WFH Iustitia Committee

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

  cid:<a href=

Fact Finding Report and Analysis of the World Federation of Hungarians

on the Soviet Military Intervention in Hungary in 19561

THE ANTECEDENTS 

In 1956 the Soviet Army committed an aggressive act against Hungary. By this act it overthrew the legal Hungarian Government and ignored the wishes of the Hungarian People. The World Federation of Hungarians held and extraordinary assembly of the delegates, to commemorate the 50th. Anniversary of the 1956 Revolution and passed the following Resolution: 

In October and November 1956 Hungary was attacked by the then most powerful Army in the world. Without a declaration of war, the territory of Hungary became a theatre of Military activities. For the tens of thousands of lost innocent lives and the terrible destruction which took place at the time, the extraordinary commemorative assembly of the World Federation of Hungarians initiated and demands the payment of indemnity from the successor States of the Soviet Union which carried out the aggression.  It sees the possibility of a just and right solution, as the countries in question, have become constitutional democratic states.  

For this reason the WFH established a committee, called the Iustitia Committee with the task and objective to explore, analyse and list the injuries suffered by the Hungarians on the basis of legal, professional, political, military and economic reasoning and initiate the necessary steps towards the competent authorities (Government Judiciary) which have to be taken to achieve legal remedy. 

From this point of time it is the task of the Hungarian State to initiate negotiations to obtain compensation on the basis of the existing facts from the successor states of the late Soviet Union and in case of failure take the case to International Legal Institutions. In case the Hungarian Government refuses to carry out this assignment the World Federation of Hungarians and the Iustitia Committee will do everything in their power in order that Hungary should receive just and rightful restitution.  

_______________________________

[1] Prepared by the Iustitia Committee of the World Federation of Hungarians: Prof. dr. Imre Bokor, dr. László Csendes, Ms. Irén Csukás, Lajos Hiripi, dr. Tibor Léh, Attila Árpád Péteri, Béla Szabó

The different parts were put together: Dr. Imre Bokor and dr. Tibor Léh

The photos were selected and put on CD by: Béla Szabó and Ferenc László

Special bibliography: Irén Csukás

The sum of restitution was prepared in 2007 prices and exchange rates by: Mrs. Annamária Alakszai dr. Oláh

Other participants: Edit Kéri and Atilla Lévay 

Read by: Dr. István Balsai, Pál Fekete, Ms. Eszter Kállai, Lajos Nemes, dr. Márius Padányi, dr. Tibor Pákh, Béla Vanek 

At the meetings of the Iustitia Committee the WFH was represented by: President Miklós Patrubány and honorary president Sándor Rácz, president of the Great Budapest Worker’s Council in 1956 

The present document of the Iustitia Committee was officially accepted by the Presidium of the World Federation of Hungarians the II/2007. (22 May – 7 June) vote (Members voting on 11 different points) 

 

Preambulum 

The history of the Hungarians in the Carpathian basin may be described as a succession of glorious and tragic events following each other.

Because of the Geo-Strategic position of Hungary between the Slav and German spheres of interest its territory often became a battlefield. The first of these battles took place exactly 1100 years ago in 907 when the armies of Grand Duke Árpád defeated the Bavarian attackers.

During the second half of the last millennium in Vis Maior situations which so often happens to small nations Hungary formed temporary, or more permanent alliances either willingly, or under compulsion with various “Great Powers” (Turks, Austrians, Germans, Soviet/Russians) had to accept responsibility for the consequences (see World War I. and II.) and paid an unrealistically high price for unavoidably being drawn into the conflicts of different Empires attempting to rule the World.

It is a historical fact that the Hungarians never started a war to enlarge their territory, never wanted to impose their rule on other people, and wanted to solve the possible conflicts by peaceful means, but at the same time they often took to arms to defend their independence and territorial integrity, against foreign invaders and their home-grown collaborators.

Our fights against the Mongolians (Tatars) and later (mostly) against the Turks in reality also defended Western Europe and were so costly in blood that the population, which earlier was almost the same as that of England and France, was reduced to 1/5th of its former size.

Our Revolution and War of Independence against the Habsburgs in 1848 and 49 subjected our people to further hardships. Despite this, our resolution was firm and without the help of an Army of 200 thousand men sent by Tsar Nicolas I. Hungary would have succeeded in breaking away from the Austrian Empire.

After World War I. (1914-18) on the loosing side we suffered the harshest treatment. We lost 71.4% of our territory, 61.8% of our population and the Reparations Committee of the League of Nations imposed the payment of 200 million Gold Crowns on the weakened, robbed and dismembered Hungary.

For our participation in World War II. (1941-45) the victorious powers took yet more territories from us and imposed the payment of further hundreds of millions of dollars, but the greatest punishment was that the Soviet Union occupied Hungary and introduced the Soviet type of Bolshevik one-party system, which threw our agricultural, industrial, commercial development in every field of human activity back by decades.

In 1956 the Soviet/Russian invaders, following in the time honoured traditions of their Tsarist predecessors sent an Army of 200 thousand soldiers, armed to the teeth to suppress the uprising, which broke out against the puppet Government of Rákosi-Gerő-Farkas, which later developed into a fight for freedom and Independence.

With their vastly superior Army in numbers and equipment they destroyed many buildings on the main roads of Budapest, damaged the roads as well and with the help of their collaborators closed our western borders, captured and killed an even today unknown number of people who were trying to escape from Hungary at that time.

The puppet Government of Kádár, imposed with the help of Soviet bayonets, caused, directly, or indirectly further material and personal losses. They were also responsible for the General Strike, which broke out after the Soviet Military intervention, and the losses caused by them and the loss of around 200 thousand people who escaped from Hungary at that time. The Soviets encouraged and wholeheartedly participated in the reprisals carried out by the Kádár regime as well.

The question as to why after the consolidation of the Kádár regime in May 1957 a further number of Soviet personnel had to be brought “temporarily” to Hungary and its cost should also be examined.

Despite the moral, ideological, material and human losses suffered by the Soviet Union, caused by the Hungarian Revolution, the socialist camp controlled by the Kremlin continued to exist for many more years, and it is only possible at this time to examine the effects of the Soviet aggression against Hungary, raise the question of reparations and claim compensation.

Of the about 14000 wars in the history of Mankind 8000 was followed by some Peace Treaty, and the degree of indemnity extracted was usually decided by the victor. Occasionally the opposing sides agreed on the reparations by negotiations.

The aim of the present work is to explore and bring to light the events of the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence in relation to the Military aggression and intervention by the Soviet Union, based on historical documents, photographs, films, etc., eyewitness accounts and the memoirs of the various participants. Further to list the concrete suggestions on the basis of the collected and prepared material, with the aim of obtaining compensation, naming the collaborating States, organisations and persons, who planned, perpetrated and supported the Soviet intervention and who could be expected to make amends and express their apologies in word or writing to the Hungarian people.

1.   §

LEGAL ANALYSIS

(ANALYSIS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF LEGALITY)

    I. THE EXAMINATION OF GENERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BASIS IN RELATION TO THE EVENTS OF THE 1956 REVOLUTION AND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

(Reparations in International Law, Legal reasoning to obtain compensation for the Soviet attack against Hungary in 1956.)

The concept of reparations already existed even before it was raised in International Legal relationships, but at that time there were many open questions, which could lead to misunderstandings and abuse. It is a basic tenet in Law that one is responsible for one’s actions and for the losses incurred the perpetrator (or perpetrators) can be forced to pay reparations. It is part of civilian, criminal and International Law.

                                                               II.

                     THE BASIS OF REPARATIONS

 

a.)  WAR REPARATION SETTLEMENTS UP TO WORLD WAR II.

The second Peace Conference (Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land), which was held in Hague in 1907, dealt with war reparations and that was the basis for compensation after World War I. It must be noted, that the 1907 agreement was not the first, because prior to this there were many declarations in the second half of the 19th. Century dealing with these problems, but they had no legal force. The antecedents of the 1907 agreements, was the first Peace conference, also held in Hague in 1899.

