Were the communist revolutions in Eastern Europe genuine?

As our teller of tall tales, Winston Churchill, put it in his infamous ‘iron curtain’ speech of March, 1946:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities … lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and are all subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence, but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow … The Communist parties … have been raised to preeminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control.

In other words, they were not ‘genuine’ communist uprisings, but coups sponsored by Moscow, after which communism was forced upon unwilling populations.

Like Churchill’s ‘history’ of World War II, this account is somewhat gilded, more notable for its rhetoric than adherence to what was actually happening. It also provided the screen behind which former Nazis were given senior posts in Western Europe, since they were, after all, reliable anti-communists.

But let’s look at a few statistics concerning communist party memberships across Europe to gain a sense of how popular the communists were:

Country Pre-war membership Post-war membership
Albania 1,000 12,000
Austria 16,000 132,000
Belgium 10,000 100,000
Bulgaria 8,000 427,000
Czechoslovakia 80,000 1,292,000
Denmark 2,000 60,000
Finland 1,000 25,000
France 340,000 1,000,000
Germany 300,000 805,000
Greece n/a 100,000
Hungary 30,000 608,000
Italy 58,000 1,871,000
Netherlands 10,000 50,000
Norway 5,000 22,000
Poland 20,000 310,000
Romania 1,000 379,000
Spain 250,000 35,000
Sweden 11,000 48,000
UK 15,000 50,000
Yugoslavia 4,000 250,000

Apart from Spain, all communist parties across Europe made significant to phenomenal gains in membership, the highest being in Romania, with a 379% increase. Given that for every one person who joins a political party, ten more sympathise, these figures reflect a truly mass shift. It is also worth noting that the support was by no means restricted to Eastern Europe, for Italy and France experienced massive growth. Even the small Scandinavian countries saw significant rises in membership. This is far from a small cadre of crazed revolutionaries imposing their will on the masses.

Why? During times of severe and genuine crisis, communism typically gains mass support. The key, as Lenin tirelessly pointed out, is that the communist movement needs to be thoroughly organised and prepared for such situations. Of course, it helps if the Red Army is keeping order, but that, to my mind, is far preferable than the Americans or, in our time, NATO. To be added here is the fact that the Right, embodied by fascism, had been largely discredited in the popular mind after the war and that the most resolute opponent of fascism was communism. The result was an image of the communist as a straight-talking, trustworthy and resolute fighter for freedom. Even today in Russia, people tell me of a communist father or grandmother, who was precisely such a person: you knew where you stood; no mucking around; absolutely reliable.


8 thoughts on “Were the communist revolutions in Eastern Europe genuine?

  1. This is not to say that Churchill was not a great orator and writer, for he did win the Nobel Prize for literature (a genre, it is worth remembering, known for its creative imagination). There is a further irony, double-edged. Churchill made this speech after he lost the elections in 1945. Had he remained in power, the Cold War may not have happened, since he and Stalin got on famously, or rather, Stalin managed to charm Churchill to no end.

  2. If you liked Churchill’s ‘history’ of World War II you’ll love this geography of the Cold War.

    Hint: trace a line from Stettin to Trieste and see how far it corresponds with the popular conception of the ‘Iron Curtain’.

  3. “Had he remained in power, the Cold War may not have happened, since he [Churchill] and Stalin got on famously, or rather, Stalin managed to charm Churchill to no end.”

    This is wishful thinking I’m afraid. Like other British politicians, Churchill wanted to set the US and the Soviet Union against one another. The idea was that the US would continue to need the UK as an ally and so would be obliged to carry on propping up the British Empire. This was thinking behind the Fulton speech. At the time this was quite transparent and the US press was quick to point this out.

    As it turned out the US had its own motives for opposing the Soviet Union. Their earlier, more relaxed, view was a product of their assessment that the Soviets had been so weakened by the war that they would be incapable of taking an independent line. For example they would not be able to ‘hold’ Eastern Europe.

    As you have pointed out they reckoned without the popularity of communist policies in both Eastern and Western Europe.

    Another factor was the speed of Soviet economic reconstruction.

    1. Point taken, George, although the Atlee Labour government certainly speeded things up. My next post concerns the self-fulfilling prophecies embodied in US and UK fears of the Soviet Union, which generated the Cold War.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.