What do you think?
Rate this book
Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, a defining moment in the Cold War, Victor Sebestyen, a journalist whose own family fled from Hungary, gives us a totally fresh account of that uprising, incorporating newly released official Hungarian and Soviet documents, his family’s diaries, and eyewitness testimony.
Tracing the events that led to the rebellion, Sebestyen tells the story of these twelve days with front-page immediacy. Sebestyen’s narrative moves from the tumultuous streets of Budapest to the inner sanctums of the Kremlin and the White House, where we hear the conversations of the men and women who planned and took part in the uprising and of those who helped crush it–some actively, others through craven inaction.
Sebestyen shows how Western anti-Communist rhetoric encouraged the rebels and convinced them they would receive help. We witness the thrilling first days when, armed with a few rifles, petrol bombs, and desperate courage, the people of Budapest rose up against their Soviet masters and nearly succeeded in routing the Russian forces. For a few exciting days, as the Western world watched in amazement, it looked as though the Hungarians would win and humble the Soviet Union. Russian troops withdrew. But not for long.
The Soviets showed they would resort to brutal lengths to cling to their Communist empire–and the West was prepared to let them. The free world looked on in sympathy and horror, did nothing, and, finally, the Hungarians suffered a devastating defeat, and remained under Soviet occupation for three more decades.
Fast-paced, vivid, and authoritative, Twelve Days adds immeasurably to our understanding of one of the most important battles of the Cold War and reminds us–through the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of the Hungarian people in their doomed fight–of the unquenchable human desire for freedom.
Tracing the events that led to the rebellion, Sebestyen tells the story of these twelve days with front-page immediacy. Sebestyen’s narrative moves from the tumultuous streets of Budapest to the inner sanctums of the Kremlin and the White House, where we hear the conversations of the men and women who planned and took part in the uprising and of those who helped crush it–some actively, others through craven inaction.
Sebestyen shows how Western anti-Communist rhetoric encouraged the rebels and convinced them they would receive help. We witness the thrilling first days when, armed with a few rifles, petrol bombs, and desperate courage, the people of Budapest rose up against their Soviet masters and nearly succeeded in routing the Russian forces. For a few exciting days, as the Western world watched in amazement, it looked as though the Hungarians would win and humble the Soviet Union. Russian troops withdrew. But not for long.
The Soviets showed they would resort to brutal lengths to cling to their Communist empire–and the West was prepared to let them. The free world looked on in sympathy and horror, did nothing, and, finally, the Hungarians suffered a devastating defeat, and remained under Soviet occupation for three more decades.
Fast-paced, vivid, and authoritative, Twelve Days adds immeasurably to our understanding of one of the most important battles of the Cold War and reminds us–through the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of the Hungarian people in their doomed fight–of the unquenchable human desire for freedom.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
36 people are currently reading
1386 people want to read
About the author
Victor Sebestyen
8 books171 followersVictor Sebestyen was born in Budapest and was only an infant when his family left Hungary. He has worked for many British newspapers, including the Evening Standard. He lives in England.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
July 6, 2024
دوازده روز، کتابی ایست از ویکتور شبشتین، نویسنده مجارستانی . کتاب او که روایتی تکاندهنده از انقلاب مجارستان در سال ۱۹۵۶ است را می توان یکی از بهترین آثار غیرداستانی در مورد انقلاب مجارستان و جنگ سرد دانست . نویسنده به گونه ای دقیق و مستند به شرح وقایع این رویداد تاریخی پرداخته و تصویری زنده و ملموس از شجاعت و فداکاری مردم مجارستان در برابر رژیم کمونیستی و شوروی به تصویر میکشد.
شبشتین در این کتاب، با استفاده از منابع موثق و مصاحبه با شاهدان عینی، داستان انقلاب مجارستان را از روزهای آغازین اعتراضات دانشجویی تا سرکوب خونین آن توسط نیروهای شوروی روایت کرده. او در این مسیر، به بررسی نقش شخصیتهای کلیدی انقلاب مانند ایمره ناگی، نخست وزیر انقلاب، و کاردینال میندسنتی، رهبر مذهبی مجارستان، خروشچف دم دمی مزاج ، آندره پوف دورو و آناستاس میکویان پرداخته و پیچیدگیهای اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی مجارستان در آن دوران را به وضوح آشکار میکند. کتاب او هم چنین انتقادی است صریح و آشکار از غرب به رهبری آمریکا و سیاست های مزورانه اش ، که از یک طرف مجارها را به قیام و شورش دعوت می کرد و از طرفی دیگر هیچ حمایتی چه مستقیم ویا غیر مستقیم از آن ها نکرد و سبب قتل و عام انقلابیون شد .
یکی از بارزترین ویژگیهای کتاب دوازده روز را باید دقت و وسواس نویسنده در ارائه جزئیات وقایع انقلاب دانست. شبشتین با ظرافت تمام، تناقضات و ابهامات موجود در روایتهای مختلف را آشکار کرده و به خواننده کمک میکند تا درک عمیقتر و دقیقتری از این رویداد تاریخی به دست آورد. همچنین او جانب هیچ یک از طرفین درگیر در انقلاب را نمیگیرد. او با رویکردی بیطرفانه و عاری از پیشداوری، به بررسی وقایع انقلاب میپردازد و تلاش میکند تا حقایق را آنگونه که رخ دادهاند به تصویر بکشد .
کتاب شبشتین ، قهرمانان و شخصیت های زیادی دارد ، برخی از آنان مانند ایمره ناگی و یانوش کادار و ماتیاش راکوشی در تاریخ مجارستان ، اثر گذارتر و مهم تر هستند . کل کتاب را می توان در دو دوئل ، یکی میان ناگی و انقلابیون و راکوشی و دیگری میان ناگی و انقلابیون و یانوش کادار خلاصه کرد . نبرد اول گرچه به نفع انقلابیون تمام شد اما با ورود همه جانبه شوروی ، انقلاب به نبردی تبدیل شد که پایان و سرنوشت آن کاملا مشخص بود . در این میان ایمره ناگی که فردی راستگو ، صادق و با تمام وجود معتقد به سوسیالیسم بود ، از بخت بد ، زمانی به قدرت رسید که مجارها دیگر اعتقادی به کمونیسم نداشتند .ناگی با وجود آنکه می توانست به آسانی به انقلاب خیانت کرده و جانب روسها را بگیرد تا پایان در کنار مردم ماند .
یهودای انقلاب ، یانوش کادار را نمی توان یک خائن دانست . کادار چنان نقش پیچیده ای در تاریخ مجارستان ایفا کرده که او را به چهره ای بسیار مهم اما بحث بر انگیز تبدیل کرده . او با وجود خیانت به انقلاب و ناگی و خشونت و بی رحمی با انقلابیون ، به مرور زمان به چهره ای معتدل تبدیل شد . اصلاحات سیاسی و اقتصادی کادار ، به آزادی های سیاسی و اقتصادی مبدل شد که مجارستان را تبدیل به الگویی در جبهه شرق کرد . او گرچه صدها نفر را هنگام انقلاب و پس از آن گُشت اما زندگی را برای میلیونها نفر دیگر راحت و سهل تر کرد .
اما مردم مجارستان را باید قهرمانان اصلی کتاب دانست . آنها با شجاعت و فداکاری در برابر رژیم کمونیستی و اربابش شوروی ایستادگی کرده و برای آزادی خود مبارزه کردند. آنها با وجود سرکوبهای خونین، از خواستههای خود عقبنشینی نکردند و الهامبخش نسلهای آینده شدند.
خروشچف که تا قبل از این بحران ، چهره ای معتدل ، نرم و تحول خواه از خود نشان داده بود در برابر انقلاب مجارستان ، واکنشی سخت و شدید داشت . هجوم همه جانبه به مجارستان با ارتش سرخ ، بزرگترین و قوی ترین نیروی نظامی در آن زمان و ندادن فرصت به ناگی برای آرام کردن اوضاع ، سیمای معتدل خروشچف را در جهان تغییر داد و چهره او را به قصاب کرملین ، استالین ، که خروشچف ضد او و سیاست های او ، بود ، شبیه کرد .
