Collapse of the Soviet-sponsored regimes in Eastern Europe, effectuated within the span of two years, left the bewildered observer with an impression that "People's republics" were doomed to failure from the start. The liberal discourse unfolding around the notion of individual freedom appeared to have offered an easy - and reassuring - explanation which presented these regimes as illegitimate, the force of terror and soviet arms being their only viable buttress.
Still, to people living in the 60's and 70's things may have looked different. Externally, the opponents in the Cold War seemed to have accepted the status quo, bereaving the conflict of its dreadful poignancy. Internally, Eastern European governments were not particularly unstable, no more so than their western counterparts. Then the real question is whether these regimes, execrated after their demise by revisionist historians, did manage to find a formula whereby they became acceptable to the governed populace. In other words, did the states of the Eastern Bloc succeed in acquiring legitimacy which went beyond mere fear of internal reprisals or the prospects of Soviet interference? If so, what were the sources of social support which the Eastern European regimes could turn to their account? Could they have lasted longer without abandoning their aims and sacrificing their essential features?
Still, to people living in the 60's and 70's things may have looked different. Externally, the opponents in the Cold War seemed to have accepted the status quo, bereaving the conflict of its dreadful poignancy. Internally, Eastern European governments were not particularly unstable, no more so than their western counterparts. Then the real question is whether these regimes, execrated after their demise by revisionist historians, did manage to find a formula whereby they became acceptable to the governed populace. In other words, did the states of the Eastern Bloc succeed in acquiring legitimacy which went beyond mere fear of internal reprisals or the prospects of Soviet interference? If so, what were the sources of social support which the Eastern European regimes could turn to their account? Could they have lasted longer without abandoning their aims and sacrificing their essential features?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, the states did not succeed in acquiring legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteAfter the WWII in Eastern Europe the USSR made the Communist takeover. Democracy has been eliminated. Private ownership changed to the state. Despite the fact that communists promised a fast development in these countries, then they succeed in 40-50, but they did not solve the problems of these countries later on. Indeed, as I mentioned before USSR was a supporter of EE countries, but I do not think, that USSR was a supporter of Eastern European countries in the 1960s.
After WWII in Eastern Europe countries was a period of "People's democracy"." People democracy" is peaceful transition to socialism,without dictatorship of the proletariat. The significant influence of establishing socialism had USSR.Majority of Eastern Europe countries followed Stalin's model of social development.Events such "раскулачивание", "коллективизация и индустриализация" had place in Eastern Europe. However,we can not claim,that USSR imposed own politics because in Eastern Europe were wide democratic conversion.Often countries of Eastern Europe returned to bourgeois-democratic forms of goverment.
ReplyDeleteAs for results of establishment socialism,the Eastern Europe countries had negative effect. Accelereated development of heavy industry caused deterioration of not only the economy, but also impaired standard of living.Similar transformations increased repressive policy and economic crisis in Eastern Europe. Possible explanation of such consequences are blind copying of USSR policy without considering geopolitical and social features of countries.
In my point of view, Eastern Bloc’s success did depend on the prospects of Soviet Union. I think so, because we know that before becoming of the Eastern Bloc into the Soviet satellite states after the World War II approximately all countries in the East were under control of Nazi. They became such a colony of USSR due to the Stalin’s need of the buffer zone. Also countries in Eastern Bloc had their main purpose – to expand communism through the Europe, and be a barrier between the Westside and USSR. But I’m not sure about the support of USSR to Eastern Bloc that they didn’t actually give. In contrary, Eastern Bloc did suffer, rather than Soviet Union, and did get some circumstances, like a crisis or strikes in their countries. Also, I want to add, that they could not have lasted longer even if they didn’t abandoned their aims. Because anyways one day cup would completely fill.
ReplyDeleteThe political Legitimacy is one of the most important characteristic of the political system, and part of the political culture of the Eastern Europe and Soviet Union. The process of legitimacy could not appear spontaneously, it requires much time for political power to fall to the state as legitimacy. I suppose that such kind of power as the legitimacy experienced crisis in the Eastern Europe, then legitimacy became ineffective and incompetent. However, legitimacy had existed for several years in the Eastern Europe. The main disadvantage of legitimacy was that countries became dependent on the results of the government like socio-cultural, political factors. The power of legitimacy had become less influential, because promises of economic prosperity came into conflict with mismanagement of the government and also it was cause of appearance of ethnic conflicts. As we know ethnic conflicts could lead to the significant changes, and to the collapse of the political power.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the Eastern Europe countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, have appeared on the world's political map after the World War I. During this fight, they have become victimes of relations, which have been between two great powers, the USA and the USSR.The position of Eastern Europe as a follower and depend has not changed and after the World War II. During that period there was the Soviet model of a totalitarian regime in the Eastern Europe, with its inherent features: cult of personality and massive repressions. According to the Soviet model, there were realization of collectivization and industrialization. So, to people living in the 60's and 70's, the success of ruling Communist and workers ' parties in the economy may have looked questionable. For example, if the standard of living in the Eastern countries and the West countries was the same before the second world war. However, as time goes , Eastern fall behind West. At the end of 1980 the main reason of the economic crisis was a psychology, which took the individual’s interest in work’s results from its. People are tired of waiting what have sacramentally promised. Сonsequently, my reply is that states did not enough succeed in acquiring legitimacy
ReplyDeleteAfter the failure of democracy and the Nazi regime, Stalin came to Europe with his idea of the "Peoples' Democracies". It was something between democracy and communism. Although there were many similarities between the totalitarian regime of fascism and communism, "Peoples' Democracies" has made great strides. USSR controlled Eastern Europe, sometimes allowing themselves to apply forces of soviet army, all enterprises had been nationalized. Furthermore, there had been conducted agrarian reforms, but economic reforms were carried out with great care. "Peoples' Democracies" led to the stagnation of Eastern Europe, therefore people decided to abandon this totalitarian regime.
ReplyDeleteI believe that countries have failed to gain legitimacy because it was ineffective. One of the drawbacks of legitimacy is that countries depend on state power. Legitimacy was not as influential as were not fulfilled all the promises from the Communists, this is the cause of ethnic conflicts. But ethnic problems lead to difficulty implementing political and economic reforms.
ReplyDeleteI don't think countries of Eastern Europe were succeed in acquiring legitimacy. Because legitimacy based on public interest and I think, the people, the society of Eastern Europe didn't like the new regime of Stalin, so called "People's democracy". It wasn't democracy. Stalin did in Eastern Europe same things as he did in Soviet Union. Industrialization, Collectivization, Dekulakization and of course, purges of the old communists in 5-7 years. And after 20th Congress of the Communist Party mass discontent was existed in most EE countries. Totalitarian regime seemed weakened. But it wasn't so. In 60's and 70's the economic side of became deteriorate. It led discontent on the Communist Party. The Communist Party promised them better life, but they can't so it was the reason why they were not succeed in EE.
ReplyDeleteYes, since communism which led the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe benefiting those countries. They developed after the second world war. Yes, there was no economic miracle in Western Europe , but in itself economies of Eastern Europe was not ready for the better ..
ReplyDeleteI believe that the destruction of Soviet influence on Eastern European countries was beneficial to someone , and the third party used the ethnic differences in these countries to implement their ideology , and then their influence.
The big advantage of " people's democracy " was the fact that the entire system , all controlled by the State Center , and had a certain order , which is not present at the absolute democracies. I do not agree with the fact that the Communist Party did not do what it promised . They have shown good results. But the influence of external forces , the emergence of a new generation of transit development in Western Europe, Eastern Europe was to eliminate the influence of the USSR
Eastern Europe was a centure of ideological expriments. Firstly, in 1918 liberal democrats won, then Hitler's New Order. Moreover after the Nazi regime, then appreared Stalin with the People's Democracy. The Russian rule lasted so much longer than German in eastern Europe, not because of the differences between Nazism and communism. But because of the difference between their ultimate goals and political strategies.the Nazis thought about German interests.And it was the main reason of European were discontent who has ideology of liberal democracy.And I agree with Madina about totalitarism and the theory of it, which was depeloped by Western political scientists.
ReplyDeleteAfter the end of WWII the conditions of Eastern Europe changed, the majority of european countries became democratic, some of them returned their independence and also the Fascism ideology dissapeared. So, Eastern European countries used to build socialism, under the control of USSR, that’s why they are called Eastern bloc. They didn’t succeed in acquiring ligitimacy, because socialism wasn’t elected democratically by people, it came to the power under the pressure of USSR. This countries were under the dictates of the Sovet Union’s Communist Parties. For instance, Hungary tried to come against to the government and Sovet- imposed policies, in 1956.. Also there was one more uprising in Czechoslovakia, “ Prague Spring” , this uprising was also an attempt of citizens to return their rights back. However, this attempts to be free of socialism wasn’t received by USSR. According to these historical facts, I think that Eastern European bloc did not succeed in aquiring legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view the Eastern European countries had no choice, in making decision because the USSR caused pressure to them, and they had to join with those countries that supports Socialism.
ReplyDeleteEven these countries were controlled by USSR, they didn't stick to the regulations of USSR. For instance Yugoslavia left the Eastern bloc in 1948 and Albania in 1960, and these facts confirm us that in Eastern bloc did not succeed in acquiring their legitimacy.
After World War II Europe had a "People's republic". They had it after new order of Hitler which was in the period of 1938-1945. Nazi governance was never more chaotic than during the war: Hitler's satraps wrestled for his attention, and a host of allies and collaborators intrigued among themselves.(Mazower) And after Nazi regime Stalin bring his idea of "People Demogracy". It is middle between communism and democracy. According to the lecture we have seen pictures of damaged Warsaw. In Eastern Europe they had Dekulakization, Collectivization, Industrialization, Stalinization. And they had represtion, most of them were communists. One of them is Ana Pauker in Romania.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that they can lasted longer without abandoning their aims and sacrificing their essential features.
First of all I want to write about the Eastern bloc in general. Eastern bloc was established after the WWII because of the appearance of communist parties. Such cauntries as Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania were in this bloc. Despite the fact that an Eastern bloc was based on the simular idealogical and economical views, in addition they came to an agreement to unite against the NATO's impendence. Even if these cauntries were controlled by USSR they did not follow the rules of Soviet Union completely. As we know, that in communizm people do not have their own opinions, moreover in communizm economic system worked inefficiently which was very bad for these cauntries. To conclude, in 1948 Yugoslavia left the Eastern bloc, in 1960 Albania was out of bloc. It stopped the existence after velvety revolutions and after the Union of Germany in 1990.
ReplyDelete