The Soviet Union, Eastern, & Western Europe
\nIntroduction
\nThe Second World War had a severe and lasting impact on the world that followed. The rise of the Cold War and the belief (especially in Washington) in the Cold War Consensus (the common view that Moscow was behind ALL the military and political problems in the world) created a worldview that was generally accepted by both superpowers and their allies.
\nObviously, there were problems with this view, especially in third world countries, but because of its overwhelming support, this view influenced not just individuals, but governments and their leaders. Many of the decisions made by world leaders were a result of the outcomes of the Second World War.
\nThe Soviet Union
\nNikita Khrushchev
\nThe Soviet Union was probably the hardest hit by the war. The loss of 20 million people certainly affected their economic output. Much of their industrial capacity was also destroyed during the war. However, their tremendous natural resources and Stalin\u2019s ruthlessness combined to create a growing post-war economy.
\nUnder Stalin, the Soviet Union was able to return to its pre-war industrial output by 1947. However, his focus on heavy industry and defense created a strong economic power where the people were unable to benefit. There were huge housing shortages and very few consumer goods.
\nAfter Stalin died in 1953, his immediate successors, most notably Nikita Khrushchev tried to undo some of Stalin\u2019s worst excesses. He eased up on the use of gulags (prison camps in Siberia), secret police, and tried to institute a small amount of private ownership. Khrushchev, who led the USSR from 1955 \u2013 1964 was trying to reform the system. Reform, however, generally creates internal conflicts. In the Soviet Union reforms were opposed by three key elements: the army, the Communist Party, and the government bureaucracy, including the KGB. As Khrushchev tried to reform the government and create an opportunity for economic growth and fairness, these groups saw their power, prestige and economic security disappearing. They did all they could to prevent the installation of these reforms. They saw their opportunity to get rid of Khrushchev after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Although in reality, Khrushchev had achieved his goals in the Crisis (he got the U.S. to agree to remove its missiles from Turkey and Italy), on the international stage it had made him appear weak, i.e., he blinked and pulled back the missiles. That was followed by poor grain production and the failure of corn \u2013 a crop that he had championed, hence his nickname, \u201cCornman.\u201d
\nThese \u201cfailures,\u201d along with the strong opposition to his reforms within the government led to a \u201cforced retirement\u201d, whereby Leonid Brezhnev, a staunch Stalinist, came to power.
\nThe Brezhnev Years, 1964\u20141982
\nLeonid Brezhnev
\nLeonid Brezhnev came to power after arranging the dismissal of Khrushchev. Brezhnev was a lot more sympathetic to Stalin. Many of the de-Stalinization programs were ended, and Stalin was glorified as a great leader. Brezhnev was a solid \u201cParty man.\u201d He ended all of the reform attempts and made sure that the \u201cprivileges\u201d were protected. \u201cBlat\u201d (graft\/bribery) was a symbol of the Brezhnev years and along with \u201cblat\u201d there was also a healthy black market. The market planning that was the cornerstone of the Soviet economy had no market incentives to ensure efficiency. Workers had no fears of losing jobs; there were no incentives to work harder or faster, so the economic growth that had occurred just after the war began to slow down. There were persistent problems with agriculture, industry and especially housing. The housing shortage was so bad in Moscow that most families shared their flats (apartments) with at least one to two other families. However, in addition to the economic hardships, Brezhnev also had Stalin\u2019s penchant for cultural restrictions. Books were banned and controlled; critics of the administration could end up under house arrest (if you were a big name, such as Andrei Sakharov), in prison, or in a gulag. Overall, for the average Soviet citizen life was bleak.
\nDespite Marxist intentions, there continued to be a class system within the Soviet Union. The new elite was the privileged class of government bureaucrats, the army, party members and sports stars. This group had access to western goods, vacations, housing and better education and job opportunities for their children.
\nMeanwhile, there was economic stagnation for everyone else. The standard of living in the Soviet Union at the time was lined very long lines. There were lines for anything and everything you might want to buy. Shortages existed in everything. The joke at the time (which was not really much of a joke) was that if you saw a line you got in it and you bought what they were selling. It didn\u2019t matter if you needed it or not. You got it and then either saved it, used it or sold it to someone else.
\nFollowing Brezhnev\u2019s death in 1982, he was succeeded by what was known as the \u201cgerontocracy.\u201d His two immediate successors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, were both ill and in their 70s when they came to power and both died after about a year. Finally, in 1985, a new, younger party member was chosen to take control. His name was Mikhail Gorbachev.
