Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 4

Casualties
I'm wondering, out of the 2 500 Hungarians killed, how many were killed by the Soviets, and how many died fighting alongside the Soviet army against the revolutionaries? Do the 2 500 include civilian deaths? With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * According to research that I did in referencing the article, the Hungarian State Security Police (ÁVH) fought to suppress the revolutionaries in the initial stage of the uprising ,and some likely died (see article reference #60). In the second Soviet intervention, surviving ÁVH units had been reorganized, and fought alongside Soviet units (from Györkei & Kirov, reference #1). The ÁVH casualties are not included the numbers of Hungarian casualties by any authors referenced here. The Soviet deaths are official Soviet estimates quoted by several sources, but would likely not include ÁVH casualties. According to reference #112 of the article (UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V. B (The Second Soviet Military Intervention), para 188 (p. 58)), no Hungarian military units fought with Soviet forces, but some fought with the revolutionaries (see ). So Hungarian deaths include both soldiers' & civilian deaths, but not the ÁVH. Ryanjo 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources I have indicate that out of 26 thousand men in the Hungarian People's Army, about 12 thousand supported the rebels. What did the other 14 thousand do, I'm not sure. The hungarian rebels were heavily armed, thus I think it's not right to attribute all civilian casualties to the actions of the Soviet army - at least some of them were killed in the crossfire by their countrymen. The Soviet casualties presented in the article are definately only of the Soviet forces. Also, those same Russian sources indicate, that 2502 hungarians were killed, and 19 226 (not 13 000) were wounded. It would be interesting to find out, how many were killed by who - because my understanding is, that the situation wasn't simply about Russians killing Hungarians and vice versa - like the infobox implies. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Infobox doesn't imply (I hope) that the Soviet Army killed all those Hungarians; some may have been felled by friendly fire. It only states the number of casualties on each side. I am not sure where the 13,000 figure for Hungarian wounded was obtained. You may want to get another editors attention by changing the number to "19 226" or "13 000-19 226", but please add a footnote with the reference. Ryanjo 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, unlike the Vietnam war article, we don't have a separate tab for civilian casualties, we only have two groups; since the pro-Soviet group lists only Soviet military casualties, it seems to me all other casualties were pumped up into one group, "victims of Soviet agression", all 2 500 of them - including those who died fighting their own countrymen trying to preserve law and order etc. I think something must be done about it. With respect, Ko Soi IX —Preceding comment was added at 13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Vietnam, this was an uprising of an unorganized force (mostly civilians, and if soldiers participated, usually not as part of their units) against police & military units. It makes sense that civilians made up the casualties on the Hungarian side. Most authors of publications quote these figures, or very close to them. It is always acceptable to footnote these numbers, and reference another published work that states other totals. The statement pumped up into one group, "victims of Soviet agression", implies a POV that simply doesn't exist in this article. Those are your words, not from this article. Ryanjo 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, a considerable (but seemingly unknown) number of the dead hungarians (regardless, civilians or soldiers) is likely falsely attributed to Soviet actions. The 2500 number is for TOTAL violent deaths in Hungary as the result of the unsuccesfull rebellion. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the 2,500 is an estimate. The UN admits not having accurate figures, and used two methods: 1. total deaths for Oct/Nov 1956 minus total deaths for Oct/Nov 1955; and 2. Direct estimations per region - the first yielded a figure of 2,700 and the second a figure of about 2,300. These are not too far apart, hence our midpoint estimate of 2,500 (I have added "est" tags for clarity).  Secondly, these estimates, or any part thereof, have not been reliably parsed between the Hungarian revolutionaries and ÁVH units and the (likely very few) Hungarians fighting on the side of the Soviets.  Estimates do exist but are unreliable.  Such a division cannot be quantified, is not presented here, and therefore is not "falsely attributed".  On the other hand, *qualitatively* speaking we know that ÁVH and deep party activists were often targeted (most often were arrested and spent the time building their resumé in the safety of prison walls) and the UN report gives a reliable statement that no Hungarian military unit is known to have fought on the side of the Soviets against the revolutionaries.  So the number of Hungarian deaths, especially outside the ÁVH, *not* attributed to Soviet action is likely small and not reliably quantifiable. István 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you wrote seems pretty reasonable. Objection withdrawn. Cheers. With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was told that very terrible atrocities have been committed by the rebels in this rebellion, like massacring fellow Hungarians and hanging communists on the street lamps. Is that true ? I see nothing about that in this article. Anatol 20 April, 2008
 * I refer you to the last paragraph of the section titled Fighting spreads, government falls, and also reference 57. Ryanjo (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that telling only that the rebels "attacked or murdered Soviet sympathizers and ÁVH members" is a very incomplete description of these atrocities. Hanging innocent people in the streets is a crime and a military intervention is justified to stop it. Anatol 24 April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.230.161 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The present version is accurate and informative, and based on source documents (reference #57). The terminology used in this section of the article is very close to the wording of KGB Chief Serov in his report; of course, it is necessarily more concise. If the reader is interested, the reference contains more details on the KGB's observations. Factors leading to the Soviet response is thoroughly covered in the Soviet perspective section. Interestingly, Serov does not call for massive military intervention in his report; he says that "Soviet military command is taking action to liquidate (the armed rebels)". Whether the Soviet intervention was "justified" or not is an opinion, and as such is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Ryanjo (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also--If it were possible to find a reference, I believe a statement that executions of communists by revolutionary extremists was a factor in Soviet intervention could be added to the Soviet perspective section. Ryanjo (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some information about the battle on Köztársaság tér (Republic square) and the subsequent lynchings there. This is mentioned in http://www.rev.hu/history_of_56/ora3/ora3_e.htm as well as in Mark Kramer's essay and in Victor Sebestyen's Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Vints (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To address the comments above, I have put together the following edit:"On October 30, armed protestors attacked the ÁVH guarding the Budapest Hungarian Workers Party headquarters on Köztársaság tér (Republic square), incited by rumors of prisoners held there, and the earlier shootings of demonstrators by the ÁVH at Parliament Square and in the city of Mosonmagyaróvár. Twenty to forty AVH officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died. Although this incident was widely condemned by the Nagy government, pictures of lynched victims were widely shown in Soviet newsreels." The references are fairly recent. There seems to be varying estimates about the numbers of ÁVH killed, but no doubt that some were hanged. Comments invited, and also where to put this paragraph -- Fighting spreads, government falls or the end of The New Hungarian National Government section? Ryanjo (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The incitations for the attack seem to differ a bit from what http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no186/18.html and http://www.rev.hu/history_of_56/ora3/ora3_e.htm say. Regarding the newsreels, it should be mentioned that these were shown to the Presidium on October 31 (see Kramer and Sebestyen). It seems that it was also shown as propaganda on Soviet television and in other countries (according to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no186/18.html). The article should also say something about the Hungarian army tanks that due to misunderstandings joined the insurgents in attacking the AVH. By the way, was the incident condemned by the Nagy government or only by the revolutionary leaders? Vints (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I reformulated the references so these display correctly. I added the Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution website as a reference. Regarding provocative acts for the violence, both rumors of prisoners being held & Mosonmagyaróvár are mentioned in the references I provided; I had no reference to Parliament Square, so I removed it.

Revised version:"On October 30, armed protestors attacked the ÁVH guarding the Budapest Hungarian Workers Party headquarters on Köztársaság tér (Republic square), incited by rumors of prisoners held there, and the earlier shootings of demonstrators by the ÁVH in the city of Mosonmagyaróvár. Twenty to forty AVH officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. Hungarian army tanks sent to rescue the party headquarters mistakenly bombarded the building. The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died. Although this incident was widely condemned by a wide range of revolutionary leaders in Hungary, pictures of lynched victims were widely shown in Soviet newsreels, and were viewed by the Soviet Presidium." I am concerned that what began as a brief sentence or two on the incident has ended up too long & detailed. Maybe this would be better as an expanded footnote below the main article, or a brief article on its own? Ryanjo (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to get the Sebestyen book at the library and see what it says about the newsreels. Vints (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is what Sebestyen writes. I translated from the Swedish edition if you wonder about the grammar. "Khrushchev summoned the Kremlin leaders for a decisive meeting in which he said that the decisions regarding Hungary should be made once and for all. When they met at 10 a.m. the tense, gloomy mood was aggravated. Scenes from Budapest were being featured on newsreels, including the battle at the Republic square and the lynchings of ÁVO officers.(9)" (page 265, chapter "Wednesday, October 31") The reference (9) is to William Taubman, Khrushchev, p. 297, if someone would like to investigate it further. Vints (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the second revision, with the 2 refs on the newsreels added:"On October 30, armed protestors attacked the ÁVH guarding the Budapest Hungarian Workers Party headquarters on Köztársaság tér (Republic square), incited by rumors of prisoners held there, and the earlier shootings of demonstrators by the ÁVH in the city of Mosonmagyaróvár. Twenty to forty AVH officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. Hungarian army tanks sent to rescue the party headquarters mistakenly bombarded the building. The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died. Although this incident was widely condemned by a wide range of revolutionary leaders in Hungary, pictures of lynched victims were widely shown in Soviet newsreels, and were viewed by the Soviet Presidium."

