Historical Summary

Home Mission & History Historical Summary WWI & WWII Current Events Achievements Culture Links Contact Us

ORIGINS OF THE HUNGARIAN KINGDOM I. The Early Beginnings A. Legendary Origins The early history of the Hungarian nation, like it is with most other nations, is shrouded in folklore legends.  These legends have been recorded in the late 12th & 13th century by various monks and priests in the Latin language, as it was customary in the middle ages.  The best known book is the Gesta Hungarorum. While historians still debate the subject, 20th century research, however, surprisingly has validated some aspects of these legends. According to the legends, the biblical King Nimrod had two sons, named Hunor and Magor (or Magyar).  Each son, with 100 warriors set out to form a nation of his own, with the help of Miraculous Stag; they had found maidens to form their new nations.  The descendants of Hunor and his warriors became the Hun people; the descendants of Magyar and his warriors became the Hungarian (Magyar) people.  Other theories related to the Hungarian people by language - according to putative research done in the mid 1800s - are supposedly the Finns.  (Serious research published since that time disagree with the above position; the Hungarian ethnic and language picture indicates Ural-Altaian origins and closer in relation to Turkic languages than Finno-Ugrians.) B. Movement toward West While earlier historians did not make these conclusions, modern day historians talk about the migration of the Hungarian people in three distinct waves.  They were all horsemen-warriors, who used the bow and arrow from galloping horses equally well forward and backward when loosing their shots.  The first wave of these Ural-Altaian people were the Huns, who first appeared in Europe around the year 370 AD, and reached the height of their empire during the reign of King Attila around 452 AD.  His empire stretched from the Caspian Sea to the River Rhein.  His capital is thought to be in the center of the Carpathian basin, on or about where the present cities of Szeged or Szentes exist, along the Tisza River. (Hence, as the legends also indicate, the common Hungarian belief, that Hungary is a rightful inheritance of Hungarians, since Attila was the first who had organized it.) The second wave, after the collapse of Attila's empire after 454, swept back into the Carpathian basin in the 6th century, known as the Avars.  They were horse-archers as the Huns and regarded as direct descendants of the previous Huns.  They took possession of the land previously occupied by the Huns and conducted much feared military campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire and the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. The third and final wave was that of the Magyars, or Hungarians, (also regarded by many historians and anthropologists of the 19th and 20th century as descendants of the mixture of the remnants of Attila's Huns and other Turanian Hungarian tribes) led by Prince Arpad.  He and his confederation of seven Hungarian and several smaller Kabar tribes arrived on or about 895.  There is a lot of disagreement as to the number of warriors that  comprised Arpad's forces; estimates run from 20,000 - which is highly improbable - to 50,000, which was more likely the case.  They found only one significant force opposing them, the army of the Bulgarian Prince Zalan, whom they defeated.  The rest of the inhabitants of the land, remnants of Huns (like the Szekelys in Transylvania) and Avars were quickly united with the Hungarians. Nearly a hundred years followed in which Hungarian campaigns into the west and southwest (German & Roman Empire; Frankish Empire and Italy as well the Greek Empire in the Balkans) caused fear in the lands that they attacked, but at the same time, assured the Hungarians the possession of their retaken Homeland.  (Recent research conducted by historians, anthropologists and archeologists have reported that the Carpathian basin are full of findings that indicate Hungarian presence going back many centuries prior to Attila's arrival.) (Source: Essays of Dr.V.Falk; edited and remarks in parenthesis by L.B.G.Simonyi; other source material for those remarks: Dr.T.Barath, 1968: The Ancient History of Hungarian Peoples; V.E.Banky: Life of King Attila; S.Katona: Our Dual Ethnic Name: Magyar  and Hungarian; Dr.Gy.Laszlo: Our Ancient History; V. Padanyi, 1977, The Great Catastrophe; P.Macartney, 1962 : Hungary: A Short History.) II.The Kingdom of the Arpad House The Holy Crown of Hungary  In introduction, it must be pointed out that the doctrine of the Holy Crown of Hungary is not the summation of the various data investigated over the years, but is Hungary’s ancient unwritten historic constitution. The preservation of the essence of this doctrine through the span of history took shape through the will of the nation in order to meet the demands of social and economic developments.  The most characteristic and permanent features of this doctrine, though they were not explicitly stated, were always accepted through the ages; Hungarian society was always determined to give them validity.   The Holy Crown is the uniting force for the entire political nation. The concept of an entity as a “political nation” was articulated in 1867 by Frances Deak, a Member of Parliament. This concept explains the continuous expansion of this doctrine, which includes the notion that it is the people that have the right to decree membership in the Holy Crown. Consequently, the Holy Crown encompasses in its membership each individual that belongs to the Hungarian political nation: the Hungarian citizenry, the territories under the Crown and all its lands, as well as the person of the ruler.   In Hungary, the source of all power resides in the Holy Crown. Therefore, according to this doctrine, power is wielded in unison between the members of the Crown, that is, by the ruler and the nation together. The use of this power in unison is mirrored in the articles of the Golden Bull of 1222. It is also this notion of power that explains why King Matthias, who wielded almost absolute power, yet felt it necessary to have parliament sanctify/confirm, or even to promulgate his royal will (i.e. absolutism was not accepted.)  Within the Holy Crown, it is not the king to whom the country and the people belong; it is the king that belongs to Country and to the Nation. The Hungarian king’s power was not derived from divine right and he was not an absolute ruler; rather, he was chosen by the people/nation. In Hungary, the thrown was inherited by a member of the Ruling House through the will of the people. Thus the new king was chosen by Parliament. (Naturally, those close to power influenced the will of the nation, just as today’s political parties do through their modern-day campaigning. This is the reason for the frequent power struggles during the centuries of rule by the House of Arpad.)  The land/country always belonged to the Holy Crown. The wearer of that crown held the land in trust through the power of the Holy Crown. If there was no successor through bloodlines, the land reverted to the Crown. During the nineteenth century, this process was somewhat relaxed due to economic necessity. In the often-pillaged country, the majority of landholders did not have access to good sources of agriculture. This was not due mainly to agricultural mismanagement, but simply because in the past centuries all potential for agricultural reform was retarded due to the various vicissitudes that befell the country: the Turkish conquest, the Habsburg reconquest, Prince Rakoczi’s War for Independence in the early eighteenth century, the NapoleonicWars, the War of Independence of 1848.   Members of the Holy Crown comprise Hungary and each individual member of the citizenry within its borders. However, after Trianon, one major question arises: What about the unjustly appropriated territories and the Hungarian citizenry living there? The connection/relation between these Hungarians and the Holy Crown was severed due to outside forces which, nevertheless, by themselves had no real impact on the mystical relationship between the Holy Crown and its members. What did, however, have an effect was the brainwashing that ensured that the people would be unfamiliar with this connection. In spite of this attempt, the Holy Crown continues to embrace as members those who, through the vagaries of history and demands of foreign forces, have been deprived of active participation in this membership. As for the land—all ancient territories where its members still live continue to belong to the Crown, even if occupied by usurpers. Those lands, too, are part of the Holy Crown.  King St. Stephen, after the death of his only son and heir, in desperation offered up the Holy Crown of Hungary—that is, all who constituted the membership in the crown—to the protection of Our Lady, Mary the Mother of Jesus. Ever since, the Holy Crown is also Our Lady’s Crown, and Mary lives in the hearts of Hungarians as Patroness of Hungary: Patrona Hungariae.  Other countries also have crown traditions (Czech Republic, Poland), but those traditions are linked to the royal crown in the person of the king, who was only a temporary wearer of this symbol of kingship. For us Hungarians, in contrast, it is in the Crown in its own right in which power resides. It cannot be substitute by any other crown, royal or otherwise. The explanation of this phenomenon can be found in the history of the Crown itself, a history that is not the official or academic crown history, but a history somewhat hidden by the ambiguity of its origin.   (Translator's Remark: The Hungarian Holy crown had been in US custody from 1945 until 1978.  At that time, President Carter returned it - along with the other ceremonial Crown articles - to the Hungarian Government.) When the Holy Crown was finally returned to Hungary, engineers and goldsmiths thoroughly examined it and unanimously rejected the current prevailing teaching that the Crown was made up of two parts. The Crown is a single unit that was designed and created sometime in the fourth or fifth century, somewhere in the Caucasus. In all likelihood, the Hungarians’concept of the nation/state goes back to the time before the Crown was stolen by the Franks.   The Holy Crown is a consecrating crown that mystically makes the person chosen by the nation become the leader of the Hungarians. Each king has worn it at least once in his life at his consecration, that is, his coronation.    (Source: "Rasti" thru G. Radics, Nov. 28  2005)   BRIEF HISTORY OF ST. STEPHEN, FIRST KING OF HUNGARY (By: Marta Simonyi) “FOUNDER OF THE HUNGARIAN STATE” 975-August 15, 1038   King St. Stephen’s Day is one of the foremost national holidays of Hungary, celebrated on August 20.  This celebration is primarily to honor the first king and Founder of the Hungarian State. Stephen was born a pagan in 965 A.D., son of the Hungarian Chieftain Geza, who was fourth in line of succession to Arpad, the head of the seven Hungarian tribes that carried out the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin in 896 A.D.  The Hungarians for a half century were the scourge of Europe until they were defeated by the Holy Roman Emperor in the battle of Augsburg in 955. Duke Geza, who was a far sighted and cunning politician, realized then that his people could not continue this way of life and that if they did not adopt the way of life of the Christian West, the Magyars would disappear from history, as had their relatives the Huns and Avars.  The raids ceased, and Christian missionaries were invited to Hungary. Geza, whose wife was already a Christian, himself embraced Christianity more from political reasons than from intrinsic conviction.  He had his son, Vajk, baptized as well, changing his name to “Stephen.”  This son became the first king of Hungary, the first Christian successor of Arpad, whose dynasty ruled over Hungary until 1301 A.D.  (This  family, the Royal House of Arpad, gave five saints to the Christian Church.)  Stephen, unlike his father, wholeheartedly embraced Christianity.  Faith and political providence for the future of his people were the basic characteristics and motivations of his future life. While the father, Geza, hardly did more than start the work, the son realized that the adoption of the Christian faith must go parallel with the complete changeover of the social and political structure, and with the new religion a new culture and civilization must be adopted.  Knowing well his stubborn, impetuous nation’s insistence on the old religion and old system, he decided to use force, to break the power of the tribes and establish himself as the only and unchallenged ruler of his nation.  Thus, his first step was to send an envoy to Pope Sylvester II, asking for and receiving a royal crown, which conferred upon Hungary symbolic recognition as a Christian nation. This decision of Stephen’s determined the future of the Hungarians forever.  He turned to Rome and not to Byzantium; he chose West instead of East.  Thus the Hungarian State became part of the Western European cultural sphere.  This had a tremendous significance in shaping future Hungarian history.  By asking the Pope for a crown instead of from the Holy Roman Emperor, he demonstrated his determination to keep Hungary independent of the Western and Byzantine Emperors, that he would not be a vassal of other rulers as was the custom in the feudal system of that age; rather, he recognized a spiritual, but nonpolitical allegiance to the Pope and to no one else. Shortly after being crowned king in 1000 A.D., he set about establishing a strong Christian State, defending it against both domestic and foreign enemies. He broke down and annihilated the resistance of the powerful tribal dukes and, in a succession of civil wars, he imposed the Christian religion, culture, and civilization on his people—whether they liked it or not. His powerful historic personality was demonstrated after those civil wars, when he successfully defeated the German Holy Roman Emperor, the Byzantine Empire, and the Venetian Republic—each of which had threatened the independence of the newborn Hungarian Christian State.  