After the Second World War, a particular government body, the General Economic Council, was set up to manage and rebuild the economy.[1]
As far as we know, no comprehensive study of the history of the General Economic Council (in Hungarian, "Gazdasági Főtanács," hereinafter referred to as GF) has been made so far. However, György Ránki, Iván Berend T., János Honvári, and more recently, Pál Germuska mention its operation in several works.[2]
The present paper cannot aim at an in-depth analysis of the GF's activities. Still, it is worth summarising its role, development, and public status between 1945 and 1949 in a few lines.
The primary aim of the power structures, parties, or, as in Hungary, the "Szövetséges Ellenőrzési Bizottság" (Allied Control Commission), from now on referred to as "SZEB" - an international body functioning as an ideological and political instrument of a foreign occupying power - with authoritarian or dictatorial elements is to control the economy. The advantages of economic governance as a political instrument are apparent. As soon as the political leadership gets its hands on the many areas of the economy, it sees and finds resources, organisational possibilities and means of cadre deployment. At the same time, the political advantages of economic management in general should not be forgotten, nor should the declared ideological aim of the Communist Party.[3]
The Communist Party in the Soviet Union had long ago implemented state administration of the productive sphere within the existing framework, and practically all the means of production were state-owned. Accordingly, the promoted ideological-political force must have sought to do the same since a Marxist-Leninist party could have no other aim. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Communist Party sought to control the economy from the outset. However, the political objective - the consolidation of the state administration, the political structure and other organs of the state, and the unexpected victory of the small farmer - was more challenging to achieve by direct means than it had been a few months earlier.
- 23/24 -
After the elections, which resulted in an unexpected defeat for the Communist Party, the small farmers' party won a majority and had the opportunity to start negotiations to form a government. However, despite the small farmers winning a substantial majority, the Communist Party and its ally, the Social Democratic Party, were given significantly more economic portfolios than their electoral weight, and the Ministry of the Interior, which the Communist Party had kept as a credit portfolio, remained under close control. (Imre Nagy had just been appointed Minister of the Interior.) Ferenc Nagy, a small farmer who was appointed Prime Minister three months later, also wanted to create a Ministry of Cooperatives - apparently to counterbalance the predominance of the communist[4] / social-democratic economic ministries - but Vorosilov, the chairman of the SZEB, disagreed. (This little interlude also shows how misleading it is to talk of an experiment in democracy after 1945.) Instead of the economic ministries, a well-sounding "information high authority" was created, which was almost immediately elevated to the level of a ministry and given to the small farmers' party, but which was under a communist secretary of state and soon became practically negligible. Still, the Soviet leadership saw the need for more serious, centralised and powerful control over economic management, and the logical response was to create a new, institutionalised form of central economic management.
This institution, formally proposed by József Révai (Communist party) at the inter-party meeting on the formation of the government on 4 November, was thus proposed almost immediately after the elections and was supported not only by the communists but also by the other parties at the inter-party meeting.
The Central Leadership of the MKP (Communist party), meeting on 22 November 1945, pointed out the need to create a government body with full powers to avert the economic disaster threatening the country. Its task would be to be able to make provisions in a unified manner for the individual economic ministers and other state bodies.[5] As we have seen, this was raised by them (Révai) at the inter-party meeting on 4 November 1945. Still, at the government meeting on 21 November 1945 -quite a strange case, the small farmers had acted a day before the Communist Party - the head of government had already preceded them. Zoltán Tildy, the Prime Minister himself, announced that he would convene the first meeting of the General Economic Council on 24 November.
This announcement also created an ex-lex situation compared to the political will, as the first meeting of the GF was held without agreement on the legal basis, but without even a draft legal
- 24/25 -
source for the institution itself. This public law gap was filled, and the draft statute of the institution was only presented to the cabinet meeting by Tildy on 27 November.[6] And that is when the trouble really started.
The small farmers undoubtedly won the first two steps, but the situation and the legal problems arising from the nature of the GF later clearly favoured the Communist Party, even though the debate on the draft decree had started precisely at the suggestion of the Social Democrat István Ries.
The draft regulation has been controversial over its content, form and constitutional law. The purely party-political issue of the fact that the Prime Minister alone would have been a small farmer in the three-member body, while the Social Democratic ministers for industry and transport would have been immediately outweighed by the Social Democrat ministers for transport, was also overridden by the fact that the ministries of finance, public utilities and agriculture, which all had a significant weight in economic matters, were left out. The body was thus unable to fulfil its policy purpose -clearly, the other economic ministries were, by definition, important. Regarding policy content, both the Finance Minister, Ferenc Gordon, and the Minister of Public Care, Károly Bárányos, found the body's creation problematic - not coincidentally, since they were left out. As ministers from the small farmers' party, both of them voiced their disapproval at the cabinet meeting.[7] This became obvious to the "Kisgazda" (Small Farmer Party) MPs after the cabinet members and was debated in parliament, especially by Dezső Sulyok (who later resigned).[8]
It is no coincidence that Finance Minister Ferenc Gordon expressed his doubts since his name had been mentioned in the press earlier as a member. Still, it was so widespread that it had to be refuted in Szabad Nép the day before the first meeting.[9]
Thus, despite being adopted but not promulgated by the cabinet, the decree on the High Economic Council had to be at least partially reformulated along the lines of the criticisms, as it raised further serious constitutional concerns. Moreover, István Ries, a social democrat who was allied with the communists and served them loyally until his arrest in 1950, was forced to raise constitutional concerns about the draft government decree since, according to the draft law, the GF could have issued its decisions as government decrees. Thus, the sectoral ministers would have been obliged to implement its legislation and given the right to take direct measures and issue instructions.[10]
The Minister of Justice, therefore, said by telephone that the draft was unconstitutional. His opinion was also recorded in the proposal file. The draft decree was far from satisfying the principles of constitutionality since it would have effectively constituted a government above - or alongside - the government, albeit acting on economic matters, which would, in effect, be legislating under a government mandate of a nature that instructs the government itself.
- 25/26 -
However, the basic concept remains the same.[11] It was as follows: the President of the GF was the Prime Minister, and the Ministers of Industry and Transport were the members. Much later (when there was no longer a political risk), the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Supply were added.
The debate about the design of the body is not at all accidental. The GF is a centaur, in fact, a small government in the field of economic governance, which in the first version of the draft government decree would have defined the tasks of a statutory body at the level of government regulation while at the same time being given the same power to make rules.
Two years later, in '47, in the periodical "Gazdaság," József Takács tried to gloss over the public law absurdity, which was still quite striking at the time, by saying: "The economic councils established in foreign jurisdictions - as we have already mentioned - differ in many respects, but they all have the same thing in that they are still advisory bodies and do not incorporate the powers of public authorities, whether they include members of the bureaucracy or external experts.
It is interesting to note that although the current form of the High Economic Council is unprecedented, initiatives to bring government economic activity into line have also been along bureaucratic lines and have tended towards exercising public authority."[12] Takács was forced to point out that the legal instrument is without precedent and that practically no foreign legal system has even a similar legal instrument. He writes: "In France, England, the Soviet Union, the United States of North America, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia economic councils have been set up, but their organisation differs considerably from ours. In Hungary, there have been three attempts to harmonise the functioning of the so-called economic ministries while maintaining the cabinet system."[13]
In public law structures based on the prevailing legal hierarchy, the source of the law that establishes a central body is not at all the same. In the public law structure created in the Hungarian democratic tradition - which, among other things, has its roots partly in this period, even if it is less democratic in content - we distinguish between a body based on a statutory or a regulatory source.
Among the central state bodies constituted by law, it is not the same whether the legislator constitutes the institution by a qualified majority law - see, for example, the Constitutional Court today - or by an ordinary majority (such as the law on the structure of government, the law on ministries). However, a vertical approach to the problem also requires stating that this is not a specialised administrative body; the forum deciding on general "economic" issues is a political insti-
- 26/27 -
tution, so the situation becomes even more complicated.
Here, however, the legislator would have overridden the functions of an already existing statutory body using a government decree. In fact, it would have given it the same level of legislative power using a government decree.
In the functioning of the GF, the Communist Party, thus, because of the ministerial posts in the coalition structure - besides Ernő Gerő, Antal Bán was a social democrat, a reliable comrade, but not a communist - could still not play a sufficiently central role, and therefore in the drafts - and also in the promulgated decree, the Secretary General of the GF was later to become of central importance.
