Viktor Orbán's October 23

The other day I was thinking about the history of national holidays. Prior to the birth of modern nationalism naturally there were no national holidays, only religious ones, and even in the last two hundred years or so some of the national holidays were slow to appear. For example, Bastille Day was not a national holiday until a century after the event. The fourth of July was made an official, paid holiday only in 1870. In Hungary, March 15th didn't become an official holiday until after the First World War. The newest Hungarian national holiday--October 23, commemorating the outbreak of the Hungarian revolution in 1956--for obvious reasons was not celebrated until 1989.

I hate what politicians do to national holidays, but when they talk all sorts of nonsense about March 15 only my historical sensibilities are bruised. However, when it comes to 1956 I feel personally violated. My own memories, my own part in the events are being trampled on.

Orbán's speeches often make my blood boil but his "oration" today, which was apparently applauded by the throngs, was really too much. As politicians are apt to do, Orbán is rewriting history. This is not the first time that he reinterprets the history of 1956. A few years ago he decided that it was a "bourgeois [polgári] revolution." After all, a "polgári" government deserves a "polgári" revolution. This time he went even further. He claimed that his government, his revolution in the voting booth is the fulfillment of our wishes in 1956. Mr. Orbán is wrong. In our worst dreams we didn't think of a future with Viktor Orbán, who is making mockery of democracy.

Well, let's get back to the current interpretation of 1956. In Orbán's mind, in the fall of 1956 it looked as if the nation didn't exist anymore. But then it became clear even to Imre Nagy that the demonstrators were not simply students, workers, intellectuals. The nation stood in front of him. In Orbán's version Imre Nagy first addressed the crowd as "comrades" but someone shouted: "We are not comrades. The nation is here." Well, the first sentence is true, except it wasn't someone but about 100,000 strong. The second is not true. No one talked about the nation being there. I was present, and I remember the whole evening vividly.

Viktor Orbán has a fertile imagination when he tries to interpret what we, those who stood there, thought. According to him we suddenly felt that the nation was "reborn." Because the nation was battered by two lost wars, by the loss of territories as a result of Trianon, by the bloodletting of the nation by those who escaped in 1945 and those who were exiled. I can assure Mr. Orbán that we didn't think about any of those things. We were not thinking of the two lost wars, Trianon, or those who together with the German troops left Hungary in 1944 and 1945. We were thinking of Stalinism, of Rákosi, the AVH, the political prisoners, the fear, the peasants' miseries, the lack of essential staples in the stores, and the lack of freedom.

I'm also baffled by the following: "The heroes of 1956 were those who didn't allow themselves to be talked out of making Hungary great." What does that mean? Sure, a lot of people were worried about the consequences of an armed uprising. They regretted the loss of life, feared crushing defeat and even worse oppression than before, but that cannot be interpreted as cowardly people who wanted to deprive Hungary of its greatness. Whom does Orbán have in mind? Those intellectuals who were fearful, rightfully so, of the consequences? Or is he trying to set participant against participant? On the one hand those who were the intellectual leaders and on the other hand those young workers and students who fought in the streets? Most likely.

Orbán's verbal flourishes are occasionally laughable. What about this sentence? "The Hungarians' sigh of freedom (szabadságsóhaj) knocked out the first brick from the wall of communism and through that opening decades later the whole socialist regime was carried away by the draught." Oh my! Can anyone imagine a sigh that knocks out a whole brick and a draught that carries away a regime?

In any case, those great Hungarians of 1956 started a struggle which "now [they] carry to its fruition." In spite of the change of regime in 1990 and the free elections, they have felt that "something holds down [their] hands.... 1956 was an unfinished story until 2010. [Orbán and Fidesz] delivered the coup de grâce to the regime of lies. The age of national unity arrived."

Orbán continues, comparing his revolution and the revolution of 1956. "We didn't win in the spring to leave everything as it had been before. The heroes of 1956 didn't sacrifice their lives, we didn't go through with the regime change, we didn't suffer through the past eight years to stop, lose our self-confidence when there is the chance.... The nation said that everything must change in Hungary." Let's not get stuck on the question of what the results of the elections empowered Orbán to do. Those who voted for Fidesz, for example, knew nothing of a new constitution or the nationalization of their private savings.

Perhaps the most egregious part of the speech is the one about the heroes of 1956 sacrificing their lives for Viktor Orbán's "revolution." That really boggles the mind. Or what can one say when he compares the last eight years to the times that followed the revolution of 1956! How can anyone in his right mind compare the two? A dictatorship imposed on Hungary by a foreign power and its lackeys and a period in which a democratically elected coalition government was in power. The period between 1957 and 1963 was a terrible time in Hungary. A time of retribution when hundreds were executed and thousands imprisoned.

And while he is turning 1956 into his own revolution he also distorts his own role in 1989. Even those who dislike the Viktor Orbán of today talk about him in glowing terms when at the reburial of Imre Nagy he dared to openly demand the withdrawal of the Soviet troops. So, he made sure today that people didn't forget the very important role he played when he said that "if in 1989 we didn't demand the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, today Central Europe would still be full of them." In brief, without the young Viktor Orbán the Soviet Union would still be intact, the Soviet Empire would still be flourishing, and the Cold War would still be with us. Surely, he himself cannot believe that. But perhaps his admirers do. One never knows. He is a persuasive fellow, especially when his audience is ignorant.

Comments

[Rigó Jancsi]

My father-in-law was on the streets of Gyöngyös in 1956. He was quite horrified by both election results this year, and this speech surely feels like a personal insult to him.

Everybody should be outraged, but sadly we're already used to this. Don't forget the statement that all offices have to have on display in a nice frame on a good spot...

I am always "surprised" that Orbán "forgets" to mention that four of those years after the political change were under his government, and that the Hungarian people, that he supposedly represents, chased him out of office then.

He may call himself prime minister again. But he'll never fit into the shoes of Nagy Imre.

[Paul]

The ignorant, led by the mad.

You should be glad you got out, Éva, you wouldn't want to be a pensioner in Hungary under this regime.

[Paul]

Going slightly off topic for a while - this article set me thinking about national holidays in this country (England, not the UK), and I wondered how unique we are in having no national days?

Our 'bank' holidays are all either religious (at least in origin) or just holidays awarded for political reasons.

Is this just coincidence, or does it reveal something about the 'English character'?

