Hungary '56

by Andy Anderson, 1964

Introduction

At 3.00 a.m. on November 4, 1956, fifteen Russian armoured divisions comprising 6,000 tanks massed at key points in Hungary to make final preparations for their second assault on a relatively defenceless people. The first assault, little more than a week earlier, had been a confused affair. Moscow pretended not to have been consulted. Hungarians had not been expected to fight the tanks almost with their bare hands. Russian soldiers had not been expected to go over to the side of the Hungarian workers in such numbers. This time, there were to be no mistakes. At 4.00 a.m. the tanks went in.

It took them nearly two weeks to crush the main centres of armed resistance. One of the greatest proletarian revolutions in history was drowned in blood. It is bitter irony indeed that those who ordered this massacre claimed to be the standard bearers of the glorious revolution of October 1917. Thirty nine years earlier, Russia had for a while been the headquarters of world revolution. From there the clarion call had gone out to the toiling and oppressed people of the world to overthrow their masters and to join hands with the Russian workers in building a new society. Today, however, it is not the midwives of the Revolution who occupy the Kremlin, it is its undertakers.

After World War II, the Russians succeeded in enforcing their 'socialism' along the banks of the Danube and up to the frontiers of Austria. They ruled an area extending from the Baltic in the north to the Balkans in the south. Over a hundred million people of various nationalities had fallen within the embrace of the new Russian bear. For many years these people had been bullied, oppressed, manipulated, managed, either by Czarist Russia or one of the Western States. Under Stalinist rule they fared no better. Their chains were if anything tightened. To them the word 'socialism' came to mean its very opposite.

In March 1953, Stalin died. In June the workers of East Berlin rebelled. The revolt, remarkable for the political character of the demands put forward, was soon quelled by Russian tanks. By 1956, these subject nations were becoming more and more of a political liability to Russia's rulers. The Russian bureaucracy recognised the danger: at the 20th Congress Krushchev himself debunked the Stalin myth and promised to liberalise Stalin's methods. But Krushchev and his supporters soon found themselves in a dilemma. It is difficult to continue practising a religion after you have destroyed its god. Although Russia's rulers attempted to break with some of the worst evils of their past, they were (and remain) incapable of coping with the root causes of these evils.

The workers of Poznan, in Poland, were the first to demonstrate what they thought of the 'changed' road to 'socialism'. The Hungarians were surprised and later elated to see how leniently these rebellious workers - and even their 'leaders' - were treated. In their turn they rose. They were victorious. And then they were crushed by the very methods Krushchev had denounced only a few months earlier. Many throughout the world were shocked at this butchery. Most of all it shocked those honest workers and intellectuals who sincerely looked to Russia as the defender of socialism. To them a treasured ideal, an ideal for which they had fought and suffered for many years, and for which many of their comrades had died, had proved to be worm-eaten.

The Hungarian Revolution was the most important event in working class history since October 1917. It marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. It irrevocably destroyed any moral advantage the Kremlin and those who support it may ever have had. But it was much more than this. It was a very positive event. From the Hungarian Revolution can be drawn lessons of the utmost importance for all who wish to bring about the change to a classless society in Britain or anywhere else in the world.

In 1956 the Hungarian working class inscribed on its banner the demand for workers' management of production. It insisted that Workers' Councils should play a dominant role in all realms of social life. It did so in a society in which the private ownership of the means of production (and the old ruling class based on it) had been largely eliminated. And it did so in a society in which political power was held 'on behalf of the working class' by a self-styled working class party. In putting forward these two demands under these particular circumstances, the Hungarian workers blazed a trail. In the second half of the twentieth century their ideas will become the common heritage of all workers, in all lands.

The Hungarian Revolution was far more than a national uprising or than an attempt to change one set of rulers for another. It was a social revolution in the fullest sense of the term. Its object was a fundamental change in the relations of production, in the relations between ruler and ruled in factories, pits, and on the land. The elimination of private property in the means of production had solved none of these problems. The concentration of political power into the hands of a bureaucratic 'elite' had intensified them a thousandfold.

By its key demands, by its heroic example, and despite its temporary eclipse, the Hungarian Revolution upset all previous political classifications and prognoses. It created new lines of demarcation not only in the ranks of the working class movement, but in society in general. It exposed the theoretical void in the traditional 'left'. A mass of old problems have now become irrelevant. Old discussions are now seen to be meaningless. The time is up for terminological subtleties, for intellectual tight-rope walking, for equivocation and for skilful avoidance of facing up to reality. For years to come all important questions for revolutionaries will boil down to simple queries: Are you for or against the programme of the Hungarian Revolution? Are you for or against workers' management of production? Are you for or against the rule of the Workers' Councils?

Most people have only a very superficial knowledge of these weeks of October and November 1956. They have less knowledge still of the events which led up to them. We feel this book may contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of what really took place.

East-West Agreement

Prior to 1939, all the powerful capitalist nations, including Hitler's Germany, were agreed that the USSR was the real villain on the stage of history. Then the nature of their economies led them into war with one another. In 1941 Hitler invaded Russia and the western capitalist 'democracies' contracted a union with the 'villain', with the USSR. But this was no love-match. It was a marriage of expediency, coloured by the fond hope that Russia and Germany would mutually annihilate one another. Strategy was planned towards this end. But this strategy failed. The grandiose dreams of the rulers of Britain and America of emerging from the war as undisputed masters of the world did not materialise. They had reckoned without the heroic resistance of the Russian people against German fascism.

Russia paid a staggering price. The Nazi invaders caused incalculable damage to buildings and to machinery. In the early months of the war, when the Red Army was in retreat, a 'scorched earth' policy was carried out. Millions of Russians gave all they had - their very lives. Yet while the battles of World War II were still being fought the causes of World War III were already maturing.

Russia emerged from the war the second most powerful nation in the world. In throwing back the German army to the borders of the Elbe, it had acquired half a continent. These were spoils indeed and hardly the outcome bargained for by the West. Their failure to contain 'the red menace' led to near panic in their ranks.

Veiled threats were made. Two hundred thousand people were murdered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atom bombs. The real purpose of this crime was to warn Russia's rulers to show them there would be no limit to the ruthlessness¹ of the Western ruling classes should they feel their interests threatened. But the Western powers were not strong enough to challenge the situation in Europe itself. They were in no position to dispute the established fact. Eastern Europe belonged to the USSR 'by virtue of conquest'.

Formal recognition of the new reality was given at the Yalta Conference, in February 1945. Those parts of Europe 'liberated' by the Red Army (the satellite states) would remain in the Russian sphere of influence. Western Europe and Greece would be left to Stalin's Western 'allies'. Persia was also recognised as being within the 'Western' sphere. During the war the Red Army had 'liberated' northern Persia. After hostilities ended, it withdrew.

With the defeat of Nazi Germany, the whole of Europe was seething for revolutionary change. Nothing like it had been felt since 1917. We shall later see how the Russian leaders maintained 'order' in their own sphere of influene in the face of this proletarian threat to their Power. In the West, the communist parties (and in some cases, the social-democratic parties) helped the ruling classes maintain their kind of order.

In FRANCE, considerable power was in the hands of Resistance groups. These were dominated by 'communists' and 'socialists'. All that really stood between the French workers and effective power were a few shaky bayonets in the hands of British and American soldiers, most of whom only wanted to go home.

On the instructions of the Communist leaders, the Resistance groups handed over their arms to the so-called National Liberation Government headed by General de Gaulle. On January 21, 1945, Maurice Thorez, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, announced that the Patriotic Militia had served well against the Nazis. But now, he said, the situation had changed. "Public security should be assured by a regular police force. Local Committees of Liberation should not substitute themselves for the local governments."² His statements and actions closely resembled those of General de Gaulle.

The Communist Party was instructed to continue the campaign of wartime 'unity'. They abandoned the class struggle. They preached the virtues of production. They denounced workers defending their wages and conditions. "The strike", they said, "was the weapon of the trusts". On November 17, 1945, they entered the coalition government formed by General de Gaulle. Thorez was one of the five Communist leaders in a cabinet of twenty-two members. He was appointed Minister of State.

The French Communist Party's programme in 1945 can be summarised as follows: (a) control of the trusts; (b) liberty of conscience, press and association; (c) the right to work and leisure; (d) social security for workers to be provided by the state; (e) aid to the peasants through the syndicates and co-ops. Hardly the programme of a revolutionary party! No liberal-minded Tory would have had qualms about supporting it.

In ITALY, the Communist leaders propped up the old ruling class in much the same way. The Communist Party, of which Togliatti was the General Secretary, had representatives in the governments of Bonomi and of Marshal Badoglio. They enthusiastically protected the capitalist state against revolution. The New York Times in a report during September 1944, stated: "A good many Italian fascists seek refuge in the Communist Party. Communists take over the party headquarters and institutions of the former regime like the Balila. etc.. thereby soothing the transition from the old to the new."

Nor were the 'communists' deterred when unable to enter bourgeois coalition governments. Indeed, they helped them as much as possible by calling on the masses to support these wartime alliances. Prior to the General Election of 1945, the British Communist Party declared itself in favour of a coalition government with 'progressive' Tories, like Eden and Churchill!

In EASTERN EUROPE, as we shall see, the Communists were able to gain complete control. This they did by appointing Communist ministers to take charge of the state security forces via the Ministries of the Interior. But in the West (France, Italy and Belgium) although the Communists participated in national governments³ the Ministry of the Interior was never within their grasp. In France, Duclos reached out for this post. But the bid failed. It did not have the backing of the Red Army.

