Hacker News

Hungary: Communist-era files released, up to 60k former agents revealed(euronews.com)

239 points by rdmuser 2 days ago | 71 comments

As a hungarian: agent would imply a member of the secret police which have already been released years ago. These are informants, regular people like students and teachers to members of the churches to actors and musicians etc.

Also

1, this should have been released long ago cause many of these people are already dead.

2, they only released the official record of the informant. Their background, who contacted them (from the secret police), when they were approached etc. But there is nothing about actual reports, like _did they do anything at all_ or not.

Even the Nobel Prize winner (2023) Karikó Katalin has a record on her yet she already wrote her autobiography years ago mentioning this, how and when she was approached and she didn't report anything at all. Now everyone have to decide on their own what to believe or not.

https://szegeder.hu/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6c145795-f972...

[–] Grimeton 2 days ago

>1, this should have been released long ago cause many of these people are already dead.

Best that can happen. People will be disappointed but that's it. If the IMs are still alive it can get really ugly really quick.

[–] christkv 2 days ago

The rest is history just recently did two episodes of the Hungarian Revolution which I think were really good https://therestishistory.com/episodes/the-hungarian-uprising... but I’m not Hungarian obviously so i don’t know if it covers it well or not.

[–] zsoltkacsandi 2 days ago

“identifying up to 60,000 informants”

As far as I understand they released different kind of documents, and some of them might be agents’. But at this point I don’t think it is feasible to accurately differentiate who was agent and who only an informant.

[–] haunter 2 days ago

The title of the article is "up to 60,000 former agents revealed"

[–] d1sxeyes 2 days ago

It’s a mistranslation of the Hungarian ügynök, which can indeed mean agent, but not necessarily. Here it means informant/source.

I appreciate the title is wrong, but no reason not to add the correct context.

[–] zsoltkacsandi 2 days ago

Yes, and the first sentence used the word “informants”. See my comment above.

[–] TacticalCoder 2 days ago

> Now everyone have to decide on their own what to believe or not.

I decide to believe that communism doesn't look like a nice system and I decide to believe that I really don't believe those saying: "this time we'll make communism work".

[–] viraptor 2 days ago

Watch out who you assign that idea to though. My grandfather (taking some part in local resistance) was sent to a soviet camp due to a neighbour "informant". He told the family not to bother the neighbour - the information/signatures would be likely forced in interrogation and they'd be made to confess anything that was needed. Yet that neighbour "informant" could likely end up on one of lists like this.

The lists on their own say very little about what actually happened unless you have much more context.

[–] cucumber3732842 2 days ago

>As a hungarian: agent would imply a member of the secret police which have already been released years ago. These are informants, regular people like students and teachers to members of the churches to actors and musicians etc.

Yes and? That they did it for free instead of for pay is supposed to make it better?

[–] slibhb 2 days ago

And agent is not the same as informer. Whether it's better, worse, or the same is up to you.

[–] lukan 2 days ago

"And agent is not the same as informer"

The difference is not really clear in reality and can get blurry quickly. Informants can also be ordered to do more active things to get information - or spread missinformation, or be ordered to do other active things. Simple things like luring a person to a party, or using their influence of position to prevent or make something happen (punish/promote a student/worker, make a certain result go away, ..).

So the majority were likely passive informants with the job of writing reports, but not all of them. And to me it rather would matter if they took the job voluntarily or were forced to do it.

[–] wildzzz 2 days ago

Agents vs informants is a venn diagram. Some informants become active participants under orders of an intelligence officer, they are instructed to use their access for further tasks. Some agents infiltrate groups and inform their handler on group activities and membership. Not all agents inform (they may perform things like sabotage or murder) and not all informants are instructed to do anything (they are paid and never contacted again).

[–] perching_aix 2 days ago

"i like waffles"

"oh so you HATE pancakes?!"

this is to say, no, it just means what it means. rest is all you man.

[–] rickdeckard 2 days ago

Your silence about ice cream is very telling...