By this time, the political decision could have been made as to who would be the best person to fill the position after Tildy's resignation (i.e. he had announced, convened and chaired the board). The Kossuth Népe reported the following in an interesting article on 25 November 1945[14] about the Lord Mayor of Budapest. In it, they already hinted that Vas would take up the position of government commissioner for "coal supply and energy management." The article says: "According to well-informed sources, Mayor Vas Zoltán Vas will be given a new mandate as Government commissioner for coal supply and energy management. In cooperation with the GF, he will have the most extensive powers as State Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office.
So, while it was announced, and the body was already in place, the political games were being played. By this time, marginalising the smallholder prime minister was already well established. On 3 December, the MKP (Communist Party) proposed a personal proposal to make Zoltán Vas the secretary of the GF. It was also stressed that the new body should be elevated to the centre of economic governance. There were no objections from the political parties to the staff proposal, and Vas will be appointed as Secretary General at the 5 December cabinet meeting.[15]
According to the Regulation adopted but not promulgated, then re-proposed and amended, a Secretariat was created alongside the GF, headed by the Secretary-General. However, the appointment of the Secretary-General would not have given the post sufficient weight, so the GF, in order to give the post a greater expression of its powers, proposed that the government should make a proposal to the National Council of State to confer on him the title of Secretary of State (the proposal had to be made to the still existing collective head of state since Tildy would become President of the Republic by "public proclamation" two months later.) This was done.[16] The Magyar Közlöny (Hungarian Gazette) of 20 December, published in the Magyar Közlöny under No 217/1945 E., appointed him with the following text: 'The National High Council, on the proposal of the Prime Minister, with the consent of the Council of Ministers, conferred
- 27/28 -
the title and character of State Secretary on Zoltán Vas, Secretary General of the Economic High Council (GF), for the purpose of carrying out his unique mandate and for the purpose of giving greater prominence to his person.'[17]
This is how the situation came about while the statutory decree had still not been published; Zoltán Vas became state secretary - the 23rd politician appointed to the 22 state secretaries -and for almost a month and a half, the much sought-after right to issue the decree did not legally exist.
The organisation of the General Economic Council (GF) was finally based on the authorisation contained in Article 15 of Act XI of 1945 on the Provisional Arrangement of the Exercise of State Power. The body was thus finally constituted by Decree No 12 090/1945 M.E.. The Government gave the General Economic Council (GF) powers covering practically all economic matters, such as production, wages and prices, the supply of foodstuffs to the population, the circulation of public necessities and labour management.
The government finally empowered the body with the right to issue decrees as early as the beginning of 1946 (Decree 230/1946 of the Ministry of the Interior).
And how did jurisprudence get over the "minor point" that the body had no legislative power - so it could have prepared regulations but could not issue them in its own name?
The already quoted József Takács' constitutional commentary[18] makes a very impressive attempt to save the situation: "The interesting thing about the decree is that it was issued when the General Economic Council (GF) was already in operation and therefore, in order to ensure legal continuity, it states that the decrees and measures of the General Economic Council (GF) issued before the entry into force of the decree are to be considered as issued on the basis of the decree."
Between the appointment and the statute - decree and then the granting of the power to make regulations, the problem even reached the National Assembly as a little addendum - since Zoltán Vas, the Secretary General of the GF, was not yet sure that he would be a State Secretary.
Thus, when the bill was tabled, it was necessary to resolve the Secretary General's conflict of interest. The Communist Party could not allow him to lose a seat in parliament. Thus, the interesting debate on the GF is preserved to this day in the two documents that have survived in the National Assembly Papers, which deal with the conflict of interest of National Assembly members.
The Secretary General of the GF, as we saw above, was not yet certain to become a Secretary of State, but as such, he was still only holding an administrative position as a Member of Parliament. Therefore, the bill on the Conflict of Interest of Members of the National Assembly[19] 1§ 4) mentions the Secretary General of the General Council of the Economy as a position that is com-
- 28/29 -
patible with the position of Member of the National Assembly. Bill 1§ states in general that "public service is incompatible with membership of the National Assembly," but further on, especially in paragraph (4), it also provides for a classic and exceptional exception: "The office of Minister and State Secretary, Secretary General of the General Economic Council, teachers of universities in Budapest, the Mayor and Deputy Mayors of the Budapest Metropolitan City, and the Mayor of the Budapest Public Works.
The position of President of the Council of the European Union is not incompatible with membership of the National Assembly." It is felt that this is an exception quickly inserted between university teaching and elected office.
