WI: Hungarian 1956 Revolution more successful?

[Old Airman]

The Soviet leadership greatly feared fraternization between the Hungarian rebels and their own soldiers, which is why the formations they sent to deal with the situation were so tank-heavy.

It would be an interesting ATL if it was true, but Soviets didn't fear fraternization between rightist communist-killing rebels and it's own brainwashed (I'm not negative here, am just making the point that Soviet peoples of the day were still very influenced by the propaganda, nihilism of late 70s was still 2 decades away) soldiery. They sent tanks for exactly the same reason riot police uses armour against lightly armed rebels all other the world. The damn thing works.

It's hard for the Red Army conscripts to hear "brothers, who are you shooting" through steel, after all.

If there was a part of Communist ideology long dead by 1956, it was "international brotherhood of proletarians". Soviets believed in Proletarian Internationalism in 1941 (memoirs are teeming with references how Red Army soldiers tried to explain to German POWs that they're fighting brothers on on order of Capitalist Pigs), but WWII cured it. In 1956 communist-lynching rebels are "imperialist mercs" at best (a captured mercenary could be spared, as "we are all human and understand that sometimes one is paid to do a dirty jobs"), "fascist gangs" at worst ("fascists" had to be destroyed on the spot).

OTL saw Soviet soldiers executed for refusing to fire on Hungarian protesters after the Revolution and according to the Wiki, many Soviet soldiers in-country were sympathetic to the rebels.

Never over-estimate wiki's ability to paint deeply distorted anti-communist and russophobic picture (and, as far as 1956 is concerned, those two tendencies are working in smooth unison). They might be right in this particular case, but I would not count on it.

The Wiki describes lynchings of Communists during the revolt, but not impaling. That'd be weird enough to merit specific mention.

To be honest with you, I've only seen a mention of impaling in memoirs of some Andropov's confidante. The guy repeats Andropov's statement that it were impalings in 1956 Budapest which solidified his hardline approach. Now, Andropov could spice the stew a bit (calling innocent hanging, stabbing or beating to death "an impaling"), or the author could or the wiki article (which simply ignores almost everything not coming from emigre Hungarian claims made in the heat of Cold War) could paint a slightly rosier picture of rebels.

Just for a minute, let us imagine this scenario. Ike does the unthinkable. He decides that he must be the saviour of the oppressed Hungarians.

This is as close to WWIII as I can imagine. Remember, there're several Soviet divisions in Hungary at this point. Even war dodger Reagan did not risk military involvement in situation like this (Poland pre-military rule). It would be unreasonable to expect war vet Ike (who knows what war means from the personal experience, not from propaganda movie) to start something like this. You need another rear-lolling president (like Truman before Ike or LBJ after Kennedy) for that.
By the way, it is interesting that in modern times POTUSes with combat experience were mostly "dovish" and ones who never were close than 100 mile to a frontline (Truman, LBJ, Bush Jr.) were the biggest warmongers. It is pretty natural, in a sense, but it begs the question. WI some war dodger was a POTUS during Berlin Wall events? and, on the flip side, imagine a vet in White House in 1950, 1965, 2001. Would there be Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq wars?

 

[freivolk]