[–] wildzzz 2 days ago

Informants are often compensated in a variety of ways. Maybe you get some cash or maybe you avoid arrest or torture in exchange for giving up someone else. Or maybe becoming an informant was a criteria for government sponsorship in academics or sports or to keep their position in a high profile career. Although some informants just do it for ego or ideological reasons. Is your neighbor annoying you with their late night clandestine meetings? Rat them out! It's unfortunate that these records don't include reasons as to why someone became an informant and what information they actually contributed, if any.

[–] charlieyu1 2 days ago

There are several Chinese informants caught in the last few years in Western countries, a lot was just doing it for ideological reasons, the monetary reward really doesn’t match the troubles involved and the severity of the crime

[–] d1sxeyes 2 days ago

That information may come in spring when the B files drop.

[–] Shitty-kitty 2 days ago

Many became informants because they were approached by agents asking them to tell them everything they knew about a target. Pretending to not know anything was risky. If they discovered that you didn't tell them about something you should have known, it was your ass that got sent to a re-education camp. If they as much as suspected that you were withholding information, you may have found your job suddenly relocated to some forgotten corner of the country.

If you think, i'm exaggerating. My grandfather, a prominent writer, was exiled to teach elementary school in far-off village for a few years after one of the ruling elites decided that his latest play was unsympathetic to Communist ideals.

[–] agosz 2 days ago

If you want to search the archives that they released: https://nyitottaktak.hu/#kereses

The article links to this site and that's the search page

[–] rickdeckard 2 days ago

Trying to find it, but my lack of Hungarian skill is not helping: Is there a website available to search by name or anything?

[–] agosz 2 days ago

https://nyitottaktak.hu/#kereses

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

Interesting how long this took. Poland cleaned house almost immediately after they kicked the russians out.

[–] orbital-decay 2 days ago

And in Russia itself it turned out to be one of the biggest subversions: in August 1991, Yeltsin famously and inexplicably stopped his followers on their way to the KGB building where all the archives were stored. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpEu-62BBc

[–] holgerschurig 2 days ago

Same in East Germany. They made a government agency on 3. October 1990. This agency collected all the files related to people from the Stasi that weren't shredded.

And then any person (east or west) could file a request "Tell me anything the Stasi knew about me". "Stasi" being the abbrev of the political secret police of east germany.

But truth be told: no one kicked the russians out. Sure, economically the FRG was "kaputt". But with a stalinist USSR they could have continued to keep the status quo. Maybe even without help: North-Korea is way more "kaputt" than east germany was. And they keep up the system since decades without soviet help. And also without much chinese help. NK is pretty isolationist, with few bridges going over the border river to China. So it's entirely possible that socialist states 1) stay in their self-selected prison due to internal forces.

It was to a good part the goodwill of the then-USSR (lead by Gorbatchev) that made the USSR troops return. I think west-german money also helped --- they asked west-germany to build housing areas in USSR for the soviet soldiers.

1) And here I mean real socialism, centered around the ideas that the "means of production" not in private hand. Uneducated US people often confuse a simple unemployment insurance with "socialism". And call countries like Denmark, Sweden or France "socialist". This only tells all of us that the general education in some countries leaves to be desired ...

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

And they did a fantastic job putting shredded documents back together, that was one of the most interesting stories of the day.

Unfortunately the project seems to have stalled at the 91,000 document mark for automatic re-assembly (many more were done by hand).

[–] lifestyleguru 2 days ago

> Poland cleaned house almost immediately after they kicked the russians out.

lol what? Quite the opposite. Nowadays they even use the modern "techniques" to prevent information becoming public - privacy laws, and "hate speech" laws. Part of archives were torched and many highest figures kept archives in their private houses and garages. Those deepest in the structures became oligarchs during privatizations.

[–] t0bia_s 22 hours ago

In Czechia we have formal agent of StB as prime minister (Andrej Babiš - "Bureš") and president was trained in military inteligence of Communist party (Petr Pavel - Pávek).

