Péter Bencsik
University of Szeged, Department of Contemporary History, Faculty Member
- History of Czechoslovakia, History of Hungary, Eastern European history, Cold War history, Cold War International Relations, East-Central European History, and 16 moreTotalitarianism, Contemporary History, Communism, History of Passports, Journal of contemporary history, History, Ethnic Studies, Border Studies, Eastern European Studies, Történelem, Cold War, Soviet History, Central European history, Postsocialism, East European studies, and Travel Historyedit
- Born in 1971 in Hungary. Graduated at University of Szeged (1995) with History and Geography as majors and History of... moreBorn in 1971 in Hungary. Graduated at University of Szeged (1995) with History and Geography as majors and History of Eastern Europe as minor. PhD in Modern European and Hungarian History (2000) at University of Pécs. He is associate professor (Department of Contemporary History, University of Szeged); member of editorial board at Aetas, one of Hungary's leading journals of history.edit
A sztálinista rendszertől való fokozatos eltávolodás, azaz a desztalinizáció Kelet-Közép-Európa minden államát komoly kihívás elé állította. E folyamat három fázisban zajlott a térségben: elsőként 1953-ban a szovjetek által kezdeményezett... more
A sztálinista rendszertől való fokozatos eltávolodás, azaz a desztalinizáció
Kelet-Közép-Európa minden államát komoly kihívás elé állította. E folyamat három fázisban zajlott a térségben: elsőként 1953-ban a szovjetek által kezdeményezett „új szakasz” idején, majd a Szovjetunió Kommunista Pártjának (SZKP) XX. kongresszusa hatására 1956 folyamán, végül az SZKP XXII. kongresszusa után 1961-től kezdve. A jelen kötet zömmel a második hullám eseményeit vizsgálja Magyarország és Csehszlovákia esetében, olyan kérdésekre keresve a választ, hogy miért torkolltak a reformok forradalomba Magyarországon, és milyen okokból nem került sor erre északi szomszédunkban. A két országban sok tekintetben hasonló folyamatok zajlottak le: a XX. kongresszus után felülről indított reformok kezdődtek, amelyek elindították vagy megerősítették a társadalmi mozgalmakat. Ezen alulról jövő kezdeményezéseket (diák- vagy értelmiségi mozgalmakat) ugyanakkor a pártvezetés nem nézte jó szemmel, és igyekezett fellépni velük szemben.
Kelet-Közép-Európa minden államát komoly kihívás elé állította. E folyamat három fázisban zajlott a térségben: elsőként 1953-ban a szovjetek által kezdeményezett „új szakasz” idején, majd a Szovjetunió Kommunista Pártjának (SZKP) XX. kongresszusa hatására 1956 folyamán, végül az SZKP XXII. kongresszusa után 1961-től kezdve. A jelen kötet zömmel a második hullám eseményeit vizsgálja Magyarország és Csehszlovákia esetében, olyan kérdésekre keresve a választ, hogy miért torkolltak a reformok forradalomba Magyarországon, és milyen okokból nem került sor erre északi szomszédunkban. A két országban sok tekintetben hasonló folyamatok zajlottak le: a XX. kongresszus után felülről indított reformok kezdődtek, amelyek elindították vagy megerősítették a társadalmi mozgalmakat. Ezen alulról jövő kezdeményezéseket (diák- vagy értelmiségi mozgalmakat) ugyanakkor a pártvezetés nem nézte jó szemmel, és igyekezett fellépni velük szemben.
Research Interests:
This book offers a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the history of passports, border surveillance, border crossing, and other elements of European border regimes in the 20th century. Border regime is interpreted widely, including... more
This book offers a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the history of passports, border surveillance, border crossing, and other elements of European border regimes in the 20th century. Border regime is interpreted widely, including inbound and outbound travels, permanent and temporary movements, distance and local border traffic, borderland fortifications, penalties for borderland offences, and also restrictions of free movement, even inside a given country. Based on archival sources from Hungary and the Czech Republic, extensive literature and more than two decades of research, the author distinguishes between two basic border regimes: the restrictive eastern and the permissive western systems, and a transitional zone between them. The historical development of these regimes is discussed in the framework of waves of globalisation and territorialisation.
Border Regimes in Twentieth Century Europe offers the first-ever systematic comparison of European border regimes for students, scholars, and any readers who are interested in travel history, border studies, globalisation, area studies and 20th century Europe, including everyday history. By presenting their different historical experiences, the book contributes to a better understanding between old and new member states of the European Union, as well as between member and non-member states.
Border Regimes in Twentieth Century Europe offers the first-ever systematic comparison of European border regimes for students, scholars, and any readers who are interested in travel history, border studies, globalisation, area studies and 20th century Europe, including everyday history. By presenting their different historical experiences, the book contributes to a better understanding between old and new member states of the European Union, as well as between member and non-member states.
Research Interests:
Trianon helyi hatásainak elemzésekor különösen érdekes az új határ menti területek sorsa. A kötet célja az, hogy a hétköznapok szintjén és mikrotörténeti jelleggel közelítse meg az itt élt emberek történetét. Miként formálták át a helyi... more
Trianon helyi hatásainak elemzésekor különösen érdekes az új határ menti területek sorsa. A kötet célja az, hogy a hétköznapok szintjén és mikrotörténeti jelleggel közelítse meg az itt élt emberek történetét. Miként formálták át a helyi (alapvetően agrár-) társadalom mindennapjait az új határok? Megszakadtak-e azok a helyi gazdasági, rokoni vagy más kapcsolatok, amelyek a határ létrejötte előtt álltak fenn? Ha igen, akkor mikor? Mennyi időt vett igénybe, amíg a helyi közösségek ráébredtek az új realitásokra és hogyan élték át ezt? Milyen életmódváltozást eredményezett a kialakult helyzet, illetve vajon ennek csak vesztesei voltak, vagy esetleg haszonélvezői is? A kötet szerzője e témák átgondolásával kívánja a kutatás kezdőlépéseit megtenni, így – az eddig feltárt források jellegéből adódóan – elsősorban a határ menti társadalom
ellentéteit vizsgálja.
ellentéteit vizsgálja.
Research Interests:
A határok, illetve azok átjárhatósága, az engedélyezett és az illegális határátlépések történetének vizsgálata az ezredforduló után világszerte nagy lendületet kapott. Számos munka jelent meg e témában a világ legkülönbözőbb országairól.... more
A határok, illetve azok átjárhatósága, az engedélyezett és az illegális határátlépések történetének vizsgálata az ezredforduló után világszerte nagy lendületet kapott. Számos munka jelent meg e témában a világ legkülönbözőbb országairól. Az eddigi vizsgálatok azonban szinte kizárólag egy ország sajátosságait elemezték, több ország összehasonlítására most először kerül sor. Jelen kötet célja a keleti és a nyugati határrezsimek sajátosságainak feltárása és összehasonlítása. Részletesen bemutatja a kérdés nemzetközi hát-terét, és e kereten belül veti össze-széles körű levéltári kutatásokra támaszkodva-a magyar és a csehszlovák esetet. Az eredetileg a nyugati modellt alkalmazó két állam ugyanis 1945 és 1989 között a keleti modell részévé vált, amelynek fő sajátossága a határok fizikai és jogi lezárása, saját polgárainak kiutazását is gátolva.
