“This is how an empire that conquered us interprets history” – Hungarian cultural policy maker reacts to Russian textbook calling 1956 revolutionaries fascists

“I don't think it's possible for any sensible Hungarian not to be upset [by the new Russian history textbook]. While I understand that this is a possible interpretation of the events from the Soviet Union's point of view, that doesn't make it true.”

-cultural policy-maker Szilárd Demeter replied on Monday to Telex's request for comment about the way the 1956 Hungarian revolution is described in a new Russian textbook. The director of the Petőfi Museum of Literature added: “As someone who grew up under the forced narrative of an alternative Romanian interpretation of history, it would be a source of satisfaction for me if the historiography of other countries were closer to the Hungarian interpretation.”

We recently reported, based on G7, that a new Russian history textbook commissioned by Vladimir Putin calls the Hungarian revolutionaries of 1956 fascists. In fact, they say that it was radicals, former soldiers of fascist Hungary, who took up arms at the time and also committed many murders during the revolution. The book also writes that “the Hungarian crisis was triggered by the actions of the Western secret services and the internal opposition they supported.”

The Russian textbook's interpretation of 1956 is particularly interesting because it is very different from the official Hungarian interpretation. According to the latter, 1956 was a spontaneous, grassroots uprising which turned into a struggle for freedom from Stalinist terror, Soviet occupation and the dictatorial political system of the country at the time.

In response to our question about the Russian textbook and the potential diplomatic consequences of its content, cultural policy expert Szilárd Demeter wrote:

"I don't think it's possible for any sensible Hungarian not to be upset [by the new Russian history textbook]. I have both said it and have written it down multiple times, that just like there are no good Nazis, there is also no such thing as a good communist. Inhumane dictatorships are still inhumane and remain dictatorships even if someone begins to retrospectively embellish them. 1956 has been called a counter-revolution (and by Hungarians at that) before, and that was also dishonoring to our heroes.

While I understand that this is a possible interpretation from the Soviet Union's point of view, that doesn't make it true. And that’s just the point: to what extent do we Hungarians experience the honourable historical moment of 1956 as true? I don’t think that any Russian textbook could change this, just as the way some of the other empires that have conquered us in the past interpret that part of history should not affect how we see ourselves.

Unfortunately, historical truth is not objective, and the science of history is not physics, which means that it will always be a contest between interpretations. As someone who grew up under the forced narrative of an alternative Romanian interpretation of history, (Demeter grew up as part of the Hungarian minority in Romania – TN) it would be a source of satisfaction for me if the historiography of other countries were closer to the Hungarian interpretation.

Although if the Hungarian government were to advocate this (say, in the successor states) the opposition press would be the first to indignantly argue against the legitimacy of Hungarian historiography and in favor of the legitimacy of other states' particular interpretations."

Viktor Orbán also likes to (re)interpret the meaning and essence of 1956. On 23 October 2007, for example, he said that 1956 was a revolt against the East, but in 2022 he polished his position and instead spoke about the importance of peace negotiations and how the West betrayed Hungary.

Over the last year and a half, those close to the Hungarian government have gradually adopted the narrative that the Soviet army that invaded Hungary in 1945 and 1956 should not be confused with the Russian army that invaded Ukraine in 2022, because Russia is not the Soviet Union. Yet, now, it seems that for some reason, the Russians have started to apply the Soviet interpretation of 1956, according to which the Soviet army brought peace after confronting the fascist rebels.

You may read our article on the new Russian textbook and how Viktor Orbán's (re)interpretation of the events of 1956 has changed over time here.