eastern europe in the twentieth century. chronology before wwi, maintenance of austro- hungarian...
TRANSCRIPT
EASTERN EUROPE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
CHRONOLOGY
Before WWI, maintenance of Austro-Hungarian Empire
Between the wars, existence of new, weak national states
1939-1945 – domination by Nazi Germany
1945-1990 – communist states, dominated by Soviet Russia.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY Nationalism and Industrialisation Imperial Market and free trade within
empire helped industrial progress Nationalism was a dominant force,
highly divisive, and looked as if it might break up the empire.
Yet Habsburg Monarchy survived, and only collapsed after four years of devastating war.
Problems with Nationalism in Austria-Hungary Though divisive, nationalism
contained seeds of conflict within itself Nationalities so intermingled that
there was no possibility of precise agreement on national frontiers,
Or who should form a majority within each state,
Or who should agree to minority status
Problems with Nationalism in Austria-Hungary
In consequence, the supra-national imperial model seemed the best one.
Habsburg family seen as non-national
Franz Joseph increasingly inspired strong personal loyalty due to length of time on throne
Examples of nationalist disputes in Austria-Hungary Dual Monarchy created two entities –
Austria and Hungary Germans and Magyars formed majority
in own half Majority Slavs (21 million) thus a
minority in each half Slavs themselves not a united group Some nationalities in Austria given
privileges – Czechs and Poles
Examples of nationalist disputes in Austria-Hungary - 2
Others were restricted – Serbs, Croats, Slovenes
National differences between German-speaking subjects and others often bitter – especially at local level
Magyars went further, employing systematic policy of national suppression
Examples of nationalist disputes in Austria-Hungary - 3
Magyars allowed special status to Croats, but excluded Serbs, Slovaks and Romanians from any share of power.
Industrialised and prosperous Czechs in Austria demanded autonomy
Bitter Czech-German rivalry, symbolised in language dispute
National conflict destroyed effectiveness of parliament (manhood suffrage introd. 1907)
Why Did Austria-Hungary not break apart before 1918? No-one had anything to gain by taking
national conflict to the extreme of threatening the Habsburg Empire with disintegration
Many nationalities were better off under Habsburgs than under other rulers (Russian or German)
Mass of peasantry attached to Habsburg dynasty
“Agitation for independence, whether of Czech or southern Slavs, was largely the work of a minority among the more educated”
- J.A.S.Grenville
BETWEEN THE WARS Newly independent nations carved out
of the defeated Austro-Hungarian empire
Most of these nations had not experienced independence for centuries
Most had substantial national minorities Predominantly agrarian (major
exception being Cezechoslovakia), with land in hands of a few families
BETWEEN THE WARS - 2 Many of the new countries had
territorial claims to parts of others Most failed to establish long-lasting
democratic regimes, with exception of Czechoslovakia
Power largely in hands of small oligarchy, ruling with help from the army
BETWEEN THE WARS - 3 Geopolitical problem – situation
between two powerful and superior forces – Germany and Russia
Attained independence when these forces were weak
Once these powers regained their strength, the position of Eastern Europe nations was highly vulnerable
NAZI DOMINANCE
All Eastern Europe was under German control during the brief period of Nazi dominance
Czechoslovakia attempted to resist Nazi aggression (1938) but was betrayed by the Western powers (Munich)
Poland sought to resist Nazis, but was militarily unable to do so; no help from West
Some countries occupied – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia.
Bulgaria allied, but stayed out of war
Other countries were allied, under their own right-wing governments – Hungary and Romania
LIBERATION BY SOVIETS Major resistance movements
emerged in Yugolsavia and Albania, and these countries’ liberation was primarily due to home-grown efforts.
Elsewhere, liberation from Nazi rule was achieved by Soviet Red Army
This occupation took place between summer 1944 and spring 1945
Communist Take-Over All-party coalitions established, excluding
only fascists New coalitions two or three years later,
with communists attaining all the key positions
Eventually these ‘Popular Fronts’ replaced by one-party communist regimes
Purges of ‘national communists’ then continued inside the communist parties
Significant local variations in Yugoslavia and Albania
The Nature of Communist Rule East European countries maintained
independent appearance, but their politics were decided in Moscow
Soviet Union derived economic benefit from Eastern Europe – reparations from Hungary, Romania, East Germany
Other countries forced to sell produce to Russia under market prices, and to buy price inflated Soviet goods
The Nature of Communist Rule - 2 In most countries communists had been
minority party, and were very unpopular Ruthless and effective in crushing opposition They imposed regimes of coercion and terror
– the only way they could maintain power Dependent on Soviet help – Red Army Soviet ambassador in each country tended to
be the real power – Roman ‘proconsul’
The Nature of Communist Rule - 3
“Any withdrawal of Soviet troops, or a policy of non-interference in the satellite countries would have caused the downfall of most of [their] governments within a very short time.
And this is what eventually came to pass (in 1989) when it appeared that East European governments could no longer count on Soviet military intervention when needed.”
- Walter Laquer, “Europe in Our Time”
Features of Eastern Europe under communism
‘People’s Democracies’ – neither popular nor democratic!
