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; 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 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]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

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

(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.

Originally Posted by Blackfox5

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]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

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]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

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]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

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]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

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]

Originally Posted by MattII

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.

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

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]

Originally Posted by MattII

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]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

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).

Originally Posted by Color-Copycat

"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 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]

Originally Posted by Sam R.

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.