• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Would it be true to say that the soviet union never really controlled the satellite countries."

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Noah 3IBC "Would it be true to say that the soviet union never really controlled the satellite countries." After the end of the 2nd World War, the two great powers of the world USA and the Soviet had become the most important influence on the other countries in their hemisphere. In fact the Soviet was more than an influence on its neighbouring nations; it had control over 14 countries in Eastern Europe and decided their political and economic aspects. These countries were put under the communistic carpet and isolated from the western world. This is known as the "Iron Curtain". To control that all of these satellite states were following the same communist system as the Soviet, Stalin set up the Cominform which all the countries were forced to join. This was an attempt to gain and hold ultimate control of all the puppet states, something the Soviet actually managed to by using force throughout the cold war. ...read more.

Middle

This was interpreted by all the satellite states as though the new Soviet leadership would allow them a looser line of politics. To a certain extent this was given to them with the abolishment of the Cominform, but still Khrushchev held on to his role as supreme ruler over his satellite states. The continuation of economic stagnation, lack of consumer goods, and increasing public discontent due to centralised and inefficient economy, did not move the Soviet away from their normal policies. It did however, lead to revolts in the satellites. These revolts and clear signs of opposition from the satellites could be seen as coming into reality because of lack of control from Russia, but I think that the fact that none of the countries ever were let loose throughout the cold war period shows that Russia had good control. No matter how nationalistic, revolting, or dissatisfied the satellites were with being under "Moscow communism" rule. ...read more.

Conclusion

In 1989 Russia gave up its sovereignty over the satellites, this was due to the beginning of modernisation and Russia falling behind in the arms race with USA. They simply could not hold up the control because of economical problems. Gorbachev saw the necessity of letting the east-bloc countries free so they could focus on economical growth. I think the answer to the title question is no, even though there were periods of revolt in all the satellites, none of them broke out or were allowed to have their own policies. There is only one exception to this; it is the incident in which the Soviet installed Gomulka as president of Poland. The enforcement of "Moscow communism" in the satellites was not a success anywhere and there was public discontent throughout the cold war, but still the fear and threat of military intervention assured the Soviet control. Even though their control was in a way superficial because it was based on military threats, it was still control. ...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. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Nevertheless, Roosevelt played what cards he had with skill. "Most Poles," he told Stalin, "want to save face. ... It would make it easier for me at home if the Soviet government could give something to Poland." A government of national unity, Roosevelt declared, would facilitate public acceptance in the United States of full American participation in postwar arrangements.

  2. How important were developments in Eastern Europe to the collapse of the Soviet Union?

    its liabilities in having to provide for these states, and internationally in striking a more conciliatory stance, thawing Cold War tensions and creating a pathway for aid from the West. It had been using valuable resources to subsidise oil, and to station military troops in the outer empire.

  1. UNIT 6: PAPER 6b: THE SOVIET UNION AFTER LENIN

    * Industry needed a clear plan, this could only be done on the basis of guaranteed food supplies for the cities, and guaranteed income from food exports. * Collectivisation, it was argued, would make it easier to control the peasants - they had always been a conservative force, and a limiting factor in Russian economic growth.

  2. How True is it to say that the period 1953-1962 saw a relaxation of ...

    Khrushchev believed that peaceful co-existence with the west was both possible and necessary, and acknowledged that in a full-scale nuclear war there could be no winners. At the twentieth party congress he denounced Stalin and began the process of rehabilitation of those who had been sent to labour camps during the purges.

  1. Explain the effects that the decline of the Communist system had on any two ...

    The ban did not bring an end to Solidarity. The movement simply went underground, and the rebellious Poles organized their own civil society, separate from the Communist government and its edicts. In 1985, the assumption of power in the Soviet Union by a reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev, paved the way for political and economic reforms in East Central Europe.

  2. You Will Never Be Forgotten

    It is followed by the names of those who have died in the war, in chronological order. It is up to each individual to resolve or to come to terms with this loss, for death is in the end a personal and private matter.

  1. How important were ideological differences in the split between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia ...

    Soviets believed it to be "a regime that was evolving towards socialism without a dictatorship of the proletariat."8 For Stalin, Yugoslavia was a thorn in his side, not only because it was a strategic part of Europe that he never managed to control militarily, but because Josip Broz Tito had

  2. Journalism - Two generations of the journalists - Soviet and the post-Soviet - make ...

    This occupation was party practice. We can regard it as meta-profession of the Soviet system with all remaining occupations as its derivatives or sub-professions (Soviet professions). This consideration finds confirmation in numerous examples from Soviet reality when the party staff workers performed as meta-professionals, specifically their competence was acknowledged as

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