864.00/7–1847: Telegram
The Minister in Hungary (Chapin) to the Secretary of State
1200. We believe view expressed by British Foreign Office (London’s 3852, July 14, repeated Budapest as 691) that splintering of Hungarian non-Communist political parties may be playing directly into hands of Communists may reflect possible current difficulties encountered by British Government in its policy concerning certain continental social democratic parties.
Our impression has been that local British mission is reluctant to recognize the means by which the present leadership of the Hungarian Social Democratic Party maintains its hold upon the party and the extent of direct Communist control of Social Democrats Party machinery (Legation’s despatch 2678, February 28, 19471). In our opinion the remarks of Deputy Secretary General of the SDP Marosán before a July 15 meeting of party secretaries effectively summarize the present position of his party. On this occasion Marosán stated “SDP opposed anti-Semitism in 1945, we shall now oppose anti-Communism. We consider both equivalent with Fascism”.
It has also been our impression that chief effort of British Government with respect to Hungarian SDP has been endeavor to persuade [Page 338] the current leadership of the party to draw away from the Communists and that this effort has been an outstanding failure (Legation’s telegram 272, February 211). We feel strongly furthermore that these efforts will continue to fail so long as the present compromise party leadership continues in office and that the chances for a change in leadership within the party are slim indeed in the foreseeable future, particularly since Communist tactics in Hungary to date have been largely based on achieving domination of other parties while maintaining legal fiction of their existence and freedom of action. This is whole significance of last year of attacks on Smallholders culminating in removal of Kovács, Nagy and Varga who were not disposed to succumb to Communist domination of Smallholders and is in our view applicable to current leadership of SDP as interpreted by Szakasits and Marosán and influenced by Zoltán Horváth.
The alternatives available to non-Communists in Hungary at present time do not include in our opinion a united opposition to the Communists. Even if this alternative did exist a necessary preface to such a united opposition would be breakup of the currently Communist-dominated political parties. In any event it seems to us that the issue of the desirability of a split in the Hungarian SDP at this time can best be judged from the point of view of whether it would be more desirable to have an open genuine opposition to the Communists in Hungary now, or to maintain within existing organizations groups which may be able to exert a desirable influence at some future date when political conditions in Hungary may have approached the free climate envisaged at Yalta, although the continued existence of these groups until such a time is problematical indeed.
Sent Department, repeated London as 126.