Research Interests:
E kötet cseh és szlovák levéltári forrásokon keresztül mutatja be az egykori Csehszlovákia vezetésének az 1956-os magyar forradalomhoz való viszonyát. A Cseh Nemzeti Levéltár, az Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Levéltára, a Központi Katonai... more
E kötet cseh és szlovák levéltári forrásokon keresztül mutatja be az egykori Csehszlovákia vezetésének az 1956-os magyar forradalomhoz való viszonyát. A Cseh Nemzeti Levéltár, az Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok Levéltára, a Központi Katonai Levéltár, a cseh Külügyminisztérium Levéltára, valamint a Szlovák Nemzeti Levéltár gyűjteményeiből a szerkesztők igyekeztek minden releváns dokumentumot közzétenni.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Csak borító és tartalomjegyzék! S českým obsahem! – Csehszlovákia történetéről ez ideig nem jelent meg sem tudományos igényű monográfia, sem a nagyközönség számára íródott népszerűsítő munka. Mindez egy negyed évszázada még létező,... more
Csak borító és tartalomjegyzék! S českým obsahem! – Csehszlovákia történetéről ez ideig nem jelent meg sem tudományos igényű monográfia, sem a nagyközönség számára íródott népszerűsítő munka. Mindez egy negyed évszázada még létező, ráadásul szomszédos ország esetén érdekes, sokatmondó jelenség. Az érdeklődők és különösen a témával foglalkozó egyetemi hallgatók számára azonban az is nehezíti az egykori állam történetének tanulmányozását, hogy a legalapvetőbb források, eredeti dokumentumok közül is csak részben találunk olyanokat, amelyek magyarul is olvashatók. Szöveggyűjteményünk e hiány pótlására vállalkozik, a benne olvas-ható körülbelül százhetven dokumentumnak nagyjából a fele első alkalommal áll magyarul az olvasók rendelkezésére. A magyarul már másutt megjelent szövegek jelentős része ráadásul évtizedekkel ezelőtt látott napvilágot, ma már alig fellelhető kiadványokban. A dokumentumokból egy volt szomszédos ország történelmének legfőbb eseményei bontakoznak ki. A források megértését nagyban megkönnyíti, hogy minden dokumentum előtt rövid bevezető található, amelyből az olvasó a szövegek történelmi hátteréről, keletkezésének körülményeiről tájékozódhat. A könyv elején olvasható bevezető tanulmányban a szerző a magyar és a csehszlovák történelem párhuzamos és eltérő vonásainak kiemelésére, rövid összehasonlítására vállalkozik. A kötetben szereplő történelmi személyek rövid életrajzi vázlatai, valamint a legfontosabb cseh és szlovák politikai vezetők – államfők, kormányfők, külügyminiszterek, pártvezérek – felsorolása révén e munka hasznos kézikönyvként is forgatható.
Research Interests:
At the Cold War History Research Center we have been working on an extensive chronology of the Soviet Bloc for a number of years that has been finally published online on our homepage due to the courtesy of the Hungarian National Cultural... more
At the Cold War History Research Center we have been working on an extensive chronology of the Soviet Bloc for a number of years that has been finally published online on our homepage due to the courtesy of the Hungarian National Cultural Fund. (Please see the link below.)
This second part of the timeline contains information dealing with the period from 1953 to 1968. The years 1969–1980 will be available by the end of 2014. The entries were compiled using mainly secondary sources so far, nevertheless, we are determined to further improve and continuously extend the chronology by including information from archival documents in the years to come. The chronology also presents data dealing with Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia. Although these countries were obviously not part of the Soviet Bloc, we still wanted to involve them since they maintained special relations with the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies.
Edited by Csaba BÉKÉS
Associate editors: Péter BENCSIK, Péter VUKMAN
Assistant editors: Gabriella HERMANN, Judit GÖSSLER, János KEMÉNY, Anikó MAGASHÁZI, Jasper NOOIJN, Levente NYITRAI, Bobbie SCHOEMAKER, Dániel VÉKONY
Contributors: Interns of the Cold War History Research Center at Corvinus University of Budapest
This second part of the timeline contains information dealing with the period from 1953 to 1968. The years 1969–1980 will be available by the end of 2014. The entries were compiled using mainly secondary sources so far, nevertheless, we are determined to further improve and continuously extend the chronology by including information from archival documents in the years to come. The chronology also presents data dealing with Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia. Although these countries were obviously not part of the Soviet Bloc, we still wanted to involve them since they maintained special relations with the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies.
Edited by Csaba BÉKÉS
Associate editors: Péter BENCSIK, Péter VUKMAN
Assistant editors: Gabriella HERMANN, Judit GÖSSLER, János KEMÉNY, Anikó MAGASHÁZI, Jasper NOOIJN, Levente NYITRAI, Bobbie SCHOEMAKER, Dániel VÉKONY
Contributors: Interns of the Cold War History Research Center at Corvinus University of Budapest
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
School textbook used in primary schools, 8th class. Table of contents only! Published annually since 2007. However, there is a more recent version which corresponds the new curriculum. Contrary to it, this version is still in use in some... more
School textbook used in primary schools, 8th class. Table of contents only!
Published annually since 2007. However, there is a more recent version which corresponds the new curriculum. Contrary to it, this version is still in use in some shools in 2018.
Published annually since 2007. However, there is a more recent version which corresponds the new curriculum. Contrary to it, this version is still in use in some shools in 2018.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
See the book online at: http://bencsik.adatbank.transindex.ro/ or https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/TelekiIntezetKonyvei_054/ * Europe-Between refers to the region containing mostly small states falling between two great powers, Russia... more
See the book online at: http://bencsik.adatbank.transindex.ro/
or https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/TelekiIntezetKonyvei_054/
* Europe-Between refers to the region containing mostly small states falling between two great powers, Russia and Germany. This area, stretching from Finland to Greece and from the Czech Republic to the Ukraine, has seen a competition between three expansionist and one declining empire during the last two yearhundreds. As a result of this conflict the independence of the states of Europe-Between was more often the exception than the rule.
Due to the lack of stable nation-state borders, the authority of states has been subject to sudden changes in the region since the 19th century. This fact, added to the great ethnic variety witnessed, has meant that local place-names have often been changed and that navigating oneself around these changes is not an easy task. This is especially so because the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek alphabets have all been used in the region. Therefore we need a dictionary with which one can identify all name changes of important localities. Up till now researchers have not edited an adequately detailed dictionary which covers the whole region.
or https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/TelekiIntezetKonyvei_054/
* Europe-Between refers to the region containing mostly small states falling between two great powers, Russia and Germany. This area, stretching from Finland to Greece and from the Czech Republic to the Ukraine, has seen a competition between three expansionist and one declining empire during the last two yearhundreds. As a result of this conflict the independence of the states of Europe-Between was more often the exception than the rule.
Due to the lack of stable nation-state borders, the authority of states has been subject to sudden changes in the region since the 19th century. This fact, added to the great ethnic variety witnessed, has meant that local place-names have often been changed and that navigating oneself around these changes is not an easy task. This is especially so because the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek alphabets have all been used in the region. Therefore we need a dictionary with which one can identify all name changes of important localities. Up till now researchers have not edited an adequately detailed dictionary which covers the whole region.