دیگر چهره میانه رو داستان ، یوری آندره پوف ، دبیرکل حزب کمونیست در سالهای بعد که هنگام انقلاب سفیر شوروی در مجارستان بود را باید نماد وقاحت و دروغ گویی دانست . او با تسلطی شیطانی بر خود ، چنان با مهارت و وقاحت به ناگی ، بارها و بارها دروغ گفته و او را از جریان واقعیت به دور نگه داشت . آندره پوف مرزهای وقاحت و دروغ گویی را حتی در میان حاکمان شوروی ، بالا و بالاتر برد و رکورد جدیدی به نام خود نوشت . نقش میکویان هم در این بحران بسیار برجسته بوده . او که به عنوان کارشناس مجارستان و نماینده ویژه خروشچف یه بودا پست سفر کرده بود از ابتدا تا انتها با حمله مخالف بوده و تلاش می کرده خروشچف را از حمله منصرف کند ، تلاشهای او که تا لحظه آخر هم ادامه داشت کارساز نشد .
دیگر ضد قهرمان های این داستان تلخ را باید در جایی خارج از شوروی و مجارستان ، یعنی در آمریکا جستجو کرد . تیمی که برای ایرانیان هم بسیار شناخته شده . آیزنهاور ، دالس وزیر امور خارجه و دالس رییس سیا .این تیم که سه سال پیش کودتا ضد دکتر مصدق را طراحی و اجرا کرده بود این بار با سکوت و نادیده گرفتن قیام مجارها ، با وجود آنکه پیشتر به تمامی مردمان در بند کمونیسم وعده یاری و کمک داده بود ، به سلاخی و قتل عام ملت توسط روسها کمک کرد .
شبشتین با قلمی توانا و گیرا، تصویری زنده و تکاندهنده از انقلاب مجارستان به تصویر کشیده. او با استفاده از جزئیات دقیق، توصیفات ملموس و لحنی احساسی، خواننده را به قلب وقایع برده و او را در غم و اندوه، خشم و امید مردم مجارستان شریک میکند. دوازده روزرا باید فراتر از یک کتاب تاریخی صرف ، بلکه همانند یک اثر ادبی فاخر دانست که خواننده را تا واپسین صفحات کتاب مجذوب خود میکند.
شبشتین در این کتاب، با استفاده از منابع موثق و مصاحبه با شاهدان عینی، داستان انقلاب مجارستان را از روزهای آغازین اعتراضات دانشجویی تا سرکوب خونین آن توسط نیروهای شوروی روایت کرده. او در این مسیر، به بررسی نقش شخصیتهای کلیدی انقلاب مانند ایمره ناگی، نخست وزیر انقلاب، و کاردینال میندسنتی، رهبر مذهبی مجارستان، خروشچف دم دمی مزاج ، آندره پوف دورو و آناستاس میکویان پرداخته و پیچیدگیهای اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی مجارستان در آن دوران را به وضوح آشکار میکند. کتاب او هم چنین انتقادی است صریح و آشکار از غرب به رهبری آمریکا و سیاست های مزورانه اش ، که از یک طرف مجارها را به قیام و شورش دعوت می کرد و از طرفی دیگر هیچ حمایتی چه مستقیم ویا غیر مستقیم از آن ها نکرد و سبب قتل و عام انقلابیون شد .
یکی از بارزترین ویژگیهای کتاب دوازده روز را باید دقت و وسواس نویسنده در ارائه جزئیات وقایع انقلاب دانست. شبشتین با ظرافت تمام، تناقضات و ابهامات موجود در روایتهای مختلف را آشکار کرده و به خواننده کمک میکند تا درک عمیقتر و دقیقتری از این رویداد تاریخی به دست آورد. همچنین او جانب هیچ یک از طرفین درگیر در انقلاب را نمیگیرد. او با رویکردی بیطرفانه و عاری از پیشداوری، به بررسی وقایع انقلاب میپردازد و تلاش میکند تا حقایق را آنگونه که رخ دادهاند به تصویر بکشد .
کتاب شبشتین ، قهرمانان و شخصیت های زیادی دارد ، برخی از آنان مانند ایمره ناگی و یانوش کادار و ماتیاش راکوشی در تاریخ مجارستان ، اثر گذارتر و مهم تر هستند . کل کتاب را می توان در دو دوئل ، یکی میان ناگی و انقلابیون و راکوشی و دیگری میان ناگی و انقلابیون و یانوش کادار خلاصه کرد . نبرد اول گرچه به نفع انقلابیون تمام شد اما با ورود همه جانبه شوروی ، انقلاب به نبردی تبدیل شد که پایان و سرنوشت آن کاملا مشخص بود . در این میان ایمره ناگی که فردی راستگو ، صادق و با تمام وجود معتقد به سوسیالیسم بود ، از بخت بد ، زمانی به قدرت رسید که مجارها دیگر اعتقادی به کمونیسم نداشتند .ناگی با وجود آنکه می توانست به آسانی به انقلاب خیانت کرده و جانب روسها را بگیرد تا پایان در کنار مردم ماند .
یهودای انقلاب ، یانوش کادار را نمی توان یک خائن دانست . کادار چنان نقش پیچیده ای در تاریخ مجارستان ایفا کرده که او را به چهره ای بسیار مهم اما بحث بر انگیز تبدیل کرده . او با وجود خیانت به انقلاب و ناگی و خشونت و بی رحمی با انقلابیون ، به مرور زمان به چهره ای معتدل تبدیل شد . اصلاحات سیاسی و اقتصادی کادار ، به آزادی های سیاسی و اقتصادی مبدل شد که مجارستان را تبدیل به الگویی در جبهه شرق کرد . او گرچه صدها نفر را هنگام انقلاب و پس از آن گُشت اما زندگی را برای میلیونها نفر دیگر راحت و سهل تر کرد .
اما مردم مجارستان را باید قهرمانان اصلی کتاب دانست . آنها با شجاعت و فداکاری در برابر رژیم کمونیستی و اربابش شوروی ایستادگی کرده و برای آزادی خود مبارزه کردند. آنها با وجود سرکوبهای خونین، از خواستههای خود عقبنشینی نکردند و الهامبخش نسلهای آینده شدند.
خروشچف که تا قبل از این بحران ، چهره ای معتدل ، نرم و تحول خواه از خود نشان داده بود در برابر انقلاب مجارستان ، واکنشی سخت و شدید داشت . هجوم همه جانبه به مجارستان با ارتش سرخ ، بزرگترین و قوی ترین نیروی نظامی در آن زمان و ندادن فرصت به ناگی برای آرام کردن اوضاع ، سیمای معتدل خروشچف را در جهان تغییر داد و چهره او را به قصاب کرملین ، استالین ، که خروشچف ضد او و سیاست های او ، بود ، شبیه کرد .
دیگر چهره میانه رو داستان ، یوری آندره پوف ، دبیرکل حزب کمونیست در سالهای بعد که هنگام انقلاب سفیر شوروی در مجارستان بود را باید نماد وقاحت و دروغ گویی دانست . او با تسلطی شیطانی بر خود ، چنان با مهارت و وقاحت به ناگی ، بارها و بارها دروغ گفته و او را از جریان واقعیت به دور نگه داشت . آندره پوف مرزهای وقاحت و دروغ گویی را حتی در میان حاکمان شوروی ، بالا و بالاتر برد و رکورد جدیدی به نام خود نوشت . نقش میکویان هم در این بحران بسیار برجسته بوده . او که به عنوان کارشناس مجارستان و نماینده ویژه خروشچف یه بودا پست سفر کرده بود از ابتدا تا انتها با حمله مخالف بوده و تلاش می کرده خروشچف را از حمله منصرف کند ، تلاشهای او که تا لحظه آخر هم ادامه داشت کارساز نشد .
