Docstoc

EASTERN EUROPE AFTER HUNGARY

Document Sample
EASTERN EUROPE AFTER HUNGARY Powered By Docstoc
					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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:9/5/2012
language:English
pages:44