Hungary and Czechoslovakia at the 1958 World’s Fair: National Identity and Politics

Cindy Xia

1. Introduction

World’s fairs have garnered international attention for nearly two centuries. First starting in London’s 1851 Great Exhibition, world’s fairs brought the accomplishments of nations around the world into one exposition. Ever since the beginning, nations participating in world’s fairs have attended with the goals of exhibiting their modernity and forwardness. Recurring themes of technology and resources were present at most Fair exhibitions and served to support these goals (Smits & Jansen, 2012). World’s fairs fostered peaceful competition in art and industry, even between adversarial nations. (Rembold, 1999). Eventually, fairs became tied to national culture and identity. France was the first country to tie the fair directly to culture, with other nations following suit (Rembold, 1999). World’s fairs quickly became a place for nations to build their national identity and allow visitors to walk between exhibitions while comparing the different displays. France was able to justify colonization by strengthening their ideas of cultural superiority and civilization (Rembold, 1999). In 1904, the United States similarly tried to justify its treatment and colonization of the Philippines by changing the focus of American activity on the islands from politics to scientific studies of the Filipino people (Rembold, 1999). Thus, world’s fairs have been a pathway for nations to curate their international image.

Most studies on world’s fairs have been focused on the most powerful participating countries: the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. However, looking at the world’s fairs through the lens of less powerful countries provides important insight into a country’s aspirations regarding its connection to the global world. The most powerful countries have the advantage of global attention. people are aware of the events in the country simply from the prominence of its position. Less powerful countries do not have this advantage;they are rarely noticed and little information spreads worldwide. Therefore, the world’s fair’s goal of displaying modernity and forwardness is especially important for these countries. Allowing less powerful countries to showcase themselves on the same stage as the most prominent countries in the world. Using Hungary and Czechoslovakia, two of the less powerful countries at the 1958 Brussels world’s fair, we can understand what they wanted the world to perceive and how they got there. In particular, Hungary and Czechoslovakia sought through their 1958 exhibitions to redefine themselves to the world by downplaying the Soviet Union’s influence in their political systems, reaping the economic and cultural benefits of greater perceived ties to the West.

In Brussels, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were caught between the United States and the Soviet Union’s Cold War competition. Both took a middle ground route, attempting to appeal to Western and Eastern audiences.

Hungary’s pavilion contained few exhibits, carefully chosen to represent the country with socialism completely omitted (Péteri, 2012). Czechoslovakia’s pavilion focused on the everyday lives of its civilians (Zarecor & Kulić, 2014). While not overtly socialist, the pavilion included references to the Soviet pavilion and socialism as a whole. Both pavilions ended up unexpectedly popular among guests and critically successful. I argue that Hungary and Czechoslovakia presence at the Brussels World’s Fair changed the world’s perception of those two countries and the perception of socialism and the Soviet Union more broadly.

2. Background and Political Context

The 1958 Brussels world’s fair was the first fair after the Second World War and during the Cold War. The competitive context of the Cold War extended to exhibits at the world’s fair, with the United States and Soviet Union trying to out-do one another competitively. Fuelling the competition, the American and Soviet pavilions faced each other across a large plaza and fountains (Pal, 2018). The Soviet satellite states’ pavilions were all located on the same side of the fountain as the Soviet pavilion. For the Soviet Union, the plan had been to round up the satellite states and create a unified group of socialist pavilions that would be placed next to each other with the Soviet Union as their leader . Had this plan succeeded, the American pavilion would have stood alone across from the Soviet Union’s group . However, while most of the satellite states ended up pulling out of the fair due to cost, the Soviet Union did not give up on competition (Reid, 2010).