Perhaps other countries should follow suit? After all, no one can possibly get worked out about the meaning or political significance of the 'late august bank holiday'!

[Passing Stranger]

I thought your mentioning of March 15 was quite interesting, considering we are discussing invented traditions.

March 15 was only a day off from 1941. Surely you don't think Horthy would have elevated demands for parliamentary power and freedom of the press to a fully fledged 'pirosbetű ünnep'? One of the curious things about 1956 is the demand for reinstation of March 15 as a national holiday. A holiday that had only a wartime tradition of national celebration. In contemporary national(ist) accounts much is made of this demand, as proof of national fury at the communist degradation of March 15. But, much like Horthy, the MDP did, in fact, celebrate March 15, only it wasn't a day off. A demand for March 15 as a national holiday could charitably be seen as a rejection of both Horthy as Rákosi, more likely it was simply a convenient stick to beat the regime with. I could not otherwise explain why suddenly the catholic church cared about March 15, a holiday it was not interested in before 1945.

Considering the broadness of the opposition to the regime, though, 1956 was a 'national' rising, even if not in Orbán's sense of the word. The enthusiastic participation of many communist party members, indeed, leading functionaries, in revolutionary and workers' committees illustrates the extent of rejection of the Rákosi regime, even if it does not say anything about the ultimate goals of the revolutionaries, which were very diverse.

Also the unity of purpose between communists and revolutionaries in especially the countryside may surprise Orbán. On the local level often the overriding goal of both ancien and new regime was the prevention of bloodshed and the preservation of a semblance of order, rather than lofty revolutionary goals. Whatever those were, they would have to come later.

[wolfi]

Maybe a bit OT:

On this 23rd we went to Keszthely and found that the market was open and busy, just as on every other saturday - from a distance you could hear something (music and speeches), but not many people seemed to be involved in the celebrations.

Life goes on - most people have other things to worry about ...

[Mark]

"This time he went even further. He claimed that his government, his revolution in the voting booth is the fulfillment of our wishes in 1956."

Unfortunately Orbán is not the first to use 1956 for political purposes. Both the idea of a nation united, and that 1956 justifies whatever political order the government of the day seeks to shape have been present since 1989. Indeed yesterday was also the 21st anniversary of the proclamation of the "third" republic in 1989, which, I think demonstrates how everyone has tried to use 1956 for their own purposes.

[Mark]

Passing Stranger: "Also the unity of purpose between communists and revolutionaries in especially the countryside may surprise Orbán."

Actually, I suspect FIDESZ knows this. In both their terms of office they have been fairly consistent in seeking to prevent balanced research into 1956. Their persecution of the 1956 Institute, which has done most to document the history of the Revolution (http://www.rev.hu), has been pretty consistent. It was just been subject to substantial retrospective budget cuts which have forced it to make deep cuts in its staffing. Back when they came to power in 1998 in a similar attempt to hinder the work of this institute they slashed its agreed budget (the "profit" from this went into creating the 20th Century Institute which in turn is connected to Budapest's House of Terror - essentially a bizarre piece of right-wing propaganda).

The "crime" of the 1956 Institute is to document the "reform Communist" dimension of 1956 as well as its straightforwardly anti-Communist side. The fact that there were people like Imre Nagy, who were Communists, who stood by the Revolution, and paid for their principles with their lives is something the right would rather see written out of history.

Passing Stranger: "On the local level often the overriding goal of both ancien and new regime was the prevention of bloodshed and the preservation of a semblance of order, rather than lofty revolutionary goals."

Having myself spent time working with the archival sources generated during and after the Revolution, it was a much more geographically uneven process than we often believe. Furthermore, the political unity was much more tenuous than it is often represented as being, both about goals and tactics. We can see embryonic democratic socialist, religious, and conservative-nationalist positions emerging by the end of October depending on where we choose to look. When considering the role of Communists, though this sounds counter-intuitive, we have to remember that the Hungarian Workers' Party was, in terms of membership, larger than the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party that came after it (at least prior to the 1980s). We also have to remember that in large parts of the country that membership was in open rebellion against the leadership from the point of Khrushchev's "secret speech" onwards.

When one focusses on demands, there is no doubt that departure from the Soviet sphere of influence and democratization of the political system were common points of reference for all, in many ways the demands we have reveal a desire to overturn Stalinist forms of domination. In villages I think we can speak of a generalized revolt against taxation, compulsory deliveries and collectivization, and a demand for a return to the "smallholder democracy" envisaged in the late 1940s. In the factories the demands focus on autonomy from the state planning apparatus, the abolition of performance-by-results based wages, the labour competitions and for material improvement (it is worth mentioning that many of the social demands from factories, if not the political ones, were fulfilled by Kádár).

[Diótörő]

Did Orbán really say anything like it was HIS personal revolution, as Éva S. Balogh suggests? No, he did not. He did
say, howver, that many of the goals of '56 and the elections of 2010 were the same - and were they not? Éva S. Balogh was not outraged when during such celebrations in the previous years people - the throng, as she refers to them - were separated from the politicians by railings and searched by security gorillas. I do not remember that Éva S. Balogh was particularly outraged when a cezaromaniac political clown launched his police on the crowd on the anniversary of the revolution so dear to her heart. Isn't it nice, by the way, that Comrade Kádár, after hanging a few dozen or hundred revolutionaries, imprisoning a few thousand, forcing another few thousand into exile, fulfilled several of the demands of the revolutionaries... another disgusting article from those who take pleasure in shoveling some much on their own country.

[Diótörő]

much=muck in the last line

[Mark]

Diótörő: "He did say, howver, that many of the goals of '56 and the elections of 2010 were the same - and were they not?"

No. To suggest they were is either a gross falsification of History, or is to display spectacular ignorance of the basic facts. Orbán is probably guilty of the first, and given that Diótörő underestimates the numbers executed, imprisoned or who went into exile clearly is guilty of the second.