Ve called them "political turncoaters" (převlékači kabátů).

[–] lifestyleguru 20 hours ago

How dare you criticize the most handsome photographer.

[–] syngrog66 2 days ago

good opportunity for Americans now especially to understand the different tiers of foreign operatives within any given country:

1. an agent (James Bond is the canonical example)

2. an asset

3. a useful idiot

The trick is that sometimes its harder to tell which flavor a particular individual best fits, at least from the outside with insufficient data. Some we might assume are agents/assets might be merely useful idiots, or vice versa.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

Assets are more often than not not aware that they are assets.

[–] syngrog66 1 day ago

an asset who is not aware is merely a useful idiot

[–] polloxtroy 2 days ago

AmericanStasi.com suggests a modern program run by Israel is quite quite active in the West including the US.

[–] expedition32 2 days ago

One thing I noticed is that Eastern Europe is always quick to blame the Soviets for their communist dictatorships conveniently forgetting the millions of "fellow travellers" along the way.

[–] dwroberts 2 days ago

Hungary had a revolution against Soviet control that was brutally suppressed and hundreds of thousands of people fled or were exiled. So yes, the Soviets were absolutely responsible for their communist dictatorship because they killed or removed anyone that did not comply

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

I don't know why the ignorance level of what happened in some of these countries during these years is so high. Seriously, did they just stop teaching it at some point? I don't get it.

[–] asdff 2 days ago

They don’t teach this in american school at least until you get to undergrad and can pick them as electives. History class usually stops after wwii. Mine didn’t even cover past wwi.

[–] robswc 2 days ago

I think its mostly because;

- Nazis were worse, and Soviets fought Nazis so they get a bit of a break

- It isn't convenient to for some narratives. (The idea that leftism is immune from authoritarianism).

[–] AngryData 2 days ago

If they teach about it people might be able to identify the actual problems of authoritarianism and having an elite class. Rather than throwing any and everything they don't like under the communist label.

[–] aliasxneo 2 days ago

Hungary is a particularly interesting case. Failed a populist uprising in 1919. Then failed again in 1945 when the Independent Smallholders’ Party won a clear majority over the communist party. Then came the "salami tactics" (secret police arrests/killings under accusations of "fascism" or conspiracy) until the "election" in 1949 which just ended up being straight down the party line (after they merged with the socialists). Not to mention the Red Army never really left after the end of WWII.

It's not the typical story people usually think about with either a populist uprising or the Red Terror.

[–] noir_lord 2 days ago

They also came quite close to succeeding, initially it looked like the Politburo would actually remove Soviet troops and let much of what they wanted to happen happen.

Then Khrushchev and the rest decided that if they let Hungary "go" they'd have a problem justifying to the people of the other not entirely willing Warsaw Pact countries why they couldn't also go.

(Dramatically simplifying for brevity), it was also a really bad time for it to happen because we (the British), French and Israeli’s decided to start a massive crisis in the middle east 2 days earlier which over shadowed events in Hungary.

My missus is Hungarian, god help you if you say that Hungary was in the USSR to her because no one else will.

Her family (and her father in particular) loathed the Hungarian Communist Party but he was something of an Anglophile which he passed on to her and indirectly that worked out for me, so when Hungary joined the EU/combined with the Hungarian government saying "If you don't like it leave" (summarising again) she decided to say "OK" and move to the UK.

[–] RussianBot9580 2 days ago

If they teach about it some people might realize that many a politician in the EU - the ones who are loudest about the evils of the Soviets - have parents who were high ranking members of the Politburo, and they owe their current position to said parents.

[–] mopsi 2 days ago

Interesting. Can you name some?

[–] mmooss 2 days ago

The Soviets certainly were a significant factor but that doesn't tell us how much Hungarians contributed. Not everyone in Hungary revolted; no doubt many cooperated.

