Countries of Eastern Europe after the Second World War. Western European countries: post-war structure

Countries of Central and South Eastern Europe(Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania), which in the post-war period began to be called simply Eastern Europe, went through dramatic trials.

During the war, some of them were occupied by German and Italian troops (Poland, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Albania), others turned out to be allies of Germany and Italy. Peace treaties were concluded with these countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania).

The liberation of Europe from fascism opened the way to the establishment of a democratic system and anti-fascist reforms. The defeat of the Nazi troops by the Soviet Army on the territory of these countries had a decisive influence on the internal processes in the states of Eastern Europe. They found themselves in the orbit of influence Soviet Union.

Implementation in Eastern European countries 1945–1948. democratic reforms (restoration of parliamentary regimes, multi-party system, universal suffrage, adoption of constitutions, agrarian reforms, punishment of war criminals, nationalization of property of active Nazi criminals and their allies) were also typical for the countries of the European West. However, in the conditions of post-war Soviet-American rivalry and as a result of direct pressure and assistance from the USSR in 1947–1948. in the countries of Eastern Europe, communist parties established themselves in power, pushing aside and liquidating their political opponents– liberal democratic parties. Having completed the process of establishing autocracy, which was then called the period of people's democratic revolutions, the communist parties of Eastern European countries proclaimed the beginning of the construction of socialism.

In this case, the initial model was the socio-economic and political system established in the USSR. A greater or lesser degree of copying the experience of the USSR was characteristic of all countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Although Yugoslavia chose a slightly different version of socio-economic policy, in its main parameters it represented a version of totalitarian socialism, but with a greater orientation towards the West.

In Eastern European countries, as a rule, a one-party political system was established. The created popular fronts sometimes included political representatives of parties that had no political influence.

In the post-war period, in all countries of the region, the main attention was paid to the problems of industrialization, the development of primarily heavy industry, since, except for Czechoslovakia and the GDR, all other countries were agricultural. Industrialization was accelerated. It was based on the nationalization of industry, finance, and trade. Agrarian reforms ended with collectivization, but without the nationalization of land. The management system of all sectors of the economy was concentrated in the hands of the state. Market relations were reduced to a minimum, and the administrative distribution system triumphed.

Overstrain of finances and budget reduced development opportunities social sphere and the entire non-productive sphere - education, healthcare, science. Sooner or later, this was bound to affect both the slowdown in the pace of development and the deterioration of living conditions. The model of an extensive type of production, requiring an increasing involvement of material, energy and labor costs, has exhausted itself. The world was entering a different reality - the era of scientific and technological revolution, implying a different, intensive type of production. The countries of Eastern Europe turned out to be immune to new economic demands.

Further socialist development increasingly diverged from the natural-historical process of development of European civilization. Uprisings in Poland and strikes in other countries, the uprising in the GDR in 1953, the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968, suppressed by neighboring troops socialist countries, - all this is sufficient evidence of the implantation of the socialist ideal in the version as it was understood by the communist parties of that time.

Chapter 12. USSR AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR

According to the views of many geopoliticians, due to its population, abundance of resources, and fairly high level of economic development, the territory from the Rhine to the Urals represents the “heart of the Earth,” control over which ensures hegemony over Eurasia, and, accordingly, the world. Eastern Europe is the center of the “heart of the Earth,” which determines its special significance. Indeed, historically, Eastern Europe was a field of struggle between powers and an arena for the interaction of different cultures. In past centuries, the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, Germany, and Russia claimed dominance over it. There were also attempts to create strong West Slavic states, the largest state formation of which was Poland, which in the 18th-19th centuries was divided between Russia, Austria and Prussia.

Most of the states of Eastern Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary - appeared on political map peace after the First World War. Being mainly agrarian and agrarian-industrial, having territorial claims against each other, in the interwar period they became hostages of the relations of the great powers, a bargaining chip in their confrontation. Ultimately, in the role of satellites, junior partners, occupied protectorates, they were subordinated to Nazi Germany.

The subordinate, dependent nature of the situation in Eastern Europe did not change after the Second World War.

§ 38. EASTERN EUROPE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY

With the defeat of fascism, coalition governments came to power in Eastern European countries, in which parties of an anti-fascist orientation (communists, social democrats, liberals, etc.) were represented. The first reforms were of a general democratic nature and were aimed at eradicating the remnants of fascism and restoring the war-ravaged economy. With the intensification of contradictions between the USSR and its allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, the USA and Great Britain, the beginning of " cold war“In the countries of Eastern Europe, there has been a polarization of political forces into supporters of pro-Western and pro-Soviet orientations. In 1947-1948 in these countries, most of which were home to Soviet troops, anyone who did not share communist views was forced out of government.

Eastern Europe: features of the development model. In countries called people's democracies, remnants of a multi-party system have been preserved. Political parties in Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, which recognized the leading role of the communists, were not dissolved; their representatives were given a quota in parliaments and governments. Otherwise, in Eastern Europe the Soviet model of a totalitarian regime with its inherent features was reproduced: the cult of the leader, mass repressions. By Soviet model collectivization of agriculture (Poland was a partial exception) and industrialization were carried out.

Formally, Eastern European countries were considered independent states. At the same time, with the creation of the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers' Parties (Informburo) in 1947, the actual leadership of the “fraternal countries” began to be exercised from Moscow. The fact that the USSR will not tolerate any amateur activity was shown by the extremely negative reaction of I.V. Stalin on the policies of the leaders of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia - G. Dimitrov and I. Tito. The Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia included a clause on countering “any aggression, no matter from which side it comes.” The leaders of these states came up with the idea of ​​​​creating a confederation of Eastern European countries, which would allow them to independently choose their development model.

The task of modernization was undoubtedly relevant for Eastern European countries. The ruling communist parties in them sought to solve these problems using socialist methods, copying the experience of modernization in the USSR during the years of the first five-year plans. At the same time, it was not taken into account that in small countries the creation of industrial giants is rational only under the condition of integration with their neighbors. A confederation in Eastern Europe, pooling the resources of Eastern European countries would be economically justified. However, the Soviet leadership saw this idea as a threat to its influence on the countries liberated from fascism.

