Why didn t Eastern Europe break away from the Soviet camp and join the West?

After the events in Hungary and the Prague Spring, Eastern Europe did not dare to move.

Because the Soviet Union had a strong grip on Eastern European countries, many of their leaders were nurtured by the Soviets.

Because the living habits and beliefs of Eastern Europe were similar to those of the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe was very close to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's military strength was relatively tough at that time.

Because the Eastern European regime was fostered by the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union not only had political rights in Eastern Europe, but also had a lot of troops stationed in Eastern Europe, there was no way for Eastern Europe to break away from the Soviet camp and join the Western camp.

According to the Potsdam Agreement signed by the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain, Königsberg and the northern part of East Prussia were transferred to the Soviet Union, and the other two-thirds of East Prussia's territory was given to Poland.

The signing of the "Potsdam Agreement" enabled the wartime alliance of the three powers to be maintained, and solved the most pressing problems facing the allies The problem of dealing with the defeated country Germany consolidated the victorious results of the anti-fascist war in Europe and was also conducive to speeding up the end of the war against Japan.

The United States was able to get the actual support of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan in order to reduce the ** of the American army, and the Soviet Union would receive post-war benefits, so both the United States and the Soviet Union would be happy to abide by the Potsdam Agreement. This is actually a division of the pattern of interests.

Only the Königsberg part, now called Kaliningrad. The rest went to Poland. It's an exchange of interests. The USSR paid so much **, naturally demanded compensation. The Allies would not go to war with the USSR over a defeated country.

Because the Soviet Union was communist, and it was to eliminate capitalism, they were naturally afraid. In addition to this, Russia has always been aggressive, swallowing up many apprentices in Europe. Do you think they can not hate?

This is because the two sides of the political system are different, which leads to huge ideological differences. So there has always been a contradiction.

Because historically, Russia and the USSR were countries that fanatically carried out territorial expansion. Therefore, Europe is very wary of Russia.

Is a socialist country good for a capitalist country? Unless they are all socialist countries, so the Soviet Union often sends people to give speeches in European countries, incite workers' uprisings, and overthrow the bourgeoisie in various countries, doesn't the Soviet Union do that? Overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a Soviet republic, so all the countries of Europe squeezed the Soviet Union and prevented the workers' uprising.

Socialist countries, Europe are all capitalist countries.

First of all, although Siberia is very remoteThe local aborigines are not Caucasian either, but Russia attaches great importance to Siberia and considers it to be of a high strategic positionSiberia is also quite rich in natural resources, and the far East Siberian region is a bitter cold place, and few people here are willing to live, so even if there is an opportunity to be independent, with the local population and climate, it is difficult to develop the economy, and if you rely on Russia, you can at least get some economic subsidies.

We all know that the Soviet Union was once a famous superpower in the world, and it was the only country that could compete with the United States, but the good times did not last long when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and the largest part became today's Russia, and the rest also divided into many small countriesFor example, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc., have now seceded from the Soviet Union and become sovereign states, like Kazakhstan itself is not a Slavic stateBut like China's Xinjiang and other Central Asian countries, they all belong to nomadic peoples, and there is an essential difference from the Russians, but the Russian Far East is still not independent, and the Far East is also dominated by Asians.

First of all, the first reason is that the Siberian climate is too harshEven if it is independent, it will not be able to develop the economy, although Siberia has been under the control of our country for a period of time, but it has also not been valued by the imperial courtAfter all, this is a bitter cold place, agricultural production is not possible at all, and no people from other places want to go there, and if it becomes independent, it will be empty, and it will not be able to continue to enjoy the subsidies of Russia (USSR), so this place does not have the ability to be independent.

The second reason is that Russia still attaches great importance to the Far EastAlthough it could not develop its economy here, Siberia contributed a lot to the Soviet army during World War II, such as the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which helped the anti-fascist warAt that time, the Soviet Union also believed that the Far East needed to be connected with the European part, so there was no chance of independence, and the last point was that the countries that were previously independent had a certain degree of sovereignty and a higher administrative level than the administrative regions of Siberia, so the possibility of independence was greater.

Because the Far East is sparsely populated and has a harsh natural environment, it has always been completely controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no political forces and groups in the region.

Because the Far East was already out of the control of the Soviet Union at that time, they were relatively less influenced by the Soviet Union, and there was no such thing as independence.

Because they are on the frontier. It is difficult to develop yourself, the weather is cold, there is not the slightest crop to grow, and it is difficult to maintain your own survival if you are independent

After World War II, the Soviet Union rapidly rose to become a superpower second only to the United States, and the communist camp represented by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States were inevitably contradictory due to ideological antagonism. The powerful NATO military bloc led by the United States put pressure on the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union formed its own military bloc in Warsaw, uniting the communist countries of Eastern Europe to form an opposition between the two major military blocs. However, during the Stalin period, the Soviet Union formed a highly centralized political and economic physique, and the model was rigid and invigorous, which led to economic difficulties in Eastern European countries, and some countries carried out reforms to try to get rid of the shackles of the Stalin model, and were unwilling to follow Stalin's model, which had differences with the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union relied on its strong military power to enter these countries and forcibly implement its own model.

However, with the outbreak of internal contradictions in the Soviet Union, the decline of comprehensive national strength, the peaceful evolution of the West, the road of disintegration, and the dissolution of Warsaw, it was naturally powerless to interfere in the countries of Eastern Europe. With the collapse of the first level of the bipolar pattern, confrontation no longer exists, and withdrawal has become an inevitable option.

The most important reason was that the Soviet Union was very economically difficult at that time, and the Soviet Union was only a second-rate country economically, and Gorbachev continued to carry out Western-style reforms at home in exchange for the support of the United States, and gradually narrowed his sphere of influence, including Eastern Europe in the middle of the period. Secondly, due to the economic recession, it is difficult to cope with the huge military expenditure, and because the Soviet Union forcibly stationed troops in Eastern Europe and repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of Eastern European countries, it caused dissatisfaction among the local people. After Gorbachev pursued a relatively moderate policy toward Eastern Europe, it aroused centrifugal tendencies in Eastern European countries, and naturally they were dissatisfied with the Soviet garrison.