The agreement contained two clauses.

1.     The members of volunteer units, if led by a responsible officer, had permanent, clear markings, recognisable from a distance, carried their weapons openly and accepted the customs and rules of War were considered to be part of the official regular Army.

2.     Apart from the fighting units an Army may also have non-combatants (priests, doctors, other medical personnel) and in case of capture they must also be treated as Prisoners of War.

There were other rules as well, which if adhered to properly, would greatly reduce the destruction power of the warring States. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. (Art. 22. Hague 1907.)

In short: this is the basis of the regulations and laws, which are aimed at reducing the destructiveness of war. Among the general rules, there are also specific ones as well: it is prohibited to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; to declare that no quarter will be given; to destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; to employ poison or poisoned weapons;

It is also prohibited to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings, which are undefended, is prohibited.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

The representatives, who participated in the 1907 Hague Convention, were of the opinion that the mutually agreed legal points will be a beginning and basis for further legislation regarding the rights of belligerents. Later the Hague Convention was enlarged by the various Geneva Conventions which were originally based in the spirit of the “Red Cross” first established in 1864, elevating it to international levels.

The Peace Treaties after World War I. punished the defeated countries by forcing them to make huge compensation payments to the victorious powers.  Germany had to pay 132 billion Gold Marks, Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary 12 billion each, which in the case of Hungary came to 200 million Gold Crowns.

The victorious powers also passed legislation to compensate not only States, but private individuals as well, which after fulfilling certain conditions were also able to receive compensation.

After World War I. the League of Nations which was a predecessor to today’s United Nations, continuing in the spirit of the, Hague Agreements worked towards the peaceful solution to international conflicts. 

The Peace Treaties after World War II. were signed on the 17th of February 1947 in Paris. Reparations payments were imposed on the defeated countries (Germany, Finland, Italy, Romania and Hungary). In the case of Hungary, this came to 300 million US dollars, of which 200 million had to be paid to the Soviet Union and 50 million each to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. 

b.)  The situation after World War II. after the establishment of the United Nations.    

The main aim of the United Nations, which started work in San Francisco and was later, transferred to New York was to ensure the peaceful co-existence of nations. The Soviet Union was a founding member since October 24 1945 and Hungary became a member on the 17th. of December 1955.

By now almost all the states in the world are members, except Switzerland, The Vatican and Taiwan. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the U. N. Charter bans war and other violent means as the method of solving conflicts.

(All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations.) In the international law it is considered to be a crime to start a war, and as after every committed crime the victim is entitled to compensation. There are many forms of aggression and also of war crimes, for example violence against the civilian population, breach of truce, looting, etc.

  

c.)   The Kuwaiti example. 

On the 2nd of August 1990 Iraq attacked Kuwait. On the 3rd of April 1991 the Security Council of the United Nations declared that Iraq is responsible for the damages caused which occurred in Kuwait during the Iraqi aggression and occupation. 

For this reason a Reparation Committee was established with its head office in Geneva and six different types of compensation basis were accepted.

Living persons and firms (legal entities) could claim compensations through their Government, or international organisations.

The Reparation Committee imposed the payment of several billion dollars on Iraq. These compensation payments were started to be financed by the sale of Iraqi oil, but at the moment due to the prevailing conflicts in Iraq difficulties are experienced. 

III.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SOVIET UNION 

The 1947 Paris Peace Treaty contained a clause, which allowed the Soviet Union to station armed forces in Hungary and Romania for the purpose of maintaining communication lines with its occupying forces in Austria. 

On the 15th of May 1955 Austria became a sovereign neutral state and after this date the task of maintaining Soviet communication lines to Austria came to an end. One day before the acceptance of Austrian neutrality (14th May) they brought into existence the Warsaw Pact Treaty and this made it possible (in the opinion of the Soviets) to continue to station their military units in Hungary. 

After analysing The Warsaw Pact Document, which will follow here, it will be seen that the Pact does not empower any of the participating states to maintain armed forces in the territory of any other member state.  This meant that after the 15th of May 1955 the stationing of Soviet Army units in Hungary was unlawful. 

The document, which was produced with the agreement of the participating states, does not mention or describe the steps by which any of the states could give notice and cease to be a member of the Pact. At the same time it does not empower anybody the use of armed force to prevent a member state wishing to leave the organisation. Paragraph 8 of the document clearly forbids any interference in the internal affairs of the other member states.

The Warsaw Security Pact: May 14, 1955 

Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance Between the People's Republic of Albania, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Hungarian People's Republic, the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, the Rumanian People's Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Czechoslovak Republic, May 14, 1955

The Contracting Parties, reaffirming their desire for the establishment of a system of European collective security based on the participation of all European states irrespective of their social and political systems, which would make it possible to unite their efforts in safeguarding the peace of Europe; mindful, at the same time, of the situation created in Europe by the ratification of the Paris agreements, which envisage the formation of a new military alignment in the shape of "Western European Union," with the participation of a remilitarized Western Germany and the integration of the latter in the North-Atlantic bloc, which increased the danger of another war and constitutes a threat to the national security of the peaceable states; being persuaded that in these circumstances the peaceable European states must take the necessary measures to safeguard their security and in the interests of preserving peace in Europe; guided by the objects and principles of the Charter of the United Nations Organization; being desirous of further promoting and developing friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance in accordance with the principles of respect for the independence and sovereignty of states and of non-interference in their internal affairs, have decided to conclude the present Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance and have for that purpose appointed as their plenipotentiaries: who, having presented their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1                                                                                                                     

The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations Organization, to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, and to settle their international disputes peacefully and in such manner as will not jeopardize international peace and security.

Article 2                                                                                                                     

The Contracting Parties declare their readiness to participate in a spirit of sincere cooperation in all international actions designed to safeguard international peace and security, and will fully devote their energies to the attainment of this end. The Contracting Parties will furthermore strive for the adoption, in agreement with other states, which may desire to cooperate in this, of effective measures for universal reduction of armaments and prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction.

Article 3                                                                                                                    

The Contracting Parties shall consult with one another on all important international issues affecting their common interests, guided by the desire to strengthen international peace and security. They shall immediately consult with one another whenever, in the opinion of any one of them, a threat of armed attack on one or more of the Parties to the Treaty has arisen, in order to ensure joint defence and the maintenance of peace and security.

Article 4                                                                                                                      

In the event of armed attack in Europe on one or more of the Parties to the Treaty by any state or group of states, each of the Parties to the Treaty, in the exercise of its right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Organization, shall immediately, either individually or in agreement with other Parties to the Treaty, come to the assistance of the state or states attacked with all such means as it deems necessary, including armed force. The Parties to the Treaty shall immediately consult concerning the necessary measures to be taken by them jointly in order to restore and maintain international peace and security.           

Measures taken on the basis of this Article shall be reported to the Security Council in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations Organization. These measures shall be discontinued immediately the Security Council adopts the necessary measures to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 5                                                                                                                     

The Contracting Parties have agreed to establish a Joint Command of the armed forces that by agreement among the Parties shall be assigned to the Command, which shall function on the basis of jointly established principles. They shall likewise adopt other agreed measures necessary to strengthen their defensive power, in order to protect the peaceful labours of their peoples, guarantee the inviolability of their frontiers and territories, and provide defence against possible aggression.

Article 6                                                                                                                     

For the purpose of the consultations among the Parties envisaged in the present Treaty, and also for the purpose of examining questions which may arise in the operation of the Treaty, a Political Consultative Committee shall be set up, in which each of the Parties to the Treaty shall be represented by a member of its Government or by another specifically appointed representative. The Committee may set up such auxiliary bodies as may prove necessary.

Article 7                                                                                                                    

The Contracting Parties undertake not to participate in any coalitions or alliances and not to conclude any agreements whose objects conflict with the objects of the present Treaty. The Contracting Parties declare that their commitments under existing international treaties do not conflict with the provisions of the present Treaty.