Ruled by Stalin clones to 1953 Economy run in Soviet interest Characterised by nationalisation of
industry and collectivization of agriculture
Foreign trade had to be directed to USSR
Features of Eastern Europe under communism - 2 Economic unrest provoked unrest after
1953 in East Germany and Czechoslovakia; serious rebellion in Poland and Hungary 1956
Nomenklatura system ensured dominance of party
Post-Stalin, development of ‘national communism’
Warsaw Pact and Comecon tied E.Europe to soviet Union
Rebellion in Eastern Europe Kruschev’s ‘Secret Speech’ 1956 De-Stalinisation False dawn for reformers Poland’s crisis resolved peacefully –
‘national’ communist leader Gomulka returned to power
Hungary goes further – challenges communist monopoly and Soviet alliance
Unacceptable for USSR – bloody intervention
EASTERN EUROPE AFTER HUNGARY
The Contradictions of Post-Revolutionary Society
OVERVIEW The Eastern Bloc in the 60s and 70s
was ‘post-revolutionary’ – fell between capitalism and socialism.
The state owned the means of production
The societies were not democratic Politics and the economy controlled
by a bureacratic ruling class
OVERVIEW HOWEVER, the average Eastern European
citizen was better off than in pre-communist times – economic conditions had improved
Characteristics included subsidized housing and food; free university places; universal health care; guaranteed employment.
Degree of inequality among classes clearly mitigated
Nonetheless, declining rates of growth left these societies a long way behind those of Western Europe.
OVERVIEW Most of the East European states
pursued a form of National Communism
This stressed solidarity in foreign affairs but each state was allowed to go its own way to achieve communism internally
In practice, despite minor differences, most states retained much of the Soviet model
OVERVIEW Romania, for example, refused to
accept Kruschev’s economic demands, and pursued a more independent foreign policy line
Main issue had been Kruschev’s attempts to make COMECON a supranational economic agency
This general drive of Kruschev’s in 1962-3, to integrate all E. European economies, foundered on rocks of economic nationalism
OVERVIEW Yugoslavia and Albania were also
independently inclined in foreign affairs, but maintained strong communist rule internally
Romania and Yugoslavia both sought to develop links with the West
Romania’s leader, Ceausescu, was to condemn Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 Basic problem in the Eastern Bloc
was that of declining rates of economic growth
One solution was to decentralise economic decision making and provide incentives to working class
This involved increasing the power of enterprise managers
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968
More power to managers meant a redistribution of authority away from political appointees and the party bureaucracy; the result was a struggle to control the course of reform in most of the countries of eastern Europe.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 In Cz., impetus for reform came from
top policy makers Cz’s national income fell in 1962-3 Czech leader Antonin Novotny was not
an enthusiastic supporter of reform In 1966 he took some half-hearted steps
towards decentralisation 1967 saw student demonstrations
against slow pace of reform
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 Jan. 1968, Novotny replaced by
Alexander Dubcek, Gen. Sec. of Slovak Communist Party and a supporter of reform
Novotny retained presidency; Dubcek was a party loyalist
Party engaged in internal debate about reform, with Dubcek easing censorship to promote better exchange of ideas
Dubcek
When Alexander Dubcek took over the Slovak communist party, in 1963, a man was in place who could forge an alliance between the national demands of Slovaks and the liberal aspirations of the intelligentsia as a whole.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 April ’68, Novotny loses presidency
to General Svoboda April 1968 Party approved an
‘Action Programme’ amidst widespread debate in press, media, amongst politicians and intellectuals
Working-class support for reform was less certain
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968
The problems for Cz’s Warsaw Pact neighbours, and especially the USSR, were:
Level of debate and discussion Attempts to form new parties Holding of opinion polls “The Two Thousand Words” – June
manifesto issued by writers and intellectuals advocating democratic reform, and offering support against Soviet military action
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 July, USSR and allies issue “Warsaw
Letter”, calling for preservation of one party rule.
Dubcek affirmed commitment to one-party rule, and to Warsaw Pact.
Meetings in Cierna and Bratislava with Russians and other Pact leaders seem to result in reconciliation.
Warsaw Pact armies were at this time engaged in manoeuvres on Czech soil
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968
In August 1968, Dubcek hosted visits by both Ceausescu and Tito
On 20 August 500,000 Warsaw Pact troops invaded Czechoslovakia.
Prague govt. ordered people not to resist by force.
The Pact action was thus an occupation
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1968 Dubcek and other leaders taken to
Moscow under arrest Secret Czech party congress proclaimed
that Cz’s sovereignty had been violated, but did not order resistance.
No repetition of Hungary’s fate Dubcek allowed to return to Prague, but
replaced as party leader in April 1969 by Gustav Husak.
Dubcek expelled from party 1970
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CZECH ACTION Defined limits of national autonomy in
the Eastern bloc Asserted one-party rule as the key test
of orthodoxy Moscow announced the “Brezhnev
Doctrine” – the right to intervene in neighbouring communist countries to protect them and their allies from the threat of counter-revolution.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CZECH ACTION
The problem for Eastern Europe was that while the Czech Crisis made clear that economic reform had to come second to the preservation of one-party rule, the end of the crisis did not mean the end of the region’s economic troubles. The need for change remained as urgent as ever.
THE LAST DECADE OF COMMUNIST RULE
The Fall of Communism Poland’s troubles in the 80s seemed to
threaten communist rule there Change of Soviet leadership in 1985 –
Gorbachev Abandonment of Brezhnev Doctrine Snowballing effect of change – Poland
was initiator; Hungary followed and was catalyst for the rest – open border policy
East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania
Why did Communism Fall? Lack of popular support for communism
– foundered against stronger nationalist inclinations
Removal of Soviet support took its main prop away
Elderly leadership in East Europe in 80s was out of touch with mood of countries
Failure of communist economy