Was it a mistake for Miklos Horthy (the Hungarian regent) to seek a separate peace?

[wm]

The only possible way to keep any of these territories was to join the Soviets as soon as possible, especially given the fact that most of the Soviet enmities were directed against the Romanians and the Poles. Molotov specifically mentioned to Bárdossy through József Kristóffy that the Soviet Union is ready to acknowledge the Vienna Awards, especially the second one, in case of Hungary stays out of the conflict.

Molotov's promises were worthless. Actually, Stalinism/communism was the least onerous in Poland because the Poles resisted in the few post-war years and later too. As a result, Polish agriculture was never collectivized, the influence of the Church never broken, the full nationalization of means of production never successful.
Not so in Hungary - that surrendered unconditionally to the Soviets and didn't offer meaningful resistance later. Actually, the Stalinist regime in Hungary was the harshest of them all just because without resistance the communists could implement their ideas fully and swiftly.

It's easy to say today it wasn't that bad later but the people threatened by the communists didn't know that. Communism could have lasted for a thousand years as the Stalinists liked to say.
Yes, the Soviets wouldn't kill them all but cultural genocide was certain resulting in the end in eradication of the Hungarian culture.

And when was Horthy going to surrender to the horrible Soviets if twelve German divisions, some of the armored were stationed in Hungary permanently and only three (weak and unreliable - two of them switch their allegiance to the fascists in the end) Hungarian.

[Futurist]

The only possible way to keep any of these territories was to join the Soviets as soon as possible, especially given the fact that most of the Soviet enmities were directed against the Romanians and the Poles. Molotov specifically mentioned to Bárdossy through József Kristóffy that the Soviet Union is ready to acknowledge the Vienna Awards, especially the second one, in case of Hungary stays out of the conflict.

Molotov's promises were worthless. Actually, Stalinism/communism was the least onerous in Poland because the Poles resisted in the few post-war years and later too. As a result, Polish agriculture was never collectivized, the influence of the Church never broken, the full nationalization of means of production never successful.
Not so in Hungary - that surrendered unconditionally to the Soviets and didn't offer meaningful resistance later. Actually, the Stalinist regime in Hungary was the harshest of them all just because without resistance the communists could implement their ideas fully and swiftly.

It's easy to say today it wasn't that bad later but the people threatened by the communists didn't know that. Communism could have lasted for a thousand years as the Stalinists liked to say.
Yes, the Soviets wouldn't kill them all but cultural genocide was certain resulting at the end of eradication of Hungarian culture.

Communism still could last for 1,000 years in North Korea! Seriously.

I previously heard that the only popular thing that the Polish Communists ever did was push the Polish border to the Oder-Neisse Line in the west.

And when Horthy was going to surrender to the horrible Soviets if twelve German divisions, some of the armored were stationed in Hungary permanently and only three (weak and unreliable - two of them switch their allegiance to the fascists in the end) Hungarian.

That's an argument in favor of fighting all of the way up to the bitter end, no? And also refusing to engage in any peace talks with the Western Allies until they will actually reach Hungary's borders, which most likely was never actually going to happen.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

It is complete nonsense that, "The Hungarians weren't aware of any threat to their Jews till 1944 - when the Germans asked for the Hungarian Jews to be employed in their factories."

In fact, the Hungarians were part of the threat to Jews.

1) Hungary had already been differentially treating their own Jews by legislation since 1938.

2) Their army had not only witnessed German massacres of Jews on the Eastern Front, but taken part in some.

3) At Novi Sad in the occupied Balkans over 21-23 January 1941 Hungarian Army troops massacred some 800Jews (and 450 Serbs and others).

4) The Hungarian Army's largely Jewish labour corps suffered far more heavily behind the Eastern Front than the Hungarian Army as a whole in 1941-43.