He was convinced that he had a mission as a Christian and Hungarian.  Firmly attaching his nation to western Christianity, he established an eastern bulwark against the attacks of the East.  (In centuries to come, St. Stephen’s nation successfully resisted attacks from the Cumanians, Mongols, and Turks. Decimated in these and other  wars for over the 1000 years, Hungarians still tried to do their best to resist eastern Communism in World War II, and again in 1956, as true descendants of St. Stephen.) St. Stephen, during his long reign, established his Christian kingdom.  Large numbers of missionaries, priests, and bishops were invited and received privileges. He ordered every tenth village to build a church and maintain its priests.  He established several monasteries, and invited monks to teach his people.  He established the still existing county-system, and he organized the entire structure of the Church in Hungary, establishing dioceses and archbishoprics.  His strict laws were based on Christian principles, and he provided well for Christian teachers who were to raise a new Christian Hungarian generation.  His religious and political testament, addressed to his son, prove his deep faith and his political farsightedness. In recognition of his success, in his lifetime the Pope granted him the title Apostolic King, and the right to use the apostolic double cross. All kings of Hungary styled themselves “Apostolic” until 1918, and the double cross is in Hungary’s coat of arms to this day. As the years passed, the king became more and more introverted, praying several hours each day.  His main concern was the future of his people. When his only son and heir (who was raised by two bishops) died in the prime of his life in a hunting accident, and aware of the upcoming struggle for his crown by various claimants, he offered his crown and his nation to the protection of the Blessed Virgin. For a thousand years since, she has been the Patroness of Hungary, Our Lady of Hungary.  (This son, Prince Imre—Emery—was later canonized for his pure and beautiful life.) To this day, the Magyar Nation reveres its first king and saint, who was canonized in 1083 A.D., and became the first in a line of saints from the Royal House of Arpad of Hungary. They include Prince St. Emery, King St. Ladislaus, Princess St. Elizabeth, and Princess St. Margaret.  (St. Stephen and these saints are the ones depicted on our main altar, with the edition of St. Gellert, martyred bishop.)   When his sarcophagus was opened in 1083 on the occasion of his canonization, his right hand was found miraculously intact (the Holy Right).  This relic of the First Apostolic King is preserved and respected by Hungarians to this day, regardless of religious affiliations.  August 20, the day on which his sacred relics were transferred from his burial city of Szekesfehervar to Budapest, has been a national holiday since 1867.  It was a celebration conducted with pomp and ceremony throughout the nation, without regard to religious affiliations.  It was not just a celebration of a saint’s day, but more importantly a celebration commemorating our first king and the Founder of the Hungarian State. With his coronation in 1000 AD, Hungary as a unified country has exited now for more than 1000 years. Before World War II, August 20 was celebrated with outdoor processions and fireworks on the Danube. His miraculously preserved right hand, The Holy Right, was carried in procession around the capital city, Budapest, with the nation’s dignitaries in formal national garb, religious orders, government and military personnel, the aristocracy, and the entire nation participating. Tremendous crowds lined the routes.  For many years after the War, however, such public observances were forbidden by the Russian occupiers and the communist government.  Finally, between 1956 and 1990, there was a little more leniency in this regard and observance was again permitted, but on a much smaller scale. The Holy Right was permitted to be on display on the alter of the Basilica of St. Stephen in Budapest for one week at the time of his nameday, and here the faithful and patriotic Magyars came to seek his aid and protection for their sorely tried country.   The day, however, had to be changed from “St. Stephen’s Day” to “Constitution Day.” Today, it is again celebrated as a national holiday, “St. Stephen’s Day”, with outdoor procession and ceremonies in the Basilica.  In the evening, there are spectacular fireworks watched by throngs along the Danube embankment. St. Stephen’s crown became a symbol of an independent, Christian Hungary. As such, the Holy Crown will always be respected by Hungarians, even if Hungary never returns to being a monarchy again. It is the property of the free Hungarian nation, a 1000-year old symbol that always did and always will exercise a tremendous influence on the emotions of this nation.  The Holy Crown today is enshrined in the Hungarian Parliament Building in Budapest. During these celebrations, a special hymn is sung in honor of King St. Stephen and singing the Hungarian National Anthem ends the celebration. Translation of the first stanza of the hymn that is always sung on St. Stephen’s Day:  Where art thou Magyars’ brilliant star,  Our country’s protector of old?  Where art thou, Stephen our King?  Your Magyars yearn for you.  In deepest mourning  Stand crying before you.   Translation of the Hungarian National Anthem:  Himnusz     Oh my God the Magyars bless  With Thine plenty and good cheer!  With Thine aid their just cause press  Where their foes to fight appear.  Fate, who for so long did’st frown  Bring them happy times and ways.  Atoning sorrow hath weighed down  Sins of past and future days.    HUNYADI ERA TRIANON  The Cancer of Central Europe: Trianon On the 4th of June, 2006 is the 86th anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon, the peace treaty which in 1920 mutilated and dismembered an ancient European nation: the kingdom of Hungary. At Trianon Hungary was deprived 72% of her territory and 64% of her inhabitants, 13 million out of her 21 million inhabitants. This essay has three parts: First it will discuss the history of Hungary until the end of World War One, culminating in the Treaty of Trianon. Next it will describe the Treaty, its architects, goals and consequences. After that, it will discuss "Hungary's guilt" and the events of the last 86 years, to show, that just as Nazism was not born in Germany but in Versailles, so the tragedy of Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, the fragmentation of Central Europe and the still contemplated Russian expansion into Europe can all be traced back to Trianon. I will conclude the article by suggesting a plan to construct a healthy entity from the disintegrated remains of Trianon, to reconstitute the unity of Central Europe and the stability of the European Union. Pre-Trianon Hungary For a thousand years, Hungary occupied an oval shaped central plane surrounded by the protective bulwark of the Carpathian Mountains in the heart of Europe. Like the crust on a loaf of bread, the mountains encased the lowlands in a majestic arch from which all waterways converged toward the center. This perfect geographic unity was matched by complete self-sufficiency, until this harmonious symbiosis of the great central plain and its surrounding mountains was destroyed at Trianon. For a millennium, Hungary was the eastern bastion of European civilization, a balancing and stabilizing power between Slavic and Germanic nations. Hungary's first king, Saint Stephen, wrote to his son, Saint Emeric, in 1036: "Make the strangers welcome in this land, let them keep their languages and customs, for weak and fragile is the realm which is based on a single language or on a single set of customs" (unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragile est.) Stephen's advice was respected and obeyed during the coming centuries: Hungary gave asylum to the Ruthenians in the north, the Wallachians (Romanians) and Saxons in the east, the Swabians and Serbs in the south. Eventually the kingdom of 21 million, possessed 14 national minorities, of which the Magyars were only one. In order not to hurt the feelings of any of the minorities, Latin remained the sole official language of the kingdom until 1844. Hungary became a constitutional monarchy in 1222 and her constitution, the Golden Bull is junior to the Magna Carta by only 7 years. This constitutional monarchy was almost completely annihilated by the Mongol invasion of 1240-41, but through her enormous struggle, it succeeded in protecting Europe and her civilization. In 1456, the Hungarian armies defeated the Turkish forces and in gratitude, the Pope ordered the ringing of the bells at noon time in all Catholic churches. Toward the end of the XVth century, during the reign of the renaissance king Matthias Corvinus, Hungary's population reached that of England, the court in Buda became one of the finest cultural centers of Europe, and the Corvinus Library in Buda was Europe's finest. In 1526, Hungary was once again annihilated by a Turkish invasion, which cut her population in half and the kingdom in three. During the 150 years of Ottoman occupation, the western part of the kingdom was occupied by Austria, the center by the Ottoman invaders and Hungarian culture survived only in the east, in Transylvania. Even today, Transylvania is the land where the purest Hungarian is spoken, where Hungarian popular art has found its most exalted, most perfect expression, and where Béla Bartók collected his Hungarian folk tunes. Transylvania is also the place where the Hungarian Diet at Torda, in 1557, - for the first time in the world -, declared the freedom of all religions. Transylvania was also the birthplace of the Unitarian and Sabbatarian religions. After the Turkish occupation, Austria attempted to take over all of Hungary. This resulted in a series of uprisings. The War of Independence of 1703-1711 was led by Francis II Rákóczy whose insurgent fighters were mostly Slovak and Ruthenian peasants, who proudly declared themselves to be Hungarians (as distinct from the racial term Magyar). The next fight for national independence came in 1848. It was led by Louis Kossuth. Once again, the Ruthenian and Slovak nationalities contributed masses of recruits for the Hungarian revolutionary army, which, while defeated by the combined forces of Austria and Czarist Russia, forced the Hapsburgs to accept the formation of an Austro-Hungarian duality in 1867. The leader of the 1848 war of independence, Kossuth was the second foreigner (second only to Lafayette) to be ever invited to address the United States Congress in January, 1852. It was also Kossuth who in 1862 proposed to convert the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s 24 million Slavs, 12 million Germans and 12 million Hungarians - a population which at that TIME WAS larger than that of France - into a Danubean Confederation. He wrote at the time: "Unity and fraternity among Hungarians, Slavs and Romanians! This is my dream and my most honest advice! Let the future smile on this land and all of her people! Unite!" From Sarajevo to Trianon At the beginning of this century, Russia sponsored intensive Pan-slavic agitation in Central Europe. Archduke Francis Ferdinand, - heir apparent of Emperor Francis Joseph-, was the main opponent of that expansion and also of the creation of a Greater Serbia. Because of that, Russia engineered his murder on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist. The only member of the Council of Ministers of the Dual Monarchy who opposed the war of retaliation against Serbia was the Hungarian Premier, Count Stephen Tisza. When he was voted down, Hungary occupied Serbia and by 1915 would have considered the war over, if Russia did not have scores to settle with the Ottoman Empire, if France did not have similar scores to settle with Germany, Italy with Austria, and so forth. Therefore the First World War broke out and went on. The main reason for WW1 was the fear of France, England and Russia, that Germany will become the leading power in Europe. Simultaneously, Germany and Austria-Hungary were afraid of the military and economic domination of Europe by the Triple Entente. Initially, the plans of the Entente did not include the dismemberment of Hungary, although in secret, they did offer Eastern Hungary to Romania in 1916, if she joined the Triple Alliance. During the war, the Czech allies of Serbia, Eduard Benes and professor Thomas Masaryk, transformed themselves from consultants into architects of allied policy for Central Europe. They had a difficult task, because the English and the Americans were against the "balkanization" of Central Europe into small nation states. The Czechs emigrants organized a deceitful propaganda campaign for the dismemberment of Hungary and in their efforts succeeded in obtaining the support of two criminally ignorant French politicians, Georges Clémenceau and Raymond Poincaré. In spite of all that, in 1917, - when Emperor Charles I came to power -, the Entente offered a separate peace treaty to Austria-Hungary, which would have guaranteed all her borders. Later, the propaganda of the Czech emigrants exploited the fact that Lenin came to power in Russia in 1917. They also exploited the nationalistic desires of the Czech and Slav soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian army and bombarded them with some 150,000 leaflets, which showed the map of the proposed of their new nation states. Still later, when Hungary temporarily fell under Communism in 1919, the Czech emigrants argued that the dismemberment of Hungary will help saving Europe from Communism. President Wilson refused to cooperate in this conspiracy. He wanted Europe's new borders to correspond to her ethnographic boundaries and he wanted the principle of self-determination to prevail. When in October, 1918 the Austro-Hungarian army capitulated, it did that under the assumption that President Wilson’s Principles will prevail, but his views were later disregarded by the French. Hungary’s borders were not defined by the armistice she signed on the 3rd of November, 1919 in Padua, but by the Czech and French armies entering from the North and South. The Hungarian government of Michael Karoly did not resist the occupation. Similarly to the Czechs and the French, five days after signing her armistice, Romania too "reentered" the war, and occupied Transylvania without resistance.  