It would be an interesting ATL if it was true, but Soviets didn't fear fraternization between rightist communist-killing rebels and it's own brainwashed (I'm not negative here, am just making the point that Soviet peoples of the day were still very influenced by the propaganda, nihilism of late 70s was still 2 decades away) soldiery. They sent tanks for exactly the same reason riot police uses armour against lightly armed rebels all other the world. The damn thing works.
If there was a part of Communist ideology long dead by 1956, it was "international brotherhood of proletarians". Soviets believed in Proletarian Internationalism in 1941 (memoirs are teeming with references how Red Army soldiers tried to explain to German POWs that they're fighting brothers on on order of Capitalist Pigs), but WWII cured it. In 1956 communist-lynching rebels are "imperialist mercs" at best (a captured mercenary could be spared, as "we are all human and understand that sometimes one is paid to do a dirty jobs"), "fascist gangs" at worst ("fascists" had to be destroyed on the spot).
Never over-estimate wiki's ability to paint deeply distorted anti-communist and russophobic picture (and, as far as 1956 is concerned, those two tendencies are working in smooth unison). They might be right in this particular case, but I would not count on it.
To be honest with you, I've only seen a mention of impaling in memoirs of some Andropov's confidante. The guy repeats Andropov's statement that it were impalings in 1956 Budapest which solidified his hardline approach. Now, Andropov could spice the stew a bit (calling innocent hanging, stabbing or beating to death "an impaling"), or the author could or the wiki article (which simply ignores almost everything not coming from emigre Hungarian claims made in the heat of Cold War) could paint a slightly rosier picture of rebels.
This is as close to WWIII as I can imagine. Remember, there're several Soviet divisions in Hungary at this point. Even war dodger Reagan did not risk military involvement in situation like this (Poland pre-military rule). It would be unreasonable to expect war vet Ike (who knows what war means from the personal experience, not from propaganda movie) to start something like this. You need another rear-lolling president (like Truman before Ike or LBJ after Kennedy) for that.
By the way, it is interesting that in modern times POTUSes with combat experience were mostly "dovish" and ones who never were close than 100 mile to a frontline (Truman, LBJ, Bush Jr.) were the biggest warmongers. It is pretty natural, in a sense, but it begs the question. WI some war dodger was a POTUS during Berlin Wall events? and, on the flip side, imagine a vet in White House in 1950, 1965, 2001. Would there be Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq wars?

Wasn´t Truman 1918 at the Western front.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Saving South Korea from Kim Il Sung's invasion as approved by the United Nations makes Truman a warmonger?

And it was JFK, a decorated veteran, who got the US into Vietnam by first deploying combat troops and then allowing the murder of an allied head of state which plunged South Vietnam into chaos.






Since no ally of the US even had a land border with Hungary, imagining Ike intervening militarily is pure ASB territory. Was he supposed to unleash the secret jetpack divisions?

 

[MerryPrankster]

This is as close to WWIII as I can imagine. Remember, there're several Soviet divisions in Hungary at this point. Even war dodger Reagan did not risk military involvement in situation like this (Poland pre-military rule). It would be unreasonable to expect war vet Ike (who knows what war means from the personal experience, not from propaganda movie) to start something like this. You need another rear-lolling president (like Truman before Ike or LBJ after Kennedy) for that.

Reagan applied to serve in the Pacific Theater and was rejected for poor eyesight. You know, the Pacific Theater where the Japanese typically did not surrender and liked to commit atrocities against (American) POWs.

The "chickenhawk card" isn't going to work with Reagan.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Never over-estimate wiki's ability to paint deeply distorted anti-communist and russophobic picture (and, as far as 1956 is concerned, those two tendencies are working in smooth unison). They might be right in this particular case, but I would not count on it.?

I got the bit about executing soldiers who would not fire on protesters from the Reader's Digest great events of the 20th Century book, which is basically a gigantic collection of newspaper clippings.

It didn't come from Wikipedia.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Wasn´t Truman 1918 at the Western front.

Yes, he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#World_War_I

 

[BigWillyG]

I got the bit about executing soldiers who would not fire on protesters from the Reader's Digest great events of the 20th Century book, which is basically a gigantic collection of newspaper clippings.

It didn't come from Wikipedia.

I've also seen that in Thompson's "War in Peace" which covers post-WWII conflicts through the time it was published. He also puts in the bit about the early T-34 equipped tank units being removed due to a mix of fraternization and heavy loses in the street fighting.

 

[BigWillyG]

I'm wondering could 1956 expand outside Hungary? One way I could see it succeeding is if you end up with a kind of 1848 "Springtime of the Peoples" leading to a WarPac civil war between Eastern European rebel states and the Soviet Union proper. No idea what that would lead to but it sounds like it would be messy.