If there aren't any other revisions, I plan to add the above at the end of the The New Hungarian National Government section, just before the Soviet perspective section, and next to the photo of Communist party headquarters. Ryanjo (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the text is good now but where does the figure "twenty to forty" come from? http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no186/18.html says: "In Lendvai's equally detailed account, we are given the actual balance of the casualties (20 insurgents killed, 25 defenders lynched).", http://www.rev.hu/history_of_56/ora3/ora3_e.htm, "The siege and the subsequent mob justice cost 23 lives.", and Sebestyen also says 23 AVÓ officers died. I don't want to quibble, but perhaps we should have the same wording about the newsreels as Kramer (and Sebestyen (my translation)), "scenes of the violence was being featured in newsreels when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October"? Vints (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest edits:"On October 30, armed protestors attacked the ÁVH guarding the Budapest Hungarian Workers Party headquarters on Köztársaság tér (Republic square), incited by rumors of prisoners held there, and the earlier shootings of demonstrators by the ÁVH in the city of Mosonmagyaróvár. Over 20 AVH officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. Hungarian army tanks sent to rescue the party headquarters mistakenly bombarded the building. The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died. Although this incident was widely condemned by a wide range of revolutionary leaders in Hungary, pictures of lynched victims were being shown in Soviet newsreels, when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October." Ryanjo (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Paragraph above added to The New Hungarian National Government section. Ryanjo (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I made several edits, mostly for clarity/grammar/word variety in the Republic Square paragraph recently edited by Vints (talk). Although I didn't change the word "propaganda" in the last sentence, I have some NPOV concern about the use of that term. Is it propaganda to display the admittedly gruesome events in Republic Square, and comment that the government seemed not to be able to protect the headquarters of a political party from reprisals? I would be more comfortable if we had a reference for this statement that documented a distortion of the events for ideological purposes by the Communist media of that time. - Ryanjo (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing the grammar. The source is http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no186/18.html which cites Lendvai:
 * "As Lendvai puts it:


 * Although the acts of revenge [on Köztársaság tér] were immediately and sharply condemned by revolutionary leaders, the free press, the Writers' Association and a whole range of democratic and revolutionary organisations, from Moscow to Paris to Peking the grim pictures of the victims of lynch law were exploited by Communist organs of propaganda to smear the revolution as 'counter-revolutionary terror', and 'a witchhunt against Communists'12


 * and this from a movement whose primary modus operandi was the witchhunt against supposedly deviant Communists and non- Communists! Such propaganda was not entirely ineffective and occasionally one even gets the impression that it has leaked into the liberal consensus narrative of 1956.13"


 * I didn't read this in any other source and perhaps it's POV. It would be good to have more than one reference.
 * By the way I changed "pictures of lynched victims were being shown in Soviet newsreels, when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October.


 * to


 * "The scenes from the Republic square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later. " which is what Taubman's book said. If the newsreels were viewed by the Presidium seems to be a bit unclear. Vints (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with your reference and the edits. I just wanted to know that the term "propaganda" was used by some reference other than this Wikipedia article. Ryanjo (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for insisting on atrocities that have been committed by the Hungarian rebels. I remember French TV showed some pictures of hanged people on the street in a documentary 1-2 years ago. I was shocked by the images. I think some images about the atrocities will explain much better the real facts than the interpretation of the authors of different ideologies. Anatol, 5 July 2009.

