Democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe end. The experience of the USSR and Eastern Europe in the democratic revolution. Book: Lecture notes World history of the twentieth century

Bessonova Anastasia

history presentation.

Download:

Slide captions:

Countries Central and South of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century they were called the countries of Eastern Europe or the "socialist camp", immediately after the war they fell into the sphere of influence of the USSR. In most of them, coups took place that overthrew the previous government and established totalitarian regimes of the Soviet type.
GDR
Poland (Poland)
Czechoslovakia (Czechoslovakia)
CPP (Romania)
BNR (Belarus)
SFRY (Yugoslavia)
With the inclusion in the social camp of a number of Asian countries, Cuba, the world socialist system took shape. As in the USSR, these countries adopted "five-year plans", the construction of powerful facilities and factories, not without the help of the USSR. The standard of living was higher than in the USSR.
Zero economic growth Lagging behind the West Outdated technologies and equipment Low standard of living of the population
After Stalin's death, people's dissatisfaction with the failures of socialist construction resulted in massive protests. In 1953, unrest and strikes swept through the GDR and Poland, they were suppressed by the units of the Soviet army stationed there. In June 1956, 74 people were killed in the suppression of the uprising in Poland. In October 1956, the uprising in Hungary was suppressed by units of the Soviet army. In 1968, during the "Prague Spring", the OVD armies suppressed the revolution in Czechoslovakia.
"Prague Spring"
Hungary. 1956 g.
"Real socialism" turned out to be a dead-end branch of development. By the end of the 80s. in connection with the perestroika in the USSR, "velvet revolutions" overthrowing the communist governments are taking place in the countries of Eastern Europe.
"Father of all Bulgarians" Todor Zhivkov. Ruler of Bulgaria from 1954 to 1989
General Wojciech Jaruzelski, who introduced a state of emergency in Poland and ruled it from 1981 to 1990.
The dictatorship reached a particular scale in Romania, in which in 1965-1989. ruled by the "Great" Nicolae Ceausescu. Having formed a regime of personal power, N. Ceausescu took measures to consolidate it legally. In 1974, on his initiative, the Constitution of the country was changed - the post of president was introduced, which was occupied by N. Ceausescu himself, and after a while announced that he would remain in power for life.
"The golden era of Ceausescu"
In December 1989, riots broke out in Romania, Ceausescu gave the order to shoot, the revolution spread to other parts of the country. The dictator and his wife tried to escape, but was arrested by the army and immediately shot with his wife. This has become a pattern in the dying totalitarianism. For several days his body was lying in the stadium.
"Great Father" before and after the execution.
In the summer of 1989, the revolution began in the GDR, which ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reforms began in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia. Electrician L. Walesa, leader of the Solidarity trade union becomes president of Poland in 1990.
Poland. 1990 year
Lech Walesa
Administrative and command management methods: Strengthening labor discipline Product quality control Anti-alcohol company
Development of society cold war»Participation in the system of international division of laborExpansion of the independence of enterprisesIntroduction of elements of a market economyIntroduction of new technologiesIncrease in labor productivityIdea of publicity!

The transition from perestroika to a democratic revolution was marked by a change in the form of the political regime, especially in the Soviet Union. It was necessary to weaken the total control of the state over the rest of the life of Soviet society, thereby dividing power and laying the foundations of civil society.

From perestroika to democratic revolution

The initial goal of perestroika was considered to be the release of resources for the development of society. This included the end of the cold war, the expansion of the independence of individual enterprises and the emergence of new elements of market relations in the economy.

This transformation was supposed to be an incentive for higher productivity and a more efficient economy. Similar processes were unfolding in the countries of Eastern Europe. Two directions arose here: in some countries, the leaders of the ruling parties independently introduced such transformations, while in others, opposition movements and parties became the initiators.

Romania was the only state in Eastern Europe that did not undergo any changes. In 1989, a popular uprising took place, after which the leader of the state, N. Ceausescu, was shot and the regime of his personal power was terminated.

A wave of popular demonstrations in favor of a democratic regime caused political crises in the countries of Eastern Europe. Part of the population of the GDR chose to flee to West Germany. And the new leaders tried to mend relations with the opposition in the face of new reforms.

The main goal of this was to create new coalitions that could support the peaceful course of change. But despite this, the communists no longer stood in power, as before, now the leaders of the states had an opposition.

Eastern Europe

Economic, political ties were now oriented towards the Euro-Atlantic states, especially after the countries refused to participate in the Warsaw Pact Organization. Eastern European countries signed an agreement with the European Union in 1991, and in 1994 they joined NATO in the Partnership for Peace program.

Most of the leaders of the communist parties changed their policies to bring them closer to the market economy and social democratic ideas. This was necessary in order to provide countries with a democratic regime, but not to switch to a market economy regime too quickly - such an accelerated course led countries to inflation and unemployment.

The transformations were rather difficult in Yugoslavia, in which a political regime with signs of totalitarianism was partially preserved. Yugoslavia was mired in interethnic and interreligious conflicts, which led the country to disintegration.

The crisis in the USSR

Decay plurinational state was due to discrepancies in the directions of transformations of various union republics. The problem was that before the new institutions of power were created, the old ones could no longer function effectively.

Democratic princes found it difficult to get along among party functionaries, they got used to the ideology of their parties. Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy caused discontent among many, especially his desire to improve relations with the West. And the leader B. Yeltsin, who took an oppositional position in relation to the CPSU and the Union authorities, aroused public approval.

Along with this, the issue of nationalism is aggravated - the contradictions between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1988, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are striving to secede from the USSR. All this leads to negative consequences in the form of national cleansing, and interethnic relations in South Ossetia, Moldova and Georgia are reaching the peak of the conflict.