The general justification of the proposal is a long historical legal argument, a serious theoretical work, but the detailed justification in paragraph 4) about the rule exempting the conflict of interest of the position of the Secretary General of the GF is only terse: "Professional considerations also justify that the positions of the Mayor and Deputy Mayors of the Budapest Metropolitan City, the President of the Budapest Public Works Council and the Secretary General of the General Economic Council (GF) should also be considered as positions of conflict of interest with membership of the National Assembly."[20]
However, after the debate and the committee stage of the bill - after the appointment of the Secretary General of the GF as Secretary of State - the situation changed compared to the original text of the bill, and there was no longer a need to appoint the Secretary General of the GF expressis verbis. In any case, the new wording is much more permissive, i.e. the explanatory memorandum after the committee section of the Act, which is already about to be promulgated, reads as follows: 'In Article 1(4), the committee deleted the words "Secretary General of the General Council for Economic Affairs" because it does not consider the institution of the General Council for Economic Affairs to be of such a permanent nature that it requires an exceptional provision. In the last sentence of the same paragraph, the Committee has inserted the following provision: "Furthermore, the position of Member of the National Assembly elected by the National Assembly from among the leading intellectual and public figures of the country shall not be incompatible with the civil service." The Committee wanted to allow persons who, in the opinion of the National Assembly, are among the leading intellectuals of the country to continue to exercise their special qualities in the field of public service in the interests of the Hungarian people."[21]
This also gives us an insight into the future plans of the GF, which was not really intended by its creators to be a long-term body but a temporary solution for a shorter term. To illustrate who had a vested interest in the creation of the GF, here is László Rajk's eulogy on the institution in the National Assembly. Of course, he does not discuss the legal drawbacks and problems either. "The creation of the General Economic Council (GF) was essential to get our economy back on its feet. Fi-
- 29/30 -
nally, a body of authority had to be created which would not only deliberate but also take action and eliminate the previous government's hesitations and omissions in the economic field. It is a source of satisfaction to us to know that the Hungarian Communist Party was the first to propose the establishment of such a body with such full powers in its three-year reconstruction plan.
We hope that the General Economic Council (GF) will live up to the trust placed in it and that it will truly become not only a deliberative but also a decision-making body."[22]
Over the years, the institution's powers have steadily increased, playing an increasingly important role in the administration of the state.
The powers of the GF were extended by Decree No. 3650/1946 ME, and the President of the National Planning Office was co-opted by the Board on the basis of Decree No. 8530/1947, and the Vice President and Secretary General were also co-opted by the Board, which showed the growing presence of the planning economy. The decrees defined the powers of the GF quite broadly, in fact as broadly as possible: to prepare decrees of an economic nature, to collect data of an economic nature, to express opinions, to make submissions to the Council of Ministers, to issue decrees on matters of an economic nature, even with criminal sanctions,[23] and even to take direct action even if this was the responsibility of other ministries under the legislation in force.
The secretary-general of the GF was Zoltán Vas, who was known for his economic talent, his rather forceful style and his close ties with the Soviets, especially the Red Army (he himself was a front propagandist on the Soviet side).[24] The GF was, therefore, under communist control from the beginning.[25]
In the new public law structure, however, the institution, which had always existed as an extremely strange and specific public law body, was no longer needed, and the GF was abolished by Government Decree No 4083/1949. Its functions were taken over by the Council of Ministers, the Council of National Economy and the National Planning Office under Government Decree No 4148/1949.
At the time of its dissolution, István Dobi "parenthetically" described the institution in the National Assembly as follows: "The General Economic Council has long been at the centre of bitter attacks by the reaction. The reactionary political forces that wanted to cripple the economic policy of democracy by any means and prevent the implementation of the three-year plan were right to attack the Economic Council. However, our people felt and knew that the Economic Council was working for them, and now, four years later, they can appreciate the efforts and achievements of the Economic Council even more. Let me express the gratitude of all of us to those who have been the head of the General Economic Coun-
- 30/31 -
cil (GF) from the very beginning and who have done so much work over the last few years.) and Zoltán Vas (Long, enthusiastic applause).[26] The style is Stalinist, but the point is not that the dictatorship had already reached such a level of economic expansion in 1949 that there was no longer any need for this body.