Article 8                                                                                                                    

The Contracting Parties declare that they will act in a spirit of friendship and cooperation with a view to further developing and fostering economic and cultural intercourse with one another, each adhering to the principle of respect for the independence and sovereignty of the others and non-interference in their internal affairs.

Article 9                                                                                                                    

The present Treaty is open to the accession of other states, irrespective of their social and political systems, which express their readiness by participation in the present Treaty to assist in uniting the efforts of the peaceable states in safeguarding the peace and security of the peoples. Such accession shall enter into force with the agreement of the Parties to the Treaty after the declaration of accession has been deposited with the Government of the Polish People's Republic.

Article 10                                                                                                                   

The present Treaty is subject to ratification, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Polish People's Republic. The Treaty shall enter into force on the day the last instrument of ratification has been deposited. The Government of the Polish People's Republic shall notify the other Parties to the Treaty as each instrument of ratification is deposited.

Article 11                                                                                                                   

The present Treaty shall remain in force for twenty years. For such Contracting Parties as do not at least one year before the expiration of this period present to the Government of the Polish People's Republic a statement of denunciation of the Treaty, it shall remain in force for the next ten years. Should a system of collective security be established in Europe, and a General European Treaty of Collective Security concluded for this purpose, for which the Contracting Parties will unswervingly strive, the present Treaty shall cease to be operative from the day the General European Treaty enters into force. ..

Done in Warsaw on May 14, 1955, in one copy each in the Russian, Polish, Czech and German languages, all texts being equally authentic. Certified copies of the present Treaty shall be sent by the Government of the Polish People's Republic to all the Parties to the Treaty.

In witness whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and affixed their seals.

Instruments of ratification deposited by Poland, May 19, 1955; by the German Democratic Republic, May 24, 1955; by Czechoslovakia, May 27, 1955; by Bulgaria, May 31, 1955; by the U. S. S. R., June 1, 1955; by Hungary, June 2, 1955; by Rumania June 3, 1955; and by Albania, June 6, 1955; entered into force June 6, 1955.

_________________________________________________________________________

To continue to maintain their occupation of Hungary the Soviets increased the number of troops stationed here, deposed the legal Hungarian Government and with the help of the puppet Government of Kádár prepared the ground to place their nuclear weapons nearer to the West in the Transdanubia area of Hungary.

Due to the Soviet right of veto, the Security Council of the United Nations failed to condemn their aggression against Hungary in 1956, but the U. N. General Assembly in 1957 did so. In 1992 Boris Yeltsin the President of the Russian Federation accepted responsibility for this aggression, and expressed his apologies to the Hungarian people. In other words, after the ending of the Soviet dictatorship, the leader of the successor states accepted responsibility.

 

IV.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DAMAGES CAUSED   

The case of Kuwait may be used as a (specific) precedent, considering that the United Nations set up a Special Committee to assess the extent and scale of damages. In the case of Hungary it would be preferable from a legal point of view that, after the official assessment of the damages caused, to request the help of International experts and with their support Hungary should claim damages from the Soviet successor states.  

The damages caused may not only be material (e.g. destroyed houses) but economical as well. Moral or spiritual damages are not recognised in International Law, and there is no precedent, which could be referred to. It would be a good starting point to use the assessment compiled by the Kádár regime for the damages caused by the “1956 Counter Revolution” which came to 20 billion H Ft., at 1957 price levels.

 

V.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUCCESSOR STATES 

The question arises that after the disintegration of the Soviet Union from whom will it be possible to claim compensation. According to International Law the responsibility of the successor states is beyond any dispute. First of all, that of the Russian Federation, but also that of the Ukraine and Byelorussia as well. The provisions of the Vienna Convention on succession of States in respect of treaties signed on the 23rd of August 1978 confirm this.  

The agreement describes two different types of cases.  On the one hand, a country regaining its independence after having been occupied and colonized starts with a clean bill. On the other, the principle of continuity is followed when certain parts of a formerly bigger state break away and declare their independence.  

The agreement defines the following basic principle:

All treaties and agreements, which were in force at the time of disintegration, remain in force on the entire territory of the former State, which of course includes all the successor States. (Paragraph 34)

International Law differentiates between the different situations: The uniting of two or more countries into one State (e.g. the two former German States), or the peaceful dividing of on State into two new States, (Czechoslovakia), or hostile, acrimonious breaking up, (Yugoslavia). In our case International Law recognises the Russian Federation as the successor, or continuity of the Soviet Union. One of the criterions of this continuity was the fact that the Russian Federation was a major participant among the member states of the former Soviet Union, played a determining role, was one of the biggest geographically and was one of the Great Powers of the world as well. 

Belarus and the Ukraine possess only partial continuity, as both countries were founding members of the United Nations and ratified several resolutions in their own name, which (at the same time) pertained to the Soviet Union as well. 

In his letter to the Secretary of the United Nations, on the 24th of December 1991, President Boris Yeltsin put on record, that the Russian Federation considers itself, as the Successor State to the Soviet Union. Yuri Mihailovich Voroncov, Russia’s permanent representative in the United Nations made a similar declaration on the 27th of January 1992 that the Russian Federation accepts the principal of continuity and also accepts responsibility for the treaties and agreements to which the Soviet Union was a party. From this it follows that the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.

 

VI.

STATUTORY LIMITATION   

By attacking Hungary in 1956 the Soviet Union committed an internationally recognised criminal act. It is self evident that during the Soviet occupation and dictatorship of their Hungarian puppet Government it was not possible to raise the question of responsibility, or claim reparations.

In this situation the principle of Statutory Limitation does not apply. Furthermore some of the perpetrated crimes were “Crimes against Humanity” in which case there is no Statute of Limitation.

VII.

CONCLUSION  

It is an undisputed fact that in October and November 1956 units of the Red Army of the Soviet Union attacked Hungary without even a Declaration of War. Although the Hungarian Revolutionaries, some units of the Hungarian army and Police, civilians, etc., fought valiantly, they were no matches against the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet forces. Thousands of people were killed and also a great deal of material and economic damage was caused. This unprovoked aggression was admitted by the leaders of the Russian Federation, the Successor State to the Soviet Union. According to the tenets of International Law, the Soviet Union committed a crime.

It is imperative that based on the relevant International Legal Statues, the Hungarian Government, the President of Hungary give their support to further the work of the Iustitia Committee and use every means at their disposal to reach all possible International Forums.

It is the rightful claim of the Hungarian People that the Revolution and War of Independence of 1956, which although militarily crushed by the Soviet Union, was acclaimed by the World as a Moral Victory, should now also receive material compensation.

………………………………………………

  …………………………..

……………..

 

2. §.

POLITICAL ANALYSIS

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Soviet Union having replaced Tsarist Russia continued to pursue its predecessors’ expansionist, territory grabbing policy, russianising the conquered people and extending the Soviet dictatorship to every walk of life.

This line of conduct was started by V. I. Lenin when in 1917, he gave his blessing (in words) to Finland’s intention of breaking away, but almost at the same time gave orders to start military action against the Fins.

The Fin Government issued its declaration of independence on the 6th of December 1917 signed by President Stalberg, but within the same month armed anti Government demonstrations took place, organised by the Fin communists and supported by the Soviets.

In January 1918 General Svesnikov’s 42nd Army Corps (Whose commissar was the leader of the Fin Communist Party: Otto Kuusinen) joined the Fin counter revolutionary anti Government forces. The fierce fighting continued till May, when the Fins lead by General Mannerheim managed to chase the Red Interventionist forces out of their country.

The Reds even then didn’t give up their intention of forcing Finland back into the Soviet camp and established a Cadre School in Petrograd for the future Red Army of Finland.

Kuusinen stayed in Moscow where he held various important positions, his wife Aino Kuusinen helped his work with some secret assignments, but in 1937 she was arrested and taken to the Vorkuta Gulag. His wife’s arrest didn’t affect Kuusinen’s carrier adversely, between 1940 and 1957 he was the President of the Karelian Soviet Socialist Republic and from 1957 to 1964 he worked as the Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee.