Local leaders reject the idea of renewing the Union between countries and openly show that each union center needs independence. This greatly influenced the economy, by 1990 inflation reached 10% and industrial production was declining.

A significant deterioration in the efficiency of the economy leads to an increase in the strike movement in 1991. There are constant clashes between the left and the right, the republics and the center. President Gorbachev is no longer supported by his own party, and in August 1991, attempts were made to remove him from power.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

GOU SPO "Kuznetsk Metallurgical College"

in the discipline "History"

On the topic: "Democratic revolutions in the countries of Eastern Europe"

Performed by a 1st year student, group PR-14

Sirotina M.V.

Novokuznetsk 2015

Introduction

International political results of the war 1939 - 1945. had a huge impact on all subsequent historical development... The defeat of fascism and the condemnation of its leaders at the Nuremberg (November 1945 - October 1946) and Tokyo (May 1946 - November 1948) trials contributed to the growth of democratic forces throughout the world. The weight and prestige of the Soviet Union has grown enormously. A socialist system arose: seven countries in Eastern Europe took the path of the socialist revolution: the GDR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

During 1947 -1948. in these countries of Eastern Europe, totalitarian socialism was established in the image and likeness of the USSR with the only difference that it was not accompanied by civil war, the social and political system was radically transformed. The beginning of the "construction of socialism" led to rapid economic growth, which continued until the mid-60s. Industrialization has been the engine of this economic growth. The rate of industrial growth here was unmatched even against the backdrop of the economic boom in the West.

Industrialization here, as in the USSR, took the form of the predominant development of heavy industry. Funds for it were received thanks to nationalization. Moreover, especially at the initial stage of industrialization, consumption was artificially restrained. So the state got the opportunity to accumulate funds and direct them to industrial investments. The USSR took over the supply of equipment, training of personnel; it remained the main supplier of mineral raw materials and energy resources. At least until the mid-60s, there was no problem with labor resources: agrarian overpopulation, unemployment, and later the opportunity to use female labor favored industrialization.

The desire to create a diversified heavy industry, as in the USSR, often outweighed the consideration of real opportunities and led to imbalances in development National economy... The accelerated rates of industrialization, with insignificant investments in agriculture and the production of consumer goods, led to a restriction of consumption and a drop in living standards. This was one of the sources of discontent that led to the crises of the 1950s.

Fundamental changes have also taken place in the foreign policy of the countries of Eastern Europe. From a "cordon sanitaire" against the USSR, they turned into its satellites. With the creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in 1949, economic ties began to close in on the Soviet Union. The USSR sought monolithic unity and demanded complete subordination of internal and foreign policy Eastern European countries to the course of the Soviet leadership.

Any disobedience to Moscow provoked a harsh reaction. This tough internal discipline against the backdrop of an uncompromising confrontation with the West makes it possible to define this system as a "socialist camp."

In the 1960s, in most Eastern European countries, the sources of rapid growth due to the construction of new factories and an increase in the number of workers dried up, and its pace slowed down. Economic development now it was possible to ensure only through an increase in labor productivity; the surplus of labor resources is a thing of the past. The previous methods of managing the economy were no longer suitable. In the 1960s, economic reforms were carried out in almost all countries; the first one was held in 1963 by the GDR. Their goal was to create an economic mechanism that would stimulate the growth of labor productivity. For this, management was decentralized, enterprises were transferred to cost accounting, and the sphere of action of commodity-money relations was expanded. Restrictions for small businesses were partially lifted.

Changes were made to the foreseen rates of industrialization, the forms of cooperation were softened, and in Poland it was stopped. All this was done without changing the form of ownership and while maintaining central planning.

Nevertheless, thanks to these reforms, it was possible to stop the downward trend in growth rates and actually increase labor productivity.

In many countries, the processes were accompanied by a "thaw" in the field of ideology and culture.

The nature of relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR changed: they took the form of a military-political union - the Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS), created in 1955.

The beginning of a new stage in the scientific and technological revolution posed very serious problems for the socialist countries. The task of transforming the economy on the basis of the latest technology and technology, changing management methods arose with all the acuteness. The extensive path of economic development had completely exhausted itself by that time. But the administrative-command system, which was modeled on the Soviet model, turned out to be extremely clumsy. It became a brake on the path of impending reforms. Therefore, from the second half of the 70s, the crisis of economic and political structures began to deepen in all socialist countries. The share of socialist countries in the world industrial production, which reached about 1/3 in the 60s, and 1/4 in the global national income, remained practically unchanged in subsequent years. The share of these countries in world trade was about 10% and had a tendency to decline. Their share in the export of machinery and equipment and in the exchange of technologies was even smaller. The volume of foreign trade turnover per capita in the CMEA countries was four times less than in the EEC countries and two times less than in the United States. The production of consumer goods did not increase, and in terms of quality and assortment, they lagged noticeably behind Western models. In the 1980s, this lag significantly increased. The shortage of many essential goods has become simply chronic. Gross miscalculations in planning and in investment policy made it impossible to eliminate deep disproportions in the economy and to carry out the necessary structural changes.

Political regimes became tougher, which immediately led to the emergence of "dissidents" in a number of countries. In relations with the USSR, the emphasis was placed not on sovereignty and equality, but on the priority of defending the "socialist gains". It was this idea that was put forward by L.I. Brezhnev and was called the "Brezhnev doctrine."

The socio-political situation in all socialist countries became more and more aggravated. Strikes, rallies, and mass demonstrations became more frequent, during which protests were expressed against the deterioration of living conditions. In society, ideological disorientation began to manifest itself, disbelief in the proclaimed but not realized values of socialism, in the ability of socialism to renew itself.

Demands for economic and political reforms... Trust in the ruling communist and workers' parties was clearly diminishing.

Attempts to overcome the crisis were made in all countries of Eastern Europe.

More or less radical plans for economic reforms have been repeatedly put forward. However, each time these reforms were either forcibly interrupted or choked up in the grip of administrative and bureaucratic decisions.

The crisis situation more and more encompassed the sphere of cooperation within the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Centralized administrative decisions did not ensure effective economic cooperation, hindered the rationalization of national economic structures, and the intensification of production.

The old model of economic relations, based on the export of fuel and raw materials from the Soviet Union and the supply of manufacturing products to the USSR from other countries, has completely exhausted itself. The volume of mutual trade was sharply reduced. Dissatisfaction with the CMEA activity manifested itself literally at each of its sessions.

The crisis also manifested itself in the social sphere. The standard of living was declining, it was far from Western standards. This caused a drop in the birth rate and an increase in the death rate of the population.

The economic situation in the countries of Eastern Europe in the late 70s - early 80s ultimately led to the emergence of social problems. Those features of the way of life that had become entrenched in the mass consciousness as the "conquests of socialism" began to disappear: the absence of unemployment, social stability, and fixed prices. Totalitarian socialism has exhausted the last arguments in its defense as a more "advanced system". It became impossible to hush up or hide the problems due to the greater openness of the countries of Eastern Europe to the West.

Disappointment in socialism made ineffective the previous methods of control over mass consciousness, without which the existence of a totalitarian society is impossible. At the same time, attempts to suppress discontent were futile, since tightening the regime in itself would not solve economic problems. The crisis of totalitarian socialism has become universal - economic, social, political and moral. The impetus for its resolution was perestroika, which began in 1985 in the Soviet Union, which affected the countries of Eastern Europe big influence... It gave rise to the same processes in the masses as in Soviet society. There was a rapid politicization of various strata of the population, which led to the development of new views, new assessments and self-assessments, to an awareness of realities at a different qualitative level. In all countries, a revolutionary situation of a special kind began to mature gradually.

Its distinguishing feature was the absence of a political mechanism capable of capturing evidence of impending internal conflicts: again an authoritarian-bureaucratic regime, devoid of feedback, could not adequately respond to the ongoing social changes, while the growth of oppositional moods was routinely suppressed by the repressive apparatus.

velvet revolution public europe

1. Velvet revolution

The expression "velvet revolution" appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It does not fully reflect the nature of the events described in the social sciences by the term "revolution". This term always means qualitative, fundamental, profound changes in the social, economic and political spheres, which lead to the transformation of the entire social life, a change in the model of the structure of society.

A number of scientists (for example, V.K.Volkov) see the internal objective reasons for the 1989 revolution in the gap between the productive forces and the nature of production relations. Totalitarian or authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes became an obstacle to the scientific, technical and economic progress of countries, hindered the integration process even within the CMEA. Almost half a century of experience of the countries of Southeast and Central Europe has shown that they are far behind the advanced capitalist states, even those with whom they were once on the same level. For Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this is a comparison with Austria, for the GDR - with the FRG, for Bulgaria - with Greece. The GDR, leading in the CMEA, according to the UN, in 1987 in terms of GP per capita was only 17th in the world, Czechoslovakia - 25th, the USSR - 30th. The gap in living standards, quality of medical care, social security, culture and education widened.

Another powerful factor that brought about the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" was the national one. National pride, as a rule, was hurt by the fact that the authoritarian-bureaucratic regime resembled the Soviet one. The tactless actions of the Soviet leadership and representatives of the USSR in these countries, their political mistakes, acted in the same direction. All this gave rise to the feeling that such a system was imposed from the outside.

What happened in Eastern Europe is largely the result of the imposed model of socialism, the lack of freedom for development. The perestroika that began in the USSR seemed to give an impetus for socialist renewal. But many leaders of the countries of Eastern Europe could not understand the urgent need for a radical reorganization of the whole society, they were unable to accept the signals sent by the time itself. Accustomed only to receiving instructions from above, the party masses turned out to be disoriented in this situation. But why did not the Soviet leadership, anticipating imminent changes in the countries of Eastern Europe, intervene in the situation and remove from power the former leaders, who, with their conservative actions, only increased the discontent of the population? First, there could be no question of forceful pressure on these states after the events of April 1985, the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from Afghanistan and the declaration of freedom of choice. This was clear to the opposition and the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe. Some were disappointed by this circumstance, others were inspired by it. Second, at multilateral and bilateral negotiations and meetings between 1986 and 1989, the leadership of the USSR has repeatedly declared the pernicious nature of stagnation. However, most of the heads of state of the "socialist camp" in their actions did not show a desire for change, preferring to carry out only the very minimum of necessary changes, which did not affect the whole mechanism of the system of power that had developed in these countries. For example, first in a narrow composition, and then with the participation of all representatives of the Politburo of the SED, on October 7, 1989, in response to the arguments put forward by Mikhail Gorbachev that it was necessary to urgently take the initiative into their own hands, the GDR leader said that teach them how to live when there is "not even salt" in the stores of the USSR. The people in the same evening went out into the street, initiating the collapse of the GDR. N. Ceausescu in Romania stained himself with blood, betting on repression. And where the reforms took place with the preservation of the old structures and did not lead to pluralism, real democracy and the market, they only contributed to uncontrolled processes and decay. It is also necessary to take into account the psychological moods of citizens, which played a big role, since people wanted changes. In addition, Western countries were interested in the opposition forces coming to power. They supported these forces financially in the election campaigns. The result was the same in all countries: during the transfer of power on a contractual basis (in Poland), the exhaustion of confidence in the reform programs of the SSWP (in Hungary), strikes and mass demonstrations (in most countries), or an uprising (in Romania), power passed into the hands of new political parties and forces. This was the end of an era. This is how the "velvet revolution" took place in these countries.