 

[Cook]

I'm wondering could 1956 expand outside Hungary? One way I could see it succeeding is if you end up with a kind of 1848 "Springtime of the Peoples" leading to a WarPac civil war between Eastern European rebel states and the Soviet Union proper. No idea what that would lead to but it sounds like it would be messy.

This is why the Soviets would never have let the Hungarian uprising be successful. They may not have called it the domino effect but you can bet that they’d know that if they let Hungary fall then Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania would be out the door in no time. The whole Warsaw Pact could collapse!

Remember that in 1956 the Soviets believed that the tide of history was with them; anyone that didn’t agree must be a counter revolutionary, imperialist and possibly even a fascist. The ideas of such people were a threat to the people’s revolution and could not be tolerated.

 

[Old Airman]

Wasn´t Truman 1918 at the Western front.

He was. Shame on me However, he could be the very exception which proves the rule. Besides, something smells wrong in claim that he was fighting Germans for months and not a single person from his unit died. I'm used to claims about mighty heroes killing hordes of Russians with a single swing of their mighty dick. But Truman was fighting Germans.

Saving South Korea from Kim Il Sung's invasion as approved by the United Nations makes Truman a warmonger?

Saving S. Ossetians from Georgian shelling made Putin warmonger. Saving Kambodians from Khmer Rouge made Vietnamese aggressors. So why shouldn't saving Koreans make Truman one?

And it was JFK, a decorated veteran, who got the US into Vietnam by first deploying combat troops and then allowing the murder of an allied head of state which plunged South Vietnam into chaos.

See, that's the distinction I was talking about. JFK, while recognizing necessity to stop communist takeover of the region, was extremely careful and tried to insert as few troops as possible. LBJ just jumped into the bloody mess head first. Besides, I'm not sure that Kennedy is to blame for intra-vietnamese jockeying for right to plunder the country.

Since no ally of the US even had a land border with Hungary, imagining Ike intervening militarily is pure ASB territory. Was he supposed to unleash the secret jetpack divisions?

Theoretically, they could fly through Austrian airspace.

Reagan applied to serve in the Pacific Theater and was rejected for poor eyesight.

I believe that he perfectly knew about his eyesight problems at this point, which made the whole application thingy little more than publicity stunt.

The "chickenhawk card" isn't going to work with Reagan.

I'm not questioning his personal bravery. It is just that, due to his life circumstances, he didn't see war and death up close, so his decisions in the matter weren't based on personal experience. He didn't know what death and destruction smell like, so he was always ready to play with that (remember "Nuking" quip?).

 

[Lokari]

They may not have called it the domino effect but you can bet that they’d know that if they let Hungary fall then Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania would be out the door in no time. The whole Warsaw Pact could collapse!

Postpone the June 1956 riots in Poland till October and have Khrushchev reject Gomulka and you have a Polish revolt as well.
Not to say it wouldn't be crushed.
Funny thing is though that the situation could escalate in such a way that Khrushchev would be imprisoned in Warsaw.

If you could also postpone the March riots in Georgia till October, then the SU would have a whole different nightmare scenario on its hands.

 

[Cook]

Postpone the June 1956 riots in Poland till October and have Khrushchev reject Gomulka and you have a Polish revolt as well.
Not to say it wouldn't be crushed.
Funny thing is though that the situation could escalate in such a way that Khrushchev would be imprisoned in Warsaw.

If you could also postpone the March riots in Georgia till October, then the SU would have a whole different nightmare scenario on its hands.

If you had simultaneous rebellions in several Soviet client states the result wouldn’t be lighter, it would be a massive and crushing crackdown across the board. The Soviet leadership would be seeing counter revolutionaries under every bed.

 

[Lokari]

If you had simultaneous rebellions in several Soviet client states the result wouldn’t be lighter, it would be a massive and crushing crackdown across the board.

A lot of was happening in 1956. I wonder if there was also a split in Soviet Party.
Could a massive uprising in EE and Sino-Soviet Split lead to an internal coup against Khrushchev ?