But I don't mean to dismiss the courage of those who did revolt. Not only does it inspire others (I'm sure the Prague Spring was inspired by it, and others later), it changed how the world looked at the Soviet Union and their relationships with the Eastern European countries they dominated.

[–] fsckboy 2 days ago

>Hungary had a revolution against Soviet control that was brutally suppressed

The "Prague Spring" was not what is generally described as a revolution, hence its "poetic" name. It was people's protests and Hungarian government acceptance/compromise/accomodation that loosened the strictures the people lived under

The Soviet Union did send in troops to undo these changes, and it was brutal, there just was not an insurrection underway.

[–] kyusan0 2 days ago

"Prague Spring" was in 1968 and has absolutely nothing to do with Hungary, notably due to being the capital city of a whole other country.

The Hungarian revolution we're talking about happened in 1956, was intended to make Hungary leave the Warsaw pact altogether, and was indeed brutally suppressed.

[–] WarmWash 2 days ago

The soviets steamed rolled any opposition, but let's not forget that there were tons of people who were cheering for unsympathetic communism before the fact.

[–] enaaem 2 days ago

And that's exactly where the term 'tankie' comes from.

[–] throwaway27448 2 days ago

The term tankie originates in describing western supporters of the soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia

[–] dralley 2 days ago

Hungary was much of the same, though, and roughly the same vintage.

[–] pessimizer 2 days ago

But the Soviets, under Stalin, also killed all the far left-wing socialists and communists. The right like to pretend like the Soviets under Stalin were the poster child for communism and "leftism" when they considered non-ComIntern/ComInform left-wingers their greatest threat and enemy. "Social Fascists."

And the big right-wing anticommunists who took over everywhere after the Soviet Union's fall were just former communist party functionaries who became looters, and then decided that private property was actually the most important thing to protect after they had all of it.

The Soviets were absolutely responsible for the Stalinist dictatorship which everyone in the Soviet Union was under, it wasn't just some imposition on colonies. But being a communist who wasn't loyal got you killed a lot quicker than being a capitalist who was.

[–] lazide 2 days ago

Bonus points - what ‘loyal’ looked like changed pretty randomly and scarily with zero warning.

[–] fithisux 2 days ago

You conveniently ignore that "innocent" Hungary was a member of the Axis in WWII and participated in the bloodshed of Stalingrad.

Soviets were right to intervene.

[–] dwroberts 2 days ago

It is well understood that Hungary supported the Axis forces because it wanted its WW1 territories back. They were not considered a reliable ally (or all-in on the Nazi cause) that is why Germany eventually occupied them

[–] etc-hosts 14 hours ago

Every member of the Axis countries joined up to gain territory.

Germany occupied Hungary because Kállay secretly tried to negotiate a separate end to hostilities between Soviet Union and Hungary.

[–] fithisux 1 day ago

Sounds like Bill Clinton. There was no "penetration"

[–] holgerschurig 2 days ago

First thing: I've been born in West Germany and never thought that communism or real socialism (i.E. not what many right-wing US americans now call "socialism") is a good system. A part of this came probably because both of my parents fleed the east german socialist system when "the wall" hasn't yet fully hermetically closed.

So I know that the east german socialistic system would have NEVER been erected wouldn't the area have not been occupied by socialist troops. USSR first trained the political cadres. And later controlled them. It was their presence that backed their might. At the 17. June of 1953 it were russian tanks that squelched the uprising. Similar use happened e.g. in the "czech spring" and at other occurrences.

And still we all know that it was german people that executed this as well. From high profile ones like Ulbricht or Honecker or Mielke down to the polical commissars in the combinats. Germans.

And then we know that the east-german "Stasi" (secret political police) was blown out of proportion: they had 91015 members. Germans.

And we also know that the Stasi had lots of informations, IM "Informelle Mitarbeiter". 189000 in total. Germans.

So yes, my guess is that about 10% of the east german population was actively supporting the system. And this is not a singular meaning here, we all know that a good amount of germans suppressed germans. No one here is trying to shift it solely on the USSR. Not even members of the former SED (socialist union party).