After Count Michael Károlyi’s government resigned in 1919, Béla Kun established a Communist dictatorship, raised a Red Army and overran Slovakia. In response to the Red dictatorship, a counterrevolution broke out and its leader, Nicholas Horthy invited the Romanian army into Hungary to overthrow it. President Wilson objected to the Serb and Romanian occupation of Hungary, but he was overruled by the French, who argued that this occupation will prevent the spread of Communism. The Treaty of Trianon On the 4th of June, 1920, one of the cruelest treaties of human history was signed. Never before had a peace, imposed by violence, been more brutal in its bias, madder in its destructiveness, more forgetful of the lessons of history and better calculated to create future upheavals. The treaty cut mercilessly into the flesh of compact Hungarian populations. Hundreds of towns were separated from their suburbs; villages were split in two; communities were deprived of their parish churches or cemeteries; townships were cut off from their railroad stations and their water supplies. A 1000-year-old European country was made into an invalid as its territory was reduced by 72%. In the process, some 35% of all Hungarians were turned into foreigners without moving from the towns, which their fathers built, as the borders were redrawn around them. In this way, the Hungarians became and still are one of Europe's largest minorities. In comparison, the leader of the central powers: Germany lost only 9.5% of her territory. The outrage of this mockery of justice is illustrated by the fact that even Austria lined up at the carcass and received some parts of the dismembered Hungarian Kingdom. From the fragments of Hungary, the contrived Successor States of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and greater Romania were created. These artificial entities forced Croats to live with Serbs and Czechs to live with Slovaks, demonstrating both the arrogance and the ignorance of Trianon's architects. These Successor States were not only geographic monstrosities but also economic absurdities and therefore their self-destruction was just a matter of time. As we know, two of the three successor states have already disintegrated. The French goal was to establish dominance over the whole of Europe by the creation of insecure client states out of the carcass of Austria-Hungary, in the back of Germany. France was successful in turning the nations of Central Europe, -which in the past lived in peace-, against each other and, because of the nationalist governments of these client states felt endangered by their large minorities, the whole of Europe was destabilized. The plunder obtained by the Successor States was too large to digest. It was for this reason, why democracy could not evolve in these multinational states. They were afraid that they could not survive, if they provided the basic democratic rights to their minorities. Being afraid to give autonomy to their minorities, deformed the evolution of these states and also distorted the mentality of their populations. All the United States Congress could do at the time, was to refuse to approve the Treaty of Trianon. So, this product of Neronian insanity, this plan, unjust in substance and tragic in consequence, was implemented anyway.    Self-Determination Through Plebiscites The very foundation of the 14 Wilsonian Principles was that people have an unalienable right to determine their own destiny. Yet in drawing the new borders at Trianon, self-determination and the use of plebiscites was totally disregarded. Although Field Marshall Ian Smith recommended to the Peace Conference to hold plebiscites in Transylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Croatia and Slavonia, his advice was rejected. Therefore, he was correct in declaring: "A plebiscite refused is a plebiscite taken." By not allowing plebiscites, the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the redistribution of her 48 million citizens resulted in the creation of 16 million oppressed ethnic minorities. These minorities were not emigrants who voluntarily left their country, but people who never moved from the towns their fathers built and became foreigners, just because Clémenceau and Benes decided to redraw the borders around them. When the Wends and Slovenes of the Muraköz protested their separation from Hungary, when the Ruthenians expressed their desire to remain in the kingdom, - which they shared for a thousand years -, when the Swabians of the Banat protested their annexation into Romania and Yugoslavia (Vojvodina), the answer was always the same: no! There was only one exception, only a single case where President Wilson's principle of self-determination prevailed: It was in the case of the city of Sopron, which held a plebiscite and voted by a majority of 65% to remain part of Hungary and not to join Austria. The "Guilt" Of Hungary The real reason for dismembering Hungary was the desire of the Western European powers to eliminate the state which could compete with their influence and thereby bring a power balance to the continent. The excuse used by the French was that Hungary’s dismemberment would prevent the spread of Communism. But the real reason why Hungary was dismembered was the French desire for domination and because Hungary could not defend herself and because her greedy neighbors decided to help themselves to the unprotected carcass. Naturally, the architects of Trianon could not admit this and therefore invented the theory of Hungary's Guilt, claiming that she started the First World War, was a historical German ally and a destabilizing force in Europe. None of these reasons were true. As to the claim of starting WW1, it was the Serb para-governmental organization, Narodna Obrana, which, with the encouragement of Russia and with the goal of the creation of a Greater Serbia, assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914 and it was the Premier of Hungary, who alone in the Austro-Hungarian Council of Ministers, voted against a war of retaliation against Serbia. As to the claim of being a natural German ally, history proves just the opposite. Whenever Hungary was independent, she acted as a keystone of balance between the Germanic and Slavic peoples and prevented the attempts of both Pan-Germanic and Pan- Slavic expansions. In the first 500 years of her existence, starting with the Battle of Lechfeld in 955, Hungary fought to block the spread of German influence towards the East and created stability by filling the power vacuum in the region. When under Germanic (Austrian) occupation between 1688 and 1867, she twice rose against the Hapsburgs and eventually gained independence from them. Tacitus: "We Hate Whom We Hurt" In any society, the acid test of civilization is the respect for minority rights. The Great Powers’ attempted to guarantee these rights by making the Successor States sign minority treaties, which outlined the language, religious, cultural and property rights of the minorities. For example, the minority treaty signed with Romania on the 9th of December, 1919 in Paris, - guaranteed by the United States, Britain, France, Italy and Japan -, stated the following: Article 8: No restriction shall be imposed on the free use of any language. Article 9: Equal rights to establish, manage and control religious institutions, schools and other educational establishments. In Article 11: Roumania agrees to accord to the communities of the Szecklers (Hungarian Székelys) and Saxons in Transylvania local autonomy in regard to scholastic and religious matters. Article 12: Roumania agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles, constitute obligations of international concern. Similar treaties were signed with the other Successor States, but none were ever enforced. In fact, the Great Powers turned the other way while the Successor States attempted to "solve" their minority problems, first through denationalization, then by ethnic cleansing through deportations, expulsions, transfers, dispersions and other forms of uprooting. Hungarians had to choose between their nationality and their property. Because of the savage oppression, intimidation and coercion, 350,000 Hungarians decided to leave all their possessions behind and flee to rump Hungary. The institutions and possessions of Hungarian communities were also targeted. In Transylvania alone, the Hungarian community lost 1,665 of her schools, including the world famous János Bolyai University, named after Einstein's predecessor, the inventor of the new (non-Euclidean) geometry. The Paris Peace Treaty On February 10, 1947, the Great Powers had another opportunity to enforce the until- then-disregarded minority treaties. This was expected because on August 14, 1941, the Atlantic Charter was signed, and it too (like the earlier Wilsonian principles) emphasized the right to self-determination and to plebiscites. Yet, not a single plebiscite was allowed. In fact, rump Hungary was further violated by the transfer of additional land to Slovakia. This transfer, later, made it possible to build the monstrous Gabcikovo dam project, which unilaterally and illegally transferred the Danube, Hungary's border river, onto Slovak territory (in 1992), thereby destroying Europe's oldest wetland region. At the end of the Second World War, the worst crime of legalistic hypocrisy occurred. Eduard Benes, with the scandalous connivance of the Western Allies, invented the concept of "collective responsibility" and used it to confiscate the properties of the Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and later, and to deport them in cattle cars. To understand the hypocrisy of this Benes Decree of "Collective Guilt", one must realize that wartime Slovakia under Tiso was a protectorate of Nazi Germany. It was the representative of the Hungarian minority in the Slovak parliament, János Esterházy, who cast the only dissenting vote against the Jewish laws, which were passed by that body. Yet, after the war, Esterházy died in a Czechoslovakian jail and the Hungarian minorities he represented were collectively sentenced as war criminals. Thereby, when the Jewish Hungarians, deported by the Nazis returned from the German death camps, they found their properties confiscated and were deported again, because of their collective guilt as Hungarians. The Last Decades By the late 1940s, the only protection of the Hungarian minorities, were their churches. In 1948, 600 Hungarian Catholic priests and all six of their bishops were arrested in Transylvania. As the Romanians belong to the Eastern Orthodox faith, Rome later agreed to gerrymander the Catholic sees and to appoint Romanian bishops to lead the all-Hungarian church. As of this day, over 2000 Hungarian church properties in Romania have not been returned. This reprehensible outrage caused the United States Congress in 2005 to pass its House Resolution HR191, demanding the return of the church properties. In the other Successor States, the fate of the Hungarian Catholics was similar. In 1949, in Ruthenia, the bishop of the 500,000 Catholics was murdered and the parishioners were forced to merge into the Orthodox Chrurch. In Slovakia, in April, 1950, the bishop of 320,000 Catholics was arrested and his parishioners were also forced into the Orthodox Church. In 1956, 2,700 Hungarians died in fighting 2000 Soviet tanks (a number larger than what Hitler used to occupy France) and later 289 were hanged and some 300,000 escaped, yet the rulers of the Successor States used the uprising as a pretext to speed the forced assimilation of their Hungarian minorities. It was after the Hungarian Revolution that the remaining autonomous Hungarian regions: Transylvania in Romania and Vojvodina in Yugoslavia were abolished. Today, the 2-3 million Hungarians have no autonomy at all, although that autonomy been guaranteed by the Great Powers in 1920, again in 1946 and once more by the European Parliament in 1993, in Article 11 of Recommendation 1201. It would be the responsibility of the international community to insist upon the upholding of its own principles and earlier decisions, which were expressed and signed by the member states on the 1st of August in the final declaration of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration. These same community of values on human and minority rights were repeated in 1990 (Copenhagen), in the Charta of Paris and by several European Union Conventions. After 1989, there was a short period of hope, when for example the Hungarian bishop, László Tôkés, was temporarily heralded as an all-Romanian national hero, for leading the successful