Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2006.
To-do list for Hungarian Revolution of 1956: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Write a paragraph about the social unrest during the 50th anniversary. Mieciu K 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

Contents


[edit] 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 [1]). 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 [2] 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.<ref name=rc/>[1] 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.[2][3] Although this incident was widely condemned by the Nagy government, pictures of lynched victims were widely shown in Soviet newsreels.[3]

  1. ^ Mark Kramer, "New Evidence on Soviet Decision-making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises" (PDF), Cold War International History Project Bulletin, page 368.
  2. ^ Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.  (page 177)
  3. ^ a b Parsons, Nicholas T. "Narratives of 1956". The Hungarian Quarterly XLVIII (Summer 2007). 

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.[1][2][3] 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.[3] The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died.[4][5] 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,[5] and were viewed by the Soviet Presidium.[6]

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ Mark Kramer, "New Evidence on Soviet Decision-making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises" (PDF), Cold War International History Project Bulletin, page 368.
  3. ^ a b The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Part 3. Days of Freedom
  4. ^ Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.  (page 177)
  5. ^ a b Parsons, Nicholas T. "Narratives of 1956". The Hungarian Quarterly XLVIII (Summer 2007). 
  6. ^ I don't have a reference for this: Kramer's paper says the violence "was being featured in newsreels when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October", which means to me that it was widely enough seen, including by the Moscow leadership -- not necessarily that it was viewed at the meeting. I don't have aceess to Victor Sebestyen's Twelve Days to find the information there; does it refer to showing film of the incident at the CPSU meeting?

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.[1][2][3] 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.[3] The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died.[4][5] 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,[5] and were viewed by the Soviet Presidium.[6][7]

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ Mark Kramer, "New Evidence on Soviet Decision-making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises" (PDF), Cold War International History Project Bulletin, page 368.
  3. ^ a b The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Part 3. Days of Freedom
  4. ^ Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.  (page 177)
  5. ^ a b Parsons, Nicholas T. "Narratives of 1956". The Hungarian Quarterly XLVIII (Summer 2007). 
  6. ^ Victor Sebestyen (2006). Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Pantheon, p. 265. ISBN 0-3072-7795-X. 
  7. ^ William Taubman (2003). Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 297. ISBN 0-671-67731-4. 

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.[1][2][3] 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.[3] The head of the Budapest party committee, Imre Mező, was wounded and later died.[4][5] 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,[5] when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October.[6][7]

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ Mark Kramer, "New Evidence on Soviet Decision-making and the 1956 Polish and Hungarian Crises" (PDF), Cold War International History Project Bulletin, page 368.
  3. ^ a b The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Part 3. Days of Freedom
  4. ^ Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6.  (page 177)
  5. ^ a b Parsons, Nicholas T. "Narratives of 1956". The Hungarian Quarterly XLVIII (Summer 2007). 
  6. ^ Victor Sebestyen (2006). Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Pantheon, p. 265. ISBN 0-3072-7795-X. 
  7. ^ William Taubman (2003). Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. W. W. Norton & Company, p. 297. ISBN 0-671-67731-4. 

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,[1] when the CPSU Presidium met on 31 October.[2][3]
to
"The scenes from the Republic square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later.[4]" 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)

[edit] 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? —  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. —  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. —  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." —  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  —  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. —  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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)