"Velvet Revolution" - the general name of the processes that took place in the states of Central and Eastern Europe in the period from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, which led to a change social order and political system, to the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact, CMEA and the "socialist camp" in general. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has become a kind of their symbol. These political upheavals were named "velvet revolution" because in most states they were committed bloodlessly (except for Romania, where an armed uprising and unauthorized reprisals against N. Ceausescu, a former dictator, and his wife) took place. Events everywhere except Yugoslavia happened relatively quickly, almost instantly. At first glance, the similarity of their scenarios and coincidence in time is surprising, but this indicated a general crisis that gripped the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes in a number of countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. The dynamics of events is as follows.

February 6. As part of a round table in Poland, negotiations began between government officials, the official union of trade unions, the Solidarity trade union and other social groups.

June 4th. Parliamentary elections in Poland, to which opposition parties are admitted. Elections to the lower house were held in accordance with the agreements of the "round table", the ruling parties received 299 seats out of 460. In the Senate, elections to which were held freely, 99 seats out of 100 were won by the opposition and 1 seat - an independent candidate.

September 18th. During negotiations within the framework of the "round table" between the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the opposition, it was decided to introduce a multi-party system in Hungary.

_ * October 18. The head of the GDR and the Socialist Unified Party of Germany (SED) E. Honecker resigned. New general secretary SED, Egon Krenz became chairman of the People's Chamber of the GDR and chairman of the country's National Defense Council.

October 18th. The Hungarian Parliament has passed about 100 constitutional amendments regulating the transition to parliamentary democracy.

October 23. In Budapest, instead of the Hungarian People's Republic, the Hungarian Republic was proclaimed, which defined itself as a free, democratic, independent, legal state.

November 9. The GDR Council of Ministers decided to open the border with the FRG and West Berlin.

10th of November. The head of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, resigned from the post of Secretary General and member of the Politburo. Petr Mladenov was elected the new General Secretary of the BCP.

November 24. Under pressure from the opposition and mass demonstrations, the leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia resigned. Karel Urbanek was elected the new general secretary of the party.

November 28. In Czechoslovakia, following a meeting of a delegation of the government and the ruling Popular Front with representatives of the opposition "Civil Forum", it was decided to create a new government, abolish the constitutional provision on the leadership role communist party.

December 10. Resignation of the President of Czechoslovakia G. Husak. A new government formed with a non-communist majority. On December 29, Vaclav Havel was elected President of Czechoslovakia.

December 22. In Romania, the head of state and the Romanian Communist Party N. Ceausescu was overthrown. He was shot together with his wife on December 25. The leader of the National Salvation Front I. Iliescu became the President of Romania.

The general direction of movement was unidirectional, despite the diversity and specificity in different countries... These were protests against totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, gross violations of the freedoms and rights of citizens, against the existing social injustice in society, corruption of power structures, illegal privileges and low living standards of the population. They were a rejection of the one-party state administrative-command system, which plunged all the countries of Eastern Europe into deep crises and failed to find a decent way out of the situation. The “Velvet Revolutions” in Eastern Europe were not only “against”, but also “for”. For the establishment of true freedom and democracy, social justice, political pluralism, improvement of the spiritual and material life of the population, recognition of universal human values, developing according to the laws civilized society efficient economy.

As democratic and anti-totalitarian revolutions, they are the opposite of the revolutions of the 1940s. However, they do have similarities. The revolutions of the 40s began with the seizure of power, the formation of a totalitarian regime, and then a corresponding social, economic support was brought under it in the form of building socialism. The 1989 revolutions followed the same path. First, the political regime was crushed and opposition forces came to power, which then began "building capitalism", creating a corresponding liberal democracy, a socio-economic base - a socially oriented market economy.

The main directions of economic reforms were: the restoration of the regulatory role of the market and full-fledged commodity-money relations, the transition to convertible currency, to a multi-structured economy and the coexistence of various forms of ownership, including the recognition of private property and the hired market. work force, dismantling of the command-administrative system, decentralization and democratization of economic life.

Of course, the events in each country differed in their national characteristics.

2. National characteristics of the "velvet revolutions"

2.1 Poland

In Poland, as a result of the crisis development of 1980-1981 and subsequent years, the PUWP (Polish United Workers' Party) and the whole society have undergone major changes. In the course of events, the history of socialist transformations, the postulates of the political and economic structure were reassessed, ideas of the need for pluralism, democratization, and a market economy were hatched. A really formed multi-party system, the presence of such a powerful opposition movement as Solidarity, and a real presence in political life the Catholic Church with its moral authority led ultimately to the idea of reaching a social compromise. Based on its own experience, the ruling PUWP came to the conclusion that socialist pluralism was necessary. In 1988, the party announced the start of economic reforms.

Restrictions on the activities of private business were lifted, currency exchange was liberalized, and state-owned enterprises received economic independence. On February 6, 1989, a roundtable was opened, at which representatives of the ruling circles and opposition forces, including Solidarity, met, at which the prospects for political reforms began to be discussed. The agreements reached there were made possible on the basis of the recognition of the principles of parliamentary democracy and civil society, which created the basis for deep political transformation. The first test was the elections to the Senate of the Polish Sejm in June 1989. They gave Solidarity an overwhelming victory - 99 out of 100 seats. The PUWP was abandoned by its former allies - the United Peasant and Democratic Parties. For the first time in history, the government of a socialist country was headed by a non-party politician. One of the active members of Solidarity T. Mazovetsky became him. The government includes all the leading political forces, symbolizing civil agreement on ways out of the crisis. The internal political life of the country was increasingly subjected to deformation. The article on the "leading and guiding role" of the PUWP was removed from the country's constitution, and in January 1990 it ceased to exist altogether, transforming into the Social Democratic Party of the Republic of Poland. The name of the country changed: it became known as the Republic of Poland. In December 1990, he elected Lech Walesa in the first general presidential election. The formation of the new government was entrusted to the representative of "Solidarity" Y. Beletsky.

