The Soviet empire in Eastern Europe
Riots and Soviet control
The context
How did the Soviet Union control affect the people of Eastern Europe?
Twenty years ago we jumped head first into politics as though we were jumping in uncharted waters … There was a lot of enthusiasm … You’re like this when you are young and we had an opportunity, which had long been denied, to be there while something new was being created.
(Jiři Ruml, a Czech communist, writing in 1968)
For some people of Eastern Europe to start with the Communism brought hope. The Soviet Union had achieving amazing industrial growth before the Second World War. Maybe, by following Soviet methods, they could do the same. Soviet-style Communism also offered them stable government and security because they were backed by one of the world’s superpowers. Faced by shortage and poverty after the war, many people hoped for great things from communism.
However, the reality of Soviet control of Eastern Europe was very different from what people had hoped for.
Freedom. Countries that had a long tradition of free speech and democratic government suddenly lost the right to criticize the government. Newspapers were censored. Non-communist were put in prison for criticizing the government. People were forbidden to travel in Western Europe.
Wealth Such repression and loss of freedom might have been more accepted if Communism had made people better off. Between 1945 and 1955 eastern European economies did recover. Wages in eastern Europe fell behind the wages in other countries. They even fell behind the wages in Soviet Union. Eastern Europe was forbidden by Stalin to apply to Marshall Aid from USA which could have helped it in economic recovery.
Consumer goods Long after economic recover ha ended the wartime shortage in western Europe, people in eastern Europe were short of coal to heat their houses, short of milk and meat. Clothing and shoes were very expensive. People could not get consumer goods like radios, electric kettles or televisions which were becoming common in the West. Factories did not produce what ordinary people wanted. They actually produced what the Soviet Union wanted.
The de-Stalinisation
Stalin died in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev, the successor, seemed very different from him, because he
· ended the long feuds with China and Yugoslavia
· talked of peaceful coexistence with the West
· made plans to reduce expenditure in arms
· attended the first post-war summit between USA, France, Great Britain in July 1955
· said he wanted to improve the living standard of ordinary citizens.
Stalin used extreme methods and mass repression at time when the revolution was already victorious … Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality and his abuse of power … He often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the Party and the Soviet government.
(Nikita Khrushchev’s denounciation of Stalin’s crimes, 1956)
For citizens of URSS and Eastern Europe who had been bombarded with propaganda praising Stalin, this was a shocking change of direction.
Cases studies: group work
How did the people of Eastern Europe react to Khrushchev’s denunciation? Consider four cases of revolts against Soviet power between the 1950s and 1980s.
Each group must illustrate to the class:
- why, how and when some people in Eastern Europe challenged the Soviet control
- how the URSS reacted to the riots or to the attempt of reform
- what were the outcomes.
Case 1 study: Hungary 1956
The facts
From 1949 to 1956 Hungary was led by a hardline Communist called Mátyás Rákosi. Hungarians hated the restrictions which Rákosi’s Communism imposed on them. Most Hungarians felt bitter about losing their freedom of speech. They lived in fear of secret police. They resented the presence of thousands of Soviet troops and officials in their country. Some areas of Hungary where even had Russian street signs, Russian schools and shops. Worst of all, Hungarians had to pay for Soviet forces to be in Hungary.
What happened?
In June 1956 a group within the Communist Party in Hungary opposed Rákosi. He appealed to Moscow for help. He wanted to arrest 400 leading opponents. Moscow would not back him. The Kremlin ordered to Rákosi to be retired “for health reasons”.
The new leader, Ernö Gerö, was no more acceptable to the Hungarian people. Discontent came to head with a huge student demonstration on 23 October, when the giant statue of Stalin in Budapest was pulled down.
The URSS allowed a new government to be formed under the well-respected Imre Nagy on 24 October. Soviet troops and tanks stationed in Hungary since the Second World War began to withdraw. Hungarians created thousands of local councils to replace Soviet power. Several thousand Hungarians soldiers defected from the army to rebel cause, taking their weapons with them.