revolution against Ceaucescu, or when Miklós Duray, the Hungarian leader of Charter 77, was released from jail in Slovakia. Unfortunately, this did not last. By 1991, the formerly Communist, but basically nationalist leaders of the Successor States (Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Iliescu in Romania, Mechiar in Slovakia) once again started to use nationalistic and anti-Hungarian propaganda to distract public attention from the pressing economic problems of their nations. Today, these three demagogues are gone from the political scene. Yet conditions have not changed much and the restoration of cultural autonomy has still not occurred. In the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro and Kosovo are progressing towards self-determination, yet in Vojvodina, Serb refugees from Krajina and Kosovo are "ethnically cleansing" the native Hungarian population and anti-Hungarian violence is common. Since 1989, some half million Hungarian minorities have left the towns and villages of their ancestors and the Hungarian church and higher education properties have still not been returned. One wonders if there is a limit to the patience of the second largest minority of Europe (second only to the Russians), and what will happen when that limit is reached? The Lesson It takes time for historic events to reveal their consequences. It took three generations for the unnatural creations of Trianon: Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, to self-destruct. It seems that even 86 years has not been enough for some to realize that it is the legacy of Trianon, which is destabilizing and "balkanizing" Central Europe. We know that Trianon did not eliminate the causes of the 1914 murder in Sarajevo (Russian and French expansion) and that no unjust "solution" can stand the erosion of time. On the pulpit of the Notre-Dame Cathedral, Father R. P. Gratry has put it this way: "Every nation's homeland is sacred. If you destroy one, you mutilate the entire human race." Therefore, the main mistake of 1920 was that it attempted to satisfy the expansionist desires of the French, instead of attempting to apply just principles to solve the nationality problems of Central Europe. Unfortunately, this approach has not changed much during the last 86 years, but there is hope. As the influence of the European Union and the United States is growing in the region, there is hope that the ideals of self-determination, autonomy and collective human rights will also take roots. In addition to self-determination through plebiscites, greater unity among the Danubean nations is also needed. A Danubian or Central European Federation, - similar to that of the Baltic states, within the European Union -, is needed to better protect their collective interests. The international community through the UN, EU and other forums should declare that all national minorities anywhere in the world, have the right to hold UN supervised plebiscites and to receive cultural and linguistic autonomy, if they so desire. It should make no difference how these minorities evolved, how long they lived in the particular area, or what their language or religion is. Regardless of all that, they all have the right to maintain their heritage and the right to determine their own cultural destiny. Once cultural autonomy is guaranteed, the main cause of tensions between Central European neighbors will also diminish. This recipe for reconciliation is applicable not only in Central Europe, but also in the Caucasus region. Decentralization, self-government, autonomy and decision making at the lowest possible local level, are the keys to peace and democracy. It is essential for peace and stability to recognize that all regions will be destabilized by the existence of oppressed minorities and that the solution is to guarantee their basic rights. When the Hungarians enjoy the same autonomy in Romania as the Romanian minorities do in Hungary, when the Serb, Russian, Roma, Turkish, Albanian, German, or other minorities of the region, are also treated equally, the tensions will disappear and the rebuilding can start. The Danubian or Visegrad Confederation It is not enough for the Danubean nations to individually rush into the European Union. In addition to that, they should work for the establishment of an economically self-sufficient, politically stable and geographically large enough federation, which is able to fill the present power vacuum in the region. Within this 100 million or so federation, the importance of the borders of nation states should be minimized. The freedom of movement that exists in the Schengen area should be adopted and all minorities should have full cultural autonomy and representation in the Parliaments. History teaches us, that the Balkans became unstable whenever a power vacuum evolved in the Carpathian Basin. The wise learn from history, instead of repeating it's errors: The tragedy of Trianon will not be corrected and justice and stability will not be returned, by maintaining the status quo. The interests of Romania, Hungary and the other states in the region are the same. The states of Central Europe are all traveling in the same boat on the sea of history. Russia is still an imperialist state. She is now using the energy weapon to increase her influence. The Black Sea is very close to the Carpathians. We know that during the Kosovo crisis, there was talk about Serbia becoming part of Russia. What we also know is that the United States is a powerful potential ally of Central Europe, not only in keeping Russia at bay, but also in spreading democracy, self-determination and minority rights throughout the region and the World. What is needed - once the minority problems are solved in Central Europe - is to build a federation like that of the Baltic states within the European Union. A strong Danubean Federation, one that can be crystallized around the nucleus of Hungary, Slovakia, Ruthenia, Slovenia and Croatia. A federation that would be larger than France and could include Romania, Serbia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria and more. This entity, with its economic and political power, could rebalance and stabilize Europe by asserting and defending her self-interest against the excessive power of Western Europe. History does not solve problems accidentally. Those who want a better future must first have a plan, a concept of that future. For the stability and prosperity of Central Europe, that plan should start with the autonomy of all the minorities and should end with a voluntary federation. It would be fitting, if on the 86st anniversary of the dismemberment of the Hungarian Kingdom, - after the unnecessary and undeserved suffering of three generations of innocent ethnic minorities-, the process of rebuilding, not of an ancient nation state, but of the Federation of Central Europe would be started. Béla Lipták, Former Yale professor   AN IMPORTANT MEMORIAL:  TRIANON           Many of you, sons, daugters and grandchildren of members of the MHBK, perhaps had heard about the tragic events that June 4th, 1920 means to all Hungarians, commonly referred to as: THE TREATY OF TIRANON. Some of you wondered, why this was such a soul-wrenching event for Hungarians? Why couldn't following generations learn to live with it?            After all, you might have learned in your local hystory lessons in American, English or Australian schools, that the poulation of those parts of Hungary were mainly non-Hungarians. So, then what's the problem?            The problem is simply this: until 1918, the historic Hungary included all the territories, since the 10th century, that, geographically, is encircled by the Carpathian Mountains from whwer Pozsony (Bratislava) is to the Turnu-Severin (Romanian) whwre the Danube exits Hungarian territory. The rest of the 1000 years historic border goes along the Danube-Sava rivers in the south to the Eastern Alps of Austria to Pozsony (Bratislava) where yhe Danube enters Hungary.            Understand this: whatever scattered minoritis lived in this area prior to 896 AD - when Prince Arpad led the Hungarian tribes into what all belived to be Attila's inheritance to Hungarians - were at best in fifes to the Holy German-Roman Empire. None of the small slavic tribes (Slovaks) had ever established an independent state there; the Romanians did not even exist there at all, until their migrating groups - in the 12th-13th century - seeped through the Balkans and some of them entered Hungarian space in what's known as Transylvania. The Daco-Roman theory, fostered falsely by Romanians, have been rebutted by many known experts of non-Hungarian origin. The North-East Carpathian sections (Carpatho-Ukraine today, originally Karpatalja), where Arpad's tribes entered Hungary in 896 AD, were "donated" to Soviet Russia by the Chechoslovak government after 1945.           It had been the policy of Hungarian kings and their governments from 1000 AD on, to encurage foreign immigration into less-poulated parts of the country. Many came and established important crafts, manufac-tories and also became serfs in the feudal system to Hungarian land-lords. And they grew in numbers; the Hungarian government allowed the establishment of churches, schools that served these populations in their own religions and/or languages.           Later, from 1849 on, they enjoyrd complete citizenship and representations in the central government.           The victorious Western Allies after the terrible WWI, were determined to destroy completely the Habsburg Monarchy, whom they detested for their policies and rule for hundreds of years. It so happend, that all the land-border reorganizations effected, had only destroyed Hungary - where the bulk of the then nationalistic minorities lived. Worst thsn that; the French and English govenments ignored US President Wilson's Declaration of the Fourteen points, which - this is very important - proposed plebiscites in ALL THOSE AREAS, which were to be taken away from the 1000-year old entity of Hungary.  There were no plebiscites for Trasylvania (which was given to Romania), the Upper-Countries (which were given, along with what's today Carpatho-Ukraine) to Checoslovakia and the Southern Territorie (called Voivodina) to a so called Yugoslavia. Note: There has never been a historic "Czechoslovakia" because the Slovak minority in the North and Ruthenians in the Northeast, were always part of Hungary; and there was never a Transylvania, that was ever part of Romania.           A defeated, disorganized Hungary after 1918, now was humiliated by being reduced to one-third of its historic size graphically, and more than two-thirds population wise! Regardless of why WWI had to break out, in which Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, this so called Peace Treaty, by many historians is directly acknowledged to be the real causes of the break out of WWII. Be it gratefully acknowledged here, that the U.S. Congress refused to ratify the Trianon Treaty........ What was left of Hungary was a "Crippled Hungary." Most of its raw material mining areas, forestry, farm land areas were lost. It took herculean efforts for "Crippled Hungary" to live through the next decades and become fairly stabilized. and then WWII came and after another lost war, the Trianon Treaty, with additional losses, was repeated in the Paris Treaty in the late 1940's.           How would you like to experience if Texas, New-Mexico, Arizona, when its population became more than 50% Mexican, was arbitrarly given by the United Nation to Mexico? Or the suburb of Revere, Massachusett, in which mostly Italian-Americans live, declare itself part of Italy? Isn't even the idea ridiculous? Not so apparently, because this was done to Hungarians in 1920 and again in 1947. History, the nation/state building, centuries of the Hungarian people were ignored: the victors decided to re-draw the map of Europe, and that was that! In this dastardly process, they made 3+ millions of Hungarians minoritis in their own ancestral lands!           This is why to us Hungarians, the memory of Trianon is a horrible one, a humiliation and desecration that we cannot and WILL NOT EVER acquiesce in without accusing all who had a hand in it. The land that was forcibly ceded to others, was land on which our ancestors shed their blood, built a nation and were the SHIELD OF THE WEST against all eastern invasions throughout history. That is why there were fewer Hungarians and that is why our leaders in the past allowed immigration to populate areas under their rule. Know this: in the 15th century Hungary's population was the same as then Englands! Today that country's population is over 50 millon; but there are only 15 millon Hungarians in the whole world.            For our sacrifices for Civilization, for Cristianity, we deserved better than Trianon! And we cannot ever forget it, and we won't forget it.            L. Simonyi, President, World Federation of Hungarian Veterans.   BEGINNINGS OF THE HABSBURG ERA TRANSYLVANIA TURKISH OCCUPATION AND FORTRESS SIEGES   FREEDOMFIGHTS: 1. Bethlen 2. Rakoczy 3. Kossuth 4. 