Soviet version
Soviet reporting and subsequent incorporation into "history" was completely missing. Thought I'd oblige and fill the gap. Haven't visited talk here before, I see gobs of the banned Jacob Peters in comments. Perhaps it's time to archive some of the older (and flamingly POV) stuff? &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pēters: Would it be possible to add a number of direct references from Pravda or other publications to the section that you added? Using a single 1964 reference to support the many points that are introduced is not in keeping with this heavily cited article. Another option is to reduce this section to a sentence or two, covering these points with the reference that you cited, perhaps as part of the International subsection of the Aftermath section. I am going to hold off on any edits however, to see what other editors think. Ryanjo 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I kept to just the major points. Barghoorn was the leading (Western) authority on the topic of Soviet propaganda. I was hoping to engage other editors in adding some references, these are all salient points also pertaining to subsequent Soviet historiography. I was hoping that with the "36 hours..." timeframe, someone might track down the Pravda article, as an example. Since the WP article is so detailed regarding everything else, it really would not be appropriate to take Soviet reports and historiography and boil them down to a summary which no longer reflects what the Soviets did, and didn't, report. I'll work on some more references as well. (So, add references, not cut down.) Unfortunately, Barghoorn didn't cite which Pravda edition. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with R that each cite needs a direct ref. If properly cited then it could fit.István 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Finding additional corroborative refs should not be a problem, main challenge is to find the full text of the Pravda article attacking the revolution. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I may be (!) looking for a Pravda editorial, published prior to October 29, titled "The Collapse of the Adventure Directed Against the Hungarian People." &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Closer... "On 25 October, Pravda on its fourth page announced under the heading 'Collapse of an adventure directed against the people in Budapest' that 'insolent .." from The Kremlin Since Stalin - Page 224 by Wolfgang Leonhard - 1962  &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that I can't read Russian. It's never the same after being run through Google translate. As far as archiving the Jacob Peters comments, I am in favor of archiving much of the older commentary above. I have just been afraid that it would awaken the sleeping dragon and his sock puppets. Ryanjo 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly I want to insure the content of the Pravda article is accurately represented, Google translate and a Russian dictionary should be good enough once we find the article. Then all that is left is corroboration of the rest of the summary of Barghoorn. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come so late to the party, but are you guys still working on this? I ask because I can read Russian rather well, perhaps I could be of assistance. K. Lásztocska 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"On November 4, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest, killing thousands of civilians."
I think the term civilian is not used properly here - after all, those ~ 2 thousands hungarians killed in Budapest were mostly armed rebels. I propose that we replace "civilians" with "rebels". With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Civilians" is the more accurate word as there was very little military organization on the Hungarian side -they cannot be considered the alternative "military" as there was no command structure, no coherent defense, etc. Your edit summary: "replaced "civilians" with "armed rebels" - after all, it's impossible that the Soviet Army was fighting unarmed civilians and lost over 700 KIA" Its not impossible, its very well documented several times throughout the UN report (I would suggest reading it), specifically that it was so frustrating for Soviet units to discern between those resisting and those not resisting that tanks would often simply roll down streets, firing randomly and systematically at buildings. Unfortunately the death rate amongst Hungarians will never be known with accuracy but it can be stated with certainty that, qualitatively speaking, a very high portion of deaths were among civilians. István 15:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To Istvan: the term civilian implies a non-combatant. As soon as a civilian starts spraying soldiers with a MP-40, or throws a molotov coctail into the roof-less Soviet BTR-152, he/she is no longer a civilian. The modern legal term for such fighters is "unlawful combatant". I think, "rebel" is more befitting. While I am in no way trying to argue that there were no or very little civilians killed in the cross-fire, I don't understand how would such roothless tactics of soviet soldiers (who were forbiden to fire unless fired upon - to what extent that order wasn't breached is arguable) would result in such large Soviet casualties. Again, as you said, we don't know how many of the 2500 were rebels, and how many bystanders, innocent civilians. I see no ground for you to imply that the overwhelming majority of those dead were civilians. As a compromise, I propose expanding this part of the article to explain this problem. With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh, István, you took the words straight out of my mouth--I was literally JUST about to post something to that effect. :) I have a copy of Sebestyen's Twelve Days beside me at the moment and will now look for a reference about the civilian casualties on Nov. 4. K. Lásztocska 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go. From the chapter on November 4 (italics are mine): ...But the struggle was completely different now. This time the Russians were not mounting a police operation; they were waging war, with ruthless savagery. They had overwhelming force--three times the number of troops, five times the number of tanks and heavy guns. Molotov cocktails and light weapons were of no use against the T54 tanks the Soviets had sent to Budapest as reinforcements. They were newer, faster, more manoeuvrable and had been built with heavier armor-plating. This time, as Malaschenko said, the Russians knew what to expect. "The insurgents no longer had the element of surprise on their side." The tactics were altogether more brutal. The Russians did not want to be the targets of guerrilla bands. ''If they were attacked, they launched devastating bombardments toward the vicinity of the shots being fired against them. They demolished any buildings where they suspected revolutionaries might be hiding.'' Young people rushed to the barricades, but there were fewer of them. Many of the freedom fighters had drifted away from the main resistance centers after the ceasefire on 28 October and had not returned. The Russians launched savage attacks on the main battle centres of a week earlier--the Kilián Barracks, the Corvin Cinema and its connecting passageways, the Eastern Railway Station, Üllői Avenue, in central Pest, and in Buda at Széna Square, Zsigmond Móricz Square and Moscow Square. And this time they used jets. From early in the morning, Russian fighter planes were making a deafening noise overhead, strafing rebel strongholds without concern for the "collateral damage." --Sebestyen, Victor: Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Page 268. It is quite clear that the Soviet army made no attempt to distinguish between armed revolutionaries and civilians, and they certainly killed a lot of innocent citizens in their bombardment of the city. Moreover, as István just pointed out a moment ago, the alternate to "civilian" is "military", and since (especially by 4 Nov.) there WAS no organized military resistance, "civilians" is as accurate a term to use as any. K. Lásztocska 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that the author of this is rather sympathetic to the "freedom fighters", opposing the "ruthless savagery" of the "brutal", "devastating", "savage" Russian tactics and attacks. However, he is not biased enough to omit the key part "three times the number of troops" - how many hungarian combatants that is? "five times the number of tanks and heavy guns" -how many tanks and such did the rebels have in Budapest alone? And now all those become non-combatant civilians killed in the crossfire? With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care to debate the perceived "bias" of Twelve Days, one of the recently-published, highly-respected, oft-cited and generally definitive histories of the 56 revolution. As far as I know, the figures such as "three times the number of troops" and "five times the tanks and heavy guns" are in comparison to the previous Soviet invasion on October 24, not in comparison to the Hungarian rebels. K. Lásztocska 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find highly unlikely that "thousands" of civilians died in Budapest. In Budapest, about 2 thousand hungarians perished. Some percentage of them weren't civilians, but combatants, although non-military. So maybe not even a thousand actual civilians. We don't know. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point - indeed the only reliable sources we have describe casualties in terms of "Hungarians" and does not differentiate between those resisting and those not (or those ÁVH members lynched by other Hungarians) therefore the most correct term to use is simply "Hungarians" as this does not imply that we are parsing the casualty figures without verifiable sources. István 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is better, but still not good enough in my humble opinion. I propose that we change the disputed sentence to something like this "On November 4, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest. Around two thousand hungarians lost their lives; there is no reliable data on how many of those killed were rebels, and how many were civilians caught in the crossfire". With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to the change above. The term "Hungarians" proposed by István is completely clear, and does not need expansion. If clarification is needed, reading the text of the article makes it clear that there were Hungarians that were "lynched" by the rebels, and not by the security forces or Soviets; these statements have references. A footnote that states "there is no reliable data on how many of those killed were rebels, and how many were civilians caught in the crossfire" may be acceptable if a reference is available that confirms this uncertainty. IMHO, just 'deducting' that some of the Hungarians were killed by friendly fire is not acceptable as a factual statement in this article or any on Wikipedia, as it violates no original research. Ryanjo 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who were lynched (no brackets - they were literally lynched) by the rebels are not part of my argument. While it's partially my fault you misunderstood my argument, I hardly see it as basis for accusing me of trying to push original research or attributing something to me that I didn't do/say. I'm not saying that "some hunarians were killed by friendly fire". I'm saying that we don't know how many of the 2000 or so hungarians killed in Budapest were killed by who. We don't even know how many of them were armed rebels, and how many were innocent civilians caught in the crossfire and killed either by the Soviets, or by the rebels. We just know how many hungarians died in total. That is the reason it's in the article for now (as opposed to "civilians" - that was totally disgusting, btw), not because it's a clear term. It's not clear about anything but nationality of those killed. Simplifing this matter to "russians invade, kill hungarians" is not very accurate, although it is not without point. Unfortunately, due to lack of reliable data, we don't have the luxury of having a separate box for civilian casualties, akin to Vietnam war article. So yet again I must note that I have no doubt about the need of expansion of this section. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about this text: "On 4 November, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest. Hungarian resistance continued until 10 November. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died, and 200,000 more fled as refugees.  Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter."  This neither implies every Hungarian casualty was due to Soviets, nor tries to parse "civilian" vs "military" casualties (something the soviets themselves couldn't do at the time).  Also, it doesnt give undue weight to the scores of ÁVH lynchings vs. the thousands killed by the Soviets.  I dont recall ever reading or hearing any serious discussion of "friendly fire" (what a twisted euphamism!) casualties in 56 - Im sure they happened (also with the Soviets) but evidently not in enough proportion to merit mention in the literature therefore I agree with Ryanjo that it would be original research. István 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's much better than before. I still would like to venture deeper into the problem of rebels and civilians; however, not before I do more research. At any rate, I will not make changes before proposing them here.  One thing though - a civilian killed by a rebel is not "friendly fire", it's "collateral damage" or whatever euphemism is in use nowadays. A rebel killed by a rebel would be "friendly fire" (twisted euphemism indeed). With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May I point out that in a spontaneous popular uprising, especially this particular one, the line between "rebels" and "civilians" is very very blurry indeed? K. Lásztocska 05:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is probably the reason why we don't have reliable data separating the dead hungarians into two distinct categories. With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Americans in Budapest?
My Grandfather was an English/German/Hungarian translator during this time, stationed in Austria and mentioned sometime ago that he and a few other Americans, along with exiled Hungarians were sent in during this time to teach the Revolutionaries guerilla warfare tactics and supply limited aid. The only details I remember were about how they taught the children to climb trees and drop Molotov cocktails on the exhaust registers of the soviet tanks and "Eisenhower was a son of a bitch for doing what he did to those people". Does anyone have any information on “on the ground” American involvement? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dësbela Ambërbojada (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 3
I archived the discussions from November 2006 through December 2007, except the active topics above. See links to all the Archives at top of this page. Ryanjo (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

date audit
Mixed formats, so I chose international rather than US. (Buzz me if you prefer the US.) Please note that WP:MOSDASH has a good guide to the use of en dashes for year ranges, including when they're spaced and when they're not. Needs a little cleaning up. Tony  (talk)  12:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ImreNagyport.jpg
The image Image:ImreNagyport.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Nkm343.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Save two of the article's images!
Attention to editors of this article: various 'bots, and well-intentioned (but misguided) Wikipedians are threatening to delete the images of Imre Nagy and the Time magazine cover from this article.


 * If you can improve the "fair use" rationale for Image:ImreNagyport.jpg, please use this link to expand the fair use statement on the image's page.


 * Please vote to keep the Time cover image in the article here.

Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a paragraph to the section containing the Time Magazine "Man of the Year" image about the significance of the cover. The lack of reference to the cover within the article was cited as a reason to remove the Time cover image. Ryanjo (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all who rode to the defense  Ryanjo (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you for bringing it to everyone's attention.István (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox revisions
This revert to the infobox' previous (FA) status is made reluctantly, i.e. the edits (AVH, Kiraly, etc.) are not without merit but (IMHO) provide a less descriptive summary of the event. 1) the ÁVH indeed ceased to exist under its old name and its functional successor never matched the level of abusiveness the AVH had, but the central state police certainly picked up its predecessor's role of defending the party from political "agitation" quite invasively; 2) Babadzhanian (and Mamszurov) reported to Konev - no need to expand this section; 3) Maléter, Király certainly played important, arguably heroic roles, but the distinction of "leader" in 56 is dubious - most historians stress the exceptionally spontaneous nature of Hungary/56, that the revolutionaries were the a crowd led not by politicians or faction or leaders but by a common ideal, something intangible. "Leaders" were chosen almost by default - Someone once wrote "there go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader" - that certainly applies here.  A casual reader researching the topic might be better informed without a name in the "leader" box. István (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Counter-Revolution
Some accounts of the Hungarian revolt depict it as a counter-revolution. See "1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary: Words and Weapons" by Janos Berecz and "Ocherk istorii narodnoi Vengrii. 1948-1962." by L.N. Nezhinskii. Even if Ryanjo's lame edit summary "new references are propaganda" is to be entertained, it still misses the point. Wikipedia does not interpret what's right or wrong but only presents different point of views. Nezhinskii was Russia's leading scholar on Hungary and his views have to be considered. Berecz' book was published by Akademiai Kiado, which is certainly reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.216.101 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the "lame" edit summary. It beats NO edit summary!
 * Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, not every point of view.
 * Among the references provided are an untranslated Russian site and opinion piece (replete with "Hungarian fascists" and other unsupported epithets) from marxists.org.
 * The statement I removed was "In the People's Republic of Hungary and elsewhere, the unrest was seen as a counterrevolutionary revolt." Presented as the second sentence in the lead paragraph, unsupported by any text in the article below, and with no attempt to mention that the majority of the article's references come to a different conclusion, this is an incorrect statement. In any case, it doesn't belong in the lead section.
 * The comment above "Some accounts of the Hungarian revolt depict it as a counter-revolution." if there are accessible references that support this statement, is more appropriate to be expanded upon in the Soviet version of events section.
 * Ryanjo (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes and the comment above by user 204.102.216.101 are most likely by banned user Jacob Peters, who originally got banned for trying to avoid blocks with an ip address of 204.102.210.1 (same locality). Furthermore this particular article is one that this user has vandalized in the past with the same mo/pov.radek (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We should also mention, that in the late '70s and early '80s, a notable historian has supported the idea of counter-revolution adinig the Kadar-regime: David Irving. Just like with the holocaust denial he facilitated that the uprising had not freedom in its mind but in accordance with the then-current propaganda a fascist plot. A weekly magazine printed an article about this a few weeks ago: I think this should be mentioned in the Irving article too... Shinichi1977 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no reputable mainstream scholarship which states the Hungarian revolt was fascist. That Irving might publish books and be advertised as a historian in some circles doesn't change that even mentioning his opinion is WP:UNDUE. "Fascist plot" is nothing but Soviet propaganda, which, as we must recall when it comes to the Soviet legacy in Central and Eastern Europe, is a version (construct) of history, not necessarily a point of view based on fact. I we wish to consider Soviet scholarship as a valid POV, then it must be validated by unrelated reliable Western sources. -PētersV (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. And absolutely yes to NPOV narrative based on reputable sources ≠ "every" source. —PētersV (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not say, it was fascist just the fact itself that David Irving has contributed to the Soviet propaganda for personal reasons. It is also a fact, that Irving frequents in Hungary upon invitation of the Hungarian extreme right. Saying only the Soviets and Hungarian communists presented the revolution as counter-evolution is misleading. I also express to let this fact (Irving writing a pro-Soviet book) integrated into his bibliography. By the way, extremist right ideology has great footing in history seminars, young teachers even refuse to teach the mainstream line and present their own, and that is why next generations have to know, why 1956 occured before they believe it was perpetrated by Jews based on books by a man who stated death camps were built as tourist attractions. 92.249.132.157 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is biased, though significantly less so than the Hungarian version. A few of the mistakes:

1. Gerő's speech is now on YouTube and anybody can hear :-) that he does not use the word "mob". 2. The reference to the UN report is highly problematic - have people not learnt from the Iraq reports? But in any case without referring to the terms of reference of the UN report that quite clearly set out what the committee may or may not investigate is very problematic. 3. The first line of the article speaks about spontenous uprising. It was anything but spontenous: it was very well organised with precise timetable. Even the first report of the United Press emphasised it. 4. The economic history is warped. It was the CP who brought out Hungary out of the hyperinflation while there is a suggestion that it was the cause. The referenced piece on the economic problems is far from unbiased, however, it certainly does not support the argument in the article. In any case, while living standards fell in the countryside, there was relatively small decline in the towns and cities (especially in comparison with let's say the UK) and in general the economic growth was higher than in any other period of the Hungarian history of which we have data. 5. The whitewashing of some of the members of the uprising does not help. Many of the "victims" of the post-uprising repercussions have been denounced as members of various fascist movements in the last few years. Although it has not reached yet the really interesting people: Béla Király, for example, after the nazi coup in 1944 got leading position in the MInistry of Defence, that is he took the oath to Szálasi, that many rightwing officers refused. He was sentenced for spying in 1955 and released on 26 October 1956. Dudás, the president of the National Revolutionary Committee, was a secret police mole in Romania. Was arrested in 1946 as participant in the conspiracy of the Hungarian Community. Was released from prison in 1954. 6. Mintszenty was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1949, but he was not in prison, he was in home arrest in the holidayhouse of the Bishop of Felsőpetény. He was not quite innocent in the accusations. 7. The criminal element was very dominant during the uprising and it is pretty much washed over in the article. Not all prisoners were political ones, as a matter of fact in 1956 their proportion was probably very small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjsteel (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you have acceptable references for all this? Or most likely not. Ryanjo (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:"while living standards fell in the countryside, there was relatively small decline in the towns and cities (especially in comparison with let's say the UK)"
 * You've got to be kidding. UK living standards absolutely dwarfed those of Hungary by the mid-1950s.  The UK's 1950 GDP per cap literally almost tripled Hungary's.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I said or meant to say that the change of living standards between 1938 and 1951 was comparable in Hungary vis a vis the UK. I'm not mad to claim that Hungarian living standards have at any time got close to the UK. Even when it got to the closest (early 1970s) it was less than two thirds. In any case, the economic part is truly bad. The Hungarian economy before the war was one of the most backward in Europe and in terms of living standards, well, it did not know unemployment benefit (only the union sponsored ones)or any state benefit system. It's no good harping on the reparation supplies after the war, when the war itself destroyed about 40% of the national assets (all the references in this section are Pető, Szakács). The source of the relatively quick economic development between 1948-1951 was the centralisation of the dispersed, small factories and hence the significantly increased productivity of the skilled workforce. By 1950 there was a shortage of labour and industry absorbed significant migration from the rural areas. This went with the huge investment in heavy industries (which for the time being reduced the resources and did not add). This meant holding up investment in light industries and agriculture, while wages paid to workers in construction represented demand for consumer goods. Hence the taking from peasantry, inflation, forced loans, etc. So, the reason for the shortages was the increase in industry, the significant increase in the number of people buying their means of life. From 1951 (2nd Congress of the Hungarian Workers' Party) the increased targets of the five year plan introduced significant disorganisation, but it alone wouldn't have caused the heavoc in the economy - in effect the Hungarian economy became a war economy (for a year military expenses were probably a third of the budget) because of the Korean war. This coupled with the horrible harvest of 1952.