\nUnrest in the Soviet Empire, Mikhail Gorbachev, 1985 \u2013 1991
\nMikhail Gorbachev
\nGorbachev came to power when the U.S. was returning to a strong Cold War stance under President Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev was a much younger Soviet leader. He was the first leader not alive during the Revolution. He had a much more pragmatic approach than most of his predecessors. He realized that the Soviet Union needed reforms and he implemented them. The two major reforms that he started were called Glasnost and Perestroika.
\nGlasnost meant open discussion, he encouraged talking, criticism, opened up avenues for previously banned literature, etc. Perestroika was his way of restructuring the economy, introducing some private ownership. However, Gorbachev was caught in the middle. The traditional foes to reform opposed these measures as well, but because of Glasnost, there were people on the other side pushing for greater reforms, a full move to capitalism, for example. Gorbachev\u2019s reforms, in essence, were too little, too late.
\nThings in the Soviet Union began to deteriorate very quickly. New political parties sprang up; nationalist movements appeared in all 15 republics.<\/p>\n
This is another example of Paul Kennedy\u2019s thesis. The Soviet Union was definitely an empire. It was made up of 15 republics, controlled 92 nationalities and had speakers of 112 languages. In addition to its vast domestic border, it also exerted control over Eastern Europe and influenced many third world countries. However, in order to keep this control, almost all of its economic output went to defense and military expenses. When the U.S. began to expand its military expenses (and continued to have a consumer economy \u2013 something the USSR never had), the Soviets began to fall apart.
\nThe 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster revealed just how dysfunctional the Soviet system had become. Gorbachev was forced to get his information from CNN, because, those opposed to his reforms (the old bureaucracy) kept information from him so that he would be slow to respond. They were intentionally trying to make him look bad.
\nIn 1991, Lithuania declared independence. Gorbachev was forced to sign a decree dissolving the Soviet Union in December 1991.
\nThe dismantling of the Soviet Union led to the end of the Cold War. Beginning in 1986, Gorbachev reached out to Reagan and began a series of summits. A series of summits in 1985, 1986 and 1987 led to arms agreements and better relations between the two countries.
\nOnce Gorbachev dissolved the U.S.S.R., he was out of a job. The first Russian President was a man named Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin instituted market reforms and saw the dismantling of the state-owned industries. However, these industries were sold below market value to basically what became the \u201cRussian Mafia.\u201d His rule was marked by corruption and chaos.
\nFollowing Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin became President. He was a former KGB agent and a heavy authoritarian. There were cooler relations with the U.S. as Putin tried to revive Russian power. He was being helped by a large amount of oil and natural gas reserves in Russia. He supplied a large amount of heating fuel to all of Europe. In March 2008 Putin became Prime Minister, and Dmitry Medvedev became the new President of the Russian Federation. This has been seen as a testament to Putin\u2019s power and popularity, because, although Putin was no longer eligible for the Presidency, Medvedev was Putin\u2019s choice, and there were no limits on his role as Prime Minister.
\nEastern Europe
\nThe Soviet Union had occupied all of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. Initially, most of the residents welcomed the Soviets and (more or less) embraced the new communist governments. However, the honeymoon wore off quickly for most of the countries. Once these countries realized that they had no choice in how the governments were run, there was dissatisfaction. This manifested itself periodically through uprisings, government reforms, and protests. However, these early changes were put down rather quickly, some more violently than others. It is accurate to say that because the Eastern European governments did not have a complete autonomy that they were satellites or puppets of the Soviet Union.
\nImportant Moments of Eastern European Unrest
\n\u2022\t1948, Czechoslovakian reform
\n\u2022\t1953, East German riots
\n\u2022\t1956, Polish protests
\n\u2022\t1956, Hungarian uprising (the Soviets send in tanks to suppress Hungary)
\n\u2022\t1961, Easy German Wall
\n\u2022\t1968, Czechoslovakian reform (again the Soviets use tanks)
\nNote that despite the U.S. policy of Containment and its outspoken defense of democracy, the U.S. never interfered or stopped the Soviets from cracking down on these uprisings.
\nHowever, despite the periodic crackdowns, there was a constant state of discontent. Eastern Europeans, as a rule, were not as committed to Communism. Beginning in 1981, Poland became the first eastern European country to have an ongoing anti-communist movement. A labor union based in Gdansk began protesting and the protests grew. The Polish government cracked down, but the Soviets did not interfere. However, there were limits to what the Polish government was willing to do, especially with a Polish Pope on the throne in Rome.<\/p>\n
Once Gorbachev came to power, the cracks in the system became evident. Very quickly Poland broke away and moved towards a capitalist, democratic government. The key to their success was that Gorbachev\u2019s response was to \u201cdo nothing.\u201d From there the movements spread to East Berlin where the Berlin wall was knocked down, then Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia.
\nThe change from communism to capitalism was not always easy. Many of the countries went through periods of huge inflation, unemployment, and recession. However, by 2004, many of these former \u201cIron Curtain\u201d countries had qualified for membership in the European Union.
\nThe biggest problems occurred in Yugoslavia. This country, which was created after the First World War consisted of several different ethnic and religious groups which had historically never gotten along well. After the Second World War, the leader of Yugoslavia was named Tito, and his iron-fisted rule guaranteed tranquility. Following his death in 1980, there was an escalation of ethnic tensions and a push for more regional control. Just as the Soviet Union was weakening, and the “Velvet Revolution” increased freedom in neighboring countries, Yugoslavia was faced with an economic recession and crisis, and increased separatist movements. One of the republics, Serbia, tried to exert control over the rest of Yugoslavia, while other republics began to resist. The first two to declare independence was Slovenia and Croatia. There was fighting in many of the republics, most notably in Kosovo until peace accords (The Dayton Agreement) were signed in 1995.<\/p>\n
Countries and Areas That Made Up the Former Yugoslavia<\/p>\n
Click image to enlarge
\nPostwar Western Europe
\nWestern Europe was a disaster following the Second World War. Many major cities had been demolished by bombs. Berlin was a pile of rubble. Coastal cities in France along the Channel had been destroyed by Allied bombing. London was still recovering from German bombing raids. There were millions of displaced people who were moving from west to east and east to west. Many people were starving. Places where they weren\u2019t starving, they had been on rations for years.
\nBesides being mental, physically, emotionally, and economically destroyed by six years of war, there was now a new threat. The Soviets seemed ready to strike at Europe. They had forced their way in Eastern Europe and no one in Western Europe was convinced that the Soviets would be satisfied with just Eastern Europe. Moreover, Communist Parties in the West were both active and popular. The Communists had been actively fighting the Fascists since the beginning and many people saw the Communists as the answer to the failures of capitalism and democracy.
\nThe United States realized these issues and worried about the Communist threat. The U.S. response was in the form of the largest aid package in history. The Marshall Plan was a result of a speech given by General George Marshall, where he outlined the potential problems if the U.S. didn\u2019t try to help Europe.
\nIt was incredibly successful. Money was offered to all of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union. However, Stalin was distrustful and refused aid and refused to allow aid to Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, the money was used to rebuild Europe and the European economy.
\nThe U.S. provided aid from 1948 to 1952. By 1952, most of Europe had recovered to pre-war economic output. (Actually, the areas with the most destruction recovered the fastest since they started with brand new, more efficient factories, rather than upgrading older factories).
\nThe aid also helped to cement democracy and marginalize the communist parties. Almost all of Europe created what is known as \u201csocialist welfare states.\u201d This meant that the government was responsible for creating a \u201csafety net.\u201d In the United States this meant Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare, but in most European countries it meant high minimum wages, nationalized health care, long-term unemployment insurance, pensions, free education, housing Helpance, etc. Following such a devastating war, the people of Europe wanted security. To most citizens, it was their number one concern.
\nThese \u201cmixed\u201d economies were not the pure capitalism of the past and were more \u201csocialist\u201d than the economy of the United States. However, they were not the centrally planned economies of the communist states either. They were models of Keynesian Economics which believed that government could smooth out the problems of capitalism through regulation, some planning, and some government ownership. In many European countries the governments nationalized key industries such as coal, oil, railroads, steel, etc. While other sectors remained private. Nationalized industries meant that the government-owned them and operated them for the good of the country and its citizens.
\nAn example of this in the United States is the U.S. Post Office.
\nThe key industries that the government-owned were known as the commanding heights (because they were the heights of economic output). Governments also regulated markets, instituted price, and wage controls, and did some planning, known as forecasting.
\nFrom its recovery until the mid-1970s, this era was known as the \u201c30 glorious years.\u201d There were rising incomes, rising living standards, and increased output. However, with the OPEC oil crisis in the mid-1970s, the Keynesian formula began to falter.
\nGovernments and Crises
\nThe Post-war governments setup in Europe were parliamentary, representative democracies. Each country has a different set up and has had different issues that it had to deal with.
\nFrance
\nCharles de Gualle
\nThe government France set up after the war was called the Fourth Republic. It was a parliamentary government with a weak executive. However, as France began facing some crises with its colonies it became apparent that if it wanted to restore itself to its former power, it would need a new government. The first crisis was in French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). Vietnam had been fighting for independence since the First World War, and with its leader, Ho Chi Minh had fought the Japanese during the Second World War. When Vietnam was returned to France as a colony, Ho began a campaign against the French. At Diem Bien Phu, Vietnamese troops captured the French and the French were forced to grant independence to Vietnam. Shortly after the fiasco in Vietnam, the Algerians began to demand independence and a long battle began in Algeria.
\nCharles de Gaulle, a hero of the Second World War agreed to take over the government if he could re-write the constitution. He wanted to restore France\u2019s glory and was determined to keep Algeria. The new constitution created what is known as the 5th Republic. This was a very strong executive power.
\nDe Gaulle quickly established an independent vision for France, determined to be considered a major power. France developed atomic weapons by 1960, limited the role of NATO, and insisted that it would not bow to the power of the United States.
\nOverall, the governments had leaned to the right, with the exception of Francois Mitterand in the 1980s.<\/p>\n
Presidents of the Cinquieme (5th) Republique and Their Terms<\/p>\n
\u2022\tCharles De Gaulle, 1959-1969
\n\u2022\tGeorges Pompidou, 1969-1974 (died in office)
\n\u2022\tValery Giscard d\u2019Estaing, 1974-1981
\n\u2022\tFrancois Mitterand, 1981-1995
\n\u2022\tJacques Chirac, 1995-2007
\n\u2022\tNicolas Sarkozy, 2007-2012
\n\u2022\tFrancois Hollande, (present)
\nGermany
\nGermany following the war was beset by a host of problems. First, most of it was in rubble. Second, almost half of it was being controlled by the Soviets. Third, its largest city was being split into two. And fourth, many of its citizens were malnourished and impoverished.
\nWest Germany became known for its \u201ceconomic miracle.\u201d The Germans ended price controls and wage controls and its black market dried up quickly. The economy began to grow quickly. Although West Germany also put in place many of the social welfare nets as other European countries, its economy was much less planned, much more capitalist in nature.
\nThe politics had shifted between the slightly left of center and slightly right of center, almost rhythmically. The two major parties were the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. (The Christian Democrats were more conservative, while the Social Democrats were more liberal).<\/p>\n
German Chancellors and Their Terms of Office
\n\u2022\tChristian Democrats
\no\tKonrad Adenauer, 1949-1963
\no\tHelmut Kohl, 1982-1998
\no\tAngela Merkel, 2005-current
\n\u2022\tSocial Democrats
\no\tWilli Brandt, 1969-1974
\no\tHelmut Schmidt, 1974-1982
\no\tGerhard Schroeder, 1998-2005<\/p>\n
When the Iron Curtain fell, Germany had to deal with how to absorb the Eastern Germans and the East German economy. In order to appease the Soviet Union, Germany wrote a check to the Russians and then began to integrate the economy. In order to accommodate a large number of new citizens, they had to alter some of the welfare state benefits. Although things improved, Germany is still dealing with the economic ramifications of reunification.<\/p>\n
Great Britain
\nFollowing the Second World War, Britain also favored a social welfare state and embraced public ownership of the \u201ccommanding heights (\u94fe\u63a5\u5230\u5916\u90e8\u7f51\u7ad9\u3002).\u201d There were a number of ineffective prime ministers following the war. The government ownership of the \u201ccommanding heights\u201d was neither profitable nor efficient and led to widespread inflation, worker strikes, and labor union problems.
\nIn 1979, the first female prime minister was elected. Her name was Margaret Thatcher. Although many British citizens resented the \u201ciron lady,\u201d her success at denationalizing the industries and taming the labor unions resulted in one of the most successful economies in Europe.
\nGreat Britain also had to contend with the loss of its empire. Although the Yalta conference returned its colonies to Great Britain, it was forced to grant independence to almost all of them by 1950.
\nEuropean Unification
\nWhat is now called the European Union began as the European Coal and Steel Community. Six European countries (France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy) began it as a way to create a barrier-free trade area. By 1957 they had expanded it to what was called the European Common Market which was still just the same six countries but encompassed all trade.
\nThese countries decided to unify because they realized that they needed to compete with much larger economies. The nationalism of the past centuries had led to massive destruction during two world wars.
\nHowever, this was a slow process. Its early days were tempered by the desire to avoid becoming a \u201cUnited States of Europe.\u201d Instead, it was designed as a cooperative economic relationship.<\/p>\n
In the 1970s it began to expand, adding Great Britain, Denmark, and Ireland. Throughout the 1990s it continued to expand and to involve more complex unification. A European parliament was formed. Member nations (most of them) agreed to a common currency in 1999 that went into effect in 2000. In 2004 it expanded to include the former Iron Curtain countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia.
\nThere are currently 27 member countries.<\/p>\n
Questions\uff1a<\/p>\n
1.\tWhat do you think was the most successful aspect of the Marshall Plan?
\n2.\tIn 1956, the Soviets invaded Hungary after the people protested and wanted more freedoms. Similarly, in 1968, they invaded Prague, after the “Prague Spring” opened up dialogue, culture, and freedom of expression. In both cases, the U.S. and Europe did virtually nothing. Despite our anti-Communist beliefs, the Truman Doctrine, which promised support for ALL oppressed peoples, the U.S. simply ignored the pleas of these countries. Is it right? What could the U.S. have done? In what ways are we willing to stand up for freedom and in what ways are we not willing? And how do these varying responses affect the U.S. both positively and negatively?
\n3.\tI just had you watch a film about Vladimir Putin. https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/frontline\/film\/putins-way\/ He is currently at the height (or near it) of his popularity in Russia, and yet, since the downing of flight MH17, Russia is also currently facing punitive sanctions. Furthermore, President Obama, while still in office, accused Russia of breaking the 1987 missile treaty. While relations with Russia, are nowhere near as bad as they were during the Cold War, it does appear that Putin is taking cues from the old Soviet playbook. Furthermore, there are now investigations into possible Russian “interference” in the recent election (to be clear, there is no current released evidence that there was actual tampering with voting, but that there may have been Russian involvement with propaganda, online posting, “fake” news, etc. Also, while this is certainly something that the U.S. has never been on the receiving end of before, these are the types of things that the U.S.\/CIA is often accused of.
\no\tNow that you have played Prisoner’s Dilemma, and have read a bit more on both the U.S. and Soviet perspectives of the Cold War, I have 2 questions: 1. How would you compare the current situation to the Cold War and; 2. If you were to advise the President, what approach would you recommend that the U.S. take in its relationship to Russia and Putin?
\no\tHad you heard of these allegations before? If so, did the information in the documentary change your impression of either Putin, Russia or these allegations.
\n5. You just submitted your annotated bibliography. State what your favorite database was for finding good source material and what your favorite individual source was. If somebody came to you and said that they were starting a research paper, which sites would you recommend as being most helpful? How easy was it to discern bias in the sources? In what ways could there be a bias that you might not even recognize?<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
Introduction to the Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe<\/p>\n
The aftermath of World War II had a severe and long-lasting influence on the world. The emergence of the Cold War and the belief (particularly in Washington) in the Cold War Consensus (the widely held belief that Moscow was responsible for ALL of the world’s military and political problems) generated a worldview that was widely accepted by both superpowers and their allies.<\/p>\n
Obviously, there were issues with this viewpoint, particularly in third-world countries, but because of its widespread acceptance, it influenced not only individuals, but governments and their leaders as well. Many of the decisions made by international leaders were influenced by the outcomes of World War II.<\/p>\n
The former Soviet Union<\/p>\n
Nikita Khrushchev<\/p>\n
The Soviet Union was<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Soviet Union, Eastern, & Western Europe Introduction The Second World War had a severe and lasting impact on the world that followed. The rise\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7650,7624,1387,7654,667,7649,7652],"tags":[613,7594,1394,7598,7595,7593,7597,7599,7601,7590,7596,7591,7592],"class_list":["post-92711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assignment-writing-help","category-dissertation-help","category-dissertation-writing-service","category-healthcare-assignment-help","category-nursing-essay","category-research-essay-help","category-write-my-essay-online","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services-uk","tag-cheap-custom-essay-writing-services","tag-custom-research-paper-writers","tag-custom-research-papers-writing-service","tag-essay-writer-websites","tag-essay-writing-service-quality-cheap","tag-free-research-paper-writing-service","tag-help-me-write-a-research-paper","tag-i-need-help-with-my-dissertation","tag-professional-dissertation-writing-service","tag-quick-essay-writing-service","tag-top-rated-dissertation-writing-services","tag-top-uk-dissertation-writing-services"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}