Kuusinen was awarded the Order of Lenin on three occasions (Kádár only once). Stalin valued those of his colleagues highly who didn’t bat an eyelid when their wives were arrested on tramped up charges and sent to the Gulag. Remember Kalinin, Molotov, Buddoni, Proskrebisev, etc..

Even today there is a street in Moscow bearing Kuusinen’s name.

The so called Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact signed on 23. 08. 1939 in Moscow also confirms the expansionist policy of the Soviets. The two Great Powers, (The Soviet Union and the Third Reich) joined each other in a “Non-aggression Pact” and in a secret clause; they agreed to occupy and divide Poland and give the Baltic States to the Soviets.

It appears to be an unfathomable historical fact that the Soviet attack against Poland, which started on September 17 1939 that is two and a half weeks after the beginning of the German invasion on September 1st 1939, was ignored by the World and war was declared only on Germany by Great Britain and France especially in view of the fact that the Soviets occupied 130,000 Km square of Polish territory, captured 250000 Polish soldiers and deported 1,200.000 polish citizens to the Soviet Union where the majority of them perished, among them the 14,000 Polish officers (most of them members of the reserve army) who were bestially murdered by the NKVD in April and May 1940 in the vicinity of the Katyn region.

Stalin, (following in the footsteps of Lenin) continued the territory grabbing policy and attacked Finland without a Declaration of War on 30th November 1939 tearing out about 50000 Km2 from the body of Finland and annexing it to the Soviet Union.

It is worth stopping here for a moment to study the model as to how the Soviets established their puppet Governments in other Countries. Two days after the Soviet attack, the orthodox Fin Bolshevik Otto Kuusinen (our old acquaintance) appeared near the town of Sosnovo and set up the “People’s Government” in Finland, thereby setting an example for the Norwegian Quisling, the Hungarian Kádár, the Czechoslovak Gustav Husak and the Afghan Babrak Karmal in how to betray one’s country.

Nikita Khrushchev used the same pattern in Hungary in 1956.

Imre Nagy, when he announced that Hungary will leave the Warsaw Pact and took steps to have the Neutrality of Hungary accepted didn’t know about, or didn’t remember the conversation which took place in the “George” chamber of the Kremlin between Juho Kusti Paasaviki (the leader of the Fin delegation) and Stalin, when Paasaviki rejected the Soviet demands to hand over Fin territories, especially the military base in the Hanko peninsula. Paasaviki declared that handing over the Hanko military base is incompatible with Finland’s Neutrality and cannot even be discussed and added that “Finland’s Neutrality is its greatest security”. To this Stalin replied: “I can assure you that the Neutrality of a small country like yours, counts for nothing”.

Stalin’s threat became a reality on the 30th of November 1939. Without Declaration of War 25 Soviet divisions comprising 2400 armoured vehicles, 3500 field guns, and 1600 airplanes, with the naval support of the White Sea Ladoga Lake and Baltic fleets attacked Finland. Helsinki was set on fire, but they were only able to defeat the Fins after further manpower and materials were brought in.

According to Khrushchev the Soviets lost 1 (!) million soldiers, 1000 airplanes 2300 tanks and other armoured vehicles in this war.

The Soviet aggressions, without declarations of war against Finland in 1917, and 1939, are very similar to their aggression against Hungary in 1956. The only change was in the person of the leaders. Instead of Lenin and Stalin Khrushchev was now on the stage, Budapest was shot to pieces like Helsinki earlier. Perhaps these historical examples will be useful in latter times as well.

II.

THE “SCHEMES” OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT IN 1956 

Before we come to the military evaluation and analysis in 3. §, we must study the decisions of Khrushchev and the Soviet Government. What reasons and justifications did they have to order military preparations against Hungary, ignoring Hungarian sovereignty and membership of the Warsaw Pact without any advance warning, prior to October 23.  

The fact that the Batov Divisions were already issued with the order to cross the border and enter Hungarian territory on the 23rd of October at 19.45 means that the Soviet Government had to discuss this question and make a decision several days prior to that.  After that in the Soviet Ministry of Defence the plans had to be worked out in detail and the appropriate orders forwarded to the Army Corps chosen for the task. The designated units also needed time to get the personnel ready and obtain the materials needed (fuel, ammunition, food, medicines, maps, spare parts, etc.), and even working non-stop, it would be impossible to do it in three days. 

Even if the Government decision and the Defence Ministry preparations took altogether only two days, the decision to send Army units to Hungary must have been made five to seven days prior to 23 October.  

It can be seen that Khrushchev misled Mao Ce-tung, Tito and the leaders of the Warsaw Pact countries; he lied to his friends and to the world at large. These packs of lies were supported and enlarged upon by a number of politicians in different countries.

 

III.

CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS PROVING THE HYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE DEALING AND LIES OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

a./ SOVIET GOVERNMENT STATEMENT

Moscow 30. October 1956.

 

SOVIET DECLARATION BY THE TASS:

Friendship and Co-operation Between the Soviet Union and Other Socialist States, October 30, 1956

The principles of peaceful coexistence, friendship, and cooperation among all states have always been and still form the unshakable foundation of the foreign relations of the U.S.S.R. This policy finds its most profound and consistent expression in the relationship with socialist countries. United by the common ideal of building a socialist society and the principles of proletarian internationalism, the countries of the great commonwealth of socialist nations can build their relations only on the principle of full equality, respect of territorial integrity, state independence and sovereignty, and non-interference in one another's domestic affairs. This does not exclude, but on the contrary presupposes, close fraternal cooperation and mutual aid between the countries of the socialist commonwealth in the economic, political, and cultural spheres.

All nations are equal.

It is on this basis that after World War I., and after the rout of fascism the regimes of the People's Democracies came into being in a number of countries of Europe and Asia, which were strengthened and display great vitality.

In the process of the establishment of the new regime and the deep revolutionary transformation in social relations there were not a few difficulties, unsolved problems, and out-and-out mistakes, including some in the relations between the socialist states-violations and mistakes which infringed the principles of equality in relations between socialist states. (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union resolutely condemned these mistakes and violations and demanded that the Soviet Union apply Lenin's principles of the equality of nations in its relations with other socialist states. (Sic!) This statement took complete cognizance of the historical past and the peculiarities of each country, which has taken the road of building a new life. . . .

The Soviet Government will consistently work towards the realisation of the decisions of the XX., Congress, which are of historical importance. These will be on the unshakable  basis of preserving the sovereignty of all Socialist states (emphasis: Iustitia Committee), which will set the conditions to further strengthen the friendship and cooperation of the Socialist states.

As recent events have shown, the need has arisen for an appropriate declaration to be made on the position of the Soviet Union in the mutual relations between the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, primarily in the economic and military spheres. The Soviet Government is ready to discuss with the governments of other socialist states measures insuring the further development and strengthening of economic ties between socialist countries, in order to remove any possibilities of violating the principle of national sovereignty, mutual advantage, and equality in economic relations. (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

This principle should extend also to advisers. It is common knowledge that during the first period of the formation of the new social order, at the request of the governments of the people's democracies, the Soviet Union sent to these countries a certain number of specialists-engineers, agronomists, scientific workers, and military advisers. During the later period the Soviet Government on many occasions asked the socialist states about the recall of its advisers. (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

In view of the fact that by now the people's democracies have formed their own qualified national cadres in all spheres of economic and military construction, the Soviet Government considers it as urgent to examine, together with other socialist states, the question whether a further stay of U.S.S.R. advisers in these countries is expedient.