دیگر ضد قهرمان های این داستان تلخ را باید در جایی خارج از شوروی و مجارستان ، یعنی در آمریکا جستجو کرد . تیمی که برای ایرانیان هم بسیار شناخته شده . آیزنهاور ، دالس وزیر امور خارجه و دالس رییس سیا .این تیم که سه سال پیش کودتا ضد دکتر مصدق را طراحی و اجرا کرده بود این بار با سکوت و نادیده گرفتن قیام مجارها ، با وجود آنکه پیشتر به تمامی مردمان در بند کمونیسم وعده یاری و کمک داده بود ، به سلاخی و قتل عام ملت توسط روسها کمک کرد .
شبشتین با قلمی توانا و گیرا، تصویری زنده و تکاندهنده از انقلاب مجارستان به تصویر کشیده. او با استفاده از جزئیات دقیق، توصیفات ملموس و لحنی احساسی، خواننده را به قلب وقایع برده و او را در غم و اندوه، خشم و امید مردم مجارستان شریک میکند. دوازده روزرا باید فراتر از یک کتاب تاریخی صرف ، بلکه همانند یک اثر ادبی فاخر دانست که خواننده را تا واپسین صفحات کتاب مجذوب خود میکند.
April 19, 2014
As a Hungarian-American who lived through the period of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (we even took in two refugee families at different times), Victor Sebestyen's Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution help refresh my memory. Plus, it made me even more furious at the Eisenhower administration's craven failure to pay any attention to the failed efforts of my people to break free of the Soviet yoke.
During the Revolution, the propagandists at Radio Free Europe, in effect, kept promising American and UN aid, going so far as to give specific military advice. But the eyes of Eisenhower and of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold were on the Suex Crisis, which was taking place at the same time. Even the Russians were nonplussed: They had lined 20,000 troops with armor and artillery along the Austrian-Hungarian border in expectation of an invasion.
Over the long haul, the Hungarians won. Janos Kadar, who was put into power by Kruschchev proved to be a good leader -- years after he had all the uprising participants executed. After the Hungarian people, the biggest casualty of the Revolution was all the Communist parties of Europe. Russia's naked aggression did not stand well with the West, and it was one of those subtle turning points in history that preceded by some thirty years the collapse of Soviet Communism itself.
During the Revolution, the propagandists at Radio Free Europe, in effect, kept promising American and UN aid, going so far as to give specific military advice. But the eyes of Eisenhower and of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold were on the Suex Crisis, which was taking place at the same time. Even the Russians were nonplussed: They had lined 20,000 troops with armor and artillery along the Austrian-Hungarian border in expectation of an invasion.
Over the long haul, the Hungarians won. Janos Kadar, who was put into power by Kruschchev proved to be a good leader -- years after he had all the uprising participants executed. After the Hungarian people, the biggest casualty of the Revolution was all the Communist parties of Europe. Russia's naked aggression did not stand well with the West, and it was one of those subtle turning points in history that preceded by some thirty years the collapse of Soviet Communism itself.
July 17, 2025
This was an excellent, engaging and quite informative read which happened just when I needed it.
I've been interested in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising/Revolution for quite a long time, but - by sheer coincidence - one week upon finishing 'Twelve Days' I finally visited Budapest for the very first time.
I guess it might have been rather annoying for my partner (she has just confirmed that it was) being led through the Hungarian capital by me unawaringly lecturing her on events and anecdotes from October '56. And I reckon how more than once I juxtaposed the monumental main streets and squares we were navigating through with the black and white pictures depicting Soviet tanks, urban guerrilla, rubble and destruction dating back to the uprising. Sorry for that, Paulina! And blame on you, Victor Sebestyen.
For reading 'Twelve Days' brought me straight into a Budapest that is no more. I got sucked into a time vortex blowing me away from A.D. 2014 Poland and leaving me stranded but not confused in 1956 Hungary.
It took Mr Sebestyen's wizardry only a few pages to captivate me and - much to his merit - once I get into the history whirlwind I was reluctant to get out of it. I'll tell you why.
'Twelve Days' is one of those rare history books where the context is introduced and explained thoroughly, the chronology is always clear and the narration manages to be enthralling, coherent and consistent. It reads like a well-plotted political spy story with a Machiavellian cast of characters, but it deals with one of the darkest pages in recent European history.
Despite of the title he chose, the author doesn't rush to the brave and bloody twelve days of the 1956 uprising/revolution. At the contrary, Mr Sebestyen takes his time to explain what happened to Budapest and Hungary during and after World War II. By doing so the Anglo-Hungarian historian skilfully introduces the readers to a place and time they might not be familiar with and gradually builds up the book to its climax.
Each of the main domestic characters who played a major part in the events leading to 1956 and following it - Matyas Rakosi, Erno Gero, Laszlo Rajk, Imre Nagy, Janos Kadar - is carefully disclosed in an unbiased and quite objective way. True, when it comes to villains Mr Sebestyen stresses out Gero's 'sadistic smile' or Rakosi's 'overwhelming cynicism', but one must not forget that these men sent thousands of people to death and are justly remembered as criminals by Hungarians.
What I've found interesting is that the author doesn't depict Imre Nagy - now considered a hero and a martyr by his compatriots - as an entirely positive character. In fact, Sebestyen does quite the opposite by showing us an often undecided politician, an excessively cautious man uncapable to cut the bounds tying him to the USSR and reluctant to accept the moral leadership the Budapest crowds granted him.
In the same fashion, Janos Kadar - the man who took over the power after the uprising/revolution was crushed to bits by the Soviet tanks - could be included into the villains ranks as he was 'loathed as a Judas' by Hungarians. And yet, Sebestyen doesn't portray Kadar as merely a Muscovite puppet but reckons how in the years following the uprising he actually did something to soften things up leading to the so called 'goulash socialism'.
On a side note, my only criticism to the author is that he might have done a better job on the international stage.
The role played in smashing the uprising by a deus ex machina such as Nikita Kruscev in Moscow is explained but not investigated as much as it could have been. Looking Westwards, Sebestyen expresses some mild criticism towards the lack of interest in Hungary from the US and the UN, but eventually justifies both Eisenhower and Hammarskjoeld for their giving priority to the Suez crisis unfolding in the very same days.
This point of view is a tad too simplicistic to be accepted completely, but Sebestyen did such an excellent job overall that I can forgive him.
If you are interested in knowing more about the 1956 Hungarian uprising, revolution (or whatever you call it), 'Twelve Days' is a book to get and read soon.
I've been interested in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising/Revolution for quite a long time, but - by sheer coincidence - one week upon finishing 'Twelve Days' I finally visited Budapest for the very first time.
I guess it might have been rather annoying for my partner (she has just confirmed that it was) being led through the Hungarian capital by me unawaringly lecturing her on events and anecdotes from October '56. And I reckon how more than once I juxtaposed the monumental main streets and squares we were navigating through with the black and white pictures depicting Soviet tanks, urban guerrilla, rubble and destruction dating back to the uprising. Sorry for that, Paulina! And blame on you, Victor Sebestyen.
For reading 'Twelve Days' brought me straight into a Budapest that is no more. I got sucked into a time vortex blowing me away from A.D. 2014 Poland and leaving me stranded but not confused in 1956 Hungary.
It took Mr Sebestyen's wizardry only a few pages to captivate me and - much to his merit - once I get into the history whirlwind I was reluctant to get out of it. I'll tell you why.
'Twelve Days' is one of those rare history books where the context is introduced and explained thoroughly, the chronology is always clear and the narration manages to be enthralling, coherent and consistent. It reads like a well-plotted political spy story with a Machiavellian cast of characters, but it deals with one of the darkest pages in recent European history.
Despite of the title he chose, the author doesn't rush to the brave and bloody twelve days of the 1956 uprising/revolution. At the contrary, Mr Sebestyen takes his time to explain what happened to Budapest and Hungary during and after World War II. By doing so the Anglo-Hungarian historian skilfully introduces the readers to a place and time they might not be familiar with and gradually builds up the book to its climax.
Each of the main domestic characters who played a major part in the events leading to 1956 and following it - Matyas Rakosi, Erno Gero, Laszlo Rajk, Imre Nagy, Janos Kadar - is carefully disclosed in an unbiased and quite objective way. True, when it comes to villains Mr Sebestyen stresses out Gero's 'sadistic smile' or Rakosi's 'overwhelming cynicism', but one must not forget that these men sent thousands of people to death and are justly remembered as criminals by Hungarians.
