Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Eastern Europe, Volume XXV

25. Telegram From the Legation in Hungary to the Department of State¹

Budapest, August 2, 1955—2 p.m.

51. Reference: Legtel 50.² Re paragraphs B and C of reftel, Legation leans toward view that unsteady balance does exist within Hungarian regime, reflecting both internal problems and Moscow’s effort to play two themes simultaneously pending future developments; and that Rakosi’s position, while not necessarily tottering, must be less solid than before as result surface rapprochement at Geneva and Yugoslav attitudes (cf Tito speech at Karlovac).³

Against this background, Legation’s relations with local authorities characterized by surface amiability, still no official reaction to approach on trade and problem areas, and no response to US protest re employee arrests delivered July 1. Noted that four weeks have passed since two-week definition of reasonable time for satisfactory answer to said note was given by Legation representative per instructions in Deptel 348.⁴

In this situation we see that some problem may be posed by attempt to reconcile two desiderata: A) To avoid creating impression that US bluff been called, which not unlikely to become progressively stronger if no follow-up made to note of July 1. B) To avoid impression of taking desperate steps likely to exacerbate East-West relations, in face of US attitudes expressed at highest levels in Geneva.

It occurs to us, however, even more strongly than before (Legtel 19),⁵ that estimated situation in Hungarian Government hierarchy offers reasonable solution. Would appear that balanced, factual publicity re series of arrests of Legation’s local employees, and police surveillance of Hungarians who have contacts with westerners, could be effective without being harmful if put into context somewhat as follows:

Points could be emphasized, more in sorrow than in anger, that simultaneously with expressions by Bulganin and Khrushchev at Geneva of desire for improved relations and broader contacts between representatives of East and West, actions of type mentioned are being taken by certain influential elements in Hungary (obvious crack at Rakosi) which appear clearly designed to worsen relations and limit contacts. That can only be presumed policies underlying such actions will soon undergo change, as otherwise doubts might be cast on sincerity of statements made by Soviet leaders—something US would be most reluctant to have happen.

Such line would appear to implement action forecast in US note; still not represent overt exacerbation of East-West, US-Hungary or even US-Hungary Government relations per se; and perhaps be helpful in further undermining position of most conspicuous symbol of pro-Stalinist, anti-Western policies in Hungary. Meanwhile Legation could continue to extent possible with efforts to examine problem areas in “spirit of improving relations”, presumably less hampered in these efforts than would be if official publicity and propaganda arsenal turned broadside on Hungarian Government as such.

Barnes

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 764.00/8–255. Secret.
2. Dated August 2, not printed. (Ibid.)
3. In his speech at Karlovac on July 27, Tito characterized the present Soviet leadership as “new men who view world developments realistically, who do not want to see various wrongs and errors repeated, but who want to move along other paths”. Tito continued that the Soviet leaders realized that Stalin’s policies were wrong and counterproductive, accepted Yugoslavia as a true socialist country, and had begun the normalization process with Belgrade. Tito hoped that other Eastern European nations would follow the Soviet Union’s example in their relations with Yugoslavia and castigated the leaders of those nations, particularly Hungary, for failure to do so. (Soviet Affairs, August 1955, p. 9; ibid., INR Files)
4. In telegram 348, June 29, the Department of State instructed the Legation to submit a note, the text of which was included, to the Hungarian Government protesting the arrest of a Hungarian national employee of the Legation in Budapest and charging that it was a part of a larger campaign of harassment against the Legation’s local employees. (Ibid., Central Files, 121.643/6–2555)
5. In telegram 19, July 14, the Legation commented on the campaign of harassment against the Legation’s local staff. The Legation discussed countermeasures, none of which it believed would be totally effective. (Ibid., 121.643/7–1455)