-
Document No. 33: Hungarian Proposals for Reform of the Warsaw Pact, January 18–19, 1966
- Central European University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Document No. 33: Hungarian Proposals for Reform of the Warsaw Pact, January 18–19, 1966 ——————————————————————————————————————————— The next several documents (Documents Nos. 33–35) are proposals from key East European countries relating to reform of the Warsaw Pact. In January 1966, the Soviets had sent their own ideas on the subject to the other member-states, but in part because Moscow’s conception amounted to reform from above, a number of them were unreceptive and decided to present counter-proposals. The first document reproduced here waswrittenbyLajosCzinege,theHungariandefenseminister,andsenttotheHungarian Politburo for consideration before being submitted to an upcoming meeting of Warsaw Pact defense ministers. This particular version is a draft and so it is not clear whether the Soviets received the proposal in this exact form. Nonetheless, it is interesting as a reflection of the views of Hungarian military leaders. In brief, the proposal urges a unified system of military preparedness and standardized regulations in peace time. It calls for a unified command, but only in war time and in a form that would ensure real participation by member countries in command matters. It also appeals for the creation of a collective military body that would be subordinate to the PCC. In effect, Czinege’s idea mirrors the NATO Military Committee. Other East European states expressed similar concerns about being drawn into a war, especially a nuclear one, without the ability to influence the policies that might lead to it. Written one day after Czinege’s proposal, the second document below, by Hungarian Foreign Minister János Péter, also proposes reorganization of the Warsaw Pact, and was intended for an upcoming foreign ministers’ meeting. It seems clear that Hungary’s leaders, along with those of other East European countries, solicited opinions from the relevant ministries. Péter’s conception envisages the PCC as the highest body of the Warsaw Pact concerned with both political and military matters—following the model of the NATO Council. He argues that it should meet annually but also hold special sessions if any members so desire. The Pact should also create a council of foreign ministers and a permanent secretariat, both of which would be subordinated to the PCC—again as in NATO. The Hungarians’ particular interest in a council of foreign ministers stems from their desire to provide input into the Soviet bloc’s foreign policy decisions. The Eastern alliance never established a permanent secretariat, which was always an important brain center for NATO. ____________________ 195 a) Proposal by Minister of National Defense (Lajos Czinege) to the HSWP Political Committee […] January 18, 1966 […] Proposal concerning the command system of the Unified Armed Forces to be made at the meeting of the ministers of national defense of the member-states of the Warsaw Treaty. In order to further improve the command of the Unified Armed Forces of the Warsaw Treaty the agreement must ensure—taking into account the sovereignty of the member-states—a more effective harmonization of their military efforts in the following areas: 1. In times of peace: – a uniform assessment of the military–political and strategic situation and the expected activity of NATO; – coordinated planning of military operations of the armed forces; – coordinationofawell-balancedandsystematicdevelopmentofthearmedforces; – standardization of the structure of the armed forces and of the principles of military operations and strategy; – coordinated development of the armament system and harmonization of the development and production of military technology; – establishment of a unified system of military preparedness of the armed forces and the effective deployment of the troops; – a unified system of requirements for the training of commanders, staffs and troops, and regular training in cooperation between the armed forces of the member-states; – necessary standardization of regulations concerning preparation of the seat of military operations in the territory of the member-states, mobilization of the armed forces, provision of material supplies, etc.; – coordination of research work in the field of military sciences and generalization of scientific results; – supervision of implementation of rules and regulations made jointly by the member-states. 2. In time of war: – effective utilization of all available military resources; – effective and coordinated reconnaissance of the enemy; – a unified command of air defense systems of the member-states; – a unified command of military operations in the European seat of operations; – constant cooperation among the armed forces of the member-states; – mutual assistance in supplying forces with material and technological resources, in sanitary provision, in the transportation and mobilization of troops and...