Now the references: 1. Mindszenty was not in prison, but in home arrest in church holiday houses: see the highly pre-Mindszenty Hungarian page of Wikipedia. It is clearly stated there. Although the court proceedings against him were fabricated and probably his admission as well, with his monarchistic views and speeches he breached the Act of 1946 on the Protection of the Republic Form of State. 2. Király Béla. The nazi coup took place on 15 october 1944. Király at this point is officer of the chief of staff in the first Hungarian Army. No doubt that he had to take oath to Szálasi. The point is that many officers refused it. He did not only take the oath, but he became first chief of staff of the defence of Kőszeg, then the commander of the defence of Kőszeg in March 1945. That is, he was promoted by the nazis. He carried this out, when there is a new Hungarian government, when the participants of the Hungarian military resistance were executed, when the Jews were shot in the Danube, when 16-year old lads are sent against the Soviet Army, etc., etc. He was defending the nazi Germany (Kőszeg is a border town), when everything was lost. He was captured, then escaped and was screened and accepted in december 1945. All the facts are on the Hungarian version of the Wikipedia article on him. 3. Dudás. It's more of a deduction and debatable sources. He was arrested and handed over to the Romanian security services. The explanation was that he was a police informant before the war (it could have been fabricated, though his transfer is not usual. But after all, it is also a document). Nevertheless, it is quite unusual that he was communist, then arrested, then became a self-appointed peace negotiator and then joins the Smallholders' Party, which within the coalition government was on the right. 4. The reliability of the UN Report. The chair of the committee was Alsig Andersen. He was a nazi collaborator (minister during the German occupation), who narrowly avoided impeachment, but nevertheless after the war popular pressure obstructed his appointment to the Cabinet (http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmarks_geografi_og_historie/Danmarks_historie/Danmark_1849-1945/Alsing_Emanuel_Andersen&ei=O9sWSpnWMOWRjAfmx_DbDA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dalsing%2Bemanuel%2Bandersen%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4GZEZ_en-GBGB315GB316%26sa%3DN%26start%3D10). The Rapporteur was K.C.O. Shann, who later as Australian ambassador to Indonesia and described the massacre of 650 thousand people as "cleansing operation" and eulogised about the Indonesian officers' gallantry against the CP of Indonesia (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Model_Pupil_TNROTW.html). Can anybody say that it was an independent enquiry? In addition, the first few pages of the report describes the methodology, which is highly suspect and problematic. It would be unacceptable for historic studies, yet the article handles it as some definitive truth. It was a cold war propaganda piece and in this way no different from the White Book that seems to be rejected. So a nazi collaborator and a redbaiter are more acceptable, even if they deliberately bend the facts, than some communist? Nice neutrality of opinion. 5. Imre Nagy asked for possibility of asylum from the Yugoslavian embassy on 2nd of November (through Szántó). He asked for this not because of the Soviets (he did not expect to be executed), but because of the terror-squads and progrom on the streets of Budapest (Memoirs of D. Soldatic, Vjesnic 28 November 1977). The Yugoslav element was pretty strong in the first week of the uprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.254.80 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to log on for my post above. But anyway, I also forgot to give the reference to Gerő's speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtAUvh3c4k. Quite clearly he did not use the word "mob" (csőcselék). It would have been unlikely, anyway, as it was a written speech, produced by the Politbureau. It's one of the lies, oh sorry, mistakes, in the UN report and consequently a misinformation in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjsteel (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements based on innuendo and "deduction" are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. You don't like the UN Report, then provide better references. Your only link is a brief bio of Andersen which doesn't say anything substantial. Ryanjo (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about liking or not liking the UN Report but that it is suspect. In any case I gave reference to the fact that the word "mob" was not in Gerő's speech and also that Mindszenty was not freed from prison. The evidence provided in the UN Report is barely better than the Iraq dossier produced by the British government to justify the war. Although it mentions thorough crossexamination, there is not a single point in the entire report in which doubt is raised. Now I do only interviews with senior managers in firms, but has not yet heard the same story from every one of them on the same subject. There was no way for anyone to establish that the AVH (or who at all) shot at Kossuth square, that almost all the lynching was against AVH members (partly because most of the victims among AVH, were conscripts, thus it is simply disingenious to mix up the AVH officers and the AVH soldiers, and also because from very early on they were fleeing in civilian clothing.). The report reads like the suggested instructions to the press (State Department and Einsenhower files F 760003-2230 Department of STate From Budapest to Secretary of State No. 20 October 31, p3 p.m Controll 19176 Recorded: October 31 1956 10:10 am) in which the suggestions are: report the developments, avoid mentioning atrocities, emphasise the importance of returning to normality, emphasise the democratic processes and instiutions, civil rights and multiparty system. Oddly, although most of these reports have been released, they are completely missing from the 1956 literature (or for that matter the French ones). And as to Andersen, I'm sorry, but if one was a minister (moreover finance minister) during German occupation that should be enough to question his integrity. --Redjsteel (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "7. The criminal element was very dominant during the uprising" I'm sorry, the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was a criminal enterprise on what planet? Or am I misinterpreting something in this contention? PetersV     TALK 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article to remove the "mob" reference in Gerő's speech. The UN report, para 464, does not use the term "mob", and actually comments that the UN Committe reviewed Gerő's comments and did not find derogatory phrases -- so I guess that the UN Report is accurate on this point, right? The rest of Redjsteel's speculation and comments are inappropriate for a reference article under the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid original research.Ryanjo (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But nevertheless, simply removing the reference to Gerő's speech does not correspond to the historical reality, as it is commonly thought that he used the word (not to mention that the demonstrators shouted that they were not mob - that is, it was spread among the people). So, the correct sentence would be: "In spite of the common belief among the demonstrators and the oral tradition, Gerő did not use the word". Some of the other points are not speculations, because it is still the case that Király 12 years earlier had been a sworn nazi and Mindszenty was not freed from a prison. In addition, the Kossuth tér events are much more problematic than suggested in the article. Eörsi (http://www.eorsilaszlo.hu/eorsilaszlo.hu/el/cikkek/konyvkritikak/08.doc) seems to sum up the problem quite well. I think there were pro-communists who shot at the people, but not at all necessarily AVH. After Nagy declaring that he would resign if the military operations would go ahead (which almost certainly would have finished the armed uprising at least for some time) perhaps there were people who wanted to go ahead. It is also possible that there were panic shots among the guards in Parliament, for which the Soviet tanks started a quite indiscriminate shooting. Although this is speculation, but it is not speculation, that contrary to the positive claim in the article, we have no evidence for whom started the shooting (the first AP report clearly blamed the Soviet tanks' firing as unprovoked and put the number of victims to 200-300. So much for the reliability of witnesses), although almost certainly pro-regime people (but not necessarily acting as an institution). As to Köztársaság tér (the siege of the party headquarters) that is glossed over in the article for understandable reasons there is a quite well referenced summary: http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/koztarsasag-ter-1956. Although both references are in Hungarian, I have no doubt that some of the leading writers of this article have sufficient knowledge of the Hungarian language to consider these references.

As to the reliability of the UN report, I rest my case. I referee articles in my own field (far from 1956) for leading international journals and would propose that an article using any similar methodology should be either rejected or revised and unlikely to be so considerate to accept the word of Merck for the lack of side effects of Viox as it seems that people accept the word of the chairman and the rapporteur of the committee so easily, although the character references are not so great about them... --Redjsteel (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Point by point:
 * simply removing the reference to Gerő's speech does not correspond to the historical reality -- The edited text is neutral on this point, and does not repeat any inaccuracy. An interested reader can check the reference, which has detail on this point.
 * Király 12 years earlier had been a sworn nazi -- Please! Fighting in the Hungarian Army on the Eastern Front during WWII doesn't make him an Nazi. Acceptable reference needed.
 * Mindszenty was not freed from a prison -- Read the article. The sentence reads: "Many political prisoners were released, most notably József Cardinal Mindszenty." It doesn't say from prison, although he was in prison until the year before. Definition of prisoner from dictionary.net: "A person under arrest, or in custody, whether in prison or not; a person held in involuntary restraint; a captive".
 * the Kossuth tér events are much more problematic than suggested in the article. -- I disagree. I can't find a single reference in English that disputes that the version that the ÁVH guards shot at the crowd. The UN Report is only the earliest reference. Charles Gati in his 2006 book Failed Illusions (page 159) reviewed historical archives, as well as journalist and eyewitness Endre Marton's report, and concludes: "the most likely explanation being that a Hungarian ÁVH militia unit positioned at the top of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs across from the Parliament building opened fire."
 *  As to Köztársaság tér (the siege of the party headquarters) that is glossed over -- The article fully describes these events, including that "Over 20 AVH officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob." Is this "glossed over"?
 * As to the reliability of the UN report, I rest my case... an article using any similar methodology should be either rejected or revised...accept the word of Merck for the lack of side effects of Viox...accept the word of the chairman and the rapporteur of the committee...character references are not so great. -- This has the makings of a great conspiracy theory, but only a theory. You have made no case against the UN Report or its methods, and ad hominem attacks on the authors or comparisons to some contemporary frauds is innuendo, not proof.
 * I sense an agenda, that has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of this article. Ryanjo (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

''Király 12 years earlier had been a sworn nazi -- Please! Fighting in the Hungarian Army on the Eastern Front during WWII doesn't make him an Nazi. Acceptable reference needed.'' It's a malignant misinterpretation of what I wrote. The point is not that he fought on the Eastern Front. That does not make anyone a fascist. The point is that he took the oath to Szálasi as an officer, he stayed with him (Kőszeg was Gyepü II), he served him: after the execution of Bajcsy-Zsilinszky, Lieutanant-Colonel Tarcsay, after the extermination of close to half a million Hungarian citizens, after the collapse of the Balaton offensive. At Kőszeg, he defended the nazi Germany. So: He took the oath to Szálasi. He received the Officer Cross of the Hungarian Order from Szálasi (Honvédségi Rendeletek, 15 January 1945), he asked Szálasi to get the "vitéz" title, which was granted (for that he had to take an oath again to Szálasi). One has to draw the line what constitutes what. You seem to think that serving Szálasi so faithfully does not represent any problem. It did not represent a problem for Mihály Farkas, the communist defense minister, either. But everyone has to deal with his own soul and honour.

My very, very last one. I did not want to use it, because it is not a document, but since you suggested innuendo... My uncle gave testimony to the UN committee. He was debriefed first, then a written report was given to him and they promised that after using that for his testimony he could go to America from the camp. Well, he did, not the US, but Canada. 10 years later his mind was fresh enough to remember the "corrections" (e.g. removing uncertainties, changing adjectives) to his testimony. Of course it is impossible to know if his testimony was ever used in the report.--Redjsteel (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Іvan Konev
What is the star for? For example: Konev played minimal role compare to Zhykov, Cedov, Sokolovski, Mikoyan and Khrushov himseft but he is the sole leader listed --Ilyaroz (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Erwin Schmidt, writing in The Hungarian Revolution 1956 (Osprey Publishing, 2006), Konev was the overall Soviet ground commander, overseeing Babadzhanian commanding 8th Mechanized Army and Mamsurov's 38th Army. Ryanjo (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Ilyaroz (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The numbers
Here is says [31000 russian troops (not 75000-200000) http://fan.lib.ru/c/chekmarew_w_a/text_0200.shtml]. They list every Army involved and it adds up to 31550 people 1130 tanks and Self-propelled artillery  --Ilyaroz (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a wide variance of estimates on the troop levels involved. I have changed the footnote as follows:"Sources vary widely on numbers of Soviet forces involved in the intervention. The UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) estimates 75,000-200,000 troops and 2,500 tanks, but documents available in Lib.ru (Maksim Moshkow's Library) list the troop strength of the Soviet forces as 31,550, with 1,130 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces." Also, I have posted a request on the Military history WikiProject, asking for references or other English language sources.  Ryanjo (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would strongly discount the UN source, writing then, at the time, from what the Western intel agencies were willing to provide. Go with the Soviet sources from the archives open now, but list the UN source also secondarily. Buckshot06(prof) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I will change the figures to the Soviet sources but leave the footnote explaining the discrepancy. Ryanjo (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More Numbers
The info box says 20,500 Hungarians killed but the text seems to settle on 2,500. Moreover, other sources for Hungarian deaths are all over the map, up to 50,000. Is anyone able to provide a reliable (objective) number? It would be helpful to know the source of the UN figure: it could have come from outside observers or from the Soviets who, after all, were calling the shots (so to speak).

