Anybody else flabbergasted by the fact that so many communists opposed the Soviet invasion of Hungary to put down the...

It's also worth noting that the accusation of the uprising being instigated by foreign agents (ie CIA) isn't true. The CIA had no infrastructure in Hungary, and after 1953 it was no longer US policy to instigate these kinds of uprisings.

Oh? Please specify when the Soviet Union was dissolved, then the date Yugoslavia was Balkanized, and the date socialism fell in Albania.

By that point 20th century socialism was coming down literally everywhere. Closer relations between a handfull of countries wouldn't have changed that.

it was already over when gorbachev came to power

Unlike the Czech revolt of 1968, which can be explained by social unrest caused by revisionism allowing liberals to gain a foothold (and thus allow Western agencies to insert their assets to influence the youth), the Hungarian revolt is nothing more than a pathetic fascist uprising. Making excuses for them is pathetic especially when you statr researching the terrible things those 'revolutionaries' did. To put it mildly they performed remarkable imitations of nazi occupation tactics, hanging random civil servants from telephone poles, or trussing them up on trees by their legs and beating and burning them to death, like the KKK did with negroes. The reason for this fascist revolt was because of Khruschev's amnesty after Stalin's death and after the political conflict following it had cooled down. He released dozens of gulag prisoners from across the USSR and warsaw pact, whom included war-criminals, political dissidents and nazi-collaborators. These people were swiftly caught in the USSR itself when they attempted similar agitation for coups, but in places like Hungary, with its former alliance with Germany and the recently de-kulakized upper-class still around these agitations gained enough support to launch this coup, hiding, behind a veil of liberal "democracy". The majority of fighting was Hungarians vs Hungarians, the soviets mainly isolated the areas of conflict and assisted but did not engage them unless engaged first, that was the policy of approach.

Literally the other way around. Dubcek was calling for liberalizing the economy, Nagy wasn't. The uprising happened because pre-1956 Hungary is a perfect example of how not to build socialism. Even Kadar and the Soviets publicly admitted that Rakosi's retardation caused the uprising.
They didn't lynch random civil servants, they lynched local officials and politician associated with the regime they were rebelling against, shit that happens in any popular uprising. Do you think the Bolsheviks didn't kill Tsarist officials?
The uprising wasn't led by kulaks, it was led by industrial workers. Even the Soviet politburo acknowledges this fact, and that the workers supported the uprising. Read the Malin Notes.
Except they weren't calling for liberal democracy, they were calling for proletarian democracy, which was sorely lacking under Rakosi.
No it wasn't. The Hungarian military and police defected to the insurgents en masse, to the point where the Soviet Union scrapped all plans for joint operations with them. They were completely unreliable. Only the AVH stayed loyal.

Three systems that wouldn't exist without Soviet socialism, two that collapsed with it and two that also needed western Capitalism to exist. When your Socialism fits capitalist hegemony it's time to rethink things.

Because they knew Nagy was only there to open the door for other political tendencies. Nobody wanted *him*. Radio Free Europe, which was central in promoting and coordinating the rebellion, commited a slight faux pas - that I see to this day being condemned all over western news and academia - by encouraging the "freedom fighters" to ditch Nagy altogether for being a commie and wait for József Mindszenty instead. If the revolution had lasted, Nagy would be remembered of as nothing more than a reverse Kerensky. Or maybe he'd be smart and we'd now remember him as a Walesa.

This passage from a memoir of someone involved in the protests is telling:

Lmao no, this is super wrong. What every piece of evidence say is that Hungary dodged a bullet by the US being caught by surprise. Other than the obvious propaganda tools like Radio Free Europe, the US did have anti-communist cells in the entire Soviet bloc as well. This page here mentions that and even talks about how the CIA was pressing hard to be able to airdrop arms to the rebels:
books.google.com.br/books?id=w2J8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT325

Besides that, and for those saying "but Nagy was a communist!", this piece is relevant.
National Security Council, NSC 174, Draft 'United States Policy Toward The Soviet Satellites In Eastern Europe'
digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112620.pdf?v=97cbc146024028131cc913cf0cdd3aac
Which states, under the "Course of Action" header:
20. Encourage democratic, anti-communist elements in the satellites; but at the same time be prepared to exploit any Titoist tendencies, and to assist "national communist" movements under favorable conditions, making clear, as appropriate, that opportunities for survival exist outside the Soviet bloc. (8-16, 41)
It also makes explicit reference to the existence of CIA-controled cells in the Soviet Bloc. And it's a fucking US national security document so don't come at me with your "oh you ☭TANKIE☭s and your CIA" faggotry

