Parties split over legacy of [Hungary's] 1956 revolution (More hypocrisy from the Commies)

The Socialist Party, the leading party in government since April this year, claims Nagy's legacy as its own. The claim is disputed by some veterans of the revolution and the opposition who see the Socialists as the heir to the communist party which crushed the revolution after 13 days with Soviet backing.

It is not only veterans who say this; the Hungarian Socialist Party is the legal heir of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, which was formed for the very purpose of putting down the revolution. They have no qualms about owning and spending the funds of the commie party, while at the same time they shed crocodile tears for the people the same party murdered. How typical of leftists.

Communism ended peacefully in Hungary--but I often wish it hadn't. Imagine Germany's National Socialist Workers' Party changing its name to National Socialist Party and nominating the sons and cronies of Nazi officers to be elected into the Bundestag. The reason this is so impossible is that the Nazis met a crushing defeat, and their vicious acts were exposed for all the world to see. In Eastern Europe, Communism has collapsed, but the communists are still around, whitewashed and promoted by the liberal media, while members Fidesz, the major rival of the Socialist Party, are being demonized like the Jews were in the Third Reich.

I do hope that the tyrannies of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and their likes, will NOT meet their ends peacefully like European Communism did, but more like Nazi Germany did!

Civic Circles, a grass-roots organization close to Fidesz

A little correction here: there is no one organization called Civic Circles, but there are thousands "civic circles," or small groups formed by people who support Fidesz.

In Eastern Europe, Communism has collapsed, but the communists are still around

Does anyone know what the situation is in Romania?

Are the Communists still a significant power in the government, or did the execution of the Ceausescus on Christmas 1989 after a couple of weeks of fighting put them in a much weaker position there?

Ping

Read Reagan's War........there is some very interesting information about the Hungarian Revolution and America's failure to support the freedom fighters.

Does anyone know what the situation is in Romania?

I don't know about the exact situation in Romania, but the sad fact is that there exists no country that got rid of the commies the way Germany got rid of the National Socialists. The heirs of the communists are major players in the Czech Republic and in Poland, as well. Their policies are not communist now, but they are still socialist.

Read Reagan's War
Well just great. Now I'm going to have to go out and buy this. Well all I can say is I hope you can live with yourself. I can't beieve how cheap and easy I am. :-)

From Publishers Weekly
The Cold War rhetoric of the subtitle is completely apropos to this hagiography, which gives the Gipper full credit for bringing down the Soviet Union. Schweizer is a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and coauthor, with Caspar Weinberger (Reagan's secretary of defense) of The Next War. Using Reagan's own files and papers, and other newly released material, Schweizer demonstrates Reagan's development as a critic and determined opponent of communism and of the Stalinist Soviet Union. Schweizer depicts Reagan, from the beginning, regarding tactics and realpolitik as more important than ideas; in the process, the author does not carefully distinguish (as Reagan and most others of the era did not) Stalinism and what came after from communism as an ideal. Reflection, study and conviction led Reagan to the belief that steady pressure systematically applied would eventually bring down a Soviet Union whose legitimacy rested ultimately on force. He remained committed to this vision as his status rose in a Republican Party itself increasingly committed to a detente that Reagan argued both weakened the West and prolonged the survival of its rival power. Schweizer takes pains to establish the widespread belief in the West by 1980 that the balance of economic, military, and political forces had irrevocably shifted in favor of the U.S.S.R. On assuming the presidency, Reagan brought about a huge change in U.S. policy, abandoning defensive counterpunching and actively prosecuting a Cold War the U.S.S.R. had never ceased to wage. Schweizer argues that Reagan spent as much time convincing his own lieutenants to abandon the defensive as he did confronting the Russians. It's a story that is clearly and stirringly told, but without seriously entertaining dissenting views on its iconic subject.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Book Description
A meticulously researched and penetrating analysis of the Cold War, and the man who ended it. Peter Schweizer delves into the origins of Ronald Reagan’s vision of America, and documents his consistent, aggressive belief in confronting the Soviet Union diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

Ronald Reagan is often dismissed as an “amiable dunce,” a genial actor who simply mouthed whatever slogans his right-wing puppet masters put in front of him. Reagan’s War brilliantly overturns this myth. Drawing on private diaries dating from Reagan’s days as an actor and extending through his presidency, Peter Schweizer, a well-known historian of the Cold War, shows that Reagan’s fervent anticommunism marked every era of his life and was the driving force behind his policies as president.

Schweizer explores Reagan’s involvement with anticommunist liberals in Hollywood and his role as a secret informer for the FBI. Reagan’s outspoken criticism of d?tente in the late 1960s and his forceful advocacy for the overthrow of the USSR drew the attention of Soviet officials, who began a KGB file on him when he was still governor of California. By the time he was elected president, they viewed him as a serious threat to their interests. Reagan’s War shows just how right they were, presenting compelling evidence that Reagan personally mapped out and directed a campaign to bankrupt the Soviet Union and wage an economic and political war against Moscow.

In telling the story of Reagan’s ultimate triumph, Schweizer also brings to light dozens of previously unknown facts about the Cold War, based on secret documents obtained from archives in Russia, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the United States. Among his many startling revelations are Kissinger’s private deals with Soviet leaders that protected his own political viability while allowing the Soviets to pursue their goals within their own sphere; a North Korean and East German plot to assassinate Reagan in 1983; Reagan’s secret funding of Solidarity in Poland; and the behind-the-scenes support Soviets and East Germans provided for European and American peace movements, as well as their clandestine contacts with U.S. government officials.

A fresh, often startling look at Ronald Reagan and his central role in winning the war for global dominance in the 1980s, Reagan’s War is a major work of twentieth-century history.

From the Back Cover
"Peter Schweizer has written a profound and important book which is also compulsive reading. The Ronald Reagan he depicts is a man utterly consistent in his beliefs and analysis from his earliest forays into politics. While others were distracted by short-term considerations, President Reagan single-mindedly pursued his vast strategic goals--and he succeeded. Was there ever a better example of statesmanship in action?"
--Lady Margaret Thatcher

"Ronald Reagan played an invaluable role in bringing about the fall of communism and ending the Cold War without resorting to military solutions. Without his great political sense and prudence, instead of the popping of champagne corks, the world would have heard real artillery shots. We [in the Solidarity movement] sensed President Reagan's support and understanding and never had to ask for or demand it. This is not something easily found in the world of politics."
--Lech Walesa, former president of Poland

"In Reagan's War, Peter Schweizer has given us a timely and skilled history of Ronald Reagan's 40-year struggle against Communism that brings home the twin beacons he followed: we must be guided not by fear but by courage and moral clarity. This is a superb history that demonstrates why Reagan won the Cold War, and why it never would have been won without him."
--Caspar W. Weinberger, Chairman, Forbes, Inc.

"A masterstroke. Schweizer uses the secret archives of the Soviet Union and its satellites to outline with amazing detail the seriousness of the Soviet threat, the failures of the American establishment, and the brilliance of Reagan's strategy for victory. If you want to understand how we can win the war against Islamic extremists, study how Reagan achieved victory over communism in Reagan's War."
--Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House

About the Author
Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institute and the author of several books on the history of the Cold War. He is currently at work on a biography of the Bush dynasty. He lives in Palo Alto, California.

test

Just wait until you get this book........you will be amazed at EVERY turn. Since I am of an age to remember some of the events quite well I am enraged at what went on....IN OUR NAME......and that the identical anti-american people are still out there spewing the identical rhetoric. This is no accident and a well planned effort to undermine this country.

Reagan nearly single handedly saved the world and that is no understatement. No wonder the left hates him with such a passion.

Reagan nearly single handedly saved the world and that is no understatement.

I concur. If it hadn't been for the Gipper, I would be a slave of the commies now, as my countrymen were for four decades. In other words, I owe my freedom and happiness to President Reagan. May God bless him!

Since I am of an age to remember some of the events quite well

You and me both cowboy. How well I remeber the look of horror on the face of my liberal friends when the Gipper was elected. (sputter, sputter but, but, outrage) Even now it brings a smile to my lips and a warm feeling in my heart.

How well I remeber the look of horror on the face of my liberal friends when the Gipper was elected. (sputter, sputter but, but, outrage)

Oh yes, I can imagine that! Must have been a great day. I was only 3 years old at that time, but I do remember seeing him on TV and hearing the communist-controlled media haranguing on about him in the later years of his presidency. Although I didn't really understand what was going on, I felt an instinctive fondness of him, and smiled at the helpless fumings of his detractors.

I was only 3 years old at that time

Quick where's my geritol?

Come on now, make this quote your motto:

"I know a lot more about being young than about being old."
Ronald Reagan

...and now the great Viktor Orban is demonized in the United States and the Socialist scumbags are the best allies. President Bush himself will meet Hungary's communist prime MInister Peter Megyessy next month -- a former KGB agent called "D-209". Mocskos voros gazember! And "conservative" president Bush -- who refused to meet the conservative anti-communist Orban, but will gladly meet a former KGB thug who is now the criminal Prime Minister in Hungary. And people wonder why we are hated abroad...

Actually I prefer "Age and deceit beat youth and skill."

president Bush -- who refused to meet the conservative anti-communist Orban

I don't know how much of this "refusal" story is true. PM Orban went to Boston to accept a prize; I didn't hear anything about him wanting to go to DC until he came back to Hungary and the leftist papers here began whining about the trip.

We were in the middle of an election campaign, and the commies threw all sorts of lies and distortions at Fidesz, with the obedient assistance of the media. My impression was that, annoyed by the PM receiving a prize, the leftists tried to change the subject and it was simply an expedient for them that he hadn't been to DC. "He is now a persona non grata in the White House!" they began trumpeting.

Spin like this was very typical of the Socialists' campaign; they did it day by day, month after month. The reason that this lie became so famous and others didn't is that it was later picked up by the Washington ComPost.

It only adds to the hypocrisy that the same leftist papers routinely denigrate Bush as an evil capitalist unilateralist racist yada yada yada yada ... You know, the same stuff you hear in the States. This sort of forked tongue is also very typical of our leftists: In 2000, they vilified the Austrian government for restricting immigration and employment of foreigners, while in 2002, they castigated Orban for letting Romanians be employed in Hungary, wringing their hands about "the effects on the labor market." They accused the Fidesz government of being racist and persecuting Gypsies; then later, they started rumors about Orban himself being a Gypsy. (With the obvious intention of getting racists to vote against him!) They painted Fidesz as anti-Semitic, while at the same time they servilely echoed the lies about Islam being "a religion of peace."

I don't know how much of this "refusal" story is true. PM Orban went to Boston to accept a prize; I didn't hear anything about him wanting to go to DC until he came back to Hungary and the leftist papers here began whining about the trip.

He was quietly informed by the White House (NSC staff) that he was not welcome there before the trip. He just handled it in a characteristically brilliant way, by snubbing Bush in return. This forced Bush to call Orban back in Budapest and congratulate him to try and save face. The Bush White House is clearly more comfortable with Megyessy and the former communists. Bush's ambassador was actively assisting the communists in the election campaign, as you no doubt already know.

btt

The Bush White House is clearly more comfortable with Megyessy and the former communists.

But why would that be so? Medgyessy worked as a spy for the KGB, against U.S. interests. Although this fact was not known before the elections, I don't think it took the White House by surprise. It certainly didn't take me by surprise. I mean, a commie is a commie is a commie.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bubba were cozy with our commies--but Bush?? Just doesn't make sense.

Bush's ambassador was actively assisting the communists in the election campaign, as you no doubt already know.

Nancy Goodman Brinker sure acts funny at times, but I don't know how much of "Bush's ambassador" she is. When asked about her views, she said something like she was neither especially conservative nor especially liberal. I guess that might just as well be said by a New York Times columnist...