Why did these Communist Parties act in this way? What social interests did they represent? Had they ceased to be true parties of the working class? The Hungarian events of 1956 were to give clear-cut answers to these questions. But already the answers were being hinted at. The Communist leaders knew that if the state machines in Western Europe were to collapse, social revolution would certainly follow. And without the backing of the Red Army, the Communists would have been powerless to control the workers.⁴ While Communists have from time to time proclaimed 'all power to the workers!' they always added - if only under their breath ' ... under the leadership of the Communist Party'. 'Under' is the operative word. How far under was demonstrated in Eastern Europe, from 1944 on. There they did have the Red Army.

Liberation?

Some people still believe that the Red Army carried the tide of social revolution with it as it entered Eastern Europe in 1944. This is quite untrue. Not only was the real essence of the regimes (social exploitation) left unchanged, but for a long while even the existing political set-up was kept in being with only a few superficial changes. Even the same policemen were often kept on. As far as the masses were concerned all was the same as before. Only the language spoken by the occupying army had changed.

The reason for the Russian Government's collaboration with the "class enemy" was, according to Molotov, "to maintain law and order and prevent the rise of anarchy". Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary provide clear examples of whose 'law ' and what 'order' was maintained.

(a) RUMANIA

The first Eastern European state to be occupied by the Red Army was Rumania. The Russian Government immediately announced its intention of maintaining the status quo.

"The Soviet Government declares that it does not pursue the aim of acquiring any part of Rumanian territory or of changing the existing social order in Rumania. It equally declares that the entry of Soviet troops is solely the consequence of military necessities and of the continuation of resistance by enemy forces."⁵

The "enemy forces" were not Nazi desperadoes as might be expected from the statement, but guerilla armies who had been fighting the Nazis. These guerillas had originally been organized by the Peasant Party of which the leader was Iuliu Maniu. Maniu became a member of the new government. When he ordered his guerillas to disband and turn in their arms Moscow Radio commented: " Maniu's declaration is belated. Even before this order the Red Army Command had liquidated all bandit groups..."

Under the Nazis these guerillas had been 'brave resistance fighters'. Under the Kremlin they were 'bandits'. Could their continued resistance have been spurred on by the composition of the new government?

Molotov's guarantee not to interfere with the existing social order encouraged King Michael to appoint a reactionary government. General Sanatescu was made Prime Minister,⁶ an office he was to hold for seven months. During this time the workers showed what they felt. There were many uprisings and revolts against the government. The Kremlin, with an army of a million men now in the country, then decided that if Sanatescu could not control the people, he should go.

Vyshinski travelled to Bucharest. Soviet artillery was posted in front of the royal palace. This was hardly necessary. His Majesty promptly complied with Russian demands. Sanatescu's ministry was dissolved and replaced with one headed by Petru Groza.⁷ Gheorghe Tatarescu became Vice-Premier.

Both Groza and Tatarescu had been members of pre-war right-wing governments. In 1911 Tatarescu had led the suppression of a peasant uprising in which 11,000 peasants had been murdered. He was Minister of State at the time of the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1927. He was world famous as an exponent of extreme right-wing doctrines. The British Communist Party itself had called him "the leader of the Right pro-Hitler wing of the National Liberal Party",⁸ the party which helped King Carol establish his fascist regime under Marshal Antonescu.

Prime Minister Groza's government was assisted by two leading members of the Communist Party, comrades Gheorge Gheorghiu Dej and Lucretiu Patrascanu. They were allotted the respective posts of Minister of Public Works and Communications and of Minister of Justice. Patrascanu soon made his 'socialist' position clear: "Industrialists, businessmen, and bankers will escape punishment as war criminals under a law being drawn up by Lucretiu Patrascanu, Minister of Justice, and Communist members of the Government. Rumania could not afford to loose the services of merchants and industrialists. M. Patrascanu said. He expressed the opinion that the country would pursue a more liberal policy towards this class than the French have".⁹

"Premier Groza said his government did not intend to apply either collectivisation of the land or nationalisation of the banks or industries and that the mere question showed ignorance of its programme".¹⁰ Stalin himself advised Groza "to keep the system of private enterprise and private profit".¹¹

So, factories and enterprises owned by foreign capital were also allowed to remain intact. Capitalists who had worked hand-in-glove with the Nazis were permitted to keep their wealth and continue their activities. That this happened with Groza as Prime Minister is hardly surprising. He was a banker and owned many factories and a large estate. Before the war he had been a minister in two right-wing governments under General Averescu (1920-1, 1926-7).

Politically-conscious Rumanian workers did not expect such a government to represent interests other than those of the big landowners and financiers. Nor did they wonder why Groza was openly opposed to measures of social reform and why he staunchly upheld the sanctity of private property. But that a government carrying out a policy of suppressing workers and peasants, that had been virtually appointed by Soviet Russia, forced many Rumanian revolutionaries to think. It forced them to change opinions and ideals they had held for years. Eventually, even Maniu and his supporters withdrew from Parliament. But such were the rumblings among the people that even this trivial demonstration of independence could not be tolerated by the government and its Communist supporters. Maniu was promptly charged with being 'anti-monarchist ',¹² a 'fascist' and an 'enemy of the people'.

Maniu was tried and sentenced to solitary confinement for life.¹³ The President of the tribunal was the wartime Director General of prisons and concentration camps. He owed his appointment to the tribunal to a leading member of the Communist Party, Patrascanu.

(b) BULGARIA

When the Red Army occupied Bulgaria the Russian-backed 'Fatherland Front' Government took over. It was headed by Colonel Khimon Georgiev, Colonel Demain Velchev was Minister of War. Both had been former leaders of the Military League, a fascist organisation sponsored by Mussolini.¹⁴

Colonel Georgiev had also been the instigator of the fascist coup of 1934 which had dismissed Parliament, dissolved the unions and declared them illegal. He had then become Prime Minister and had begun a reign of terror which, in its ruthless ferocity, surpassed even that of 1923. The Minister of the Interior of the new 'Fatherland Front' Government was Anton Yugow; a Communist leader. He controlled the state security forces and was responsible for maintaining 'order'.

When the Nazi military machine eventually collapsed, the great majority of the Bulgarian people were naturally overjoyed. Although tired of war and oppression, their relief did not lead them to inactivity. Revolution - the opportunity at last to become the masters of their own destiny - now appeared possible. During the autumn months of 1944, in Sofia and other towns, workers' militias arrested the fascists and clamped them in gaol. They held mass demonstrations. They elected full democratic people's tribunals. The police were disarmed and in many cases disbanded.

The soldiers' feelings were in harmony with those of the people: "Reports on the Bulgarian forces of occupation in Western Thrace and Macedonia vividly recall the picture of the Russian Army in 1917. Soldiers' councils have been set up. Officers have been degraded, red flags hoisted, and normal saluting has been abolished."¹⁵ This similarity to 1917 was anathema to the Russian and Bugarian 'Communist' leaders. Backed by the Russian High Command, the Minister of War, Colonel Velchev, issued a strict order to his troops. "Return immediately to normal (sic) discipline. Abolish Soldiers' Councils. Hoist no more red flags."

Sincere Bulgarian Communists denounced the hypocrisy of the Russians. Molotov attempted to quell the ensuing furore: "If certain Communists continue their present conduct, we will bring them to reason. Bulgaria will remain with her democratic government and her present order ... You must retain all valuable army officers from before the coup d'état. You should reinstate in the service all officers who have been dismissed for various reasons."¹⁶

The sinister ring of these words echoed through Bulgaria. In 1934, the fascist Colonel Georgiev had attacked the workers. He had suppressed strikes with loss of life and declared them illegal. In 1945, the same Colonel Georgiev, now a Communist stooge, attacked striking workers as 'fascists.' "In March 1945 a number of coal miners struck for higher wages. They were immediately branded as 'anarchists' and 'fascists', and rushed into jail by the Communist-controlled state militia."¹⁷

(c) HUNGARY

In 1918, the feeling in Hungary had been strong for revolutionary change. These feelings had for a time been peacefully channelled through the Government of Count Karolyi, who had a reputation for being some kind of a Socialist. The Karolyi Government made some concessions to the people. In March 1919, the Allies brought about the fall of the Karolyi Government. They issued Hungary with an ultimatum concerning the frontier with Czechoslovakia which Hungarians felt would be 'crippling the cripple'.

Patriotic and revolutionary feelings combined and Bela Kun's¹⁸ Government rode in on the crest of a new revolutionary wave. Communists dominated the new administration, although it contained a number of Social Democrats.

In March 1919, the new government proclaimed the Hungarian Soviet Republic. This was not imposed on the country by a Russian army. There was no direct contact between Hungary and Russia. Russia had quite enough to contend with at this time.

Prisoners of war returning from Russia gave accounts, excitedly and with undisguised admiration, of the Great Revolution, news of which inspired the people with hope for a new way of life. How badly the Hungarians needed to cling to such a hope!

Hungary was a predominantly peasant country in - which the distribution of land was more unjust than in any other part of Europe. Almost all the land was owned by aristocrats and by the Church. The majority of the people were landless, unemployed, and close to starvation. To end the feudal land structure at this time would have been a truly revolutionary act.

