socio-economic
and political development in the first
post-war years.
2. Integration of Eastern European countries:
Creation of Cominform, CMEA and Department of Internal Affairs.
3. Crises in Eastern European countries.
4. Development of countries of “people's democracy”
in the 50-70s XX century
5. The special path of Yugoslavia.
WHAT IS “EASTERN EUROPE”?
Countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe - Poland, East Germany,Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria Europe by 1914
For centuries, the countries of Eastern Europe developed in the shadows
more large states. Before 1914 most of region was part of
composition of the Austro-Hungarian, German, Russian and Ottoman
empires Only after the First World War did many of these countries
gained independence, but twenty years later were captured
Nazi Germany.
and political development
in the first post-war years
In 1945, Soviet troops
liberated from Nazi
occupation
Of Eastern Europe.
As a result, the Soviet Union
established his influence over
this region.
In most of these countries
in 1945 – 1948 to power
the communists came
parties.
Eastern Bloc states 1945 – 1946 – democratic transformations
RESTORATION OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMS
RESTORATION OF MULTIPARTY PARTY
DESTRUCTION OF LARGE LAND OWNERSHIP
PUNISHMENT OF WAR CRIMINALS
ADOPTION OF CONSTITUTIONS
LIQUIDATION OF MONARCHIES
TRANSFER OF POWER TO REPRESENTATIVE BODIES
These transformations in Eastern European countries
called people's democratic revolutions, and
the countries themselves are people's democracies. Features of socio-economic
and political development
in the first post-war years
1947 – early 1950s –
communists coming to power
the emergence of totalitarian socialism
In 1945, communist regimes were
installed in Yugoslavia.
In 1946 - in Albania, Bulgaria.
In 1947 in Poland, Hungary, Romania
In February 1948, the communist regime was
installed in Czechoslovakia.
Having established itself at the levers of government,
communist parties set a course for construction
socialism, taking as its initial model the socio-economic and political system created in
Soviet Union. Features of socio-economic
and political development
in the first post-war years
CHANGES IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM
Elimination of the multi-party system. Concentration
all power in the hands of communists
parties
Merging of party and state
devices
Rejection of the principle of separation of powers
Mass repressions following the example of the USSR
Rights and freedoms, formally declared,
were not respected. Features of socio-economic
and political development
in the first post-war years
CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY
Complete nationalization of industry and finance
Accelerated industrialization aimed at
for the preferential development of severe
industry
Collectivization without nationalization of land
(replacement of individual farms with cooperatives)
Approval of a planned economy instead of a market economy Countries of Eastern Europe.
SFRY
(Yugoslavia)
Poland (Poland)
Czechoslovakia (Czechoslovakia)
SRR(Romania)
GDR In 1948, a pro-Soviet regime was established
in North Korea.
In 1949 the communists won the
civil war in China (formation of the People's Republic of China).
As a result, a socialist
Commonwealth (socialist camp),
which included the USSR and over 10 states in
Europe and Asia, as well as Cuba, where the revolution
won in 1959 October 1, 1949 – formation of the People's Republic of China
Integration of Eastern European countries
Cominform was created in September 1947(Information Bureau of Communist and
workers' parties).
Created in a secret meeting
Communist Parties of Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy,
Poland, Romania, Soviet Union,
France, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in
Szklarska Poreba (Poland).
The idea of the convocation belonged to Stalin.
The keynote address at the meeting was made by
A. A. Zhdanov. The report formulated
thesis about the beginning of the split of the world into two
"camps" - "imperialist" (USA and their
allies) and “democratic” (USSR and its
allies). Communist parties were asked to move
to a tougher confrontational policy. For economic and
political control of the USSR
created organizations
economic and military
character:
- Economic Council
mutual assistance /1949/;
- - Organization of Warsaw
agreement /1955/.
CMEA building in Moscow. CMEA and ATS
January 25, 1949 – creation
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)
CMEA member countries
Moscow. CMEA building CMEA and ATS
May 1955 – creation of the Organization
Warsaw Pact (WTS)
Bulgaria
Albania
Hungary
Romania
Poland
GDR
Czechoslovakia
USSR V. Molotov and G. Zhukov sign the Warsaw Pact
Crises and shocks
Crises and shocksSoviet soldiers help
restore the economy. GDR.
1958
As the " cold war"The USSR increasingly strengthened its
influence on allies.
Despite some economic progress, part of the population
Eastern European states began to openly express their
dissatisfaction with the authorities. In some countries, things have come to the point of strikes and
armed clashes.
1953 - political crisis in the GDR
Berlin.
June 17
1953 Germany has repeatedly become the scene of acute conflicts.
1948 - the Soviet leadership blocked transport
highways leading from the western zones of occupation to
western sectors of Berlin.
In 1953, riots broke out in the GDR, which escalated into...
uprising against the pro-Soviet regime.
This was the answer East Germans to reduce its
standard of living. The situation of the communist
leadership of the GDR was complicated by the fact that in the “other” Germany
- Germany thanks to reforms economic situation
improved. The communist leadership of the GDR could not
cope with a crisis situation on your own.
Soviet troops were brought into Berlin, and the uprising was
depressed.
The new leader of the country, W. Ulbricht, succeeded
stabilize the situation in the country.
However, over time, the GDR began to lose more and more
West Germany's economic growth rate and level
life.
A symbol of the Cold War and the division of the German nation
became the Berlin Wall (1961).
Germany: a divided nation.
Crises of totalitarian socialism1956 - political crisis in Poland
In June 1956 in Poland at
individual enterprises
strikes started quickly
developed into a general
strike.
The workers were supported by students
and liberal-minded
intelligentsia.
However, thanks to the position
head of the Polish
Communist Party of W. Gomulka
Supervisor
stabilize the situation in
PURP
country.
Vladistav
Gomułka Crises of totalitarian socialism
1956 – popular uprising in Hungary
In 1956 the Hungarian government
headed by Imre Nagy.
He abolished one-party rule
and demanded the withdrawal of Soviet troops
from Hungary, announcing the withdrawal of their
countries from the Warsaw Organization
agreement. In response, the leadership of the USSR
sent troops into Hungarian territory.
Hungarian "freedom fighters"
resisted and asked for help from
West. However, they did not receive it.
In the early 60s began to declare
Imre Nagy.
Romania's independence.
Leader of the reformists.
Albania broke ties with the USSR.
Prime Minister Mid-1950s – late 1960s –
changes in politics
TERMINATION OF MASS REPRESSIONS,
PARTIAL REHABILITATION OF THEIR VICTIMS
MITIGATION OF FORMS OF FORCED
COOPERATIONS IN AGRICULTURE
PARTIAL REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS
FOR SMALL BUSINESS
WEAKENING THE STRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTROL OVER THE ECONOMY
TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS NOT ALIQUIDATED,
AND ONLY SOFTENED
"Prague Spring"
In January 1968, the leader of the reform wingCommunist Party A. Dubcek became the first secretary
Central Committee of the Communist Party.
