Chapter 38 Chapter 28 The End of Polarization

It seems quite counterintuitive that the Continent was returning to economic prosperity and political independence at the same time that European colonial empires were crumbling.The losses suffered during World War II combined with the ensuing pressure of the Cold War forced Western Europe to depend on the United States and Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union.The future of the European continent, which ruled the globe a few decades ago, now seemed bleak and dangerous.However, in the 1950s, Eastern and Western European countries made an astonishing comeback.This revival, together with China's growing power and self-confidence, has led to a new world political landscape.The brief primacy of the United States and the Soviet Union gave way to a new pluralistic society.This essentially means a return—at least politically—to the global localism that characterized world affairs for the millennia before 1500.

In 1947, Churchill asked: "What is Europe now? It is a heap of rubble, it is a charnel house, it is the birthplace of plague and hatred." This is for the entire European continent, including Western and Eastern Europe. vividly depicted.Both Western and Eastern Europe were left barren and destitute by the Second World War.Both regions had to turn to the two new superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—for support after the war.In terms of military affairs, Western Europe relied on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization organized by the United States, while Eastern Europe relied on the Warsaw Pact organized by the Soviet Union.Economically, Western Europe relied on the Marshall Plan, which was financed by the United States, while Eastern Europe relied on the Committee for Mutual Economic Aid, which in theory was tasked with delivering Soviet aid, but in practice the opposite was true.

This situation is strikingly opposite to the familiar configuration of the dominant European global hegemony of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, people all over the world got used to whole continents being carved up by European powers and came to think of it as almost a part of the normal order of things.But at this time, the exact opposite happened: Europe itself was being divided into two spheres of influence by two foreign powers; at the same time, European colonies were all breaking free from European control, whether the capital of the empire agreed or not.It is not surprising, therefore, that there were obituaries of the deaths of Europe in the first postwar years.Europe at this time was similar to Hellenistic Greece, and the treatises titled "The Last Judgment of Europe", "The Political Collapse of Europe" and "The Vanishing of the European Age" all believed that Europe was dead.Just as the German historian Oswald Spengler wrote The Decline of the West after witnessing the trauma of the First World War, so the German sociologist Alfred Weber after witnessing the Wrote Farewell, European History after the greater trauma of the World Wars.

The primacy of Washington and Moscow was reluctance to be acknowledged, but eventually grudgingly acknowledged, in part because of the need for Washington and Moscow's support in the face of the stress and tensions created by the Cold War.But the Cold War began to wane by 1953, after years of intensified fighting (see Chapter 26, Section 7).One reason was the death in April 1953 of Stalin, who had become increasingly suspicious and hard-line in his later years.His younger successors are poised to moderate the Cold War abroad and the dictatorship at home.Meanwhile, in the United States, the new Eisenhower administration was replacing the Truman administration.It also contributed to the "detente" of the international situation, because Eisenhower could conclude a peace treaty in Korea, while Truman would find it extremely difficult to do so due to domestic political reasons.Thus, in July 1953, the Korean War was declared over, thereby removing one of the greatest sources of international tension.

The following month, the Soviet government announced that it, too, had the secret to the hydrogen bomb.Quite counterintuitively, the fact that the Soviet Union possessed the H-bomb strongly suggested that war was no longer a possible solution to international disputes, and instead strengthened the reconciliation movement.As we all know, the hydrogen bomb detonated by the United States on Bikini Island is equivalent to 15 million tons of TNT.It is 750 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which killed 78,000 people. On March 1, 1955, Churchill pointed out in a speech to the House of Representatives that in addition to changing warfare, new weapons have also changed international relations.It threatened not only the existence of small countries like Britain, but also the existence of superpowers like the United States and the Soviet Union.Churchill asserted: "It is entirely possible, by a process of great irony, that we have arrived at a stage in history where security becomes the robust child of terror."

A striking manifestation of the new international climate was the July 1955 "summit" meeting in Geneva between President Eisenhower, Chairman of the Council of Ministers Bulganin, Prime Minister Eden and Chancellor Faure.This is the first meeting of the "Big Four" since the Potsdam meeting 10 years ago.Although the meeting did not reach any substantive resolutions, the atmosphere was warm and sincere.The mere fact that the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union were able to meet and have friendly discussions was a major development after relations had frozen in previous years.

The military standoff, along with the detente of the Cold War, had immediate repercussions around the world.There was a growing conviction that a world war was unlikely; this eased international tensions, as well as the hardline attitudes of rival blocs.The states of Western Europe no longer worried much about the danger of Soviet invasion and therefore no longer felt so dependent on Washington, but were more willing to formulate and implement their own policies.The same was true to a lesser extent in Eastern Europe, which somewhat explains the riots in Poland and Hungary in 1956.This influence existed even in the colonial world.The failure of the British and French expedition to Suez was not because they were weaker than Nasser, but because they did not dare to take the risk of igniting an international war in an era where a hydrogen bomb war might break out.Also, for this reason, the Western powers failed to aid the revolutionaries in Hungary, and the Soviets failed to take military action against the nationalist communists in Poland.