As far as defining civilians, generally a civilian is someone who is not a member of an established military force. (Yes, I know that cops often refer to citizens as civilians, but police are civilians too.) IMO "civilian" includes both those who are totally neutral and those who are active guerrillas. Here's Wikipedia's definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian.

B Tillman, 29 Dec 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you caught a typo...the source quoted for the casualty figures says "2,500-3,000". I corrected it.Ryanjo (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the UN report, the estimate of deaths is based on the differences in reported deaths in the age groups likely to be involved in the fighting between months before the revolt, and the months of the fighting. A fairly crude estimate, it seems.Ryanjo (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Role of Hungarian fascists and CIA?
Nothing really isnt mentioned of either, but given the trend, it would be safe to assume that rather than so called "spontainious revolt" this one too was most likely well planned clandestine operation by U.S. CIA and their local collaborators, among whom no doubt many former Hungarian "fascists" (Arrow Cross Party) and such. So how about some facts instead of this fairy tale. The "Soviet version" of events is also mentioned in the article, but represented with the suggestion of being totally bogus (no BIAS on WIKI?), not that it is to be blindly to believed either, but the second point: "2. Fascist, Hitlerite, reactionary, counter-revolutionary hooligans financed by the imperialist west took advantage of the unrest to stage a counter-revolution." Is more than likely as it happened there and certainly around the world, before, after and to this day in numerous well documented cases and places.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.195.225 (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of words, but no acceptable references. I wonder who this is? Ryanjo (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. The above assumptions should be based on reliable sources, this is a Featured Article. Squash Racket (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "White Books" I-V, English, 1956-8/9 (been a long time since I read them) assert this. While the White Books provide decent evidence in terms of direct evidence, they intersperse the evidence they provide (ie, mob murder of the AVH, the fact that some people in a circle around Nagy chatted in 1955) with unfounded allegations (That RA/RFE/CIA funded a Hothyite Arrow-Cross operation).  The only sources describing a CIA/Arrow-Cross plot are not credible, and condemned as incredible by historians in the field.Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is now an American published book about the role of CIA and RFI that claims a major role for these: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/22/budapest-1956-cast-recollect/. Of course, such a claim would be spurious, but the role of RFI in giving instructions to the right of the uprising people is undeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjsteel (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference you give actually disputes the whole premise that the CIA and Radio Free Europe had any role in inciting or directing the events in Hungary in 1956. Ryanjo (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 NPOV, PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS
The following sources are primary sources (Some are also unacceptable):

^ (available in Lib.ru, Maksim Moshkow's Library)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V footnote 8PDF (1.47 MiB) UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. A (Developments before 22 October 1956), paragraph 47 (p. 18)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. A (Developments before 22 October 1956), paragraphs 49 (p. 18), 379–380 (p. 122) and 382–385 (p. 123)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.N, para 89(xi) (p. 31)PDF (1.47 MiB) report prepared after the collapse of communism, the Fact Finding Commission Torvenytelen szocializmus (Lawless Socialism): "Between 1950 and early 1953, the courts dealt with 650,000 cases (of political crimes), of whom 387,000 or 4 percent of the population were found guilty. (Budapest, Zrinyi Kiado/Uj Magyarorszag, 1991, 154).

^ The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Armistice Agreement with Hungary; 20 January 1945 Retrieved 27 August 2006

^ Kertesz, Stephen D. (1953). Diplomacy in a Whirlpool: Hungary between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, Memorandum of the Hungarian National Bank on Reparations, Appendix Document 16. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN 0-8371-7540-2. Retrieved 8 October 2006

^ Magyar Nemzeti Bank - English Site: History Retrieved 27 August 2006 According to Wikipedia Hyperinflation article, 4.19 × 1016 percent per month (prices doubled every 15 hours).

^ Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, First Secretary, Communist Party of the Soviet Union (24 February–25, 1956). "On the Personality Cult and its Consequences". Special report at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Retrieved 2006-08-27.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. A (Developments before 22 October 1956), paragraph 48 (p. 18)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Halsall, Paul (Editor) (November 1998). "The Warsaw Pact, 1955; Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University. Retrieved 2006-10-08.

^ Video (in German): Berichte aus Budapest: Der Ungarn Aufstand 1956

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VIII The Question Of The Presence And The Utilization Of The Soviet Armed Forces In The Light Of Hungary’s International Commitments, Section D. The demand for withdrawal of Soviet armed forces, para 339 (p. 105)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ a b c "Notes from the Minutes of the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting with Satellite Leaders, 24 October 1956" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-02.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter IX. B (The background of the uprising), para 384 (p. 123)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Resolution by students of the Building Industry Technological University: Sixteen Political, Economic, and Ideological Points, Budapest, 22 October 1956 Retrieved 22 October 2006

^ UNITED NATIONS REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROBLEM OF HUNGARY. Page 145, para 441. Last accessed on 11 April 2007

^ Video (in Hungarian): The First Hours of the Revolution

^ Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 (Richard Lettis and William I. Morris, editors): Appendices Proclamation of the Hungarian Writers' Union (23 October 1956) Retrieved 8 September 2006

^ a b c d e Heller, Andor (1957). No More Comrades. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. pp. 9–84. ASIN B0007DOQP0.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. A (Meetings and demonstrations), para 54 (p. 19)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ a b c UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. C (The First Shots), para 55 (p. 20) & para 464 (p. 149)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ "A Hollow Tolerance". Time Magazine. 23 July 1965. Retrieved 2006-10-23.

^ a b UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. C (The First Shots), para 56 (p. 20)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. C (The First Shots), paragraphs 56–57 (p. 20)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.C, para 58 (p. 20)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter IV.C, para 225 (p. 71)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.C, para 57 (p. 20)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.N, para 89(ix) (p. 31)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter IV. B (Resistance of the Hungarian people) para 166 (p. 52) and XI. H (Further developments) para 480 (p 152)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ a b UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter X.I, para 482 (p. 153)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.F, para 64 (p. 22)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.F, para 65 (p. 22)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter XII.B, para 565 (p. 174)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), KGB Chief Serov's report, 29 October 1956, (by permission of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) Retrieved 8 October 2006

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter IV.C, para 167 (p. 53)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. F (Political Developments) II. G (Mr. Nagy clarifies his position), paragraphs 67–70 (p. 23)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Video:Narrator: Walter Cronkite, producer (1956), "Revolt in Hungary", Fonds 306, Audiovisual Materials Relating to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, OSA Archivum, Budapest, Hungary (CBS), HU OSA 306-0-1:40

^ Gati, Charles (September 2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.

^ Gati, Charles (September 2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. F (Political developments), paragraph 66 (p. 22)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Zinner, Paul E. (1962). Revolution in Hungary. Books for Libraries Press. ISBN 0-8369-6817-4.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary(1957) Chapter XII. D (Reassertion of Political Rights), paragraph 583 (p. 179) and footnote 26 (p. 183)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Video: Revolt in Hungary

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary(1957) Chapter II. F (A Brief History of the Hungarian Uprising), paragraph 66 (p. 22) and footnote 26 (p. 183)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ . 1956. http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/selection/rip/4/av/1956-01.html. Fonds 306, Audiovisual Materials Relating to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, OSA Archivum, Budapest, Hungary ID number: HU OSA 306-0-1:1}}

^ a b c d UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter XI (Revolutionary and Workers' Councils), paragraph 485–560 (pp. 154-170)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. E (Revolutionary and Workers' Councils), paragraph 63 (p. 22)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ "Working Notes from the Session of the CPSU CC Presidium on October 30, 1956". Cold War International History Project. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 30 October 1956. Retrieved 2006-10-20.

^ Declaration of the Government of the USSR on the Principles of Development and Further Strengthening of Friendship and Cooperation between the Soviet Union and other Socialist States 30 October 1956, Printed in The Department of State Bulletin, XXXV, No. 907 (12 November 1956), pp. 745–747, Accessed 19 October 2006

^ a b c "Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting, October 31, 1956" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-07-08.

^ a b Cold War International History Project: Working Notes from the Session of the CPSU CC Presidium on 1 November 1956 [7], Retrieved 6 December 2008

^ Arendt, Hannah (1951 (1958 edition)). Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt. pp. 480–510. ISBN 0-15-670153-7. old War International History Project (CWIHP), Report from A. Grechko and Tarasov in Berlin to N.A. Bulganin, (by permission of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) Retrieved 10 October 2006

^ "Overview". The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 1999. Retrieved 2006-09-04.

^ Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), Working Notes from the Session of the CPSU CC Presidium on 3 November, 1956, with Participation by J. Kádár, F. Münnich, and I. Horváth, (by permission of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) Retrieved 8 October 2006

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. J (Mr. Kádár forms a government), para 77–78 (p. 26–27)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 (Richard Lettis and William I. Morris, editors): Appendices The Hungary Question in the United Nations Retrieved 3 September 2006

^ "Study Prepared for US Army Intelligence "Hungary, Resistance Activities and Potentials" (January 1956)" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-03.

^ "Minutes of the 290th NSC Meeting (12 July 1956)" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-03.

^ "Policy Review of Voice For Free Hungary Programming from 23 October to 23 November 1956 (15 December 1956)" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-02.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VIII.D, para 336 (p. 103)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Imre Nagy’s Telegram to Diplomatic Missions in Budapest Declaring Hungary’s Neutrality (1 November 1956) by permission of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zürich and the National Security Archive at the George Washington University on behalf of the PHP network

^ "Andropov Report, 1 November 1956". Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), www.CWIHP.org, by permission of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved 2006-09-04.

^ "Minutes of the Nagy Government's Fourth Cabinet Meeting, 1 November 1956" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-02.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.I, para 75 (p. 25)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II.I, para 76 (p. 26)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter IV. E (Logistical deployment of new Soviet troops), para 181 (p. 56)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Györkei, Jenõ; Kirov, Alexandr; Horvath, Miklos (1999). Soviet Military Intervention in Hungary, 1956. New York: Central European University Press. pp. 350. ISBN 963-9116-36-X.

^ Schmidl, Erwin; Ritter, László (November 2006). The Hungarian Revolution 1956 (Elite). Osprey Publishing. ISBN 184603079X. (page 54)

^ a b Fryer, Peter (1957). Hungarian Tragedy. London: D. Dobson. Chapter 9 (The Second Soviet Intervention). ASIN B0007J7674.

^ a b UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V.C, para 196 (pp. 60–61)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V. B (The Second Soviet Military Intervention), para 188 (p. 58)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VII. D (The Political Background of the Second Soviet Intervention), para 291 (p. 89)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VII. D (a silent carrier wave was detected until 9:45 am), para 292 (p. 89)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VII.E, para 296 (p. 90)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VIII.B, para 596 (p. 185)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter VIII. B (The Political Background of the Second Soviet Intervention), para 600 (p. 186)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ a b UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V.C, para 197 (p. 61)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V.C, para 198 (p. 61)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter V. B (The Second Soviet Military Intervention), para 200 (p. 62)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ Pravda (Moscow), 4 November [227/228] : "WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST DELAY" MOSCOW Imre Nagy turned out to be, objectively speaking, an accomplice of the reactionary forces. Imre Nagy cannot and does not want to fight the dark forces of reaction ... The Soviet Government, seeing that the presence of Soviet troops in Budapest might lead to further aggravation of the situation, ordered troops to leave Budapest, but ensuing events have shown that reactionary forces, taking advantage of the non-intervention of the Nagy Cabinet, have gone still further... The task of barring the way to reaction in Hungary has to be carried out without the slightest delay -such is the course dictated by events... http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/revolt/rev16.htm, retrieved 8 October 2007

^ a b George Washington University: The National Security Archive, Communiqué on the Meeting of Representatives of the Governments and the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and the Soviet Union (Budapest, January 6, 1957), retrieved 7 December 2008.

^ George Washington University: The National Security Archive, Minutes of the Meeting between the Hungarian and Chinese Delegations in Budapest on 16 January 1957, retrieved 7 December 2008

^ The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents by Csaba Békés & Malcolm Byrne (Published by Central European University Press, 2002, ISBN 9639241660, 9789639241664, 598 pages), p. 375, para 4: "...the (Kádár) regime had to find an explanation for the revolution and collapse of the old regime in October 1956...they chose to interpret the uprising as a conspiracy by anti-communist, reactionary forces. This is why they labeled many ordinary citizens' actions as crimes. Critical opposition attitudes were described as "a plot to overthrow the people's democratic regime," and workers and peasants who took part in the revolt were called "jailbirds, ragamuffins, and kulaks." Armed resistance to occupying forces became "murder and wrecking state property." This kind of terminology became part of the official ideology of the regime toward the outside world." Also p. 375, footnote 40: "For a typical survey of propaganda intended for distribution abroad, see the so called "White Books" entitled The Counter-Revolutionary Forces in the October Events in Hungary, 4 vols., (Budapest: Information Bureau of the Council of Ministers of the Hungarian People's Republic, 1956-1957)...The White Books published in the individual counties of Hungary in 1957-1958 summarized local "counter-revolutionary" events."

^ "Report by Soviet Deputy Interior Minister M. N. Holodkov to Interior Minister N. P. Dudorov (15 November 1956)" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-02.

^ "Situation Report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party by Malenkov-Suslov-Aristov (22 November 1956)" (PDF). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A History in Documents. George Washington University: The National Security Archive. 4 November 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-02.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter XIV.I.A, para 642 (p. 198), János Kádár's 15 points (4 November 1956)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Annex A (Agreement between the Hungarian People Republic and the government of the USSR on the legal status of Soviet forces) pp. 112–113)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ International Committee of the Red Cross: ICRC action in Hungary in 1956, retrieved 7 December 2008.

^ Fryer, Peter (1997). Hungarian Tragedy, p. 10. Index Books: London. ISBN 1-871518-14-8. Fryer is 1957, as noted above

^ Békés, Csaba, Malcolm Byrne, János M. Rainer (2002). Hungarian Tragedy, p. L. Central European University Press: Budapest. ISBN 963-9241-66-0.

^ "How to Help Hungary". Time Magazine. 24 December 1956. Retrieved 2006-09-03. ^ United Nations Secretary-General (5 January 1957) (PDF). Report of the Secretary-General Document A/3485. United Nations. Retrieved 2006-10-13.

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter I. D (Organization and Function of the Committee), paragraphs 1–26 (pp. 10–13)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter I. E (Attempts to observe in Hungary and meet Imre Nagy), paragraphs 32–34 (p. 14)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ UN General Assembly (1957) Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary Accessed 14 October 2006

^ UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957) Chapter II. N (Summary of conclusions), paragraph 89 (pp. 30–32)PDF (1.47 MiB)

^ United Nations General Assembly, Thirteenth Session: Resolution 1312 (XIII) The Situation in Hungary (Item 59, p. 69 (12 December 1958)

^ "Man Of The Year, The Land and the People". Time magazine. 7 January 1957. Retrieved 2006-10-09.

^ "Freedom Fighter", Time magazine, 7 January 1957, retrieved 21 September 2008

^ International Olympic Committee: Melbourne/Stockholm 1956 Did you know? Retrieved 13 October 2006

^ Radio Free Europe: Hungary: New Film Revisits 1956 Water-Polo Showdown Retrieved 13 October 2006

^ Sartre, Jean-Paul (1956), L’intellectuel et les communistes français (French) Le Web de l'Humanite, 21 June 2005, Accessed 24 October 2006

The following sources are unacceptable (non-RS) as they are not the work of historians, and thus produce the SYNTHESIS problem:

^ a b Library of Congress: Country Studies: Hungary, Chapter 3 Economic Policy and Performance, 1945–85 Retrieved 27 August 2006

^ a b Crampton, R. J. (2003). Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century–and After, p. 295. Routledge: London. ISBN 0-415-16422-2.

^ The Library of Congress: Country Studies; CIA World Factbook Retrieved 13 October 2006

^ Library of Congress Country Studies Appendix B – Germany (East)

^ Video: Hungary in Flames

^ Burant (Ed.), Stephen R. (1990). Hungary: a country study (2nd Edition). Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. pp. 320 pages., Chapter 2 (The Society and Its Environment) "Religion and Religious Organizations"

^ Douglas, J. D. and Philip Comfort (eds.) (1992). Who's Who in Christian History, p. 478. Tyndale House: Carol Stream, Illinois. ISBN 0-8423-1014-2

^ a b "On This Day 16 June 1989: Hungary reburies fallen hero Imre Nagy" British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports on Nagy reburial with full honors. (Accessed 13 October 2006)

The following source is unacceptable (non-RS) due to age:

^ Kertesz, Stephen D. (1953). Diplomacy in a Whirlpool: Hungary between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, Chapter IX (Soviet Russia and Hungary's Economy), p. 158. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN 0-8371-7540-2. Retrieved 10 October 2006

Requires verification that its not a textbook / textbook publisher:

^ Norton, Donald H. (2002). Essentials of European History: 1935 to the Present, p. 47. REA: Piscataway, New Jersey. ISBN 0-87891-711-X.

The following lack a full citation:

^ a b Paweł Machcewicz, 1956 - a european date

^ "3. Lesson: The Days of Freedom", The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

^ Szabadság, szerelem (Children of Glory)

SYNTHESIS See Primary

NPOV The preliminary section lacks RS citations for most of its causal arguments, and pushes an irredentist and smallholder's line.

