Jeliko writes about the secret police archives of the Kadar era:

> Files can be added to or deleted under the control of very few people.
> The longer the questionable control over these files existed and exists,
> the better is the likelyhood that changes (deletions/additions) are made
> or that prior changes are not caught.

This is true in principle, although you may be underestimating the
difficulty of doctoring these archives on the sly.  I had an expert
explain to me recently how these archives are organized.  First,
almost everything is archived in several places, under multiple
jurisdictions.  Copies of files have been forwarded to local police
headquarters, to central archives, to prosecutorial offices, and a bunch
of other places.  There are five or six copies of everything, scattered
in various archives with their own numbering and cross-referencing
schemes.  There are no computerized cross-indexing data bases anywhere,
so tracking down anything requires intimate familiarity with the various
filing policies.  To get rid of all traces of a file, you would have
to locate and destroy  all copies and all cross-references in the various
catalogs.  There are strict file numbering schemes that run all the way
back to the days of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.  Missing numbers
can be easily detected.  I am not saying that destroying all traces
of a document would be impossible, but it would certainly require a
massive, precisely coordinated effort, executed flawlessly and in
total secrecy.  Knowing something about Hungarian bureaucratic sloth,
I doubt such an operation can be successfully carried out.  I am sure
a great many documents have been destroyed at various points, but
I think competent historians will be able detect this, and even dig up
hidden copies of some destroyed documents in out-of-the-way archives.

> I have not read the above tomes, (I am occupied with Peter Nadas' Book of
> Memories, which is an interesting book, and an excellent translation to
> English.) but I can agree with the preface's statement. But again, don't
> you think that "extracts" defines that someone filtered the information,
> and do we know what is the reason for filtering. It could be legitimate
> to protect the innocent, or political to protect the guilty.

As with all other historical writing, your only guarantees of accuracy are
the reputation of the author, the existence of peer review, and your own
common sense and experience.  The intent of the book in question
[Kis allambiztonsagi olvasokonyv] is not to document individual cases,
but to illustrate the modus operandi of the secret police.  The editor
took elaborate precautions to hide the identity of both the victims
and pursuers.  Names, streets, and cities are all changed.  Exeptions
are made for public persons, both among the victims and the victimizers.
Except for a few prominent targets such as Messrs. Szilagyi, Vasarhelyi,
Kiraly, or Prof. Liptak, the victims' identities are disguised.  More
controversially, police officers above a a certain rank are named,
but ordinary detectives are not.  The intent is to draw a line between
public and private persons, with the latter being entitled to more
privacy protection.  Yes, the information is filtered -- but given the
enormous number of files, and the amount of work it takes to get through
them, how can it be otherwise?

As long as you are reading Nadas, you might want to look up his essay
"Our Poor Little Sascha Anderson".  It is about one of the most prominent
STASI snitches in Germany, and the psychopathology of snitching in general.
It may be the best essay ever written about this dreary topic...

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Gabor Fencsik writes:

My thoughts were similar to yours in regard to these files, the reason for
changing my mind is that I do not trust the keepers of these files either at
the present time or in the last decade of the prechange regime's time.

Files can be added to or deleted under the control of very few people. The
longer the
questionable control over these files existed and exists, the better is the
likelyhood that changes  (deletions/additions) are made or that prior
changes are not caught.

>While I agree with Jeliko that the world would be a better place if these
>files did not exist, I see serious problems with both of the remedies
>proposed.  "Releasing all information to everyone" would be a gross
>invasion of privacy.  The files contain data -- some true, some
>fabricated -- about people's finances, health, extramarital affairs,
>sexual habits, and Lord knows what else.  Hungary is now a nation with
>strong privacy legislation on the books, and publishing this kind of
>stuff about people without their permission is against the law.
>
As an example, under the Freedom of Information Act in the US, I can have
copies of files existing about me from US federal and most state agencies
(I am aware that there special exemptions but very very few and in my
opinion justified.) To my knowledge, this is not the case in Hungary. If I
could have
a copy of everything that is the Hungarian archives about me,then I would not
have to worry about the additions/deletions which later, and in some cases
for particular political reasons may be leaked, as it happened in the recent
past,
privacy law or no privacy law.

>"Burning all the files" does not sound like a viable option either.
>The files are part of the nation's history now, and simply doing away
>with them would be the coverup to end all coverups.  The files are
>a legitimate object of study for historians.  There are many things in
>Hungarian history that would forever remain hidden if the files would
>disappear.  Many aspects of the present political constellation in Hungary,
>the emergence of the leaders of current parliamentary parties, and the
>roots of many long-standing political conflicts that are still with us
>can be traced back to the secret police operations in the Kadar years.
>Much of the Kadar era and its aftermath is inexplicable without an
>understanding of the machinations of the secret police.  Loss of the
>archives would contribute to the general amnesia that seems to have
>taken hold in Hungary about the Kadar regime.

As a historian by hobby, who is claiming particular importance for original
sources, I am in full agreement with you. But as in the past many so called
"originals" were and are slanted to serve a particular person or interest.
In a country where fabrication of information was a professional service for
many years, I just do not trust the writers and keepers (including current
ones) with the required integrity. This may be paranoid, but that is the case.


>I have just finished a two volume compendium of extracts from the secret
>police files published last year under the title Little State Security
>Reader (Kis allambiztonsagi olvasokonyv).  In the preface, the editor
>observes that writing the history of the Communist era in Hungary based
>on these files is like writing a restaurant review based on stool samples
>of the customers.  After reading the book cover to cover, I agree.
>History is a profession that requires a strong stomach.  But I still
>think these files are a vital part of Hungary's national history,
>and must be preserved for the edification of future generations.