[Diótörő]

Mark: I believe that there are many of you out there - including Mme Balogh - who do not care much that we have only been recently able to get rid of some of the communists who were responsible for killing, forcing into exile and humiliating thousands of people. You do not seem to care that Mr Biszku et al. are drawing special pensions, and the former lover of the second-in-command of the communist regime, a censor and a pathological liar has been, until very recently, the head of the governing party. Etc. You seem to follow the principle that the worst socialists are better than the best right-wing government, and in this logic you do not condemn those who have ruined the country three (3) times in the past thirty (30) years. Instead, Mme Balogh and those who share that logic, viciously attack those who try to put things right. If that is the case, and apparently that is, I can understand why you are suggesting that there was not much in common between the goals of '56 and 2010. The people, unfortunately, did not listen to you, as they voted for change. I might be ignorant of the basic facts, but it appears that real liberals do not allow facts to disturb their clairvoyance either. Now as I am typing this, Mr Békesi is condemning in grave words the unacceptable politics of Mr Orbán, trying to make people forget that most of the economic problems have been brought about by Mr Békesi, Mr Bokros and people like them. It was NOT Mr Orbán - if I may penetrate the haze of hatred by reminding the reader of that fact - who screwed up things - not just a little, but very badly - but it was the communists (oh my... what I am saying? - I mean, the modern, progressive, European social democrats of course. Highly capable, competent people like Mme Lamperth, Mme Szűcs, Mr Szekeres, Mr Veres, Mr Gál junior - what an impressive list. It is of course not easy to accept that such grand politicians were replaced by some Orbán, but alas, there is democracy, and sometimes people do not vote very wisely).

[Mark]

Diótörő: "I can understand why you are suggesting that there was not much in common between the goals of '56 and 2010. The people, unfortunately, did not listen to you, as they voted for change."

Actually Diótörő has no clue what lies behind my comment. (S)he suggests that it is a political comment motivated by ideology. It isn't. I'm not a member, nor a supporter of any Hungarian political party. As a non-Hungarian citizen I didn't vote. But I am an historian. And 1956 is one of the areas on which I have seen the archival records - and anyone who maintains that 1956 and 2010 have anything in common is either deluded or falsifying history.

Diótörő's comment above lacks elementary logic. How and why people voted in 2010 does not change the historical facts of what happened in 1956. I am quite happy for anyone to criticize the MSZP (I have done many times in the comments on this blog) - but if they do so, don't start falsifying the historical record.

[Kevin Moore]

Diótörő is mainly right.
There are many many people in Hungary who firmly believe that an unfinished business was settled this spring.
These many many people believe that the "social democrats" put out of power this year are essentially the same as those who were in power in 1956. Not exactly the same in person, but many have their direct descendants here, and surely the same in goals and "competences". It's only their arsenal that is different: the Soviet army is not here any more to keep them in power by force.
But these many many people think that this is practically the only difference.

You will probably call these many many people woefully ignorant - this is something you often do, especially with the ones having higher education than you -, but that won't change things one bit.

[Mark]

Kevin Moore: "These many many people believe that the "social democrats" put out of power this year are essentially the same as those who were in power in 1956."

There are many people who believe that Elvis is still alive, or that UFOs determine the course of human affairs. The issue isn't really whether someone believes something - people believe in all kinds of things, but whether they are right to do so.

If someone can show me when in the past 20 years the MSZP collectivized agriculture; introduced a planned economy; abolished private ownership of industry; banned FIDESZ and locked its supporters in labour camps - then I will accept that the MSZP and the MDP (or even the MSZMP) were the same. There are lots of things to criticize the MSZP for, but in making the case the way they do FIDESZ are guilty of woeful ignorance of the difference between periods, hysteria and an extraordinary lack of proportion.

Kevin Moore: "You will probably call these many many people woefully ignorant - this is something you often do, especially with the ones having higher education than you"

Why is it that the right always likes insults when it loses arguments? I should warn you though that I have a PhD in post-war Hungarian history - in most systems around the world it is impossible to be any more highly qualified to speak about what I am discussing here than that. I think that if you continue down this line of argument, you will end up looking rather silly.

[Alias3T]

"There are many many people in Hungary who firmly believe that an unfinished business was settled this spring."

I haven't met any of them, and I meet quite a lot of people, both in the capital and beyond it, relatively few of them bearded intellectuals.

In fact, the only people who claim to think this are OV and people reading from his script. Which is why I think both of you are writing these posts on at least a semi-professional basis.

I know plenty of people who voted Fidesz, plenty who are pleased there is a new government, many who hated the Socialists, and even many (though fewer than a few months ago), who are pleased with this government's achievements.

None of them ever seem to imply they see the April elections as having been 'more than an election', a 'settling of accounts', or as something that heralded a new era. Like most people in democracies who have just seen the party they backed get into office, they talk of it as an electoral result that they're pleased with.

I guess that seems inadequate if you believe you have a nation to rescue.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Kevin Moore: "You will probably call these many many people woefully ignorant - this is something you often do, especially with the ones having higher education than you"

Whom do you have in mind? I mean people with higher education. Who are they?

[Eva S. Balogh]

Mark: "Why is it that the right always likes insults when it loses arguments? I should warn you though that I have a PhD in post-war Hungarian history - in most systems around the world it is impossible to be any more highly qualified to speak about what I am discussing here than that."

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. This guy doesn't even bother to check the credentials of the people he is trying to argue with. It would be easy enough if he took the trouble. Mark has a webpage and I have my bio on this blog.

[Passing Stranger]

Though PhD's in Hungarian history can come in handy now and again, you don't need one to understand how utterly ludicrous it is to compare 1956 and 2010.

In contrast to Alias3t I have come across this revolutionary sentiment. It is especially popular with the younger generation, in Jobbik circles but is also current with Fidesz supporters. Witness the speech of Gergely Pongrácz to the Jobbik founding meeting: Jobbik has already tried to appropriate 1956 years ago. This kind of sloganeering has been going on a lot, especially online, where it has spread to Fidesz supporters. It is certainly something of the last 4-5 years, prior to the 2006 street battles this comparision was mostly absent from public debate. Although, I have to admit, even the staunchest countryside Fidesz supporters did not allege this was an actual reviolution.

These students like to imagine themselves to be heroes similar to the revolutionaries fighting Soviet tanks in 1956. It is very similar to the 'anti-Fascism' of the 1960s generation in Germany: sheltered by the safety of democratic institutions, more than twenty years after communism collapsed ignomiously, these people have found that the time has now come to join the anti-communist resistance, made easier by the fact that they do not actually have to face Soviet tanks, but merely an incompetent and geriatric socialist party support base.

What is curious is the one-sidedness of the attack. If Fidesz supporters were really worried about communist flunkies, then surely they would be up in arms about Pál Schmitt being president of Hungary.