The clearest example of a great power in chains can be seen in the Cuban crisis of 1962, which occurred suddenly when the United States discovered through aerial reconnaissance that the Soviet Union was building missile bases in Cuba and that much of the United States would soon be within range of it within. In a dramatic radio address on October 22, 1962, President Kennedy announced that the United States would take decisive steps to eliminate this threat to the United States, but without embarrassing Khrushchev so much that he would make dangerous Reaction.Kennedy declared a "blockade," prohibiting ships from sending offensive weapons to Cuba, and demanded that the Soviet Union withdraw its strategic missiles.However, he did not call for the dismantling of the Castro regime, nor for the dismantling of Cuba's preventive missiles.When the Soviet ship bound for Cuba diverted course, and when the United States allowed the Soviet tanker to proceed, convinced that it was free of offensive weapons, it became clear that neither country wanted war.Finally, on October 28, Khrushchev announced that he had ordered the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the dismantling of all Soviet bases in Cuba under UN observation in return for the US ending the blockade and promising not to invade Cuba.

The Cuban crisis once again showed that neither nuclear power dared to resort to the traditional approach of using war as a tool to advance national policy.Although the confrontation ended peacefully, it was a fluke -- a fluke, so that it reinvigorated efforts on both sides to reduce tensions in the world. On August 5, 1963, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water.This treaty was welcomed by most countries, and they all signed it. Only two major powers, France and China, which were challenging the primacy of the United States and the Soviet Union at the time, refused to sign.

In February 1967, 14 countries in Latin America signed a treaty prohibiting the manufacture, use or possession of nuclear weapons.That same year, 98 countries signed a treaty banning the launch of weapons of mass destruction into orbit around the Earth, the placement of such weapons on the moon or other celestial bodies, or the appropriation of such bodies by any country. In the early summer of 1968, many countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union, signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which stipulated that the nuclear-armed countries that signed the contract were not allowed to provide nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countries, and the non-nuclear countries that signed the contract were prohibited from manufacturing nuclear weapons.The treaty came into force on March 5, 1970, and by then 47 countries had signed it.These treaties all helped to greatly ease the international tension caused by the Cold War.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Western European countries gained greater flexibility in dealing with political issues as they no longer needed US economic assistance.Dramatically increased productivity, general prosperity, and the creation of a common market made economic independence possible, giving Western Europe an economic power comparable to that of the United States. In the long river of European history, the roots of the common market can be traced back a long time ago.Since the Middle Ages, philosophers and statesmen have proposed various plans for the unification of Western Europe.But nothing was actually done until the trauma of the First World War cast doubt on an international order based on fully sovereign states. In the late 1920s, the foreign ministers of France and Germany considered plans for a United States of Europe.But the onset of the Great Depression and the aggression of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy ended any possibility of European integration. The Second World War, with its unprecedented devastation of human and material resources, once again brought full attention to the need to find some way out of international chaos. A breakthrough came on May 9, 1950, when French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed coal and steel joint ventures as a small-scale pilot plant for the development of European integration.This proposal aims to combine the coal and iron resources of the Rhine basin divided by the four countries of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, so that war, as Schuman said, "is not only unthinkable, but impossible", thereby assuaging French concerns about an industrially revived West Germany. Schumann's suggestion received an immediate and enthusiastic response. On April 18, 1951, the "European Coal and Steel Pool Treaty" was signed, and the organization established according to this treaty was called "European Coal and Steel Pool" (ECSC), which was formally established in 1952.There are six earliest member