HRC PROGRAM
April 1968
IMPLEMENTATION OF MARKET
MECHANISMS IN THE ECONOMY
DEMOCRATIZATION
SOCIETY
Alexander Dubcek
First Secretary of the Central Committee
HRC
(January-August 1968)
"Prague Spring"
Reformers' agendaprovided for a greater ideological
openness of society, creation of mechanisms for
ensuring pluralism of opinions.
As soon as the opponents of the communists received
opportunity to openly promote their
ideas, many communist postulates
were shaken.
"Prague Spring"
“Prague Spring” (Czech."Pražské jaro", Slovak.
"Pražská jar") - period
political and cultural
liberalization in
Czechoslovakia from January 5 to
August 20, 1968
ending with entering into
country of the Organization's troops
Warsaw Pact (except
Romania). Development of the "people's" countries
August 21, 1968 - entry of troops of the USSR, East Germany, Poland,
Bulgaria, Hungary to Czechoslovakia. Development of the "people's" countries
democracy" in the 1950s - 1980s
Deterioration of the economic situation since the 1970s.
OBTAINING LOANS FROM WESTERN COUNTRIES
TO RENEW THE INDUSTRY
APPEARANCE
EXTERNAL DEBT
FOLDING
TERMS
DROPPING RATE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR
REVOLUTIONS
FAILURE OF PLAN TASKS
APPEARANCE OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS:
UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLATION, SHORTAGE OF GOODS Development of the "people's" countries
democracy" in the 1950s - 1980s
1970s – late 1980s – strengthening of totalitarianism
LIMITATION OF REVIVED ELEMENTS
MARKET RELATIONS
RETURN TO ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS
ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT
THE APPEARANCE OF DISSIDENTS
AND THEIR PERSECUTION
THE FORMATION OF THE CULT OF PERSONALITY OF LEADERS Yugoslavia's special path
"SELF-GOVERNING
SOCIALISM"
SELF MANAGEMENT
ABSENCE
DEMOCRACY
LABOR COLLECTIVES
ELECTION
SINGLE PARTY
ADVIСE
WORKERS
MODE
UNLIMITED
TRANSFER OF PLANNING
PERSONAL
POWER
FROM THE CENTER
LEADER
IN PLACE
PARTS
ORIENTATION ON
MARKET RELATIONS
CONFLICT
IN AGRICULTURE
- STALIN
½TITO
- INDEPENDENT OWNERS
Josip Broz Tito.
President of the SFRY Questions and tasks for self-control
1. What are the features of socio-economic and
political development in Eastern European countries in
the first post-war years?
2. Give examples of crises and social
conflicts during the years of building socialism in
Eastern European countries?
3. Why did perestroika in the USSR become the impetus for
revolutions in Eastern European countries?
4. What are the features of democratic revolutions in
Eastern European countries?
5. What place in modern system international
relations occupy the countries of Eastern Europe?
Formation of the socialist camp. Eastern European socialism.
Countries of Eastern Europe after the Second World War.
Plan
Control questions.
Bibliography.
Stalin's leadership sought after the war to create a Soviet sphere of influence along the entire perimeter of the USSR's borders, primarily in Europe. This task included the coming to power of governments friendly to the Soviet Union, that is, ensuring reliable security for the USSR. But not only. The Kremlin also sought to establish socio-political regimes of a pro-communist orientation that were close to it in spirit. Even during the war, Stalin drew the attention of the Yugoslav politician M. Djilas to its special character: “Whoever occupies a territory establishes his own social order.”
By the end of World War II, the Red Army was located in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and East Austria; she took part in the liberation of Yugoslavia and Albania. Stalin sought to one way or another include these countries (perhaps with the exception of Austria) into the Soviet sphere of influence and establish pro-Soviet and pro-communist regimes in them. It is necessary to take into account the socio-political crisis in the countries of Eastern Europe and the desire of a significant part of the population for deep transformations. In most Eastern European countries before the war (even more so during the war), there were certain varieties authoritarian regimes, so a simple return to pre-war democracy was impossible. Of course, the political situation in the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe was different: the communists enjoyed the greatest influence in Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria, the least in Hungary and Poland, where there was a fairly strong anti-communist underground.
The refusal of US leaders to recognize the Soviet sphere of influence, and especially Soviet dominance in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, sparked the first clashes between the former allies - the harbingers of the Cold War. Attempts by the American leadership to change the political situation in these countries in their favor encountered stiff opposition from the Kremlin.
One of the main reasons for the desire of the US leadership to prevent the consolidation of the Soviet sphere of influence was the fear of its further consolidation and expansion. Overall, from the point of view of American international affairs experts, dividing Europe into spheres of influence would be a losing proposition for the United States. The Soviet regime was inherently capable of creating a monolithic bloc within its sphere of influence, something that Western democracies could not do. Washington was guided by a more favorable option for the development of post-war international relations, although in reality it could not prevent the subsequent split of Europe. The struggle between fundamentally different concepts of the post-war system became one of the prerequisites for the Cold War.
Stalin used harsh, undemocratic methods to consolidate Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe. The support of this policy was the forces of the Red Army and the Soviet bodies of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs. Referring to the presence of the Red Army in Poland, Stalin told the Polish Communist leaders at the end of September 1944: “You now have such strength on your side that if you say that 2x2 = 16, your opponents will confirm it. But this will not always be the case... If the party does not use the current period and does not take power into its hands, then there will be no party. The only way is to take responsibility yourself. Regardless...". From July to December 1944, the Red Army and representatives of the NKVD repressed thirty thousand fighters of the underground Home Army (AK), which was guided by the emigrant London government. At the end of March 1945, Soviet authorities arrested 16 prominent military and political leaders of the Polish underground, who opposed both the Nazis and the communists. In 1947, the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs arrested about 2.5 thousand people on Polish territory and interned more than 2.7 thousand AK soldiers “in order to clear the rear.”
In all countries of Eastern Europe, the formation of new political regimes took place according to the instructions of the Kremlin, and in the states that were allies of Hitler's Germany (p.48) under the control of the Soviet military administration and numerous advisers from Moscow. At the origins of creation new system State security included prominent representatives of the NKVD, who implemented the Soviet model of “restoring order” with harsh repressive measures.
At the first stage, Stalin sought the formation of coalition governments in the countries of Eastern Europe, in which the communists would play an important role, in particular, they would control the internal affairs bodies, the security service and the armed forces. Representatives of the non-communist opposition were then forced out of the government through rigged trials and rigged elections. In 1947, “anti-republican and anti-democratic conspiracies” that allegedly took place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were exposed. Influential politicians who opposed the communists were removed from political life, and some were executed. This process of transfer of power into the hands of the communists was completed by the February 1948 events in Czechoslovakia, where the regime of parliamentary democracy was also put an end to.
Of course, socio-political transformations in the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe were carried out at different speeds and had their own specifics. They were carried out most intensively in Yugoslavia and Albania (a combination of internal and external factors), in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, to which transformations along the Soviet model were intensively imposed; the slowest is in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Without going into a more detailed analysis, it can be noted that by the spring of 1948, communist pro-Soviet regimes were established in all the countries under consideration, largely copying the totalitarian model of the Stalinist USSR.
At the same time, important socio-economic transformations took place along the Soviet model: the nationalization of large industry, the introduction of planning, the creation of a centralized state system in the economy, and agrarian reform.