1956 Revolution     The Hungarian Revolution: Freedom’s Call from WWII to 1956 (By: Geza Radics) The Hungarian revolution and fight for freedom was one of the most significant events in 20th century European history. To have a better understanding of these events, it is necessary to recap some of the political, social and economic conditions which preceded it. It’s also instructive to examine the political power struggle which paved the way for the decades-long tension of East-West relations known as the "cold war". When World War II was finally over in 1945, a sigh of relief flooded over victors and vanquished alike. Even in those countries which would fall under Soviet occupation, the reconstruction started out with great vigor and enthusiasm. It didn’t take long, however, for everyone to realize that heady expectations for a better life lived in freedom would not yet be realized. In Hungary, for example, with the held of massive voter fraud and outright cheating the communists stole the 1947 election. The communists (using a blue ballot with which they could easily cast their vote as many times and in as many places as they wanted because no identification was required) traveled by buses and trucks from town to town, casting their cobalt ballots over and over. Following their victory, and with the help of the Soviet occupation forces, the communists went about setting up their government. The regime led by Mátyás Rákosi became the most ruthless to be found in any Soviet satellite country. Their opening shot was to outlaw all other political parties and organizations having anything to do with formulating or raising a national consciousness. Next, they liquidated people by the hundreds, perhaps by the thousands, whom they considered enemies of the "people" – meaning the communists, of course. They then began filling the jails and concentration camps by the thousands. Within a couple of years, those workers (and even peasants with a few acres of their own) who bristled and refused to join the collectives gradually became enemies of the state. In schools across the land, the greatness of communism and the worship of the Soviet Union were taught. The communists uprooted Hungarian society across all classes and walks of life – and anyone who dared raise his or her voice was mercilessly punished, or disappeared forever without a trace. By 1952, real hard times fell upon the Hungarians, especially the farmers. Ever greater quotas were set for production – far higher than was within the collective’s capacity to do so. Even so, the communists took everything from them – their livestock, their grain to feed their family, and even the seed needed to sow the following year’s crop. The living standard became horrendous, falling below the level of 1938. As the farmers ran out of everything, they naturally began to revolt; they were put down mercilessly. Many had hanged themselves; the less fortunate found themselves in one of the many communist concentration camps. These concentration camps were run by the ÁVH (Államvédelmi Hatóság), the Hungarian secret police. The political arm of the ÁVH was the ÁVO (Államvédelmi Osztály); they were the guardians – or more to the point – the masters of life and death. Only the most sadistic and brutal individuals lacking of any morals were chosen and willing to serve in these organizations, especially the ÁVO. There were very few exceptions to this rule. People of certain occupations from the old regime like the csendőr (special police); portions of the regular police; as well as military judges were singled out because of their "cruelty" – according to the communists. They were cruelly and harshly treated, it is true; nonetheless, between 1920 and 1945 there were only nine (9) executions in Hungary – all common criminals, with not a single political execution among them. However, those released from Soviet POW camps were transferred to the most notorious camps operated by the ÁVH. Ödön Herendi was one of them. He wrote in one of his letters to an author collecting information for his book on the camp of Kazincbarcika: "I would say without any doubt if one would compare life in an ÁVH-run or Soviet-run prison, the scale would tilt in favor toward the Soviet prison; true, it was a meager existence, however they didn’t humiliate us. In the ÁVH-run system, however, this was the most important facet. In the Soviet POW camps we could write letters and receive Hungarian and Russian newspapers, while in the ÁVH-run camps or prisons it was forbidden – and don’t even mention physical punishment." It should be noted that in the Soviet POW camps, the inmates were protected by international law, whereas in the ÁVH-run camps or prisons the commander of the institution was the God-like supreme ruler. In the camp of Kazincbarcika, the commander would inform the inmates: "First we will destroy you physically, then we will break your resistance, and after that we will hang you. We can do anything in this country whatever we want." The camp at Kazincbarcika operated between October 6, 1951 and September 16, 1953. After this time, the camp was dismantled and the prisoners were released; however, these "freed" men had a very difficult time finding jobs. Generally the only type of work available was at a lower skill and education level than they were qualified to hold. They were barred from settling in any major Hungarian city (even if their family lived or had property in one of them) and they were under police observation up to 1989 – some even beyond that point. Just how cruel and unjust these Rákosi-led years were in Hungary can be found in the statement made by the head of the Soviet NKVD (secret police): Lavrenti P. Beria. When the top Hungarian leaders were summoned to Moscow on June 13th and 16th, 1953, Beria questioned Rákosi about his overzealousness in carrying out Moscow’s instructions: "Could it be acceptable that in Hungary – a country of 9,500,000 inhabitants – prosecutions were initiated against 1,500,000 people? Administrative regulations were applied against 1,150,000 within two and a half years. These numbers show that interior and judiciary organs and the ÁVH works very badly, " Nikolai A. Bulganin, the Soviet minister of defense, brought up the unacceptable situation in the Hungarian Army in regard to disciplinary actions: "In 1952 and in the first quarter of 1953, 460 officers and generals were discharged for political reasons. The Army was not established in 1952. Why was it necessary to discharge this many people for political reasons? If comrade Rákosi and the CC looked at these 460 people, it would become clear that some of them are our friends, our people. Thus they turn honest people into traitors. There were 370 desertions in 1952. There were 177,000 disciplinary punishments in the army in one year and 3 months." Coming from the Soviet leaders, this is obviously very interesting to say the least. What is quite clear here is that, although the communists in Hungary carried out Moscow’s instructions, Rákosi being overzealous either by nature or by fear, always overdid what was expected of him. He personally bears some of the responsibility for what transpired during his time in power. After Stalin’s death in March 5, 1953, a very significant change took place in the Kremlin in governing style by the new leadership. First of all, the feared and "great" leader Stalin was no longer around. And so, Beria was in position to take charge since he was the head of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police; however, for some reason, he wasn’t interested in the job, so it seems. It would be very difficult to analyze just what he and others were thinking at the time without knowing them personally. The fact is, nonetheless, that there was a thaw in the Kremlin which manifested itself in relationship to the satellite countries as well as in international East-West relations. Among the top leaders of Moscow, Beria and Georgii Malenkov recognized the failure of the socialist Soviet economy. The almost exclusive concentration on heavy industry in order to produce military armaments worked to devastate the country in every other non-military aspect. The population of the Soviet Union paid a heavy price for the communist aim to dominate – or even conquer – the world for their kind of socialism. The living standard of the citizenry was very low, with personal freedom practically nonexistent. Beria and Malenkov sensed the unrest among the population; they launched an ambitious foreign policy to improve East-West relations. This, they hoped, would give them an opportunity to cut back on military spending; scale back heavy industry; build up light industry in order to produce more consumer goods; and raise the living standard. They felt that socialist agriculture based on collective farming also needed reform. Peasants, they believed, should be given the choice to work in the collectives or start out on their own as independent farmers if they find the ambition and ability within themselves to do so. Beria believed that people with skills and inborn ability should be put into leadership roles and should be given the freedom to carry out their position as they see fit (i.e., only the final results are important). Additionally, senseless political pressure against the innocent populace, which was responsible for filling up Soviet concentration camps, should also be curtailed. So, the top Hungarian leaders – Mátyás Rákosi, Ernő Gerő, András Hegedűs, István Hidas, Rudolf Földvári, Béla Szalai, István Dobi and Imre Nagy – were instructed to follow the Kremlin’s lead. In a meeting held at the Kremlin on June 13, 1953, Beria, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, Mikoyan and Khruschev were present. On the 16th Kiselev and Boiko also attended. Beria led the way with the others seemingly following in his footsteps. He instructed the Hungarian communists on the new principles. He told them how the reforms should be implemented regarding industry and agriculture without weakening communism and the political power structure. He believed that Imre Nagy should be the prime minister, and since he was an economist, he should be able to carry out the reform; yet, Beria kept the Stalinist Rákosi as the first secretary of the communist party. At issue was the size of the Hungarian Army. Malenkov castigated Rákosi saying: "We wanted you to develop the army. We (will) correct this mistake. There are 600,000 people in the army. (Comrade Rákosi: Including the reserves.) So you carried the Soviet Union’s wishes to the extreme." Beria added his displeasure: "The development of the army was discussed with comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin gave incorrect instruction." "Comrade Stalin gave incorrect instruction"? The uttering of such a thing was unheard of, unthinkable just a few months ago. Yet Beria made an even more puzzling statement to Rákosi regarding the army: "Today the Red Army is still in Hungary, but it won’t be there forever." It was a remarkable time in the history of communism – when even the top leaders were exercising self-criticism. They were going about the work of recognizing their own mistakes. Although their exercise in remorse was played out mostly amongst themselves, occasionally it was publicly acknowledged on radio or in newspapers, too. The Hungarian delegation went back home, Imre Nagy setting forth his "New Course" according to the instruction of Beria. However – only 10 days later, on the 26th of June – Beria was arrested on a trumped up charge. He was accused of spying for the British government. He was quickly executed in December of that same year. Even following these events, Nagy wasn’t hindered by the Kremlin. Malenkov and the others (although somewhat reluctantly) were still supporting his work in carrying out the "New Course." However, the problems between Nagy and Rákosi intensified after the removal of Beria. Not only did Malenkov’s power lack the same weight that Beria’s had, he was now alone. Nagy was a reformist; Rákosi, a Stalinist who demonstrated keen ability to liquidate those who dared to cross him. However, the change in Moscow – even without Beria – was still in place. So Rákosi, the ruthless dictator, set out to make Nagy’s life more difficult. He obstructed Nagy’s "New Course" reforms in any way he could. Aiding him were the Stalinists still deeply entrenched in the Hungarian communist party and economic sector. After Beria was removed, Malenkov was elected prime minister. In September Nikita Khrushchev was elected to be the first secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. On May 5, 1954 Rákosi set up a meeting with the Soviet leadership, in direct opposition of Nagy. Nevertheless, they both went to Moscow where they were castigated in short order. Both were instructed to exercise self-criticism and recognize their mistakes. The Soviet leaders still supported Nagy (which must have angered Rákosi) as they were sent back home to Hungary. The problems continued between Nagy and Rákosi, and in January of 1955 they were ordered to return to the Kremlin for another consultation. By this time, the mood had soured towards Nagy. He was severely castigated. What angered the Soviets was Nagy’s unwillingness to offer any self-criticism or recognize his mistakes. At one point, Nagy offered his resignation as the Soviet leaders became unhinged. ‘How dare he? Who is he to decide what he wants to do and what not?’ Even Malenkov made an unfavorable remark: "Rotten movement hide behind comrade Nagy." After this showing, Nagy was demoted and eventually excluded from the communist party. There may be more to Nagy’s removal than meets the eye, however. In the spring of 1955, Malenkov lost his job, too; he found himself demoted to deputy prime minister. The death of Stalin directly affected the relationship of the two super powers, as well as world politics in general. In April of 1953, Charles E. Bohlen became the United States Ambassador to Moscow; he remained in that capacity until April 1957. Through his post, Bohlen personally knew the Soviet leaders when the first great change took place in that country in the years preceding the Hungarian revolution. In 1973, after forty years of service in the diplomatic core, he wrote a book titled Witness to History: 1929-1969. Bohlen wrote about the difficulties in gathering information in with which the relationship of the two countries could be based on in a secretive, closed society such as the Soviet Union. Foreign diplomats could not – or very rarely could – make friends with Soviet citizens and only for a short time because even occasional contact might jeopardize their freedom, or even their life. And so, the diplomat’s main source of information was the news media where learning to read between the lines became a high art, along with picking up bits of information from other western diplomats. On more than one occasion, one or the other high-ranking Soviet official blurted out something newsworthy. That happened in the case of Beria’s demise. According to some contact of Bohlen’s, Beria was disposed because he was replacing the old Stalinists from the NKVD with his own people. The others feared him. And in turn, before he could become all-powerful like Stalin, they arrested him. This reasoning on the surface looks convincing, however, Beria (as the head of the NKVD) had the power in the first place to eliminate his political enemies. From all accounts, he does not appear to have done this, however. Unlike in former regimes, his Stalinist ‘enemies’ were not liquidated physically – they were either demoted or removed from their positions. Other factors besides these may have also been in motion behind the scenes. The available information on Beria, however, seems to indicate that he wanted properly qualified people in charge; he appears not to have been merely interested in grabbing power. He was probably a team player just like the others. Bohlen called it the "collective dictatorship", meaning from that point forward the decisions in the Kremlin would be made collectively. As we know, East-West relations at the time were quite rocky. We like to think that those bumps were all caused by the Soviets; however, a closer examination bears out that this was not always the case. For instance, in the fall of 1954, Khrushchev (like the others) supported the development of light industry in order to produce more consumer goods. But, wrote Bohlen, "By December, after plans to rearm West Germany were announced, he shifted to emphasis on development of heavy industry." This most likely was the reason for Nagy’s removal and Malenkov’s demotion. In Bohlen’s judgment, Malenkov was the most intelligent of all. The decision by the US to arm West Germany is hard to understand even today because the talks were proceeding in a good direction regarding the Soviet removal of troops from Austria. The day before the agreement was signed in May 9, 1955 West Germany became a member of NATO. On May 14th, the Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact. Even with this escalation, the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Austria by December. The Soviets also released 9,626 German prisoners of war along with the last Hungarian POWs. Other significant events happening in 1955 also deserve mention, including the fact the decision by the Soviets to bring Yugoslavia back into their camp. In 1948, the Yugoslav dictator, Tito, broke away from Moscow. With western help, he’d begun building his own kind of socialism. This move by the Kremlin to bring Yugoslavia back into the fold affected Hungary, too – especially Rákosi. When Tito broke away from Stalin’s "fatherly love", in the eyes of the Soviet camp he became America’s "dog on leash". As far as the international communists were concerned, Tito was a traitor – a traitor who had other collaborators. László Rajk was Rákosi’s internal minister; in 1949, Rajk and some others were singled out for "spying" for Tito. They were arrested for espionage and later in that same year swiftly executed. Rákosi personally directed the preparation of the charges against Rajk, and bragged about it publicly. Tito, of course, didn’t take these events lightly. Consequently, when the Soviet Union offered an olive branch to Tito, Rákosi found himself in the hot seat, forcing him to bend over backwards to please the Yugoslav dictator. Eventually, Hungary was forced to pay $85 million reparation to Yugoslavia. So it is that we arrive in great leaps and bounds to 1956, which started out with a big bang. On February 14-25 the Soviet Communist Party held its XX Congress, shrouded in complete secrecy. Only high-ranking party officials were invited, including those from the satellite countries. However, just like Bohlen wrote in his book, some participants dropped a telling public remark here and there. Anastas I. Mikoyan, member of the Soviet Politburo, offered the opening shot in a speech on Stalin’s mistakes and on the cult that he surrounded himself with. When Khrushchev delivered a speech shortly before the conclusion of the Congress, he went a lot further than Mikoyan even did – castigating Stalin as well. He did admit, however, that for some criminal acts they themselves were also responsible. One example: the purge of 1937. In that year, approximately 750,000 communists fell victim to the ruthless system in place; Khrushchev said they must ask for the forgiveness of their comrades for this deed. They would release some of the political prisoners – mostly communist – who were interned on trumped up charges. The truth-telling and forgiving had its limits, of course. Khrushchev did not mention the six million Ukrainians or three million in the Don-valley who were deliberately starved in 1932 and 1933. Even so, it was still a significant admission. (The speech was published 30 years later in 1996.) It had to be a jolt to the Stalinists in the Soviet Union as well as to the delegates from the satellites. The chills were probably running down the spine of the Stalinist leaders from Hungary, although this was good news to Nagy and his followers. This is the congress which gave birth to the idea of "peaceful coexistence" between the East and West. In that spring and summer of 1956, barbwire fences and minefields were removed from the Hungarian-Yugoslav border. Later that year, the same was done on the Hungarian-Austrian border, indicating the gradual improvement in East-West relations. As time passed on, in Hungary proper, the Irodalmi Újság (the newspaper of the Writers Union) contained ever-bolder articles criticizing the general conditions – and even the communist party itself. It’s important to remember that these writers were all communists; but, not necessarily Stalinists or pro-Soviet. A new communist writer’s group, the Petőfi Circle, was formed, its members intent on reforming the party. They wished perhaps to get rid of the Stalinists, but they were intent on keeping the system. They held their first important meeting on the 17th of March. To this meeting, they invited the former leaders of the banned MEFESZ (Association of Hungarian University and College Unions). Budapest hearts were stirring, and the meeting of June 27th found 5000-6000 participants. There were people in the audience who raised issues that had been taboo for ten years. They openly discussed the occupying Soviet forces in Hungary and the 1920 and 1947 peace treaties – commonly known as Treaty of Versailles and Paris – which followed the first and second World Wars (Hungary was dismembered and had lost 2/3 of her territory and population as a result). The widow of Rajk, Júlia, declared that Rákosi not only killed her husband, but also separated her from her young child. This openness could not stand, and the Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers (Communist) Party on June 30 banned the Petőfi Circle. The Writers Union openly protested the CC’s action – something that never could have occurred when Stalin was at the helm. The Soviet leaders understandably sensed the worsening situation in Hungary, and on the insistence of Tito, they replaced Rákosi with Ernő Gerő as the first secretary of the communist party. András Hegedűs remained as prime minister. Unfortunately, these moves did nothing to solve the problems as far as the Hungarian public was concerned; in fact, the moves added further fuel to the fire, as both appointees were Stalinists. Rákosi stepped down, citing his health as the reason for his "resignation". Incredible events began to unfold at lighting speed. Early in September, the Presidential Council pardoned 50 social democrats. In the middle of the month, the Writers Union demonstrated in support of Imre Nagy. On the same day, the Petőfi Circle resumed organizing public meetings again. On October 4th, high ranking ÁVH officers were arrested. On the 6th, László Rajk’s reburial took place, with some 200,000 people participating. The Szabad Nép (the communist newspaper) published an article on the first page titled "Never Again," meaning that no communist should be executed again. On the 12th, a long time high ranking party official, Mihály Farkas, was singled out to pay for all the ills and was arrested. On the following day, Imre Nagy was reinstated into the communist party. Three days later, on the 16th, some 1600 University of Szeged students reestablished the formerly banned Association of Hungarian University and College Unions (MEFESZ), which was independent of the communist party or the DISZ (Association of the Workers – communist – Youth.) On October 19th, all of the Soviet occupation forces in Hungary were alerted and placed in a state of readiness. The same day, the MEFESZ sent their delegates to all universities and colleges to organize and formulate their demands. On the 22nd of October, a large assembly of students from across Hungary convened at the Technical University in Budapest, where they drafted the first version of demands in 16 points. On the 23rd, the Szabad Nép ran an article on the first page titled the "New Spring Parade." These are just a few of the many breathtaking things that occurred during those heady days; the reader most certainly notes the acceleration of events which took place. On the 23rd of October, around 11 AM, people demonstrated in Debrecen, a large city near the eastern Hungarian border. 12:53 PM, Radio Kossuth in Budapest announced the ban on all demonstrations. An hour and a half later, the authorities revoked the ban. Obviously, they were quickly losing control. Around 3:00 PM, a large group of demonstrators congregated in front of the Statue of Petőfi – one of the most loved Hungarian poets from the 19th century. They then marched to the statue of Bem – a Polish general who fought for Hungarian independence in 1848-49 – where they showed their solidarity to the Polish people struggling under the grip of communism as well. Around 5:00 PM, a crowd 200,000 strong gathered in front of the Capitol Building, at Kossuth Lajos – the leader of the 1848-49 war of independence – Square. By this time, people of all walks of life had joined the student protestors. Large groups of people were gathering in front of the Radio Station where the students and other protestors wanted their 16 point demands to be read on the radio. They were denied. The crowd swelled, and the authorities answered by reinforcing the guards (whom were also members of the hated ÁVH). It was in Debrecen – not Budapest – where the first shots in the Hungarian revolution were fired at 6:00 PM. Three deaths were recorded and scores of wounded. As the events spiraled out of control, Gerő, the first secretary of the communist party, requested help from the Soviet Union. At 9:00 PM, Imre Nagy addressed the crowd at Kossuth Square from the balcony of the Capitol Building. But he made the mistake of calling the demonstrators "elvtársak" (comrades). This didn’t go over well at all. Jeers and boos were the response. With a newfound strength in numbers, Hungarians now wished the communists, the Soviets, and even Nagy to return to Moscow. By the evening, it seemed that all of the citizens of Budapest were on the streets. At 9:30 PM, people demolished the statue of Stalin, one of the most ruthless tyrants who’d ever lived and ruled over their nation. According to the latest estimates he was responsible for the loss of 40 million lives. The first shot to be heard at the Radio Station was fired by the ÁVH around 8:30 PM. At this time, all hell broke loose. The demonstrators now became revolutionaries. People armed themselves with weapons procured by soldiers and police; even more firearms were available from the Budapest Lámpagyár, "Lamp factory". It was common knowledge that the "lamp factory" was actually a weapons factory, under heavy guard at all times. Yet, curiously, on the evening of the 23rd, an unarmed old man guarded the facility. There is any number of curious events that many believe point to provocateurs working behind the scenes to create a revolution. It is quite possible that the Stalinists in the Soviet NKVD and the Hungarian ÁVH had a vested interest to torpedo the reform movement in order to save their own hide. At the Radio Station the battle went on until dawn the next morning, when the rebels overtook the building. On the morning of October 24th, I was getting ready for work at the usual time. I heard some unusual noises from outside, which sounded like gunshots. The streets were filled with people, a sight like I had never seen before. I was told that a revolution is going on; no one is going to work; public transportation had been halted in the entire city. So, I walked to the nearest square were I found a truck being loaded. The driver said he is carrying people into the center of the city where the fighting is still in progress. Blood and brain tissue were splattered on the floorboards of the truck. That startled me for a second, but I understood that these were serious times, revolutionary times, where some would die. I got on the truck, which dropped me off near Calvin Square in the downtown area of Budapest. I saw a dead Hungarian soldier lying on the sidewalk, an automatic weapon beside him. I picked up this gun and started to walk toward