The operation of the GF has always been subject to fierce opposition and criticism in the National Assembly and later in Parliament. It is not possible to list all the speeches, and it is unnecessary: the point is that, according to the arguments of the MPs, the GF is heading for an economic - and hence political - dictatorship.[27] It is worth quoting at length from a lengthy interpellation by János Korányi, a member of the Hungarian Freedom Party[28] (Sulyok Party): "Reconstruction, as I have said, is greatly promoted by the Hungarian worker, but I think our economic policy is in many ways hampered by it. The Minister of Industry takes a great deal of political responsibility for measures in the field of industrial policy and production policy which he does not know about afterwards or at all, given that these measures do not emanate from him but from the all-powerful Secretary General of the General Economic Council (GF), Mr Zoltán Vas.
We are well aware that the institution of the General Economic Council (GF) was adopted from abroad, but I must state that the institution of the General Economic Council (GF) in a parliamentary country is a public absurdity (emphasis mine), and a public absurdity because it renders Article III of Law 1848 and other laws on ministerial responsibility completely illusory. It is well known that the State Secretary is effectively the CEO not only of all Hungarian coal mines but also of the companies grouped in the "NIK." Beyond that, however, he controls the entire Hungarian industry through his credit policy. Undoubtedly, the State Secretary has achieved record achievements in setting the rate of inflation, for example. But I have to say that I view its operation with the greatest concern. ... I have to say that in the old world, there was a lot of justified criticism of the banks, but the banks' credit policies were never as harsh on their customers as the credit policies of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council are harsh. We can clearly see what an afterthought that is."[29] Lajos Drahos (Smallholders' Party) rejected this: he did not react to the illegitimacy and called it an emergency. Zoltán Vas and the GF's attempt at dictatorship was indeed true. According to a summary report of the SZEB in 1947, the General Economic Council was to replace the Hungarian government and ensure that all matters relating to the restoration of the country and its democratic principles could be successfully decided.[30]
Despite this, the coalition parties, especially the communists and small farmers, very often defended the GF.[31] An example of this is Prime Minister Ferenc Nagy's answer to Dezső Sulyok's interpellation. We have every reason to hope that the further planned work of the Economic Council will make a substantial contribution to putting the huge tasks of overcoming in-
- 31/32 -
flation, reconstruction, and reparation obligations on a path of calm development by taking meaningful steps. The government is committed to a coherent and unified plan to address economic and financial problems."
The question arises: what kind of opinion could have been published in the official legal journal of the time, the Law Journal? The fundamental public law question is: does Hungary really have two governments? Are there two governments: the government of the parliamentary opposition, constantly under fire, operating before the 'scrutiny' of the public, and the 'government of the economic council', behind a mystical veil of secrecy? Well, the Law Journal didn't write anything of it.
In none of the publications between 1945 and 1949 has it been possible to find the name of the GF, at most descriptive analyses of the economic decrees issued, although István Vásáry, a communist MP in the National Assembly, stressed that "it must be legally ensured that public utilities such as the Radio and the electric power plants are turned into private property; in this respect jurisprudence would have a great role in determining the powers of the GF."[32]
As I mentioned earlier, the GF was abolished by Government Decree 4083/1949. The functions of the General Economic Council were taken over by the Council of Ministers, the National Economic Council and the National Planning Office under Government Decree No 4148/1949. These were bodies born under total party rule.
As we have seen in the institutional history of the head of state, where the institution of the Soviet-style collective head of state appeared for a short time, but after the victory of the small farmer, it proved necessary - at least from the point of view of the Marxist forces - to revert to the institution of the weak republican president, so it was with regard to economic governance.
The Communist Party obviously expected a big victory in the elections, and if it had, it could have easily solved the problem of economic governance by simpler, direct methods, but this was not the case, so it was necessary to move towards an institutional curiosity.
The fact that he issued decrees without the power to issue decrees in the first month and a half, and according to the source of law, his measures were to be considered "issued" afterwards, could actually be excused because of the political problems of the first negotiations on the formation of the government in December 1945, the first post-war period. At the same time, it was throughout a body with legislative powers - it could issue a legal source with the force of a government decree - which was empowered by a body of the same level - the government - and could act alongside or instead of the individual ministers in economic matters, and even instruct them, as it
- 32/33 -
did the government. The obvious political problem that it would probably not have passed through parliament with a small government majority, in effect, created this institutional historical curiosity for a period of four years, which was rejected by its own creators once their domination of public law and substance was finally established.