states: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.These member states gave the European Coal and Steel Pool full power to set prices, set import and export taxes and allocate raw materials.They also established a governing body, the High Commission, whose headquarters are in Luxembourg City.Major policy decisions are made by the European Coal and Steel Pool, which is elected by member parliaments; disputes between member states are resolved by the pool's own courts.The European coal and steel pool has been surprisingly successful in the short term.It not only removes all tariffs on coal and steel products in the joint venture member countries, but also eliminates various restrictions, such as quotas, import and export licenses, differential freight rates or price differentials, etc.By mid-1954, about 40 percent more coal and steel was being shipped across the borders of the pool members than before the European Coal and Steel Pool came into existence. But this was only the beginning of Western European integration.In the next step, on March 25, 1957, six more member states signed two more treaties, establishing the European Atomic Energy Consortium (Euratom) and the European Economic Community (EEC), the Common Market.The purpose of Euratom is to make the necessary preparations for bridging the energy gap with the nuclear powers in the future.It includes joint atomic energy research, free exchange of atomic energy information, and the establishment of a common market for atomic energy equipment and material trade.Euratom is similar to the US Atomic Energy Commission, except that it is only concerned with the use of atomic power for peaceful purposes.The establishment of a common market is more important, for its purpose is to expand the work of the European coal and steel pool to all products and all sectors, reduce all internal tariffs within a specified period, and by December 31, 1969, cancel All these tariffs make 6 member countries form a huge free trade area. At this time, Europe achieved tremendous economic development, partly due to this integration and partly due to other developments, such as the introduction of American production technology and management technology. Between 1950 and 1964, the GNP growth rates of West Germany, Italy, and France were 7.1%, 5.6%, and 4.9%, respectively, while that of the United States was only 3.5%.Another sign of Western Europe's growing economic power: Between 1948 and 1962, the U.S. share of the free world's gold fell from 71 percent to 40 percent, while Western Europe's share rose from 15 percent to 44 percent. %. Similar to changes in economic relations between Western Europe and the United States are corresponding changes in political relations.This was especially true of France under Charles de Gaulle, who pursued a policy of independence in every field.This was clearly demonstrated in 1963 when he denied Britain's application to join the Common Market.At first, Britain refused to join the common market, partly because doing so would mean abandoning its preferential trade agreement with the Commonwealth, and partly because of its historical reluctance to be involved with the European continent.Churchill once told the House of Commons: "We agree with them, but we don't belong to them." Thus, in 1960, Britain organized the more restrictive EFTA (Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal), known as the "outer seven countries" to distinguish it from the "inner six countries".This union provided for the gradual elimination of internal tariffs, but unlike the common market, it did not provide for supranational means of control and coordination, nor did it require a common tariff for the outside world. The "Outer Seven" did not work effectively, and this was reflected in the UK's lower economic growth rate. In 1962, Britain began negotiations to join the "Inner Six", but questions about the economic relationship of the Commonwealth caused trouble.Plus, there were the political conundrums, which de Gaulle spelled out when he rejected Britain's application in January 1963.Bringing Britain and its "outer seven" partners into it, he explained, would mean ending up with "a big Atlantic community dependent on and led by the United States." That was unacceptable; what he wanted was a A "strictly European organization" of which he plays a leading role. De Gaulle's independent approach to NATO's strategy and nuclear weapons was equally decisive.U.S. policymakers want NATO forces to be armed with conventional weapons, and the U.S. remains ready to intervene if necessary with its powerful nuclear strike force.De Gaulle rejected this strategy because it put decisive power in foreign hands and only Washington could decide when to use it.He therefore set out to develop France's own nuclear weapons and air assault forces, in order to be supported in time by the nuclear submarines and hydrogen bombs that de Gaulle considered an essential force base for his independent