In the military sphere, the Warsaw Treaty is an important foundation for mutual relations between the Soviet Union and the people's democracies. Its participants took upon themselves appropriate political and military obligations, including obligations to adopt agreed measures essential for strengthening their defence potential, so as to protect the peaceful labours of their people, guarantee the inviolability of their frontiers and territories, and insure defence against possible aggression. (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

It is known that, in accordance with the Warsaw Treaty and with government agreements, Soviet units are stationed in the Hungarian and the Rumanian Republics. (Sic!) In the Polish Republic, Soviet military units are stationed on the basis of the Potsdam Four-Power Agreement and the Warsaw Treaty. (Sic!) In other people's democratic countries there are no Soviet military units.

With a view to insuring the mutual security of the socialist countries, the Soviet Government is ready to examine with other socialist countries that are parties to the Warsaw Treaty the question of Soviet troops stationed on the territory of these countries. In this the Soviet Government proceeds from the general principle that the stationing of troops of one state that is a party to the Warsaw Treaty on the territory of another state that is a party to the Warsaw Treaty should take place on the basis of an agreement among all its participants and specifically with the agreement of the state on whose territory these troops are stationed or are planned to be stationed at its request...

The Soviet Government is prepared to withdraw its Military units…

The Soviet Government and all the Soviet people deeply regret that the development of events in Hungary has led to bloodshed. On the request of the Hungarian People's Government the Soviet Government consented to the entry into Budapest of the Soviet 22Army units to assist the Hungarian People's Army and the Hungarian authorities to establish order in the town. Believing that the further presence of Soviet Army units in Hungary can serve as a cause for even greater deterioration of the situation, the Soviet Government has given instructions to its military command to withdraw the Soviet Army units from Budapest as soon as this is recognized as necessary by the Hungarian Government.

At the same time, the Soviet Government is ready to enter into relevant negotiations with the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic and other participants of the Warsaw Treaty on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary. . .  (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

The Soviet Government expresses confidence that the peoples of the socialist countries will not permit foreign and internal reactionary forces to undermine the basis of the people's democratic regimes, won and consolidated by the heroic struggle and toil of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia of each country.

They will make all efforts to remove all obstacles that lie in the path of further strengthening the democratic basis of the independence and sovereignty of their countries, to develop further the socialist basis of each country, its economy and culture, for the sake of the constant growth of the material welfare and the cultural level of all the workers. They will consolidate the fraternal unity and mutual assistance of the socialist countries for the strengthening of the great cause of peace and socialism.

                  

b./ CHINESE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT

Peking 1956 Nov. 1. 

The Chinese Government issued a statement regarding the October 30th., Statement of the Soviet Government  through the New-China News-Agency.

The Government of the Chinese Peoples Republic is of the opinion that this Soviet Government statement is correct. (Emphasis Iustitia Committee) It has great significance regarding the correction of the mistakes and strengthening the relationship between the Socialist countries.

The Chinese Peoples Republic is of the opinion that the five principles: sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity, non-aggression, non-interference in each others internal affairs, equality and mutual advantage (emphasis Iustitia Committee) also the peaceful co-existence must be the basis of the relationship between all the countries of the World. (Sic.)

Every Socialist Country is an independent sovereign State. It is only in this way that they can achieve real brotherly friendship, solidarity, mutual help and cooperation with each other.

As the Statement of the Soviet Government points out, there were mistakes in the relationship between the Socialist Countries. These mistakes led to misunderstandings and alienation between some of the Socialist Countries. As a result of the misunderstandings and alienation the relationships sometimes became strained. (Emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

The statement referred to the 1948/49 Yugoslav situation and to what took place in Poland in 1956. In the communiqué, issued on of October 30, the Soviet Government appeared to be ready to solve the problems in the framework of friendly negotiations with the other Socialist countries, on the basis of the principles of equality, territorial integrity, independence, sovereignty, and non-interference in each other’s internal affaires (Sic!). This important step will help solving the problems of misunderstandings and strengthen the friendship and cooperation between the Socialist countries (Sic!).

The Government of the Chinese People’s Republic notes, that during these latest incidents, the Polish and Hungarian people demanded the strengthening of democracy, independence and equality, and improvement in the standard of living, and is of the opinion that these demands are justified (emphasis: Iustitia Committee)

The Statement points out, that the fight against even a small number of reactionary elements doesn’t only concern the Country in question, but all Socialist countries, us included.

Comment: the statements both Governments are evasive and blur the issue, contain half truths and trivia and are aimed at soothing public opinion.

In reality both the Soviet and Chinese Government statements were lies elevated to government policy, as both the Soviet and Chinese governments knew that the Military machine was already prepared and only an agreement of a traitor like Kádár was needed and a nod from Marshals Zhukov and Konev for the tanks to start rolling into Budapest, Debrecen, Pécs Szolnok, Győr and other Hungarian towns.

  

               c./  The International Grand Masters of Hypocrisy and Lying    

April 29. 1956.

Y. V Andropov the Soviet ambassador in Hungary reported to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party (marked top secret coded telegram):in our opinion the Hungarian comrades by electing Révai and especially Kádár to the Political Committee made a concession to the “Right” and to the demagogue elements. They expected that by so doing they will lessen the criticism of the demagogue elements.

October 24. 1956.

A.   I. Mikoyan and M. A. Suslov sent a (top secret coded telegram) to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party: “discussing the problems with the Central Leadership of the Hungarian Communist Party, we declared that the aim of our arrival here is to help the Hungarian leadership by the Soviet Army units participating in the restoring of order without generating friction and to general public satisfaction. The Hungarian comrades especially Imre Nagy agreed with this.

October 28. 1956.

A.   A. Soboliev Soviet representative to the United Nations declared at a meeting of the

Security Council that: ”a small number of fascist counter revolutionaries have staged an uprising in Hungary (Sic) which must be put down by the Hungarian Government”.

October 28. 1956.

At a meeting of the U. N. Security Council Peter Koós the permanent representative of Hungary in the U. N. declared: “Hungary is opposed to the U. N. placing the Hungarian question on the agenda for discussion”.

Note: Peter Koós mandate to the U. N. was withdrawn on the 1st of November as it was discovered in the Hungarian Foreign Office that his real name was Lev Konduktorov (he was a citizen of the Soviet Union) and he was not instructed, or empowered by anybody to oppose the U. N. Security Council dealing with the Hungarian question.

October 28. 1956.

The report of I. A Serov President of the Soviet State Security Committee (KGB) to A. I. Mikoyan: “after the meeting held in the office of the new Hungarian Minister of the Interior in Budapest the State Security Authority (ÁVH) and Police started working again. To avoid the possibility of provocation, the personnel of the State Security Authority were issued with police uniforms.

October 29. 1956.

Radio statement of G. K. Zhukov Soviet Minister of Defence: “The Soviet Union will not send new military units to Hungary, as the Army Corps already stationed there are sufficient to stop the disturbances there”. At the same time Selwyn Lloyd British Foreign Secretary issued a statement, that according to their information further Soviet Army units entered Hungary.

October 31. 1956.

According to a statement of the Soviet Embassy in Budapest the airfields of the Hungarian Air Force have been surrounded by Soviet armoured units in order to ensure the aerial transporting of families of Soviet soldiers and wounded personnel.

November 1. 1956.

Excerpt from the radio statement by János Kádár at 21.52. “The glorious uprising of our people threw off the Rákosi dictatorship and attained our country’s freedom and independence, without which there can be no Socialism. We are proud that in the armed uprising you stood your ground with honour, patriotism and faithfulness to Socialism.

November 2. 1956.

According to the morning report of the Vienna Radio, new Soviet Armoured Divisions entered Hungary. The Soviet Authorities issued a statement that these new units came to ensure the safe withdrawal of wounded personnel and family members of the Soviet Forces stationed in Hungary.

November 2. 1956.

The statement issued by V. A. Zorin Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister: “The Soviet Army Corps are in Hungary within the framework of the Warsaw Pact and their presence was requested by the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic. The movement and activities of the Soviet units is within the framework of these agreements.”

November 3. 1956.

A.   A. Soboliev the Soviet representative in the United Nations denied that additional Soviet Armed Forces entered Hungarian territory.

