The political influence of the USSR in the countries of Eastern Europe. The political influence of the USSR in the countries of Eastern Europe What determined the Soviet factor in Eastern Europe

After the end of World War II, in just a few years, significant political, social, economic and cultural changes took place in Eastern Europe.

Many processes and events of that time are still assessed ambiguously. Many works have been published on the problems of Eastern Europe, the authors of which often come to completely opposite, contradictory conclusions. The reasons for this situation are seen in the following circumstance: the lack of information or its distortion, as well as the difference in the ideological attitudes of the researchers themselves.

Some authors, usually representatives of Western historiography, believed that the regimes established in the countries of Eastern Europe in the post-war period were the result of the "export of revolution" by the Soviet Union, which was carried out as part of the world socialist revolution. There were two main points of view in Soviet and Eastern European historiography. On the one hand, it was believed that in the countries of Eastern Europe there was a people's democratic revolution, as a result of which the conditions were formed for the transition to building a socialist society, and, on the other hand, it was assumed that from the very beginning a course was taken to build a society according to the Soviet model.

In the 1990s, an opportunity arose to take a fresh look at many events in the post-war history of the countries of Eastern Europe. This opportunity arose thanks to the declassification of Soviet archives, familiarization with funds that until that time had been classified as "top secret". "New documents reveal to us the course of the post-war political development of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the impact of Soviet foreign policy on the political, economic and cultural life of these countries, the formation of their international relations."

New data on various aspects of the development of Eastern Europe during the first decade after the Second World War, for all their significance, are not able to eliminate the need for a theoretical understanding of the processes that took place in this region. And there is still much unresolved in this issue.

According to the documents, already "... at the final stage of the Second World War, the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition widely discussed the issues of the post-war structure in Eastern Europe. This reorganization concerned not only Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, which were on the side of Nazi Germany, but also the countries subjected to aggression and occupation - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Albania".

The defeat of fascist Germany and its allies had a huge impact on the post-war processes in the economic, political and social life of European countries. The peoples of many countries, on whom the fascist "new order" was imposed during the Second World War, rose up to fight for the revival of their statehood, the restoration of national dignity, and for the resolute democratization of public life. This struggle for national revival and social progress unfolded in the countries of Eastern Europe, where the beginning processes of transformation took, in accordance with the widespread point of view, the form of people's democratic revolutions.

The revolutionary "order" of changes in the political system of the countries of Eastern Europe was due, first of all, to the presence of favorable internal and external conditions. The most important among them were: the defeat of fascism, the liberation of the countries of the eastern region by the Soviet Army, the participation of the peoples of these countries in the struggle against fascism. However, for the realization of these favorable opportunities and for carrying out deep socio-economic and political transformations, the activity of the peoples of Eastern Europe themselves, the ability of the resurgent political organizations to lead the peoples of the liberated countries to the struggle for national revival and social progress, was of decisive importance.

During the years 1944-1947 in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, people's bodies of power were created, the remnants of the fascist dictatorship were eliminated, independence and foreign policy sovereignty were restored, and major socio-economic reforms were carried out.

People's democratic revolutions took place differently in different countries, depending on internal conditions and the correlation of class forces in each of these countries. The Soviet Union had a significant but ambiguous influence on the course of events in the countries of Eastern Europe. Helping in the implementation of democratic reforms, the Stalinist leadership at the same time sought to direct the course of events and the development of the political situation in the direction he needed, bring the communists to power and impose the Soviet model of development on the countries in which people's democracy was being formed.

On this basis, in the discussions of historians, a different point of view was expressed on the essence of the processes that took place in 1944-1947. in the countries of Eastern Europe. Its supporters questioned the very existence of people's democratic revolutions in these countries, denied the existence of a broad popular movement for democratic reforms, and believed that the Soviet Union imposed the Stalinist model of social development on the countries of Eastern Europe from the very beginning.

In the summer of 1945, a whole series of agreements with the Soviet leadership on the issues of changes in the governments of a number of Eastern European countries took place.

The leaders of the Eastern European communist emigration in Moscow and the organs of the communist parties in the countries of Eastern Europe themselves constantly received directives from the Department of International Information of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on topical political issues, as well as guidelines developed by the Soviet leadership. Moreover, when Eastern Europe was liberated from the Nazi occupation and pro-Hitler regimes, the central issues in these instructions were problems related to the nature of the power that was established in the countries of the region, the relationship of communists with other political forces and the practical activities of the communist parties in the new conditions, the task of strengthening communist positions. In essence, not only the principal directions of the policy of the Communist Parties, but also many of their concrete steps were either agreed upon or determined in Moscow.

As the establishment of "people's democracies" began in the summer-autumn of 1944 and the communist seizure of power in Eastern Europe began, the hierarchical system of relations between the region's communist parties and the Soviet Union became one of the immediate foundations for the formation of the Soviet bloc. The Department of International Information of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks continued to carry out the functions of monitoring the activities of the Communist Parties, which from now on either participated in power or occupied a dominant position in the countries of Eastern Europe. Using a system of radio-telegraph cipher communications, the department systematically requested information from the communist parties about their activities, about future plans, about the situation in their countries, received relevant reports from the parties, sent them all sorts of instructions that the Soviet leadership considered necessary at one time or another. Along with cipher correspondence, another important form of control and leadership of the Communist parties since that time has been the periodic trips of Eastern European communist leaders to Moscow to consider more important current issues.

"Recently published documents show that in Eastern Europe, with the active participation of various segments of the population, deep democratic transformations were carried out. This refutes the opinions of many researchers who argued that the Soviet Union imposed the Stalinist social development model on the countries of Eastern Europe from the very beginning, while denying the very fact of a broad popular movement for the democratic structure of the state.

Socio-economic and political reforms solved relatively common tasks for the countries of Eastern Europe - the democratization of public life, the restoration of bourgeois-democratic forms of statehood.

