The Evolution of Centripetal Fraternalism: The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

Author(s):  
MARCIN SAR

The author comments on the dynamics of Moscow's effort to reconcile its pursuit of control over Eastern Europe with its interest in a viable Eastern Europe, one that is stable and capable of self-sustaining development. Although Moscow has always exercised control in military matters, it allowed some Eastern Europeans economic independence in the 1970s. Changing circumstances in the 1980s, however, have caused the Kremlin to rethink its relationships with its Eastern European “satallies”— half satellites, half allies. Moscow faces dilemmas in areas such as energy, agriculture, the Eastern European states' relations with the West, economic reforms occurring in Eastern Europe, and integration within COMECON. How Moscow resolves these dilemmas lies at the core of its future relationships with Eastern Europe. Other important factors include the lessons learned from Poland, East Germany's evolving relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany, and China's growing economic and political initiatives vis-à-vis Eastern Europe.

Author(s):  
Johanna Granville

About forty years ago, the first major anti-Soviet uprising in Eastern Europe-the 1956 Hungarian revolt-took place. Western observers have long held an image of the Soviet Union as a crafty monolith that expertly, in the realpolitik tradition, intervened while the West was distracted by the Suez crisis. People also believed that Soviet repressive organs worked together efficiently to crack down on the Hungarian "counterrevolutionaries. " Newly released documents from five of Moscow's most important archives, including notes ofkey meetings of the presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) taken by Vladimir Mal in, reveal that the Soviet Union in fact had difficulty working with its Hungarian allies.


2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Michael E. Meagher ◽  

Most Americans in the 1920s and 1930s were unaware of the crimes committed in the Soviet Union. Even today, the full extent of the carnage is unknown. This essay explores the ways in which Presidents Kennedy and Reagan dealt with the contrast between the open societies of the West and the severely damage civil societies of the Soviet bloc through the rhetorical presidency. Key speeches throughout the two administrations stressed the use of presidential rhetoric as a way of challenging the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the USSR. For both Presidents, the key rhetorical moment came in West Berlin, in 1963 and 1987, respectively. Using comparable language Kennedy and Reagan spoke of the hope offered by West Berlin to those suffering under communist rule. The highlight came when Reagan challenged the Soviet leaders to tear down the Wall separating the city. Ironically, the victory over Soviet bloc communism has not led to the elimination of communist regimes, notably China. That chapter in the struggle against communism remains yet to be written.


Author(s):  
Olga Nicoara ◽  
Peter Boettke

Following the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe (1989) and the Soviet Union (1991), the field of comparative political economy has undergone multiple stocktakings and revisions. In the former communist countries, Marxist economics was abandoned in favor of neoclassical economics, which dominated the profession in the West. But was neoclassical theory equipped to suggest adequate institutional arrangements in support of the transformations to capitalism in the former centrally planned economies of central and eastern Europe (C and EE) and the former Soviet Union (FSU)? What have economists working in the field of comparative political economy learned from the collapse of communism and the experience of transition so far? This chapter surveys the thoughts of leading transition scholars and assesses the new lessons learned in comparative transitional political economy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document