Nagy’s government began to make plans. It would hold free elections, create impartial courts, restore farmland to private ownership. It wanted the total withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary. It also planned to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare Hungary neutral in the Cold War struggle between East and West. There was widespread optimism that the new American president Eisenhower, who had been the supreme commander of Allied forces in western Europe, would support the new independent Hungary with armed troops if necessary.
How did the Soviet Union respond?
Khrushchev at first seemed ready to accept some of the reforms. However, he could not accept Hungary’s leaving the Warsaw Pact. In November 1956 thousands of Soviet troops and tanks moved into Budapest. The Hungarians did not give in. Two weeks of bitter fighting followed. Some estimates put the number of Hungarians killed at 30.000. however, the latest research suggests about 3.000 and up to 1.000 Russians were killed. Another 20.000 Hungarians fled across the border into Austria to escape the Communist forces.
The Western powers protested to the USSR but sent no help: they were too preoccupied with a crisis of their own (the Suez crisis in the Middle East).
Outcomes
Khrushchev put János Kádár in place as leader. Kádár took several months to crush all resistance. Around 35.000 anti-Communist activists were arrested and 300 executed. Kádár cautiously introduced some reforms being demanded by Hungarians people. However, he did not waver on the central issue — membership of the Warsaw Pact.
Download the file with historical sources to complete your research
Case 2 study: the Berlin wall 1961
The problem
The crushing of the Hungarian uprising had confirmed for many people in eastern Europe that it was impossible to fight the Communists. For many, it seemed that the only way of escaping repression was to leave altogether. Some wished to leave eastern Europe for political reasons — they hated the Communists — while many more wished to leave for economic reasons. As standards of living in eastern Europe fell further and further behind the West, the attraction of going to live in a capitalist State was very great.
The contrast was particularly great in the divided city of Berlin. Living standards were tolerable in the East, but just a few hundred meters away in West Berlin, East Germans could see some of the prize exhibits of capitalist West Germany — shops full of goods, great freedom, great wealth and great variety. This had been deliberately done by the Western powers. They had poured massive investment into Berlin. East Germans could also watch West German television.
In the 1950s East Germans were still able to travel freely into West Berlin. From there they could travel into West Germany. It was very tempting to leave East Germany, with its harsh Communist regime and its hardline leader, Walter Ulbricht. By the late 1950s thousands were leaving and never coming back.
The solution
In 1961 the USA had a new president, the young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy. Khrushchev thought he could bully Kennedy and chose to pick a fight over Berlin. He insisted that Kennedy withdraw US troops from the city. He was certain that Kennedy would back down. Kennedy refused. However, all eyes were now on Berlin. What would happen next?
At two o’clock in the morning on Sunday 13 August 1961, East German soldiers erected a barbed-wire barrier along the entire frontier between East and West Berlin, ending all free movement from East to West. It was quickly replaced by a concrete wall. All the crossing points to East to West Berlin were sealed, except for one. This became known as Checkpoint Charlie.
Families were divided. Berliners were unable to go to work; chaos and confusion followed. Border guards kept a constant look-out for anyone trying to cross the wall. They had order to shoot people trying to defect. Hundreds were killed over the next three decades.
Outcomes
For a while, the wall created a major crisis. Access to East berlin had been guaranteed to the Allies since 1945. In October 1961 US diplomats and troops crossed regularly into East Berlin to find out how the Soviets would react.
In 27 October Soviet tanks, fully armed, faced each other in a tense stand-off. Then, after eighteen hours, one by one, five meters at time, the tanks pulled back. Another crisis, another retreat.
The international reaction was relief. Khrushchev ordered Ulbricht to avoid any action that would increase tension. Kennedy said, “It’s not a very nice solution, but a wall Is hell of a lot better than war”. So the wall stayed, and over the following years became the symbol of division — the division of Germany, the division of Europe, the division of Communist East and democratic West. The Communists presented the wall as a protective shell around East berlin. The West presented it as a prison wall.