Along with these political changes, there have been significant changes in the socio-economic sphere. In Poland, for the first time in Eastern Europe, the so-called "shock therapy" was carried out - a sudden transition to a market economy. An integral part of this policy was the removal of price controls while introducing free trade and the beginning of the privatization of the public sector. Prices soared, living standards fell, unemployment rose, but market mechanisms started working. Inflation fell, and the decline in production was soon stopped. 1993 was the year the economy emerged from the crisis.

The government also began a large-scale reorientation of Poland's foreign policy. The desire to enter the EEC was announced. The issue of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from its territory has been resolved. Closer economic ties have been established both with the countries of the West and with the states newly formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

2.2 Hungary

Hungary, along with Poland, was the first among the countries of Eastern Europe to embark on the path of reforms. Having started economic reform back in 1968, under the influence of unfavorable internal and external factors, it was forced to slow down its progress more than once, and then again, in even more difficult conditions, to return to the idea of reforms. All this complicated the entire course of the country's socio-economic and political development.

By the mid-1980s, the resources for extensive development were exhausted. The external economic situation has become even more unfavorable. The measures taken (devaluation of the forint, curbing the growth of wages, etc.) did not give positive results.

Despite the repeated decisions of the Hungarian leadership to overcome negative trends in the economy, the situation in the economy has not improved. This led to new measures to curb personal consumption and incomes of the population. In 1987, a centralized increase in prices for food products, for a number of industrial goods, and for some types of services was carried out. Prices have risen several times later. Fuel prices have increased. The rent and the cost of travel in transport have increased. Real wage declined year after year. Discontent and criticism of stagnant phenomena in society grew rapidly, and voices began to be heard about the need for cardinal economic reforms. The reforms carried out in the political sphere were completely inadequate. The intensification of the activities of the National Assembly, its adoption of a number of legislative acts on democratic freedoms and the rights of citizens, on the fight against economic crimes and manifestations of corruption could not calm the growing critical attitude of the Hungarian public.

Changes in the country's leadership in May 1988 gave rise to some hope for renewal. The Politburo and the Secretariat of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party were renewed. The head of the party for three decades J. Kadar gave up the post of general secretary of the party to K. Grosu.

However, the absence of fundamental changes in the system of political governance more and more undermined the authority of the ruling party and its leadership.

The forces that demanded political pluralism and the elimination of the monopoly position of the RSWP became more active in the country. In scientific circles, the idea of creating a new model of socialism, different from the system of the Stalinist type, was developed, projects of economic reforms began to be put forward. The rapid formation of alternative public organizations, political movements and parties began, demanding political pluralism, the elimination of the monopoly position of the SSWP. These demands were also shared by some leaders of the HSWP, who believed that only on the basis of a multi-party system can a broad democratization of public life be carried out, the parliamentary system of government can be renewed, and then the economic governance reform can be brought to an end. Among the reformers in the HSWP itself were members of the Politburo R. Niersch and I. Pozhgai, Prime Minister M. Nemeth and Chairman of the State Assembly M. Suresh. It was they who advocated the dissolution of the All-Union Socialist Workers' Party and the creation on its basis of a new, leftist party.

A major milestone in political life was the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Supreme Council of Trade Unions in February 1989, at which a radical reassessment of the events of 1956 in Hungary took place. If earlier they were called "counter-revolutionary putsch", now "popular uprising aimed at overthrowing Stalinism" gave a patriotic coloring to events. The ashes of Imre Nagy were solemnly reburied at Heroes' Square in Budapest. Also, the rejection of the constitutionally guaranteed leading role of the party in society was recorded.

At the end of February 1989, the Hungarian National Assembly passed a law on the right of citizens to form associations and associations. But even before the adoption of the law, new public organizations developed their activities almost without hindrance, exerting an ever-increasing influence on the political life in the country. The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, which remained at the helm of the country, had to reckon with this.

In the spring of 1989, following the Polish model, roundtable sessions began, at which the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union met with representatives of opposition parties and groups. In June, their work ended with an agreement that set the task of creating a parliamentary democracy, a rule of law, and a radical reorganization of the Supreme Council of Russia.

The extraordinary congress of the HSWP in October 1989 proclaimed the dissolution of the party and the creation of a new, Hungarian Socialist Party, which, along with numerous parties, began the struggle for seats in the future new parliament. Although a fairly significant part of the members of the All-Union Socialist Workers' Party refused to recognize the decisions of the extraordinary congress and announced the continuation of the activities of the former party, the discredited party no longer exerted a significant influence on the political life of the country. And the Hungarian Socialist Party, having lost the support of the broad masses of the workers, was also pushed aside from the forefront of political life.

New political forces came to the fore, openly proclaiming the slogan of transition to the parliamentary position of pre-war Hungary. By the end of 1989, about 20 parties were active in Hungary. But only a few of them were large and numerous. The Hungarian Democratic Forum (WDF) and the Union of Free Democrats (UDF) began to enjoy the greatest influence in the country.

Parliamentary elections were held on 25 March 1990. During the election campaign, the leftist forces gradually lost their positions. The result of the struggle was as follows: the Hungarian Democratic Forum received 25% of the vote. Union of Free Democrats - 20%. They were followed by the Independent Smallholders Party with 13% and the Hungarian Socialist Party with 10.4% of the votes. The Communists (HSWP) and Social Democrats (VSD) won 3.5% and 3.7% of the vote, respectively, which blocked their way to parliament, since at least 4% of the vote was required to participate in parliament.