diplomatic line.In December 1962, for example, he rejected an agreement between Prime Minister Macmillan and President Kennedy to create a NATO nuclear force armed with American Polaris missiles with British warheads.For de Gaulle it was a bit like being at the mercy of what he called the Anglo-Saxon forces, which he hated, not least because of his unhappy wartime relationship with Roosevelt and Churchill.Likewise, de Gaulle refused to abide by the "Partial Test Ban Treaty" signed in Moscow in July 1963 by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union.The treaty prohibits further nuclear explosions underwater, in the atmosphere and in outer space, which is unacceptable to France as it would hamper the further development of French nuclear forces. Even more striking was de Gaulle's unfettered diplomacy. On January 27, 1964, despite Washington's repeated protests, he fully recognized Communist China diplomatically.Three days later, he explained that he was simply "acknowledging the state of the world."He added: "On this (Asian) continent, it is inconceivable that there will be peace or war that does not involve it (China); , and we the French are particularly interested in concluding such an agreement.” Thus, the general also launched a challenge in Southeast Asia, where the United States was supporting the Vietnamese authorities with money, arms, and military missions in suppressing Viet Cong communist rebels.De Gaulle was convinced that these American efforts were doomed to fail and that the Americans would be driven out, just as the French had been driven out 10 years earlier.Thus, he strongly advocated the neutralization of the entire region, because this would "remove all forms of foreign interference." This is de Gaulle's challenge to American policy and American leadership.Moreover, it is a global challenge, as evidenced by his French diplomatic and trade missions to Latin America and his own visit to Mexico (March 1964); Emphasizes the common traditions of Latin American peoples and the "independence" of the group of great powers. In 1969, Pompidou succeeded de Gaulle as president. Although he was not as aggressive as de Gaulle, he was also very assertive.This was made clear in early 1970, when he agreed to sell the Mirage fighter jets to Libya just as the United States was supplying Israel with Phantom jets. While Western Europe became independent from the United States, Eastern Europe was gaining some degree of autonomy from the Soviet Union.The reason for this change in Eastern Europe is also due to the military stalemate between the United States and the Soviet Union and the easing of the Cold War.Another important factor for Eastern Europe was the change of leadership in the Soviet Union.The death of Stalin marked the beginning of a new era not only in the domestic affairs of the Soviet Union, but also in the relations between the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite countries. It took some time for a new, stable leadership to emerge in Moscow.Initially, the country was ruled by an unofficial five-member junta - Georgi Malenkov for the bureaucracy, Vyacheslav Molotov for the older Stalinists, Boer for the military. Marshal Ganin, Lavrenti Beria representing the secret police and the lesser-known Nikita Khrushchev representing the party apparatus.In three months, the ruling bloc lost one member because of Beria's ouster.Beria was the head of the secret police before he stepped down, making him the most hated and feared man in the country, especially in Stalin's overly suspicious years in the later years of the dictatorship.At this point, his colleagues first stripped him of his powers and then executed him in December 1953.This turned out to be an important turning point in the development of Soviet society.While ordinary people in the Soviet Union were still far from enjoying full personal liberties, there was less and less concern about late-night knocking on doors and the ensuing executions or exile to hard-labour internments.The Soviet leaders were also more at ease.From then on, if they lost power in the regular government reorganization and party purge movement, they no longer had to pay with their lives, but succumbed to obscurity after being demoted or sent to the countryside. Malenkov, who took the helm of the remaining four, shifted Stalin's focus on developing armaments and heavy industrial production to provide more consumer goods for the long-neglected masses.He encouraged farmers by loosening government control over collective farms, reducing handover quotas, and increasing farm wages.In foreign affairs, Malenkov granted more autonomy to the satellite states and even expressed his willingness to be friendly with the Western powers.In his inaugural speech to the Supreme Soviet, he declared: "There is not a single disputed and unresolved issue which cannot be resolved by peaceful means. . . . This is our attitude towards all nations, including the