The USSR's response to attempts to demonstrate independence was to sever relations with Yugoslavia. The Information Bureau called on the Yugoslav communists to overthrow the Tito regime, which was accused of switching to the position of bourgeois nationalism. Transformations in Yugoslavia proceeded in the same way as in neighboring countries. Cooperatives were created in agriculture, the economy became the property of the state, the monopoly on power belonged to the Communist Party. Nevertheless, the regime of I. Tito until the death of Stalin was defined as fascist. Across all countries of Eastern Europe in 1948-1949. There was a wave of reprisals against those who were suspected of sympathizing with the ideas of the leader of Yugoslavia. In Bulgaria, after the death of G. Dimitrov, a line of hostility towards Tito was also established.

Totalitarian regimes in most Eastern European countries remained unstable. Post-war history Eastern Europe is full of attempts to liberate itself from regimes that relied on the support of the USSR, and to revise the ideological foundations of socialism. For the population of Eastern European countries, despite the wall of information blockade between the East and West of Europe, it quickly became obvious that economic policy The ruling communist regimes are suffering complete failure. Thus, before the Second World War, living standards in Western and Eastern Germany, Austria and Hungary were approximately the same. Over time, by the 1980s, in countries building socialism according to Soviet recipes, the standard of living was three times lower than in neighboring states where a socially oriented market economy had developed.

The crisis of the Soviet model of socialism in Eastern Europe began to develop almost immediately after its establishment. Death of I.V. Stalin in 1953, which raised hopes for change in the “socialist camp”, caused an uprising in the GDR.

The exposure of Stalin's cult of personality by the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 led to a change in the leaders of the ruling parties nominated and supported by him in most Eastern European countries. The liquidation of the Information Bureau and the restoration of relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia, the recognition of the conflict as a misunderstanding gave rise to the hope that the Soviet leadership would give up strict control over internal politics Eastern European countries. Under these conditions, new leaders, theorists of communist parties, including the ruling ones (M. Djilas in Yugoslavia, L. Kolakovsky in Poland, E. Bloch in the GDR, I. Nagy in Hungary), made attempts to comprehend new phenomena and trends in social -economic life of developed countries, interests of the labor movement. These attempts drew sharp condemnation from the CPSU, which acted as the main defender of the integrity of the established order in Eastern Europe.

USSR policy towards Eastern European countries. Attempts to dismantle the totalitarian structures of power in Hungary in 1956 and transition to a multi-party system, undertaken by the leadership of the ruling party, grew into an anti-totalitarian, democratic revolution. These aspirations were suppressed by Soviet troops. An attempt at reform, a transition to “socialism with human face", undertaken in Czechoslovakia in 1968, was also suppressed by armed force.

There was no legal justification for the deployment of troops in both cases. The reason was a request from a “group of leaders” for assistance in the fight against the “counter-revolution”, allegedly directed from outside and threatening the foundations of socialism. Loyalty to his principle collective defense was repeatedly declared by the ruling parties of the USSR and Eastern European countries. However, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the leaders of the ruling party and state raised the question not of abandoning socialism, but of improving it. Those who invited foreign troops into the country were not authorized to do so by anyone. The leadership of the CPSU and Soviet state arrogated to itself the right to decide what is in the interests of socialism not only in the USSR, but throughout the world. Under L.I. Brezhnev, the concept of real socialism was formulated, according to which only the understanding of socialism accepted in the USSR had the right to exist. Any deviations from it were considered as a transition to positions hostile to progress and the Soviet Union.

The theory of real socialism, which substantiates the right of the USSR to carry out military interventions in the internal affairs of its allies under the Warsaw Pact, was called the “Brezhnev Doctrine” in Western countries. The background to this doctrine was determined by two factors.

Firstly, these were ideological considerations. The recognition of the bankruptcy of socialism in Eastern Europe could raise doubts about the correctness of the course of the CPSU among the peoples of the USSR.

Secondly, in the conditions of the Cold War, the split of Europe into two military-political blocs, the weakening of one of them objectively turned out to be a gain for the other. The severance of allied relations with the USSR by Hungary or Czechoslovakia (this was one of the demands of the reformers) was seen as disrupting the balance of power in Europe. Although in the era of nuclear missiles the question of where the line of confrontation lies lost its former significance, the historical memory of invasions from the West remained. She encouraged the Soviet leadership to strive to ensure that the troops of a potential enemy, which was considered the NATO bloc, were deployed as far as possible from the borders of the USSR. At the same time, the fact that many Eastern Europeans felt hostage to the Soviet-American confrontation was underestimated, realizing that in the event of a serious conflict between the USSR and the USA, the territory of Eastern Europe would become the main battlefield for interests alien to them.

The deepening crisis of “real socialism”. In the 1970s in many countries of Eastern Europe, reforms were gradually carried out, limited opportunities for the development of free market relations opened up, trade and economic ties with states intensified Western Europe, repressions against dissidents were limited. In particular, an independent, non-partisan pacifist movement arose in Hungary. The changes, however, were limited in nature and were carried out with an eye on the position of the USSR leadership, which disapproved of them.

The most far-sighted leaders of the ruling parties in Eastern European countries sought to maintain at least a minimum internal support and the need to take into account the tough position of the CPSU ideologists, intolerant of any reforms in the allied countries.

A kind of turning point was the events in Poland in 1980-1981, where the independent trade union “Solidarity” was formed, which immediately took an anti-communist position. Its members included millions of members of the Polish working class, who rejected the right of the communist bureaucracy to rule in its name. In this situation, the USSR and its allies did not dare to use troops to suppress dissent. Martial law was introduced in Poland and the authoritarian rule of General W. Jaruzelski was established. This marked the complete collapse of the idea of ​​“real socialism,” which was forced to be replaced, with the approval of the USSR, by a military dictatorship.

DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

FrommemoriesM. Djilas, memberCentral CommitteeSKYU, Vcollection: "Russia, whichWeNotknew, 1939 - 1993 » . M., 1995. WITH. 222-223:

“Stalin pursued two goals. The first is to subjugate Yugoslavia and through it all of Eastern Europe. There was another option. If it doesn’t work out with Yugoslavia, then subjugate Eastern Europe without it. He got the second one<...>

This has not been written anywhere, but I remember from confidential conversations that in the countries of Eastern Europe - Poland, Romania, Hungary - there was a tendency towards independent development<...>In 1946 I was at the congress of the Czechoslovak party in Prague. There Gottwald said that the level of culture in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union is different. He emphasized that Czechoslovakia is an industrialized country and socialism in it will develop differently, in more civilized forms, without the upheavals that occurred in the Soviet Union, where industrialization went through very difficult stages. Gottwald opposed collectivization in Czechoslovakia. In essence, his views were not very different from ours. Gottwald lacked the character to fight Stalin. And Tito was a strong man<...>Gomułka also failed to defend his position. At one meeting of the Information Bureau, Gomulka spoke about the Polish path to socialism. Dimitrov also thought about independent development.”

FromstatementsN. WITH. Khrushchev 26 May 1955 G. Vcollection: "Russia, whichWeNotknew, 1939 - 1993 » . M., 1995. WITH. 221:

“We sincerely regret what happened and resolutely reject all the layers of this period<...>We thoroughly studied the materials on which the grave accusations and insults then brought against the leadership of Yugoslavia were based. The facts show that these materials were fabricated by enemies of the people, despicable agents of imperialism, who deceived their way into the ranks of our party.

We are deeply convinced that the period when our relations were darkened is behind us.”

Frommemories 3. Mlynarza, memberCentral CommitteeHRC, "FreezinghitfromKremlin". M., 1992. WITH. 130:

“The years of Stalinism in Czechoslovakia only strengthened in the national consciousness those ideals that the authorities tried in every possible way to eradicate. The dictatorship clearly showed what their oblivion leads to, and this pushed even the “ideologically convinced” Stalinists onto the path of reform. In the minds of peoples, the values ​​of democracy and humanism were rehabilitated long before 1968<...>Living in fear, acting according to orders, and not in the way that deep down in your soul you think is right and worthy, is a heavy burden for an individual, for a social group, and for an entire people. Therefore, the deliverance from such fear is welcomed as a resurrection.”

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

1. What factors determined the choice of development model for the states of Eastern Europe after the Second World War? What was common and what distinguished the post-war development of these countries?

2. What events of the 1940-1980s. showed instability political regimes Eastern European countries?

3. What was the “Brezhnev Doctrine”, what was its main ideological and political meaning?

§ 39. REASONS FOR THE CRISIS OF TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IN THE USSR

The 20th century witnessed not only the rise, but also the decline of totalitarianism, the collapse of totalitarian political regimes in many countries. This is not a quirk of history, but rather a natural product of social development.

The Soviet Union demonstrated an ability to solve large-scale problems that amazed the imagination of its contemporaries. In a record short time, the USSR turned into a powerful industrial power, managed to defeat the main ground forces of Germany in the Second World War, overcome its lag behind the United States in the creation of atomic weapons, and was the first to begin space exploration.

At the same time, in the process of its development, the USSR fully demonstrated weak sides, organically inherent in any totalitarian regime, which determined the inevitability of its collapse.

The collapse of the administrative-command system. In a system of decision-making without widespread discussion, one leader or a group of leaders often determined priorities in the allocation of resources incorrectly. Resources were spent on projects that did not produce returns, and even resulted in damage.

Both in the USSR and in the countries of Eastern Europe, many “constructions of the century” were carried out, the economic feasibility of which was questionable, and the environmental damage was undeniable. At the same time, little attention was paid to the development of energy-saving and resource-saving technologies. For ideological reasons, a ban was imposed on research in the field of creation artificial intelligence, genetics, which led to a serious lag in these important areas of scientific and technological progress. Based on ideological considerations, solidarity with the “anti-imperialist” regimes in 1957-1964. The USSR provided economic assistance more than 20 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It covered up to 50% of Egypt's expenses for economic development, and up to 15% for India. Willingness of N.S. Khrushchev's help to any regime that expressed interest in the ideals of socialism led to a waste of the USSR's resources without bringing any significant economic or military-political benefit. Subsequently, most of the regimes that received assistance entered the orbit of influence of developed Western countries. Due to a purely volitional decision made without even discussing it governing bodies ruling party and state, the USSR supported by force of arms in 1979 a pro-Soviet group in ruling elite Afghanistan. This action was regarded by the people of Afghanistan and the majority of developing countries as aggression. The USSR was drawn into a senseless and hopeless war, which cost great human and material losses and undermined its international authority.

Centralized, administrative-command management of the economy, as its scale grew, required the growth of a management apparatus working with diminishing returns. One “center of power” is, in principle, unable to monitor, control and plan, especially for several years in advance, all connections between tens of thousands of large, small and medium-sized enterprises, changes in world market conditions. This created anarchy in the economy, which remained centrally planned in name only. During the entire existence of the USSR, the tasks of the five-year plans were never fully fulfilled (not to mention the “seven-year plan” of N.S. Khrushchev, the results of which were not summed up at all). In the 1980s production growth rates became zero. The tasks formulated by the ruling party to transfer the economy to an intensive path of development, using information age technologies, were not fulfilled. One of the reasons for this was that the leaders of industries, regions, and enterprises were afraid of the emergence of mass unemployment and were not ready to solve the social problems of modernization.

Crisis of ideology. Securing mass support for themselves through ideology, totalitarian regime had to constantly demonstrate success and confirm the realism of the formulated super-tasks, otherwise enthusiasm gives way to disappointment and irritation.

The leaders of the USSR and other countries that declared themselves to have reached the lowest phase of communism were bound by the obligation to build the most progressive and fair society in the world, where people's needs (reasonable, of course) would be fully satisfied. Thus, the leader of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong, put forward the slogan - “Five years of hard work, ten thousand years happy life" In the CPSU Program adopted under N.S. Khrushchev, contained a commitment to achieve communism during the lifetime of his contemporary generation Soviet people, by 1980 to surpass the most developed country world - USA in terms of main development indicators.

Ideologists of the CPSU and other ruling related parties offered various explanations for the reasons why the set goals turned out to be unattainable. However, these explanations, even taken seriously, objectively weakened the foundations of totalitarian statehood. References to the machinations of external and internal enemies strengthened the atmosphere of general suspicion in society, which was used for career purposes by self-interested factions of the bureaucratic elite, which dealt with the most talented and creative part of the intelligentsia. Revelations of the miscalculations, mistakes and crimes of previous leaders, often being fair, discredited the totalitarian regime in general.

