by James Millar
Hrushevsky lived abroad after 1919, but returned to Soviet Ukraine in 1924 and soon resumed his role as the dean of Ukrainian historians. But the authorities increasingly criticized his scholarship as nationalistic and in 1931 transferred him to Moscow. By the time of his death in 1934, his school in Soviet Ukraine was destroyed by arrests and condemnations. Hrushevsky’s main scholarly achievement is his monumental History of Ukraine-Rus’ (10 vols., 1898-1937) covering the period until 1658. He also authored several short surveys of Ukrainian history and a five-volume History of Ukrainian Literature. Rejecting the history of state formations in favor of the history of the people, Hrushevsky criticized traditional Russian historical models and was influential in claiming Kievan Rus as a part of Ukrainian history. In contrast to Hru-shevsky’s denigration by the Soviet ideologues as a bourgeois nationalist, in post-Soviet Ukraine Hrushevsky is lauded as the nation’s greatest historian and statesman. See also: UKRAINE AND UKRAINIANS
HRUSHEVSKY, MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH
(1866-1934), prominent Ukrainian historian and statesman.
In 1890 Mikhail Hrushevsky graduated from Kiev University, where he studied under Volodymyr Antonovych. In 1894 he was appointed to the newly created chair of Ukrainian history at Lviv University (at the time, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire). While in Lviv, Hrushevsky reorganized the Shevchenko Scientific Society (est. 1873) into an equivalent of a Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hrushevs’kyi, Mykhailo. (1993-). History of Ukraine-Rus’, vols. 1, 7, 8. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. Hrushevs’kyi, Mykhailo (1941). A History of Ukraine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Prymak, Thomas M. (1987). Mykhailo Hrushevsky: The Politics of National Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
SERHY YEKELCHYK
641
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights are the rights individuals are said to have as human beings. They are claims on society- its members and government (Henkin, 1996). They are spelled out in international law, drawing on the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (Steiner and Alston, 2000). Russia has a long history of authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. Nikolai Berdyayev went so far as to connect the depth and longevity of Russian communism, a system inimical to human rights, to this persistent culture of despotism (1960). In the vivid phrasing of Alexander Radishchev, an eighteenth-century dissident, in his Journey from Saint Petersburg to Moscow (which landed him in Siberia), the rigid censorship under Catherine the Great resembled a restrictive nursemaid who stunts children’s growth toward self-reliant maturity.
Human rights improved somewhat thanks to the liberating effects of Russia’s rapid industrialization after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and the judicial and local government reforms in 1864. In Tsarist Russia by 1914, a liberal and democratic socialist professional class of educators, lawyers, judges, social workers, women’s rights advocates, and rapidly growing and mainly non-Bolshevik political parties increasingly demanded the protection of individual rights and a law-governed state. That meant broadening the selective westernization, launched two hundred years earlier by Peter the Great and aimed at strengthening Russia, to include the rights and freedoms he and his successors generally sought to exclude.
Following the abdication of Nicholas II in March 1917, the Provisional Government of March- November 1917 produced what the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin himself called the freest country in Europe, before he and his minority party of Bolsheviks forcibly ended that freedom by sharply curbing human rights.
The Bolsheviks socially cleansed Russia’s reformed courts, democratic professionals, and growing autonomous civil society. They held Russia to the constitutional principles that rights must serve the cause of socialism as interpreted by the Communist Party. Vladimir Lenin’s death in 1924 opened the way to the consolidation of total power by Josef Stalin, his forced collectivization of the peasants, his five-year plans for heavy industrialization, and his purges of alleged enemies of the people. The cultural thaw after Stalin’s death in March 1953 ended with the ousting of Party leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1964. Ensuing trials of social satirists and critics sparked a courageous dissident movement in Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Its members, who were promptly imprisoned or exiled, included Andrei Sakharov, proponent of East-West convergence; Yuri Orlov and the Moscow Helsinki Group; and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, chronicler of Soviet labor camps.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet leader from March 1985 to December 1991, introduced glasnost- openness or free expression-and soon after, pere-stroika-attempts at economic and political reform. Gorbachev freed political prisoners and exiles between 1986 and 1989. His UN speech of December 7, 1988, praised the once spurned Universal Declaration of Human Rights and revised the 1977 Constitution accordingly. But he reformed too little too late. Four months after his near-overthrow in the August 1991 coup by his own reactionary appointees, the Soviet Union split into three once-again independent Baltic republics and twelve newly independent states, including the Russian Federation.
