A Comparative Study Of The Soviet Union 's Intervention In Boeing In 1956

October1956witnessed the successive outbreak of the astonishing Polish Event andHungarian Event, in some documents and academic writings, people usually put themtogether, collectively referred to as “the Polish and Hungarian Crisis in1956”. Because thetime, place and process of the two events were similar. However, the results were verydifferent. The Polish Crisis in1956was handled by peaceful means, while the Soviet Unionsuppressed the Hungarian riot in1956by force of arms. Why “the Polish and HungarianCrisis in1956” exactly happened? Why the Soviet Union took two very different solutions atlast? This thesis falls into three sections to answer these questions:Section one introduces reasons and effects of “the Polish and Hungarian Crisis in1956”.The20thCongress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev’s“secret report” had far greater influence in the Eastern European countries than the SovietUnion itself. In1956, the Polish and Hungarian people wanted to get rid of the Soviet modeland the control of the Soviet Union. They combined with the actual situation of the owncountry in order to conduct the independence reform. But in the current internationalenvironment, in order to ensure the Eastern Europe outposts to against the United States, theSoviet Union not allowed the Eastern European countries to occur the tendency that betray thesocialist camp. So the Soviet Union took intervention policy to handle the two eventsimmediately.Section two analyses the differences and similarities of which the Soviet Union solvedthe crisis in Poland and Hungary. The similarity was that Soviet reacted strongly andintervened immediately when it dealt with “the Polish and Hungarian Crisis in1956”.Because the Soviet relaxed policy toward Eastern Europe was limited and measured at thistime. Once the danger of out of control in Eastern Europe appeared, the Soviet Union wouldnot hesitate to intervene, even at the use of force. It was particularly obvious in the “the Polishand Hungarian Crisis in1956”. In addition, Soviet has recourse to China in this process. Atthis time the Chinese government has drawn increasing attention to the Eastern Europeancountries. Moscow has also started to count on the help of the CCP. China has played animportant role in alleviating the crisis and easing the Soviet Union and Eastern relations. Thequalitative of these two incidents were different; accordingly the Soviet intervention policywas different. The Soviet Union identified that the Polish and Hungarian Crisis in1956wereinternal contradictions and implacable foe. So for the Polish event, the Soviet Union adopteda variety of interventions. The Polish Crisis in1956was handled by Military coup firstly, followed by force and by peaceful means finally, while the CPSU Central Committee thoughtthe Hungarian Crisis was an anti-Soviet, anti-socialist armed riots. The Soviet Union usedpeaceful means and force at the same time, but it twice sent troops to Hungary and suppressedthe Hungarian riot in1956by force at last.Section three focuses on the reasons why the Soviet Union took two very differentsolutions were rather complex. This article mainly analyses the emotions and aspirations ofthe Polish and Hungarian people and the concept and personality of their leaders. In Poland,people’s “rationality” and “restraint” were an important foundation to settle the conflictpeacefully. Polish leader especially Gomulka’s cautious attitude and decision-making havebecome a key factor in establishing a new Soviet-Polish relations. However, Hungarianpeople’s emotions and desires were incredibly “fanatical” and “radical” which intensifiedSoviet-Hungarian conflict. After Nagy came to power again, he did not control the crisiseffectively but exacerbated the crisis. This was the reason why the reactionary forces have achance to make trouble which led to the deterioration of the situation. Different political andsocial conditions of the Poland and Hungary had a significant impact on the Soviet attitudeand decision-making to deal with the two events which ultimately resulted in a sharp contrastto the outcome of the two countries.