United States." This internal and external détente was simply not acceptable to belligerent, orthodox Stalinists.They combined various forces and managed to get Malenkov to step down in February 1955.After ensuing power struggles, the military initially dominated.Marshal Bulganin became chairman of the Council of Ministers, and Marshal Mokov, the conqueror of Berlin and dismissed by Stalin, became Minister of Defence.The focus of work returned to the development of armaments and heavy industry, and in mid-May 1955, the satellite states were brought together for the first time in a formal military alliance with the Soviet Union.The alliance, called the Warsaw Pact, was essentially the Soviet Union and its satellites' response to NATO, and especially to West Germany, which was rearmamenting at the time. The dominant Soviet military soon gave way to the eminent statesman Khrushchev, who gradually came to power.He used his power base in the ranks of the Communist Party to sideline one colleague after another.By March 1958, he had succeeded Bulganin as chairman of the Council of Ministers, thus making him not only the leader of the party but also the head of the government.This marked the end of the transitional period of "collective leadership"; Khrushchev was now Stalin's undisputed successor. As early as two years ago, on February 25, 1956, Khrushchev dropped a bomb that shook the entire Communist world.In his speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he severely criticized the late Stalin's extreme conceit and heinous breach of trust and terrorist acts.In tears, he is said to have described the former dictator as a "pathologically suspicious, deeply mistrusting fellow" who was responsible for the official massacre of "thousands of honest, innocent Communists."In the course of this staggering four-hour diatribe, Khrushchev also attacked Stalin for falsifying and distorting official Communist history, and even criticized his conduct of the war, which he accused of leading to disastrous defeats that cost death The numbers were staggeringly high. The ebullient Khrushchev, perhaps carried away by his own eloquence and long-repressed feelings, revealed more than he intended to say.Undoubtedly, its influence was stronger and more far-reaching than he expected or anticipated.Stalin's body was exhumed from the mausoleum next to Lenin's Mausoleum on Red Square; his statues were smashed; and his name was erased from the thousands of cities and streets named after him in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.The "thawing" of the new ideological sphere gave artists and writers greater freedom to criticize Soviet society.The foreign communist parties, which had been firmly controlled by Stalin's cronies in the past, underwent a painful introspection that gradually weakened their ideology and organizational discipline. The "liberal," nationalist leaders of the Communist Party now began to assert their rights against past pro-Kremlin leaders.Such was the "effect" of Khrushchev's bomb, which, together with the catalytic effect of the military stalemate and the easing of the Cold War, changed the relationship between the Soviet Union and its satellite states. About 10 years earlier, the first anti-Soviet movement in Eastern Europe broke out in Yugoslavia.The fundamental question is whether Communist leaders who have become heads of state should continue to submit to Kremlin discipline.Even during the war years, Tito has firmly advocated that the political parties of all countries should be independent, and acted according to this proposition.After the war, he continued to do so with impunity, in part because of Yugoslavia's proximity to Western naval powers.What's more, Tito, unlike most communist leaders in Eastern Europe, stayed in his country and built a strong resistance army; thanks to this army, he managed to Rebelled against Stalin.For example, he believed that the Soviets did not support his strong demands for Trieste, and attributed this lack of support to the Soviets' desire to strengthen the Italian Communist Party.Tito declared: "It is said that this is a just war, and we have always believed so. However, we now want to seek a just ending. We ask everyone not to be interfered by others. We do not want to suffer because of others, we do not Willing to be treated as a bribe in an international transaction." Moscow reacted immediately to this heretical view of the communist party and the independence of the communist state. "Tell Comrade Tito," the Soviet ambassador warned, "if he allows such an attack on the USSR again, we will have to respond with open criticism in the press and deny him." The heretic refused to change himself claims.Instead, he committed more crimes.He criticized the behavior of Soviet officers and officials in Yugoslavia.He also tried to create a Yugoslav-Bulgarian union, which failed, however, when Moscow ordered the Bulgarians to withdraw.When Tito