I don't know where you've got the information about "always quick to blame", but I can say that for the FRG/GDR situation it is not really true.

As for your term "millions": that is actually true. Above I wrote about 198000 polical informations. But the SED (the socialist "union" party) had 2.1 million members. And then there were people members in the socialist "union" but not in the party. And so on... so yes, the support basis was quite high. This is why I assume that 10% actively supported the system (and, more or less, oppressed others). The GDR had 18.8 (1945) to 16.4 (1989) million people.

[–] UpsideDownRide 2 days ago

What do you even mean. There were literal soviet troops stationed. Czech Republic and Hungary had tanks rolling in during dissent attempts.

Being caught planning against the puppet regimes meant death early on, gulags bit later on. So some people did conform, can't be expecting everyone to want to sacrifice their lives instead of trying to survive.

As soon as USSR collapsed Eastern Europe started moving away from the Russian system. Not in a spotless manner but what else do you really need to see that the system was imposed from outside?

[–] renw0rp 2 days ago

You are right, we should be blaming Americans and British for selling us in Yalta.

[–] mandevil 2 days ago

Eastern Europe wasn't something that the Americans and British could give away, it was the hard work of the Soviet Army (and many bad choices by Hitler) that ensured that Hungary would be on the Soviet sphere of control. Churchill did agree to the Percentages Agreement (there is no evidence that FDR ever learned about it) at the Moscow Conference in October 1944, but even that was already too late, it was merely an acceptance of something that Stalin already had.

Stalin seems, per _Yalta_ by Plokhy, to have tried to keep Poland and France balanced against each other. In June 1944 de Gaulle set up the GPRF for France, and a few weeks later the PKWN ("Lublin Government") was set up for Poland. Both started out as broad-front governments that combined Communist and Capitalist forces to fight the Nazis, and then over the course until 1945-6, when the Fourth Republic and the TRJN were created after the war ended, more normalized governments were created again combining both elements, and then lasting a few more years until the weaker side in both governments- in both cases the side not allied with the armies that liberated them- were finally fully purged from the Government. That was 1947 for Poland and 1949 for France.

Basically, I think that the absolute best case the Western Allies could have gotten, if this was their most important goal (which it was not for either FDR or WSC), was some sort of Finlandization of all of Europe. But I think it's very unlikely that Stalin would have accepted that- he demanded buffer space for the USSR, he wanted to loot all the factories etc. of Europe to help the USSR rebuild. He wasn't inclined to trust "oh they'll all be neutral in the future." And the only card that FDR and WSC actually had, as far as I can tell, was to start a massive war while World War Two continued in the Pacific. We know that VJ day followed VE day by only a few months, but no one at Yalta expected that, they fully expected Japan to last until 1946 or maybe even 1947. FDR's most important goal at that conference was to get Stalin to fully commit to war against Japan, he's not going to threaten war with the USSR over Eastern Europe. And absent the threat of war, I don't see any negotiation tactic that FDR and WSC could use to free Hungary. Like I said, if Stalin was feeling surprisingly weak, maybe the West could have traded West Germany+Low Countries+France+Italy being fully demilitarized and forcibly neutral for the same in Eastern Europe, but I don't think it was possible to reach that agreement and I think it would have been a bad trade if they could.

After the war, Churchill blamed FDR for selling Eastern Europe out at Yalta because he wanted to hide the "Percentages Agreement"- which again was purely a UK-USSR agreement with no evidence that FDR ever knew about it- after the Cold War started. But the last German defenders of Budapest surrendered only a day or two after the end of the Yalta conference, Soviet domination of Hungary was locked in long before that meeting.

[–] bell-cot 2 days ago

General Soviet policy for areas where "everybody" resisted their yoke was to kill off everybody. Purists in comfy philosophy classrooms are free to argue whether or not that is the morally optimal outcome.

[–] fithisux 2 days ago

Is this another Hollywood CIA funded production? Release date on Netflix please.