What I've found interesting is that the author doesn't depict Imre Nagy - now considered a hero and a martyr by his compatriots - as an entirely positive character. In fact, Sebestyen does quite the opposite by showing us an often undecided politician, an excessively cautious man uncapable to cut the bounds tying him to the USSR and reluctant to accept the moral leadership the Budapest crowds granted him.
In the same fashion, Janos Kadar - the man who took over the power after the uprising/revolution was crushed to bits by the Soviet tanks - could be included into the villains ranks as he was 'loathed as a Judas' by Hungarians. And yet, Sebestyen doesn't portray Kadar as merely a Muscovite puppet but reckons how in the years following the uprising he actually did something to soften things up leading to the so called 'goulash socialism'.
On a side note, my only criticism to the author is that he might have done a better job on the international stage.
The role played in smashing the uprising by a deus ex machina such as Nikita Kruscev in Moscow is explained but not investigated as much as it could have been. Looking Westwards, Sebestyen expresses some mild criticism towards the lack of interest in Hungary from the US and the UN, but eventually justifies both Eisenhower and Hammarskjoeld for their giving priority to the Suez crisis unfolding in the very same days.
This point of view is a tad too simplicistic to be accepted completely, but Sebestyen did such an excellent job overall that I can forgive him.
If you are interested in knowing more about the 1956 Hungarian uprising, revolution (or whatever you call it), 'Twelve Days' is a book to get and read soon.
August 11, 2023
While a lot narratives of the Budapest upspring seems to focus on Soviet brutality, Sebestyen’s work takes a fairly balanced look at the situation which also involves a severe rivalry between Hungarian political factions who are both slavishly seeking Soviet support.
Sebestyen’s story flows easily and notes the relevant issues including previous Hungarian purges, the Voice of America broadcasts that encouraged the Hungarians to revolt (though this was not the policy or wish of the Eisenhower administration), the Soviets own struggle to create a solution without using force, and the even the excesses of Hungarian citizens’ lynching members of the Hungarian secret Police.
This a well done narrative of a (failed) revolution and it’s aftermath that is concise while still providing the needed context.
Sebestyen’s story flows easily and notes the relevant issues including previous Hungarian purges, the Voice of America broadcasts that encouraged the Hungarians to revolt (though this was not the policy or wish of the Eisenhower administration), the Soviets own struggle to create a solution without using force, and the even the excesses of Hungarian citizens’ lynching members of the Hungarian secret Police.
This a well done narrative of a (failed) revolution and it’s aftermath that is concise while still providing the needed context.
July 4, 2025
This was a wonderful read that offered a much-needed perspective, one that finally humanized the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. For so long, whenever I encountered it, it was always mentioned in passing or as a footnote to some larger Cold War crisis. But here, for a change, the uprising takes center stage. Victor Sebestyen brings the events of late October and early November 1956 into full color, capturing not just the geopolitics, but the human stakes. The book spans a wide cast of characters and begins with a much-needed background on the Stalinist years in Hungary, which explains so much of both the horror and the hope that defined this tragic revolt.
My main takeaway is that the uprising and its short lifespan serve as a cautionary tale in two key respects.
First, it reveals the importance of concession and of understanding one’s limitations. This is true in both politics and life. No one can get far without recognizing the boundaries between what is desirable and what is realistically achievable. In 1956, the Hungarian rebels were carried away by a maximalist approach that worked against their own long-term interests. Instead of settling for limited but significant reforms that might have solidified the gains of the initial uprising, they kept escalating their demands. These grew into expectations that were clearly unacceptable to the Soviets.
The situation was only worsened by hollow Western rhetoric. The United States, through radio broadcasts and slogans about “liberating captive nations,” encouraged the fight, but when the crucial moment came, the West remained inactive. There were no diplomatic notes, no pressure, no offers to mediate. Nothing. The rebels were urged to rise and then left to face the Soviet onslaught alone.
Second, the story of Hungary before and during the revolution offers a study in contrast. If the old regime was a monochrome painting of control, the revolution was an explosion of color without a frame. Stalinist Hungary was defined by totalitarian centralization, with the entire state reduced to the figure of one man, with rigid ideology and tight command. In contrast, revolutionary Hungary was marked by fragmentation, disorganization, and a burst of democratic energy that lacked cohesion.
Both systems had fatal flaws. One was too rigid, the other too chaotic. Between these extremes of total command and complete atomization, a realistic middle ground was sacrificed, unnoticed and unrecognized.
This was an enjoyable and highly informative account that did justice to the events by bringing them to proper attention. It offers a balanced narrative. The central tragic figure, chief among them Imre Nagy, is portrayed in a romantic and sorrowful light yet the author does not shy away from acknowledging the flaws and failings of these otherwise idealized figures.
I recommend it as an essential contribution to any comprehensive history of the Cold War.
Personal rating: 4/5
My main takeaway is that the uprising and its short lifespan serve as a cautionary tale in two key respects.
First, it reveals the importance of concession and of understanding one’s limitations. This is true in both politics and life. No one can get far without recognizing the boundaries between what is desirable and what is realistically achievable. In 1956, the Hungarian rebels were carried away by a maximalist approach that worked against their own long-term interests. Instead of settling for limited but significant reforms that might have solidified the gains of the initial uprising, they kept escalating their demands. These grew into expectations that were clearly unacceptable to the Soviets.
The situation was only worsened by hollow Western rhetoric. The United States, through radio broadcasts and slogans about “liberating captive nations,” encouraged the fight, but when the crucial moment came, the West remained inactive. There were no diplomatic notes, no pressure, no offers to mediate. Nothing. The rebels were urged to rise and then left to face the Soviet onslaught alone.
Second, the story of Hungary before and during the revolution offers a study in contrast. If the old regime was a monochrome painting of control, the revolution was an explosion of color without a frame. Stalinist Hungary was defined by totalitarian centralization, with the entire state reduced to the figure of one man, with rigid ideology and tight command. In contrast, revolutionary Hungary was marked by fragmentation, disorganization, and a burst of democratic energy that lacked cohesion.
Both systems had fatal flaws. One was too rigid, the other too chaotic. Between these extremes of total command and complete atomization, a realistic middle ground was sacrificed, unnoticed and unrecognized.
This was an enjoyable and highly informative account that did justice to the events by bringing them to proper attention. It offers a balanced narrative. The central tragic figure, chief among them Imre Nagy, is portrayed in a romantic and sorrowful light yet the author does not shy away from acknowledging the flaws and failings of these otherwise idealized figures.
I recommend it as an essential contribution to any comprehensive history of the Cold War.
Personal rating: 4/5
September 19, 2022
A fascinating account of the Hungarian uprising, told primarily from the perspective of the politicians and leaders, rather than those in the ground doing the fighting. Covers the soviet, and all sides of the Hungarian spectrum across the revolution and its aftermath. The author covers the confusion of the west and the less than dynamic response from the Soviets - the response by neither side was as clear and obvious as is perhaps assumed.
Written by a journalist, this lacks references or sources that are easily traceable by others. The flip side is it is written in an accessible and easily style.
Worth a read for anyone who does not know the history of this important part of Cold War history.
Written by a journalist, this lacks references or sources that are easily traceable by others. The flip side is it is written in an accessible and easily style.
Worth a read for anyone who does not know the history of this important part of Cold War history.
February 18, 2013
Sebestyan is best in the middle section of this book. A fast-paced but heavily detailed narrative presented on a day-by-day structure that was well suited to events. I enjoyed the little journalistic flourishes that brought the personalities to life: Cardinal Mindszenty tucking up his cassock so that he wouldn't be identified as a priest; Defence Minister Maléter patting his holster as he remarked the uprising didn't mean end of Socialism in Hungary. This sort of detail is either imagined or researched, the cross referencing of accounts suggests it is researched. Excellent.
