Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Hungary 1956: Revolution or Counter Revolution?

POST REPLY

What’s your opinion on 1956?

Poor Hungarians! It was outrageous what they did to them!
32
33%
It’s a shame that it happened.
23
24%
I’m indifferent.
5
5%
They got what was coming for them.
11
11%
Those treacherous Hungarians deserved to be crushed beneath the righteous Soviet heel!
15
15%
Other...
11
11%
 
Total votes : 97
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2005, 13:07
Quote:
The fact that we had been horribly oppressed and wanted something else is completely besides the point! We were just jumping to have nice big chains wound around us again, weren’t we.


I agree. And its not as if Moscow only did it once i.e. Czechoslovakia. They were so posessive of "their" Eastern Europe.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2005, 23:07
I understand why they did what they did to my country, but I do not support or agree with it.
We fought bravely, and we lost tragically. Just another pawn in the cold war.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2005, 23:28
Precisely, comrade.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 15 Jun 2005, 23:31
Sigh…

But back to the original subject of the topic: Do you believe that the incident of 1956 was a revolution, or a counter revolution?
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 16 Jun 2005, 12:47
The crushing of the Hungarian uprising was definitely a counter revolution - the Soviets weren't concerned of the wellbeing of Hungarians, they just saw Hungary as a disobedient pawn.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 16 Jun 2005, 23:24
A counter-revolution, eh? So you believe that my people rising up against the oppressor was against the original revolution, and therefore wrong? That’s what they taught my parents in school.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3508
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2005, 23:39
Politburo
Post 18 Jun 2005, 02:55
Quote:
Yes! Damn those trotskyists! They wanted a free and fair society that was free of the control of Moscow! How dare they?!


Correct me if i'm wrong but AREN'T FREE AND FAIR SOCIETIES WHAT SOCIALISM STRIVES FOR!

Argh, the hypocrisy!!!
Image

'Soviet-Empire. 500% more methods than other leading brands.'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 18 Jun 2005, 03:15
Andrei Mazenov- You are deeply wrong in characterising the Hungarian uprising as capitalist revisionism. This is a mistake that has plagued the Maoist movement (who usually denounce Soviet imperialism...) and there is very little but Soviet propaganda to underline your points.

The uprising, was distinctly a worker's uprising, in favor of a worker's state. And there is nothing wrong with that. A break-away socialist republic is the natural representation of the free-will of the nationality. And at this point, the USSR had acted as an imperialist force in Eastern Europe.

However, you, and the maoists, and the Soviet-apologists, are completely ignoring the fact that the worker's councils had the worker's needs and wants at interest.

The worker's councils established in the Revolutionary Hungarian state defined their duties as such:
Quote:
1. To approve and ratify all projects concerning the enterprise;
2. To decide basic wage levels and the methods by which these are to be assessed;
3. To decide on all contracts involving the export of goods;
4. To decide on the conduct of all credit operations;
5. To control the hiring and firing of all persons employed in the enterprise, and
6. To appoint the director of the enterprise, who is to be responsible to the workers’ council.


Clearly, the Hungarian worker's wish for self-determination. It was not the place of the USSR to act as a new Tsar Nicholas.

This is not to say that the revisionist forces weren't trying to take power, this is just saying that they weren't the main force. And claiming they were, is the typical rhetorical excuse, used by a militarily strong nation, to justify their imperialism over the weak. We see capitalist nations do the same, and who is to say the USSR was not prone to this at times? That would be the tragedy.

Comrade Bendeguz- You are a stone cold fool if you think the American army would ever support a Worker's Council. They would've been crushed and replaced by the American army, as easily as they were by the Soviet army. Don't be so naive.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 19 Jun 2005, 23:14
Quote:
Comrade Bendeguz- You are a stone cold fool if you think the American army would ever support a Worker's Council. They would've been crushed and replaced by the American army, as easily as they were by the Soviet army. Don't be so naive.


I am, despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, not a naïve fool. Despite their many faults, Americans were, and still are, generally good people. Hungary would have received independence, of sorts.

But a promise is a promise, and it was a dishonourable thing to destroy peoples dreams of America being the protector of the free world. It kind of explains why Hungarians are generally one of the most cynical peoples in Eastern Europe.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 20 Jun 2005, 00:58
You're being ridiculous, there is no proof that America would have upheld the Hungarian worker's councils. It's almost certain that they wouldn't have. You truly don't understand much about American Foreign Policy under the Cold War do you? It wasn't all "keeping promises" and "helping friends". It was "we gotta win as fast as possible without getting ourselves killed." To put it in a simplified way.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
Soviet cogitations: 142
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Mar 2004, 23:00
Pioneer
Post 20 Jun 2005, 03:21
Andrei Mazenov: Mao Tse Tung backed the smashing of the Hungarian counter-revolution 110%, read the Little Red Book for details.