Post Second World War, both Czechoslovakia and Hungary were part of the Soviet Union’s Eastern Bloc, and largely controlled by Soviet policies. However, Stalin’s death in 1953 and Nikita Khrushchev subsequently taking power led to rebellion for Soviet satellite states (Pal, 2018). In 1956, the Hungarian Revolution successfully replaced the pro-Soviet government, with Imre Nagy taking power as the country’s prime minister (History.com Editors, 2009). The Soviet Union invaded Hungary later that year, arrested Nagy and replaced him with János Kádár . Under Kádár’s government, Hungary moved back to the Soviet bloc and retained limited connections with the west (History.com Editors, 2009). During these years of conflict, Hungary was economically destroyed. Unlike Hungary, Czechoslovakia was still relatively prosperous during this time. Czechoslovakia in 1958 experienced the beginnings of a revolt that was quickly stopped (Zarecor & Kulić, 2014). This allowed Czechoslovakia to justify its continual oppression and loyalty to the Soviet Union (Bradley et al., 2023). Hungary and Czechoslovakia both experienced clear hardships in their efforts to join Brussels.

3. Hungary

A. Motivations for Attending.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia were among the only countries from the Soviet Bloc that followed through in attending the Brussels World’s Fair despite a number of other nations intending to join (Reid, 2010). Due to internal turmoil and political struggles, very few countries had good relationships with Hungary. The United Nations condemned the government as Soviet colonialism (Péteri, 2012). Hungary therefore had very little international legitimacy outside of the Warsaw Pact, and attending the fair was an attempt to gain legitimacy for the government (Péteri, 2012).

Hungary also had motivations to prove that the country had changed. Part of this was to distance Hungary from Stalin’s socialism. Hungary did not follow the original plan from the Soviet Union. By not being directly connected to the Soviet Union or socialism, Hungary attempted to be more appealing to non-socialist visitors and encouraged purchasing Hungarian products (Péteri, 2012). Similarly, Hungary’s pavilion focused on breaking stereotypes about the country. Hungarians felt that much of the world viewed them as undeveloped and a country of people who have not evolved very much past their old traditions (Péteri, 2012). Hungary’s pavilion aimed to show the country’s growth into modernity and how Hungary could benefit the world. Hungary’s participation at the Brussels World’s Fair was driven by the desire to integrate with more modern countries and repair the Kadár government’s relationship with other countries.

B. Hungary’s Approach at the Fair

Due to Hungary’s struggling economy and political turmoil, grand and costly exhibitions were not possible (Péteri, 2012). Hungary’s participation in the Brussels World’s Fair was strictly non-commercial. Profits made at the Brussels fair were used to pay for the cost of creating the pavilion (Péteri, 2012). The pavilion was constructed quite intentionally and adapted to Hungary’s economic limitations. The main building of the exhibit heavily used transparent glass, letting in natural light and allowing visitors to look in from the outside (Péteri, 2012). Some of the materials had to be replaced due to cost. The front, middle, and back sections of the building were built to be unassuming white cubes (Péteri, 2012). The few exhibits that were present were carefully selected to be tasteful (Péteri, 2012). Art at the Hungary pavilion was expected to “speak for itself” without a written narrative guiding the exhibit (Péteri, 2012).

Ivan Boldizar, who designed the Hungarian pavilion, built the it on the idea of “What does a small people give to the big world?” The exhibitions were generally displayed with two parts; what Hungary provided, and how the world sees it (Péteri, 2012). Hungary’s exhibitions deliberately avoided Soviet styles of exhibition and socialist realism art that were historically associated with socialism in the early twentieth century. The belief was that the art should represent Hungary as a whole country (Péteri, 2012). For example, one art piece showcased was the Hungarian scuptor’s József Somogyi’s “Dancers”, a sculpture of two dancers, a man and a woman (Péteri, 2012). The dancers appear to twirl freely and gracefully around each other. Hungary’s pavilion faced challenges from the beginning; however in the end, the pavilion ended up direct and subverted expectations.

C. The Role of Socialism in Hungary’s Pavilion.

Despite Hungary’s Soviet-backed, socialist government, Hungary’s pavilion at Brussels included no socialist displays. Boldizar was in fact explicitly asked to not include portraits of any Hungarian leaders and was allowed to write and design the pavilion freely (Péteri, 2012). He later recalled being surprised at how much freedom he was given (Péteri, 2012). Boldizar remembers being told to “write what you think is right” and was promised that his script would not be changed by anyone else (Péteri, 2012). After Stalin’s death, Hungary was eager to emphasize its shift away from classical socialism towards modernity. The Brussels pavilion reflected this goal. The Hungarian pavilion showcased how Hungary has become a modern nation despite their socialism. Hungary’s desire to increase exported goods meant that the exhibitions were matched to western tastes and did not specifically showcase socialist products (Péteri, 2012, p. 4).