5) Hungary was among the very first countries to know about Auschwitz, because some Slovak Jews escaped in the spring of 1942 and found refuge with relatives in country. It was via Hungary and Switzerland that the Western Allies first learnt about Auschwitz.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

At the same time, the passage that I quote at the end of this message looks like an attempt of apology of communism,

No, it's not. My point was that the communist takeover was 1. inevitable, 2. not as bad as Horthy and his social class percieved. I mean not as bad for the nation, bad enough for themselves, indeed.

therefore I would like to recall that the Hungarian GDP per capita was (source: Maddison Project):
- 1929: 80.73% of the Italian and 94.58% of the Spanish;
- 1939: 86.24% of the Italian and 156.81% of the Spanish;
- 1949: 72.32% of the Italian and 109.23% of the Spanish;
- 1959: 61.62% of the Italian and 109.20% of the Spanish;
- 1969: 52.92% of the Italian and 86.70% of the Spanish;
- 1979: 49.14% of the Italian and 72.83% of the Spanish;
- 1989: 43.23% of the Italian and 59.93% of the Spanish.

This is completely irrelevant and misleading for many reasons.

First of all, the dates you chose are misleading. In the years before 1929, the Hungarian economy underwent a major reconsitution and consolidation process after the Bethlen-Peyer pact. Meaning, the upper classes had to invest into the country just in order to keep it running, and partially to replace to industrial losses as a result of the Trianon treaty. As a result of the crisis, the GDPpc levels did not reach the 1929 number until 1935. Then again the 1939 number is misleading, also for many reasons. For starters, I don't know if the territorial gains were included in this number or not (accorinding to the population count: not), but what I know for sure is that the regained territories, making up about half the size of the country in both terms of land and population, boosted the "1937 economy" a great time. Also, the Darányi-terv was on its way, again an attempt to draw money from the ruling class to the higher function of the country. Mostly to fuel the war machine.

It doesn't matter however, if you choose to neglect the cycles and events of the Hungarian economy (I can recommend you short books about it), the point is that the Horthy regime took over the governing of the country with 2724 GDPpc and left the country in ruins with 2743 GDPpc, according to your own source. That is quite a big zero, and given that Hungary lost a million men, its independence and all its hope to regain any of the Hungarian-majority areas in the Carpathian basin, I simply do not understand, why did you even cite this source?

I'll skip the part where I'd go into details why is it incorrect to come up with Spain's 1939 GDPpc data and stuff like that. I think you know it yourself.

The point is that it is totally wrong to compare countries which had colonies (sic!!), multiple times of the population, substantially different economic history, essentially different access to raw materials, domestic market, etc. Spain and Italy cannot be used as benchmarks for the economic development of Hungary. Hungary can be compared with Czechoslovakia and Poland, and to a lesser extent Romania and Yugoslavia, because these countries had more or less the same economic framework, size, history, etc.

Okay so let's get back to the topic. Second.

During the Horthy-era, the cumulative and average economic growth in Hungary was zero. Although it would not be fair to leave out the destruction of the war, the peak of this period was in 1942 with 4372 GDPpc, that means a cumulative growth of 1648 GDPpc (62.3%) in 23 years. On average, 72 (2.7%) / year.

The communists took over in 1949 August 20 with a GDPpc of 3752. After 23 years, the GDPpc was 8505, meaning a cumulative growth of 4753 GDPpc (127%), and an average growth of 207 (5.5%) / year.

During the whole communism in Hungary, the economy grew steadily, reaching 11,003 GDPpc when they've left power in 1989, thus achieving a cumulative growth of 7251(193%) GDPpc over 40 years, and an average growth of 181 (4.8%) per year.

Thus, the communist era of Hungary was about 80% more economically effective than the Horthy era, not counting the destruction of the world war. Also, during the communist era, about 2500-3000 men lost their lives in war, making it two-three hundred times less bloody than the Horthy era.

So much for the "golden age"...

Yup.

Then, of course, Communism surely reduced the Gini index, but I have my doubts

How about hard facts instead of doubts? Would you like to read about it?

(and apparently it's a doubt shared by Hungarians too, given their political attitude)

I don't understand this one. The Hungarians' political attitude is based on the experience of the 1956-1989 system, spiced up with newborn nationalism.

that equality in poverty is perceived as preferable to a certain disequality in well-being.

After the system change, the "democracy and capitalism" took over, over one million people lost their jobs, most of them never recovered. In the first 23 years, between 1989 (11,003) and 2012 (20,631), the GDPpc change was a cumulative 9628 (87.5%), or in other words, a yearly 419 GDPpc growth (3.8%). Thus, the first 23 years of "democracy and capitalism" was not nearly as successful in economic terms as the first 23 years of "communism", despite the fact that the system change did not destroyed the country's industrial assets or population.