I have not read the above tomes, (I am occupied with Peter Nadas' Book of
Memories, which is an interesting book, and an excellent translation to
English.) but I can agree with the preface's statement. But again, don't
you think that "extracts" defines that someone filtered the information,
and do we know what is the reason for filtering. It could be legitimate
to protect the innocent, or political to protect the guilty.

Regards,Jeliko

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, E.S. Balogh wrote:

>         Unfortunately, this is really not a viable way of looking at
> documents. If you maintain that all documents are slanted and serve
> particular interests then we might as well just hang it all up and throw in
> the towel.

I don't mean to spoil the fun, but all documents ARE slanted and serve
particular interests.  And that is not to say that they serve the intended
interest, but they do serve an interest.  To believe otherwise is to be
naive.  Still, slanted documents are documents and are worthy of study.

Joe Szalai

At 09:51 AM 8/19/97 -0400, Jeliko wrote:


>My thoughts were similar to yours [meaning Gabor Fencsik] in regard to
these files, the reason for
>changing my mind is that I do not trust the keepers of these files either at
>the present time or in the last decade of the prechange regime's time.
>
>Files can be added to or deleted under the control of very few people. The
>longer the
>questionable control over these files existed and exists, the better is the
>likelyhood that changes  (deletions/additions) are made or that prior
>changes are not caught.

        I don't think that this kind of argument is valid. After all, not
all sets of documents remain intact over time: in fact, most get lost,
destroyed either by people who want to hide something or by some other
disaster (fire, wars, etc.). I bet that Jeliko, who is very much interested
in early medieval history, would be very sad if no document would have
survived at all. Surely,  he is very happy with those few which
record--sometime only in one line or two--the comings and goings of
Hungarians. Can you imagine, if someone suggested that those few which exist
today should have been also destroyed because most likely they distort the
*real* story. Surely, all of our knowledge of the past is somewhat distorted
simply because not everything can be known.

>If I
>could have
>a copy of everything that is the Hungarian archives about me,then I would not
>have to worry about the additions/deletions which later, and in some cases
>for particular political reasons may be leaked, as it happened in the recent
>past,
>privacy law or no privacy law.

        If I understand it correctly we will be able to do that in Hungary
in the near future. I would be actually quite curious how much and what they
knew about my activities in 1956 and somehow I am not terribly worried about
whether that picture is complete or not. I don't think that they could
possibly come up with something I would be ashamed of today.
        Only once did I feel somewhat threatened when a high official in the
Foreign Ministry wanted to have a chit-chat with me at "a white table." [I
needed the permission of the Foreign Ministry to do research in the
ministry's archives of  1919-1920.] I immediately reported it to the
Canadian authorities. But during the summer somehow he forgot about it--to
my great relief. A few months later I received a letter from him that he is
coming to New York and perhaps there we can sit down for a chit-chat "at a
white table." Thank God, he didn't show. Of course, it is always possible
that he actually sat down and wrote a long report about our non-existent
conversations, but I somehow doubt it.

>As a historian by hobby, who is claiming particular importance for original
>sources, I am in full agreement with you. But as in the past many so called
>"originals" were and are slanted to serve a particular person or interest.
>In a country where fabrication of information was a professional service for
>many years, I just do not trust the writers and keepers (including current
>ones) with the required integrity. This may be paranoid, but that is the case.

        Unfortunately, this is really not a viable way of looking at
documents. If you maintain that all documents are slanted and serve
particular interests then we might as well just hang it all up and throw in
the towel. Then, you, alongside such people as Jeno Istvan Szatmari--about
whom we had a conversation on another list a couple of days ago--can say:
anything goes because the documents will never tell the truth. Following
exactly this kind of argument Szatmari decided to rewrite the history of
1956 because--as we are told in the preface--the documents will certainly
not tell the truth. The result is nothing but wild speculation without a
shred of evidence. And unfortunately, his rewritten history of 1956 is
making the rounds: more and more people come up with them as gospel truth.
This is a dangerous path to follow. ESB

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> While I agree with Jeliko that the world would be a better place if these
> files did not exist, I see serious problems with both of the remedies
> proposed.  "Releasing all information to everyone" would be a gross
> invasion of privacy.

In Germany all information about an individual would be released to that
individual. Some learned, that they were spied out by their spouses...

   Hungary is now a nation with
> strong privacy legislation on the books, and publishing this kind of
> stuff about people without their permission is against the law.

Sometimes I ask, what was intended : protection of the victims
or protection of the villains?
Miklos Hoffmann

jeliko wrote:
>
> Gabor Fencsik writes:
>
> My thoughts were similar to yours in regard to these files, the reason for
> changing my mind is that I do not trust the keepers of these files either at
> the present time or in the last decade of the prechange regime's time.
>
> Files can be added to or deleted under the control of very few people. The
> longer the
> questionable control over these files existed and exists, the better is the
> likelyhood that changes  (deletions/additions) are made or that prior
> changes are not caught.
>
> >While I agree with Jeliko that the world would be a better place if these
> >files did not exist, I see serious problems with both of the remedies
> >proposed.  "Releasing all information to everyone" would be a gross
> >invasion of privacy.  The files contain data -- some true, some
> >fabricated -- about people's finances, health, extramarital affairs,
> >sexual habits, and Lord knows what else.  Hungary is now a nation with
> >strong privacy legislation on the books, and publishing this kind of
> >stuff about people without their permission is against the law.

<snip>

A truly strong privacy low would be aimed at the protection of the
individual and would have to give him access to - almost - every-
thing filed about him. ( BTW, German privacy law - almost - gives you
this right. )
> >
> It could be legitimate
> to protect the innocent, or political to protect the guilty.
>
> Regards,Jeliko
Regards
Miklos