US intervenes in Hungary in 1956

[Lost the game]

How does this happen, and what is the result. how does this effect:

The 1956 presidentian election
the Suez crisis (if it and the US intervention in Hungary CAN happen)
the rest os the Iron Curtain
the Prague Spring

[Germaniac]

This completely changes the American foreign policy concerning Communist Nations. Prior to this point the policy of Containment, keeping Communism where it is and not expanding. This would change it to active intervention and may lead to war with the Soviet Union maybe not at this point but soon.

[037771]

I think this possibility was quite ably dealt with by statichaos in AWOLAWOT here (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2196006&postcount=89); to cut a post short, it depicts US grandstanding over the Hungarian rebellion, followed by Hungary's de-facto secession from the Warsaw Pact.

IMO, if the US decided on military intervention, the Soviets would panic, simply because a free Hungary undermines the whole of the Warsaw Pact defence perimeter. It would heighten tensions almost to breaking point and might only result in a partitioned, rather than a fully independent, Hungary.

All of this also has unfortunate implications for Nikita Khrushchev, who was, only a year later, to face serious dissension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group) in the old guard of the CPSU. I don't think it's a giant leap to consider a return to Stalinist values in the Soviet Union if the Kremlin is seriously embarassed by Hungarian nationalists in 1956, especially since you could argue Khrushchev's leadership was starting to totter even at the beginning of the 60s.

[wolf_brother]

WW3 breaks out. Its just early enough that you don't face total nuclear apocalypse, but the Northern hemisphere is essentially fucked.

[Blackfox5]

The major problem with a US intervention is that the US is not able to project any power into Hungary. It does not border any NATO country. There are only Soviet satelites, Tito's Yugoslavia, and neutral Austria around Hungary. It can do nothing to meaningfully militarily interfere.

The only thing I can see as possibly being done is that very early in the crisis the Eisenhower administration approaches Moscow (still fairly uncertain internally after Stalin's death) and handles diplomacy very well with a mixed of implied threats, but also with lots of carrots. The US tells Soviets that military intervention in Hungary will create trouble with the US with real repercussions. The US understands Soviet security needs and is willing to work with them and the Hungarians on a security framework everyone can be happy with. Once the Hungarians make moves to pull out of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet intervention will probably occur, but conceivably the US might be able to offer some sort of concession to the Soviets in another area that might make them able to accept a neutral, but obstensibly friendly, Hungary.

The big problem for the Soviets though is that letting Hungary go probably creates a chain of reaction where other countries start experiencing some kind of unrest, especially in Poland. At some point, the Soviet military needs to crack down lest they lose the entire Warsaw Pact. The US then either needs to accept the use of Soviet force, or war happens.

None of the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time will be able to accept a 1989 style outcome. Even if the Western powers offer to disband NATO and give lots of other assurances to the Soviets, I can't see them giving up their control over Eastern Europe.

[nastle]

even if US does intervene ( lets assume its politically possible)
which forces were placed to take part in the action?
How would we protect our flanks ?
Will we have to arm germany to take up the bulk of this fight ?

[BELFAST]

How would us troops get there?
Hungry is land locked.

[Henriksson]

WW3 breaks out. Its just early enough that you don't face total nuclear apocalypse, but the Northern hemisphere is essentially fucked.
Are we talking something like Cuban Missile Crisis: Aftermath :cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ5H9-kzJ2o&feature=related)

(OK, I know that sort of scenario is implausible like hell, yet nevertheless awesome.)

[Sam R.]

Blackfox5 wrote a very excellent and reasoned outline, which I want to advance in one small point.

Once the Hungarians make moves to pull out of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet intervention will probably occur, but conceivably the US might be able to offer some sort of concession to the Soviets in another area that might make them able to accept a neutral, but obstensibly friendly, Hungary.

The big problem for the Soviets though is that letting Hungary go probably creates a chain of reaction where other countries start experiencing some kind of unrest, especially in Poland. At some point, the Soviet military needs to crack down lest they lose the entire Warsaw Pact. The US then either needs to accept the use of Soviet force, or war happens.

None of the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time will be able to accept a 1989 style outcome. Even if the Western powers offer to disband NATO and give lots of other assurances to the Soviets, I can't see them giving up their control over Eastern Europe.

There's a bigger problem. You're predicted 1989: a bourgeois nationalist revolution lead by the nomenklatura. 1956 isn't 1989. Suddenly all states East of West Germany are run by workers councils. This is a much larger problem for 90% of the Soviet nomenklatura than 1989. In 1989 most of the nomeklatura managed to transition into highly remunerated bourgeois or professional positions in capitalism. This isn't very likely given the composition of Hungarian workers councils in 1956.

A socialist revolution in the Soviet Union is the terrifying option for everyone except Mikoyan, Lukacs, Nagy, Gimes, etc.

yours,
Sam R.

[MerryPrankster]

WW3 breaks out. Its just early enough that you don't face total nuclear apocalypse, but the Northern hemisphere is essentially fucked.

Not in the 1950s. That wouldn't have even been the case if the balloon went up over Cuba.

The Soviets didn't achieve nuclear parity with the US until the early 1970s.

[wolf_brother]

Not in the 1950s. That wouldn't have even been the case if the balloon went up over Cuba.

The Soviets didn't achieve nuclear parity with the US until the early 1970s.

US intervention in Hungary is a stake to the heart of the entire Warsaw Pact. Especially considering how close Hungary is to the USSR. Moscow is going to react, which will cause Washington to react, and things will get ugly. It'd be no different than if we were discussing, say, the USSR intervening in pro-communist uprisings in Canada or Mexico.

[MerryPrankster]

US intervention in Hungary is a stake to the heart of the entire Warsaw Pact. Especially considering how close Hungary is to the USSR. Moscow is going to react, which will cause Washington to react, and things will get ugly. It'd be no different than if we were discussing, say, the USSR intervening in pro-communist uprisings in Canada or Mexico.

That doesn't matter. What matters is the Soviets' ability to strike Western Europe and the United States at the time.

You can't have "the Northern Hemisphere is f***ed" if there are few successful nuclear attacks in the Western Hemisphere.

[MattII]

WW3 breaks out. Its just early enough that you don't face total nuclear apocalypse, but the Northern hemisphere is essentially fucked.Actually, at this point all nukes are dropped by aircraft, so it's probably not going to be as big as it would have been in say 1962.

[wolf_brother]

Actually, at this point all nukes are dropped by aircraft, so it's probably not going to be as big as it would have been in say 1962.

That doesn't matter. What matters is the Soviets' ability to strike Western Europe and the United States at the time.

You can't have "the Northern Hemisphere is f***ed" if there are few successful nuclear attacks in the Western Hemisphere.

I think you're both underestimating the abilities of the Soviet Air Force, and the number of nukes it takes to devastate a region. The Soviets don't need full nuclear parity, but if they slag primary sites in Western Europe and the east and west coasts of the US then the fallout alone will take care of the rest. At the same time Eastern Europe and the major sites within the USSR are going to get hit. Therefore, the northern hemisphere is fucked. Even in a 'short' nuclear winter the fall damage alone would take decades to fully heal.

[Color-Copycat]

Actually, at this point all nukes are dropped by aircraft, so it's probably not going to be as big as it would have been in say 1962.

"The bomber always gets through" ;)

[Shogo]

It wouldn't be enough to fuck over any hemispheres.

It's still early enough that the number of nukes the Soviets have at their disposal isn't something that could invoke MAD.

The delivery system for nuclear bombardment is still a purely aircraft oriented endeavor.

Pretty sure Soviet long range bombers of the time were god awful.

Even if a couple got through, I'm also pretty sure this was at a time when nukes were actually still pretty fucking weak. (I think in the early years, their bark was worse than their bite.) It took a long time for nukes to become worthy of their reputation.