November 4. 1956.

G. K. Zhukov’s situation report about Hungary at 12.00 noon: “On the 4th of November at 6.15 Moscow time, the Soviet Army units started their action to restore order and re-establish the rule of the People’s Democracy in Hungary. On the basis of the pre-planned !!! military action (emphasis Iustitia Committee) our troops have taken possession of the enemy’s main positions in the country, Győr, Miskolc, Gyöngyös, Debrecen, and other towns. Every member of the Imre Nagy Government is in hiding. The search for them continues.”

November 26. 1956.

Excerpts from János Kádár’s radio proclamation: “We promised that we will not institute proceedings against Imre Nagy and his friends for their past activities, even if they themselves admit to wrongdoing and we will keep this promise.”

 

Etc., Etc., Etc.,

………………………………………………

…………………………..

……………..

 

3. §.

The Military Intervention

of the Soviet Union against Hungary in 1956. 

I.

INTRODUCTION 

On the basis of direct and indirect evidence it can be proved that in 1956 (during October and November) a state of war existed between the Soviet Union and Hungary. Without a Declaration of War a Soviet Army of about 160 to 180 thousand personnel (rifle corps, artillery, tanks, air planes, etc.,) carried out a large number of Military Operations partly against the Hungarian Revolutionary forces, and to a lesser extent against units of the Hungarian Peoples Army.  

II.

BASIC CONCEPTS

AGGRESSION: in International Law, steps taken by one State against another by using mostly military might. In certain situations threatening behaviour by one State against another may also be considered as aggression.  The moving of military units by one State into the territory of another, who refused to leave after being asked, is also considered aggression.  

AGGRESSOR: the party, or side, who begins an armed attack against another. 

WAR: the solving of interstate conflicts (political, ideological, economic, racial,, religious, etc.,) by the use of armed forces. 

WAR CRIME: force used against the civilian population, looting, breach of truce, aggression against a plenipotentiary, abusing the position of the Red Cross and other criminal acts, as defined by Special Statutes. THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT ON THE PUNISHABILITY OF WAR CRIMES.

MILITARY ACTIVITY: the planned concerted action of the armed forces to attain a specified objective.

ARMED FIGHT: encounters using weapons between the armies of belligerent States, with the aim of achieving specific goals.

  

III.

The Soviet Military Intervention in the light of the International politico/military situation. 

1.)  Khrushchev and the Soviets through various intelligence and military channels were already aware in September of the fact that something was being planned against Egypt. In view of this they took the steps they considered necessary to deal with the situation in the Middle East. The gathering of intelligence was not difficult because Menachem Begin Israeli politician (Prime Minister between 1977 and 1983) blurted out in the Herut newspaper, that if the plans of the Western Powers against Egypt will be put in effect (as a revenge for the nationalisation of the Suez Channel on the 29th July 1956) it will mean the end of President Nasser.           

          Obviously this was not the only source of information regarding the probability of some action being planned against Egypt. Intelligence was gathered through agents in the field, intercepting of radio messages, etc., and on the basis of these the Soviets were able to draw up a number of different plans to exploit the situation. 

          They were prepared to help Egypt militarily to repel the imperialist attack. The help offered would have been carried out partly by aerial and partly by naval units. But it was also part of the great Chess game that the Soviets would compensate themselves, by grabbing more territories in Western Europe, whilst the West was engaged in Egypt. Khrushchev didn’t forget the famous proverb by Stalin, that “the booty belongs to whoever grabs it”. 

          With this in mind, they made large scale preparations to increase the fighting value and readiness of their land forces with reserves, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies, that in case the situation arises they would be able to perform military actions immediately.    

          All these preparations took place in great secret, but with hindsight it is possible to reconstruct the intentions of the Soviet Government and Military leadership by analysing the time table, preparedness, the number of corps and combination of the forces. 

2.)  All leave of the members of the Special Corps stationed in Hungary was at first curtailed and later cancelled from September onwards. None of this can be explained by the prevailing political situation in Hungary, because nothing happened either in September, or the first half of October that would have justified these decisions. During the same time, neither the Hungarian Police, nor the Army was put on alert.  

     Khrushchev and his battle-hardened strategists with Zhukov at the helm were of the opinion, that in the given situation it is possible to regroup and transfer troops clandestinely near the West and at a given favourable moment while the Western forces were engaged in Egypt, they could take advantage of their overwhelming superiority in land forces. (Manpower, tanks, armoured troop carriers, and artillery.) 

The world is confronted again with this Khrushchevian tactic a few years later in the Caribbean on the 22nd of October 1962, when the presence in Cuba of Soviet personnel and land-to-land rocket silos were discovered. Returning to our Continent and to the autumn of 1956 by the middle of October about 110-120 Soviet         Divisions were prepared and ready for action either in Europe or in the Near East. The Northern Army Group consisting of about 80, or 90 Divisions was ready to move at a moments notice in the direction of West Germany and the Benelux States, which was considered to be the main theatre of operations. The Southern Army Group consisting of about 30-40 Divisions was ready to move towards Austria/Italy and Austria/France as the first and partly the second step of operations. 

In the case of a military engagement between Warsaw Pact and NATO, these forces would have been supplemented by the designated units of Polish, East German, Czechoslovak, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian armies. 

In peace time the Soviet Army numbered approximately 5 million men, but they could also rely on well trained reserve forces of about 25 million men. Considering that their bombers, air transport facilities, naval forces were not in the same class as that of NATO and other countries in the Western Block, the release of information in dribs and drabs of their intentions of intervening in the Middle East served as a mixture of threats, promises and bluffing, but at the same time it also camouflaged the movements and intentions of their land forces.   

3.)  On the 23rd  of October at 19.45, on the instruction of the Soviet Government, General P. I. Batov, commander of the Army of  the Carpathian District issued an order of battle-readiness of  to a Rifle and Guard Division to cross the Soviet Hungarian border at Csap, Beregszász and Nagyszőlős and take up their positions in the Szolnok, Abony Jászberény area. 

In reality the crossing of the Hungarian border by military units is considered an act of aggression, regardless whether fighting took place or not. 

4.)  At dawn on the 24th of October 1956 the Special Division under the command of Lieutenant General Lashcenko moved to Budapest from Székesfehérvár and engaged in fighting the Revolutionaries and some Hungarian Army units who joined them.  

The ordering of the Special Division to Budapest was not preceded by any request from the Hungarian Government of Parliament. 

Khrushchev and the Soviet Government assumed that the “mere” appearance of tanks on the streets of Budapest will be sufficient to quieten and disperse the Revolutionary crowds and the Soviet Divisions entering Budapest on the pretext of restoring order will be welcomed by a shower of flowers. 

Their optimistic hopes were based on the fact that the Berlin uprising of the 17th of June 1953 was brought to an end with very little loss, by the Army of General Chuikov in two or three days using the same method. 

They couldn’t imagine even in their wildest dreams the force of resistance they met on the morning of the 24th and the next few days at different points of Budapest. Instead of flowers they were met by petrol bottles thrown at the tanks mostly by teenagers and the Soviet elite units armed to the teeth were forced to retreat from the streets of the Hungarian capital. 

The Soviet Government was astonished to see the dilettantism of the Hungarian Communist Party and Government, the unimaginable cowardice of the top leaders and the degree of resistance shown by the people. It is worth mentioning that these Marxist heroes, (almost all of the top functionaries) after hearing the first few shots, run at once to the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and/or Romania. Not one of them stayed to defend the Communist regime. Those of them, who didn’t run away, went into hiding and stayed with relations and friends. 

Also the Soviet Government and Military leadership didn’t take it into consideration that the units stationed in Hungary for a longer period of time got to know and started to fraternise with the people and because of this were not too happy to obey the orders of their superiors. Some of them disobeyed their orders and deserted and there were also some who openly helped the revolutionaries with weapons and ammunition. 

