Roosevelt was unhappy, however, Churchill convinced the American president to let the matter be as there was still the matter of Greece at hand. This was the point where a certain animus began to build between America and the USSR. The meeting at Potsdam in July further strained relations when Roosevelt died and Harry Truman took his place. Truman and his administration took a harder line against Stalin explicating their contempt for communism, and their awareness of Stalin’s underlying motives. This lead to the conception of the Truman doctrine, which in turn caused the USSR to react in a rather hostile manner. From here on the Cold War became a series of “instigation-reaction” events not specific to just America, and the USSR. Post WWII 20th century history put to bed colonisation, and to some extent, saw the birth of a number of independent states. A kink in the process, however, was the situation in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe did not have a “strong tradition of support for Communism”2. The states of this area tended to be more agricultural than industrial, and had been ruled by monarchist establishments for centuries. Only two countries turned to communism willingly, only one of which joined the Soviet Union. While countries like India gained Independence, elections in the Baltic States and others in close proximity were rigged, nullifying the agreement at Yalta that all East European states should be allowed to have free elections. At the time, the Eastern Bloc was ruled by a collection of coalition governments, a fraction of the party being communist due to Soviet influence. For instance Poland, by June 19453 had a coalition government lead by the socialist Osobka. In Czechoslovakia a coup d’état was staged (backed by Stalin) which gave Communists control of the country in February 1948.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe was to become one of the principal battlegrounds of the Cold War. The Historian John Gaddis said that America and the USSR “had one thing in common: their Euro centrism” 5. After over 20 years of Soviet rule “a power struggle erupted in late 1967”6. Certain members of the government felt that it would be alright to follow the will of the population. After the revolutions during the fifties there was no bourgeoisie or upper class to speak of. However, in recent years an intelligentsia had begun to germinate thinking beyond the social structure that bound them. The population of Czechoslovakia were relatively young (60 per cent of the working population was aged between fifteen and thirty-seven)7. Many of these people had been born in Soviet Czechoslovakia and had little or no recollection of a democratic Czechoslovakia. Members of the public had begun to criticise the constraints of censorship and the oppressive nature of the government. This was a stark contrast to the earlier years of Communist controls when the people praised Stalin. Since the advent of de-Stalinisation the people grown wiser and developed a certain resilience. Khrushchev instated a new leader, Antonin Novotný who in turn adopted a new constitution. Novotný had been a great contributor to Stalin’s infamous purges during the thirties. He was found to be just as unpopular (if not more) as his predecessor.
People began to pick up on inconsistencies in the government’s Marxist ideology. For instance “Czechoslovak revisionists drew on ambiguities in Marx’s writings on the role of technology”7. A number of writers came to prominence towards the end of 1967 including “Milan Kundera, Ludvík Vaculík, Pavel Kohout, Ivan Klima and Vaclav Havel”8 People once again took interest in the works of Franz Kafka (Czech Jewish writer) who spoke much of “impersonal beaurocracies”9.
Liberalisation of Czech society had already begun as the political elite wanted to avoid any type of insurgency. After a number of riots against the Czech governments and censorship the Soviets replaced Novotný with Alexander Dubček who had to deal with a number of issues when he came to office in 1968. The period during his incumbency was known as the Prague Spring. The liberalisation of Czechoslovakia was an effort to revamp the nation, as it was a period of Economic stagnation. A series of reforms began under the slogan “socialism with a human science”- a combination of democracy and socialism. Censorship was abolished in May 196810 Criticism ran rampant whether societal or even governmental. The party was divided. There were the Novotnovici (supporters of former leader Antonin Novotný) and others who supported the reforms made by Alexander Dubček.
In April 1968 Dubcek released his Action Program, which aimed at working upon the ‘former aberrations’ and aimed ‘to build socialism in this country in a way corresponding to our conditions and traditions’10. The plan loosened the constrictions of Czech society. The plan guaranteed the following reforms:
- Guarantees of freedom of speech, press, assembly and religious observance.
- Electoral laws to provide a broader choice of candidates and greater freedom for the non-communist parties within the National Front.3
- Upgrading of power of parliament and the government at he expense of that of the
- Broad economic reforms to give enterprises greater independence, to achieve a convertible currency, revive a limited amount of private enterprise and increase trade with the Western countries.