IDK lads. Maybe I'm cynical but what the Chinese break with the Communist Bloc did to the possibility of Socialism within our lifetimes, but that combined with the things I've quoted above, I kind of wish they'd have stayed alive by any means necessary. The Soviet state wasn't meant to become autocratic and authoritarian in its inception, it was made so as a response to a pattern of systemic aggression by the imperialist encirclement. There's a reason for its political degeneration, which is indeed a sad thing. And since whites, liberals, fascists and alphabet soups were always cheering, supporting and arming these new, cool, edgy, non-orthodox, non-authoritarian Socialists WITHIN the Soviet republics, and murdering them everywhere else, makes me wonder that they invariably perceive them as good opportunities. And they're right. Unfortunately left-wing people with good intentions have fucked up established Socialist movements and governments badly in the past.

Yes they did, no major group made any demands for him to leave office.
And yet none of them did.
If you know the context of it then it's not at all. The Hungarians demanded neutrality, and when the Soviets launched the second invasion on November 1st they appealed to the UN for help. They were hoping for help from abroad only after the Soviets launched their second attack.
RFE was literally all they had. They had no agents in the country, and hardly any agents at all who spoke Hungarian.
Them wanting to airdrop the rebels weapons after the uprising began doesn't mean they instigated the uprising, only that they thought it could be useful.
First off, "in the Soviet bloc" doesn't mean Hungary. Second, you're using the fact that the West opportunistically supported dissident leftist movements in the Soviet bloc means that those movements were themselves reactionary. The fact is that the US would have exploited any division in the USSR, much like Imperial Germany opportunistically supported the Bolsheviks.

My post already addressed all of those

Sources I quoted say otherwise

Sticking head in the sand, besides that both texts make reference to anti-communist cells

My god, you guys aaaalways talk about that to justify your divide-and-conquer movements. Every. Single. Time. The difference is that Tsarist Russia wasn't a shot at worldwide Socialism, the Soviet Union was.

Now go find something interesting to say or quote, alright? I don't like people with their lvl. 1 epic internet debate tactics of breaking down a post and addressing every single sentence with non-points that are tantamout to saying "no", "wrong", "incorrect" under every greentexted bit, I have better shit to do than staying here all night with you. Uninteresting pedantic cunt.

No they don't. They say that the CIA had agents in Eastern Europe, they don't say Hungary. According to declassified CIA documents they only had a single agent in Hungary at the time.
nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/index.htm
The first one makes reference to cells in Europe, not Hungary specifically. The second also mentions nothing about actually having agents there.
Thats beside the point here. The point is that the US supported the rebels because it was an opportunity for them, not because there was an ideological connection. As for the issue of Soviet security, its already been shown that breakaway states like Albania didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse.
How about these?
t. leader of the Social Democrats
t. Bela Kovaks, leader of the smallholders party.
exercised no influence either with the leaders or with the rank and file of those who took part in the uprising. No suggestion was entertained to return the estates to the former landowners or to undo the nationalization of Hungarian industry…In every case, the workers of Hungary announced their intention of keeping the mines and factories in their own hands. >They made it abundantly clear, in the Worker's Councils and elsewhere, that no return to pre-1945 conditions would be tolerated.”
t. UN Report.
t. Pal Maleter, Hungarian minister of defense.
The uprising was firmly proletarian and socialist in character, and Hungary's withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact was declared only after the USSR launched its second invasion.

Head in sand

1. dubious 2. doesn't mean there aren't CIA-trained and sponsored people working in the underground, and since the option of *arming* them was seriously considered, that seems obvious.

Don't see why you're bothering with it, since I framed the whole issue as anti-Soviet communists being used and manipulated by foreign agencies as a realistic (for them) transitory stage.

About what? Show me some hard evidence, not vague allusions to the CIA having agents in Eastern Europe. Besides, the politburo acknowledges that the uprising and Nagy had popular support in the Malin Notes. Kadar himself urged against a military intervention on the basis that it would fail due to the popularity of the new government.
That's speculation. There is no hard evidence that the uprising was instigated by the West.
This is the real issue, and its one of maintaining socialist principles versus protecting Soviet military and diplomatic interests. Obviously a certain level of realpolitik is necessary, but too much defeats the purpose by damaging socialism more than helping it. This was the case for many Soviet policies.

I did show you evidence, but you keep moving the goalpost ("well I mean there were no ACTUAL CIA dudes in Hungary specifically is what I mean") and I don't feel like getting into who out-googles who battle with a fucking retard at 2am. The point is the West had the means, the tools and possibly the organization to encourage and shape anti-Soviet uprisings, and even if all they had was RFE and distant promises of weapons, that was enough to make any rational person be skeptical of movements that challenge Soviet power with US support under those circumstances.

