Eastern Europe 1740-1985 by Robin Okey

Eastern Europe 1740-1985: Feudalism to Communism

There are two versions of this book. The original covers up to 1980 while the version I read goes up to 1985. Both of these dates are before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Before reading this book I had a few ideas about how Eastern Europe had developed, but they were mostly based on assumptions. While reading this book I found most of the assumptions were incorrect. The first chapter gives an overview of Eastern Europe before 1740 (I still don't consider myself an expert on the pre-1740 time period) and the rest of the book covers the time period in the title: 1740-1985.

Eastern Europe started out similar to Western Europe under the feudal system. It was located between Russia and Germany; however, Germany was not yet the powerful centralized state it became under Bismark. For most of this time period (1740-1918) Eastern Europe was split up between great powers. At first it was divided between Turkey, the Hapsburgs, and Poland. Later Poland fell and was partitioned between Prussia and Russia. Following the First World War many of these nations gained independence, but their governments did not fair too well. It seems to be Okey's belief, these governments were already tottering before the Russians and Germans invaded. Today this twenty year period between the world wars is often assumed to be the natural order of things, but it really is not or at least hadn't been for a number of generations. From the revised perspective the cold war does not appear to have been a particularly bad time for Eastern Europe: most nations had their own state although Czechoslovakia (Czechs and Slavs) and Yugoslavia (all the Balkan nations) contained several different peoples. The countries were largely autonomous and seem to be doing compared to pre-World War I history.

A question that often comes up is why Eastern Europe fell behind Western Europe. The first reason seems to be that the nobility in Eastern Europe realized the threat of the tradesmen to their governmental dominance in time to crush their competition. In Western Europe this did not appear to happen, by the time the nobles realized that the growing middle class wanted more political power, they were unable to suppress them. After the nobles reestablished their control, towns in Eastern Europe began to shrink again. I am unclear about why the difference occurred maybe it was because Eastern Europe was controlled by large foreign empires: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and Russians while Western Europe was controlled by home grown dynasties.

In some ways it seems that Eastern Europe has always been playing catch up with the West. Its intellectuals sat in Paris Cafes. It was late joining the enlightenment and never really seems to have caught on to the idea. Still, the idea that they were completely behind everyone else is incorrect. Wages were higher in Western Europe than Eastern Europe during the period from 1850-1914, but Eastern Europeans were still earning more money than Russians and presumably Turks. The earning differential and outsourcing (yes this happened back then) which occurred because of it raised the standard of living of the East Europeans although many of them were still serfs. The Eastern Europeans experienced the problems of many today: there will always be someone with more capital (earning more than you) pushing from above and someone working for less money (with a lower standard of living) pushing from below.

In the period leading up to the first World War, the governing empires were forced to spend more and more energy playing different factions off against each other and suppressing nationalistic feelings. Bismark, the unifier of Germany, made a point of avoiding involvement in the Balkans [advice America would do well to follow today]. During the First World War the Eastern European nations did not rise up to fight for independence. Afterward the region was split up into different countries based upon the haggling of the German, French, and British government. Except for the Czechs, all of these countries drifted from democracy into fascism or communism. The Czechs were the most politically stable of all the countries both before and after the First World War which explains why they are the most prosperous former Soviet Bloc country today.

Following the Second World War, the countries were each liberated again although they quickly moved under communism. Most of the prewar national leadership was eliminated either through being voted out, dying in the war, or execution. Romania and Poland both avoided the show trials which happened in all other countries (it never pays to be the second place dictator). Although all countries were under the sway of the Soviet Union, they each resisted in their own way. Ceauşescu in Romania and Tito in Yugoslavia were able to gain a certain degree of autonomy although they were not very kind (read brutal) to their own people. Polish, Hungarian and other citizens fought and protested but suffered for this at the hands of soldiers.

As the soviet period continued, the Eastern German governments gradually took more and more capitalist ideas. The population moved into the cities and their diets included more meat and sugar and less bread and potatoes. When writing this book, Okey was unsure whether the countries would continue to liberalize or revert to hardcore communism. Thankfully, the former took place.

After reading this book, I am more optimistic about the future of Eastern Europe but more uncertain about the future of mankind. Eastern Europe is happily on a long term upward trend. Unfortunately, I now have a better understanding of how rare and fleeting liberty is in this world.