- An independent judiciary.
- Federal status for Slovakia on an independent basis and a new constitution by the end of 1969.
- Full and fair rehabilitation of all persons who had been unjustly prosecuted between 1949 and 1954 and "moral personal and financial compensation" to persons affected by the rehabilitation.
-
Exclusion from important posts in the country's social and political life for those people who had taken part in past persecutions.11
People took advantage of these new freedoms. People had the right to form groups and discuss issues, read foreign literature and even leave the country. Dubček was even set on making reforms within the government. He wanted a more democratic society. He considered Monstesqieu’s separation of government (division of government into three sectors legislative, executive, and judicial). This was supposedly to “ensure protection against tyranny”.12
The USSR had not anticipated and had assumed that Dubček would make a better fit then Novotný. They had practically handed Dubček a carte blanche. He made a number of economic reforms; a de-regulation of the market of sorts. However, what the government really needed was to find some economic stimulus in order to de-centralise the economy.13 The changes had begun to change society. People no longer lived their lives in fear as they once had. They openly criticised the government in various forms i.e. radio, television, and the newspaper. Books were written criticising the government. People read and were able to think for themselves. Historian Jeremy Suri said that
“Prague in the late 1960s was the Paris of Eastern Europe”14. “The entire society was rapidly reasserting itself”15 using an array of mediums. In 1967 the Writer’s Congress of Czechoslovakia had spoken out against censorship, but could not really act because of the tight restrictions still imposed upon them by Novotný’s government. However, the peoples of Czechoslovakia had begun to pry at the iron fist of the USSR. Slowly etching away at the surface, in 1968 (after Dubček came to power) there came a proliferation of expression in a number of different forms. There was talk of the ousting of Socialism from Czechslovakia. However, this was more hype than anything substantial. Socialism’s hold on Czech society was beginning to weaken though. It was particularly evident because of Dubček’s policy of socialism with a human face. Censorhip had been ‘toned down’. This was the “first step towards a new democratic model of Socialist society”16.
The media played a large part in catalysing the Prague Spring in the sense that it cultivated new ideas, and exploited the somewhat translucent nature of the Dubček administration. It was surreal. People now had free speech after decades of Soviet suppression. Broad casters came to prominence and were seen as icons17. Even during the time of Soviet occupation there was constant coverage of the situation by ‘Free Czechoslovak Radio’..;
People, in particular rightist groups18, began to embed their viewpoints in the media whether it was the newspaper, public radio, or even television freedom of speech was omnipresent. It was unavoidable. The Prague spring had begun to gain momentum. Dubček said most fittingly "They may crush the flowers, but they can't stop the Spring”. This was to prove true due to the widespread effects of this momentous event in Czech, European, and even world history. The famous Franco-Czech novelist Milan Kundera wrote a number of articles in response to the Spring. What did the Spring mean to the Czech people as a society? He also published the book “The Joke” in response to the spring; a work of fiction that conveyed the absurdity of living under communist rule for his philosophy for “truth and inner freedom” in order to realise truth19. In this sense freedom of thought matured rapidly within Czech society unlike in the Weimar Republic where it resulted in nothing but utter chaos.
Relatively speaking there was less ‘big government’ in both an economic and social sense. Its influence was not as pervasive as it had been with the secret police suffering from a lack of activity and such. The propaganda at the time conveyed support for Dubček’s reforms rather than for the existence of a Socialist Republic. The fact that liberalisation was a conscious choice, and had been actuated so successfully thus far was surreal. It was too good to be true. A new leader had been put in place and was slowly eroding the forced ‘influence’ of the Soviet Union over Czechoslovakia one of its most closely monitored (and most important due to industrial purposes) satellite states. There was a large sense of irony in this for Czechoslovakia was the largest country in the Eastern Bloc, and had originally served as the largest piece of the Soviet bulwark.
The Prague Spring grew in nature exponentially. There was talk of corporate, religious, and even political pluralism. Dubček, however, was still a communist at heart. He wanted to make reforms, but had no real intention of leaving the Warsaw Pact. Dubček wanted to establish Czechoslovakia as a distinct entity. The Prague spring (to Dubček) represented the marriage of Socialism and Democracy.20
Prague Society had become a more viscous and volatile institution. It had become a seedbed for innovation and revolt. On the 26th June 1968 censorship was abolished under Law No. 84/1968 stating that “"Censorship is impermissible. Censorship is defined as action by the state authorities against the freedom of speech and pictures and against their dissemination by the mass media.21” This was the extent to which the Czech government was promoting the transition from communism to socialism. The economist Ota Šik travelled from college to college promoting these various reforms, in particular the idea of decentralising the market.
Volumes of books were published in criticism of Marxist-Leninist theory and its implementation. Such outward dissidence had never been seen before. These works were to later be burned in 1973. This gives one insight into the type of reaction the books would have prompted if the Soviets had reacted sooner. The Prague essentially diminished the idea of an outright autocracy “ruling over” society.22 There was an easing of pressure, a temporary escape from the downward pressure that the Kremlin had exerted upon Prague for 23 years.
As the liberalisation of Czech society continued Moscow grew uneasy, and summoned Dubček to Čierna nad Tisou (today a part of south-easter Slovakia) towards the end of July where the reforms were discussed. The Czech politburo again met the Soviets on the 3rd August with other Bloc leaders. It can be inferred that Dubček dealt with the Soviets with tact, despite evidence that points to him not being a very persuasive man, for the conference seemed to clear the way for the Action Plan.23
However, a number of meetings followed. The Soviets warned Dubček and his Politburo of “ the danger “on the right” ”, which was enough for the Czechs to understand that they had aroused the Russians’ suspicions. This was a very delicate issue considering that it was placed right in the middle of the Cold War.
Even strong supporters of Dubček’s reforms like Josef Smrsky dared not challenge the Russians24. The Czech administration was once again called to Bratislava regarding the issue of their reforms. Brezhnev spoke of his irritation, and that Dubček had to lessen the intensity of some of his reforms25. He was forced to sign the Bratislava declaration.
The people of Czechoslovakia refused to let go of their new found freedom after Dubček tried to make cutbacks on his reforms, however, it was also difficult for the Czech leader himself to perform this task for Brezhnev had not pointed out exactly what he wanted.
Unexpectedly on August 17th 1968 Soviet tanks entered Czechoslovakia.26 The move was completely unexpected and condemned by the politburos of Poland, Albania, and a few others as well as the Communist parties of Italy and France were also outraged.27. As time went on Brezhnev grew more belligerent in his approach towards Dubček and ‘accused Dubček of “outright deceit”’28
Moscow was initially unable to act because of opposition from a number of Politburos, but continued with the invasion. The process of normalisation had begun, which can be defined as the process by which the Soviet Union “re-established” its “originally rigid and Stalinist line”29. The invasion was met by widespread demonstrations. Grenades were thrown at tanks, and scores of civilians were killed. A Czech engineering student went as far as to practice self-immolation. The student (Jan Palach) burnt himself to death in protest of the invasion. People did not fear the Soviet Union as much as they had. Prior to the Prague Spring the very idea of the Soviet Union having some sort of influence over Czechoslovakia had prevented the people from voicing their dissatisfaction. The iron fist of the Soviet Union had been greatly corroded.
