Talk:Hungarian People's Republic

Untitled

The People's Republic of Hungary had actually two different coats of arms, one from 1949 until the 1956 revolution, and one after the revolution, respectively. The article only shows the latter one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.139.222 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nkm343.jpg

The image Image:Nkm343.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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Several inconsistencies in the article

I'm unhappy to see when history gets revised from a perspective of now instead of 20 years ago, when it happened. The authors or authors of this article stated some inconsistencies.

1. The Hungarian Soviet Republic was not the second, but the third state to adopt communism, see Bavarian Soviet Republic for reference. Aside from that from the armistice of 1918 until the peace of 1920 and its ratification of 1921 no hungarian state was officially acknowledged, for reference see the history of Hungary between 1918 and 1921.

2. Churches of any kind were opressed in Eastern countries but of course not for reasons as stated to separate it from the state but to push it on the sideline into unimportance.

3. Last but not least there are inconstiencies with the content of Transition to democracy. The Network of Free Initiatives (Szabad Kezdeményezések Hálózata) was not "so-called" but a real opposition force. The author favors the opinion that was formed after 1994 when the Union of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) made a coalition with the Hungarian Socialist Party(MSZP) that it was premeditated though it was not, for reference see former SZDSZ-members in the Fidesz, like István Tarlós and others who left the SZDSZ for the aforementioned reasons.

That Pozsgay was admitted to the Politbüro is lesser important than the fact that country was run by Károly Grósz, who is not even mentioned in the article, although he was the General Secretary who used his power to slow the changes. Pozsgay was in fact a so-called opposition, he did not favoured the multi-party system. He might be a great friend of Viktor Orbán now, though he was not, when Orbán and fellow members were beaten in 1988. Indeed, the Ventral Plenum did favoured the multi-party system, for reasons of winning time, every communist party did or tried that, so that in the coming elections they win most of the votes. Amusing to read that the Communist party's membership declined, a mere statistical fact. In a faint liberalising attempt the Hungarian Workers Socialist Party had established the Patriotic Front of the People (Hazafias Népfront) to establish "free elections" in 1985, Pozsgay was also a member of this organization. Also "freed" or "individualized" party secretaries were also no members anymore, yet all of these people were part of the establishment.

Pozsgay said people's uprising not popular uprising, major difference. The Hungarian Workers Socialist Party reformed itself to 2 parties, not one: one being the MSZP and the other one the new MSZMP, so MSZP is de jure and the Magyar Kommunista Munkáspárt (Munkáspárt, MSZMP) is the de facto follower of the former MSZMP.

The article fails to mention that the MSZMP wanted a strong President of the Republic so if anyone becomes the new prime minister he will have as much power as that of France. The provisional president, Mátyás Szűrös took that position. The author should mention that before 2000 he was an influential socialist politician, former ambassador to Moscow. The readers should not be mislead into believing these people were democrats, on the contrary.

And I truely admit that the Fidesz played part, a big one actually in the transition, still they were not the only ones as some including themselves try to interpret it as a "unique" way to present history. Shinichi1977 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement regarding the ÁVH

This Wikipedia entry contains the incorrect statement that "Communist Interior Minister László Rajk established the ÁVH secret police".

In reality, Rajk established the ÁVO (the Department of State Defence within the Hungarian State Police). The ÁVH was established at the proposal of János Kádár, Rajk's successor as Interior Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.19.111 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate article about "Communism in Hungary"?

Communism in Hungary redirects here which I don't think is right considering that communism has played a role in Hungarian politics before and after the People's Republic of Hungary, examples being the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, the experiment with council communism during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and of course the status of contemporary communist parties in Hungary. Charles Essie (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• People's Republic of Hungary → Hungarian People's Republic
• If I may make a request, I'd like to ask you to implement the move listed above. The official name of the state was 'Hungarian People's Republic', despite this common misconception. This is evident in the Constitution of said state, as seen here. This is also evident in documents found here, detailing the HPR's accession to various conventions at WIPO. Hence, the page should be moved as a technicality, considering the present error. Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Transferred from my user talk page. Better discuss this request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGLISH. —Norden1990 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Please explain? How is this not 'English'? I linked English-language sources. The English name is 'Hungarian People's Republic', no different from the accepted forms for many states, such as 'French Republic', 'Italian Republic', 'Romanian People's Republic'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the English-language sources use "People's Republic of Hungary". —Norden1990 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Not true. I'm not a big supporter of Google Ngrams, but they give a good depiction of broad usage over time. Look at this. Click the 'search' button after you arrive at the page. This makes it clear that 'Hungarian People's Republic' has always been preferred in reliable sources. What's more, it is the only correct translation. Please reconsider your opposition to this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per evidence given by the nominator. In addition to being the most common name, it has the benefit of being a more accurate translation. (Cf. German Democratic Republic, not Democratic Republic of Germany) —  AjaxSmack  03:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If I may, I will break down the etymology, so that I can demonstrate the translation point. The official name of the entity described by this article in Hungarian is Magyar Népköztársaság. 'Magyar' does not mean 'Hungary', but instead refers to 'Hungarians', the people. The word for 'Hungary' is Magyarország, which, as one may note, does not appear in the title. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, OK you've convinced me. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NO MOVE! NO DISCUSSION! AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY! should we really start a discussion about whenever to follow or not official wikipedia policy??!!

