Surviving Hungarian Soviet Republic

Is it possible for the Hungarian Soviet Republic, a Hungarian communist state that OTL existed briefly in 1919 before being destroyed in a war with Romania, to survive longer?

Also, would it be possible for it to keep its Slovak puppet state, the Slovak Soviet Republic, formed during the (successful) Hungarian invasion of Slovakia?

I think your best bet would be to have a successful German Revolution next door, which both stirs revolutionary sentiment across the region and deters Romanian aggression. Another option would be to have a German Revolution that more narrowly fails, and sees large numbers of German revolutionary fighters sneak across the border and take refuge in Hungary. They could help strengthen Hungarian forces against Romanian aggression.

Another thing that could help their chances would be to remove Bela Kun from the position of leadership. Having a non-Jew (who might reduce hostility towards the regime from certain parts of the population) and moderate in charge could help secure greater domestic support. Finally, having the Communists successfully kill Miklos Horthy would be very useful. Neither of these things will keep them around indefinitely, you would need a nearby and powerful patron for that, or for the revolution to spread to most of their neighbours.
 
Bumping this thread because I was thinking of making something similar but it hasn't been that long since this was started. In any case, I do like the idea of German revolutionaries making their way to Hungary and bolstering socialist forces there. I also imagine this would require Bela Kun to be less crazy and maybe not alienate his supporters. But having him still be around gives them a strong ally in the Soviet Union, given that Kun was pretty much Lenin's puppet. Assuming they can miraculously last (and who knows, maybe they could successfully grab a bit of land from their neighbors in that war they were fighting at the time?) I wonder what the ramifications would be for the rest of Europe with a new Soviet ally showing up and providing a new menace for Romania in particular.
 
Yes it can, but only if it's accompanied by a Red Germany (a good example of a TL w/ this kind of scenario is Zimmerwald1915's , Wir Sind Spartakus!).

@9 Fanged Hummingbird: I doubt that the Czechs, let alone the Poles, would allow German Revolutionaries to cross their borders into Hungary . Whatever aid can be provided to Hungary by the Spartacists will have to take other forms. Alternatively, you can create a scenario where Austria also goes through some successful post-war revolutionary upheaval, giving Soviet Hungary a border w/ yet another red state besides Slovakia.
 
In short no. Unless you can keep Lenins Boys from taking over.
This could tie into the whole Bela Kun not trying to be Robespierre 2.0 thing I mentioned before. Say he has less power or is willing to actually listen to sane people, maybe the communists don't alienate the social-democrats who helped them previously? Which I would assume mean no justification for the Lenin Boys to go around rounding people up. I would also assume it'd help not to have Tibor Szamuely around or in power.
 
In short no. Unless you can keep Lenins Boys from taking over.

I read a very good US account of Hungarian socialism in the early 20th century. It wasn't Lenin's Boys. Kun came in from Moscow as part of the general bolshevisation of the left revolutionary current.

But the most important point was the hardening of the left syndicalists in Hungary. It is pretty hard to avoid bolshevisation here because the left syndicalists were naturally placed to be substitutionalist—the urban workers movement in Hungary was isolated amongst a large feudal peasantry. The proletarianisation in the countryside was even less advanced than in Ukraine.

So basically in any scenario you're left with a red Budapest trying to control a large reactionary countryside. Who else is doing this with a firm organisation that's opposed to sell out social democrats? The bolsheviks.

Even with a German or Italian revolution where the Maximalists take control of the Social Democrats in 1917-1919, or the Maximalists kick out the pro-war social democrats as a rump lump, or where something like the KAPD ends up pulling the rest of the German left along—even with such a democratic revolution in central Europe, Hungary still has the serfdom problem.

yours,
Sam R.
 
i would say, that their actual fall would have nothing to do with the alienation of the SDP or the lenin boys and the overall radicalization - maybe later that would have made more or real problems and likely would have caused their fall - but the evacuation of upper hungary as the entente demanded. practicalyl at the moment they ordered the evacuation, the army and their power base simply vanished - officers, officials, common soldiers all were like: "fuck off, im out and you too".
 
The proletarianisation in the countryside was even less advanced than in Ukraine.

I do not really know, what you mean under this, but if you think, that the peasantry was reactionary - you are wrong. Of course, their demands were not realyl polticial ones, but tha vast masses of landless peasantry wanted one thing: land - from the big feudal latifundiums.
 
I don't see it happening. The reason they got into power was because they rejected the treaty of Trianon. That means they WILL fight the Romanians in Transilvania. The Hungarian army was in terrible, terrible shape, whilst the Romanian one had spent two years preparing for this moment.

Assuming the stars align and the Hungarians somehow stop the Romanians, the French might very well intervene with their forces in Serbia.
 
I've thought about it quite a bit, but I think it's just not feasible for them to survive in the long run, especially when Horthy makes a return with his loyalist troops and starts retaking the country.

While the Hungarian Reds did occupy a lot of territory fast, they were cut away from both Soviet Russia and the Bavarian SR, making their backing by said potential allies extremely difficult. The regime didn't have universal backing from the Hungarian populace, since it was installed in a coup. The puppet SR here in east Slovakia had even less sympathizers (though people in the big cities at first welcomed Red troops, but only because they mistook them for standard republican or royalist troops). The Reds were very heavy-handed in handling dissent. The Red Terror in Hungary didn't do them any favours. Also, several violent retalliatory actions against locals in Košice needlessly undermined the effectiveness of the occupation in east Slovakia and the survival of the SSR puppet. Given that Košice and Prešov were both strategic assets for the puppet state, pissing off the townspeople was an incredibly short-sighted move by the occupiers.