Boris Yeltsin, Russian president from 1991 until his resignation in 1999, forced on Russia the 1993 Constitution increasing presidential power but also containing Article 2: “The individual and his rights and freedom are the highest value. The recognition, observance and defense of the human rights and freedoms of the individual and the citizen are the obligation of the state.” The Constitution proclaims a broad range of civil, political, social, and economic rights. Contrasting realities under overbearing and corrupt state administrations infringed on freedom of expression, religion, fair and humane justice, freedom of movement, and freedom from racial, ethnic, and homophobic bigotry, and hate crimes. Moreover, during the wars to retain Chechnya just about every human right was violated. Inequality, poverty, and homeless-ness haunted the land while the new rich lived high. Women experienced inequality and exploitation in employment, widespread divorce, abandonment, and domestic violence, and trafficking into prostitution. Life expectancy fell to third-world levels, especially among men, owing to stress, accidents, alcoholism, and the pervasive inadequacy of health care (Juviler, 2000; Human Rights Watch).
Such political and social human rights violations prompted the formation of numerous free but under-funded human rights advocacy groups-
HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION
nongovernmental organizations. They ranged from Russian Soldiers’ Mothers, who were against the wide abuses of military recruits, to the anti-Stalinist and pro-rights Memorial Society, to Muslim cultural and aid societies.
Seventy years of Communist social and legal cleansing are not overcome in a decade or two. In Ken Jowitt’s words, “We must think of a ‘long march’ rather than a simple transition to democracy” (Jowitt, 1992, 189), with all sorts of human rights to redeem. See also: DISSIDENT MOVEMENT; GULAG; SAKHAROV, ANDREI DMITRIEVICH; SOLZHENITSYN, ALEXANDER ISAYEVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berdiaev, Nicolas. (1960). The Origin of Russian Communism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Henkin, Louis. (1996). The Age of Rights, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Human Rights Watch World Report. (2003). «http:// www.hrw.org/wr2kr/europe11.html». Jowitt, Ken. (1992). New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press. Juviler, Peter. (1998). Freedoms Ordeal: The Struggle for Human Rights and Democracy in Post-Soviet States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Juviler, Peter. (2000). “Political Community and Human Rights in Post-Communist Russia.” In Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities, ed. Adamantia Pollis and Peter Schwab. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Steiner, Henry, and Alston, Philip. (2000). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
PETER JUVILER
HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was the first major anti-Soviet uprising in Eastern Europe and the first shooting war to occur between socialist s
tates. In contrast to earlier uprisings after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in March 1953, such as the workers’ revolt in East Berlin (1953) and the Polish workers’ rebellion in Poznan, Poland (October 1956), the incumbent Hungarian leader, Imre Nagy, did not summon Soviet military troops to squelch the revolution. Instead, he attempted to withdraw Hungary from the Warsaw Pact. Hence, the Hungarian revolution symbolizes perhaps the first major “domino” to fall in a process that ultimately resulted in the Soviet Union’s loss of hegemony over Eastern Europe in 1989.
When Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, delivered his Secret Speech at the Twentieth Party Congress in February 1956, he not only exposed Stalin’s crimes, but also presented himself as a proponent of different paths to socialism, a claim that would later prove hard to fulfill. All over Eastern Europe, hardline Stalinist leaders wondered fearfully how far destalinization would go. Meanwhile, their opponents, who criticized Stalinist policies, suddenly gained in popularity. In Hungary, Nagy was one such critic and reformer. He had served as Hungary’s prime minister from July 4, 1953, to April 18, 1955. In the spring of 1955, however, Nagy was dislodged by a hard-line Stalinist leader, M?ty?s R?kosi, who had been forced to cede that post to Nagy in mid-1953.