The Hungarian parliamentary elections ended a long period of political leadership for the SCWP. A new stage of development began. Further transformations of the country's economic and social life began to be carried out by a block of previously opposition parties and groups led by the WDF, led by Jozsef Antal. The European orientations of foreign policy became clearer: Hungary, like Poland, announced its desire to join the EEC.

The name of the country was also changed. It became known as the Hungarian Republic. In 1991, were withdrawn from Hungary Soviet troops.

2.3 Czechoslovakia

In Czechoslovakia, after the resignation in December 1987 from the party posts of Husak and the arrival of the new leadership of the Communist Party of China, headed by M. Yakesh, social life sharply intensified. Discussions began about the new political life of the country, about the new constitution of Czechoslovakia. However, the leadership of the CPC was in no hurry to implement reforms. It intended to discuss their concepts at the next party congress. At the same time, the leadership of the CPC refused to revise the previous critical assessments of the events of 1968 and invariably emphasized the leading role of the party in society. Such attitudes ran counter to the rapid politicization of the country.

A characteristic feature of Czechoslovakia was the presence in its public life political opposition, which covered both most of the participants in the events of 1968, and other strata who joined it later. She was in a lethargic state, although after the formation of a political group called "Charter-77", it revived somewhat.

The situation changed in 1988. The intensified opposition forces took decisive action. Its external manifestation was demonstrations in Prague and other cities: in August (in connection with the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the troops of the Warsaw Pact countries into Czechoslovakia), at the end of October (in connection with the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the formation of independent Czechoslovakia) and in January 1989 ( 20th anniversary of the burning of Jan Palach). On November 17, 1989, students held a protest demonstration in the center of Prague demanding change. The demonstrators were severely beaten by the police. This caused a storm of protest. Already on November 20, so many people gathered on Wenceslas Square in Prague that it was no longer possible to use the police. On November 21, mass demonstrations began in Prague. On the same day, the “Civic Forum” was created, which brought together all opposition forces in the Czech lands, and the “Society against Violence” in Slovakia. Attempts by the authorities to condemn the demonstrations were unsuccessful. The plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) accepted the resignation of the presidium of the Central Committee of the party. Then the leadership of the HRC was almost completely replaced. He had to enter into dialogue with the opposition. Opposition forces put forward a detailed program for changing the state and party leadership, and advocated further socio-economic transformations. After an attempt to reorganize the old government on December 10, a new government of M. Chalfa was created.

Chairperson Federal Assembly became A. Dubcek. Following the then resignation of Husak at the end of December, Vaclav Havel was elected president of Czechoslovakia. The process of dismantling the old system began, the article of the constitution on the leading role of the party was canceled, and market reforms were carried out. In 1991, Soviet troops were withdrawn from Czechoslovakia. The country became known as the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. Such rapid changes in the environment of the persisting peace gave reason to call these events "the velvet revolution." But its development has not been without problems. The crisis has led to a new aggravation of relations between the two peoples - Czechs and Slovaks. During the 1989 revolution, separatist sentiments quickly emerged. In June 1992, the elections in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia were won by parties that advocated a peaceful "divorce" of Czechoslovakia. In the course of subsequent negotiations, the main procedural issues were resolved, and from January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia as a single state ceased to exist.

Against the background of obvious crisis phenomena in a number of Eastern European countries, the situation in the GDR in the 70s and 80s looked rather favorable outwardly. This was evidenced by the relatively stable production process and the relatively high standard of living in comparison with other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. However, by the end of the 1980s, the situation had changed dramatically. The economic situation has worsened. An ill-considered investment policy led to serious imbalances in the country's economy, the state budget deficit and external debt increased. Public debt totaled a whopping $ 20.6 billion.

The outflow of skilled workers leaving the GDR increased annually. By 1989, it reached a record size: the number of people who left for the FRG reached 350 thousand people. This led to a significant reduction in production volumes. About 250 thousand jobs became vacant.

The socio-political crisis in the GDR, which had ripened latently for a long time, was aggravated by the reluctance and inability of the leadership headed by E. Honecker to recognize the urgent need to renew the entire socio-political life in the country. There was growing distrust of the policy of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, disillusionment with the model of authoritarian-bureaucratic "socialism" advocated by the party leadership. This was also facilitated by an external factor - the impact on the population of the GDR of perestroika, democratization and glasnost in the USSR, as well as fundamental changes in Poland and Hungary, especially the introduction of a multi-party system there and the rejection of the leading role of the communist parties.

However, E. Honecker and his entourage did not reckon with the criticism handed out to them, extolled the "achievements" of the GDR, hiding from the people the facts of deepening crisis phenomena in the country's economy and completely fencing themselves off from Soviet perestroika and changes in other socialist countries, criticizing what was happening there processes (especially in Poland and Hungary). The personality cult of E. Honecker took on more and more ugly forms.

The reaction to all these phenomena was that many people, having lost hope for internal changes in the country, began to associate their calculations for the future with resettlement in Germany. The wave of refugees has grown. In January 1989, 400,000 travel applications were registered. In the early summer of 1989, this flight became widespread when the possibility of a flight to the West through Hungarian territory opened up. The relief of the regime on the Hungarian-Austrian border attracted tens of thousands of tourists from the GDR, who, having arrived in Hungary, were then sent through Austria to the FRG. In Czechoslovakia and Poland, hundreds of tourists from the GDR entered the FRG embassies and asked for political asylum.

The strict demarches of the GDR government, which demanded that Hungary expel thousands of tourists from the GDR who did not want to return to their homeland, as well as bans on leaving the GDR and Czechoslovakia, did not produce any results. On the contrary, in a number of cities in the country, especially in Leipzig, Dresden and Berlin, rallies with demands for political reform, democracy and freedom began to be held more and more often.

On October 6, an official torchlight procession of about 100,000 members of the Socialist Youth Organization took place in East Berlin, and two days later 70,000 opponents of the regime took to the streets in Leipzig under the slogan "We are one people." Everything happened in a disciplined and peaceful manner. The dynamics are eloquent: on September 25 in Leipzig, five thousand people went to the demonstration, just a week later already 20 thousand, and a week later - 70 thousand. In response to attempts by the authorities to use force to disperse rallies and mass demonstrations, popular outrage grew. It culminated when more than 70,000 demonstrators in Leipzig on October 9, 1989 demanded that those responsible for breaking up the counter-demonstration in Berlin on the day of the 40th anniversary of the GDR be brought to justice.

The Hungarian government, after negotiations with the authorities of the GDR, decided to open the border with Austria for the "tourists" from the GDR who had accumulated on Hungarian territory and demanded to leave for the FRG. In the first three days alone, more than 15 thousand people crossed the border.

Trying to stay in power, part of the leadership of the GDR began to look for a way out of this situation on the path of political maneuvering. On October 11, 1989, a statement was published by the Central Committee of the SED about its readiness to discuss the requirements of glasnost, democracy, freedom of travel abroad and other issues, but the tension in the country did not subside. Then another step was taken. On October 18, the plenum of the SED Central Committee relieved E. Honecker of his duties as general secretary and removed his closest associates from the Politburo. Honecker was also relieved of his post as chairman of the State Council of the GDR. Egon Krenz, one of Honecker's close associates, secretary of the SED Central Committee and a member of the Politburo, was elected to both positions previously held by Honecker.

The measures announced by the new leadership to renew the country's governance were completely inadequate. Although a course towards reforms and democratization was proclaimed, nothing was actually done. The leadership clearly did not keep up with the course of events, losing control over them.

Another attempt to save itself was made by the leadership of the SED on November 8. The plenum of the Central Committee substantially renewed the composition of the Politburo. It included Hans Modrow, the first secretary of the Dresden district committee of the SED, known for his critical attitude towards the old party leadership and enjoying authority among the population.

On November 17, the People's Chamber of the GDR approved the composition of the country's new government. It was headed by H. Modrov. The government was formed on a coalition basis: out of 28 ministers, 12 represented the SED, and the remaining 16 ministers - other parties (Christian Democratic Union, Liberal Democratic Party, National Democratic Party and Democratic Peasant Party).

The government began its activities in a completely new situation... Relations with another German state, the FRG, changed dramatically. On November 9, 1989, the leadership of the GDR decided to open its western borders for free travel to the FRG and West Berlin. The Berlin Wall has ceased to play its role as a formidable obstacle. They began to take it apart for souvenirs.

However, the crisis situation in the country did not subside. On the contrary, it deepened even more in connection with the known facts abuse of power and corruption during the years of the Honecker regime. The Central Committee of the SED decided to expel from the party and bring to justice the former leaders of the party E. Honecker and G. Mittag, Prime Minister V. Shtof, Minister of State Security E. Milke and other party and statesmen... Trade union leaders were also held accountable. Christian Democratic Union and National Democratic Party.

The new leadership of the SED could not contain the disintegration of their party. In the last two months of 1989, about half of its members left (900 thousand out of 2 million people). The People's Chamber of the GDR decided to remove the provision on the "leading role of the SED" from the country's constitution.

The complete incapacity of the leaders of the SED under the new conditions led on December 3 to the collective resignation of the Politburo and the Central Committee of the party headed by E. Krenz, and three days later Krenz was forced to leave the post of chairman of the State Council. An extraordinary congress of the SED, held in mid-December 1989, elected a new party leadership. From the previous composition of the Central Committee, only three people entered the new board of the party (101 people). The name of the party has also changed. It became known as the "Socialist United Party of Germany - Party of Democratic Socialism", but soon the first part of the name ceased to appear. The party was chaired by a young lawyer G. Gizi, who announced its radical restructuring.

Following the reorganization of the SED, other changes took place in the political life of the GDR. New parties and organizations were created, which announced their intention to fight for seats in the future parliament of the country. The Social Democratic Party, as well as the New Forum, Democratic Awakening, Union of the Left, Initiative for Peace and Human Rights, and others were very active.
In the ensuing electoral struggle, four former SED allies - the Christian Democratic Union, the Liberal Democratic Party, the National Democratic Party and the Democratic Peasant Party - announced their withdrawal from the traditional bloc with the communists.

These parties, as well as new political associations, declared their rejection of the socialist path of development of the GDR. They saw the prospect of immediate development in "saving the country through the reunification of Germany."

The slogan of the unification of Germany became the main program point of all political trends. Right-wing extremist forces have also risen on this wave in the country. All parties in opposition to the SED-PDS enjoyed active support from political and government agencies Germany and West Berlin. Leading figures of the FRG, including Chancellor G. Kohl, took a direct part in rallies and demonstrations held on the territory of the GDR. The question of the unification of the two German states was at the center of attention of the entire political life of the country.

The government of X. Modrow also announced a change in its attitude to the German question. The official concept of the existence of two German nations - socialist and capitalist - was recognized as erroneous. The GDR government announced its desire to develop broad cooperation with the FRG and West Berlin and expressed its interest in receiving economic assistance from the FRG. At the same time, the GDR was proclaimed loyalty to its allied obligations. The inviolability of European borders was recognized.

On March 18, 1990, elections were held to the People's Chamber of the GDR. The entire course of the election campaign testified to the ouster of the SED - PDS from the country's leadership. This was also shown by the results of the parliamentary elections. The Party of Democratic Socialism became oppositional.