Criticism of leaders is common and commonplace in a democracy. In the USSR, after the praise to the wise and infallible leaders I.V. Stalin, N.S. Khrushcheva, L.I. Brezhnev, one turned out to be guilty of genocide, the extermination of millions of his own fellow citizens, the other of voluntarism, unwillingness to take into account objective realities, the third of stagnation and inertia. Since the totalitarian regime is built on the deification of leaders, their dethronement or obvious physical weakness (Yu.V. Andropov, K.U. Chernenko) acted as a source of decline in trust in it. Lies about imaginary successes played big role in ensuring the stability of the regime, however, with the development of the media and their globalization, thanks to international radio broadcasting and satellite television, it became increasingly difficult to hide the truth.

Over time, the enthusiasm of the masses inevitably gave way to apathy, irony, and a desire to find alternative paths of development; in the 1980s. covering the leadership of the CPSU, CPC, and other ruling parties.

Disappointment in ideology befell not only the governed, but also many parts of the administrative apparatus. Only at the origins communist movement there were leaders who were sincerely convinced of the correctness of their idea and were able to convey their conviction to others. For many representatives of the hierarchical, bureaucratic management mechanism, ideology has become not so much a symbol of faith as a tribute to ritual, a means of covering up personal interests, including in the field of enrichment.

According to a number of theorists - from former associate V.I. Lenina L.D. Trotsky to M. Djilas, a Yugoslav Marxist branded a renegade in the USSR, a totalitarian regime, even if it is initially built on the ideas of social egalitarianism, inevitably gives rise to a new ruling class - the bureaucratic elite, the nomenklatura. Over time, its desire to legalize accumulated wealth creates a layer in the leadership of the totalitarian regime for which the socialist idea becomes a burden. In the regions and localities, their own layer of oligarchy is emerging, for which control over its activities by the center of power turns out to be an obstacle to enrichment, which becomes a source of separatist tendencies.

Isolation in the international arena. The Soviet totalitarian regime, due to its inherent distrust of the policies of countries where a different ideology dominated, and its desire for complete control over all spheres of society, treated with great fear international cooperation. The possibilities of taking advantage of the international division of labor, scientific, technical and humanitarian cooperation were deliberately limited. The desire for self-isolation was fueled by the policy of trade restrictions pursued by Western countries during the Cold War, which was also a factor in the loss of development rates.

Initially, with the communists coming to power in the countries of Eastern Europe, each of them, following the Soviet model, began to industrialize, striving to move towards complete self-sufficiency. With the creation in 1949 of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance between the USSR and Eastern European countries, a system of international division of labor was formed, but the pace of its development was inferior to Western European ones.

The establishment of direct connections between enterprises and the formation of international firms in conditions where integration was carried out within the framework and on the basis of interstate agreements required countless approvals and received virtually no development. Planning the development of foreign trade relations with the establishment of fixed prices for a five-year period led to a gap between prices within the CMEA and the global prices. Thus, with an increase in world energy prices after 1973, the USSR continued to supply them to its partners at the same, reduced prices, to the detriment of its interests. But in the 1980s. prices for Soviet oil and gas turned out to be higher than the world average. This has already become a source of economic difficulties in Eastern European countries.

The low efficiency of integration within the CMEA framework intensified the secret dissatisfaction of its participants with the existing model of relationships. There were growing aspirations, including among the largest CMEA country, the USSR, to develop trade and economic ties with highly developed countries the West, the acquisition of high technologies and consumer goods produced by them. The share of Western countries in the foreign trade turnover of the USSR doubled in just 20 years, from 1960 to 1980 - from 15% to 33.6%. At the same time, finished products were mainly purchased, instead of setting up joint production, which is much more economically profitable. (One of the few exceptions was the creation of a Soviet-Italian automobile plant in Togliatti, which began producing Zhiguli cars.)

If the USSR had the opportunity through the sale of natural resources, oil, gas, which in the 1970s. became the main ones in its exports, to conduct balanced trade with Western countries, then its CMEA partners very soon faced growing debt, inflation, and undermining development prospects.

The difficulties of relations with countries that were previously considered reliable allies of the USSR, the world of socialism, undermined confidence in the ideology professed by the CPSU. Claims that a new type of relationship was developing between countries building socialism looked unconvincing. The friction between the USSR and Yugoslavia, the conflict between the USSR and China, which escalated into clashes on the Soviet-Chinese border, the war between China and Vietnam in 1979, and dissatisfaction with the CMEA clearly showed that totalitarian socialism is very far from peaceful.

BIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

N.S. Khrushchev(1894-1971) - successor to I.V. Stalin as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (1953-1964), at the same time Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (1958-1964).

N.S. Khrushchev was born in the village of Kalinovka, Kursk province, and worked as a shepherd and mechanic in factories and mines in Donbass. In 1918 he joined the Bolshevik Party and took part in the Civil War. He graduated from the working faculty of the Donetsk Industrial Institute and began to move quite quickly through the levels of the party hierarchy: from the secretary of the workers' faculty party cell to the secretary of the party committee of the Industrial Academy (1929), then - secretary of the district committee in Moscow, from 1934 - member of the party Central Committee, head of the Moscow city and regional party organizations. From 1938 to 1949 he was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, in 1949-1953. - Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

10Program

... « Worldwidestory . Story Russia and the world in XX-beginning of XXI century", textbook for 11 class, M, “Russian Word”, 2009 N.V. Zagladin “ WorldwidestoryXXcentury" ...