Social pressures continued to build in Hungary under the leadership of R?kosi, called Stalin’s “best disciple” by some. He had conducted the anti-Yugoslav campaign in 1948 and 1949 more zealously than other East European party leaders. Hundreds of thousands of Hungarian communists had been executed or imprisoned after 1949. By late October 1956 the popular unrest in Hungary eluded the control of both the Hungarian government led by R?kosi’s successor, Ern? Ger?, and the USSR.
On October 23, 1956, several hundred thousand people demonstrated in Budapest, hoping to publicize their sixteen-point resolution and to show solidarity with Poland where, in June, an industrial strike originating in Poznan turned into a national revolt. The Budapest protesters demanded that Nagy replace Ger?, the Hungarian Communist Party’s first secretary from July 18 to October 25, 1956. Fighting broke out in Budapest and other Hungarian cities and continued throughout the night.
It is now known that Soviet leaders decided on October 23 to intervene militarily. Soviet troops executed Plan Volna (“Wave”) at 11:00 P.M. that same day. The next morning a radio broadcast announced that Nagy had replaced Andr?s Heged?s as prime minister. On October 25, J?nos K?d?r, a younger, centrist official, replaced Ger? as first secretary. However, this first Soviet intervention did not solve the original political problem in the country. New documents have revealed that the Kremlin initially decided on October 28 against a
HUNGARY, RELATIONS
WITH
Russian tanks and armored vehicles surround the Hungarian parliament building in Budapest. © HULTON ARCHIVE second military intervention. But on October 31, they reversed course and launched a more massive intervention (Operation Vikhr, or “Whirlwind”). During the night of November 3, sixteen Soviet divisions entered Hungary. Fighting continued until mid-November, when Soviet forces suppressed the resistance and installed a pro-Soviet government under K?d?r. Gy?rkei, Jen?, and Horv?th, Mikl?s. (1999). The Soviet Military Intervention in Hungary, 1956. Budapest: Central European University Press. Litv?n, Gy?rgy, and Bak, J?nos M. (1996). The Hungarian Revolution of 1956: Reform, Revolt and Repression, 1953-1963. New York: Longman.
JOHANNA GRANVILLE
See also: HUNGARY, RELATIONS WITH; KHRUSHCHEV, NIKITA SERGEYEVICH;
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B?k?s, Csaba; Rainer, J?nos M.; and Byre, Malcolm. (2003). The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents. Budapest: Central European University Press. Cox, Terry, ed. (1997). Hungary 1956-Forty Years On. London: Frank Cass. Granville, Johanna. (2003). The First Domino: International Decision Making in the Hungarian Crisis of 1956. College Station: Texas A amp; M University Press.
HUNGARY, RELATIONS WITH
Russian and Soviet relations with Hungary, in contrast to those with other east central European countries, have been especially tense due to factors such as Hungary’s monarchical past, historical rivalry with the Russians over the Balkans, Russia’s invasion of Hungary in 1848, Hungary’s alliances in both world wars against Russia or the USSR, the belated influence of communism in the interwar period, the Soviet invasion in 1956 to crush the nationalist revolution, and Hungary’s vastly different language and culture in general.
HUNGARY, RELATIONS WITH
No part of Hungary had ever been under direct Russian rule. Instead, Hungary formed part of the Habsburg Empire, extending over more than 675,000 square kilometers in central Europe. Both empires-the tsarist and Habsburg-fought for hegemony over Balkan territories. The Habsburg empire included what is now Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, as well as parts of present-day Poland, Romania, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In July 1848 the Hungarians, led by Lajos Kossuth, fought for liberation from Austria. However, upon the Austrians’ request in 1849, Tsar Nicholas I sent Russian troops to crush the rebellion. Nevertheless, Kossuth’s initiative paved the way for the compromise in March 1867 (known in German as the Ausgleich), which granted both the Austrian and Hungarian kingdoms separate parliaments with which to govern their respective internal affairs. It also established a dual monarchy, whereby a single emperor (Francis Joseph I) conducted the financial, foreign, and military affairs of the two kingdoms.