All of this meant that some grains of sand entered the cogs of the Soviet machinery and by the end of October their moral and political humiliation became obvious and the victory of the revolutionaries (albeit only local and temporary) inflicted a lasting injury on the Soviets. 

5.)  According to András Hegedűs (at the time Minister President) the request for Soviet help was decided on the advice of Ernő Gerő late on the 23rd of October at a meeting of the top officials of the Central Committee. According to Hegedűs: “Gerő spoke by telephone with the Soviet ambassador or with Moscow”. There is also another version; the well known soap box orator György Marosán often boasted later, that he called in the Soviets. 

Both versions are intentional falsifications, because as we have seen, Soviet Army units didn’t have to be called in, as they were already in Hungary at the time and further units were entering Hungarian territory continuously without asking permission from anybody. 

On the 23rd of October at 17.00 Lieutenant General M. F. Tikhonov a special adviser to István Bata Hungarian Minister of Defence at the time put the question to him and to brigadier generals Lajos Tóth and István Kovács and colonel Miklós Szücs whether they had any objections to Soviet Army units entering Budapest. As there were no objections from anyone present Tikhonov telephoned General Antonov, Commander in Chief of the Warsaw Pact forces to order part of the Special Division to Budapest.

In other words the decision to send troops to Budapest was already made in the Kremlin and all the other bit actors were only marionettes on the stage. 

6.)  On the 27th of October the Hungarian Government led by Imre Nagy took steps to bring the armed conflicts to an end and arrange the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Budapest. Despite his several written and verbal protestations to Yuri Andropov the Soviet Ambassador in Hungary and despite the Soviet Government      communiqué on the 30th of October that the Soviet Army units will be withdrawn from Hungary, the minute the Hungarian Government requests it, more and more troops continued to enter the country. Andropov’s reassurances that the task of the incoming Soviet forces was only to ensure the orderly withdrawal of those

    already in Hungary were lies.  

7.)  That a State of War existed is further proved by the Radio announcement on 4th of November at 05.20. a. m. by Minister President Imre Nagy:

     “Imre Nagy the President of the Council of Ministers of the Hungarian People’s Republic speaking. Today at dawn the Soviet Army started an attack against our Capital city, with the obvious aim of deposing the Legitimate Hungarian Government. Our troops are fighting! The Government is dealing with the situation! This is to inform the people of Hungary and World opinion. 

    It must be mentioned here, that the Radio proclamation of The Minister President was not followed by an order from the Ministry of Defence, or from Béla Király, the Military Commander of Budapest to the Army, or the National Guard. The leaders of the army deserve top marks for cowardice, treason, and/or collaboration

    with the Soviets. They were István Bata colonel general, Károly Janza lieutenant general, Jenő Hazai, Gyula Uszta, István Kovács, Lajos Tóth brigadier generals, Miklós Szűcs colonel and others like them. 

    Despite this there was heavy fighting in many different locations between the Revolutionaries and the Soviet intervention forces and on a smaller scale units from the Hungarian People’s Army also participated. 

    The 10 “Top secret” reports prepared by Marshal Zhukov about the military situation in Hungary between the 4th of November 12.00 and 10th November 09.00 prove that the Soviet Army was undertaking military operations in Hungary. 12 copies were made of these and sent to the higher ranking members of the Soviet Government. (Bulganin, Kaganovich, Malenkov, Molotov, Saburov, Khrushchev, Vorosilov, Pervuhin. Suslov, Furceva, Belyaev, Brezhnev, Sepilov, Sernik, Aristov, Pospyelov) (sic)  

The expressions used in the Zhukov report (“military operation of the Soviet Army, -- on the basis of pre-planned move, -- our units have conquered, ,-- our units have given an ultimatum to, -- they surrounded the main barracks of the Hungarian Army, -- they stormed,-- they occupied, -- they took possession of,-- they captured, -- we introduced military administration,-- captured a large quantity of guns, and ammunition, -- bombarded a pre-selected area with heavy artillery, -- etc.., etc.) are usually seen in military reports and army journals. The facts listed above leave do doubt that the Soviet Union committed an aggression against Hungary and with brute force suppressed our Revolution.

IV.

 WAR CRIMES

There are witnesses and other evidence to prove that the Soviet Interventionist Forces committed many war crimes against the civilian population, the armed revolutionaries, and members of the Hungarian Army they captured.

It is a war crime to torture, or kill captured persons;

The transporting of captured persons to the Soviet Union by force;

Firing on Hospitals, ambulance vehicles and undefended buildings.

It is also in the category of war crimes to fire on peaceful demonstrators, and this was committed by the Hungarian Special Police as a revenge, or intimidation against the civilian population with the help and support of the Soviets. It must be mentioned, that when the Hungarian Special Police was first established their detachments were escorted by Soviet military units when on patrol duty in Budapest and several other locations.

Without the presence and protection of the Soviet bayonets, the Special Police Force would not have dared to follow the orders of Kádár, Apró, Münnich, Marosán or Biszku and behave in such a brutal manner towards the unarmed civilian population.

Think of the blood bath which took place on Kossuth Sq., on the 25th of October, the perpetrators of which have not been named, or brought to justice to this day. It is well known, that all soldiers must protest against the obeying of anti human orders or (as a last resort) ask for the order in writing from their superior. From the Soviet side there was no relevant information relating to this case, despite the fact, that it is unimaginable that they would not have prepared a report about this incident and their own actions at the time.

     War crimes committed by Soviet soldiers against individuals became known partly through eyewitnesses and partly by the accounts of the survivors.

     The fact that Hungarian citizens were deported to the Soviet Union is confirmed by the Yeltsin dossier (Chapter III. §. 8) Report of Serov and Andropov to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party 14.11.56. (Excerpts from the Document):

     “ During the course of today comrade Kádár and Comrade Münnich telephoned me  (separately) on several occasions and told me that captured young people who participated in the uprising, were transported by the Soviet Military Authorities to the Soviet Union by train. Both, Kádár and Münnich emphasized that they do not approve of this Soviet practice because this was the cause of the Rail strike and affects the political situation adversely   in Hungary. Comrade Münnich has asked us to issue an official press communiqué to the effect that to date we had not and will not transport in the future either anybody to the Soviet Union. Through our lines we issued orders that from now these transports should be carried out by closed vehicles in convoy with strengthened escort.” (Sic!)

Signed: Serov, Andropov.

Note: This document is a typical example of a dialogue between liars. Kádár and Münnich were only worried that the Railway workers got to know about these transports. Münnich in fact continued to press the Soviet Military Command to deny to the whole world that deportations to the Soviet Union took place. As we can see, Serov ignoring both Kádár and Münnich ordered the continuation of the deportations in closed vehicles.

V.

“Quasi” war crimes and quasi war criminals (?)

In a legal sense the crimes described here are not in the war crimes. Yet the must be brought into the open. The fact is that Lenin and his Bolsheviks to destroy, (liquidate) their imagined, concocted, or real enemies, killed them by hanging, shooting them in the back of the neck, tied their hands behind their backs with wire and put the dead bodies facing downwards in unmarked holes without a coffin.

The reviling of the dead (executed) in this manner is so shocking, inexplicable and incredible, that there are many people, who despite the mounting evidence doubted that any man could perpetrate such heinous crime against a fellow human being.

This method of execution spread like wild fire in the Soviet Union, (in the Gulag archipelago) in Poland, Yugoslavia, and also (certain variations of it) in China, Cambodia, Bulgaria, North Korea, North Vietnam, Romania and the German Democratic Republic. This “epidemic” reached Hungary after October 1956, during the period of insane revenge when hundreds of victims were killed in this manner, among them Imre Nagy, Pál Maléter, József Dudás, János Szabó and many others.

Certain aspects and the implementations of the reprisals from the moment of arrest to the disposing of the victims’ bodies, point to the presence and guiding of the Soviet “experts”. Nothing like this ever took place in the history of Hungary prior to the Soviet occupation. For the introduction of these inhuman methods, both the importer and the exporter should be accountable.

