Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The True Meaning Of Freedom
The vagaries of life have preoccupied me for a while that I haven’t had the chance to pick up pen (or keyboard) and write these little musings of mine. I’m still preoccupied, as we all are, but I felt that I needed to restart things again before they get lost. As such, there were some things I had wanted to write about when the events occurred, but didn’t have the chance to comment on. Yet, some events still hold resonance even if they happened a few months ago.
One event that has been on my mind actually occurred a little over 50 years ago. In fact, its 50th Anniversary was commemorated last October. It may have been more apt to write about it back then, but the lessons of that event are worthy of study at any time. The phenomenon of which I speak is the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
I’m not sure why it’s called a revolution since the instigators lost. Historically speaking, it was more of a revolt that was violently put down by the Soviet masters who were the true rulers of Hungary at that time. Nonetheless, it’s written in history books as the Hungarian Revolution, and its lessons are still being taught today.
For those too young to remember the Cold War – and those who vaguely remember that time – the Soviet Union had control of Eastern Europe since the final days of World War II. Among those countries was Hungary which had a loyal communist party – or so it was thought. This loyalty may have been imposed anyway because the Red Army still occupied the country more than ten years after the war.
Meanwhile, the United States would broadcast over Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other radio programs the wonders of western capitalism and freedom in general. Much of this can be dismissed as typical propaganda, and most listeners may have been unmoved. Yet, there were some stirrings of freedom among the masses.
When the Soviet Premier Josef Stalin died in 1953, a general liberalization among Eastern European Communist Parties occurred. Reform movements were founded and its leaders became emboldened to push for more open societies. They were still socialists and they considered their proposals as merely reforming current policy, but it was seen as radical (or, in Soviet eyes, reactionary). Among these reform leaders was Imre Nagy of Hungary.
In 1955, neighboring Austria had declared itself neutral, and Nagy had hoped that Hungary could do the same. When the hard-line Hungarian leader resigned and was replaced by Nagy, emboldened students and other intellectuals were calling for more reforms. They demonstrated through the streets, peacefully at first. Then, on October 23, 1956, demonstrators spontaneously tore down Stalin’s statue. The Hungarian State Police then violently put down the demonstration. When the Hungarian Army came to help, they hesitated and then joined the protesters. Thus began the Hungarian Revolution.
Even when Soviet tanks surrounded the demonstrators, the students spoke to the soldiers who were then persuaded to let them by. This may be because the soldiers saw themselves as among the demonstrators. When the state police started firing into the crowd, the crowd returned fire. (They received arms from the Hungarian Army which took part in the revolt.) Fighting would go on for about a week until a ceasefire was called and the Soviet army withdrew from the capital, Budapest.
Believing that the Red Army was withdrawing for good, the Hungarians formed a new government under Imre Nagy. Among the reforms that took place: a multiparty system was formed; local governments became more independent; and, noncommunists were included in the government. Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe broadcast its support for the whole goings-on, even giving tactical advice in fighting the Red Army.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last. On November 4, 1956, the Red Army returned, this time manned by soldiers who did not speak any Eastern European languages. This time, the tanks fired on the demonstrators who fought back valiantly but futilely. A week later, the revolt was over. Imre Nagy and others were taken prisoner and executed. Many others would eventually flee Hungary for an uneasy exile.
Meanwhile, what did the western powers do? Little or nothing. In spite of the fact that here were a group of people who were actually fighting for freedom, the world’s greatest democracy, the United States, decided to stay on the sidelines. In spite of the rhetoric of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his calls for brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, when an actual demonstration of that brinkmanship occurred, he blinked. The question to be asked is why?
One reason that can be made is that realism trumped idealism. Like much in America, there is a dichotomy in US foreign policy. The dichotomy here is one between the Realists and the Idealists.
The Idealists are the ones who dream of spreading democracy and freedom in the world with the United States as their guide. Woodrow Wilson is the quintessential example with his Fourteen Points and his call for making the world safe for democracy. Jimmy Carter is a most recent heir to that ideal with his call for human rights as a part of US policy.
On the other hand, there are the Realists. These would be the ones who are willing to compromise on principles as long as they get their way. These would be the ones who are willing to negotiate with ruthless dictators as long as these same dictators give Americans certain business concessions. Realists would also support (and even instigate) such actions as the coups in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973). All was done for the good of the country, of course!
In the case of Hungary in 1956, the people who participated in the revolt had the bad luck to be pawns in the Great Game of two great powers. When President Eisenhower decided not to intervene with US troops when the revolt first took place (pretty much saying that this was not our fight), this let Soviet Premier Khrushchev know that he would have a free hand to quell the uprising. All he needed was time. (In this case, one week.) What this meant was that Hungary was, and would remain, in the Soviet sphere of influence.
People like Dulles were idealists on one hand, and realists on the other. They were idealists in that they gave vocal support for freedom and democracy. Yet, when it really mattered, they would play it safe and be realists and let freedom and democracy wait another day – if at all.
Needless to say, our current situations around the world seem to mirror what happened in 1956. The monster who once butchered his people was finally hung, but many didn’t feel great about it. All we seemed to see was that one monster was being replaced by another – with our complicity. (In fact, the old monster is now considered a martyr!) People in power may be posing as idealists preaching freedom every chance they get, but it’s becoming demonstrably clear that realists are running the show and sullying the name of the ideals for which many of us are willing to defend.
