These days, Hungary is marking the 60th anniversary of the uprising which was crushed by Soviet troops in cooperation with the AVH state security agency, the KGB’s Hungarian counterpart. The day when the revolution started, October 23, is now a public holiday in accordance with the decision of the National Assembly of Hungary passed on May 2, 1990. On the occasion of this anniversary, the Embassy of Hungary in Ukraine held a roundtable on October 21, entitled “The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 as a Manifestation of the Systemic Crisis and the Beginning of the Collapse of the Pro-Soviet Totalitarian Regimes.”
During that event, The Day had the chance to talk to former foreign minister of Hungary and historian Geza Jeszenszky who took part in the Hungarian Revolution when he was 15 years old. He outlined why the Hungarians had risen up against the Stalinist regime and what lessons were learned after the suppression of the uprising.
“THE HUNGARIAN RESISTANCE WAS ALSO PROVOKED BY A PANIC AMONG COMMUNIST LEADERS AND THE SOVIET UNION’S MILITARY INTERVENTION”
“The Stalinist period was extremely unbearable. Almost one in ten Hungarians was imprisoned or deported, and the rest of the population also had to live amid constant fear. Understandably, the economy left much to be desired in the first years after World War Two, but the economic recovery was there. However, the introduction of Communist approaches led to food shortages even as the militarization of the economy started. That is, Hungary, like other countries of the socialist camp, had to prepare for war. This meant that living standards were very low. The social life, too, was indeed paralyzed due to the harsh policies of the dictatorship.
“However, the so-called ‘thaw’ started following Joseph Stalin’s death, making some members of the Hungarian leadership advocate some substantial changes, and one of them was Prime Minister Imre Nagy, who stopped the deportations and released many people from prisons. He stopped the exploitation of peasants who lived in appalling conditions. Therefore, the country experienced noticeable improvement, but Nagy was then removed from power and expelled from the Communist Party in 1955-56. Thus, people were very afraid of an even harsher dictatorship returning. So in October 1956, students formulated the 16 demands that called only for a reform of governance. There was no desire to challenge the Soviet Union, but with the protests starting, the demands became more radical, but still controlled.
“Meanwhile, the panicking Hungarian Communists asked the Soviet Army to intervene and condemn democratic demands as fascist counterrevolution. It made the crowds of young people and workers even angrier as they accused the ‘proletarian dictatorship’ of exploiting the proletariat.
“Therefore we can say that the revolution was caused not only by repression, as the Hungarian resistance was also provoked by a panic among Communist leaders and the Soviet Union’s military intervention.”
“THE HUNGARIANS WERE NOT SO MUCH AGAINST THE COMMUNISTS, BUT RATHER FOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM”
It turns out, then, that the Hungarian revolution was spontaneous and had neither a plan nor organizers?
“Indeed, before 1956, there was no conspiracy, no organization whatsoever that would seek to organize a revolution. In that year, some intellectuals organized a kind of club that saw increasing attendance. Thus, the resistance movement emerged at the grassroots level, and it was there that demands were formulated or proposals expressed. But no one was intending to overthrow the regime even after we gathered for a mass protest in front of the statue of a Polish general who fought for the Hungarians in 1848-49. We wanted to emphasize the demands that were put forward by students and supported by the public.
“The first reaction of the Communist leaders of Hungary was totally inadequate. They did not recognize these demands’ legitimacy. First Secretary of the Communist Party Erno Gero immediately condemned the protesters and appealed for help to the Soviet Union.”
And what were your demands?
“The Hungarians were not so much against the Communists, but rather for democratic socialism. The parties that had been banned in 1948 were quickly reactivated in the early days of the revolution. Following that, the demand appeared to re-introduce the multi-party system that existed before the war. Across the country, the revolutionary committees were formed and good order was maintained.
“After the first week of the uprising, we had every reason to believe that the Soviet Union recognized that it was better to have Hungary as a friendly nation rather than an oppressed one. Indeed, we believed that we could obtain the status enjoyed by countries such as Austria or Finland. Those nations were free, but understood that being neighbors of the Soviet Union, they could not be allowed to conduct anti-Soviet policies and had to coordinate their foreign policies with the Kremlin.”
“THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP COULD NOT ACCEPT DEMOCRACY IN A COUNTRY THAT ALREADY WAS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIALIST BLOC”
What prompted the Soviet leadership to launch a military intervention in Hungary and suppress the revolution by force?
“On the one hand, the British-French intervention in Suez facilitated the Soviet military intervention in Hungary. But, in my opinion, the main reason was that the then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev concluded that if he allowed Hungary to become a free multiparty democracy, it might be followed by other countries, like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. Thus, the Kremlin realized that the revolution could not be stopped by moderate measures. And more generally, the Soviet leadership could not accept democracy in a country that was already a member of the socialist bloc.”
What lessons the world ought to learn from the failure of the Hungarian revolution?