I guess fallout depends on how the bombs are used. Though I'm guessing these won't be airbursts because the bombers might kill themselves. (Because the use of a nuke doesn't guarantee horrendous fallout.)

------------------------

Really, the only ones who'd get fucked over by nukes at this point would be the Soviets and Eastern Europe.

The rest of Europe might see a little sunshine, and one or two bombers might make it to the US . . . But for the most part NATO would come out of it fine on the nuclear front.

[MattII]

The Soviets don't need full nuclear parity, but if they slag primary sites in Western Europe and the east and west coasts of the US then the fallout alone will take care of the rest.They might get some of the Europeans, but anything on the West Coast is extremely unlikely, not if the US gets more than about 15 minutes warning (the best Soviet bomber of the day the Tu-95 had a ceiling of 45,000 feet, the best US fighter of the day the F-100 had a climb rate of over 22,000 feet/minute).

"The bomber always gets through" ;)Schweinfurt-Regensberg begs to to differ

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd agree with the other that the Soviet nuclear stockpile is still too small in 1956 for any sort of end-of-the-world scenario to set in, especially given their total reliance on aircraft for delivery. Going off the figures here (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab10.asp) they only have 126 strategic nuclear warheads, and with bomber-delivery most of those won't be getting through.

It also bears mentioning that, since the Soviets only really got the H-bomb figured out in late 1955 (though they'd tested some imperfect designs before that point) the vast majority of their stockpile is going to be old fission bombs, which are nasty, but not huge game-changers by themselves.

[Jello_Biafra]

Blackfox5 wrote a very excellent and reasoned outline, which I want to advance in one small point.



There's a bigger problem. You're predicted 1989: a bourgeois nationalist revolution lead by the nomenklatura. 1956 isn't 1989. Suddenly all states East of West Germany are run by workers councils. This is a much larger problem for 90% of the Soviet nomenklatura than 1989. In 1989 most of the nomeklatura managed to transition into highly remunerated bourgeois or professional positions in capitalism. This isn't very likely given the composition of Hungarian workers councils in 1956.

A socialist revolution in the Soviet Union is the terrifying option for everyone except Mikoyan, Lukacs, Nagy, Gimes, etc.

yours,
Sam R.
This can't be stressed enough.

The Hungarian Revolution was not a revolt against the principles of socialism. It was a revolt against the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and the tyranny of the nomenklatura. The West really has no interest in allowing the threat of a good example, and the Hungarians would very quickly learn that the West didn't have their best interests in mind.

[Blackfox5]

The economics is totally irrelevant, The only thing that is relevant is loss of Soviet power to control Eastern Europe. Once that is gone, all bets are off. The major benefactors may ultimately be Social Democrats rather than some kind of conservative, liberal, or Christian Democrat party, but that doesn't matter. Once Communism loses its monopoly, Hungary - or any other country - will start to become "normal" in their politics like other free European countries.

In any case, the idea that a free Hungary able to choose its own future would keep workers councils permanently is not a very strong one. Assuming that there is a modicum of freedom and elections, it is inevitable that political parties would develop that would advocate different kinds of economic enterprises.

Historically, the far left or Marxist inspired parties have always performed poorly in actual free elections except in very unique circumstances. Typically it is under 5% but sometimes it can be as high as 15%. Only in unique cricumstances does it become higher than that. So while Hungary might initially have an economy run by worker's councils, after a few years or possibly up to 2 decades, the economy will transition, allowing more and more free enterprise. There may be significant labor protections or even labor roles in certain kinds corporate forms. Existing businesses may even keep the council form. But there will be a demand by small businesses, prospective new business owners, and farmers for a fundamentally different form of business, and in the long term, those will be accomodate in some way. Provided the Communists no longer have monopoly control, it is going to happen even if it is done by a few baby steps each year.

It's that fear which always prompts Communists to tyrannize the countries they rule. Which is why I think even if the Soviet Union allows Hungary to get out of their thumb, they won't make the mistake again.