THE ABOVE DISCUSSION! that is a SERIOUS AND DIRECT VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY WP:COMMONNAME no discssion, we cannot "discuss" rules that made long before this... well i probably should have made a talkpage request for something this big but this talkpage discussion above is nonsense "really really real name of this state was never..bla bla bla", "English-language reliable sources" etc, see WP:COMMONNAME its not about real names or about "official names in "RELIABLE" sources" thats why we DO NOT have an article called "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta" (Lady Gaga) nor does we call Manhattan "New York County" i do not come up with this examples myself but from one of the many Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, this message is not meant to offend or to shout, in case am sorry if you people think so

The above discussion was closed 3 years ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The common name in reliable sources is the one that is currently the title of this article. See the evidence provided in the previous RM. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

well yes i should have taken move request read the policy its no about the official use in sources its about the most common name, in the policy page its simply says when i doubt use google search or the amount of sources not the few selection who use the "official" name, which is not official but a fake translation made some wikipedia editors

some other editor in above discussion: If I may, I will break down the etymology, so that I can demonstrate the translation point. The official name of the entity described by this article in Hungarian is Magyar Népköztársaság. 'Magyar' does not mean 'Hungary', but instead refers to 'Hungarians', the people. The word for 'Hungary' is Magyarország, which, as one may note, does not appear in the title. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, the 'most common name' is 'Hungarian People's Republic' according to the Google Ngrams search provided above. This is not a 'fake translation', but the dominant name for this entity in the English language, across reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

well i am disappointed but there is obviously nothing i can do about this, discussion over Ukrainetz1 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Attila Szigethy

Can 'someone' link the mention of the name here (and on a couple of other related WP pages) to the Hungarian WP article on him and/or the translation here. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

20,000 killed during the Revolution?

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 page states, with cited sources, that around 2,500 to 3,000 Hungarians were killed during the Revolution and 13,000 were wounded. I'd just like to know the source for the 20,000 figure that appears on this page. ImperatorPublius (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hidden text removed

I've removed large swathes of hidden text from the article, which doesn't appear to be serving any purpose since everything that's been concealed is paraphrased in the live version of the article.

• From the lead section, I deleted this text (I mistakenly revised a portion of it for grammatical correctness, but for the most part, it's unchanged relative to the original):

After World War II, Hungary—a former member of the Axis powers—came under the occupation of the Soviet Union. The Soviets, believing the local Hungarian Communist Party was popular enough to win elections, allowed free elections to be held on 4 November 1945. However, the result was a resounding victory for the non-Communist Independent Smallholders' Party, whom the Soviets thus forced into entering a coalition government with the Communists. From then on, the Communists used so-called "salami tactics" to take power, gradually eliminating their political opponents one at a time through conspiracy and subterfuge. This typically involved framing prominent opponents for "anti-state" conspiracies, arresting them, forcing them into exile, and rigging elections.

By 1949, the Communists had achieved undisputed rule over Hungary and declared it to be a People’s Republic. Under Mátyás Rákosi's Stalinist dictatorship, Hungary was one of the most brutal totalitarian police states in the Eastern Bloc. Thousands of real and alleged political opponents—including from within the ruling Communist Party—were subject to arrest, torture, and execution by the notorious secret police, the ÁVH. After Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviets appointed the more moderate Communist Imre Nagy to the premiership, who attempted to roll back some of Rákosi's harshest measures. However, Rákosi remained General Secretary of the Party, and he was able to use his influence to force Nagy out of the government in 1955. But after Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in February 1956, Hungarians in large numbers felt emboldened to criticize Rákosi and demand his resignation. A vigorous intellectual movement soon arose demanding democratic reforms and Imre Nagy's restitution to the leadership.

Rákosi finally resigned in July 1956 and appointed his second-in-command, Ernő Gerő, as his replacement. However, Gerő proved unable to stem the tide of dissent. Longstanding resentment against the regime soon erupted into a popular uprising in October–November 1956. After secret policemen fired into a crowd of anti-government demonstrators on 23 October 1956, the government called in Soviet troops. Unable to defeat the determined Hungarian guerillas in urban warfare in the streets of Budapest, the Soviets finally agreed to withdraw from the city. Imre Nagy was restored to power, and he promised democratic reforms, the abolition of the one-party state, and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. However, the Soviets soon reversed their earlier decision and decided to crush the Revolution, sending a massive military force into Budapest and other cities on 4 November. After over a week of fighting, they finally crushed the armed resistance.János Kádár, a former member of Nagy's government, took power in his stead. Initially he presided over a period of cruel reprisals against former revolutionaries, executing hundreds of them including Imre Nagy himself.