discovered that he was being spied on, he had his agents keep an eye on Soviet diplomats and technicians in Yugoslavia.Finally, in June 1948, the Communist and Workers' Party Intelligence Bureau angrily announced that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia would be expelled from the Intelligence Bureau.However, because Tito has a solid position in the country and has received huge economic and military aid from Western countries, he did not give in. At the end of 1949, there was a popular saying in Eastern Europe: "Marx is God, Lenin is Jesus, Stalin is St. Paul, and Tito is the first Protestant." This new heresy, though gradually spreading, had to remain underground, because the Soviet Union had great power in the rest of Eastern Europe.And “Titoism”—a neologism in the Marxist lexicon—is still localized, waiting for an opportunity to burst forth. It did come out in 1956 because the combination of events that year worked in its favor.The most violent upheavals occurred in two countries with long anti-Soviet traditions—Poland and Hungary.Inspired by Khrushchev's February speeches, discussion groups of literati emerged in both countries; intellectuals then forged links with the more eloquent urban workers. Events in Hungary and Poland followed a similar course in the spring and summer of 1956.But by autumn, they began to look very different: events in Hungary ended in armed uprisings and repression, events in Poland ended in the winning of a measure of individual liberty and national autonomy. Poland's most prominent "national" communist, Vladislav Gomulka, had been expelled from the party in 1948 on charges of Titoism, and was reinstated in the spring of 1956.His ideas soon began to spread among the middle classes of the Communist Party.The workers' uprising in Poznań (the former Prussian city of Posen) reflected the waning influence of Polish Stalinists.The Stalinists in Poland were one by one removed from the leading positions in the party, and finally the crisis fell to the Polish-born Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokossowski, who was He was also Poland's Minister of Defense and a member of the Polish Politburo.Khrushchev supported Rokossovsky in an unprecedented move. On October 19, 1956, he rushed to Warsaw with all members of the Soviet Politburo except two. threaten.But in the end, it was Khrushchev who made the concession, agreed to remove Rokossowski, and agreed to Gomulka's election as first secretary of the Polish Communist Party on October 21.Khrushchev was willing to suffer this serious setback because he was convinced that Gomulka was a strong-minded but loyal Communist who would never turn to the West.This perception proved to be correct, and in the following years a mutually satisfactory relationship developed, with Poland, although increasingly independent from the Kremlin, still indeed a communist state and a member of the Warsaw Pact reliable supporter. In Hungary, the situation is more complicated.The party leader, Matthias Rakosi, is a Jew, adding to the problem in a country with an anti-Semitic tradition.He was also a veteran Stalinist, having spent 16 years in a Hungarian prison in the interwar period, and was therefore reluctant to share power with the "nationalist" Hungarian communists at this time.Thus, as in Poland, change at the top was blocked.Instead, a revolution broke out below, and since this revolution was unpredictable, Khrushchev sent the Soviet Red Army to Hungary. Unrest began in Budapest on October 23, 1956, when a large crowd of demonstrators, galvanized by events in Poland, demanded Rakosi's resignation in favor of the nationalist-minded communist Imre Nagy.The secret police responded by opening fire on the demonstrators, turning the protests into an open revolution that made Najib prime minister, promises and actions.And these promises and actions are intolerable to the Soviets.To appease the demonstrators who were soon active not only in the capital, but also in the provinces, Najib invited two non-communists into his cabinet, abolished collectivization, declared an amnesty for the rebels, promised free elections, and persuaded the Soviet Union The men pulled their tanks out of Budapest. All this did not satisfy the needs of the revolutionaries. They attacked the headquarters of the Communist Party at this time, and even attacked the retreating Soviet troops from time to time.In doing so, they revealed their all-out anti-Communist and anti-Soviet stance.Unlike the Poles, they were not content with self-government within the Soviet sphere of influence.Instead, they demanded Western-style democracy, complete freedom from Moscow or the Warsaw Pact.These developments posed an intolerable threat to the Soviet security system in Eastern Europe. On November 1, the Soviets turned their tanks around and re-entered Budapest.Therefore, Prime Minister Najib immediately declared Hungary a neutral country, refused to accept the Warsaw