Quote:
I am, despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, not a naïve fool. Despite their many faults, Americans were, and still are, generally good people. Hungary would have received independence, of sorts.

But a promise is a promise, and it was a dishonourable thing to destroy peoples dreams of America being the protector of the free world. It kind of explains why Hungarians are generally one of the most cynical peoples in Eastern Europe.


Wow I hope you do not claim to be a communist.

Quote:
Andrei Mazenov- You are deeply wrong in characterising the Hungarian uprising as capitalist revisionism. This is a mistake that has plagued the Maoist movement (who usually denounce Soviet imperialism...) and there is very little but Soviet propaganda to underline your points.


The USSR was not "imperialist" in the context we're talking about because the USSR was not exploiting Hungary as a country for profit.

Quote:
The uprising, was distinctly a worker's uprising, in favor of a worker's state. And there is nothing wrong with that. A break-away socialist republic is the natural representation of the free-will of the nationality. And at this point, the USSR had acted as an imperialist force in Eastern Europe.


The Hungarian counter-revolution is just a violent version of what we saw in the Ukraine and Georgia recently. It was a CIA led agitation meant to undermine the united Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact.

The USSR only smashed the pro-USA fascists in order to protect itself and the Eastern bloc from having yet even more missiles pointed at them from NATO countries, as we saw in Turkey.

The USSR wasn't smashing a communist revolution because that is illogical, and they did not oppose socialist countries that broke away from the Warsaw Pact (Albania broke away, but was led by a socialist who hated the yankees as much as the revisionist Soviets) with exception to countries that wanted to join the yankees or with CIA-led counterevolutionaries.

Quote:
However, you, and the maoists, and the Soviet-apologists, are completely ignoring the fact that the worker's councils had the worker's needs and wants at interest.


Sorry, I wouldn't of wanted the yankees to win yet another territory for their empire.

Hungary had workers soviets and councils btw.

Quote:
Comrade Bendeguz- You are a stone cold fool if you think the American army would ever support a Worker's Council. They would've been crushed and replaced by the American army, as easily as they were by the Soviet army. Don't be so naive.


The capitalist owned American press loved the "Hungarian Revolution" just as much as you! Can you name me one American or Western propaganda paper or station that denounces the Hungarian "revolution"?

In fact, "Radio Free Europe" the CIA American state-run propaganda station into Eastern Europe were in fact one of the main forces behind the Hungarian counter-revolution.
"There's no reason for the establishment to fear me. But it has every right to fear the people collectively -I am one with the people."-Huey Newton
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 20 Jun 2005, 23:24
Quote:
I am, despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, not a naïve fool. Despite their many faults, Americans were, and still are, generally good people. Hungary would have received independence, of sorts.


Some Americans may be "generally good people". However, almost all American foreign policy is driven toward self interest. The US probably would only have aided Hungary because any opposition to the Soviets in the region would be advantageous to America's economic world domination. They would be given the opportunity to trade aid for profits and to saturate the Hungarian economy with their bourgeois luxuries.

Quote:
But a promise is a promise, and it was a dishonourable thing to destroy peoples dreams of America being the protector of the free world. It kind of explains why Hungarians are generally one of the most cynical peoples in Eastern Europe.


Protector of the free world? What are you smoking!
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 20 Jun 2005, 23:29
Quote:
You're being ridiculous, there is no proof that America would have upheld the Hungarian worker's councils. It's almost certain that they wouldn't have. You truly don't understand much about American Foreign Policy under the Cold War do you? It wasn't all "keeping promises" and "helping friends". It was "we gotta win as fast as possible without getting ourselves killed." To put it in a simplified way.


Despite all evidence to the contrary, as I say again, I am not an idiot. I am aware that the United States wouldn’t have helped unless they were absolutely sure of success. They were just as bad as the Russians in that aspect. Hungary was just a pawn, if a rather bloody and significant pawn, in the chess board of the cold war. Nonetheless they prosed they would helped whilst at the exact same time being quite aware that they couldn’t. It was a vile and dishonourable thing to do, and it was us, of course, who beared not the brunt, but all of the burden. In this caser the burden being Soviet armour.

Quote:
Wow I hope you do not claim to be a communist.



I used to claim I was one, than I came to soviet empire and found out what communists were like. I don’t trust the little buggers, they have got their heads in the clouds.