[frank]

Eva: it would be nice for a change if you included something positive about Hungary/Hungarians in your blog. Spectrum to me means that all angles are covered, bad to good. It is depressing to read so many negative comments. Hungary is certainly not alone with her problems.May be our English friends could point out issues/events that surprised them - in a good way.

[OpenDog]

Talking to my homies it seems to me that mainly the older generation is clinging to this idea of "silent revolution". Younger generation simply bumped the other party because it didn't work out (at least they believe so). This "56 thing" will go away in 20 years. I asked my father what is the difference between this election and the one in 98? Was that a revolution too? I just got yelled at .. :-) Let me pick your Phd brains on one thing that bugs me. Why the Antall government didn't take care of the commie issue in the early 90's? Why didn't they outlaw the MSZP, ban the Nepszabadsag, prosecute communists (even Kadar)? Maybe there is some kind of lingering guilt or shame that some people want to get rid of by promoting this "silent revolution" idea of the April elections ?

[An]

@Open Dog
Here is my non-PhD answer, but coming from someone who was 18 in 1989. I am greatly disturbed by the black-and-white representation that today's politicians paint of the old regime, obscuring the difference between the 80s with the 50s, the MSZP with the MSZMP, etc. In the 80s and in 1989 nothing was black and white, good and evil… it wasn’t as simple as that. It was GREY.

The old communist party, MSZMP had basically died out with the death of Kadar in the summer of 1989. Much of the party membership by this time was so-called reform-communists who thought that transformation into democracy was desirable. The hardliners (those who did not believe in democratic changes) were a minority. (By the way, among these reform-communist was Pozsgay Imre, who, if I understand correctly, is going to be involved in putting together the new Constitution).

During the course of the year MSZMP had been willingly participating in negations with the opposition on holding elections. Then, in October 1989 MSZMP dissolved itself. Two successor parties were formed: the Workers Party (Munkaspart) who carried on the old communist ideology, and MSZP, a pro-democracy and pro-market party in the left. The opposition formed their parties as well, MDF, SZDSZ, and Fidesz; and the first elections were held.

What MSZP did inherit from MSZMP was the old party’s assets, as it was MSZMP’s legal successor…but not its ideology. Whether that was fair or not that’s another question.. but even with all that assets they did loose the first election, which of course wasn’t very surprising. But on what grounds Antall would have gotten rid of them ? MSZP was not a communist party anymore and in a democracy you don’t just get rid of democratic parties.

Also, there was no prosecution of the old communists, because at some level, most people had some ties to the old MSZMP and in most cases it was impossible to fairly judge people’s role in the old regime. Were they guilty in actively engaging in oppression? Were they just part of the system because they had no choice or were blackmailed? Or were they MSZMP members who were supporting democratic changes (reform-communists)?

If you look at some of the prominent names in FIDESZ circles (Schmitt Pal, Csanyi Sandor, Demjan Sandor); they all started their political or business careers in the 80s, in the old system. Demjan, for example, was the top manager of Skala-Coop, Hungary’s main retail chain in the 80s… it was impossible to get such a position without party connections. The “Communists” of the 80s are not only present in MSZP today, but in other parties as well… and just the fact that they were involved in MSZMP party politics in the 80s, doesn’t mean that they are “evil Communists”. MSZP, as a party, is not subscribing to the communist ideology, and neither do its members. Not to mention the fact that more and more of the MSZP members are of a younger generation … they had nothing to do with the Communist regime.

[peter]

after 8 years of Mszp governing, and corruption cases, no miracle that disappointed people could be taken to streets, and for voting, and no miracle that these people are trusting in new government..these people will be desappointed again - as they were the past 20 years,because politicians, and people generally will not change, politicians will not be more fair, they want power so much...- the only question is: when? and the other question is, if they (and us) will have the right to vote again in democratic circumstances in 2014.

[Diótörő]

Mark: Stating that some of the objectives of '56 and the vote of 2010 are identical, does NOT change anything in connection with the facts and historical events of '56 - any such accusation is a malevolant distortion of my statement. I do not believe that someone with a PhD is the supreme authority on history and his (her) opinion should be accepted as the final argument. (Isn' that a pity that for a long time we were deprived of the chance of reading good PhDs on '56, e. g. Bill Lomax's book was banned in Hungary by one of the great, progressive European social democrats, Mme Ledvai, when she had not yet known that she was a social democrat, and was but an arrogant communist censor.) And her presence in today's Hungarian politics is a powerful argument in drawing up the personal and ideological connections between the communist party and the so-called MSZP. It is noteworthy that Mark does not say much about my arguments in connection with Mme Balogh's strong and utterly unfair bias or with most others things, but criticizes my humble person instead. Frank's statement is right, but vain: it is no use to expect anything positive about Hungary from people like Mme Balogh. Now they suddenly realized that Hungary is a Nazi state, the suitcases of some of them are already packed, they are ready to go (most of them won't, but it is such a nice demonstration of their sentiments regarding this fascist regime). The same people did not have any objection to the parties that, I repeat again, ruined Hungary three (3) times in thirty (30) years. During their rule there was no nazism, everything was all right. Who cared that the entire country was drowning in corruption, the national debt soared etc. The point is that Mme Balogh and people thinking similarly can now give vent to their hatred against Mr Orbán. Naturally, all in the spirit of tolerance, flexibility, and the open and European style of debate that they so often demand from conservatives. It would really be silly to continue this line of discussion.

[Passing Stranger]

"Why the Antall government didn't take care of the commie issue in the early 90's? Why didn't they outlaw the MSZP, ban the Nepszabadsag, prosecute communists (even Kadar)?"

Well. Kádár was dead by then, so that would have been difficult. To An's answer one might add that in Hungary the party pretty much relinquished power voluntarily, unlike in, for instance, Czechoslovakia, the GDR or Romania. Unlike in Poland, there was no real mass pressure from below. Impetus for reform came from within the party itself, for instance from characters like Imre Pozsgay. It is pretty safe to say that had Orbán not existed, communism in Hungary would have collapsed all the same.

There are several reasons why there was no mass purge after 1990: a reward for the peaceful transition of 1989, a desire to look forward rather than backward, a realisation that the country would need the
experts of the old regime, an understanding that most people had in some way collaborated, and so a purge would be massively disruptive, and also affect many conservative politicians and church figures. In fact, there would be no end to it. If you'd ban Népszabadság, then you'd have to ban Magyar Nemzet as well, as that was also a regime paper.
Extremely important, however, is that in Hungary the right never expected that the MSzP would ever manage to gain power through the ballot box.