I for one do no believe that the GDP is the sole and ultimate indicator of a nation's well-being, but you came up with this source. Btw you can use any other sources, the numbers might differ a bit, but the picture is the same.

We might also dig deeper into the transversal analysis after the longitudinal one.
In other words, how did Hungary fare in the respective periods compared to its regional competitors?

Hungary
1920-1937 cumulative 1329 (49%) average 74 (2.7%) / year
1949-1989 cumulative 7251(193%) average 181 (4.8%) / year
1989-2012 cumulative 9628 (87.5%) average 419 (3.8%) / year

Czechoslovakia
1920-1937 cumulative 1513 (49%) average 84 (2.7%) / year
1949-1989 cumulative 8781 (169%) average 220 (4.2%) / year

Czechia
1989-2012 cumulative 12447 (89%) average 541 (3.86%) / year

Slovakia
1989-2012 cumulative 10082 (79%) average 438 (3.44%) / year

Poland
1920-1937 cumulative 52 (0%) average 1 (0%) / year
1949-1989 cumulative 5490 (151%) average 137 (3.8%) / year
1989-2012 cumulative 13128 (245%) average 571 (6.3%) / year

Romania
1920-1937 cumulative 252 (54%) average 14 (3%)
1949-1989 cumulative 4879 (459%) average 122 (11.47%)
1989-2012 cumulative 11232 (189%) average 488 (8%)

Yugoslavia
1920-1937 cumulative 355 (23.5%) average 20 (1.3%)
1949-1989 cumulative 7424 (301%) average 186 (7.5%)

Slovenia
1989-2012 cumulative 5415 (27%) average 235 (1.2%)


The picture is clear: by and large, Hungary was only able to outgrow its regional competitors in the communist era.

Also, it is worth to mention for the "Golden Age" argument, that at the end of the communist era (1989), the region looked like this:
1. Czechia 14,027
2. Slovakia 12,734
3. Hungary 11,003
4. Yugoslavia 9887
- Slovenia 19,837
- Croatia 13,959
- Serbia 10,963
5. Poland 9060
6. Romania 5942

After the system change (2018):
1. Czechia 30,749
2. Poland 27,455
3. Slovakia 27,076
4. Hungary 25,623
5. Romania 20,126
6. (Former Yugoslavia 16,558)
- Slovenia 29,245
- Croatia 22,012
- Serbia 14,124

Long story short, Hungary is on the losing track after the system change, and its regional competitors outgrew it substantially.

[Sid Guttridge]

For anyone interested in Hungarian occupation activities in the USSR and the Balkans there is the following lengthy review article of Ungváry, Krisztián. A magyar megszálló csapatok a Szovjetunióban, 1941-1944. Esemény - elbeszélés - utóélet [The Hungarian Occupation Troops in the Soviet Union, 1941-1944. Event - Narrative - Afterlife]. Osiris, pp. 467. Maps, Photographs.:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... an-Occ.pdf

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

The only possible way to keep any of these territories was to join the Soviets as soon as possible, especially given the fact that most of the Soviet enmities were directed against the Romanians and the Poles. Molotov specifically mentioned to Bárdossy through József Kristóffy that the Soviet Union is ready to acknowledge the Vienna Awards, especially the second one, in case of Hungary stays out of the conflict.

Molotov's promises were worthless.

We'll never know. What we know is that they awarded those who did not fight against them or changed sides in time.

Not so in Hungary - that surrendered unconditionally to the Soviets and didn't offer meaningful resistance later. Actually, the Stalinist regime in Hungary was the harshest of them all just because without resistance the communists could implement their ideas fully and swiftly.

I guess by "Stalinist regime" you mean the Rákosi-system. After that, the Kádár-system was the most mild of all Eastern bloc systems.

It's easy to say today it wasn't that bad later but the people threatened by the communists didn't know that.

Who said it wasn't bad? Of course it was bad, and any sensible person could know it was coming.