Quote:
The USSR was not "imperialist" in the context we're talking about because the USSR was not exploiting Hungary as a country for profit.


Oh yes, they came in killing us and blowing up our houses for ou own good. It was just a rather bad tasting medicine, eh?


Quote:
It was a CIA led agitation meant to undermine the united Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact.


Oh sure, we didn’t want freedom. We were just in it for the money and because we are a country of gullible fools who will believe that the sky is green and that in New York the streets are paved with gold.


Quote:
they did not oppose socialist countries that broke away from the Warsaw Pact


Ever heard of something called the Prague spring?

Quote:
Hungary had workers soviets and councils btw.


Before you comment on how lovely Rakosi Hungary was talk to somebody who lived during his rule, or at the absolute minimum watch a movie on it. And not some Russian one, and if you don’t trust the Americans how about you watch a Hungarian one? I can recommend an excellent one that even has subtitles.

Quote:
Protector of the free world? What are you smoking!


I don’t agree with the smoking of any substance, but yes, I admit that comment was a bit extreme.


You know, you are probably right, Hungary didn’t know what was good for. I mean, what country knows what is good for it? The Russians had the peoples best interests in mind when they rolled the tanks into Budapest, gunning down students and blowing down houses. Awfully selfish of us Hungarians to not want to live in constant terror of the AVO and to want some civil liberties. We are just a bunch of greedy little pigs I suppose?
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 21 Jun 2005, 12:55
Quote:
You know, you are probably right, Hungary didn’t know what was good for. I mean, what country knows what is good for it? The Russians had the peoples best interests in mind when they rolled the tanks into Budapest, gunning down students and blowing down houses. Awfully selfish of us Hungarians to not want to live in constant terror of the AVO and to want some civil liberties. We are just a bunch of greedy little pigs I suppose?


Hey, don't go nuts, Comrade, I agree that the Soviets had no right to intervene in Hungary's liberal reforms. Their unwarranted use of brute force against the people of Hungary was disgusting and shameful. However, I don't believe that the US would have fought for anything other than self interest, and ultimately would, like countless times before, use Hungary as a pawn in the Cold War, just as the Soviets did. What Hungary needed was th aid of a nation that was neither the US, the USSR nor any of their pawns, that could therefore, act as a mediator.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 21 Jun 2005, 21:46
J.Jordan- Yes keep toting the soviet line that the Hungarians were "CIA-agents", and "Trotskyites" at the same time. because like...that makes a lot of sense.

Enver Hoxha's albania played a complicated foreign policy game of balancing his enemies against one another. I hold the deepest respect for Hoxha but a lot of what he did was unnecessary and harmful to the revolution.

Quote:
The capitalist owned American press loved the "Hungarian Revolution" just as much as you! Can you name me one American or Western propaganda paper or station that denounces the Hungarian "revolution"?

That's great, can you find any Soviet sources that didn't call the Hungarian revolution a "trotskyite" or "CIA coup"?

It's ridiculous to say that it was just a group of CIA agents and Trotskyites. Especially when you claim that these people have no bearing with society. How on Earth do you explain the mass support of the revolution then? That's always the tricky part.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 21 Jun 2005, 23:12
Quote:
Enver Hoxha's albania played a complicated foreign policy game of balancing his enemies against one another.


That was a very intelligent, kind of like Tito, in a way. Balance is the best mode of politics. Keep all the people bickering amongst themselves and than you can actually get some work done without them in the way.

Quote:
That's great, can you find any Soviet sources that didn't call the Hungarian revolution a "trotskyite" or "CIA coup"?


Damn straight.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 21 Jun 2005, 23:23
Balance isn't brilliant or horrible. It's simply a way a country can exist between a rock and a hard place. However it means compromises constantly.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4698
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jun 2005, 23:41
Politburo
Post 21 Jun 2005, 23:39
Quote:
That's great, can you find any Soviet sources that didn't call the Hungarian revolution a "trotskyite" or "CIA coup"?


You fool!
Of course Soviet sources would call the revolution a "trotskyite" or "CIA coup". It was in the USSR's best interest to either call it:
a. an uprising associated with the "traitor"
b. a rising affiliated with the iron fist of the enemy.
Image

Winner of the Who Is My Baby's Daddy? Mazenov Award
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 22 Jun 2005, 00:48
Buffoonasaurus Rex, read my post so that you'll understand it in the context that I wrote it.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55
Party Member
Post 24 Jun 2005, 04:29
Quote:
However it means compromises constantly.


What’s so wrong with compromise?
The last time I checked the world worked around compromise. That way everybody is happy, and if not overjoyed, they are at least not furious and bloodthirsty.
Image


“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.