The Soviet leadership, led by Stalin, persistently implemented its concept of establishing and strengthening the regimes of “people's democracy” and uniting them into a single “camp.” This was also facilitated by the fact that the Soviet Union concluded bilateral treaties on friendship, mutual assistance and post-war cooperation with a number of these states. Even before the end of the war, the corresponding agreements were concluded by the USSR with Czechoslovakia (December 12, 1943), Yugoslavia (April 11, 1945) and Poland (April 21 of the same year). After ratifying peace treaties with former allies of Nazi Germany, the USSR in 1948 concluded treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with Romania (February 4), Hungary (February 18) and Bulgaria (March 18).
All these agreements were of the same type. They noted the desire of both sides to develop and strengthen friendly relations, to fight for the strengthening of universal peace and international security. The parties committed to improve mutual economic and cultural ties in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. They agreed to participate in all international actions aimed at ensuring the peace and security of peoples, and to jointly take all measures in their power to eliminate any threat of renewed aggression on the part of Germany or another state that would unite with it. In the event of one of the contracting states being involved in hostilities with Germany, which would resume its aggressive policy, the other party to the treaty pledged to immediately provide military and other assistance to the victim of aggression by all means. by possible means. Very important was the obligation of the parties to consult each other on all current international issues affecting their mutual interests. At Stalin's insistence, special additional protocols were agreed upon in February 1948 for treaties that did not contain such an obligation.
Thus, a system of contractual and legal relations between the countries that formed the “socialist camp” in Europe began to take shape. The center of this system was Moscow, which the countries of “people's democracy” were guided by in international relations. Thus, the USSR led a group of countries that acted unitedly in the foreign policy sphere.
Detailed solution paragraph § 20 on history for 9th grade students, authors L.N. Aleksashkina 2011
Questions and tasks:
1. What political forces were in power in the countries of Eastern Europe in the first post-war years? *Why were the governments coalition?
After the war, both representatives of communist and social democratic parties, as well as leaders of the pre-war bourgeois and peasant parties that retained their political weight, were in power in the countries of Eastern Europe.
Political forces, brought together by the will of circumstances into government coalitions, had different, largely opposing ideas about the future nature and paths of development of their states. Some stood for the restoration (restoration) of the pre-war regimes. Others (especially social democrats) preferred the Western European model of a democratic state. Still others (communists), following the Soviet model, sought to establish a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It seems to me that the reason for the emergence of coalition governments was the need, first of all, to restore the economies of countries destroyed by World War II and political preferences faded into the background. But as the economic and social foundations of the post-war states were established, the struggle between these forces intensified.
2. Name the transformations carried out in Eastern European countries in 1945 - 1948. *What was their main result?
The main transformations carried out in 1944 - 1948 In all countries of the region, there was nationalization of basic means of production and agrarian reforms. Banks and insurance companies, large industrial enterprises, transport and communications passed into the hands of the state, and the property of persons who collaborated with the occupiers was nationalized.
The main results of the transformations were an increase by the end of the 1940s in the share of the public sector in gross industrial output in most Eastern European countries over 90%: in Yugoslavia - 100%, in East Germany - 76.5%. As a result of the agrarian reforms of the 1940s, carried out under the slogan “The land goes to those who work it!”, large landownership was eliminated. Part of the lands confiscated from landowners was assigned to state farms (state farms), while part was transferred to land-poor and landless peasants. These transformations met with support from some groups of the population and resistance from others. Social and political divisions deepened.
3. Compare the events as a result of which the communists came to power in Poland and Czechoslovakia. What are their similarities? What are the differences?
In Poland, the outcome of the struggle between the bourgeois and workers' parties was determined in 1946–1947. The decisive events were the 1946 referendum and elections to the Legislative Sejm.
At the referendum, citizens of the country were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to three questions: a) on the abolition of the highest chamber of parliament - the Senate; b) on the consolidation in the future constitution of the country of an economic system based on the agrarian reform and the nationalization of the main means of production; c) on the approval of the borders of the Polish state in the Baltic, along the Odra and Nisa Lusatian (Oder and Neisse) rivers. 85% of voters participated in the referendum. 68% of voters answered the first question positively, 77% answered the second question, and 91% answered the third question. Having approved points a) and b), the majority of the population supported the measures proposed by the left parties. Elections to the Legislative Sejm in January 1947 brought 80% of the vote to the bloc led by the Polish Workers' Party (a communist party created in 1942) and 10% to the Polish People's Party.
Despite the apparent obviousness and ease of victory of the left forces, the struggle to establish a new government in Poland turned out to be tough and brought many victims. There were significant anti-communist forces operating in the country, including armed groups of supporters former Army Krajowa. Already during the years of peace, about 20 thousand activists of the new government died.
In Czechoslovakia, the turning point occurred in February 1948. By this time, the contradictions between the communists and their political opponents had reached their utmost severity. In response to the proposal of the communist members of the government to carry out a new round of nationalization (it was supposed to cover all enterprises with more than 50 workers, wholesale trade, etc.), 12 ministers from the bourgeois parties resigned. The calculation was that as a result the entire government, which at that moment was headed by the head of the Communist Party K. Gottwald, would fall. The communists turned to the workers. Within a week, committees in support of the National Front were organized at enterprises, armed workers' militia units (up to 15 thousand people) were created, and an hour-long general strike took place. The country's president, E. Benes, was forced to accept the resignation of 12 ministers and agree with K. Gottwald's proposals for a new composition of the government. On February 27, 1948, the new government, in which the communists played a leading role, was sworn in. The change of power took place without firing a shot. In June 1948, E. Benes resigned. K. Gottwald was elected the new president of the country.
Thus, what was similar in the events as a result of which the communists came to power in Poland and Czechoslovakia was that in both places the communists received resistance from other parties that opposed the establishment of a one-party system. But if in Poland the rise to power was accompanied by human casualties, then in the Czech Republic this happened without a single shot or casualty.
4. What were the features of the transformations of the 1950s in various countries of Eastern Europe? Compare them with the transformations in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. *Why do you think Eastern European countries did not follow the Soviet model in everything?
All the transformations of the 1950s in various countries of Eastern Europe were aimed at “building the foundations of socialism.” The example of the Soviet Union and the reforms carried out in the 1920-1930s was taken as a basis. Thus, to “build the foundations of socialism” the following activities:
1. Industrialization. The result of industrialization, carried out according to the Soviet model, was the transformation of most Eastern European countries from agrarian to industrial-agrarian ones. The main attention was paid to the development of heavy industry, which was practically created again in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia. In the GDR and Czechoslovakia, which were among the developed industrial states even before the Second World War, structural restructuring and reconstruction of industry were carried out.
As in the Soviet Union, the success of industrialization was paid for at a high price, straining all human and material resources. It should be noted that the countries of Eastern Europe did not have the external economic assistance that Western European countries received under the Marshall Plan. Due to the predominant attention to the development of heavy industry, the production of consumer goods was insufficient, and a shortage of everyday items remained.