It would be interesting to see if established companies under worker councils could outcompete new companies established under different lines. I think long term, worker councils are more likely to engage in rent seeking which means eventual competitive loss to more dynamic traditional "private" corporations, but that process could take a few decades.

[Manfr]

The economics is totally irrelevant, The only thing that is relevant is loss of Soviet power to control Eastern Europe. Once that is gone, all bets are off. The major benefactors may ultimately be Social Democrats rather than some kind of conservative, liberal, or Christian Democrat party, but that doesn't matter. Once Communism loses its monopoly, Hungary - or any other country - will start to become "normal" in their politics like other free European countries.

In any case, the idea that a free Hungary able to choose its own future would keep workers councils permanently is not a very strong one. Assuming that there is a modicum of freedom and elections, it is inevitable that political parties would develop that would advocate different kinds of economic enterprises.

Historically, the far left or Marxist inspired parties have always performed poorly in actual free elections except in very unique circumstances. Typically it is under 5% but sometimes it can be as high as 15%. Only in unique cricumstances does it become higher than that. So while Hungary might initially have an economy run by worker's councils, after a few years or possibly up to 2 decades, the economy will transition, allowing more and more free enterprise. There may be significant labor protections or even labor roles in certain kinds corporate forms. Existing businesses may even keep the council form. But there will be a demand by small businesses, prospective new business owners, and farmers for a fundamentally different form of business, and in the long term, those will be accomodate in some way. Provided the Communists no longer have monopoly control, it is going to happen even if it is done by a few baby steps each year.

It's that fear which always prompts Communists to tyrannize the countries they rule. Which is why I think even if the Soviet Union allows Hungary to get out of their thumb, they won't make the mistake again.

It would be interesting to see if established companies under worker councils could outcompete new companies established under different lines. I think long term, worker councils are more likely to engage in rent seeking which means eventual competitive loss to more dynamic traditional "private" corporations, but that process could take a few decades.


Well, Italian communists in all their post WW2 history, French and Finnish communists in a sizeable part of their post WW2 history, the AKEL Party of Cyprus and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1946 (and, to be fair, the Czech Communist party still nowadays, quite surprisingly) do not second your proposition :D Of course, we must also remember that pre-WW2 almost all the socialdemocratic european parties were also Marxist ones, and some officially abandoned Marxism only a while later (SPD 1959, SPO and PSF I'm not sure, mediterranean parties well in the late 70s-80s).
Also, in 1956 Hungary had a booming and developing example of how to organize a working socialist market economy in neighbouring and tremendously popular Jugoslavia. Of course, this might mean that Hungary itself may suffer from some of Jugoslavia's own problems later, but if the country hadn't imploded in civil strife, today Belgrade would be quite close to the Czech Republic, economically speaking.

I've done a little research on this subject for a university paper: the USA considered Hungary pretty much a lost cause, but did some real planning on Poland, when Gomulka risked a full-fledged Soviet invasion. Eventually, they were all scrapped because they ended with "how do we stop soviets from resupplying their forces?", with some commanders at that point calling for "tactical bombing on entrance points". Mushrooms all over the place.
However, the most feasible version of the plan envisioned a UN-backed interposition force made up of Jugoslavians, Indians and other 3rd Worlders to appease USSR. Something similar may had happened with Hungary, Tito had half an idea of invading when the situation spiraled out of control and anticommunists started to summarily execute secret police agents in the streets.

Nonetheless, if Hungary is allowed to blossom, Poland will follow suit, and Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Rumania will start agitation too. This could get really, really ugly when the strongmen in Bucharest and Prague panick ...

[MerryPrankster]

I think you're both underestimating the abilities of the Soviet Air Force, and the number of nukes it takes to devastate a region. The Soviets don't need full nuclear parity, but if they slag primary sites in Western Europe and the east and west coasts of the US then the fallout alone will take care of the rest. At the same time Eastern Europe and the major sites within the USSR are going to get hit. Therefore, the northern hemisphere is fucked. Even in a 'short' nuclear winter the fall damage alone would take decades to fully heal.