Download the file with historical sources to complete your research
Case 3 study: The Prague Spring
The facts
Twelve years after the brutal suppression of Hungary, Czechoslovakia posed a similar challenge to Soviet domination of eastern Europe. Khrushchev had now been ousted from power in USSR. A new leader, Leonid Brezhnev replaced him.
What happened?
In the 1960s a new model developed in Czechoslovakia. People examined what had been happening in twenty years of Communism control and they did not like what they saw. In 1967 the old Stalinist leader was replaced by Alexander Dubček. He proposed a policy of “socialism with human face”: less censorship, more freedom of speech and a reduction in the activities of secret police. Dubček was a committed Communist, but he believed that Communism did not have to be restrictive as it had been before he came to power. He had learned the lesson of the Hungarian uprising and reassure Brezhnev that Czechoslovakia had not plans to pull out the Warsaw Pact or Comecon.
The Czech opposition was led by intellectuals who felt that Communism had failed to lead the country forward. As censorship had been eased, they were able to launch attacks on the Communist leadership, pointing out how corrupt and useless they were. Communist government minister were “grilled on live television and radio about how they were running the country and about the events before 1968. This period became known as “The Prague Spring”, because of all new ideas that seemed to be appearing everywhere.
By the summer even more radical ideas were emerging. There was even talk of allowing another political party. The Social Democratic Party, to be set up as a rival to the Communist Party.
How did the Soviet Union respond?
The Soviet Union was very suspicious of the changes taking place in Czechoslovakia. This country was one of the most important ones in the Warsaw Pact. It was centrally placed, and had the strongest industry. The Soviets were worried that the new ideas in Czechoslovakia might spread to other countries in eastern Europe. Brezhnev came under pressure from East Germany leader, Walter Ulbricht, and the Polish leader, Gomulka, to restrain reform in Czechoslovakia.
The USSR tried various methods in response. To start with, il tried to slow Dubček down. It argued with him. Soviet, Polish and East German troops performed very public training exercises right on the Czech border. It was thought about imposing the economic sanctions — for example cancelling wheat export to Czechoslovakia — but didn’t because it thought that the Czechs would ask for help to the West.
In July the USSR had a summit conference with the Czechs. Dubček agreed not to allow a new Social Democratic Party. However, he insisted on keeping most of his reforms. The tension seemed to ease. Early in August, a conference of all the other Warsaw Pact countries produced a vague declaration simply calling on Czechoslovakia to maintain political stability.
Then seventeen days later, on 20 August 1968, to the stunned amazement of the Czechs and the outside world, Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia.
There was a little violent resistance, although many Czechs refused to co-operate with the Soviet troops. Dubček was removed from power. His experiment in socialism with human face had not failed: it had simply proved unacceptable to the other Communist countries.
Outcomes
Unlike Nagy in Hungary, Dubček was not executed. But he was gradually downgraded. First he was sent to be ambassador to Turkey, then expelled from the Communist Party altogether. Photographs showing him as a leader were “censored”.
Before the Soviet invasion, Czechoslovakia’s mood had been one of optimism. After, it was despair. A country that had been pro-Soviet now became resentful of Soviet connection. Ideas that could have reformed Communism were silenced.
Dubček always expressed loyalty to Communism and the Warsaw Pact, but Brezhnev was very worried that the new ideas coming out of Czechoslovakia would spread. He was under pressure from the leaders od other Communist countries in eastern Europe, particularly Ulbricht in East Germany. These leaders feared that their own people would demand the same freedom that Dubček had allowed in Czechoslovakia.
The Czechoslovak episode gave rise to the Brezhnev doctrine: the essential of Communism were defined as:
· a one-party system
· to remain a member of the Warsaw Pact.
download the file with historical sources to complete your research
Case 4 study: Solidarity in Poland 1980–81
The facts
Throughout the years of Communist control of Poland there were regular protests. However, they were generally more about living standards and prices than attempts to overthrow Communist government.
During the first half of the 1970s Polish industry performed well so the country was relatively calm, but in the late 1970s the Polish economy hit a crisis and 1979 was the worst year for the Polish industry since communism had been introduced.