2. Cooperation. Agricultural cooperation in the countries of Eastern Europe had features of originality in comparison with the Soviet experience; here, national traditions and conditions were taken into account to a greater extent. In some countries a single type of cooperative developed, in others several. The socialization of land and equipment was carried out in stages, different forms of payment were used (for labor, for a contributed land share, etc.). By the end of the 1950s, the share of the socialized sector in agriculture in most countries in the region exceeded 90%. The exceptions were Poland and Yugoslavia, where private peasant farms predominated in agricultural production.
3. Cultural revolution. Changes in the field of culture were largely determined by the characteristics of the previous development of countries. In Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia, one of the top priorities was to eliminate illiteracy among the population. In the GDR there was no such task, but special efforts were required to overcome the consequences of the long-term dominance of Nazi ideology in education and spiritual culture.
An undoubted achievement of cultural policy in Eastern European countries has been the democratization of secondary and higher education.
A unified incomplete (and then complete) secondary school with free education was introduced. The total duration of schooling reached 10–12 years. Its senior level was represented by gymnasiums and technical schools. They differed not in level, but in the profile of their training. Graduates of any type of secondary school had the opportunity to enter higher education educational establishments. There has been significant development higher education, in a number of countries, for the first time, a network of universities was formed that trained highly qualified scientific and technical personnel, and large scientific centers appeared.
4. establishment of communist ideology. In all countries, special importance was attached to the establishment of communist ideology as a national one. All dissent was expelled and persecuted. This was especially clearly manifested in the political trials of the late 1940s and early 1950s, as a result of which many party workers and representatives of the intelligentsia were convicted and repressed. Party purges were a common occurrence in those years. The spheres of ideology and culture continued to be a field of struggle.
5. The leadership role of the Communist Party. A number of countries had multi-party systems; Albania, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia each had one party. National Front organizations and parliaments operated, and in some countries the post of president was retained. But the leading role belonged undividedly to the communist parties.
5. Describe the participants and goals of the protests that took place in the mid-1950s in Eastern Europe.
In the mid-1950s, the following protests took place in Eastern Europe:
1. On June 16–17, 1953, in dozens of populated cities and towns of the GDR (according to various sources, their number ranged from 270 to 350), demonstrations and strikes of workers took place demanding an improvement in their financial situation. Anti-government slogans were also heard. There were attacks on party and government institutions. Soviet troops, along with local police, were deployed against the demonstrators, and tanks appeared on the city streets. The protests were suppressed. Several dozen people died. For the dissatisfied, there was only one way left - flight to West Germany.
2. Workers' protests in Poland in 1956. In Poznan, workers went on strike to protest against increased working standards and lower wages. Several people were killed in clashes with anti-worker police and military units. After these events, there was a change of leadership in the ruling Polish United Workers' Party.
3. On October 23, 1956, a student demonstration in the Hungarian capital Budapest marked the beginning of tragic events that brought the country to the brink of civil war.
The crisis situation in Hungary had a number of reasons: economic and social difficulties, the promotion of unrealistic political and economic goals by communist leaders, the repressive policies of the party leadership, etc. The situation was complicated by the struggle in the central bodies of the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party (a communist-type party) between a group of leaders dogmatic, led by M. Rakosi and those who advocated a revision of party policy and a rejection of Stalinist methods of leadership. The leader of this group was I. Nagy.
The students who demonstrated demanded the return to power of I. Nagy and democratization political system and economic relations. In the evening of the same day, the crowd gathered around the demonstrators stormed the building of the radio committee and the editorial office of the central party newspaper. Riots began in the city, armed groups appeared, attacking police and security officers. The next day, Soviet troops were brought into Budapest. At this time, I. Nagy, who headed the government, proclaimed the events taking place as a “national democratic revolution”, demanded the withdrawal of Soviet troops, announced Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and turned to the Western powers for help. In Budapest, the rebels began to fight against Soviet troops, and terror against the communists began. With the assistance of the Soviet leadership, a new government was formed headed by J. Kadar. November 4 troops Soviet army took control of the situation in the country. The government of I. Nagy fell. The performance was suppressed. Contemporaries called it differently: some – a counter-revolutionary rebellion, others – a people’s revolution. In any case, it should be noted that the events, which lasted two weeks, resulted in large casualties and material losses. Thousands of Hungarians left the country. The consequences had to be overcome for many years.
In general, the uprisings in 1953 in the GDR and in 1956 in Poland and Hungary, although suppressed, were significant. It was a protest against party politics, the Soviet model of socialism, imposed by Stalinist methods. It became obvious that change was needed.
6. Compare the events of 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia, determine the similarities and differences (comparison plan: participants, forms of struggle, outcome of events).
7. What are the reasons for Yugoslavia choosing its own path of development. *Express your opinion about the role objective and personal factors played in this.
In 1948 - 1949 There was a conflict between the party and state leadership of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The cause of the conflict was Josip Broz Tito’s reluctance to unquestioningly obey Moscow’s instructions. Having begun as a dispute between J.V. Stalin and I.Bros Tito, it ended in a rupture of interstate relations. Contacts were restored at the initiative of the Soviet side only a considerable time after Stalin’s death, in 1955. But during the years of the gap, Yugoslavia chose its own path of development. A system of workers' and public self-government gradually established itself here. Centralized management of economic sectors was abolished, the functions of enterprises in production planning and distribution of funds were expanded wages, in the political sphere the role of local authorities increased. In the field of foreign policy, Yugoslavia accepted the status of a non-aligned state.
Thus, in the breakdown of relations between Yugoslavia and the USSR great importance played by the personality of I.B. Tito, who did not want to completely submit to Stalin and saw a different path for the development of Yugoslavia.
The presentation talks about the main political and socio-economic processes in the Eastern Bloc countries after the end of World War II. Special attention is paid to the events of the 1980s - 1990s. Designed for 11th grade students, extracurricular activities, etc.
Download:
Preview:
To use presentation previews, create an account for yourself ( account) Google and log in: https://accounts.google.com
Slide captions:
Eastern European countries after World War II
Countries of “people's democracy” After the war, under pressure from the USSR, the influence of communists in Eastern Europe increased. Gradually, the communists and socialists united and seized power. 1947-1948 the defeat of the “opposition” parties and the coming to power of the communists.
Prague in February 1948. In Yugoslavia and Albania, the communists took over without a fight. In Poland, the Home Army launched terror against the communists and by 1948 they broke the resistance through repression. In Romania, P. Grosu began to get closer to the USSR. In Czechoslovakia in 1948, the country was on the brink of civil war. The Minister of Defense refused to fight the communists and President Benes gave up power.
Soviet caricature of I. Tito 1947 - instead of the Comintern, the Cominform Bureau arose, coordinating the activities of the communist parties. But in Yugoslavia the communists claimed independence. J. Tito and G. Dimitrov, without the approval of J. Stalin, agreed to create a federation of the Balkan peoples. G. Dimitrov soon died and the wrath of I. Stalin fell on I. Tito. In response, I. Tito arrested all supporters of the USSR in his Communist Party. I. Stalin declared him a fascist.