It was also the practice of the Bolsheviks (also established in Hungary) that the relatives of the executed were not informed about the time and place of the execution, nor where the bodies were buried. They even forbade the placing of flowers where the relatives believed the bodies were buried. Police cavalry units of the Kádár government trampled on the flowers the mourning relatives placed in secret, in No. 301 and 298 plots of the Cemetery.

In the Soviet Union there was hardly any family untouched by the insane Bolshevik terror.

Molotov’s wife was sent to the Gulag, Proskrebisev’s wife (he was Stalin’s secretary) was executed, the brother of Kaganovich was shot, the whole family of Tuchachevsky was liquidated, Yagoda was beaten to death Trotsky was hit on the head with an ice pick, and the list could continue ad infinitum with the names of well known and less well known victims of the Bolshevik regime.

Dostoevsky the giant of Russian literature the writer of works like ”Crime and Punishment”, “The Idiot”, “Notes from the Underground”, “Brothers Karamazov”, etc., is probably turning in his grave because his works which represented the highest in Russian literature were pushed in the back and replaced by the misleading, primitive, meaningless Marxist/Leninist twaddle of Social Realist writers which were printed in the millions.

THE LEADESHIP AND COMPOSITION OF THE SOVIET INTERVENTION FORCES

MOSCOW

ZHUKOV, G. K., Marshal of the Soviet Union, Minister of Defence

SZOLNOK

KONEV, I.  S., Marshal, of the Soviet Union First Deputy Minister of Defence.   

                      Commander in Chief of Warsaw Pact Combined Forces

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             DEBRECEN                                                                                     SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR                                                                                                                                      

MAMSUROV, HAJJI  U. D.                                    BABADZANYAN, AMAZASP HACATUROVIC

          Lieutenant General,                                                                        Colonel-general              

      Corps Commander                                                                           Corps Commander                                               

 

TÖKÖL

LASHCENKO, PJOTR NYIKOLAJEVICS Lieutenant General

Commander of the Special Division

Note: The table below does not contain the number of personnel in the Special Division, and the units, which were considered unreliable and withdrawn from Hungary after the 28th. of October, and may only be used as a guideline. This is due to the ever present Soviet intention to confuse and misinform, but nevertheless the figures speak for themselves.

                       THE RELATVIE STRENGTH OF SOVIET AND HUNGARIAN FORCES

Number of personnel

Tank+Self propelled artillery

Rifle + Artillery

Vehicles

Anti-aircraft artillery

Fighter aircraft

Bomber aircraft.

Transport planes

SOVIET/

         HUNGARIAN

     17:1

631:3

109:2

52:1

126:1

159:0

122:0

72:0

                             CHART OF THE SOVIET INTERVENTION FORCES

 

Number of personnel

 

Tanks and

self-propelled artillery

 

Artillery       

     

Vehicles

 

Anti-aircraft   artillery

   

Fighter aircraft

  

Bomber aircraft

 

Transport aircraft

108 925

3 782

  1 085

  13 735

      760

    159

    122

    72

THE LIST AND TABLE OF THE SOVIET INTERVENTION FORCES

8 Motorised Divisions,  1 Tank Division,  2 Rifle Divisions,  2 Anti aircraft artillery Divisions,  2 Air-borne Divisions,  2 Air Force Divisions (One Interceptor, on bomber) 

4.§

THE COSTS 

The cost of the damages to the Hungarian people, caused by the military intervention of the Soviet Union in 1956, followed by the of 35 years of occupation comes to $50 billion, based on the detailed calculations of the Iustitia Committee. 

Item No. 1.

Damages caused by units of the Soviet Intervention Force (artillery, air force and tanks) in Budapest, Pécs, Dunapentele, Debrecen, Miskolc, Győr. Damages to the road network, military buildings, airfields, railway lines. Damages to agricultural land near the western border. 

In detail:

Losses in industrial production

 

Item No. 2.

After the Soviet invasion, about 200 thousand, mostly young people escaped from Hungary and continued to live their lives as refugees in western countries. From the point of view of their age and education, they represented the most active group of both, intellectual and physical workers. Assuming that the cost of their education and training would be 100 thousand HFt. Per head, the loss comes to 20    

Item No. 3.

The cost of maintaining the 200 thousand Soviet personnel, (this number includes wives and children as well), for 35 years. 

Item No. 4.

Estimated damages caused by Military vehicles on roads, the noise nuisance caused by practice flying of fighter and bomber planes, loss of earnings because of this by hotels in the Hajdúszoboszló, Héviz and Balaton area. 

  

NOTES/COMMENTS: 

It goes beyond the capabilities of the Committee to list item by item and provide exact figures for the cost of maintenance of the Soviet contingent in Hungary (living quarters, warehouses, heating, kindergartens, schools, workshops, Houses of culture, etc.) At the same time, it must be mentioned, that there were 171 Soviet Military barracks in Hungary where about 120 thousand personnel were stationed from the autumn of 1956 till their departure in 1991 and together with their civilian employees and families their total number was 200 thousand. 

In middle Europe the biggest Soviet drilling grounds and shooting ranges were in

Hungary, (part of the Nature Conservation Area of Hortobágy was used by their

bombers for aiming practices). They were not charged for electricity, water, heating

and drainage. Their oft arriving Military delegations paid a symbolic price at hotels and for their hunting. It was estimated at their departure in 1991, that the value of the buildings provided by Hungary was 60 billion HFt, which in 2007 prices comes to 385 billion HFt.

 

Total                                                                          9,972 billion HFt

 

These figures do not include the cost of the damage to Nature Conservation areas.

(Earlier the Hortobágy was mentioned.) As they discharged oil and diesel fuel from their vehicles directly into the soil, the cost of this pollution must be assessed separately.     



[1] Készítette a Magyarok Világszövetsége Iustitia Bizottsága: Prof. dr. Bokor Imre, dr. Csendes László, Csukás Irén, Hiripi Lajos, dr. Léh Tibor, Péteri Attila Árpád, Szabó Béla

 A részanyagokat összeállította: dr. Bokor Imre és dr. Léh Tibor

A CD képanyagot válogatta: Szabó Béla és László Ferenc

A szakirodalom gyűjtésében segédkezett: Csukás Irén

A jóvátétel összegét 2007-es árfolyamra átszámította: Alakszainé dr. Oláh Annamária

Közreműködött: Kéri Edit és Lévay Attila

 

Lektorálta: dr. Balsai István, Fekete Pál, Kállai Eszter, Nemes Lajos, dr. Padányi Márius, dr. Pákh Tibor, Vanek Béla

 

Az MVSZ Iustitia Bizottsága ülésein a MVSZ Elnökségét képviselte: Patrubány Miklós elnök és Rácz Sándor tiszteletbeli elnök, az 1956-os Nagy-budapesti Központi Munkástanács elnöke.

  

Az MVSZ Iustitia Bizottsága jelen dokumentumát második olvasatban elfogadta a Magyarok Világszövetségének Elnöksége, a II/2007. (május 22. - június 7.) számú távszavazással, 11 pontban meghozott határozatával.

 

[2] A számítás nem tartalmazza a környezetvédelmi károkat – volt itt utalás a hortobágyi természetvédelmi területre. Külön felmérést igényel az is, hogy a szovjetek mennyire szenneyezett területeket hagytak hátra: lőtereket, motorinával átitatott gyakorlópályákat, laktanyákat, amelyek helyrehozatala sok milliárd forintos összeget tesz ki.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner

Megosztás


Az MVSZ erkölcsi alapja
Az MVSZ erkölcsi alapja
europa A magyar kérdés rendezése
nem tűr halasztást

Keresünk százezer magyar embert!

Adakozók:  590
Országok:  17  
Települések: 191  
Alakítók:  72
Összesen: (2012.04.26) 8669908 Ft

Közösségek önkormányzása az egyéni és kollektív jogok érvényesítésére



Az MVSZ erkölcsi alapja

Free business joomla templates