Did you get your idea of fallout from the movie "On The Beach," perchance?

[MerryPrankster]

This can't be stressed enough.

The Hungarian Revolution was not a revolt against the principles of socialism. It was a revolt against the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and the tyranny of the nomenklatura. The West really has no interest in allowing the threat of a good example, and the Hungarians would very quickly learn that the West didn't have their best interests in mind.

Funny, I don't recall Western efforts to undermine social-democratic states in Scandinavia, states in Western Europe that created National Health Services, etc.

[Manfr]

Funny, I don't recall Western efforts to undermine social-democratic states in Scandinavia, states in Western Europe that created National Health Services, etc.

No ? Not even one ? Not even the one with colonels and the Parthenon ? :p Not even the one with the Tour Eiffel and the OAS ? Not even those little republics with bananas and criollos ? :p

[CalBear]

WW3 breaks out. Its just early enough that you don't face total nuclear apocalypse, but the Northern hemisphere is essentially fucked.

Actually not nearly as bad as you might think. The Soviets didn't really have the stockpile, or more importantly, the delivery systems, to hit North American. The total Soviet inventory was around 400 weapons in 1956 and they lacked a practical delivery system to get at North America. The Tu-95 was just beginning to reach squadron service and the Tu-16 was not really capable to making a strike against the U.S. except in full kamikaze mode, same thing went for the Tu-4, but worse. Figure, at most 8-10 weapons making it to North America. That is really bad if you are one of the poor bastards that happen to be where it falls, but it wouldn't knock the U.S. or Canada back to the 1700s.

Now Europe? Europe would be, well, pretty much screwed. Between the conventional war and the shorter range nukes the European plain would not be a Garden Spot.

[Blackfox5]

Well, Italian communists in all their post WW2 history, French and Finnish communists in a sizeable part of their post WW2 history, the AKEL Party of Cyprus and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1946 (and, to be fair, the Czech Communist party still nowadays, quite surprisingly) do not second your proposition :D Of course, we must also remember that pre-WW2 almost all the socialdemocratic european parties were also Marxist ones, and some officially abandoned Marxism only a while later (SPD 1959, SPO and PSF I'm not sure, mediterranean parties well in the late 70s-80s).


I would count most of your examples to be those "unique circumstances" which I cleverly included. :D

After World War II, most European Communist parties reached their highest percentage ever because of the goodwill associated with the Red Army. Once Stalin showed his true colors, those decreased dramatically to their historic numbers. Czechoslovakia is even a unique case in this regard because the Czechs initially hoped the Soviets would be guarantors of their indepdence given geographical issues of depending on the West.

Finland's entire history after WWII is unique given the compromises it had to give to secure independence from a Soviet Union next door. Without the presence of the Soviets, I doubt very much the Communists would have gotten anywhere near those numbers.

I did err in excluding that French and Italian Communists consistently got above 15%. Mea culpa. France seemed to hover around 20% and Italians around 33%. Nevertheless, that was their plateau. In both cases because of the nature of their resistance to the formerly fascist regimes of Vichy and Mussolini, both parties had more of a patriotic shine to them than they deserved, but which served them well. Both also received substantial subsidies from Moscow which helped boost their numbers. I consider their higher electroal % to be explainable while retaining my essential point. I was wrong to not mention this, but I try not make every post of mine an essay. So I'm not really disagreeing with your point.

For the purposes of this, I consider any Social Democratic party - a party committed to democracy regardless of their economic stance - to be distinct from Communism, regardless of whatever semantics are used to include or exclude this or that from official Marxism. We can make a lot of distinctions without a difference, but I hope everyone can understand the difference between a party committed to democracy and freedoms and another that believes in a dictatorship by the vanguard.

I consider Eurocommunism a slightly better version of Communism where members became shamed enough to know they were wrong, but remained too proud to admit it.