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 a Google account and log in to it: 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 Communist Party of Hungary at 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 transformation, 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 the primary organizations 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, market features were preserved in the economy, and 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 pursued an independent foreign policy. In 1958 new program 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 a course of relying on own strength. After the death of I. Tito in 1980, the new leadership did not enjoy the same authority and interethnic conflicts escalated 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 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 - was overthrown Romanian dictator N. Ceausescu. 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. New governments demanded withdrawal 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 as 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 turned out to be a very controversial period, which included both the establishment of a socialist society and integration into global community as a result of the campaign to overcome dependence on the Soviet Union. Modern development Eastern European countries are 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

What political state did the countries of Eastern Europe find themselves in in the early post-war years (until the end of 1946)?
2. What was the situation Soviet republics Baltic states after the war?
3. What public sentiments were widespread in Eastern Europe after the war? What approaches did the USSR follow when determining its policy in Eastern Europe?
4. How was the USSR viewed in Eastern European countries?
5. How were non-communist forces defeated in the general elections in Poland on January 19, 1947? What consequences did it have?
1. In Hungary after the war there were no communists main force. Hungary was an ally of Germany under the Anti-Comintern Pact, and Hungarian units fought on the German side in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. However, back in 1943, dictator M. Horthy began to look for ways to take the country out of the war and came into contact with British representatives. In the spring of 1944, he even tried to get permission from Hitler to withdraw Hungarian troops from at least one of the fronts. Berlin refused, and on March 14, German troops were sent into Hungary.
In August 1944, M. Horthy began negotiations with Moscow, asking for its consent to the joint occupation of Hungary by the forces of the USSR and Western allies. In October, he officially announced Hungary's withdrawal from the war. In response to this, German troops entered Budapest.
After the fall of M. Horthy and the liberation of Hungary by Soviet troops, the first free elections took place on November 3, 1945. The Party of Small Farmers received the majority of votes. On February 1, 1946, a republic was proclaimed in Hungary. The new government in 1946 was headed by Ferenc Nagy, a representative of the Smallholders' Party. The communists participated in it, but did not occupy dominant positions.
In other countries, communists achieved more. In November 1944, communists were included in the Romanian government. True, already in February 1945, a new cabinet was formed in Bucharest, headed by the leader of the Farmers' Front, Petru Groza. It was already essentially a communist government. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. Ya. Vyshinsky, implementing the decisions of the December (1945) Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow, was even forced to make a special visit to Romania in order to achieve the inclusion in the Romanian government of representatives of the “historical” parties - the National Liberal and National -Tsaranist - and thus provide the Romanian government with international recognition. In general, the disappearance of non-communist parties and the establishment of a one-party system occurred first in those countries where the Soviet military-political presence either did not exist at all (Albania), or it played a secondary role in the formation post-war order(Yugoslavia).
The communization of Bulgaria, which during the war years was in allied relations with Germany and Italy, also took place quite quickly, without declaring war on the USSR. On September 5, 1944, the USSR declared a state of war with Bulgaria, and Soviet troops were sent there. This allowed the Bulgarian communists and other anti-German forces to become more active. A non-communist government was formed in the country, headed by the leader of the Zveno union, Kimon Georgiev. It included communists who occupied key positions. Members of the regency council were arrested and executed. In November 1945, parliamentary elections were held in Bulgaria, in which the Fatherland Front, a coalition of heterogeneous parties led by communists, won. The new cabinet was re-formed by K. Georgiev. In November 1946, as a result of a referendum, the monarchy in Bulgaria was abolished, and the country was proclaimed People's Republic Bulgaria. On November 21, 1946, Georgi Dimitrov arrived in Sofia from Moscow, who headed the next Bulgarian government.
The situation in Poland developed more complexly. During the war, the western regions of this country were included in Germany, and in the eastern regions a General Government was formed, headed by a German governor. By the end of the war, two Polish governments claimed the right to represent the interests of the Polish people - one pro-Western emigrant in London (in 1943-1944 it was headed by the leader of the Polish Peasant Party Stanislaw Mikolajczyk) and the other - created in July 1944 on part of the liberated territory of Poland in Lublin, pro-Soviet Provisional National Government of Poland.
On August 1, 1944, patriotic groups of Poles who supported the London government raised an armed uprising in Warsaw against German troops. It was launched taking into account the attack on Warsaw by Soviet troops and counting on their support. Meanwhile, Stalin decided not to support the uprising in Warsaw in order to prevent the strengthening of anti-Soviet forces in Poland. On September 14, 1944, USSR troops occupied one of the suburbs of Warsaw, and further advance stopped. The uprising lasted until October 2 and was brutally suppressed by the Nazis with the inaction of Soviet troops.
The Soviet Union began to ensure that the post-war cabinet in Poland was created on a “Lublin” rather than a “London” basis. The key consideration that continued to guide the USSR was to ensure recognition of the Curzon Line as the future eastern border of Poland. The Soviet side did not allow any deviations on the border issue. Soviet representatives considered it possible to include in the coalition government only those representatives of the “London Poles” who agreed with the “Curzon Line.” The USA and Britain, without rejecting the position of J.V. Stalin, sabotaged the formation of the Polish cabinet on Soviet terms. Only in Yalta did they agree to the formula of a coalition government “on a Lublin basis” with the participation of moderate “Londoners”. But, fearing that the Western allies would refuse to implement the agreements reached, on April 21, 1945, the USSR concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Post-War Cooperation with the Lublin government for a period of 20 years. It was clear that Moscow would not allow the formation of a coalition government in Poland at all if the United States, Britain and the “London Poles” insisted on revising Moscow’s position on the border issue. The USSR line won.
On June 28, 1945, a coalition cabinet was formed from the “Lublin” and “London” Poles, headed by the socialist E. Osobka-Morawski, who represented the Lublin government. S. Mikolajczyk took the posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, hoping to expand his influence in the future, relying on his popularity among the peasantry. Non-communist parties in Poland had many supporters, and the Polish Peasant Party of Mikolajczyk in 1945 outnumbered the Communist Party and the Socialist Party combined. In accordance with the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, the coalition government was recognized by the Western powers. In August 1945, the USSR signed with the new coalition government of Poland the Treaty on Soviet-Polish state border, which confirmed its passage (with some deviations) along the “Curzon Line”.