Treaty, and appealed to the United Nations.There was no help from the outside world, as the US was busy with presidential elections and France and Britain were on an expedition to Suez.The rebels were subdued by overwhelming force, and a new communist dictatorship headed by Janos Kadar was proclaimed. Although the Soviets were able to do whatever they wanted, they paid the price of a huge moral and spiritual failure.The sight of Hungarian workers and students throwing Molotov cocktails at Soviet tanks awakened many loyal communists and their fellow travelers.This is too far from the international brotherhood of the proletariat that the communists originally dreamed of.The actions of the Soviets shocked the intellectual circles of Western Europe particularly, and many well-known writers and artists in Western Europe handed over their party certificates at this time. The Soviets fully understood the negative reaction and rushed to apologize.At the height of the Hungarian crisis, they announced that they were ready to change relations with the satellite states.They claimed that their aim was to create a "federation of socialist states" based on the principles of "national sovereignty, mutual benefit, and equality," and they proposed amending the Warsaw Pact to allow the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe.This is neither the benevolence of the Soviets nor their cynical hoax.On the contrary, they recognized that they could not continue to be present in Eastern Europe indefinitely as brazen interveners and occupiers.Perhaps the tsars of the nineteenth century could have withstood the accusations the world has made of Eastern Europe's "executioners of liberty."But it is quite another thing for a country that calls itself a socialist to be accused of this in an age of mass media of communication and the ease with which people from all over the world exchange their views.therefore.Khrushchev gradually changed his policy towards his neighbors until a genuinely new relationship was established with them. Prior to this, the satellite countries were not only deliberately cut off from the West by Stalin, but also cut off from each other by him.In addition, they were ruthlessly exploited by various unequal trade treaties and development agreements that favored the Soviet Union.The Kremlin let Eastern Europe carry out its mandate to "industrialize, industrialize, reindustrialize" indiscriminately and economically.This part of Eastern Europe was littered with Stalin's "encumbrances"—huge factories that struggled to get the raw materials they needed and whose products could only compete on the world market by paying their workers substandard wages.The public was increasingly burdened by the fact that many new factories were engaged in military production on orders from Moscow.Even agriculture was undermined by forced collectivization and forced cultivation of cash crops such as cotton and flax.The end result is that the entire region is underfed, consumer goods are in short supply, unemployment is high, wages are extremely low, and living standards are correspondingly reduced.It should be noted that all of this contributed decisively to the general unrest that culminated in the upheaval of 1956. After 1956, the pattern changed rapidly and significantly.Trade treaties and development agreements were renegotiated and made more equitable.Countries are increasingly able to make their own decisions about the pace and course of their economic development.Industry no longer has to be integrated with that of the Soviet Union or other communist countries.On the contrary, the trend is towards more independent development of the national economy, greater room for maneuver in industry and agriculture, and greater trade with the West.For example, between 1960 and 1964.罗马尼亚同西方的贸易从占其全部贸易的20%上升到33% 。赫鲁晓夫也发现，有必要修订他为经济互助委员会制定的雄心勃勃的计划，他曾希望经互会能成为苏联与东欧盟国和蒙古全面一体化的媒介。后来，由于东欧国家反对莫斯科通过经互会指挥它们的经济计划，这种一体化未能实现；于是，苏联同东欧国家于1963年和1964年议定了一系列双边协定。赫鲁晓夫认为，当他不能得到经互会范围的一体化这整块面包时，必须同意接受双边一体化这半块面包。 同这种经济上的缓和与放宽相对应的是文化领域中的缓和与放宽。同西方国家缔结文化协定、减少对外国广播的干扰、增加旅游业、给外国记者以更大的自由、允许更自由地放映西方电影、发行西方书籍和刊物——所有这些都可表明上述这一点。由于这种总趋势非常明显，约翰逊总统于1964 年5月23日宣布：“不再是一道铁幕。而是有许多道铁幕。每道铁幕的强度和厚度不同，因而能穿过它的光线和能在它后面增长的希望也不同。……我们将继续建造一座座能跨越把我们同东欧分割开来的这一鸿沟的桥梁。它们将是增加贸易的桥梁、思想的桥梁、访问者的桥梁和人道主义援助的桥梁。” 1968 年8月，由于苏联军队同东德、匈牙利、波兰和保加利亚军队一起入侵捷克斯洛伐克，东欧的这种自由化趋势一下子被完全改变。入侵的原因在于，以亚历山大·杜布切克为首的一群共产党革新主义者于1968年1月在布拉格发动了一场“民主社会主义革命”。当时，捷克斯洛伐克人民自第二次世界大战以来第一次享受到了出版、言论和出国旅行的自由。苏联入侵的动机可能是，他们十分害怕捷克新政权会渐渐断绝同东欧邻国之间的关系，而转向西方阵营。无疑，他们害怕捷克新获得的自由可能加强东欧人民大众对类似自由的要求，从而危及现存的共产党政权。 为了替入侵辩护，苏联人发表了所谓的“勃列日涅夫主义”。在1956 年的匈牙利危机之后，他们曾声称，他们的目的是以“国家主权、互利与平等”的原则为基础，建立一个“社会主义国家联邦”。但这时，在1968年9月25日《真理报》的一篇文章中，苏联领导人实际上保留了入侵那些被他们认为正背离他们阵营的社会主义邻国的权利。“社会主义世界体系中任何环节的削弱都会直接影响所有无法冷淡地看待这一点的社会主义国家。为了向兄弟的捷克斯洛伐克民族尽国际主义义务，为了保护自己的社会主义利益，苏联和其他社会主义国家不得不采取断然措施，它们的确对捷克斯洛伐克的反社会主义势力采取了行动”。 尽管苏联入侵了捷克斯洛伐克并主张“到列日涅夫主义”，但它在东欧的地位远没有斯大林时代那样高。捷克斯洛伐克的舆论仍是一边倒地反苏，这一点在公开场合如国庆节和运动会上人们的大声嚷叫中得到证明。即使是那些遵守《华沙条约》的国家，也保留了相当大的自治权，它们木支持苏联反对中国就是一个明证。