L. Rajk, head of the Hungarian Communist Party at the trial, the Cominform Bureau supported J. Stalin, but W. Gomulka (Poland) stood up for J. Tito. In response, I. Stalin launched repressions against the “Titoists” and “American spies.” The persecution of dissidents swept not only Eastern Europe, but also the USSR, where, under the guise of fighting “cosmopolitanism,” the authorities launched an anti-Jewish campaign.
The socio-economic system established in the countries of Eastern Europe is called “real socialism”. But she was very different from the theory. Power was in the hands of the nomenklatura. Nevertheless, successes were achieved - Poland, Romania, Bulgaria created a powerful industry. Created in 1949, the CMEA became an instrument for beneficial economic cooperation between socialists. countries Workers received huge social benefits and payments. Communism exists. Dutch caricature.
In Eastern Europe, the influence of the West was felt - rock developed, artists toured, banned films were shown. At the same time, the economy was experiencing a severe crisis - planning could not keep up with the needs of the market. These countries were saved from collapse by the assistance provided by the USSR to the countries of “people's democracy,” but at the same time their economic and political dependence on the USSR grew. V. Molotov and G. Zhukov sign the Warsaw Pact
1956 – speech by N.S. Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU - the debunking of Stalin’s personality cult, which was reflected in Eastern Europe and manifested itself in the emergence of movements advocating the restoration of democracy. 1956 - Stalinists shot a demonstration in Poland, and as a result of mass strikes, W. Gomułka returned to power. In Hungary, I. Nagy began a policy of reform, but M. Rakosi relieved him of his posts. The USSR achieved the removal of M. Rakosi and the return of J. Kadar. But it was not possible to stop the discontent. Residents of Budapest smash a monument to Stalin
October 23, 1956 - the authorities used weapons against the demonstrators. Part of the army went over to the side of the rebels - an uprising against the regime began. In response, the USSR sent Red Army units into Hungary. I. Nagy, returned to power, agreed on a ceasefire, but announced his withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. November 4, 1956 - Soviet troops captured Budapest. Y. Kadr came to power, and I. Nagy was shot. I. Nagy among the residents of Budapest
1968 - the new leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, headed by A. Dubcek, declared the need for democratic reforms. April 1968 - the plenum of the Central Committee adopted a plan for building “socialism with a human face.” May 1968 - a wave of demonstrations swept across the country demanding the abolition of the Communist Party's monopoly on power. In the elections that took place soon, supporters of the reforms won. L. Svoboda and A. Dubcek “Prague Spring”
August 21, 1968 – Internal Affairs Troops entered the territory of Czechoslovakia. The leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was arrested. Then primary organizations They held a congress ahead of schedule and elected a reformist Central Committee. Under pressure from the USSR, the results of the congress were canceled. April 1969 - A. Dubcek was dismissed, and G. Husak became the head of Czechoslovakia. Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague "Prague Spring"
Self-government council at a furniture factory in Sarajevo A special model of socialism arose in Yugoslavia. Enterprises were headed by workers' councils, the economy remained market features, the autonomy of the republics that were part of the SFRY was strengthened. The reforms carried out by I. Tito did not lead to democracy, but production increased 4 times, national and religious problems were quite successfully resolved.
I. Tito conducted an independent foreign policy. In 1958, the new program of the UCC announced economic development based on “market socialism.” In response, the rest of the countries of the socialist camp sharply criticized the SFRY and the SFRY took the course of relying on its own forces. After the death of I. Tito in 1980, the new leadership did not enjoy the same authority and interethnic conflicts intensified in the country.
The struggle for democracy in Poland Ser. 70s The Polish leadership, trying to pay off its debts to the West, increased pressure on the working people. In response, strikes began. The intelligentsia created the human rights organization "KOS-KOR". The influence of the Catholic Church grew in society. In the summer of 1980, meat prices were raised and worker uprisings began in response. In November 1980, the Solidarity trade union was created, headed by L. Walesa. He demanded free elections.
The PUWP delayed carrying out reforms, realizing that if elections were held, it would lose power, the Department of Internal Affairs would send troops into Poland and bloody clashes could begin. As a result, General W. Jaruzelski became the head of the government. On December 13, 1981, he introduced martial law in the country. Hundreds of opposition leaders were arrested. Lech Walesa and John Paul II
In the 1980s a wave swept across Eastern Europe velvet revolutions" The USSR could no longer support fraternal regimes. 1990 – L. Walesa became President of Poland. 1990 – K. Gross became the leader of Hungary. He transformed the Communist Party into a socialist one. The Democratic Forum won the 1990 elections. "Velvet Revolutions"
1990 – dissident Zh. Zhelev became president in Bulgaria. 1989 - V. Havel came to power in Czechoslovakia. 1989 – E. Honecker resigned in the GDR. In the 1990 elections, the CDU (supporters of German reunification) won. December 1989 – Romanian dictator N. Ceausescu was overthrown. Late 80s – democratic reforms began in almost all countries of Eastern Europe.
August 1990 - G. Kohl and L. De Maizières signed an agreement on the unification of Germany. The new governments demanded the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their territories. 1990 - The Warsaw Pact and Comecon were dissolved. December 1991 – B. Yeltsin, N. Kravchuk and S. Shushkevich dissolved the USSR.
1993 – Czechoslovakia splits into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 1990 - the collapse of the SFRY began, which took on a military character. Serbia, led by S. Milosevic, advocated maintaining unity, but in 1991, Slovenia and Croatia left the SFRY, which led to the outbreak of war. 1992 – Religious clashes began in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Civil War in Yugoslavia (1991-1995) President of the SFRY Slobodan Milosevic
The FRY supported the Bosnian Serbs, and the West supported the Muslims and Croats. 1995 - NATO intervened in the war, bombing Serbian positions. 1995 – “Dayton Accords” - Bosnia and Herzegovina was proclaimed a single state. All peoples could elect their own administration, but could not secede from the republic. Civil War in Yugoslavia (1991-1995)
1998 – Albanian terrorists became more active in Kosovo. They launched a war for secession from Yugoslavia. NATO demanded that the SFRY withdraw its troops, but S. Milosevic rejected the ultimatum. March 1999 - NATO began bombing Yugoslavia. The UN was unable to resolve the crisis. Civil War in Yugoslavia (1991-1995)
Civil war in Yugoslavia (1991-1995) June 1999 - “Raid on Pristina” - Russian paratroopers, having made a rush, occupied the Pristina airfield. The West made concessions, but soon it demanded that S. Milosevic resign. A new leadership came to power and betrayed Milosevic.
1999 – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined NATO. 2004 – Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic signed an association agreement with the EU. 2007 – Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU. Hungarian Parliament building
General conclusion: Thus, for the countries of Eastern Europe in the second half of the 20th century. – n. XXI centuries It turned out to be a very controversial period, which included both the establishment of a socialist society and integration into the world community as a result of the company to overcome dependence on the Soviet Union. The modern development of Eastern European countries is characterized, firstly, by the difficult economic situation in many of them (Bulgaria, Romania), and secondly, by the unresolved “old” problems (for example, national-ethnic issues on the Balkan Peninsula).
Homework: & 19-20 + notes in notebook
EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 1945-2000
However, in accordance with the decisions of the Crimean Conference, the process of forming a government of national unity also began in Poland. It included representatives of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR), the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), the Polish Peasant Party (PSL), as well as the Ludovtsy Party and the Social Democratic Party. In June 1945, the coalition government was headed by E. Osubka-Morawski. Due to the same decisions of the Crimean Conference, a political dialogue began between the internal forces of the Resistance and the emigration anti-fascist forces in Yugoslavia.
The National Liberation Committee, created on the basis of the pro-communist National Liberation Front, reached an agreement in March 1945 with the emigration government of Šubasic to hold general free elections to the Constituent Assembly (Constituent Assembly). The undivided predominance of pro-communist forces remained during this period only in Albania.
The reason for the cooperation of completely heterogeneous political forces, which was so unexpected at first glance, was the unity of their tasks at the first stage of post-war transformations. It was quite obvious to communists and agrarians, nationalists and democrats that the most pressing problem was the formation of the very foundations of a new constitutional system, the elimination of authoritarian governance structures associated with previous regimes, and the holding of free elections. In all countries the monarchical system was eliminated (only in Romania this happened later, after the monopoly power of the communists was established).
In Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, the first wave of reforms also concerned the solution of the national question and the formation of a federal state. The primary task was the restoration of the destroyed economy, the establishment of material support for the population, and the solution of urgent social problems. The priority of such tasks made it possible to characterize the entire stage of 1945-1946. as a period of "people's democracy". However, the consolidation of political forces was temporary.
If necessity itself economic reforms was subject to doubts, then the methods of their implementation and the ultimate goal became the subject of the first split in the ruling coalitions. As the economic situation became stable, a further reform strategy had to be determined. The peasant parties, the most numerous and influential at that moment (their representatives, as mentioned above, headed the first governments in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary), did not consider accelerated modernization and priority development of industry necessary.
They also opposed the expansion of state regulation of the economy. The main task of these parties, which was generally accomplished already at the first stage of reforms, was the destruction of latifundia and the implementation of agrarian reform in the interests of the middle peasantry. Liberal democratic parties, communists and social democrats, despite political differences, were united in their focus on the model of “catch-up development”, the desire to ensure a breakthrough for their countries in industrial development, to get closer to the level of the leading countries of the world. Without having a big advantage individually, all together they formed a powerful force capable of achieving a change in the political strategy of the ruling coalitions.
A turning point in the balance of political forces occurred during 1946, when peasant parties were pushed out of power. Changes in the highest echelons of public administration also led to adjustments in the reform course. The implementation of programs for the nationalization of large industry and the banking system began, wholesale trade, introduction of state control over production and elements of planning. But if the communists considered these reforms as the first step towards socialist transformations, then the democratic forces saw in them a process of strengthening that was natural for the post-war MMC system state element market economy.
Determining a further strategy turned out to be impossible without final ideological “self-determination.” The objective logic of post-war economic transformations also became an important factor. “Catch-up development”, which had already gone beyond the period of economic recovery, the continuation of accelerated reforms in the field of large-scale industrial production, structural and sectoral restructuring of the economy required huge investment costs. There were no sufficient internal resources in the countries of Eastern Europe. This situation predetermined the inevitability of the growing economic dependence of the region on external assistance. The choice had to be made only between the West and the East, and its outcome depended not so much on the alignment of internal political forces, but on events on the world stage.
Eastern The political fate of Eastern Europe was Europe and began to be the subject of active discussion at the Crimean and Cold Potsdam Allied Conferences. The agreements reached in Yalta between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill reflected the actual division of the European continent into spheres of influence. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania formed the “area of responsibility” of the USSR. Subsequently, Soviet diplomacy invariably maintained the initiative during negotiations with former allies on various aspects of a peace settlement in Eastern Europe.
Signing Soviet Union bilateral Treaties of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (with Czechoslovakia in 1943, with Poland and Yugoslavia in 1945, with Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria in 1948) finally formalized the contours of these paternalistic relations. However, the immediate formation of the Soviet bloc did not occur so rapidly.
Moreover, the conference in San Francisco in April 1945 adopted the “Declaration of a Liberated Europe,” where the USSR, USA and Great Britain equally committed themselves to supporting democratic changes in all countries liberated from the Nazis, guaranteeing freedom of choice, Ra them further development. Over the next two years, the USSR strove to strictly follow the proclaimed course and not force the geopolitical split of the continent. Real influence in the Eastern European region, based on the military presence and authority of the liberating power, allowed the Soviet government to repeatedly make demarches in order to demonstrate its respect for the sovereignty of these countries.
Stalin's unusual flexibility even extended to the holy of holies—the ideological realm. With the full support of the highest party leadership, academician E. Varga formulated in 1946 the concept of “democracy of a new type.” It was based on the concept of democratic socialism, built taking into account national specifics in countries liberated from fascism. The idea of “people's democracy” - a social system combining the principles of social justice, parliamentary democracy and individual freedom - was indeed extremely popular at that time in the countries of Eastern Europe. It was considered by many political forces as a “third way”, an alternative to individualistic Americanized capitalism and Soviet-style totalitarian socialism.
The international situation around the Eastern European countries began to change in mid-1946. At the Paris Peace Conference in August 1946, the American and British delegations began active attempts to intervene in the process of forming new government bodies in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as in the establishment of special judicial structures for international control over the observance of human rights in the countries of the former Hitlerite bloc. The USSR resolutely opposed such proposals, justifying its position by observing the principle of sovereignty of the Eastern European powers. The aggravation of relations between the victorious countries became especially obvious at the III and IV sessions of the Council of Foreign Ministers, held at the end of 1946 - beginning of 1947 and devoted to resolving issues of borders in post-war Europe and the fate of Germany.
In March 1947, Truman's presidential address proclaimed a new US foreign policy doctrine. The American leadership announced its readiness to support all “free peoples” in resisting external pressure and, most importantly, the communist threat in any form. Truman also stated that the United States is obliged to lead the entire “free world” in the fight against already established totalitarian regimes that undermine the foundations of international law and order.
The proclamation of the “Truman Doctrine,” which declared the beginning of a crusade against communism, marked the beginning of an open struggle between the superpowers for geopolitical influence anywhere in the world. Eastern European countries felt a change in the international situation already in the summer of 1947. During this period, negotiations took place on the terms of providing economic assistance from the United States to European countries under the Marshall Plan. The Soviet leadership not only resolutely rejected the possibility of such cooperation, but also issued an ultimatum demanding that Poland and Czechoslovakia, which had shown obvious interest, refuse to participate in the project.
The remaining countries of the Eastern European region prudently held preliminary consultations with Moscow and responded to the American proposals with a “voluntary and decisive refusal.” The USSR offered generous compensation in the form of preferential supplies of raw materials and food. But the very possibility of a geopolitical reorientation in Eastern Europe had to be eradicated, that is, to ensure monopoly power in these countries for the communist parties.
Education The formation of pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern European countries followed a similar scenario. The first step on this path was the consolidation of the Soviet course of the communist parties of the national democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.” The Romanian Communist Party was the first to make the corresponding decision - back in October 1945, the RCP was the weakest politically of the Eastern European communist parties and was not connected with the mass Resistance movement.
