Development of the countries of Eastern Europe after the Second World War. Situations in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II

The internal political situation in Poland after the end of World War II was very difficult. In the struggle for power, two political forces opposed, which took part in the anti-fascist resistance movement - the Polish Committee of National Liberation, supported by the USSR, and the Regional Rada of the Peoples, oriented to support the Polish government in exile, created by socialist parties. Each of the parties had significant support among the population, therefore, after the liberation of Poland by the Soviet army, a coalition Provisional Government of National Unity was formed. However, for a short time bourgeois leaders headed by the former prime minister of the government in exile, the leader of the "Polish support of the people" (PSL) S. Mikolajczyk, were ousted from it. In 1947, the elections to the first post-war Polish parliament - the Legislative Sejm - were won by the Democratic Bloc, consisting of political parties of a socialist orientation (in 1948 they merged into the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP)). The new socialist regime, with the support of the USSR, began to transform according to the Soviet model.

For some time, the PSL tried to provide armed resistance to the new government, but the forces were unequal. In the south-east of Poland in 1947, detachments in the PA operated. The Polish-Ukrainian massacre continued until the so-called "Vistula" action was carried out by the government. Under the pretext of fighting the PA, the authorities evicted and scattered across the territory of Poland 140,000 Ukrainians who had lived here for centuries.

Formally, Poland had a multi-party system, but in its political life PUWP dominated, which copied the experience of the CPSU, in particular, introduced a system of repression. In 1952, the Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland (PNR) was adopted, the institute of presidency was abolished, and a collective governing body, the State Council, was created. In June 1956, due to the deteriorating economic situation in Poznan, anti-government riots began, which were brutally suppressed by the authorities (75 people were killed, about 1000 were injured). However, the new leadership of the PUWP, headed by V. Gomulka, was forced to make concessions: to dissolve the collective farms, to rehabilitate the innocently convicted, to improve relations with catholic church.

After mass anti-government protests by workers and students in 1970, E. Gierek was elected first secretary of the PUWP Central Committee. Price increases were canceled, the process of economic renewal began, primarily through large loans from developed Western countries, as a result of which the situation in the country temporarily returned to normal. However, in the early 1980s, the economy began to stagnate again, Poland's external debt reached $27 billion. In 1980, the PNS was seized by a new, longest and most acute political crisis. In the summer, a wave of strikes swept across the country, the workers of the port cities moved to the creation of "free" trade unions not controlled by the state. The most massive was the Independent Trade Union "Solidarity", which was headed by an electrician from the Gdansk shipyard L. Walensa. Pockets of "Solidarity" began to form throughout the country. Already in the autumn of 1980, the number of its members exceeded 9 million people. The independent trade union, supported by the influential Catholic Church in Polish society, turned into a powerful democratic socio-political movement, actively opposed the PUWP regime. Another change in the party leadership did not stabilize the situation in the country. Soviet leadership, frightened by the prospect of democratic forces coming to power in Poland, threatened military intervention in Polish affairs according to the Czechoslovak scenario of 1968 and demanded an immediate introduction of a state of emergency in the country. In 1981, the Minister of Defense, General V. Jaruzelsky, was elected Chairman of the Council of Ministers and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the PUWP. It was he who declared martial law in Poland on December 13, 1981: the activities of all opposition organizations were banned, their leaders and active figures (almost 6.5 thousand people) were interned, army patrols of cities and villages were introduced, and military control over the work of enterprises. Thus, the Soviet occupation of the country was avoided, but it was already the agony of the communist regime in Poland.

During the 80s, the economic and socio-political crisis in Poland deepened and the government was forced to negotiate with the opposition (February - April 1989), which ended with an agreement on democratic reforms, namely the legalization of all political associations in the country, in particular "Solidarity", holding free elections, the restoration of the presidency and the bicameral parliament. In the June 1989 elections, almost all seats in the upper house - the Senate - were received by representatives of Solidarity and other democratic parties. W. Jaruzelski was elected president of the country, and T. Mazowiecki, one of the leaders of Solidarity, became prime minister. The dismantling of the totalitarian state model began. In early 1990, having finally lost the support of the people, the PZPR dissolved itself and Jaruzelski resigned his powers as president. In December 1990, the leader of Solidarity, L. Walesa, won the first direct presidential election. The communist regime in Poland suffered a complete collapse.

Economic reforms developed by the Minister of Finance L. Balcerowicz, known as "shock therapy", began. Within a short time, price controls were abolished, free trade, privatized most of the public sector. At the cost of a significant drop in the living standards of the population (by 40%), an increase in the number of unemployed (up to 2 million people), the domestic market of Poland was stabilized. But the dissatisfaction of the population manifested itself in the election to parliament in 1993 of mainly former communists - representatives of the Union of Democratic Left Forces (SLDS), and in 1995 the leader of the SLDS A. Kwasniewski became president of Poland, who, together with the new center-left government, continued the policy of reforms, strengthening the emphasis on social protection of the population. In April 1997, the Parliament adopted the Polish Constitution, which established a parliamentary-presidential form of government with a clear division of power into legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The main foreign policy priorities of Poland in the 90s of the XX century. were determined: the development of comprehensive cooperation with the United States, developed European countries, accession to the EU and NATO. As a result of the purposeful activity of the authorities, Poland became a member of NATO in March 1999, and in May 2004 - the EU.

