Abstract

The completion of the seizure of power meant that the Stalinist model could now be imposed to its fullest extent on Eastern Europe, with the exception of Yugoslavia, where a different direction was chosen after 1948. Stalinism meant, first and foremost, uniformity. As we have seen, the seizure of power had taken place at varying speeds and under varying conditions. A start was made, roughly in 1948, with the ‘construction of socialism’ of the Stalinist variety. The local communist leaders themselves probably did not intend this at first. That is why Stalin’s break with Tito was of such importance.

Keywords

Depression Europe Rubber Income Assimilation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    D. J. K. Peukert, The Weimar Republic, (London, 1991), p. 82.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    L. Marcou, Le Cominform, (Paris, 1977), p. 221.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See K. Kaplan, ‘Třídní boje po únoru 1948’, Příspěvky k dějinám KSČ, 1963, 3, p. 330.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    A. Korbonski, The Politics of Socialist Agriculture in Poland 1945–1960, (New York, 1965), p. 152.Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    M. K. Dziewanowski, The Communist Party of Poland, 2nd edn, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976), p. 219;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Hiscocks, Poland: Bridge for the Abyss?, (London, 1963), p. 143.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    Speaking on 15 December 1948 at the Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party. See J. K. Hoensch, Sowjetische Osteuropapolitik 1945–1975, (Düsseldorf 1977), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    J. F. Brown, Bulgaria under Communist Rule, (London, 1970), p. 20.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    K. Kaplan, ‘Zamyšlení nad politickými procesy’, Nová mysl, 6, 1968, p. 772.Google Scholar
  10. 16.
    K. Kaplan, Utváření generální linie výstavby socialismu v Českoslovenku, (Prague, 1966), p. 131.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    J. Kosta, Abriss der sozialökonomischen Entwicklung der Tschechoslowakei 1945–1977, (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1978), p. 65; see alsoGoogle Scholar
  12. S. J. Kirschbaum, ‘The Cooperative Movements in Socialist Slovakia’, in A. Balawyder (ed.), Cooperative Movements in Eastern Europe, (London, 1980).Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    See K.-F. Wädekin, Sozialistische Agrarpolitik in Osteuropa, vol. 1, (Berlin, 1974), p. 103.Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    See Table 5, p. 202; W. Brus, in M. Kaser (ed.), The Economic History of Eastern Europe 1919–1975, vol. 3, (Oxford, 1986), p. 9;Google Scholar
  15. V. R. Berghahn, Modern Germany, (Cambridge, 1987), p. 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 23.
    V. Brabec, ‘Vztah KSČ a veřejnosti k politickým procesům na počátku padesátých letech’, Revue dějin socialismu, 1969, 3, p. 374.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    Korbonski, op. cit., p. 163; Kovrig, op. cit., p. 259; J. R. Lampe, The Bulgarian Economy in the Twentieth Century, (London, 1986), p. 148; J. F. Brown, Bulgaria, p. 29; V. Georgescu, The Romanians, p. 235; Brus, Economic History, III, p. 52. Discrepancies in figures for collectivisation arise from differing definitions of cultivable land and cooperative holdings.Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    J. Rothschild, Return to Diversity. A Political History of East Central Europe since World War II, (Oxford, 1989), p. 20.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    See the discussion on pp. 610–17 of W. Brus, ‘Postwar Reconstruction and Socio-Economic Transformation’, in chapter 22 of Economic History, vol. 2, (Oxford, 1986). See also, on the defeat of the social democratic planners in Poland, J. Drewnowski, ‘The Central Planning Office on Trial. The Beginnings of Stalinism in Poland’, Soviet Studies, 31, 1, 1979, pp. 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 29.
    K. Kaplan, The Council for Mutual Economic Aid 1949–1951, (London, 1979).Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    V. Prucha et. al., Hospodářske dějiny Československa v 19. a 20. storoči, (Bratislava, 1974), p. 344.Google Scholar
  22. 36.
    Economic History, vol. 3, pp. 29–34. It should be added that real wages rose in Romania (110 in 1953) and the German Democratic Republic (177 in 1953). 1950 had been a bad year in both countries, so the starting base was low. See E. Hankiss, East European Alternatives, (Oxford, 1990), pp. 16–17 for further examples of what he calls ‘the appalling and grotesque proliferation of socialist emulation movements’ propagated in Hungarian factories in 1952.Google Scholar
  23. 37.
    L. Labedz, ‘Sociology and Social Change’, in Survey, July 1967, p. 34.Google Scholar
  24. 38.
    A. Matejko, Social Change and Stratification in Eastern Europe, (New York, 1974), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  25. 39.
    K. Kaplan, Die politischen Prozesse in der Tschechoslowakei 1948–54, (Munich, 1986), p. 82.Google Scholar
  26. 46.
    Kovrig, op. cit., p. 244; G. Litván, ‘Nouvelles enquêtes sur le procès Rajk’, Communisme, 26–7, 1990, pp. 45–52. The ÁVO was renamed ÁVH (State Defence Authority) in December 1949.Google Scholar
  27. 47.
    J. Pelikan, (ed.), The Czechoslovak Political Trials 1950–54, (London, 1971), p. 78.Google Scholar
  28. 48.
    M. McCauley, The German Democratic Republic, (London, 1983), p. 52.Google Scholar
  29. 50.
    J. Krulic, ‘Affirmation nationale et discours révolutionnaire dans la diplomatie Yougoslave 1945–49’, Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, t. 38, Jan.–Mar. 1991, pp. 154–67.Google Scholar
  30. 51.
    M. Djilas, Rise and Fall, (London, 1985), p. 174.Google Scholar
  31. 52.
    D. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 58–9. M. Djilas, Tito: the Story from Inside (New York, 1980), pp. 86–7.Google Scholar
  32. 53.
    D. Rusinow, The Yugoslav Experiment 1948–74, (London, 1977).Google Scholar
  33. 54.
    See H. Lydall, Yugoslavia in Crisis, (Oxford, 1989), for a discussion of the reasons for Yugoslavia’s decline in the 1980s.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ben Fowkes 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Fowkes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations