Magyar Egyház, 1957 (36. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1957-03-01 / 3. szám
MAGYAR EGYHÁZ 9 Hungarian Answers Hromadka (This article appeared in the “CHRISTIANITY & CRISIS” Vol. XVIII., No. 3.) PROFESSOR HROMADKA has recently published an article on the events in Hungary (Christianity and Crisis, Jan. 21). In the opening paragraph he explains that he has written the article only because some of his Western friends had asked for his opinion. I think it is very regrettable that he listened to the demand of his friends; rather than write such an article, he should have remained silent, for I am afraid it destroys the picture many churchmen had of Prof. Hromadka. Many people will find it impossible to believe that this article was written by the Hromadka they have known for many years, whom they trusted and whose opinion they often greatly esteemed. In fact, his recent article is nothing else but a repetition of the very questionable phraseology used by Communist newspapers in the East. It is easy to prove it. To start with, Prof. Hromadka writes that is is very difficult to get a clear picture of the Hungarian events and of the present situation in this country. This was true when the fighting was taking place, but is it difficult now to see quite clearly at least the essential lines? Is it difficult for instance, to know whether it was a counter-revolution made by a little group of reactionaries, or the movement of the whole population? Is it difficult to know now, after the long, brave strike and the passive resistance of the whole Hungarian working-class? Is it still difficult to tell whether it was a reactionary movement or not, when the whole world knows that the leading Marxist philosopher of our time, George Lukacs, was also involved in the revolution and has been deported together with Imre Nagy and when everybody knows that all the highly esteemed Communist intellectuals played a major part in it? No, it is not difficult, and it would seem — I am sorry to say — that Prof. Hromadka did not take the time to think it over but simply repeated the phrases he knows so well. I should like to prove here that his article is really nothing else but the repetition of Communist phrases. (1) Prof. Hromadka says that though the Hungarian events were originated by the righteous demands of the people, Western reactionary forces were present already at the beginning of the revolution, and with the encouragement and help of these forces, it became very soon a counter-revolution. It was not the fight of Hungarians for liberty; the Western powers sent arms to the reactionary elements and they made a terrible counter-revolution. Every Communist article about Hungary begins with this statement, but it is very easy to prove that it is not true. Just ask a Hungarian freedoom fighter about the Western arms. Sometimes it would be better not to hear the answer . . . (during the revolution there were very few Hungarians who really wished for Western military aid, but now that everything is over and lost, many people think — in utter despair — that it would have been better if they had received help from the West) . . . (2) Prof. Hromadka says that the Hungarian fight for freedom was clearly a counter-revolution. I can answer this very simply with two bitter jokes made by the workers after the defeat, when they heard that their movement was called a counter-revolution: “Report: ‘In the traditionally aristocratic district of Csepel island, the fight is still going on. The whole town is silent, but the aristocrats, capitalists, feudal lords and other reactionary elements of Csepel are still fighting against the troops of the workers, who are kindly supported by our great Russian friends.’ ” (Csepel island is the greatest factory district of Hungary and was always called “red” Csepel.) In the second, a Hungarian worker says after reading about the counter-revolution: “I never knew there were in Hungary so many — nine million — aristocrats and reactionaries, and only some thousand workers. Now I really understand why the Russians had to come and support these few good people against nine million wretched counter-revolutionaries.” (3) According to Prof. Hromadka, even those Hungarians who had some just criticism of communism and really wanted to reform a few things, now approve the Russian intervention of the 4th of November. During the days of the revolution and the free days which followed, most of the Communists tore their book of membership to pieces and said, “Never again communism.” Nevertheless, some really faithful and earnest Communists said, “Now we shall build up in freedom a new and good, little but strong, Communist Party.” But on the morning of the second Russian attack, they also tore to pieces their book of membership and went to fight on the barricades . . . (4) When referring to the revolution, the article often speaks of “nationalism” and “chauvinism.” We have to ask: is it chauvinism and nationalism if a country wants to be free, to abolish the red stars from the statues and buildings as the signs of Russian occupation, and use its national emblem instead of the Russian one? Is it nationalism if a country does not want to give all of its resources (uranium, oil, bauxite, etc.) and products to the Russian empire? Further, the Hungarians had not plotted anything against their neighbors (as Prof. Hromadka seems to think). They knew that the neighboring countries were suffering under oppression in the same way. If they felt some resentment, it was because these countries remained silent, and their governments condemned the revolution. (5) And now comes perhaps the most difficult point. Prof. Hromadka writes: “The Hungarian land was the scene of horrible counter-revolutionary passion, massacre and pogroms, in which thousands, perhaps tens of thousands perished—not only of Communists, but also Jews and older citizens.” Prof. Hromadka seems to forget that the most horrible things were committed by the wild and merciless Russian troops. Budapest is near to Prague. Why didn’t he pay a visit to Budapest before writing the