D. Results of the Hungarian Pavilion

The Hungarian pavilion’s performance was astounding. It ultimately received the sixth most awards and distinctions out of all participating nations at the fair (Péteri, 2012). Hungary’s attendance was successful in helping the country redefine itself to the world. Before the fair, Hungary was largely stereotyped as an unimpressive nation. Given the Soviet Union’s influence on the Hungarian government, the world expected Hungary to create a pavilion heavily supporting socialism (Péteri, 2012). Hungary’s actual pavilion was surprising, the pavilion was completely free of socialism and was heavily focused on Hungary’s modernity. Through the fair, Hungary wanted to send the message that they belonged among modern countries despite having socialist systems. The pavilion’s success created a new narrative for Hungary as a country.

4. Czechoslovakia

A. Motivations for Attending

At the Brussels World’s Fair, Czechoslovakia aimed to support their own version of socialism and to counter stereotypes about itself from the west while quietly supporting socialism. Czechoslovakia, like many socialist states, was viewed as a dull and ordinary nation led by the Soviet Union. Therefore, Czechoslovakia’s pavilion was intended to portray the country as modern, prosperous, and advanced due to socialism . The pavilion broke stereotypes; Czechoslovakia was shown to have a very high standard of living, prosperity, and innovation (Reid, 2010). The final pavilion diverged from the Soviet’s vision and became a largely independent exhibition.

Czechoslovakia’s location in Central Europe between the capitalist Western nations and socialist Eastern nations corresponded to its location at the fair between the Soviet and American pavilions. In line with Brussel’s goal of peace and cooperation, Czechoslovakia portrayed itself as a mediator between the two superpowers . Czechoslovakia’s prosperity and high quality of goods gave it the ability to show capitalist visitors the successes of socialism (Jersild, 2011). Czechoslovakia’s presence at the Brussels World’s Fair was intended to create an unique identity internationally, garnering support from the East and the West.

B. Czechoslovakia’s Approach to the Fair

Czechoslovakia’s pavilion was largely independent from the Soviet Union. Abstract and non-figurative art had been banned in Czechoslovakia until 1956 and artists were required to work in the style of socialist realism . However, artists in Czechoslovakia increasingly desired to work in abstract and non-figurative art, as such, the Czechoslovak pavilion included art that did not fit the socialist realism style (Giustino, 2012).

The focus of Czechoslovakia’s pavilion was on the everyday lives of the Czechoslovak people. The main exhibition was titled “One Day in Czechoslovakia”, which portrayed an idealized version of average Czechoslovak family life . The exhibition was split into three parts; work, leisure, and culture (Zarecor & Kulić, 2014). Displays at the Czechoslovak pavilion included “exhibits on energy, machinery, glass and ceramics, and agriculture in the work section; aesthetic taste, including clothing, shoes, and designed objects, children and puppetry, and free time in the leisure section; and literature, science, music, and art in the culture section” (Zarecor & Kulić, 2014, p. 232). The pavilion ended with a few multimedia shows that combined live human performances with film. The focus on Czechoslovaks, not socialism, demonstrated their perceived independence from the Soviet Union.

C. The Role of Socialism in Czechoslovakia’s Pavilion

The exhibited objects themselves bridged the gap between socialism and capitalism. While manufacturing, resources, and planning for the exhibition was done through socialist systems, the actual designs’ lack of obvious socialism appealed to any visitor (Giustino, 2012). In this way, Czechoslovakia created a statement against capitalism and the west without antagonizing visitors from capitalist, western nations. This was in contrast to the tense competition between the pavilions of the United States and Soviet Union.

Socialist symbols were present but subtle and often referred to the Soviet Union’s pavilion. The pavilion’s building was covered with reflective glass on the outside, with visitors entering on the side of the building that faced the Soviet’s pavilion. The building was designed so that the Soviet pavilion would reflect onto the front of the building and visitors would have seen the reflection as they entered Czechoslovakia’s pavilion. Czechoslovakia’s The New Age, a statue by Vincenic Makovsky, was heavily based on a similar statue in the Soviet Union’s pavilion. Both consisted of a couple holding symbols of their respective countries (Giustino, 2012).