In Hungary, the right sees itself as the natural, and only legitimate ruler of the country, the MSzP election victory in 1994 came as a slap in the face. Since then, the right has responded with all the fury of a spurned lover. It was never just enough for the right to win an election, but it needed a 'revolution' and a 'system of national cooperation' rather than a government.

@ Nutcracker:
"Now they suddenly realized that Hungary is a Nazi state, the suitcases of some of them are already packed, they are ready to go (most of them won't"

Unlike most Fidesz voters Dr (not: Mme) Éva Balogh actually did take part in a proper revolution, and left Hungary in 1956. Both as an academic and participant her assessment of the goals of 56 carries more weight than the transparant political exploitation of the revolution by Fidesz.

[Mark]

Diótörő: "And her presence in today's Hungarian politics is a powerful argument in drawing up the personal and ideological connections between the communist party and the so-called MSZP."

Perhaps, but no more than the presence of the former MSZMP activist and official in the Education Ministry during the 1980s, Rózsa Hoffman as a state secretary in the current government is of personal and ideological connections between the MSZMP and FIDESZ.

[Mark]

Open Dog: "Why the Antall government didn't take care of the commie issue in the early 90's? Why didn't they outlaw the MSZP, ban the Nepszabadsag, prosecute communists (even Kadar)?"

Firstly, political justice is difficult to do - in the interests of basic stability there has to be a certain amount of institutional continuity. As a state party the MSZMP required loyalty, and often membership, from those in leading positions in the state bureaucracy and the economy. As is commonly recognized in most of post-war western Europe the scope of postwar de-Nazification was quite limited.

Secondly, Hungary aspired to be a European style democracy, and this generally means that a broadly social democratic party is present as a major political force. In 1990, the electorate could have placed an anti-Communist social democratic party into a leading position on the left, as happened in the Czech Republic. The MSZDP couldn't even get the 4% necessary in that election to win parliamentary representation; the MSZP was chosen by most left-wing voters as their best representative. Like it or not, the MSZP has been a very successful democratic party - it has topped the poll in four of the six elections post-1989, and has been able to form the government after three of them. In terms of its share of first round votes in the previous decade it was the most supported of the left-wing parties in the EU. Even after presiding over unprecedented disasters over the past four years, it polled one in five votes in April, and one in four votes in October. Because of that popular support it is an integral part of the democratic system in Hungary, and looking at it in a long-term perspective it is not likely to disappear. Hungary couldn't really have a meaningful democratic system by banning a well supported current of opinion.

Thirdly, Communist and even post-Communist parties have a legitimacy within Hungary's European neighbourhood. Despite the Cold War, Communists were part of the anti-fascist alliance that defeated Hitler and in most western European democracies (the most notable exception being West Germany) Communist parties were never banned. With the end of the Cold War post-Communist parties have become a legitimate part of the western European political spectrum. They have participated as junior coalition partners in French governments (1981-4; 1997-2002), and as senior partners in Italian governments (1996-2001; 2006-8). An anti-Communism that was too overt would be seen as contravening European norms and values.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Mark: "As a state party the MSZMP required loyalty, and often membership, from those in leading positions in the state bureaucracy and the economy."

The people who want\ to get rid of all the communists today seem to forget (or they don't even know) that in Hungary there were 800,000 party members! Majority of them white-collar workers. So, where would one draw the line? This communist party member is OK while another not? How high in the hierarchy should people lose their rights as citizens? Difficult, if not impossible questions.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Mark: "Perhaps, but no more than the presence of the former MSZMP activist and official in the Education Ministry during the 1980s, Rózsa Hoffman as a state secretary in the current government is of personal and ideological connections between the MSZMP and FIDESZ."

Ms. Hoffmannn is a piece of work! She has the temerity to claim that the only reason she joined the party was that otherwise she was unable to teach! The biggest lie I have ever heard. I had a relative by marriage who was an almost bigotted Catholic. And he was a teacher. One day he was hauled in--it was sometime in the mid-1960s--and he was told that they wanted him to be the principal. And he answered: "But I'm a clerical reactionary." They told him that it didn't matter.

[Mark]

Éva: "The people who want to get rid of all the communists today seem to forget (or they don't even know) that in Hungary there were 800,000 party members!"

There were 816,622 party members in June 1988 (10.3% of the adult population), of which 44.7% worked in white-collar jobs.

Stigmatizing 10.3% of any population is not good for social stability, even if it could have ever been done reliably. People forget that the archives of party were not in state ownership until 1993. In the case of local party materials they were returned to most county archives between 1994 and 1996, often in not an especially organized state (as I was one of the first researchers to look at some of the county-level materials after they returned to state hands, I know a bit about it). While the cadre department materials do generally survive (though what is there differs from county-to-county), I have never seen anything like a membership list and I've worked in the records of four of the nineteen counties and in Budapest.

[Kevin Moore]

Mark: I only said that there are many many people who see a direct continuation from the communists in 1956 to the 'social democrats' of today. And this is surely true, there are many such people.
It doesn't automatically mean that they are right, nor does it mean that I agree with them. (I happen to agree with them anyway - but this was not the scope of my previous post.)

You complain about 'the right coming up with insults' but at the same time it's only you and the author of this blog who are repeatedly and systematically calling everyone ignorant who disagree with you.
I call that a shot in the foot.

In general, it shines through all of your posts that you are extremely arrogant and egoistic about your putative high intellectual and education niveau. I suppose (and let me allow this prejudice) you are one of those 'intellectuals' who regard for example intellectuals in technical areas to be inferior - I know many such human-intellectuals - and presume one can't really be more decent in scholarly achievements than you. This probably gives you a too high ground from where you speak down on others.
But let me remind you that many of those people who just call ignorant may be high-class in many areas, something I regard above a high specialization in one area.

Maybe some legal or engineering-type education could provide you with a logic that allows you to see the world from a different angle than you are viewing it from today, which could lead to different conclusions.
And to be ontopic: it is easy to see a direct continuation when until not too long ago the president of MSZP was a person who was active in the Kádár regime as one of the top censors.

