Very early on in the interview, the respondent makes clear that Hungary like many other European countries felt a strong sentiment of “hate” for the “Russian occupation”. Yet, despite the growing attitude of resentment amongst the Hungarian people the respondent reveals that the “rebellion was spontaneous”. Begging the broad but important question, how smart was this? Was this a sufficient strategy to take on such a movement with no formalized plan or leadership? Oppositely, in what ways could the lack of structure and unidentifiable leadership play as an advantage for Hungary?
After examination of the interview guide, one can fairly say that this process is meant to touch on many different aspects of a respondents personal life and experience. Whether before or after actually reading the responses to the interview, were there any specific questions that you thought provided more key insight than others? Was the respondent cohesive with their account or were there any instances of glaring contradiction? In “East Central Europe, 1953-1956” it is suggested that much of the discourse seen in East Central European states derived from economic strife which subsequently resulted in social and political conflict as well (Bekes). Where in this interview can the respondent be observed to either directly or indirectly touch on this argument of economic issues being at the source of initial contention?
During this interview the respondent also revealed how they felt Stalin’s death had “no special significance” to the revolt. Is this a fair claim or feeling? Where is there evidence to be found indicating that Stalin’s death did indeed influence the revolt? If his death did not play a part, objectively who is more at fault? Is it Hungary for seeking free discussion or Moscow in how they responded with their version of free discussion? Then lastly, was it ever truly realistic to expect Moscow to grant Hungary complete free discussion at this point in time?
