When Hungarians make the effort in 1956 to establish a government free from the influences of the Warsaw Pact, they assumed they would have US support in the event of a revolution. Instead, the Hungarians were easily crushed by the Warsaw Pact troops, and American aid never came.
What, then, can we derive the US position to be in terms of assisting other countries in their independence movements from the Soviet Union? Why were they more willing to intervene in Vietnam than Hungary?
well in the reading it says that "it was highly unlikely that the United States would send troops in to support the nascent democratic state and threaten Soviet Security. On the other hand, the spirit of democracy was heartily supported in the exhortations of the Hungarians' most consistent access to the USA; RFE" However, the democratic spirit was only mostly being projected to the Americans while Khrushchev was originally a member of the communist party making it more likely that America would opt out of getting involved whereas the very purpose of the Vietnam war was to fight against democracy instead of just independence. everyone agreed within the UN that The north ought to be stopped invading the South in Vietnam. In the case of the Hungarian Uprising, however, not everyone was in support of their movement, particularly those attached to the Warsaw Pact.
ReplyDeleteI think the US did not see Hungary as too much of a threat in comparison to places like Vietnam. The article details that in the eyes of the Soviets, Hungary was a sovereign state and "should be allowed to determine its own political future." Therefore, if there is not much Soviet influence over Hungary, then the US does not see it as a significant threat. Not wanting to "threaten Soviet security," the US sees not interfering as a safe move. Also, the article brings up the point that "the Americans made it clear that they would not use force to assist independence from the Soviet sphere, but would encourage peaceful evolution."
ReplyDeleteThe reason why the US held of in Hungary is because there was soviet troops. that would mean US troops fighting soviet troops. In Vietnam there was the Vietnamese troops against the US troops. fighting in Hungary would mean the confrontation between the US and USSR would become real and world war III would of started. Hungary thought we would come to their aid due to that fact that we had been to their aid and the FRE also gave the hungarians reason to expect US aid.the US government did not want to endanger their security in order to help another country that was "aligned" with Russia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mikey. This goes back to that day in class when I mentioned the US and USSR did not go to war with each other because of MAD. The US and USSR are both way too powerful and it would be too big of a war. This is different than Vietnam because the US did not want anything to do with the Soviet sphere. Also, the US interfering may have made the problem bigger than it actually was.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Vietnam, Hungary had soviet troops on the ground. While the American and more broad democratic mentality of resisting communism at every chance was certainly still present. But the fact the actual soviet soldier were there would mean that if the US sent its own troops to fight the soviets, russia would not be too happy to say the least. With M.A.D. a possible outcome of the US and The Soviets getting in a serious conflict, then letting some hungarians die in the name of democracy was small change as far as the US was concerned, and all honesty the rest of the world as well.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mikey summed things up fairly well. If we fought in hungary, this means that the conflict between the United States and USSR would enhance and quite possibly get so out of hand, that a world war three might start which is the absolute last thing we want. When MAD was a quite plausible outcome of us and the USSR, not coming to the aid of the Hungarians was probably the better decision.
ReplyDeleteThe US was against the Soviet Union, but they had the foresight, as Mikey said, to prevent WWIII. With two superpowers fighting in total war, there would inevitably be the biggest war in the history of the world, with the nuclear threat involved. The US still wanted to be involved in the affairs of other countries though, as seen in Vietnam, but they knew to stay away from the Soviet Union in direct conflict.
ReplyDeleteFighting in hungary could have potentially worsened relations between the US and USSR, who were already rivals. The US was essentially preventing WWIII by staying out of Hungary, unlike their actions in Vietnam, which not to mention, caused a lot of problems. In the article it mentions that Hungary should have the right to "determine its own political future", (just as I believe all countries should.)
ReplyDeleteAs Jack said, the US was smart enough not to directly get involved in conflict with the Soviet Union. Any kind of direct conflict would inevitably turn into World War III. A war in Hungary would have surely have lead to direct conflict.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear more about your theories Mitchell
DeleteVietnam was different than Hungary. It is true that the US got involved in almost any country that was "threatened" by becoming communistic. But lots of these actions were meant to help oppressed inhabitants of that country - officially. Putting up against the Warsaw Pact would have meant an open contradiction to the Soviet Union. No matter how strongly the US wanted to fight communism, it wasn't worth it to start a war. In Vietnam, the US could walk away at any time.
ReplyDelete