What happened?
July 1980
the government announced the increase of the price of meat
August 1980
workers at the Gdansk shipyards, led by Lech Walesa, put forward 21 demands to the government, including free trade unions and the right to strike. They also started a free union called Solidarity (Solidarność in Polish). Poland had trade unions but they were ineffective in challenging government policies.
30 August 1980
The government agreed to all 21 of Solidarity demands
September 1980
Solidarity’s membership grew to 3,5 million
October 1980
Solidarity’s membership was 7 million. Solidarity was officially recognized by the government
January 1981
Membership of Solidarity reached its peak at 9,4 million — more than a third of the all workers in Poland.
Reasons of Solidarity success
· The union was strongest in those industries that were most important to the government — shipbuilding and heavy industry. A general strike in these industries would have devastated Polish economy.
· In the early stages the union was not seen by its members as an alternative to the Communist Party. More than 1 million members (30%) of the Communist Party joined Solidarity.
· Lech Walesa was very carefully in his negotiations with the government and worked avoid provoking a dispute that might bring in the Soviet Union.
· The union was immensely popular. Almost half of all workers belonged. Lech Walesa was a kind of folk hero.
· Solidarity had the support of the Catholic Church which was still very strong in Poland.
· The government was playing for time. It hoped Solidarity would break into rival factions. The government also drew up plans for martial law (ruled by the army).
· Finally, the Soviet Union had half an eye on the West. Solidarity had gained support in the West in a way that neither the Hungarian nor the Czech rising had. The scale of the movement ensured that the Soviet Union treated the Polish crisis cautiously.
In February 1981 the civilian prime minister “resigned” and the leader the army, general Jaruselski, took over. From the moment he took office, people in Poland, and observers outside Poland, expected the Soviet Union to “send the tanks” at any time, especially when Solidarity Congress produced an “open letter” saying that they were campaigning not only for their own rights but for the rights of workers throughout the Communist bloc. It proclaimed that the Poles were fighting “For your freedom and for ours”.
Jaruselski and Walesa negotiated to form of government of national understanding but when that broke down in December, after nine months of tense relationships, the Communist government acted. Brezhnev ordered the Red Army to carry out “training maneuvers” on Polish border. Jaruselski introduced martial law, he put Walesa and almost 10.000 other Solidarity leaders in prison. He suspended Solidarity.
Reasons for the crushing of Solidarity
· Solidarity was acting as a political party. The government declared that it had secret tapes of a Solidarity meeting setting up a provisional government — without the Communist Party.
· Poland was sinking into chaos. Almost all Poles felt the impact of food shortages, rationing had been introduced in April 1981. Wages had increased by less than inflation. Unemployment was rising.
· Solidarity itself was also tumbling into chaos. There were many different factions. Some felt that the only way to make progress was to push the Communists harder until they cracked under the pressure. Strikes were continuing long after the Solidarity leadership had order them to stop.
The Soviet Union had seen enough. It thought the situation in Poland had gone too far. If Poland’s leaders would not restore Communist control in Poland, then it would. This was something the Polish leader wanted to avoid.
The Communist government had regained control in Poland, but in December 1981, looking back on the past eighteen months, was obvious that firstly the Polish people no longer trusted the Communist leadership. Secondly the only thing that kept the Communists in power was force or threat of forced back by the USSR. When Jaruselski finally decided to use the force, Solidarity was easily crushed. The lesson was clear: if military force was not used, then Communist control seemed very shaky indeed.
The significance of Solidarity
In the story of Soviet control of Eastern Europe Solidarity was significant for a number of reason. On first point, It highlighted the failure of Communism to provide good living standards and this undetermined Communism’s claim to be a system which benefited ordinary people.
Furthermore, it highlighted inefficiency and corruption and showed that there were organizations which were capable of resisting Communist government.
Finally, it showed that Communist government could be threatened by “people power”. If Soviet policy were to change Communist control would not survive.
download the file with historical sources to complete your research