I said it was not as bad as it was perceived by Horthy et al., at least not for the overwhelming majority of the population. I also pointed out that the Horthy-system was also a mild dictatorship, not a liberal democracy. One's crimes does not acquit the other's, but it's important to understand that the people of Hungary were not living in a democracy before Soviet occupation. People were silenced, ideological, ethnic and religious groups were openly and proudly discriminated and abused without impunity, and the wealth distribution was outrageous throughout the society. Communism meant liberty, wealth and security for many social groups - just as it meant prison, poverty and deportation for others.

Yes, the Soviets wouldn't kill them all but cultural genocide was certain resulting in the end in eradication of the Hungarian culture.

If anything, the culture and education in Hungary was at its highest during the Communist era. I don't know where to begin, so I'll leave it at that.

And when was Horthy going to surrender to the horrible Soviets if twelve German divisions, some of the armored were stationed in Hungary permanently and only three (weak and unreliable - two of them switch their allegiance to the fascists in the end) Hungarian.

Now, that's a good question. I think the general staff would not be loyal to him either. He should have planned it, systematically moving Nazi-lovers from the high command and keeping as much loyal troops and equipment at home as possible. He was totally inept.

[Futurist]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Do you think that Hungary would have completely avoided German occupation had it not engaged in these armistice negotiation attempts with the Western Powers under Prime Minister Miklos Kallay?

[Futurist]

Hi wm,

It is complete nonsense that, "The Hungarians weren't aware of any threat to their Jews till 1944 - when the Germans asked for the Hungarian Jews to be employed in their factories."

In fact, the Hungarians were part of the threat to Jews.

1) Hungary had already been differentially treating their own Jews by legislation since 1938.

2) Their army had not only witnessed German massacres of Jews on the Eastern Front, but taken part in some.

3) At Novi Sad in the occupied Balkans over 21-23 January 1941 Hungarian Army troops massacred some 800Jews (and 450 Serbs and others).

4) The Hungarian Army's largely Jewish labour corps suffered far more heavily behind the Eastern Front than the Hungarian Army as a whole in 1941-43.

5) Hungary was among the very first countries to know about Auschwitz, because some Slovak Jews escaped in the spring of 1942 and found refuge with relatives in country. It was via Hungary and Switzerland that the Western Allies first learnt about Auschwitz.

Cheers,

Sid.

Excellent points, Sid! I also view Hungary's behavior here as being absolutely disgusting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamianets ... i_massacre

Deporting foreign Jews and handing them over to the Nazis was absolutely unacceptable on Hungary's part!

[Peter89]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Do you think that Hungary would have completely avoided German occupation had it not engaged in these armistice negotiation attempts with the Western Powers under Prime Minister Miklos Kallay?

I don't know, there are too many variables. However, Hungary's geographical position means that it was extremely unlikely that the Germans would simply let it slip out of their control.

[Futurist]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Do you think that Hungary would have completely avoided German occupation had it not engaged in these armistice negotiation attempts with the Western Powers under Prime Minister Miklos Kallay?

I don't know, there are too many variables. However, Hungary's geographical position means that it was extremely unlikely that the Germans would simply let it slip out of their control.

That's why I suggested fighting up to the bitter end in order to save Hungary's Jewish population.

[DrG]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Peter89, leaving aside your useless efforts to make an apology of the Hungarian communist regime and its economic disasters (and no, given that Horthy was trying to keep Hungary free from communism, the comparison with Italy and Spain was the only logical one, because it shows that if Hungary hadn't been under Stalin's heel it would have fared much better that it did, as the vast majority of Hungarians think by the way...), have you cared to read the article I suggested you (and, while I don't care much about this topic, I can assure you I haven't read only it... Bruno Arcidiacono's book "Alle origini della divisone europea", for example, is a great source), or do you prefer this armchair strategist attitude, using worthless Marxist class-struggle theories to blame statesmen which found themselves in a situation almost without hopes, and with the first and foremost aim of preserving the independence and well-being of their people (not their "class")?