It seems there was something like that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group

With such chaos, the Soviets could present such a weak image that some hawks would be tempted to exploit that.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Truman was in the artillery, part of the service less likely to face direct combat then most, especially before air power became important. By definition if your artillery is under direct attack then the enemy has broken through your lines and...


Old Airman, there's a huge difference between Hanoi's invasion and extended occupation of Cambodia and the United Nations defending South Korea. Also the Khmer Rouge was supported and treated as friend and ally for more than a decade by (North) Vietnam, then invaded solely due to the spat between China-Cambodia and USSR-Vietnam.

If humanitarian concerns had existed the new puppet regime would not have consisted entirely of members of the Khmer Rouge.


You're also wrong about Vietnam. JFK increased from a few hundred advisors under Ike to 44,000 combat troops, then allowed the murder of an allied head of state which plunged South Vietnam into chaos. Had he lived his choices following the results of Diem's murder were massive escalation or abandoning South Vietnam having actively aided and abetted a North Vietnamese victory.

As JFK was the author of the largest US peace time military build-up, the largest nuclear arsenal expansion ever and gave the CIA more freedom to act and more powerful weapons(including nuclear capable bombers!) than any other president it isn't hard to guess what his choice would have been.

 

[MerryPrankster]

About Truman and artillery, what about counter-battery fire? He may be far from the front lines, but the enemy has artillery too.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Funny thing is though that the situation could escalate in such a way that Khrushchev would be imprisoned in Warsaw.

A simultaneous Polish-Hungarian rising with the General Secretary of the Communist Party held hostage by the rebels?

Oh my.

 

[Old Airman]

A simultaneous Polish-Hungarian rising with the General Secretary of the Communist Party held hostage by the rebels?

Oh my.

Yeah, interesting scenario. Soviets would crush it too (Unlike Hungary, Poland has substantial pro-Soviet fraction in it's armed and security forces, so "uprising" does not mean combined military capability of two countries against Soviets), but it would be quite spectacular show.

 

[Dementor]

Old Airman, there's a huge difference between Hanoi's invasion and extended occupation of Cambodia and the United Nations defending South Korea. Also the Khmer Rouge was supported and treated as friend and ally for more than a decade by (North) Vietnam, then invaded solely due to the spat between China-Cambodia and USSR-Vietnam.

If humanitarian concerns had existed the new puppet regime would not have consisted entirely of members of the Khmer Rouge.

The difference between the two was that there was an opposing power in the Korean war. The UN forces had occupied almost all of North Korea by the time the Chinese intervened and had no intention to stop or leave so the situation is entirely similar.
Also, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was not caused by the spat between China and Vietnam, it had more to do with the extremely belligerent attitude of the Khmer rouge against Vietnam which included the extermination and expulsion of most Vietnamese in Cambodia and armed incursions in Vietnamese territory which included the massacres of whole villages. So under international law Vietnam was perfectly justified in its invasion. The ten year occupation is a different thing but considering that China continued to support the Khmer rouge and that it was from defeated, certainly an argument could be made that a restoration of a Khmer Rouge Cambodia was quite possible if they withdrew. Again, this is similar to the Korean war, where the overthrow of the North Korean government was justified on similar lines.

 

[chris N]

The is indication from several new books that have come out about the Hungarian Revolution that the was a division within the Soviet leadership on how to respond to the revolution in Hungary. Several factors allowed the hardliners to gain control of what should be done; 1) Failure of the Hungarian military to totally rally behind the new Hungarian Government and 2) failure of the west to respond strongly to the Uprising by granting official recognition to the government and warning the Soviets to leave matters alone. The Eisenhower administration sent mixed signals urging the people to act and promising support but then not following through.
The is indication that if the US and the west had responded the Soviets would have backed down as they were not willing to start WWIII over the matter.

 

[SeanPdineen]

What if Yugoslavia, helped Nagy?
Ike may not have wanted war but JFD bellived in Roleback.
Get Yugos, on our side, and look out.