D. Results of the Czechoslovak Pavilion

Czechoslovakia’s pavilion ended up being the most critically acclaimed and popular pavilion at the fair. In particular, the multimedia shows were among the most popular of Czechoslovakia’s exhibits and helped attract visitors to the pavilion . The show Vynález Zkázy by Karel Zemen (The Fabulous World of Jules Verne in the United States) won best film at Brussels (Zarecor & Kulić, 2014).

The subtle inclusion of socialism while also creating exhibitions with visual appeal to visitors from socialist and capitalist nations helped mediate the divide during the Cold War. The socialism displayed by Czechoslovkia was more acceptable for non-socialist visitors. In fact, Czechoslovakia’s independence at the fair actually encouraged non-socialist visitors to view socialism more favorably as it disputed the idea that the satellite states were being strictly controlled by the Soviet Union, inviting more compassion from western, capitalist visitors (Reid, 2010). The success of Czechoslovakia’s pavilion was unexpected. While Czechoslovakia intended to reach a wide international audience, the results at Brussels were far greater than Czechoslovaks had predicted and also indirectly benefited the world’s perception of the Soviet Union and socialism as a whole.

5. Conclusion

In many ways, Hungary and Czechoslovakia’s pavilions were similar, both aiming to showcase the nation without socialism being in focus. Both countries were in similar positions going into the fair; Soviet satellites experiencing uncertainty and not perceived modern enough to the rest of the world. Neither country followed the Soviet Union’s plan of a unified group of Soviet satellite, socialist nations presenting similar messaging at Brussels. Non- socialist audiences generally accepted and appreciated the pavilions as they had little socialist displays.The independence of their pavilions likely contributed to the success and critical acclaim enjoyed by both.

There were, of course, differences in the pavilions as well. For Hungary, socialism was entirely avoided at the fair. Instead, Hungary chose to showcase the country as a whole, outside of socialism. Visitors were expected to see how Hungary could benefit the world through its resources rather than agree with a socialist message. On the other hand, while Czechoslovakia’s pavilion had no symbols or direct mentions of socialism, it was not hidden. On the surface, the displays simply showed an idealized version of the average Czechoslovak family’s life. However, Socialist messages were placed in the details of the exhibitions, such as using a socialist, state-owned manufacturing process, or altering Soviet installations. The intended message was that Czechoslovakia was modern as a result of socialism. In general, the Hungarian and Czechoslovak pavilions were far more independent than expected.

Overall, the experiences of Hungary and Czechoslovakia at the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair underscores the idea that displays of art and culture aren’t simply a reflection of what is currently happening in a country, but a demonstration of national aspirations. Neither Hungary nor Czechoslovakia were actually distanced from the Soviet Union in 1958. In fact, Hungary had a government resulting from a Soviet military invasion and Czechoslovakia kept close to the Soviet Union. However, connections to the Soviet Union were hidden at the fair. In other words, what was presented at the fair was very different from what was happening at home. The Brussels pavilions only represented what the two countries wanted the world to see.

The Brussels World’s Fair helped Hungary and Czechoslovakia be accepted by Western and capitalist countries. Stalin’s death a few years before the fair meant that Hungary and Czechoslovakia could distance themselves from socialism internationally even when the governments were still socialist. It would not be until the last years of the Cold War that Hungary and Czechoslovakia finally rid themselves of their socialist governments, but the world’s fair in 1958 provided an early harbinger of the future aspirations of the two states. The Brussels Fair helped improve the perception of Hungary and Czechoslovakia among the pavilion’s western audiences, therefore opening Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the chance of increasing exports and access to western markets.

World’s fairs serve as showcases that bring countries from all over the world together. Visitors are exposed to pavilions from countries that they would otherwise never experience, and can explore multiple countries’ pavilions all in a short period of time. World’s fairs reach visitors differently than other forms of political communication. Visitors can actually walk through and view the exhibitions in person, the nature of world’s fairs allows the national message to be experienced rather than imagined. Artistic and cultural displays can act as the layman’s politics.