Of all the countries in Eastern Europe, the non-communist alternative seemed most viable in Czechoslovakia. This was influenced by its democratic experience between the two world wars, the country’s economic orientation primarily towards the West, and Moscow’s positive attitude towards the figure of E. Benes. Moscow supported his claims to the continuity of the pre-war Czechoslovak state, and back in December 1943, J.V. Stalin and E. Benes signed a Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Post-War Cooperation. After the liberation of Czechoslovakia from fascism, Benes was automatically restored as the country's full-fledged president. On June 29, 1945, the Soviet-Czechoslovak Treaty on Transcarpathian Ukraine was concluded. Transcarpathia (“Rusinia”, “Subcarpathian Rus”), which belonged in 1920-1938. Czechoslovakia, and in 1938-1945. - Hungary (after the destruction of independent Czechoslovakia in 1938), transferred to the Soviet Union.
Post-war reforms (especially in the agricultural sector) in Czechoslovakia were less radical than in other people's democracies, and the communists behaved relatively moderately until the end of 1947, adhering to the concept of the “Czechoslovak path to socialism.” In the elections to the Legislative Assembly of Czechoslovakia in May 1946, the communists managed to become the first most influential party (38% of the votes), although their victory was ensured by the votes of the populated Czech lands - in Slovakia the positions of the communists were weaker. Slovaks were wary of restoration single state with the Czechs, fearing Czech nationalism.
Although the chairman of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, Klement Gottwald (Czech), became the prime minister of Czechoslovakia, the government was half non-communist, and the post of foreign minister was taken by the son of the first president of Czechoslovakia, the Slovak Jan Masaryk, a supporter of a pro-Western orientation.
2. The Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - were included in the USSR in 1940 without taking into account the opinions of the peoples of these countries. After World War II, their presence within the USSR was not openly contested by the governments of other countries. However, the United States of America did not officially recognize the legality of the Baltic states’ annexation to the USSR, although they did not make any representations to Moscow on this matter.
The administrative boundaries of the Baltic republics within the USSR have undergone changes. Another was the line of the administrative border between the Estonian SSR and the Pskov region of the RSFSR - a wedge of territory with a mixed Russian-Estonian population in the area of ​​the village went to the RSFSR. Pechora with the ancient Russian Orthodox Pskov-Pechora monastery. The section of the Curonian Spit on the Baltic Sea and the former Memel region were transferred to the Lithuanian SSR (the city of Memel became known as Klaipeda). Soviet Lithuania also retained the Vilna region (modern Vilnius and the surrounding area) with a large Polish minority living there, transferred to it by the Soviet government after the destruction of the Polish state in 1939.
After the expulsion of German troops from the Baltic states, at the beginning of 1945, the territories of the Baltic republics were restored Soviet authorities authorities, collectivization and partial re-nationalization were carried out. These measures were accompanied by repressions and deportations of “bourgeois elements” to the eastern and northern regions of the USSR. In total, about 9% of the Baltic population was deported, including 300 thousand people from Lithuania. Almost another hundred thousand people fled to the West. An anti-Soviet partisan movement of “forest brothers” arose in the Baltic states, which engaged in terror against the regular forces of the Soviet Army, disrupting elections and killing local communists. By the end of 1946 it was almost completely suppressed in Estonia and Latvia, but continued to operate in Lithuania. Some activists of the “forest brothers” remained underground until the 70s of the 20th century.
3. In the first post-war years, a painful process of mass movements of people in Europe took place - mainly in a western direction. In addition to the eviction of 6 million Germans from Poland, the Baltic regions of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia, about 380 thousand Poles, 220 thousand Jews (a significant part of whom soon flocked to Palestine), 125 thousand citizens of Yugoslavia fled or emigrated to the West , 87 thousand residents of the three Baltic republics included in the Soviet Union, tens of thousands of Ukrainians from the Western Ukrainian regions of the USSR. About 5.4 million “Ostarbeiters” and political emigrants were returned to the USSR, largely by force, the vast majority of whom went through Soviet concentration camps. Population flows also occurred between Eastern European countries: Hungarians left Romania and Yugoslavia, Greek Catholic Ukrainians were expelled from Poland (where they lived in the Rzeszow region), the Poles themselves left for Poland from the territory of the USSR.
The situation in the east of Europe, politically and psychologically, in the first post-war years differed little from the situation in the west. After five or six years of dictatorship and violence, the public mood was saturated with fear everywhere. Added to it was a feeling of fatigue both from ruthless market capitalism, which in the understanding of ordinary Europeans became the cause of the crisis of the interwar years, and from “failed democracy”, which could not protect against this crisis. Disillusionment with parliamentary-republican forms of government was part of the psychological legacy of the crisis of 1929-1933, from which in the 1930s all countries found a way out by strengthening executive power.
With the exception of Czechoslovakia, no country in Eastern Europe had confidence in democratic institutions. In Poland, the regime that existed on the eve of the World War and grew out of the dictatorship of Jozef Pidsudski was not liberal by any criteria, and the intelligentsia in this country did not, in essence, have time to form. Between the wars, Romania was ruled by conservatives, who in the 1940s surprisingly easily agreed to cooperate with the Nazis. True, in Romania and Hungary in the 1920-1930s there were the beginnings of a multi-party system; political parties were firmly embedded in local dictatorships and were parts of them. There was no democracy either in Bulgaria or in Yugoslavia, where power belonged to the aristocracy and the conservative bureaucracy. In the perception of Eastern Europeans, the species known to them political structure were discredited, and there were no clear and attractive models of government to strive for.
On final stage war and in the first post-war years (until approximately mid-1947), the Soviet leadership did not set the goal of forming one-party communist regimes in Eastern European countries. At that time, the task was to create a security belt of friendly states on the western border of the USSR. Their socio-political system after the war was formed under Soviet control, thanks to which the left had advantages. However, parliamentarism and a multi-party system were not denied. Moscow was tolerant of non-communist moderate parties and encouraged the creation of coalitions and the unification of parties and movements into popular (national, democratic, patriotic) fronts that took democratic positions. Explicitly anti-communist parties did not fit into this scheme, since they were identified with pro-fascist regimes, although even they, as the experience of Romania shows in 1944-1947, were not denied access to these coalitions. This order ensured the dominance of socialist elements in the economy and political system without destroying the state machine and while maintaining traditional parliamentarism. It was called "people's democracy".
Keyword
People's democracy- political system in Eastern European countries, with
in which the local communists, who relied on the support of the USSR, actually played the leading role, while non-communist parties continued to exist under the condition of their loyalty to the authorities.
The relatively soft course of the USSR until 1947 was dictated by the need to cooperate with Western allies in the development of Europe. Moscow countered the attempts of anti-communist forces to break through to power. But Soviet leaders restrained the desire of local communist parties to accelerate anti-capitalist transformations. Conducted in 1945-1947. in Eastern European countries, parliamentary elections, despite violations, indicated the growing influence of communists. In Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, where the Soviet Union led the work of allied control commissions, Soviet representatives insisted on including representatives of non-communist parties in the governments, albeit from among those acceptable to Moscow.