[GW]

A reckoning with the past is always difficult and in Hungary particularly so. The events of 1956 were not understood by the participants then in a uniform way — while there were genuine western-style liberal democrats, there were plenty who wanted a return to the pre-war state and plenty who wanted a reform of the socialist state. Any identification of 1956 with only one of these strains does great injury to the others and fails to recognize that had 1956 been a revolution leading to a western-style state, all of these strains would have been represented by legitimate political groupings, and further, such an identification refuses to deal with the first elephant in the room, which is the cold war status of Hungary, a situation largely beyond domestic control. While it is true that the party and regime of that era took advantage of the external political and military forces to seize and maintain power, the second elephant in the room is the degree to which, after 1956, the party and the population formed an unspoken contract in which the population essentially acquiesced to the party's monopoly in return for the party ensuring degrees of freedom and a standard of living that was, in many aspects, higher than elsewhere in the Soviet-allied or -controlled states. This leads to the phenomena that not only were more than 10 percent of the population party members, but every party in the post-1989 state has members, often leading members, who were part of that 10 percent. The problem with a clean reckoning is self-evident in that, after 40 years, two generations of Hungarians had had to come to a functional relationship with the state and party structure, as it was, not as one would have liked it to be. Yes, it may be possible to isolate those who were most responsible for the worst acts and policies, or most loyal to Moscow rather than Budapest, but most cases are not so clear. The training, talent, and expertise required to run a state and the enterprises spun from state- to private control were largely to be found in cohorts which had taken fullest advantage of whatever real structures existed, including the party. In all likelihood it was a long-term strategic error for the MSzP not to have made a cleaner break with the state party of the past, and — cruelly ironic as it was — it was an equal error of the SZDSZ, a party whose membership included many who had most directly suffered in the era to 1989, to have thought that the Hungarian population would have been understanding of their nuanced approach to the complexities of this history.

[OpenDog]

Mark, it almost feels insulting the way you try to put an equal sign between the MSZMP and the post-war western communist parties. You said: "As a state party the MSZMP required loyalty". No. They stuck an AK into your ass. That wasn't the W-European standard, was it?. The 800k members was a shame, but people simply become members to get a ahead or just to be safe. I had a bunch of collauges who even got the "Foxy-Maxy" degree ... Yes, the line is blurry, but c'mon, Eva, doesn't it feel shameful that a high ranking KISZ official (Gyurcsany) became the prime minister?

Regarding the Antall government, I believe, after their power consolidated, they should have gotten the commies by the balls. I'm not saying a bloody showdown. Mostly propaganda. Posthumus trial of Kadar ( yes, Virginia, you can trial dead people :-) ). This would have brought some kind of closure. What happened is the right in the early 90's just couldn't take it that the Hungarians didn't look at them as the Messiah, they missed their chance and they have been carrying this shame and anger all the way to 2010 elections.

Well, look at the bright side of the Orbanian propaganda machine: if they succeed to sugarcoat what's coming ahead with these natialistic, anti-communist slogans then let them have it. Why not?

[Mark]

Kevin Moore: "Maybe some legal or engineering-type education could provide you with a logic that allows you to see the world from a different angle than you are viewing it from today, which could lead to different conclusions."

Indeed it might. If I had been an engineer I would be able to build bridges or build more fuel efficient engines. As it happens you really wouldn't want to entrust me with building a bridge or sorting out engines. But I do know a bit about 1956. And when people - left or right (and if you doubt that I did tangle with Gyula Hegyi on this issue a few years ago) - talk nonsense about it for political ends I will point this out to them.

[Mark]

GW: " The events of 1956 were not understood by the participants then in a uniform way — while there were genuine western-style liberal democrats, there were plenty who wanted a return to the pre-war state and plenty who wanted a reform of the socialist state."

I do agree with almost all of what you say. I would though just say that if you go through the demands and speeches of those who participated it is very difficult to find anyone who wanted "a return to the pre-war state". Of course we don't know what would have happened had the Soviet Union not intervened on 4th November, but the evidence of most of those who participated - and even from politically conservative positions - is that they sought a return to a system more like that in place during the coalition era between 1945 and 1947.

Kádár's police were anxious to prove that participants in the revolution had been motivated by a desire to restore the pre-war regime, often tragi-comically so. One case I found in the archives was of one - not so important member of a workers' council - who attracted the unusual attention of the police and prosecutors because during a search of his house they had found property in the cellar wrapped in a newspaper published on the day of Horthy's birthday in 1942, with the Regent's image on.

Cases like this illustrate the lack of any real evidential basis for the "counter revolution" myth that the courts and propaganda like the "white books" presented during the late 1950s. On of the things I find ironic is that FIDESZ's view of the Revolution is a kind of mirror image of the Kádárist myth (it, of course, celebrates precisely those things that Kádár sought to condemn), and it therefore has more in common with this myth than with an historically reputable account of the events themselves.

[Eva S. Balogh]

A small correction to this: "And he answered: "But I'm a clerical reactionary." They told him that it didn't matter."

Actually what he said was: "De én klerikális vagyok." Mind you he was also a reactionary, but that was my own opinion.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Mark: "There were 816,622 party members in June 1988 (10.3% of the adult population), of which 44.7% worked in white-collar jobs"

Of course, this is your turf. It was a number of years ago that I checked the numbers and it seems that I remembered well enough. Obviously, I was off on the number of white-collar workers, but I do remember that it was a constant struggle to attract enough bona fide workers.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Kevin Moore: "You complain about 'the right coming up with insults' but at the same time it's only you and the author of this blog who are repeatedly and systematically calling everyone ignorant who disagree with you."

I certainly don't call people ignorant unless I sense that they are. For example, you have been factually mistaken on a number of issues and instead of admitting your error you call Mark and myself undereducated.

As for your example of the engineer who will bring new insights to history that can certainly happen. That is if the engineer knows something about history. If not, his engineering knowledge is not worth tinker's damn.

I know someone who is a theoretical physicist whose hobby is history. Well, with him it is worth discussing for example early Hungarian history. He knows more about it than I do because he has been studying the period for years.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Open Dog: "I had a bunch of collauges who even got the "Foxy-Maxy" degree ... Yes, the line is blurry, but c'mon, Eva, doesn't it feel shameful that a high ranking KISZ official (Gyurcsany) became the prime minister?"

So, the bunch of your colleagues who even got a Foxy-Maxy degree were alright, after all they did it because they wanted to get ahead. (I have my opinion of these people too, but obviously we have different standards.) However, Gyurcsány who as a university students decided to accept an invitation to be KISZ secretary of his university because he received a decent monthly wage was despicable.