The problem is in the Prelude and Aftermath sections where he tries to replicate this one day at time approach. It doesn't work: the causes and effects of the uprising can't be distinctly packaged into events. What's more trying to squeeze them into a diary format means that some important things have been left out.
For example, many of the Hungarian combatants were teenagers and would have been small childen when Budapest was besieged in 1944. During that time over 48,000 Axis, 70,000 Soviet and 76,000 Civilians were killed. Afterwards 400,000 Hungarians were sent to the Gulag, and 30,000 were raped. It makes the 2,500 combat deaths, 2,500 executions and 22,000 arrrests of 1956 pale into insignificance. Would the uprising have happened at all if a generation of Budapest's children hadn't been utterly brutalised? For a blistering fictional account of this time see Under the Frog, for the facts see Battle for Budapest.
The Aftermath is a mere sketch, mostly concerned with the immmediate implications for Hungary and the conduct of the Cold War - America is of disproportionate interest to Sebestyan. He remarks that in 1989 the post-Soviet republic was created on October 23rd, yet there is no analysis of the how current Hungarian politics is caught in the shadow of '56. Which is strange seeing as I found his research enlightening here.
The uprising was spontaneous and leaderless, or at least conducted by small groups whose only common ground was a hatred of the Russians. At one stage the teenage rebels of the Corvin Cinema were exchanging fire with the patriotic soldiers at Killian Barracks. There was a strong element of civil war that Sebestyan doesn't linger on. Yet, the hatreds of the civil war are apparent today in the frequent disorder that occurs on the anniversary of the uprising, and the attempt by the current Government to rewrite the 1989 settlement. 1956 is still a very divisive event in Hungarian politics, and I can't even guess why it is given the prominence it is. If we want to celebrate a national tragedy, shouldn't we be looking at '44 instead?
The problem is in the Prelude and Aftermath sections where he tries to replicate this one day at time approach. It doesn't work: the causes and effects of the uprising can't be distinctly packaged into events. What's more trying to squeeze them into a diary format means that some important things have been left out.
For example, many of the Hungarian combatants were teenagers and would have been small childen when Budapest was besieged in 1944. During that time over 48,000 Axis, 70,000 Soviet and 76,000 Civilians were killed. Afterwards 400,000 Hungarians were sent to the Gulag, and 30,000 were raped. It makes the 2,500 combat deaths, 2,500 executions and 22,000 arrrests of 1956 pale into insignificance. Would the uprising have happened at all if a generation of Budapest's children hadn't been utterly brutalised? For a blistering fictional account of this time see Under the Frog, for the facts see Battle for Budapest.
The Aftermath is a mere sketch, mostly concerned with the immmediate implications for Hungary and the conduct of the Cold War - America is of disproportionate interest to Sebestyan. He remarks that in 1989 the post-Soviet republic was created on October 23rd, yet there is no analysis of the how current Hungarian politics is caught in the shadow of '56. Which is strange seeing as I found his research enlightening here.
The uprising was spontaneous and leaderless, or at least conducted by small groups whose only common ground was a hatred of the Russians. At one stage the teenage rebels of the Corvin Cinema were exchanging fire with the patriotic soldiers at Killian Barracks. There was a strong element of civil war that Sebestyan doesn't linger on. Yet, the hatreds of the civil war are apparent today in the frequent disorder that occurs on the anniversary of the uprising, and the attempt by the current Government to rewrite the 1989 settlement. 1956 is still a very divisive event in Hungarian politics, and I can't even guess why it is given the prominence it is. If we want to celebrate a national tragedy, shouldn't we be looking at '44 instead?
October 3, 2023
Puntuale e interessante resoconto riguardante gli antefatti, i fatti e le successive conseguenze che gravitano intorno alla rivoluzione ungherese del 1956 contro l'opprimente giogo moscovita.
May 2, 2010
Sebestyen provides an impressive amount of information about the curious events that took place in Budapest in the autumn of 1956, in a style that is very easy to read. Unfortunately, the author is a journalist, not a historian: little effort has been made to distinguish the significant from the trivial, and facts from suppositions. The rather messy annotation doesn't help either. Most annoying are the author's inclination to impress his personal views about the 1956 events upon the reader, and his childish habit of emphasizing the obvious. (What's the point of calling a torturer for the secret police 'sadistic'? That would have been in his job description, wouldn't it?)
There are quite a few books about the 1956 uprising (not a revolution, I daresay). This one describes the events in great detail, but leaves it up to the reader to put them in historical and moral perspective. "Twelve Days" is certainly interesting, but it's far from brilliant. If you have been looking for the definitive handbook on the Hungarian uprising, I'm afraid this book doesn't even come close.
There are quite a few books about the 1956 uprising (not a revolution, I daresay). This one describes the events in great detail, but leaves it up to the reader to put them in historical and moral perspective. "Twelve Days" is certainly interesting, but it's far from brilliant. If you have been looking for the definitive handbook on the Hungarian uprising, I'm afraid this book doesn't even come close.
October 26, 2025
«بوداپست؛ داغ بر تن»
ماجرای این کتاب از شبی در نهم اکتبر ۱۹۴۴ آغاز میشود؛ شبی که چرچیل و استالین، در عرض جلسهای کوتاه و مختصر، اروپا را میان بلوک شرق و غرب تقسیم کردند و مجارستان که غالب زمان جنگ دوم در جبههی مقابل شوروی جنگیده بود، به دست همانها افتاد. شب کریسمس ۱۹۴۵، بوداپست تبدیل به نقطهی تقابل آلمانها و روسها شد و طی نبردی خونبار و ویرانگر از چنگال نازیها در آمد. مجارها که از این پیروزی خوشحال بودند به روسها به چشم منجیان خود مینگریستند، اما خیلی زود متوجه شدند ارتش سرخ به قصد دوستی نیامده است. این آغاز یک کابوس ۴۴ ساله بود.
بعد از جنگ، برخلاف رویهی معمول، استالین در مجارستان اجازهی برگزاری یک انتخابات آزاد را داد و همچنان که انتظار میرفت کمونیستها کمترین میزان رأی را از آن خود کردند اما در پشت پرده تزار سرخ برای مجارها خواب دیگری دیده بود. همزمان با ورود سربازهای شوروی، عدهای از مجارهای تعلیمدیدهی مکتب کمونیسم نیز از روسیه به مجارستان برگشتند که مردم آنها را «مسکوییها» مینامیدند؛ کسانی که سالها به فراگیری آموزههای شوروی مشغول بودند و قرار بود نمایندهی برحق مسکو در بوداپست باشند. یکی از سرآمدان این افراد «ماتیاش راکوشی» بود. راکوشی با برنامهای سه-چهارساله که استادش استالین تنظیم کرده بود به فضای سیاسیِ مجارستانِ پس از جنگ و سرخوش از انتخابات دموکراتیک وارد شد و رفتهرفته تاکتیکهای رذیلانهی معمول کمونیستها را پیاده کرد. مسیری از ائتلاف و ادغام و انواع ترور سیاسی و فیزیکی شروع شد تا حزب کمونیست تمام احزاب دیگر را خانهنشین کند و پس از آن نهاد کلیسا (که اکثریت مردم مجارستان به آن مؤمن بودند) را کنار بزند تا جایی که زیباترین کلیسای بوداپست با مجسمهای از استالین جایگزین شود. پاکسازیهای متعاقب انقلاب نیز همزمان با تصفیههای استالینی در مجارستان اجرا شد و آوو (پلیس مخفی مخوف مجارستان) بسیاری از فرزندان انقلاب را به کام مرگ فرستاد. در حقیقت از زمان آن تقسیم کذایی، شوروی داغ بزرگی بر دل مجارها گذاشته بود؛ چه از حیث اجتماعی و سیاسی و اقتصادی و فرهنگی و چه از حیث تاثیر تحقیرآمیز و سوءاستفادهگرانهی جمعی و فردیای که بر روان آنها وارد کرده بود؛ کورسوی امید اما با مرگ استالین فرا رسید.
