What if... Hungary post-1956

[Litvyak]

So, what if the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 had succeeded?

Politically, I personally see two possibilities:

More likely, non-aligned but socialist - so, naturally developing close ties with Yugoslavia. Very much a state of "armed neutrality" given Hungary's location.

Somewhat less likely, socialist (or, like, if not one-party socialist, then like, Sweden-style) yes, but in the end opting to join NATO.

Either one could be very interesting, I think!

[Frank3k]

I wonder if (in either scenario) they would have a mix of Soviet and NATO armor and aircraft. "Mig-15s for duty, F-86s for pleasure"

[upnorth]

I could see one of those real mixed bag type of defense forces coming out of this.

I could see the army with maybe some SOKO built Gazelles and maybe some SAAB stuff coming in for the air force.

This, of course, would not preclude use of Soviet or Czechoslovak built gear if it was desired.


If you really wanted to play with the scenario a bit more, suppose the Austrian State Treaty of 1955 had been more lenient with regards to armaments. Under the treaty conditions, Austria could not effectively defend its airspace due to treaty regulations which limited Austrian aircraft to guns only.

A more lenient 1955 Austrian State Treaty in combination with a successful 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the degraded state of relations between Yugoslavia and the USSR in the 1950s could have opened the door to a tri-national defense agreement between Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia. The historically close connections between Austria and Hungary would certainly aid in such an arrangement.

More lenient conditions in the 1955 treaty would likely have seen Austria take a serious fighter aircraft much sooner than they did. In the real timeline, they took second hand Saab 29s in the early 1960s and only took second hand Drakens in the mid 1980s.

1956 was when Yugoslavia took delivery of their fleet of Canadair Mk.4 Sabres; as such, a tri-national defense agreement precipitated in part by a successful Hungarian Revolution would be quite conveniently placed in a WHIFF timeline for both Austria and Hungary to get in on the same Sabre deal.

Presuming relations between Yugoslavia and the USSR do not get patched up in the 1960s, we'd see the three countries go shopping for a new fighter by the early to mid 1960s.

Realistically, I think they'd most likely get a load of F-104s and F-5s from Canadair as a lot of European countries did and end up with the F-16 or F/A-18 as a replacement.

From a WHIFF standpoint, Let's say SOKO gets a license to build Drakens for the three countries and that holds them for a respectable amount of time with respect to air defense. We all know, in a perfect world, the Saab Viggen did not get embargoed.

The three countries would most certainly have the SOKO G-2 Galeb as their standard jet trainer and it's single seat J-21 Jastreb variant for light attack. Logically, the G-4 Super Galeb would begin replacing them through the 1980s.

From the standpoint of light transport and utility, I think the Let L-410 Turbolet would not be out of the question.

Larger tactical transport would most likely come in the form of the C-160 Transall or the C-130 Hercules.


I'll stop there and go take a cold shower as I've worked myself up a bit. 

[Litvyak]

Ooh, I like the three-way idea with Yugoslavia and Austria!

Sabres would definitely make sense as a supplement/replacement for MiG-15s, though for a bit later, I'm very partial to the idea of F-4s with chevrons on! F-4Ds or F-4Fs, maybe? Perhaps a few "elite" squadrons operating the Phantoms, and some units to give the HunAF some 'bulk' with CF-5s...?

Galebs, Jastrebs and Super Galebs for sure... and if the development is shouldered by all three parties, perhaps Novi Avion as the Phantom replacement?

The L-410 is an attractive idea complemented by C-130s, and I'm seeing Malev with an odd-bag mix of Tridents, An-24/26, Mercures and VC10s...

[Weaver]

Yugoslavia was a partner in the J-22 Orao project with Romania, which probably wouldn't happen in this scenario. Since the Orao was basically a mini-Jaguar, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Yugoslav/Hungarian/Austrian bloc might do a deal with SEPECAT whereby they get some Jags off the production line then gradually assemble more and more of the aircraft themselves, in a similar manner to the Indian deal.

And/or

I wonder if they'd be up for the Harrier? A short-range, survivably based close support/strike aircraft might be attractive to them, given that they're up-close and personal with the potential aggressor.

[Litvyak]

Ooh, Weaver, you just gave me a very nice mental image - Phantoms and Harriers side by side in the 1948-49 HunAF roundels:

[Old Wombat]

So, what you're looking at here is an alliance of most of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire (minus Czechoslovakia). As an alliance of equals it might work but there was still a lot of bitterness between many of these relatively newly independent states which may have caused some friction. Still, let's forget or minimise that bit.

If we keep looking at them as non-aligned socialist states, that opens up an intereting (to me) possibility.

What about a successful Prague Spring in 1968 adding to this alliance, so you now have the entire former Austro-Hungarian Empire brought together for mutual support as equals?

