[MacDK]

Was the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring actually in the interest of the west?

I have been thinking a bit about it, and got to wondering whether the west would actually have been interested in Dubcek succeeding with his reforms.

Would a democratic socialist Czechoslovakia not be worse for the west than a more authoritative country? A democratic socialist country would be seen as a much better alternative to western capitalism than an unfree country would. The Soviet intervention also fed well into western public perception of the unfree conditions behind the Iron Curtain. The whole thing discredited the left (or what was viewed as the left).

Capitalism was much better off with the viable alternative being viewed as authoritative and unfree, than it would have been had more liberal and democratic left wing alternatives been in place.

[peter_co]

A democratic socialist country would be seen as a much better alternative to western capitalism than an unfree country would. The Soviet intervention also fed well into western public perception of the unfree conditions behind the Iron Curtain. The whole thing discredited the left (or what was viewed as the left).

Capitalism was much better off with the viable alternative being viewed as authoritative and unfree, than it would have been had more liberal and democratic left wing alternatives been in place.

The problem is that half measures are unlikely to be viable options in such situations. You can't really separate the economic, social, and political aspects of the Communist system that was forced upon the people of Czechoslovakia. Once you start chipping at the system, regardless of how limited your initial intentions might have been, the whole thing will come crashing down, as Gorbachev eventually discovered. In the absence of Soviet coercion, Dubcek's "Socialism with a human face" would inevitably have given way to a liberal society without a controlled economy. In fact, such a development was visible from the start of the Czechoslovak reformist movement. While Dubcek's original desire seems to have been to bring about rather modest reforms (he did not even favor instituting a multiparty democracy in the beginning), the movement he started was soon dominated by more radical voices (the proto-Havels), asking for withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, full democracy, a free press, and a free economy.

[Smilin' Dave]

@MacDK

Would a democratic socialist Czechoslovakia not be worse for the west than a more authoritative country? A democratic socialist country would be seen as a much better alternative to western capitalism than an unfree country would. The Soviet intervention also fed well into western public perception of the unfree conditions behind the Iron Curtain.

On the other hand the US and NATO had gotten along fairly well with social democratic political parties in power. A peaceful change over in Czechoslovakia would have presented a relatively cheap model for winning the Cold War, and one that would reduce the ongoing costs of the conflict. Consider the role played by neutral Austria in the Cold War.

@peter_co

You can't really separate the economic, social, and political aspects of the Communist system that was forced upon the people of Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia was one of the few eastern bloc countries were the Soviets were not massively unpopular, and force didn't prove particularly necessary. The KSC won 38% of the vote in early elections and even non-communist political groupings were supportive of the Soviets. Even once that support started to dry up by 1948, the Soviets didn't have to directly intervene, the coup was effected by local forces.

Once you start chipping at the system, regardless of how limited your initial intentions might have been, the whole thing will come crashing down, as Gorbachev eventually discovered.

A broader analysis of Soviet reforms shows that this isn't the case. Economic and social reforms could be effected only political reforms proved to be dangerous. This goes for Gorbachev's Glasnost, Dubcek's flirtation with multi-party democracy and even Khrushchev's industrial-agrarian party split.

[KurtFF8]

Zizek has an interesting claim/assumption that if Czechoslovakia had succeeded in the Prague Spring that it likely would have just gone over to the Western Camp. The idea that it could have succeed on its own is quite absurd, as even Yugoslavia had to engage in trade mainly with the West, and their "Market Socialism" didn't do much to build socialism.

[Ombrageux]

First, we need to define socialism as something less than a place where men live in harmony and there is no State. We can, however, imagine human societies organized around something other than the stock market. A society in which no human being's labor is claimed to be worth 10,000 times that of another human being, where there is not the juxtaposition of great wealth and obscene want. Indeed, we can imagine an advanced, democratic, multicultural and rationally organized society. I do not believe socialism could ever be built in one country, and certainly not a small and peripheral one like Czechoslovakia. All economic history suggests lasting growth emerges from the interaction between regions - the necessary raw materials, technological synergies, the presence of markets, etc. No country's growth since the Industrial Revolution has been achieved in isolation (with the partial exception of the Communist countries, which showed its limits) and in fact, those countries Asia who did break the cycle of poverty after the Second World War did so through export-oriented strategies aimed advanced markets.

Something like Yugoslavia - presumably more democratic - would not however be such a bad thing. Its existence would not be so successful or different as to undermine the West's economic system but the loss of Soviet power would definitely undermine the Muscovite Empire. The Soviet intervention, whatever propaganda value it had for the West, ultimately ensured Russia remained a real potential threat for the Europeans, locking the world in a Cold War that was futile and self-defeating for all.

[killim]

As if the "West" thought at anything but avoiding a WWIII. As the sovjet forces cracked down on the population, every military reserve in the Warsaw treaty was activated.They took positions to crack down on Prague or in the most cases their pre-war waiting positions (with the exception of the divisions stationed in the GDR, which were partly oriented backwards, but not allowed to cross the border due to historical problems). According to the normal pre-war procedures the NATO troops were activated too and reached their waiting positions with the information that an attack uncould happen any moment. That was a very "hot" situation in the cold war. At least compared to the more stable and clear communicated bargaining process known as the Cuba crisis.