Research Interests:
In July 1956, the situation of Mátyás Rákosi became untenable in Hungary, and he had to resign as first secretary of the Hungarian Working People’s Party (HWPP). He was succeeded by the second man of the regime, Ernő Gerő, who, like his... more
In July 1956, the situation of Mátyás Rákosi became untenable in Hungary, and he had to resign as first secretary of the Hungarian Working People’s Party (HWPP). He was succeeded by the second man of the regime, Ernő Gerő, who, like his predecessor, was rejected by the Hungarian society. The HWPP made a serious mistake from points of view: not only by appointing Gerő as the head of the party, but also by failing to restore Imre Nagy’s party membership and reinstate him as head of government. (He had been removed from office in the first half of 1955 and expelled from the party in December 1955.) The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union created a new situation in which even Gerő, previously a committed Stalinist, became an advocate of reform himself. Against all expectations, Gerő, although his rule lasted less than a hundred days, announced and even began to implement significant reforms. In this paper, I examine three questions. Firstly, I compare Imre Nagy’s reforms, the ‘new course’ announced in 1953 with Gerő’s programme, the ‘clean sheet’ policy three years later. Secondly, I will review how Imre Nagy’s request for the reinstatement of his party membership was handled by the old-new party leadership. Finally, I would like to know how Imre Nagy himself assessed the ‘clean sheet’ programme in the late summer and early autumn of 1956, and to what extent his assessment of it changed afterwards, following the 1956 revolution.
Research Interests:
Magyarország határainak átjárhatósága többször is jelentős mértékben megváltozott a 20. század során. A határrezsim szigorodása vagy enyhülése elsősorban a nemzetközi környezet átalakulása révén következett be, ugyanakkor a belső tényezők... more
Magyarország határainak átjárhatósága többször is jelentős mértékben megváltozott a 20. század során. A határrezsim szigorodása vagy enyhülése elsősorban a nemzetközi környezet átalakulása révén következett be, ugyanakkor a belső tényezők szerepe sem elhanyagolható. Nemcsak a háborúk, a rendszerváltások, a határváltozások, hanem elsősorban a világban zajló globalizációs hullámok, illetve az ezek között jelentkező territorializálódás hatottak rá. A fenti folyamatok együttesen formálták Magyarország határrezsimjét, amely 1914 előtt nyugati típusú volt, a két világháború között átmeneti jellegűvé vált. 1945 után a keleti, korlátozó határrezsim vált uralkodóvá, amely a hatvanas évektől lassú liberalizáción ment keresztül.
Research Interests:
A tanulmány négy kelet-közép-európai ország (Lengyelország, Csehszlovákia, Magyarország és Jugoszlávia) globalizációjának egyik aspektusát, az emberek külföldi utazásainak mértékét vizsgálja az államszocializmus időszakában, statisztikai... more
A tanulmány négy kelet-közép-európai ország (Lengyelország, Csehszlovákia, Magyarország és Jugoszlávia) globalizációjának egyik aspektusát, az emberek külföldi utazásainak mértékét vizsgálja az államszocializmus időszakában, statisztikai összehasonlító mód-szerrel. Feltevése szerint a globalizáció jele elsősorban a hideg-háború két alapvető blokkja, vagyis a Kelet és Nyugat közötti áramlás megnövekedése, de a tanulmány röviden vizsgálja a keleti blokkon belüli, illetve a globális Dél, tehát a „harmadik világ” felé történő utazásokat is. A négy állam statisztikai évkönyveiben közzétett adatokból kiszámított mutatók közül különösen informatív a Nyugatra utazók aránya, a Nyugatról érkezők aránya, illetve a nyugati ki- és be-utazások időbeli dinamikája. Ezek összehasonlításával fontos következtetéseket lehet levonni. Mindenekelőtt azt, hogy az emberek szabad mozgását a politikai körülmények befolyásolják leginkább. Ezzel összefüggésben megállapítható, hogy a blokkon belüli utazások száma a hatvanas években vált jelentőssé. A „harmadik világ” felé történő utazások száma a teljes korszakban marginális volt, ami ellentmond az alternatív globalizáció koncepciójának. Végezetül, a nyugati utazások jelentősége Jugoszláviában már az ötvenes években alapvetővé vált, míg a három másik állam esetében a nyolcvanas évek végén mutatható ki az igazi áttörés.
Research Interests:
Hozzászólás Tomka Béla kötetéhez
Research Interests:
Political Problems of Building the Danube Dams: Debates among Comecon States, 1948–1966. One of the bottlenecks in the economic development of the Eastern bloc countries was the lack of electricity. Their interest turned (among others)... more
Political Problems of Building the Danube Dams: Debates among Comecon States, 1948–1966.
One of the bottlenecks in the economic development of the Eastern bloc countries was the lack of electricity. Their interest turned (among others) to the exploitation of hydropower, in which the Danube would have played a key role. As major sections of the Danube – an international waterway in itself – are state borders, the idea of establishing cooperation at the level of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) was raised. However, there were wide-ranging differences between the countries of the bloc, involving territorial and nationalist disputes, ideological issues and reservations about the common institutions of the bloc. These differences – Romania’s defence of her national sovereignty in particular – prevented the joint exploitation of the river. The planned power plants were thus left to national jurisdiction or (in the case of joint Danube sections) their construction was regulated by bilateral negotiations. In the case of Romanian–Yugoslav relations, this was achieved relatively quickly, but between Czechoslovakia and Hungary (although the two countries were theoretically closer) it led to almost insurmountable conflicts. The most important of these, in my opinion, although it did not surface openly, was the question of changing the Trianon borders. This dispute delayed the start of construction for decades. By the time the power plants were started building, the communist regimes had also fallen, while new conflicts – not discussed in this paper – had emerged.
One of the bottlenecks in the economic development of the Eastern bloc countries was the lack of electricity. Their interest turned (among others) to the exploitation of hydropower, in which the Danube would have played a key role. As major sections of the Danube – an international waterway in itself – are state borders, the idea of establishing cooperation at the level of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) was raised. However, there were wide-ranging differences between the countries of the bloc, involving territorial and nationalist disputes, ideological issues and reservations about the common institutions of the bloc. These differences – Romania’s defence of her national sovereignty in particular – prevented the joint exploitation of the river. The planned power plants were thus left to national jurisdiction or (in the case of joint Danube sections) their construction was regulated by bilateral negotiations. In the case of Romanian–Yugoslav relations, this was achieved relatively quickly, but between Czechoslovakia and Hungary (although the two countries were theoretically closer) it led to almost insurmountable conflicts. The most important of these, in my opinion, although it did not surface openly, was the question of changing the Trianon borders. This dispute delayed the start of construction for decades. By the time the power plants were started building, the communist regimes had also fallen, while new conflicts – not discussed in this paper – had emerged.