وقتی هدایت شوروی و کشورهای اقماریای به دست یک هیئت رهبری (در رأس آن نیکیتا خروشچف) افتاد -کسی که به نیکی از استالین یاد نکرد- مارپیچی از تصمیمگیریهای ناهمگون آغاز گردید که صدای متزلزل پایههای آن امپراطوری عظیم را در جهان طنینانداز نمود؛ مسئلهای که در وهلهی اول گوش مردم رنجکشیدهی کشورهای اقماری را تیز کرد. کتاب مفصلاً سلسله رویدادهایی که از پی آمدند و بویی از اصلاحات داشتند را شرح میدهد و به گشایشی میپردازد که در ذهن جوانان کشور جوانه زده بود. حالا ۲۳ اکتبر ۱۹۵۶ است و یازده سال از سیطرهی شوروری بر مجارستان میگذرد. ۶۹ سال پیش در چنین روزهایی جنبشی شورانگیز رفتهرفته جامعهی مجارستان را در نوردید و ابتدا جوانان و سپس دیگر مردم و بع�� حتی بخشی از نیروهای نظامی کشور را به شوریدن علیه نظام کمونیستی خفقانآور واداشت. دولتمردان شوروری نیز که دیدند دستنشاندههای مجار حریف مردم نیستند ارتش سرخ را بار دیگر به خیابانهای بوداپست گسیل کردند. در این اثنا، مردم نیز به رهبریِ کمونیستی کهنهکار، اصلاحطلب و مغضوب کرملین دلبسته بودند؛ فردی به نام «ایمره ناج»، کسی که در تکتک دوازده روز انقلاب و روزهای فاجعهباری که از پی آمدند مردم را ناامید کرد. آنچه در ادامه رخ داد ملغمهای از حس پیروزی و غم ناکامیست؛ شوروی یک بار حمله کرد، شکست خورد، آتشبسی فریبکارانه شکل گرفت، مردم غریو پیروزی سر دادند، ناج دولت تشکیل داد اما حب ذاتیاش به "اصل" کمونیسم او را نسبت به جانیان کرملین گوشبهزنگ نگه نداشت، شوروی بار دوم با سپاهی چند برابر حمله کرد، بوداپست را در عرض چند روز به خاک و خون کشید و هزاران مجار را قتلعام کرد، دولتی دستنشاندهی کرملین مجدداً بر سر کار آمد، انقلابیون زندانی و اعدام شدند، ناج و همرزمانش با سادهلوحیِ ناباورانهای به دام افتاده و کشته شدند، صدها هزار مجار کشور را ترک کردند و یاس عمیقی دوباره بر آن خاک سایه افکند.
تنهایی و بدشانسی مجارها در این سیر عمیقاً خواننده را رنج میدهد؛ اینکه چطور غرب در بحبوحهی جنگ سرد با همهی آن مارش آزادیخواهانهای که در باب پسراندن کمونیسم در بوق و کرنا میکرد، مسئلهی مجارستان را به چیزی نگرفت و اینکه چطور انقلابیون از رهبرشان جلو زدند ولی در نهایت با بیتدبیری او در برابر شیطان بزرگ باز به چاه سیاه پیشین برگشتند. این گرفتاریها که اینطور انسانهای شریف را به خاک میافکند همه از اقدامات جزئی و به ظاهر بیاهمیتی شروع شده است. چیزهایی که ناگهان چنان جامعه را از منطق و واقعیت دور میکند که باورپذیر نیست. اما همانطور که تجربهی مجارستان نشان داده روزی هم ورق بیهیاهو برمیگردد و همهی آن غوغا به رویایی میماند؛ رویایی که تنها نشان وقوعش داغیست بر تن.
ماجرای این کتاب از شبی در نهم اکتبر ۱۹۴۴ آغاز میشود؛ شبی که چرچیل و استالین، در عرض جلسهای کوتاه و مختصر، اروپا را میان بلوک شرق و غرب تقسیم کردند و مجارستان که غالب زمان جنگ دوم در جبههی مقابل شوروی جنگیده بود، به دست همانها افتاد. شب کریسمس ۱۹۴۵، بوداپست تبدیل به نقطهی تقابل آلمانها و روسها شد و طی نبردی خونبار و ویرانگر از چنگال نازیها در آمد. مجارها که از این پیروزی خوشحال بودند به روسها به چشم منجیان خود مینگریستند، اما خیلی زود متوجه شدند ارتش سرخ به قصد دوستی نیامده است. این آغاز یک کابوس ۴۴ ساله بود.
بعد از جنگ، برخلاف رویهی معمول، استالین در مجارستان اجازهی برگزاری یک انتخابات آزاد را داد و همچنان که انتظار میرفت کمونیستها کمترین میزان رأی را از آن خود کردند اما در پشت پرده تزار سرخ برای مجارها خواب دیگری دیده بود. همزمان با ورود سربازهای شوروی، عدهای از مجارهای تعلیمدیدهی مکتب کمونیسم نیز از روسیه به مجارستان برگشتند که مردم آنها را «مسکوییها» مینامیدند؛ کسانی که سالها به فراگیری آموزههای شوروی مشغول بودند و قرار بود نمایندهی برحق مسکو در بوداپست باشند. یکی از سرآمدان این افراد «ماتیاش راکوشی» بود. راکوشی با برنامهای سه-چهارساله که استادش استالین تنظیم کرده بود به فضای سیاسیِ مجارستانِ پس از جنگ و سرخوش از انتخابات دموکراتیک وارد شد و رفتهرفته تاکتیکهای رذیلانهی معمول کمونیستها را پیاده کرد. مسیری از ائتلاف و ادغام و انواع ترور سیاسی و فیزیکی شروع شد تا حزب کمونیست تمام احزاب دیگر را خانهنشین کند و پس از آن نهاد کلیسا (که اکثریت مردم مجارستان به آن مؤمن بودند) را کنار بزند تا جایی که زیباترین کلیسای بوداپست با مجسمهای از استالین جایگزین شود. پاکسازیهای متعاقب انقلاب نیز همزمان با تصفیههای استالینی در مجارستان اجرا شد و آوو (پلیس مخفی مخوف مجارستان) بسیاری از فرزندان انقلاب را به کام مرگ فرستاد. در حقیقت از زمان آن تقسیم کذایی، شوروی داغ بزرگی بر دل مجارها گذاشته بود؛ چه از حیث اجتماعی و سیاسی و اقتصادی و فرهنگی و چه از حیث تاثیر تحقیرآمیز و سوءاستفادهگرانهی جمعی و فردیای که بر روان آنها وارد کرده بود؛ کورسوی امید اما با مرگ استالین فرا رسید.
وقتی هدایت شوروی و کشورهای اقماریای به دست یک هیئت رهبری (در رأس آن نیکیتا خروشچف) افتاد -کسی که به نیکی از استالین یاد نکرد- مارپیچی از تصمیمگیریهای ناهمگون آغاز گردید که صدای متزلزل پایههای آن امپراطوری عظیم را در جهان طنینانداز نمود؛ مسئلهای که در وهلهی اول گوش مردم رنجکشیدهی کشورهای اقماری را تیز کرد. کتاب مفصلاً سلسله رویدادهایی که از پی آمدند و بویی از اصلاحات داشتند را شرح میدهد و به گشایشی میپردازد که در ذهن جوانان کشور جوانه زده بود. حالا ۲۳ اکتبر ۱۹۵۶ است و یازده سال از سیطرهی شوروری بر مجارستان میگذرد. ۶۹ سال پیش در چنین روزهایی جنبشی شورانگیز رفتهرفته جامعهی مجارستان را در نوردید و ابتدا جوانان و سپس دیگر مردم و بع�� حتی بخشی از نیروهای نظامی کشور را به شوریدن علیه نظام کمونیستی خفقانآور واداشت. دولتمردان شوروری نیز که دیدند دستنشاندههای مجار حریف مردم نیستند ارتش سرخ را بار دیگر به خیابانهای بوداپست گسیل کردند. در این اثنا، مردم نیز به رهبریِ کمونیستی کهنهکار، اصلاحطلب و مغضوب کرملین دلبسته بودند؛ فردی به نام «ایمره ناج»، کسی که در تکتک دوازده روز انقلاب و روزهای فاجعهباری که از پی آمدند مردم را ناامید کرد. آنچه در ادامه رخ داد ملغمهای از حس پیروزی و غم ناکامیست؛ شوروی یک بار حمله کرد، شکست خورد، آتشبسی فریبکارانه شکل گرفت، مردم غریو پیروزی سر دادند، ناج دولت تشکیل داد اما حب ذاتیاش به "اصل" کمونیسم او را نسبت به جانیان کرملین گوشبهزنگ نگه نداشت، شوروی بار دوم با سپاهی چند برابر حمله کرد، بوداپست را در عرض چند روز به خاک و خون کشید و هزاران مجار را قتلعام کرد، دولتی دستنشاندهی کرملین مجدداً بر سر کار آمد، انقلابیون زندانی و اعدام شدند، ناج و همرزمانش با سادهلوحیِ ناباورانهای به دام افتاده و کشته شدند، صدها هزار مجار کشور را ترک کردند و یاس عمیقی دوباره بر آن خاک سایه افکند.