By that time KISZ was not a serious political organization. The leaders were organizing dances and such. Did you read anything about that part of Gyurcsány's life or you are just talking through your hat?

[Eva S. Balogh]

To GW and to Mark about the nature of the 1956 revolution. You two are perfectly right. It all started as a reform movement but with the reappearance of the parties a mult-party democracy was in the making.

No one wanted to return to the Horthy regime although Mindszenty's speech was somewhat worrisome.

[Kormos]

A few questions to the Historians:
Was there ever any chance that the Russians would leave Hungary, similarly as they did in the Austrian example?
I am almost convinced the AVH knew about every university groups, Petofi Circle, Irodalmi Ujsag etc.
As rumor has it, some was arrested for telling a political joke.
How come the AVH tolerated all of above till the evening of October 23rd.?
Is there any evidence, that functionaries (with potentially and secretly established bank account(s) in the West) left Hungary between Oct 23rd. and November 4th. ?
If yes, how did these “heroes” escaped scrutiny in the West?

[Kormos]

People signed up for Foxy-Maxi degrees to satisfy job requirements, or escape other inconvenient service, like serving in the Workers Guard (Munkasorseg). B.T.W does it sound better than Magyar Garda?
They also did it for “study vacations”. It was not totally useless, because they had to hone their writing and public speaking skills.

[OpenDog]

@Eva Wasn't Gyurcsany the KISZ premier secretary of the city of Pecs (KISZ Pécs városi bizottságának első titkárát) for 4 years, then the KISZ Central Committee Secretary (KISZ KB egyetemi főiskolai tanácsának elnöke)? Finally in January 1989 he got the highest position in the KISZ (KISZ KB titkára). This was usually a stepping stone to Kadar's "politburo" (központi bizottság). This sounds like a typical career Communist not a starving student taking a position in a dance club. This guy was willingly climbing the ladder of totalitarian communist regime. It's a shame his party made him prime minister. No surprise he didn't work out and his party went down in flames.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Open Dog: You know what. I will explain to you what was going on in Pecs. By the way, you know what Stumpf was doing in those days?

[Eva S. Balogh]

Open Dog: I have a question for you. Before I write something about Gyurcsany's political career, I would like to know how old you are. It would help me to know

[OpenDog]

@Eva Let's make a deal: you tell me what was going on in Pecs then I tell you how old I am ...

If you think I'm one of the FIDESZ freaks, your wrong. I think Stumpf was the president of the Patriotic People's Front (Hazafias Nepfront). This is as shameful as a KISZ KB secretary in the prime minister's seat.

See, this is why I'm saying that the Antall government had the opportunity to make it clear: commies are not welcome in the countries leadership but they blew it. Now 20 years later it makes no sense to start any witch hunt: the MSZP is the de-facto left wing. Leave them alone. This is what we deserve. I'm not advocating prison term for Gyurcsany. West from us no politician with Gyurcsany's or Stumpf's past would be elected. I'm just promoting the reason why GYF should be rejected (and was indeed rejected by the 2/3).

[Mark]

Kormos: "Was there ever any chance that the Russians would leave Hungary, similarly as they did in the Austrian example?"

Personally, I don't think so - though this is debated by historians, and as you may know Charles Gati published a book in Hungary and the United States four years ago presenting the opposite case.

The position of both the domestic Communists and the Soviet Union was far weaker in Austria than in Hungary. Way back in 1945 Communists only won 5.45% in Austria, compared to 16.95% in Hungary. While Hungary was occuppied until 1947 by only the Red Army, Austria was under four-power occupation. If they had wished to create a dictatorship in the country it would only have worked in the Soviet zone (eastern Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland), and by 1950 it was clear that they lacked sufficient support for this. Therefore by 1955 it was far from clear what the Soviet Union would do with its territories in Austria.

However, it seems that by allowing Austria to become a neutral state Moscow hoped it could create circumstances of thaw which would allow for an eventual solution of the German question. In 1955-6, Hungary - with Moscow's blessing - pursued a policy of rapprochment with Austria that led to the dismantling of the barbed wire and minefields along the border in summer 1956.

If, however, the Soviet Union had lost Hungary to neutrality as a consequence of a popular revolution that would have represented a huge blow to Moscow's prestige, which may have led to the collapse of the eastern bloc. We know about the extraordinary impact of the Polish events as well as the Hungarian Revolution in neighbouring countries. We also now know about the instability in the Soviet Union itself following Khrushchev's February 1956 speech revealing the crimes of Stalin. Moscow could not afford to lose Hungary. However, it knew that military intervention would also seriously dent its prestige, and as I read the evidence they would rather have seen Imre Nagy "bring the situation under control". It was thus when they felt that he was incapable and unwilling to do this that they decided to topple him by force.

Kormos: "I am almost convinced the AVH knew about every university groups, Petofi Circle, Irodalmi Ujsag etc."

Absolutely. By the time the Petőfi Circle met the party was deeply split between those who supported Imre Nagy and reform, and those who backed the leadership. The Petőfi Circle was indeed initially organized within DISZ (the Communist youth organization) by Nagy's supporters to provide a forum for young people to debate the future of Communism. After collectivization was renewed after Nagy's removal in 1955 the countryside was in revolt, and there was substantial working-class discontent over economic policy. To this was added the impact of Khrushchev's revelations of Stalin's crimes which raised the issue of Rákosi's own culpability and suitability. The party literally exploded - you only have to read the minutes of the closed party members' meetings to discuss the contents of the speech to understand just how explosive this was within the party. Over the spring and summer they lost control over the situation - and I suspect that even the ÁVH was split (for every case I know where they committed atrocities in October, I also know of cases - particularly among border guard troops - where units simply went straight over to the side of the Revolution).

Before 23 October we are really talking about a broad popular movement throughout the party, among intellectuals, students, and even in some factories for a democratization of the socialist system - for radical reform. It was when the party leadership refused to hear demands for change that the climate was created that turned it into a Revolution.

Kormos: "Is there any evidence, that functionaries (with potentially and secretly established bank account(s) in the West) left Hungary between Oct 23rd. and November 4th. ?"

I don't have any evidence of this happening. I do know, however, that both the Austrian authorities and the revolutionary committees established in border cities like Sopron were concerned to prevent the escape of especially ÁVH officers through the western border.