Research Interests:
The twentieth century was a period of frequent regime changes in Hungary. From 1918 to 1947, territorial changes were also common. Within the short twentieth century, the international environment changed significantly, from the age of... more
The twentieth century was a period of frequent regime changes in Hungary. From 1918 to 1947, territorial changes were also common. Within the short twentieth century, the international environment changed significantly, from the age of territoriality to the age of globalization. The paper examines whether and how Hungary was territorialized or globalized during political transformation periods. After discussing the theoretical background, the study examines the drivers of territorialization. According to the scholarly literature, formation of new states and the presence of minorities in the borderland area always go hand in hand with territorialization. This claim is supported by events in twentieth-century Hungary. At the same time, the paper also examines whether regime and/or border changes have the same effect or not. Finally, another important question is whether the liberalization of the border regime will soften the political system and contribute to political regime change.
Research Interests:
Emigration and Hungarian Cizizenship, 1948-1978 State socialist regimes generally prohibited emigration altogether. Nevertheless, many people managed to leave the territory of Hungary, either legally or illegally, after the consolidation... more
Emigration and Hungarian Cizizenship, 1948-1978
State socialist regimes generally prohibited emigration altogether. Nevertheless, many people managed to leave the territory of Hungary, either legally or illegally, after the consolidation of the Communist regime. Those who left were branded as enemies and untrustworthy by the regime, which, however, periodically tried to lure back some of them by proclaiming amnesty or to at least draw them under its political influence. This duality resulted in the question of the Hungarian citizenship of the emigrees remaining unsettled, and later contradictory regulations were made, distinguishing between emigrees to „friendly” and Western countries, as well as between politically trustworthy and hostile emigrees, sometimes on the basis of the date when they left Hungary. The chronological limits of the paper are marked by the second Hungarian Act of Citizenship (1948) and the third set of passport regulations (1978). The author explores the stormy relationship between emigration and citizenship rights in these three decades mainly on the basis of primary sources.
State socialist regimes generally prohibited emigration altogether. Nevertheless, many people managed to leave the territory of Hungary, either legally or illegally, after the consolidation of the Communist regime. Those who left were branded as enemies and untrustworthy by the regime, which, however, periodically tried to lure back some of them by proclaiming amnesty or to at least draw them under its political influence. This duality resulted in the question of the Hungarian citizenship of the emigrees remaining unsettled, and later contradictory regulations were made, distinguishing between emigrees to „friendly” and Western countries, as well as between politically trustworthy and hostile emigrees, sometimes on the basis of the date when they left Hungary. The chronological limits of the paper are marked by the second Hungarian Act of Citizenship (1948) and the third set of passport regulations (1978). The author explores the stormy relationship between emigration and citizenship rights in these three decades mainly on the basis of primary sources.
Research Interests:
Az államszocialista rendszerek szigorúan korlátozták az ország területéről való kivándorlást, mivel a munkaerő elvesztését a termelőerők legsúlyosabb veszteségének tartották. Az ettől való félelem olyan erős volt, hogy a külföldre utazást... more
Az államszocialista rendszerek szigorúan korlátozták az ország területéről való kivándorlást, mivel a munkaerő elvesztését a termelőerők legsúlyosabb veszteségének tartották. Az ettől való félelem olyan erős volt, hogy a külföldre utazást általában is gátolni próbálták, megelőzve annak lehetőségét, hogy a kiutazók nem térnek vissza. A határ átlépése 1949 után Magyarországon is szinte lehetetlenné vált, még a keleti blokk államai közötti utazások esetében is. A legális kiutazási lehetőségek hiányában jelentős mértékű illegális határátlépésre került sor. 1955 után a külföldre utazás lehetősége fokozatosan bővült, nagyon szűk csoportok számára még a kivándorlás is lehetővé vált. A nyugati államokba való kiutazás azonban egészen 1989-ig politikai, állambiztonsági kérdés maradt, az utazás lehetőségéből kizárt személyek pedig csak illegálisan juthattak el külföldre.
Research Interests:
Local consequences of the Trianon Peace Treaty have not been researched thoroughly. This study describes the everyday life of rural people on both sides of the Eastern part of the new border between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Based on... more
Local consequences of the Trianon Peace Treaty have not been researched thoroughly. This study describes the everyday life of rural people on both sides of the Eastern part of the new border between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Based on research in Hungarian and Czech archives and with the help of newspaper articles, the author illustrates the difficulties of re-establishing the old familial and economic ties between villages that were separated by the border. Many activities of the borderland people were illegal. The paper discusses how authorities responded to these offences. Besides long and small distance traffic and the problems of dual landowners, illegal crossing, contraband, and border incidents are also part of the analysis. Contrary to all hardships, the border remained permeable in the interwar period.
Research Interests:
Territorialization and Globalization: Historiographical Overview In recent decades, social science research has been paying increasing attention to the study of spatiality. The basic concepts of this so-called spatial turn include... more
Territorialization and Globalization: Historiographical Overview
In recent decades, social science research has been paying increasing attention to the study of spatiality. The basic concepts of this so-called spatial turn include territoriality and territorialization (and the opposite of the latter one, deterritorialization). However, this spatial turn has coincided with a new wave of globalization, during which many researchers have assumed that space is becoming less important. The present paper reviews the definitions of territoriality, which the author considers to be a static concept, while territorialization and deterritorialization involve change over time. Some periods of history are characterized by an increase of the rule and control over a given territory (territorialization), while other periods by a decrease of the importance of territoriality (deterritorialization). Territoriality is closely linked to the concept of sovereignty, since the internal and external recognition of control over a territory is essential for any state. The paper, therefore, examines the relationship between territoriality and sovereignty and the challenges that globalization poses to both. In particular, it seeks to answer the question whether globalization inevitably has a deterritorializing effect, whether it causes a clear decline in the role of territoriality, or whether the relationship between the two concepts is more complex.
In recent decades, social science research has been paying increasing attention to the study of spatiality. The basic concepts of this so-called spatial turn include territoriality and territorialization (and the opposite of the latter one, deterritorialization). However, this spatial turn has coincided with a new wave of globalization, during which many researchers have assumed that space is becoming less important. The present paper reviews the definitions of territoriality, which the author considers to be a static concept, while territorialization and deterritorialization involve change over time. Some periods of history are characterized by an increase of the rule and control over a given territory (territorialization), while other periods by a decrease of the importance of territoriality (deterritorialization). Territoriality is closely linked to the concept of sovereignty, since the internal and external recognition of control over a territory is essential for any state. The paper, therefore, examines the relationship between territoriality and sovereignty and the challenges that globalization poses to both. In particular, it seeks to answer the question whether globalization inevitably has a deterritorializing effect, whether it causes a clear decline in the role of territoriality, or whether the relationship between the two concepts is more complex.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
A hosszú 19. század végén végbemenő globalizációs folyamatok jelentősen csökkentették a korabeli államhatárok elválasztó szere-pét. A területiség jelentőségének visszaszorulása, a deterritoriali-zálódás... more
A hosszú 19. század végén végbemenő globalizációs folyamatok jelentősen csökkentették a korabeli államhatárok elválasztó szere-pét. A területiség jelentőségének visszaszorulása, a deterritoriali-zálódás Magyarországra is kiterjedt. S bár a trendfordulót, vagyis a területi elhatárolódás erősödésének kezdetét az első világháború kitöréséhez kapcsoljuk, a kivándorlás következtében e folyamat hazánkban már korábban elkezdődött. A háborút követően sem állt vissza a korábbi helyzet. Sőt, a trianoni határok közötti Magyarország sajátos kényszerpályára került. A tanulmány azt vizsgálja, hogy milyen tényezők járultak hozzá a territorializálódás erősödéséhez, valamint milyen ezzel ellentétes törekvések próbálták lassítani ezt a folyamatot.
