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