With the Czech & Austrian industrial bases to work from, & a fairly decent input from Hungary, too, this alliance could then start producing its own aircraft, armour &, even, ships! Possibly exporting them to other non-aligned nations (eg: India, Finland) & elsewhere (Africa, Middle East, etc.).

:)

Guy

[Rickshaw]

You'd have to find a reason for the Soviets not intervening for this to work.  As in RL, they aren't going to sit idly by and watch an independent state in their "sphere of influence".   Either they have to let Hungary go or the West must try and intervene and neither is likely.  The West would be too scared of provoking another European war (and basically wasn't really equipped to intervene on such short notice).

I cannot see Hungary being allowed to join NATO nor NATO really being interested in having a single state disconnected from the rest of the alliance (and not on the seaboard).   I'd be another "flashpoint Berlin" but this time a whole country, too far away to be defended and too weak to defend itself.

Nor can I see Hungary, Jugoslavia and Romania being allowed to ally with each other to be a potential rallying point in Eastern Europe against Soviet Hegemony.

[Old Wombat]

Well, you'd obviously have to come up with a good reason for the USSR not to step in & crush them as they did.

Any ideas?

Some vague possibilities:
1) China & the Soviet Union had become antagonistic by this time, so what if the 1969 hostilities occurred earlier, in 1968, & on a larger scale (but falling short of nuclear), thus the USSR had massed a large portion of their military in their eastern provinces & were unable to move sufficient troops into Czechoslovakia to reverse the anti-Russian upswell?
2) 1968 revolts in the south western Muslim states seeking independence in line with their Middle Eastern neighbours? The Soviet reaction would have been pretty strong, as these are their major POL regions, perhaps drawing sufficient resources away from Europe for the Prague Spring to gain momentum & succeed.
3) Perhaps a combination of both of the above?
4) In 1956? Perhaps an earlier Sino-Soviet conflict? Or the West actually backing up its radio incitement to revolt with (at least) a major show of force? Dug-out Doug made SACEUR 1951-1957, instead of being relieved of command in SEA (a Truman compromise to remove him from his comfort zone)?



Guy

[upnorth]

You'd have to find a reason for the Soviets not intervening for this to work.  As in RL, they aren't going to sit idly by and watch an independent state in their "sphere of influence".   Either they have to let Hungary go or the West must try and intervene and neither is likely.  The West would be too scared of provoking another European war (and basically wasn't really equipped to intervene on such short notice).

I cannot see Hungary being allowed to join NATO nor NATO really being interested in having a single state disconnected from the rest of the alliance (and not on the seaboard).   I'd be another "flashpoint Berlin" but this time a whole country, too far away to be defended and too weak to defend itself.

Nor can I see Hungary, Jugoslavia and Romania being allowed to ally with each other to be a potential rallying point in Eastern Europe against Soviet Hegemony.

This is why we're talking about neutrality rather than alignment.

Presuming the tri-national agreement of Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia I outlined earlier is how it goes, the established and dedicated neutrality of Austria could be the anchor point and primary influence over the region's military doctrine.

As long as they adhered to a strictly defensive philosophy with negligible offensive capability, their collective neutrality and independence would stand a chance of being respected.

Even if not aligned with NATO, the region would have pretty much its entire western and southern exposures in direct contact with NATO territories via Germany, Italy, Greece and Turkey.  I suspect the only result would be nothing more serious than a bit of an increase in Cold War sabre rattling.

On the other hand, if the three countries actively supported the 1968 Prague Spring, that would very likely bring the Soviet boot down on them as it would indicate an offensive capability in their military.

So long as they couldn't mount or aid an invasion; I think they'd likely be, if begrudgingly, left alone. The trade off being that it would mean more neutral ground for summits and negotiations between east and west to take place in.

Getting the neutrality accepted and respected would be mainly an issue of getting the bureaucracy right.

[Weaver]

Some of my "Napkinwaffe" builds belong to a vaguely consistent, but not well-worked out, timeline in which Germany stages a 1918-style late come-back in 1945 with the aid of it's new toys, which only ends with the nuking of Berlin. The western allies respond fairly smartly to this because they're not that far behind in practical terms, but it hits the Soviets proportionally much worse, leaving them in a far weaker post-war position in Eastern Europe (principally, they get knocked back almost to the Polish border and western forces take and hold much of "East Germany"). In the post-war settlement, the Western allies then manage to get Czechoslovakia declared a treaty-bound non-aligned "buffer" state similar to Austria, which leads the Czech aircraft industry to an interesting degree of inovation and self-reliance, initially based on left-overs that had formerly been produced in their country for the Germans.

You could adapt this background or a similar one to allow a successful Hungarian Revolution in '56. For instance, you could say that in the ten years after the war, the weakened Soviets face uprisings/opposition of varying degrees in just about ALL of their western satellites, from the Baltic states to the Ukraine (there was armed anti-Soviet resistance in the latter for many years after the war in real life), and the effort of putting all of these down is just too much for them to win every time. They either lose Hungary by not being able to commit enough forces, or they simply give it up as too difficult when they're still struggling to keep Ukraine/Poland/Baltic states under control.