Research Interests:
Hungary lost large parts of its historical territory as a consequence of the 1920 Trianon Peace Treaty. Although the new borders in general followed ethnic boundaries, neighbouring states had clear strategic and economic interests even in... more
Hungary lost large parts of its historical territory as a consequence of the 1920 Trianon Peace Treaty. Although the new borders in general followed ethnic boundaries, neighbouring states had clear strategic and economic interests even in areas where Hungarians constituted the majority among local people. Taking these interests into consideration, the peace treaty deprived Hungary of most of its economic resources. The new borders also meant new customs frontiers. Railway lines were cut, and most economic connections were broken. Passport obligations and customs formalities were introduced overnight in the middle of the old kingdom, separating families and cutting estates in two. Once prosperous regional centres now became peripheries in their own country. However, local communities were able to take advantage of the new possibilities – both legal and illegal – arising from the borderland situation. This paper provides examples of such cross-border economic activities in the 1920s. For instance, dual landowners could cultivate their land on both sides of the border, and thus had the possibility to cross the border legally anywhere within the territory of their estates during daylight. Others traversed the border without a passport or the necessary documentation, mostly to engage in contraband activities. Smuggling was also common among dual landowners. The paper focuses mostly on these illegal acts. Since contraband was not confined to cross-border transportation (illicit domestic transport was also deemed smuggling), the author gives an overview of legal regulations on contraband and shows how these rules were enforced. He examines what kind of goods were smuggled, what the motives of the contrabandists were (both in time and space), and compares the contraband activities of the lower and upper classes. The presented case studies show that illegal border crossings and even contraband offences were treated rather differently by local authorities.
Research Interests:
Az első világháború és az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia felbomlása után Magyarország nyugati részén is új lapot kellett nyitni a történelemkönyvekben. Hosszú évszázadok után a Habsburg Birodalom belső határán elterülő térség két szuverén... more
Az első világháború és az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia felbomlása után Magyarország nyugati részén is új lapot kellett nyitni a történelemkönyvekben. Hosszú évszázadok után a Habsburg Birodalom belső határán elterülő térség két szuverén ország külső határvidékévé változott. Az addig inkább csak elvileg létező határ – illetve egy attól 20-30 kilométerrel keletre eső új vonal – valódi választóvonallá alakult át egy olyan térségben, amelynek korábban a határ menti léttel kapcsolatban nem voltak tapasztalatai. Ez az átalakulás jelentős mértékben kihatott a helyi közösségek életkörülményeire, még úgy is, hogy a változások lassan, fokozatosan következtek be. A jelen tanulmányban ezt az elhatárolódási folyamatot (Abgrenzung) szeretném bemutatni Vas vármegyében, különös tekintettel arra, hogy milyen közvetlen hatásokat gyakorolt az új határ a helyi közösségek életére.
Research Interests:
After the Action program of the Czechoslovak Communist Party was adopted during the Prague Spring in April 1968, a new government was formed in which Josef Pavel was the minister of internal affairs. Pavel was a victim of the show trials... more
After the Action program of the Czechoslovak Communist Party was adopted during the Prague Spring in April 1968, a new government was formed in which Josef Pavel was the minister of internal affairs. Pavel was a victim of the show trials in the Stalin period and therefore a strong supporter of the reform movement. The paper deals with his plans to reshape the work of his ministry and, most importantly, of the state security. His plans were based on the Action program of the party. However, even party leader and moderate reformer Alexander Dubček and prime minister Oldřich Černík worked against him, so initially Pavel had no support at all, not even in the ministry itself. The only notable exception was Václav Prchlík, leader of the administrative department of the party, who was also a radical reformer. Pavel was able to replace the previous deputy ministers only after two months and other leaders of his portfolio in the beginning of August. Pavel’s reforms were opposed by the soviet security service, the KGB, which had agents also in Prague, both Soviets and Czechoslovaks, including one of the new deputy ministers, Viliam Šalgovič. In his first months, Pavel even seemed to be hesitant. Contrary to these facts, and against the resolution of the Presidency of the Central Committee, Pavel was able to carry on his plans and to adopt the action plans of the ministry and the security services.
Research Interests:
Countries of the Soviet Bloc always emphasized the friendly relationship among them. However, they had several inner conflicts. During the last 25 years, many details have been uncovered about their debates. The common feature of these... more
Countries of the Soviet Bloc always emphasized the friendly relationship among them. However, they had several inner conflicts. During the last 25 years, many details have been uncovered about their debates. The common feature of these researches is that they mainly focus on the relations between two countries. The aim of this paper is to categorize the types of these conflicts and to sum up the results of previous researches, while the main characteristics of these debates are also presented. There are three basic types of conflicts but all of them have special sub-categories. The first type contains nationalism-based struggles with border disputes and problems related to the protection of minorities. The second basic type is the ideological antagonism among the communist states; dogmatic Marxists clashed with reformer “revisionists” either in the field of foreign or (and) inner affairs. These debates caused the so-called “growing apart” of the states in the bloc. Special attention must be paid to the German question, a topic which generated the most intense ideological fights from 1955 to 1973. Finally, the third group is made up by the debates related to the problems of the common economic, political and military policy and institutions of the bloc (e.g. the Comecon or the Warsaw Pact). Researches dealing with these topics of course examined the disagreements multilaterally. All the conflicts were also interrelated, they sometimes strengthened, sometimes weakened each other. In sum, their result was that neither the whole bloc nor certain parts of it could not function as a real alliance.
Research Interests:
Besides Hungary, Poland was also deeply shaken in 1956. The stalinist regimes were changed in both countries either by reforms or by revolution. Given that the self-management system had been built for years in Yugoslavia by then, a large... more
Besides Hungary, Poland was also deeply shaken in 1956. The stalinist regimes were changed in both countries either by reforms or by revolution. Given that the self-management system had been built for years in Yugoslavia by then, a large reform area would have been created if Czechoslovakia joined these reforms and changes. My study aims at examining two topics. First, what were the reasons for the internal hardening of the Czechoslovak regime in the summer of 1956 and how the year of 1956 became (as the French historian Muriel Blaive insisted in her book) a „missed opportunity” in
Czechoslovakia. Although in the spring of 1956 social movements (of students and writers etc.) were as active in Czechoslovakia as in the two mentioned neighbouring countries, leaders of the Communist
Party of Czechoslovakia (CPCz) were able to put these movements to an end. Secondly, I investigate the reactions of the Czechoslovak (and Slovak) party leadership and the state security to the Hungarian
revolution in 1956. How the outbreak of the revolution was evaluated in Prague (and in Bratislava), what forces were mobilized to prevent spreading of the revolution to Czechoslovak territory and finally, to help
the Hungarian stalinist forces and János Kádár’s Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party (HSWP). These two topics are closely intertwined because the halting of the Czechoslovak thaw helped the CPCz’s actions
against the Hungarian revolution as well. It is also worth to say a few words about the reactions of the Czech and Slovak society, including the large Hungarian minority to these events.
Czechoslovakia. Although in the spring of 1956 social movements (of students and writers etc.) were as active in Czechoslovakia as in the two mentioned neighbouring countries, leaders of the Communist
Party of Czechoslovakia (CPCz) were able to put these movements to an end. Secondly, I investigate the reactions of the Czechoslovak (and Slovak) party leadership and the state security to the Hungarian
revolution in 1956. How the outbreak of the revolution was evaluated in Prague (and in Bratislava), what forces were mobilized to prevent spreading of the revolution to Czechoslovak territory and finally, to help
the Hungarian stalinist forces and János Kádár’s Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party (HSWP). These two topics are closely intertwined because the halting of the Czechoslovak thaw helped the CPCz’s actions
against the Hungarian revolution as well. It is also worth to say a few words about the reactions of the Czech and Slovak society, including the large Hungarian minority to these events.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Causes of the Great War – After hundred years, the debate on the origins of the Great War is still intense and heated. Books dealing with this topic can fill a whole library. This short study tries to summarize the last twenty years... more
The Causes of the Great War – After hundred years, the debate on the origins of the Great War is still intense and heated. Books dealing with this topic can fill a whole library. This short study tries to summarize the last twenty years of this debate, which is not really known to the Hungarian-speaking public. Hence, the author argues that one should differentiate between 'sin', 'responsibility' and 'causes'. Another thing that we should understand as well is the difference between causes and causers. Both of them can be studied in the case of the first, localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia and in the case of the world war. Finally, there are also 'superficial' and deeper (viz. more complex) causes of the Great War. After hundred years of the outbreak of the war, historians still disagree even in the simplest question: was the war 'accidental' or, on the contrary, a result of a long international rivalry. The author examines the role of nationalism, imperialism, secret diplomacy, expansionism, mobilization, the Schlieffen-plan etc.; then summarises the deeper causes such as fear, the misunderstanding of the new international system and political changes, the disharmony of political and military leaders etc. After all, it seems that the outbreak of the war was a result of several different decisions. Most of them were aimed at avoiding war, but the overall effect of them was different. The most recent researches suggest that every country had its own responsibility in starting the war. It was not only Germany, but also Russia, Austria-Hungary and, to a lesser extent, France and Britain held some responsibility as well. The personal responsibility is much more disputable; however, it is certain that there were political and especially military leaders who committed 'sins of omission' or 'sins of commission'.
Research Interests:
Ernő Gerő's "Clear Sheet" Policy in the Hungarian Parliament The Session of the National Assembly from 30th July to 3rd August 1956 Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to resign on 18th July... more
Ernő Gerő's "Clear Sheet" Policy in the Hungarian Parliament
The Session of the National Assembly from 30th July to 3rd August 1956
Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to resign
on 18th July 1956. He was followed by Ernő Gerő who was also considered to be
a stalinist leader. However, after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union he gradually changed his mind and became reform-orientated. He
announced his political reforms known as the policy of „clear sheet". These reforms
are mosdy forgotten, contrary to the fact that they were not only announced but
executed as well.
One of the main aims of these reforms was to increase the role of the Hungarian
National Assembly, which was neglected during the Rákosi leadership. The Parliament
assembled twice a year, negotiating only for 8-10 days per annum. The number
of laws was reduced by issuing so-called „law decrees". There were no interpellations
for years, from 1949 to 1956.
This study analyzes the five-day session of the National Assembly in the summer
of 1956, where many significant changes took place. First of all, two resolutions
were passed in order to secure the greater role of the parliament and the MPs in
public life. The second important issue was the „socialist lawfulness", e.g. the rehabilitation process of the victims of the show trials; other measures were to be
taken to penalize those officials (mostly in the political police) who broke the laws
in the first half of the 1950s. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General also had
long speeches which dealt with socialist lawfulness. The third important event was
the interpellation day, where the first interpellations could be heard for seven years.
Although these changes were excessive, it is necessary to underline the limits of this
democratization. Old habits were hard to break. Parliamentary reforms were prepared
even before the fall of Rákosi. What is more, its recommendations were more
radical than the resolutions which were adopted later. There were no real debates
either: speakers were carefully selected previously. Lawfulness had its own limits;
it was only a socialist lawfulness. However, these were only the first steps to the
right direction. The next session was to be held in October with important subjects
on its agenda. However, due to the revolution of 1956, the session was cancelled.
The National Assembly was convened only in May 1957, when Kádár restored the
stalinist type of legislation.
The Session of the National Assembly from 30th July to 3rd August 1956
Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to resign
on 18th July 1956. He was followed by Ernő Gerő who was also considered to be
a stalinist leader. However, after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union he gradually changed his mind and became reform-orientated. He
announced his political reforms known as the policy of „clear sheet". These reforms
are mosdy forgotten, contrary to the fact that they were not only announced but
executed as well.
One of the main aims of these reforms was to increase the role of the Hungarian
National Assembly, which was neglected during the Rákosi leadership. The Parliament
assembled twice a year, negotiating only for 8-10 days per annum. The number
of laws was reduced by issuing so-called „law decrees". There were no interpellations
for years, from 1949 to 1956.
This study analyzes the five-day session of the National Assembly in the summer
of 1956, where many significant changes took place. First of all, two resolutions
were passed in order to secure the greater role of the parliament and the MPs in
public life. The second important issue was the „socialist lawfulness", e.g. the rehabilitation process of the victims of the show trials; other measures were to be
taken to penalize those officials (mostly in the political police) who broke the laws
in the first half of the 1950s. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General also had
long speeches which dealt with socialist lawfulness. The third important event was
the interpellation day, where the first interpellations could be heard for seven years.
Although these changes were excessive, it is necessary to underline the limits of this
democratization. Old habits were hard to break. Parliamentary reforms were prepared
even before the fall of Rákosi. What is more, its recommendations were more
radical than the resolutions which were adopted later. There were no real debates
either: speakers were carefully selected previously. Lawfulness had its own limits;
it was only a socialist lawfulness. However, these were only the first steps to the
right direction. The next session was to be held in October with important subjects
on its agenda. However, due to the revolution of 1956, the session was cancelled.
The National Assembly was convened only in May 1957, when Kádár restored the
stalinist type of legislation.
Research Interests:
Assertion of Hungarian Minority Interests in Czechoslovakia in the 1920s The first election to the House of Representatives to the Czechoslovak parliament took place in April 1920, when ten Hungarian representatives were elected. Some of... more
Assertion of Hungarian Minority Interests in Czechoslovakia in the 1920s
The first election to the House of Representatives to the Czechoslovak parliament took place in April 1920, when ten Hungarian representatives were elected. Some of them was later replaced by other representatives and some new Hungarian members of parliament were elected. This study analyses their activities in the National Assembly in Prague with statistical methods. The main focus was to compare the activities of the Hungarian social democrats and the ’conservatives’ (the number of their proposals, speeches, interpellations and also the question of [non-]cooperation between the two groups). Members of the right-wing parties were much more active and used the Hungarian language in their interpellations etc. much more often than the socialists. I also tried to compare the topics of their interpellations and also the effect of these activities in the field of protection of minority rights.
