ECCI. Even after the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, Kun refused to change his basicattitude to the MSZDP. Béla Kun’s position was considerably weakened because of hisindecent behaviour during the Seventh Comintern Congress.
On 20 November 1935 OttoKuusinen informed the Hungarian leadership and several parties that they had not alignedtheir tactics to the guidelines of the Seventh Congress.
At the January 1936 meeting of theCentral Committee’s of the HCP, heated debates compelled Kun to exercise self-criticism. Aresolution was passed acknowledging that the party had been dilatory in adopting the newtactics.
Meanwhile, the situation of the Hungarian Party became subject of heated debates within theECCI.
Kun’s methods of leadership were described as sectarian and bureaucratic. Factionalstruggles and nepotism were all the time dividing the Central Committee. Dimitrov andManuilsky investigated the case of the HCP. In May 1936, a provisional Secretariat led byZoltán Szántó
was formed. The party office in Vienna was closed down.
The Hungariansection operating within the Comintern was dissolved. Though Kun was invited to assist thenew leadership in its work, his future looked grim now that Stalin was preparing for the firstseries of great ideological trials with Zinoviev and Kamenev as his main victims. On June 6,1936, Kun stood as the accused before the International Control Commission of theComintern. After deposing several charges against Kun on 29 June 1936, the InternationalControl Commission dismissed the Hungarian officials. There was no decision with respectto Kun.
Finally, a special commission was set up to examine his case. The final conclusions
On 14 December 1935 he reacted in a letter to his Central Committee concerning his ‘failure to adequatelyapply the Congress line in practice to the situation in Hungary and to the work of the CP of Hungary’ and his behavior at the Congress which had ‘caused doubts within the CI leadership as to whether the proper attitude of the CC HCP toward the new Comintern leadership has been guaranteed’. Letter signed by Kun, RGASPI, f. 495,op. 18, d. 1038, ll. 241-243, translated from German into Russian.
On 21-25 December 1935 a plenary meeting of the CC CPSU(b) had passed a resolution that the enemies,including the agents of foreign intelligence services had managed to infiltrate the CPSU(b) ranks disguised asmembers of fraternal parties. Verification of party documents and measures against agents of the class enemywere decided. RGASPI, f. 495, op. 18, d. 1071, l. 64.
Meanwhile Kun had spent most of the time at the Kremlin hospital were he was treated by his friend LászlóPollacsek for his diabetes (Borsányi 1993: 416-7).
Participated in the discussions: Dimitrov, Togliatti, Kuusinen, Kun, Komor, Nemes, Zoltán Szántó, Révai(Borsányi 1993: 418).
Zoltán Szántó (alias János Szalai, or “Elek”), born in 1893. In 1919 he was deputy head of the PoliticalDepartment of the Hungarian Red Army Main Command. Later he headed the secret apparatus of the CPH’sForeign Bureau. In 1935-36 and 1938-39 he was CPH representative in the Comintern. In 1945 he left for Hungary. [RGASPI f. 45, op. 74, d. 101,ll. 38-42, copy in Russian in type script, translated from German, signed by Z. Szántó on 29.6.1936.]
A provisional secretariat was settled in Prague with as leading figure Zoltán Szántó. The economist IstvánFriss, the stonecutter Lajos Papp, and the locksmith Ferenc Bozsóki assisted him. In 1937 Révai arrived inPrague where he would emerge as the great party ideologue applying the new tactic.
For eight months, Kun had been promised a job, but these promises had not been fulfilled. ‘It was Manuilskywho took a particularly unjust position towards him. He badgered him, but when he saw him (Kun) after hisillness, he smothered him with kisses’. Kun went to Stalin who received him in presence of Molotov, Mikoyanand Andreev. Stalin sent him to Ezhov in order to solve this problem. Kun: ‘I said, that it was when I did notstand up when Manuilsky appeared [on the podium at the Comintern Congress] and did not applaud him. Thiscaused a great laughter, but I added that later this accusation was directed against only one other CPH member’.On this his not standing up, see Franz Grosz (Iohann Nagy, Gusti) (1893-1937), a lawyer, member of theHungarian Social-Democratic Party in 1912, Communist in 1918, in 1923 emigration to the Soviet Union, andmember of the CPSU(b), between 1931 and 1936 secretary of the CC CPH, member pf the foreign committee,Hungarian delegate to the ECCI and delegate at the Sixth and Seventh Comintern Congress. In June 1936expulsed pf the CC CPH by ECCI after ECCI had discussed on 27 May 1936 his attitude at the 7
CominternCongress. Grosz allegedly expressed his hostility by failing to stand up when the audience gave standingovations to Dimitrov and Manuilsky, who had been elected to the ECCI’s Presidium. Grosz explained his action by the fact that the Hungarian delegation was denied the right to nominate Bela Kun to be a member of the ECCI