The leadership of the party, which was dominated by representatives of national minorities, was disorganized by the conflict between its leader G. Gheorghiu-Deja and representatives of the Moscow Buppe of Romanian communists A. Pauker and V. Luca. In addition, Gheorghiu-Deja brought charges of complicity with the occupiers against the Secretary of the Party Central Committee S. Foris, who was arrested after the arrival of Soviet troops and hanged without permission. court decision. The adoption of the radical program was associated with an attempt to gain additional support from the Soviet leadership and did not correspond to the political situation in the country.
In most countries of the Eastern European region, the decision to transition to the socialist stage of social transformation was made by the leadership of the communist parties already in 1946 and was not associated with a radical restructuring of the highest echelons of government. In April, the Plenum of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia adopted a corresponding decision, and in September, the Third Congress of the All-Union Communist Party. In October 1946, after elections in Bulgaria, the Dimitrov government came to power, declaring the same goal; in November, the newly formed bloc of Polish parties PPR and PPS (“Democratic Bloc”) announced a socialist orientation.
In all these cases, the consolidation of the course towards socialist construction did not lead to an escalation of political violence and the inculcation of communist ideology. On the contrary, the idea of socialist construction was supported by a wide range of left-of-center forces and aroused confidence among a wide variety of segments of the population. For them, socialism was not yet associated with the Soviet experience. The communist parties themselves successfully used bloc tactics during these months.
Coalitions involving communists, social democrats and their allies, as a rule, received an obvious advantage during the first democratic elections - in May 1946 in Czechoslovakia, in October 1946 in Bulgaria, in January 1947 - in Poland, in August 1947 - in Hungary. The only exceptions were Yugoslavia and Albania, where, on the crest of the liberation movement, pro-communist forces came to power in the first post-war months.
In 1947, the new center-left governments, using the already open support of the Soviet military administration and relying on state security agencies created under the control of the Soviet intelligence services based on communist cadres, provoked a series of political conflicts that led to the defeat of the peasant and liberal democratic Yartiy. Political trials took place against the leaders of the Hungarian PMSH Z. Tildy, the Polish People's Party Nikolajczyk, the Bulgarian Agricultural People's Union N. Petkov, the Romanian Ceranist Party A. Alexandrescu, the Slovak President Tiso and the leadership of the Slovak Democratic Party that supported him. In Romania, this process coincided with the final liquidation of the monarchical system. Despite King Michael’s demonstrative loyalty to the USSR, he was accused of “seeking support among Western imperialist circles” and expelled from the country.
A logical continuation of the defeat of the democratic opposition was the organizational merger of the communist and social democratic parties with the subsequent discrediting and, subsequently, the destruction of the leaders of social democracy. In February 1948, the Romanian Workers' Party was formed on the basis of the RCP and SDPR. In May 1948, after the political purge of the leadership of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, it merged with the BCP. A month later in Hungary, the CPSU and SDPV were united into the Hungarian Working People's Party. At the same time, Czechoslovak communists and social democrats united into a single party, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. In December 1948, the gradual unification of the PPS and PPR ended with the formation of the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP). At the same time, in most countries in the region, the multiparty system was not formally eliminated.
So, by 1948-1949. In almost all countries of Eastern Europe, the political hegemony of communist forces became obvious. The socialist system also received legal recognition. In April 1948, the Constitution of the Romanian People's Republic, which proclaimed a course towards building the foundations of socialism. On May 9 of the same year, a constitution of this kind was adopted in Czechoslovakia. In 1948, the course towards socialist construction was consolidated by the V Congress of the ruling Bulgarian Communist Party, and in Hungary the beginning of socialist transformations was proclaimed in the constitution adopted in August 1949. Only in Poland was the socialist constitution adopted a little later - in 1952, but already the “Small Constitution” of 1947 established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the form of the Polish state and the basis of the social system.
All constitutional acts of the late 40s - early 50s. were based on a similar legal doctrine. They consolidated the principle of democracy and the class basis of the “state of workers and toiling peasants.” The socialist constitutional and legal doctrine denied the principle of separation of powers. In the system of state power, the “omnipotence of the Soviets” was proclaimed. Local Councils became “bodies of unified state power”, responsible for implementing acts of the central authorities on their territory. Executive bodies of power were formed from the composition of Councils at all levels. Executive committees, as a rule, acted according to the principle of double subordination: to a higher governing body and the corresponding Council. As a result, a rigid power hierarchy took shape, supervised by party bodies.
While maintaining the principle of popular sovereignty (democracy) in the socialist constitutional and legal doctrine, the concept of “people” was narrowed to a separate social group- “working people.” This group was declared the supreme subject of legal relations, the true bearer of sovereignty. The individual legal personality of the person was actually denied. The individual was viewed as an organic, integral part of society, and its legal status as derived from the status of a collective social and legal subject (“working people” or “exploiting classes”).
The most important criterion for maintaining the legal status of an individual became political loyalty, which was viewed as recognition of the priority of the interests of the people over individual, selfish interests. This approach opened the way for the deployment of large-scale political repressions. Those persons who not only carry out certain “anti-national actions”, but also simply do not share the prevailing ideological postulates could also be declared “enemies of the people”. The political revolution that took place in Eastern European countries in 1947-1948 strengthened the influence of the USSR in the region, but did not yet make it overwhelming.
In the victorious communist parties, in addition to the “Moscow” wing - that part of the communists who went through the school of the Comintern and possessed precisely the Soviet vision of socialism, an influential “national” wing remained, focused on the ideas of national sovereignty and equality in relations with the “big brother” ( which, however, did not prevent many representatives of the idea of “national socialism” from being more than consistent and rigid supporters of totalitarian statehood). To support the "correct" political course young communist regimes of Eastern Europe, the Soviet leadership took a number of energetic measures. The most important of them was the formation of a new international communist organization - the successor of the Comintern.
The idea of creating a coordination center for the international communist and labor movement arose in Moscow even before the start of active confrontation in the West. Therefore, initially the Soviet leadership took a very cautious position, trying to maintain the image of an equal partner of the Eastern European countries. In the spring of 1947, Stalin invited the Polish leader W. Gomulka to take the initiative to create a joint information periodical for several communist parties. But already in the summer of the same year, during the preparatory work, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks took a much tougher position. The idea of constructive dialogue between different currents of the international labor movement was replaced by the desire to create a platform for criticism of “non-Marxist theories of the peaceful transition to socialism”, the struggle against the “dangerous enthusiasm for parliamentarism” and other manifestations of “revisionism”.
In the same vein, a meeting of delegations of the communist parties of the USSR, France, Italy and Eastern European states was held in September 1947 in the Polish city of Szklarska Poreba. The Soviet delegation, led by A. Zhdanov and G. Malenkov, actively supported the most harsh speeches about the “exacerbation of the class struggle” and the need for a corresponding adjustment of the course of the communist parties. This position was expressed by V. Gomulka, the leaders of the Bulgarian and Hungarian delegations V. Chervenkov and J. Revai, as well as the Secretary of the Communist Party of Human Rights R. Slansky. The speeches of the Romanian leader G. Gheorgheu-Dej and the Yugoslav representatives M. Djilas and E. Cardel turned out to be more restrained.