For the constitutional assessment of this body, it is important to point out that during the Second World War, all belligerent states, but also many neutral states (e.g. Spain or Sweden), had so-called economic apex ministries. Hungary also organised a top ministry during the years of the Great Depression and the Second World War.[33]
Their powers, however, were very different: the Portuguese Oliviera Salazar was a de facto dictator as finance minister, while the German Walter Funk belonged to the narrowest political elite of the Third Reich but had to subordinate himself to, e.g. Hermann Göring on many issues, although he stressed in several books and brochures that after the war, economic governance should be the exclusive leadership of Germany.[34]
However, there is not a single example of a body above the ministries with the power to make government regulations, which was also created by government decree, actually instructing the line ministers. Act XII of 1945 can be cited as an excuse, but the nature of the governmental structure does not allow for this, as the legislation does not fundamentally apply to the government, the constitutional system.
The General Economic Council (GF) has thus proved capable, when needed, of breaking through the structure of public law, bypassing the requirements of publicity and accountability, and bypassing the constraints of the coalition. So, in effect, it acted as a second government - for as long as it was needed. But when the political structure no longer needed it, just as abruptly as it had been created, it was abolished. "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go." ■
NOTES
[1] G.Vass István (szerk.): Tildy Zoltán kormányának minisztertanácsi jegyzőkönyvei. 1945.november 15. - 1946.február 4. Magyar Országos Levéltár, Budapest, 2005. 41 - 47. o.; Honvári János: Magyarország mint "rosszhiszemű szerző"? A hazai osztrák (német) vagyon átadása a Szovjetuniónak. Történelmi Szemle 2013/1. p. 135.
[2] Berend T. Iván: Reconstruction and the struggle against big capital in Hungary 1945-1948, Department of Economic History, Faculty of Economics and Law, Marx Károly University of Economics, Bp, 1962; The History of the Mechanism of Economic Governance. Kvk. of Economics and Law, Budapest, 1962; The Development of the Socialist Economy in Hungary. Kossuth, Budapest, 1979; György Ránki: The Economy of Hungary in the Period of the First Three-Year Plan. János Honvári. Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Kft, Győr, 2013.
[3] Szamel Lajos: A magyar közigazgatás szervezetének átalakulása (1945 -1949). Magyar Közigazgatás 1996/1. pp.51 - 52.
[4] "There was certainly Soviet intent behind the proposal. Institutionalised communist control was seen as necessary to counteract the unfavourable election results for the Soviet side. This is evidenced by 63 Pető 1982, 127. 64 Palasik 2000, 139-141. 65 Interparty Meetings, 1944-1948. 152. 36 An April 1947 Soviet envoy's report that 'since the Small Peasants' Party had won an absolute majority of votes in the [November 1945] general elections, [...] we could not have ensured that the Hungarian government and parliament would solve the basic tasks facing the country in accordance with our interests. [...]" quoted by Germuska, In: Lépések a wirtschaftliche teljhatalom felé, NEB, Budapest, 2017. pp. 35-42. https://kiadvanyok.neb.hu/asset/phpejmPLy.pdf
- 33/34 -
[5] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946 2005 (meeting of 29 January 2005)
[6] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946. 2005
[7] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946. 2005
[8] In his speech, Dezső Sulyok said that "trade, transport, railways, postal services, telephones, foreign trade, and, since the establishment of the Economic High Council, practically the whole economic management has been completely taken out of the hands of the small farmers' party and has been transferred to the Economic High Council, which, because of its composition, expresses the opinion of the small farmers' party only in very small proportions, (.... ) is in the hands of the esteemed General Secretary, who is in charge, and who is not known to belong to the independent small farmers' party." L. National Assembly Journal 1945-1946 May Vol. I, p. 395. https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/OGYK_KN-1945_01/?pg=203&layout=s&query=Gazdas%C3%A1gi%20F%C5%91tan%C3%A1cs, downloaded May 2021.
[9] "Tildy, Gerö and Bán in the Economic Council". "Several newspapers reported that the Economic Council is composed of Prime Minister Tildy, Industry Minister Bán and Finance Minister Gordon. This news is incorrect. The members of the High Economic Council are Tildy, Bán and Gerő, Minister of Transport.". In: Szabad Nép, 23 November 1945, front page, https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/Nepszabadsag_1945_11/?query=SZO%3D(Gazdas%C3%A1gi%20F%C5%91tan%C3%A1cs)%20AND%20DATE%3D(1945--1946)&pg=74&layout=s
[10] Kovácsy Tibor: Az utasításos gazdaságról. Történelmi Szemle 1981/2. pp. 191 - 193.