• From the Stalinist era subsection, I removed this:

Repression was harsher in Hungary than in the other satellite states in the 1940s and 1950s due to a more vehement Hungarian resistance.

Approximately 350,000 Hungarian officials and intellectual party members were purged from the Hungarian Communist Party from 1948 to 1956. Any member with a western connection was immediately vulnerable, which included large numbers of people who had spent years in exile in the West during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. Approximately 150,000 were also imprisoned, with 2,000 summarily executed.

Additionally, during "social purges" of non-party members, in Budapest at 2:00 AM on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays vans transported purge targets, who by 1953, numbered approximately 700,000. Of those 98,000 were branded as spies and saboteurs, 5,000 of which were executed. These social purges used immense amounts of resources, including almost one million Hungarian adults employed to record, control, calculate, indoctrinate, spy on and sometimes kill targets of the purge.

• And under the 1956 revolution's subsection, there's this annotation that's been added to an unspecified citation—either the one entitled "Heller", or the one entitled "Chapter X.I, para 482 p. 153" (perhaps both):

"this ref has the marvellous detail about Hungarian army members tearing the communist badges from their caps and joining the revolutionaries. it was in the article earlier, but I took it out because it was unsourced. now that is is sourced, it seems a shame not to use such a vibrant detail"

If anyone has any use for these paragraphs, let me know and we can discuss ways to reintegrate some of this back into the article. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Infbox government parameter

Shouldn't the infobox also include the system of government that existed in the Hungarian People's Republic during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Charles Essie (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Government

Hi @TheUzbek, could you explain your removal? That is marked by source. The Hungarian communist state changed after 1956 revolution to make more "soft" than before, it was really hardcore stalinist state. I see you made many similar content removal in many similar article. You did not use talk page, it was no consensus. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It was not different. It was institutionally the same; the form of government was the same. It was a communist state that practised unitary power in which the highest organ of state power was the only branch of government that the communist party controlled. It was by definition a communist state.

You are talking about something different than a form of government, you're talking about leadership style. The form of government of the United States did not change with Trump's presidency, but certainly the leadership style did. The form of government, however, was identical. Have you even read the article, communist state? You do clearly see that that article has states like this in mind? This is WP:OBVIOUS. TheUzbek (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Think you need to look at List of socialist states#Current socialist states ...note how we list what type of goverment these communist state are. Best be specific as the sources do. Moxy- 18:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that was a communist state, but the links also state forms of that: Unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. Also it is a sourced content. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod and Moxy: YOu guys do not know what a communist state is... Then you would understand that "Unitary one-party socialist republic" does not make sense.

1. First, what is the article communist state about? It is about the form of government of these states. YOu are refusing to link to the article that deals with the forms of government of these states. That is problematic!
2. Secondly, by unitary to you mean Unitary power, the principle of political power in these states? The one thing that differentiates their state structures from liberal democracies?
3. Thirdly, where in the "form of government" do you guys state that is organised on the principles of democratic centralism?¨
4. Fourthly, where in the "form of government" text do you guys mention that these states have one branch of government represented by the highest organ of state power?
5. Fiftly, it seems that you're definition of "form of government" does not even define the main differences between a communist state system and a liberal state system
6. Sixthly, unitary state? You do know that there were no limits on the highest organ of state power in any sense, from the federal USSR and Yugoslavia to China, right? These states might have been federal and unitary, but the highest organ of state power was still unlimited on what it could decide. It also complicates the situation that neither the CPSU nor the LCY was federal, so, for instance, defining the structure as federal when the party structure was unitary would be insane!
7. What is the defining features of a communist state? READ the article. None of the defining features are mention in you're convoluted wording on the matter. What does "totalitarian" say about a form of government? Nothing. Putin's Russia and China are both authoritarian, but their form of government is completely different. The word is a description about the effects of a government, but is not a description of the form of government... This is basic political science! --TheUzbek (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Under I've made a quick table to highlight the differences between a communist state and liberal democratic states, and some of the defining principles of the communist state structure. This mess you have fail to mention any of this. More interestingly, all these features are outlined in the communist state article, which you guys refuse to link to!

Outlining of principle features of communist states

Type	Communist state	Parliamentary liberal democracy	Presidential liberal democracy
Party structure	One-party system (normally)	Multi-party system	Multi-party system
Leading role of ruling party	Yes	None	None
Power structure	Unified power	Fusion of power	Checks and balances
State branches	One	Minimum two	Minimum three
Democratic structure	Democratic centralism	Liberal democracy	Liberal democracy
Legislature type	Highest organ of state power	Parliament	Parliament
Does the legislature have unlimited power?	Yes	No	No
State system is based on	Class values	Universal values	Universal values
Transmission belt mass organisations?	Yes	None	None

--TheUzbek (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do not change the flag.

Quit changing the flag. It's been made clear in multiple revisions that the flag did not have the coat of arms. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 23:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)