[Kevin Moore]

Mark: I think you missed my remark about one of the top censors being the the president of MSZP until recently.
I think it was not a coincidence.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Kevin Moore: "I think you missed my remark about one of the top censors being the the president of MSZP until recently." Top censor? You're out of your mind. Self-censorship worked like a charm. One didn't need official censors.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Open Dog: "@Eva Let's make a deal: you tell me what was going on in Pecs then I tell you how old I am ..."

No deal. I want to know before. Mostly because I have the sneaking suspicion that you are not old enough to really understand the atmosphere of the 1980s in Hungary and you imagine some terribly doctrinaire KISZ leader who is doing some terrible things to his fellow students. By then KISZ was a dying institution, barely functioning. Gyurcsány didn't become KISZ secretary because of some ideological commitment but because he was tempted by a nice monthly salary that was a godsend to him. He came from a very poor family. By then it was a "gittegylet" to quote our immortal Ferenc Molnár.

[Passing Stranger]

"Was there ever any chance that the Russians would leave Hungary, similarly as they did in the Austrian example?"

Well, they did leave Romania in 1958 as well, so there was no hard rule that Soviet troops needed to stay in a satellite. At the time there was a lot of speculation about adopting a Finnish stance: independence but benevolent neutrality towards the USSR. However, Mark correctly points out that the Soviet leadership was spooked by the rapid derailing of events in Hungary in 1956, especially by the abandoning of the party monopoly on power and the demand for Hungarian neutrality. The latter suggests that, unlike after 1989, in 1956 there were few circumstances in which Soviet troops would have withdrawn. In the end, of course, the Soviet Union did voluntarily dismantle its empire, but in 1956 the circumstances did not favour such an abdication.

Kormos: "Is there any evidence, that functionaries (with potentially and secretly established bank account(s) in the West) left Hungary between Oct 23rd. and November 4th. ?"

There were some party members and functionaries among the refugees, though mainly on the local level. These would not have been people with the means to establish secret bank accounts, and I don't know about anything like that happening.
Certainly Western authorities were worried about communists or even spies being among the refugees. When found out in the USA, these were repatriated, so, they did not escape scrutiny. As communists had participated in revolutionary committees, workers' councils or even in the armed uprising, some of them were quite legitimately refugees.

[Mark]

Kevin Moore: " I think you missed my remark about one of the top censors being the the president of MSZP until recently."

You have been a little careless and very inattentive. Your remark was posted under your other psyeudonym Diótörő (whom of course you always agree with) and I replied. Do come on - you didn't think I'd believe that anyone who thinks that the English language contains words like "niveau", or terms like "human intellectual" could possibly be really called Kevin Moore did you?

[Mark]

" Your remark was posted under your other psyeudonym Diótörő"

I should have said - originally posted

[OpenDog]

@Eva I have the feeling that you will tell me anyway what was going on in Pecs ... I'm sure Mark is also biting his nails waiting to know what went down in Pecs :-)

The way you are skewing the facts of Gyurcsany's bio is very cute. There was a big difference being a small time busy-bee KISZ secretary in your college or being a KISZ secretary in the KISZ KB. My problem is the latter obviously. It is an ideological statement: I have no problem taking a prominent position in the ruling elite who just destroyed my country in the past 30+ years. And this is by my opinion is a serious character flaw.

It's so tragic how this Eva vs. FIDESZ show (or the April elections for that matter) boils down to a "my commie is better than your commie" argument.

[Kormos]

Thank you all for the answers.

[Eva S. Balogh]

OpenDog: ": I have no problem taking a prominent position in the ruling elite who just destroyed my country in the past 30+ years."

Oh, my God! It gets worse and worse. Wake up! Thirty years? So, since 1980? Why exactly from 1980? Unfortunately, you have very little understanding the history of your own country.

By the way, you include in these thirty years the four years when Orban was in power?

[OpenDog]

@Eva Ahh, I'm sorry I have terrible writing skills ...

I wrote:
"It is an ideological statement: I have no problem taking a prominent position in the ruling elite who just destroyed my country in the past 30+ years."

With this I wanted to describe why becoming a KISZ KB secretary is an "ideological statement" (by GYF). That is why the colon (:) is there. So he become KB secretary in 89 that's why the 30+. I hope you don't dispute that the 30+ years before 89 destroyed the country.

I apologize for not being clear. I was on the run to take the dog out before it gets dark and I didn't proofread my text.

[Hungarian Calvinist]

What if we conducted a sober discussion about the Prime Minister's speech and his usage of words and expressions resembling me of the lexis of fascists and not necessarily that of the nazis. Because this speech contained a lot of expressions lent from speeches of politicians from parliamentery debates in the pre-WW II era.
And dear commenters, pls refrain from commenting the "contributions" of Diótörő, who is definitely suffering from "orange-blindness" (and I am constantly wondering why commenters like him are not choosing nicknames from the Hun/Magyar prehistory like Attila, Buda, Turul, Turán, Csodaszarvas, Emese, Etelköz et al. and hide behind ETA Hoffmann's /a German and by far not Hungarian/ famous work.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Hungarian Calvinist: "Because this speech contained a lot of expressions lent from speeches of politicians from parliamentery debates in the pre-WW II era."

Perhaps two days ago a linquist was the guest of György Bolgár who analyzed Orbán's speech. He had a long list of turns of phrases that are directly borrowed from Mussolni and yes, Hitler. Of course, it is possible that the borrowing is not direct but came to him through a Hungarian filter from the thirties.

In any case, Bolgár's interviews are available about two days after at www.galamus.hu. I assume that this particular interview will be available tomorrow. But if you are too curious you can listen to it here: http://www.klubradio.hu/index.php?id=33%23c

[Hungarian Calvinist]

Dear Eva,
On the way back home from work I heard that interview in the car with Kalman Laszlo and then I had a click... This guy is speaking about MY sentiments and feelings that I can't conceive in the first run (you know, I am such a "lépcsőházi ember...) Actually, when I'm driving home I'm always listening to Bolgár's program and this interview has just struck me... I could not find better words for that speech than Kálmán...

[Hungarian Calvinist]

Dear Eva,
I think this blog is/will remain one of the bastions of free speech before this idiot "allmighty" Szalai Annamária wants to ban/abolish forums like this. (I do very much hope that this is read by her surveillance team, too... or Fidesz's press department but I don't give sh...t; they can kiss my ... ) Sorry for my French but I am feeling like that...

[Paul]

Well, that round went to Mark by a clear knockout!

And how interesting that the term 'French' is used to mean the same thing by both Hungarians and the English...