On the basis of these major problems, I am acting to delist the FA status. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was almost willing to read that long list of names until I read your comment about the "irredentist and smallholder's line." If you are going to take us to task with an entire page of painstakingly categorized "unacceptable" citations, allow me at least the luxury of requesting you elaborate on that comment. Irredentism is irrelevant (even though it's the biggest buzzword to use if you want to discredit a Hungarian perspective). K. Lásztocska talk 14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion of the forcing of the government used "elected" four times in two paragraphs, omitted the HCP involvement in the coalition government, and failed to indicate that a 17% stake in government in 1945 was sufficient to include in coalition politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Just on "The following source is unacceptable (non-RS) due to age" this posits that when something was written is an automatic conviction of misrepresentation of events without regard to the content or credentials of the author. As I mentioned in the FA archive, I just came into possession yesterday of detailed material (English language) conveying the official portrayal of events. Would that be unacceptable owing to age? or being essentially a primary source? Of course not. I regret Fifelfoo's above appears at this point to be more a litany than a list of issues. Any objection to a source needs to be detailed and specific, not merely categorical (as in related to category). V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the assertion that the authority of more recent histories somehow takes a "right-of-way" over that of previous histories (c.p.) is tenuous at best, certainly not explicitly stated in any guidelines I have found, and at worst a dangerous practice that leads to two problems - 1) Recency bias, and 2) revision. I think we may be able to take this opportunity to explicitly stipulate that this should not be the intent. 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (2009)
Please see: Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Prelude summary
Chronic reverting of this passage (from the original FA text): "Radical nationalization of the economy based on the Soviet model produced economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise"

has been justified by "Reference does not back up your version"

For clarity, I will paste the relevant part (first two sentences) of the referenced text:

"After 1949 Hungary's communist government under Matyas Rakosi applied the Soviet model for economic development (see Postwar Hungary, ch. 1). The government used coercion and brutality to collectivize agriculture, and it squeezed profits from the country's farms to finance rapid expansion of heavy industry, which attracted more than 90 percent of total industrial investment. "

FWIW, the reference backs up both versions. But this is a summary after all, and the FA text implies the alternate but not vice-versa (e.g. the same thing happened to wages and prices in the US in the early 70s)István (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences of the fourth paragraph also back up the "Radical nationalization of the economy based on the Soviet model" version... "Hard-line party members soon undermined Nagy, and Rakosi regained control in 1955. The collectivization drive began anew, and the government redirected investment back to heavy industry before the cataclysmic Revolution of 1956 brought the country's economy to a standstill. According to official statistics, the economy registered an 11-percent negative growth in 1956."--Paul (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * None of this appears to me to mean that the current emphasis on nationalisation should stand. The crisis was precipitated by the price and wage differentials. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Commemoration
President John F. Kennedy:

"October 23, 1956 is a day that will forever live in the annals of free men and free nations. It was a day of courage, conscience and triumph. No other day since history began has shown more clearly the eternal unquenchability of man's desire to be free, whatever the odds against success, whatever the sacrifice required." (Statement, October 23, 1960)

President Ronald Reagan:

"The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a true revolution of, by and for the people. Its motivations were humanity's universal longings to live, worship, and work in peace and to determine one's own destiny. The Hungarian Revolution forever gave the lie to communism's claim to represent the people, and told the world that brave hearts still exist to challenge injustice." (Excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation issued on October 20, 1986.)


 * The quotes were removed as per recommendation at this article's current FARC (that's "Feature Article Removal Candidate") page accessible here, and not per any animus against Presidents Kennedy and/or Reagan. If they are reinstated (I don't personally have a problem with them) I would recommend doing so after FARC closes in a week or two, and either with inline citations or as links to Wikiquote. István (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Shockpupet555 is a sockpuppet of banned user Celebration1981. It is recommended that all his contributions and comments be promptly deleted. This user has repeatedly shown he harbors no respect whatsoever for Wiki guidelines regarding content, claims, sourcing and behavior toward other contributors. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The citations are from here: Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)

Embassy of Hungary, Washington, DC

University of Pécs : Revolution, rebirth, freedom: Hungary 1956

University of Texas at Austin: Proclamation 5555 -- National Hungarian Freedom Fighters Day  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.12.58 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links from the Article for review, per WP:EL and FARC rec
Here are some External links taken from the article which do not conform to WP:EL. Please reinstate them if warranted, but please give a valid reason for doing so. István (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 A Scribner research anthology of written sources on the Hungarian Revolt, edited by Richard Lettis and William I. Morris. Documents include radio broadcasts, newspaper and magazine articles, and portions of books on the revolt.
 * reason - only peripherally related, perhaps the page has changed substantially


 * RADIO FREE EUROPE Research, RAD Background Report/29: (Hungary) 20 October 1981, A CHRONOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION, 23-4 October November 1956, compiled by RAD/Hungarian Section-Published accounts
 * reason - just another timeline/summary adding nothing significant


 * "Notes from Snagov" – by Nagy Imre- Excerpts. In Snagov (near Bucharest, Romania) there exists a statue/monument erected in Nagy Imre's memory.
 * reason - material removed


 * Szabadság, szerelem (Children of Glory) A 2006 semi-fictional film by Hungarian director Kriszta Goda, depicting the effect of the 1956 Revolution on members of the 1956 Hungarian Olympic water polo team. A few weeks after Revolution was crushed, the Hungarian players find themselves up against the Soviet Union at a semifinal match.
 * reason - appears to be broken (or server down)


 * CHR50 Festival of Freedom The Cleveland Hungarian Revolution 50th Anniversary Committee website describing planned events on 21–22 October 2006 in Cleveland, Ohio, a city with many citizens of Hungarian heritage
 * reason - link obviously removed, points to a squatter's page


 * Project 56 Multimedia project for the celebration of Hungarian life & culture with a focus on revolution and its aftermath
 * reason - topical, but narrow and looks like a book promo


 * 1956 and Hungary: The Memory of Eyewitnesses - In Search of Freedom and Democracy The website of the international conference (28 September–29 September 2006) to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The conference will review the events of the 1950s era, based on the personal experience of those who left Hungary after the revolution, who found a new home in other countries, and have contributed to their development.
 * reason - not much info here, nothing new afaict

I would like to pause before removing more links and giving the section a rearrangement it needs. Ive been conservative in these removals, taking those which seem obviously against WP:EL, and will support any other editor who chooses to remove the two or three links to pamphlets and editorials, being mindful that WP:EL recommends a shorter, rather than longer, list of EL. If there is no further action here after a day or two then I will probably do another round of removals and then rearrange the section.István (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More suggested removals:

A risen people – against Stalinism, for workers’ democracy by Norma Prendiville, 'Militant Irish Monthly'' (December 1986). Account of the uprising emphasizing its socialist roots and the workers' councils.
 * reason - although well referenced, seems to have POV issues

1956 - The Hungarian Revolution Published in the 1980s as No.1 in a series of Council Communist pamphlets, emphasizing the events of 1956 as a Hungarian workers' uprising.
 * reason - heavily dependent on eyewitness accounts

Polish Hungarian connections in 1956 - "Common Roads to Freedom"
 * reason - more glitz than content

Hungarian Tragedy An eyewitness account by Peter Fryer, correspondent for the British Communist Party's newspaper, The Daily Worker.
 * reason - already has a link within the article

1956 newspaper front pages Historic front pages from Hungarian newspapers, June to December 1956.
 * reason - I will contact linked page owner, more suitable for Wikimedia Commons

Hungary '56 Andy Anderson's pamphlet, written in 1964 and originally published by Solidarity (UK), about events of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, focusing on Hungarian demands for economic and political self-management. (AK Press 2002, ISBN 0-934868-01-8)
 * reason - more opinion than content

Ryanjo (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anderson's pamphlet had a long and fairly distinguished run, appearing in the late 1950s in English and it is relatively easy to read around the council communist bias. When supplementing the academically published Lomax1976, it is probably useful as a footnoting source in the article itself (rather than a link) for its focus on the councils.  The factual content should be used over its analysis&mdash;which even within councilism is outdated&mdash;(see Section 15's last four paragraphs on spontaneous decollectivisation, for example.  Anderson also seriously discusses strikes in the 23/10-4/11 period.  The Eastern European Monographs series tends to rely on publishing Central Workers Council documents for this period, so where Lomax1976, or recent Hungarian scholarship on councils is absent, I'd suggest using Anderson's narrative as a last line of verification.  There's never been a suggestion that his pamphlet was untruthful in fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll restore it. Ryanjo (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Section, text
This serves as a parking spot for dubious text pending proper reference or inclusion criteria. I have listed the "reason" for removal after each block, please comment on each corresponding "reason" line with any information or improvements which would warrant the respective section's re-inclusion.István (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)