“On the one hand, it showed that the Soviet control could not be eliminated through internal actions. Even a real revolution was unable to change the Soviet regime which kept Hungary under control. Another conclusion was that the USSR finally realized that the US did not plan to destroy Communism, liberate Soviet satellites, and generally threaten its security zone.
“In other words, the suppression of the Hungarian revolution played a role in the emergence of the policy of peaceful coexistence and the detente which occurred later between the two superpowers.
“The Soviet Union realized that it had no reason to fear the aggressive attitude of the West and NATO. And especially after the Cuban missile crisis, it became clear that the two blocks were balanced. Also, that vision of a divided Europe was accepted by the two superpowers precisely after 1956.”
“NO HUNGARIAN WANTS TO JOIN THE EURASIAN UNION”
At the roundtable, we heard a speaker saying that the revolution of 1956 happened because the Hungarians were born with a revolutionary spirit. He recalled the revolutions of 1848-49 and 1918-19 as well. What would you say to this?
“Speaking as a historian, I can say that there is indeed such a thing as national character. But it is changing, and very fast at that. This is not a permanent feature. And it can be broken, too. For example, Poland has had a very strong spirit of independence due to it having a very powerful patriotic tradition. Meanwhile, Hungary, unfortunately, was divided for much of the 20th century. So, of course, 1956 was full of inspiration, but Hungary has not been as united as the Polish nation has been since World War Two. In Poland, the Catholic church still has a strong influence, although it is not as strong as it was in the 1980s.
“Hungary is more divided religion-wise. We have not only the Catholic church, but also the Protestant one. Hungary had real Communists until 1956 at least, while Polish Communists were actually patriotic Poles. Hungarian Communists often thought that Hungarian nationalism was very dangerous, while Polish nationalism was praised greatly, even under Communist rule.”
Do you remember the last visit of Vladimir Putin to Hungary when he first visited the memorial to the Soviet soldiers who died in suppressing the Hungarian uprising. How do you feel about it?
“Really, it was a slightly different visit, because he laid a wreath at the monument to the Hungarian heroes during the previous one. And it reflected a new Russia as well. His new nationalist stance and open approval of the Soviet Union show that Russia wants to reassert itself. I do not think that Russia plans to send tanks into Hungary, but its energy influence is quite large. Of course, Russia is trying to become once again a very strong player and to sow discord among the members of the EU and NATO. I think the Hungarians, Poles, and Ukrainians should be more careful. No Hungarian wants to join the Eurasian Union to get some economic benefit. Russia remains an underdeveloped country. I think it is bad for the Russians to have the nation spending so much on arms to create a strong army, rather than to make people happier, develop infrastructure and education.”
“NATO IS THE GUARANTOR OF PEACE, INCLUDING IN HUNGARY”
We see that Viktor Orban wants to befriend Putin to get cheaper gas. What would you say to that?
“Russia holds a monopoly position and may make such offers or tempt some countries with cheaper gas provided they play along. But this looks like national blackmail of sorts. It is much better to have an alternative. This will reduce the price of Russian energy, and we will not need to rely on the bribes or goodwill coming from Putin or other leaders.
“In business, competition is important. Norway has large deposits of gas and oil, and oilfields have been recently discovered near Cyprus. Therefore, Russia and Azerbaijan will not be able to dictate the price. Iran is also rich in oil and gas, and the Western sanctions against it are getting lifted. So it would be far more promising not to request discounts or preferences from Russia, but to look for alternative sources instead. And should we do so, we can get a much better deal from Russia as well. We should not exclude Russian gas because it is a relatively nearby source for us. But we should not allow Russia to dictate the price.”
There have been many articles recently discussing the threat of populism, in particular naming Viktor Orban and Robert Fico as well as other European politicians as exemplifying such a threat. What do you think about this threat, including in your country?
“Such assumptions are not baseless. I also criticize some approaches proposed by Orban, including his foreign policy stance on Putin. I am an Atlanticist. In my view, NATO is extremely important and serves as the guarantor of peace, including peace and stability in Hungary. Orban’s chief concern is consolidation of power in Hungary and winning elections. His rhetoric is aimed at consolidating politicians who claim that the EU bodies are the enemy. They are not. We need substantial funds and assistance from the EU. I do not believe that any real danger comes from the Western countries or the EU.”
Is revival of the monarchy possible in Hungary?
“The Austro-Hungarian monarchy is already firmly in the past. It cannot be restored and no one really wants it. Otto von Habsburg, whom I knew personally, was a realist and believed that it was impossible. Of course, there are many similarities in cultures of the countries that were part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and not only in architecture or fine arts. Certainly, we do have its legacy in the shape of the economic union and the common currency, but it does not mean that the Habsburg monarchy can be resurrected in the future. The EU can develop further, but I do not think that this will lead to the emergence of a superpower.”