At the very first stages of the formation of state authorities in the Eastern European countries, attempts were made to create coalition governments, which would include representatives of parties and organizations of various political orientations and attitudes.

Democratic transformations in the Eastern European countries were carried out in a sharp ideological and political struggle. At this stage, a multi-party system was preserved here, which in the first post-war years was not at all formal, in contrast to the early 50s. Along with the communist parties, which already at that time achieved leading positions with the help of the Soviet Union, and their representatives often headed governments, there were social democratic, peasant and liberal-bourgeois parties and organizations. In all these countries, socio-political associations such as popular fronts were formed. The multi-party system was also preserved at the governmental level: the governments of these countries were formed on a coalition basis. The inter-party struggle focused on questions about the nature and extent of the socialization of private property in industry, about the nature of the political organization of society.

Thus, in a short period of time after the end of the Second World War, major economic, social and political transformations took place in the countries of Eastern Europe. People's democracy went down in history as a transitional form of the political system of society as a result of the revolutions of the 1940s. Already at this stage of the revolution, questions arose about the future prospects for social development. The fairly rapid accomplishment of the basic democratic tasks gave rise in these countries to the conviction that a rapid transition to the solution of socialist tasks is possible. Some of them (Yugoslavia, Bulgaria) announced that they would embark on the socialist path of development immediately after liberation, while solving the tasks of the democratic stage of the revolution along the way. In other countries of Eastern Europe, the completion of people's democratic revolutions and their transformation into socialist ones was announced three or four years after the start of perestroika. Thus, in Czechoslovakia, liberated by the Soviet Army and the insurgent people, important democratic reforms were carried out in the very first years after the war, and a coalition government was formed on a multi-party basis. But already in February 1948, as a result of the most acute political conflicts and external pressure from the Soviet Union, power in the country passed into the hands of the Communists, who, in turn, proclaimed a course towards "socialist construction."

The proclamation of this new course in the people's democracies was explained to a large extent by the ideological and theoretical weakness of the leadership of the communist parties, which held all power in the state in their hands. The Soviet experience was used to the full. His canonization led to blind imitation and mechanical copying of the model of state-bureaucratic socialism in the USSR without taking into account the specifics of the development of peoples and states as a whole.

But the most important reason that had a decisive influence on the adoption of just such a course was an external factor - serious pressure from the Soviet leadership, which especially intensified from mid-1947. The forced unification of the communist and social democratic parties was inspired by the Soviet leadership. Other parties were, in turn, pushed to the sidelines of political life, gradually losing their authority and influence. Their activities were suppressed, and representatives of right-wing and liberal-democratic movements were persecuted. Similar actions of Soviet foreign policy - the imposition of the Stalinist model of socialism in 1947-1948. - artificially interrupted the natural process of people's democratic revolutions in many countries. As a result, they embarked on the path of "accelerated socialist construction." It was then that these countries began to be called socialist, although this did not at all reflect the essence of their socio-political system. Gradually, during the 1950s, they turned into authoritarian-bureaucratic states. Socio-economic development in the countries of Eastern Europe was greatly accelerated thanks to the economic, scientific and technical assistance of the Soviet Union.

The Red Army played a significant role in creating a favorable image of the Soviet Union, in spreading the views on socialism adopted in the USSR, in promoting the "advantages" of the Soviet system and the way of life of Soviet people. As Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky, "Soviet soldiers were truly propagandists of the greatness of the cause of socialism." They were supposed to "expose the slander on the Soviet system, on our way of life, which had been spread over the years by bourgeois propaganda", to assist "the peoples in the construction of people's democratic states." A special role in the implementation of the class mission of the Red Army was played by its political agencies, which carried out extensive explanatory work among the population of the liberated territories.

The Soviet leadership demanded from the "people's democracies" and the local communist parties the disciplined conduct of the foreign policy necessary for the Kremlin - both in relations with the West and in important issues between the countries of Eastern Europe themselves.

As for the internal political development of the "people's democracies", then, as far as can be seen from archival documents, at least until the summer of 1947, Moscow mainly strove for the maximum possible in the specific conditions of each country at one time or another, strengthening and expanding the positions of the communists in the state authorities. In those cases when, in the opinion of the Soviet leadership, some of the Eastern European Communist Parties made mistakes in achieving this goal, the Kremlin sent appropriate directives to its leaders. For example, in the early summer of 1946, Stalin accused the leaders of the Communist Party of Bulgaria of being compliant to the opposition and partners on the Fatherland Front, demanded that some non-communist ministers be removed, that he fully control the army, and that he “show his teeth.” These requirements have been met. And in the autumn of 1946, when a new Bulgarian government was to be formed after the parliamentary elections, Dimitrov sent Zhdanov a preliminary draft of its composition with a request to let him know if Stalin had any comments on the draft.

From the end of the summer - the beginning of the autumn of 1947, guidelines appeared in the documents of the Foreign Policy Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks that aimed the Eastern European Communist Parties at the socialist development of their countries. Specifically, this was connected with the preparations for the meeting of nine communist parties in Szklarska Poręba (Poland), at which Komiinform was created. In the course of preparation, on the instructions of the Soviet leadership, in August - early September 1947, the department compiled information and analytical notes on almost every communist party that existed at that time, with special attention paid to the communist parties of Eastern Europe. The notes contained both positive characteristics and criticism of what, from the Soviet point of view, seemed unsatisfactory.

The main criteria for assessing the situation in this or that country were the degree of concentration of power in the hands of the communists, pushing back, subjugating, changing the entire state structure in accordance with these goals. The scale of the implementation of nationalization, i.e. the transition to state ownership of industry, transport, the financial system and trade, the implementation of agrarian reform in the countryside, the development of cooperation under the control of the Communist Party. The most important criterion was also the degree of orientation of foreign policy towards the Soviet Union, following the Soviet line and Soviet interests in the international arena.

However, the implementation of socio-economic and political reforms immediately faced a number of serious problems. The ruling communist and workers' parties, restored after the liberation of these countries or created again, did not possess either the ideological, theoretical or practical experience corresponding to the scale of the tasks facing them. Therefore, the experience of the USSR became a role model for them. The ideological and ideological weakness of the communist parties that led the people's democratic states was to no small extent the main reason that this experience became a universal model for them. At the same time, it was rather persistently imposed on the countries of Eastern Europe by the Soviet leadership. As a result, the natural path of development of the people's democratic revolution was interrupted and all countries that proclaimed the transition to the socialist path of development were imposed a model in the Soviet image. It provided for the consistent nationalization of all economic structures. The countries of Eastern Europe embarked on an extensive path of industrialization with its emphasis on the accelerated development of heavy industry.

The Soviet leaders assumed the role of coordinating the positions of the countries of Eastern Europe on international problems. For example, the acceptance or non-acceptance by the countries of Eastern Europe of the "Marshall Plan", which provided for a set of US assistance to the development of European states, depended entirely on the positions of the Soviet Union. On June 5, Marshall outlined at Harvard the outlines of an economic plan designed to "help Europeans regain economic health, without which neither stability nor peace is possible."

In July, a conference was scheduled in Paris, open to all countries, including the USSR. Quite unexpectedly for everyone, on June 26, Molotov arrived in the French capital at the head of a delegation, the number of members of which and their rank provided food for optimistic forecasts. However, three days later, the representatives expressed their fundamental disagreement with the American project: they agreed to bilateral assistance without preconditions and control, but objected to a collective enterprise that could cast doubt on the exclusive influence of the USSR in Eastern Europe and increase the ability of Western Europe to resist. At the same time, they tried to reduce the psychological effect of Marshall's proposal by comparing the vast needs of post-war Europe with the limited possibilities of the United States. In the end, on July 2, Molotov broke off the negotiations, declaring that the European countries "placed under control" would lose their economic and national independence in order to satisfy the "needs and desires of some great powers".

Meanwhile, some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, accepted an invitation to participate in an international conference convened on July 12 in Paris to discuss the Marshall Plan. However, a few days later, under pressure from the USSR, first Poland and then Czechoslovakia announced that they would not be represented in Paris. In Czechoslovakia, the communists already controlled, in addition to the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of the Interior and National Defense and could at any moment seize all power in the state. And public opinion in the country after Munich trusted the Slavic elder brother more than Western democracies. On July 10, the Czechoslovak government explained that its participation in the conference could be interpreted "as an act directed against the USSR." On July 11, Romania, Hungary, Albania and Finland also announced their refusal; thus, it is precisely July 1947 that the split of Europe should be dated: on the one hand, the clients of the United States, on the other, the satellites of the Soviet Union.

In this situation, the countries of Eastern Europe, forced under pressure from the Soviet leadership to abandon the "Marshall Plan", had no other way but to establish close economic ties with the USSR and thereby be drawn deeper and deeper into the orbit of its influence.

After the conclusion of the peace treaties, the aggravation of contradictions between the USSR and its former allies became obvious. Under these conditions, the Soviet Union and related left-wing radical groups in Eastern Europe moved away from the orientation towards a gradual transition to socialism, heading for forceful methods of solving political problems. As summarized on the basis of the factors collected and generalized by them, G.P. Murashko and A.F. Noskov, the Soviet Union, obliged by the decisions of the great powers in Yalta and Potsdam. To play the role of an arbiter in relations between various political forces and a guarantor of the democratic development of the countries of Eastern Europe, as the contradiction in the international arena grew, he began to increasingly take a one-sided position, ignoring the appeals of non-communist social forces and facilitating the use of forceful methods by the Communist parties to suppress the opposition. This was followed by the elimination of supporters of the “national path” to socialism from the communist parties that came to power and the adoption of an uncontested course towards the Sovietization of the countries of Eastern Europe.

The longer the experience of the successful functioning of people's democracy became, the more the idea became stronger: revolutionary power can function effectively, significantly different from what took place in the then Soviet Union. For the power of the working people, neither ideological nor political pluralism is fatal, the fundamental tasks of social progress can be solved even while maintaining a multi-party system, progressive development does not at all require the constant arousal and maintenance of "class hatred", because the negotiations and agreements of the opposing forces give a greater result than their conflicts. Many leaders of the countries of Eastern Europe were convinced that a new path to a new life had been found. They hoped through people's democracy, which embodies the political power of a broad class alliance and a bloc of various political parties, to pass to socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat, but under the hegemony of the latter, through the class struggle, but without its cruel forms that characterized the Soviet path to socialism.

As a result, a completely new geopolitical situation developed in the Eastern European region: the leaders of non-communist parties and organizations were forced to immigrate to the West. Gradually, there was a change in the political status of various kinds of inter-party concessions, the so-called. popular front. They were transformed into minor organizations resembling social movements. And where their formal status was preserved, the Communist Party took over all control over trade unions, unions of women, veterans, and youth. They thus became a form of support for the program of building socialism outlined by the communist leadership.

Since 1948, the communist and workers' parties of the countries of Eastern Europe have become monopolists in the implementation of the main directions of domestic policy. The monopoly on power began to give rise to such phenomena as the substitution of state administration bodies by a political party, the transition to methods of direct administration and command both in the state and in society. A system of exercising power and control began to take shape, which later received the name "party - state." The party apparatus and the institution of the party nomenklatura became the basis of this system.

Ensuring the interests of the USSR in the countries of Eastern Europe was made by the Soviet leadership directly dependent on the participation in the power system in these countries of political forces ideologically close to it, the promotion of these forces to a political monopoly and the creation of a totalitarian social system similar to the Soviet one. Along with political forms of influence on internal processes in the countries of Eastern Europe, the USSR also began to resort to forceful methods of influencing society (provoking government crises, arresting oppositionists).

We should turn to 1948, which became a turning point in many respects. It was the events of 1948 and the Stalinist turn in the communist movement associated with it that testified that life leaves no chance for the realization of a new people's democratic path of historical progress. Churchill's speech in Fulton, which called for a new "crusade" against communism, was a sufficient reason for J. Stalin's new reactionary turn in order to strengthen Stalinism in the communist movement of the people's democracies. I. Stalin, fearing that the ideas of freedom and democracy brought from the West would penetrate deeply into Soviet society and, realizing that the new, people's democratic path to socialism - with a multi-party system, dissent and parliamentary opposition - could become a "contagious example" for Soviet people. In 1947-1949. makes a turn towards the forced introduction of Stalinism into the communist movement and those people's democratic unions, where, as it seemed to him, it was not enough. From that time on, the concept of a new, popular-democratic path of historical progress was first pushed aside, and then, with the start of the anti-Yugoslav campaign, it was discarded. And the adherents of the “national paths” to socialism, led by the “Tito gang”, are declared the “fifth column”, expelled from the communist movement and exterminated (Traicho Kostov in Bulgaria, Laszlo Raik in Hungary, and after the November plenum of the Central Committee of the PUWP (1949) an outcast , Wiesław Gomulka becomes a house arrest in Poland). For the countries of people's democracy, "their 1937" began, when repressions and executions spurred the accelerated formation of the political system of Stalinism.

There was no unity in the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe regarding the ways of their development, and indeed relations with the USSR. However, timid attempts by individual politicians and statesmen of these countries to search for alternative ways of socio-economic transformations were thwarted as a manifestation of revisionism and opportunism and often ended tragically for them. Well-known politicians were arrested and sentenced to death or long-term imprisonment on falsified charges: A. Sokatich, L. Raik - in Hungary; Sh. Forish, L. Ptratkatu - in Romania; L. Novanesky, R. Slansky - in Czechoslovakia; N. Petkov, T. Kostov - in Bulgaria; V. Gamulka - in Poland and many others. The predominance of dogmatism and sectarianism, and excesses in the policy of the state-party leadership adversely affected the spiritual life and socio-psychological atmosphere of society, giving rise to intolerance to pluralism of opinions and to freedom of political behavior. The desire to establish unanimity and ideological uniformity deformed the system of expressing public and group interests, narrowed the channels for their political implementation, and prevented the manifestation of the traditions of multi-party system and parliamentarism that had survived in countries with a higher level of political culture (Czechoslovakia, the GDR).

The Soviet leadership, having in mind the establishment of Soviet-style regimes in the countries of Eastern Europe as the ultimate goal, understood the need for intermediate stages along this path. People's democracy as a transitional form of state development became such a stage. At this stage, the presence of such attributes not characteristic of the Soviet totalitarian system as bourgeois political parties, a multi-party parliament, and a monarchy was allowed. But at the same time, the leading role of the communist parties was encouraged and gradually established in practice, even in those countries where their influence had previously been insignificant or non-existent.

On December 6, 1948, a meeting was held, which was attended by G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, T. Kostorov, V. Chervenkov, V. Gomulka, T. Mints, B. Bierut. Stalin defined people's democracy as a new form of dictatorship of the proletariat. Such Stalinist reasoning meant a clear disagreement with the supporters of the people's democratic path as a special path to the future without the dictatorship of the proletariat. G. Dimitrov, V. Gomulka, K. Gottwald believed that people's democracy with all its democratic attributes - traditional parliamentarism, real multi-party system, political and ideological pluralism, previously considered incompatible with the dictatorship of the proletariat - is a political device, of course, in many respects different from Soviet system. In their opinion, people's democracy is another way of solving revolutionary socialist tasks, born of the new conditions. It should not be radically restructured and should not be replaced, because even in this form it can already "successfully fulfill the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. ensure progress towards socialism. I. Stalin could not agree with this. His formula - people's democracy - "something like a new form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" - proceeded from the fact that there are no different ways to implement socialist tasks, there is only a method of dictatorship of the proletariat, already successfully tested by the Soviet government. Taking into account the Soviet experience, people's democracy has yet to be molded, not "something like", but a "new form" of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As for other, non-communist parties, in some countries they were forced to cease to exist, in others they were retained, but turned into satellites, “drive belts”. In 1949-1950. a purge was carried out in these parties: opponents of the political monopoly of the communists and socialist construction were excluded from them. Non-communist parties survived in Bulgaria, the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia. However, they all recognized the leading role of the Communist Party and its policy of building socialism. All that was put forward was the slogan of a democratic bloc of all the patriotic and creative forces of the people.

In Hungary, in February 1949, the Hungarian National Independence Front was reorganized.

The change in the political status of non-communist parties served to eliminate their influence in the political arena of their countries, and already in the first half of the 1950s they ceased to represent a real opposition to the Communist Party. At the same time, Bulgaria, the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia were formally countries with multi-party systems in which the communist and workers' parties played a decisive role. In Bulgaria, only the Bulgarian Agricultural People's Union survived. In February-March 1949, the national conference "Link" and the congress of the Radical Party decided to dissolve their parties and completely merge with the Fatherland Front.

In Poland, in November 1949, the Peasants' People's Party and the remnants of the Polish Peasants' Party created the United Peasants' Party, and in July 1950, the remnants of the Labor Party joined the Democratic Party.

The post-Stalin agreements were a powerful stimulus for the further growth of the political influence of the USSR in these countries. The former "cordon sanitaire", created by the West after the end of the First World War, began to turn into a new "cordon sanitaire", subordinated to Moscow and directed against the Western powers.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a reform of the administrative-territorial division was carried out in all countries of Eastern Europe. Its main goal was to create more compact administrative and economic units and carry out the administrative-territorial division of countries in accordance with the needs of industrialization. In Bulgaria, the law of September 17, 1949 introduced a new division into districts, neighborhoods and districts. In Poland, the reform of the administrative-territorial division was carried out in June 1950. As a result, three new voivodeships were created, the boundaries of other voivodeships, poviats and cities were changed.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the European countries of people's democracy, increased attention began to be paid to the formation and strengthening of local authorities - people's councils (under national committees). In 1949-1950. they have everywhere become single organs of state power in the localities. According to the plan of the Communist Party, the soviets were to become a form of mass participation of workers in the government of the state. They were elected for 2-3 years. Their authority was to manage the entire economic, social and cultural life in the country in accordance with the laws and orders of higher authorities. The people's councils developed and implemented the local economic plan and budget, took measures for the rational use of local resources and the management of enterprises, ensured the protection of public order and the rights of citizens, and the observance of laws.

During this period, the central apparatuses of state power, economic management bodies, ministries and departments, including planning committees, were strengthened. The tasks of industrialization and the development of the economy on a planned basis required strong state regulation and centralized management of economic processes. And the result was excessive interference and bureaucratization of the administrative apparatus.

As their executive and administrative organs, the people's councils formed executive committees. Local people's councils and their executive committees were subordinate both to the corresponding higher authorities and to the central state.

In the late 40s - early 50s. new constitutions were adopted in six Eastern European countries: in the Hungarian People's Republic (of August 18, 1949), in the German Democratic Republic (of May 30, 1949). In the Polish People's Republic (of June 22, 1952), in the Romanian People's Republic (of September 24, 1952) and the Constitutional Law on the Fundamentals of the Social and State Structure of the FPRYU, and on Allied Authorities (of January 1953), so called the Second Constitution of Yugoslavia.

On July 4, 1950, a new edition of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Albania was approved by the People's Assembly. After 1948, these were already ideological documents. The model for most of them was the Stalinist Constitution of the USSR of 1936. Most of the constitutions reflected, on the one hand, the existing political and socio-economic structure, and on the other hand, they were of a promising nature.

Being ideological documents, the Constitutions of the People's Republic of Armenia, the Hungarian People's Republic and the People's Republic of China proclaimed the construction of socialism as the main goal of society, while the Constitutions of the People's Republic of Poland did it in a veiled form. The preamble emphasized that "a new social system is being formed and is gaining strength, meeting the interests and aspirations of the broadest masses of the people."

Constitutions reflected the class essence of the established power and the created state. They said that power belongs not just to the people, but to the working people. The leading role of the ruling communist party was fixed in some constitutions, while in others it was camouflaged. The chapters devoted to the highest bodies of state power and administration were of the same type in most constitutions. Their structures resembled the Soviet one. The State Assembly in Hungary, the Sejm in Poland were declared the highest authorities, which in turn were elected by the presidium (in Poland - the State Council). The government was the highest executive and administrative body. Among its traditional functions, a new one appeared - the preparation and implementation of national economic plans.

Almost all constitutions established the election of supreme judges and courts. They emphasized that economic life develops on the basis of the national economic plan. Most constitutions proclaimed a monopoly on the conduct of foreign trade by the state.

The constitutions contained, like the Constitution of the USSR, a large list of social rights that the state was supposed to provide. These included the right to work, which meant the right to receive work with pay in accordance with the quantity and quality of labor; the right to rest and use of places of rest. Guaranteed annual paid leave; the right to health care and assistance in case of illness and disability; the right to education, including free education at the level of 7-8 grades; the right to use the achievements of culture and so on. The constitution established that the state provides assistance and support to the development of science, culture and art.

Although the constitution proclaimed basic democratic freedoms - freedom of speech, press, organization, assembly, rallies, processions and demonstrations - they were not deciphered, and their application, as a rule, contained certain reservations.

The constitutions adopted in the late 1940s and early 1950s in a number of Eastern European countries were an important political event in the life of these countries. But although they ensured the social rights of workers, democratic rights and freedoms were more of a declarative nature, and some of them were violated in the late 1940s and early 1950s. "These constitutions consolidated the centralized-bureaucratic model of the state and economic structure."

Thus, the formation of political regimes close to the Soviet can be divided into two periods. First period: 1944-1948 the period of establishment of "people's democracies", the transitional period on the road to socialism. It is characterized by the gradual seizure of power by the communists with the active assistance of the Soviet Union, the merger of the communist and socialist parties. Second period: 1949-1953 period of intensive socialization of the region. During this period, the Soviet leadership is using more stringent methods of establishing socialism on the Soviet model. These are repressions in the party, the introduction of the institute of Soviet advisers, the creation of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties, the isolation of the region from the Western powers.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Abstract of the first volume

A collection of documents from 4 federal archives shows the influence of the Soviet factor in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in 1944-1948, its role in the formation of communist regimes in Eastern Europe. The documents make it possible to explain why, in the presence of liberal-democratic, agrarian and social-democratic programs of post-war social development in the countries of the region, the communist alternative ultimately won, to determine the balance of external and internal factors in this process.

The documents shed light on the dynamics of Soviet policy in the region - from support for the tactics of a democratic bloc on an anti-fascist basis to an orientation towards radical left forces in the communist parties, from evolutionary concepts of the "national path" to socialism to the exact reproduction of the Soviet model and absolute control over the communists in Eastern Europe. Many documents characterize the political forms of Soviet influence on internal processes in the region, as well as repressive methods of influencing society.

Introduction (T. V. Volokitina)

[Documents]: No. 1-222

List of documents

name index

Abstract of the second volume

A collection of documents found in four central archives of the Russian Federation highlights the influence of the Soviet factor in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in 1949-1953, its role in the formation of Soviet-type political regimes in Eastern Europe. The documents shed light on the dynamics of Soviet policy in the region, which evolved at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s to the exact reproduction of the Soviet model and the establishment of absolute control over the communist parties in the countries of the Soviet bloc. Many documents characterize the political forms of Soviet influence on internal processes in the region, as well as repressive methods of influencing society.

The published documents show the formation of the party-state nomenclature in the region, the formation and functioning of the system of Soviet advisers, the role of the Soviet side in organizing and conducting trials, establishing information control over society, the attitude of the authorities towards religious institutions and confessions, etc.

Introduction (T. V. Volokitina)

[Documents]: No. 1-327

List of documents

Index of Documents by Country

name index

Topic 22. The Soviet factor in post-war Eastern Europe. 1945-1948.

Spheres of influence of the Western powers and the USSR. Attitudes towards the United States in Eastern Europe. Soviet policy in Eastern Europe in 1945-1948. Eastern Europe and USA. German factor. Ways of development of Austria, Finland.

Topic 23. Czechoslovakia in 1948

The cause of the political crisis in February 1948 "Formula Beneš". Internal and external factors of the February events. The attitude of the Soviet leadership to the events in Czechoslovakia. The attitude of the West to the events in Czechoslovakia.

Topic 24. USA after World War II.

Problems of US domestic policy in the 40-60s. The economic situation of the United States in the 40-50s. Reconversion. The economic philosophy of the Truman government. Truman's Domestic Policy Program. Labor Relations. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 The "Fair Deal" of the Truman government and its failure. militarization of the economy. Economic crisis of 1948-49 The economic situation during the Eisenhower presidency. The impact of scientific and technological progress on the development of the US economy. Further development of state-monopoly capitalism (GMK) in the USA. Causes of cyclic crises in the 40-60s.

1000 days of Kennedy: domestic and foreign policy. President Johnson's War on Poverty. American society in the 40-60s. strike and trade union movement. Negro question. McCarthyism. anti-war movement.

Topic 25. Great Britain after the Second World War.

The results of the war for England. Domestic and foreign policy of the Labor government (1945-1951). The development of state-monopoly capitalism. Labor, communist and democratic movement in 1945-1951. Conservative rule 1951-1964. Domestic and foreign policy of the Labor government G. Wilson 1964-1970. Strengthening of the crisis in the economy of England in the 70s. Conservative rule 1970-1974. Rule of the Labor government 1974-1979. The foreign policy of England in the 70s.

Topic 26. France after the Second World War.

Provisional regime 1944-1946 Economic and political situation after the Second World War. Problems of economic revival and democratization of the country. development of the democratic movement. Program of the Provisional Government of Charles de Gaulle. Constituent Assembly elections 1945 National Assembly elections 1946 Socio-economic transformations 1945-46 Constitution of 1946 Domestic and foreign policy of the Fourth Republic (1946-1958). Features of the economic development of France. Colonial problems of France: Indochina, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco. Ideas for modernizing the system of public and political administration by Pierre Frans Mendes: the main provisions of state regulation, planning in the economy, social programs, foreign policy. The aggravation of the internal political situation in the second half of the 50s. National liberation movement in Algeria 1954-1962 Ultracolonists. Political crisis of 1958 y. The Fifth Republic and its Constitution of 1958 y. Domestic and foreign policy of de Gaulle's government in the 1950s and 1960s. Gaullists and Gaullism. "The Rally of the French People" (RPF). Socio-political crisis of 1968. De Gaulle's resignation. Strengthening economic and political instability in the 70s.

Topic 27. European idea and European unity.

The main content of the "European idea" of the late XIX - XX centuries. Goals and objectives of European unity after the Second World War. Basic 6 principles of united Europe in 1947. Federalists and unionists. The history of the formation of the European Union since April 18, 1951 ECSC. Treaty of Rome 1957 Sectoral integration. Common Market. European Economic Union (EEC). “Merger Agreement” and the structure of the EEC. European Integration: Prospects and Problems of the EU. The problem of creating a single currency system. Maastricht Treaty 1992 EU relations with other European countries and regions of the world. The problem of spreading the EU "breadth". The main governing bodies in the EU. Objective conditions for the deepening and expansion of the EU. The role and importance of the EU in the world economy. The main problems of the EU. The mechanism of "self-development" of Europe. General and special in the development of the 15 member states of the EU.

Topic 28. Latin America after World War II.

The main trends in the socio-economic and political development of the states of the region in the 40-50s. Participation of L.A. in the war and the development of inter-American cooperation in 1939-1945. US “good neighbor” policy. The main groups of the Latin American region according to the level of socio-economic and political development in the 40-50s. Conditions of economic and political instability in the region. The role of the army in Latin American states. Import-substituting industrialization and its consequences. Peronism.

Latin America in the second half of the 50s - the first half of the 60s. General characteristics of the situation in the countries of Latin America. The crisis of the dependent path of development of capitalism. The influence of latifundism on socio-economic and political development. Anti-imperialist and democratic struggle in Latin America. Revolutionary, reformist and conservative perspectives of the countries of LA. The reformist alternative "Union for Progress" and the ECLA Doctrine. Cuban revolution. Chilean revolution. Economic and political integration of the region.

Topic 29. Modern conservatism of the 70-80s in the USA, England and Germany.

The history of conservatism and its evolution in the modern world. The ideology of modern conservatism. Political and socio-economic aspects of modern conservatism.

American conservatism and its main stages of development. "Strong individualism". Social Darwinism. "Rough individualism". Social conservatism and neoconservatism. "Reaganomics" in the domestic and foreign policy of the United States. R. Reagan's program in the 1980 elections

European conservatism. Thatcherism" in the UK: domestic and foreign policy. The meaning and consequences of privatization. "Democratization of owners." Causes of the crisis of the policy of "Thatcherism". West German conservatism. The history of the emergence of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU). Economic and social policy of the CDU/CSU The cause of neo-conservatism F.-J. Strauss, G. Kohl, L. Shpet The main directions in the program of the neo-conservatives and the conditions for their implementation The socio-economic policy of the CDU/CSU The foreign policy of the neo-conservatives.

General and special neoconservatism in the USA, England and Germany. Causes and conditions for the emergence of a conservative wave in the socio-economic and political life of modern society.

Topic 30. Ulster problem of the 20th century.

History of Ireland. Irish Free State. The split of Ireland. Order of Orange. Ulster national problem. The ethnogenesis of the inhabitants of Ulster. The Religious Question in Ulster. Presbyterian Dissenters. Catholics. Socio-economic status of the population of Ulster. Discrimination against the Catholic population. Northern Ireland crisis of the late 60s. Civil Rights Association. Unionist Party. Ulster problem 80-90s.

Topic 31. United Germany.

Prerequisites for the unification of Germany by the end of the 80s. 40th anniversary of the GDR. Factors for the rapid unification of Germany. Political, socio-economic, financial difficulties in the GDR. Flight of East Germans to Germany. Crisis of power in the GDR. 1X SED Plenum. E. Krenz. Retirement of the Politburo headed by E. Krenz. Free elections to the People's Chamber of the GDR March 18, 1990 Modrow government. The unification of Germany. December 20, 1990. Socio-economic and political consequences of the unification. Problems of modern Germany.

Topic 32. Eastern Europe in the 50-60s.

Poland 1956

Warsaw Pact May 14, 1955 P-III congresses of the PZPR 1954-1955 Liberalization of the political system of Poland. Crisis in the PUWP. "Poznań June" 1956 Polish road to socialism.

Hungary 1956

M. Rakosi regime. Reforms of the government of Imre Nagy after 1953 Restoration of the Rakosi regime. The role of the Warsaw Pact countries in Hungary 1956 Student speeches in Budapest in October 1956 Soviet military intervention in November 1956

Czechoslovakia 1968

Party reforms of the HRC - socialism with a human face. Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in October 1967. Declaration of the Prague leadership in March-April 1968. Reasons for the failure of the Prague reformers. The attitude of the leadership of the CPSU to the Czechoslovak events. The results of the meetings in Dresden on March 23 and Moscow on May 4, 1968. Positions of the leaders of the communist parties of the Warsaw Pact countries to the events in Czechoslovakia. The invasion of the armed forces of the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria into Czechoslovakia in August 1968

5.Themespractical and/or seminar classes

When preparing for seminars, one should carefully study the proposed sources and, on their basis, reveal the content of the questions posed. When considering international relations in the period from 1918 to the 1980s. XX century, it is necessary to highlight the common features and characteristics inherent in each historical period, as well as the relationship between countries and the diplomacy of individual countries. Topics devoted to international relations should be studied based on the inseparable connection between foreign and domestic policy, it is necessary to identify the causes that influenced the changes in the international situation. Considering the development of the capitalist countries in the period from 1929 to the 1980s, it is important to determine how the change in socio-economic and political courses took place, which influenced the formation of the bourgeois-reformist and neo-conservative doctrines and how their practical implementation was carried out in various countries.

Section 1. International relations between the two world wars (1918-1939)

Topic 1.Versailles-Washington system.

The form

Target- to reveal the imperialist essence of the post-war division of the world during the Paris and Washington conferences, in the changed conditions of the revolutionary, reformist and pacifist movement of the world community.

End of the First World War. Compiègne truce.

Paris Peace Conference: positions and goals of the victorious powers.

The Russian Question at the Paris Peace Conference.

The German Question at the Paris Peace Conference.

Development of the Charter of the League of Nations and discussion of the colonial question at the Paris Peace Conference. 14 points of Woodrow Wilson.

The essence of the policy of American isolationism (based on an analysis of US foreign policy since 1783).

The Washington Conference and the Contradictions of the Versailles-Washington System.

Sources

1. George D. Lloyd. The truth about peace treaties. T.1-2. M., 1957.(mandatory note-taking of all sections related to the problems studied at the seminar)

Lenin V. I. Report on Peace October 26 (November 8) at the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. PSS, v.35. p.13-16

Lenin V. I. Report at the II All-Russian Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East. November 22, 1919 PSS, v.39 p.316-331

Lenin V. I. Report on the international situation and the main tasks of the Comintern at the Second Congress of the Comintern on July 19, 1920. PSS. T.41. p.215-235

Literature

Jordan W.M. Great Britain, France and the German problem in 1918-1939. M., 1945

Europe in international relations. 1917-1939 M., 1979

Ilyukhina R.M. The League of nations. 1919-1934 M., 1980.

History of diplomacy. T.3. M., 1965.

History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR. 1917-1945. M., 1986

US history. T.3. 1918-1945. M., 1985.

Manykin A.S. Isolationism and the formation of the US foreign policy. 1923-1929. M., 1980.

Utkin A.I. Diplomacy of Woodrow Wilson. M., 1989.

Articles

Mints I.I. The emergence of the Versailles system. - Questions of history, 1984, 11.

Narochnitsky A.L. The historical significance of Lenin's decree on peace. – New and recent history, 1987, 5.

Khodnev A.S. Sunset of the League of Nations. – Questions of history, 1993, 9.

TOPIC 2. International relations in 1922-1933

The form: seminar discussion discussion.

Target- to identify the acute problems of the world capitalist market in the post-war period and an attempt to solve them at the expense of Soviet Russia, to identify the essence of the economic and political rivalry of the capitalist countries in solving reparations problems with Germany, to identify the main essence of the disarmament problem.

The struggle of the Soviet Union for the normalization of relations with the capitalist countries:

a) Genoa Conference

b) Treaty of Rapallo

2. The reparation problem and the policy of the powers:

a) Ruhr Crisis

b) The Dawes Plan

c) Young's plan

3. The problem of disarmament:

a) The League of Nations and the problem of disarmament

b) Briand-Kellogg Pact

c) International Conference on Disarmament

Sources:

Lenin V.I. Draft Resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the tasks of the Soviet delegation in Genoa. PSS, v.44. p.406-408

Lenin V.I. Draft Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the report of the delegation at the Genoa Conference. PSS. T.44. With. 192-193

Literature:

Jordan W.M. Great Britain, France and the German problem 1918-1939. M., 1945

Europe in international relations. 1917-1939 M., 1979.

History of diplomacy. T. 3. M., 1965.

US history. T.3. M., 1985

Ryzhikov V.A. Soviet-British relations. The main stages of history. M., 1987

Akhtamzyan A.A. Soviet-German relations in 1922-32. NNI, 1989, No. 4

Belousova Z.S. Briand's plan and the position of the USSR in the light of new documents. NNI, 1992, No. 6

TOPIC 3. International relations in 1933-1939.

The form- discussion seminar.

Target- to find out the causes and conditions for the development of fascist aggression.

Preparatory stage in the development of Nazi aggression.

The beginning of the aggression of German and Italian fascism:

a) the Italo-Ethiopian war and the positions of the powers.

b) Germany's occupation of the Rhine demilitarized zone and its unilateral termination of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno agreements.

c) German-Italian intervention in Spain and the positions of the powers.

3. The brewing of the pre-war political crisis in Europe:

a) the capture of Austria by Germany and the positions of the powers

b) The Munich Agreement and the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany. Power positions.

c) Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations on a tripartite pact of mutual assistance.

d) the Soviet-German non-aggression pact and its assessment from today's standpoint.

Sources:

Year of crisis: 1938-1939. Documents and materials in 2 vols. M., 1990

Stalin's directives to V.M. Molotov before his trip to Berlin in November 1940 - NNI, 1995, No. 4

The beginning of the war and the Soviet Union. 1939-1941. International scientific conference at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - NNI, 1995, No. 4

Literature:

Munich - the eve of the war. M., 1989

The day before. 1931-1939. M., 1991

From Munich to Tokyo Bay: a view from the West. M., 1992

1939 History lessons. M., 1990.

Sipols V.Ya. Diplomatic struggle on the eve of the Second World War. M., 1989

Soria Georges. War and Revolution in Spain. 1936-1939. in 2 vols. M., 1987

Articles

1. Akhtamzyan A.A. Annexation of Austria by the Reich. - Questions of History, 1988, No. 6

2. Gorlov S.A. Soviet-German dialogue on the eve of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. NNI, 1993, No. 4.

3. Medvedev F.A. Stalin's diplomatic and military miscalculations in 1939-1941. NNI, 1989, No. 4

Section 2 International relations 1941-1980

Topic 4.The main problems of the Second World War.

The form is a discussion seminar.

The goal is to reveal the essence and nature of the Second World War and the anti-Hitler coalition.

Causes, nature and periodization of the Second World War.

Essence of the discussion about the nature of the Second World War.

The beginning and the first period of the Second World War.

Creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. The relationship of the countries participating in the anti-Hitler coalition.

A turning point during the Second World War.

Second front problem

Resistance movement during World War II

Results of the Second World War.

Sources and literature:

Correspondence of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with US Presidents and Prime Ministers during the Great Patriotic War. 1941-1945. in 2 vols. M., 1986.

Documents of endurance and heroism. M., 1986

Secret correspondence between Roosevelt and Churchill during the war. Translation from English. M., 1995.

Franklin Roosevelt. Fireside conversations. M., 2003.

Winston Churchill. The Second World War. In 2 vols. M., 1991.

Bezymensky L.A. Secret front against the second front. M., 1987

Borisov A.Yu. USSR and USA: allies during the war years 1941-1945. M., 1984

The Second World War. Results and lessons. M., 1985

Zemskov I.N. Diplomatic history of the second front in Europe. M., 1982

Longo L. Lessons of anti-fascist resistance. M., 1980

Malkov V.L. Some considerations on the political nature of the Second World War. M., 1988

From Munich to Tokyo Bay. M., 1992

Truths and lies about World War II. M., 1988.

Projector D.M. Fascism: the path of aggression and death. M., 1982

Samsonov A.M. World War II 1939-1945.: Essay on the most important events. M., 1985.

Falin V. Second front. Anti-Hitler coalition: conflict of interest. M., 2000

Shearer W. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. In 2 vols. M., 1991.

Blosfeld E.G. On the question of the nature of the Second World War. - (New and recent history) NNI, 1989.6

Basov A.V. About the beginning of a radical change in the Second World War. – Questions of history, 1988, 5

Round table: World War II - origins and causes. - Questions of History, 1989.6.

The beginning of the war and the Soviet Union.1939-1941. International scientific conference at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - NNI, 1995, 4.

Novoselov B.N. Second front: polemical notes. - NNI, 1989, 6

Orlov A.S. Strangeness of World War II. – NNI, 1989, 5

Rodshtein A. About the nature of the second world war. - Questions of history, 1989, 4.

Smirnov V.P. On the nature of the Second World War. – NNI, 1988, 4

Tyushkevich S.A. On the assessment of the nature of the Second World War. – NNI, 1988, 4

Edmons E. The beginning of the war 1939. - Questions of history, 1988, 10.

Yakushevsky A.S. The internal crisis of Germany in 1944-45. – NNI, 1995, 2

Topic 5. International relations during the Second World War.

The form is a seminar.

The goal is to reveal the essence of the unity and contradictions of the anti-Hitler coalition.

1. The conference in Tehran on November 20 - December 1, 1943 and its assessment in Russia and in the countries of the West:

a) Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers

b) Tehran conference and its decisions

2. Crimean (Yalta) conference February 4 - February 11, 1945 and its assessment in Russia and Western countries:

a) the German question

b) the Polish question

c) the Yugoslav question

3. Potsdam conference July 17 - August 1, 1945 and its assessment in Russia and in the Western countries:

a) decisions on Germany

b) decisions on Poland

c) other issues of the conference

4. The results and significance of the actions of the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War and in solving the problems of the post-war structure.

Training and metodology complex

... educational-methodicalcomplexondiscipline"STATE REGULATION OF THE ECONOMY" UFA -2007 State regulation of the economy: educational-methodicalcomplex... economic sciences educational-methodicalcomplexondiscipline"State...

Educational and methodological complex in the discipline of general professional training "theory and methods of teaching biology" specialty "050102 65 - biology"