The first election to the House of Representatives to the Czechoslovak parliament took place in April 1920, when ten Hungarian representatives were elected. Some of them was later replaced by other representatives and some new Hungarian members of parliament were elected. This study analyses their activities in the National Assembly in Prague with statistical methods. The main focus was to compare the activities of the Hungarian social democrats and the ’conservatives’ (the number of their proposals, speeches, interpellations and also the question of [non-]cooperation between the two groups). Members of the right-wing parties were much more active and used the Hungarian language in their interpellations etc. much more often than the socialists. I also tried to compare the topics of their interpellations and also the effect of these activities in the field of protection of minority rights.
Research Interests:
The Authoritarian Governor and the Democratic Philosopher-President: Remarks on the Authority of Miklós Horthy and Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk Both Horthy and Masaryk had limited power at the beginning of their gov-ernment, but they were... more
The Authoritarian Governor and the Democratic Philosopher-President: Remarks on the Authority of Miklós Horthy and Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk
Both Horthy and Masaryk had limited power at the beginning of their gov-ernment, but they were able to expand their authority quickly. The two pro-cesses were not simultaneous: when the first rights of Horthy were codified, the extension of Masaryk‟s authority had already been finished. In fact, Hor-thy succeeded several times in persuading the National Assembly (and later the parliament) to extend his authority. On the first of these occasions, in August 1920 he gained such rights that exceeded even the prerogatives of the Czechoslovakian president, but later, in 1926, 1933 and 1937 Horthy went even further. Considering these facts, the theories about the extent of Masaryk‟s and Horthy‟s power, namely that the former had strong, while the latter medium-strong or rather weak prerogatives as the heads of state in the early 1920s, become indefensible. Although both of these assumptions are generally accepted by historiography, either of them has to be incorrect. The source of the misconceptions very likely the fact that the prerogatives of Masaryk, and Horthy have never been compared to each other systematical-ly. Instead, Masaryk‟s status was contrasted with the rights of other Europe-an presidents, and this aspect indicated that he was powerful head of state. On the other hand, Horthy‟s authorities were considered in comparison with the former royal prerogatives, which of course, resulted in the belief that he had a quite restricted power.
As far as the exploitation of the prerogatives is concerned, the policies of Horthy and Masaryk were considerably different. It was true especially for the 1920s that Horthy did not exert his rights completely, while Masaryk repeatedly overstepped his authority and interfered in politics unconstitu-tionally. Later on, and particularly in the 1930s both of them tried to use their prerogatives in order to save the current political system.
Both Horthy and Masaryk had limited power at the beginning of their gov-ernment, but they were able to expand their authority quickly. The two pro-cesses were not simultaneous: when the first rights of Horthy were codified, the extension of Masaryk‟s authority had already been finished. In fact, Hor-thy succeeded several times in persuading the National Assembly (and later the parliament) to extend his authority. On the first of these occasions, in August 1920 he gained such rights that exceeded even the prerogatives of the Czechoslovakian president, but later, in 1926, 1933 and 1937 Horthy went even further. Considering these facts, the theories about the extent of Masaryk‟s and Horthy‟s power, namely that the former had strong, while the latter medium-strong or rather weak prerogatives as the heads of state in the early 1920s, become indefensible. Although both of these assumptions are generally accepted by historiography, either of them has to be incorrect. The source of the misconceptions very likely the fact that the prerogatives of Masaryk, and Horthy have never been compared to each other systematical-ly. Instead, Masaryk‟s status was contrasted with the rights of other Europe-an presidents, and this aspect indicated that he was powerful head of state. On the other hand, Horthy‟s authorities were considered in comparison with the former royal prerogatives, which of course, resulted in the belief that he had a quite restricted power.
As far as the exploitation of the prerogatives is concerned, the policies of Horthy and Masaryk were considerably different. It was true especially for the 1920s that Horthy did not exert his rights completely, while Masaryk repeatedly overstepped his authority and interfered in politics unconstitu-tionally. Later on, and particularly in the 1930s both of them tried to use their prerogatives in order to save the current political system.
Research Interests:
Az 1945-ben a Szovjetunió befolyása alá került kelet-közép-európai és balkáni országok mindegyikében végbement a népi demokratikus, majd a szocialista átalakulás. Ez a folyamat tetten érhető ezen országok alkotmányainak fejlődésében is. A... more
Az 1945-ben a Szovjetunió befolyása alá került kelet-közép-európai és balkáni országok mindegyikében végbement a népi demokratikus, majd a szocialista átalakulás. Ez a folyamat tetten érhető ezen országok alkotmányainak fejlődésében is. A tanulmány összehasonlító jelleggel közelíti meg ezt a folyamatot, arra téve kísérletet, hogy térben és időben egyaránt csoportokra bontsa a térség új alaptörvényeit és azok fontosabb módosításait. Eszerint viszonylag jól elkülöníthető egymástól a kelet-közép-európai (keletnémet, lengyel, csehszlovák, magyar), illetve a balkáni (jugoszláv, román, bolgár, albán) alkotmányos modell. Különösen így van ez a kommunista alkotmányfejlődés első korszakában, a „népi demokratikus” időszakban, amelyben a balkáni alkotmányok erőteljesen támaszkodtak a szovjet sztálini alaptörvényre, míg a többi állam számos korábbi hagyományát is átmentette. A szocialista alkotmányok időszakában, a hatvanas–hetvenes évektől kezdve a két alrégió éles elkülönülése már kevésbé tapasztalható, de továbbra is kimutatható. Ekkortól érzékelhető különbségek alakulnak ki aszerint is, hogy az adott állam „liberális” vagy „konzervatív”, vagyis „puhavonalas” vagy „keményvonalas” politikát folytatott-e. Ekkor a szocialista államok alkotmányjogi szempontból is önállóbb utakat jártak be, így egymástól és a szovjet alaptípustól is egyre jobban különböztek. A tanulmány megvizsgálja azt a kérdést is, hogy milyen történelmi okai vannak annak, hogy a magyar alkotmányos berendezkedés 1949 után látszólag inkább a balkáni modellel, míg a jugoszláv 1953-tól inkább az északabbival mutat hasonlóságot.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Forgotten Reforms? The July 1956 Session of the Central Leadership of the Hungarian Workers' Party and Historical Problems of the „clear sheet" policy Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to... more
Forgotten Reforms?
The July 1956 Session of the Central Leadership of the Hungarian Workers'
Party and Historical Problems of the „clear sheet" policy
Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to
resign by soviet Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan on 18th July, 1956. He was
followed by Ernő Gerő, who was also a hated man, responsible for all economic
decisions in earlier years and taking part in a leadership which had committed
serious crimes. He remained in power for three months only, until the October
1956 Revolution. Although Gerő announced political reforms, historians regard it
only as a tactical step.
This study suggests that these reforms, named „clear sheet", or „tabula rasa" policy,
were in fact serious steps toward a „socialist democracy". What is more, these
steps were not only announced but many of them was also taken. However, three
months were not enough for Gerő to introduce all changes, because he was also
engaged in neutralizing the activity of the party opposition lead by Imre Nagy's
group.
The study analyzes these reforms (e.g. increasing the role of the National Assembly,
restoring the „socialist legality", decentralization, improving the living standards
of the society, broadening the freedom of speech, giving greater support to
the intellectuals etc.). To sum up, it can be stated that these reforms have a lot in
common with the reforms of Imre Nagy in 1953. Surprisingly, it seems that the
so-called „soft dictatorship" would have started much earlier, already in 1956, instead
of 1963. The later reforms of János Kádár, introduced gradually in the 1960s
(and sometimes only in the 1980s) probably originated also from this period of
time, the Summer of'56.
This study has much more questions than answers, its aim is to generate a new
debate on Gerő's first secretariat hoping that a better understanding of this period
can be reached. The most important questions are the following: why did the
Revolution exacdy break out; how would it be possible to avoid it and, most
interestingly, what would have happened if the Revolution did not break out at all?
The July 1956 Session of the Central Leadership of the Hungarian Workers'
Party and Historical Problems of the „clear sheet" policy
Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to
resign by soviet Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan on 18th July, 1956. He was
followed by Ernő Gerő, who was also a hated man, responsible for all economic
decisions in earlier years and taking part in a leadership which had committed
serious crimes. He remained in power for three months only, until the October
1956 Revolution. Although Gerő announced political reforms, historians regard it
only as a tactical step.
This study suggests that these reforms, named „clear sheet", or „tabula rasa" policy,
were in fact serious steps toward a „socialist democracy". What is more, these
steps were not only announced but many of them was also taken. However, three
months were not enough for Gerő to introduce all changes, because he was also
engaged in neutralizing the activity of the party opposition lead by Imre Nagy's
group.
The study analyzes these reforms (e.g. increasing the role of the National Assembly,
restoring the „socialist legality", decentralization, improving the living standards
of the society, broadening the freedom of speech, giving greater support to
the intellectuals etc.). To sum up, it can be stated that these reforms have a lot in
common with the reforms of Imre Nagy in 1953. Surprisingly, it seems that the
so-called „soft dictatorship" would have started much earlier, already in 1956, instead
of 1963. The later reforms of János Kádár, introduced gradually in the 1960s
(and sometimes only in the 1980s) probably originated also from this period of
time, the Summer of'56.
This study has much more questions than answers, its aim is to generate a new
debate on Gerő's first secretariat hoping that a better understanding of this period
can be reached. The most important questions are the following: why did the
Revolution exacdy break out; how would it be possible to avoid it and, most
interestingly, what would have happened if the Revolution did not break out at all?
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Review on Péter Vukman's book titled 'Harcban Tito és Rankovics klikkje ellen. Jugoszláv politikai emigránsok Magyarországon (1948–1980)'
Research Interests:
Recenzió / Book review on Miroslav MICHELA: Trianon labirintusaiban. Történelem, emlékezetpolitika és párhuzamos történetek Szlovákiában és Magyarországon
Research Interests:
Review on: A multietnikus nemzetállam: Kísérletek, kudarcok és kompromisszumok Csehszlovákia nemzetiségi politikájában 1918–1992 [The multiethnic nation state: Attempts, failures, and compromises in Czechoslovakia’s nationality policy... more
Review on: A multietnikus nemzetállam: Kísérletek, kudarcok és kompromisszumok Csehszlovákia nemzetiségi politikájában 1918–1992 [The multiethnic nation state: Attempts, failures, and compromises in Czechoslovakia’s nationality policy from 1918 to 1992]. By László Szarka. Dunaszerdahely/Dunajská Streda–Pozsony/Bratislava: Kalligram, 2016.
Research Interests:
Review on: Mitrovits Miklós: Lengyel, magyar „két jó barát”. A magyar–lengyel kapcsolatok dokumentumai, 1957–1987. Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest, 2014. 844 oldal.
Research Interests:
Review on: Hermann Gusztáv Mihály et al.: A székelység története. Kézikönyv és tankönyv az általános iskolák VI. és VII. osztályai (valamint minden érdeklődő) számára. Csíkszereda–Sepsiszentgyörgy–Székelyudvarhely, 2012.
Research Interests:
Review on: Mary Heimann: Czechoslovakia. The State that Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven – London, 2009. (First paperback edition: 2011.) pp. 406.
Research Interests:
Review on: Glant Tibor: Emlékezzünk Magyarországra – 1956. Tanulmányok a magyar forradalom és szabadságharc amerikai emlékezetéről. Kiss József Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 2008. 318 oldal
Research Interests:
Review on: British-Hungarian Relations since 1848. Edited by László Péter and Martyn Rady. Hungarian Cultural Centre London - University College London, London, 2004.
(SSEES Occasional Papers No. 62.) pp. 366.
(SSEES Occasional Papers No. 62.) pp. 366.
Research Interests:
Bulla Béla – Mendöl Tibor: A Kárpát-medence földrajza című művének újabb kiadásáról. Az Országos Köznevelési Tanács 1947-es kiadása alapján kiadja a Lucidus Kiadó, Budapest, 1999.
Research Interests:
Review on: Norman J. G. Pounds: Európa történeti földrajza. Osiris, Budapest, 1997. 532 oldal. (An Historical Geography of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.)
Research Interests:
Review on: Richard and Ben Crampton: Atlas of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century. London and New York, Routledge 1996. pp. 297.
Research Interests:
Review on: Rónai András (szerk.): Középeurópa-atlasz. Budapest—Balatonfüred, Államtudományi Intézet, 1945.
Research Interests:
Az 1918 és 1989/90 közötti egyetemes történelem periodizációja, historiográfiája, forrásainak kutatási sajátosságai. A 20. századi politika és társadalom összefüggései. Politikai rendszerek, kormányformák a 20. században. Bevezető... more
Az 1918 és 1989/90 közötti egyetemes történelem periodizációja, historiográfiája, forrásainak kutatási sajátosságai. A 20. századi politika és társadalom összefüggései. Politikai rendszerek, kormányformák a 20. században. Bevezető tananyag történelem szakos hallgatók számára.
Research Interests:
Bevezetés történelem szakos hallgatók számára a 20. század legfontosabb eszmerendszereinek alapvető sajátosságaiba. A jobboldal-baloldal fogalmának értelmezése után az egyes ideológiák fejlődéséről szól a tananyag (ezek 18. és a 19.... more
Bevezetés történelem szakos hallgatók számára a 20. század legfontosabb eszmerendszereinek alapvető sajátosságaiba. A jobboldal-baloldal fogalmának értelmezése után az egyes ideológiák fejlődéséről szól a tananyag (ezek 18. és a 19. századi alapokra épülnek, amelyekre utal is a szöveg). Különösen nagy figyelmet fordít a tananyag a 20. század két szélsőséges ideológiájára, a szélsőbaloldali és a szélsőjobboldali eszmékre, ezek fejlődésére és összehasonlítására.
Konzervativizmus, liberalizmus, szocializmus, kommunizmus, nácizmus, fasizmus, nacionalizmus, populizmus, anarchizmus.
Konzervativizmus, liberalizmus, szocializmus, kommunizmus, nácizmus, fasizmus, nacionalizmus, populizmus, anarchizmus.