Bela Kun's Government lasted a little over four months. Some argue there was no time for such measures. But not even the promise was made. Had such steps been taken, Bela Kun's regime might have lasted longer. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for successive governments to take the land away from the peasants again, without facing the prospect of prolonged civil war. As it was, the Kun regime was overthrown as soon as the Rumanian Army had occupied Budapest. Bela Kun fled to Russia on August 1, 1919.¹⁹

The demise of the Kun Government had been planned at Szeyed by Admiral Nicholas Horthy and his supporters. Representatives of the Rumanian Army had been present. A White Terror was let loose on Hungary by Horthy's foreign assisted counter-revolution. The first fascist regime in Europe was set up. For the Hungarians, all former horrors were now surpassed. Thousands of Communists and Socialists were rounded up by fascist gangs, beaten, tortured, killed. The Trade Unions were violently suppressed. Those merely suspected of socialist sympathies were tortured and finally murdered. Thousands of people, quite unconnected with such ideas, suffered persecution and death. So frightful were the reports of atrocities that even the British (who knew all about atrocities in India) were moved to send a Parliamentary Commission to Budapest. The Commission reported that "the worst stories of mutilation, rape, torture and murder" were proved.

The activities of the Hungarian Communist Party at this time are referred to by Peter Fryer in his book Hungarian Tragedy: "The tiny Communist Party carried out its work in deep illegality. It made the kind of sectarian mistakes that are so easy to make under such conditions, with leaders in jail and murdered" (p.29). The movement was 'decapitated' and floundered. This is inevitable under conditions of civil war, whenever revolutionary movements are obsessed with the cult of leadership. It is a pre-requisite of success under such conditions, that the leading activities of a movement be spread as far and wide as possible throughout its membership. No one should be indispensable. Arrested 'leaders' should always be replaceable by others.

For the Hungarian people the following years under Horthy's fascist tyranny were full of dread and suffering. Some people have claimed that Horthy's regime was not truly fascist. But we must remember that fascism in power may take a variety of forms. Although basically similar, the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar also differed in several particulars. Perhaps Horthy's regime could best be called 'rule by aristocratic fascists'. Whatever its name, its sickening bestiality, as far as the ordinary people were concerned, remains as a scar on the body of humanity.

The Horthy regime took part in World War II on Hitler's side. However, towards the end of this war a movement developed which sought to detach Hungary from its alliance with Nazi Germany. Nazi troops then occupied the country and the terror ruled again. Left-wing militants were ruthlessly hunted out and exterminated. Some 400,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to agony and death in Nazi concentration camps.

Despite this long history of misery, the Hungarian people had not given up their hope of a better life. When in 1944 the Red Army began to occupy the country the people were well disposed towards it. They sincerely held Russia to be a friend. They trusted the promise of liberation. Many Russians had given their lives in bitter battles to drive out the German Nazis. The glorious ideals of 1917 were not forgotten. So trusting were the few Hungarian Communists that they helped to organise the dividing up of large estates among the peasants.

In December 1944, a Hungarian government was formed at Debrecen in the Russian-occupied area. A shudder went through the people. The First Minister was the Hungarian Commander-in-Chief General Bela Miklos de Dolnok. Bela Miklos had been the first Hungarian personally to receive from Hitler the greatest Nazi honour: Knight Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. Only a few months earlier, in July 1944, General Bela Miklos had held the highly trusted job of messenger between the principal organiser of the White Terror, Admiral Horthy, and the vilest Nazi of them all, Adolf Hitler.²⁰

There were two other generals in the Government: Vörös and Faragho. General Janos Vörös, Bela Miklos's ex-Chief-of-Staff, became Minister for Defence. Imre Nagy became the Minster for Agriculture. The rest of the Government was formed of members of the Communist, Social Democratic, and Smallholders parties. The Economist described it at the time as "a queer collection of the local denizens and the parties of the left".

The new government still considered Admiral Horthy the legitimate ruler of Hungary. The Minister for Defence, General Vörös, ended his first speech over the Russian radio with the contradictory slogan: "Long live a free and democratic Hungary, under the leadership of Admiral Horthy!". The first declaration of the Russian-sponsored government as broadcast by Moscow radio on December 24, 1944, proclaimed: "The Regent of our country, Nicholas Horthy, has been seized by the Germans. The mercenaries now in Budapest^2l are usurpers. The country has been left without leadership at a moment when the reins of government must be taken in strong hands ... Vital interests of the nation demand that the armed forces of the Hungarian peoples, together with the Soviet Union and democratic peoples, should help in the destruction of Hitlerism. The Provisional Government declares that it regards private property as the basis of economic life and the social order of the country and will guarantee its continuity".

General Miklos, Knight Grand Cross of the Iron Cross, had read the proclamation. It sounds incredible. How could such a man call for "the destruction of Hitlerism"? To people like Bela Miklos, the privileges, prestige and power that go with leadership, were the paramount considerations. The nature of the leadership, its policy, methods and aims, were of secondary consequence. But how could Soviet Russia put such men into leading positions? The main reason was given by Miklos himself in the declaration quoted above: "... The country has been left without leadership ...". In other words a political vacuum existed. There was a real danger of it being filled by the organisations thrown up by the industrial and agricultural workers. The workers had taken Communist propaganda at its face value. They had already begun to act upon it. This was extremely dangerous for the Soviet leadership and for all those who accepted it. The only people the Russians could rely on were the remnants of the previous ruling groups.

Russian beliefs that nobody other than erstwhile managers and administrators could run the country were not new. The seeds had been sown in Russia itself, shortly after the October Revolution and long before the Stalin era. Prior to the Revolution the Bolsheviks had repeatedly advocated workers' control of production. But as early as the spring of 1918 - and long before the difficulties imposed by the Civil War - leading Party members were stressing the advantages of 'one-man management' of industry. They were soon actively denouncing those within their own Party - and those outside it - who still held to the view that only collective management could be a genuine basis for socialist construction.

We cannot here deal with this extremely important and complex period of working class history, nor with the extremely tense controversies which this question of management gave rise to.²² There can be little doubt, however, that it is in the events, difficulties, and conflicts of this period that one should seek the real roots of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. Many years later, even the bourgeoisie was to perceive the significance of what then took place. When The Guardian²³ refers to Lenin's writings of March 1918 as "dealing in part with emulating capitalist organisation of industry within a socialist framework", it is merely expressing this awareness with its customary mixture of naivete and sophistication.

The dangers that would flow from such ideas had been clearly perceived in Russia by a grouping known as the Workers Opposition. As early as 1921, one of its prominent members, Alexandra Kollontai, had written: "Distrust towards the working class (not in the sphere of politics, but in the sphere of economic creative abilities) is the whole essence of the theses signed by our Party leaders. They do not believe that the rough hands of workers, untrained technically, can mould these economic forms which in the passage of time shall develop into a harmonious system of Communist production.

"To all of them - Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin - it seems that production is such a 'delicate thing' that it is impossible to get along without the assistance of 'managers'. First of all, we shall 'bring up' the workers, 'teach them'. Only when they grow up shall we remove from them all the teachers of the Supreme Council of National Economy and let the industrial unions take control over production. It is significant that all the theses written by the Party leaders coincide on this essential point: for the present we shall not give the trade unions control over production. For the present, 'we shall wait'. They all agree that at present the management of production must be carried on over the workers' heads by means of a bureaucratic apparatus inherited from the past."²⁴

In the capitalist West, of course, there had never been any 'nonsense' about the workers controlling and managing production. When the Western powers 'liberated' parts of Europe in 1945, the Military Governments set up by the occupying armies ensured that only people with a particular social background or a particular kind of previous experience were put or retained in commanding managerial or administrative positions.²⁵ To the victors it mattered little to what ends - or to whose ends - this experience had been put in the past. Like spoke to like - and they got on fine! The mystique of management cut across national boundaries.

As it became obvious that the future rulers of Hungary would be the Communist Party and its rapidly forming bureaucracy, the place-seeking elements came flocking in. The Party became the recruiting centre for the future 'leaders ' and managers. (A similar process had occurred in Germany, with the rise of Hitler's party.) Economic administration and political rule were concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

Salami and Reparations

In the East European states, the systematic destruction of the Socialist and Peasant parties began gently. It continued with increased tempo until, by 1948, they had been virtually liquidated. It was essential that no means of opposition be open to the people if the tools of the Russian bureaucracy, the national Communist parties, were to carry out their programmes.

The people were already beginning to feel that their trust in Soviet Russia was being betrayed. There is no more bitter and painful disappointment than that caused when a friend betrays your trust. The Hungarian Communists knew this. They knew what passions it would arouse. They were only a minority. Their ruthless determination to hold on to power had to be made apparent to all.

Their instrument of repression was of course the police. Complete control of this force was essential. By gaining the key post of the Ministry of Interior, this was assured them. Through this Ministry they also controlled the Civil Service. All the key positions were held by their members. The party of the proletariat, far from destroying the existing state machine, utilised it and strengthened it to establish its dictatorship over the proletariat. In later describing their methods. Rakosi said that in those days the very idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was discussed only in limited Party circles. "We did not bring (it) before the Party publicly because even the theoretical discussion of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an objective, would have caused alarm among our companions in the coalition. It would have made more difficult our endeavour to win over ... the majority of the mass of the workers."²⁶

The winning over of the workers to a revolutionary programme would have been only too easy. But the Party would have lost control of the workers in the process. In their fear of this, the Party united with their bourgeois 'companions in the coalition'.