the sound of gunfire. It turned out to be the Radio Station. At that time, there was an empty lot next to the building; it was covered with dead people, civilians and soldiers alike. I would estimate they numbered over one hundred. I walked through this open lot, stepping over the bodies. It didn’t occur to me then, that I could have been shot down like a rabbit. The sound of the gunshots came from the other side of the building, and when I got there the last of the six ÁVO men who’d been protecting the building surrendered. As this was around 10:00 AM, they’d probably hidden in the building overnight, or they came back after the revolutionaries left from the evening before. Some in the crowd wanted to execute them; others thought it should be left up to the law. They were taken away. I don’t know what happened to them. Finally, Soviet armored units from Székesfehérvár were ordered into Budapest. They reached the city limits some time around 3:00-4:00 AM on the 24th. When the Soviet troops fired their first shot, the revolutionaries had become freedom fighters because the occupation force had involved itself in Hungarian internal affairs. It took some time for the top Soviet leadership to realize that they made a grave mistake. First, they didn’t recognize the deep-seated resentment and desperation of the Hungarian people. They disregarded Hungarian valor, of which there are plenty of examples in Hungarian history. They didn’t figure in Hungarian resourcefulness, either. The Soviet officials mistakenly believed that once Soviet tanks appeared on the streets of Budapest and other major cities that the would-be freedom fighters would simply disappear. It was not to be. Another surprise was waiting for the leaders of the Kremlin. A number of views have been conjectured as to what caused the fall and dismemberment of the Soviet Union. A number of good reasons could be sighted; however, the most important has never even been mentioned. The decline of the Soviet Union started with the occupation of Eastern Central-Europe at the end of the Second World War. That was the first time when Soviet soldiers and civilians by the millions realized that they were not living in the supreme earthly paradise they’d been indoctrinated to believe in their Marxist-Leninist classes. Occupation forces serving for years, for example, in Hungary, became very friendly with the people and had a good life. When they were given the order to fire upon the people they had made friends with over the years, they found it a very tough thing for them to do. Much later, stories revealed that at times a political officer held a pistol to their backs in order to force them to fire their guns. The contribution of these Hungarian friendly Soviet troops, however, takes nothing away from the heroism and resourcefulness of the freedom fighters. Large numbers of heavy fighter groups developed throughout Budapest without any central leadership or organization. Each one of these centers developed their own tactics, fighting with great efficiency. The Soviets, ironically, became intimately acquainted with the effectiveness of the Molotov-cocktail as Hungarian freedom fighters captured tanks, anti-tank guns, ammunitions, and many other weapons using this crude device. One of the most organized and successful fighter groups operated in the Corvin Pass. The heaviest fighting for this group occurred on the 26th of October according to their leader Gergely Pongrátz – who was elected as commander in chief on the 30th. On that day, they destroyed 17 tanks. As they began sending more fresh troops into Hungary – troops who were unsympathetic to the plight of the nation – the Soviets announced their withdrawal from Budapest. By the time the October 29th cease-fire was declared (a mere few days into the revolution), the Soviets likely lost about 100 tanks and suffered 600 dead and many wounded. The freedom fighters also suffered heavy casualties. The destruction was massive. Barricades and burned out tanks and buildings lay in the fighting’s wake. Smashed display windows with valuable merchandise for the taking, but no one touched them. To help families that had lost the sole breadwinner, the Hungarian Writer’s Union placed a large wooden box on one of the city’s main street corners seeking donations. No one guarded it as it filled up with money. Materialistic considerations were not the inspiration of this fight – achieving freedom and independence for Hungary were the main goals. Scores of other cities reported clashes with soviet troops, and more so with the ÁVH. Debrecen, Miskolc, Kecskemét, Székesfehérvár, Esztergom, Mosonmagyaróvár, Zalaegerszeg, Nagykanizsa and others all rose up to do what they could to secure a better future. While the fighting went on, the farmers brought food to the city. This was their contribution. The international aid, mainly medicine, was also coming in by airplane. The first flight arrived from Warsaw on the 26th exhibiting yet again the close relationship between the Poles and Hungarians that had existed over many centuries. The fighting, however, was far from over. The ÁVH still held out in several places in Budapest. One area of severest fighting took place at Köztársaság tér (Republic Square) on October 30th. As already noted, The ÁVH was known for their cruelty; they thought nothing of killing even rescue team members coming to the aid of the wounded in the streets. The ÁVH captured at Republic Square would find itself on the receiving end of one of the few occasions where the crowd lost its temper and lynched the leaders of the hated group. On the 30th, Hungarian soldiers and freedom fighters rescued Cardinal Mindszenty (who’d been arrested in 1948 on trumped up charges and jailed at Rétság). On the next day, a convoy of cars brought him to Budapest. People on both sides of the road lined up by the thousands as church bells rang jubilantly. In solidarity, Pope Pius XII sent a telegram to the tortured high priest. On the evening of the 29th, Imre Nagy, acting as Prime Minister again, recommended talks be held between the government and the freedom fighters. They commenced at 8:00 PM in the Defense Ministry building. Besides the freedom fighters, high-ranking military officers took part in the negotiation. Each group of the freedom fighters sent their delegates to these talks. From Corvin Pass, Ödön Pongrátz (the brother of Gergely Pongrátz) and Dr. Sándor Antalóczi (a young doctor who went by the name "Doki") were present. An engineer, József Dudás, rose up to demand the removal of a Stalinist from the leadership position (he was executed in January 1957). General Gyula Váradi chaired the meeting. His intention was to acquire a written and signed declaration from the freedom fighters to lay down their arms because the demands of the people had already been fulfilled – so he said. Ödön Pongrátz stopped this idea in its tracks, saying that he knows of no revolution where the victors laid down their arms. The freedom fighters made it clear to the officers present, that they will not lay down their arms as long as soviet troops are on Hungarian soil. Thus, the Nagy government was forced to take up negotiations with the Soviet Union to remove their troops from Hungary. By a subsequent meeting held on the 31st of October, an agreement was reached to set up a new National Guard in which the freedom fighters would be represented. Near Corvin Pass was the Kilián military barracks. The commander of Kilián was Captain Lajos Csiba. He was home on the night of 23rd, when he received a call from the barracks that the rebels are trying to break in. By the time he was able to reach the barracks, the main gate was busted and the revolutionaries were inside the building. They were demanding guns. At the barracks they had very few guns, so Csiba requested some from his higher ups, but they could not deliver any. Since Kossuth Radio had begun constantly airing the government demand that the rebels lay down their arms, Csiba thought that he could capture and disarm some of them in order to bring about order. He needed their guns anyway. At this point, bad blood developed between Kilián and the freedom fighters of Corvin Pass. On the 25th, Colonel Pál Maléter, Csiba’s superior officer, showed up with five tanks. They set up one of them in front of the main gates of Kilián. Csiba in his Napló (Journal) stated: „In the evening and night we exchanged gunfights with the rebels. At the main gate, Captain Szabó and first-lieutenant Kolmann and a soldier had been wounded; we took them to the hospital." The hostility didn’t stop between the Kilián and Corvin factions until the ceasefire was announced on Kossuth Radio on the 29th in which, Csiba says, " they called the rebels armed patriots. This was the time when we found out that we fought against armed patriots." October 29th was a nice fall day. I went out for a walk in Népliget, a large park within the city of Budapest. The western side of Népliget borders on Üllői Road, with the Kilián barracks on the other side of this road. I noticed a large group of demonstrators on Üllői, marching towards downtown, and chanting: "Ruszkik haza!" (Russians go home). "Nagy Imrét a kormányba!" (Imre Nagy installed in government.) When we reached the Kilián, the crowd stopped. Somebody in front chanted: "Maléter the heroic defender of Kilián!" "Maléter into the government!" The crowd repeated the chant, including myself. It took decades; by the time I realized that this demonstration was probably organized by the communists intending to get popular support for their man. Maléter’s star was like a comet, reaching its zenith on the 3rd of November, when Nagy made him a General and the Minister of Defence. That evening, Maléter and three others – General Miklós Szűcs, General István Kovács, and a communist politician Ferenc Erdei – took off to Tököl (the soviet military headquarters in Hungary) to finalize the details of soviet troop withdrawals. They were all arrested. The night before, on November 2nd, the same people and Csiba had dinner at the Kilián barracks. Pongrátz quotes General Szűcs from his Memoirs stating that Maléter made the following statement: "I’m a believer of socialism, I didn’t shoot, and I’m unwilling to shoot, or order to shoot on the soviet troops, because I can thank them for my life and career." Maléter was warned that the soviets might arrest them, but these officers who one hundred percent loyal to the Soviets and communism, either could not, or would not contemplate that possibility. What makes this whole Maléter story unique is that he has been promoted as hero of the Hungarian revolution, when in fact he was on the Soviet side from start to finish. Even that being the case, the communists executed Maléter along with Nagy in 1958. They were both communists to the end during a very difficult time; yet, both tried to save the communist system. Nagy for example, could have elevated Colonel András Márton to the post of Defense minister, who not only refused an order to launch an attack against Corvin Pass with 400 officers, but he personally went to the freedom fighters to offer them any assistance they needed to carry on the fight. The execution of Nagy and Maléter by the communists is just another example of how that system actually worked. As is the case with most major events in history, decades pass before light can be shed on what happened behind the closed doors of the all-powerful. Telling information has recently come forward in regard to the Hungarian revolution, especially the bloody demise of it. The Hungarian revolution broke out during a time when the American presidential and congressional campaign season had just gone into its final stretch. President Dwight D. Eisenhower insisted that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles insert the following statement in his campaign speech delivered at Dallas, Texas on October 27th: " the American leadership does not regard the Eastern European states potential military allies of the United States." This was the day after Hungarian freedom fighters achieved their most significant victory over Soviet forces. On October 28th, Henry Cabot Lodge, America’s ambassador to the United Nation " quoted the relevant passages from Dulles’ speech during a session of the Security Council.": Was America delivering an unmistakable message to the Soviets of her "neutrality?" Charles Bohlen, the United States ambassador to the Soviet Union from April 1953 to April 1957, served at a very critical time when great changes took place in Moscow (he also personally knew key Soviet leaders even before he became ambassador). In 1973, he published the book Witness to History in which he offers up his account of 40 years in the diplomatic service; one chapter is devoted to the Hungarian revolution. The following passage is noteworthy to explore: "Quite a few big black Zis limousines were seen entering the Kremlin on October 29th, indicating that the full Presidium was meeting or had met, and officials were being instructed on carrying out the plans. I had just received a cable from Dulles, who urgently wanted to get the message to the Soviet leaders that the United States did not look on Hungary or any of the Soviet satellites as potential military allies. The cable quoted a paragraph from Dulles speech at Dallas to that effect, and emphasized that it had been written after intensive consideration at the "highest level" – an obvious reference to President Eisenhower." Bohlen continued: "I was able to convey the message to Khrushchev, Bulganin and Zhukov at the receptions that afternoon in honor of Turkey’s National Day and at the Afghan Embassy." According to Bohlen, then, the message was delivered on the same day in the afternoon. The ambassador recalled that "the American