The Soviets were Marxists, and as Marx and Engels said several times, the protection of Socialist power becomes the priority in any transitional stage like that. "a socialist government will not come to the helm in a country unless things have reached a stage at which it can, before all else, take such measures as will so intimidate the mass of the bourgeoisie as to achieve the first desideratum — time for effective action"

If a system is forced to stay in this historical stage for decades, even of centuries, that's just the nature of anti-imperialist politics. Imperialist powers literally can't even stand a capitalist government that chooses to nationalize a few strategic resources and maybe follow non-IMF policies here and there without going apeshit with the government change and economic sabotage, what are they going to do to Socialist countries that can actually be an existential threat to them? Whatever happens, if you're a Socialist you enter that arrangement knowing you can't put your guns down.

I'm not moving the goalpost, I said that the CIA had no real presence in Hungary, and nothing in your sources contradicted that. They just said that they had a presence in Eastern Europe.
Except policies like that eventually led to the downfall of the USSR altogether by allowing corruption and revisionism to roam unchecked. I understand the need for unity in the socialist camp, but building this on force rather than consensus doesn't help. It clearly didn't prevent the collapse of the USSR, and arguably hastened it by the 80s when people in the satellite states got sick of it. Even from a practical standpoint, policies like these only hurt socialism and its chances for survival in the long term.

Operation REDSOX.
The CIA infiltrated fascist Horthyite contras with guns into Hungary.
books.google.com/books?id=H8q_zVR_5EYC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq="red sox" cia hungary&source=bl&ots=_v3dMNOG8t&sig=zbtRvsNIY5Qugckc6hN8N1Uupxk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir4InyqtbPAhVEcT4KHbltDWYQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q="red sox" cia hungary&f=false

The USSR was completely justified in stopping this menace.

Attached: redsox2.png (718x374 200.2 KB, 261.6K)

Your source already makes statements that are contradicted by virtually all other sources. For example it states that "the Hungarian revolutionaries, aided and abetted by Red Sox/Red Cap forces, declared their enemy to be… communism itself." This is untrue, all parties to Nagy's government as well as virtually all the workers councils opposed a return to capitalism. The argument that the revolution in general had a reactionary character is unsupported by evidence. There were reactionary elements to it, possibly linked to the CIA's Red Sox project, but they were firmly in the minority. You're intentionally conflating them. I'm also skeptical of your source on Red Sox, given that other sources describe the entire program as a total failure.
globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/ussr-redsox.htm
The source on the quote is also William Corson, who was never stationed or involved in operations in Hungary.

Another source also shows that while Red Sox operatives did later join in the fighting, they were not the ones to instigate the uprising itself.
books.google.ca/books?id=g3LtFS3rl9MC&pg=PA425&lpg=PA425&dq=operation red sox hungary&source=bl&ots=wkfdVenz2B&sig=ACfU3U2yTC_P8RB-Mqpw6_124ZfR8DbTVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz1vCu-K3gAhWrt1kKHWtVCroQ6AEwC3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=operation red sox hungary&f=false
Your position ignores the fact that the majority of Hungarians and the majority of rebels did not want a return to capitalism. It would have been impossible to bring about the end of socialism when virtually all the armed revolutionaries as well as the Hungarian government opposed it.

Yeah but were they the majority of the insurrection though?

Not even close. Read the UN report, Kopasci’s account, Fryer’s account. Everybody knows that the CIA had been attempting to instigate uprisings in Eastern Europe. Indeed RFE likely played a role in provoking unrest, but at the same time the uprising in Hungary was genuinely popular, dominated by workers, and overall made no demands that were contrary to socialism. The fact that the CIA may have had some success in sending contras into Hungary after the uprising began doesn’t mean that it was entirely their doing, or that they were in control of the rebels. The Soviet Union itself recognized that the uprising had begun as a genuine act of protest addressing legitimate grievances. The only thing any of this proves is that the US opportunistically tried to take advantage of the situation.

nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/index.htm

My view on on Hungary is complicated

Rakosi was obviously unpopular and had failed to prevent the material conditions of revolt forming (Thus why he was promptly blamed for it and removed from office)

I don't believe the rumours of Nagy being a counter-revolutionary as Kadar who was clearly not was a supporter of him until the tipping point of the invasion and Hungary leaving the WP

That being said I do still believe that it would have likely have resulted in a Counter-Revolution (Im not denying that socialist states existed / exist independent of Soviet power but in this scenario I believe it may have been an inevitability)

I don’t see how that could have happened with the bulk of revolutionaries being hostile to reaction, and having Nagy’s government on their side. The counterrevolutionaries never had any real power. The Soviet Union intervened mainly to save face and avoid looking weak to NATO. Khrushchev says as much in the Malin Notes.