[wolf_brother]

Actually not nearly as bad as you might think. The Soviets didn't really have the stockpile, or more importantly, the delivery systems, to hit North American. The total Soviet inventory was around 400 weapons in 1956 and they lacked a practical delivery system to get at North America. The Tu-95 was just beginning to reach squadron service and the Tu-16 was not really capable to making a strike against the U.S. except in full kamikaze mode, same thing went for the Tu-4, but worse. Figure, at most 8-10 weapons making it to North America. That is really bad if you are one of the poor bastards that happen to be where it falls, but it wouldn't knock the U.S. or Canada back to the 1700s.

Now Europe? Europe would be, well, pretty much screwed. Between the conventional war and the shorter range nukes the European plain would not be a Garden Spot.

8-10 nukes striking North America is going to be very bad, especially with the fallout damage and the continued radioactive areas. Depending on where is hit the nation's crop harvest for that year, and the next, might have to be discarded, and major fresh water sources might be too radioactive to safely use.

[Chengar Qordath]

8-10 nukes striking North America is going to be very bad, especially with the fallout damage and the continued radioactive areas. Depending on where is hit the nation's crop harvest for that year, and the next, might have to be discarded, and major fresh water sources might be too radioactive to safely use.

As a couple people mentioned, you're vastly overestimating the amount of damage a fission bomb is capable of. Fallout is going to largely be localized; a fission bomb just doesn't have the power to throw the huge amounts of fallout up into the stratosphere like you'll get with more advanced Hydrogen bombs.

To give you a bit of scale, the Test Site in Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site) set off a bit over 1000 nuclear devices during its years of operation, including several that were far larger than anything the Soviets had in production in 1956.

[MattII]

Even if they put half their supply on the US, they're probably not going to get 8-10 through, unless they concentrate their attacks on a very few cities, because the planes are going to be spotted well ahead of landfall and intercepted.

[Sam R.]

The economics is totally irrelevant, The only thing that is relevant is loss of Soviet power to control Eastern Europe. Once that is gone, all bets are off. The major benefactors may ultimately be Social Democrats rather than some kind of conservative, liberal, or Christian Democrat party, but that doesn't matter. Once Communism loses its monopoly, Hungary - or any other country - will start to become "normal" in their politics like other free European countries.

You're assuming a primacy of parliament. Throughout November and December the Social Democrats and Smallholders and Peasants weren't party to negotiations. The Soviet military forces negotiated with one body. Guess which?

In any case, the idea that a free Hungary able to choose its own future would keep workers councils permanently is not a very strong one. Assuming that there is a modicum of freedom and elections, it is inevitable that political parties would develop that would advocate different kinds of economic enterprises.

No true scotsman on "free" here eh? The Social Democrats, Peasants, Smallholders, students party and Gimes organised revolutionary communist party all supported the continuation of socialism under workers control. The rank and file of the Social Democrats were running the councils, supported, again, by Gimes-minded communists. The "inevitability" of bourgeois democracy is questionable. I'd refer you to Bill Lomax here.

…[snipped pontificating without any Hungarian context]…

Go look up the Hungarian social democrats' electoral results. The parliamentary composition expected by Lukacs and other key observers, and the councils did support a rump parliament, was looking to be dominated quite clearly by the Social Democrats (whose policies in 1956, and at previous moments, had been revolutionary) ruling in a grand coalition, but heavily reliant on the Students (yet another revolutionary socialist party, comprised of communists), with the "communist" vote likely to be split between a Gimesish tendency and a more Nagylike tendency.

It would be interesting to see if established companies under worker councils could outcompete new companies established under different lines. I think long term, worker councils are more likely to engage in rent seeking which means eventual competitive loss to more dynamic traditional "private" corporations, but that process could take a few decades.