[Peter89]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Peter89, leaving aside your useless efforts to make an apology of the Hungarian communist regime and its economic disasters (and no, given that Horthy was trying to keep Hungary free from communism, the comparison with Italy and Spain was the only logical one, because it shows that if Hungary hadn't been under Stalin's heel it would have fared much better that it did, as the vast majority of Hungarians think by the way...), have you cared to read the article I suggested you (and, while I don't care much about this topic, I can assure you I haven't read only it... Bruno Arcidiacono's book "Alle origini della divisone europea", for example, is a great source), or do you prefer this armchair strategist attitude, using worthless Marxist class-struggle theories to blame statesmen which found themselves in a situation almost without hopes, and with the first and foremost aim of preserving the independence and well-being of their people (not their "class")?

I find it rather sad that when your own source contradicts you, you brand me as an apologee of the Hungarian communist regime. The 40 years of communism, which happened to coincede with one of the fastest modernization an wealth accumulating period in Europe, Hungary didn't blunder, despite it was communist and a quasi vassal state.

It doesn't matter if we want to fantasize about a free and prospering land, had there been no communism, because there was no chance to avoid the Soviet rule. Zero. Also, recent history suggests that the free country with democracy (which are important values for me) fares not so good as people have imagined.

I think it is not me who has to defend your argument that Hungary had to be saved by Horthy against communism. The communist system in Hungary, especially after 1956 was way more successful than the dictatorship of Horthy. I for one did not use Marxist class-struggle theories, but objective assessment. For example, I could give you a few arguments why Hungary was needed to be saved from "Horthy-fascism", as airmchair neocommunists like to call it, but I am not one of them by any means, and I will not fall into pits of ideological battles. On the other hand, it seems to be you who need to acknowledge the end balances of the respective regimes, regardless of their ideologies. We can compare the number of dead, economic growth, healthcare, education, access to culture, discrimination, GINI, and any of these to the regional competitors.

I also wait for your source for the "opinion of the Hungarian people". The last research I've read was conducted a year ago by the Policy Solutions and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, which shows that 54% of the asked think that they fared better before 1990, and only 31% that they fared better after 1990. And 63% thought that there was social harmony and forseeable economic future in the Kádár-system, opposed to a mere quarter, who didn't. Not that I trust too much these opinion probings, I am just curious about your source, because it contradicts everything I have ever experienced and learned in my whole life.

[Peter89]

I am merely lurking to this thread, having little to add to this topic (even though I would suggest this article about the Hungarian almost-armistice in September 1943 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555310 to those interested), besides recalling that Hungary has no natural defences from an invasion coming from Germany and that the Germans were not willing to leave its territory, unlike the strategic retreats that they had planned and implemented from the Balkans and Finland in 1944.

There was no "almost-armistice". What the Kállay-government tried to do was powerless, clueless and ultimately, fruitless.

Do you think that Hungary would have completely avoided German occupation had it not engaged in these armistice negotiation attempts with the Western Powers under Prime Minister Miklos Kallay?

I don't know, there are too many variables. However, Hungary's geographical position means that it was extremely unlikely that the Germans would simply let it slip out of their control.

That's why I suggested fighting up to the bitter end in order to save Hungary's Jewish population.

Okay, but that's kind of unrealistic given that Hungary actively discriminated Jews in the past decades, and the military itself was involved from the top to the bottom in ordering, legalizing and executing crimes against Jews (Kamanets-Podolsky, Újvidék, etc.). The chance that the HRA would fight against the Germans for the Jews, is essentially, and sadly, zero.

[DrG]

I find it rather sad that when your own source contradicts you, you brand me as an apologee of the Hungarian communist regime. The 40 years of communism, which happened to coincede with one of the fastest modernization an wealth accumulating period in Europe, Hungary didn't blunder, despite it was communist and a quasi vassal state.

It was you who told about the "golden age" of Hungary under communism, not me. And data show that under communism Hungarian enconomy fared much worse than those of Western European countries, while before WW2 it was aligned to them.

It doesn't matter if we want to fantasize about a free and prospering land, had there been no communism, because there was no chance to avoid the Soviet rule. Zero. Also, recent history suggests that the free country with democracy (which are important values for me) fares not so good as people have imagined.

It was "zero" in your opinion. In the summer/autumn of 1943 it was nearly 100%, if Romania and Bulgaria had followed Horthy's peace attempts made in Turkey. Surely nationalistic problems between Romania and Hungary prevented a common policy, but it was also due to the coup d'etat by Badoglio, who prevented Mussolini from following his effort of a separate peace with the Western Allies, including also Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, in the summer of 1943. Horthy's moves in Turkey were based on the assumption that Badoglio was operating in the same way, ignoring that his government had negotiated for itself alone, disregarding the rest of the minor Axis partners.

I also wait for your source for the "opinion of the Hungarian people". The last research I've read was conducted a year ago by the Policy Solutions and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, which shows that 54% of the asked think that they fared better before 1990, and only 31% that they fared better after 1990. And 63% thought that there was social harmony and forseeable economic future in the Kádár-system, opposed to a mere quarter, who didn't. Not that I trust too much these opinion probings, I am just curious about your source, because it contradicts everything I have ever experienced and learned in my whole life.

Once the economic disasters of the Nineties caused by the pure and simple plunder passing under the name of "privatizations" (as almost everywhere in the former Communist bloc) were overcome by the prosperity brought by free market, the Hungarian people has been voting en masse for anti-communist parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... since_1990. I think that elections outcome are a more reliable source than a poll by a leftist think tank.

PS Just a suggestion: writing "GINI" in fuly capitalized letters is a very good evidence of the lack of economic and statistical culture...

[Peter89]

I find it rather sad that when your own source contradicts you, you brand me as an apologee of the Hungarian communist regime. The 40 years of communism, which happened to coincede with one of the fastest modernization an wealth accumulating period in Europe, Hungary didn't blunder, despite it was communist and a quasi vassal state.

It was you who told about the "golden age" of Hungary under communism, not me. And data show that under communism Hungarian enconomy fared much worse than those of Western European countries, while before WW2 it was aligned to them.

It's a fantasy. Why don't you compare Hungary with Sweden or Belgium? Your own source contradicts the very core of your argument.

It doesn't matter if we want to fantasize about a free and prospering land, had there been no communism, because there was no chance to avoid the Soviet rule. Zero. Also, recent history suggests that the free country with democracy (which are important values for me) fares not so good as people have imagined.

It was "zero" in your opinion. In the summer/autumn of 1943 it was nearly 100%, if Romania and Bulgaria had followed Horthy's peace attempts made in Turkey. Surely nationalistic problems between Romania and Hungary prevented a common policy, but it was also due to the coup d'etat by Badoglio, who prevented Mussolini from following his effort of a separate peace with the Western Allies, including also Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, in the summer of 1943. Horthy's moves in Turkey were based on the assumption that Badoglio was operating in the same way, ignoring that his government had negotiated for itself alone, disregarding the rest of the minor Axis partners.

Just a suggestion: writing " if Romania and Bulgaria had followed Horthy's peace attempts made in Turkey" places your opinion to the shelf it deserves to be.

I also wait for your source for the "opinion of the Hungarian people". The last research I've read was conducted a year ago by the Policy Solutions and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, which shows that 54% of the asked think that they fared better before 1990, and only 31% that they fared better after 1990. And 63% thought that there was social harmony and forseeable economic future in the Kádár-system, opposed to a mere quarter, who didn't. Not that I trust too much these opinion probings, I am just curious about your source, because it contradicts everything I have ever experienced and learned in my whole life.

Once the economic disasters of the Nineties caused by the pure and simple plunder passing under the name of "privatizations" (as almost everywhere in the former Communist bloc) were overcome by the prosperity brought by free market, the Hungarian people has been voting en masse for anti-communist parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... since_1990. I think that elections outcome are a more reliable source than a poll by a leftist think tank.

Are you trolling?

Anti-communist parties? Which ones do you actually mean? The Jobbik has never received more than a little over 20%.

In general, I am not keen to discuss contemporary politics here in detail - maybe in PM, but you show a general lack of knowledge in everything related to Hungary. I don't know where to start...? Are you really so keen to learn?

PS Just a suggestion: writing "GINI" in fuly capitalized letters is a very good evidence of the lack of economic and statistical culture...

Pure lol. You claim to be an expert physician despite unable to diagnose a 10kg tumor, but you'd call anyone a laic amateur who misspelled Dr. for dr.