• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11

Why did the Soviet Union maintain a presence in Eastern Europe? And why did Gorbachev seek to change the pattern of Soviet involvement there?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why did the Soviet Union maintain a presence in Eastern Europe? And why did Gorbachev seek to change the pattern of Soviet involvement there? This paper will introduce the development of Soviet internationalism alongside the development of Soviet interests in Eastern Europe. It will be argued that the Soviet interests which developed out of the Wars became fixed alongside the ideology behind internationalism. The legacy of Stalinism influenced the development of Soviet policy toward Eastern Europe and Soviet internationalism and the Cold war meant that the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe would persist until Gorbachev. The Soviets could not consider withdrawing from Eastern Europe so long as they were governed by an ideology which viewed the world as two distinct and opposing camps. The development and persistence of Soviet Internationalism Soviet interests in Eastern Europe developed through its desire to end strategic vulnerabilities Russia had endured since Napoleon. The ease of access to the heartlands of Russia through Eastern Europe meant that the Russian strategic meant that the Russian strategic focus lay on securing themselves against the kind of attacks they suffered during the First World War and The Second World War. The Second World War provided the Soviet Union an opportunity to end another strategic frailty-access to warm seas. According to D'Encausse, "throughout its history as a continental power, Russia has dreamed of an opening to the sea and has battled to reach that goal" (D'Encausse, H, 1987, pg. 3). The Soviet Union had grown powerful toward the end of the Second World War with its military straddling much of Eastern Europe. ...read more.

Middle

With one hand Eastern European communist parties were given the right to adopt different paths to development but on the other, the actual power of the communist parties to go against the principle of democratic centralism was limited. The implementation of different paths to communism was restricted because "any discussion of theirs must damage neither socialism in their own country nor the fundamental interest of the other socialist countries nor the worldwide workers' movement, which is waging a struggle for socialism" and "whoever forgets this by placing sole emphasis on the autonomy and independence of communist parties lapses into one-sidedness, shirking his internationalist obligations" (Pravda, September 26, 1968, cited in Gati,C, 1990, pg. 47). Soviet interests in Eastern Europe The foremost reason that the Soviets remained in Eastern Europe for so long despite persistent crisis were because it acted as a defensive buffer against Western European states. The defensive 'glacis' was held to be particularly important in the aftermath of the Second World War and the onset of the Cold War and the arms race further increased the importance of ensuring that western influence was kept at bay in Eastern Europe. The Cold War also established Eastern Europe as a base for maintaining an offensive threat against the west. For Brown, there are three aspects of Soviet offensive strategy in Eastern Europe-these are first ideological grounds in which "Eastern Europe is the advance guard of the world communist movement"; second, its military use "for purposes either of intimidation or actual aggression; finally, in its political use, "Eastern Europe is a suitable base for political initiatives and propaganda designed to manipulate Western Europe and particularly the Federal Republic of Germany" (Brown, J, cited in Vine, R (ed), 1987, pg. ...read more.

Conclusion

is that the failure of Soviet policy to properly impress communist values into the people of Eastern Europe for whatever reason meant that the people were still influenced by western attitudes. The tendency of Eastern Europeans to compare their situation with the west rather than other parts of the Union meant that Moscow became the target for any blame for the economic position. The people of Eastern Europe ceased on the first opportunity granted them by Gorbachev to push for withdrawal from the Union. Whether it was crucial underestimation of the potential for popular unrest in Eastern Europe given these sweeping reforms or a conscious decision to initiate a controlled withdrawal from Eastern Europe is a subject of much debate. The blame for the collapse is similarly contentious. But the underlying reasons for Gorbachev's reform of the relationship with Eastern Europe roughly correlate with the gradual realisation that the reasons to remain in Eastern Europe no longer existed. These reasons overlap with the main area arguments for the collapse. Economically the Soviet Union was bearing the cost of the relationship. Gorbachev had reformed the party ideology as far as foreign policy was concerned by rejecting the Brezhnev doctrine and his new political thinking began to promote the view that the west was to be viewed as an opportunity rather than a fearsome opponent. Militarily the strategic reasons for maintaining control of Eastern Europe were outweighed by the financial cost. Finally and most crucially, the decision not to use force to 'rescue' the communist parties of Eastern European countries from popular unrest meant that when push came to shove the Soviets had no other solution. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    But the situation in Afghanistan was more complex than the Soviet Union realised. Muslim resistance groups, the Mujaheddin, led armed opposition to the Soviet invasion. Why did the Soviet forces lose the war?

  2. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    * It was a sign that relations between the Superpowers were now so bad that some form of military alliance was necessary. * Thirteen countries joined in 1949, including Britain and the USA. * It led to US troops and aircraft being stationed in European countries to protect them against a possible attack by the countries of eastern Europe.

  1. What was perestroika; why did Gorbachev introduce it; and why did perestroika fail?

    His main failure to bring about any significant change to the Soviet economy also alienated himself and left him with few allies; even his Foreign Minster Eduard Shevardnadze resigned in front of nearly 2,000 members of the Congress of People's Deputies.

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    conceivable that the world might have avoided the stupidity, the fear, and the hysteria of the Cold War. As it was, of course, very little of the above scenario did take place. After the confrontation in Iran, the Soviet declaration of a five-year plan, Churchill's Fulton, Missouri, speech, and the

  1. Free essay

    How and why did the Soviet Union establish control over eastern Europe between 1945 ...

    At the same time, the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) was set up by Stalin to promote a common path of development; it had a political aim and all communist European countries had to be members, to draw them together. A secondary aim was to spread effective propaganda throughout Europe.

  2. Neither Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev successfully addressed fundamental economic problems which increasingly dogged the ...

    5 in 1,000 citizens owned a car; his policies combined with the recovery of the USSR since 1945 did mean improvements were made. Working conditions also improved with shorter working hours, more holidays, better pensions and other social benefits. Khrushchev is often blamed for his failings in agriculture (as addressed below)

  1. How significant was the presence of foreign powers as an influence on the nature ...

    Following the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 when Nasser acted against the British and their imperialism showing the Arab world they had a voice, significantly more Arab masses began to follow him, and his anti Zionist ideology allowing Arab nationalism to peak during these years.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    Therefore what was the necessity of their reversal? Thereby allowing us to stratify Brezhnev?s tenure into two categories: continuity of success - due to the Khrushchev era - and poor economic leadership by Brezhnev; causing further economic stagnation.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work