Rakosi explained how the 'Revolution' had been made from above and how it had brought the Hungarian Communist Party to power. He described how, through the Ministry of the Interior, the Party had been able to 'unmask' the leaders of the Smallholders Party, 'reveal' their crimes and 'remove' them. Rakosi described how the opposition was cut into slices (like a salami sausage) and discarded. "In those days this was called 'salami tactics' ... We sliced off, bit by bit, reaction in the Smallholders Party ... We whittled away the strength of the enemy."²⁶

Rakosi also described the fusion of the Communist Party with the Social Democratic Party as a complete victory for the Communists and utter defeat for the Social Democrats. (How easy this must have been, with the Minister of the Interior to reveal the 'crimes' of the Social Democrats!) He then related how the Communist Party 'captured' the army, police, and state security forces (i.e. the secret police). This was achieved in "bitter battle ... the more so because our Party already had a strong foothold in those organisations ... When in the autumn of 1948, our Party took over the Ministry of Defence, the vigorous development of the defence forces could start."²⁶

That the absolute control of the secret police is indispensable to those who wish to suppress the people, was also made quite clear by Rakosi himself. "There was one position, control of which was claimed by our Party from the first minute. One position where the Party was not inclined to consider any distribution of the posts according to the strength of the parties in the coalition. This was the State Security Authority ... We kept this organisation in our hands from the first day of its establishment."²⁶ The leaders of the Communist Party knew exactly what they were doing when they took control of the A.V.O. (Secret Security Police).

The Hungarian secret police used all the latest techniques of torture and murder known to the Gestapo and N.K.V.D. Soviet occupation troops had been immediately followed into Hungary by the 'political experts' of the N.K.V.D., who immediately proceeded to 'reorganise' the security forces. These were now staffed by a curious mixture of the old vermin of the Horthy regime and the new scum of the Communist Party. This human garbage occupied a privileged position in Hungarian society. The national average wage in 1956 was about 1,000 forints a month. The pay of A.V.O. 'rankers ' was 3,000 forints a month. Officers were paid between 9,000 and 12,000 forints a month. All were passionately hated by the Hungarian people.

The 'salami tactics' of taking over the State apparatus evoked criticism from a number of Communist Party members. The 'leadership' dealt with their critics ... through the police. The Party was directly responsible for the terror, the murder, the torture and the beatings which were a feature of Hungarian life under the Rakosi regime.

Along with violent political suppression, the workers also suffered the slower agony of deteriorating economic standards, amounting at times to starvation. The reparation payments extracted by Russia accounted for this to no small degree.

The reparations plot was hatched at the Yalta Conference, where the West had agreed with Stalin to carve up Europe into spheres of influence. After World War I the Soviet Union had vigorously condemned the reparations exacted from Germany by the victorious Allies through the Treaty of Versailles. It continually and correctly emphasised that these extortions placed an intolerable burden upon the German working class who were not responsible for the war and for the damage it had caused. At the time, the same opinions had been clearly and firmly voiced by the various national Communist Parties. During World War II, as the hopes of a Russian victory grew brighter, this line was dropped. It looked as if the Russians might be on the receiving end of reparations. The chameleon ideology of their 'socialism' showed itself. What was deemed 'robbery' by the capitalist states became 'justice' when the Russians practised it.

Exact figures as to the quantity of machinery, etc., dismantled and sent to the U.S.S.R. are not available. One estimate for Hungary puts it at 124 million dollars. Like Hitler's army, the Red Army lived off the country it occupied. Here again exact figures for these occupation costs are lacking. However, an addition to the country's population of over a million men must have used up a great deal of the nation's food produce alone. A rather hypocritical American note to the Russian Government, dated July 23, 1946, stated that "the Soviet Forces had, up to June 1945, taken out of Hungary four million tons of heat, rye, barley, maize and oats. (The total ore-war annul production of these grains was a little over 7 million tons.) Of the foodstuffs available for the urban population in the second half of 1945, the Soviet Army had appropriated nearly all the meat, one sixth of the wheat and rye, one quarter of the legumes, nearly three quarters of the lard, a tenth of the vegetable oils and a fifth of the milk and dairy products. Extensive requisitioning of food was going on as late as April 1946." The food shortage during this period was so serious that each person was getting at the most only 850 calories a day - less than in Germany or Austria. As one might expect, the increase in the death rate was alarming.

Another unknown quantity is the amount of material (personal goods, etc.) which found its way to Russia through looting.

The known list of reparations extracted from Eastern Europe is staggering enough. We cannot here go into the details for each country. Some details about Hungary should give a picture of the whole.

The total-reparations demands from Hungary amounted to 300 million dollars. Two-thirds of this went to Russia and the rest was divided equally between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Industrial goods constituted 83% of the total. The remaining 17% was agricultural products. Before the war, industrial products made up only about a quarter of all Hungarian exports. The British parliamentary delegation which visited Hungary in the spring of 1946, stated that the combined costs of reparations and of the occupation amounted to 30% of the national income (reparations 18%, occupation 12,°%). A U.S. representative at the October 1946 session of the Paris Peace Conference had put these costs at 35 % of the national income.

The scale of these reparations placed an enormous burden on the Hungarian economy and hence on the producers: the working class. By 1948, despite the A.V.O. and the Red Army, their resentment might have erupted into the streets. The danger was reported to the Kremlin. In July 1948 Russia decided to waive half the reparations still due. On December 15, 1948, the Finance Minister, Erno Gerö, was able to tell the Hungarian Parliament that, although in 1948, 25.4% of the national expenditure went to pay Russian reparations, only 9.8% of the budget for 1949 would be allocated to this purpose.

Methods of Exploitation and Subjugation

(a) TRADE

There were still other ways of exploiting the people. Trade, for example. The Communist governments of Eastern Europe soon saw that Russian heavy industry was incapable of providing them with capital goods. They knew that machinery and raw materials were essential. They were prepared to try and get these from the West. The Marshall Plan seemed to be an answer to the problem. At least two of these countries, Czechoslovakia and Poland, made clear their desire to take part in the Marshall Plan. Even after pressure from Moscow had compelled them to drop the idea, attempts were still made to get trade with the West.

Moscow's plans in this period were helped by Washington. The U.S.A. established an 'iron curtain' to trade between the West and the countries of Eastern Europe, when she instructed other Western nations not to exhort 'strategic goods'. The State Department's 'secret list' of strategic goods covered practically every kind of capital equipment. It included such items as gramophone recording discs and needles for the textile industry.27 Trade with the Soviet Union (on Russia's terms) was assured.

To some people, the term 'trade' means 'a mutually agreed exchange of commodities between countries'. Those in the Kremlin did not accent this definition. Their idea of trade was based on the old imperialist principle of buying cheap and selling dear - very, very dear!

The satellite states were regarded as a source of raw materials and of cheap manufactured goods. Exploitation worked in two directions. Russia secured the satellites' exports at below world prices. And it exported to them at above world prices. The Polish-Soviet agreement of August 16, 1945, for the annual export of Polish coal to the U.S.S.R. is a startling examole. "The robbery of Poland through this transaction alone amounted to over one hundred million dollars a year. British capitalists never got such a large annual profit out of their investments in India."²⁸ Shoes manufactured in Czechoslovakia at a cost of 300 crowns a pair were sold to Russia at 170 crowns a pair. Yet when the Czech government, owing to the severe drought of 1947, was forced to import large quantities of grain from the U.S.S.R., it had to pay more than 4 dollars a bushel for it. At the time, the U.S.A. was selling grain at 2.5 dollars per bushel on the world market.

Bulgaria found no difficulty in selling her tobacco for badly needed dollars. Yet in 1948, she had to sell nearly all her tobacco crop to the U.S.S.R. at a very low price. Russia was then able to re-sell the tobacco to Italy, making a handsome profit - in dollars.

That Russian 'trade' with Hungary was considerable is shown by the 1948 long-term agreement. This stated that 'trade' was to be trebled in 1949. No details were given. Although Russia supplied cotton, and Hungary manfactured goods, the quantities involved and their prices were as jealously guarded as military secrets. One of the main reasons for the secrecy was that workers in the factories were, to some extent, aware of this exploitation and strongly resented it.

The amount of German capital invested in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania, was considerable. In Rumania, for example, it equalled over a third of all investments in oil, banking, and industry. In Hungary, German-owned property was estimated at being worth 1,200 million dollars. Russia exercised her 'rights' under the Potsdam agreement. All German investments were confiscated. (The Russians only took over the assets of the various enterprises. Their liabilities were charged to the state.) This was done partly by dismantling machinery, partly by taking control of those industries still operating in Hungary. Jointly controlled companies were set up. These were, at first, operated in partnership with private capitalists but when these were later expropriated, the U.S.S.R. held joint control of the companies with the Hungarian Government.²⁹ No industry was completely owned by the U.S.S.R.. Russia invested in as many undertakings as possible, thus gaining a greater grip over the whole economy. These 'mixed companies' were organized and conducted on capitalist lines. The only notable difference was that one side of the 'equal' partnership (U.S.S.R.) was making far greater profits than the other (the satellite State). In some cases the latter even had to underwrite the losses!

It was not, however, until 1948 that integration of the Hungarian economy into that of the Soviet Union was seriously begun. This was achieved through nationalization.

The term 'nationalization', when used by the leaders of either East or West, has only one meaning: to ensure and consolidate their own control over the means of distribution, production and exchange.³⁰

In Hungary, some industries had already been nationalized. But until the nationalization law of March 25, 1948, 25% of heavy industry and 80% of all other industry was still in private hands. This law laid down that all firms employing more than 100 people were to be taken over by the State.

It was not until the end of 1949 that nationalization was completed. The Hungarian Communist leaders did not differ from those of the British Labour Party on the question of whether nationalization should involve control by the workers themselves. This is shown by the report that "Easter Monday, 1948, was declared a holiday. While the workers were not in the factories, State officials came down and took them over. The next day the workers arrived to find a new master "³¹ Nationalization by the Labour Government was carried out with rather more political sophistication. As far as the workers were concerned, the net result was much the same.³²

Another method of exploiting the population was the Russian type of collectivization. While in other states of Eastern Europe this was begun at an early stage, in Hungary, the Government remained, for a long time, shy at making the attempt. After some manoeuvring, it eventually began slowly to 'collectivize' agriculture.

By November 1949, some 7% of the arable land was in the hands of cooperative or state farms. The diffidence of the Hungarian rulers was due mainly to their fear of open opposition from the agricultural workers. The reason, in the jargon of the government, was that faster collectivization might strengthen 'Titoist tendencies'.

In the process of completing nationalization, what few rights the workers had enjoyed under private ownership were whittled away. Strikes, as before, were of course illegal. Complete control of the factory was placed in the hands of a single manager. Minister Erno Gerö, in his June 1950 report to the Central Committee of the Party, put it like this: "a factory ... can have only one manager who in his own person is responsible for everything that happens in the factory". The screw subjecting the workers to the will of management had been given the final turn. Hungary was a fully qualified satellite of the U.S.S.R.

The destruction of the gains which the Russian workers had for a short while secured in 1917 had taken rather longer. True, the Party campaign for 'one man management' of production - and against workers' management - had begun as early as the spring of 1918. It met with considerable resistance. For the first few years industries were run by the so-called Troika, i.e. the workers' committee, the Party cell and the manager. By 1924 even this had become a farce. By 1929 the Party's Central Committee felt ready to pass a resolution that workers' factory committees "may not intervene directly in the running of the plant or endeavour in any way to replace plant management. They shall, by all means possible, help to secure one-man control, increased production, and plant development, and thereby improve the material conditions of the working class."³³ The ghost of the erstwhile Troika was not officially buried until 1937. The official presiding at this particular ceremony was Stalin's right-hand man, Zhdanov. Speaking at the Plenum of the Central Committee he said: "...the Troika is something quite impermissible ... the Troika is a sort of administrative board, but our economic administration is conducted along totally different lines."³⁴

In the 'workers' states' of Eastern Europe, the people were not even allowed to go through these limited and distorted forms of economic self-administration. The Troika system was never introduced.

Given the complete political and economic integration with the Soviet Union, nothing seemed now to stand in the way of total exploitation. Nothing?

Resistance Grows

The 'chance to work harder' - through piece-work - was introduced into Hungary on an unprecedented scale. Piece-work appeals to the baser instincts of man. This is apparent in our own society. Piece-work is much praised by those who rule us. For the managers of the people, here or abroad, it is an important means of controlling, manipulating, and dominating the workers. Piece-work helps break up their natural tendency to unite and cooperate. It is a valuable weapon in the hands of those who wish to demoralize and atomize the working class.

The whole piece-work system depends upon basic wages being kept at a low level. In Poland, for example, because of the extent of piece-work, basic wages almost disappeared. The system was bolstered by the Russian-style Stakhanovites. These were the piece-workers, par excellence. The type exists in British factories and they are usually disliked. The workers in Eastern Europe were quite hostile to them. The Stakhanovites themselves continually complained of this hostility. The official party organs deplored it as an "attack on Stakhanovites by politically immature workers". In fact, the 9th congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party called for measures against these workers "who run down the work of the Stakhanovites and who even try to put a spoke in their wheel."

In Hungary, not only the workers, but even some Party members, were trying to put a spoke in the wheel of the whole piece-work system. In a speech on November 27, 1948, Rakosi referred to this and to various 'go-slow' movements among the workers when he said: "... the factory directors are capitulating to the lazy workers. The production quotas are too low". But although the 'lazy workers' were being continually threatened, they did not mend their ways. In June, 1950, Erno Gerö, in his report to the Party's Central Committee, declared: "wage and norm swindling have spread among the masses. They can be attributed, to a great degree, to the underground work of right-wing social-democratic elements and their allies, the clerical reactionaries. That such an unsavoury situation in the field of norms could arise is partly because, in many cases, the economic leaders of the factories, Party functionaries and trade union members, are among those who slacken the norms ... In more than one case they go so far as to protect and support the wage swindlers". Having virtually stated that Party members were in league with 'right-wing Social Democrats', Gerö arranged for a big increase in the basic norm.

Conditions in the factories worsened. On January 9, 1950, the Hungarian Government issued a decree prohibiting workers from leaving their place of work without permission. Penalties for disobeying were severe.³⁵

Increasing alienation and exploitation in any country in the world are invariably met by increasing resistance. Sabotage becomes widespread. This is one of the economic facts of life. It is well known to all industrial sociologists and is openly discussed by those of them who are not directly in the pay of the giant corporations.³⁶

That Hungarian workers were resisting became even clearer through the utterances of their 'leaders'. Speaking at Debrecen on December 6, 1948, the Hungarian Minister of Industry, Istvan Kossa,³⁷ said: "The workers have assumed a terrorist attitude towards the directors of the nationalized industries". He added that if they didn't change their attitude, a spell of forced labour might help. Workers who didn't seem to be in love with their work were often denounced by the leaders as 'capitalist agents'.

Despite police terror, workers found several ways of resisting. The two most important were absenteeism and turning out work of poor quality. On August 31, 1949, Rakosi stated that production had fallen "by 10-15% in the last few months". He also claimed that the number of days lost due to workers going sick was 2 to 3 times higher than before the war.³⁸ The Times (September 5, 1949) carried a report from its Budapest correspondent on the Conference of the Communist Party of Greater Budapest (an area comprising over 60% of Hungary's industry): "The Conference report says that productivity is stagnant in most industries and declining in some. Between February and July, it fell throughout the manufacturing industry by 17% ... Far too many workers were applying for sick relief - in a recent week, in one factory: 11%. In another : 12%. Instances are given of self-inflicted wounds."

Referring to the decline in the quality of the goods produced, Rakosi also stated (August 31, 1949) that "waste in the Manfred Weiss iron foundry (Hungary's second largest factory) had risen from 10.4% to 23.5%."

On paper many workers still remained in the Party. Well, what would you do? To leave would have meant the risk of being dubbed a 'fascist spy'. There was plenty of evidence of this. It made the incentive to stay in particularly attractive. Some proof of the crisis of conscience Party members were going through was shown by Jozsef Revai - the Party theoretician. In October 1948, he complained that Szabad Nep, the Party daily of which he was editor, was read by only 12% of Party members.

*     *     *

Meanwhile a few leading members of the Communist parties of Eastern Europe had become audacious. They had begun to think for themselves. Their thoughts were subversive of the established order. Party purges became popular.

Between 1948 and 1950, the Communist parties expelled: in Czechoslovakia over 250,000 members; in Bulgaria 92,500 - about a fifth of the membership; in Rumania 192,000 - over a fifth of the membership. In Hungary, 483,000 Party members were expelled.

This was the period of the big Tito-Stalin explosion. The 'fallout' contaminated Communist parties throughout the world. The sickness was, of course, most prevalent in Eastern Europe, where hunting Titoists became a fashionable sport for the various leaderships. Large numbers of people were arrested and thrown into prison. Show trials were held. Thousands of erstwhile 'good Stalinists' were found guilty on clearly trumped-up charges. Many hundreds were executed. Among the leaders themselves, Slansky and Clementis in Czechoslovakia. Koci Xoxi in Albania, Kostov in Bulgaria, and Rajk in Hungary, all paid the supreme penalty. One of Kostov's most 'serious' crimes was revealed by the Prosecution in dead-pan-comedian style. Kostov was charged with having been a friend of Bela Kun who, it had been 'proved', was a 'Trotskyist fascist.'

The most truly frightening thing was Rajk's 'confession'. He was arrested in May, 1949, and his trial began on September 16, Rajk pleaded guilty to all the Prosecution's charges and to a number of others besides. That he could not possibly have been guilty of these charges, must have been quite obvious to those who knew him. Rajk and the others were sacrificed to bolster up the tottering authority of the Party leadership. These 'victorious' Stalinists intended the trials to be shocking and frightening examples of their ruthlessness. They were. Through these judicial murders, Stalin, as chief spokesman for the bureaucracy, was saying to all: "Think twice before you question our infallibility." In Eastern Europe at this time, people might well have thought that Orwell's prophesy had been brought forward by several decades. But here again resistance was growing.

On March 6, 1953, the Kremlin bluntly announced that Stalin had died after a short illness. Workers in Eastern Europe felt the time had now come to end the oppression his regime had imposed on them. They did not wait long. Early in June, workers in Plzen began a mass demonstration.

Plzen is one of Czechoslovakia's largest industrial centres. The great 'Skoda' arms factory is situated there. The demonstration, which was quite spontaneous, began as a protest against currency changes. But as it spread, political demands were made: greater participation in factory management, an end to piece-work, the resignation of the Government and free elections. By the time the demonstration had developed to the verge of a revolt (uniformed soldiers had joined in and large crowds had occupied the Town Hall), troops arrived from Prague and the rising was swiftly quelled. Further spontaneous risings in other parts of Czechoslovakia and in other satellite countries, were quickly crushed without reaching the world's headlines. Two weeks later, on June 17, 1953, the workers of East Berlin rebelled.

The revolt started with "a demonstration of building workers on the Stalin Allee.³⁹ Downing tools, they marched to the city centre to present their demands. ... Transport workers left their trams and lorries to join the demonstration. Factory workers rushed from their benches, students from the colleges, housewives from their homes and shopping, even schoolboys from their lessons ... Soon, the revolt spread throughout Eastern Germany."⁴⁰

The workers of East Berlin were not subdued until after they had waged bloody battles with Russian tanks. For several days, this revolt drew world wide attention, not only because it involved workers whose demands were political as well as economic, but also because of Russia's direct and violent intervention. This intervention exposed the weakness of the Ulbricht regime.

After the Berlin uprising, the Kremlin adopted a 'new course'. Many reasons dictated this change of policy. The men in Moscow were certainly frightened by the Berlin events. Their lackeys in the capitals of Eastern Europe were shuddering as they felt the angry breath of the masses down their backs. They were all for 'changing course', but they knew that the Russian bureaucracy could grant them no major degree of autonomy, for it feared they might attempt to go the Tito way. The last thing Moscow wanted at this stage was to be seen using the tanks and bayonets of the Red Army to crush revolution throughout Eastern Europe.

*     *     *

A slight relaxation occurred in the U.S.S.R. itself. It was immediately reflected in the satellite countries.

In Hungary, early in July 1953, Malenkov himself 'advised' Rakosi to move into the background for a while. Imre Nagy, who had been Minister for Agriculture in the 1944 Government, Minister of the Interior in 1946, and had somehow survived the various purges, became Prime Minister. His first speech outlined the new programme.

In this first speech, Nagy criticised the revised plan of 1951 as too heavy a burden on the country. Greater consideration was to be given to light industry and to consumer goods. More material aid was to be given to collective and state farms, and also to individual peasant owners. A collective farm could be dissolved on a majority vote of its members. The special police tribunals were to be abolished. These were only concessions. But it is noteworthy that they were the most radical of all those made by the satellite leaderships during this period.

During the four months that followed Nagy's speech, a number of collective farms were dissolved - 10% according to a speech that Rakosi (who remained Party Secretary) made to a plenary session of the Party's Central Committee on October 31, 1953. Rakosi also reported that some local officials were obstructing peasants who wished to leave the collectives. In a few cases, force had had to be used. Rakosi, who showed no real enthusiasm for the concessions, stressed that it was a Party decision that must be carried out by members. The Party, whether torturing and killing people or just throwing them a few crumbs, is always right.

The 'new course' was applied throughout 1954. The 'relaxation' was even noticeable to foreign visitors. In conversation, people were more ready openly to criticise the Government. Many political prisoners were released. There can be no doubt that Hungarians were breathing a little more freely.

When a smothered people begin to see daylight, when they get the first whiff of fresh air, they tend to press strongly forwards. Their first ideas are to enlarge the holes, their second to tear down the whole throttling structure. This creates insoluble dilemmas for all ruling minorities - dilemmas felt the more acutely the more totalitarian their regimes.

*     *     *

All major decisions about Hungary were taken in Moscow. After Malenkov had 'resigned' and Krushchev had taken over, the Hungarians again sensed change in the air.

In real terms, Nagy's concessions had been small enough. But he was moving too quickly for the Kremlin. On April 18, 1955, the National Assembly decided, by a 'unanimous' vote, to relieve Nagy of his post. The Hungarians tensed when Rakosi was brought back to the centre of things. The feeble lights dimmed. The tragedy again reverted to macabre farce.

The long statement issued by the Central Committee showed some signs of the Party's discomfort. It accused Nagy of hindering the development of heavy industry and of collective farms, and of "using the Government machine as an instrument of repression against the Party." That Nagy was not immediately 'liquidated' reveals the uneasiness and indecision felt in the Kremlin about Hungary. 'Reconciliation' negotiations were proceeding between Tito and Krushchev.⁴¹ Nagy was not called a 'Titoist' or a 'Fascist' when he was later expelled from the Party. He was simply labelled - "an incorrigible, right-wing, deviationist".⁴² To be called a 'deviationist' by Rakosi would stand a worse 'Stalinist'⁴³ than Nagy in good stead with the Hungarian people.

Most of the concessions granted over the twenty months of Nagy's rule were now subjected to 'salami tactics': they were slowly whittled away. The Secret Police, who for a while had remained discreetly in the background, now felt they could safely justify their high pay once again. Measures for the rapid development of collectivization were introduced. Pressure on workers for increased output was stepped up... to help fulfil Moscow's Five Year Plan⁴⁴ - a plan in which the Hungarian workers, incidentally, had never been consulted in any way.

In the Kremlin. the new leadership felt fairly secure. They had coped with the immediate repercussions of Stalin's death. The Plan seemed to be working. Leaders in the satellite countries boasted of increased outputs for 1955. In Hungary, industrial production was claimed to have increased by 8.2% over the figures for 1954. The methods used to extract this from reluctant workers hardly bear thinking of. The people had endured misery up till 1953 - yet had shown they could resist. The relative clemency of the Nagy regime followed by the abrupt putting back of the clock to 1953 provoked a working class resistance greater than ever. Even harsher measures were needed to 'discipline' the masses.

But as far as the Kremlin was concerned, things seemed definitely on the mend. Khrushchev and his colleagues felt they had everything under control. This was an important consideration in their momentous decision to reveal that after all Stalin had not been God.

At the 20th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, held in February 1956, Krushchev's 'revelations' about Stalin caused a political earthquake. The foundations of every Communist party in the world were shaken. It will be decades before they are repaired - if ever they are. Were the 'revelations' a 'tactical mistake'? Had the Russian bureaucrats not realized that, by de-godding God, the faithful might begin to question the whole theology proclaimed by his disciples?

Did Krushchev know of the ferment growing in Poland and Hungary even before the 20th Congress? Did he know that this was affecting the Polish Communist party itself? Did he understand its potential danger both to his own regime and to those of his satellites?

In Poland on the morning of June 28, 1956, the workers at the Zispo locomotive factory in Poznan struck. They walked out onto the streets. This was not done on impulse. Many weeks earlier a committee had been elected. It had presented the management with a list of demands. Some were predictable. They wanted pay increases, lower prices and lower piece-work norms. The management was startled, however, when these 'common workers' criticised the way the factory was being run and demanded a different organization of work in the various shops. To question managerial infallibility in deciding what the workers were to do, and then to demand reorganization of shop floor production, struck at the very roots of the system. The managers did not go up through the roof. They did what their Western counterparts would have done: they adopted delaying tactics and called them 'negotiations'. These dragged on, without result. The workers eventually saw through them. In their thousands they took to the streets.

As the news spread, workers assembled in other plants. They voted to join the movement. The political character of the demonstrations then became apparent. Posters carried in the processions demanded such things as "Freedom and Bread!", "Out with the Russians!" and "End Piecework!"

Other people, taking their lead from the workers, joined in. As far as Poznan was concerned, the demonstrations soon showed the features of a full-scale uprising. Russian tanks and troops surrounded the city, but did not move in. The Government brought in Polish tanks whose crews did as they were told. Workers' blood flowed in the streets. After two days, the revolt was crushed. The Zispo factory management had their 'right' to manage inscribed in blood. There were 'sympathetic' strikes in several other towns, but they were quickly isolated by the police and did not reach similar proportions.

Shocked and confused, the Polish bureaucracy blamed the uprising on 'provocateurs ', on 'secret agents employed by the United States and Western Germany'. But on July 18, at a meeting of the Party's Central Committee, Edward Ochab, the First Secretary, said: "... it is necessary to look first of all for the social roots of these incidents (in Poznan) which have become, for the whole of our Party, a warning signal testifying to the existence of serious disturbance in the relations between the Party and various sections of the working class."

Ochab went on to explain that about 75% of the Poznan workers had suffered from a fall in wages, while the piecework norms had increased. By giving only economic reasons for the uprising, Ochab was seeking to play down its important political aspects. His statement, nevertheless, appeared to reflect a more positive attitude to the workers' demands. It no doubt prevented further immediate uprisings in a nation still seething with discontent.

After Poznan, the demand for change increased. The badly shaken leadership tried to evolve a new policy - a 'Polish road to socialism'. Some anti-Stalinists were given posts in the Party. Gomulka, excommunicated and imprisoned in 1951, and under house arrest since 1954, was brought back into communion with the Party. He was issued a brand new membership card.

The attitude of the Polish leaders differed from that of the Communist hierarchy in the rest of Eastern Europe.⁴⁵ This worried the men in the Kremlin. So, while the Polish Communist Party's Central Committee was still in session, reviewing the Poznan events, the Russians sent their Premier, Marshal Bulganin, to Warsaw. He came to enforce the Russian line that Poznan was the work of "Western agents and provocateurs". The Central Committee showed him they would not stand for outside interference. As soon as Bulganin arrived, the Central Committee meeting was suspended. After the formalities, it was politely suggested to Bulganin that he make a tour of the provinces. He agreed. The Central Committee then resumed its session. As soon as Bulganin returned to Warsaw, the Central Committee meeting was again suspended. The session was not resumed until he had finally left for Moscow. Bulganin's visit only succeeded in increasing anti-Russian feeling among the Polish people.

At the end of September, the first trials began. People were charged with 'anti-Socialist' activity during the Poznan riots. The trials were less of a farce than those of pre-Poznan days. The defence was allowed some freedom. The sentences were relatively mild. In October 1956, the Government announced the postponement of further trials.

On October 19, another meeting of the Central Committee was convened, primarily to elect Gomulka Party leader. As the Committee met, it was reported that the Red Army in Poland had begun large-scale manoeuvres. Armoured units were moving towards Warsaw. While the Polish leaders were asking themselves whether this was some kind of threat, the answer walked in on them - Krushchev himself accompanied by a formidable detachment of the Kremlin 'Old Guard': Molotov, Mikoyan, Kaganovich and a smattering of generals. The news spread quickly. The workers formed groups and armed themselves. Their groups kept in close contact with the Polish Army.

Crisis point had been reached. The air was electric with the tension. Precise details of the clash between the Central Committee and the Krushchev circus are not yet known. But the main reason for the visit is known. Above all else, the Russians insisted that, in the elections that were about to take place, Marshal Rokossovski should retain his posts of Minister of Defence and Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Army. Gomulka refused and despite threats did not give way. He knew that in standing up to the Kremlin, he not only had a big majority of the people on his side: the workers, peasants and students. He also had a considerable proportion of the bureaucracy and of the Army behind him.

A war between Russia and Poland was the last thing the Kremlin wanted. The Russians did not insist. The Red Army was not called in. Krushchev knew that whatever Gomulka's attitude might now be, he would later be compelled to call on Russian help, both to maintain the Oder-Neisse frontier and to assist the Polish economy, which was in a chaotic condition. Within 24 hours, the Russians returned to Moscow. The following day, October 21, the Polish Politburo was elected. As expected, Gomulka became First Secretary of the Party. Changes in the Government, the Army and the Party were immediately initiated. Rokossovski resigned and returned to Moscow (where he was at once given the post of Russian Minister of Defence).

Gomulka had triumphed only in so far as he represented the national aspirations of the Polish people. The base of his rule was still extremely narrow. He represented the interests of the Polish bureaucracy. Following the independent action taken by the Polish workers, and their insistent demands for a greater share in the management of their own affairs, the basis of the bureaucracy - even purged of its pro-Russian elements - remains both weak and unstable. An attempt to broaden the basis of the regime led Gomulka into an alliance with the ex-propertied class, through the Catholic Church. In exchange for a partial restoration of its former property and privileges, the Church threw its influence behind Gomulka. God and Gomulka were brought together through a joint fear of the working class. It is a temporary alliance - a mutual expedient. When the Polish workers take to managing their own affairs, they will put all these parasites right out of business.

From the spring of 1956 on, the quick build-up of tension in Poland was paralleled by similar development in Hungary. The exposure of Stalin at the 20th Congress, in February 1956, gave further impetus to revolutionary tendencies in Hungary. These, already discernible in October 1955, now came more into the open.

In April, 1956, the 'Petöfi Circle'⁴⁶ was formed by the Young Communists - mainly students. Assisted by the Writers' Union, it soon became an important and effective centre for the dissemination of opinion, criticism, and protest about the deplorable state of Hungarian society. Several other discussion groups were formed, but the Petöfi Circle remained the largest. (Similar discussions took place in Russia, prior to 1917.)

Many pamphlets were produced and distributed at this time, mainly in Budapest. A duplicating machine at Party Headquarters in Budapest is said to have been used. This could not have been done without the connivance of some members of the government. Due to shortages, there were production difficulties. It is reported that one pamphlet had been produced on toilet paper. In the early days, the main themes of this literature were purely demands for more literary freedom. But the political implications were clear. Later, the writers, all Communists, demanded that Hungary should follow her own road to Communism. They thereby clearly implied that the present road was wrong and that a greater independence from the U.S.S.R. was necessary.

Similar themes were now being discussed at the longer and longer meetings of the Petöfi Circle. The Rakosi government then banned these meetings. This made things worse.

The ban was soon lifted. The Communist writer, Gyula Hay⁴⁷ took the discussion a stage further. In an article in Irodalmi Ujság (Literary Gazette), he sharply attacked the bureaucratic interference with writers' freedom. Soon, the meetings of the Petöfi Circle were attracting thousands of people. These gatherings, already unanimous in their demands for intellectual liberty and truth, began to hear voices openly calling for political freedom.

One of these meetings was noteworthy for a passionate speech made by Mrs. Julia Rajk, widow of Laszlo Rajk, who had been executed as a "Titoist Fascist" in October, 1949. Several thousand people attended this meeting. It overflowed into the streets, where the speeches were relayed by loudspeakers. Mrs. Rajk called for justice to her husband's memory; an honourable place in the Party's history. She severely criticised the offhand way in which a few months earlier her husband had been "rehabilitated". In a speech at Eger on March 27, 1956, Rakosi had casually announced that the Party had passed a resolution to rehabilitate Laszlo Rajk and others. This had been done officially through the Supreme Court. In a cold voice, Rakosi had added that the entire Rajk trial had been based on a provocation. "It was a miscarriage of justice," he said. Julia Rajk then demanded that those guilty of his murder should be punished. This electrified the audience. Although there was no mention of Rakosi, everybody present knew exactly whom Julia Rajk meant.

By June, 1956. the intellectual agitation was in full swing. The articles in Irodalmi Ujság were becoming more and more bluntly critical of the regime. Although, earlier in the year, an issue of the paper had been confiscated, people were now quite surprised that the 'leadership' did not suppress it. As the title suggests, the paper was primarily intended for people with literary interests. But many others were now reading it. Odd copies could be seen in the hands of factory workers, on the shop floor. In fact, demand for some issues so outstripped supply that a 'black market' developed. Copies were selling at 60 forints - about 30s. each.

The articles by Gyula Hay suggested he was the centre of a campaign for freedom of the written word. During June this was sometimes referred to as the 'writers' revolt'. Officialdom reluctantly countenanced the situation. In fact, the June 28 issue of Szabad Nep⁴⁸ surprised many of its readers by welcoming this hitherto frowned-upon use of the human intellect. Pravda immediately countered the move.

It vehemently denounced the Hungarian writers. On June 30 the Central Committee brought Szabad Nep back to the Party line, with a resolution condemning the "demagogic behaviour" and "anti-party views" of "vacillating elements." It accused the writers of "attempting to spread confusion" with "the provocative content" of their articles. For once, part of the stereotyped party jargon was quite correct. This was indeed the precise intention of the revolutionary writers: to provoke thought, ideas, and discussion about the existing conditions in Hungary. The Central Committee resolution was carried and hastily propagated at exactly the time when news of the workers' revolt in Poznan was reaching intellectual circles in Hungary and inspiring them to intensify their campaign.

The feeling of guilt among honest Communist intellectuals - members of long standing - became apparent. Their consciences no longer allowed the gulf between myth and reality to be bridged. At a large meeting of the Petöfi Circle on June 27, the novelist Tibor Dery had asked why they found themselves in such a crisis. "There is no freedom," he said. "I hope there will be no more Police terror. I am optimistic. I hope we shall be able to get rid of our present leaders. Let us bear in mind that we are allowed to discuss these things only with permission from above. They think it's a good idea to let some steam off an overheated boiler. We want deeds and we want the opportunity to speak freely."

In the first days of July, articles in Irodalmi Ujság began demanding Rakosi's resignation. The same demand was clearly voiced at the meetings of the Petöfi Circle. It was even suggested by some speakers that Imre Nagy should be brought back into the Party, although Nagy's name was only mentioned casually, even guardedly. Rakosi, who was in Moscow, returned suddenly to Budapest. He sought to suppress the heretical movement He knew of only one way to do this: a purge. A list of prominent names among the politicians and writers was drawn up. But before the first stage (the arrests) could be carried out, Suslov, Russian Minister for the affairs of the People's Democracies, unexpectedly arrived in Budapest. He was immediately followed by Mikoyan. They told Rakosi that his plan would ignite an already explosive situation. The Kremlin had decided that Rakosi should go.

The smouldering crisis in Hungary was not the only reason for the Kremlin's decision. Tito hated Rakosi. He had for some time been agitating for his removal. Tito refused to meet Rakosi, or even to travel through the country where he held power. The Russo-Yugoslav rapprochement influenced the decision to get rid of Rakosi.

All this was clearly a Kremlin-inspired compromise. For Rakosi's close friend and collaborator, Erno Gerö, was to succeed him as First Secretary. And, with the exception of General Farkas, who was expelled from the Party, most of Rakosi's followers retained their positions.

Hungarians heard of Rakosi's resignation on July 18. They also heard that the recently rehabilitated Janos Kadar and Gyorgy Marosan,⁴⁹ the Social Democrat, had been made members of the Political Bureau. These were the first of a few minor concessions made during the month of August. In the tumultuous situation, these concessions were to prove insignificant and wholly inadequate. The suffering of the working people had been too long and too great for them to harbour illusions about changes in the Leadership or to be bought off by a few extra coppers in their pay packets.

Through the long summer days the debate smouldered on. While the fireflies danced animatedly among the trees of the countryside, fascinating ideas about freedom flew about the meetings in the towns. Tension mixed strangely with a holiday mood. The whole month was like a heavy summer evening: the sun still glowing eerily through the dark purple clouds of a threatening storm. Familiar objects seemed out of perspective and took on a different shape and colour. In private rooms and public meeting places an ominous feeling of destiny pervaded the air. The intellectuals seemed to sense the 'dangers' inherent in their ideas. Yet they felt compelled to carry on, on to whatever ends free expression might lead them to.

We have found no evidence throughout the whole of this restive period of any conscious attempt made by the intellectuals⁵⁰ to co-operate with the industrial workers on a mass scale, to share with them the experiences of this cultural and political awakening, and thus to demonstrate that the workers' struggles were bound up with the articulate demands for freedom, for truth, etc. Nevertheless, the Petöfi Circle had become, albeit not in a completely conscious manner, the articulate voice of the working people of Hungary. It may well be that, had such co-operation occurred, the Party leaders would have acted to suppress the movement sooner than they did. But they would have had to do so in the face of even greater solidarity than was to develop at the height of the revolution. In the event, the degree of co-operation, liaison, and solidarity between workers and intellectuals was remarkably great. But closer co-operation with the workers earlier on would most certainly have broadened the base of the movement. The more practical and radical approach of the workers would have cleared the air of at least some of the cramping illusions held by many of the intellectuals - for example their great enthusiasm for a Nagy Government, appeals to Western leaders, to U.N.O., etc.

It was the veteran Communist writer, Gyula Hay, who again brought the cauldron to the boil with an article in the September 8 issue of Irodalmi Ujság. It poetically demanded "absolute and unfettered freedom" for writers.