Again, politburos i.e. those of Romania, Albania, and Hungary condemned the invasion claiming that a state should be able to find its own form of Communism. The invasion had even wider spread effects. For instance, Sino-Soviet relations were damaged. There had always been a great rivalry between the Chinese and the Russians due to differences in their implementation of Marxism. The Soviet Union’s union practice was rather rigid and in doctrinaire due to the fact that it had such an abundance of raw materials. It needed it proletariat to lead the revolution and to industrialise. China on the hand had been a predominantly agricultural economy, thus had to tailor Marxism to its own needs. This was one of the tenets of Maoism. The Chinese treated Communism (a utopian society) as a truth that had to be sought. It was more philosophical in this sense. This was the cause of an earlier rift between the two countries at the initiation of the so-called triangular democracy that had come about. Again, the Soviets, and the Chinese were at ideological loggerheads. China felt it wrong that Soviets had invaded Czechoslovakia for Communism was supposed to be a voluntary practice. The Chinese, Zhou Enlai dubbed the Soviet Unioin later as ‘China’s “main enemy”’30 a year later in 1969
Other Communist parties withing Europ had hoped that The Prague Spring would succeed for it would means of proving that Communism was a practical idea. The fact that Soviets had suppressed the Cultural Revolution so violently angered these parties greatly. This is a paradigm of the weakening of Soviet power in Eastern Europe. The Soviets had sought to control the Bloc via coercion and a big brother like policing of each economy and its political situation. However, it still had a strong hold of Eastern Europe, and fear of the Soviets was as strong as it had always. West Germany were forced to adapt their policy of Ostpolitik in a manner that would best please the Soviet Union31. The West had attempted to ease the tensions by maintaining good relations with its eastern, counterpart, however, it was forced to reduce the intensity and pace at which this process was supposed to happen due to the sensitivity of the situation at hand. The Prague Spring had to an extent slowed down the process of the democratisation of the East. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was a major setback in this sense. The Soviet Union increased the rigidity of it regime, however, it was events like this that contributed to the Soviet Union’s downfall. The invasion itself cost the Soviet Union a lot financially speaking as it was simultaneously attempting to keep up with America during the arms race. Whilst America prospered with its new found policy of Reagonomics in which the Economy became virtually devoid of any government intervention, the Soviet Union was wasting valuable money on marinating its deteriorating empire.
The Prague Spring was put down in a matter of weeks. Dubček was called to Moscow and deposed. He was slowly demoted until became completely insignificant, another cog in the Communist beaurocracy in a manner of speaking.
The Prague Spring as a whole conveyed the meaning of the word “democracy” to its fullest extent for the people Czechoslovakia had been deprived of their rights for such a long period of time.
1 Kusin, Vladimir V. The Intellectual Origins of the Prague Spring : The Development of Reformist Ideas in Czechoslovakia 1956-1967. New York: Cambridge UP, 2002.1
2 Morris, Terry, and Derrick Murphy. Europe, 1870-1991. New York: Collins, 2006.395
4 Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know : Rethinking Cold War History. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. 47
6 Williams, Kieran. The Prague Spring and Its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968-1970. New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. 4
7 Williams, Kieran. The Prague Spring and Its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968-1970. New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. 10
8 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24pehe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
9 White, Stephen. Communism and It's Collapse. New York: Routledge, 2000
10 http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/noframes/summary_spring.htm
11 http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/noframes/summary_spring.htm
12 Williams, Kieran. The Prague Spring and Its Aftermath: Czechoslovak Politics, 1968-1970. New York: Cambridge UP, 1997. 18
13 http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1576
14 Suri, Jeremi. Power and Protest : Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente. New York: Harvard UP, 2005.194
16 Rakowska-Harmstone, Teresa. Communism in Eastern Europe. New York: Indiana UP, 1984.123
17 Kelly, Mary J., Gianpietro Mazzoleni, and Denis McQuail, eds. The Media in Europe : The Euromedia Handbook. Minneapolis: SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2004.31
19http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/milan_kundera/index.html
20 True, Jacqui. Gender, Globalization, and Postsocialism : The Czech Republic after Communism. New York: Columbia UP, 2003.7
21 http://www.blisty.cz/files/isarc/9903/19990326r.html
22 White, Stephen. Communism and It's Collapse. New York: Routledge, 2000.33
23 Bromke, Adam, Bromke, Terese Rakowska-Harmstone., Communist States in Disarray, 1965-71. New York: , 2003.56
24 Bromke, Adam, Bromke, Terese Rakowska-Harmstone., Communist States in Disarray, 1965-71. New York: , 1972.56
25 Falk, Barbara J. The Dilemmas of Dissidence in East-Central Europe : Citizen Intellectuals and Philosopher Kings. New York: Central European UP, 2003.79
28 Fink, Carole, Philipp Gassert, and Detlef Junker, eds. 1968 : The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998.152
29 Falk, Barbara J. The Dilemmas of Dissidence in East-Central Europe : Citizen Intellectuals and Philosopher Kings. New York: Central European UP, 2003.80
30 Fink, Carole, Philipp Gassert, and Detlef Junker, eds. 1968 : The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998.165