تنهایی و بدشانسی مجارها در این سیر عمیقاً خواننده را رنج میدهد؛ اینکه چطور غرب در بحبوحهی جنگ سرد با همهی آن مارش آزادیخواهانهای که در باب پسراندن کمونیسم در بوق و کرنا میکرد، مسئلهی مجارستان را به چیزی نگرفت و اینکه چطور انقلابیون از رهبرشان جلو زدند ولی در نهایت با بیتدبیری او در برابر شیطان بزرگ باز به چاه سیاه پیشین برگشتند. این گرفتاریها که اینطور انسانهای شریف را به خاک میافکند همه از اقدامات جزئی و به ظاهر بیاهمیتی شروع شده است. چیزهایی که ناگهان چنان جامعه را از منطق و واقعیت دور میکند که باورپذیر نیست. اما همانطور که تجربهی مجارستان نشان داده روزی هم ورق بیهیاهو برمیگردد و همهی آن غوغا به رویایی میماند؛ رویایی که تنها نشان وقوعش داغیست بر تن.
September 8, 2023
Twelve Days is a close read of the 1953 Hungarian Revolution against Soviet occupation. Author Victor Sebestyen, historian of Eastern Europe, recounts “a story of heroic failure, of awe-inspiring courage in a doomed cause, and of ruthless cruelty.” Sebestyen describes the Hungarian uprising in chronological fashion: the descent of the Iron Curtain, the installation of pro-Stalinist leadership and the destruction of political opposition, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet military occupation, accretion of public opposition to the oppressive accoutrements of communist life, the initial Soviet invasion and staunch guerrilla resistance, the fleeting moments of success as Soviet forces beat a tactical retreat, and lastly Khruschev’s ruthless “restoration of order” through a blitzkrieg operation to seize the capital of Budapest. Sebastyen knits together all the threads in the historical moment: the deliberative and insecure Soviets, who felt their grip on a vassal state loosening and in need of a firming; Hungarian leadership, mostly Soviet lackeys, who showed occasional moments of national fortitude; student revolutionaries, who devised homespun yet effective tactics to gum up the Soviet advance. Ultimately, the Revolution proved to be stillborn – the unfortunate victim of a decrepit empire seeking to scrap together the shards of its of geopolitical legitimacy. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder that free rule is neither guaranteed nor priceless – a reality that is on full display in many corners of the former Soviet Union today.
July 14, 2022
A compelling and effective introduction for the general reader.
Out of 2000 I’d give it… 1956!!!
Out of 2000 I’d give it… 1956!!!
December 24, 2018
Excellent, fairly concise retelling of one of the seminal moments of the Cold War. The true nature of the Soviet Union and Communism in general is on full display and it is worth reminding oneself of what governments are capable of when there is no dissent allowed and one party is able to rule completely with total police powers. The evolution was totally unexpected, heroic and against fantastic odds and what the Hungarians were able to do caused real fear in the Soviet leadership that the breakup of the Empire was perhaps imminent. The Poles has done something less dramatic just a few months earlier. Fascinating to read about the debates in the Kremlin over what to do after the initial uprising succeeded. Yuri Andropov (Soviet Ambassador to Hungary and later Premier of the USSR) is shown to be utterly without scruples or any moral compass whatsoever as he lies over and over again to the nascent free Hungarian regime. Also well told is the dithering of the West and the U.N. and the culpability of Radio Free Europe in encouraging an uprising which was to receive no support from the West. Eisenhower does not come off well at all in his decision to do literally nothing to support the uprising after basically encouraging it. Much is blamed on the concurrent Suez crisis that for some reason took nearly all the world's attention, as if a major crack in the Iron Curtain was not somehow very significant. The ultimate decision to crush the rebellion with up to 2500 tanks is a breathtaking singular lesson in the unmitigated brutality of the Soviets and their empire. The lessons are not wasted in a time where we edge ever closer to country where free thought is suppressed routinely not so much by the government as by huge corporations (Google, FB, TW) that increasingly determine what views are aired and a media that seems completely in the thrall of one point of view.
February 3, 2018
Well-written account of the harrowing experience of the Hungarian revolution against the hated Russian occupiers and communist regime in October 1956. Sebastyen prefixes the 12 days of revolution with an excellent introduction of the brutal suppression of the Hungarians under the Stalinist leader Rakosi and leads on to the surprising and short-lived success of the initial revolt before its inevitable crushing by Soviet military might and ignored by the rest of the world focusing on Suez. Sebastyen includes moving 1st hand descriptions of the events and the horrendous results. Should be required reading for all advocates of communism.
January 1, 2026
Found this book at home and decided to read it after my visit to Budapest. It was my first history read and it didn’t disappoint🤓☝️it was well structured and engaging. Imo it’s one of the more overlooked historical events, but don’t be fooled those 12 days had some colddd moments 🥶
August 17, 2023
Borrow.
From an informative standpoint this fits the bill just fine and I would absolutely recommend. The writing is good but lacks that little something that makes a writer excellent - mostly in its flow. Nonetheless, really happy to have filled in some blind spots on modern Hungarian history.
From an informative standpoint this fits the bill just fine and I would absolutely recommend. The writing is good but lacks that little something that makes a writer excellent - mostly in its flow. Nonetheless, really happy to have filled in some blind spots on modern Hungarian history.
October 22, 2019
Sebestyn does an amazing job at telling a history story about the Hungarian Revolution, providing enough information that's easy to digest for Western readers.
April 24, 2021
Bit of a slog.
This period in history was incredibly interesting for both Hungary and the US, however the detail this book goes into detracts from this. It would be a great book for anyone studying this specific time or Soviet satellite States in more detail as it has so much content but it is too much for someone looking for the bigger picture.
This period in history was incredibly interesting for both Hungary and the US, however the detail this book goes into detracts from this. It would be a great book for anyone studying this specific time or Soviet satellite States in more detail as it has so much content but it is too much for someone looking for the bigger picture.
February 22, 2025
"The elite were not always allowed long to enjoy their good fortune. On the 850,000 members of the Communist Party in 1950, almost exactly half were in prison, in labour camps, exiled or dead three years later." (41-2)
"A peculiarly Hungarian feature was that often under the body lay a pile of cash, sometimes in significant amounts and always untouched, which indicated that the dead AVO had been in possession of blood money no Hungarian should keep." (196)
"'I know that there will one day be another Nagy trial, which will rehabilitate me. I also know I will have a reburial. I only fear that the funeral oration will be delivered by those who betrayed me.' He was hanged at dawn on 16 June 1958." (292)
"A peculiarly Hungarian feature was that often under the body lay a pile of cash, sometimes in significant amounts and always untouched, which indicated that the dead AVO had been in possession of blood money no Hungarian should keep." (196)
"'I know that there will one day be another Nagy trial, which will rehabilitate me. I also know I will have a reburial. I only fear that the funeral oration will be delivered by those who betrayed me.' He was hanged at dawn on 16 June 1958." (292)
August 25, 2008
I read this on the flight to Budapest this summer. I really know (knew!) nothing about Hungary and wanted to have some kind of familiarity with its recent history.
