Here is a few relevant links: [2], [3]
RhinoMind (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It was always about power and control, then and now, here and there. (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. also sounds remarkably like some American "scholarly" literature on the Vietnam war (defending against "internal aggression", defending against "Vietcong terror"). This stuff is always taken very seriously at home and laughed at abroad.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Death Sentences

The Illustrated London News of 1957 June 20, on pg 1052, has a picture titled "Hungarian Patriots Condemned to Death", showing 3 prisoners in dock with guards.

"On June 30, in Budapest, the Hungarian Supreme Court confirmed death sentences on three Hungarians convicted of counter-revolutionary crimes and condemned to death three more who had previously been sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Prison sentences on five other Hungarians were increased..." The article gives their names as: "Ilona Toth, a woman medical student, Ferenc Gonczi, Miklos Gyongyosi, Gyula Obersovsky, Jozsef Gali, & Ferenc Kovacs."

I could find no further info or follow-up. CFLeon (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

60th anniversary

As next year will be the 60th anniversary of the Revolution what should there be on the WP main page?

Possibly articles on 'one or more of the persons involved' could be suitably developed. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A new paragraph or 2 about info on the 60th anniversary. SwagBucks101101 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)