After Horthy's return with anti-Red troops to Hungary and the combined Entente and Czechoslovak Legions operations in Slovakia, defending the captured territory proved extremely difficult. The thing about the HSR and the puppet is that both were very provisional in their nature. Of the two, the HSR was a bit more organized, of course, but its overall state was still that of a country undergoing a revolution, not one with a finished consolidation of power and infrastructure in the hands of the new regime. Add to that the fact that Hungarian citizens were fed up with the regime within a mere few months and questioned its rise to power (coup, then the red terror against dissenters), and you've got a steadily decreasing approval rating for the regime.

There was a plausibility check thread about the Soviets sending help to the HSR - see here. Frankly, I think the Soviets had bigger fish to fry than help the HSR, mainly because of the inappropriate timing (the Russian Civil War was alive and well and from decided in 1919). Complicating matters even further, Kún despised Russian communists, since he regarded Russians as barbarians who didn't deserve communism and weren't ready for it. This further widened the gap in the HSR between those who were for an alliance with the Soviets and those who hawked self-reliance of the HSR. With such an amount of differences, it's no wonder the HSR was relatively easy prey for a counter-coup and loyalist retaking of the country.

I don't see it happening. The reason they got into power was because they rejected the treaty of Trianon. That means they WILL fight the Romanians in Transilvania. The Hungarian army was in terrible, terrible shape, whilst the Romanian one had spent two years preparing for this moment.

Assuming the stars align and the Hungarians somehow stop the Romanians, the French might very well intervene with their forces in Serbia.

That too. Thanks for bringing that up. :)

TBH, the HSR's main failings was that it wasn't diplomatically cunning enough, it acted arrogantly towards both its own citizens and foreign governments and it tried to do too many things at once (land grabs, collectivization, plans for spreading the revolution, etc.) without any realistic assesment of where and how they'd get their funds from and how they'd repair or replace their ramshackle military and economic infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it happening. The reason they got into power was because they rejected the treaty of Trianon. That means they WILL fight the Romanians in Transilvania. The Hungarian army was in terrible, terrible shape, whilst the Romanian one had spent two years preparing for this moment.

Assuming the stars align and the Hungarians somehow stop the Romanians, the French might very well intervene with their forces in Serbia.

The front line at that point were at the Tisza river - neither side could breach that line for the moment. The french intervention from serbia was a valid threat - for the record, that treat led to the evacuation - however, it seems that the french bluffed a little bit there - they had no intetntion for military moves. If that bluff had been called and the french did not intervened, the little entente and particullary the romanians would have been in big trouble in 1920.

And every army were in bad shape at that time.
 


Do you know, how many troops had Horthy? Well, they almost filled the casino at Szeged.... later practically the hungarian red army simply switched sides - that much they were indoctrinated towards communism.

As for the coup part, i would not really called that a coup - well, could, but its a little bit more complicated. Their legitimacy and support came from only one thing: they dared to resist the entente. Its true, that they underminded their own support with their methods, but as long as they are resisting the entente and somewhat succesfull in that, they are good. At the moment they give up - as in ATL - they are toast.

IMHO, as long as they are doing an Atatürk, and the French did not intervene, they are good.
Edit: but after a consolidation, even a "victorious" one (favorable borders and peace conditions) their only real power base - the army - would have turned upon them.
 
Last edited:
I do not really know, what you mean under this, but if you think, that the peasantry was reactionary - you are wrong. Of course, their demands were not realyl polticial ones, but tha vast masses of landless peasantry wanted one thing: land - from the big feudal latifundiums.

True. But the urban syndicalists who ended up converting to Bolshevism didn't understand land distribution, while the peasants weren't reactionary, the urban syndicalists wouldn't deal appropriately with the peasants in a long runs situation and you'd end up with a "Baby NEP" following the Russian party, or a very nasty forced collectivisation programme.

Mostly I'm suggesting that there weren't spontaneous rural movements of proletarians, like Makhno's. Not that the Bolsheviks dealt with rural workers any better than they dealt with rural peasants.

Sam.
 
The Reds and their coup gained some early sympathy for a simple reason : Hungary was fast losing additional parts of its long-held original territories and the shortly-lived Hungarian Democratic Republic that came into existence after the November armistice was really incompetent.

Mostly I'm suggesting that there weren't spontaneous rural movements of proletarians, like Makhno's. Not that the Bolsheviks dealt with rural workers any better than they dealt with rural peasants.

Yes.
 
True. But the urban syndicalists who ended up converting to Bolshevism didn't understand land distribution, while the peasants weren't reactionary, the urban syndicalists wouldn't deal appropriately with the peasants in a long runs situation and you'd end up with a "Baby NEP" following the Russian party, or a very nasty forced collectivisation programme.

Mostly I'm suggesting that there weren't spontaneous rural movements of proletarians, like Makhno's. Not that the Bolsheviks dealt with rural workers any better than they dealt with rural peasants.

Sam.

Makhno is a quite different story imho, i think, we should not make any comparement to him.

Collectivisation and the lack of land distribution (they distributed a very limited amount of land - practicalyl neglible) even on short term caused troubles for them. But as long as they maintain opposition against the entente, they could run with it (as a temporary solution). But after that, they would lost support from everyone like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74BzSTQCl_c

As OTL
 
Top