This largely depends on whether the economy is still a value system with wage labour. Your analytical toolset isn't particularly useful here, as both rent and profit have their origin in the same extraction from living labour, and depend on state power to enforce this. On occasions where things somewhat resembling revolutionary workers councils have existed in capitalism, yes they have had a tendency to seek lower rate of return profits than private enterprise as they explicitly value social externalities. Yugoslavia's unique institutional arrangements come to mind, as does the Western cooperative movement. However, these bear as little resemblance to workers councils that have state power as the petits bourgeois of 1300 do to the interlocking stock holding trusts of today. Hungary in 1956 was a situation where the capacity for state power of the workers councils were increasing faster than that of the geographic councils (in the early Soviet Union, the geographic councils rapidly achieved political ascendency), and the power adhering to the workers councils vastly outpaced the power held by the Nagy government or the Anna Kethley lead parliamentary social democratic party.

yours,
Sam R.

[CalBear]

8-10 nukes striking North America is going to be very bad, especially with the fallout damage and the continued radioactive areas. Depending on where is hit the nation's crop harvest for that year, and the next, might have to be discarded, and major fresh water sources might be too radioactive to safely use.

Based on what?

The U.S. was routinely testing above ground in Nevada at the time. In 1956 it tested 18 devices, in 1957 25, in 1958 it was 57. In 1956 the Soviets tested 9 devices above ground, in 1957 , in 1958 36. People in Vegas used to go outside to watch the damned things.

To get the radiation damage you are describing would take several hundred salted weapons, the Soviets DID NOT HAVE several hundred weapons deliverable to North America.

[MerryPrankster]

No ? Not even one ? Not even the one with colonels and the Parthenon ? :p Not even the one with the Tour Eiffel and the OAS ? Not even those little republics with bananas and criollos ? :p

I was thinking more about Sweden and its ilk.

And when exactly did the CIA encourage a military coup to overthrow the British government to stop it from nationalizing much of its economy and establishing an NHS?

And the banana republics were in the Western Hemisphere. I'm talking about European social-democracies.

[MerryPrankster]

8-10 nukes striking North America is going to be very bad, especially with the fallout damage and the continued radioactive areas. Depending on where is hit the nation's crop harvest for that year, and the next, might have to be discarded, and major fresh water sources might be too radioactive to safely use.

If fission bombs were that powerful, the two Japanese bombs would have wiped out the entire country in 1945.

They didn't.

[wolf_brother]

I will defer to others, hopefully more educated, opinion on the matter, though I will part by saying that the cavalier attitude apparent among many posters in this thread towards the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets is frightening, to say the least.

[Urban fox]

This can't be stressed enough.

The Hungarian Revolution was not a revolt against the principles of socialism. It was a revolt against the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and the tyranny of the nomenklatura. The West really has no interest in allowing the threat of a good example, and the Hungarians would very quickly learn that the West didn't have their best interests in mind.

The uprising was a multi-sided clusterfuck with goverments springing up in several parts of the country and armed gangs led by strongmen roaming the streets. If anything with the Red Army quelling the uprising Hungary would face civil war.

Also if the US sents troops or eqipment the Soviets will simply increase their efforts to crush the rebels even if they have to nuke Budapest. Honestly I dont see how anyone can seriously hold the idea that the Soviet leadership were a bunch of wimps who'll piss themselves at the sight of US troops.

These were hard men most of whom were combat veterans and had survived for decades in one of the most deadly political environments in the world. They would not scare easily nor tolarate any NATO Troops coming anywhere close to the U.S.S.R's western border.

[MerryPrankster]

I will defer to others, hopefully more educated, opinion on the matter, though I will part by saying that the cavalier attitude apparent among many posters in this thread towards the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets is frightening, to say the least.

Nobody is saying mass killings of civilians is good--that's a moral question.

We're saying the belief that 8-10 fission bombs would destroy the entire United States is improbable--that is not a matter of morality at all.

[Manfr]

I was thinking more about Sweden and its ilk.

And when exactly did the CIA encourage a military coup to overthrow the British government to stop it from nationalizing much of its economy and establishing an NHS?

And the banana republics were in the Western Hemisphere. I'm talking about European social-democracies.

