Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  25-50 thousands Hungarian deaths? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hungarian Radio Commentator

message: #"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.
#Caused "revolt" and "rebels" to agree, thus "revolt" and "revolters" in my edit.
#"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.
#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)
thread_title:  April 21 edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Items in debate
#Number of deaths at the Radio station caused by AVH
#Number of deaths at Parliament square massacre caused by AVH
#To what extent the AVH was a force in being after Nagy's release from Party captivity around the 26th
#To what extent was the AVH a force in being after the renewal of battle on November 4
#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)
thread_title:  Role of the AVH in the revolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Horthy and Holocaust: not related 

message: Is there any statistical data or the section constitutes an original research?--Nixer 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What the revolutionaries wanted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: 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.
Deng
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.... 195.56.95.83 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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". 195.56.95.83 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crushing the Revolution 

message: 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 me...it sounds too academic...)--Ryanjo 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks --Ryanjo 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...the myth that Eastern Europe..chose Communism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits to "Revolution begins", "23 Oct to 4 Nov" and "10 November onwards" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 ? suggest that there was no significant effect while others ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BaselessRubbish 

message: For a 50-years old echo read: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/19/hungary.riots/index.html Bardwell 09:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the past 100 years of Hungarian history, I understand why they are passionate about their politics. Ryanjo 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50-years old echo 

message: I reorganized the "External links" section (links in parentheses were removed):
*Subsections have been divided by topics (please help with the Hungarian language sites, I don't know if I have correctly categorized them.)
*Eliminate links to duplicate sites (The American Hungarian Federation's 1956 information site) is the same as The 1956 Portal, which I kept.
*Remove "dead links" (A detailed description of the revolution)
*Remove links to publishers sites with bookcovers but no content (Hungary '56 by Andy Anderson Budapest 1956. Locations of Drama (Bob Dent, publ. 2006)) (Peter Fryer's writings on the 1956 Hungarian revolution)
*Remove links to pages without unique information or opinions (Hungary 1956)
*Remove links to blogs with unreferenced material (Economic factors leading to Revolution)
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)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More about Gomulka? 

message: ===1956 Hungarian Revolution (46 votes, stays until November 28)===
:Nominated August 29, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by November 28, 2006
; Support:
# Istvan 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AID]] votes 

message: :Nominated August 29, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by November 28, 2006
; Support:
# Istvan 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[1956 Hungarian Revolution]] (46 votes, stays until [[November 28]])

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What about Notes and references per Wikipedia:Guide to layout? NCurse  work 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  casus belli