The article stated that "it should be the writer's prerogative to tell the truth; to criticise anybody and anything; to be sad; to be in love; to think of death; not to ponder whether light and shadow are in balance in his work; to believe in the omnipotence of God; to deny the existence of God; to doubt the correctness of certain figures in the Five Year Plan; to think in a non-Marxist manner even if the thought thus born is not yet amongst the truths proclaimed to be of binding force; to find the standard of life low even of people whose wages do not yet figure amongst those to be raised; to believe unjust something that is still officially maintained to be just; to dislike certain leaders; to describe problems without concluding how they may be solved; to consider ugly the New York Palais,⁵¹ declared a historic building, despite the fact that millions have recently been spent on it; to notice that the city is falling into ruins since there is no money to repair the buildings; to criticise the way of life, the way of speaking, and way of working of certain leaders; ... to like Sztalinvaros; to dislike Sztalinvaros; to write in an unusual style; to oppose the Aristotelian dramaturgy; ... etc., etc. Who would deny that a short while ago many of those things were strictly forbidden and would have entailed punishment ... but today, too, they are just tolerated and not really allowed."

About a week after Hay's article was published, the congress of the Writers' Union opened in Budapest. The depth of the revolt revealed itself in the elections for the new Presidium. All those who had supported the Rakosi regime, if only passively, were ousted. Communist 'rebels' and some non-Communist writers were elected. All the speeches sharply criticised the "regime of tyranny." The rehabilitation of Nagy was demanded. Gyula Hay admitted that Communist writers, "having submitted to the spiritual leadership of the Party Secretariat, let themselves be led astray on to the path of mendacity." He added that the most honest writers had found themselves in a frightful dilemma and "suffered horribly in this atmosphere of lying ... and paid dearly for the lie ... with the lowering of the standard of our work ..." Konya, the poet, took up the theme in an impassioned speech about writing only the truth. He ended with the rhetorical questions: "In the name of what morality do the Communists consider themselves justified in committing arbitrary acts against their former allies, in staging witch-trials, in persecuting innocent people, in treating genuine revolutionaries as if they were traitors, in gaoling and killing them? In the name of what morality?"

Thus, the intellectuals exposed their crisis of conscience. Yet this resolute search for truth, amounting at times almost to mysticism, helped to give the events that followed an essential theme of socialist morality.

Towards the end of September the first of the Poznan trials began in Poland. Public sympathy with the accused was apparent. Every possible opportunity was taken, both by those on trial and the public, to condemn the violence and injustice of the regime. The Government squirmed. Almost all the accused were ordinary workers. The sentences were comparatively mild.

When this news reached the Hungarians they were elated. The tension and the pressure on the Government increased.

The ruling group, feeling themselves more out of touch than usual, tried to win sympathy with a stage-managed funeral for Laszlo Rajk. Many of those who had stage-managed his trial and execution as a "Titoist Fascist" now indignantly deplored the "slander" of Comrade Rajk who had been "innocently condemned and executed." Their belief that they could deceive the people with such a macabre exhibition proved their complete to degeneracy. Over 200,000 people turned out for the funeral.⁵² Even then the 'leaders' did not see the light. They did not see that the demand for Rajk's complete rehabilitation was purely symbolic. The people had not forgotten the brutality of Rajk's secret police. "One of the jokes current in Budapest at the time was: 'What is the difference between a Christian and a Marxist? The Christian believes in a hereafter; the Marxist believes in a rehabilitation hereafter'."53

Rajk's exhumed corpse was re-buried on Martyrs' Day - October 6. This was the anniversary of the execution by the Austrians, on October 6, 1849, of the first constitutional Prime Minister of Hungary, Count Batthány, and of thirteen others. About three hundred young men discovered some connection between this and the day's event. They began the first unofficial demonstration. They marched to the Batthány monument carrying posters and shouting slogans about independence and freedom. Several onlookers joined them believing that such a demonstration, however incredible, must have official sanction.

During September and early October the workers had become active. They were demanding 'genuine workers' self-government'⁵⁴ in the factories. The Trade Union Council, still controlled by the Party, gave these demands the universal 'leadership' twist. It 'moderated' them. The demands were revolutionary in the circumstances: broadening of trade union democracy; establishment of workers' control;⁵⁵ a prominent role for the unions in solving problems of production and management; the manager to keep his "full right" to make decisions, but to consult the union committee on questions of wages and welfare. Here was the most important development in the whole of the campaign so far.

This remarkable political consciousness of the workers had its core in the concentrated industrial area of Czepel Island,⁵⁶ in the Danube between Buda and Pest. It immediately transformed the whole situation. Until now the campaign had been one of agitational ferment and protest. The workers' demand for 'self-government ' in the factories gave it a revolutionary edge in the strictest sense of the word. The workers were preparing for the psychological moment when their radical action would change the whole political and economic system. No wonder that, later on, the spokesmen of the West were to prove so uninformative!

The Petöfi Circle took up the workers' demands. But they were still unaware of their revolutionary implications. In a series of new demands, the Government was requested to hand over the administration of the factories to the workers. This must surely have appeared naive to anyone aware of the nature of government. It tended to perpetuate the illusion that any government can act in the interests and on behalf of working people.

The Petöfi Circle also called for the expulsion of Rakosi from the Party; for a public trial of General Farkas; for a revision of the second Five Year Plan; for equality in all relations between Hungary and the Soviet Union; for full publication of all trade agreements (the trade pact with Moscow for the exploitation of the rich uranium deposits found a few months earlier at Pécs was stressed); and for the re-admittance of Nagy to the Party. A concession to the pressure came a few days later. Nagy was given a new Party card!

In mid-October, Gerö left to meet Tito in Belgrade. At precisely this time, momentous events were taking place in Poland. The Hungarian intellectuals were further inspired when they learned that the Kremlin and the old Polish leadership had been defeated, that Gomulka had been elected as First Secretary, that Rokossovski had resigned.

The Petöfi Circle called for a mass demonstration on October 23, "to express the deep sympathy and solidarity with our Polish brothers" in their struggle for freedom. They applied to the Ministry of the Interior for permission to hold the demonstration. It was granted! All hell would have broken loose had it been refused.

By October 22, groups in the Hungarian universities and the various discussion circles were meeting. They considered the form of the demonstration. There was broad agreement that there should be a march to the statue of General Josef Bern, on the bank of the Danube. This seemed appropriate. Bem was a Pole who won fame when he fought with the Hungarians against the Hapsburg (Austrian) oppression in the so-called 'umbrella revolution' of 1848-49. But there was some disagreement between two of the largest Budapest universities. The Central University wanted slogans and banners to make the purpose of the demonstration clear beyond doubt. The Polytechnic wanted a more 'aesthetic' demonstration - no shouting, no banners, just a quiet march to the statue and back. A surprising development occurred at Szeged University, in Hungary's second largest city. A separate students' organisation, called MEFESZ, was formed. Many members of DISZ, the official Communist organisation, joined. The Party decided it was no use trying to oppose the regrouping. To retain some influence, DISZ was instructed to welcome the new formation. Then DISZ went further. It decided to participate in the next day's demonstration.

By the end of October 1956, many years of misery, of being bullied and oppressed, manipulated and managed, had brought the Hungarian people to the brink of revolution. Yet the people were not fully aware of it. No plans had been laid, no conscious steps taken towards fundamental change. No leadership, in the generally accepted sense, had emerged. Nevertheless, the classical conditions for revolution were there. The build-up had occurred over a period of years. The culminating events were to be compressed into days - even hours.

In the absence of Gerö, now returning from Belgrade, the Party was undecided about what should be done. Some, believing they were expressing Gerö's wishes, wanted the march banned. Others preferred the old tactic of infiltration and take-over. Both views sprang from a degenerate and bureaucratic attitude to events. Laszlo Piros, the Minister of the Interior and a close associate of Gerö, had the final word. On the morning of Tuesday, October 23, permission to hold the march was withdrawn

Delegations from the various groupings and universities began to arrive at Party Headquarters in Academy Square. A few were allowed in. They asked officials to use their influence to get the ban withdrawn. Gyula Hay, and a small delegation from the Petöfi Circle, argued for the lifting of the ban. They explained that many students and writers intended to march, permission or no permission. The bureaucrats Prevaricated.

By the afternoon, marchers were forming up in different parts of the City. As is so often the case, rank-and-file action caused a sudden change of mind at the Ministry of the Interior. Deputy Minister Mihaly Fekete suddenly announced on the radio that the ban had been lifted. The 'infiltration' faction had apparently won. Fekete patronisingly added: "The employees and all the Communist Party members of the Ministry of the Interior have rallied to the side of honest Hungarians in the interests of change."

The demonstration was soon under way. Marchers were converging on the Bem statue from numerous points in Budapest. A crowd of several thousands had assembled at the Petöfi statue and now joined the march. The Hungarian national colours of red, white and green were much in evidence. Improvised banners and posters appeared. Some were simply inscribed "Freedom." Others added "Independence - Truth." Others still called for "Polish-Hungarian Friendship." Among the many and diverse slogans, which showed the individuality of the demonstrators, none was directly anti-Russian. Only one came anywhere near to it: "Let each nation keep its army to its own soil!"⁵⁷

The various columns of marchers arrived at the Bem statue one after the other. They there fused into one great crowd. The large majority were young people. On the way their ranks had grown as people in the streets, women, and children, had joined. A small number of workers left their jobs and tagged on, a little self-consciously. Even before all the marchers had arrived, spontaneous speeches were being made. The general theme was solidarity. Solidarity at home. International solidarity. Solidarity with the people of Poland was much stressed.

Considerable pathos was added when a student reminded the crowd of the 1849 revolution by reciting the words of Petöfi:

"We want