- Email: [email protected]
Political terror in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union: A study in comparative communism
DOCTORAL
DISSERTATIONS
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
371
countries and analyzesthe manner in which conceptsderiving from the MarxistLeninist framework provide both support for and challenges to the official position. The methodology employed involves qualitative analysisof a wide variety of public media in the U.S.S.R. and East Germany to include leading economic, philosophical, geographical, and Partyjournals, as well as publications directed to larger audiences,suchasnewspapersand popular sciencemagazines.Similarities and differences in the Soviet and EastGerman discussionare observedand related to contrastsin the political contextsof the two countries. The EastGerman regime faces sharper legitimacy challengesthan the Soviet regime. Moreover, resource shortagesand pollution are more intense in the G.D.R. than in the U.S.S.R. The study identifies several ideological parametersof environmental discussion in both countries. Marxist concepts generally permeate and shape this concrete controversy over particular policy proposals and provide a viable and flexible framework for the consideration of alternative responses,within the larger ideological constraints discussedabove.
EVANSON, Robert Kent, Political Terror in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union: A Study in Comparative Communism, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979. This study examines the sources, application, and consequencesof political terror in Czechoslovakia(C.S.R.) during 1945- 1967. The study is concerned with regime-perpetrated terror. Empirical emphasis is on the C.S.R. Terror is examined in stagesof political development: the takeover period ( 194% 1948)) Stalinism (principally the 195Os),and post-Stalinism (resulting from a gradual processof de-Stalinizationculminating in 1968). There is a detailed examination of the employment and effects of terror for suchtasksassuppressionof resistance, economic and social mobilization, and the settlement of elite conflicts. Data on Czechoslovakterror are derived principally from the Czechoslovakpress,studies by Communist and Westernhistorians, and political analysisand emigt5 reports. A comparative perspectiveis gained through employment of secondarysources on Soviet terror. Comparative data allow the writer to point out and explain differences in the terror processesin the two societies.Some of the explanations involve leadershippersonalitiesand choices, Communist Party histories, domestic political traditions, conditions during the seizures of power, social class structures, and the political cultures of both the Communist Parties and the broader societies. Briefly stated, the study’s principal conclusionsare as follows. Czechoslovak terror against both elites and masseswas largely external in origin and reflected Soviet policy priorities. Soviet pressuresprevented the possible evolution of a relatively nonterroristic, pseudo-democraticform of socialism. Terror played a significant part in the successfulseizureof power but was usually irrelevant to or dysfunctional for the regime’s goals of political control and social mobilization thereafter.
DISSERTATIONS
IN COMPARATIVE
COMMUNISM
371
countries and analyzesthe manner in which conceptsderiving from the MarxistLeninist framework provide both support for and challenges to the official position. The methodology employed involves qualitative analysisof a wide variety of public media in the U.S.S.R. and East Germany to include leading economic, philosophical, geographical, and Partyjournals, as well as publications directed to larger audiences,suchasnewspapersand popular sciencemagazines.Similarities and differences in the Soviet and EastGerman discussionare observedand related to contrastsin the political contextsof the two countries. The EastGerman regime faces sharper legitimacy challengesthan the Soviet regime. Moreover, resource shortagesand pollution are more intense in the G.D.R. than in the U.S.S.R. The study identifies several ideological parametersof environmental discussion in both countries. Marxist concepts generally permeate and shape this concrete controversy over particular policy proposals and provide a viable and flexible framework for the consideration of alternative responses,within the larger ideological constraints discussedabove.
EVANSON, Robert Kent, Political Terror in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union: A Study in Comparative Communism, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979. This study examines the sources, application, and consequencesof political terror in Czechoslovakia(C.S.R.) during 1945- 1967. The study is concerned with regime-perpetrated terror. Empirical emphasis is on the C.S.R. Terror is examined in stagesof political development: the takeover period ( 194% 1948)) Stalinism (principally the 195Os),and post-Stalinism (resulting from a gradual processof de-Stalinizationculminating in 1968). There is a detailed examination of the employment and effects of terror for suchtasksassuppressionof resistance, economic and social mobilization, and the settlement of elite conflicts. Data on Czechoslovakterror are derived principally from the Czechoslovakpress,studies by Communist and Westernhistorians, and political analysisand emigt5 reports. A comparative perspectiveis gained through employment of secondarysources on Soviet terror. Comparative data allow the writer to point out and explain differences in the terror processesin the two societies.Some of the explanations involve leadershippersonalitiesand choices, Communist Party histories, domestic political traditions, conditions during the seizures of power, social class structures, and the political cultures of both the Communist Parties and the broader societies. Briefly stated, the study’s principal conclusionsare as follows. Czechoslovak terror against both elites and masseswas largely external in origin and reflected Soviet policy priorities. Soviet pressuresprevented the possible evolution of a relatively nonterroristic, pseudo-democraticform of socialism. Terror played a significant part in the successfulseizureof power but was usually irrelevant to or dysfunctional for the regime’s goals of political control and social mobilization thereafter.