On September 25, 2005, Jaroslaw Kaczynski's Law and Justice party won the parliamentary elections in Poland with a score of 26.99% (155 seats out of 460), in second place was Donald Tusk's Civic Platform (24.14%), then - "Self-defense" by Andrzej Lepper - 11.41%.

October 9, 2005 Lech Kaczynski (Jaroslav Kaczynski's twin brother) and Donald Tusk advanced to the second round presidential elections. On October 23, 2005, Lech Kaczynski won the elections and became the President of Poland. 54.04% of voters voted for him. The conservative Law and Justice Party has close ties to the Catholic Church. Lech Kaczynski himself during his tenure as mayor of Warsaw banned parades sexual minorities, which caused criticism from Poland's partners in the European Union, and also demanded that Germany compensate for the damage caused to Warsaw during the Second World War.

The new president carried out a nationalist line in relation not only to Germany, but to the whole of united Europe. In particular, he announced that the issue of introducing a common European currency in Poland would be put to a referendum. Since July 3, 2006, his brother, Yaroslav Kaczynski, has headed the government.

Early parliamentary elections in October 2007 brought victory to the liberal-conservative Civic Platform, while the ruling conservative Law and Justice party was defeated. Donald Tusk, leader of the Civic Platform, became prime minister.

Poland's relations with Ukraine have a rich and rather complex historical tradition and a modern, reliable contractual basis. Poland was the first in the world to recognize the independence of Ukraine. In May 1992, the Treaty of Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation between Poland and Ukraine was signed. The two neighboring large states are actively cooperating in pan-European structures. Poland traditionally supports Ukraine's aspirations for integration with the European Union and NATO.

COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE IN 1945-2000

§ 7. Countries of Eastern Europe after World War II

Results of the Second World War II brought huge economic and demographic losses to the countries of the East World War and Europe. Destruction of production and transport infrastructure, rising inflation, disruption of traditional trade relations and an acute shortage of consumer goods steel common problems for all countries in the region. It is characteristic that the greatest losses suffered during the war years were those states that in the pre-war period were at a higher level of socio-economic development - Poland, completely devastated during the years Nazi occupation, Hungary, the most affected among the former allies of Germany at the final stage of the war and in the first years of the Soviet occupation, Czechoslovakia, which experienced several territorial divisions. The total losses of Poland and Hungary reached 40% of the national wealth. The share of the entire Eastern European region in the world industrial production has decreased by 2 times. Thus, the war not only threw the Eastern European countries back in economic modernization, but also significantly leveled their level of development.

The territorial changes that took place in Eastern Europe as a result of the Second World War turned out to be not as large-scale as in 1918-1920, but nevertheless significantly changed the regional political map. The legal basis for them was the decisions of the Crimean (Yalta) and Potsdam conferences, peace treaties with countries that took studies in the German bloc, as well as a series of bilateral agreements ° R (? / Since the years of the exact European countries with the USSR, concluded in 1944-19 Peace treaties with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers (FMD) winning countries

created in 1945 to address the issues of post-war ure-ioovanie. This work was completed in December 1946, and the final text of the peace treaties was signed on February 10, 1947. The territory of Bulgaria remained within the borders of January 1, 1938. Hungary returned to the borders of January 1, 1938, with the exception of the transfer to Czechoslovakia of a small area in the vicinity of Bratislava. Thus, Hungary lost the territories acquired in the framework of the Vienna Arbitrations of 1938 and 1940. (Southern pions of Slovakia were returned to the Czechoslovak state, Transcarpathian Ukraine became part of the USSR, northwestern Transylvania returned to Romania). The borders of Romania were restored as of January 1, 1941, i.e. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina remained part of the USSR. The treaties also established the size and procedure for paying reparations by Romania in favor of the USSR, Bulgaria in favor of Yugoslavia and Greece, Hungary in favor of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. At the suggestion of the USSR, the principle of partial compensation for the damage caused (66%) was adopted. Subsequently, the Soviet government reduced reparation payments to Eastern European countries by another 50%.

In a more advantageous position were the Eastern European countries that participated in the struggle against the Nazi bloc - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. The new borders of Poland were established by the Crimean Conference and the Soviet-Polish Treaty of 1945. Poland acquired the former German territories east of the line along the Oder and Western Neisse, including returning the Danzing Corridor. Western Ukraine and Western Belarus remained part of the USSR. At the same time, the Soviet government renounced in favor of Poland all claims to German property and assets located on Polish territory, as well as part of German reparations. The Special Soviet-Czechoslovak Treaty of 1945 confirmed Czechoslovakia's renunciation of claims to Transcarpathian Ukraine. The rest of the territory of Czechoslovakia was stopped within the borders of early 1938. The attempt by the Soviets and Yugoslav diplomacy to consolidate the rights of Yugoslavia to the NC°?NUYU territory of the Istrian peninsula failed. By decision of the Paris and the 1947 conference, the “Free Territory of Trieste” was created here, divided by Italy and Yugoslavia already in 1954, and in the shortest possible time one of the most difficult post-war problems of the region was solved - moving to -mu h Iya "According to the decision of the Potsdam Conference, confirmed by Mannck> HH1MI agreements> the German population was deported to Germany from the territory of the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, new lands and> as well as from Hungary and former East Prussia, included -

""""" 8b74 d. m "

Ch-Rodr, ges Ou

cabbage soup to the USSR. The Soviet-Polish agreement of 1945 regulated the "exchange of population" between the two countries. A participant in the struggle against Nazism and members of their families, of Polish and Jewish "nationality, who lived on the territory of the USSR, received a PP for the option - the choice of Polish or Soviet citizenship. However, at the same time, in accordance with earlier agreements, there was a forced mutual evacuation of the population in the border regions of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.As an option, an exchange of population was carried out between the USSR and Czechoslovakia in the border regions.

The internal political situation that developed in the Eastern European countries by the end of World War II was also very difficult. The collapse of pro-fascist authoritarian regimes, the wide participation of the population in the resistance movement created the prerequisites for profound changes in the entire state-political system. However, in reality, the politicization of the masses and their readiness for democratic transformations was superficial. The authoritarian political psychology was not only preserved, but also strengthened during the war years. The desire to see the state as a guarantor of social stability and a force capable of solving the tasks facing society in the shortest possible time was still characteristic of the mass consciousness.

In the bosom of an authoritarian political culture, a large part of the new state elite that came to power in Eastern European countries was also formed. Many of these people devoted their whole lives to the struggle against the former regimes, went through prisons, hard labor, and emigration. The spirit of struggle, the irreconcilable and uncompromising upholding of one's own ideals became the law of the post-war political life of Eastern Europe. This was also facilitated by the legacy of the war itself, which was a clash of incompatible social models, ideological systems. The defeat of National Socialism left other implacable opponents face to face - communism and liberal democracy. Supporters of these war-winning ideas gained predominance in the new political elite of the Eastern European countries, but this promised a new round of ideological confrontation in the future. The situation was also complicated by the increased influence of the national idea, the existence of nationalist-oriented trends even in the democratic and communist camps. The idea of agrarianism, revived during these years, and the activities of the still influential and numerous peasant parties also received a national coloring.

n formation A heterogeneous party spectrum formed

period in the countries of Eastern Europe after the war, and high

The heat of the ideological struggle before democracy could become a sufficient reason for the first stage of social transformation to be accompanied by an acute confrontation of all political forces. However, the situation developed quite differently. At the last stage of the war in the vast majority of Eastern European countries, the process of consolidating all the former opposition parties and movements, the formation of broad multi-party coalitions, which received the name of the National or Fatherland Fronts, begins. As the Soviet army and the armed forces of the Resistance moved west to the borders of Germany, these political associations took over the fullness of state power.

The Bulgarian Fatherland Front, which united the pro-communist Bulgarian Workers' Party, the Bulgarian Workers' Social Democratic Party, the agrarian BZNS and the influential political group Zveno, was formed back in 1942. After the victory of the popular uprising in Sofia in September 1944, a coalition government of the Front was formed under the leadership of K. Georgiev from the “Link”. The Romanian National Democratic Front has existed since September 1944. Initially, it was based on communists and social democrats. But already in March 1945, the coalition government was headed by the authoritative leader of the Romanian Front of Farmers P. Groz, and after the start of constructive cooperation between this cabinet and the monarchy, representatives of the “historical” parties, the Tseranists and National Liberals, entered the government. In December 1944, the Hungarian Communist Party, the Social Democrats, the National Peasant Party and the Party of Small Farmers formed the Hungarian National Front and a transitional government. After the first free elections in Hungary in November 1945, the coalition cabinet was headed by the leader of the IMSH, Z. Tildy. The obvious predominance of the left forces initially received only in the National Front of Czechs and Slovaks, created in March 1945. Despite the active participation in it of influential politicians from the National Socialist Party, the Slovak Democratic Party, the People's Party, the Communist K Gottwald, and the first coalition government was headed by the Social Democrat Z. Firlinger. However, at the same time, the leadership of the NFES conducted a very constructive dialogue with the government in exile under the leadership of E. Benes and J. Massaryk. The internal political situation in Poland was more complicated, the confrontation was built in July 1944 in Lublin

of the communist Committee for National Liberation and the emissary government of S. Mikolajczyk, open confrontation "between the armed detachments of the People's Army and the Home Army brought Poland to the brink of civil war. The activity of the Soviet special services also played a negative role - the personnel of the NKVD and SMERSH were used not only to advise the creation of the Polish security service UB, but also for the direct persecution of the fighters of the Home Army.However, in accordance with the decisions of the Crimean Conference in Poland, the process of forming a government of national unity also began.It included representatives of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR), the Polish the Socialist Party (PPS), the Polish Peasants' Party (PSL), as well as the Party of Ludovians and the Social Democratic Party.E. resistance forces and emigration anti-fascist forces in Yugoslavia. The National Liberation Committee, created on the basis of the pro-communist National Liberation Front, in March 1945 reached an agreement with the Šubašić government in exile to hold general free elections to the Constituent Assembly (Constituent Assembly). The undivided predominance of the pro-communist forces was preserved during this period only in Albania.

The reason for such an unexpected at first glance cooperation of completely heterogeneous political forces was the unity of their tasks at the first stage of post-war transformations. It was quite obvious to communists and agrarians, nationalists and democrats that the most pressing problem was the formation of the very foundations of a new constitutional order, the elimination of authoritarian governance structures associated with the former regimes, and the holding of free elections. In all countries, the monarchical system was liquidated (only in Romania this happened later, after the establishment of the monopoly power of the communists). In Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, the first wave of reforms also concerned the solution of the national question, the formation of a federal statehood. The primary task was the restoration of the destroyed economy, the establishment of material support for the population, and the solution of pressing social problems. The priority of such tasks made it possible to characterize the entire stage of 1945-1946. as a period of "people's democracy". However, the consolidation of political forces was temporary.

If the very need for economic reforms was questioned, then the methods of their implementation and the ultimate goal became

marked the first split in the ruling coalitions. As the economic situation stabilized, it was necessary to determine the long-term strategy for reforms. The peasant parties, the most numerous and influential at that time (their representatives, as mentioned above, headed the first governments in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary), did not consider it necessary to accelerate modernization, the priority development of the industry. They also opposed the expansion of state regulation of the economy. The main task of these parties, which was generally completed already at the first stage of reforms, was the destruction of latifundia and the implementation of agrarian reform in the interests of the middle peasantry. Liberal-democratic parties, communists and social democrats, despite political differences, were united in focusing on the “catch-up development” model, striving to ensure a breakthrough in their countries in industrial development, to approach the level of the leading countries of the world. Not having a large advantage in isolation, all together they constituted a powerful force capable of achieving a change in the political strategy of the ruling coalitions.

A turning point in the alignment of political forces occurred during 1946, when the peasant parties were pushed aside from power. Changes in the higher echelons of government led to an adjustment of the reformist course. The implementation of programs for the nationalization of large-scale industry and the banking system, wholesale trade, state control over production and planning elements. But if the communists considered these reforms as the first step towards socialist transformations, then the democratic forces saw in them a process of strengthening the state element of the market economy, natural for the post-war MMC system. The definition of a further strategy turned out to be impossible without the final ideological "self-determination". An important factor was the objective logic of post-war economic transformations. "Catching up development", which has already gone beyond the period of economic recovery, the continuation of forced reforms in the field of large-scale industrial production, structural and sectoral restructuring of the economy, required huge investment costs. There were no sufficient internal resources in the countries of Eastern Europe. This situation predetermined the inevitability of the region's growing economic dependence on foreign aid. Delan's choice was to be only between the West and the East, and his outcome already depended not so much on the alignment of internal political forces, but on the world scene.

Eastern The political fate of Eastern Europe was Europe and began the subject of active discussion at the Crimean and cold Potsdam conferences of the Allies. CONTRACT

WARS "n g ^ tch Rs" ~

The agreements reached at Yalta between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill reflected the actual division of the European continent into spheres of influence. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania constituted the “zone of responsibility” of the USSR. In the future, Soviet diplomacy invariably maintained the initiative during negotiations with former allies on various aspects of a peaceful settlement in Eastern Europe. The signing by the Soviet Union of bilateral Friendship Treaties, cooperation and mutual assistance (with Czechoslovakia in 1943, with Poland and Yugoslavia in 1945, with Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria in 1948) finally shaped the contours of these paternalistic relations. Moreover, the San Francisco conference in April 1945 adopted the “Declaration on a Liberated Europe”, where the USSR, the USA and Great Britain equally committed themselves to supporting democratic reforms in all countries liberated from Nazis, guaranteeing the freedom to choose their further development.Over the next two years, the USSR sought to I emphatically follow the proclaimed course and not force the geopolitical split of the continent. Real influence in the Eastern European region, based on the military presence and authority of the liberating power, allowed the Soviet government to make demarches more than once in order to demonstrate its respect for the sovereignty of these countries.

Stalin's unusual flexibility even extended to the holy of holies, the ideological realm. With the full support of the top party leadership, Academician E. Varga formulated in 1946 the concept of "democracy of a new type." It was based on the concept of democratic socialism, which is built taking into account national specifics in countries liberated from fascism. The idea of "people's democracy" - a social system that combines the principles of social justice, parliamentary democracy and individual freedom - was indeed extremely popular then in the countries of Eastern Europe. It was seen by many political forces as a "third way", an alternative to individualistic Americanized capitalism and Soviet-style totalitarian socialism.

The international situation around the Eastern European countries began to change from the middle of 1946. At the Paris Peace Conference in August 1946, the American and British delegations

yade active attempts to interfere in the process of formation of new government bodies in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as the Building of special judicial structures for international control over the observance of human rights in the countries of the former Nazi bloc. The USSR resolutely opposed such proposals, justifying its position by respecting the principle of sovereignty of the Eastern European powers. The aggravation of relations between the victorious countries became especially evident at the III and IV sessions of the Ministerial Council of Foreign Ministers, held in late 1946 - early 1947 and dedicated to the settlement of border issues in post-war Europe and the fate of Germany. In March 1947, Mr.. Truman's presidential message proclaimed a new US foreign policy doctrine. The American leadership announced its readiness to support all "free peoples" in resisting external pressure and, most importantly, the communist threat in any form. Truman also said that the United States is obliged to lead the entire "free world" in the fight against the already established totalitarian regimes that undermine the foundations of the international legal order.

The proclamation of the "Truman Doctrine", which announced the beginning of a crusade against communism, marked the beginning of an open struggle of the superpowers for geopolitical influence anywhere in the world. The Eastern European countries felt the change in the international situation already in the summer of 1947. During this period, negotiations took place on the conditions for providing economic assistance from the United States to European countries under the Marshall Plan. The Soviet leadership not only resolutely rejected the possibility of such cooperation, but also ultimatum demanded that Poland and Czechoslovakia, which had shown a clear interest, refuse to participate in the project. The rest of the countries of the Eastern European region prudently held preliminary consultations with Moscow and responded to the American proposals with a "voluntary and decisive refusal." The USSR offered generous compensation in the form of preferential supplies of raw materials and food. But it was necessary to eradicate the very possibility of a geopolitical reorientation of Eastern Europe, that is, to ensure monopoly power in these countries to the communist parties.

Education Formation of pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe

socialist Europe followed a similar scenario

whom camp. Ryu. The first step along this path was to consolidate

the Soviet course of the communist parties towards “peaceful

Yugoslav "

if the outgrowth of the national-democratic revolutionary

Lucius into the socialist". First of all, the corresponding decision was made by the Romanian Communist Party - back in October 1945, the RCP was the weakest in the

politically from the Eastern European communist parties, was not associated with the mass resistance movement. The leadership of the party, which was dominated by representatives of national minorities, was disorganized by the conflict of its leader G. Georgiou-Deja with representatives of the Moscow Union of the Romanian Communists A. Pauker and V. Luca. In addition, Geop-giu-Dej accused S. Foris, secretary of the Central Committee of the party, of complicity with the invaders, who was arrested after the arrival of Soviet troops and hanged without a court decision. The adoption of the radical program was associated with an attempt to enlist additional support from the Soviet leadership and did not correspond to the political situation in the country.

In most countries of the Eastern European region, the decision to move to the socialist stage of social transformation was made by the leadership of the communist parties already in 1946 and was not associated with a radical restructuring of the highest echelons of state power. In April, the corresponding decision was adopted by the Plenum of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, in September - by the III Congress of the CPSU. In October 1946, after elections were held in Bulgaria, the Dimitrov government came to power, declaring the same goal; in November, the newly formed bloc of Polish parties PPR and PPS (“Democratic Bloc”) announced a socialist orientation. In all these cases, the consolidation of the course towards socialist construction did not lead to an escalation of political violence and the planting of communist ideology. On the contrary, the idea of socialist construction was supported by a wide range of left-of-centre forces and aroused confidence among the most diverse segments of the population. Socialism for them was not yet associated with the Soviet experience. The communist parties themselves successfully used bloc tactics during these months. Coalitions with the participation of communists, social democrats and their allies, as a rule, received an obvious advantage during the first democratic elections - in May 1946 in Czechoslovakia, in October 1946 - in Bulgaria, in January 1947 - in Poland, in August 1947 - in Hungary. The only exceptions were Yugoslavia and Albania, where, on the crest of the liberation movement, pro-communist forces came to power in the first post-war months.

In 1947, the new centre-left governments, using the already open support of the Soviet military administration and relying on the state security agencies created under the control of the Soviet special services on the basis of communist cadres, provoked a series of political conflicts that led to the defeat of the peasant and liberal-democratic

yarty. Political trials took place over the leaders of the Hungarian IMSH 3. Tildy, the Polish People's Party g] u1kolaichik, the Bulgarian Agricultural People's Union N. Petkov, the Romanian Tsaranist Party A. Alexandres-y, the Slovak president Tiso and the leadership of the Slovak Democratic Party who supported him. In Romania, this process coincided with the final liquidation of the monarchical system. Despite King Mihai's demonstrative loyalty to the USSR, he was accused of "seeking support among Western imperialist circles" and expelled from the country.

The logical continuation of the defeat of the democratic opposition was the organizational merger of the communist and social democratic parties with the subsequent discrediting and, subsequently, the destruction of the leaders of the social democracy. In February 1948, the Romanian Workers' Party was formed on the basis of the RCP and the SDPR. In May 1948, after a political purge of the leadership of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, she joined the BKP. A month later, in Hungary, the CPSU and the SDPV were united into the Hungarian Working People's Party. At the same time, the Czechoslovak communists and social democrats united into a single party, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. In December 1948, the gradual unification of the PPS and the PPR ended with the formation of the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP). At the same time, in most countries of the region, the multi-party system has not been formally eliminated.

So, by 1948-1949. in almost all countries of Eastern Europe, the political hegemony of the communist forces became obvious. The socialist system also received legal consolidation. In April 1948, the constitution of the Romanian People's Republic was adopted, proclaiming a course towards building the foundations of socialism. On May 9 of the same year, a constitution of this kind was adopted in Czechoslovakia. In 1948, the course towards socialist construction was fixed by the Fifth Congress of the ruling Bulgarian Communist Party, and in Hungary the beginning of socialist transformations was proclaimed in the constitution adopted in August 1949. Only in Poland was the socialist constitution adopted a little later - in 1952, but already the "Small Constitution" of 1947 fixed the Dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of the Polish state and the basis of the social system.

All constitutional acts of the late 40s - early 50s. based on a similar legal doctrine. They consolidated the principle of people's power and the class basis of the "state of workers and laboring peasants." The socialist constitutional and legal doctrine denied the principle of separation of powers. In the system of state

authorities proclaimed "the omnipotence of the Soviets." Local Soviets became "organs of unified state power", responsible for the implementation of acts of the central authorities on their territory. Executive bodies of power were formed from the composition of the Soviets at all levels. The executive committees, as a rule, acted according to the principle of dual subordination: to a higher governing body and the corresponding Council. As a result, a rigid power hierarchy took shape, patronized by party organs.

While maintaining the principle of people's sovereignty (democracy) in the socialist constitutional and legal doctrine, the concept of "people" was narrowed to a separate social group- "working people". This group was declared the highest subject of legal relations, the true bearer of imperious sovereignty. The individual legal personality of a person was actually denied. The personality was considered as an organic, integral part of the society, and its legal status - as a derivative of the status of a collective social and legal entity ("working people" or "exploiting classes"). The most important criterion for maintaining the legal status of an individual was political loyalty, which was seen as recognition of the priority of the interests of the people over individual, selfish interests. Such an approach opened the way for the deployment of large-scale political repressions. "Enemies of the people" could also be declared those persons who not only carry out some "anti-people actions", but simply do not share the prevailing ideological postulates. The political upheaval that took place in the Eastern European countries in 1947-1948 strengthened the influence of the USSR in the region, but did not yet make it overwhelming. In the victorious communist parties, in addition to the "Moscow" wing - that part of the communists who went through the school of the Comintern "and possessed precisely the Soviet vision of socialism, an influential "national" wing remained, focused on the ideas of national sovereignty and equality in relations with the "big brother" (which, however, did not prevent many representatives of the idea of "national socialism" from being more than consistent and tough supporters of totalitarian statehood.) To support the "correct" political course of the young communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Soviet leadership took a number of vigorous measures. The most important of these was the formation of a new international communist organization - the successor to the Comintern.

The idea of creating a coordinating center for the international communist and workers' movement arose in Moscow before the start of active confrontation with the West. Therefore, the initial

the Soviet leadership took a very cautious position, trying to maintain the image of an equal partner of the Eastern European countries. In the spring of 1947, Stalin suggested that the Polish leader W. Gomulka take the initiative to create a joint information periodical for several communist parties. But already in the summer of that year, during the preparatory work, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks took a much tougher position. The idea of a constructive dialogue between various currents of the international working-class movement was replaced by a desire to create a platform for criticizing "non-Marxist theories of a peaceful transition to socialism", the struggle against the "dangerous infatuation with parliamentarism" and other manifestations of "revisionism".

In the same vein, in September 1947, in the Polish city of Szklarska Poreba, a meeting of delegations of the communist parties of the USSR, France, Italy and Eastern European states. The Soviet delegation led by A. Zhdanov and G. Malenkov actively supported the toughest speeches about the "aggravation of the class struggle" and the need for a corresponding adjustment in the course of the communist parties. V. Gomulka, the leaders of the Bulgarian and Hungarian delegations V. Chervenkov and J. Revai, as well as the secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia R. Slansky spoke from such positions. The speeches of the Romanian leader G. Georgeu-Deja and the Yugoslav representatives M. Djilas and E. Kardelya turned out to be more restrained. Moscow politicians were even less interested in the position of the French and Italian communists, who advocated maintaining the course of consolidating all leftist forces in the struggle against "American imperialism." At the same time, none of the speakers proposed to strengthen the political and organizational coordination of the international communist movement - it was about the exchange of "internal information" and opinions. A surprise for the meeting participants was Zhdanov's final report, where, contrary to the initial agenda, the emphasis was shifted to political tasks common to all communist parties and a conclusion was made about the expediency of creating a permanent coordination center-Ra. As a result, the meeting in Szklarska Poreba decided to establish the Communist Information Bureau. True, mindful of all the ups and downs that accompanied the struggle against the Trotskyist-Zinovievist and Bukharinist leadership of the old Comintern, and not wanting to receive a new opposition in the person of the Cominform in the struggle for autocracy in the communist movement, Stalin narrowed the field of activity of the new organization to the utmost. The Cominform was to become only a political tribune for the leadership of the FI(b) to present "a correct vision of the ways of building socialism."

In accordance with the tried and tested political recipes of the 20s. The Kremlin tried, first of all, to find a potential adversary among its new allies and roughly punish the "disobedient". Judging by the documents of the foreign policy department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, V. Gomulka was initially considered in this role, recklessly speaking at a meeting in Szklarska Poreba against the creation of a political coordination center instead of the planned joint publication. However, the "Polish problem" was soon obscured by a more acute conflict with the Yugoslav leadership. Gomulka, on the other hand, was dismissed in 1948 from the post of general secretary of the PPR without additional noise and replaced by B. Bierut, who was more loyal to the Kremlin.

Yugoslavia, at first glance, of all Eastern European countries, gave the least grounds for ideological revelations and political confrontation. Ever since the war, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has become the most influential force in the country, and its leader Josef Broz Tito has become a national hero. Since January 1946, a one-party system was legally fixed in Yugoslavia, the implementation of broad programs for the nationalization of industry and the collectivization of agriculture began. Forced industrialization, carried out according to the Soviet model, was seen as a strategic line for the development of the national economy and social structure society. The authority of the USSR in Yugoslavia during these years was indisputable.

The first reason for disagreements between the Soviet and Yugoslav leadership was the negotiations on the disputed territory of Trieste in 1946. Stalin, not wanting to aggravate relations with the Western powers at that time, supported plans for a compromise settlement of this problem. In Yugoslavia, this was considered a betrayal of the interests of an ally. Disagreements also arose on the question of the participation of the USSR in the restoration and development of the Yugoslav mining industry. The Soviet government was ready to finance half of the costs, but the Yugoslav side insisted on full funding from the USSR, contributing only the cost of minerals as its share. As a result, the economic assistance of the USSR was reduced only to supplies, equipment and the dispatch of specialists. But the real cause of the conflict was precisely political. More and more irritation in Moscow caused the desire of the leadership of Yugoslavia to present their country as a "special" ally of the USSR, more significant and influential than all other members of the Soviet bloc. Yugoslavia considered the entire Balkan region as a zone of its direct influence, and Albania as a potential

member of the Yugoslav federation. The paternalistic and not always respectful style of relations on the part of Soviet politicians and economic specialists, in turn, caused discontent in Belgrade. To a particular extent, it intensified after the start in 1947 of a large-scale operation of the Soviet special services to recruit agents in Yugoslavia and create an intelligence network there.

From the middle of 1947, relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia began to deteriorate rapidly. Official Moscow reacted sharply to the joint statement of the governments of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria dated August 1, 1947 on the initialing (coordination) of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. This decision not only was not agreed with the Soviet government, but also outstripped the ratification of the peace treaty between Bulgaria and the leading countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. Under pressure from Moscow, the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders then admitted their "mistake". But already in the autumn of 1947, the Albanian question became a stumbling block in Soviet-Yugoslav relations. Taking advantage of the differences in the Albanian government, in November Yugoslavia brought accusations of unfriendly actions to the leadership of this country. Criticism mainly concerned the Minister of Economy N. Spiru, who headed the pro-Soviet wing of the Albanian government. Spiru soon committed suicide, and the Yugoslav leadership, anticipating the possible reaction of the Kremlin, itself initiated a discussion of the fate of Albania in Moscow. The negotiations that took place in December-January only temporarily reduced the intensity of the confrontation. Stalin unequivocally hinted that in the future the accession of Albania to the Yugoslav federation could become quite real. But Tito's demands for the entry of Yugoslav troops into the territory of Albania were harshly rejected. The denouement came in January 1948 after the announcement by the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leadership of plans to deepen Balkan integration. This project received the harshest assessment in the Soviet official press. In early February, the "rebels" were summoned to Moscow. The Bulgarian leader G. Dimitrov hurried to abandon his previous intentions, but the reaction of official Belgrade turned out to be more restrained. Tito refused to personally go to the "public flogging", and the Central Committee of the CPY, after the report of Djilas and Kardelj, who had returned from Moscow, decided to abandon> t plans for Balkan integration, but to increase diplomatic pressure on Albania. On March 1, another meeting of the Central Committee of the South Youth took place, at which a very harsh criticism of the position of the Soviet leadership was voiced. Moscow's response was the March 18 "decision on the withdrawal of all Soviet specialists from Yugoslavia.

On March 27, 1948, Stalin sent a personal letter to I. Tito, summarizing the accusations leveled against the Yugoslav side (however, it is significant that the leader of the communist parties of other countries participating in the Cominform also received copies) The content of the letter shows the real reason break with Yugoslavia - the desire of the Soviet leadership to demonstrate how "socialism should not be built." Tito and his comrades-in-arms were reproached for criticizing the universality of the historical experience of the USSR, dissolving the communist party in the Popular Front, renouncing the class struggle, patronizing capitalist elements in the economy. In fact, these reproaches had nothing to do with the internal problems of Yugoslavia - it was chosen as a target only because of excessive self-will. But the leaders of other communist parties, invited to participate in the public "exposing" of the "criminal clique of Tito", were forced to officially recognize the criminality of the very attempt to find other ways to build socialism.

On May 4, 1948, Stalin sent Tito a new letter with an invitation to the second meeting of the Cominform and a lengthy exposition of his vision of the principles of the "correct" construction of the foundations of socialism. It was about the universality of the Soviet model of social transformations, the inevitability of exacerbation of the class struggle at the stage of building the foundations of socialism and, as a result, the uncontested dictatorship of the proletariat, the political monopoly of communist parties, the uncompromising struggle against other political forces and "non-labour elements", the priority programs of accelerated industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. Tito, of course, did not respond to this invitation, and Soviet-Yugoslav relations were effectively broken.

At the second meeting of the Cominform in June 1948, formally devoted to the Yugoslav question, the ideological and political foundations of the socialist camp were finally consolidated, including the right of the USSR to interfere in the internal affairs of other socialist countries and the recognition of the universality of the Soviet model of socialism. From now on, the internal development of the countries of Eastern Europe took place under the strict control of the USSR. The creation in 1949 of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which assumed the functions of coordinating the economic integration of the socialist countries, and later (in 1955) the military-political bloc of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, completed the formation of the socialist camp.

General History in Questions and Answers Tkachenko Irina Valerievna

20. What were the main trends in the development of the countries of Eastern Europe after World War II?

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

During the war years, some of them were occupied by German and Italian troops (Poland, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Albania), others were 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 were in the orbit of influence Soviet Union.

Implementation in the countries of Eastern Europe in 1945–1948 democratic transformations (restoration of parliamentary regimes, multi-party system, universal suffrage, adoption of constitutions, agrarian reforms, punishment of war criminals, nationalization of the property of active Nazi criminals and their allies) were also characteristic of 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, the communist parties established themselves in power, which pushed back and liquidated their political opponents- liberal democratic parties. Having completed the process of asserting autocracy, which was then called the period of people's democratic revolutions, the communist parties of the Eastern European countries proclaimed the beginning of the construction of socialism.

At the same time, the socio-economic and political system that had established itself in the USSR became the initial model. A greater or lesser degree of copying the experience of the USSR was typical for all countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Although Yugoslavia chose a slightly different variant of socio-economic policy, in its main parameters it represented a variant 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 did not have 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 heavy industry, first of all, since, except for Czechoslovakia and the GDR, all other countries were agrarian. Industrialization was accelerated. It was based on the nationalization of industry, finance, and trade. Agrarian reforms ended with collectivization, but without the nationalization of the land. The management system of all branches of the economy was concentrated in the hands of the state. Market relations were reduced to a minimum, and the administrative distribution system triumphed.

The overstrain of finances and the budget reduced development opportunities social sphere and the entire non-productive sphere - education, healthcare, science. Sooner or later, this was bound to have an impact on both the slowdown in the rate of development and the deterioration of living conditions. The model of an extensive type of production, requiring ever greater involvement of material, energy and labor costs, has exhausted itself. The world was entering a different reality - the era of scientific and technological revolution, which implies a different, intensive type of production. The countries of Eastern Europe proved to be immune to the new economic demands.

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

From the book History. General history. Grade 11. Basic and advanced levels author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 15. Socialist countries and features of their development after World War II Establishment of pro-Soviet regimes. Liberation Soviet troops countries of Eastern Europe from the Nazis led to the formation of new authorities here.

From the book History. General history. Grade 11. Basic and advanced levels author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 24. The main trends in the development of world artistic culture Avant-gardism. Avant-garde culture is a collection of diverse aesthetic trends that are united by innovation in form, style, and language. This innovation is revolutionary and destructive in

From the book Questions and Answers. Part I: World War II. Participating countries. Army, weapons. author Lisitsyn Fedor Viktorovich

Armaments of the countries participating in the Second World War

From the book Beyond the Threshold of Victory author Martirosyan Arsen Benikovich

Myth No. 21. At the end of the war and immediately after it, Stalin began to impose communist rule in the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern

author Tkachenko Irina Valerievna

10. What were the main stages of the post-war development of the leading Western European countries (20-50 years of the nineteenth century)? After the end of the Napoleonic Wars, a contradictory situation developed in Europe. On the one side, political elites European states sought to