[Old Wombat]

Hungary wasn't left alone in 1956, just as Czechoslovakia wasn't in 1968 (nor 1948). The Soviets wanted these border nations under their control, end of story.

However, if they were too heavily occupied elsewhere, perhaps these socialist revolts could have succeeded, with the nations becoming "non-aligned" or neutral socialist (or "soft" communist) states to appease the Soviets, & allied together to strengthen their hand in assuring their neutrality.

And, in my proposal, I didn't suggest they supported the Prague Spring but, rather, accepted Czechoslovakia into the fold after the fact.

:)

Guy

PS: Weaver, interesting idea! Another option would be the Soviets regaining eastern Germany but at the cost of pulling all their troops up from Czechoslovakia in a (costly?) flanking assault, thereby leaving the western allies (Patton being headstrong again?) able to walk into Czechoslovakia. Which would give more impetus to the idea of abandonning Hungary in 1956 to remove the "dagger" of Czechoslovakia penetrating their borders.

[Litvyak]

The Hungarians did win, though. At first. And expelled the Soviets.

The only real reason they had the courage to go back after a few weeks was that by then, that Suez idiocy had started, and the West was distracted. Without that, they're still watching Hungary during those key-est time that Nagy's government needs to consolidate and for other countries starting to recognise Hungarian neutrality.

[Old Wombat]

The Hungarians did win, though. At first. And expelled the Soviets.

Point is they weren't left alone! If the Sov's had been too busy elsewhere and/or NATO had provided a stand-off force to "protect Hungary's newly won neutrality", then it might have worked in the long term but they weren't & they didn't.

Thus, we need a reason for the Soviets to stay out of Hungary (& Czechoslovakia  )!

:)

Guy

[Litvyak]

That's what I was getting at - if no Suez, the West isn't distracted...

[Old Wombat]

Ah! Now I get it!

I'll just add that to the list.

Some vague possibilities:
1) China & the Soviet Union had become antagonistic by this time, so what if the 1969 hostilities occurred earlier, in 1968, & on a larger scale (but falling short of nuclear), thus the USSR had massed a large portion of their military in their eastern provinces & were unable to move sufficient troops into Czechoslovakia to reverse the anti-Russian upswell?
2) 1968 revolts in the south western Muslim states seeking independence in line with their Middle Eastern neighbours? The Soviet reaction would have been pretty strong, as these are their major POL regions, perhaps drawing sufficient resources away from Europe for the Prague Spring to gain momentum & succeed.
3) Perhaps a combination of both of the above?
4) (From Litvyak) No Suez Crisis 1956, so NATO are not distracted & support Hungary with a major show of force (now my bit) but, despite their best attempts, are unable to convince them to join NATO - they form the Non-Aligned States Co-operative Organisation (NASCO) with Yugoslavia & Austria instead.
5) In 1956? Perhaps an earlier Sino-Soviet conflict? Or the West actually backing up its radio incitement to revolt with (at least) a major show of force? Dug-out Doug made SACEUR 1951-1957, instead of being relieved of command in SEA (a Truman compromise to remove him from his comfort zone)?

:)

Guy

Note: My bit is added to Litvyak's because I don't think the Soviets would have stood for Hungary joining NATO, neutrality it could live with (just) but not an increase in NATO. At least not until the 1990's. The same goes for my later Czechoslovakia suggestion.

[upnorth]

The west did put itself in a sticky situation with Suez in that they couldn't very well denounce Soviet interference in Hungary, as long as Britain and France were interfering in Egypt, without coming off as complete hypocrites.

What must also be kept in mind is that the reformist Imre Nagy was trying to drive Hungary towards internationally recognized neutrality during the revolution. Important, in light of the direction our WHIFF discussion is going, is that Nagy was given safe haven in the Yugoslav embassy when the revolution was crushed.

If Yugoslavia, or another sympathetic country, had granted Nagy asylum and moved him out of Hungary instead of letting him be captured and subsequently executed by the Soviets, then perhaps he would receive recognition as a "President in exile" type figure, remaining alive to remind the world of what happened and keep Hungarian resolve alive.

He was popular with the people and no doubt could have done much from an exiled position to keep global attention on Hungary's situation. 

Politically, keeping Nagy alive and finding a way to take Matyas Rakosi out of the picture before he could undermine Nagy as he did could be something of a game changer in itself.

[Frank3k]

For armor, Hungary had their own tanks in WWII, in addition to German, Italian and Swedish vehicles. I don't know how a 1930's vintage Toldi would have fared against T-34s, but a quick infusion of vehicles bought from neutral-ish Sweden could have included some interesting vehicles.