The position of the French and Italian communists, who advocated maintaining the course of consolidating all left forces in the fight against “American imperialism,” aroused even less interest among Moscow politicians. At the same time, none of the speakers proposed strengthening the political and organizational coordination of the international communist movement - they were talking about the exchange of “internal information” and opinions. A surprise for the meeting participants was Zhdanov’s final report, where, contrary to the initial agenda, the emphasis was shifted to political tasks common to all communist parties and the conclusion was made about the advisability of creating a permanent coordination center.
As a result, the meeting in Szklarska Poreba decided to create a Communist Information Bureau. True, remembering all the vicissitudes that accompanied the struggle with the Trotskyist-Zinoviev and Bukharin leadership of the old Comintern, and not wanting to receive a new opposition in the person of the Cominform in the struggle for autocracy in the communist movement, Stalin narrowed the field of activity to the limit new organization. The Cominform was supposed to be only a political platform for the leadership of the P(b) to present the “correct vision of the ways to build socialism.”
In accordance with the proven political recipes of the 20s. The Kremlin tried, first of all, to discover a potential enemy among its new allies and roughly punish the “disobedient” one. Judging by the documents of the foreign policy department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, initially W. Gomulka was considered in this role, who recklessly spoke at a meeting in Szklarska Poreba against the creation of a political coordination center instead of the planned joint printed edition. However, the “Polish problem” was soon overshadowed by a more acute conflict with the Yugoslav leadership. Gomułka was removed from his post in 1948 without further ado Secretary General PPR and replaced by B. Bierut, who is more loyal to the Kremlin.
Yugoslavia, at first glance, of all the Eastern European countries, provided the least grounds for ideological revelations and political confrontation. Since the war, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has become the most influential force in the country, and its leader Joseph Broz Tito has become a national hero. Since January 1946, a one-party system was legally enshrined in Yugoslavia, and the implementation of broad programs for the nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture began. Forced industrialization, carried out according to the Soviet model, was considered as a strategic line for the development of the national economy and the social structure of society. The authority of the USSR in Yugoslavia during these years was indisputable.
The first reason for disagreements to arise between the Soviet and Yugoslav leadership was the negotiations on the disputed territory of Trieste in 1946. Stalin, not wanting to aggravate relations with the Western powers at that time, supported plans for a compromise settlement of this problem. In Yugoslavia this was considered a betrayal of the interests of an ally. Disagreements also arose on the issue of the participation of the USSR in the restoration and development of the Yugoslav mining industry. The Soviet government was ready to finance half of the costs, but the Yugoslav side insisted on full financing from the USSR, contributing only the cost of minerals as its share.
As a result, economic assistance to the USSR was reduced only to supplies, equipment and dispatch of specialists. But the real reason for the conflict was political. More and more irritation in Moscow was caused by the desire of the Yugoslav leadership to present their country as a “special” ally of the USSR, more significant and influential than all other members of the Soviet bloc. Yugoslavia considered the entire Balkan region as its zone of direct influence, and Albania as a potential member of the Yugoslav federation. The paternalistic and not always respectful style of relations on the part of Soviet politicians and economic specialists, in turn, caused discontent in Belgrade. It intensified to a particular extent after the start in 1947 of a large-scale operation by the Soviet intelligence services to recruit agents in Yugoslavia and create an intelligence network there.
From mid-1947, relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia began to rapidly deteriorate. Official Moscow reacted sharply to the joint statement of the governments of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria dated August 1, 1947 on the initialing (coordination) of a treaty of friendship and cooperation. This decision not only was not agreed upon with the Soviet government, but also preceded the ratification of the peace treaty between Bulgaria and the leading countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. Under pressure from Moscow, the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders then admitted a “mistake.” But already in the fall of 1947, the Albanian question became a stumbling block in Soviet-Yugoslav relations. Taking advantage of differences in the Albanian government, in November Yugoslavia brought accusations of unfriendly actions to the leadership of this country.
The criticism mainly concerned the Minister of Economy N. Spiru, who headed the pro-Soviet wing of the Albanian government. Soon Spiru committed suicide, and the Yugoslav leadership, ahead of possible reaction The Kremlin itself initiated a discussion of the issue of the fate of Albania in Moscow. The negotiations that took place in December-January only temporarily reduced the intensity of the confrontation. Stalin explicitly hinted that in the future the accession of Albania to the Yugoslav Federation could become quite real. But Tito’s demands for the entry of Yugoslav troops into Albanian territory were harshly rejected. The denouement came in January 1948 after the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leadership unveiled plans to deepen Balkan integration.
This project received the harshest assessment in the Soviet official press. At the beginning of February, the “rebels” were summoned to Moscow. Bulgarian leader G. Dimitrov hastened to abandon his previous intentions, but the reaction of official Belgrade turned out to be more restrained. Tito refused to personally go to the “public flogging”, and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, after the report of Djilas and Kardel, who returned from Moscow, decided to abandon plans for Balkan integration, but to increase diplomatic pressure on Albania. On March 1, another meeting of the Central Committee of the Yugoslavia took place, at which very harsh criticism of the position of the Soviet leadership was voiced. Moscow's response was the decision made on March 18 to withdraw all Soviet specialists from Yugoslavia.
On March 27, 1948, Stalin sent a personal letter to J. Tito, which summarized the accusations brought against the Yugoslav side (however, it is significant that the leaders of the communist parties of other Cominform member countries also received copies of it). The contents of the letter show the real reason for the break with Yugoslavia - the desire of the Soviet leadership to clearly show how “socialism should not be built.” Tito and his associates were reproached for criticizing universality historical experience USSR, dissolution of the Communist Party in the Popular Front, abandonment of class struggle, patronage of capitalist elements in the economy.
In fact, these reproaches had nothing to do with the internal problems of Yugoslavia - it was chosen as a target only because of its excessive willfulness. But the leaders of other communist parties, invited to participate in the public “exposure” of the “criminal Tito clique,” were forced to officially admit the criminality of the very attempt to find other ways to build socialism.
On May 4, 1948, Stalin sent a new letter to Tito with an invitation to the second meeting of the Cominform and a lengthy presentation of his vision of the principles of the “correct” construction of the foundations of socialism. It was about the universality of the Soviet model of social transformation, the inevitability of an intensification of the class struggle at the stage of building the foundations of socialism and, as a consequence, the uncontested dictatorship of the proletariat, the political monopoly of communist parties, the irreconcilable struggle with other political forces and “non-labor elements”, the priority programs of accelerated industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. Tito, naturally, did not respond to this invitation, and Soviet-Yugoslav relations were actually severed.
At the second meeting of the Cominform in June 1948, formally devoted to the Yugoslav question, the ideological and political foundations of the socialist camp were finally consolidated, including the right of the USSR to intervene in the internal affairs of other socialist countries and recognition of the universality of the Soviet model of socialism. The internal development of the countries of Eastern Europe now took place under the strict control of the USSR. The creation in 1949 of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which assumed the functions of coordinating the economic integration of socialist countries, and later (in 1955) of the military-political bloc the Warsaw Pact Organization, completed the formation of the socialist camp.