The Christian Democratic Union (40.9%) received the majority of votes in the elections, followed by the Social Democrats (21.8%). The Party of Democratic Socialism won 16.3% of the vote. Accordingly, the distribution of seats received by various parties in the People's Chamber was determined.

The right-wing bloc parties led by the CDU secured 193 seats out of the total 400 seats, SPD - 87, and PDS - 65 seats. The government was formed by the Christian democrat Lothar de Mezieres.

The cardinal changes in the GDR at the end of 1989 - early 1990 showed that the German question again declared itself not only as a task facing the two German states, but also as a most difficult one. international problem... From its decision, the fate of Europe began to be directly determined, and new system ensuring international security. The German problem became the subject of discussion between the four great powers participating in the peace settlement after the end of the Second World War - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France.

On September 12, 1990, the four victorious powers and representatives of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany signed in Moscow the Treaty on the Final Settlement with regard to Germany, which actually drew a line under the results of the Second World War in Europe.

The treaty and other documents recorded the recognition of the inviolability of European borders, a ban on Germany's possession of weapons of mass destruction, determined the size limits of the Bundeswehr and the temporary preservation (until the end of 1994) of the USSR armed forces in the eastern part of the united Germany. On June 1, 1990, a single currency was introduced throughout Germany - the West German mark. The process of German reunification was accompanied by the adoption on October 1 by the foreign ministers of the four powers and two German states of the Document on the termination of the quadrilateral treaties, rights and responsibilities in relation to Berlin and Germany as a whole with the unification of Germany. Then 6 lands were restored on the territory of the GDR. On October 3, after almost 41 years of existence, the GDR disappeared from the political map of the world.

2.5 Romania

If in the GDR, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, violent events were not accompanied by bloodshed and took place in civilized forms, then in Romania they took on a different character.

The totalitarian regime established by the Ceausescu family, acting in the spirit of purely Stalinist traditions and dominating for almost a quarter of a century, led Romania to a severe crisis. Contrary to official statistics, which painted a rosy picture of development in the 1980s, the country's economy was in a state of stagnation. The fantastic programs for modernizing production, improving the quality and competitiveness of products, and introducing the achievements of scientific and technological progress have completely failed. The country felt an acute shortage of fuel, energy and raw materials. Production capacities in industry were underutilized by 30-40%.

The heaviest burden for the Romanian people was the ever-increasing financial indebtedness to the Western powers. The payment of debts led to a decrease in imports and an increase in exports of goods, which were urgently needed for domestic consumption, primarily food and oil products.

By the need to pay off debts, the country's leadership explained the policy of "tightening the belts" and the most difficult living conditions of the majority of the Romanian population. Not only unbearable indebtedness, but also all other miscalculations in economic policy were ultimately determined by the administrative-command system that prevailed in the country, totalitarian regime, hiding behind socialist slogans and relying on the Communist Party, which N. Ceausescu turned into an instrument of power for his family clan. But the party numbered about 4 million people, that is, every fifth inhabitant of the country was a member.

Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu categorically denied the very possibility of any changes in the management of the economy, and indeed in the life of the country. He stated that reforms were allegedly carried out in Romania long ago, which were started by other Eastern European countries in the 1980s. Trying to improve efficiency Agriculture, Ceausescu further tightened the system of directive management of state farms and cooperatives, launched a campaign of "systematization" of villages, which envisaged the elimination of 7 thousand villages and the resettlement of their inhabitants to "agro-industrial centers."

The forced assimilation of the Hungarian population living in Transylvania was systematically carried out.

A totalitarian system of power, a low standard of living, a situation on the brink of starvation - all this caused an increase in social tension in the country, sharp dissatisfaction with the methods of building "comprehensively developed socialism." This was evidenced by the mass flight of citizens from the country: by March 1989, about 30 thousand people had accumulated on the territory of Hungary, and about the same number of refugees went to other European countries. Protests by workers in the Resita coal mines, Brasov factories and elsewhere were brutally suppressed. The timid protests of the Romanian intelligentsia were ignored or led to severe repression.

There was no organized opposition in the country, but even here the speeches of a number of former political figures - the "letter of six", published in early 1989 and containing sharp criticism of the state of affairs in the country, showed the tension in the situation. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the population was ready to oppose the hated regime. However, the dictator, blinded by the power, although rather frightened by the radical changes in neighboring countries, continued to believe in the inviolability of the system he had established.

Even against the background of the beginning of changes in Eastern Europe, Ceausescu demonstrated an absolute unwillingness to follow the example of his neighbors, citing Romania's right to go its own way. On November 20, 1989, when the Berlin Wall had already collapsed and the velvet revolution had taken place in Czechoslovakia, the XIV Congress of the Romanian Communist Party was held in Bucharest. Ceausescu in his speech did not say a word about what happened in the neighboring countries. The congress was proclaimed a “congress of great victories and triumphs of socialism”, N. Ceausescu announced the country's transition to a “new stage” - the completion of the construction of a “comprehensively developed socialist state”. The congress adopted new plans for the development of socialist society until 2010.

A truly new stage in the development of Romania really began three weeks after the end of the congress. But he was no longer connected with the program of the congress, not with the party itself and not with its leader. It was started by the people who rebelled against the dictatorship.

In mid-December, Ceausescu went on an official visit to Iran. At this time, on December 16-17, in the Transylvanian city of Temisoara, the security service tried to evict the local priest Laszlo Tekeshi. The events in Timisoara rocked the entire country. Spontaneous demonstrations began in support of Tekeshi. The army and security forces brutally suppressed them. Returning from Iran, Ceausescu declared these events the result of intrigues of external enemies and appointed a rally the next day in support of the actions of the authorities. The people gathered in the square, after listening to the speech, began to shout anti-government slogans. The first clashes with the police took place. Spontaneous demonstrations began.