By the late 1800s and early 1900s, ethnic groups within the empire clamored for self-rule. On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a member of a secret nationalist movement, Mlada Bosna (“Young Bosnia”), shot Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, thus precipitating World War I. Austro-Hungary fought with Germany against Great Britain, France, and Russia. Throughout the fall of 1918 the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed as its armies retreated before enemy forces.
On March 21, 1919, B?la Kun established a communist regime in Hungary that lasted four months. Given their monarchical past, Hungarians resented communists, who seized their farms and factories and sought to form a stateless society. After a brief transition, Admiral Mikl?s Horthy became Regent of Hungary, heading a new monarchy that lasted twenty-five years.
Defeated in World War I, Hungary lost more than two-thirds of its territory in the 1920 peace settlement (“Treaty of Trianon”). In 1914 Hungary had 21 million inhabitants; Trianon Hungary had less than 8 million. German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was able to coax Hungary to fight on the Axis side in World War II by promising the return of some of the territory Hungary lost in 1920. Despite its gradual alliance with Germany and Italy against the Soviet Union in the war, the German army (Wehrmacht) occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944. Hitler put Ferenc Sz?lasi (leader of the fascist Arrow Cross Party) in charge as prime minister. By mid-April 1945, however, the Soviet Red Army expelled the Germans from Hungary. The Soviet troops remained in Hungary until 1990.
Another element of Hungary’s particularly anti-Soviet history is the belated influence of communism in the interwar period. While most other East European countries turned authoritarian after 1935, Hungary remained relatively liberal until 1944. After a short democratic period, the Communist Party took over in 1948. The Hungarian Communist Party never did win an election, but gained control due to the presence of Soviet troops and their hold over government posts. Its first secretary was Maty?s R?kosi, a key figure in the international communist movement who had returned with other Hungarian communists from exile in the Soviet Union. These include Imre Nagy (later prime minister during the Hungarian Revolution in 1956) and J?zsef R?vai who became the key ideologist in the 1950s. Other communists remained in Hungary and organized the Communist Party illegally during the war, such as J?nos K?d?r (who became general secretary after 1956) and L?szl? Rajk (the first key victim of the purges in 1949).
The Soviet Union also established its hegemony over Eastern Europe in commercial and military spheres. In 1949 Stalin had established the Council
for Mutual Economic Cooperation (CMEA or Comecon) to counter President Truman’s Marshall Plan, which Stalin prevented Hungary and other East European countries from joining. In Comecon the member states were expected to specialize in particular industries; for example, Hungary focused on bus and truck production.
The East European satellites were expected to copy the Stalinist model favoring heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods. In doing so, R?kosi’s economic plans contradicted Hungary’s genuine interests, as they required the use of obsolete Soviet machinery and old-fashioned methods. Unrealizable targets resulted in a flagrant waste of resources and the demoralization of workers.
Meanwhile, fearing a World War III against its former ally, the United States, the Soviet leadership encouraged the Hungarian army to expand. Having failed to prevent West Germany’s admission into NATO, the USSR on May 14, 1955, established
HUNS
the Warsaw Pact, which subordinated the satellites’ armies to a common military command. Austria was granted neutrality in the same year. In 1956 the first major anti-Soviet uprising in Eastern Europe-the Hungarian Revolution-took place. It is not surprising that Hungary, given its history, culture, and language (a non-Slavic tongue, Magyar), was the first satellite to challenge Moscow directly by declaring neutrality and withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact.
Despite the restlessness of the population after the crushed revolution and the repression of 1957-1958, K?d?r’s regime after normalization differed sharply from R?kosi’s style of governance. K?d?r’s brand of lenient (“goulash”) communism earned grudging respect from the Hungarian people. K?d?r never trumpeted his moderate New Economic Mechanism (NEM) of 1968 as a socioeconomic model for other satellites, lest he irritate Moscow.