As for the Hungarian people, they would have to wait three decades before they would taste freedom again. Hungary was the first nation in 1989 to open its borders, thus starting the domino effect that eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and, finally, the end of the Cold War. So, the people who fought and died in 1956 were finally vindicated and honored. They were the true martyrs of freedom.
One event that has been on my mind actually occurred a little over 50 years ago. In fact, its 50th Anniversary was commemorated last October. It may have been more apt to write about it back then, but the lessons of that event are worthy of study at any time. The phenomenon of which I speak is the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
I’m not sure why it’s called a revolution since the instigators lost. Historically speaking, it was more of a revolt that was violently put down by the Soviet masters who were the true rulers of Hungary at that time. Nonetheless, it’s written in history books as the Hungarian Revolution, and its lessons are still being taught today.
For those too young to remember the Cold War – and those who vaguely remember that time – the Soviet Union had control of Eastern Europe since the final days of World War II. Among those countries was Hungary which had a loyal communist party – or so it was thought. This loyalty may have been imposed anyway because the Red Army still occupied the country more than ten years after the war.
Meanwhile, the United States would broadcast over Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other radio programs the wonders of western capitalism and freedom in general. Much of this can be dismissed as typical propaganda, and most listeners may have been unmoved. Yet, there were some stirrings of freedom among the masses.
When the Soviet Premier Josef Stalin died in 1953, a general liberalization among Eastern European Communist Parties occurred. Reform movements were founded and its leaders became emboldened to push for more open societies. They were still socialists and they considered their proposals as merely reforming current policy, but it was seen as radical (or, in Soviet eyes, reactionary). Among these reform leaders was Imre Nagy of Hungary.
In 1955, neighboring Austria had declared itself neutral, and Nagy had hoped that Hungary could do the same. When the hard-line Hungarian leader resigned and was replaced by Nagy, emboldened students and other intellectuals were calling for more reforms. They demonstrated through the streets, peacefully at first. Then, on October 23, 1956, demonstrators spontaneously tore down Stalin’s statue. The Hungarian State Police then violently put down the demonstration. When the Hungarian Army came to help, they hesitated and then joined the protesters. Thus began the Hungarian Revolution.
Even when Soviet tanks surrounded the demonstrators, the students spoke to the soldiers who were then persuaded to let them by. This may be because the soldiers saw themselves as among the demonstrators. When the state police started firing into the crowd, the crowd returned fire. (They received arms from the Hungarian Army which took part in the revolt.) Fighting would go on for about a week until a ceasefire was called and the Soviet army withdrew from the capital, Budapest.
Believing that the Red Army was withdrawing for good, the Hungarians formed a new government under Imre Nagy. Among the reforms that took place: a multiparty system was formed; local governments became more independent; and, noncommunists were included in the government. Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe broadcast its support for the whole goings-on, even giving tactical advice in fighting the Red Army.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last. On November 4, 1956, the Red Army returned, this time manned by soldiers who did not speak any Eastern European languages. This time, the tanks fired on the demonstrators who fought back valiantly but futilely. A week later, the revolt was over. Imre Nagy and others were taken prisoner and executed. Many others would eventually flee Hungary for an uneasy exile.
Meanwhile, what did the western powers do? Little or nothing. In spite of the fact that here were a group of people who were actually fighting for freedom, the world’s greatest democracy, the United States, decided to stay on the sidelines. In spite of the rhetoric of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his calls for brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, when an actual demonstration of that brinkmanship occurred, he blinked. The question to be asked is why?
One reason that can be made is that realism trumped idealism. Like much in America, there is a dichotomy in US foreign policy. The dichotomy here is one between the Realists and the Idealists.
The Idealists are the ones who dream of spreading democracy and freedom in the world with the United States as their guide. Woodrow Wilson is the quintessential example with his Fourteen Points and his call for making the world safe for democracy. Jimmy Carter is a most recent heir to that ideal with his call for human rights as a part of US policy.
On the other hand, there are the Realists. These would be the ones who are willing to compromise on principles as long as they get their way. These would be the ones who are willing to negotiate with ruthless dictators as long as these same dictators give Americans certain business concessions. Realists would also support (and even instigate) such actions as the coups in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973). All was done for the good of the country, of course!
In the case of Hungary in 1956, the people who participated in the revolt had the bad luck to be pawns in the Great Game of two great powers. When President Eisenhower decided not to intervene with US troops when the revolt first took place (pretty much saying that this was not our fight), this let Soviet Premier Khrushchev know that he would have a free hand to quell the uprising. All he needed was time. (In this case, one week.) What this meant was that Hungary was, and would remain, in the Soviet sphere of influence.
People like Dulles were idealists on one hand, and realists on the other. They were idealists in that they gave vocal support for freedom and democracy. Yet, when it really mattered, they would play it safe and be realists and let freedom and democracy wait another day – if at all.
Needless to say, our current situations around the world seem to mirror what happened in 1956. The monster who once butchered his people was finally hung, but many didn’t feel great about it. All we seemed to see was that one monster was being replaced by another – with our complicity. (In fact, the old monster is now considered a martyr!) People in power may be posing as idealists preaching freedom every chance they get, but it’s becoming demonstrably clear that realists are running the show and sullying the name of the ideals for which many of us are willing to defend.
As for the Hungarian people, they would have to wait three decades before they would taste freedom again. Hungary was the first nation in 1989 to open its borders, thus starting the domino effect that eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and, finally, the end of the Cold War. So, the people who fought and died in 1956 were finally vindicated and honored. They were the true martyrs of freedom.