Well, we in Italy have a long tradition of US and Atlantic meddling in our internal affairs, including nationalizations and so on, however it's frankly un-important what the US didn't DO to European socialdemocracies in advanced countries: what they DID to european and world social democracies in other countries matters a bit more. Plan Condor, Allende, Guatemala, Greece, Turkey ... pick what you prefer !

[Chengar Qordath]

Nobody is saying mass killings of civilians is good--that's a moral question.

We're saying the belief that 8-10 fission bombs would destroy the entire United States is improbable--that is not a matter of morality at all.

Seconded; there's a huge difference between objectively analyzing the destructive power of early generation nuclear weapons and advocating the use of nuclear weapons, especially against civilian targets.

[Blackfox5]

Well, we in Italy have a long tradition of US and Atlantic meddling in our internal affairs, including nationalizations and so on, however it's frankly un-important what the US didn't DO to European socialdemocracies in advanced countries: what they DID to european and world social democracies in other countries matters a bit more. Plan Condor, Allende, Guatemala, Greece, Turkey ... pick what you prefer !

I think you may be overreaching. In most of these countries, it was not the US interfering. Instead, the US simply stood by or said, "We won't object," when groups native to the countries acted. For example, I don't know of any US involvement in the Colonels' Coup in Greece. It was just that afterwards we didn't do anything about it. While one can complain about that, it's not quite the same as complaning about intervention. It is complaining that the US is not intervening.

One also has to point out that US involvement in European affairs was generally in response to Communist involvement. All European Communist parties at the time were clandestinely funded and controlled by Moscow. Once Communist parties got control of the government, destruction of democracy is practically a known fact given history. At the very least, US involvement seems to be justified if you believe in continuation of democracy. I think MerryPrankster is correct when he says the US was not getting rid of social democrats in Europe.

The US does have greater involvement in interfering in Latin American affairs with less justification. The Arbenz coup was clearly a mistake driven by greed of the United Fruit Company. Given Allende's violations of Chile's constitution and law, his creation of a separate armed forces, his involvement with Soviet and Cubans, the strange nature of the election in the first place, and the call by Chile's own congress for the military to intervene, that his overthrow was probably entirely justified (again with US approval, but not direct involvement). Pinochet staying on power afterwards was not, but at least he eventually voluntarily stepped down on his own. Operation Condor was primarily run by the countries themselves with limited US involvement.

The US certainly did not have clean hands, but it is a far cry from acknowledging that to the claim that the US would subvert a Hungary now free from Soviet control simply because its politics were to the left.

[Jello_Biafra]

Funny, I don't recall Western efforts to undermine social-democratic states in Scandinavia, states in Western Europe that created National Health Services, etc.
Funny, I don't recall those Scandinavian states being anything but capitalist states.

By contrast, a successful Hungarian Revolution doesn't mean privatization and capitalism. It means a publicly owned economy that is managed by a mix of central planning and autogestion, a paradigm that is totally incompatible with the west. All the worse if they have free speech and free elections. The capitalists states can no longer maintain moral supremacy if there are democratic socialist states floating about

[MerryPrankster]

Funny, I don't recall those Scandinavian states being anything but capitalist states.

By contrast, a successful Hungarian Revolution doesn't mean privatization and capitalism. It means a publicly owned economy that is managed by a mix of central planning and autogestion, a paradigm that is totally incompatible with the west. All the worse if they have free speech and free elections. The capitalists states can no longer maintain moral supremacy if there are democratic socialist states floating about

Britain nationalized a lot of its own economy in the aftermath of the war and I don't recall the U.S. complaining at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Based on the list, one could argue Britain was a social democracy between Chuchill and Thatcher.

[Jello_Biafra]

Britain nationalized a lot of its own economy in the aftermath of the war and I don't recall the U.S. complaining at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Based on the list, one could argue Britain was a social democracy between Chuchill and Thatcher.
Social democracy =!= socialism. The take over of failing private enterprise by the state is in no way comparable to a from below revolution that establishes worker's control of the means of production.