[11] György Gyarmati: The Rákosi era. ÁBTL-Rubicon, Budapest, 2011.
[12] See below.
[13] See below.
[14] Kossuth Népe 25 Nov p. 3 https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/KossuthNepe_1945_1012/?query=SZO%3D(Gazdas%C3%A1gi%20F%C5%91tan%C3%A1cs)%20AND%20DATE%3D(1945--1946)&pg=184&layout=s
[15] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946 29 Jan.
[16] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946 29 Jan.
[17] Hungarian Gazette, Budapest, 20 December 1945.
[18] Takács József: The Constitutional Status and Operation of the General Economic High Council In Gazdaság, 1947 Vol. II No. 5 https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/view/BME_Gazdasag_1947/?query=SZO%3D(Gazdas%C3%A1gi%20F%C5%91tan%C3%A1cs)%20AND%20DATE%3D(1945--1949)&pg=194&layout=s
[19] https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/OGYK_KI-1945_02/?pg=16&layout=s, Proceedings of the National Assembly convened on 29 November 1945, Vol. 1. o.
[20] https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/OGYK_KI-1945_02/?pg=26&layout=s National Assembly Papers, 1945. vol. II - pp. 71-172, III No. 11.
[21] https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/OGYK_KI-1945_02/?pg=38&layout=s National Assembly Papers, 1945. vol. II - pp. 71-172, III. no. 23.
[22] https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/OGYK_KN-1945_01/?pg=45&layout=s Rajk László. p.79.
[23] Decree No 230/1946 M.E.
[24] Gyarmati György: The Rákosi era. ÁBTL-Rubicon, Budapest, 2011.
[25] "In our state life and organisation, such a forward-looking, forward-indicating and forward-looking element (... ) from the very beginning were and remained the solid organs of the working class, certain organs of economic direction, organisation and management, such as the General Economic Council; such was the economic activity of the state economic organs which managed the means of production owned or controlled by the state." Imre L. Szabó, The Development of the People's Democratic State Power in Hungary, In: Studies on the History of Hungarian People's Democracy, 1955.
[26] Journal of the National Assembly convened for 8 June 1949, Budapest, 1950. 4 June 1949. pp. 35 - 36.
[27] National Assembly Journal, Vol. VI. Session 111, 18 March 1947.István Dénes, also a Hungarian Libertarian, had earlier stressed that the GF was a useless waterhead: in 1945 the government and the GF issued 80 and in 1946 130-140 decrees, even in matters where they were interfering with the deepest interests of the country and the nation.
[28] Izsák Lajos: A Magyar Szabadság Párt megalakulása és tevékenysége 1946 - 1947. Történelmi Szemle 1981/2. p. 204.
[29] Lackó Miklós: Népi demokráciánk történeté-
- 34/35 -
ből. Küzdelem az ország gazdasági újjáépítéséért, a népi demokratikus vívmányok védelméért és továbbfejlesztéséért (1945 május -1946 augusztus). Történelmi Szemle 1959/3-4. p. 449.
[30] Minutes of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Zoltán Tildy, 15 November 1945 - 4 February 1946, 29 Jan. 2005 (Mentioned in the preface.)
[31] Speech by Prime Minister Ferenc Nagy. 15th session of the National Assembly, Thursday, 7 February 1946. National Assembly Journal of the National Assembly convened on 29 November 1945. Volume I. p. 372.
[32] National Assembly Journal Vol II, Session 39, 25 May 1946. pp. 299 - 300.
[33] János Bud held the post from 5 September 1928 to 24 August 1931, Béla Imrédy from 9 March 1938 to 14 May 1938, Lajos Reményi-Schneller from 7 December 1940 to 11 January 1944, and Béla Imrédy again from 23 May 1944 to 7 August 1944. József Bölöny.
[34] Walther Funk: Economic order versus currency mechanism. Terramare Inst., Berlin, 1944 (Original German edition: Wirtschaftsordnung und Währungsmechanismus. No place or year; date of publication: 1944. Published in several languages in addition to Hungarian.)
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is doctoral candidate, Doctoral School of Law, University of Pécs.
Visszaugrás