assurance carried no weight with the Kremlin leaders. They made up their minds to crush the revolution " Interesting, but there is a discrepancy if one compares it to the since-released confidential minutes of the Central Committee meetings of the Soviet Communist Party. The Soviet Central Committee most likely met on a daily basis while the fighting went on in Hungary. A very important decision was made on the night of October 30th. The following leaders were present: Bulganin, Vorosilov, Molotov, Kaganovich, Saburov, Brezsnyev, Zsukov, Sepilov, Svermyk, Furtseva and Pospelov. Khrushchev joined them a little later (he was meeting with Chinese delegates opposing the pullout from Hungary). At the beginning of the meeting, a letter was read from Hungary in which Mikoyan and Suslov informed the leaders of the situation in that country. It was getting worse by the hour, they wrote. Remarks from the minutes: Zhukov: (Touched on some other relating issues, then said.) "Nagy is playing a double game (in Malinin’s opinion). Comrade Konev is to be sent to Budapest." Khrushchev: (At this point Khrushchev stepped in, and informs the others of the agreement that was reached with the Chinese. They agreed to the plan to remove the troops from Hungary. Then he said): "We should adopt a declaration today on the withdrawal of troops from the countries of people’s democracy (and consider these matters at a session of the Warsaw Pact), taking account of the views of the countries in which our troops are based." Molotov: "Today an appeal must be written to the Hungarian people so that they promptly enter into negotiations about the withdrawals of troops." Voroshilov: "We must look ahead. Declarations must be composed so that we aren’t placed into an onerous position. We must criticize ourselves – but justly." Shepilov: "There is no need for an appeal to the Hungarians. We support the principles of non-interference. With the agreement of the government of Hungary, we are ready to withdraw troops." Zhukov: "We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole." Furtseva: "We should adopt a general declaration, not an appeal to the Hungarians." Saburov: Agrees about the need for a Declaration and withdrawal of troops. "It’s impossible to lead against the will of the people." Khrushchev: "We are unanimous. As a first step, we will issue a Declaration." Khrushchev: "There are two paths. A military path – one of occupation. A peaceful path – the withdrawal of troops, negotiations." Molotov: "We should clarify our relationship with the new government. We are entering into negotiations about the withdrawal of troops." The Declaration was written in accordance with the above statements, and sent out to respective governments. It was also published in Pravda on October 31st, indicating that the Hungarian matter will be solved peacefully. At this point, it appeared that the Hungarian revolution was won. But what happened? What was it, which forced the Soviet leaders to make this decision besides the success of the revolutionaries? Most likely it was the previously touched upon friendship that had developed over the years between the Soviet occupation forces – at even high levels of command – and the Hungarian people. Emil Csonka in his book A forradalom oknyomozó tanúi (Witnesses for the Researchers of Revolution) writes that a number of high ranking Soviet officers worked out truces with Hungarian officials in the countryside. He cites one case from Győr where Colonel Schwarz made a radio announcement stating: "I believe that the Hungarian people have the right to rise up against their oppressive leaders." Not only did high numbers of soldiers and officers join the Hungarians in actual combat, they also supplied or sold weapons, ammunitions, and even gas to them. Some of that fuel had been used quite successfully for Molotov-cocktails. Returning to the cable message that Mr. Bohlen had received and delivered to the leaders of the Kremlin, according to the ambassador the communist leaders had already "made up their minds." The question is: why would they write a cumbersome Declaration on the following day, indicating that they were willing to negotiate and withdraw their troops from Hungary. Why would they publish it in Pravda on the 31st? Chances are low that they wrote the Declaration for the purpose of deception only; they just as effectively could have used diplomatic channels and the media for that purpose, something they’d done already in previous days. Perhaps Mr. Bohlen’s memory of events had faded somewhat by the time he wrote his book; or perhaps he purposefully mischaracterized what actually happened. What we do know is that it is difficult to imagine that when Bohlen read the Declaration in Pravda on the morning of the 31st, that he would not remember it clearly in the future. He likely found it astonishing; after all, it wasn’t an ordinary Declaration – and it certainly wasn’t an ordinary day. Bohlen, however and perhaps suspiciously, doesn’t even mention the Declaration in his book. From the evidence we now have at our disposal, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Bohlen himself was the one to actually inform the State Department of the Declaration’s contents. If the Soviet leaders unanimously agreed to solve the Hungarian matter peacefully on the 30th, what changed their minds a mere 18 hours later, on the 31st, to crush the revolution? Would it be ludicrous to suggest that the reception at the Afghan Embassy was in the afternoon of October 31st, instead of the 29th? Or the cable itself was sent on the 31st? Could it be, the Soviet leaders received assurances from the United States that it would not meddle delivered personally by her representative, which changed their minds as to the course they could take to solve the Hungarian situation? Why was it even necessary to send such a message? There were other noteworthy events in those crucial days of revolution. For example, on October 31st, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his radio and television address "assures the Soviet Union that the Unites States does not view either the new Polish or the new Hungarian leadership as potential allies." Well! And so, as Comrade Molotov wants to clarify the "relationship with the new government" of Imre Nagy, Mr. Eisenhower doesn’t see the "new Hungarian leadership as a potential ally." This was made clear to the Soviets by Secretary of State Dulles on October 27th and reaffirmed by Ambassador Lodge on the 28th at the UN. And what of the "new Polish leadership?" On October 19th, Mr. Wladyslaw Gomulka was elected to be the first secretary of the Polish Communist Party. Just like Nagy, he was jailed during Stalin’s era. Gomulka was removing some of the Stalinists from the Party and was working to gain more independence from the Soviet Union. Evidently, it didn’t go over very well with President Eisenhower. Now, if it wasn’t the telegram that changed the minds of the Soviet leaders, then what was it? Some people believe that the Suez-crisis offers a possible explanation. While it could not be completely ruled out, however, the British-French and Israeli joint operation started on the 29th of October with the Israeli attack on Egypt. A few months earlier, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal (which was under British control), so they wanted to reestablish that authority. The Soviet decision to solve the Hungarian issue through negotiations was made on the 30th. Gazing at it through this timeline, it’s very unlikely that this crisis had anything to do with the Soviet change of heart. Khrushchev even made a remark at their meeting on the 28th: "The English and French are in the real mess in Egypt. We shouldn’t get caught in the same company." Evidently he already had information of the coming attack. One possible explanation might be found in the smoke-filled room of the all mighty powerbrokers. W. Cleon Skousen in his book titled The Naked Capitalist wrote: "Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super-leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them. What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all three were extremely wealthy American capitalists!" Dr. Bella Dodd was a former member of the National Committee of the U.S. Communist Party. Mr. Skousen served 16 years in the FBI, 4 years as Chief of Police in Salt Lake City. He was also the Editorial Director of the police magazine, Law and Order, for ten years and a university professor for seven. Could it be possible, that the above statement had something to do with the hard-to-explain statements and decisions of President Eisenhower at a time when the two superpowers were supposedly arch enemies? Shouldn’t America take advantage of what the Hungarian revolution presented? Apparently not! Yet, there is another aspect of the actions and attitudes of the United States in regard to the Hungarian revolution. At one of his news conferences, Mr. Eisenhower made another interesting statement: "The United States does not now and never has advocated open rebellion by an undefended populace against force over which they could not possibly prevail." Oh! Yeah?! – as any casual American might say. Not advocate open rebellion? Doesn’t this sound like what Pilate had done two thousand years ago? Two American reporters, Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings of the American Broadcasting Corporation put together a presentation in 1985 on the cold war – a sort of situation analysis of the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Among the many issues they explored, they touched upon the East-German, Polish and Hungarian revolutions. They interviewed Richard M. Nixon (the vice president at the time of the Hungarian revolution) who said in 1985: "It was a tragedy and a tragedy to which we contributed. We contributed to it because some of our programs that were carried on radio in Hungary called for the Hungarian people to rise up. I think many of them got the impression that we would come to their assistance. It was a terribly difficult decision for Eisenhower not to do so. But he looked at the situation and the situation was that the Soviet Union had overwhelming conventional superiority in the area. So what is our answer to Hungary, to bomb Moscow? Eisenhower had to make that decision and decided that it would not be credible for him to threaten do so." On the 31st of October, the Soviet Central Committee met again. Khrushchev announced an abrupt change in plans. Saburov alone held out for the peaceful solution they’d earlier all agreed to. Marshall Zhukov ordered his armies, tanks by the thousands, to cross the Hungarian border. They were fresh forces, many of them from Siberia and Mongolia, and they had been told that they were at Suez. By the nightfall of November 3rd, they encircled Budapest and all the airports and major strategic points in the country. A day earlier, on November 2nd, the State Department sent another cable to Tito, the Yugoslavian dictator. It read in part: "The government of the Unites States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the border of the Soviet Union." Could it be that the United States wanted to offer assurances to the Soviets that the first cable on October 29th (or on the 31st) wasn’t a mistake? On November 4th, early Sunday morning, the sound of heavy artillery bombardment awakened the citizens of Budapest. Heavy fighting went on for 4-5 days. Heavy fighting subsided, and eventually the revolution was crushed. The estimated number of people killed in action is placed officially at around 2600, but it is probably much higher than that. Soviet losses were heavy, as well. In the fallout, János Kádár was installed by the Soviets as the all-powerful first secretary; he remained in that post until 1988. Interestingly enough, under Stalin’s rule, he himself was jailed and severely tortured. Yet, under his rule heavy punishments were handed out. The exact number of people who were executed or entered into a variety of prison systems to this day is not known. They system made sure these people were disappeared without a trace. According to the best estimates available, at least 356 were executed, 341 of these confirmed. Teenagers who’d fought in the revolution were executed on their 18th birthday, the last one meeting their fate in the summer of 1961. Charges were raised against 35,000 people; 26,000 of them were litigated of which 22,000 were sentenced. In addition, 13,000 were interned into forced labor camps. 200,000 people escaped to the West during the months following the revolution. In total, it was a huge loss for the nation of 9,500,000 people. The reform movement was also broken, never to return in its original form. In memory of the freedom fighters, the "pesti srác", we bow our heads in sorrow and in pride! They wrote their name into Hungarian History with their own blood. Oak Forest, February 2, 2006.   Bibliography Békés, Csaba – Byrne, Malcolm – Rainer, János M. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Document. Central European University Press. Budapest – New York, 2002. Bohlen, Charles E. :Witness to History: 1929-1969. W. W. Norton & Company, INC. New York, 1973. Csiba Lajos : Napló, Szivárvány. 1989. szeptember. Csonka Emil : A forradalom oknyomozó története: 1945-1956. Veritas, München, 1981 Görbedi Miklós : Szögesdrótok mögött a Sajó völgyében. Magyar Ciszterci Diákok Szövetségének Egri Osztálya. Pongrátz Gergely : Corvin köz 1956. A szerző kiadása. 1982 – 1992. Skousen, W. Cleon: The Naked Capitalist. Salt Lake City, 1970. Szalay Róbert : 1956 A forradalom igaz története. Szűcs László : 1956 A debreceni cívis városban. Budapest. 2005. A magyar forradalom és szabadságharc a hazai rádióadások tükrében. Free Europe Press. New York.