The Events in Hungary in 1956 Seem to Be of High Importance for Historians and Political Researchers

7/30/2019 The Events in Hungary in 1956 Seem to Be of High Importance for Historians and Political Researchers

1/4

The events in Hungary in 1956 seem to be of high importance for historians and

political researchers. Half a century ago, under the influence of XX Congress of

the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, destalinization led to events that became

a tragedy: military forces of the USSR invaded the sovereign state in order to

change its government. For a long time after 1956, in the Soviet Union these

developments were explained in a way that was appropriate for us (Soviets,

Russians) according to the stereotypes produced by communist agitation

machinery. And even more, as Ferenc Feher correctly highlights, the Hungarian

revolution very quickly became taboo in the Eastern bloc. It was never mentioned

with any positive connotation, and was generally expunged from the records,

pushed into total oblivion. [2; p.60] This point only confirms that the Hungarian

events of 1956 are considered to be of significance. But even nowadays, when we

experience freedom of speech and historians have access to archives of the

Communist Party, these revolutionary developments are still not very clear or so

easy to estimate.

In order to understand the consequences of the events of 1956 Hungary, I shall

explain the causes of the revolution and the processes that took place during these

events. After the Second World War, the head of the Hungarian Communist Party,

Rakosi, and his elite were implementing destructive social policy, including

industrialization, repressions, and strengthening the rule of the party. The situation

was almost the same in other Eastern European states, but in Hungary, peoplealready had experience of reforms and destalinization measures because of Imre

Nagys term as prime-minister (1953-1955) and his enduring conservative politics.

A primary cause of the revolution was the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet

Communist Party, where Khrushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin. This

action appeared to be unexpected and striking for the communist world. What is

more important, Khrushchevs speech was crucial for the inner political state in

Hungary, because it undermined Rakosis position, and set in motion a wave of

opposition, which led to the events of 23 October 4 November. [1; p.32]. Itshould be noted that, after Rakosis removal from power, a portion of the

intellectual elite were unsure as to what action to take, but there was not only one

social class that was driving the process. As Bill Lomax states, scientists

have concentrated their attention on the rebellion of intellectuals, writers and

politicians, while the actions of the popular masses, of the working class and the

peasantry, the soldiers, students and youth, have been left largely out of account

[1; p.17] Moreover, all different social classes were united in their revolutionary

movement; for example, students were reflecting the general mood ofdissatisfaction that was becoming ever more openly expressed by the working


2/4

people themselves [1; p.37]. This unity bore various methods of struggling - for

example, general strike, which became a concerted action. It started immediately

after the morning of 24 October. Furthermore, the unstoppable cycle of peaceful

mass demonstrations, in Budapest and in other parts of the country was also a

manifestation of Hungarian revolution; the whole country was taking part in an

action of collective civil disobedience. This single-minded disobedience revealed

the main characteristic of this rebellion: its undomesticable anti-authoritarianism.

As a part of that disobedience, people had simply brought about the freedom of the

press without waiting for any permission.[2; p.89]

Therefore, the revolution had three main features. Firstly, it united the whole

nation in struggle, regardless of social class and position. Opinions differed as to

the main goal of this struggle: was it a fight for national independence from the

Soviet Union, or fight for political liberties? [2, p.75]. The answer is not sostraightforward. Though the revolution was, at the beginning, aimed at achieving

political aims, after the Soviet forces entered Hungary it transformed into a fight

for national independence [2, p.86]. Secondly, there was a high degree of self-

organisation by the masses. People established committees and workers councils,

that became kinds of democratic institutions providing political equality. It is

significant that when Soviet military forces suppressed the revolution on 4

November, and all political achievements of the revolution were destroyed, only

workers councils remained and continued to struggle. So a special role of theworking class formations in the revolution should be highlighted. [1, p.147] The

third feature of the revolution was political pluralism of the government. On 3

November Imre Nagy headed a government coalition of the new Communist Party

and Social Democratic, Smallholder and Peasant Parties. [2, xvi]

From analyzing these events, it appears as though the Soviet Union did not

estimate such events to happen in Hungary. This may have been, in part, because

Soviet leaders believed that in Eastern Europe people, and especially the working

class, were fully committed to communism and did not desire any change. To

them, it was unthinkable to suggest that a communist state from Eastern Europe

would like to leave the Communist Camp. [3, p.319] This suggests why Hungary

played such an important role in the world arena. As Ferenc Feher states, the

Hungarian revolution of 1956 eliminated forever this idea of the indestructibility of

the Soviet regimes from within. [2, p.3] It was the first time that the Soviet Union

faced such a serious challenge; despite the fact that Khrushchev earlier had

criticized Stalins methods of governing, he himself had to make a difficult choice

intervene in, and suppress, Hungarian affairs, or stay aside and watch. It is well

known that Politburo wasnt unanimous in the decision to use military force


3/4


4/4

Soviet model of social organization would be perceived by Moscow as an attack on

her "the landlord" role.And, finally, the political situation in the Soviet Union was also intensified: the

fear of the developments similar to "Hungarian counterrevolution" stopped the

scant reform potential of Khrushchev and his team. The process of de-Stalinization

of the society went to the decline. The position of Khrushchev himself was

significantly weakened and criticism of the course of the XX Congress intensified,

and moreover, real intraparty opposition emerged, which stated itself quite openly -

in June 1957.

Documents

The Events in Hungary in 1956 Seem to Be of High Importance for Historians and Political Researchers