October 23, 2006 -- Police and hundreds of protesters clashed in Budapest today as Hungary began commemorations marking the 50th anniversary of the 1956 uprising against Soviet rule.
Witnesses say protesters were beaten and arrested as police sought to move them away from parliament, the site of the official celebrations.
Protesters have been camped outside parliament since Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany admitted in mid-September that he lied about the economy in order to secure an election victory last spring.
By mid-morning, some 300 protesters chanting " '56, '56" had gathered outside the city's cathedral, waving flags.
They were prevented from approaching official ceremonies, but they are vowing to try and return to parliament.
Hungarian President Laszlo Solyom had on October 22 appealed for national unity amid the deep divisions created between Hungary's political parties by the crisis triggering by Gyurcsany.
Delegations from more than 50 countries attended the commemoration, laying flowers at a memorial to the events of 1956.
In remarks in the upper house of the Hungarian parliament, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the 1956 uprising had "lit a torch of freedom" that later helped topple dictatorships across Eastern Europe.
Prime Minister Ference Gyurcsany said "our debates about 1956 are not about the past, but about the present, about who we are, what kind of world we would like."
Other events scheduled for today include the unveiling of a large memorial dedicated to the uprising near the spot where a statue of Stalin was toppled.
More than 2,500 Hungarians were killed when Soviet troops crushed the 1956 uprising. Some 200,000 Hungarians fled their country into exile.
More than 200 people accused of participating in the uprising were executed, including then-Prime Minister Imre Nagy.
Two Recollections Of The Secret Speech
"A POWERFUL TEXT": Former Soviet President MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, speaking about the secret speech in 1994, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nikita Khrushchev:
I was among those who were acquainted -- after all, not everyone was -- with the speech. At the time, I was the deputy chief of the agitation and propaganda department of our region's Komsomol. I had the opportunity to be invited to the party's district committee, where I became acquainted with this text.
This acquaintance took place in a closed environment, and the speech was taken away five days later. This is why, after I read it, I never saw it again until perestroika. Later, many found out about the text, but slowly. In the West, on the other hand, it was published and became popular.
It was a powerful text. It isn't marked by strong analysis, or a deep approach to the roots of all these phenomena, like why the personality cult became possible -- you won't find these things there. But there is something there that moves and touches the soul. It talks about what was happening to us, what was happening to people, to outstanding people -- how they left and were turned to sand and everything vanished...and people's fates.... This is simple and terrifying. In that sense, the speech creates a strong impression.
I remember how my grandfather was arrested. When the revolution happened, his family got land, and it was apparent to them that it was theirs to manage. So he became a communist. He created kolkhozes [collective farms]; he was the chairman of a kolkhoz for many years. Then, suddenly, in 1938, he is an enemy of the people! This is why, in this sense, I was prepared for the speech and interpreted it differently than others.
But even I was haunted by the question: Was it really like that? Can it be?! My grandfather, who survived torture, returned to the village alive. The grandfather Raisa Maksimovna [Gorbachev's wife -- ed.] was also a peasant and was shot as a Trotskyite. It was a shame, because he did not know what a Trotskyite was. This was in the Altai region.
I interpreted it to some extent as -- yes, this is what happened, this is what happened in my family, and this is what happened in the entire country. It was a tragedy, many people died, a nation was drained of blood and, to a certain extent, decapitated. The intellectual part of the army, and of the politicians, and the administrators was annihilated, decimated -- and the artistic intelligentsia.... But around the world, I noticed a shocking confusion. It was hard not to believe, but some still didn't. Can it really be that it happened this way? But the most important question that arose was: Why did all this collapse and why in this way?
I think this is exactly what Khrushchev must be credited with. They say he trembled while he read the speech, but he read it nonetheless. I think this is where we begin our difficult, dramatic separation from Stalinism and everything it bore.
From left to right, Vyacheslav Molotov, Nikita Khrushchev, and Josef Stalin watch a parade from the top of Vladimir Lenin's mausoleum in 1938 (TASS)
"TO TELL THE TRUTH": In February 1996, RFE/RL correspondent Vladimir Tolz spoke with SERGEI KHRUSHCHEV, Nikita Khrushchev's son, about his recollections of the 1956 secret speech.
Sergei Khrushchev: I found out about the speech not from my father, but later, when people came and said, "You know, there was this report...." Then I rushed to him with questions.
RFE/RL: And what did he tell you?
Khrushchev: He actually didn't tell me anything. He said, "Well, you know, we decided that we had to..." -- I forget his exact words now -- "tell the truth." He probably said it a bit differently, but in any case he gave me the text and said, "Here, read it. I'm tired of talking...."
RFE/RL: Do you remember your impression? Was it somehow discussed in your family?
Khrushchev: It wasn't even discussed in our family. We all kept to ourselves because we all had -- I assume -- thoughts of our own about the matter. For me, it was the end of the world. Later, when I asked my father about this and he told me about his friends who died, I became an anti-Stalinist, and it seemed to me at that moment that it would be impossible to resurrect the name of Stalin and speak of it positively. But as you see, we were all wrong about that.