Why was 1968 considered such a landmark in European social History?

The protest began in Nanterre at the end of March 1968, when a number of students were arrested after demonstrating against the Vietnam War. In response to that, the administration building of Nanterre was occupied. As some staff began to cooperate with the students, the Dean shut it down on May 2nd, shifting the location to the Sorbonne in Paris.

The scope and effect of the protests growth is largely accountable to the government’s reaction, without which the protests would have never reached such a large effect. As more than 400 student assembled at the Sorbonne on the 3rd of May, the immediate reaction was the calling of the police. This act achieved, what had failed to happen in Germany and Italy. Appalled by the treatment of the students, the public, especially those in the Latin Quarter, decided to get involved. After ten days of streetfighting between students and the police, the Parisian workers decided to join in as well. May 13th evolved into a general strike, protesting against the centralization of authority. As the students and workers united, and the numbers of participants in the strike grew, by May 17th almost 10 million workers were on strike, increasingly affecting the economy of the country, the government needed to make fast decisions. De Gaulle’s counter attack, was giving the French public the choice between Communism and Gaullism, which lead to an explosion of public support for the president. In the following elections de Gaulle emerged as the winner, but victory was not as long-lasting as it appeared, and the de Gaulle administration was forced to resign in 1969 due to the publics discontent.

In Czechoslovakia as the regime became increasingly oppressive, the time for revolt drew closer. In 1967 President Novotny, who had been elected in 1957, suppressed students who had been protesting against living conditions in dormitories. In the next election in spring 1968, he lost his presidency. With the coming to power of the Reformers and their leader Alexander Dubcek a number of reforms became introduced, with the e objective of creating ‘socialism with a human face’. Freedom of speech, assembly and press were introduced, and even non-communist political groups were allowed to form. This opening of the closed political system provoked wide spread support among the population, especially students, who increasingly believed in these ideals of freedom. The supporters of socialism welcomed this development, which had seemed increasingly impossible in the increasingly oppressive development of the communist rule.

Initially Dubcek was able to defend these reforms to Moscow, but as time advanced the population, especially the younger generation, who had been oppressed for so long grew out of his control. This window to the freedoms, that had been kept shut for them for so long, provoked the full exploitation of these rights. It was, according to Jiri Hochman, after the students’ demands, the press, that began the domino effect that finally led the soviets to put an end to “socialism with a human face”. After the first critical pieces that were published and the following abolishment of press censorship in March 1968, a process that was unable to be stopped or controlled, especially by Dubcek was set into motion. 

By giving the people some freedoms, he was unable to stop the euphoria that increasingly provoked worry among the other satellite states, and especially the Soviet Union itself. The dangers which the Soviets saw within the economic and social reforms, were, that Czechoslovakia would eventually demand an independent foreign policy, as Romania had done before. In addition to that they feared Czechoslovakia would leave the Warsaw Pact, which was believed to be strategically weakening, for the geographical location was crucial, as it had borders to the west, which might threaten the eastern bloc’s security. Even further than that, through this separation an anti-soviet front would form consisting of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. Although Dubcek continually reassured Moscow, that none of these were his intentions, the Soviet fear outweighed its trust in Dubcek, wherefore on the night of the 21st of August 1968, soviet Tanks invaded Prague. For roughly ten days, there were bloody street fights, but ultimately Dubcek and his government were captured and forced to rebuke the reforms. With the resignation of Dubcek and the appointment of Gustav Husak, any hope for the survival of “socialism with a human face” dies.

Italy, Germany and France’s revolts provoked change. In Italy’s and Germany’s case, the demands of the students were met, by slightly improving conditions in Universities. France’s revolts had an even greater impact. Not only were a large number of new universities created (instead 22 of  there were 65), but students received larger participation in decision making and workers wages were increased. The De Gaulle government initially survived the aftermath, but soon enough, due to a lack of public support was forced to resign.

Unfortunately, for the younger generation of Czechoslovakians, their hopes were shattered by the invasion on August 21st, 1968. What they had joyously viewed as the end of “the Party [that was] the major obstacle to socialism,” quickly turned into an illusion. The short “Prague Spring”, that had attempted to introduce all socialist aspects to Communism, failed. What it did achieve though, is to again awake the “hopes of reform Communists that “democratic socialism” (communism) is possible.” This had increasingly died out during the period after 1948, due to the large scope of oppression, but was able to be awoken again by the young generation, that was full of hope for a better future.

The common theme of protest was the desire to challenge centralized, bureaucratic and authoritarian structures, in the form of the Universities and the state. In fact, the Universities, especially in the case of France, became microcosms of the state. The faults in the organizations of the Universities were transferred on those of the state. Inequalities inside the educational system were identified within the social system as well, which allowed the movement to spread among society.

The silence that had prevailed among the population ever since the end of World War II had now been broken by the younger generation. The order that had been in creation ever since 1945 suddenly was challenged by the students and their demands. The governments’ emphasis on economic and foreign affair issues was corrected, and domestic affairs regained the interest they needed. For the first time the order that had been created during the 50’s and 60’s was rattled at in both the Western and Eastern blocs of Europe.

Bibliography

Absalom, Roger. France: The May Events 1968. London: Longman, 1971.

Fisera, Vladimir. Writing on the Wall: May 1968: a documentary anthology. London:

Alison & Busby, 1978.

Hafield, Amelia. PO313 Interdependent Europe Lecture 3. 11.10.04, RLT1, University

of  Kent.

Hanley, D.L. and Kerr, A.P. May ’68: Coming of Age. Basingstokes: Macmillan, 1989.

Kreis, Steven. “Lecture 15 -1968: The Year of Barricades.” 2000.

<>. 10.11.04.

Pehe, Jiri. The Prague Spring: A Mixed Legacy. New York: Freedom House, 1988.

Sakwa, Richard and Stevens, Anne. Contemporary Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave

 Macmillan, 2000.

Wegs, J. Robert and Ladrech, Robert. Europe Since 1945: A Concise History, 4th edition.

Basingstokes: Macmillan, 1996.

Windsor, Philip and Roberts, Adam. Czechoslovakia 1968: Reform, Repression and

Resistance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

---