其时，南斯拉夫继续在东、西方之间沿着独立的中立主义道路前进。罗马尼亚没有参与对捷克斯洛伐克的入侵，它在对内、对外事务方面也是独行其是。它同中国和阿尔巴尼亚这两个反苏国家有着友好的关系，同西德和以色列保持着外交关系——这一点与一些《华沙条约》成员国形成鲜明对照——而且，正在同美国发展更加密切的经济和文化关系。1969年8月，尼克松总统在罗马尼亚受到了热烈的欢迎，他利用访罗这一机会声明：“美国的立场是不仅尊重包括大国和小国在内的所有国家维护自己民族地位的权利，而且尊重它们的主权和平等权。” 当得胜的中国共产党人于1949 年建立他们的人民共和国时，他们立即得到了苏联的承认。另外还有20个国家，包括英国和印度，也承认了这个共和国。但是，美国继续把台湾的蒋介石流亡政府当作中国的合法政府。在这种情况下，华盛顿同北京的关系甚至在因朝鲜问题而公开决裂以前就已很紧张。相反，1950年，莫斯科和北京签订了为期30年的《中苏友好同盟互助条约》。根据该条约的条款，苏联须帮助中国建设一支强大的现代化军队和实现全面的工业化计划。虽然苏联人提供了条件优惠的贷款，但贷款毕竟还是贷款，而不是补助金。中国为了偿还大量的资本货物、技术援助和军用物资，将自己一半以上的出口物运到了苏联。 1960 年，这一中苏联盟开始出现破裂的迹象。北京用攻击“南斯拉大修正主义者”、的略加掩饰的刺耳之言间接地批评了赫鲁晓夫，而莫斯科发言人则以对“教条主义者”和“左倾幼稚病者”的攻击来进行反击。1961年10月，在苏联共产党第22次代表大会期间，赫鲁晓夫和周恩来公开发生了冲突，周恩来离开大会，飞回了北京。大约在这时，苏联人从中国召回了几乎所有的技术专家；1964年2月，中国人明确指责说，苏联人撤走了1，390名专家，取消了257个科学技术合作项目。从中国人的观点看，最糟的是苏联人拒绝中国人分享他们的原子武器或制造原子武器所必需的技术资料和资源。因此，这两个共产党大国之间的不和发展到了彻底分裂的程度，包括不体面的诽谤，意识形态方面的谩骂和全球范围的公开竞争。1964年初，毛泽东对一个法国议会代表团说，赫鲁晓夫注定要垮台， 1950年的中苏联盟也因“苏联在意识形态和其他方面一再违反条约”而无效。 共产党世界中这一惊人的重大分裂的根源似乎一定程度上在于国家利益方面的冲突，一定程度上在于意识形态方面的冲突。国家利益方面的问题由传统的物质原因造成，这些原因包括“生存空间”、边界划分和由不同的发展水平造成的不同的经济利益，等等。苏联的版图相当于中国的两倍半，人口密度为每平方哩24 人，而中国则是190人。分隔两国的2，000哩长的分界线在苏联地图上已得到精确详细的描绘，但在中国地图上，有些地段仍划为“未定界”：帕米尔高原的东部边缘地区、穆尔河和乌苏里江汇合处的一些岛屿以及与蒙古相接的几乎整个边境。这些地区过去曾是中国帝国的一部分，19世纪被沙俄并吞了，现在共产党中国要求收回。在这些有争议的边界地区发生了种种冲突，从而导致了相互间的强烈谴责。1969年3月4日，中国共产党日报的一篇社论指责说，苏联人“认为沙皇一度占领的那些地区是他们的，而且，正将他们的领土扩张到沙皇未曾占领的地区。他们甚至比沙皇还要贪得无厌。”另一方面，苏联著名诗人叶夫根诺夫·叶夫图由科回忆了库利科沃战役，1380年，莫斯科大公季米特里·顿斯科伊在这场战役中打败了蒙古人。 国家利益另一方面的冲突起因于苏联和中国经济发展的时间上的差别，这种差别导致了生活水平的不同。严酷的但却可理解的事实是，赫鲁晓夫和他的人民都不想同他们的中国同志分享他们辛苦得来的报酬。苏联一位历史学家在对美国记者的以下这番谈话中清楚地表明了这一态度： 从长远的观点来看，与国家利益方面的这种剧烈冲突同样重要的也许是与之相对应的意识形态方面的冲突。这种冲突比通常所认为的更微妙、更复杂；通常的看法是：瘦弱、饥饿的中国人为了促进社会主义事业宁愿冒热核战争的危险，而肥胖的苏联人更愿意以和平共处的策略谨慎行事。更确切地说，苏联人和中国人对世界正在经历的历史时期性质的解释、对巧妙地利用现有的种种历史性力量加速社会主义胜利所需采用的适当策略的解释是根本不同的。 苏联人先研究了世界最重要的问题是战争还是和平这一基本课题。他们认为，如果热核战争爆发，资本主义社会和社会主义社会都将毁灭或倒退几个世纪。但是，如果能避免战争，那么，在经过几十年的和平竞争之后，社会主义比资本主义的优越性将清楚地显示出来，这个范例将说服整个世界信奉社会主义。这就是苏联人在理论上所作的分析，苏联人的要求裁军、要求和平共处、要求从资本主义和平过渡到社会主义的政治策略和对这些策略所抱的希望就基于这种理论分析。 中国人宣称，他们也赞成这些目标，但他们怀疑能否达到这些目标。最大的障碍是西方国家的帝国主义，因为帝国主义就其本性而言是扩张主义，是战争的根源。因此，正确的策略不是象苏联那样直接争取和平与裁军，而是同阻挠和平与裁军的帝国主义作斗争。中国人坚持认为，同帝国主义斗争的最有效的方法是支持不发达世界的迅速发展的革命运动。人类的大多数生活在不发达国家中，他们的这种革命精神构成了帝国主义的致命弱点。 总之，中国人坚信，和平只有通过不发达世界的革命运动瓦解帝国主义才能得到维护。相反，苏联人认为，社会主义世界（实质上指苏联）的日益繁荣与强大将制止西方帝国主义的战争倾向，社会主义世界仅靠榜样的力量就可以加速帝国主义的衰落，从而使不发达国家的革命能轻而易举地获得成功。 . 中国人关于不发达世界的理论同样是好战的，在不发达世界中，他们与美国人和苏联人相反，有着作为非白种人和不富裕人的优势。中国人告诫说，不发达国家受到了帝国主义强国的统治和剥削，这些帝国主义强国既包括美国也包括苏联。这种不平等的关系只有通过革命才能结束，但革命不能出口；被压迫民族必须依靠自己。毛泽东的当然继承人林彪元帅的一篇著名文章引起了西方的恐慌，因为林彪在这篇文章中把当时的世界形势看作是“农村包围城市”。他说这些城市是北美和西欧，这些农村是亚洲、非洲和拉丁美洲。中国农民曾在共产党人的领导下占领了他们的城市；林彪预言，不发达世界的人民大众将打败进行剥削的帝国主义国家，取得类似的胜利。但林彪也强调，胜利只有通过自力更生才能取得，不能依靠中国或其他国家的大量援助。他警告说，那些主要依靠外国人的革命者必将失去同本国人民的联系，变得十分无能。因此，中国的革命学说不是为中国在世界范围内的征服规定行动计划的“我的奋斗”，而是一套指导外国共产主义革命者的“自制工具”。 中国不仅在革命学说方面，而且在争取近90 个国家的共产党的拥护方面向苏联提出了挑战。1964年初，莫斯科声称，90个共产党中至少有65个忠于它，但中国人反称道，世界上4250万共产党员中有一半站在他们一边。1969年6月在莫斯科召开的共产党国际会议遭到了15个亲中国的政党的抵制。在75个派代表参加会议的政党中，14个党以各种方式提出了反对意见，例如拒绝签署会议的最后声明、尽管这一声明谨慎地避免提到诸如中苏争吵和苏联侵捷之类有争议的问题。主要由于中国的缘故，世界共产主义不再承认马克思主义教皇式的人物。尽管中国充当了一个多世纪国际外交的卒子，但它今天正在向世界最强大的两个国家提出有力的挑战。 到1970年——第二次世界大依结束后仅仅25年时，一个崭新的世界政治格局开始出现。在战后头几年中十分盛行的世界力量的两极分化已经消失。欧洲不再是世界棋盘上的一个卒子——或两个卒子，东欧和西欧；中国也不再是苏联的卫星国或地位较低的伙伴。 法国对共产党中国的承认显然象征着新的全球均势。对法国来说，这是对美国的一个大胆的、有意的挑战，它标志着美国发起的对共产党中国的贸易禁止和把北京排斥在联合国外的做法开始失败。对大陆中国来说，同法国的新关系标志着苏联的经济束缚开始结束，而且，用北京自己的话说，它还标志着北京发起的团结所有“社会制度不同”的国家——一渴望摆脱“美国侵略、控制、干涉、欺侮”的国家和反对“苏联领导人所希望的美苏联合统治世界”的国家——的运动前进了一大步。 如果按照前面对过去5 个世纪的世界历史的分析来考察所有这些世界性的发展，那么，这些发展将表明全球关系发展的一个新阶段。人们将回想起，在欧洲发生决定性的转变和进行扩张之前，几大地区或是自治地并存着，或是完全孤立地并存着——自治的欧洲地区、穆斯林地区和儒教地区，基本孤立的撒哈拉以南非洲和完全孤立的美洲和澳大利亚。哥伦布、达·伽马和麦哲伦之后，这种隔绝状态让位给了由欧洲支配、为欧洲所利用的日益增长的相互影响和一体化。到19世纪时，这一趋势最终导致了前所未有的欧洲几个大国的全球霸权。两次世界大战打破了欧洲的这一统治，取而代之的是莫斯科和华盛顿的仅维持一、二十年的两极统治——这一阶段的短暂反映了世界事态不断加快的发展速度。 虽然两极化状态的消逝现已不言而喻，但人们却说不清什么将取代它。中国由于它在东亚和整个不发达世界中日益扩大的影响，似乎正在获得可与美国和苏联相比的地位。但除此之外，有关各地区相互关系的未来形式仍然模糊不清、无法预料。人们也许会预言，随着现代化进程的迅速加快，其他非西方地区将仿照中国的做法，建立新的权力中心。无疑。现在已有了种种为了获得政治和经济的完全独立而试图统一各自的地区、并使之现代化的“泛”字运动，如泛阿拉伯主义和泛非主义。如果这些运动证明是成功的，那么，新的全球多极化状态会逐渐形成。各地区如中东、撒哈拉以南非洲、印度、拉丁美洲和欧洲新的权力中心会以各种不同的政治和社会形式同美国、苏联和中国并存。如果出现这样的结果，在政治领域中便意味着传统的、1500年以前的地区自治得到恢复，而同时，在其他所有领域中，现代化的进行却会使所有这些地区空前地统一起来。 可以想象，地区间的关系也许会以这些方式发展，尽管这种发展至少对可预见的将未来说是不大可能的。事实上，现在，在大多数地区，离心力似乎大于向心力。非洲已因家教冲突和毫无意义的边界而四分五裂；这些宗教冲突包括尼日利亚的穆斯林和基督教徒的冲突以及苏丹的穆斯林和异教徒的冲突，这些边界是19 世纪的欧洲外交家划定的，现在却被各独立国家当作神圣的民族遗产来加以保护。在中东，除王朝间的世仇以及富国和穷国因石油产地使用费问题而发生的常年对立外，还存在着相应的宗教冲突，如穆斯林阿拉伯人和基督教阿拉伯人之间的冲突以及敌对的穆斯林教派之间的冲突。印度半岛已被分割成两个地区，但这两个地区极不稳固，印度的语言骚动和东、西巴基斯坦之间的紧张局势可表明这一点。同样，尽管欧洲在经济一体化方面取得了进步，但戴高乐的建立一个统一的欧洲的幻想在实际政治领域里仍是一个幻想。 除各地区中引起分裂的这些力量外，还存在着同样引起分裂的大国政策。这些政策的效力将在全球各地——在分裂的德国、在分裂的朝鲜和在分裂的越南——得到证明。由于在过去20年苏联和西方的竞争之外又增加了中苏竞争和中西竞争，大国的这种分裂作用在将来很可能得到进一步加强。 那么，对最近的将未来说，更有可能出现的不是一个由自治的区域集团组成的世界，而是一个由若干传统的大国势力范围组成的世界。沃尔特·李普曼几年前写道： 随着2O 世纪70年代的到来，这一预见似乎被事态的发展证实了。苏美限制战略武器谈判在赫尔辛基举行；中美在华沙重新开始了正式的外交接触；苏中也在北京举行了谈判。如果这些试探性的接触能取得成果并导致李普曼所预料的缓和，那么，大国将可以自由地着手处理它们所面临的基本问题——诸如日益加剧的种族冲突、全球环境污染和富国与穷国之间不断扩大的差距之类的问题。这种建设性的全球合作是否能实现是人类今天所面临的基本问题。虽然现在的某些趋势是令人鼓舞的，但是，美国人仍在干涉越南，苏联人的确侵略了捷克斯洛伐克，中东的战斗仍在继续。1969年9月，联合国秘书长吴丹在向联合国大会所作的年度报告中对当前的形势显然是很悲观的：“在过去的12个月中，国际形势仍在恶化。……我几乎说不出整个世界在实现《联合国宪章》所规定的目标方面取得了什么进步。……而且，我强烈地感到时间愈来愈不够用。”