An evaluation of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1968 is essential for a comprehensive understanding of Cold War history. The assertion that repression was the primary reason for Soviet domination, while plausible, requires a nuanced examination of two Eastern Bloc countries. This essay will focus on East Germany and Hungary to delve into the numerous strategies employed by the Soviets, along with the repression implemented through the imposition of communist regimes and rigorous military control. Simultaneously, it is also critical to investigate other factors that underpinned Soviet control, including ideological indoctrination, economic leverage, and the shaping of political structures. Through the lens of two countries, the scope of this discourse will encompass the period from the immediate post-war era to the tumultuous year of 1968.
East Germany provides a fascinating case study in the appraisal of Soviet domination in the post-war era. The Soviet Union adopted an assertive stance, erecting the infamous Berlin Wall in 1961 to solidify its stranglehold over East Germany and limit Western influence. Although Eric Hobsbawm asserts that this overt physical coercion symbolised the peak of Soviet repression, the argument merits closer inspection. The Wall did play a role in manifesting Soviet dominance by enforcing physical control. However, Andrew Roberts’s evaluation that it also acted as an ideological statement to showcase the perceived superiority of communism cannot be undermined. Thus, while physical repression existed, the ideological battle between communism and capitalism also drove the Soviets' strong control over East Germany. In addition to physical control and ideological warfare, economic influence was another strategy through which the Soviet Union exercised dominance over East Germany. Moscow's control of economic resources, as highlighted by Tony Judt, facilitated its interference in domestic affairs. The East German economy was extensively intertwined with the Soviet Union through the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), which enabled Moscow to manipulate economic policy and indirectly control East Germany's political direction. This economic control further reinforces that repression was just one facet of the larger tapestry of Soviet domination.
In the case of Hungary, the tumultuous events of 1956 vividly depict the Soviets' use of repression. The brutal Soviet military intervention in response to the Hungarian Uprising is often considered a clear exhibition of Soviet repression. However, it's crucial to interrogate this perspective further. Hobsbawm views the military intervention as the most overt form of Soviet repression, arguing that the event was a crucial determinant of Soviet domination. In contrast, Roberts posits that while the intervention was indeed brutal, it was also a response to the threat posed to Soviet hegemony by the uprising. Therefore, the intervention was not solely about repression but also about maintaining control in the face of significant opposition. Equally important in understanding Soviet control over Hungary is the role of political manipulation. The installation of a pro-Soviet government following the uprising and the role of the Hungarian Working People’s Party are prime examples of this. While Judt emphasises the repressive aspects of this political manipulation, he also acknowledges that it was part of a wider strategy to maintain control through political institutions. This, again, indicates that the concept of repression is multidimensional and must be viewed within a broader political context.
Another vital element to consider when examining Soviet control is the role of ideological indoctrination. In both East Germany and Hungary, Moscow exerted considerable effort to shape the ideological landscape. This is evident in the education reforms and the massive propaganda campaigns aimed at promoting the socialist ideology, particularly among younger generations. According to Sheila Fitzpatrick, such tactics were not just a form of ideological repression but also a means of ensuring long-term dominance by shaping public opinion. Simultaneously, it’s worth noting that while this approach played a significant role in both countries, it was more pronounced in East Germany due to the persistent ideological competition with West Germany.
It is incontrovertible that repression, in its many forms, played a significant role in establishing and maintaining Soviet dominance in East Germany and Hungary between 1945 and 1968. However, to attribute Soviet control solely to repression would be to oversimplify a multifaceted historical process. The realities of Soviet domination extended beyond repression and involved a complex blend of political manipulation, economic control, and ideological indoctrination. Thus, while Hobsbawm, Roberts, and Judt provide valuable insights, a more holistic view, like that of Fitzpatrick, offers a well-rounded understanding of Soviet control. Through this lens, one can see the intricate web of tactics employed by the Soviet Union to maintain its dominance over these satellite states during the Cold War era. As such, repression was not the sole, but undeniably a central, reason for Soviet control over East Germany and Hungary in the period under discussion.