I am SO glad I picked this up. It is written in an easy to read, narrative style, but still heavy on the history and details.
Having read this prior to my visit, I appreciated all of the monuments (official and not) that are scattered around Budapest (from the shoes on the Danube, to Monument Park, to the bullet holes left in the buildings in Pest...).
I highly recommend it if you want to know more about Hungary's role in WWII. It also makes an interesting study in social movements.
I am SO glad I picked this up. It is written in an easy to read, narrative style, but still heavy on the history and details.
Having read this prior to my visit, I appreciated all of the monuments (official and not) that are scattered around Budapest (from the shoes on the Danube, to Monument Park, to the bullet holes left in the buildings in Pest...).
I highly recommend it if you want to know more about Hungary's role in WWII. It also makes an interesting study in social movements.
October 11, 2023
An excellent account of the heroic resistance of the Hungarian people against communist tyranny. The books starts with a very helpful overview of the years leading up to the uprising. The author very clearly shows the brutality and duplicity of the communist Russians. The book only has one part which didn't need to be included about what the debauched communist soldiers did to a woman.
This story is a grim case in point of what happens to a country that accepts communism. Seizure of property, collective farms, persecution of the Catholic church, poverty, and an oppressive police state are just some examples of what communism did.
This story is a grim case in point of what happens to a country that accepts communism. Seizure of property, collective farms, persecution of the Catholic church, poverty, and an oppressive police state are just some examples of what communism did.
February 19, 2025
I’ve been reading this for the past week or so as if it were a novel and not a dense history book. However, Sebestyen’s writing style was so gripping that the book didn’t really read like a standard dry history book. I got so invested in the figures and events described.
I took off one star because the book started to drag a bit by the end and I think it could have been about fifty pages shorter. In any case, an excellent read and one I highly recommend.
I took off one star because the book started to drag a bit by the end and I think it could have been about fifty pages shorter. In any case, an excellent read and one I highly recommend.
March 27, 2017
Excellent book on an often over looked topic, using declassified documents from both sides in order to paint a complete picture. The author does a good job of blending the first hand accounts, the politics, the quotes, and the documents into a flowing narrative. An interesting struggle where few stood against many, in what ended as being ultimately futile.
February 6, 2025
I don't recall learning much if anything about the Hungarian Revolution in my history classes, but it was quite fascinating to read about this early attempt to rebel against soviet encroachment and the depressing results. The author did a good job of taking a quite short event and stretching it out, giving the reader a very personalized accounting of each event and how the various actors reacted.
Want to read
December 25, 2021My name is Damon Sebestyén, I believe the author was family of mine.. if I’m correct his cousin was my grampy András who fled to the uk from communist oppression.. I am buying this book as it may answer a lot of unanswered questions about my family and what happened over there!
September 13, 2014
Well written history of Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and lack of US support at the critical hour, after all our anti-communist rhetoric.
January 2, 2024
Great read - not a curriculum topic at school so I learnt a lot. A lot of context leading up to the revolution and aftermath.
September 12, 2024
Excellent.
July 5, 2024
Well written, difficult to keep all the names in order, so I had to go slowly and take breaks. Very informative
March 28, 2022
While visiting Budapest in the 90's, I was stuck by all the old buildings still showing pockmarks of small arms and tank fire from the 1956 Hungarian revolution. It incensed me to think how many of the Russian bullets and shells found bodies instead of buildings.
While reading
Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution by Victor Sebestyen, one can't help but realize the similarities of the Hungarian revolution with events transpiring in Ukraine today. The two invasions are NOT the same - Ukraine is not staging a revolution, as Hungary was in 1956 - it is a sovereign nation; the number of troops and firepower brought to bear by the Russians is far greater in Ukraine than in Hungary, and the structural damage and slaughter of lives is far more extensive in Ukraine, but the world’s reaction to Russia’s aggression is much the same. The second paragraph of the introduction bears out the similitude: “A small nation, its people armed with little more than rifles and petrol bombs, had the will to rise up against one of the world’s superpowers. The passionate determination of the Hungarians to resister the Russians astonished outsiders.”
A Hungarian citizen said, “The tanks opened fire on the people standing in the food line.” In Ukraine Russians bombed a theater filled with refugees, many of them children, even with the word “KIDS” written clearly in Russian for the attackers to see.
In both instances of Russian brutality, American leaders chose to take an “active non-involvement” policy course and as for the world leaders, “After ten days of crisis in Hungary the UN had decided – absolutely nothing.”, much like the UN and the NATO nations have accomplished thus far for Ukraine.
In 1956, “-NATO headquarters, on the orders of Eisenhower, had been given particular instructions to do nothing that could be interpreted as provocative– “, and a Russian tank commander told his men, “Yes. This could be the beginning of World War Three.” Imre Nagy, the Hungarian leader at the time said, “Today it is Hungary and tomorrow or the day after tomorrow it will be the turn of other countries because the imperialism of Moscow knows no borders…” How is this language any different than we are hearing in 2022?
According to the book, when things started going badly for the Russian forces, many thought Khrushchev was in trouble and might lose power for his decisions in 1956. Some say the same about Putin; that his vicious, bloody attack on the people of Ukraine will be his downfall…Don’t count on it; Khrushchev stayed in power for eight years after the revolution.
I don’t think we should continue to compare Putin to Hitler. Hitler’s aggression stemmed mostly from antisemitism and racism. Putin is driven by a need for power and possession at the expense of everyone and everything in his way. Putin should be likened more to Ivan the Terrible or Stalin, being prone to paranoia, rage, and mental instability. You can bet that if more isn’t done to stop the aggression and warring nature of the Kremlin, there will be more Russian leaders of that ilk.
While reading
Twelve Days: The Story of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution by Victor Sebestyen, one can't help but realize the similarities of the Hungarian revolution with events transpiring in Ukraine today. The two invasions are NOT the same - Ukraine is not staging a revolution, as Hungary was in 1956 - it is a sovereign nation; the number of troops and firepower brought to bear by the Russians is far greater in Ukraine than in Hungary, and the structural damage and slaughter of lives is far more extensive in Ukraine, but the world’s reaction to Russia’s aggression is much the same. The second paragraph of the introduction bears out the similitude: “A small nation, its people armed with little more than rifles and petrol bombs, had the will to rise up against one of the world’s superpowers. The passionate determination of the Hungarians to resister the Russians astonished outsiders.”A Hungarian citizen said, “The tanks opened fire on the people standing in the food line.” In Ukraine Russians bombed a theater filled with refugees, many of them children, even with the word “KIDS” written clearly in Russian for the attackers to see.
In both instances of Russian brutality, American leaders chose to take an “active non-involvement” policy course and as for the world leaders, “After ten days of crisis in Hungary the UN had decided – absolutely nothing.”, much like the UN and the NATO nations have accomplished thus far for Ukraine.
In 1956, “-NATO headquarters, on the orders of Eisenhower, had been given particular instructions to do nothing that could be interpreted as provocative– “, and a Russian tank commander told his men, “Yes. This could be the beginning of World War Three.” Imre Nagy, the Hungarian leader at the time said, “Today it is Hungary and tomorrow or the day after tomorrow it will be the turn of other countries because the imperialism of Moscow knows no borders…” How is this language any different than we are hearing in 2022?
According to the book, when things started going badly for the Russian forces, many thought Khrushchev was in trouble and might lose power for his decisions in 1956. Some say the same about Putin; that his vicious, bloody attack on the people of Ukraine will be his downfall…Don’t count on it; Khrushchev stayed in power for eight years after the revolution.
I don’t think we should continue to compare Putin to Hitler. Hitler’s aggression stemmed mostly from antisemitism and racism. Putin is driven by a need for power and possession at the expense of everyone and everything in his way. Putin should be likened more to Ivan the Terrible or Stalin, being prone to paranoia, rage, and mental instability. You can bet that if more isn’t done to stop the aggression and warring nature of the Kremlin, there will be more Russian leaders of that ilk.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews