Talk:State Protection Authority/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about State Protection Authority. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Someone who can read Hungarian should at least translate what www.th.hu is and put that as the title of our external link. --Shallot 12:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The translation is:

">>The fist of labour class<<, the State Protection Authority – exhibition in the Office of History."

But I think the "History of AVH" is a good title, too. Gubbubu (labour class = working class in english?)

What does it mean "mob" in english?

...

Labouring class = working class. "Mob" = the group that makes riot or affray. Its usually used in a perjorative sense. We are a peaceful protest, they are a violent mob. Fifelfoo 22:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it seems to me this article needs a little NPOV correction, maybe some sentence (containing the expression "mob") was taken from a history book written by communists before the 80s. The referred article about the hungarian revolution in 56 is much more correct. Gubbubu 17:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wel, I don't think Dudas was a nacionalist, he was rather communist, see here. He was entered in the transilvanian illegal communist movement at about 1920, later he orientated to FKGP, but he did't give up his communist connections. His 25 points - independence, bringing down the goverment (they don't speak for us ... :-)), etc. contains no nacionalism. He was far left, I think. Gubbubu

I have a different recollection on my readings on the Dudas group. I'll meet you back here when I have sources. My recollection of his points were that: they enshrined a Dudas lead dictatorship and ignored all other revolutionary and democratic forces; and, that Dudas' politics included revanchevist and anti-Semetic attacks. I won't have my sources ready until January. (and unfortunately I don't have Magyar, so I can't read the source you posted) Fifelfoo 22:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My critics:

What are your resources? If you write about 1956 or about hungarian topics in the second half of the XX cent., please be careful and watch if those resources have been written after 1990, or not by old or reform- communists (Ferenc Glatz, Gyula Horn, Iván Pető, Árpád Göncz, etc.). Some of them (Glatz, Göncz) are quite reliable, but must be treaten with critics.
"Dictatorship", antisemitism are not characteristical criteria of beeing on the right. These can be found on the left, tho, especially "dictatorship" in hungary, where leftmen lead a hard dictature over 40 years.
Yes, Dudes maybe was an autocrat, but it is not sure ha was a "rightman", correlation of these concepts is so more complex.
The terminology left-wing and right-wing isn't so up-to-date anyway. See "left-wing" Tony Blair shaking hands cynycal with Bush: is he on the left-wing?
Anti-semitism, fascism etc. is the most complex series. Communist used this word in a particular meaning (anti-communism), funnily for the revolution. The basis of their counter-revolutional propaganda was the revolutioners were fascist and anti-semitists. This wasn't true. Even more, this terms have been used for forty years for all form of anti-communism and anti-dictature-attitude - and some of the mentioned people above, exactly Pető (whom mother and father both were members of the ÁVH) and his friends use this stigmatizing propaganda nowadays, too. So if you read something like this, try to read more, if it was true? (Audiatur et altera pars) Gubbubu 07:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi, I tried to clean up the article by adding sections and some links. I tried also to NPOVize the text by changing "mob" with "crowd" (more neutral term), and I reported that there are different opinions on Dudás' political affiliation; I also added the accents on Dudás' name. I also cleaned some minor spelling mistakes (hope I did not insert more in the process... ;-) --Orzetto 10:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Gubbubu 21:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Old joke

Is it sure the section "An old joke" must be there in a lexikon article? Gubbubu 21:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that probably belongs somewhere like Hungarian jokes. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Below any minimal historical standard this entry

1) The storming was not the "headquarters of the secret police in Budapest" but the head quarters of the Budapest section of the Hungariuan Communist Party at Köztársaság Tér (Republican Square). 2) The date of the actual siege and storming of the local Communist Party headquarter was October 30. 3) In the Western press of that time the mix up was made by journalists and photographers who had flocked to Budapest but often did not master any Hungarian... so they wrote down what was told them.... Still they did not use the term AVH, but (also wrongly) the term AVO (border gueard troops). That misunderstanding has been perpetuated til this very day. 4) Quoting the socalled Hungarian Government "White Book" can be done, but if so, one has quote many diffrent and opposing sources when it comes to any "fact" delivered. (The actual title was "The Counter-Revolutionary Forces in the Octover Events", and three volumes came out in the period december 1956, early 1957); the same publication has been published in Hungarian, german and French and also a Russian version (though that one seems to differ a bit). 5) It is not clear in how far Jozesef Dudas and his group was involved in this event... and if he can be proposed as the sole initiator. 6) Interpretations of what happened at October 30 at Köztársaság Tér differ greatly, and many are only based on hear say or have just the outsider report repeated by the Czech/british photographer Jogn Sadovy who took the most known pictures of the battle and atrocities committed.

enough for this moment... but please do something about this entry... it should better leave out the Dudas story in in this form and the Octoiber 29 (sic) 30 events

Tjebbe van Tijen —comment added 13:54, 20 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Abolished in 1956 - symbolically or practically?

Was the AVH only abolised in name and some other form of secret police took over after that? I can't imagine Hungary being without one from '56 to '89...surely they must have just renamed it and maybe reduced its operations to make the usual token symbolic change. Life for communist governments in any of the Soviet satellites, no matter how benign, was made much easier by secret police apparatus.

IMHO you can point to a clear break at 1956 (actually at 56 and the amnesties over the next few years - I hear 57 was pretty rotten too). Although Hungary was never without police, and these were centralized and very much directed to enforce the political aims of the Party, they were after 56 never without oversight of some kind whereas right before 56 they did not report to any ministry but nominally to the Party Secretary, and practically to their MVD/KGB "observers" - thus the AVH became a state within a state, and their atrocious behaviour in the early 1950s is partly blamed on this lack of local oversight. Although the police were afterwards never "professional" by western standards, they were not as flagrantly abusive as before. István 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ministry of Interior had 4 main sections under a major branch, one being for the military (III/IV) one being counterintelligence (III/II) and one the most disliked (am being diplomatic here) was III/III responsible for recruiting people among the civil populace to spy on each other. Apart from that there was also a "Workers Guard" established in 1957 abolished in 1989 to bare and use machine and handguns against anyone who tried to revolt and somehow managed to stay under the radar of these agencies Shinichi1977 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on State Protection Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)