4. The Soviet experience did not seem ideal to Eastern Europeans. But he made an impression. Little was known about the Stalinist repressions of the 1930s, and the Soviet regime seemed better than the fascist one: at least it seemed focused on involving citizens in state system- in contrast to Nazism, which was based on discrimination and exclusion from society of one or another category of citizens. The USSR was not a sign of a bright future, but it seemed to be a symbol of moving away from a terrible past.
In the Soviet Union, in the forests of the Baltic states, the “forest brothers” were hiding - detachments of opponents of the annexation of the Baltic countries to the Soviet Union, who periodically attacked units of the Soviet Army. On Western Ukraine continued to resist until 1947 Soviet power the detachments of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army under the leadership of the Western Ukrainian nationalist S. A. Bandera that did not leave with the Nazis.
It is all the more striking that outside the USSR, the population showed no signs of intention to resist the Soviet presence and the onslaught of local leftists. For example, in Poland alone the number of opponents of communism should have been, according to Western estimates, at least 100 thousand people. But it turned out that to neutralize them, the Polish communist government only had to hold two amnesties (1947), after which the dissenters were simply forgotten for several years.
Feelings against local collaborators—the “reasonable commoners” who tolerated the Nazis during the war to preserve their property—were stronger than concerns about the Communists. At the same time, liberal and Catholic circles in Eastern European countries hoped for the “fragility of the new government” and the “imminent start of the third world war.” While waiting for her, the moderates passively watched events. In the poor strata, on the contrary, signs of activity and thirst for change appeared. The communists were attractive due to their energy and determination against the background of the lethargy of the centrists. New pro-communist and leftist regimes won the support of the masses. In Eastern European countries, paramilitary detachments of local communists began to form. Ordinary citizens willingly joined the police forces and the new national armed forces.
A. The Soviet Union behaved cautiously in Eastern Europe, not wanting complications with Washington and London. But the cautious line was understood in Moscow as a refusal to attempt to go beyond the geographical limits of what, in 1945, in agreement with the United States and Britain, the USSR began to consider the security belt of the Soviet Union. Actions within this belt were not considered in Moscow to be either offensive or provocative towards the West. The USSR cared about border security and did this by building a geopolitical barrier out of Eastern European countries.
In principle, such regimes could exist in the form of neutralist governments without the participation of communists, as was the case in Finland after the resignation of President Karl Mannerheim on March 4, 1946. But the experience of Finland, where there were no Soviet troops, turned out to be not applicable to Eastern European countries. Radical forms of transformation began to prevail in them. Regime change in Warsaw turned out to be one of the most painful changes.
Pro-Western forces in Poland were in a difficult position. The USSR did not arouse the sympathy of the Poles. But Polish peasants began to develop new lands in the territories received from Germany. On June 30, 1946, the left-wing government submitted to a referendum and received approval for a program of nationalization of industry. A land reform was carried out in the country, according to which new lands in the west were included in the calculation of land allotments. Resettlers in areas from which the German population was deported received from rue communist power houses, equipment, property and arable land. This formed a layer of people interested in its survival for the sake of preserving the immutability of the western Polish borders.
At this time, Western governments, as if on purpose, did everything to fuel the anti-Western suspicions of the Poles. British and American politicians avoided confirming the legality of Poland's borders in the West and pointed out their inconclusive nature. Legally, such statements did not contradict the Potsdam agreements. But this harmed the reputation of the West in the eyes of the Polish population, who feared that Washington and London might “take back” their concessions made in Yalta and Potsdam. Only Moscow firmly declared the final nature of the Polish borders and supported the eviction of Germans from the territories annexed to Poland. The Polish left played on the fears of the population. It was difficult for pro-Western parties to build their election programs.
The situation was complicated for non-communist forces by government repression. In 1946, 17 public figures and politicians from among moderates and centrists were arrested on charges of connections with the anti-government underground. In addition to the main defendants in the ongoing process, thousands of grassroots leaders were arrested
Polish Peasant Party. Beginning in the autumn of 1946, it began to be subjected to systematic pressure, its meetings were dispersed by Communist Party detachments, and PKP activists were arrested in rural areas.
In the elections to the Sejm on January 19, 1947, the party of S. Mikolajczyk, which was pinned on hopes as the non-communist core of the Polish political spectrum, was defeated, winning 28 seats against 394 received by the bloc of socialists and communists. One of the leaders of the Communist Party, Boleslaw Bierut, was elected President of Poland.
On September 14, 1947, the Polish government broke the concordat with the Vatican, and a conflict between the state and the Catholic Church began in the country.
Keyword
Concordat-agreement between the Pope as head Catholic Church And
the State of the Vatican and any country about the legal position of the Catholic Church in it and relations with the Papal Throne.
Events in Poland caused increased wariness in the West about the USSR's intentions in Eastern Europe. The West did not recognize the election results in Poland. Observing the actions of communists in eastern Europe, Western governments were inclined to believe that repressive measures against communists in their countries were appropriate.
Minimum knowledge
1. The post-war situation in Eastern Europe was characterized by tension in social, ethnic, economic and political relations. This was (associated with fatigue, fear and socio-economic exhaustion as a result of participation in the war, mass migrations of people, deployment of Soviet troops. At the first stage, the USSR did not strive to establish the power of pro-communist forces, agreeing to participate in government agencies traditional Eastern European parties and movements. The new regimes in Eastern Europe were called “people's democracies”.
2. The Baltic republics, incorporated into the USSR against the wishes of a significant part of the population of these countries, were subjected to massive repression and a change in the socio-economic system in the image of the USSR of the 1920-1930s. The administrative border of these republics with the neighboring RSFSR was also changed.
3. The population of Eastern European countries accepted the dominance of the USSR in their countries without active resistance. The USSR was perceived as the winner of the war and a potential model of state and social structure.
4. The situation in Central and Eastern Europe was uncertain. Coalition governments in most countries were unstable, and there were processes of rivalry between left and center. In a number of countries, the communists failed to gain a clear advantage, however, counting on the support of the USSR, they were not going to miss the chance to seize power.
5. After the war, the USSR actually “bribed” the Polish population, transferring to them material wealth and lands that were transferred to Poland from Germany as pledged territories. This was also associated with the weakening of anti-communist forces. An additional role was played by repressions against the Polish opposition. Poland found itself in communist hands.

Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

The formation of totalitarian socialism in these countries followed different paths. In the countries of Eastern Europe, the defeat of fascism led to the restoration of independence where it had been lost, or a change of political regime where it was preserved. The democratic system, universal suffrage and multi-party system, agrarian reforms were carried out that destroyed large landownership, the property of traitors and active supporters of fascism was confiscated.

The development of events in the West and East of Europe in the first post-war years was very similar. The difference was that Eastern Europe was liberated Soviet army, and there the role of the communist parties was much more significant.

Firstly, because in some of them (Yugoslavia, Albania) the communist parties led the partisan movement and, relying on it, became the most influential political force;

secondly, because they enjoyed the support of the USSR, under its pressure the communists became part of all the post-war governments of these countries, occupying, as a rule, “power” ministerial posts.

When the Cold War began, relying on already won positions and direct pressure from Moscow, the communists established their undivided power relatively easily and bloodlessly in 1947-1948.

Asian countries.

The communists came to power in about the same way in North Korea. In Mongolia, China, Vietnam and Laos, the rise of the communists to power, although it was associated with the support of the USSR, was to a lesser extent. To a much greater extent it had to do with that. That the communists in these countries led the liberation, anti-colonial movement. Thanks to this, they became an influential political force and were able to come to power.

Changes in the political system.

Having come to power, the Communist Parties began to “build socialism.” The experience of the USSR was taken as a role model. The political system was transformed. The multi-party system was either eliminated, or the parties lost their political independence, becoming part of communist-led coalitions and fronts. All power was concentrated in the hands of the communist parties. The judicial and representative powers lost their independence. Following the example of the USSR, they carried out mass repression. All rights and freedoms of citizens were virtually abolished. Democracy was finished, although constitutions and universal suffrage were formally preserved, “elections” were held regularly, and the leaders of these countries proudly called them countries of “people’s democracy.”

Planned Economy.

In the economic field, “building socialism” meant completing the nationalization of industry and finance, carrying out industrialization, and cooperating agriculture. The market economy has given way to a planned one. There was a large-scale breakdown of economic and social structures. Entrepreneurs and independent peasants disappeared. Most of the adult population was employed in the public sector of the economy.

Foreign policy.

In foreign policy, all these countries more or less followed the course of the USSR. Any disobedience to Moscow initially provoked a very harsh reaction. What does the Tito-Stalin conflict testify to?

Results of socialist transformations.

As a result, the social and political system in these countries was radically transformed. And just as we call similar processes in Russia after October 1917 revolution, we have the right to call these transformations revolutionary. These revolutions were socialist, in the sense that they established state ownership instead of private ownership. They led to the formation of a totalitarian political system in these countries. All this allows us to call these countries countries of totalitarian socialism.

Political crises.

Stalin's death in 1953 led to major changes. Liberation from the oppressive fear of it revealed the deep contradictions of totalitarian socialism and mass discontent with it. Political crises arose in the GDR, and then in Poland and Hungary, which proved impossible to overcome without the use of force.

Changes in politics.

In a number of countries in Eastern Europe, communist parties were forced to change policies in order to remove the main causes of discontent. Mass repressions were stopped and their victims were partially rehabilitated, changes were made to the envisaged pace of industrialization, forms of cooperation were softened, and in Poland it was stopped. Restrictions for small businesses were partially lifted. Later, economic reforms were carried out that weakened strict administrative control over the economy. In many countries, all this was accompanied by a “thaw” in the sphere of ideology and culture.

In other countries, criticism of the most unsavory aspects of the Stalinist regime in the USSR has caused alarm. Ruling leaders were concerned about the possibility of criticism being transferred to them. Not only did they not support changes in Moscow and some Eastern European countries, but they also tried to take their own position. The first signs of Soviet-Chinese contradictions are appearing. In the early 60s, Romania and North Korea. Albania breaks ties with the USSR.

However. The changes in the USSR and some Eastern European countries that occurred after Stalin's death turned out to be shallow. Totalitarian socialism was not eliminated there, but only softened to make it more acceptable to the masses. But even this weakening of the regimes after some time began to be considered by the Communist parties as a dangerous concession. The events in Czechoslovakia provided clear evidence of this danger for them.

Strengthening totalitarianism.

After the intervention in Czechoslovakia, all countries of Eastern Europe that experienced attempts to renew socialism began to tighten their totalitarian traits building them. Economic reforms were stopped. A backward movement began. Elements of market relations that emerged in some places were eliminated or limited. All those who were dissatisfied began to be persecuted. In many countries, in connection with this, a movement of human rights activists, “dissidents,” arose.

The strengthening of totalitarianism also began in countries where there were no attempts at reform and renewal. There, totalitarianism took particularly extreme forms. In Albania, for example, in the 60s all religions were banned. In China they tried to “build communism”: they turned cooperatives into communes, and took away their garden plots and personal property from the peasants. In these countries, cults of personalities of leaders have developed: Kim Il Sung in North Korea, Mao Zedong in China, Enver Hoxha in Albania, Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. All citizens were required to unquestioningly follow their instructions.

Deterioration of the economic situation.

However, the economic situation in the countries of totalitarian socialism, starting from the 70s, began to steadily deteriorate. Many countries in Eastern Europe began to take loans from Western countries, trying to use these funds to update their industry and accelerate development. But eventually the problem of external debt arose. Debts had to be paid. This made their situation even worse. Renewed after the death of Mao Zedong, the Chinese leadership was forced to decide to begin market reforms in 1978 to overcome difficulties. In the countries of Eastern Europe, reforms were not even thought about. The economic situation there became increasingly difficult. Here, conditions for revolution gradually began to emerge.